“a 3.3.
gem—LG“

54.3 . “54C -
" (may,
V .0 "Kai .

 

 

 

93% a
«‘2' -:.-':. ':~
(11: ‘33:.“-

 

-.<

 

\ J".

A writ?-
:ch
~ n

’L'

fat, ‘
. 1.3511”.

'7‘

. 2;". . 76.»!
1’. 0,51%: .f'
égw u”!

r "I ofl‘ L "‘

up
“-

"" V1“ . WY

‘uq r. . ‘

4. gap,
1 a N
W 1:

‘
I; ' ‘
. 4," .1534;
“v: .. Jug-t5 r225

 

THES"

IlllHill!"Ill!IIIUUNllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01025 0961

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

The Effectiveness of a Mobile Hands-on Science
Program in Grades Four Through Six

\

presented by .-

Kathleen Sledge Lovgren

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

MS degree in BiOlogical SCienCe

Llme 0W7

Major professor

Date 26 July 1993

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to romovo this checkout from your rooord.
TO AVOID FINES roturn on or More data duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-l__l:j
fill—7m

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity institution

 

 

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MOBILE HANDS-ON SCIENCE
PROGRAM IN GRADES FOUR THROUGH SIX

by

Kathleen Sledge Lovgren

A THESIS
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Science Education

1993

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MOBILE HANDS-ON SCIENCE
PROGRAM IN GRADES FOUR THROUGH SIX

By

Kathleen Sledge Lovgren

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile
hands-on science program, known as The Science Van . The Program's
objectives were to motivate elementary and middle school teachers to
improve their teaching practices and attitudes in science as well as to
improve student conceptual understanding through hands-on science
activities. The study compared three methods for science lessons:
Textbook based, Video based and Science Van based. The study involved
sixty-eight teachers from grades four through six with eighteen hundred
students from Mecosta-Osceola Intermediate School District. The
statistical analysis of the improvement means from pre-test to post-test
scores showed no significant differences between methods. This analysis
was based on classroom averages rather than individual student
improvement, and on a test that may have been too difficult to detect
improvement. The study also showed that although teacher attitudes toward
science lessons have improved since their exposure to the Science Van
program, the amount of time spent on science activities has not increased.

Student interviews revealed a preference towards the hands-on approach .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My heartfelt appreciation is extended to the following individuals who
provided many hours of assistance in designing and carrying out this study:
Dr. Michael Cooper of Ferris State University- Applied Statistics
Dr. Karen Strickler, Michigan State University
Dr. Merle Heideman, Michigan State University
Dr. Howard Hagerman, Michigan State University
The Michigan Department of Education who provided us with the funding

to develop the Science Van Program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
METHODS AND MATERIALS ...................................................... l6
Demographic Description ............................................................ 16
Design and Implementation of Thesis Study ............................... 16
Review of Teaching Strategy for Each Method ........................... 19
Unit Objectives ............................................................................ 20
Pre-Test and Post-Test Design ..................................................... 21
Method A: Written Materials Followed by Teacher
Reinforcement .............................................................................. 23
Method B: Video Followed by Teacher Reinforcement .............. 25
Method C: Hands-On Activities Guided by the Science Van
Instructor ..................................................................................... 27
1992 Teacher Survey Design ....................................................... 31
Student Interviews ........................................................................ 32
RESULTS OF THE STUDY ............................................................ 33
Student Pre-Test and Post-Test Results ....................................... 33
1992 Teacher Survey Results ....................................................... 36
Student Interview Responses ....................................................... 38
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ............................................... 43
Problems With the Groundwater Unit ......................................... 43
Impact of the Science Van Program on Teacher Practices and
Attitudes in Teaching Science ....................................................... 4S
Areas of the Science Van Program That Need Improvement ...... 48
REFERENCES .................................................................................. 51
APPENDIX A ................................................................................... 53

Summary of teacher yearly evaluations of the Science Van
program from 1989 to 1992

ii

APPENDIX B ................................................................................... 54
Sample: Teacher Survey, 1992, Science Van Unit 4- Groundwater

1992 Survey results from fourth-sixth grade teachers in the study

APPENDIX C ................................................................................... 58
Sample: Pre-Test and Post-Test for Science Van Unit 4-Groundwater
and You!

APPENDIX D ................................................................................... 59
Statistical Analysis of Student Pre-Test/Post-Test by Grade Level
and Method

APPENDIX E ................................................................................... 60
Sample: Student Worksheet for Method C

APPENDIX F .................................................................................... 61

Informational Letter to All 4-6th Grade Teachers Regarding the
Intent of the Thesis Study

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table l ............................................................................................................ 2
Statewide and MOISD MEAP test scores from 1988-89 showing the
percent students who scored 75% or better

Table 2 .......................................................................................................... 11
Percent students in the MOISD scoring 75% or better in skill area and
objectives on the 1988-89MEAP test

Table 3 .......................................................................................................... 17
The three different teaching methods used to present the groundwater
unit had some features in common and some unique to the method.

Table 4 .......................................................................................................... 19
The number of classes for each grade level and method varied when some
teachers self-selected the method they wanted to teach instead of staying
with the method that was originally assigned to them.

Table 5 .......................................................................................................... 34
'Improvement Means' for all fourth graders between the pre-test and
post-test

Table 6 .......................................................................................................... 34
'Improvement Means' for all fifth graders between the pre-test and
post test

Table 7 .......................................................................................................... 35
'Improvement Means' for all sixth graders between the pre-test and
post-test

Table 8 .......................................................................................................... 42
Frequency of verbal responses to selected interview questions among
students from all three methods and grade levels.

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ........................................................................................................ 24
This is a graphic representation of a Plexiglas groundwater simulation model
which was used during the Science Van unit on groundwater for Method C
students. The model allows students to visualize the dynamics of groundwater
movement and contamination

INTRODUCTION

Two interconnected questions are addressed in this thesis: 1. How
effective has the Science Van program been in terms of teaching science
content to students? 2. How effective has the Science Van program been in
terms of improving teacher practices and attitudes toward teaching science?

The Science Van Program was initiated in 1989 in an attempt to increase
and improve science instruction in grades K-6 in all schools within the
Mecosta-Osceola Intermediate School District (M.O.I.S.D.). The proposal
to fund the Science Van program arose at a time when state and federal
funds were available for new and innovative programs designed to find
solutions for our ailing educational problems in mathematics and science.
Judging from the quantity of literature, papers, and reports in 1988-1989,
many peOple were concerned about improving science education
nationwide as well as statewide. The 1988-89 Michigan Educational
Assessment Program (MEAP) science scores prompted many educators to
question and reevaluate science education in Michigan. This test was given
to students in the fourth, seventh and tenth grades across the state every
year to assess "essential literacy" in reading, mathematics and science. Its
purpose was to measure the percent of students with acceptable responses to
questions that they "should know" at that grade level. Test scores show a

steady decline from elementary to high school in both mathematics and

 

 

science ( Table 1). The reading scores showed a less dramatic decline from

elementary to high school.

Table l

Statewide and MOISD MEAP test scores from 1988-89 showing the
percent students who scored 75% or better. The scores from students
within the Mecosta-Osceola Intermediate School District ( MOISD) are
indicated below the state scores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4th 7th 10th
Mathematics
State 87.1 71.8 68.5
MOISD 87.4 67.4 68.3
Science
State 41.6 27.0 29.0
MOISD 51.7 38.1 28.8
Reading
State 83 .0 83.7 81.4
MOISD 84.0 83 .5 81.2

 

 

Since 1983, when the report A Nation At Risk ( I) warned of the
decline of American education and its implications for America's continued
"preeminence in commerce, industry, science and technological
innovation," over 100 national reports have appeared calling for improved
science education and proposing a variety of reforms.

According to the report Science For All Americans, Project 2061 (2),
the problem with science, mathematics and technology education can be

narrowed to three things:

1.) Few elementary school teachers have even a rudimentary
education in science and mathematics, and many junior and senior

high school teachers of science and mathematics do not meet
reasonable standards of preparation in those fields.

2.) The present science textbooks and methods of instruction, far
from helping, ofien actually impede progress toward science literacy.
They emphasize the learning of answers more than the exploration of
questions, memory at the expense of understandings in context,
recitation over argument, reading in lieu of doing. They fail to
encourage students to work together, to share ideas and information
freely with each other, or to use modern instruments to extend their
intellectual capabilities.

3.) The present curricula in science and mathematics are over-stuffed
and undernourished. Topics are taught over and over again in
needless detail; some that are of equal or greater importance to
scientific literacy are absent from the curriculum or are reserved for
only a few students.

According to Anderson (3), science teaching has not changed much in
the past fifty years: it is fact oriented and didactic. The instructional
pattern typically consists of students reading outdated textbooks followed
by answering factual questions posed by either the teacher or the text.
Topics covered have little to do with student interests and are perceived by
the student to have little to do with their lives outside the classroom.
Textbooks depict science knowledge as consisting of content or an array of
facts, definitions, and formulas. The age of technology and
communication has on the one hand brought new and infinite possibilities
for acquiring information to American students. On the other hand, the
potential for abuse is great as TV shows and videos substitute for real life,
hands-on experiences and investigations. Nor does the once- or twice-
removed, symbolic world of school ( via textbook learning) constitute an

enriched environment. Most of today's students do not bring sufficient

prior experience of the real world with them to the school to allow them to
profit from reading or writing in the abstract. ( 3) -

There is a general consensus that teaching practices in science need to
change. In fact, teachers have been handed new dictums and fads in
educational methodology since 1920. Over the past seventy years they've
been told to teach less, teach more, teach depth not breadth, teach process,
teach conceptual, teach inquiry, teach holistic, teach hands-on, teach for the
test and so on and so on. Most experienced elementary teachers are often
understandably skeptical about adopting "new" methods every two to
three years. In addition, they are expected to adapt to regular changes in
teaching methods for reading, mathematics, social studies and language arts
as well. Teachers have reported to me that adopting new programs takes a
great deal of time. Classroom time, therefore, is a major constraint to new
program implementation.

Most K-12 educators will agree that a change is urgently needed, but
disagree about how to improve the teaching practices of public school
teachers in any grade level. The American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) has prescribed a systemic treatment in
its Project 2061 report, Science for All Americans (2) which provides a
clear, straightforward exposition of the particular ideas, skills, and attitudes

that students should acquire:

"' increased emphasis on the nature of and connections among
science, mathematics and technology

"' reduced emphasis on boundaries between disciplines and
increased connections across them

* increased emphasis on common "themes" of fundamental ideas
across disciplines

"‘ increased emphasis upon scientific habits of mind

* increased emphasis on instruction through guided inquiry and
problem solving

* decreased emphasis on traditional presentation, cookbook
laboratories, and rote learning.

According to this report, to be effective, the professional teacher needs
appropriate preparation, continuing education, and organizational,
technological and community support. The National Science Foundation
has launched a major new program designed to find a cure for the
deteriorating state of science and mathematics education entitled Statewide
Systemic Change Initiatives. ( 4 ) The major focus of this initiative is to
work simultaneously on all components of the systems affecting science
and mathematics education, including teacher training and professional
development, facilities and equipment, articulation within the system,
improvements in technology and the training of teachers to use it
effectively. The initiative recognizes that teachers tend to teach as they
themselves were taught. Therefore, changes in teacher education, both life-
long as well as in preparation for teaching at the college level, will need to
be made in order to achieve long -term changes in the system as a whole.

