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 77 45 65 79 33 Curriculum Participated 67 69 71 75 66 65 62 74 53 61 63 48 Developmerit Did not 74 78 74 62 Projects participate 77 79 58 85 79 56 55 57 Participated 72 78 90 College 77 83 71 79 78 63 75 73 60 Did not Courses 70 81 94 74 70 participate 75 75 73 75 54 77 51
Note: Number of Students Whose Teachers Number of Students Whose Teachers Participated Did not participate Participated Did not participate Conservation School Curriculum Rural 88 587 Development Suburban 65 730 Rural 243 400 Urban 32 237 Suburban 155 640 Urban 218 516 In-Service Training College Rural 84 560 Courses Suburban 644 97 Rural 334 309 NO Urban 189 605 Suburban 651 144 ON Urban 389 405 97
Computer analysis of the effects of teachers* exposure to conservation
Generally, the mean score of each subject area of students whose
teachers had participated in in-service training projects, conservation
schools, and curriculum development projects were higher than students whose teachers had not participated in these programs. College courses
taken by the teacher, in which conservation was not the major subject, was not statistically important in developing conservation understand
ings among their students.
Students: of teachers exposed to conservation through Special
Conservation Schools evidenced much higher mean scores in all subject
areas than did students of teachers who had not attended conservation
schools. For example, the mean score in soil for the students whose
teachers had attended a special conservation school was 0.828 compared to
0.3^9 for the others. In water the mean scores were 0.613 and 0.287;
in plants 0.922 and 0.528; in animals 0.828 and 0 .^30 .
College courses as a factor
Students of teachers who had had a specific course in
conservation evidenced significantly greater depth of conservation understandings than did the group whose teachers had not had such a
course. Both the mechanical sorting method and the computer analysis
showed that biological science, physical sciences, and social studies
courses taken by the teachers in college did not produce a greater percentage of depth developments in their students than was evidenced by the group whose teachers had not had such courses. TABLE! 22
MEAN SCORES OF SUBJECT AREAS ACCORDING TO TEACHERS' PREVIOUS EXPOSURE TO CONSERVATION
______Soil______Water______Plants Animals „ Previous . No Prev. Previous No Prev. Previous No Prev. Previous No Prev. S^ nses Experience Exper. Experience Exper. Experience Exper. Ejqperience Exper.
In-Service Projects 447 .523 .33^ .^12 .275 -598 .545 .595 .410
Conservation Schools 128 *.828 .349 *.613 .287 *.922 . .528 *.828 .430
College Courses 962 .396 .3 75 *269 .384- .577 .532 .432 .511
Curriculum Development 616 .476 .366 .374 .298 . 577 . 556 . 522 .448
Mean of Subject Area .385 -314 .560 .463
*Highly significant.
NO 00 99
It is interesting that Sherman (1950)3 noted that only special courses in conservation appear to be significant in producing more conservation information among the teachers studied. He found that courses in botany, zoology, geography, and geology did not contribute significantly to the teachers* conservation information.
Statistical analysis of college courses taken by teachers
Conservation proved to be the only college course taken by teachers which was statistically significant as related to the conserva tion understandings of the students. Students whose teachers had taken biological science, physical science, and social studies courses in which conservation had been a part did not show mean scores signifi cantly higher than the group whose teachers had not had such training.
These conclusions were essentially the same as those reached from the machine sorting method.
Students of teachers who had taken a specific course in conser vation in college evidenced higher mean scores in all subject areas than did students of teachers who had not had such a conservation course.
For example, the mean score in soil for students whose teachers had taken a conservation course in college was 0.730 as compared to O.327 for the others. In water scores were O.565 and 0.269; in plants 0.85^ and 0.508; in animals 0.7^3 and 0.413. (See Table 23 .) <5
3 Ibid. TABLE 23 PERCENTAGE OF THOSE RESPONDING EVIDENCING DEPTH DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO COLLEGE COURSES PREVIOUSLY TAKEN BY TEACHERS
Soil Water Plants Aniaals Sub. Sub Sub Sub Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban urban urban urban urban Course taken 72 86 86 66 64 Conser 91 91 93 75 85 65 . 58 Course not vation 64 72 68 76 70 68 taken 79 85. 69 73 65 52 Course taken 70 76 76 74 62 Social 75 71 85 73 75 56 51 Course not Studies 68 81 74 62 i|4 62 61 taken 77 43 77 53 63 Course taken 74 78 74 76 70 Biological 71 75 75 51 69 58 39 Course not Science 66 78 94 76 76 68 taken 77 79 77 63 76 54 Course taken 81 Physical 85 77 75 73 61 77 63 43 76 58 39 Course not Science 82 82 taken 72 74 71 71 75 79 59 60 68 54 Note: Number of Students Whose Teachers Number of Students Whose Teachers nau uabcii uvuiae Mutvit coux-ae Conservation Biological Course Science Rural 120 523 Rural 405 238 Suburban 66 731 Suburban 424 371 Urban 137 657 Urban 495 299 Social Studies Physical Course Science Rural 558 85 Rural 234 418 Suburban 680 115 Suburban 387 406 Urban 671 123 Urban 244 550 extent to which certain resource understandings are developed, and
(3) sources of information considered important by students.
It is hoped that this research may be valuable to the teacher, school administrator, and conservationist in presenting conservation education in the elementary grades. TABLE' 24
MEAN SCORES OF SUBJECT AREAS ACCORDING TO COLLEGE COURSES TAKEN BY TEACHERS
Soil Water Plants Animals Number of Responses Course Course Course Course Course Course Course Course Taken Not Taken Taken Not Taken Taken Not Taken Taken Not Taken
Biological 948 .343 .457 .557 .564 Science .309 .321 .455 .475 Physical ^ .410 .375 .253 .252 .478 .612 .391 .508 Science
Social 1352 .388 .388 .320 .272 .550 .621 .452 .530 Studies
Conser 327 *.730 .327 *.854 .508 vation *.565 .269 *.743 .413 Total Mean .427 .314 .560 .460 102
Conservation materials used in the classroom
Another hypothesis set forth at the beginning of this study was that teachers who used conservation materials in their classroom would develop greater depth of conservation understandings in their students.
The Teacher Questionnaire asked the teacher to check which of the fol lowing materials he had used in teaching (1) The Conservation Guide and
Concept Chart, prepared by the Ohio Forestry Association Natural
Resources Institute, Ohio State University and the Ohio Department of
Education. Other sources of conservation materials listed were from
(2) Ohio Department of Natural Resources, (3) Soil Conservation Service,
(*0 American Forest Products Industries, (5) United States Forest
Service.
None of the conservation materials used by the teachers could be considered important in increasing the percentage of depth developments of the students in all grades and school locations. The Chi Square values determined by statistical analysis indicates that in most instances the sampling method used was valid (see Table 26). However,
Table 25 shows that no constant pattern could be observed in the per centage of those responding who evidenced depth development as related to conservation materials used by the teachers. A computer analysis was not made of this item because of the 709 computer1s limited storage capacity.
The investigator believes that a more refined method is needed before any definite conclusions can be drawn from any comparison between TABLE 25 PERCENTAGE OF THOSE RESPONDING EVIDENCING DEPTH DEVELOPMENT AS RELATED TO CONSERVATION MATERIALS USED BY TEACHERS
Soil Water Plants Animals Sub Sub Sub Sub Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban urban urban urban urban Chart and User $3 77 62 87 65 64 73 48 98 69 51 49 Guide Non-user 65 68 73 78 79 76 74 74 58 73 67 68 Dept, of Nat. User 77 77 73 82 82 77 75 75 62 73 69 51 Resources Non-user 69 71 50 . 70 82 58 73 89 45 46 62 50 Soil Cons. User 73 78 85 82 76 85 74 79 65 67 65 59 Service Non-user 73 67 69 81 79 68 73 75 50 75 71 50 U.S. Forest User 74 83 73 81 81 81 70 80 56 69 80 52 Service Non-user 74 68 73 82 75 74 74 70 58 69 60 56 Amer. Forest User 96 66 80 98 82 86 98 82 57 90 69 67 Prod. Ind. Non-user 55 70 69 77 66 69 67 66 56 66 63 53 Note: Number of Students Whose Teachers Number of Students Whose Teachers Used materials Did not use materials Used materials Did not use materials Chart & Guide U.S. For. Serv. Rural 347 296 Rural 381 261 Suburban 206 589 Suburban 268 678 Urban 231 561 Urban 293 609 Dept, Nat. Res. Amer. Forest Rural 441 202 Prod. Indust. Suburban 616 179 Rural 137 514 Urban 526 259 Suburban 217 714 Soil Cons. Serv. Urban 97 697 Rural 187 317 Suburban 2 76 519 Urban 223 575 104 teachers1 use of conservation material and the understandings evidenced by students of teachers who had used such materials.
TABLE 26
CHI SQUARE VALUES OF SOURCES OF CONSERVATION INFORMATION USED IN THE CLASSROOM (Validity-test of sampling method)
(Chi Square) Chart and Guide Rural 14.544** Suburban 103.887** Urban 55.091**
Dept, of Natural Resources Rural 63.089** Suburban 111.178** Urban 38.279**
Soil Conservation Service Rural 36.208** Suburban 12.292** Urban 8.421*
U. S. Forest Service Rural 17.892** Suburban 17.525** Urban 1.911 A.F.P.I. Rural 116.934** Suburban 31.79^** Urban 65.394**
*5 percent level — 5*991. **1 percent level — 9.210.
Reading scores
As noted previously, grade placement reading scores from standard ized reading tests were obtained for seventy percent of the students who participated in this study. I was unable to obtain reading scores for 105
the other thirty percent because they had either moved from the school
district, were absent on the day the test was given, or their school had
not given a standardized reading test within the last year.
Although the names of the various tests used were recorded with
the students1 grade placement reading score, all tests were treated as
equal in reliability and validity.
An analysis by hand was made of reading scores of students in
three classrooms compared with their depth developments in the various
subject areas. This hand analysis indicated that the better readers
evidenced a greater number of depth developments on their papers.
Mechanical sorting was not able to produce a correlation between grade
placement reading score and scope or depth in the subject areas. There
fore, all analysis of the reading scores had to be done by 709 computer.
Coefficients of correlation of reading grade placement scores related to area
The coefficients of correlation between reading level scores and
response scores (Table 27) are not high correlations when 1.00 is
considered as the maximum correlation. Therefore, it may be assumed
that other factors considered in this study must be mere important in
determining a student's subject area score than is reading ability.
Coefficients of correlation ranged between 0.16 (water and plants)
and 0.20 (soil). It was hypothesized at the outset of this study,
particularly because of the instrument used, that there would be a high
correlation between reading scores and response scores. This hypothesis 106 was shown to be wrong. It is evident that the factors considered on
the Student Questionnaire and Teacher Quastlonn^ira override the influ
ence of reading ability.
TABLE 27
COEFFICIENTS OF CORRELATION OF READING GRADE PLACEMENT SCORES RELATED TO SUBJECT AREA
Soil Water Plants Animals
Reading .20** .16** .16** .19**
**rQ1 (df * 1,000) - .081. CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS
1. Most previous studies in conservation education were found to be either status studies about the nature of conservation being taught on a regional or national basis, or a determination of students* conservation knowledge received by means of multiple-choice testing*
Both of these methods of study appeared inadequate to measure all aspects of the students* conservation understandings.
Few of these previous investigations dealt with conservation education in the intermediate'grades* In those few instances in which the intermediate grades were considered, usually only the sixth grade was studied*
2* A comparison between the oral and written response method of sampling showed that students do not evidence a significantly greater number of conservation understandings when interviewed than when asked to present their conservation understandings in writing*
3* Within the framework of this study, intermediate students showed little awareness of minerals as a resource or for the socio economic aspects of conservation* The terms "saving," "preserving" and
"protecting" were often used to describe conservation* These terms seemed to express the traditional definition of conservation which appeared to be still commonly taught in all school locations studied*
10? 108
Only In the subject areas. Soil. Water. Flants. and Animals did
twenty percent or more of the students respond.
km There was no significant difference between responses of boys
and girls in the intermediate grades. The differences between the
responses of boys and girls, only three percent from the composite mean,
is not much greater than the probable error of the instrument.
5* This study has shown that minerals, space, and air are not
considered by the elementary schools. The socioeconomic aspects of con
servation also were found to be inadequately treated.
6. The fourth grade students often listed only specific resources,
i.e., common names of trees -and animals, but the fifth and sixth graders
developed depth understandings through narrative writing. In the
suburban and urban school locations the greatest depth development was
in the fifth grade. Only in the rural school location did the sixth
grade students evidence more depth developments than did fifth graders.
Two factors appear to account for this. First, the rural, sixth grade
students indicated that science classes were a prime source of conser- / vation information. Students in the urban and suburban school locations
did not indicate science teacher to be important. Second, from oral
interviews, the investigator noted that many sixth grade rural students
had had personal experiences in solving conservation problems through work on the farm.
7. Approximately thirty percent of the intermediate students who
responded evidenced conservation understandings in only one subject
area. Forty percent held understandings in two different subject areas. 109
Twenty percent demonstrated understandings in three subject areas and
only ten percent held understandings in all four subject areas, i.e.,
soil, water, plants, and animals.
8. Plants and animals were the subject areas most commonly
associated. Approximately three times as many students associated;
plants and animals as associated soil and water.
9. Scope-only responses (mentioning of a subject area) appeared
most frequently in the fourth grade.
10. Of those students responding, the percentage of one-depth
developments in most subject areas varied little between school location
and grade.
11. Of those students responding, the percentage having two or
more conservation understandings was lowest in the fourth grade and
increased sharply in the fifth but decreased in the sixth. The
percentage of students responding with only one depth development was
approximately equal in each grade. It may therefore be assumed that two
or more depth developments is a good criterion for determining the
extent of conservation understandings possessed by the intermediate
students. There was an inverse relationship between the percentage of
scope-only responses and the percentage of two or more depth develop
ments, i.e., the higher the scope-only responses the lower the percentage
of two or more depth developments.
12. Considering all school locations, the following percentage of
response was evidenced by the students: plants (50 percent), animals
(44 percent), soil (34- percent), water (27 percent). One and two or more depth developments were expressed by students in a similar 110 pattern: plants (32 percent), animals (28 percent), soil (22 percent), water (20 percent). Scope-only responses also were the greatest in the subject, plants, and the lowest in water: plants (18 percent), animals
(16 percent), soil (12 percent), water (7 percent).
Consequently, the subject areas ranked in order of responses: plants, animals, soil, water.
13* Students whose fathers were in the professional and business categories possessed a higher percent of conservation understandings than did those whose fathers were classified in the agricultural and laboring groups. Even in the rural areas, students whose fathers were engaged in professional and business occupations evidenced more con servation understandings in soil than did students whose fathers were farmers.
lit. in urban and rural locations, the highest development of conservation understandings was noted among students who had attended only their present school. In suburban schools, those students who had attended one or two additional schools possessed the highest percent of conservation understandings. The study indicates that generally conservation understandings are developed to the greatest extent among students who have remained in the same school throughout the primary and intermediate grades.
15. The extent to which the student had traveled appeared to be important in developing conservation understandings among fourth grade students, but in the fifth and sixth grades, books and classroom CHAPTER I
REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES
General conservation education studies
Twelve theses or dissertations related to conservation education were reviewed. Most of the early investigations of conservation education were inventories of the extent of conservation teaching throughout the United States or in one geographic area. Sherman (1950)
considered the attitude and information possessed by elementary school teachers. A two-part multiple-choice questionnaire was developed for this study; one part dealing with opinions and attitudes, the other, information. Some of his findings will be discussed later in this study in The Effect of Teacher Factors.
Although these studies provided background material about the type and extent of conservation education on a national and regional basis, they had little practical value for developing this study, except to point out areas of conservation education which the authors believed needed additional emphasis. E Vessell, in his 19^0 study, pointed out that more attention should be given to the social implications of conservation.
^•Robert C. Sherman, "The Conservation Attitudes and Information Possessed by Elementary School Teachers in Training” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1950). 2 Matthew Ifrancis Vessell, ”A Study of Conservation Education in the Rural Areas of the United States” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 19^+0). Ill experiences became more important in the development of conservation understandings.
16• Soil and water understandings appeared to be developed in school, whereas plant and wildlife understandings seemed to have been obtained either during the primary grades or through activities outside the school.
17* In all grades and school locations, except the rural sixth, the school was the principal source of the students* conservation information. Books were the second most important source and home and parents, third. In the rural and urban areas, home and parents were considered important by fourth graders as a source of conservation information, but there was a gradual shift each year from home and parents to the classroom and books in the fifth and sixth grades.
Only about twelve percent of the students in each grade and school location considered television as an important source of con servation information. Usually less than five percent of the students in any grade and school location mentioned magazines' as a source of their
conservation information.
