AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCIENCE SUPERVISORS’ . ‘ ROLE IN THE SELECTION AND USE OF SCIENCE I . CURRICULUM ' MATERIALS Thesis for fhe-D'egreb of Ed._D_., I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Glenn David .Berkheimer _ 1966 i ' ..... THESIS LIB-RA R. .v Michigan. 3 ‘6 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCIENCE SUPERVISORS' ROLE IN THE SELECTION AND USE OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIALS presented by Glenn David Berkheimer has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for %_ degree in _E_dU C3 t I0” + Jf/a/Mn mL/oMfl/V Major profess Date év/fl/é Q 0-169 ROOM USE ONIY ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCIENCE SUPERVISORS' ROLE IN THE SELECTION AND USE OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIALS by Glenn David Berkheimer Problem The purpose of‘this study was to determine and analyze the role of the science supervisor in the selection and use of science curriculum materials as viewed by science supervisors and teachers involved in the implementation of programs utilizing: (l) the National Science Founda- tion (NSF) sponsored science project materials, and (2) the commercial science curriculum materials. The two-part problem consisted of: first, determining whether the views of the above two professional groups differed concerning the relative importance of the characteristics of science curriculum mate— rials and of the objectives of science education in selecting science curriculum materials; and secondly, determining whether these two groups differed in their responses to actual and recommended behaviors of the science supervisor in implementing programs utilizing science curriculum materials. Erocedure A two-part questionnaire corresponding to the two parts of the Glenn David Berkheimer problem was structured to obtain responses on a five-point scale, pre- tested, revised, and mailed to a national sample of 464 science super- visors including the members of the National Science Supervisors Associ- ation who were involved in the implementation of NSF sponsored and com- mercial science curriculum materials and to a random sample of 508 elementary and secondary teachers under their supervision. In addition, questionnaires were mailed to 306 members of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science. The percentages of questionnaires returned were 68.4 from science supervisors, 69.0 from teachers, and 62.2 from college science educators. Statistical treatments used were chi square, intraclass correlation, and Spearman rank correlation coefficients. Findings Selection of Science Curriculum Materials The findings indicate differences at the 0.05 level (with the chi square test) between professional groups using NSF sponsored science project materials and those using commercial science curriculum mate- rials. An analysis of response frequencies within contingency tables of significant questionnaire items indicates that the professional groups using commercial science curriculum materials place greater importance on curriculum materials which emphasize: (1) teacher demonstrations, (2) science content units, (3) qualitative observations and explanations, (4) science facts and principles, and (5) explanations to develop con— cepts. A similar analysis of the significant questionnaire items indi- cates that the professional groups using NSF sponsored science project materials consider those curriculum materials to be of greater importance Glenn David Berkheimer which emphasize: (l) the individual laboratory approach to teaching and learning, (2) the use of laboratory experiences as the primary source of information, (3) the elements of scientific methods, (4) the quanti— tative approach to science education, (5) the investigative approach to concept development, and (6) tests that measure the child's ability to use the methods of scientific inquiry. Actual Behavior of Science Supervisors Comparisons were made of response frequencies from elementary and secondary school science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials and from those using commercial science cur- riculum materials on significant questionnaire items describing science supervisory behaviors in implementing science curriculum materials. Both elementary and secondary school personnel indicated that: A. Science supervisors using commercial science curriculum materials more frequently encourage teachers to use science demonstrations. B. Science supervisors using NSF sponsored science project materials more frequently (1) support teachers who try new curriculum materials; (2) encourage teachers to use individual laboratory experiences with pupils; (3) en- courage teachers to experiment with new ideas and prac- tices in teaching science; (4) arrange for released time to enable teachers to attend inwservice programs; (5) report to teachers after they attend a professional meeting; and (6) are actively involved in educational research. Glenn David Berkheimer Elementary and secondary school personnel View the role of the science supervisor differently. Both elementary and secondary school personnel using commercial science curriculum materials were in better agreement on the supervisory activities than similar groups using NSF sponsored science project materials. The degree of agreement among secondary school personnel was greater than among elementary school personnel. Recommended Behaviors of Science Supervisors Analyses of responses indicate that science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials differ at the 0.05 level from those using commercial science curriculum materials regarding the recommended behaviors of the science supervisor concerning the frequency with which he identifies and discusses problems or weak- nesses in the science program with the teachers; encourages teachers to use demonstrations or individual laboratory experiences with pupils; and meets with teachers to plan changes in equipment, supplies, and resources for a changing curriculum. Items were rated higher by professional groups using NSF sponsored project materials except for those items that dealt with teacher demonstrations. The recommended behaviors of the science supervisor are viewed differently by college science educators than by science supervisors or by teachers. College science educators, in general, recommend a more passive leadership role for the science supervisor than do teachers or science supervisors. Summary Many differences found between science supervisors and teachers Glenn David Berkheimer using NSF sponsored science project materials and those using commercial science curriculum materials are apparently related to the elements of scientific methods and the individual laboratory or the investigative approach to teaching and learning of science. Further, those persons using NSF Sponsored science project materials apparently perceive a more forceful leadership role for science supervisors than do those using commercial science curriculum materials. AN ANALYSIS OF THE SCIENCE SUPERVISORS' ROLE IN THE SELECTION AND USE OF SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIALS BY Glenn David Berkheimer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1966 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The sincerest appreciation is expressed to those persons who have assisted so greatly in conducting this research and doctoral study. First, to the thesis director and chairman of the doctoral com- mittee, Dr. Wayne Taylor, whose interest, assistance, and guidance were essential to the development and completion of the study. Second, to the other members of the doctoral committee, Drs. Laurence L. Quill, James E. Heald, and George R. Myers who made important contributions. Third, to the Division of Educational Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, United States Office of Education for sponsoring the study.* Fourth, to those colleagues and doctoral students who criticized drafts of the questionnaire and of the thesis. Finally, to family and friends for their support, encouragement, and patience throughout doctoral study, research, and the writing of this thesis. *The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a con- tract with the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, under the provisions of the Cooperative Research Program. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Chapter I.» PROBLEM AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Background of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Definitions, Objectives and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 10 Overview of Procedure and Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Role of the General and Special Supervisor . . . . . . . 18 Objectives of Science Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Role of the Science Supervisor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 III. PROCEDURE AND DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Selection of the Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Development of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Procedures for Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Personal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Hypotheses and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 Intraclass and Rank Correlations . . . . . . . . 115 Science Supervisory Behavior as Recommended by College Science Educators, Science Supervisors, and Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Chapter Page V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Implications for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Numbers of Questionnaires Mailed and Returned Number of Respondents Classified as Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials and Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials Relationship of Science Supervisors and the Numbers of Supervised Teachers Percentage of Classes Using the Listed Science Curriculum Material as Indicated by Science Supervisors . . . Professional Experience of Science Supervisors Academic Training of Science Supervisors Percentage of Elementary Teachers Using the Listed Science Curriculum Materials with 50 or More Percent of Their Students . Percentage of Secondary Biology Teachers Using Listed Science Curriculum Materials with 50 or More Percent of Their Students . . . . . Academic Training of Elementary School Teachers and Secondary School Biology Teachers . Items Describing Science Curriculum Materials Which Were Perceived Differently by Professional Groups Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials and Those Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials . Items Derived from Objectives by Science Education Which Were Perceived Differently by Professional Groups Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials and Those Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials . Items Describing Actual and Recommended Supervisory Behavior Which Were Perceived Differently by Professional Groups Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials and Those Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials V Page 88 89 95 97 99 100 102 102 103 105 106 109 Table Page 13. Relationship of Responses from Science Supervisors and Teachers Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials and Those Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 14. Recommended Behaviors of Science Supervisors Which Were Perceived Differently by College Science Educators and Science Supervisors or by College Science Educators and Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 vi Appendix A. B. LIST OF APPENDICES Cover Letters Questionnaire Including Personal Information Forms Follow-up Letters Chi Square Values Calculated from Responses of Science Supervisors and Teachers Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials and Those Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials Chi Square Values: A Comparison of Elementary School Science Supervisors and Teachers Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials with Those Using Commerical Science Curriculum.Materials Chi Square values: A Comparison