The watchwords for the current movement for reform in science and
mathematics education have become "scientific literacy" and "mathematical
power". The major tenet of this movement is reduced emphasis on factual
details and rote procedures, and increased emphasis on ideas. In essence the
report emphasizes the "less is more" approach which encourages teachers to
concentrate on a relatively small number of central ideas, and treat them in

depth. One report bases its assertions on the "profound changes in our

economic and civic life, together with pronounced changes in the make-up
of our population, pose a tremendous new educational challenge for the
nation: science literacy and mathematical power." (4)

According to most studies, the majority of teachers from upper
elementary through high school use the traditional textbook based approach
to teaching science. (5) A few teachers rely on videos for science lessons
and even fewer utilize hands-on activities. The following section
summaries four styles of teaching according to a variety of educators ( 2),
(3), (8), (9), (10). These styles were integrated into the Science Van's
teaching styles in ways that will be discussed later.

1. Traditional textbook based method is straight forward--the students are
assigned a chapter to read in the book, define new vocabulary words,
answer the questions at the end of the chapter. The teacher discusses the
concepts-in review for a test that requires students to recall facts and
definitions. The results of this method of instruction have been evaluated
by most national and statewide achievement tests with discouraging results.
As students advance from elementary level to high school, their MEAP
scores in mathematics and science go down, not up. ( see Table 1 and Table
2) Many teachers substitute or supplement their science lessons with video
tapes which are used as a visual textbook. Students have grown up with
this media and prefer it to reading. For many students the visual world
provided by a good video can be very helpful in understanding science
concepts and processes. Whether or not a video for today's students can
substitute for hands-on experiences is doubtful, but it may be better then
relying on only written methods. Both are "passive" teaching methods, in
that the teacher doesn't have to understand, or enjoy the materials. Also,

the focus is on content, not process.

2. The Inquiry Perspective contends that students will develop a better
understanding of the nature of science and will be more interested in
science if they are engaged in "doing" science. Student investigations of
phenomena (not textbooks) are the backbone of the curriculum, and the
focus of these investigations is on the use and development of science
inquiry or process skills- predicting, hypothesizing, observing, recording
data, making inferences and generalizations, etc. Students are viewed as
young scientists who explore phenomena through hands-on activities and
who use and develop scientific thinking skills to build up knowledge and
conceptual understandings in the same ways that scientists use experimental
work to construct new knowledge, concepts and theories. There is
sufficient evidence that just doing more activities may be fun, but little
conceptual understanding is gained in the absence of a conceptual
framework. ( 8 ) The inquiry perspective in isolation from conceptual
understanding does not help students gain a deeper understanding of the
topic. For example, just giving students a set of magnets and a variety of
materials to test, does not automatically clarify magnetism to the students.
3. The Science-Technology-Society Perspective ( STS) is one of the
most recent 'models on the Market'. This method argues that the
overarching purpose of school science is not to create fiJture scientists, but
to create citizens who understand science in multidimensional,
multidisciplinary ways that will enable them to participate intelligently in
critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making about how science
and technology are used to change society. (9 )

The STS perspective is human and society focused, problem centered
and responsive to local issues. As in the inquiry perspective, students are

seen as active learners, but the activities they engage in are focused on

using scientific and technological knowledge needed to solve problems and
make decisions rather than on creating scientific knowledge. The content
selection is based on its potential to solve the problems facing society at the
moment. The effectiveness of this model has not been evaluated. One
concern with this model is that students may come to view science and
technology as evil and threatening or as a panacea for all that ails the planet.
The challenge to teachers is to show how science and technology can both
cause problems and help solve problems. For this method to be effective,
teachers must have a strong background in scientific content and processes
and know how the two are inter-related and then pass this information on to
their students. According to Roth (10), instruction that involves students
using scientific processes to change their own theories in ways that are
personally meaningfiil and consistent with scientific explanations provides a
powerful alternative to process-focused instruction.
4. The Conceptual Change Perspective is somewhat similar to STS view
as scientific knowledge is meaningful to learners only when it is useful in
making sense of the world they encounter. It is different from the STS view
in that the issues need not be centered around societal issues. Scientific
knowledge that can be used by learners is characterized by making
connections between concepts and facts and is organized around key ideas
in ways that make the knowledge accessible and able to provide broad
explanatory power. This set of connected knowledge is flexible and
constantly changing as the learner revises, reorganizes and deepens
understandings of science principles over time - an active, conceptual
change view of learning and knowledge growth. ( 10 )

According to Watson (11), this method prescribes the integration of

science processes and conceptual knowledge in ways that better reflect the

complexity of science itself. The method recommends that concepts be
tightly woven into the processes, and that both processes and concepts
connect with the students' own personal experiences with natural
phenomena and prior knowledge to provide a broader basis of
understanding. Students use experimental observations as well as teacher
explanations to help them rethink their ideas. Their ability to apply these
concepts to a variety of real-world phenomena is a reflection of the
students' conceptual understanding of the principles being studied. (1 l)

The Science Van's teaching style combines elements of all four of the
teaching styles mentioned above, with a primary focus on hands-on
activities. The activities stress science processes or are designed to
stimulate curiosity and questions in students minds rather then focusing on
particular facts. Written materials are provided for students and teachers to
use as references and extension activities after the hands-on lessons.

In 1989 the Department of Education in Michigan made grant money
available to develop new, innovative teaching methods which could easily
be replicated once proven to work. I wrote a proposal to fund a mobile
hands-on "Science Van" in collaboration with the Gifted and Talented
Consultant-Professional Development Coordinator, Paul Bi gford, from the
Mecosta-Osceola Intermediate School District. Initial startup money for the
sum of $35,000 was granted to us under the Exemplary and Demonstration
Project Grant for Math and Science, Dwight D. Eisenhower Mathematics
and Science Improvement Act of 1988, Public Law 100—297. In 1991 the
funding for the Science Van became more stable as it fell under the
umbrella operations of a Section 99 State Aid Act establishing a few Math
and Science Centers around the state , one of which was in the Mecosta-

Osceola Intermediate School District.

Information regarding teacher practices in science education was
gathered from K-6 teachers within the MOISD in 1989 prior. to writing the
proposal to fund the Science Van. Teachers responded to a survey
designed to assess their backgrounds, practices and attitudes towards
teaching science in their classrooms. Fewer then nine percent had taken
any science classes in preparation for teaching. The average K-5 teacher in
1989 admitted that they don't teach science at all. The vast majority of
these teachers stated that they did not understand many of the concepts they
were being asked to teach and therefore avoided teaching physical science
topics, science processes ( scientific method) and stuck primarily to
teaching about dinosaurs and other animals and occasionally about plants.
Given this limited performance on the part of the teachers it appears that
students were learning some science from someplace other then the schools
in order to correctly answer even half the questions on the MEAP test.

Item analysis of the MEAP test showed that the students within the
MOISD scored higher on questions where they had to read a graph or table,
but were low on questions that pertained to interpretation of data,
understand uses of the data and connections or draw conclusions. Life
science scores were higher then Science Processes, Earth and Space
Science, Science, Technology and Society, and the lowest scores occurring

in Physical Science.

10

Table 2 .
Percent Students in MOISD Scoring 75% or better in Skill Area &
Objectives on the 1989 MEAP test

 

 

 

 

 

 

4th 7th 10th
Life Science 82 73 54
Earth/Space 61 60 49
Physical Science 62 49 49
Science,Technology 73 55 58
and Society
Science Process 75 66 65

 

 

 

 

 

 

The primary firnction of the Science Van program centered around
helping the elementary and middle school teachers help their students learn
about the world in which they live. This required motivating teachers to
change their attitudes and practices towards teaching science.

As founder of this program I had the freedom to present any topic in
science that I wanted as well as sufficient funding to purchase enough
materials so everyone in the class could participate at the same time. This
"time share" concept has given me the opportunity to purchase equipment
and materials that the home school teachers could not afford. I was able to
showcase new and better methods for science instruction to teachers who
lack the time or ability to try them out on their own. These teachers can
determine whether they would like to purchase similar materials or
equipment for themselves. I tried to model different approaches to
teaching science other then the textbook based method .

The Science Van lessons combined technology with hands-on activities
and written lessons in an attempt to showcase how science could be

presented on a regular basis if they ( the teachers) wanted to. I've noticed

11

that technological aides such as interactive laserdiscs and computer assisted
programs improve student interest levels in content. I ofiertsupplement the
"lecture" part of the Science Van program with interactive laserdisks which
bring science alive with the addition of full motion. It has been my
experience in working with scientists in medical research that scientists
utilize technology as much if not more than written materials.

Although funding is still a major obstacle, almost every classroom
currently has computer technology and VCR's at their disposal. All too
frequently, however, these technologies substitute for real life experiences (
videos), or are used by only a handfirl of students who have completed
their lessons ( computers). The teaching style presented during the Science
Van visits was designed to provide both the teachers and their students with
ample opportunity to experiment with interactive technologies in
conjunction with the hands-on activities performed by everyone.

It has not been a problem to motivate the students to do the hands-on
activities provided by the Science Van program. However, getting their
teachers to spend the time preparing the students for the hands-on activities
provided during the Science Van visit has been a problem. After five years
of operation, it has been my experience that students love to perform hands-
on activities. Upon numerous occasions I've heard students say things
regarding the activities such as, " This is even better then gym!" or, " Do
we have to go to recess, couldn't we stay here a little longer." My biggest
concern was whether they were learning anything in addition to having a
good time. I wondered if any significant conceptual changes could occur
with just one hour of the Science Van, four times a year. Therefore, I
wanted to find ways to motivate the teachers to do pre-visit activities in

preparation for the Science Van and/or post visit follow-up activities. Pre-

12

visit teacher packets were mailed to each teacher two weeks in advance of
their assigned visitation date. These packets had a variation of age-graded
activities and background information from which the teachers could pick
and choose to prepare their classes for the Science Van day. I noticed that
whenever the teacher had done some of the pre-visit activities or
discussions, their students were able to get down to work faster, and be
more focused and ask very good questions. The majority of teachers,
however, would bring their class to the activities without even knowing
what was being presented. How much conceptual understanding was
gained seemed to be proportional to the amount of time spent by the teacher
in preparing the class for the day of the visit activities. The teachers were
encouraged to choose activities which were geared for their grade level
from the materials sent to them. Both written and hands-on activities and
the necessary materials to do them were provided to introduce or reinforce
the topic to be covered by the Science Van visit. Pre-tests as well as post-
tests were made available as well. In spite of everything we gave them, the
majority of the materials went unused.

Approximately 75% of the teachers did nothing to prepare their classes
for the Science Van visit. Therefore, we asked them to fill out evaluation
forms requesting their input as to the usefulness of the program and how we
could change it to get better teacher involvement. Only 80 teachers out of
225 returned the forms. The results of this survey can be found in
Appendix A.

The majority of those who took the time to fill out the yearly evaluation
form stated the main reason for not participating in the science van units
was that they lacked the background required to teach the particular topic or
felt their background was out of date and too sketchy to feel comfortable

13

answering student questions. Many confessed a "phobia" for science which
they stated came fi'om their experiences while attending school.

The second most frequent reason was the lack of preparation time to set
up labs as well as no money to purchase the necessary materials or
equipment to perform hands-on investigations. Elementary teachers do not
have "prep" periods like Middle School and High School teachers do. They
also have to prep for many content areas besides science. Without a
mandate from the administration to include science in their lesson plans,
the majority of teachers avoided science altogether. Those who did include
science lessons on a regular basis did so because they like science
themselves. The number of teachers with science majors or minors in their
educational background was less than nine percent.