18. Prom a small sample of seventy-five sixth grade suburban students who had attended a school camping program six months previous, it was found that these students* conservation understandings in soil and water conservation were 18 percent and 8 percent, respectively, higher than those students in all other suburban schools without school camping programs. The percent response to the subject areas Plants and
Animals was. approximately equal in the two groups. it
112
19* Students of teachers who had attended a special conservation
school (generally the Ohio Conservation Laboratory) possessed two to
three times as many conservation understandings as did students whose
teachers had not attended such a school. Students of teachers who had
participated In in-service training projects and curriculum development
programs about conservation also showed more development of conservation
understandings than did those students whose teachers had not been
exposed to conservation through such means.
Students of teachers who had taken college courses in which con
servation had been a part of the study, but not emphasized, generally
did not show significantly more development of conservation understand
ings than did the group whose teachers had not had such a background.
20. Only those students whose teachers had had a course in
conservation showed greater development of conservation understandings
than the group whose teachers had not had such a course. Previous
courses taken by the teachers in biological science, physical science,
and social studies did not appear to increase the conservation under
standings of their students.
21. None of the five sources of conservation material checked by
the teachers appeared to be significant in increasing the conservation
understandings of the students. It is believed that the method used in
sampling was inadequate to measure this item.
22. Factors other than reading are more important in determining
the development of conservation understandings. CHAPTER V
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The "free-response" method of sampling as used in this research may be used advantageously in future studies in conservation education for the following reasons:
a. The "free-response" sampling technique does not limit the respondent to a fixed set of question and answer statements as does the multiple-choice tests.
b. The "free-response" sampling technique is easy to administer, requires a minimum time to give and rela tively few instructions are needed.
The major disadvantage of this method appears to be the number of value judgments which must be made by the investigator in evaluating
student responses.
2. Riture refinements Of the free-response method of sampling
should include a procedure for numerical scoring responses as they are tabulated prior to a statistical analysis. This would allow the investigator to score by hand responses for each classroom, grade, and
school location.
3« Refinements in technique are needed to clearly appraise
student response to general conservation understandings, i.e., "saving" and "protecting" natural resources. One might pose the question, Are these terms found so commonly that they are mere cliches used by
113 UA teachers and students who have not developed more specific conservation understandings?
4. Schools need to place additional emphasis upon minerals, space, air, and the socioeconomic aspects of conservation problems,
5* Conservation education research may be directed to a study of the effectiveness of teaching materials. I feel the free-response method of sampling would again be a very effective technique because the respondents would have complete freedom to discuss in detail understand ings obtained from the various sources of information.
6. Research may be aimed at grades on either side of the inter mediate level, i.e., primary and junior high. During this study no attempt was made to find out the students* conservation understandings below the fourth grade or above the sixth. Studies at both of these levels would provide the conservation educator and school curriculum specialist research findings upon which curriculum development programs could be based.
7* School administrators and teachers should be encouraged to participate in special conservation training, i.e., Ohio Conservation
Laboratory, workshops and in-service conservation projects. Those students whose teachers attended the Ohio Conservation Laboratory evi denced approximately two to three times as many understandings as did the students of teachers who had not attended the Laboratory.
8. Colleges should review courses in biological and physical science and social studies and attempt to stimulate interest and provide materials to incorporate conservation into these subject fields.
Students of teachers who indicated that they had been exposed to 1 1 5 conservation through these courses in college did not evidence a greater number of conservation understandings than did those students whose
teachers had not been exposed to conservation through these courses.
9. Conservation teaching in the intermediate grades should be aimed toward the development of specific conservation understandings and
less emphasis should be placed on the memorizing of such traditional terms as nsavingn and "protecting." Students who used these terms
generally held very few depth developments.
10. Curriculums should be organized to present new conservation understandings each year, as well as adding depth to existing understand
ings. The evidence that fewer understandings were given by sixth grade
students than by fifth grade students pointed out the need for continuous
conservation teaching in the elementary grades.
11. Science and social studies in the intermediate grades should attempt to create an awareness of conservation as an essential part of these courses; a student should be encouraged to think of conservation as an essential element involving all social and scientific advancement.
12. Able students should be encouraged to undertake additional
research and activities related to conservation, because they have the ability to develop the understandings needed to become leaders in the various fields of conservation. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bergen, Catherine M. Some Sources of Children^ Science Information. New York: Bureau of Publications* Teachers College* Columbia University, 19*+3.
Capps, Forest Olin. "A Survey of the Conservation Information Possessed by Pupils in Missouri High Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri* 1939.
Combs, Arthur W. "New Horizons in Field Research! The Self Concept," Educational Leadership. 15015-17, February* 1958*
Craig, Gerald S. Certain Techniques Used in Developing a Course of Study in Science for the Horace Mann Elementary School, New York! Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia,University, 1927*
Deutshe, Jean Marquis. The Development of Children1s Concepts of Causal Relations. Minneapolis! The University of Minnesota Press, 1937.
Donnelly, Rose A. "A Study of the Conservation Ideas of 282 Urban Children. Ed.D. thesis. Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957.
Fogarty, Jerry J. "A Study of State and Regional Programs of Conserva tion Education in the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, University of Washington, 19*11.
Giles, Robert H., Jr. "Conservation Knowledge of Virginia School Pupils." M.S. thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1957.
Hamilton, Margaret. "Additional Recommendations," Elementary School Objectives. Mid-Century Committee on Outcomes in Elementary Educa tion, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1953. Pp. 160-161.
Hanselman, David L. "The Effectiveness of a Touring Conservation Assembly Program and Follow-up Classroom Visits in Teaching Conserva tion in the New York Secondary Schools." M.S. thesis, Cornell University, 1958.
Hone, Elizabeth B. "An Analysis of Conservation Education in Curriculums for Grades Kindergarden Through Twelve." Unpublished Ed.D. thesis, University of Southern California, 1959.
Kearney, Nolan C. Elementary School Objectives. New Yorks Russell Sage Foundation, 1953. 3* 86-87.
116 117
Masters* William D. "The Nature and Scope of Instruction In Conservation of Natural Resources in Grades 1-12 in Central Illinois." Unpub lished Master's thesis, University of Illinois, 1953* Miel, Alice. Building Children's Science Concents. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1958. iMessner, Clarence John. "The Development and Try Out of a Set of Criteria for the Evaluation and Improvement of a Conservation Educa tion Program in the Elementary School." Unpublished Ed.D. thesis. University of Michigan, 1958. Navarrak, John Garbiel. "The Development of Scientific Concepts in a Young Child." Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 1955* Oakes, Mervin E. Children's Emanations Natural Phenomena. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia Univer sity, 1947. Otto, Henry J. Social Education in the Elementary Schools. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957* Perkins, Hugh V. "Changing Perceptions of Self," Childhood Education. 34:82-8**, October, 1957. Quaintance, Charles Winfield. "Conservation Education in the Schools and Colleges of the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1939*
Ramsey, Irvin Lee. "Children's Contributions in Sharing Experiences and Their Potentialities for the Elementary Science Program." Unpub lished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957.
Sherman, Robert C. "The Conservation Attitudes and Information Possessed by Elementary School Teachers in Training." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1950.
Trexler, Clarence Richard. "A Study of the Relationship Between the Recorded and Observed Conservation Behavior of Children in an Urban Classroom." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. 1959.
Vessel!, Matthew francis. "A Study of Conservation Education in the Rural Areas of the United States." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1940.
Wievel, Bernard F. "Attitude Toward the Knowledge of Conservation Possessed by Students in Iowa High Schools." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 1947. APPENDIX I
Code for Punch Carding: Dissertation Research Conservation Concept Development in the Intermediate Grades
IBM Card Code Data
1-4 Student number
Sex 1. Male 2. Female
Area (location of school) 1. Rural 2. Suburban 3» Urban
Grade 4. 4th grade 5. 5th grade 6. 6th grade
8-9 Code number of school
01. Tiffin 10. Colonial Hills 02. Glenmont 11. Sugar Creek 03. Main Street 12. Swan 04. Avondale 13. Arcadia 05. West Mound 14. Mt. Gilead 06. Felton (not recorded) 15. Delaware 07. Northridge 16. Delaware--Special 08. Etna Road 17. Glenmont— Special 09. Ro seniors 18. Tiffin— Special STUDENT PAPERS
10 General Natural Resources x — scope only yl* y2* y ' etc. — number of depth responses but no scope 1» 2, 3» etc. ~ number of depth responses with at least one scope response 0 — no scope or depth
118 119
11 Minerals X — scope only 1, 2, 3. 5. etc. — considering at least one scope response 0 — no scope or depth
12 Soil same as #11
13 Water same as #11
14 Plants same as #11
15 Animal Life same as #11
16 Recreation same as #11
17 Other Natural Resources same as #11
18 Human Resources same as #11
19 Institutional same as #11
20 Socioeconomic Aspects (no scope possible) 1» 2, 3. 4, etc* ~ number of depth responses 0 — no depth responses
21 Response to Scope and Depth (#10-20) 0 — no response to scope or depth 1 — at least one response to either scope or depth
2 2 -2 3 Occupation of Esther 01 — Proprietors 08 — Retired 02 — Professional 09 — Deceased 03 — Managerial 10 — Unclassified 04 — Commercial 11 — Common Labor 05 — Clerical 12 — No Response 06 — Manual 13 — Unemployed 0? ~ Agricultural 120
2k- Number of Schools Attended ' 0— 0 1— 1 2 — 2 etc*
25-26 Nunber of States Traveled In 00 — 0 01 — 1 02 — 2 etc.
Sources of Information 0 — no response 1 — response
27 Magazines
28 Books
29 T.V.
30 Hone or parents
31 Science Class
32 Social Studies Class
33 General Classroom or teacher
34 Guest Speaker
35 Field Trip
36 Outdoor Lab
37 School Camp (no response in first 1,859 samples)
38 Others
39 Response to #27-#38) 0 — no response . 1 — at least one response
Teacher Questionnaire 40-*H Years Teaching Experience 00 — no data 01 — 1 02 — 2 03 — 3 etc. Area of previous teaching Quaintance (1940) also doing conservation education research at
Cornell University indicated that "testing for attitudes may be another desirable field of research.In addition, he pointed out that "perhaps both oral and written responses may be obtained after reading stories or 4 after field trips." Although these recommendations were made for college, they also apply to all grade levels.
After reviewing these general status studies, it became apparent that careful attention should be given to student-oriented conservation education investigations. None of these studies considered the extent of conservation understandings of elementary students.
Other conservation education studies which may be listed as
"general" include such diverse subject areas ast teacher improvement in teaching conservation as a result of attending a conservation summer camp,^ developing a method for evaluating conservation programs in the elementary schools,^ and an analysis of conservation education
3 ^Charles Winfield Quaintance, "Conservation Education in the Schools and Colleges of the United States" (unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, Cornell University, 1940), p. 472.
^Ibid., p. 472.
^William D. Masters, "The Nature and Scope of Instruction in Conservation of Natural Resources in Grades 1-12 in Central Illinois" (unpublished Master's thesis. University of Illinois, 1953).
^Clarence J. Messner, "The Development and Try Out of a Set of Criteria for the Evaluation and Improvement of a Conservation Education Program in the Elementary School" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1958). Rural 1 — previous exp. in area 0 — no previous exp. in area
43 Suburban (same as #42) ¥ 44 Urban (same as #42)
45-46 Highest degree obtained 00 — no data 01 — AB 02 — BS 03 — BA 04 — MS 05 — MA 06 — Cadet 07 — No degree
47-48 Year in which degree was obtained 00 ~ no degree (indicate year, i.e., 61, 60, 59* etc.)
Previous exposure to conservation 0 — no previous exposure 1 — previous exposure
49 Workshops
50 Conservation Schools
51 College Courses
52 In-service Training
53 Others College Courses Related to Conservation 0 — courses not taken relating to cons. 1 — courses taken relating to cons.
54 Biological Science
55 Physical Science
56 Social Studies
57 Conservation Others
Sources of Conservation Materials Used 1 — materials used 0 — materials not used
Chart and Guide Book
Dept, of Natural Resources s.c.s.
U.S. Forest Service
A.F.P.I.
Reading Scores 000'— no data (the exact score will be used) Example: 2.10 or 10.2 APPENDIX II
Schools cooperating In the Ph.D. study, "Conservation Understandings in the Intermediate Grades, " by George P. Graff, 1961-62
Urban Schools
1. Mr. Robert Imboden, 4th grade teacher Tiffin Elementary School South Bridge Street Chlllicothe, Ohio
2. Mrs. Margaret Swank, 5th grade teacher Glenmont Elementary School 470 E. Glenmont Ave. Columbus, Ohio
3 . Mr. Franklin McCaw, Principal Miain Street Elementary School 1469 E. Main Street Columbus, Ohio
4. Mr. Howard Williams Avondale Elementary School 156 Avondale Avenue Columbus, Ohio
5* Mr. James Tefft, Principal West Mound Elementary School 2051 West Mound Street Columbus, Ohio
6. Mr. Lucien Wright, Principal Felton Elementary School 920 Leonard Avenue Columbus, Ohio
7. Mr. Kenneth Thress, Principal Smith Road Elementary School 1301 Smith Road Columbus, Ohio
8. Mr. L. H. McAllister, Principal Valley View Elementary School 2989 Valley View Drive Columbus, Ohio
123 9* Mr. Joseph Goldbury Scioto-Trail Elementary School 2951 South High Street Columbus, Ohio
Suburban Schools
10* Mr. Jerry Chappell, Principal Northridge Elementary School 935 Northridge Road Columbus, Ohio
11. Mr. Jack Brown Etna Road Elementary School 4531 Etna Road Columbus 13* Ohio
12. Mr. George Ellinger, Principal Rosemore Junior High School 4-735 Kae Avenue Columbus 13, Ohio
13* Mrs. Gladys Linnabary, Principal Colonial Hills Elementary School 58OO Greenwich Avenue Worthington, Ohio
14-. Mr. Gerald Kingsmore, Principal Prairie-Lincoln Elementary School 4-900 Amesbury Way Southwestern School District
15. Mr. Glen Riley, Principal Central Elementary School 221 North Central Avenue Eairborn, Ohio
16. Mr. C. M. Zimmerman, Executive Head Garaway School District Sugar Creek, Ohio (Participating School — Sugar Creek Elementary)
17. Mr. David M. Bryson, Superintendent Vinton County School System Memorial Building McArthur, Ohio (Participating School — Swan Elementary School) 125
18. Mrs. Rosanna Dunn, Elementary Supervisor Hancock County Board of Education 60^ Lina Avenue Findlay, Ohio (Participating School — Arcadia Elementary School)
19* Mr. Paul Puraiss Mt. Gilead Elementary School 1^5 North Cherry Street Mt. Gilead, Ohio
20. Mr. Richard Humphreys, Principal Carlisle Elementary School Delaware, Ohio
21. Mr. Charles May, Principal Triad Elementary School R.R. 1 Woodstock, Ohio
22. Mrs. Antoinette Mason, Elementary Supervisor Licking County Schools 14-1 Hudson Avenue Newark, Ohio (Participating School — Etna Elementary School) APPENDIX III
"T" Values of Significance Supplied by Computer for the Factors Analysed
Items Soil Viter Plants Animals
General Sex 2.824** 3 .2 7 8** Area 3.179** Grade 4.561** 2 ,866** 2.438*
Student Questionnaire Occupation 2.978** 2.057* Travel 1.992* 2.453* 2 .562* Schools Attended 2.175* Magasines 2 .131 * 2.402* Books 4.298** 5.752+* 6.768** 4.899** Television 2 .362* 2.410* 3.971** Social Studies 4.279** 3.370** Science Class 6.507** 3.384** Classroom, General 3-441** 5.379** 4 ,357** Teachers1 Previous Exposure to Conservation Conservation School 3.734** 2 .586** 3.565** 2.188* College Courses 3.757** 3.177** College Courses Taken byTeachers Biological Science 3.258** Physical Science 3 .220** 2.188* Social Studies 3.138** 3.709** Conservation 2.447** 3.968** 2.208* 2 .6 2 1**
Reading Scores 3.445** 2.511** 2.804** 4.704**
*tO^(df = 0 0 ) = 1.960. **t0^(df *<*o) * 2.575.
126 AUTOBIOGRAPHY
I, George Portsmouth Graff, was born in New Albany, Indiana,
July 13, 1932. I received my elementary and secondary education through the St. Charles, Missouri Public Schools, graduating from St. Charles
High School in June, 1950. In September of the same year I entered the
University of Missouri and majored in wildlife management. Upon receipt of a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture in January 1955* 1 entered the U. S. Army as a second lieutenant and served .the next twenty- one months with the U. S. Eighth Army, Far East Command.
In June 1957* I entered graduate school at Purdue University and received a Master of Science degree in Conservation in June 1959* In
September of that year, I entered Ohio State University under the interdepartmental program in conservation education and became a candidate for the Ph.D. degree in December, 1961.
I completed the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in June, 1962.
127 7 curriculums for grades kindergarden through twelve.' While the titles of these studies suggested relevance, no techniques or findings were applicable to this study.
Studies measuring students1 understandings of conservation
Five of the twelve studies attempted to analyze students' con servation understandings or measure knowledge of conservation. These were made by Capps8 (1939)* Wievel9 (19^7), Giles10(1957), Hanselman11 12 (1958)* and Donnelly (1957)* These Investigations had several common characteristics. They all used the multiple-choice test as a sampling technique. All of these investigations were done in the 6th grade, junior or senior high school.