of Secondary School Science Supervisors and Biology Teachers Using NSF Sponsored Science Project Materials with Those Using Commercial Science Curriculum Materials Chi Square values: A Comparison of the Actual Science Supervisor Behaviors as Perceived by Elementary School Science Supervisors and Teachers with Those Perceived by Secondary School Science Supervisors and Biology Teachers . Chi Square values: A Comparison of Recommended Science Supervisory Behaviors by College Science Educators with Those of Science Supervisors Chi Square Values: A Comparison of Recommended Science Supervisory Behaviors by College Science Educators with Those of Elementary and Secondary School Teachers vii Page 147 150 161 164 165 167 169 171 172 CHAPTER I PROBLEM AND ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY Science curriculum materials are being changed rapidly because of studies by persons associated with commercial publishers and with projects sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF). From these studies two types of programs are emerging. The NSF sponsored science teaching projects emphasize science concepts, the theoretical nature of science, contemporary science, scientific inquiry, the ele- ments of the scientific methods, mathematics to study relationships, and the investigative or laboratory approach to the learning of science. In contrast, the commercial science curriculum programs emphasize teacher demonstrations or group experiences, science content topics, facts and science principles, qualitative observations and explana- tions to study relationships, and the practical nature of science or technology. Science supervisors frequently have the responsibility for selecting and implementing the two programs. However, few guidelines have been established as to how the science supervisor would fulfill this responsibility. If the purpose of science supervision is the improvement of science teaching, and if science curriculum materials are important aids in the improvement of science teaching, one may conclude that teachers who are supervised are more likely to be successful in using 2 science curriculum materials than teachers who are not supervised. This concept should have extensive application in science education, although several questions need to be considered. How do the activities of science supervisors who are implementing NSF sponsored science project materials differ from those implementing1 commercial science curriculum materials? Do science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the relative importance of characteristics of science curriculum materials? Do these two professional groups1 of science supervisors and teachers agree on the objectives of science education? The answers to these and similar questions would be valu- able to school personnel who select science curriculum materials, to NSF sponsored project teams who prepare science curriculum materials, to science educators who train science teachers and supervisors, and to persons interested in supervision. The National Science Supervisors Association (NSSA) has estab- lished a Commission on the Role of the Science Supervisor and problems related to the supervisor's functions have been discussed at the last three annual NSSA conventions. The present study was conducted in co- operation with the above Commission and should contribute to its work. It complements rather than duplicates the Commission's effort; the Com- mission's concern is to determine the role of the science supervisor in general, whereas the purpose of this study is to determine the science supervisors' role in relation to the types of curriculum materials being used in the nation's schools. The definitions of terms are presented on pages 10, 11 and 12. 3 3 Statement Of The Problem The role of the science supervisor is to assist teachers to improve the teaching and learning processes by the interpretation of what science is and how it fits into the overall educational pattern, by the interpre- tation of the objectives of science education, by the selection of science curriculum materials, and by the performance of tasks which demonstrate methods of teaching science. But does the type of science curriculum materials being implemented affect the science supervisors' role? The problem, then, was to determine whether science supervisors and teachers using the NSF sponsored science project materials perceive the role of the science supervisor differently than do those using com- mercial science curriculum materials. The study researched those science supervisory activities that are closely related to the selection and implementation of science curriculum materials: namely, activities re- lated to curriculum, leadership, in-service programs, and equipment- materials. Specifically, the problem had two parts. Part I dealt with the relative importance of characteristics of science curriculum materials and of the objectives of science education in selecting science curric- ulum materials as perceived by the above two professional groups. Part II pertained to the actual and recommended behaviors of the science supervisor in implementing science curriculum materials as viewed by these two groups. In addition Part II of the study determined whether elementary and secondary school personnel perceived the role of the science super- visor differently. 4 Background of the Problem The rationale for this study can be demonstrated through the history of supervision, theories of supervision, supervisory practices, role theory, objectives of science education, and current changes in science curriculum materials. Although the literature related to the first five of the above topics is reviewed in Chapter II, some infor- mation concerning these topics is necessary here to aid the reader in understanding the background of the study. The history of supervision indicates that supervisors have played an important role in selecting and implementing curriculum materials. But history also reveals that the philosophy, theory, and practices of supervision have changed drastically, especially as other facets of education have changed. Apparently supervisors exhibited much stronger leadership in the improvement of instruction before 1930 than they did between 1930 and 1950. Probably the more forceful leadership of the early special supervisor had been necessitated by the introduction of new programs or curriculum materials. Current literature provides abundant evidence that curriculum development project materials differ widely from those in common use just a decade ago. For example, Snygg has stated ”that the information explosion and the scientific developments which have triggered these projects require revolutionary changes in the goals and methods of instruction as well as changes in subject matter".2 New science cur- riculum materials have certainly played an important role in this ___¥ 2Donald Snygg, "A Learning Theory for Curriculum Change," Using QEEEgnt Curridhlum Developments, A Report of ASCD's Commission on Current curriculum Developments (Washington, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NBA, 1963), p. 109. 5 revolution. According to the literature, school personnel and college science educators are keenly aware of the differences in these mate- rials.3’4 In light of the historical evolution of supervision and the im- pact of widely different science curriculum materials upon science edu- cation, it is logical to expect science supervisory activities to change. There is little information on how these duties might change. Although many authors agree on the objectives of supervision, they disagree on the specific supervisory activities necessary to ful- fill these objectives. Then, too, it is difficult to describe accu- rately the functions of supervision today because the role of the super- visor is changing. MacKenzie underlines the changing role of super- visors by stating: In this age of unrest and revolution, the school supervisor has not been left undisturbed. Forces are at work which are re- shaping supervisory positions and placing new demands on all instructional leaders who would not be bypassed in the rush of educational developments.6 The changing role of the supervisor and the forces causing the change are outlined in the 1965 Yearbook of the Association for Super- vision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) which emphasizes in the final chapter the importance of curriculum leaders as change agents: ”New Science Curriculums: How to Get Your District Ready,” School Management, VII (June, 1963), 59. 4J. Stanley Marshall, ”The Improvement of Science Education and the Administrator,” The New School Science, A Report to School Adminis- trators on Regional Orientation Conferences in Science (Washington, D. C. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1962), p. 6. 5Ross L. Neagley and N. Dean Evans, Handbook for Effective Super- vision of Instruction (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 1. 6Gordon N. MacKEnzie, ”Role of the Supervisor,” Educational Leadership, XIX (November, 1961), 86. 6 Analyses of the functions of the curriculum leader make quite central his role as an inducer and coordinator of change. The designation "change agent," perhaps more than any other, reflects this key responsibility. If the supervisor and the curriculum worker are, indeed, change agents, then it becomes a matter of great importance that they be able to help chart the direction of change and to keep track of it.7 This concept suggests that more forceful leadership from supervisors will be required than was evident from 1930 to 1950. Is it possible that the development of new curriculum materials will again promote forceful supervisory leadership? Although the 1965 Yearbook criticizes the development of curric- ulum materials by subject area specialists, there is certainly evidence of the impact of NSF sponsored curriculum projects. In commenting on the relationship of educators, subject area specialists and the develop- ment of curriculum materials, the yearbook states: Many educators were by and large bypassed, especially curriculum directors, supervisors, superintendents, university specialists in teacher education and others. The perception of these subject matter specialists often was that such "generalists" were not needed. Nor were many of the professional educators particularly ingenious in devising ways of becoming involved in the new move- ment. Yet, if we really intend to change and improve the curriculum in America, such professional educators are essential to widest acceptance and implementation of the worthwhile in the recon- structed content and methodology fostered by the subject matter specialists.8 The above statement implies the need for a subject area supervisor who can select the best thoughts for improving a curriculum in a specific discipline from both the subject matter specialist and the professional 7Paul R. Klohr, ”Looking Ahead in a Climate of Change,” Role of Supervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of Change, the 1965 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D. C.: ASCD, 1965), p. 150. William Van Til, ”In a Climate of Change," Role of Supervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of Change, the 1965 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D. C.: ASCD, 1965), p. 26. educator. Although the increase in the number of supervisors employed has . . . . . 