WWIHHIHHHHIWIHHIHHIHIHHIHHHM

   

rut—791?

RSTIHAIYLB

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I

31293 01706

IIIIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Comparison of High School Science Students' Achieve-
ment in a "Traditional" Classroom to Students enrolled
in an Integrated Curriculum Course

presented by

Dawn M. Schuen

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MS . o . .
degree mBlologlcal Sc1ence

 

 

 

/
/% K54! 04

Major professor

 

Date 17 July 1997

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

 

 
 

—TJBRARY
Michigan State
University

 
      

PLACE iN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

Aug,“ 2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 c:/CiRC/DaieDue.p65-p. i4

COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT IN A
“TRADITIONAL” CLASSROOM TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN AN
INTEGRATED CURRICULUM COURSE
By

Dawn M. Schuen

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Division of Science and Mathematics Education

1997

ABSTRACT
COMPARISON OF HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT
IN A “TRADITIONAL” CLASSROOM TO STUDENTS ENROLLED
IN AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM COURSE
By

Dawn M. Schuen

The purpose of this study was to compare the achievement, mainly in science, of
ninth grade students enrolled in an integrated studies program, the study group, to
students enrolled in a ‘regular’ ninth grade science course, the control group. The
integrated program (the block) incorporated the subjects of science, english, health,
social studies, and technology during a three hour block of time while the two regular
science courses met daily in the afternoon. All known variables were kept constant
between the two groups. Each group had the same science teacher (me), were expected
to meet the same outcomes (the Michigan Education Goals and Objectives for Science
Education), were given the same instructional strategies (except for those involved in the
interdisciplinary projects in the block which are discussed in the body of this paper), and
were evaluated using the same tests, examinations, activities, and surveys. Student
groups were compared through objective tests and subjective activities. Chi square
statistics and examination of student samples were used to determine if there was a
significant difference in student achievement between the two groups. There was not a
Significant difference between the two groups in any of the assessments and any

differences can be attributed to chance.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... v
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 8
DEMOGRAPHICS OF CLASSROOMS: THE ‘BLOCK CLASSROOM

VERSUS THE ‘REGULAR’ SCIENCE CLASSROOM ................................. 15
IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................... 21
EVALUATION ............................................................................................................. 28
SUIVIMARY AND EVALUATION ............................................................................. 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 48
APPENDIX A: STUDENT ACTIVITIES .................................................................... 50
APPENDIX B: STUDENT SAMPLES ........................................................................ 5 8
APPENDIX C: STUDENT REACTIONS ................................................................... 59
APPENDIX D: TEACHER COMMENTS .................................................................. 61

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-Objective Unit Test Results ............................................................................ 29

Figure 2-Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between
Science and English ........................................................................................... 35

Figure 3-Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between
Science and Health ............................................................................................. 35

Figure 4-Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between
Science and Social Studies ................................................................................. 36

Figure S-Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between

Science and Technology ..................................................................................... 36
Figure 6-Student Opinions Regarding the Practicality of Science ................................. 37
Figure 7-Student Opinions Regarding How Interesting Science is ................................. 37
Figure 8-Student Opinions Regarding Whether Science is About Real Things .............. 38
Figure 9-Student Opinions Regarding Whether Science is For Everyone ....................... 38

Figure 10-Student Opinions Regarding Whether Science is Valuable to Society ........... 39

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR STUDY

This study compares the performances of ninth grade science students at the High School
level who were enrolled in an integrated learning program (the study group), which will
be referred to as the “block” from here afier, to that of students in a “typical” science
classroom (the control group). There were 103 students in the block and 50 students in
the control group. Both groups were taught by me to ensure as many variables were kept

constant as are possible in a school situation.

The High School in this study is composed of about 1200 students in a community that
used to be primarily an agriculture community but is now a growing suburb of middle to
upper class people. Education is highly valued in this district and many community
members are educated beyond high school. The community is composed of mostly white

people, the percentage of minorities in the high school is less than one percent.

This district is one of many schools researching and implementing restructuring of the
curriculum in education. Both educators and non educators complain about the state of
education in America today. The arguments include; students are not prepared for
further study; they are not adequately prepared to enter the work force; they cannot
compete with students of other nations; they cannot work collaboratively with one

another, and they are lacking other life skills. Many school districts react to these

2

criticisms by looking at ways to change the way we teach students. One “popular”
restructuring method today is integrated instruction. Integrated instruction is when a
teacher or group of teachers teaches main ideas which incorporate many disciplines
(Sizer 1992). For example, students may learn how change affects people from many
perspectives. There are many science, math, english, social studies, and other subject
area topics that can easily be brought under this topic. Integrated instruction is an
attempt to help students make connections within the curriculum and their world. The
block program was in the planning stages for two years prior to its implementation in the
school year of 1995-1996. Because I was involved in the development of this program
from the beginning, I thought it would be beneficial for me and my school if I focused
my thesis project on it. I feel an in depth study is necessary to assess if this type of
teaching and learning is, in fact, more effective compared to what we have been doing all

along.

I began teaching at this High School during the school year of 1993-94. During this year,
a few teachers began exploring the idea of offering an integrated program in which two
or more subjects are taught together during a large block of time. There were already a
couple of integrated programs in progress in this school, but they only included two
courses which were more ‘natural’ partners. For example; they had a physics/calculus
two hour block course and a two-hour team taught integrated course including English
and Social Studies. Both of these courses were electives for upper-classmen and, as said

earlier, were more natural blocks.

3

To develop powerful teaching and learning, teachers working as team members are
central to this idea. Every student must learn in an active, participatory context,
contribute, be encouraged to succeed. They should excel if expectations are kept high.
Teachers and students should be engaged in an interactive relationship to learn together.
Learning is linked to standards, known beforehand, that must be attained in each area of
study. The standards needing to be addressed in the area of science came from the
Michigan Education Goals and Objectives in Science Education. Learning goes beyond
the bounds of the textbook and should have students participating in the learning process
through research, exploration, presentations, role playing, team work, and other
techniques that force them to synthesize knowledge. Learning cannot take place when
students are passive participants in the learning process which can ofien take place when
they are only ‘given’ information through reading and lectures and not permitted to be
involved in acquiring this knowledge (Cushman 1994). Many teachers, however, feel
outside pressures from parents, universities, and standardized tests to teach many science
concepts in one year. This often indirectly forces teachers to teach mainly through

lecture and readings due to time constraints.

There are several models already in existence that attempt to restructure the curriculum
by integrating subjects. Teaming is one such approach in which some number of
teachers, from two to several, share a group of students. Each teacher is in a separate
room and continues to teach in the same manner used previously. The teachers share a

common planning time which enables them to discuss the progress of students and to

4

better serve the needs of individual students. The main benefit of this model is the
contact teachers have regarding individual students. I have spoken with teachers
involved in this type of model, the middle school of the district in this study practices it,
and they have commented that some of the benefits are: 1) having common rules and
expectations helps students to know what their limitations are and prevents them from
‘playing teachers against one another’ ( For example: “Why can’t I put my feet on the
desk? Mr. Jones let me!”), 2) teachers become much more familiar with what students
are learning in other classes which enables them to better help students and also creates
seeds for future team-taught lessons, 3) teachers can more easily identify students ‘at—
risk’ of failure or future drop-outs when they communicate with each other about
specific students, 3) when it is necessary to meet with a parent regarding a student it can
be done in one meeting with all teachers, 4) teachers act as moral support for one
another when dealing with difficult situations, and there were other benefits not included
here. The biggest problem with this type of model is the loss of personal preparation
time. I agree this is a big problem, especially for laboratory/activity based courses where
more set-up and clean-up time is needed. Also, some parents may have too high of
expectations and anticipate there to be more integration within the subjects. Another
type of approach is interdisciplinary instruction in which two or more disciplines, such
as science and technology, are grouped together. In this model students attend each class
separately, but both classes are centered around a common theme or similar ideas. In
this model it is likely that some lessons will be team taught further bringing the

curriculum together. In integrated instruction two or more disciplines, such as science

 

5

and technology, are grouped together and may be in separate rooms or in large combined
classes. In this model there will be team teaching and material may be taught at the same
time together for two or more disciplines. Also, projects and group assignments will

combine disciplines.