In the past year new excuses include statements such as " the topic does
not fit into my curriculum, therefore I cannot justify spending too much
time on preparing for your visit, or " the materials were not appropriate for
my students age", or "there is too much materials or too little materials" and
so forth.

After four years of operation, I felt it was time to measure the degree of
impact the Science Van program was making on both teachers and students.
This is the focus of this thesis. Some questions I hoped to answer were:
How much information can be assimilated by students and their teachers in
just one hour of activities? Would a good video be just as useful? What if
teachers had access to some of the latest and best written materials? It
seems common sense that if teachers utilized a variety of media to present
science concepts, that students would stand a better chance of learning
from one or more of the learning styles. But, if classroom time is short,

which method would have the greatest gains by itself? In an attempt to

14

answer these questions, I designed a unit based on groundwater and
attempted to measure student conceptual changes based on the three models
of teaching discussed earlier. Furthermore, teachers in the study were
surveyed in an attempt to assess changes in their attitudes and teaching

practices in science since their experiences with the Science Van program.

15

[1. METHODS AND MATERIALS
Demographic Description: -

There are five, primarily rural, school districts within the geographic
area served by the MOISD programs. Twenty-two percent of students and
families within the area of this study are designated to be below the national
poverty level as determined by the 1990 Census Poor data from Mecosta-
Osceola Counties. Not included in the census were students who are
bussed in to our ISD schools who live in outlying adjacent counties. One
of these counties is ranked as the poorest county in Michigan and in the top
10 poorest counties in the nation. Student exposure to the world outside
their small towns, trailer court or family farms is often limited to a weekend
trip to K-Mart in Big Rapids. The Science Van program has brought
hands-on science activities on a regular rotational basis to 238 Kindergarten
through sixth grade teachers and over 5,000 students in 18 different
buildings in five school districts.

Design and Implementation of Thesis Study:

After four years of operation, I wanted to assess the effectiveness of the
program. Therefore, I picked Groundwater and You as the content theme
around which I gathered data to answer two questions:

1.) Was there any difference in average classroom pre-test and post-test
scores between traditional methods of instruction compared to the Science
Van's methods.
2.) Has the Science Van program motivated teachers in the MOISD to
improve their teaching practices and attitudes in science?

I narrowed the student population to be tested to fourth, fifth and
sixth grades only. Data was gathered from over 1800 students, 78 classes

16

and 68 teachers within the Mecosta-Osceola Intermediate School District.
Each teacher in the study population was assigned an identification number.
This helped me to keep track of the school district, the grade level and a
variety of other information gathered in teacher surveys (Appendix A and
B). All correspondences, surveys and class pre-test and post-test results
were keyed to the teacher number. Three different methods of delivering
groundwater content to students were carefully designed to best fit the
methods described in the introduction: traditional textbook based, "visual"
textbook based, and inquiry plus conceptual change perspective. The latter

best represents the methods used during Science Van activities and lessons.

Table 3
The three different teaching methods used to present the groundwater unit
had some features in common and some unique to the method.

 

Method A: Method B: Method C:

Pre test Pre test Pre test

Content = written Content= video Content= hands-on
materials followed followed by teacher Science Van

by teacher reinforcement Instructor- guided
reinforcement Post test activities

Post test Science Van Post test

Science Van written materials written and video
video optional optional materials optional

 

 

 

 

 

Teachers were instructed in person and in writing regarding the design
and intent of this study during a visitation at least one month prior to the
start of this Science Van unit ( see Appendix G ). This letter also invited

them to attend a four hour teacher inservice on the topic of groundwater

l7

which was offered after school and included dinner and provided a small
stipend plus a $100 groundwater simulation model for those.who attended.
Dr. Richard Passero, Director of GEM from Western Michigan
University's Institute for Water Sciences, was the workshop guide. He lead
the teachers in many hands-on activities which were previews of the
activities their students would perform during the Science Van visit
( regardless of the method ). The teachers were guided in constructing and
operating their own, state-of-the-art groundwater simulator model which
would be used in the hands-on activities during the Science Van visit. They
also previewed a variety of hands-on activities and demonstrations which
would be used during Method C. Only 10 out of the possible 68 teachers
came to this inservice. Of the ten teachers attending, only three had any
type of science classes during their college preparation for teaching. The
teacher evaluations for the workshop were outstanding. They left with great
enthusiasm regarding the subject and said they felt confident in presenting
the concepts to their students. These teachers took the same pre-test that
their students would take and were given written materials designed by
GEMS to take home. It was interesting to note that three out of the ten
teachers attending this inservice were sixth grade teachers from one school
who decided to ignore the random distribution of method assigned and
changed their method to that of the Science Van only. This reduced the
number of sixth grade classes with Method A and B ( see Table 4 ).
Students within each class were identified on the pre-test and post-test
by their teachers' number rather then as individuals. It was assumed that if
the method was effective in terms of improving student understanding of
concepts, the gains made between average classroom pre-test scores and

post-test scores would be a good indicator of the effectiveness of each

18

method of instruction. Teachers drew a slip of paper of a paper bag to
determine their assigned method at least two weeks prior to receiving the
teaching directions and materials( see Appendix C and F ). - An attempt
was made to evenly distribute method type across the three grades and five
school districts to provide statistics between grades as well as between

methods.

Table 4

The number of classes for each grade level and method varied when some
teachers self-selected the method they wanted to teach instead of staying
with the method that was originally assigned to them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method A Method B Method C
Fourth Grade
25 classes 9 9 7
Fifth Grade
28 classes 12 9 7
Sixth Grade
25 classes 6 6 13
Totals: 78 27 24 27
classes

 

 

 

 

 

Review of teaching strategy common to all three methods

The topic of groundwater was chosen because 1.) The nature of the
topic lent itself to discussing a great deal in a short time from the standpoint
of science concepts, processes, and societal issues. 2.) The issues were
interesting and had real world applications for the student. 3.) The effects
of water pollution on human health as well as wildlife is not only interesting
but the information gained could be useful in the daily lives of the students

and their families. 4.) It did not appear in ANY of the schools' curriculum

19

at that time, nor was it mentioned in any of the textbooks being used in
grades four, five or six. The sixth grade book at one school,dealt briefly
with the water cycle in terms of evaporation, condensation and precipitation
with no mention of what happened to the water that soaked into the ground.
The environmental issues surrounding water pollution and human health
were not mentioned in any other subject area taught in these grades.
Process skills were also incorporated in the hands-on session. For
instance, students had to predict and measure which type of earth material
would allow water to move through it the fastest; take the longest; hold the
most water, touch the materials, write observations, measure volume and
mass changes, record drainage time, and draw conclusions. Many tried to
erase their prediction if their results were different. This provided a good
Opportunity to explain how real scientists perform experiments and adjust
their concepts according to the results. The general objectives for this
lesson to be assessed in this lesson for all three methods were as indicated

below:

Unit Objectives:

"' Students will understand that groundwater fills the spaces between soil
particles and that water can move through the ground by the force of

gravity.

"' Students will gain an understanding of permeability, the relationship of
permeability to porosity, and the relationship of both to groundwater
movement.

* Students will understand that groundwater is related to surface water and
to all other forms of water found on earth through the hydrogeologic cycle.

* Students will understand that pollutants travel with the groundwater and
become aware of factors affecting the quality and quantity of groundwater

20

in their own regions.

"‘ Students will understand how underground layers of soil and rock which
can yield water to pumping wells are called aquifers and layers which do
not hold or transmit much water are called confining layers or aquitards.

Pre-Test and Post Test Design:

Students were given the pre-test prior to receiving written materials or
participating in classroom discussions. Teachers were asked to complete
the groundwater lesson within one week's time. Some teachers, however,
reported to have taken over a week to complete the unit. Some teachers
gave it to the students to read at home or in class without a follow-up
discussion. Students of Method A and Method B took the post test before
the Science Van visit. Students of Method C took only the pre-test before
the Science Van visit and took the post-test the day after the Science Van
visit. The post-test was identical to the pre-test ( see Appendix C).

Twenty-five multiple choice questions relating to the key scientific
principles of the unit were selected to represent answers obtainable by any
of the three methods of instruction. Great care was taken in writing the
questions to ensure that students with lower reading abilities could
understand the question being asked. I wanted to find out what they knew,
not whether they knew how to read a question. Therefore, teachers were
asked to read the questions out loud along with the students but not to coach
them into possible answers. The post-test was identical to the pre-test.
Each question had as a possible answer " I don't know". An equal number
of test questions were included to represent all three methods. Graphics and
visuals were included on the test which came directly from the written

materials presented in Method A . Questions that were particularly well

21

presented by the video from Method B were also included as well as
processes that might be better understood by Method C.

Students were instructed in filling out a Scantron answer sheet. For
many, this was a new experience, and the idea of taking a test on material
they had not studied was a source of curiosity. During a teacher
videotaped interview, an interesting comment was made by a fifth grade
teacher. " The students were interested in knowing why they were taking a
test before they even studied the topic. We got into a neat discussion about
how scientists do research and all. The questions presented in the pre-test
actually stimulated a good discussion and raised their curiosity." Several
teachers using Method B ( the Video) remarked that the students focused in
on parts of the video that provided them with answers to some of the
questions they remembered on the pre-test.

There were two categories of questions on the pre-test/post-test: 1.)
"Concepts & Processes" and 2.) "Nature of Science". A selection of
eleven " Concepts and Process" questions covered material considered
critical to the understanding of specified concepts and processes for the
unit. A selection of nine "Nature of Science "questions tested student
awareness of some of the important ways in which science and technology
not only create problems but also provide solutions. The Nature of Science
questions were designed to see if students could apply the concepts they
were given to new situations. These questions required them to connect
certain science concepts to environmental concerns. An attempt was made
to design the questions so as not to favor any one particular method.

The statistical analysis was done on a mainframe computer at Ferris
State University's School of Business using the SPSS program as well as

on a PC using the Minitab program with Dr. Michael Cooper, Ph.D. in

22

Applied Statistics serving as my statistical consultant. The analysis of

variance is included in Appendix D. -

Method A: Written materials followed by teacher reinforcement

The written materials were reviewed in consultation with fourth
through sixth grade teachers to ensure the level of reading was appropriate
for the age of their students. These written materials were selected based on
simplicity of explanations of concepts with clear graphic illustrations to
accompany them. Many sources of information were reviewed. Those
providing the best written information were included in the teacher packet.
This teacher packet included everything needed to teach the unit: Teacher
background information, glossary of terms, a scripted Discussion Guide (
see Appendix F) and an assortment of student reading materials, crossword
puzzles, and a selection of word games all covering groundwater concepts
from GEMS materials ( 6 ). Care was taken to include information that
would also be delivered by the other two methods. The packet of
information for this method was given to the teachers three to five weeks

prior to the date of the Science Van visit to their school.