9 probably inten31f1ed the confus1on on the role of the superV1sor, some broad guidelines concerning the function of supervisors have been de- scribed. Supervisory activities appear to be related to curricula, leadership, in-service programs, self-growth, public relations, selec- tion and use of materials, evaluation, and research. The modern approach to supervision is to help teachers help them- selves. A supervisor should work with teachers in a way that demon- strates the approach he advocates that the teachers use with the stu- dents. If, for example, he believes that a science teacher should develop a scientific attitude, experimental—mindedness, and curiosity, he too must exhibit these attitudes and traits. The science supervisor must think constantly in terms of educational objectives, the objectives of science education, and the child in his day to day actions. Stotler points out that modern science Supervision is an expert professional service which is primarily concerned with the improvement of learning. Thus, supervision deals with the improvement of the total teacher-learning process; orients learning and its improvement within the general aim of education; and coordinates, stimulates, and directs the growth of teachers through cooperative leadership. It is deeply con- cerned with the long-range improvement of science education. The broad responsibility of the science supervisor is to work with the teachers, administrators and others to bring the best possible learning 9Reba M. Burnham and Martha L. King, Supervision in Action (Washington, D. 0.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, NBA, 1961), p. 31. 10 Donald Stotler, et a1., ”The Supervision of the Science Pro- gram," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 226. 8 experiences to the child. But how can responsibilities be fulfilled most efficiently and effectively? How can the science supervisor use the above guidelines in developing specific activities and programs to improve the teaching and learning of science? Need for the Study The need for clarifying the role of the science supervisor be- comes obvious as one tries to apply these general guidelines to Specific situations. Yet relatively few studies have been conducted to determine the science supervisor's responsibilities; and some of these studies seem to offer conflicting findings. For example, there is some question concerning the effect of science supervisors or consultants on student . ' ll . . achievement. Humphreys used consultants Wlth seventh and eighth grade science teachers and found reduced student achievement. A similar study in mathematics education, however, produced much different results. 12 . . DeVault, Houston, and Boyd used consultants With 89 teachers of 1nter- mediate mathematics and found that teacher and student achievement were significantly related to the total consultant time spent with the teachers. Several studies concerning the duties of science supervisors have contributed some information that was of value in identifying pertinent 11Alan H. Humphreys, "A Critical Analysis of the Use of Laborau tories and Consultants in Junior High Science Classes” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1962), pp. 1-137. le. Vere DeVault, W. Robert Houston, and Claud C. Boyd, "Do Consultant Services Make a Difference?” School Science and Mathematics, LXIII (April, 1963), 285-290. supervisory activities for this study. For example, Lee13 evaluated the activities of secondary school science supervisors in terms of established values procured through the judgements of a jury of science educators. Harwell14 surveyed teachers and Ploutz15 surveyed science supervisors to identify the responsibilities of the science supervisor. Wrobleski16 prepared a directory of secondary science supervisors in large school systems and surveyed them to identify their responsibil- ities. A review of these and other studies in Chapter II indicates that much remains to be done to determine the role of the science supervisor. Although millions of dollars have been spent within the last decade developing science curriculum materials to improve elementary and secondary education, no study has been conducted to determine the role of the science supervisor in implementing NSF sponsored science project materials as compared to implementing commercially planned materials. Yet the impact of curriculum materials such as textbooks on the science program can hardly be denied,as Blackwood states in a recent national survey for the U. S. Office of Education: Verlin Wiley Lee, ”The Evaluation of Supervision of Secondary- School Science Instruction" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1958), pp. 1-356. 14John Earl Harwell, "The Responsibilities of the Science Super- visor as Indicated by Science Teachers" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1961), pp. 1-263. 15Paul F. Ploutz, "The Science Supervisor" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1960), pp. 1-159. 6Bernard E. wrobleski, ”The Duties and Functions of a Science Coordinator in a 9-12 Science program in Selected School Districté‘in' the United States" (unpublished Master's dissertation, Indiana State College, 1965), pp. 1-96. 10 Science textbooks play a key role in determining what content is studied in the elementary school. This conclusion is based on the very high per cent of schools that use textbooks very often. From 78.1 to 90.7% of all schools reported that they use text- books very often. . .17 The fact that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has spent millions of dollars sponsoring the development of new curriculum materials indicates that those who administer these funds believe that curriculum materials strongly influence the quality of teaching programs. School personnel also believe this because they change curriculum materials or textbooks in an attempt to improve the instructional program. If it is the task of the science supervisor to improve the teaching-learning of science and if curriculum materials are instrumental in helping to improve the teaching and learning of science, then cer- tainly it is logical to ask whether there is a relationship between the type of curriculum materials used and the role of the science super- visor whose responsibility it is to implement the materials. Definitions, Objectives, and Hypotheses The following are definitions, statements, or assumptions as they are used in this dissertation. Role, according to Good, is defined as those ”behavior patterns of functions expected of or carried out by an individual in a given 17Paul E. Blackwood, "Science Teaching in the Elementary School: A Survey of Practices," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (September, 1965), 188. 8Henry M. Brickell, A Survey of Changing Instructional Approaches and Descriptions of New Programs in the Public and Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Schools of New York State (Albany, N. Y.: State Educa- tion Department, 1961), p. 22. 11 . 1 soc1etal context”. The role of the science supervisor is the actual and recommended behavior patterns of functions expected or carried out by the science supervisor as perceived by science supervisors and science teachers. This role is delimited to activities or behaviors as related to curric- ulum, leadership, in-service programs, and equipment-materials. Objectives of science education, as developed in Chapter II, are those that the investigator derived from educational objectives and the nature of science. 0 Actual behaviors are those behaviors performed by science super- visors, as perceived by science supervisors and teachers. Recommended behaviors are behaviors that ought to be performed by the science supervisors, as perceived by science supervisors and science teachers. The selected National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored science project materials are those produced under the direction of the AAAS Commission on Science Education; the Elementary School Science Project, University of Illinois, Urbana; the Elementary Science Study by Educa- tional Services, Inc.; and the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS). The commercial science curriculum materials are materials used in elementary school science or secondary school biology that have not been produced under the sponsorship of the National Science Foundation. Science curriculum materials are materials used in the teaching and learning of science, including textbooks, reference materials, laboratory facilities and equipment, teachers' guides, as well as other 19Carter V. Good, Dictignary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p. 471. 12 materials prepared specifically for the teacher, the student, or the supervisor. Implement as used in this study means to accomplish, to fulfill, or to establish the use of a program or curriculum materials in elemen- tary and/or secondary schools. Professional group refers to science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials or to science supervisors and teachers using commercial science curriculum materials. Objectives The purposes of this study were: 1. to determine whether there were differences between science supervisors and teachers implementing NSF sponsored science project materials and those implementing commercial science curriculum materials as to the perceived a. relative importance of characteristics of science curric- ulum materials, b. relative importance of objectives of science education, c. actual behaviors of science supervisors, and d. recommended behaviors of science supervisors; 2. to determine whether elementary school personnel perceived the role of the science supervisor differently than did secondary school personnel; 3. to determine whether the recommended science supervisory be- haviors as viewed by college science educators differ from those perceived by science supervisors themselves; and 4. to determine whether the recommended science supervisory behaviors as viewed by college science educators differ from 13 those perceived by elementary and secondary school teachers. Hypotheses H1 Science supervisors and teachers using National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored science project materials differ from those using com- mercial science curriculum materials as to the perceived relative im- portance of particular characteristics of science curriculum materials (H1: 0M1 74 0M2). H2 Science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the perceived relative importance of selected objectives of science education (H2: Obj1 # Objz). H3 Science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the perceived actual behavior of science supervisors (H3: AB1 # A32). H4 Science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the recommended behavior of science supervisors (H4: RB1 # R32). H5 The perceived actual behaviors of science supervisors of grades K-6 differ from the perceived actual behaviors of science supervisors of grades 7-12 (H5: ABele # ABsec). Overview of Procedure and Analyses The study was designed as an analytical survey using a question- naire with an International Business Machines (IBM) response sheet as the method of collecting data. Data processing cards were punched directly from the response sheets with mark sensing equipment, and the l4 statistical analyses were achieved through the use of the Control Data Corporation 3600 Computer. In this way, error due to transfer of data and to miscalculations was minimized. A two-part questionnaire was constructed, pretested, revised, and mailed to a national sample of science supervisors and teachers. Part I of the questionnaire procured adequate information to test hypotheses 1 and 2. In order to determine the items in this section, the objectives of science education were derived from educational objectives20 and the nature of science. These objectives were the basis for statements and counter statements describing science curriculum materials. Part II of the questionnaire was designed to obtain adequate information to test hypotheses 3, 4, and 5. Items in this part consisted of statements depicting activities of the science supervisor in implementing science curriculum materials. Two responses as perceived by the respondents were made to each statement: the first indicated the actual behaviors of science supervisors; the second indicated the recommended behaviors of science supervisors. Both responses were made on a five-point scale. Respondents were classified as using NSF sponsored science pro- ject materials or commercial science curriculum materials. The hypotheses were tested by applying the chi square test to their responses. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to determine relationships between professional groups implementing NSF sponsored science curriculum materials and those implementing commercial science curriculum materials in each area of curriculum, leadership, in-service programs, and equipment-materials. "zoRobert J. Havighurst; et a1., Schools for the Sixties, A Report of the Project on Instruction, National Educational Association (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), p- 9. 