Research and practical application from workshops taught us that the best way to change
the curriculum into a ‘block’ design, was to follow distinct steps. It was suggested that
the first year be as described above under team in which a group of teachers share the
same students, have a common planning time, and discuss individual student progress
and needs. During the second year teachers may begin to look at common course
outcomes and teach similar outcomes at the same time. Then, during the third and fourth
years, teachers should begin team teaching specific lessons that overlap curricular areas.
And finally, during the fifth and sixth years teachers may begin developing projects and
lessons that cross all curricular areas. It was indicated to us many times that what we
were attempting was a six year process. Unfortunately, we felt we didn’t have the luxury
to slowly implement this program due to outside pressures. AS stated earlier, the middle
school had just completed the first year of this process where they had a ‘team’ approach
and simply shared students and had a common planning time. A survey of students (and
their parents) leaving that program and entering our program showed a general
dissatisfaction with that program due to the lack of cross-discipline activities. Because
of this and administrative expectations that our proposed program would be really

different and great, we felt pressure to implement as much integration as possible. The

6

ninth grade block team decided to employ what we called an interdisciplinary, integrated,
team approach. We actually skipped to about the projected fifth or sixth year, a mistake I

will discuss in the evaluation portion of this paper.

The committee who developed this program also decided to have the district Exit
Outcomes also be Block (study group) Outcomes. Exit outcomes are the outcomes all

students should achieve before graduation. They are written; Students demonstrate Skills

as:
0 Competent Communicators
- Responsible Citizens
0 Collaborative Contributors
- Self-Directed Learners
- Effective Thinkers
0 Healthy Lifestyle Managers
The specific outcomes of the block were:
1) To allow for cross-discipline instruction so that students can make
connections between subjects and to eliminate teaching some of the same topics
in different classrooms which would, in theory, save instruction time.
2) To create an environment where students can develop a sense of indepen-

dance, maturity, self-discipline, and motivation due to the flexibility and

responsibility given to them.

7

3) To have students involved in interdisciplinary projects that make connections
between what is being learned in school to what is happening in the students’
lives. We wanted learning to have a purpose for each student.

4) To create a ‘family’ type atmosphere within the block where each student feels
he/she belongs. When students enter high school, they often feel intimidated and
isolated. We wanted to have a ‘school within a school’ where each student
could feel ‘safe’.

5) To be able to monitor student progress better by having six teachers sharing the
same students, allowing them to discuss concerns about individual students
regularly. This would help prevent students from ‘Slipping between the cracks’.

This report will assess our success in achieving these goals. During my research I looked

for studies from other schools where a similar integrated program occurred. There were

many schools involved in such programs, but I could find only qualitative studies. I

could not find qualitative studies where actual test scores and grades were compared.

However, most of the reports included many of the ‘problems’ I will discuss in the

summary that we also encountered.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW
Careers and jobs are continually changing along with the marketplace. Because of this
education must also change and continue to meet these new demands. Education must
strive to help students develop skills which they can apply to these new circumstances
rather than simply giving them knowledge. Many educational systems today are
preparing students for specific jobs rather than giving them the skills to be used in any
job. Students need to work with a desire for success rather than a fear of failure, they
should be able to accept and understand that from failures they will learn and grow and
be more likely to be successful in the future. Schools today need to have high academic
standards and assess the meeting of those standards through performance based
assessment. Performance based assessment is a method of assessing student
understanding and often takes place during an activity as well as upon completion of that
activity. This type of assessment is used to determine the process students are using
rather than only assessing the product, which is what is usually done. Teachers must also
learn to better and more appropriately reward students for reaching the goals we set and
rewarding the educators who assist them in attaining those goals. Public schools are
beginning to realize that it is necessary to educate in a different way to prepare students
for the 2 1 st century. It is important that all students have high self esteem and a sense of
self-worth and pride which will enable them to continually achieve new goals and learn
new skills as the workplace demands, whether they enter the workplace after high school
or college. The way to ensure that all students acquire these goals is by preparing them

to enter the workforce which in turn will enable them to be successful and then have a

sense of accomplishment and pride.

Piaget, a famous Swiss psychologist, developed many ideas related to cognitive
development which are still studied and practiced today (Papalia 1986). He claimed two
general characteristics, organization and adaptation, of cognitive development.
Organization is the bringing together of all one’s learning into one overall system.
Adaptation is the process where the learner must adapt new information into what has
already been learned and involves assimilation and accommodation. Assimilation means
absorbing new information while accommodation is when the learner changes previously

learned knowledge to fit the new information.

Often times in the secondary years of formal education it seems these basic principles are
forgotten. Many educators focus on ‘covering’ the ever expanding curriculum and
scientific body of knowledge without regard to the process in which students learn.

Many science teachers feel great pressure due to curricular demands and the many
academic tests we must prepare our students for, such as the Michigan High School
Proficiency Test, the ACT, and the SAT. Pressures also come from parent expectations
and expectations for college which further limit the methods which can be employed.

For example, when I teach students why we have seasons in Michigan, I begin with a
class discussion about what the students currently believe drives seasons. An
overwhelming majority of them think the reason for the seasons is due to the Earth’s

distance from the sun as it revolves around it. They have learned that the Earth does

10

rotate on its’ axis and revolves around the sun. They have also learned from experience
that when you get closer to a very hot object, you get warmer yourself. I believe it is the
responsibility of the teacher to help students to reconstruct this knowledge which will
allow them to perform what Piaget called assimilation. This type of teaching is now
called constructivism. Afier I have determined if indeed the misconception does exist, I
have students perform an activity using globes and a light source to actually demonstrate
the seasons in Michigan. I have found this activity to be quite effective in helping
students fit this new information into their previous knowledge. I also know from
previous teaching experiences that when I have lectured to students, the true

understanding of the concepts has not generally lasted long.

Piaget is the father of constructivism, which helped begin the movement for experience
learning. “The basic idea of constructivism is that knowledge must be constructed by the
learner; it cannot be supplied by the teacher. This is vividly expressed by the proverb ‘A

9”

well must produce its own water. (Holzer 1997). Piagets definitions of knowledge are

as follows:

0 Knowledge is an interaction between subject and object...

O Knowledge...is a perpetual construction made by exchanges between...thought
and its object...

O Knowledge...isn’t a copy of reality...it’s a reconstitution of reality by the concepts

of the subject, who, progressively and with all kinds of experimental probes,

approaches the object without ever attaining it in itself. (Holzer 1997)

11

What is implied by the premises of constructivism and thus Piaget is that learning must
be experienced and is the responsibility of the learner. The responsibility of the teacher
is to create an environment and to provide experiences to allow the learner to learn.
When these experiences are provided, through such things as inquiry, experimentation,
collaboration, exploration, discussions, etc., the students are involved in active learning.
Interdisciplinary instruction, which is the focus of this study, is by nature broad and open
ended, rarely offering one, easily attainable answer. This type of instruction forces

students to be actively involved in the learning process.

One technique of integration we learned about is called “Theme Immersion” (hereby
referred to as “TI”) is one technique of instruction which helps students make
connections between classroom learning and their world. Although we did not
completely adopt the TI methods exactly, we did decide to have a theme for each unit
project. TI involves a long term (usually), in depth study of one topic or concept. Many
TI teachers actually involve the students in the choosing and planning of the unit.
Students should also be involved in deciding how they will communicate what they have
learned. This can be done through poetry, simulations, stories, songs, models,
experiments, or any method that demonstrates knowledge. In this type of classroom, the
teacher becomes a learner alongside the students, not the supplier of information

(Manning 1994).

Jean Piaget’s basic principles also support the ideas of TI. He believed that students

 

12

construct their own knowledge internally, they do not construct meaning from having
information given to them. He believed that social interactions will strongly influence a

students ability to construct that knowledge (Brooks 1993).

John Dewey had several ideas regarding teaching strategies that are still applicable,
especially as related to T1. He believed the curriculum should not be a study of separate
subjects not related to the lives of the students. Teachers need to look at the world
through the eyes of their students to determine the best teaching strategy that will make
connections between the academic concepts and the student’s world. He also believed
that the curriculum should not be a progression from one topic to another, but should
help students develop new attitudes and interests towards learning. This will then help
create students who have the interest to learn throughout their lives, and in doing so will

help make the world a better place to live Manning 1994).