Teachers were asked to follow the Discussion Guide as closely as
possible, and not to skip or omit any question and answer. It was
recommended that teachers read the material out loud along with their
students and conduct a class discussion afterwards. Teachers were given a
variety of materials from which to choose because of great variability of
abilities within and between each grade in the study. I assumed a degree
of professional responsibility on the part of the teacher to pick and choose

materials that fit their students' abilities. In the past I have attempted to

23

pick materials which seem appropriate for their grade level only to be
corrected and told that they would like to decide for themselyes. Other
teachers have told me that too much material is too overwhelming that they
cannot take the time to pick and choose. These teachers preferred that I
give them only one activity or lesson to accomplish for each Science Van
unit. Other teachers really appreciated a diversity and enjoy selecting from
the materials provided.

After careful consideration of numerous age appropriate written
materials, I found the following materials to be the most useful, and

included them in the teacher packet for this method:

1.) Classroom GEMS ( Groundwater Education in Michigan Schools)- a
statewide K—12 Groundwater Curriculum (7) GEM is a comprehensive
effort to encourage the development of local, action-oriented groundwater
protection projects.

* Get Wet! Utilizing pictures of globes and maps, students observe the
abundance of water on the earth and discover its availability and
usability as well.

* Water Wheels: Students read and discuss the role of circles and
cycles. They learn the basic parts of the water cycle and look at drawings
connecting the water cycle to groundwater, aquifers, and surface water.

* It's a Wet, Wet World: Students look at pictures of Earth and become
aware of the limited amount of fresh water available for human use.. They
are asked to discuss the importance of protecting and conserving water.

"‘ Dirty Water Underground: Students relate the history of groundwater
contamination in Michigan and use this information to discuss ways they

can change their water-use behaviors.

* Glossary of Terms

24

2.) GEM Groundwater Transparencies (7 ).
The Hydrologic Cycle: -
The Hydrologic Cycle Graphic
Water in the Hydrologic Cycle ( table)
Precipitation and Runoff in Michigan ( map)
Porosity and Permeability of Selected Materials (table )
Aquifers - geologic cross section
Geologic History and Hydrogeology of Michigan
Water and the Law— Environmental Laws both Federal and Michigan
Uses of Ground-Water, sources in Michigan
Ground-Water Quality in Michigan- chemical and physical

characteristics
Groundwater ( table); Health Effects of Selected Contaminants-

inorganic and organic
Ground-Water Contamination
Ground-Water Protection
Conservation

3.) Water Wisdom ( 13) word scrambles, student worksheets, cross word
puzzles and groundwater literacy test

4.) Groundwater Contamination (14 ) What is Groundwater? (15 )
Where Groundwater Comes from: Permeability, Porosity, Aquifers,

The Water Table, Groundwater Flow Rates

Groundwater Contamination: Septic Systems, House and

Chemicals, landfills, underground storage tanks, Wells

Method B: Video followed by teacher reinforcement

The 1991 video "It's Found Underground: Groundwater, Our Buried
Treasure" (6) production was sent to all teachers using Method B. After
previewing eight other videos on this subject, I found this one to be the best

in terms of content as well as being appropriate for the age of the students.

25

This video was aimed at teaching upper elementary and middle school
students the importance of conserving and protecting groundwater. Its
focus on the Great Lakes gave students an opportunity to relate the lessons
to situations of concern within their own geographic area. The video
provided students with an opportunity to visualize groundwater concepts
and processes through motion in contrast to still graphics or written
descriptions. Both teachers and students reported to me that they liked the
video and found it both informative and entertaianing. They reported the
video to be a combination of humor, charm and informative dialog which

helped clarify many points and hold attention spans.

The video was divided into three segments which concentrated on water
conservation and pollution and the effects of solid and household hazardous
waste on groundwater. Teachers using the video method were provided
with the same Discussion Guide (see Appendix F) that was given to those
teachers using the written method. Teachers were asked to cover each
question and go over the answers as outline in the Discussion Guide during
a verbal briefing prior to the beginning of this study. They were also given
directions by means of a written letter (see Appendix G). Care was taken to
ensure that the information necessary to answer the questions in the
discussion Guide could be obtained by watching the video. The content
provided in the video closely matched the content available to Method A
students. The materials for this method were sent to the teachers at least
three weeks in advance of the scheduled Science Van visit. Students took
the pre-test prior to viewing the video and the post-test within two days
after watching the video. The post-test was completed prior to attending the

Science Van activities.

26

Method C: Hands-on activities guided by the Science Van Instructor

During a brief introduction to the unit, students were asked to explain
where they thought their drinking water came fiom and whether it was safe
to drink. After listening to their answers, I performed some simple
demonstrations to introduce vocabulary and explained what they were
going to do to find answers to the introductory questions mentioned above.
Parent and/or community volunteers had been trained to supervise activity
stations which were set up from the Science Van in a multipurpose room or
gym. Each station had the same set of materials and models for students to
explore. Students were divided into small groups and stayed at one of six
possible stations. Each station was self-contained and provided the students
with all the activities required. The volunteers were given a list of
questions to ask their groups of students and were asked to help guide
students in conducting the experiments and arriving at acceptable
conclusions. Some of the following activities are included in Appendix E.

A diagram of the Groundwater Simulation Model can be found in Figure 1.
Demonstration #1 : Water Table, Aquifers and Wells
Demonstration #2: Porosity and Permeability
Hands-On Activity #1: Porosity
Hands-On Activity #2: Permeability
Hands-On Activity #3: Groundwater Simulator Models- cross
sectional models typical of Michigan hydrogeologic layers

(see Figure l ).

27

 

Figure 1

This is a graphic representation of a Plexiglas groundwater simulation
model which was used during the Science Van unit for Method C students.
The model is portable and gives students a good opportunity to visualize
groundwater movement and contaminant flow.

"”7

was ,. _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stst\ C :r W is
r

HIIE SAND AQUIFER

l 1
a.

 

 

\ cmasz sum murra

 

 

 

RESTORE AQU ITARO

Egg—N- emu AQUIFER

 

 

 

 

28

 

The groundwater simulator models were constructed by teachers who
attended the pre-unit workshop mentioned earlier under the direction of Dr.
Richard Passero fi'om the Institute for Water Sciences, GEM Regional
Center located at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
This groundwater model depicted three sand and gravel aquifers and one
aquitard. The uppermost aquifer is find sand and represents an unconfined (
water table ) aquifer. The middle coarse sand aquifer is also an unconfined
aquifer but is more permeable due to the larger size particles and
interconnecting spaces between the particles. The confining layer
( aquitard ) is a pulverized, fine-grained limestone or clay material. This
layer does not extend across the entire model so that the underlying gravel
aquifer can be recharged with water on the right which can be discharged to
the stream on the left. At the bottom of the model is a confined ( artesian )
gravel aquifer. The base of the model can be considered as an impermeable
bedrock aquiclude. The vertical tubes represent wells of any kind
( drinking water wells, wastewater disposal wells, deep injection wells for
hazardous waste, etc. ) and are also used to inject dyes into the aquifers to
illustrate groundwater and contaminant flow. The level of the water in the
wells ( tubes ) represents the static water level surface which can change as
the amount of precipitation changes.

Red food coloring was used to demonstrate groundwater flow and the
movement of contaminants. Students injected the dye into any layer and
pumped water from any layer using plastic syringes and aquarium tubing
which could be lowered down the wells into any of the layers. The model
was used to address three important questions about groundwater:

1. How much groundwater is there?

2. How long does it take for groundwater to move?

29

3. How does groundwater contamination occur, and can it be
cleaned up?

Activities addressing the three major questions were:
1. Students adjusted the aquarium pump to create periods of "heavy to
light rainfall" as well as periods of "drought." Students observed the
relationship between the level of the water table and the amount of
precipitation ( recharge ).
2. Students observed the direction and rate of flow of the water in various
layers from higher areas to lower areas, and into river and lakes.
3. Students injected red dye into aquifers above and below the confining
layer and observed the direction and flow of a simulated contaminant.
4. As the students pumped water out of various wells, they tested their
predictions relating to rates of withdrawal or yield from various aquifers.
They observed what happens to the water table as wells pump water out for
human activities faster than the water is replaced by natural processes.
5. Students simulated dumping contaminants onto the surface of the land
and observed how this affected the simulated groundwater. Students
concluded that wells can become contaminated as pollutants travel with the
groundwater.

To conclude the lesson, students returned to their seats and were allowed
to ask questions or respond to my questions. Students observed how hidden
contaminants can end up in lakes and other sources through a
demonstration. ( 7 ) The teachers were given a variety of follow-up
activities to take back to their classroom: Discussion Guide ( see Appendix
F ), a landfill activity ( see Appendix H ), and a survey for students to take
into their community. ( 7 ) Student completed the post-test within two

school days after the Science Van visit.

30

Due to constraints on time I was not able to obtain any peer review other
then from the 10 teachers attending the inservice regarding my choice of
materials, demonstrations and questions provided during the Science Van

Presentation.

1992 Teacher Survey Design:

The second objective of this thesis was to evaluate the effectiveness of
the Science Van efforts in terms of encouraging teachers to improve their
science teaching methods. Frequently teachers tell me they would do more
science in their classrooms if the know more science and felt comfortable
with the concepts. In the same breath they mention that a lack of materials
and supplies also makes implementing hands-on activities difficult if not
impossible. Therefore, in preparation for teaching this unit I attempted to
correct these deficiencies by providing the teacher inservice on
groundwater. I wanted to find out if teachers are given the training and
opportunity to do hands-on activities themselves along with the necessary
materials to take back to the classroom, would it improve their science
teaching practices?

The sixty-eight teachers in this study were given a survey to complete
prior to implementing their assigned method ( see Appendix B ). The
purpose for this survey was to gather information regarding teacher
attitudes and practices in teaching science. At the end of every school year,
teachers complete an evaluation form for the Science Van Program ( see
Appendix A ). The information fi'om these surveys was useful in evaluating

the second objective.

31

Student Interviews .

A selected number of students from Method A and Method B were
interviewed on the same day as their visit to the Science Van Activities and
asked questions regarding unit content as well as how they preferred to
learn about topics in science. Some students were questioned before
attending the Science Van activities to assess their retention of certain
content objectives. Some students of both methods were questioned after
their Science Van visit to assess student opinions and preferences to
methods of learning the content. Students from Method C were not
interviewed until after their visit to the Science Van, but on the same day as
the visit. All responses were recorded on video tape for later transcription
and analysis.

Students selected for interviews were picked by their teacher or
randomly picked by me. Teachers representing each method and grade
level were asked to pick three students from their class to be interviewed:
one lower ability, one average ability and one high ability. Approximately
half the students interviewed were male and the other half were female.
Students from all three grade levels were interviewed. The capabilities of
the students were not revealed to the interviewer. Student responses were
coded according to the method assigned by the teacher and the grade level.

( see Results )

32

III. RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The results of the study are divided into two categories:

1.) student conceptual changes measured by differences in pre-test and
post-test scores relating to the groundwater concepts along with student
interviews assessing attitudes toward learning science in general
2.) teacher surveys to assess possible changes in teacher attitudes and
practices in teaching science with their experiences with the Science Van
over time.

Student Pre-Test and Post-Test Results

Class average improvement scores were determined by statistical
methods for the two categories of questions as well as for the overall battery
of questions. The scores for each method within a particular grade level
were computed. The computer averaged the number of correct responses
for these sets of questions per class and assigned this value to the particular
teacher who was keyed in to a particular method of instruction and grade
level. This set of means was labeled pre-test mean. The post-test mean
was computed in the same manner. The difference between the pre-test
mean and the post-test mean is labeled 'Improvement Means' in Table 5,

Table 6 and Table 7.