15 Assumptions and Limitations In conducting this study it was assumed that: the objectives of science education could be derived from educational objectives and the nature of science; the respondents answered the questionnaire honestly; the science supervisors who were on the mailing list of this study are typical of science supervisors in the United States; and the science supervisors used the recommended procedure in distributing questionnaires to teachers. Questionnaire items were developed from the objectives of science education and the literature relating to science supervision; however, there was an element of subjectivity in the judgment of the investigator in determining the items included. This subjectivity is a limitation to the study. Limitations typical of this as well as most questionnaire studies include: the subjectiveness of each respondent categorizing his response to fit the scale,and obtaining information only from the questionnaires returned. Further, the study was limited to the role of the science supervisor in selecting and implementing science curriculum materials. Organization of the Thesis Presented in this chapter was the statement of the problem, the background of the study, the need for the study, and an overview of the procedure and analyses. Additionally the assumptions and limitations of the study were presented. Chapter II contains: the derivation of the objectives of science education used as the basis for Part I of the questionnaire, the review of the literature concerning the role of the general supervisor and the 16 science supervisor which was used as the basis for Part II of the ques- tionnaire, and the implications for this study from the literature. The design and execution of the study is described in Chapter III, which includes the research design, a description of the preparation and preliminary testing of the questionnaire, the preparation and distribu- tion of the final questionnaire, the follow-up procedures, and the per- centage of returns. The analyses of data and findings are presented in Chapter IV; Chapter V contains the summary of findings, the conclusions, and the implications of this study for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The literature in educational supervision reveals that most authors agree on the broad, general functions of the supervisor, but differ as to the specific supervisory activities or tasks to be used in carrying out these functions. In this chapter some of the various opinions which reflect the supervisors' role are reviewed. Though the research concerning the duties and responsibilities of the general supervisor consists mainly of descriptive surveys, a few analytical surveys or objective studies have been conducted. The chapter of four sections reviews the literature that is rele- vant to the design of the study and to the construction of the study's questionnaire. The first section reviews the literature in general supervision to indicate recommended supervisory activities and trends in the current literature useful in selecting pertinent supervisory activities for this investigation. The second section, the objectives of science education, was essential to the development of Part I of the questionnaire. The third section relates general supervision and Special supervision and filters out the recommended general super- ‘Visory activities pertinent to the science supervisor. It also includes Studies directly related to the role of the science supervisor. The jlast section summarizes the information from the literature useful in tile design of the study and the construction of the questionnaire. 17 18 Role of the General and Special Supervisor To clarify the meaning of the science supervisors' role as used in this study, it is helpful to consider role theory briefly. Role theory postulates that a school system is a miniature society with ad- ministrators, supervisors, teachers, and pupils representing positions or offices within the system. Certain rights and duties are associated with each position and actions appropriate to the position are defined as roles. Although there are various definitions of role, the definition according to Good is accepted in this study. Good defines role as those "behavior patterns of functions expected of or carried out by an in- dividual in a given societal context".1 As Gross, Mason, and McEachern point out: Three basic ideas which appear in most of the conceptualizations considered, if not in the definitions of role themselves, are that individuals: (1) in social locations (2) behave (3) with reference to expectations. A supervisor's role, then, is affected by his behavior, by the expectations that others have for his behavior, and the social environ- ment in which he finds himself. The influence of role expectations on the behavior of persons in a position is affected to the degree of their involvement in the group whose expectations are being considered. Assuming, then, that the supervisor has extensive involvement with his 1Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1959), p. 471. 2Neal Gross, Ward S. Mason, and Alexander W. McEachern, Expecta- Eigns in Role Analysis: Studies of the School Sgperintendency Role (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 17. 3Wilbur B. Brookover, and David Gottlieb, A Sociology of Education (New York: American Book Company, 1964), p. 323. 19 teachers, their expectations for his behavior would influence his role greatly. If the role expectations of the science supervisor vary greatly among those with whom he is involved, his effectiveness will decrease compared to more consistent expectations. According to Lucio and McNeil there is evidence to support this statement: A series of studies shed light on the reciprocal role expectations of teachers and supervisors in the improvement of instruction. . . . Respective roles must complement each other if the objectives of the school are to be accomplished. As the number of science supervisors increase, greater numbers of teachers and students are affected and it becomes increasingly important to deter mine the degree of consistency of the expectations for the role of the science supervisors. The advantage of role theory is that one can determine the role of the supervisor by determining the consensus on the expectations for his behavior. This point is stressed by Gross, Mason, and McEachern: The point we have been trying to underscore is that the degree of consensus on expectations associated with positions is an empirical variable, whose theoretical possibilities until recently have re- mained relatively untapped. By applying role theory to the science supervisor, one can analyze his role and study relations that might otherwise not be evident. If the undesirable consequences of role conflict are accepted, the need for clarifying the role of the supervisor becomes obvious. Since clarifying the role of the supervisor is important to the morale and productivity of all staff members, his role should receive continuing attention by school personnel. 4William H. Lucio and John D. McNeil, Supervision: 1A Synthesis of Thought and Action (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), p. 31. Gross, Mason, and McEachern, p. 43. 20 School Supervision in the United States --a Historical Perspective Supervision in the United States can be traced back to colonial America. The Massachusetts Law of 1642 ordered that children be taught to read so that they could understand the principles of religion. The Law of 1647 further specified that both reading and writing should be taught.6 In order to better enforce these laws, the Law of 1654 ordered selectmen to exercise some supervision of teachers.7 These selectmen were to secure teachers of sound faith and morality and continue the teachers in office as long as they met these requirements. As civil authorities gave more thought to the general support of the school, they saw the need for more efficient supervision. Consequently, school committees were charged with the duty of inspecting the schools. For example, in 1709 at Boston, a committee of laymen was appointed to inspect school facilities and equipment, to examine pupil achievement, and to formulate means for the advancement of learning.8 During the next hundred years committees of this general type functioned to see that both teachers and pupil did not shirk their job. The emphasis, however, was on maintaining existing standards of instruction rather than on improving instruction. By the middle of the nineteenth century "one trend was apparent, that of a shift from lay to professional J. Minor Gwynn, Theory and Practice of Supervision (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1961), p. 5. 7William E. Drake, The American School in Transition (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), p. 71. 8A. S. Barr, W. H. Burton and Leo J. Brueckner, Supervision: Principles and Practices in the Improvement of Instruction (New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, Inc., 1938), p. 3. 21 . . . . . 9 . . reSponSibility for inspection of the schools". This trend increased as villages and cities grew and schools with more than one teacher be- came necessary. Because of these conditions, head teachers or prin- cipals were named and freed from part or all of their teaching respon- sibilities to enable them to care for the administration and supervision 9 of the schools. Supervision, whether accomplished by a head teacher, a principal or a superintendent, was regarded as the transmission of superior knowledge. The supervisor decided what should be taught as well as how it should be taught, and inspected the classrooms to see whether his plans were carried out. Early books on administration and supervision afford evidence of this concept of supervision: The theory of school supervision which this treatise is designed to illustrate requires the superintendent to work upon the school through the teachers. He is to prepare plans of instruction and discipline, which the teachers must carry into effect . ll . . . . . Pickard outlined Similar functions of the superintendent. The changes in supervisory theory from 1870-1950 were summarized 12 . . . . . . . by Button. He claSSified the theories of superViSion by five periods, as abstracted by this investigator. 1. Before 1880, the supervisor or superintendent had only the power to advise. 9Mildred E. Swearingen, Supervision of Instruction: Foundations and Dimensions (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1962), p. 18-19. 0William H. Payne, School Supervision (New York: American Book Company, 1875), p. 76. 11J. L. Pickard, School Supervision (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890), p. 63. 2Henry Warren Button, ”A History of Supervision in the Public Schools, 1870-1950," Dissertation Abstracts, XXII, No. 2 (1961), 797. 22 2. From 1880 until 1905, it was held that teaching practices were determined by an idealistic philosophy and that super- vision was to secure conformity to these practices. 3. After 1905 educational administration was strongly influenced by industrial management methods. During the period from 1905 to 1914 administrators were to make the decisions and the supervisor was to convey instruction to the teacher, and to observe and measure in order to determine the efficiency of the teacher. 4. Because of teacher discontent as a result of these practices, much was written after 1920 concerning teacher morale as an aspect of supervision. During the latter part of the period from 1920-1940, the science of education and scientific super- vision were emphasized. This trend grew out of the applica- tion of methods of science to research in education and to industrial management problems. 