When choosing a topic for a TI unit, it must be one in which students will be interested
and one in which there is no definitive answer. It should also include mandatory
outcomes and testing of outcomes that would be part of the curriculum regardless of the
theme. It is also recommended that the theme includes world and local events and
history. When the theme topic holds interest for students and involves events that
directly impact their lives, it creates an environment where students must take risks and

defend their points of view. Piaget argues this is necessary for active learning.

13

Another important part of TI is how students demonstrate their knowledge, or
assessment. This can be done in a number of way such as through art, music, writing,
technology, dramatizations, and models. The method used to demonstrate student
knowledge may or may not be part of the assessment and evaluation process (tests).
Assessment simply refers to the gathering of data taken from samples of students’ work.
From this data a teacher can determine how a student is progressing towards meeting the
expected outcomes. Evaluation is the analysis or making judgments of the data based on
selected criteria. These processes should occur continuously throughout the unit as

opposed to traditional tests that usually take place at the end of a unit of study.

There is much research to support the idea that for students to actually learn the concepts
we intend to teach them, they must be involved in active learning rather than passive
learning (Farmer 1981). Students should be directly involved in the learning process
through research, debates, interviews, and activities. When students are forced to acquire
the knowledge for themselves and are given a meaningful purpose for attaining the
information, they are more likely to remember what they have learned. Passive learning
is when students are not directly involved in attaining information, but are ‘given’ the
information from some other source. It has been shown that people remember only a
small percentage of what they learn through this manner (Brooks 1993). Unfortunately,
many science teachers in Michigan that I have spoken with feel they do not have enough

time for much active learning due to the many topics they are expected to teach.

14

In this study we did not follow any one method we had learned about. Instead we
decided to use the knowledge we had acquired and incorporate the methods we thought
best would meet the needs of our students. One advantage we thought we had was that
we knew there were some outcomes common to two or more subjects which would allow
us to either team teach these outcomes or to at least teach them once and save time. We
all agreed it was necessary to involved active, rather than passive, learning when teaching
towards those outcomes whenever possible. We also wanted each unit integrated project
to revolve around a central theme that was important to students’ lives. Many of the
ideas we learned through the study of constructivism, theme immersion, active learning,
and integrated instruction were fused into our curriculum, but we did not simply choose

one style to implement directly.

15

DEMOGRAPHICS OF CLASSROOMS: THE ‘BLOCK’
CLASSROOM VERSUS THE ‘REGULAR’ SCIENCE CLASSROOM

The following are course descriptions of the two groups, the study and control groups,

exactly as they appeared in the handbook:

During the summer and continuing into the school year of 1996/97 an
interdisciplinary team of six teachers (English, Social Studies, Health, Special
Education, and Technology teachers) with a common planning period have
planned and implemented a block of integrated studies composed of about 110
freshman students. This was a three hour block which offered credit in English 9;
Health; Integrated Science; Social Studies I and II; and Living with Technology.
This unique, student-centered program of studies challenged ninth grade students
to expand their knowledge and abilities within an integrated philosophy of
learning. Students were engaged in activities involving “real life” models and
hands-on projects, using both traditional and non-traditional approaches.

Teaming and problem-solving skills were emphasized as students designed
projects which took into account individual interest and ability levels. The
teachers developed daily lessons which integrated the content areas of English,
Social Studies, Science, and Health with an infusion of Technology. The students
represented a cross section of the ninth grade class. Students of all abilities were
involved in the block. A special education teacher worked closely with special
needs students within the student teams as well as a teacher’s aide assisting an
inclusion student.
r “ i n ” D ri i '

The 9th grade science program is designed to show the interrelatedness of the
various branches of science: Life Science, Earth Science, and Physical Science
(Physics and Chemistry). The three disciplines are not presented as separate and
exclusive rather unified by the concepts and processes that are common to them
all. For example, the concept of ENERGY in the past has been presented various
times relating to the specific discipline being studied but no application to other
disciplines is mentioned. In this science course ENERGY will be presented as a
unifying concept and will be studied from the point of view of all three branches
of science. Emphasis will be placed on the fact that all events and processes
involve transformations of energy.

In each unit the emphasis will be on presenting material to be studied by students,
teaching students how to gather information, analyze it, draw conclusions, and
present findings. The approach will be a process oriented one. Students should

16

be regularly exposed to processes that reoccur continually in nature and unify all
the branches of science (IE. change over time), and processes that are used by the
scientist to study the world around him. Student investigations should be activity
based whenever possible. In this light activities, laboratory experiments,
discussions, debates, and computer simulations should be the order of the day. A
significant focus should be placed on group work and skills necessary to work
productively in small groupings.

For both 9th grade science programs, the study group and the control courses, the content

goals were written so as to satisfy all the requirements of the Michigan State Core

Curriculum and the Michigan State Proficiency Test.

The study program was composed of 103 freshman students who spent the first three
hours of the day, 8:15-11:10, in the program. There were five subjects in the study
group; science, English, health, social studies, and technology. Twenty-four of the
students were enrolled in 9A, an advanced English program offered only in the block.
These students had to be occasionally separated from the group to receive necessary
instruction and assignments to satisfy the advanced requirements. The study program
also had 9 special education students and one inclusion student. Students signed up for
the study group at the end of their 8th grade year. We had a cap of 110 students and had
to resort to a lottery system to determine who would get into the program. Since, it was
very important to ensure we had a heterogeneous group, so we first selected the 24 9A
students and 9 special education students before choosing the rest of the group from the
lottery system. Six teachers were assigned to the study group program, one representing

each curricular area, and a special education consultant. Each week’s schedule varied

 

17

depending on the work to be completed in each course, the amount of time needed for
such work, outside school events (such as assemblies), etc. Following is a sample study
group schedule. When studying this sample weekly schedule, I understand that it may
not be clear how integration is accomplished when it appears all classes are separate.
The integration took place within the unit projects that are discussed in the
“Implementation” section. During some weeks students may have one or two hours for
project work, they may work on projects in an elective class (like technology) each day,

or they were sometimes even given an entire morning to work in their groups.

***the numbers before the subject refer to the room number***

SCHEDULE FOR WEEK OF.
minim CILQImB Grating; ro. D

MONDAY

8:20 27/science 26/health l/English 2/soc.

9:05 2/social studies 27/science 26/health 1/English

9:50 1/English 2/social studies 27/science 26/health

10:30 26/health l/English 2/social studies 27/science
TUESDAY

8:20 27/science 26/health l/English 2/soc. s

9:45 2/social studies 27/science 26/health 1/English
WEDNESDAY

8:20 1/English 2/social studies 27/science 26/health

9:45 26/health I/English 2/social studies 27/science
THURSDAY

Same as Monday’s schedule

FRIDAY
“OPTION DAY”

18

As one can see from this schedule, longer periods of time can be allotted for each
subject for in-depth study, this was of great benefit for teaching science, especially for
lab activities. Most weeks we had what we referred to as an “option day”. On this day,
students usually had four choices of activities to select for three to five sessions.
Sessions included activities such as: a tutorial for students missing assignments in any
block class, an interesting enrichment science lab, constructing toothpick bridges in
technology, acting out “Romeo and Juliet” in English, discussing a career in law in social
studies, an extra review session prior to a test in any course, an exciting video, etc.
Teachers encouraged students to make positive choices on how they spent their option
day sessions. It was the hope that by the end of the year, most students would make
selections based on interest and need of help in some content area rather than on where
their friends were going. This goal was realized for many students who no longer were
attending sessions exclusively with their friends and would specifically ask me for

assistance for an upcoming test or to complete a lab assignment.

Students in the regular science class met daily for 55 minute periods. A typical week
might include a discussion introducing the week’s objectives on Monday with a reading
assignment as homework. The rest of the week consisted of lectures, class discussions,
activities, and laboratory experiences. Though I am calling this a ‘typical’ science class,
this is a typical science class the way I teach. For example, some science teachers teach
by having students read from their textbooks, answering questions based on that reading,

discussing those questions in class with the teacher doing most of the talking, and finally

 

 

19

taking a standard objective-type test at the end of the writ. I do NOT mean this when I
say ‘regular’ classroom. I begin a topic of study by determining students’ prior
knowledge. This is usually done by a journal assignment followed by a group discussion
where students discuss what they have written. We might also have a brainstorming
session to find out what students already know about the new topic. These two
techniques allow me to determine what students’ misconceptions are so I can build future
lessons from that point. I now know this type of teaching strategy to be called
‘constructivism’ though at the time of this study I was unaware of this term. I find if I
first have students’ discuss and think about what they believe to be true (which are
sometimes misconceptions) it is easier to construct their learning from that point of view,
they will be learning for long-term understanding rather than short-term retention.
Referring back to the example regarding the reason Michigan has seasons, if I simply
told students the reason, I know from past experience that many of my students would
remember this information only for the test. I also know from experience that most of
my students would NOT remember this information for very long. What they WILL

remember is the misconceptions they had to begin with.