7 Elizabeth B. Hone, "An Analysis of Conservation Education in Curriculums for Grades Kindergarden Through Twelve" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1959). Q Forrest Olin Capps, "A Study of the Conservation Information Possessed by Pupils in Missouri" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri, 1939). 9 Bernard F. Wievel, "Attitude Toward and Knowledge of Conserva tion Possessed by Students in Iowa High Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State University, 19^7).
10Robert H. Giles, Jr., "Conservation Knowledge of Virginia School Pupils" (unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1957).
11David Lee Hanselman, "The Effectiveness of a Touring Conserva tion Assembly Program and Follow-Up Classroom Visits in Teaching Conservation in the New York State Secondary Schools" (unpublished Master's thesis, Cornell University, 1958). 12 Rose A Donnelly, "A Study of the Conservation Ideas of 282 Urban Children" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957). Although adequate for these studies as they were designed, multiple-choice tests tend to limit the students to a fixed set of responses. Resources not included within the scope of the questions on the tests could not be sampled. The only resources dealt with were soil, water, plants, and wildlife. Responses could only be those provided by the examiner. Furthermore, these studies were concerned with the use and management of natural resources and did not consider the social and economic aspects of conservation.
In the years which have elapsed since these investigations, materials related to the social aspects of resource use have greatly increased. More materials have been prepared about space, air, wilder- ness, and recreation. Relatively little material had yet appeared on the conservation of minerals. The question immediately arose regarding the awareness of students to these more recent resource considerations.
This dissertation was therefore designed to include all areas of natural resource use and development Including their social and economic implications.
Capps mentioned the lack of research regarding subject matter being taught in conservation. He stated, "Experimentation on the development and grade placement of subject matter is a very essential element in the whole program of conservation education.He also stressed the need for future studies related to the effectiveness of presenting conservation education through mass media, i.e., newspaper, magazines, radio, and movies. Wievel and Hanselman dealt only with secondary schools. Giles extended his investigations through the junior high school grades. None of these studies contained information about the conservation under standings in the intermediate grades. Furthermore! all of these used the multiple-choice sampling technique, which because of the limitations previously stated caused them to provide little help for this study.
Conservation ideas of urban students
Only one of the theses or dissertations reviewed dealt entirely 14 with elementary students. Research, by Donnelly, was designed to determine the conservation ideas of two groups of sixth grade urban children.
The investigation involved sampling 182 students by a twenty- question multiple-choice test and another group of one hundred by a
"free-response" test. I do not believe the investigator was justified in calling the latter method free-response. The free-response test was a duplication of the same questions used in the multiple-choice test given the first group, except that the five multiple-choice answer statements were not given. The students were still limited in their response by the specificity of the questions asked even though the answers were not given. For example, if the question related to soil conservation, the student had to limit his answer.to some aspect of soil rather than elaborate about other resource fields.
14 Donnelly, op. cit. The questions were assigned among the following five categories!
(1) State of Balance, (2) Interrelationships, (3 ) Intelligent Utilisa tion of Natural Resources, (*t) Beauty, (5) Maintaining a Safe and
Healthful Environment* The investigator stated, "Choices of categories were made after extensive reading, and conferences with science and social-studies teachers, elementary school teachers, a professor of science and members of the New York State Conservation Society* Final judgment was made by two judges, a science teacher, and an elementary school principal with a background in science*
The four choices offered for each question were ranked as preferred, satisfactory, poor, or unsatisfactory* The two judges who selected the subject categories also ranked the choices*
The following are examples of the categories and ranking of answers taken from the context of Donnelly*s dissertation*
A stafcg s£ Mass.? fflfigaom Jerry and Ellen help their father pull out weeds from their garden* Last Saturday Jerry said, "I wish that all weeds would disappear from the earth*" If this happened—
A. there would be no weeds to hold down the soil and keep it moist, (satisfactory)
B* the situation would not always be good. Weeds are undesirable in the garden, but weeds are useful in a vacant lot or on a hill* (unsatisfactory)
C* there would be no weeds to plow under to fertilize the soil* (preferred)
D* they would save much unnecessary work because weeds serve no useful purpose on the earth* (poor)16
^Donnelly, og. cit.. p. 18.
l6Ibid.. p. 131 . An Interrelationships question
Randy thought, "All animals are useful in some way. Even wolves, spiders and snakes can be helpful." This statement is—
A. true, because everything that lives has some use. (satisfactory)
B. not true, because these are harmful animals. They always do more harm than good, (poor)
G. true, because they often eat other animals and insects. This helps to maintain the balance of nature, (preferred)
D. true, because we make good use of many substances obtained from these animals, (unsatisfactory)!?
A flfl&gUan related InlelllKSS-t Utilisation of Resources
Ronnie1s class visited the Botanic Gardens. There the children saw men taking old, wet leaves out of a nearby storm sewer. The men placed the leaves around the bushes in the garden. The old wet leaves—
A. should be burned instead, (unsatisfactory)
B. would have been carried away in the sewer if they had allowed them to remain there, (poor)
C. fertilize the soil and help it keep moist, (preferred)
D. help to keep the soil from eroding, (satisfactory)^9
A question related to Beauty
A group of children were discussing their neighborhood. One child commented on the condition of the empty lots. Another child asked what could be done with them. How would you answer. A. They should remain the way they are because they probably belong to the city, (unsatisfactory)
17Ibid., p. 130 . 18feid., p. 1 3 5 . 19Ibid.. p. 1 3 7 . 10
B. Grass and other plants should be grown on then. (satisfactory)
C. Some sort of building should be built on each of them in order to keep people working, (poor)
D. They should be kept clean* free from refuse and made as attractive as possible, (preferred)!#
A question related to Maintaining a Sate and Healthful Environment
Water pollution is a serious problem in the United States today. In order to correct the condition we might begin by eliminating the most serious cause of water pollution. That i s ~
A. soil being washed into the waters, (satisfactory)
B. mining wastes, (poor)
C. seaweed and dead fish in the water, (unsatisfactory) 20 D. factory and city waste, (preferred)
The nature of the instrument did not allow for comparing strengths of students with respect to resources* i.e.* soil* water, plants* and wildlife.
The same method of evaluating responses on the free-response tests* preferred, satisfactory, poor, and unsatisfactory, was used by the investigator. By using the responses which were available from the four questions categorised as "interrelationships'1 Donnelly concluded that "many children showed that they do not understand that soil* plants 21 and animals are interdependent."
I do not believe that the students* responses were analyzed in a way as to determine adequately whether or not they recognized
20M d . f p. 13^ 21Ibid.. p. 109. CONSERVATION UNDERSTANDINGS IN THE
INTERMEDIATE GRADES
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
George Portsmouth Graff, 5. S., M. S.
The Ohio State University 1962
Approved by
AdviS'
Entomology 11 interrelationships among resources. The framework within which the questions were constructed allowed the student no freedom to discuss plant, animal, and soil interrelationships with which he was familiar.
Furthermore, I cannot accept the evaluations or rating of the response choices provided. For example, in Question of Balance on weeds, (see page 8) I believe the statement rated as unsatisfactory is the best
choice offered.
The last question on the test given both groups by Donnelly was to define "conservation." This was the first time the students taking the test had been confronted with this word. It was hoped that the
students who had just completed twenty conservation-oriented questions
could then define the subject they had been questioned about. This appears to be a very weak question because the student had only to write a definition of conservation relating to one or several of the multiple-
choice questions just answered.
Donnelly did not consider the individual resources in evaluating these definitions. Her summary from the free-response test is as follows i
In defining the word conservation children used such words as "Conservation means to protect" or "It means to save." Miscellaneous items were (l) stars at night, (2) conversation, (3) building something, (4) end of a word, (5) survey.
Over sixty percent of the definitions apply to the idea of keeping or using. Only four children said that conservation means use with care or, in other words, use wisely.
Definitions of the word conservation showed a preponderance of meanings denoting protection, preservation, and saving. About 20 percent of the one hundred children said that they did not know the meaning of the word.
These results approximate those of the children responding to the multiple-choice form on the questionnaire.22
Donnelly was also vague about the students' resource-oriented responses. Tables were not given showing the students' definitions, and the only statement regarding specific natural resources was the follow ing:
The number of children who stated that it was either "about plants and animals," or ncare of plants” or the "existence of living birds, animals, fishes, and insects,11 or that "it means flowers, trees, animals, and tree stumps'? was seven. There were nine children who stated that conservation means to "save the soil" and two children said it means "to keep land in. good conditions.23
The most common definition of conservation among the multiple- choice tested group was also that conservation means, saving or pro tecting.
Donelly orally interviewed approximately one-ninth of the total study group. The primary objective of the oral interviews was to obtain information about the sources of the students' ideas. The investigator was able to divide the sources of conservation ideas into very finite subdivisions by coaching or cuing the students during the interview. For example, Donnelly stated, "if a student responded 'I read that in a book,' he was asked to state the type of book— personal, library or school book."
From these interviews, experiences and observations were consid ered the greatest sources of conservation-related ideas. Experiences 13 and observations were classified as direct sources* i.e., seeing, hearing, and sense of touch, or secondary sources, i.e., school and books. After reviewing the dissertation, I was unable to determine how a separation was made between the experience received in school and one obtained through play or other non-school activity.
Donnelly showed that science books, summer spent outside the city, camp experiences, and visits to a farm were the most important sources of conservation ideas. Through the use of partial correlation coeffi cients, Donnelly showed the importance of each of these activities which contributed to the students' conservation ideas.
Science books had a correlation coefficient of 0.1*2; summers spent outside New York City, 0.20; camp experience, 0.23; having seen a farm, 0.2**; and having been on a farm, 0.27. All these correlations were found to be statistically significant to the one percent level.
I believe that the use of these data is one of the most important parts of the research.
Several patterns became evident from reviewing previous studies.
1. The early investigators, 1939-1950, were mainly interested
in conservation teaching on a regional or national level.
2. Research since 1950 has been generally directed toward
multiple-choice testing of junior and senior high students
to determine their conservation knowledge.
3. Few researchers have considered the development of conserva
tion understandings in the elementary schools.
Except for the work of Donnelly, 1958, reviewed at length in this investigation, a detailed description of the previous investigations has not been Included In this literature review. Few studies had sufficient material oriented toward the elementary grades to warrant the Inclusion of detailed accounts. The most important result of a review of other investigations-was an awareness of the lack of previous conservation research in the elementary schools. CHAPTER II
METHOD OF THE STUDY
Exploratory study
An exploratory study was conducted early In I960. It was designed to determine the preference and effectiveness of various visual media in teaching conservation In the fifth grade. A lecture using animal study skins, a slide talk, and a movie, "Realm of the Wild"^ were presented separately to 85 fifth grade students in three different locations— rural, suburban, and urban.
Information gained by the students from these three programs was measured by a short multiple*choice test. The students were also asked which medium they preferred when being taught about conservation.
The lecture using study skins was the preferred medium by all, except the rural students. In the rural areas, the movie was preferred.
The highest conservation-knowledge scores were recorded in the suburban school using the animal study skins and the lowest scores were made by the urban students where the movie was used. The reason for the preference of media and scores was not evident, but one can suggest that rural students are much more familiar with wild animals than the urban
1Realm of the Wild. Castle Films, United World Film, Inc., New York, 19^5.
15 16
V pupils; however, students of the rural areas may not see as many movies as urban students.
This study was not carried further for the following reasons;
1. The material covered in these presentations limited the
development of the students' conservation understandings to those
aspects of conservation developed in the programs.
2. The multiple-choice test limited the students in their
freedom of response because understandings not considered on the
test could not be elaborated upon by the students. It was this
that led to the fruitless search of the literature for free
response methods.
3- Each of the media used presented somewhat different
conservation understandings.
There appeared to be no practicable way to standardize
the media to present the same understandings. The movies which
were available failed to present the desired understandings for
that grade level.
Pilot study
A pilot study, “An Analysis of Conservation Concept Development
Among Fifth Grade Students in Ohio,M was begun in January 1961. The study involved 275 intermediate students. This investigation provided the basic framework for this study. Refinements were made throughout the remainder of the study. Although this total research may be con sidered in two parts: (1 ) the pilot study; (2 ) main investigations, much 17 of the data collected daring the pilot study are included in the final dissertation.
The aim of the pilot study was to determine the principles and concepts of conservation held by fifth grade students in ruralv suburban and urban schools in Ohio.
Location of schools
Hural schools were selected in the sections of agricultural counties in southern* west central, and northern Ohio where the influ ence of towns and cities was slight. Suburban schools were selected from areas adjoined to metropolitan centers and containing one or more housing developments. The urban schools selected were located in the inner-urban part of the city. Several of these urban schools were in the older, established areas of Columbus and a small degree of migration into and out of the area was noted.
The socioeconomic features of the areas were considered to be important causal features. It was noted that many parents of rural students, although residing on a farm, worked in industries in near-by towns and also carried on limited farming operations. Because of this factor, the rural students were probably somewhat influenced by the city. However, schools located in isolated rural areas are very diffi cult to find in Ohio and if found certainly would not be typical.
Parents in urban and suburban areas were employed primarily in industries. The suburban schools studied were near Columbus and Dayton.
Ohio. Host urban sampling was done in Columbus; one of the urban schools sampled was in Chillicothe, Ohio. Grade level
Because of the emphasis placed on conservation in the fifth grade in Ohio, the early part of the pilot study dealt only with this grade.
However, as the pilot study proceeded, the investigator felt a study limited to only one grade was too narrow in scope and if expanded to include the fourth and sixth grades, an appraisal could be made of all three intermediate grades. It was hoped that a study of the three intermediate grades would provide a basis for other investigations about conservation understandings in the primary and junior high grades.
Season o£ sampling
Seventy-one percent of the sampling was done during the spring, nineteen percent in the fall, and ten percent in the winter. As a con sequence, this study tends to be dealing with the level of conservation understandings evidenced by the students during the latter part of the school year.
Sample size
Before beginning the pilot study, the investigator defined his sample size by the stratified sampling method. Snedercor (1946) describes the stratified sampling method as follows, "The experimenter usually sets up controlled conditions, or describes actual conditions, thus limiting his populations to approximate homogeneity. . . . These investigators (economists and sociologists) attempt to segregate their various populations into subdivisions or strata, each stratum approxi- 2 mating homogeneity’.''
I believe that by using three different kinds of school loca tions, and three grade levels, the requirements for the stratified sampling method were fulfilled.
In 19^1, there were ^77*^37 intermediate grade students in the public schools of Ohio. Curing this study, responses of 2,332 students were recorded, this number represents slightly less than 0 .5 percent of the total number of intermediate students in Ohio at the time this study was conducted. Although 0.5 percent of the total number of intermediate students may appear to be low, Snedecor (19^6) points out, "Investiga tors are often content with samples of less than 0 .1 percent of the population, while a sample of 10 percent is usually considered large.
During the pilot study, 275 students were sampled regarding their conservation understandings. An analysis of student responses obtained during the pilot study, indicated several definite patterns emerging.
For example, rural students appeared to stress soil and water under standings whereas suburban and urban students seemed more aware of the social aspects of conservation. Fairly sharp differences were also noted in the number of conservation understandings expressed in the different grades.
2 George W. Snedecor, Statistical Methods. The Iowa State College Press, Ames Iowa, 19**6. p. ^5**-. 20
In order to substantiate these findings* an additional 1*957
students were sampled during the spring and fall of 1961. Responses
of 2*232 students were tabulated and placed on IBM Data Processing
Cards (punchcards). Because of the large sample size and the number of
factors to be studied* an analysis by hand tabulating alone was not practical. Through the use of data processing cards two methods of analyzing the data were possible; mechanical sorting and statistical analysis. The use of the data processing cards* therefore* allowed the
investigator to sample a large number of students and obtain information
relating to many aspects of the students1 conservation understandings*
During the winter of 1962* two hundred and sixteen additional
students were sampled during the process of obtaining oral interviews;
however* these data were not placed on IBM Data Processing Cards. A total of 2,44-8 students were contacted during the study.
Method used in sampling
As mentioned earlier the writer concluded the flxed-response method used in all known studies involving elementary* as well as junior high and high schools* limited the students to those responses given in the multiple-choice test (see page 5)* Because all aspects of conserva tion were to be explored in this study, the general statement ,rWhat
Conservation Means to Me" was believed to allow the respondent maximum
freedom to write about all aspects of conservation. The investigator assumed that the student would write about those areas of conservation which he understood or believed most important. Tape-recorded interviews taken two weeks after the written responses supported this assumption
(see page 5^). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to the many people who have helped In the preparation of this dissertation.
I am especially indebted to the help and guidance given me by qy adviser, Dr. Carl S. Johnson. During the last three years, he has given most generously of his time and experience in providing needed advice.
I also wish to recognize the assistance given me by the other members of my interdepartmental graduate committee: Dr. Charles A. Dambach, Dr. Edgar Dale, and Dr. Loren R. Tomlinson.