33

Table 5

'Improvement Means' for all fourth grade classes between thepre-test and

the post-test according to the method of instruction. N = the number of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

classes.
4th METHOD A METHOD B METHOD C

grade N=9 N=9 N=7

mean std. dev. mean std. dev. mean std.dev.
Concepts
& 1.85 .80 2.20 1.25 2.46 .61
Processes

1.15 1.14 .95 .66 1.08 .59
Nature of
Science

3.38 1.95 3.28 1.18 3.96 1.34
Total Score '
Table 6

'Improvement Means" for all fifth grade classes between the pre—test and

post-test scores according to the method of instruction.

 

 

 

 

 

5th grade METHOD A METHOD B METHOD C
N = 12 N = 9 N = 7
mean std. dev. mean std. dev. mean std.dev.
Concepts &
Processes 1.92 1.53 2.14 1.01 1.96 .57
Nature of .46 1.15 .65 .80 .49 .42
Science
Total Score 2.85 2.70 2.87 2.61 2.66 .95

 

 

 

 

Table 7
'Improvement Means' for all sixth grade classes between pre-test and post-
test scores according to method of instruction ,

 

 

6th grade METHOD A METHOD B METHOD C

N = 6 N = 6 N = 13

mean std. dev. mean std. dev. mean std.dev.
Concepts
& 1.47 .75 2.2 .78 2.05 .51
Processes

1.08 .58 .61 .45 1.18 .39
Nature of
Science

2.43 .82 2.86 .72 3.66 .95
Total Score

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was no significant difference between "improvement means"
by method or grade level as statistically analyzed by ANOVA. The results
are inconclusive at this point due to the small sample size as defined by
teacher/method. This design limited our sample size to 59 when in fact
there were over 1800 individual test scores that could have been analyzed.
In retrospect, more resolution or power to measure student improvement
could have been achieved had we measured individual differences instead
of differences between entire classroom means for each method. Overall
the scores improved by about three questions out of a total of twenty five.
In addition, it is possible that the reason for no significant differences in
improvement scores was due to the nature of the test itself. Although I had
teacher input regarding the difficulty level of the test, it still may have been
too hard for many students especially in fourth grade. The unwillingness of

certain teachers to stick to their assigned method occurred most often with

35

sixth grade teachers. (Table 7) Variability in teacher cooperation made the
statistical analysis less valuable then it could have been. Some difficulties
stemmed from teacher inability, or perhaps confusion, regarding the
directions provided to them ( see Appendix G ). They were given a
detailed outline to follow with samples of how to fill out the ScanTron
sheets so that the data could be properly analyzed. Some of the teachers
failed to adequately guide their students in filling out such information as
gender, teacher identification number and method of instruction. Or
perhaps some students had difficulties following directions. Some teachers
administered the Pre-Test, but forgot to give the students the Post-Test
which eliminated them from the sample population. Out of sixty-eight
teachers possible in the study, only fifty-nine could be analyzed statistically
due to the failures mentioned above. Another possible explanation for
teacher failure to comply could be that they did not have ownership
responsibilities and therefore considered themselves not accountable for
student outcomes. The Science Van program needs to look more closely at
how best to get teachers and students to learn science. This problem is not
unique to the M.O.I.S.D. and is currently the focus of the Michigan
Statewide Systemic Initiative program. (4 )

1992 Teacher Survey Results

The overwhelming majority of teachers in the Mecosta-Osceola
Intermediate School District ( 86.7%) responded in a 1992 yearly
evaluation summary that participation in the Science Van program has
changed their attitude toward science to where they stated they now liked
science. Sixty percent of the survey respondents indicated that they have

attended more classes, workshops or inservices in science in the past two

years (Appendix A). This is up dramatically from the 1989 pre-Science
Van survey which showed that twenty-one percent of K-6 teachers had
taken a science related class in the past two years. The opportunity to
attend science and mathematics inservices has increased due to the efforts
of the Science Van program and other programs offered by our Intermediate
School District. Since teachers from rural areas often have to drive long
distances to attend such inservices, we have taken the classes to them. This
improves attendance for those teachers who otherwise would not make the
effort. The relatively low attendance for the groundwater inservice can in
part be blamed on the fact that it was not offered at each individual school
and those wishing to attend had to drive to one location which for some was
inconvenient.

Teachers participating in the Groundwater Unit filled out a " Teacher
Survey" prior to the beginning of the unit. ( Appendix B) The results were
interesting in that 63% stated they were more willing to take science
classes in the last two years. This is a big improvement since the beginning
of our program in 1989 where data gathered from the M.O.I.S.D. teacher
certification files showed that fewer than 9% of all Kindergarten through
sixth grade teachers in all five school districts had a background in science
at the post high school level. Approximately 53% of the teachers in the
study population of this thesis stated that they have started using scientific
method as a backbone for investigations, and 49% are integrating science
into other content areas. There appears to be a positive relationship
between teacher enthusiasm and confidence level with increased student
interest in science as reported by the teacher yearly evaluations as well as
by teacher verbal reports to me based on their observations of student

behaviors and comments regarding participation in Science Van activities.

37

In spite of this, teachers who said they liked science have not increased
the amount of time they spent teaching science nor have they increased the
time allotment for hands-on science. If anything, a large percent of
teachers ( 77%) , if they teach science at all, utilize textbooks and written
materials as the backbone of their science curriculum. This reluctance to
change is not unique to the academic world, but is common among teachers
who have taught for many years.

Although the amount of funding for certain equipment like computers
and VCR's and curriculum materials has increased since 1989, it is
interesting that the amount of time spent teaching science by any method
still ranks in the bottom percentiles. When teachers were asked what they
required the most to help them teach science better, eighty percent
responded that they needed more funding to buy materials and supplies.
Almost three fourths of the teachers stated that they do not use videos to
help teach science and fifty percent felt inadequately prepared to use

computer technology as a teaching tool.

Student Interview Responses
Student responses were coded according to the method assigned by the
teacher and the grade level. ( see Table 8) Typical responses to questions

asked in the videotaped interviews were:

What types of things did you find interesting about the lesson?

Method A students typically responded by saying that they did not
like anything about the written materials, or they were hesitant to respond at
all. I believe they wanted to say something positive to please me and when

I told them to just say what they really felt and not what they thought I

38

wanted to hear, they responded quite negatively. The fourth graders were
particularly at a loss for something good to say about the lesson and the
older ones responded more honestly. Only one sixth grade girl responded
that she liked reading the material. Several students and their teachers
indicated that they liked taking the pre test and that it helped them learn. A
few indicated that the lesson was "too adult" and the words were too hard to
understand and that it was not fun. Some of the older students quoted some
facts that they remembered from the readings like, the percent of clean
water available for drinking, or where most of the fieshwater is found, etc.

Method B students typically responded by saying "they really liked Mr.
Drip," (a character in the video). The overall attitude toward the subject
was positive. Student responses centered around conservation of water and
landfills as possible sources of contamination. Some said that the pretest
made them pay attention more to the video.

Method C students typically responded by saying they really liked to
inject the dye ( contaminant) into the groundwater models and watch how it
moves through the different layers and into simulated pumping wells or into
the river. Nearly every student from this method commented that they
learned a lot about polluting groundwater and drinking water. Most
students used the example of an oil spill or leaking underground gasoline
tanks as a likely source of contamination.

Where does your drinking water come from and is it safe to drink?
Method A: Students typically responded that their water came fi'om a
well. An equal number did not have any idea where it came from other than
the end of the faucet. When pressed to explain what was at the end of the
pipe attached to the faucet, they would either shrug their shoulders and say

" I don't know", or would explain that the pipe was "punched" into an

39

underground lake or stream or pond. One student believed his water came
fiom Lake Michigan or Lake Erie. Regarding the safety of their drinking
water, about half of them stated that it probably was safe to drink and the
other half said probably not safe. When asked why it was not safe, they
typically cited landfills as a possible source of contamination.

Method B: Most students responded that their drinking water came
from groundwater or a well which got it fiom groundwater. Quite a few
stated that it came from rainwater, but later explained how that might get
into the ground and to " a place that holds the water for our well." One
sixth grade girl thought that it came "out of a box". About two thirds of
them thought it might be contaminated and the others were fairly confident
that it was safe. When asked what things would contaminate it they
mentioned landfills, detergents, motor oil, pesticides and poisons. One
student stated that there was a fifty percent chance her drinking water was
contaminated ( this figure was one of the choices in the pre-test) .

Method C students stated that most people's drinking water comes from
a well or a pump. Many explained how water evaporates from lakes, rivers
and oceans and falls to the earth as rain or snow and sinks into the ground
where it becomes "well water." At least half of these students stated that
most of the freshwater on the earth is polluted and would not be safe to
drink without being treated first. Of those who said their drinking water
would be safe, it was generally because they reported that it had been tested
recently. About one third of these students repeated the story I told
regarding the number of leaking underground gasoline or oil tanks and the
threat these chemicals pose to living things. When students were
interviewed during the activity itself, they used the dye to illustrate their

point such as demonstrating how fertilizer can spread into streams or rivers

40

and end up in unconfined aquifer or, that fish in polluted streams could
become contaminated and pass it on to humans who eat them. They all said
dumping of motor oil onto the ground should be outlawed because of how it
floats and ends up in lakes, rivers and wells. They observed how oil flows

as part of the groundwater model activities

What is an aquifer?

Method A: Only one student out of ten interviewed could answer the
question even partly right and he said it was groundwater. These students
were confused by the terminology of the question itself and could not
correctly answer the question even after considerable prompting.

Method B: Students from this method usually stated that it was an
underground layer of water. Some said it was the same as groundwater, and
some said it is where we get our drinking water. Some students went as far
as to explain that it was somehow connected to the water table and that it
was related to the nearby lakes. Nearly all concluded that an aquifer was
related to our drinking water. These students seemed to have a good grasp
of the vocabulary and used it correctly. These students understood aquifers
the best.

Method C : Students were still confused with the term aquifer, but
when asked to point out the aquifer on the model had no trouble with the
correct response. Some related their response to the results they obtained
during the porosity and permeability experiments. ( 7 ) When asked which
type of material would make the best aquifer, they were better able to
respond by saying gravel or the one with the most interconnected spaces,

like a sponge.

41

Table 8

Frequency of verbal responses to selected interview questions among
students fiom all three methods and grade levels. N = the number of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

students
Questions METHOD A METHOD B METHOD C
(bl) ( %) GED (%) (bl) (%)
Which sand 5 50 sand 8 57 sand 5 3]
material clay 2 20 clay I 7 clay I 7
makes the gravel 3 30 gravel 5 36 gravel 10 62
best
aquifer? total N 10 100 total N 14 100 total N 16 100
answer =
gravel
How do you hands-on 7 70 hands-on 12 86 hands-on 15 94
prefer computer 1 10 computer 0 0 computer 0 0
to learn video 0 0 video 0 0 video 0 0
science? mixture 2 20 mixture 2 14 mixture 1 6
written 0 0 written 0 0 written 0 0
total N 10 100 total N 14 100 total N 16 100
Are you yes 2 20 yes 10 72 yes 13 81
worried no 5 50 no 2 14 no 2 13
that your not sure 3 30 not sure 2 14 not sure 1 6
drinking
water might total N 10 100 total N 14 100 total N 16 100
be
contaminated

 

The best assessment of the results came from the student surveys.