The two programs were taught using basically the same teaching strategies and the same
activities. A sample of these activities which were developed or adapted by me to help
all students learn science is included in Appendix “A”. Students in the study had much
less time for science class alone and had more integrated science with the other subjects.

In a typical week, I had students from the study group to myself for about 175 minutes

 

 

 

20

while I met with my control classes 260 minutes per week. Please refer to the schedule
at the beginning of this section to follow the schedule of one group of students through a

typical block week. I have highlighted group “A” in bold.

IMPLEMENTATION

For each of the four marking periods, and a short introductory two-week time period, we
had students involved in a unit project. The purpose of the projects was to provide an
extensive interdisciplinary experience for each marking period. We did not attempt to
integrate the subjects other than within the projects. Project topics were chosen by the
block teachers as we brainstormed together. The goal was to design projects that were
not only interdisciplinary, but also were interesting and of value to the students. The

projects are discussed in detail later.

The interdisciplinary projects accounted for 20% of the marking period grade for each
block class. Before designing any of the four interdisciplinary projects (one per quarter)
all study group teachers made a list of all course objectives they either couldn’t or
wouldn’t give up. We looked for common outcomes in all curriculums and/or between
any combination of curriculums. For example, some writing outcomes were common to
all subjects. Another outcome found in all block curriculur areas was problem solving,
which is also a high school exit outcome. Some outcomes were common to all areas
while others were specific to a certain subject area. For example, in science, students
must learn atomic structure which is obviously not within the other disciplines. We then
decided upon a sequence for the outcomes based on the sequence of the science
outcomes. Science was chosen to determine the sequence simply because it was the only

course that did have some topics that must be learned before more advanced study can

21

22

take place. Then, we determined which objectives were to be covered each quarter from
each course. Based on the objectives we were able to design projects that were relevant
to the students while incorporating many of the necessary concepts. Based on training
the study group teachers were involved in we did learn that you should not pick a project
and then try to “fit” your curriculum around it. It was important that all mandated
objectives be met in the curriculum and that any projects serve to further the study of
those objectives. We also quickly realized that some objectives would have to be taught
outside the scope of the project, especially, if not exclusively, in science. For example; it
was a state mandate that I teach the structure of the atom which does not nicely fit into
any of the four unit projects. Students were then scheduled for a science session to meet
such objectives. A few block teachers argued that if it didn’t fit into this ‘new way of
doing business’, then what was the justification for teaching it? I strongly argued that
although it would be nice to be able to determine for my students what is important for
them to learn, the state and hence school district has already decided this for me.
Another reason why science was chosen to drive the sequence for the objectives, was
because the other courses have many objectives which can easily be covered within the
framework of the science curriculum. For example; many writing objectives can be met
by writing in science. Also, problem solving was an outcome common to all subject

areas. The process can be taught in science and applied to the other classes.

Below is a brief description of each interdisciplinary unit project:

23
Unit “Zero”:
“Setting the Stage”
At the beginning of the school year we wanted to begin with a ‘mini’ project to
acquainted with one another and the teachers. This project lasted only two weeks,
compared to the nine week projects that came later. Students were randomly assigned to
groups of eleven and were given the task to create a documentary entitled “WE ARE
THE BLOCK” starring each person in the group. The presentation (documentary) was to
include an introduction of each member of the group, each member speaking on the tape,
some interesting and “typical” props from around the school and community, and tell
something about “The Block”. Groups were asked to consider using music for
background, using technology equipment to create titles and credits, and to mix the
required information rather than having straight introductions. Each presentation was to
last five to six minutes and was videotaped to create one final long video representative

of the block.

lst marking period interdisciplinary project:

“The Effects of Growth in the Community”

The first interdisciplinary project was entitled “The Effects of Grth in our
Community”. This community fairly recently was a small, rural farming community.
Since this time it has slowly grown into a small suburban community often considered a
‘bedroom’ community of a large suburban university city. Also, because of this

university community and it’s strong academic base, the community is populated with

24

many professionals and not as much agriculture activity is present. We thought that
having students study the effects of this growth from different perspectives would be a
‘real-world’ problem for them worth their time and efforts. The students were placed
randomly into groups of about ten. It is important to note here that for each project, the
special education students were evenly distributed within the groups. Each group had to
research the effects of the grth of the community from the perspective of a community
group and prepare and present a multi-media presentation for the other block members.
The community groups represented were; agriculture, business executives, high school
students, merchants, police and fire personnel, hospital administrators, educators,

residents, church leaders, city officials, and environmental groups.

Second Marking Period Interdisciplinary Project:

“The Scrambler”

The second unit project had students working in groups of two of their choice. This
project had three components: building a device to transport an uncooked egg without
hitting a wall and breaking the egg, writing a manual that describes the vehicle and how
it was built, and designing an advertisement to “sell” the vehicle. This project was
adapted from a Michigan Science Olympiad event also entitled “Scrambler”. The system
had to transport a Grade A uncooked chicken egg a distance of 12 meters along a curved
track, stopping as close to possible to a terminal barrier without leaving a two meter lane.
The only source of energy used to move the vehicle was a falling mass not to exceed two

kilograms. Points were awarded for having the vehicle ready on the competition day,

 

25

having a moving vehicle, the vehicle getting within a certain distance of the terminal
barrier, the vehicle staying on the track, and not breaking the egg. Each team was given

two trials to test their vehicle and prizes were awarded for the top winners.

Third Marking Period Interdisciplinary Project:

“A Student Portfolio”

Throughout the year we wanted to have different Sized groups for the unit projects. The
zero and first project had students working in groups of about ten, the second unit in
pairs, so we decided to have this project be completed by individual students. Students
welcomed this project because they have a difficult time working in large groups with
the various personalities of their classmates. Students who are more concerned with
achieving high grades feel their grades are affected by other students’ performance.
Parents often express this concern also. For this unit, students developed their school
portfolios which were to include pieces of work from each block class. They completed
a career resource center worksheet where they had to research many various careers in
the schools’ career resource center. This introduced them to different career areas and
forced them to begin thinking about career choices. They also compiled a ‘bagfolio’,
which is a bag brought from home filled with items that represent who they are. Many
students brought awards, items related to their hobbies, and photographs of family and
friends. This was done before construction of the portfolio to help students understand
the purpose of one. Finally, the portfolios included evidence and written explanations for

items showing they had developed academic skills, personal management skills, and

 

26

teamwork skills. A resume was made during this unit along with an educational
development plan which mapped out their future school courses and plans for the future
beyond high school. This project was the most popular by the students because
(according to a survey discussed in Appendix C) they enjoyed exploring career areas,
giving them the opportunity to plan their future. I personally think they enjoyed it
because it was an easy project relative to the previous ones. I was not pleased with this
project because it wasn’t as effective as the other projects at crossing curricular lines and
thus not integrated. The teachers also wanted an easier unit for ourselves because during

the “Scrambler” unit we had many complaints from both students and parents.

Fourth Marking Period Interdisciplinary Project:

“Career Exploration, Booth & Fair”

For the fourth and final marking period project students worked in groups ranging in Size
from two to six members. Groups were selected based upon a career inventory survey
completed during the portfolio project. The task of this project was to prepare for a
career fair at two elementary schools. Students prepared booths which were to include
an informational brochure, a banner, and a career related activity. The groups included
career focus areas such as small business, agriculture, psychology, marketing, education,
automotive, medical trades, engineering, and veterinary science. Each group was
assigned a teacher, depending on the teacher’s area of expertise, to act as the group’s
mentor. This project had five components including a job shadowing experience with a

community member, a detailed questionnaire, a poster exhibiting or highlighting a career

 

27

or a product derived from a career, a review of your portfolio by a community member,
and a job interview and letter of application. The task of each group was to design a
booth and accompanying brochure for a career fair to be held at two different elementary

schools on two consecutive days.