For their help in the preparation of the statistical analysis, X wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Ransom D. Whitney and Mrs. Iydia
G. Kinzer. To Mr. Robert R. Finlay, Supervisor, Conservation and Outdoor
Education, Ohio Department of Education, I extend my thanks for his professional advice.
For financial assistance, I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the National Wildlife Federation and the Natural Resources Institute, Ohio State University.
Without the cooperation of the principals, teachers, and students, this dissertation would not have been possible. I wish to thank all concerned for their help and assistance.
And finally, for all her understanding and help, to ay wife Mary
Ann, I include a special "thanks."
ii 21
TABLE 1
THE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOOLS SAMPLED RELATED TO LOCATION, GRADE LEVEL, SEASON OF SAMPLING AND NUMBER OF STUDENTS SAMPLES
Season No. of Grade School Type Area Location Sampled Students
Tiffin Ele. Urban Chillicothe 4,5 Spring 90 Glenmont Ele. Urban Columbus, 0 . 4,5.6 Spring 95 Main St. Ele. Urban Columbus 4,5,6 Spring 144 Avondale Ele. Urban Columbus 4,5,6 Spring 185 West Mound Ele. Urban Columbus 4,5,6 Spring 167 Smith Rd. Ele. Urban Columbus 4,5,6 Fall _21 772 Northridge Ele. Suburban Columbus **.5 Winter 55 Etna Rd* Ele. Suburban Columbus 13 4.5 W. & S. 251 Rosemore Jr. High Suburban Columbus 13 6 Spring 167 Colonial Hills Ele . Suburban Worthington 4,5,6 Spring 100 Fairborn Central Suburban Fairborn^, 0. 6 Fall 129 Prairie Lincoln Suburban Franklin Co., 0. 4,5.6 Fall 100 802 Garaway Ele. Rural Sugar Creek, 0. 5.6 Winter 64 Swan Ele. Rural Vinton Co., 0. 5,6 Winter 30 Arcadia Ele. Rural Hancock, Co., 0. 4,5,6 Spring 167 Mt. Gilead Ele. Rural Morrow Co., 0. 4,5,6 Spring 202 Carlisle Ele. Rural Delaware Co., 0. 4,5.6 Spring 98 Triad Ele. Rural Champaign Co., 0.4,5,6 Fall -2Z , Total 2,232 (Not processed on punchcards, but used in oral interview and in checking effect of an outdoor laboratory) • Valley View Ele. Urban Columbus 4,5,6 Winter 112 Southwest Licking Rural Licking Co., 0. 4.5,6 Winter 104 Co. 216 Grand Total 2,448 22
The free response sampling method proved so successful in the pilot that it was not changed. Students, teachers and administrators favored this method of sampling because it took only twenty minutes to administer and the students had the opportunity to reveal their own understandings about conservation. Many of the multiple-choice tests used by other investigators required nearly one hour to administer.
Initial contact with the school
A standard procedure was developed for administrating the class room portion of this study. I believe it is very important for the researcher investigating conservation in the elementary school to per sonally conduct research in the classroom rather than mail questionnaires to the school. By observing the students, the investigator can obtain from the students evidence of interest and awareness of conservation which could not have been obtained through a mailed questionnaire. The classroom visitation also allows the investigator to speak with the teacher and find out additional information about his background and experience in conservation. Several principals notified me later that teachers in their schools became interested in undertaking a conserva tion program or activity as a result of a suggestion which I made during the visitation.
Another important reason for the investigator to administer the sampling method in the classroom is that by doing so he is assured of uniformity in procedure and that the students have not been prompted by the teacher. Principals, when contacted prior to classroom sampling, were cautioned not to encourage their teachers to prepare their students 23
for the sampling. In spite of this warning, a set of fifty-five papers had to be eliminated from this study because it became obvious that the
students had been coached about writing a paper on conservation before my arrival in the classroom.
Since I would spend approximately twenty minutes in each class room to be sampled, it was necessary to contact the school principal well in advance of the sampling date. Permission to carry out the study was asked of the superintendent of the school district prior to contacting the principal of the school involved.
During the visit with the principal of the school, the method of
sampling and purpose of the study were explained. The principal was also asked if the cooperating grades or others would be interested in having me present a forty-minute conservation talk using wildlife study skins.
The talk was quite similar to that developed during the exploratory study, "An Evaluation of Various Visual Media Used in Teaching Conserva tion in the Fifth Grade."
Most schools welcomed this offer and arrangements were made for an assembly program. This program followed the classroom sampling.
Some schools favored programs which were given in the classroom. The conservation talk was given to 1,859 students out of the 2,448 involved in this study.
Obtaining student responses
The following procedure was used in the classroom in obtaining * students1 responses. First, I told the students my name, college status, and the purpose of the study. The students were then asked to write in twelve minutes a paper about "What Conservation Means to Me." 2k
This title was written on the chalkboard. The students were then given tine to write their names, grades, and school at the top of the lined sheet of elementary composition paper which I furnished.
The word conservation was not defined and the students were told not to ask questions other than those relating to.the procedure to be used in writing their papers. They were also encouraged to spell difficult words phonetically rather than ask the teacher or Investigator to spell it for them. This was to eliminate giving possible clues to other students. Early in the pilot study, it became obvious spelling questions could become quite time-consuming and distracting.
The students were encouraged to finish their papers within the twelve-minute time limit. Although a record was not kept of students who did not finish within this prescribed time, very few students were noted to continue writing after ten minutes had passed. The pilot study indicated that the majority of the students could complete the paper easily within the allowed time period.
♦ Student Questionnaire
At the completion of the pilot study, it appeared that the free- response writing of a paper "What Conservation Means to Me" could adequately answer the question. What are the conservation understandings possessed by intermediate students? This was assumed because by reading the papers one could place the conservation understandings into cate gories. i.e.. soil, water, plants, animals, and so on.
The students’ papers did not provide a means for determining Why students held such understandings? To answer the latter question, a 25 questionnaire was prepared and stapled to the sheet of paper on which the students wrote. This questionnaire was completed by the students
Immediately after they had written their papers.
The student questionnaire was designed to bring out the more
Important aspects of the student's background and yet be short enough to be completed in three to four minutes. This questionnaire was con structed so that responses could be easily tabulated on IBM Data
Processing Cards.
The following is a copy of the Student Questionnaire.
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is the occupation of your father? ______
2. Number of schools attended other than this one ______
3. How many states have you traveled in? ______
Where did you get the conservation information you wrote about?
It was believed that the occupation of father was an important consideration because from this crude estimates could be made about the socioeconomic status of the students, parental background and the educational opportunities in the home.
Data on schools attended provided a basis for determining whether or not transiency affected conservation understandings. Travel was believed to be important. It was hypothesized that
students who had traveled extensively would have a greater number of
conservation understandings because of varied experiences in different
environments. It was further assumed that there might be a difference
between students whose travel had been limited to one state and those
who had traveled in many.
It was hoped that the question, 'Where did you get your conserve*
tion information?n would bring out many causal factors. This part of the
Student Questionnaire was designed for free-response and the student had
the option of listing as many sources of information as he desired. It
was discovered, however, that students usually responded with only one
or two sources. It was assumed that the ones listed by the students were either the most recent studied or were considered most important.
For tabulation purposes, sources of conservation ^ wfepipM an given by students were divided into twelve categories! (1 ) magazines,
(2 ) books, (3 ) television, (k) hone, parents, and friends, (5) science
class, (6) social studies class, (7) school or teacher in general,
(8) guest speaker, (9) field trips, (10) outdoor laboratory, (11) school
camp, (12) other (Boy or Girl Scouts, and 4-H Club members).
Teacher Que stionnaire
The Teacher Questionnaire was the only portion of the study in which the free-response method was not used. Specific information was desired from the teacher to be correlated with.student responses. The questionnaire was designed so the teacher could answer it during the 27 twelve minutes that students were writing their papers on "What Con
servation Means to Me."
The Teacher Questionnaire was so constructed that if some ques tions were considered unnecessary at a later date, they could be easily
excluded from the study. The only limiting factor was that the total number of informational items sought in the entire study could be placed
on standard IBM Data Processing Cards. More than one card could have been used for each student; however, because of the large number of individuals sampled, the time required for card punching and the cost would have been greatly increased.
Items on the Teacher Questionnaire considered the teacher's back
ground and previous exposure to conservation. The conservation materials used by the teacher in the classroom were also considered to be important
in transmitting conservation understandings to the students. No attempt was made to directly determine the teacher's attitude or teaching ability in conservation.
The Teacher Questionnaire used in this study is on page 28.
It is important to note that neither the Student nor Teacher
Questionnaire was used during the pilot study. Therefore, as the study progressed during 1961, it was imperative to obtain these questionnaires
from schools visited during the previous quarter. This entailed revisiting the schools and having the participating students and teachers fill out questionnaires. Although all school administrators and teachers were quite willing to assist, it did cost the investigator
considerable time which could have been saved had these questionnaires TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE
Number of years teaching experience______
I have taught in: (please check) (x)
a. urban schools ______
b* suburban schools ______
c. rural schools ______
What degree(s) do you haveT .
What year did you receive your degree(s)? ______
I have been exposed to conservation through the following (check (x))
(1 ) workshops, (2 ) special conservation schools (3 ) college courses
(h) in-service projects (5) others _ . . _ _•
Which college courses have you taken that acquainted you with conservation? (please check (x)) 1 . Botany 2 , Zoology 3. Physical Science Earth Science 5* Social Studies 6. History 7. Geography 8. Fine Arts 9. Conservation 10. Others
Which of the following publications have you made use of: 1. The Ohio Conservation Bulletin 2. The Development of Basic Conservation Concents in the Elementary Grades (Chart) 3. A Guide to Teaching Conservation in Ohio Elementary Schools ^Guidebook) Materials from the Soil Conservation Service 5* Materials from the U. S. Forest Service 6. Materials from the American Forest Products Industries 7* Materials from the Ohio Division of Geological Survey S. Materials from the Ohio Division of Wildlife 9. Others: 29 been considered during the pilot study* The same situation occurred regarding reading scores.
Reading scores
An attempt was made to obtain the reading grade placement score of each student participating in the study* Reading scores were obtained from seventy percent of the students sampled* It was hypothe
sised that the student* s reading ability would have a definite bearing on his conservation understandings and on the student's ability to express these in writing.
Analysis of Data
The students' responses to the statement "What Conservation Means to Me" were analyzed and placed into various subject area categories.
Subject areas may be defined, for the purpose of this study* as those resources or aspects of conservation considered by the students in the writing of their papers.
Initial analysis of subject area categories
It was difficult to derive categories which would include all
subject areas mentioned, without causing the list of categories to become too large* It was hoped that a maximum of 15 categories would be sufficient to include all subjects. Based on what I found during the early part of the pilot study, V+ subject area categories were selected to be used in tabulating cUita received during the pilot study.
The categories were (l) wildlife, (2) domestic animals, (3 ) water,
(h) plants, (5) wildflowers, (6) saving, protecting or conserving resources, (7) wasting resources, (8) soil, (9) recreation, (1) wilder- ness, (11) religion, (12) history, (13 ) minerals, (1*0 laws.
Rewised method of analysing subject area categories
At the conclusion of the pilot study, a board of judges consisting of an educator, a conservationist, and a teacher examined 20 randomly selected student responses. The judges were to place the student responses into categories as the investigator had done. A comparison between the category placement of the students' responses by the judges and the placement of these responses by the investigator was made. The comparison showed the judges differed most among themselves and with the investigator in the areas of Saving. Protecting or Conserving Resources,.
Wasting Resources, and Laws.
Because of the differences in category selections, a revision of the tabulation form was made. The revised list included only 10 cate gories. The revised subject area categories were (1) General Natural
Resources, (2) Minerals, (3) Soil, (if) Water, (5) Plants, (6) Animal
Life, (7) Recreation, (8) Social Aspects, (9) Historical Aspects, A (10) Religious Aspects.
Final method of analysing subject a£ga categories
The above list of categories was used to tabulate approximately
200 students responses obtained early in the spring of 1961. The judges evaluation of categories were now quite similar to that of the investi gator. Several changes were still needed. Social Aspects responses were quite varied and were therefore divided into three different CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... '...... li
TABLES...... vi
ILLUSTRATIONS...... viii
INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Chapter I. REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES ...... 3
General Conservation Education Studies ...... 3 Studies Measuring Students* Understandings of Conservation...... 5 Conservation Ideas of Urban Students ...... 7
II. METHOD OF THE S T U D Y ...... 15
Exploratory S t u d y ...... 15 Pilot S t u d y ...... 16 Location of Schools ...... 17 Grade L e v e l ...... 18 Season of Sampling ...... 18 Sample S i z e ...... 18 Method Used in Sampling ...... 20 Initial Contact with the S c h o o l ...... 22 Obtaining Student Responses . . . 23 Student Questionnaire ...... 24 Teacher Questionnaire ...... 26 Reading Scores ...... 29
Analysis of D a t a ...... 29
Initial Analysis of Subject AreaCategories ...... 29 Revised Method of Analyzing Subject Area Categories . . 30 Final Method of Analyzing Subject Area Categories . . . 30 The Scope-Depth Analysis within Each Subject Area . . . 31 Examples of Student Responses ...... 35 Characteristics of the Fourth Grade Responses ...... 37 Characteristics of the Fifth Grade Responses ..... 40 Characteristics of Sixth Grade Student Responses . . . . 44- Methods of Analyzing D a t a ...... 4-7 Mechanical Sorting ...... 48 Processing of IBM C a r d s ...... 48 Statistical Analysis ...... 49 Oral Interview...... 51
iii 31
categories: human, institutional, and socioeconomic aspects. Religious
aspects was now included into Institutional, and Historical Aspects
placed into the categories where they were most appropriate.
The final subject area categories used in tabulating all subject
responses are theses (1) General Natural Resources (2) Minerals.
(3) Soil, (if) Water, (5) Plants. (6) Animals, (7) Recreation, (8) Other
Natural Resources (9) Human Resources, (10) Institutional, (11) Socio
economic Aspects*
The scope-depth analysis within each subject area
From the beginning of the pilot study, each student's paper was .
analysed to show what subject areas were considered and the number of
conservation understandings possessed in each. These understandings were further subdivided according to—
1. merely mentioning a subject area
2. an awareness of the management or utilization of a resource
or the statement or solution of a conservation' problem.
The tenas scope only, depth only, depth, and no scone or depth were used to show the degree to which a given subject area had been
developed.
Definition of terms:
1. Scope only. Merely mentioning a subject area without
elaborations denoting partial understandings. For example,
"conservation means trees." In this case one scope only
credit was given under Plants. No more than one scone only
was given to any one subject area. Depth only. This term was used only In the subject area*
Natural Resources, General. Depth only credit was given when words such as "saving,” "preserving," or "protecting" were used without a specific subject area being mentioned. For example, one depth only credit was given for the phrase,
"conservation means saving."
Depth credit was given whenever a subject area was mentioned and one or more partial understandings noted about it. For example, a student stated, "conservation means saving trees," one depth credit was given to the subject area Plants because he had stated a subject area and also something to be done about it. Any one subject area could receive more than one depth credit, such as, "conservation means soil conservation practices including contour farming, strip cropping and the use of grass waterways." In this example, three depth credits were given to the subject area Soil.
It is important to note that depth as here scored includes the subject area and one or more partial understandings about it; whereas scope only refers to only mentioning a subject area without any development of tinder standings.
No scope or depth. If the student did not write a response to the statement, "What Conservation Means to Me" or gave an answer completely off the subject, i.e., "conservation means buses," the student was credited with no scope or depth. 33
The following is a description of key terms and phrases which provided clues for separating students* responses into the appropriate subject area categories and determining the extent of scope or depth responses*
1* General Natural Resources Scope* Terms such as natural resources* outdoors, life without additional understandings*
rw»pfch Qnlv. Terms such as "saving^ " "protecting," "taking care of, * "not wasting,". "using," "using wisely," but reference is made to.a subject area*
Depth. Any of the above terms under Depth Only but used to specifically refer to a subject area* For example, "saving soil*"
2. Minerals Scope* Terms such as "minerals," "rocks," "stones," or specific names of different kinds. of rocks - or minerals, but no additional elaborations given which denotes the possession of partial understandings*
Depth. Mineral conservation or management* Also practices or use of any mineral resource denoting partial understandings* Soil Scope. Terms such as "soil," "dirt," "land," "farming." "garden ing, " or "crops," without evidence of any partial.con servation .understandings*
Depth, Soil conservation or management* Also practices or uses of soil denoting partial understandings* Jf. Water Scope. Terms such as "water," "river," "stream," "lake" or "pond" without conservation understandings demonstrated*
Depth* Water conservation or management* Also practices or uses of water denoting partial understandings* Plants Scope* Tents such as "forest," "trees," "flowers," "plants," and "bushes." Specific names of plants with no indication of conservation understandings possessed* Depth. Plant conservation or management* Also practices or uses of plant resources denoting partial understandings* y*
6• Animals Scope* Terms such as "animals," "wildlife," or "pets*" Also specific names of animals without conservation under standings.