5. Democratic supervision was generally accepted after 1940. Today supervision is viewed as ”assistance in the development of a better teaching-learning situation”.13 Most authors stress democratic supervision, but emphasize different qualities under this general heading. Franseth14 strongly emphasizes leadership; Lucio and McNeil15 stress supervision as the vehicle for bringing all educational theories into 13Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955), p. 8. 14Jane Franseth, Supervision as Leadership (New York: Row, Peterson and Company, 1961), pp. VII + 376. 5William H. Lucio and John D. McNeil, Supervision: A Synthesis of Thought and Action (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962), pp. XI + 282. 23 . . . 16 17 . . . conSistent practice; Wiles and Bartky View superViSion as human re- . 18,19 . lations; and some authors seem to emphaSize several areas such as leadership, human relations, skill in group processes, and evaluation. Neagley and Evans have summarized the current professional literature on supervision in relation to its history. The professional literature of the past decade is full of the theory of modern supervision. Terms such as "democratic," "team effort," and "group process” have been lavishly used in an attempt to show that present-day supervision is a far cry from the autocracy supposedly exhibited by the early twentieth- century administrator and supervisor. According to the theorists, all decisions of any importance in the modern school system should involve the entire staff, and each professional employee must feel that he is a part of the team. . . . The image of democracy in action at the school and district level has been planted very firmly by the writers of almost every book in the field. Perhaps this attempt to overcome the autocratic image of the past accounts also for the difference in emphasis as to how forceful or how passive supervisory leadership ought to be. The Special Supervisor The history of supervision illustrates that supervisory theory and practice have changed rapidly, especially when forces are acting to change education. Although special supervision has a much shorter history than general supervision, the supervisory theories and practices 16Wiles, pp. XV + 399. 17John A. Bartky, Supervision as Human Relations (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1953), pp. XI + 308. Hanne J. Hicks, Educational Supervision in Principle and Prac- tice (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1960), pp. VI + 434. 19Fred C. Ayers, Fundamentals of Instructional Supgrvision (New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1954), pp. XI + 523. 0Ross L. Neagley and N. Dean Evans, Handbook for Effective Supervision of Instruction (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 4. 24 of general supervision and special supervision tend to be similar at any one period of history. Beginning about 1870 a number of new subjects, including music, drawing, manual training and home economics, were strongly emphasized . . . 21 in the public school curriculum. Because teachers had not learned the content or the methods necessary to present these subjects to their pupils, they were hesitant about teaching them. These teachers then turned to their administrators and supervisors for help, but found that they too were not sufficiently familiar with the new subjects to help them. As a result, the new subjects were either taught by special teachers or by regular teachers with the assistance and general guidance of an expert who became known as a special supervisor. In discussing supervision in the latter part of the nineteenth century Swearingen stated: . . . many new subjects were introduced into the curriculum and even prepared teachers felt inadequate when asked to handle the new fields. Special supervisors were often added to the staff to show teachers how to give instruction in the new areas. Ayers indicates the same trend: Special supervision expanded rapidly, particularly in the larger cities. By 1925 practically all cities of 100,000 and over were giving some type of special supervision to physical education, music, art, manual training, home economics, and penmanship. Smaller cities followed the practice until the place of special supervision was established throughout the country. Supervisors of the Regular Subjects During the period in which the number of special supervisors 21Ayers, p. 9. 2 . Swearingen, p. 19. 23Ayers, p. 10. 25 increased, supervisors of regular subjects were also being employed. Ayers and Barr conducted a survey of regular subject supervisors in forty-four American cities of at least 100,000 population and reported that in 1923 there were 19.5 supervisors employed in these cities in science, 12.5 in commercial subjects, 8.5 in English, 6 in foreign lan- guage, 4 in social studies and 2 in mathematics.24 In 1932, Beauchamp recognized the importance of science supervisors by stating that courses of study prepared under the guidance of a science supervisor or a cur- riculum director were more effective than those formulated with no supervision. During the late thirties, according to reports on large city school systems by Rawlins,26 Wildman,27 and Wilt,28 the science super- visors' role had extended to include coordinating responsibilities. In 1946 Carleton29 reported a study which included the duties and responsi- bilities of science supervisors in forty—eight large cities. Apparently 24Fred C. Ayers and A. S. Barr, The Organization of Supgrvision: An Analysis of the Organization and Administration of Supervision in City School Systems (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1928), pp. 23-24. 5William L. Beauchamp, Instruction in Science, U. S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin No. 17, Monograph No. 22 (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1932), p. 3. George M. Rawlins, Jr., ”A Science Supervisor in a Large School District," Education, LIX (March, 1939), 439-442. 27Edward E. Wildman, "A Science Supervisor in a Metropolitan Area,” Education, LIX (March, 1939), 437-439. 8Margaret L. Wilt, "The Science Advisor Plan in Chicago,” Science Education, XXIV (March, 1940), 146-148. 9Robert H. Carleton, "An Investigation of the Director or Super- visor of Science in the Public Schools,” Science Education, XXX (February, 1946), 19. 26 the science supervisor's function as a coordinator continued but he shared the responsibility with building principals and department heads. Since supervisory theories and practices of special supervision at any one period of history tend to be similar to those of general supervision, this study assumes that science supervisory practices re- flect trends and emphases of general supervision. The General Supervisor What duties of the general supervisor are mentioned most often in the literature dealing with supervision? As was stressed in Chapter I, most authors agree on the over-all function of supervisors, but differ as to the specific activities or tasks that supervisors ought to perform in order to fulfill these broad functions. In addition, two authors may list the same supervisory activity, but give it a different relative emphasis in the total role of the supervisor. In spite of these dif- ferences, a study of supervisory activities emphasized by various authors is helpful in accumulating probable activities that contribute to his role. The quoting of many authors regarding supervisory activities, however, would be repetitious and unnecessary; a few representative ex- amples will be sufficient to illustrate the recommended supervisory activities found in the literature. Franseth states that supervisory activities include ”individual and group conferences, schoolroom obser- vations, participation in school and community activities, demonstration . . . . . . 30 lessons, co-operative teaching, talks, reports, home Visits, interViews". 30Franseth, pp. 82-83. 27 . 31 . . . . . Although Swearingen does not give a definitive list of super- visory activities, she does deal with committee meetings, curriculum development, evaluation, group meetings both small and large, individual conferences, induction of new teachers, interpreting the school programs to the public, the selection and use of materials, and research as the functions of the supervisor. Wiles and Bartky place more emphasis on human relations than on specific supervisory activities. For example, Wiles states: To improve instruction the supervisor must provide: leadership that develops a unified school program and enriches the environ- ment of all teachers; the type of emotional atmosphere in which all are accepted and feel that they belong. 33 . . . . . Bartky, in dealing With the interplay of teacher-superVisor personalities, indicates that the supervisor stimulates teachers to improve their teaching, attempts to fit the method to the individual teacher's personality, and encourages individual teacher growth. Neagley and Evans group supervisory activities into individual techniques and group techniques. Under individual techniques they list: (1) assignment of teachers, (2) classroom visitation and observa- tion, (3) classroom experimentation, (4) college courses, (5) con- ferences (individual), (6) demonstration teaching, (7) evaluation, (8) activities and conferences of professional organizations, (9) professional readings, (10) professional writing, (11) selection of instructional materials, (12) selection of professional staff, (13) supervisory bulletins, (l4) informal contacts, and (15) other experiences contributing to personal and professional growth. Under group techniques they stressed (1) programs for the orientation 31Swearingen, pp. 1-312. 32Wiles, p. 17. 33 John A. Bartky, Supervision as Human Relations (Boston: D. C. Heath and Company, 1953), pp. 1—78. 34Neagley and Evans, p. 126. —: ‘ 28 of new teachers, (2) action research, (3) maintenance of professional libraries, (4) intervisitation, (5) a good student teaching plan, (6) testing programs, (7) new organizational plans such as team teaching, (8) public relations, and (9) in—service education.35 Even though the responsibilities of supervisors as indicated by various authors are itemized, and even if authors agree on these items to a large extent, one still does not know the relative importance of items within the list or how the supervisor should perform these tasks. The authors vary greatly as to recommendations in carrying out a super- visory task and to the relative emphasis one should place on the various tasks. Apparently many of these differences of opinion among authors concerns how dynamic or how passive the supervisor ought to be in carrying out his functions. Some authors believe, for example, that supervisors should initiate action while others emphasize that decisions should be made within the group and view the supervisor as a consultant to the group. The literature provides abundant evidence of this variance. In her book, Franseth stresses the importance of the leadership function of the supervisor and states: Today supervision is generally seen as leadership that encourages a continuous involvement of all school personnel in a cooperative attempt to achieve the most effective school program. Lipham states that the educational leader "is concerned with initiating changes in establishing structures, procedures, or goals; he is 35Ibid., p. 186. 36Franseth, p. 19. 29 . . . . . n 37 . 38 . disruptive of eXisting state of affairs . Hicks sees the superVisor in a more passive role such as a consultant, resource person, and co- . . 39 . . . ordinator. Burnham and King believe the primary role of the superVisor is to foster leadership in others and define the actual role of the supervisor as a composite of all the expectations held for the role by . . . . 40 . the people assoc1ated With it. Brisco emphaSized the team approach . . . 41 . . . . to superVision and LeSSinger emphaSized district councils Where the supervisor coordinates the efforts of the team or council. After conducting research on group decisions, Maier indicates that a solution worked out by a group is more acceptable to the group than one imposed on the group by an authority. But he views the super- visor as playing a more dynamic role than that of a coordinator: ‘The democratic leadership technique is, therefore, not only a useful procedure for obtaining acceptance and co-operation, but it is also effective for improving solution quality. Even when the leader possesses exceptional ability in solving technical problems, he need not sacrifice this ability in order to maintain group good will. Rather he can learn to conduct conferences in such a manner as to stimulate thinking and thereby have his ideas” rediscovered and accepted. .37James M. Lipham, "Leadership and Administration," Behavioral Science and Educational Administration, Sixty-Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: Univer- sity of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 122. 