EVALUATION
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT:
There were six major objective tests in science for both the study and control groups, not
including the semester exams, throughout the year. The tests included multiple choice,
short answer, and essay items. Both the control and study groups were administered the
same tests at about the same time. I have included a graph indicating the average score
for each group and a table including important data. I determined that a test score
average or higher (73% or higher) is ‘acceptable’ while a test score below 73% is ‘not
acceptable’. Then I placed all scores into either the ‘acceptable’ or ‘not acceptable’
category and performed a chi square to determine if the differences in the scores of the
two groups is significant or likely due to chance. Based on my data, one degree of
freedom was appropriate and I determined my data needed to be significant to the .05
level. The following graph includes the average percent scores for each of the six unit
tests for both groups. The chart also includes the percents for each test as well as the chi
square value calculated for each test to determine if the differences in the test scores

were Significant.

28

29

Unit Test Scores

 

100

80-

40-

% Scores

20'-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Test #4 Test #5 Test #6

I Block

I I I

I

[j Non-Block

Figure l - Objective Unit Test Results

Table 1 - Objective Test Scores For Both Groups and Chi Square Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test # Study Group Control Group Chi Square Significant?
Scores Scores Value
1 79 85 .223 NO
2 70 74 1.38 NO
3 81 78 . 153 NO
4 76 73 .81 1 NO
5 67 70 .279 NO
6 74 71 .845 NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

30

Table 2 - First Final Examination Scores For Both Groups and Chi Square Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDY GROUP CONTROL GROUP
# of student scores included 104 45
average % of group 78 78
chi square value“ .0242=not significant XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

*=significant to the .05 level with one degree of freedom

Table 3 - Second Final Examination Scores For Both Groups and Chi Square Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDY GROUP CONTROL GROUP
# of student scores included 100 45
average % of group 78 72
chi square value* .l76=not significant XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

*=significant to the .05 level with one degree of freedom

Students in both groups were given the same science tests and final examinations at

about the same time. There was not a significant difference in the scores for any of the

tests. The hope was that the scores for the block students would be higher which may

indicate that when students learn science within the context of ‘real-world’ projects, the

learning will be more meaningful resulting in higher scores. But it is true that many of

the science outcomes were not taught within the scope of the unit projects which would

have invalidated that argument if the tests had been higher. It could be argued however

 

 

 

31
that although the tests scores in the block were not higher, this type of instruction may be
more effective considering students in the block received significant less science class
per week. Perhaps this type of program is a more efficient use of time allowing
outcomes from different subjects to be taught concurrently through the integrated
projects. This was one of the original thoughts that began the development of the
program two years prior to its’ implementation. It is difficult to draw absolute
conclusions based on only one year’s data. The questions that cannot be answered at this
point and that may have had great effects on the data include; 1) Is there a certain type of
students who is more likely to enroll in a new program? 2) Were the tests an effective
measure of student academic achievement? and 3) Did the time of day each group had
science effect student test performance? Though these are just a few of the many
variables that cannot be controlled in a study such as this, I do believe that when the
students were involved in the science through the projects, they were learning at a much
higher level than students in the control group. For example, when building the
‘Scrambler’ students had to learn first hand how friction would affect the speed and
stopping of their vehicles. They could experiment by changing the size of their tires and
using different textures to determine how to either increase and reduce the effects of
friction. This type of experience is more meaningful than studying friction using blocks
of wood covered in various grades of sandpaper to measure friction, which is a common
activity used to demonstrate this concept. If many of the science outcomes could have
been taught more directly within the projects as the example just described, I believe the

science unit test scores for the study group would have been significantly higher than the

 

 

 

32

control group.

SUBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SURVEY

A semantic differential survey was given to both the study group and the control students
at the end of the school year. This type of survey is intended to indicate attitudes of the
participants. I chose to evaluate the items asking if science is related to english, health,
social studies, and technology because the block program was designed to assist students
in making those connections. I also studied the selections students made for the items
addressing their attitudes about science to allow me to compare students’ attitudes about

science in both groups. The survey administered was as follows.

33

 

Directions: Read each pair of opposite statements referring to your opinions about
science in general. Scan in “l" for definitely not, “2" for I don’t think so,
“3 " for I can’t decide, “4" for I think so, and “5 " for definitely yes.
Simple 2 3 4 5 Complex
Easy to learn 2 3 4 5 Difficult to
learn
Boring 2 3 4 5 Interesting
Irnpractical 2 3 4 5 Practical
For everyone 2 3 4 5 For scholars
only
About real things 2 3 4 5 About theories
Valuable to society 2 3 4 5 Worthless to
society
Worthless to me 2 3 4 5 Valuable to
me
Related to math 2 3 4 5 Unrelated to
math
Related to english 2 3 4 5 Unrelated to
english
Unrelated to health 2 3 4 5 Related to
health
Unrelated to social 2 3 4 5 Related to
studies social
studies
Related to technologyl 2 3 4 5 Unrelated to
technology

Notice with the scale used above, a ‘positive’ response may be either a 1 or a 5 as the
scale has been reversed several times on the survey items. This was to ensure that
students would think about their responses rather than simply marking all ones or all
fives, depending on how they may be feeling that particular day. Also, some of the items
are written as a positive while others are written as a negative. These strategies were
recommended from the source I used to develop this survey (McRel 1995). However, I

would NOT write a survey using either of these strategies in the future because of the

34

MAJOR confusion it caused both the students while taking it and myself while analyzing
the results. I would recommend ranking numbers (1-5) consistently representing the
same chosen response and to write all the survey items as positive statements (or
negative). Then, to ensure students were honest in their responses, I would eliminate any

surveys having the same chosen responses for each item (all 3's or 5's for example).

The following graphs indicate students’ opinions about the degree of relationship
between science and english, health, technology, and social studies which were the other
subjects in the study program. The next graphs indicate students’ opinions about science
being interesting, practical, and relevant to them. A response of “5" indicates strong

agreement, “4" is an agreement, “1 " is a strong disagreement, and “2" is a disagreement.

 

35

...Related To English

830

 

1 2 3 4 5
Choices

I Block [:J Non-Block

 

[Block 1] all 25L 151 7] sj
[Non-Block H 37] 191 141 23[ A

Figure 2 - Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between Science and English

...Related To Health

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
Choices
I Block [3 Non-Block
IBiock Ti 13] 121 15] 23[ 17]
[Non-Block I 141 14F 1:1 25L 34]

 

Figure 3 — Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between Science and Health

 

36

...Related to Soc. Studies

35

A—‘NNQ
0010010

96 Responded

01

 

O

Choices

I Block [:1 Non-Block

 

[Block 11 261 201 201 201 141
[Non-Block 11 141 141 171 231 321

Figure 4 - Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between Science and Social
Studies

...Related to Technology

40
35
g 30

3210

 

Choices

I Block [:1 Non-Block

 

IBiock 11 171 121 171 261 _23‘1
[Non-Block 11 71 111 18I 251 asfl

Figure 5 - Student Opinions Regarding the Relationship Between Science and
Technology

37

 

 

 

...Practical
35
30
.325
2
8. 20
g 15
it
a! 10
5
0
Choices
I Block [:1 Non-Block
[Block 11 181 181 261 281 121
[Non—Block 11 71 91 201 301 341

 

Figure 6 - Student Opinions Regarding the Practicality of Science

...lnteresting

 

 

 

Choices
I Block [:1 Non-Block
1 Block 11 301 201 281 171 71
Non-Bleak 11 181 181 201 351 1g

 

 

Figure 7 - Student Opinions Regarding How Interesting Science is

38

...About Real Things

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5O 1.
O40 ——
.E
2 30 ~—
0
Q
8 20 ——
n:

a? 10 '— _.
0 ml?
Choices
I Block D Non-Block
1 Block 11 A 121 191 311 311
[Non-Block 11 51 111 “I 241 48:1

 

Figure 8 - Student Opinions Regarding Whether Science is About Real Things

...For Everyone

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III

 

 

 

 

 

0 ..I
Choices
I Block 1:] Non-Block
[Block 11 441 201 191 101 71
INon-Biock 11 421 131 131 181 1g

 

 

Figure 9 - Student Opinions Regarding Whether Science is For Everyone

39

...Valuabie To Society

 

 

 

Choices
I Block D Non-Block
IBlock 11 211 101 151 341 201
INon-Block 11 71 121 141 281 391

 

Figure 10 - Student Opinions Regarding Whether Science is Valuable to Society

Based on the information obtained from this survey and the preceding graphs, it is clear
that less students in the study group agreed that there were connections between science
and the other subjects in the program. In fact there was also a higher percentage of them
that strongly disagreed that the subjects were connected. This is quite surprising because
the program was designed with the intention of exploring these relationships. It was also
indicated by the survey that study group students had more negative opinions regarding
whether science is about real things, valuable to society, for everyone, practical, and
interesting. I am not confident that the results of this survey are valid. The students in
the study group did not like the program which may have influenced their choices when
responding to the survey. I have found that students at this age have a difficult time

being objective, their emotions seem to control them. I believe if this survey could have

40

been given at least one year following enrollment in the program, the results would have

been either closer or reversed because of the maturity of the students.