Depth* Animal conservation or management* Also practices or uses of animal resources denoting partial understandings*
7* Recreation Scope* Terms describing forms of recreation such as "hunting," "fishing," "camping," "picnicking," etc. Also includes mentioning of parks and wilderness areas without evidence of conservation understandings.
Depth* Partial understandings about the management practices of recreational areas* Also any understandings about recreational areas for the future or specific recreational areas and their use.
8. Other Natural Resources Scope* Mentioning of air, space, atmosphere*
Depth* Partial understandings about air, air pollution or space*
9. Human Resources Scope* Terms such as "safety," "labor," "time" or "intelligence" when no additional conservation understandings are given*
Depth* Partial conservation understanding about any of the above subjects. 10. Institutional Scope. Any mention of "government," "schools," "churches" and their role in conservation*. Also generalizations about "conservation clubs" or "sportsmen's groups." Depth* Partial understandings about any of the above.
11* Socioeconomic Aspects Scope* (NO SCOPE CREDIT GIVEN IN THIS CATEGORY) The complex nature of this category did not allow for analysis of general terms which might apply. For example, if a student stated "conservation means houses," the investigator was unable to determine whether the student was relating "houses" to use of natural resources or only guessing.
Depth. Partial understanding clearly implying resource use in the society. For example, "Christmas trees may be grown and sold by the farmer." B££BE&£S J2l student responses So that the reader nay more fully understand the nethod used in analysing the students* responses to the statement, "What Conservation
Means to Me,” examples from each grade and school location have been selected. Each of the cases presented i s given in total, i.e., every thing which that student wrote on his paper, except for the title which was the same on all papers. The forty-two cases presented are not a random sampling of the 2,232 responses. They have been selected to show the variety and quality range evidenced by students in these three grades and three different school locations.
Since the free-response method was used in obtaining the responses, many value judgments had to be made. Therefore, it is Important to note that these responses serve only as an index to what intermediate students consider to be important conservation understandings. No doubt some students held additional understandings, but these were not expressed at the time of the writing. The free-response sampling method cannot be considered as an instrument designed to measure knowledge, but may be considered as a method suitable for determining an index to the conservation understandings considered important by the students.
The number preceding the student*s response is the case number used on the IBM Data Processing Cards.
The Conservation Pledge.
”1 give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully to defend from waste the natural resources of my country— its soil and minerals, its forests, waters and wildlife.”
Depth: "save natural resources11 — 1 depth (general natural resources) defend from waste” — 1 depth (general natural resources) ”soil” — 2 * “[refers to both ”save” and "defend from wa 36
"minerals" — 2 depth (same as above) ^forests"-— 2 depth (same as above) "waters'1 2 depth (same as above). "wildlife" — 2 depth (same as above)
The following is an example of what I considered an excellent paper written by a sixth grade girl at the Carlisle Elementary School,
Delaware, Ohio. Her student questionnaire indicated that she is the daughter of a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University* She received her conservation understandings from books. Girl Scouts and from her teacher of the previous year, who was an alumnus of the Ohio Conservation
Laboratory*
(1751) "Conservation means to me the preserving of our soil and natural resources by the scientific and modern ways of work. If all of these things are done, there is a pretty good chance of having enough good soil for crops, wildlife for hunting, and more things that can be used for research, etc. Conservation can be practiced by most anyone, and aids to the future, and to future success of a country. In con servation, wildlife depends upon plant life, and plantlife depends upon the soil and minerals of the soil. So to pre serve the kinds of wildlife, or natural resources you must try to preserve the things which it lives on. .This is called interdependence."
Complete Analysis:
Depth* "preserving natural resources — 1 depth (general natural resources) "preserving soil — 1 depth (soil) ••good soil for crops" ~ 1 depth (soil) ••wildlife for hunting" — 1 depth (recreation) "conservation can be practiced by anyone, and aids in the future success of a country" — 1 depth (human) 1 depth (institutional) "wildlife depends on plantlife" ~ 1 depth (animals) 1 depth (plants) "plants depend upon soil" — 1 depth (plants) . 1 depth (soil) "and minerals in the soil" — 1 depth (minerals) 1 depth (soil) "interdependency" 1 depth (general natural resources) 37
The above response should not be considered typical of those received during this study. It was outstanding. In contrast, many fourth graders only listed different resources, as in case 0190.
(0190) "1. animals — 1 scope-only (animals) ,2. land — 1 scope-only (soil) 3. trees — 1 scope only (plants) 4-. water -- 1 scope-only (water) 5* fish — 0 Credit not given because fish is a form of animal life and scope-only credit was given only once in each subject area. 6. soil" — 0 Credit not given because soil and land both included in subject area Soil.
Characteristics of the 4th grade responses
Fourth graders often listed various subject areas without evi dencing any understandings. They often used broad terms, i.e., "Mother
Nature," "outdoors," and "life.11 When understandings were notknown the fourth grade student often stated that conservation "had something to do with. . . ." Plants and animals appeared to be considered the most important aspects of conservation. It may be inferred that the fourth graders were more conscious of nature study and less aware of the management and utilization of resources than were the fifth and sixth grade students.
Urban. 4-th grade
Although many fourth graders only listed subject areas, Case
#0061 shows that this student was aware of the interrelationships existing between plants and animals. Case #0305 is given to show that a student may express several different understandings. Often vague under standings were followed by specific examples (Case #0161). 38
(0061) "To save animal life from fires and to try to keep them safe. To be careful about fires and not to have forest fires. Tb keep animals safe from fire like *Smokey the Bear.1”
(Animals — 2 depth: Forest — 2 depth)
(0305) "I think conservation means trees, hills, woods, and animals that live in the woods. It may mean to keep trees planted, to keep earth from washing away and to always put out campfires so animals can have a place to live. If you drive a garbage truck, do not dump garbage in fields and streams. Do not dig up dirt."
(Soil — 1 depth: Forests — 1 depth: Water — 2 depth: Recreation — 1 depth)
(0161) "Conservation means to keep our wildlife and forest nice and clean. We should follow the game hunting rules. We should also plant lots of trees to hold the dirt. Many years ago the factories dumped the garbage into the Ohio River and the animals had to drink from the river. Most of the animals died because the water was not clean and safe. So the Conservation Society told the factories to have a dis posal plant. Now we have more animals in Ohio."
(Animals — 2 depth: Soil — 1 depth: Water — 1 depth: Forests — 1 depth: Institutional — 1 depth)
Suburban. 4th
Case #0781 indicates that responses about plant-animal relation ships were found in all school locations. The use of broad generaliza tions such as noted in Case #0723 was found in all grades and school locations. Case #0615 is an example of a very limited understanding.
It was noted that many students indicated uncertainty by expressions such as "I think" or "This is only a guess." A common fourth grade response was one in which the first sentence was a listing of resources
(Case #0802). Very few fourth graders evidenced an awareness of con servation clubs or sportsmen groups as did Case #0757. 39
(0?8l) "I think conservation means the protection of animals and to see that they are not killed and so that woods are protected and not destroyed* In other words, the protection of wildlife."
(Plants — 1 depth: Animals — 1 depth)
(0723) "I think it means to help multiply something or to keep it from disappearing. I think water conservation is to purify water.«
(General Natural Resources — 1 depth only; Water — 1 depth)
(0615) "Outdoor hunting and trapping, I think."
(Animals — 1 scope only)
(0802) "Conservation means plants, wildlife, and the outdoors to me. Most of all conservation means wildlife to me. Maybe its because I love all animals. Conservation also means the protecting of wildlife, plants, soil and water." (Soil — 1 depth: Water — 1 depth: Plants — 1 depth: Animals — 1 depth)
(0757) "A group of people in a club trying to protect animals."
(WilcQ.ife — 1 depth: Institutional — 1 depth)
Rural. 4th
Case numbers 1307» 1338, 1306, 1533 and 1698 are examples of the listing of subject areas evidenced commonly among fourth grade students.
Occasionally responses were noted to be completely off the subject of conservation. (Case #1370) Especially in the fourth grade, it was observed that many students associated my presence in their classroom with a current unit of study.
(1307) "The wildlife and forests and water supplies, also out of doors."
(Wildlife — scope only; Forests — scope only: Water — scope only; General Natural Resources — scope only;. 40
(1338 ) "It means wildlife and trees, flowers, birds, wild animals and forests."
(Plants -- scope only: Animals -- scope only)
(1306) "It is about the outdoors and the growing of plants."
(General Natural Resources — scope only; Plants — scope only)
(1533) "Exploring in the woods and the outdoor life."
(General Natural Resources — scope only; Plants — scope only)
(1698) "Something about animals."
(Animals — scope only)
(1370) "It means to be out in space."
(no scope or depth credit)
Characteristics of the 5th grade responses
The words "saying," "protecting," and "conserving" were used very commonly to describe conservation practices. However, specific prac tices and management of resources was indicated by more fifth than fourth grade students.
The phrase "wise use of our natural resources" was commonly used by fifth grade students.
Urban. j£th
Case #0175 is an example of a student who evidenced an awareness of the value of natural resources to society. The importance of the recreational value of natural resources was stressed by Case #0505. The recreational aspects of conservation was never considered by the majority of the students to be an important subject area. CONTENTS (contd.) Chapter Page III. RESULTS...... 55
Exclusion of Certain Subject Areas • • ...... 55 Exclusion of the Subject Area* General Natural Resources • ••.•• ...... 5? Exclusion of the Subject Area* Minerals • ••••... 58 Sex of Student Related to Percent Response to Subject A r e a ...... 58 Analysis of Subject Areas...... 59 Scope of Conservation Understandings...... 60 Depth of Conservation Understandings...... 63 Percentage Response by Subject Areas ...... 64 Analysis of Scope-Only Responses ...... 66 Analysis of One-Depth Development ...... 67 Analysis of Two-Depth Developments...... 68 Ranking of Subject Areas ...... 69 School Location...... 73 Grade ...... 73
Analysis of Student Questionnaires ...... 7k
Occupation of F a t h e r ...... 7k Number of Schools Attended ...... 79 Travel ...... 81 Sources of Conservation Information ...... 83 Magazines...... 83 Books ...... 83 Television...... 8k Home and Parents ...... 84 Science Class • • ...... 85 Social Studies Classes .... 85 Classroom, General ...... 86 School C a m p i n g ...... 8 6- Guest Speaker...... 90 Outdoor Laboratory ...... 90 Computer Analysis of Sources of Students* Conservation Information...... 91
The Effect of Teacher Factors...... 92
Previous Exposure, to Conservation .••••.••••. 94 Teachers* Previous Exposure to Conservation ...... 94 Teachers' Previous Exposure to Conservation Through College Courses in General and Teaching Experience . 95 Computer Analysis of the Effects of Teachers' Exposure to Conservation ...... 97 College Courses as a Factor ...... 97
iv 41
(0175) "I think that conservation means to preserve our natural resources. And to keep our forest clean and nice so that other people can enjoy them as much as I do. I think that we should try to stop polluting our streams."
('General Natural Resources — 1 depth: Water — 1 depth: Plants — 1 depth: Human — 1 depth)
(0505) "I think conservation means all about nature and other interesting things. I think it helps us to learn about lots of things we never studied before. X think it means about if we didn't have water we could not go fishing, boating, riding, or ice skating and lots of other things that our fun."
(General Natural Resources — scone only; Water -- 1 depth: Recreation -- 1 depth
Suburban. 5th
Case #0632 is an example of the use of the word "erosion." The word "erosion was always given depth credit in both soil and water.
The standard definition of conservation was all that was given by some fifth graders (#0817). Case #0850 is another example of a student who possessed vague understandings. The listing of resources was still evidenced in the fifth grade (Case #1166). Limited conservation under standings were still used in the fifth grade (Case #0841). Case #0909 held several social and institutional understandings about conservation.
These subject areas were seldom considered by fourth graders.
Case #0898 is an example of a student who used the terms "measur ing" or "surveying" the land. These terms were used by some students in all grades and school locations. Oral interviews with students showed
Words in a series relating to the same subject area, i.e., "fish ing, " 'boating," "riding" or "ice skating" were given only one depth credit because all activities were related to the recreational possibil ities of water. that the urban and suburban students noted contractors measuring lots in housing developments and the rural student may have witnessed the work of the Soil Conservation Service or Agriculture Conservation Program
Service in measuring fields for various agricultural subsidies.
Credit was given to Case #0825 under the category "other natural resources"; however, this student probably was using terms recently acquired in a unit on space. Case #0871 is an example of a "wordy" response, but definitely lacking conservation understandings.
(0632) "It means the saving of natural resources. It means the stopping of erosion. It means the darning of rivers to make electricity. To use cur mineral wisely and to save trees."
(General Natural Resources — 1 depth; Soil — 1 depth: Water — 1 depth: Plants — 1 depth: Minerals — 1 depth: Socioeconomic — 1 depth)
(0817) "The wise use of our natural resources."
(General Natural Resources — 1 depth)
(0850) "Conservation means to stop the washing away of the soil and things like that."
(Soil — 1 depth: Water — 1 depth)
(1166) "Conservation means forests and all the plants and flowers. Conservation means the lakes* rivers and swamps."
(Plants — scope only; Water — scope only)
(08^1) "I think conservation is nature and wildlife."
(General Natural Resources — scope only; Wildlife — scope only)
(0909) "Conservation is when the government protects forests and parks. It is very necessary to have conservation because if we didn't many people would cut down many trees and they would waste million of dollars. When you do cut down trees you should always replace them by planting seeds and growing more trees."
(Plants — 3 depth; Recreation — 1 depth: Institutional — 1 depth Socioeconomic — 1 depth)
(0898) "It means to me the measuring.of the land. To tell where your property ends. Also to tell how wide and long your property is."
(Soil — 1 depth)
(0825) "Conservation means to me something about the solar system. It could be the measuring of the stars."
(Other Natural Resources — 1 depth)
(0871) "I think conservation is very important. Because if we didn’t have it we wouldn't have a lot of other things. Con servation is important on the farms and many other things. I have seen movies on it and have seen how it is done. It pro vides us many things."
(Soil — 1 scope only)
Rural. 5th
Unlike many students who indicated a need for "protection," Case
#1016 stated several techniques for protecting resources. Case #1205 shows that plant-animal relationships were still found in the fifth grade. The terms "studying" or "caring for” were often used at all grade levels; however, credit was not given to these terms because of their vagueness. Case #0983 is an example of vagueness and also this student held the idea that hunting is harmful. Depth credit was never given to such limited responses as Case #1033 . Case #1057 indicates that statements off the subject of conservation were found in all grades and school locations. Some of these "off subject" statements were quite amusing. 4 4
(1016) PConservation is the protecting of wildlife, soil, plants and other things. Where unusual things are found, national parks have been founded. To protect our forests we help prevent fires and for every tree that is cut down a new one is put in its place. All things are protected for a reason.n
(Soil — 1 depth; Plants — 3 depth: Animals ~ 1 depth: Recreation — 1 depth)
(1205) "Conservation is the saving of soil, trees, wild animals, etc. When we go camping be sure we clean up and put out the fire. If we're with adults that are smoking be sure that they're cigarettes are out so the trees won't catch on fire. When we go on a hike don't damage trees by cutting them with hatchets. So let's all try to remember not to get too wild in the forests or woods."
(Soil — 1 depth: Plants — 2 depth: Animals — 1 depth: Recreation — 1 depth)
(0983) "I think conservation means saving forests, protecting animals, keeping the earth beautiful and also keeping water fresh and clean. It also means studying nature and all its beauty. Passing laws so people cann't shoot animals."
(General Natural Resources — scope only; Plants — 1 depth: Water — 2 depth: Animals — 1 depthl
(IO33 ) "The chopping down of trees"
(Plants -- scope only)
(1057) "Conservation I think is a hobby. Hjr hobby is having models or making different types of cars. I also like girls."
(No scope or depth credit)
Characteristics of sixth grade student responses
The fifth and sixth grade students developed similar responses.
Usually both the fifth and sixth graders wrote in narrative form. It was noted, however, that fifth grade students tended to provide more detail about the various subject areas considered. This accounted for the somewhat greater number of depth credits given in the fifth grade. Urban. 6th
Case #0222 is evidence that a feir sixth grade students still listed resources* Scope-only was given to this type of response*
Case #05lf>2 appeared to be very interested in water conservation; however* an awareness of animal resources was evidenced*
(0222) "Forest, wildlife, natural resources, soil." (General Natural Resources — scope only; Soil - scope only; Plants — scope only; Animals — scope only)
(05*12) "Conservation means to save. We save water by having dams. Levies are also a way to prevent floods* We save wild life by having only a few months to hunt, insted of all year. They have irrigation on farms."
(General Natural Resources — 1 depth only; Water — 3 depth; Animals — 1 depth)
Suburban. 6th
Case #1230 is a very limited response; but it does indicate the importance of school location in determining the subject areas consid ered most important by rural students. Although a specific term such as
"contour plowing" was not used, Case #1381 shows that the student did evidence an awareness of several land management practices. Case #1402 indicates that the student was aware of conservation practices used in regions of the United States other than Ohio. The immature and lack of conservation understanding of some fifth graders is shown in Case #1389.