42

 

IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Problems With the Groundwater Unit -

The analysis of pre and post test results were not significant, but this
result may not be an accurate reflection of student results. This is due in
part to the relatively small sample size defined by the number of teachers
rather then by the number of students in the study. If I had measured the
differences from pre-test to post-test for each individual, there would be
greater power or resolution to detect if there were differences based on the
type of method of instruction. There may or may not have been
differences, but they were too small for the statistical analysis to detect
them. The scores of the students whose teachers attended the groundwater
workshop are not significantly higher according to the statistical analysis.
The nature of the test may have been too hard conceptually for these
students and therefore, too difficult to be discriminatory. It would have
been a good idea to administer the test to similar age students outside the
study to evaluate the suitability of the test for the targeted age group. If
my background in statistics had been greater the results of this study might
have been more discriminating.

Interviews of students indicate that hands-on is strongly preferred.

I think the personal interviews and clinical observations made during
the implementation provide the most reliable insight into student attitudes
towards learning science. When students were asked to describe how they
like to learn about science, not a single one picked textbook based science
lessons over real life experiences and hands-on opportunities. Several
mentioned that they liked to use computers as much as performing
experiments. Their attitude toward discovering things for themselves by

hands-on activities was very positive. This also suggests that lack of

43

significance of the statistics is not an accurate reflection of learning.
However, it is important not to confuse student preference with actual
learning. Better methods for assessing student outcomes need to be
developed and tested in science education as well as other content areas.

According to the sample population of students interviewed, those
who had the video ( Method B) or had the Science Van (Method C) for
their method of instruction had a better understanding of how human
activities on the surface of the land can cause the groundwater to become
unsafe to drink. ( see Table 8) During the interview these students would
use oil spills or leaking underground gasoline storage tanks as examples of
ways their drinking water could become contaminated. Many had stories
to tell of local contamination sites or wells in their neighborhood.

Method B ( the video) and Method C (the Science Van) provided the
most standardized forum for delivering a consistent lesson. The written
method had more inherent variability because its delivery depended largely
upon the home teacher's level of enthusiasm and amount of interest in the
topic. Some teachers failed to read the material out loud with their students
and merely sent it home for them to do on their own. Other teachers
assigned to the written method group, spent a great deal of time going over
the materials as directed but there is no way of separating these classes out
from the overall improvement means for their grade or method.

How does substituting video tapes for textbooks fare with students? In
the past decade, some teachers have added video tapes to their repertoire of
teaching methods and occasionally use an overhead projector if the school
has one. If you ask the students whether the videos have helped them
understand science better or given them tools which they can use outside

the classroom, they will inevitably answer that their teachers use the videos

44

to "baby-sit" them while they ( the teachers) grade papers or step outside for
other business. Teachers participating in this thesis study reported that they
rarely use videos to help teach science. Usually, the VCR is used for indoor
recess or to watch movies on special occasions.

It is interesting to note that not one student interviewed during this
thesis unit picked watching videos over hands-on activities. Teachers
reported that they do not utilize videos to teach science very often
(Appendix B) However, when students were asked to rank order the three
methods in terms of preference they all put videos after hands-on and before
written, which came dead last in their opinion. It is possible that these
students were trying to please me, but I prefaced the question by asking
them to be honest and not worry about hurting my feelings. I think these
students were being honest in their responses. I think a good videotape is a
usefirl teaching tool, but should not be substituted for the teacher or for

student hands-on experiences.

Impact of the Science Van program on Teacher Practices and Attitudes
in Teaching Science

After more then four years of delivering science activities to the same
238 K-6 teachers, I have observed a small number who have started to
include more science in their weekly lesson plans. It is also of interest that
attitudes toward science in general have changed in many older teachers as
a result of their exposure to new technologies and opportunities to "play"
with the materials during Science Van activities. These veteran teachers
have confessed to me that their dislike of science came from negative
educational experiences from high school on through college, and most

avoided science at the college level. According to survey results

45

administered yearly and during this study,( Appendix A and Appendix B),
some teachers stated that the Science Van program has improved, not only
their attitude toward science, but also has provided supplemental activities
and materials which have helped them improve their science teaching.
Studies have shown that teachers teach science the way they were

taught science. (4) The attitudes which accompany science lessons are
often transferred to their students especially during the elementary years
when the teacher is a very important role model. Therefore, if the teacher
does not like the subject being presented, this could have a negative impact
on the students as well. I interviewed a sample population of students
during this study asking them about their attitudes toward science. Nearly
every one of them stated that they liked science and preferred to learn about
science using hands-on methods ( Table 8). When these same students
were interviewed regarding the method most often used by their classroom
teachers to teach science, they reported use of textbooks and worksheets.
Some stated that the only science they received was during the Science
Van visits. The results of the Teacher Survey (Appendix B) confirms the
students' statements. Forty-nine out of sixty-eight teachers in the thesis
study responded to this survey. The respondents indicated that although
funding for non-text materials,science kits and supplies has increased, they
still rely primarily on reading about science. They also indicated by their
responses that the amount of time they spend doing hands-on science

( other then during the Science Van visits) has not increased over the last
four years, nor have they increased the amount of time spent watching
videos about science. The majority of these teachers responded that they
do not feel prepared to utilize computers as a teaching tool . These

teachers stated that they are integrating science into other content areas

46

more often and are using scientific method as a backbone for scientific
investigations and experiments. One of the recurring themes 'of the Science
Van has been use of Scientific Method during its visits and follow-up
activities. Based on four years of observations it is my opinion that the
Science Van program enjoys its popularity among students primarily
because of the hands-on activities it brings to all students in the school. It
has been my experience that teachers who are overly concerned with an
orderly and tidy classroom prefer to have their students read about science
or watch videos rather then provide hands-on activities which might get
students excited, noisy and messy. These teachers say they don't feel
comfortable teaching topics in science unless they know the "right answer."
Therefore, they prefer to have students read or watch it fi'om the "experts".
I think this is partly the reason why some of these same teachers don't do
the pre-visit activities with their classes prior to the day of the Science

Van visit. Many times the teachers have told me they enjoy coming to the
Science Van classes and learn as much or more then their students.

Teachers have told me that if their science classes had been as fun and

interesting as those presented during Science Van visits, they would have
taken more science. According to the 1992 Science Van Evaluation
Survey, 84 out of 141 teachers responded that they have attended more
inservices, classes and workshops in the areas of science then they had in
1989 prior to their experiences with the Science Van. Teachers from
kindergarten through sixth grade ( 87%, or 122 out of 141) stated that their
attitude towards science has improved since 1989 primarily as a result of
their exposure to the Science Van activities. Forty-nine percent of the
teachers in this study stated that they are collaborating more with their peers

to integrate science into math, social studies and reading lessons.

47

Areas in the teaching of science that need improvement

Suppose the test had been done right, and there was still no-significant
difference. It is possible that no significant differences in conceptual gains
would have been detected even if the statistical design had been perfected.
Teachers need to spend time discussing student results or ideas and
questions resulting from their experiences with the Science Van in order to
maximize the experience. Otherwise, the opportunity for making
conceptual gains in the content area is lost. Hands-on activities which are
not accompanied by conceptual understanding may be fun but who can tell
what the student is understanding from the lesson? Perhaps relying on these
teachers to process the material I present was asking too much of them.

The Science Van lessons have evolved over time to be stand alone units
which do not rely heavily on teacher follow-up for understanding. This
adjustment has meant a reduction in the number of yearly units which can
be taught, since each unit takes more time to complete from start to finish.
The method for distributing activities and materials for teachers to conduct
beyond the day of the Science Van visit has changed. Teachers are
encouraged to voluntarily choose materials from a table at the conclusion of
their visit. Students can see whether or not their teacher takes advantage of
the variety of kits, lessons and other support materials. Often the students
pressure or "nag" their teacher into taking some of the activities.

It is interesting to note that even though teachers in our MOISD have
taken more science related classes and have received more materials and
equipment, many confess that they still feel they must teach to the MEAP
test and let textbooks dictate their science curriculum. I've seen many
science kits gathering dust at more then one elementary school while the

staff worry about funding for new textbooks. Although teachers indicate

48

that they are attending more science and mathematics related classes,
workshops and inservices, the amount of time they spend teaching science
by any method has not risen significantly.

Unfortunately, for many students in our ISD, the Science Van continues
to provide the ONLY science lessons they get all year long. The purpose of
the Science Van is to supplement existing science curriculum with hands-on
activities, not to supplant it. But, if science is not being taught on a regular
basis, there is nothing to supplement and the Science Van lessons become
the sole source of student experience in science education. Although the
success of lessons presented via the Science Van are not dependent upon
teacher background, students could gain a greater understanding if the
teacher were to use the activities to reinforce regular classroom science
instruction. The program strives to increase teacher awareness to new
methods of teaching science. I think the program has been very successful
as a showcase for new methods and technologies. In some cases, teachers
have called upon me as a resource person to help them order the same
things that they used during the Science Van visit.

My belief is that student conceptual understanding would greatly
improve if the classroom teacher took a small amount of time to reinforce
ideas provided by the Science Van. Students need time to ask questions,
think about their results and try variations on the experiment to test
hypotheses. 1 also believe that teachers need to be encouraged to be
managers or facilitators of scientific explorations even if they are not
"experts" on the topic. Students and teachers can learn about science
together. Technology can play a very important role in assisting teachers
without a lot of science background. Teachers need to learn science by

doing hands-on activities themselves during their teacher training in

49

college. Teacher training within many Schools of Education is poor to
abysmal in terms of preparing teachers in science methods which would
stimulate and motivate students of the 90's. The Science Van program will
continue to evolve and adapt to serve the needs of its population of teachers
and students. The results of this study, although not conclusive regarding
student conceptual gains, has shown that the teacher attitudes towards
science education are slowly but surely changing for the better. Perhaps as
more teachers attend interesting workshops and classes designed to help
them improve their practices in teaching science, we will see an
improvement in student conceptual understanding as well. The Science
Van program plans on continuing its drive to provide teachers and students

with fun and interesting hands-on science activities in the years to come.

50

REFERENCES

1. The National Commission on Excellence in Education.l983, A Nation at Risk
The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: US. Department
of Education.

2. Rutherford, James, Ahlgren, Andrew. (1989), American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Inc., Science for All Americans, Oxford University
Press, New York

3. Anderson, C.W., Professor of Education at Michigan State University, (1989,
Winter), Policy Implications of Research on Science Teaching and T eachers’
Knowledge,

4. Michigan Statewide Systemic Initiative Vision Statement, ( 1992), five year
grants funded by The National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic
Change Initiative grants, along with the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1989

5. Loucks-Horsley, et a1, Elementary School Science for the '90s, The National
Center for Improving Science Education, A partnership of The Network, Inc.
and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), 1990

6. It's Found Underground: Groundwater, Our Buried Treasure, 1991, Ruth
Kraut, Videotape Director, Ecology Center of Ann Arbor, 417 Detroit Street,
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

7. Classroom GEMS Regional Centers at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor,
Classroom GEMS- a statewide K-12 Groundwater Curriculum is one of many
Groundwater Education in Michigan projects funded by the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation. Classroom GEMS is a project of SEE-North ( Science and
Environmental Education-North), which is under subcontract fi'om
the University of Michigan Biological Station Regional GEM Center.