38Hicks, p. 20. 39Reba M. Burnham and Martha L. King, Supervision in Action (Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum_Develop- ment, NBA, 1961), p. 32. 0Robin Briscoe, et a1., ”A Team Approach to Supervision,” Educa- tional Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 84-88. 41Leon M. Lessinger, "New Patterns of Supervision: District Councils," Journal of Secondary Education, XXXVIII (December, 1963), 134-137. 2 Norman R. F. Maier, ”The Quality of Group Decisions as In- fluenced by the Discussion Leader," Human Relations, III (1950), 170. 30 Some research on leader behavior would suggest more forceful supervisory leadership than is recommended by many authors. For example, in a study comparing student leaders with non-leaders Carter found that the "unique behavior of leaders for all situations and tasks was con- cerned with (a) analyzing the situation and (b) initiating action re- . 43 quired". The literature regarding supervision contains terms such as . . . 44 . creative superViSion, team approach, and group process which have not been adequately defined. Much of the confusion concerning the role of the supervisor is due to the use of these terms to describe his behavior. 45 46 . . . Both Lonsdale and Babcock recognized and discussed this problem. Because of the extensive use of inadequately defined terms, shifts in emphasis in the literature are difficult to detect. But recent litera- ture seems to indicate that the supervisor should exert more forceful leadership than was evident in the past several Hecades. Cunningham, for example, states: Whereas supervision in the past may have been directed at main- taining levels of performance within schools, now the supervisory function includes defining and redefining goals, clarifying per- sonnel relationships, elevating levels of aspiration of people in our schools, assessing the performance of teachers and other staff 43Launor F. Carter, et al., ”The Behavior of Leaders and Other Group Members,” Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, XLVI (1951), 595. 44John A. Richard, "The Art of Creative Supervision,” Educational Leadership XXI (November, 1963), 80-83. 5Bernard J. Lonsdale, "The 'Guese' of Supervision," Educational Leadership XXI (November, 1963), 69—74. 46Chester D. Babcock, ”The Emerging Role of the Curriculum Leader," Role of Supervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of Change, The 1965 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Cur- riculum Development (Washington, D. C.: ASCD, 1965), p. 58. f D 31 members and, most important of all, establishing a climate for innovation and change. Lucio and McNeil have also noted this shift in emphasis in the role of the supervisor: A new emphasis is being given the supervisory role. The profes- sional expectation that supervisors will inspire has been amplified, and responsibility for crucial purpose-setting decisions as opposed to routine housekeeping has been made explicit. . . . The new role of the supervisory statesman differs from the human relations Specialist's in that the statesman's inspiration does not derive from the processes of group interaction and the vision of a har- monious team, Whatever its end may be. On the contrary, the super- visory statesman finds his goal and places his commitment in the clearly defined purpose and character of the school itself, not in narrow, practical aims set in haphazard fashion.48 Ramseyer49 emphasized that the supervisor should perform the functions of analysis, diagnosis, and the initiation of change either in operation or policy. The change in the emphasis of the leadership function of the supervisor is apparent from a comparison of the 1960 and the 1965 Year- books of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. The 1960 ASCD Yearbook states: Leadership is a product of interaction that takes place among individuals in a group and not of the status or position of these individuals. . . . The effectiveness of leader behavior is measured in terms of mutuality of goals, productivity in the achievement of these goals, and the maintenance of group solidarity. Certainly this is a more passive supervisory role than described in the 47Luvern L. Cunningham, "Effecting Change Through Leadership," Educational Leadership, XXI (November, 1963), 75. 48Lucio and McNeil, pp. 37-38. 49John A. Ramseyer, ”Supervisory Personnel,” Preparation Programs for School Administrators, ed. Donald J. Leu and Herbert C. Rudman (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1963) p. 168. 50Leadership for Improving Instruction, The 1960 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (Washington, D. C.: ASCD, 1960), p. 182. 32 1965 ASCD Yearbook. Analyses of the functions of the curriculum leader make quite cen- tral his role as an inducer or coordinator of change. The designa- tion "change agent," perhaps more than any other, reflects this key responsibility. One advantage of the term change agent is that it has been defined. According to Rogers, "3 change agent is a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he feels is desirable".52 Cain conducted a questionnaire study of elementary supervisors, principals, and teachers to analyze the functions of the general ele- mentary school supervisor. He concluded that the morale and professional growth functions are considered to be highly desirable and elementary school supervisors are generally perceived as performing them. In addi- tion, he found evidence of confused perceptions in the area of morale, school community relations, assistance, professional growth and admin- istration. Hallberg analyzed the expected and actual behaviors of general elementary supervisors by conducting a questionnaire study involving supervisors, superintendents, principals, and teachers. Among her findings, the supervisory behaviors considered to be of highest value by all four professional groups were: 51Paul R. Klohr, "Looking Ahead in a Climate of Change," Role of §gpervisor and Curriculum Director in a Climate of Change, The 1965 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (washington, D. C.: ASCD, 1965), p. 150. 52Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovation (New York: The Free Ikwess of Glencoe London: Macmillan New York, 1962), p. 254. 53Gera1d Gene Cain, "An Analysis of the Functions of General Elementary School Supervisors in the Public Schools of Missouri," Dis- ggrtation Abstracts, XXV, No. 10 (1965), 5671. 33 22.* gives support to teachers who are Willing to try out new techniques in instructional materials and teaching. 20. calls attention of teachers and principals to new and worth- while professional literature. 9. serves as a member of working committees when invited. 57. strives to secure good working conditions for staff members. 51. helps all personnel to have faith in themselves. 45. recognizes individual differences in staff personnel. 39. strives to build working rapport between himself and the professional staff. 33. helps to maintain ethical standards of the profession. 42. takes an active role in local professional organizations. 48. serves on state-wide committees sponsored by the State Department of Education, when invited. 58. reads professional literature regularly. 35. evaluates the objectives of the curriculum. * These numbers are those used on Hallberg's questionnaire. Hallberg concluded that: The supervisory role is expected to emphasize the human relations aspect and the supervisors are perceived as fulfilling this ex- pectation. . . . supervisors in Oregon are behaving in a passive manner rather than showing forceful leadership. This action agrees in general with the behavior expectations held for super- visors. Lott56 studied the ideal and actual behaviors of supervisors by collecting data from elementary teachers, secondary teachers, elementary 54Hazel Irene Hallberg, ”Analysis of the Expected and Actual Be- .haviors of Supervisors in the Role Concept of Four Professional Groups” (UHPUblished Ed.D. dissertation, College of Education, University of Oregon, 1960), pp. 64-65. 551b1d., p. 112. 56Jurelle Gilmore Lott, ”A Statistical Study of the Concepts of the Rkble of the Instructional Supervisor" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, COllege of Education, University of Georgia, 1963), p. 161. 34 principals, secondary principals, supervisors, and superintendents. A statistical analysis of data revealed differences between the perceptions of both ideal and actual behaviors of the supervisor in each of the six groups. Both Hallberg and Lott found differences among role definers as to how passive or dynamic supervisory leadership ought to be. For example, Classification of items in terms of their content indicates that conflicting conceptions of role were essentially conflicts over expertness and managerial ability versus permissiveness and group dynamics concepts of supervision. Summary The literature dealing with general supervision indicates: 1. the growing concern for the clarification of the role of the supervisor, 2. the responsibilities of the supervisor are numerous, varied and complex, and 3. the recommended supervisory activities are apparently re- lated to curriculum, leadership, in-service programs, self- growth, public relations, selection and use of materials, evaluation, and research. Apparently, most of the confusion as to the role of the supervisor is related to how dynamic or how passive his leadership function is or should be. Further, there seems to be a trend in the literature de— scribing a more dynamic leadership function than a decade ago. This trend is evidenced by recent descriptions of the supervisor as a 57Jurelle Gilmore Lott, "A Statistical Study of the Concepts of the Instructional Supervisor," Dissertation Abstracts, XXV (1963), 2324. 35 statesman or a change agent. Objectives of Science Education The objectives of science education were developed in this study to serve as a basis for items in Part I of the questionnaire. Part I was designed to determine whether the views of science supervisors and teachers differed concerning the relative importance of the character- istics of science curriculum materials and of the objectives of science education in selecting science curriculum materials. Because these items are related to materials resulting from curriculum development projects, it is desirable to relate the objectives of science education to curriculum development. The Importance of Specifying Objectives The great majority of the writings on curriculum development stress the importance of establishing educational objectives. Tyler, for example, states: . . . if an educational program is to be planned and if efforts for continued improvement are to be made, it is very necessary to have some conception of the goals that are being aimed at. These educational objectives become the criteria by which materials are selected, content is outlined, instructional procedures are de— veloped and tests and examinations are prepared. Although many authors agree that educational objectives should be specified, far fewer agree on who should specify these objectives. This determination is a basic and most controversial issue in education tOday. A few people have attempted to clarify positions and make recom- Inendations regarding the development of objectives. One example is the 58Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (Chixzago: The University of Chicago Press, 1950), p. 3. 