(1230 ) "Conservation means farming resources. It helps farmers with their crops. But it means more than that." 46
(1381) "Conservation means to save natural resources. On a hillside when there is a gully, the farmers plant vines. Some times they plant corn around the hill. By plowing around the hill they make steplike gullies around the hill which stops the flow of water down the hill."
(General Natural Resources — 1 depth: Soil — 2 depth)
(1402) "I think conservation is when we help nature improve. For example, we often times build steps for salmon to go to the spawning grounds. We often times replace trees for those we take. When people take fish out of their lake and replace them in a farm pond (but don*t kill them) I think they are practicing conservation.11
(General Natural Resources — 1 depth; Plants — 1 depth; Animals -- 2 depth)
(1389) "Conservation means to me being able to see the wonder ful trees and flowers. Being able to see the birds and animals hunting for food. X like to play in the grass and flowers. I love to look at the beautiful leaves on the trees. That is what conservation means to me."
(Plants — scope only; Animals — Scope only)
Rural. 6th
Case #1672 is an example of the sixth grade rural students1 awareness of many conservation practices used on the farm. Many examples of sound land management practices are evidenced by Case #1755. In analyzing student responses, extreme care had to be taken not to over look understandings expressed in "student language." An example of this is Case #1638 where the word "ripe" is used to indicate mature timber.
Case #1680 again used "student language" by stating "planting across the hill" rather than contour cultivation.
(I672) "To me conservation means a lot. It means protecting and saving the soil that is washed away by water. It means fertilizing it when it runs out of richness, or fuel. It also ^7
means the different ways of growing crops, such as strip farming, etc."
(Soil — 3 depth; Water — 1 depth)
(1755) "Conservation is the saving »f land animals and other things. Put out all fires in the forest. If ever there is a fire replant the trees and grass. Plant bushes along river banks to keep the soil from washing away. Never put too many animals in one field because they'll eat all the grass and tramp it down so that other grass cann't grow. Never burn a cover crop."
(Plants — 5 depth; Soil — 2 depth; Water — 1 depth; Animals — 2 depth)
(1638) "Conservation of forests is to protect them from fires. Woods shouldn't be cut until it is ripe. "The conservation of streams is to protect them from polluting. When you throw tin cans into it, you are polluting it. Don't throw garbage in it either."
(Plants — 2 depth; Water — 2 depth)
(1680) "Conservation is the saving of soil. Farmers do this by planting across a hill rather than planting up and down. They also do it by having crop rotations. This puts nitrogen in the soil."
(Soil — 3 depth)
Methods of analysing data
After all student responses had been tabulated on IBM Code Sheets, the information was transferred to IBM Data Processing Cards. The cards allowed for two types of analyses to be made; (1) mechanical sorting,
(2) statistical analysis. 4 8
Mechanical sorting
From the outset, the student responses were tabulated so that at a later date this information could be transferred to IBM Data
Processing Cards. In tabulating, a scope-only response (simply mention ing a subject area) was recorded as (x) for the subject area (column to which it applied). The depth responses were recorded as 1, 2, 3, 4 and so forth, depending upon the number of understandings held by the student for each subject area. Depth-only responses, applicable only for general natural resources, was tabulated as Y^, Yg, T y etc., i.e.,
"Y" digit space on the IBM card was subscripted. No scope or depth was recorded as "0.11 (See Appendix I for the Code used in preparing the data for IBM Data Processing Cards.)
Processing of IBM cards
By running the entire deck of IBM cards through a sorting machine the cards could be divided according to school location and grade. Each school location and grade could be further subdivided according to percentage of students responding, scope-only responses, one-depth development, and two or more depth developments in each subject area. *4-9
Although the sorting machine could provide only the number of students responding in each category* these numbers could be converted to percentages and provided a breakdown by school location and grade.
Such a division by school location and grade was not possible using the computer analysis method. All grades and school locations had to be treated as a composite group when statistically analyzed by the 709 computer.
Statistical analysis
A statistical analysis was made of the subject areas: soil, water, plants and animals. (See Exclusion of Certain Subject Areas, page 57•) After the statistical programming had been completed, with the assistance of the Statistical Laboratory, Ohio State University, the data was processed on the IBM 709 computer.
For the statistical treatment of data an arbitrary scoring
system was designed: no scope or depth = 0; scope-only =0.5; (each) depth * 1.0.
It is important to distinguish between the results obtained by the mechanical sorting of IBM cards and the statistical analysis of data using the 709 computer. The statistical analysis was based on 1,567
student responses. This was the number of cases for which I was able to 50 obtain reading scores. It represented 70 percent of the total sample.
The number of reading scores obtained determined the size of the
statistically analyzed sample because correlations were desired between
reading scores and subject areas, i.e., soil, water, plants, and
animals. Because of the expense involved in using the 709 computer it was not possible to analyze those cases for which we did not have
reading scores. A complete reprogramming of the machine would have been
necessary to analyze the remaining 665 cases.
In the mechanical sorting method, all student responses (2,232) were mechanically sorted for each subject area; however, all cards bearing no scope or depth for a given subject area were excluded. Often as many as three-fourths of the cards were not analyzed for a given
subject area, because there was no response credit for that subject area.
In the statistical analysis using the 709 computer, it was possible to analyze all cards. The arbitrary scoring system designed
for the statistical handing of the data assigned a numerical value of
"zero" when there was no scope or depth responses. Thus, each student response could be scored by the computer and mean values or correlations determined.
Because of the programming involved in the statistical treatment, the items: occupation of father, schools attended, states traveled, sources of students' conservation information, teachers' previous experience in conservation, and teachers' college training relating to conservation, could not be statistically analyzed by grade and school location simultaneously. The computer yielded only a three-way sort; CONTENTS (contd.)
Chapter Page
Statistical Analysis of College Courses Taken by Teachers ...... 99 9 Conservation Materials Used in the Classroom ...... 102 Reading Scores ...... 10*f Coefficients of Correlation of Reading Grade Placement Scores Related to Subject A r e a ...... 105
IV. CONCLUSIONS ...... 10?
V. RECOMMENDATIONS...... 113
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 116
APPENDIXES...... 118
AUTOBIOGRAPHY...... 127
v 51
either by grade or school location. Consequently* all grades were
considered together when analysing the effect of school location, and
all school locations were considered together when the effect of grade
level was analysed. Mean values or correlations were based bn these
composite groupings.
Mechanical sorting did allow for sortings and analyses to be made
nine ways according to each grade and each school location.
In summarising these two different methods of data handling, we
are able to note advantages and disadvantages for both methods. The
statistical analysis using the ?09 computer may be considered an accurate measurement when all grades or school locations are considered
together. The mechanical sorting of IBM cards provides a breakdown of
data according to each of the three intermediate grades and each of the
three different school locations. The computer analysis rejected no
cards for reason of no response, consequently the mean values include
zero value responses. The mechanical sorting discarded the zero responses and analyzed only those responses for which some credit had been given.
I believe $ach method contributed to the analysis of data used
in this study.
Oral interview
In order to determine whether a written sampling method introduced an element of difficulty so great that the responses of students would not be representative of what they actually knew, a comparison was made 52 between fifty-eight students' written responses and tape-recorded
interviews when asked to explain "What Conservation Means to Me."
In one school, ten 4th, ten 5th, and ten 6th graders were inter viewed two weeks after they had participated with their classmates in the written portion of the study. It was found that these students
added few new conservation understandings on the taped interview.
In a second school, the procedure was reversed. Nine 4th, nine
5th, and ten 6th grade students were interviewed two weeks before they
participated with their classmates in the written sampling. These
students showed a very significant increase in conservation understand
ings on their subsequent written responses. The classroom teachers
Indicated that no teaching directed specifically toward conservation had taken place between the oral interview and the day of the written response.
Neither of these groups was coached or cued in any way on its interview. During the interview, the student was asked to make a state ment on the subject "What Conservation Means to Me." If after several minutes, the student failed to respond he was excused and a "No Response" was recorded. As noted earlier, no scope or depth response was recorded for students who did not respond on the written phase of the study.
Although the sise of the sample is quite small, it indicates that students did not respond better orally than by the written method.
During a discussion which followed the writing of the papers at the
Valley View school, the students indicated that they felt more at ease when allowed to write'their responses. In addition, they believed that it was easier to form ideas when asked to write than when reciting aloud. 53
TABLE 2
RESPONSE PER STUDENT DURING ORAL INTERVIEW
Number of Conservation Understandings per Student Interviewed After Written Responses Had Been Taken
Written Responses Oral Responses
Scope Depth Scope Depth
Scioto-Trail Ele. 4th grade, 10 students .5 1.4 1.0 1*3 5th grade, 10 students .4 .7 1.1 .6 6th grade, 10 students .6 *5 *5 .6
Number of Conservation Understandings per Student Interviewed Prior to Written Responses
Valley-View Ele* 4th grade, 9 students .7 3*5 1.0 *3 5th grade, 9 students 1.1 .4 *3 0.0 6th grade, 10 students .2 4*5 .4 1.0
Several factors appear to be important in the students' prefer ence for the written response method of sampling* First, the tape recorder was not concealed during the interviews* Its presence may have created a certain amount of hesitance on the part of some students*
Second, it was noted that sixth graders were more self-conscious than fourth graders during the interviews* Ramsey (1957)^ noted that primary students spoke much more freely during recorded sharing period than did the students of the intermediate grades* It may be possible that fourth
Irvin Lee Ramsey, "Children's Contributions in Sharing Experi ences and Potentialities in the Elementary Science Program" (unpublished Ph*D* dissertation, Ohio State University, 1957* ■ . 5* graders responded daring tape-recorded interviews similarly to primary grade students and the hesitancy of the intermediate student noted by
Ramsey was observed on the part of the sixth grade students.
Before this non-coached comparison, ten 4th, ten 5th* and ten 6th graders in three other schools were interviewed two weeks after the written responses had been taken. These students through coaching were urged to tell the investigator all the information they could about conservation in approximately three minutes. It was noted that the students usually started the discussion by reposting what they had written, on their papers. Additional questioning revealed few new subject areas possessed by the students; the nature of these new subject areas was usually scope only responses, e.g., names of birds and mammals. This substantiates the hypothesis that the student will speak or write first about those areas of conservation he best understands.
Consequently, the free response analysis cannot be presumed to measure all that students may know about a subject, but it does serve as an index to that about which they are most certain. It also seems apparent that the writing of a response did not produce significantly less responses than oral answers to the question "What Conservation
Means to Me." CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The results of this study will be divided into two partsi
(1) What conservation understandings do intermediate grade students possess? and (2) What are the sources of these understandings held by the students?
Two aspects of the question what conservation understandings do intermediate students possess were studied. The first analysis was to f determine the scope of the subject areas considered by the students.
This showed the percentage of students that responded to one, two, three, or four different subject areas. The second was an analysis of percentage of students responding, scope-only, one-depth development and two-or-more-depth developments possessed by students in each of the three grades and school locations.
To determine the sources of the conservation understandings they held, the Student Questionnaire. Teacher Quwationnai and Reading
Grade Placement Scores were used to show the effect of students' back grounds, teachers' influence, and students' reading ability upon the development of conservation understandings.
Exclusion of certain subject areas
It became evident from examining the IBM Code Sheets prepared prior to data processing that the majority of the students' responses
55 56 were in the subject areas: plants* animals* soil* general natural resources, and water. Hand analysis of the other six categories indi cated that less than 10 percent of the intermediate students responded to the subject areas: recreation, human* minerals, institutional, socioeconomic and other natural resources. Because of the sharp percentage of response difference between recreation (8.6 percent) and
Water (27.0 percent), the investigator decided that those categories with a percentage of response less than 2? percent should not be analyzed because a further breakdown of these subject areas according to scope and depth responses would yield percentage figures so low that they would have little value.
TABLE 3
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONSE BY SUBJECT AREAS FOR ALL GRADES AND SCHOOL LOCATIONS
Subject Area Percentage Response
Plants 50.1 Animals 1*4.7 Soil 34.0 General Natural Resources 32.0 Water 27.0
Recreation 8.6 Human 7.8 Minerals 6.2 Institutional 4.5 Socioeconomic 3.5 Other Natural Resources 1.3
The category general natural resource was not analyzed for reasons other than those mentioned above. (See Exclusion of the subject area.
General Natural Resources, page 57.) It is believed that the students' conservation understandings regarding those subject areas with less than a 10 percent response could be obtained from other investigations aimed more specifically at these subjects. But it is apparent that when asked to write a paper on "What
Conservation Means to Me" intermediate students do not develop under standings in these subject areas.
Exclusion of the sub.lect area. General Natural Resources
An analysis of the percentage response to the subject area,
General Natural Resources, was made by school location and grade level using the same sorting technique described earlier. Thirty-two percent of the students indicated some type of response to the category. How ever, because of the complex method used in tabulating, i.e., scope-only. depth-only, depth with at least one scope, and no scope or depth, the results of this analysis showed no pattern existing within any grade or school location.
I believe that because of the general nature of this subject area, the method used in analysing the data was not sufficiently refined to handle the many aspects of such a general category. The words "save,"
"protect, ” and "conserve" were found to be used commonly by students in all intermediate grades. In analyzing the responses in this category, it was necessary to evaluate individual words and depth credit depended upon the appearance of two or more placed together, i.e., "saving natural resources." 58.
Exclusion of the subject area. Minerals
Special mention should be made of the subject area. Minerals*
Only 6.2 percent of the Intermediate students expressed some type of conservation understandings related to minerals* During the pilot study* one tab grade showed a high response relating to the production of oil.
A discussion* following the sampling, brought out the fact that My
Weekly Reader?- used by the classroom, had recently devoted considerable space to the discovery and production of oil.
It is clearly evident from this study that students do not think of minerals in connection with conservation. It may also be pointed out that it was not uncommon for students in the same classroom to express many understandings in a certain area because of recent exposure to the subject either through a class unit of study or special current events topic.
Sex of student related to percent response to subject area .
During the analysis of the percentage response to the four subject areas* soil, water, plants, and animals, an attempt was made to determine whether intermediate boys or girls possessed greater development of conservation understandings. The mechanical sorting method showed that boys and girls usually differed less than five percent in their response to a given subject area.
The statistical analysis refined the mechanically sorted data.
By use of the arbitrary scoring system developed for the computer
Weekly Reader. American Education Publications* Education Center, Columbus 16* Ohio. analysis, mean scores were available for both sexes in each of the four subject areas* Mean scores derived by the computer indicated that boys received slightly more credit regarding soil and water than did girls* The girls totaled slightly more credit with relation to plants than did boys, and both sexes scored approximately the same with reference to animals*
When the four subject areas were considered together the differ ence in mean scores between the sexes varied only three percent from the mean of all four subject areas* Therefore, when the separate subject areas were considered, sex of the student was important in soil, water, and plants, but not animals* However, when the subject areas were considered together both sexes differed;from the total mean only slightly.
TABLE 4
MEAN SCORES OF MALES AND FEMALES RELATED TO SUBJECT AREAS
Males Females Mean of (783 students) (784 students) Both Sexes
Soil .**21 .355 .380 Water *351 .277 •314 Plants *544 .576 *560 Animals •463 .462 *463 Total 1.779 1.670 1*725
Analysis of subject areas
The first step in analysing student responses was the mechanical sorting of the IBM cards bearing the students* responses into nine 60 groups according to grade and school location. The grouping by school location, grade, and number of students participating is shown in
Table 5*
TABLE 5
NUMBER OF STUDENTS SAMPLED
Area Grade Sample Site
Rural 199 Rural 5 235 Rural 6 224 658 Suburban 222 Suburban 5 ZlM- Suburban 6 2 6 6 802 Urban k 278 Urban 5 257 Urban 6 232 _ 2 Z 2 Total 2,232
Scope of conservation understandings
An analysis of the scope of the conservation understandings showed that generally 25-35 percent of the intermediate students who responded to the statement "What Conservation Means to Me" held under standings in only one subject area. Thirty-five to forty-five percent of the students responding considered two resources, about 20 percent possessed understandings in three subject areas and approximately 10 percent indicated some understandings in all four subject areas analysed.