ESSAYS:

All students were assigned two essays and asked to develop a concept map at the
end of the year. I randomly chose six students from each group, block and non-
block, from which to draw conclusions. The random sampling technique used is
discussed in Appendix “B”. The essays were; “What science means to me...” and
“Science is only applied to math. Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Give reasons to support your position”. At the end of the school year both groups
were asked to complete these sentences in a minimum of one paragraph. I then read
the same six students essays from each group to determine if there was a difference
between their attitudes towards science. Understanding that this is very subjective, I

came to the conclusion that there was no difference based on this essay.

Students in both groups were asked to develop a concept map given a certain number of
concepts or ideas. They place each word, and more if they choose, within oval shapes on
a piece of paper. The challenging part of this activity is using linking verbs to connect
concepts to one another. I gave students the five subject areas (science, health, english,
social studies, and technology) and a few additional terms to include in their concept

map. I then randomly chose six students from both groups to analyze to determine the

41

number of connections they were able to make between the subject areas.

SOLVING A “REAL-LIF E” PROBLEM
At the end of the school year I asked students in both groups to explain how they would
solve a typical problem. The purpose was to determine if either group had better skills at
using a problem solving skills after the year of instruction. There were several problems
for students to choose from based on the variety of student interests. Three example
problems were:

1) You are a college student who has limited time for studying, you would

like to determine at what time of the day your studying efforts will

promise the greatest results. How can you determine this?

2) You are a skateboarder/r01lerblader and are in the market to purchase new
wheels. You would like to test several brands to determine which will

allow you to go faster. How would you do this?

3) You are a cook trying to determine the correct number of eggs for a new
recipe which will allow for the best texture in your creation. How will
you determine how many eggs to use?

Again, I looked at the six student samples to determine if the problem solving skills were
better in either of the two groups. There was no difference between the two groups in the

ability to solve the problem, and actually I was quite pleased in the responses from all my

students.

42

SUMMARY AND EVALUATION

It is difficult to determine whether or not this program, the integrated ‘block’ program,
was ‘successful’ as there are many variables to consider. To determine this I looked at
not only student grades, but also student opinions, student behavior, teacher opinions, the
amount of planning time involved, student attitudes and my own personal day-to-day life
during this year. Moreover, a program such as this should be in place for about six years

before one can truly draw conclusions regarding it’s success or failure.

When analyzing student grades I considered the six unit tests, and two final exams for
both groups. Both the control and study groups were given the exact same tests at the
same time in all cases . By using a chi square statistic I have determined that in none of
these scores was there a significant difference in scores, which means any differences in
the scores can be attributed to chance. Therefore; based on academic grades, following
one year of this program’s implementation, there was no impact on students’ academic
achievement. I was somewhat surprised in this because much of the science content was
taught outside of the integrated projects, this meant I had very little time for exclusive
science teaching. During an average week the study group students had 175 minutes of
science instruction while the control students had 260 minutes. My hypothesis was that
the study group students would have a better understanding of the concepts taught within
the interdisciplinary projects, but less understanding of the concepts taught the ‘regular’

way. Because the tests did not distinguish between concepts taught in projects and those

43

44

not in projects, the average scores were so similar despite the fact that the study group
had less instruction time. I didn’t feel it would be realistic to separate those concepts
because it was my job to teach all the objectives well, not just the ones involved in the

project.

Though students in the block did not perform better on objective tests than the non-block
students, there were other areas where it seemed to me they were more advanced. The
study group students had to be more self-sufficient and motivated than is typical for ninth
grade students. When working on unit projects involving large groups, students had to
delegate responsibilities among the group and each member had to independently carry
out their tasks. Each group was working on its’ own unique project in most cases and
teachers were acting as mentors to assigned groups. For this reason, students were given
great freedom. On a project day, some students may be researching in the library,
making phone contacts, constructing something. Others may be acting as the group
leader, making sure everything is moving on schedule. Students basically had the
freedom to go where they needed to be and I never once found a student not on task. If I
had left the room in one of my control classes, I believe that there would be a much

greater chance they would take advantage of the situation and cause trouble.

The only difference I determined between the two groups was in student attitudes and in
my daily life. First of all, the majority of students did not like the block (study group). A

detailed evaluation of a survey given to them is in Appendix “C”. Their complaints

45

included: they didn’t like not being able to switch classes on the bell schedule, which
prevented socializing with their fiiends; they thought the block was disorganized because
the schedule continually changed; they didn’t like working in groups; they didn’t feel
they had enough time in science or english-the two full credit academic classes; and they
thought it was too hard. Even though I disagree with their point of view, I have finally
come to the conclusion that it doesn’t matter if their complaints are valid because if they
think they are valid, that in itself creates a difficult situation. By the end of the year I
could feel their unhappiness when I entered the room, while in my afternoon classes, the
control, I felt the typical end of the year craziness and excitement. I prefer the latter as
one of the main reasons I became a teacher is because I like kids and feel disappointed if
they are not satisfied with the science education they receive. I agree with the students
that they didn’t get enough time in science class alone, and this is a battle I fought all
year with my co-workers. They all felt I should ‘give up’ some of my curriculum for the
benefit of the block, that true integration can only come when teachers can teach
concepts only relevant to that integration. Though I agree with that point of view in
theory, I also felt strongly that I had a responsibility to teach all students all the
outcomes that were part of the ninth grade science curriculum. Students, my science
department co—workers, administrators, parents, and the state of Michigan were
expecting me to do this. Another problem I faced was that the ‘Integrated Science’
course for both groups was also in it’s first year following many years of a biology course
for ninth graders. The curriculum changes the science department was implementing

came with great opposition from students, parents, some administrators, and many

 

 

 

1.].

46

teachers. All ninth grade science teachers were dealing with defending the curriculum
throughout the entire year, and still today. Many teachers and administrators, including
myself, now feel it was a big mistake having both the new science and the new block
courses together. I was destined for double trouble! Besides the daily problems I had in
dealing with general dissatisfaction about science from students, my daily life was also
quite stressful because I had no personal planning time. Each day the block teachers met
to plan projects and student schedules, actually we usually met through lunch also. This

left all the laboratory preparation and all other daily activities until after school.

Overall, I feel we did a great job in implementing this new program with the limited
resources, time, and support we were given. If I were asked to do this again given the
same circumstances, I would decline, as would the rest of the teachers in the block and in
the science department (they witnessed what I went throughl). However, I would
welcome the chance to try this type of program again with the following conditions: a
personal preparation hour for each teacher, financial support to support unique ideas,
working with a team of teachers who all choose to work together towards this effort, and
if I felt I could effectively teach all the science outcomes in the program. The exact

comments of the other teachers involved in the block are included in Appendix “D”.

In summary, though I have stated I would not be interested in being involved in this
program again as it was, I do believe the concept of interdisciplinary instruction is a

positive method of teaching. I would suggest to anyone interested in starting a program

47

similar to the one described in this study to consider the suggestions listed below, which
we did not follow: 1) the program must be teacher driven; 2) teachers involved must
volunteer for the position and choose to work together; 3) plan to take five or six years
before complete integration of the curriculum is expected, start simple; 4) administrators
must be supportive both financially and when concerns from parents arise; and 5)
financial support must be specific for unique projects and activities in the program. I
believe if we had followed these guidelines, the year would have been less difficult for

all those involved and hence considered to be more ‘successful’.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andrade, Ernest & Associates, “Creating High Achieving Schools”, 1995.