51

8. Roth, Kathleen, (1989, Winter). Science Education: It's Not Enough to "Do" or
"Relate", American Educator- Journal of the American Federation of Teachers

9. Yager and Hofstein (1986), Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18 (2), 133-146

10. Roth, K.J. (1986). Conceptual-change learning and student processing of
science texts. ( Research series No. 167). East Lansing, MI: Institute for

Research on Teaching, Michigan
State University.

1 1. Watson, B. and Konicek,R. ( May, 1990). Teaching for Conceptual Change:
Confionting Children's Experience, Phi Delta Kappan educational journal

12. Grassy,J.( July/August, 1991). The Waste Oil Monster, Garbage, The
Practical Journal for the Environment. p3 4-39.

13. Water Wisdom, The GEM Program, Michigan State University Institute of
Water Research, 334 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824

14. Groundwater Contamination, Lyle, S.R., Bulletin No.2, (November, 1988).
New York State Water Resources Institute Center for Environmental
Research , Cornell University

15. What is Groundwater?, Lyle, S.R., Bulletin No.1, (November, 1988). New
York State Water Resources Institute Center for Environmental Research ,

Cornell University

52

APPENDIX A

Summary of the teacher yearly evaluations of the Science Van program from
1989 to 1992

 

Agree Neutral Disagree
(%) (%) (%)

 

The Science Van program has stimulated
interest in science in my classroom 93.5 6.5 0.0

 

The Science Van has supplemented our
local science curriculum 95.4 4.6 0.0

 

The Science Van has used materials and
equipment not ordinarily available to my 98.4 1.6 0.0
students

 

I have used the supplemental materials
provided by the Science Van program 59.7 38.7 1.6

 

Science Van visits have stimulated more
hands-on activities or a continuation of a 60.4 37.7 1.9
Science Van lesson.

 

Did you attend a science related class,
workshop or inservice in the last 2 years?

 

 

 

( 1990-92) 60.4 2.1 37.5
( 1988-90) 20.7 0 79.3
I collaborate more with other science 45.0 23.4 31.6
teachers
I like science more since my experiences 86.7 11.1 2.2

with the Science Van

 

 

 

 

 

53

APPENDIX B

TEACHER SURVEY, 1992

SCIENCE VAN UNIT 4- GROUNDWATER

DISTRICT: circle one

Big Rapids Chippewa Hills Evart Morley/Stanwood Reed City

1. Grade level taught:
A. 4th B. 5th C. 6th D. high school E. Other

2. How long have you been teaching?
A. 0-5 yrs. B. 5-10 yrs C. 10-15 yrs D. 15-20 yrs E. more then 20 yrs

3. Fill in letters indicating the types of students making up your class load
( include numbers in parentheses next to the letter).

A. Emotionally impaired B. Physically handicapped

C. mentally andicapped D. A.D.D. E. exceptionally bright

4. Your highest level of education
A. Bachelor's B. Master's C. Doctorate D. Bachelor's plus credit
E. Master's plus credit

5. About how much time does your class spend per week reading science text?
A. 0-30 min. B. 30-60 min. C. 60-90 min. D. 90-120 min.
B. more then 2 hours

6. About how much time does your class spend per week doing hands-on
explorations in science? ( includes field trips)
A. 0-30 min. B. 30-60 min. C. 60-90 min. D. 90-120 min

B. more then 2 hours

7. How often do you use audio-visual materials per week to help teach science
subjects? (video, computers, slides, etc.)

A. 0-30 min. B. 30-60 min. C. 60-90 min. D. 90-120 min.

B. more then 2 hours

8. In the past year, have you received any assistance from your school or private
industry for science ( curriculum materials, speakers, financial support, etc.)
A.. yes B. No C. don't know If "yes" go to #9, otherwise go to #10

9. Type of assistance you have received:

A. stipends for travel or tuition
B. teacher award or scholarship

54

C. teacher summer employment ( science related work)
D. curriculum materials
E. equipment

10. How adequately prepared are you to use computers as an instructional tool in
teaching science?

A. unprepared B. somewhat prepared C. Adequate D. Well prepared

E. Very well prepared

11. In the past year, have you received any indication of parent support, concern,
or interest in science education?
A. none B. some C. adequate D. above average E. great

12. Have you attended any workshops, graduate classes, conferences or
seminars in science in the last 2 years?
A. Yes B. No C. Not sure If yes, please list here:

In the last year have you: No.. .little. . moderate ...a lot

13. Increased the amount of time you A. B. C . D. E.
teach science

14. Felt more confident in teaching science A. B. C. E.

D
15. Collaborated with other science teachers A. B. C. D
16. Integrated science into other subjects A. B. C. D. E.
17. Seen an increased interest in your A. B. C. D

student in science
18. More funding for materials, kits, supplies A. B. C. D. E.

(non-text)

19. Used scientific methods as backbone A. B. C. D. E.
for investigations

20. Do you enjoy science yourself? A. B. C. D. E.

21. Which of the following would best help you and your students achieve
outcome changes in science literacy?

A. More technical assistance in learning to operate existing equipment.

B. More funding to purchase science equipment and materials

C. Provide staff to assist in lab set ups and operation of technology

D. Better textbooks and student worksheets

E. Take away some responsibilities if you expect us to use additional methods
such as computer assisted instruction.

55

1992 Survey results fiom fourth-sixth. grade teachers in the study designed to

assess teacher attitudes and practices toward teaching science .

 

Survey "Question

Survey Question

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Count % Count %
Grade Taught: Number of years
4th 19 39 teaching:
5th 14 29 '0-5 - 14 29
6th 10 20 6-10 8 16
multiple 6 12 11-15 . ll 23
over 16 16 33
N = 49 N = 49
Amount of time Amount of Time
spent reading spent doing
about science / hands-on science /
week. week
0-30 min. 11 23 0-30 min. 22 46
30-60 min. 16 33 30-60 min. 16 33
60-90 min 15 31 60-90 min 7 15
2 hrs or more ,'6_ "213: 2 hrs or more 3 6
.N= 48 l N=48
Amount time Have attended
watching Science science classes,
Videos / week: workshOps,
0-30 min 35 73 seminars in past 2
30-60 min. 9 19 years:
60-90 min 1 2 Yes 30 63
2 hrs or more 4 8 No 18 37
' N = 48 N = 48
Have received Number of
more fimding for students on he
materials,kits, lunch program?

- supplies 0 -10% 3 6.3
never 29 63 25% 24 50
a little 12 26 50% 2O 42
moderate 5 11 . 75 % or more 1 i 2
a lot 0 O

N = 46 N = 48

 

56

 

 

Feel prepared to

What they felt

 

 

 

 

 

utilize computers would help them
as teaching tool. teach science
never 18 '38 better.
a little 20 43 technical help 1 2
moderate 7 15 increased funding 38 80
a lot 2 4 more staff 5 10
better textbooks 2 4
N = 47 fewer demands 2 4
N = 48
Integrates Science Uses Scientific
into other content Method as a
areas: backbone for
never 2 4.3 investigations:
a little 22 46.8 never 7 14.9
moderate 22 46.8 a little 15 3 1.9
a lot 1 2.1 moderate 22 46.8
a lot 3
N = 47 6.3
N = 47

 

57

 

APPENDIX C

PRE—TEST AND POST-TEST FOR SCIENCE VAN UNIT 4- GROUNDWATER AND YOU!

58

APPENDIX D

Statistical Analysis of Student Pre-Test/Post-Test by Grade Level and

Method

Science Concepts and Processes Questions by Grade Level and Method

Source of Variation Mean

Difference
Main Effects .416
grade level .258
method .628
2-way interactions .213

grade level method

F

.472
.293
.713

.241

Sig.of
F

.756
.747
.495

.913

Nature of Science Questions by Grade Level and Method

Source of Variation Mean

Difference
Main Effects .871
grade level 1.631
method .110
2-way interactions .251

grade level method

F

1.567
2.932
.198

.452

Sig.of
F

.198
.062 *
.821

.770

* There is some significance between grade levels but not between methods

within the same grade.

Total Questions by Grade Level and Method

Source of Variation Mean

Difference
Main Effects 2.186
grade level 3.383
method .997

2-way interactions
grade level method .756

F

.685
1.060
.313

.237

59

Sig.of F

.606
.354
.733

.916

APPENDIX E

STUDENT WORKSHEET FOR METHOD C

 

crushed sand dry kitty
rock litter(clay)

 

size and
shape of
particles

 

Porosrty
Prediction:

Which do you think
will hold the most
water?

Results:

What happened? % retained 3 % retained T % retained =

 

Permeability
Prediction:

Which lets the
water move through
it faStest? slowest?

Results: . . __ . . _ : . 3
Wm; happened? Dimes: trm. Drainage um- Dressage um:

 

Conclusrons
Which material
would make the
best aquifer? The
worst? Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

Appendix F

Informational Letter to All 4-6th Grade Teachers Regarding the Intent of
the Thesis Study

TO: ALL 4th, 5TH AND 6TH GRADE TEACHERS:

FROM: KATHY LOVGREN

RE: UNIT #4 - PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH PROJECT
FOR MASTERS' THESIS

UNIT DATE: March 30, 1992

The last unit for this year's Science Van will address an environmentally
exciting issue : Groundwater. and the study of how water is moved around
both above and below the ground. Some of the questions we hope to address
by hands-on groundwater models, computer simulations and problem solving
activities will be :

How is water stored and moved on planet earth?

Where is water found underground? How does it move?

What things affect the quality of groundwater ?

How can we protect the quantity and quality of groundwater?

I'd like to request your cooperation as participants in a research project the
results of which can be used to benefit your science programs as well as
provide data for my Master's Thesis from MSU. The major thrust of my
thesis will be to study student and teacher outcome changes as a result of the
Day of the Visit activities provided by the Science Van. I know you've been
under a lot of pressure to increase math and science skills in preparing students
for today's high tech and rapidly changing world. With everything else you
have to teach, I cannot imagine having to also keep up with the latest ideas
and technologies coming out daily. I believe that the "Timeshare" philosophy
behind the Science Van activities can be utilized to provide you with the
tools and expertise to increase science literacy in your schools. Although we
know most students really enjoy the activities provided by the Science Van.,
we hope to provide insights into how things work , why things happen and
stimulate minds for further studies after the visit.

The main goal of the Science Van program is to provide the necessary
materials and expertise to enhance student curiosity about the particular topic
as well as to provide students with opportunities to discover some of the

61

processes of scientific investigation. Now that the program has been
operational for four years, I would like to assess the effectiveness of the
program. I picked Groundwater and You as the content theme around which I
gathered data to answer two questions:

1.) Is there any difference in average classroom pre-test and post-test scores
between traditional methods of science instruction versus the Science Van
methods?

2.) Has the Science Van program motivated teachers in the MOISD to
improve their teaching practices and attitudes in science?

I need your help to gather data. I would like to assess the effectiveness of
the methods utilized during the Science Van visits and compare them to more
traditional methods of instruction. I am interested not only in improving
student conceptual understanding but also interested in seeing if the program
has improved teaching practices and/or attitudes as they relate to science
instruction. There are three methods of science instruction being studied and
you will randomly be randomly pick from a bag one of the following methods:

 

 

Method A: Method B: Method C:

Pre test Pre test Pre test

Content = written Content= video Content= hands-on
materials followed by teacher Science Van
followed by teacher reinforcement Instructor- guided
reinforcement Post test activities

Post test Science Van Post test

Science Van written materials written and video
video optional optional materials Optional

 

 

 

 

After the post-test has been administered, each teacher will receive all the
same materials so that everyone will have done the same thing, but in
different order.