Table 6 shows the percentage of those student responding who held con servation understandings in one, two, three, or four subject areas analysed, soil, water, plants, animals. LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. The Distribution of Schools Sampled Related to Location, Grade Level, Season of Sampling and Number of Students Sampled...... • 21
2. Response per Student During Oral Interview ...... 53
3. Percentage of Response by Subject Areas for All Grades and School L o c a tions...... 56
4. Mean Scores of Males and Females Related to Subject Areas • 59
5- Number of Students S a m p l e d ...... 60 6. Percentage of Students Responding Who Held Conservation Understandings in One, Two, Three, or Four Subject Areas 61
7. Percentage of Students Who Considered Soil and Water and Those Who Considered Plants and Wildlife ••••..•• 63 8. Percentage Response by Grade Level and School Location to Soil. Water. Plants, and Animals ...... 65
9. Relationship of Percentage of Scope-Only Responses and One-Depth Development ...... 66
1 0 . Percentage of Those Students Responding with One-Depth Response by Grade and School Location to Soil, Water, Plants and Animals ..•••• ...... 67
Il Percentage of Depth Responses According to Subject Area . . 72
ia. Ranking of Subject Areas ...... 72
13. Mean Score of Subject Areas According to School Location . 73
14. Mean Scores for Subject Areas According to Grade • . • • . 74
15. Relationship of Occupation of Father to Percentage of Depth Responses ...... 77 16. Mean Scores for Subject Area According to Occupation of F a t h e r ...... 79
17. Relationship Between Schools Attended and Percentage of Depth Responses ...... 80
vi 61
TABLE 6
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS RESPONDING WHO HELD CONSERVATION UNDERSTANDINGS IN ONE, TWO, THREE, OR FOUR SUBJECT AREAS : '■ f iin 'i ii SBMBaaw ■ 1 ■aBS— agggsa— aaaa— assac— anas— = Number of Subject Areas Considered Location Grade 1 2 3 V Percent
Rural 4th 37 32 21 9 Rural 5th 26 48 23 3 Rural 6th 24 29 27 20
Suburban 4th 35 44 18 3 Suburban 5th 36 36 22 6 Suburban 6th 34 26 22 6
Urban 4th 35 54 11 9 Urban 5th 22 34 23 21 Urban 6th 35 42 21 3
These findings show that of the students who responded to the statement "What Conservation Means to Me"approximately two-thirds considered that conservation involved two or more resources* Therefore, it may be inferred that a majority of the intermediate students credited for responses were aware that conservation is concerned with two or more resources.
The following set of nine bar graphs shows the percentage of those students responding who considered one, two, three, and four subject areas on their written responses*
The highest percentage of response to any subject area was to plants. When two or more subject, areas were considered together, the highest percentage response was to plants and animals. A common example of this type of response to these subject areas was, "Forest fires 62 RURAL.
4 T H 6 T H 6 0 60 5 T H 60 ho N-SO N-bo v 4 o §40 5 4 0 §30 l! 30 i s o V &2° ^ 2 0 « 2 0 S o 1° IO O o / 2 3 4 1 2 . 3 4 SUBURBAN 6 0 4TH 6 0 5TH 6TH SO s o M o ^ 4 0 § 3 0 3 0 / 2 3 4 / 2 3 / = ge& ponsa in / area *3 =* Responses /n.*3&*~ea& 2 = Response & in 2. ar e a 4 - JQesponses in *4 a*-ea& FIQURE I PERCENT OF STUDENTS INDICATING CONSERVATION UNDERSTANDINGS IN ONE#TWOfTHREE OR FOUR SUBJECT AREA©. destroy the homes and food of many animals. " This posed the question , whether students also thought of soil and water as related resources. If a student discussed erosion on his paper, he was given credit in both the soil and water categories. Although 15-35 percent of the students responding gave understandings indicating plant and wildlife relation ships, less than 10 percent mentioned soil and water together. Table 7 shows the percentage of those students responding who indicated conservation dealt with plants and wildlife and the percentage . who indicated that conservation included both soil and water. TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO CONSIDERED SOIL AND WATER AND THOSE WHO CONSIDERED PLANTS AND WILDLIFE Percent of Those Students Responding Location Grade Soil and Water Plants and Animals Rural 4th 4 18 Rural 5th 4 32 Rural 6th 5 7 Suburban 4th 2 30 Suburban 5th 8 15 Suburban 6th 8 15 Urban 4th 3 35 Urban 5th 4 18 Urban 6th 6 30 Depth of conservation understandings After analyzing the scope of the resources considered by the students, it was essential to determine the depth of students' 6V conservation understandings. In order to do this the subject areas soil. water, plants, and animals were considered according to— 1. Percentage response of the students to subject area. 2. Percentage response to scope only (mentioning of the subject area)• 3. Percentage response to one depth development (possession of one conservation understanding). i*. Percentage response to two or more depth developments (about one resource). Percentage response by subject areas An analysis of percentage response by subject areas shewed the school locations and grades where students were most aware of the various subject areas. For example, 62 percent of the rural sixth grade students had some soil understandings (either scope-only, one-depth development, or two- or more depth developments), while only 22 percent of the urban sixth graders responded to this subject area. This analysis of the percentage response did not allow the investigator to draw any conclusions relative to the depth of the con servation understandings. It did, however, show whether the students did or did not possess some conservation understandings. Since scope and depth responses were grouped together, this type of analysis could show only the gross differences. The following table shows the percentage of students in each grade and school location that made some type of significant statement about one or more of the four subject areas. It may be assumed that the remainder of the group did not write anything on their papers or wrote about things completely off the subject of conservation. 65 TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE RESPONSE BY GRADE LEVEL AND SCHOOL LOCATION TO SOIL. WATER. PLANTS. AND ANIMALS Percent of Total Students Receiving Response Credit Location Grade Soil Water Plants Animals Rural 4th 18 23 35 36. Rural 5th 41 25 56 47 Rural 6th 62 42 62 51 Suburban 4th 17 19 41 45 Suburban 5th 51 28 50 40 ' Suburban 6th 41 21 43 33 Urban 4th 17 19 49 43 Urban 5th 37 40 57 53 Urban 6th 22 28 58 55 Total 34 27 50 44 Only in the rural schools did the percentage of students1 responses and depth development increase at each grade level. In both the suburban and urban areas the maximum response in almost all subject areas occurred in the fifth grade. The reason why sixth graders expressed fewer conservation under standings than fifth grade students could not be determined from this study. It may only be suggested that since conservation is usually stressed in the fifth grade in Ohio schools, the fifth grade students had been exposed to conservation instruction more recently than the sixth graders and, therefore, remembered the understandings in greater detail. 66 Analysis of scope-only responses It was hypothesised that a high scope-only response (mentioning of a subject area) would be indicative of students possessing few con servation understandings (depth developments)* However* it was found that the percentage of scope-only responses followed the pattern of one- depth development. For example, a high percentage of one-depth develop ment was followed by a high percentage of scope-only responses. Table 9 shows the average percentage of scope-only and one-depth development in soil, water, plants, and aw* fi e in each grade and school location. TABLE 9 RELATIONSHIP OF PERCENTAGE OF SCOPE-ONLT RESPONSES AND ONE-DEPTH DEVELOPMENT Soil Water Plants Animals Location Grade Scope Depth Scope Depth Scope Depth Scope Depth Rural 4th 5 11 5 16 9 21 12 20 Rural 5th 10 21 3 18 13 27 14 24 Rural 6th 18 27 9 28 16 33 12 30 Suburban 4th 7 9 4 13 11 25 18 22 Suburban 5th 15 26 11 15 14 24 17 17 Suburban 6th 9 23 2 15 10 23 8 21 Urban 4th 6 9 6 10 26 15 25 14 Urban 5th 8 18 8 23 17 22 15 25 Urban 6th 8 11 6 14 29 21 30 20 67 Analysis of one-depth development The students who expressed one conservation understanding about a given subject area were given credit for one-depth development. The students' responses in each school location and grade were mechanically sorted for the number of one-depth developments in soilv water* plants* and animals. Only in the rural area did the percentage of one-depth development increase during each grade. In the suburban and urban school locations* the maximum development of one conservation understanding in most subject areas was in the fifth grade with a drop occurring in the sixth. Of those students responding, the percentage of one-depth development remained approximately the same in each grade and school location. Table 10 shows the response by one-depth response among those students who responded in each grade. TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE OF THOSE STUDENTS RESPONDING WITH ONE-DEPTH RESPONSE BY GRADE AND SCHOOL LOCATION TO SOIL, WATER* PLANTS, AND ANIMALS Percent of Those Students Responding Location Grade Soil Water Plants Animals Rural 4th 60 70 60 55 Rural 5th 50 70 50 50 Rural 6th 45 67 55 60 Suburban 4th 55 70 70 60 Suburban 5th 52 55 50 50 Suburban 6th 60 70 55 60 Urban 4th 50 50 40 35 Urban 5th 50 58 40 45 Urban 6th 50 50 35 35 68 ■Analysis of two-depth developments The students who expressed two or more conservation understandings in any given subject area were given two depth credits* This data was analyzed in the same manner that the one-depth development was analysed* The analysis of two or more depth developments proved to be very signifi cant because rather sharp percentage differences were noted between grade level and school locations. The fifth and sixth graders generally had a higher percentage of two or more depth developments than did the fourth grade students* Except for the subject area water in the suburban and urban areas, the fifth grade students exhibited an equal or higher percentage of two or more conservation understandings than did the sixth graders* The per centage of students with scope-only responses appeared in an inverse relationship to the percentage of two or more depth responses, i.e., groups with a high percentagerof two or more depth developments usually exhibited a low percentage of scope-only responses* Because the percentage of one-depth development remained approxi mately the same in each grade and school location, it may then be assumed that the key to determining the grades and school locations where the students possess the greatest amount of conservation under standings lies in the percentage of two or more depth developments* The highest percentage response to two or more depth developments in most subject areas occurred in the fifth and not in the sixth grades. It should be noted that conservation often is stressed in the fifth grade in Ohio. Although a complete study of this fact was not made, 69 many fifth grade teachers indicated that their schools* curriculum emphasized conservation teaching in that grade* It was discouraging to note that some fourth grade teachers did not teach conservation because their school*s curriculum called for emphasis thereon the following year* Figure II, graphs A-D, show the percentage of students in each grade and school location who possessed scope-only, one-depth develop ment, and two or more depth developments in the various subject areas considered* Figure III, graphs A-D, show the percentage of those students responding who possessed scope, one, and two or more depth developments in each subject area considered* These graphs are considered very Important because they show the inverse relationship between scope-only responses and two or more depth developments* In addition, it may be noted that the percentage of one-depth development remains approximately the same for each grade and school location* This is important because an index to conservation understandings should not be based only upon the students1 ability to present one conservation understanding, but for a complete evaluation the number of students with two or more conserva tion understandings becomes the important criterion. Ranking of subject areas It was believed that an analysis of the one and two or more depth developments considered together, in each subject area, would show which subject area students considered to be most important* Such an analysis showed that plants (32 percent) received the highest percentage of depth developments. AnimAi^ (27 percent) second, soil (22 percent) third, and water (20 percent) had the lowest percentage of depth developments. SOIL 7o WATER A. 4p B. Mi M£ Hj^ o H i Y4o i-30 -suk ft /.ijgl* 2P CA*»Vs* Av-'> Lii m to m 0 8* $ % iX2 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 s e> 4 5 5 4 5 5 RVfZAL. SUBURBAN 1/fLB A sf RURAL. SUBURBAN URBn>U PLANTS ANIMALS KEV a D. 4M& iS't: m Scope only. $8$ P*Sa£)./*»•/.XpJi it 2^ r ° O One c /e p th 'M r e s p o o n s e . 7wo oy~ mor-Q depth, responses ►V< Wi V i 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 56 4 5 5 4 5 5 RURAL. SUBUGBAfif U fZ B M RURAL. SUBURBAN t/RJBAA/ FIQURE n PERCENT OF STUDENTS INDICATING SCOPE ONLY; ONE AND TWO OR MORE DEPTH DEVELOPMENTS LIST OF TABLES (contd.) Table Page 18. Relationship Between Travel and Percentage of Depth Responses...... • • • ...... 82 19* Ranking of Sources of Information by Responding Students • 89 20. Mean Scores for Subject Areas as Related to Sources of Conservation Information ...... 92 21. Percentage of Those Responding Evidencing Depth Development as Related to Teachers1 Previous Exposure to Conservation 96 22. Mean Scores of Subject Areas According to Teachers' Previous Exposure to Conservation...... 98 23. Percentage of Those Responding Evidencing Depth Development as Related to College Courses Previously Taken by Teachers ...... 100 24. Mean Scores of Subject Areas According to College Courses Taken by Teachers ...... 101 25. Percentage of Those Responding Evidencing Depth Development as Related to Conservation Materials Used by Teachers • .- 103 26. Chi Square Values of Sources of Conservation Information Used in the Classroom ...... 104 27. Coefficients of Correlation of Reading Grade Placement Scores Related to Subject Area ...... 106 vii 71 5. SOIL. RURAL. PLANTS One depth 4 • ■• WjAi s ?.& lilK—*»’••••^AvSr'!'.1 •>«£.•stjoWf/jvSBt$P!Eapt T^.V-^5 a ■.Tjt* lit*.’ •• •: if.’. 0 /O 20 30 30 30 7t> 3o ^9 <*>0 SUBURBAKJ SUBURBAN! %> 4 k UR&AM UR.3 ANI pooOOvvwsa pjl§l 4g^ggggggggg^ 5 §888888$ i s gsife '■fHip'r.i a e. WATER a WILDLIFE RURAU RURAL vj » « « 5 jj 4 4‘K ^ 5* • IVJIAAAJ^ t e l • •V£W; 6 % w $ SUBUR.BAM SUBURB**. Kl [S:V s:a’iS5'35r BaK ^2a£Vl : UR.BANJ URBAN! >OQQ FIQURE m PERCENT OF THOSE STUDENTS RESPONDING EXPRESSING SCOPE ONLY, ONE A N D TWO OR MORE D EPTH DEVELOPMENTS. 72 Table 11 shows the percentage response of depth developments to each subject area. Through the use of the mean scores developed by the computer, a ranking was possible. Both rankings and relative values were very close when analyzed by the two methods. (See Table 12.) TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE OF DEPTH RESPONSES ACCORDING TO SUBJECT AREA Percentage Location Grade Soil Water Plants Animals Rural 4th 13 (4)* 18 (3) 26 (1 ) 24 (2 ) Rural 5th 27 (3) 21 (4) 40 (1 ) 32 (2 ) Rural 6th 38 (3) 34 (4) 44 (1 ) 39 (2 ) Suburban 4th 10 (4) 15 (3) 29 (1) 27 (2 ) Suburban 5th 34 (1) 17 (4) 33 (2 ) 22 (3 ) Suburban 6th 31 (2 ) 18 (4) 32 (1) 25 (3) Urban 4th 11 (4) 12 (3 ) 22 (1 ) 18 (2 ) Urban 5th 24 (4) 29 (3) 36 (1) 35 (2 ) Urban 6th 13 (4) 20 (3 ) 27 (1) 26 (2 ) Average Percent 22 20 32 27 *The number in parenthesis indicates ranking in respect to other subject areas in that same grade and school location. TABLE 12 RANKING OF SUBJECT AREAS Mean Scores Obtained Percentage of Depth Developments from Computer Obtained Through Mechanical Sorting 1. Plants .560 32 2 . Animals .463 27 3* Soil .388 22 4. Water .3i4 20 73 School location By the computer analysis, the mean scores for soil, water, plants, and animals were obtained according to school location* The machine sorting had shown that rural and urban students held approxi mately the same percentage of understandings about plants and animals (see Figure II, page 70)* The statistical analysis also showed the class relationship between plant and animal understandings held by students in the two locations and, in addition, pointed out an even closer mean score for water understandings than was anticipated. As might be expected, rural students evidenced many more soil understandings than did the urban pupils. TABLE 13 MEAN SCORE OF SUBJECT AREAS ACCORDING TO SCHOOL LOCATION Number of Mean of All Subject Location Soil Water Plants Animals Responses Areas Rural 451 .459 .345 .589 .518 .477 Urban 575 .289 .346 .586 .484 .426 Suburban 441 .434 .253 .508 • 394 .397 Total 1567 Grade The mean scores for the students in the three intermediate grades indicated that grade was statistically significant. Mechanical sorting showed that in the suburban and urban school locations the greatest number of conservation understandings were evidenced by fifth graders. Only in the rural area did the sixth grade students possess 7* more conservation understandings than did the fifth graders (see Figure 2, page 70). When the mean scores for each subject area were considered by grade separated from school location, it was evident that fifth grade pupils held many more conservation understandings than did either the fourth or sixth grade students. TABLE 14 MEAN SCORES FOR SUBJECT AREAS ACCORDING TO GRADE Number of Grade Grade Soil Water Plants Animals Responses Mean 4th 502 .164 .194 •424 .362 .286 5th 492 .527 .401 .664 .546 •535 6th _ 573 .464 •343 .591 .480 .470 Total 1.5*7 Analysis of Student Questionnaires In order to analyze why Intermediate students possessed the conservation understandings they did, a student questionnaire was developed (see Student Questionnaire, page 25). The investigator thought that the occupation of the students' fathers, number of states in which the student had traveled, schools attended, and sources of conservation information would provide insight into why and where the students had acquired their conservation understandings. Occupation of father The four subject areas, soil, water, plants, and animals, were analyzed for percentage response, scope-only, one-depth development and 75 two or more conservation understandings. Mechanical sorting was used throughout the analysis of the Student Questionnaire. After sorting had been made by grade, school location and occupation of father, sorts were then done for response, scope-only and depth developments in each subject area. Father1s occupation was thought to be indicative of the socio economic status of the family. Although certainly exceptions may be found, generally students whose fathers are classified in professional fields, i.e., doctors, lawyers, teachers, and engineers, have greater cultural and home educational advantages than do the students from industrial backgrounds. The following categories of Occupation of Father were used