Blumenfeld, Phyllis, et. al. “Lessons Learned: How Collaboration Helped Middle Grade
Science Teachers Learn Project Based Instruction”, Elementary School Journal;
December 9, 1993.

Brooks, Jacqueline G. The Case for Constructivist Classrooms, 1993.

Carroll, Joseph M. “The Copernican Plan Evaluated; The Evolution of a Revolution”,
October 1994.

Crane, Sue. “Integrated Science in a Restructured High School”, October 1991.

Cushman, Kathleen, “Less Is More: The Secret of Being Essential”, The Coalition of
Essential Schools: Horace, November 1994.

Drake, Susan M. “Planning Integrated Curriculum: The Call to Adventure”, 1993.

Farmer, Walter A., Farrell, Margaret A., and Jeffrey R. Lehman, “Secondary Science
Instruction, An Integrated Approach”; 1981.

F itzhugh, Suzie. “On the Cutting Edge of Assessment”. Education Update, June 1996.

Glasser, Willian. “The Quality School”, 1992.

Holzer, Siegfried M. “From Constructivism ...... to Active Learning”. Center for
Technology and Communication, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA 24061. (Internet—May 1997).

Jacobs, Heidi Hayes. “Interdisciplinary Curriculum: Design & Implementation”, 1989.

Krajcik, Joseph, et. al. “A Collaborative Model for Helping Science Teachers Learn

Project-based Instruction”, Elementary School Journal, December 6, 1993.

48

49

Ladewski, Barbara G. “A Middle Grade Science Teacher’s Emerging Understanding of
Project-based Instruction”, Elementary School Journal; December 9, 1993.

Manning, Maryann, Manning, Gary, and Roberta Long, “Theme Immersionzlnquiry-
Based Curriculum in Elementary and Middle Schools”; 1994.

McClure, Robert M. “Doubts & Uncertainties: Working Together to Restructure
Schools”, 1991.

McCombs, Barbara L. “Putting the Learner and Learning in Learner-Centered
Classrooms: The Learner-Centered Model as a Framework”. Michigan
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Spring 1995.

McRel, “Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and
reform, January 1993.

McRel, “Interdisciplinary Curriculum ‘Chunk’ Development Workshop”, June 1995.

Ouimet, Mark. “Performance-driven education would boost achievement”, Ann Arbor
News.

Papalia, Diane and Sally Wendkos Olds. Human Development, 1986.

“Resources for Constructivism”. (Internet-May 1997).

Sizer, Theodore R., Horace’s School, Redesigning the American High School, 1992.

APPENDIX A: STUDENT ACTIVITIES
I have included in this appendix the labs I developed (or adapted) during my research
summer at MSU. I have only included the procedure for each because I rarely give my
students pre-made data tables or pre-written post lab questions. My students become
very good at organizing their own data which I feel forces them to think more about what
they are doing rather than simply going through the motions of the lab. For the analysis
portion, I have them write a summary about the lab discussing the purpose, data,
interpretation of the data, problems encountered during the lab, and their conclusions. I
find this is much more effective than having them fill out data tables and answer (or

usually copy) answers.

LAB: DNA EXTRACTION

Bungee; The purpose of this lab is to extract DNA from at least two plant sources.
Meteg’als; DNA source: lima beans, onions, apples
dishsoap
ice cold ethanol
distilled water
mortar and pestle
test tube
wooden stirrer
salt
2mm
DAY 1:
1. Rinse out all glassware before using and put on gloves before touching glass
again or onion.
2. Dice up 12 g onion into pieces no larger than 3mm x 3mm.
3. Loosely cover onion, label container with wax marking pencil and place in

50

51

refrigerator.

DAY2:

Add diced onion to 50ml of homogenization medium (previously made).

2. Incubate this mixture at 60 C for 15 minutes (NO LONGER).

3. Quickly cool this preparation in an ice bath and incubate on ice for a further 6
minutes.

4. Blend in a blender on high for 1 minute, 15 seconds.

5. Store this solution in a 250 ml beaker in the refrigerator overnight.

DAY 3:

6. Filter the homogenate through four thicknesses of cheesecloth into a 250ml
beaker. It is critical that the foam be left behind.

7. Cool this filtered solution for 10 minutes in a ice bath.

8. During this incubation label two test tubes, one “homogenate” and a line is
marked 2 cm from the bottom, and the other “ethanol’ with a line 3.5cm from the
bottom.

9. Pour enough homogenate into the first test tube and cold ethanol into the second
tube to fill them to their respective lines.

10. Precipitate the DNA by slowly adding the ethanol to the homogenate test tube. A
visible precipitate should appear which can be wound onto a wooden applicator
by spinning it in the test tube in one direction.

Data; Construct a data chart to compile the following data: source of DNA,

source used to rupture cells, source used to precipitate DNA, and results.
(4 pts.)
PRECAUTIONS:
9 Each student MUST wear gloves at all times during the procedure to

prevent enzymes which are always present on hands from interfering with
the experiment.

0 You MUST follow the directions exactly. This procedure will only work
if all

conditions are precisely controlled.

52
MEASURING HEAT OF COMMON FOODS

Illustrate

thermometer food samples food holder

kitchen wooden matches utility clamp slit rubber stopper with one
hole

ring stand 4-inch ring IOOmL graduated cylinder

cold water can cut in half and cut edge taped

Emeritus;

1. Set up apparatus

2. Obtain two food samples

3. Record the mass of the can and the food holder (separately)

4. Add 50mL cold water to the can and determine the mass

5. Determine the mass of one food sample

6. Measure the temperature of the water in the can before and after burning the food

to calculate the change in temperature

7. Place the food sample on the food holder (while get under the can) and ignite
with a match once food is burning. Place under can

8. Repeat steps 4-7 for food sample two (you must startwithh cold water)

53

PLANARIA REGENERATION

Massed;

pond or river water Planaria culture shallow aluminum
sharp razor blade glass petri dish-chilled plastic 5:111 container
disposable dropper pipette

Nete: Planaria cultures can be purchased through Carolina Biological Supply company.
The company provides a care manual with each purchase. Basic tips:
keep 1n pond or river water only
* change water daily- don mt use soap to clean tray-water only
* feed one week after delivery and weekly thereafter. Feed egg yolk-about
the size of a pencil eraser per 50 planaria. Remove remaining food after
30 minutes. Better yet-change the water.

Procedure;
1. Using a dropper, fill each well depression with the planaria’s water.
2. Place one worm on a chilled petri dish and cut the head off. Place each piece in

separate wells. Observe for several days.
Note: Make sure each well has enough water to prevent complete evaporation
overnight and drying out of the worms.

3. Repeat the above trying several different cuts.

 

 

54
EFFECTS OF DRUGS ON BRINE SHRIMP

Marshals;

brine shrimp culture regular coffee beans decaf. coffee beans
sleep-aid cigarette ethyl alcohol

5 small beakers 6 large droppers hand lens or
dissecting scope

depression microscope slides

EMILE;

1. Remove a brine shrimp from it’s salt water environment and place in a depression
slide. Use a dropper to transfer brine shrimp. Use paper towel to absorb excess
water.

2. Count the number of times the appendages “wave” during 10 seconds. This

number should be very close to the heartbeat. Multiply this number by 6 to
calculate the “beats per minute”.

3. Place the same shrimp in the solution of coffee (see solution section) for 3
minutes, then repeat step 2.

4. Repeat steps 1-3 for the remaining solutions. Use a different brine shrimp for
each test.

Seminars;

Coffee: Grind l bean (~.1g) in a mortar and pestle. Dissolve in 10 mL distilled
water. (Make separate regular and decaf. solutions) Let sit 1 hour (not
necessary, but more dramatic if done). Strain through filter paper and
keep liquid.

Nicotine: Remove the contents of one cigarette and soak in 50mL distilled water.
Let sit 1 hour (again, not necessary). Strain and keep liquid.

Sleep-Aid: Crush up and dissolve one sleeping pill in 20mL distilled water, filter,
keep liquid.