I would request that you complete this unit within one week's time. Use
your best judgment regarding the appropriate choice of materials for your
grade level. A detailed "Discussion Guide" with answers will be provided in
the Teacher Packet for both Method A and Method B teachers. Take the time
to read the materials and the pre-test and post-test out loud in class and answer
any questions to the best of your ability. There is additional background
information provided in your teacher's packet to provide you with an
opportunity to upgrade your background on the topic if so desired. If you have

62

Method A or B, be sure the students have completed the post-test prior to
coming to the Science Van activities.
TEACHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY + FREE "STUFF" We
have funding to provide ten groundwater simulation models for you to make
and keep valued at $100.00 each to teachers willing to attend the four hour
workshop mentioned below. If you are interested, please fill out the form and
mail it in to the Intermediate School District before March 1, 1992.
TEACHER INSERVICE FOR GROUNDWATER UNIT:

by Dr. Dick Passerro
from Western Michigan University's Water Institute and GEMS
director.
GEMS = Groundwater Education in Michigan Schools.
DATE: March 16, 1992

TIME: 4:00 -6:00 P.M.
PLACE: M.O.I.S.D.

I hope you will assist me in this academic endeavor. I think this is a win-
win situation where we can mutually benefit. The students will greatly enjoy
the activities I assure you. All information on individual students, teachers
and schools will be kept confidential. I will be interviewing some students
randomly during the visit as well. Please let me know if you object to being
in this study as soon as possible. I hope you can attend one of the workshops.
Please indicate which one and return the bottom half of this form as soon as
possible. Also feel free to call me for any further information at home or
work. Home phone : 616-796-9318 Work: 616-796-3543
Thank you for your continued support of our program.

63

PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST FOR SCIENCE VAN UNIT 4-
GROUNDWATER AND YOU!

1 . WHICH SOIL TYPE HOLDS THE GREATEST VOLUME OF WATER?’( CONCEPT)
SAND

CLAY

PEA GRAVEL

PorrING SOIL

I DON'T KNOW

P1909"?

2. WHICH TYPE OF SOIL LETS WATER MOVE THROUGH THE FASTEST?
( CONCEPT)

. SAND

. CLAY

. PEA GRAVEL

. PorrING SOIL

I DON'T KNOW

WUOU1>

WHAT IS AN AQUIFER? ( CONCEPT)
. A HUGE UNDERGROUND POOL, LAKE OR RIVER
. AN OPEN BODY OF WATER SUCH As A STREAM OR A LAKE
. A WATER HOLDING LAYER UNDERGROUND THAT SUPPLIES DRINKING WATER
. A PERSON WHO LOVES WATER AND PARTICIPATES IN WATER SPORTS
. I DON'T KNOW

mUOW>V

4. WHERE DOES MOST OF THE DRINKING WATER FOR PEOPLE IN THE UNITED
STATES COME FROM?(CONCEPT)

A. THE GREAT LAKES

B. A NEARBY RIVER

C. GROUNDWATER

D. FROM THE OCEANS ONCE SALT IS REMOVED

E. I DON'T KNOW

5. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING IS A TRUE STATEMENT REGARDING WATER AS A
RESOURCE? (CONCEPT)

A WATER IS NOT RECYCLABLE, ONCE WATER IS POLLUTED IT CAN NEVER BE
REUSED.

B. THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE OF FRESH WATER. THE WATER YOU DRINK TODAY
COULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME ONE THAT DINOSAURS SWAM IN.

C. THE ONLY WAY WATER RECYCLES IS THROUGH EVAPORATION AND
PRECIPITATION ( RAIN OR SNow).

D. I DON'T KNOW

64

6. LET'S SAY YOU LIVE IN A SANDY FARM AREA WHERE CHEMICAL
FERTILIZERS AND WEED KILLERS ARE HEAVILY USED. HOW LIKELY ARE THESE
CHEMICALS To GET INTO YOUR DRINKING WATER? ( NATURE OF SCIENCE)

NOT VERY LIKELY ‘ '

50 % CHANCE

DEPENDS ON How CLOSE I LIVE To THE FARMER

OVER TIME, VERY LIKELY

I DON'T KNOW

F1901”?

7. IF YOU LIVED IN THE COUNTRY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN To YOUR WASTE
THAT GOES DOWN THE SINK, TOILETS, AND DRAINs? ( NATURE OF SCIENCE)
IT ENDS UP IN A LANDFILL OR DUMP.

IT GOES To A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

IT GOES To SEPTIC TANKS WHICH DRAIN INTO THE SOIL

IT SEEPS INTO THE GROUND AND THEN THE WATER PART EVAPORATES.

I DON'T KNOW

P1905”?

WHAT Is THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE HYDROLOGIC CYCLE?
CONCEPT)

ENERGY FROM THE SUN AND GRAVITY

THE OCEANS AND RIVERS

HUMAN ACTIVITIES

THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL
I DON'T KNOW

A as
O

WPOF’?

9. IN NATURE, How DO AQUIFERS GET RECHARGED? ( CONCEPT)

A. FROM MELTING GLACIERS

B. IT SEEPS INTO SOILS FROM SURROUNDING LAKES, RIVERS AND WETLANDS
C. IT DOESN'T. ONCE IT IS SUCKED OUT, THE WELL DRIES UP FOREVER.

D. FROM RAIN AND SNOW MELT.

E. I DON'T KNOW

10. GROUNDWATER FLOW REFERS To: ( CONCEPT)

A. SURFACE RUNOFF OF WATER FROM MELTING SNOW, ICE OR RAINFALL

B. MOVEMENT OF UNDERGROUND RIVERS, STREAMS To SURFACE OUTLETS

C. MOVEMENT OF WATER THROUGH UNDERGROUND SOIL OR ROCK To A SURFACE
BODY OF WATER OR WELL.

D. ALL OF THE ABOVE

E. I' DON'T KNOW

I 1. How FAST WATER MOVES THROUGH SOIL AND ROCK DEPENDS ON:
( CONCEPT)

A. THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE ROCKS

B. THE SHAPE AND COLOR OF THE SOIL CRYSTALS

C. THE TYPE OF MINERALS IN THE SOIL

65

D. THE AMOUNT OF PORES (OPEN SPACEs) AND CONNECTIONS AMONG THEM
E. I DON'T KNOW

12. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING PRACTICES ARE LEGAL IN MICHIGAN?(

NATURE OF SCIENCE)

A BURYING HOUSEHOLD TRASH OR FARM WASTE ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY

B DISPOSAL OF USED MOTOR OIL, PAINT THINNERS AND CLEANING CHEMICALS IN
LANDFILLS

C. ALL THE ABOVE ARE LEGAL AT THIS TIME

D ALL ARE AGAINST THE LAW

E I DON'T KNOW

13. YOU HAVE JUST BOUGHT A HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY. YOU ARE 2 MILES

AWAY FROM AN OLD LANDFILL THAT HASN'T BEEN USED IN 50 YEARS. WHAT
ARE THE CHANCES OF YOUR WELL WATER BEING CONTAMINATED FROM THIS

LANDFILL? ( NATURE OF SCIENCE)

HIGH RISK, GROUNDWATER MOVES VERY SLOWLY

SLIGHTLY RISKY, BUT MIGHT BE OK FOR FARM ANIMALS

Low RISK ,SINCE 50 YEARS HAVE PASSED

LOW RISK SINCE IT IS 2 MILES AWAY AND GROUNDWATER MOVES DOWNWARD
NOT SIDEWAYS.

E. I DON'T KNOW.

pow?

14. YOU CAN TELL IF THE WATER SUPPLY IS POLLUTED BY: ( NATURE OF
SCIENCE)

A. THE WAY IT TASTES

B. THE WAY IT SMELLS

C. THE WAY IT LOOKS

D. YOU CAN'T ALWAYS TELL BY YOUR SENSES

E. I DON'T KNOW

15. WHICH LETTER SHOWS How GROUNDWATER MOVES? ( CONCEPT)
A. B.
C.

 

16. WHICH WELL WOULD NOT BE AS LIKELY To BECOME CONTAMINATED?
( NATURE OF SCIENCE)

A.
C.

     

 
 

97mi- .
. #0. wafii' ‘ '5

 
    

17. A PUMPING WELL CHANGES THE WATER TABLE AROUND IT BY: ( NATURE

OF SCIENCE)

A. RAISING THE SURROUNDING WATER LEVEL

B. LOWERING THE LEVEL OF NEARBY LAKES OR STREAMS
C. DOES NOT CHANGE IT AT ALL

D. DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH WATER IS BEING PUMPED OUT
B. I DON'T KNOW

18. WHAT MATERIALS MAKE UP A GOOD AQUIFER BUT ALSO LET POLLUTANTS
FLOW EASILY? ( CONCEPT)
A. GRAVEL

P190!”

SAND

CLAY
BEDROCK

I DON'T KNOW

19. THE REASON MICHIGAN HAS A HUGE GROUNDWATER RESOURCE Is:
( NATURE OF SCIENCE)

A.

B
C.
D

BECAUSE THE WATER F ROM THE GREAT LAKES SEEPS INTO THE SOILS
BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A CLIMATE THAT PROVIDES A LOT OF MOISTURE

BECAUSE OF THE LARGE DEPOSITS OF SANDY SOILS LEFT FROM THE RETREATING
GLACIERS
BECAUSE MICHIGAN IS LIKE AN ISLAND BETWEEN THE GREAT LAKES, AND IF

YOU DIG DEEP ENOUGH YOU WILL TAP INTO THE UNDERGROUND LAKE THAT

CONNECTS THEM.
I DON'T KNOW

67

20. WHICH FARMING PRACTICE WOULD KEEP THE MOST WATER IN THE SOIL?
( NATURE OF SCIENCE)

A. B. C.

 

21. How FAR UNDER GROUND CAN GROUNDWATER BE FOUND? ( CONCEPT) ’
NOT VERY FAR BECAUSE OF ROCK LAYERS THAT STOP IT _‘
10-25 FEET 11
50-100 FEET

CAN VARY FROM SURFACE TO HUNDREDS OF FEET, EVEN BELOW SOLID ROCK
FORMATIONS
I DON'T KNOW

1'“ 909’?

22. CHOOSE THE LETTER THAT CORRECTLY SHOWS How WATER MOVES ONCE
rr HITS THE GROUND.( NATURE OF SCIENCE)

A. B. C.

 

 

 

 

 

68

23. How Do MOST POLLUTANTS GET INTO OUR DRINKING WATER?( NATURE OF

SCIENCE)
A. THEY ARE DISSOLVED BY WATER AS IT MOVES THROUGH SOIL TO ROUNDWATER.

B.
C.
D.
E.

THEY COME DOWN IN THE RAIN OR SNOW

BY LEAKING GAS TANKS

BY DUMPING HOUSEHOLD CHEMICALS DOWN OUR SINKS
I DON'T KNOW

24. WHO CAN MAKE THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IN CONSERVING OUR PRECIOUS
WATER? ( NATURE OF SCIENCE)
A. CITY MANAGER AND STAFF

F190?”

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
SCIENTISTS

INDIVIDUAL FAMILY PRACTICES

I DON'T KNOW

25. WHICH LETTER INDICATES WHERE THE WATER TABLE IS FOUND?(
CONCEPT)

 

 

69

312930 1 Mfl/WSWS