in an analysis in which the occupation was mechanically sorted against the percentage response, scope-only and depth developments in each subject area. Occupation of Father: 1. Business — proprietors, sales, clerical 2. Professional — doctors, lawyers, clergy, teachers, and engineers 3. Labor — factory and manual Agriculture — fanners 5> Miscellaneous — military, retired, deceased and unemployed Admittedly, because free response method was used in sampling, it was impossible to determine in all cases exactly the father's occupation. However, the students were asked to write as nearly as possible the type of work their father did or his job title. The free-response method was used because it was believed many student questions could be reduced, time of classroom sampling could be shortened, and it would follow the pattern of freedom of response allowed in other portions of the sampling. In the rural school location, an area made up predominantly of students whose fathers were engaged in farming, it was found the con servation understandings were usually developed best among students whose fathers were in the ''Business" and "Professional" categories* The students whose fathers farmed seldom had a high percentage of depth developments even in soil and water, subject areas in which one might expect students with farming backgrounds to excel. The laboring group ranked lowest in all rural grades in terms of depth developments. The suburban schools exhibited many diverse patterns. Throughout this study, the heter ogeneity of the suburban area was noted many times* The percentage of response and depth developments did not show a con sistent pattern for any grade level in the suburban school location* Regarding the father*s occupation as related to conservation understand ings, the pattern of depth developments was extremely varied. Students from no one occupational category consistently held a high percentage of conservation understandings. For example, in the suburban fourth grade, the highest percentage of conservation understandings in most subject areas were held by students whose fathers were considered "Labor." In the fifth grade, the highest percentage of understandings were possessed by students whose fathers were in the "Business" and "Professional" groups, while in the sixth grade the pattern of depth developments was spread euqlly among all occupational groups. The urban and rural schools exhibited very similar patterns. The students in the urban areas whose fathers were in the "Business" and "Professional" fields possess the greatest depth of conservation understandings in most subject areas while those students whose fathers were considered "Labor" held the lowest percentage of conservation understandings. The rural and urban areas nay be considered locations where there are extremes in socioeconomic stratification, i.e., business and professional groups tend to live in one area while laboring groups are located in another section. In the suburban area, the heterogeneity of the group may be shown by engineers and administrators in light industry living in the same housing development with the laboring group employed by the same industry. TABLE 15 RELATIONSHIP OF OCCUPATION OF FATHER TO PERCENTAGE OF DEPTH RESPONSES Percentage of Depth Responses Occupation Soil Water Plants Animals Rural: 4th grade Business 12 16 26 17 Professional 13 20 20 20 Labor 13 17 27 23 Agriculture 17 24 24 40 Rural: 5th grade Business 49 40 38 30 Professional 47 59 47 41 Labor 21 18 42 32 Agriculture 30 6 54 38 78 TABLE 15 (contd.) »" — ~ —— — n — ~-~— b■«~g<»-ei~eBa» Percentage of Depth Responses Occupation . . _ .. Soil Water Plants Aninals Rural: 6th grade Business 52 41 56-56 Professional 65 41 53 53 Labor 38 32 44- 32 Agriculture 46 29 46 51 Suburban: 4th grade Business 6 12 24 20 Professional 21 9 24 27 Labor 9 18 35 32 Suburban: 5th grade Business 35 13 44 23 Professional 49 24 35 24 Labor 32 16 30 25 Suburban: 6th grade Business 37 21 49 34 Professional 40 26 40 29 Labor 27 14 25 21 Miscellaneous 41 26 39 24 Urban: 4th grade Business 9 9 30 18 Professional 26 29 29 19 Labor 11 10 19 17 Urban: grade Business 33 39 51 51 Professional 62 67 92 80 Labor 24 26 32 29 Urban: 6th grade Business 15 12 29 28 Professional 12 18 30 36 Labor 13 27 27 21 79 The statistical analysis substantiated the previous conclusion that students whose fathers were in the professional category held the greatest number of conservation understandings in all subject areas* TABLE 16 MEAN SCORES FOR SUBJECT AREA ACCORDING TO OCCUPATION OF FATHER Number of Mean for Occupation Soil Water Plants Responses Animals Occupation Commercial 352 .402 *311 .651 .525 .472 Professional 170 .650 .424 .653 .585 .57 8 Labor 813 *317 .289 .502 .406 .379 Agricultural 100 • 570 .335 .650 .469 .506 None or Unci. 64 .4 77 .375 .615 .289 .439 Miscellaneous 68 • 154 .257 .463 .346 .305 Total 1,567 Number of schools attended In attempting to determine whether transciency effected the development of conservation understandings among intermediate students, an analysis of soil, water, plants, and animals conservation understand ings was made of students who had attended only their present school, one or two other schools, and three or more schools* The urban and rural locations again showed similar patterns* The development of one and two or more understandings was the highest among those students who had attended only their present school. In the sub urban area the highest percentage of one and two or more depth develop ments was found among students who attended one or two other schools besides their present one. 80 TABLE 17 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLS ATTENDED AND PERCENTAGE OF DEPTH RESPONSES —r~~-r-m— t—— t——— " 1 — ——— — — — —— — —— — — — m- Number of Schools Percent of Depth Responses Attended Soil Water Plants Animj Rural: ittb 0 17 25 32 31 1-2 7 6 14 15 3-9 0 27 18 18 Rural: i£h 0 33 19 48 41 1-2 29 26 39 23 > 9 14 20 20 20 Rural: 6th 0 48 33 47 ^5 1-2 43 36 48 32 3-9 26 23 40 30 Suburban: 4th 0 10 14 31 29 1-2 15 16 33 30 > 9 3 9 12 9 Suburban: 5th 0 40 14 31 21 1-2 35 17 42 26 > 9 16 19 33 25 Suburban: 6th 0 39 21 31 23 1-2 33 20 37 31 3-9 23 13 27 17 Urban: 4th 0 12 14 23 17 1-2 11 9 25 18 > 9 10 8 14 14 Urban: ith 0 32 41 5* 50 1-2 30 33 39 38 3-9 18 14 18 25 Urban: 6th 0 14 20 36 2? 1-2 12 21 25 21 > 9 14 23 23 28 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Percent of Students Indicating Conservation Understandings in One, Two, Three, or Four Subject Areas • ...... 62 2. Percent of Students Indicating Scope Only, One and Two or More Depth Developments...... 70 3* Percent of Those Students Responding Expressing Scope Only, One and Two or More Depth Developments...... 71 Percent of Students Stating Various Sources ofConservation Information...... 87 5* Percent of Students Stating Various Sources of Conservation Information by Grade Level Within Same School Location . 88 viii 81 Scope-only responses in all school locations were highest among students who had attended one or more schools other than the present one. Travel It was hypothesized that traveling would provide opportunities for students to obtain many conservation understandings. The responses in the four subject areas were analyzed according to the number of states other than Ohio in which the student had traveled. The number of states in which the student had traveled was broken down into the follow ing grouping: zero to three states, four to seven states, and eight or more states. The same method of mechanical sorting was used as had been used regarding occupation of father, and number of schools attended. In general, the hypothesis was substantiated. In the fourth and fifth grades, travel was found to be important. The greatest number of conservation understandings were held by fourth and fifth graders who had traveled in four to seven different states. In the sixth grade, travel appeared to have no effect on the development of conservation understandings. Therefore, it may be assumed that by the time the student reaches the sixth grade other factors, i.e., books and classroom experiences, become more important in producing conservation under standings or at least tend, in the minds of the students, to be so. The suburban schools did not show any significant difference between the students who had traveled and those who had not. It was believed that because the suburban areas have such a high degree of transciency, the few students who had not traveled extensively received benefit from the majority through classroom discussions. « 82 TABLE 18 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAVEL AND PERCENTAGE OF DEPTH RESPONSES Number of States _ Percent of Depth Responses Traveled Soil Water Plants Animals Rural: 4th 0 -3 13 21 24 26 4-7 8 11 23 20 8-9 17 17 26 23 Rural: 5th 0-3 , 27 12 39 30 4-7 28 20 51 34 8-9 38 38 42 40 Rural: 6th 0-3 33 25 40 30 4-7 42 36 48 46 8-9 53 37 42 41 Suburban: 4th 0-3 11 18 28 26 4-7 8 17 33 26 8-9 12 7 23 26 Suburban: 5th 0-3 33 16 29 22 4-7 36 11 34 27 8-9 38 21 41 20 Suburban: 6th 0-3 34 31 20 15 4-7 30 18 30 28 8-9 32 17 39 32 Urban: 4th 0-4 12 9 20 17 4-7 7 12 22 13 8-9 16 16 30 22 Urban: 5th 0-4 21 27 32 29 4-7 35 31 43 46 8-9 38 44 54 49 Urban: 6th 0-4 15 26 24 23 4-7 10 23 25 26 8-9 17 13 37 25 Sources of conservation information The students' sources of conservation information was also obtained by the free response method (see Student Questionnaire. page 25). I believe this method allowed the student much more freedom of response than would have been possible had a list of sources been available for them to check. Sources of conservation information were analyzed by both mechanical sorting and computer analyses. Sources analyzed were books, magazines, television, home and parents, science class, social studies class, and general classroom. Analysis of guest speaker, outdoor laboratory and school camping was made by hand since only a small number of responses were obtained. Field trips was not analyzed because of the extremely small number of students who listed trips as a source of information. Magazines In all school locations and grades, magazines, as a source of conservation information, did not receive sufficient response to analyze. Those who responded usually referred to one of the popular hunting or fishing magazines. Generally, less than five percent of the students in any given grade and school location stated that magazines were a source of their conservation information. Books Books were considered an important source of conservation information in all grades and school locations, except the fourth. There was no attempt made to divide books into various types, i.e., 84- books from home, classroom, and library reference books. In none of the fourth grades were books shown to be either the first or second most important source of conservation information. This could be expected because as reading skills increase the students receive an increasing amount of conservation understandings from books. Television Students apparently considered television a minor source of conservation information in all grades and school locations. The percentage of one and two or more depth developments varied between ten and fourteen percent in all grades and school locations. The student papers indicated that television programs by Walt Disney did provide many understandings about animal resources. Home and parents Between ten and twenty percent of the students indicated home and parents as a source of conservation information in all grades and school locations. As might be expected, home and parents were considered among the most important sources of conservation information by fourth graders, but this emphasis dropped in the fifth and sixth grades. An analysis of subject areas showed that the scope-only responses'were high in most subject areas when the students indicated that home and parents were the source of conservation information. An example of this was a fifth grade rural student who during an interview stated that her mother said conservation meant soil. Upon further questioning, the student was unable to provide any depth on the subject. From this analysis, I believe that hone and parents constitute an important source of conservation information for students; however, it makes them conscious of things to be considered without having definite understandings about them. Science class t . Only in the rural filth and sixth grades were science classes indicated as important sources of conservation information. In the rural fifth and sixth grades where high depth development was found in all resource areas science classes were indicated as an important source of conservation information. Soil understandings were most highly developed in these grades and many students indicated that science classes and books were their principal sources of conservation information. Social studies classes Social studies was considered important sources of conservation information only in the urban and suburban areas. In these two loca tions, it was noted that the importance of social studies classes as sources of conservation understandings generally decreased with an increase in grade. The fourth graders considered social studies far more important in developing conservation understandings than did sixth grade students. In all grades in the rural schools, less than two percent of the students stated that social studies classes were their source of con servation understandings. From the analysis of the science class as a source of conservation information, it appears that the rural students 86 consider science classes far more Important or they are more often aware of having learned something about conservation in a science class* The data do not prove they actually learned more there. Classroom, general In all school locations and grades, the classroom was considered by students to be an important source of conservation information. It was of interest, however, to note that a high percentage of scope-only responses especially in plants and « were found among students who stated the classroom was their source of conservation information. It appears, therefore, that general classroom discussions and other group activities frequently lead to vague ideas about conservation rather than definite understandings* It may be that students who responded only with general or vague information are also vague about sources of that information. However, in final analysis when specific classes are considered together with the classroom, the school becomes the most, important source of conservation information in the minds of the inter mediate student* Table 19 shows the ranking by school location of the percentage of students indicating the various sources of conservation information. Figures h-5 (pages 87-88) show the percentage of students stating various sources of conservation information. School camping Because none of the grades or school locations studied prior to the fall of 1961 had participated in school camping programs, a special study was made of the sixth grade classes at Central Elementary School, 'NOLLVWabdNI N01-LVA2I3SIN0 0 do saoanos 9noiavA oniivis Si.N3anxs do ±Naoa3d m a a n b i d WOCf~/S5CyZ> /<2-42>U&£) =0 * 6 ? p u » 9^o//Sc/./y Sass'tsyz? Sa/P'TJS Z& ' ^ S »5'oS* WO/9/A9/9J, =/U S 2 > sse > /3 X 3 s f N v s ^ n ' a a v a g h-*-9 3 O V 3 0 H-i-fi a a v a s H-L-tr o ~ o s ^ o $ d H m e C?-£> S*S DSc/'fi A M ST 3€? C7 TTPP Of <»/ of a s 3*og» o£> op off Off 09 N v g y n a n s 3 C2V ^ 3 0 HLL9 3avao hjlst a a v a o Q-G $o& 2& d‘H AM s . ::: w iwwwnBwmwimtmw/j “lv 'a n a 3 CTV & 0 HJL9 savao hjlst 3OVT30 HAb- O’G S oS O S 0/ O/ <*2T a j /z b b a / s u b u b b a a / b u b a l So 0 4 30 o 3 o Z 0 3 40 o 2 /o So to 40 2P SO to O o o n T L V 6 5 4 4 5 6 5 4 6 5 4 s k o o B s k o o B Books PE R C E N T OF S T U D E N T S STATING VARIOUS SOURCES SOURCES VARIOUS STATING S T N E D U T S OF T N E C R PE o S 40 0 3 Zo 0 3 4o 30 4o Zo So Zo to to to so O. O O 6 5 4 4 5 6 5 4 " 6 S 4" AE COL OAIN g LOCATION SCHOOL SAME 77V. T.V. T.V. 0 3 30 2o o 3 40 So o S 4o Zo 40 SO 20 to /o to 0 O V*0 1 oe d Home ' — _ L ■ “ n d one H Home d Home ts n e r a P 5 5 4 4 5 6 5 4 4 rnts aren P rnts aren P 5 ~i r~ — 6 6 30 0 4 Zo o S 30 o 3 40 o S SO /o 4o ZP Zo to O to O V ence c n ie c S 6 5 4 6 5 4 ence c n ie c S 4 5 6 5 4 asses e s s /a c ce cien S ases sse /a C /assos C So 30 4 So 0 5 2P 30 4o So 0 2 4o to 2 to to O O o o p l t 5 6 5 4 / a d o S / a d o S s e i d u t S 6 5 4 4 5 6 5 4 s e i d u t S udi s ie d tu S Soc/af 30 40 50 o t 0 3 4 30 o S Zo 2 £0 Zo 4o o to to O o t> o Cfessrvom t Genera / a r e n e G a&sootn o sro & ta C 4 5 6 5 4 6 5 4 l a r e n e G 4 5 6 5 4 Ctassnoom 89 TABLE 19 RANKING OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION BY RESPONDING STUDENTS Rural 1. Classroom, general Science class School-oriented Social studies class 2. Books 3. Home and parents if. Television Suburban 1. Classroom, general Social studies School-oriented Science class 2. Books 3* Hone and parents k . Television Urban 1. Classroom, general Science class School-oriented Social studies 2. Books 3. Home and parents *f. Television Fairborn, Ohio during December 1961. The sampling was made approximately six months after seventy-five students had attended a five-day school camp at Antioch Outdoor Educational Center, Yellow Springs, Ohio. The depth development in each subject area of these students was compared with that of all other sixth grades. It was found that school camping definitely increased the conservation understandings of those students who had attended the school camp. Fifty-one percent of these students indicated depth development in soil understandings while only thirty-three percent of all suburban sixth graders possessed depth developments in soil. There was a difference of eight percent in respect 90 to water understandings, 28 percent compared to 20 percent. However, understandings in plants and animals were approximately equal for the two groups. This points out again that plant and animal understandings are subject areas often developed outside of the school. On the other hand, soil and water understandings appear to be closely related to classroom or school-oriented activities. Guest sneaker Thirty urban fifth grade students, who had been given a conserva tion talk by a member of a local sportsmens' club, were sampled in the spring of 1961. Approximately two months had elapsed since the speaker had been in the classroom. Only in animal understandings did these students possess a higher percentage of conservation understandings than did all other urban fifth grade students. Scope-only responses were very high among the students who had heard the guest speaker which indicated that only the subject of the presentation had been retained by the students. This sample was very small and certainly cannot be considered statistically significant; however, it does make it possible to infer that students retain only general information from a guest speaker and that in order to develop depth in conservation understandings additional information must be received through classwork and outside reading. Outdoor laboratory Although responses from 10k intermediate grade students who had visited an outdoor laboratory were obtained, no conclusion as to the