Alcohol: 2mL alcohol in 98mL distilled water

 

55

THE EFFECTS OF CHEMICALS ON CHICK EMBRYOS

Materials;

fertilized chicken eggs-can be purchased from MSU poultry farm for ~85.00/dozen-use at

72 hours of age

chick ringers solution-see reagent section

eye dropper

bright light source

shallow bowl paper toweling

sharp razor blade needle

nicotine solution alcohol solution
caffeine solution sleeping pill solution
distilled water

Procedure;

1.

.4”.W

9°.‘l.°‘."'

“Candle” an egg. This is done by holding the egg up to a bright light source and
gently rotating it until you see a dark spot. Circle this spot with a marker-it is the
embryo. Do not turn the egg any more as the embryo will shift position.

Use a needle to gently jab a hold in the wide end of the egg. This will permit the
membranes to drop away from the Shell.

Place the egg in a shallow bowl filled with warm paper towels.

Carefully remove the shell and membrane around the marked embryo. This will
expose the pulsating embryo.

Determine the heart rate by counting the beats in ten seconds and multiplying by
Calculate the average of three trials.

Drop ten drops of the drug you were assigned directly onto the embryo.

Wait five minutes and repeat step 5.

56
TESTING TOPICAL ANTIBIOTICS

Materials;

petri dishes nutrient agar topical antibiotic(s)
hot plate large beaker stirring rod
mass balance

Procedure:

Pour liquid agar into ten petri dishes and cover.

Measure .3 g antibiotic and smear on bottom of five different petri dishes.
Pour agar into plates and swirl 20 lefi, 20 right, cover.

Repeat 2 & 3 using .6g antibiotic.

When agar solidifies, contaminate with touch.

Wait ~ 2 days, record results.

9999939?"

57
EXTRACTION OF ENZYMES IN PINEAPPLE

Mamas

knox unflavored gelatin shallow pan triple beam balance

fresh pineapple canned pineapple plastic well container

dropper can opener

Erasmus;

1. Prepare gelatin-dissolve 1 package in 1 cup boiling water-set in shallow pan in
refrigerator.

2. Mass .5g gelatin (x6) and place in Shallow well.
Drop equal amounts of fresh juice versus canned juice into pineapple.
4. Observe results and record in data table.

9’

APPENDD( B: STUDENT SAMPLES
Sampling Technique:
To obtain samples for evaluation to support the conclusions of this paper I applied a
simple random sampling technique. First, I wrote the names of students who granted me
permission to use their work on individual pieces of paper. Then, I sorted those names
into three groups based on their final semester grades. In one pile I placed students with
grades 85% or higher. In the second pile I placed students with grades between 70% and
84%. In the third pile I placed students with grades less than 70%. Then I placed all
names face down and randomly selected two names from each pile. There is one student
in the less than 70% group who qualified for special education services in both groups.

Those names are the students whose samples are included in this appendix.

58

APPENDIX C: STUDENT

REACTIONS

The information in this appendix was obtained by the administration in an attempt to
possibly discover why enrollment for the block was down for the following school year
and was acquired at the end of the school year. The first part of this data was obtained
through a written survey, while the second part was obtained through group oral
discussions. Because I feel strongly that having group oral surveys with 9th grade
students is a very poor method of obtaining unbiased data, I have decided to include this
information in an appendix rather than in the evaluation portion of this paper. Also,
because these are the opinions of the students and not based on concrete data, I felt it
much too subjective. It is also important to mention that the administrators also

administered the written survey to students not in the block program.

TV 5 i
Circle the answer that best summarizes your experience for your ninth grade classes.
(Reported by Percentages): The questions were:
1) When you think about how much you learned and how valuable each class was,

would you rate it excellent, good, fair, or poor?

2) Think about how difficult the subject was and how much work you did, would

you rate it excellent, good, fair, or poor?

59

I _, ‘
.
,, ‘ : v
’ .

tr ,1

. . 1
.
1 .
.
r 1 .
I j"
..‘J 'n u ' ,

 

60

W

By combining the excellent to good ratings, Block students ranked English (89%) the
highest in value, followed by Social Studies (72%), Health (66%), Technology (50%),
and Science (12%). Health and Technology were ranked easiest, English and Social

Studies were average difficulty, and Science was ranked most difficult.

Non-Block students also ranked English the highest (72%), followed by Health (60%)
and Science (42%). English was ranked average in difficulty, Health was ranked
average/easy, and Science was average/difficult.

Students gave the Portfolio project slightly higher rankings than the Career Exploration
Project in all three categories of value, amount of information, and amount of time, but
they liked the Career Exploration project a little better overall. The Scrambler received
low ratings on value and many felt they had neither enough time or information for this
project. The Effects of Growth on the Community Project received moderate ratings for
value, with nearly a third of the students preferring to have had more time and more

information.

APPENDIX D: TEACHER COMMENTS
I asked each of the teachers directly involved in the block program to write down pros
and cons related to the year and I received responses from four of the five teachers.
Below I have made two columns, pros and cons, incorporating the lists provided by each
of them. The responses that I have included were stated by at least three of the four

teachers and in many'cases they are unanimous points.

PROS

Heterogeneous grouping

Grades were about the same as non-block students (could also be a ‘con’)
Chance to integrate curriculum
Interdisciplinary work

Student directed learning

Promotes organization

Does not promote tracking

Teachers determined students’ daily schedules
Flexibility

Group work-cooperative learning

Discipline problems were less

Cons
Lack of organization

Administration failed to give direction to teachers

Lack of administrative support in general: backing teachers, financial

Teachers not trained to work together effectively-very diverse group

Teachers wanting to teach in the block were not ‘chosen’, some who
didn’t want to be involved at all were ‘forced’

Lack of curriculum training for teachers

Teachers had no individual preparation time

‘Old’ curriculum in some areas could not be changed due to mandates

No additional resources provided

Administration failed to commit to the three year program as expected

Parents didn’t always support this ‘new way of doing business’, though at
the beginning this is exactly what they asked for

Students generally dissatisfied with the block

We should have communicated better with students and parents regarding
our plans

We did too much, too soon, it was too complicated

61

62

Too confusing for special most education students

Some of the points may seem vague, but these are not my words so I did not feel
comfortable with too much interpretation of them. I do know, however, from end of the
year discussions we had as a team what the general consensus of the group was regarding
the success of the program. We were all happy to see the year end as we were all very
tired and felt somewhat stressed. We were proud of all that we accomplished and felt
that many of the problems with the program could easily have been corrected if a second
year was to occur, except for the problems associated with lack of administrative
support. The biggest mistake we agreed we made was doing too much for the first year.
As I discussed earlier, true integration of the curriculum takes several years to
accomplish, but we did it in the first year. We believed we did a great job of developing
projects to satisfy the integration, it was simply too overwhelming for not only us due to
the tremendous amount of work it took, but also to the students and their parents. What
we did was very different to what they were used to, and though the majority of students
and their parents signed up for the program because they wanted something new and
different, we may have changed too much at one time. However, this is a tough call
because the administration made it quite clear to us that they wanted this program to be
very ‘different’. The middle school, where our students were directly coming from, has
implemented the ‘teaming’ concept (discussed previously) and many parents were upset
because there was no integration. Sometimes I feel we place too much emphasis on what

parents think and want which is evident in this example, there are simply too many of

I) "re.

63

them to please. Another thing we wish we would have done better was communication
with the parents. We could have been sending more information home to them and
having more meetings with them (though two of us did not agree that we could have
possibly had more time to hold more than the four meetings we did hold with parents).
Probably the biggest problem we had throughout the year was lack of administrative
support. First of all, we did not receive the training necessary to help us learn how to
work together (we were a very diverse group-we did not choose to work together) or the
continual training to support us as we developed the curriculum. Also, there was no
financial resources available to purchase supplies necessary to complete the projects. In
some cases, departmental supplies were used and in many cases we went without. This
became a serious problem during the ‘Scrambler’ project as there was not enough
supplies or equipment and students often had to wait a long time to proceed from step to
step. This was during the second semester and it seems that is when many of the students
and parents started to become dissatisfied with the program. Administrators also did not
support teachers during difficulties with parents, nor did they stay with their original
commitment to run the program at least three years to determine it’s success. But, even
given all the problems we encountered we still felt confident the block was a good
program that simply needed a couple more years to work the problems out, like any new
program. However, we all agreed that we were not interested in being involved in the

program the following year given the same circumstances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ MICHIGAN STATE UNIV.

I II IIII IIII

129301706

I11

 

LIBRARIES
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
9968