36 NEA Project on the Instruction, Recommendation 20: The aims of education should serve as a guide for making decisions about curriculum organization as well as about all other aspects of the instructional program. The public, through the local school board, is responsible for determining the broad aims of education. The professional staff is responsible for translating the broad aims into Specific objec- tives that indicate priorities and define clearly the behaviors intended for the learners. The local board of education has responsibility for seeing that an acceptable statement of objec- tivesSand priorities is prepared and for endorsing such a state- ment. While this statement does not clearly limit the lay public's responsibility for establishing objectives, it does place on the pro- fessional staff the responsibility of translating the broad aims of education into specific behavioral objectives and most authors agree that objectives should be stated in behavioral terms. In these terms an objective is a statement of the kind of behavior pattern which the school seeks to have the student develop.60 Educational objectives must be established as they are an integral part of curriculum development. But what are their sources?‘ How can they be established? Objectives can be determined by analyzing: Culture and its needs The learner and learning process, and principles Areas of human knowledge and their unique functions Democratic ideals.61 waH Cohen62 has concluded that educational objectives can be derived from 59John I. Goodlad, Planning and Opganizing for Teaching (Washington, D. C.: National Educational Association, 1963), p. 50. 60Tyler, p. 4. 61Hilda'Taba, Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice (New York: Harcourt, Brace and WOrld, Inc., 1962), p. 438. .David Cohen, "An Australian Science Curriculum Model" (unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State Univer- sity), p. 258. 37 studies in philosophy, sociology, and psychology. Tyler elaborated on sources of objectives such as studies of the learner, studies of con- temporary life outside of school, the specific subject area, and philos- 63 . . . . ophy. A summary of the sources of educational objectives would include the society or culture, the nature of the learner and of learning, philosophy and/or a system of values, and organized knowledge. Since the historical development of educational objectives in the United States has been traced many times (e.g., by Cohen), this work need not be repeated. It is sufficient to state that such studies reveal that the sources of educational objectives change, or our knowledge concerning these sources change. Many factors recently have caused a rapid change in these sources. Modern science and technology, economic growth, urbanization, and population growth are a few of these factors. Because educational objectives reflect the changes in their sources, objectives too change rapidly. Hence,this study uses the most recent statement of educational objectives resulting from a thorough and com- plete study of these sources, namely,the NEA Project on the Instruction. The essential objectives of education, therefore, must be premised on a recognition that education is a process of changing behavior and that a changing society requires the capacity for self-teaching and self-adaptation. Priorities in educational objectives should be placed upon such ends as: *learning how to learn, how to attack new problems, how to acquire new knowledge *using rational processes *building competence in basic skills *developing intellectual and vocational competence *exploring values in new experience *understanding concepts and generalizations64 63Tyler, pp. 4-40. 64Robert J. Havighurst, et a1., Schools for the Sixties, A Report on the Project on Instruction, National Educational Association (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), p. 9. 38 Objectives of the Specific Subject Areas Since the objectives of education can be determined from studies in fields such as sociology, psychology, and philosophy, these same fields together with the logical structure of the discipline from the specific subject area can be used to derive the objectives for that particular subject area. Much of the literature published since 1960 supports this position. I was taught to believe that curriculum arose from two fields: The nature of the growing child, and the nature of society. . What was left out of this theory was the nature of organ- ized knowledge.65 This structure consists of the relationships among important concepts within a discipline.66 Bruner and others apparently have had consider- able influence in causing educators to examine the structure of the particular discipline in curriculum development. For example: To recapitulate, the main theme of this chapter has been that curriculum of a subject should be determined by the most fun- damental understandings that can be achieved of the underlying principles that give structure to that subject.67 . . . . . . . 68 Recent materials published by the NEA indicate a Similar emphaSis. Taba summarized the Situation: Therefore, scientific curriculum development needs to draw upon analyses of society and culture, studies of the learner and the learning process, and analyses of the nature of knowledge in 65Arthur W. Foshay, "A Modest Proposal for the Improvement of Education" cited in What are the Sources of the Curriculum? A Symposium (Washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, 1962), pp. 2-3. 6Jerome S. Bruner, The Process of Education (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), p. 6-8. ' 67Ibid., p. 31. 68Dorothy M. Fraser, et a1., Deciding What to Teach (Washington, D. C.: National Educational Association, 1963), pp. 21—22. 39 order to determine the purposes of the school and the nature of its curriculum. According to what has been said thus far, one could logically conclude that it is possible and valid to derive the objectives of science education from the objectives of education in general and the nature of science. Hence, for this study the objectives of science education will be derived from the educational objectives as developed by the NEA Pro- ject on the Instruction and the nature of science as specified in this chapter. The Nature of Science The various definitions of science provide some insight into the nature of science. These definitions clearly have elements in common: In short, science is What scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists.70 Science . . . is a point of view that insists on a rational explanation, based on experience, of the data of external world 7 There are two forms or aspects of science. First, science is a body of useful and practical knowledge and a method of obtaining it. . . . second . . . science . . . is a pure intellectual study.72 Science is an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observation and are fruitful of further experimentation and 69Taba, p. 10. 70Paul Brandwein, Fletcher Watson, and Paul Blackwood, Teaching High School Science: A Book of Methods (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1958), p. 13. 711. Bernard Cohen, Science, Servant of Man (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1948), p. 51. 2Norman Campbell, What is Science? (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1948), p. 1. 40 observations.73 Science is a process in which observations and their interpreta- tions are used to develop new concepts, to extend our understanding of the world, to suggest new areas for exploration, and to provide some predictions about the future. It is focused upon inquiry and subsequent action. We defined the scientific method by the cycle of induction, deduc- tion, and by its eternal search for improvement of theories which are only tentatively held. . . . we can use the definition in turn to define ”Science". Among these common elements is direct observation or observation through experimentation. Simpson, in fact, considered observation an essential component of any definition of science: Definitions of science may differ in other respects, but to have any validity they must include this point: the basis of science is observation. A second element common to definitions of science may be referred to as the thought processes involved in the scientific methods or scientific inquiry. A scientist does not stop with simple observations; he organizes and interrelates the facts gathered from observations to form abstract generalizations or concepts. The interrelation of these concepts give rise to the theoretical structure through which predictions can be made. Both the definitions of science and the activities of scientists, 73 James B. Conant, Science and Common Sense (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), p. 25. 74Paul DeHurd, ”Science Education for Changing Times," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty—Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 35. 75John G. Kemeny, A Philosopher Looks at Science (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, 1959), p. 176. 76George Gaylard Simpson, "Biology and the Nature of Science,” Science, CXXXIX (January, 1963), 81. 41 therefore, indicate that science has two aspects: the rational and the empirical. . . . the marriage of the logical with the empirical method. This union of two methods is the very basis of science.77 Certainly, neither experimentation nor mathematics had to wait for birth until the flowering of Western science. Nevertheless, in this flowering something of undeniable importance took place: the incorporation of mathematics and experimentation within a single method.78 Science combines empirical methods with rational methods to seek a system that permits predictions. In the empirical method knowledge is derived from experience, which might be simple observation or obser- vation by elaborate instrumentation. In the rational method knowledge is secured through thought processes without reference to direct ex- perience. Empirical knowledge by its very nature is inconclusive because it is impossible to observe all possible cases. Since all scientific conclusions are formed with inadequate data, they must be considered tentative. Revision of scientific conclusions as additional data are collected is to be expected and must be considered part of the process of science. Let us consider the basic metaphysical assumptions of science: knowledge can be established by observation and experimentation; there . . . . 9 . 18 order or regularity in the universe.7 Other assumptions frequently associated with the nature of science arise from the confusion of science 77J. Bronowski, The Common Sense of Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958), p. 29-30. 78Charles W. Morris, "Scientific Empiricism," International Ency- clopedia of Unified Science, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 63-64. 79Cecil J. Schneer, The Search for Order (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961), p. 13. 42 and common sense. To understand the nature of science, therefore, it is essential to contrast and compare science and common sense. One of the many metaphysical assumptions of common sense is that a consensus of opinion makes a statement true. If one assumes that know— ledge is based on the experience of the population as a whole, then this common knowledge is the common sense of that population. But these ex- periences differ from experiences in science in that the observations are usually not systematic and are not derived through the elaborate use of instruments,and even when experiences of scientists and the general population are similar, the languages used to express ideas and rela- tions differ sharply. The use of language in science is specialized and particular. The range and exactitude of scientific prediction exceed any cleverness of everyday life: the scientist's use of lan— guage is strangely effective and powerful. The language of the general population lacks this precision. ". . . the language in which common-sense knowledge is formulated and transmitted may exhibit two important kinds of indeterminancy"81 in that terms in ordinary speech are quite vague and they lack a relevant degree of specificity compared to the language of science. History reveals that common sense understandings and assumptions are changed by scientific discoveries, but since this usually occurs only after the knowledge produced by the discoveries is applied to technology, common sense usually takes a long time to incorporate them. For example, Leeuwenhoek's discovery of bacteria in 1683 had little 80Leonard Bloomfield, ”Linguistic Aspects of Science,” Interna~ EigpglpEncyclopedia of Unifigd Science, I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938), 219. 81Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1961), p. 8. 43 influence on common sense for nearly 100 years. Then Pasteur and others demonstrated the relation between bacteria and disease which catalyzed the change. Although common sense has no recorded history, we cannot suppose that it has no development. Common sense has developed, but more slowly than science.82 The magnitude of this time lag seems to depend upon how rapidly scientific knowledge increases and how uniform the population experiences are. In order to illustrate these relations, Punke83 emphasized that primitive societies or isolated communities differ from our modern society in two ways: (1) cultural change was relatively slow, and (2) population groups were small and each group was rather closely knit. As a result, most of the knowledge possessed by any tribe member became the common knowledge or common sense of the primitive society. Because of the rapid increase of knowledge today, much of the scientific know- ledge is possessed by few people compared to the relative ignorance of the general population. This produces a wide gap between science and common sense. Science and common sense, then, show fundamental differences. The Michelson-Morley Experiment (1888) for example, forced scientists to conclude that the Galileo-Newtonian relativity was not correct. Then, in 1905, Einstein concluded that there is no preferred coordinate syStem and that the velocity of light is the same for all observers. These conclusions gave rise to Einstein's theories of relativity. There are two aspects of Einstein's handling of the physical concepts. There is, in the first place, a realization that the 82Bronowski, p. 12. 83Harold H. Punke, “Science, Philosophy, Common Sense--and the American High School,” Science Education, XLII (December, 1958), 410. 44 paradoxes involved primarily questions of meaning and that the common-sense meaning of such terms as length and time were not sharp enough to serve in the situation presented by the new facts. In the second place, there was the method by which the necessary increase in sharpness was imparted to the meaning. . . . Einstein insisted that we do not know what we mean unless we can give some concrete procedure by which we may determine whether or not any two specific events are simultaneous. Einstein's theories of relativity provide jokes for the man on the street because they are contrary to common sense assumptions. To illustrate this: What does the relativist mean when he states that a velocity of 170,000 miles per second added to a velocity of 170,000 miles per second gives a velocity of 185,000 miles per second?8 A more drastic disparity between science and common sense can be seen through a study of quantum physics. Many discoveries in this field indicate clearly that scientists must distinguish between common sense assumptions and facts in forming theories to explain physical phenomena. For example, one of the basic common sense assumptions of classical or nineteenth century physics was that continuity (as opposed to discon- tinuity or discreteness) is the fundamental and necessary feature of all physical reality. Hence, it was applied to all of the fundamental pro— cesses of physical reality such as heat, light, and electromagnetism. But this assumption was proven fundamentally wrong. Spectroscopic analysis of the radiation from heated bodies illustrates this because it led to data that could not be reconciled by the continuous theory of radiation. After studying this problem, Max Planck concluded that radiation is not continuous; instead, it is discontinuous and consists 84 , P. W. Bridgman, ”Science and Common Sense} General Semantics, XII (Summer, 1955), 265-266. 85Arnold B. Arons and Alfred M. Bork, Science and Ideas: Selected Readings (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 12. Etc.: A Review of 45 of small, discrete bundles of energy which he called quanta. Soon other experiments were explained in terms of this new theory. In 1905 Einstein used Planck's theory to explain the photoelectric effect, which could not be explained in terms of continuous wave theory. When light was viewed as a stream of discrete pieces which Einstein called photons, the phenomena became quite simple to explain in a way that was completely consistent with the experimental data. Planck's new ”quantum theory” . . . was perhaps the single most revolutionary idea yet advanced in the history of physics and it was completely opposed to ”common sense” ideas about the nature of physical reality.86 As small particle study continued, other common sense assumptions were shown to be not only unnecessary to science, but a hazard to scientific thinking. For example, the assumption that the observer and the observed are completely separate was shown to be false through small particle study. Any experiment devised to look at an electron will change the position and velocity of that electron. Increasing the pre- cision of the instruments will not overcome this difficulty because according to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle one can never obtain exact knowledge of the momentum and position of an object, regardless of the improvements in experimental techniques. Perhaps an analogy will illustrate how contrary this is to common sense assumptions. A certain ball accelerates rapidly when struck by light. If this ball were in a perfectly dark room, could you locate it with a flashlight? We are coming to recognize that it is a simple matter of obser- vation that the observer is part of What he observes and that the thinker is part of what he thinks.87 86James L. Slattery, ”The Explosion in Physics, Part II,” The Kiwanis Magazine, XLVIII (February, 1963), 36. 87Bridgman, 274. 46 The work of de Broglie, Born, Dirac, Schr6dinger, and others demonstrates that the above examples are not exceptions to the rule but the rule itself. Relativity and quantum theory have illustrated that the common sense assumptions of classical physics are only rough approxi- mations even when considering large objects at low velocities. In fact, discoveries contrary to many common sense assumptions are not unique to physics, but seem to characterize science discoveries in general. It is significant that Taton reached a similar conclusion after studying early experimentation in astronomy, biology, and physics. In effect, these discoveries involved a complete break with apparently very solidly established opinions, with the most common preconceived ideas and with theories considered as evident by common sense.89 The difference between science and common sense has been exten- sively illustrated because the conclusions one draws concerning the relation of science and common sense directly affects the implications for education. we . . . cannot regard a man as well educated who does not intuitively recognize that common sense is not to be taken for granted, or who does not handle his thinking as a tool in the awareness that every tool has limitations built into it. 8 If the basis of both common sense and science is experience or observation, why should there be such striking differences between scientific findings and common sense conclusions? The answer to this question brings one to the heart of science-—verification. A scientist begins with observation and the gathering of facts. A fact is a verifiable observation. By organizing facts he may recognize 88R. Taton, Reason and Chance in Scientific Discovery (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1957), p. 147. 89Bridgman, 277. 47 patterns or relations among the facts. If he does recognize relations among the facts, he ponders possible explanations for these relations. To determine which of the possible explanations or theories is most likely to be correct, he predicts facts x, y, 2 that would logically follow assuming theory A to be true. He then designs experiments based on theory A so that facts x, y, 2 can be observed. If his experiments confirm his predictions about x, y, 2, then these facts tend to support theory A. But since it is possible to predict an infinite number of facts from theory A, it is impossible to prove definitely theory A. So its validity must be held only tentatively. If scientists can con— tinue to predict facts from theory A that are consistent with known facts or are verified by experiment, the theory is useful and they continue to develop it. The key to the verification of theories is that you never verify them. What you do verify are logical consequences of the theory. Verification is the process of seeing whether something predicted is really so. Since we can only observe particular facts, we must verify particular consequences of a theory, not the general theory itself. 0 Scientists use inductive reasoning in forming theories to explain observed facts; they use deductive reasoning in predicting facts from a theory. . . logical deduction is no more than the analysis of the meaning of theory. When we say that these facts follow, we mean that their truth is contained in the truth of the theory 0 Since inductive and deductive reasoning are essential to science, science is said to be rational. To comprehend the nature of science one must also understand its cyclic nature. From observations or facts, scientists generate theories; 90Kemeny, p. 96. 48 they use those theories to make predictions; they experiment to test these predictions against facts; and they then use these facts to generate other theories. As Einstein has repeatedly emphasized, Science must start with facts and end with facts, no matter what theoretical structures it builds in between. First of all the scientist is an observer. Next he tries to describe in complete generality what he saw, and What he expects to see in the future. Next he makes pre- dictions on the basis of his theories, which he checks against facts again. The most characteristic feature of the method is its cyclic nature. It starts with facts, ends in facts, and the facts ending one cycle are the beginning of the next cycle. Robinson in a paper presented to the 1965 Convention of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching used the following diagram to illustrate this cycle or circle of thought. Facts Conceptual Principles ///Schemes Constructs Laws Induction ngifild Deduction / / I / /-/ p ’ Physical ._ I . , / Ckserved field I Hypothe IS I I Predicted 1%" —/Facts I metaphysical principles 91Ibid., pp. 85-86. 49 This circle of thought "begins," ”ends," and "continues" in the area of observation and thus emphasizes the empirical roots of the physical sciences. But observations are not given in nature. They are selected by the scientist-—se1ected against the back- ground of contemporary theory, general and metaphysical prin— ciples, and pragmatic considerations. The P field designates the level of sense observation; the g . . . . 92 field deSignates the area of verbal description or the conceptual area. The basis of both science and common sense is observation, but science has methods for verifying knowledge; common sense does not. This monumental difference enables science to generate knowledge much faster than common sense. As a result science surges ahead while common sense lags behind. The history of science provides evidence that the various sciences began with observation and as they developed, they moved toward a theo- . 93 . retical or exact level, less related to common sense. As sc1ence be- comes more highly developed, often the empirical data do not make sense-— that is, the facts are contrary to common sense and scientists are forced to relate the empirical facts by using symbolic logic (mathe- matics) to build hypothetical constructs. Hence, as a field of science develops, it becomes more abstract and highly mathematical. This pro- cess was stated clearly by Hill. One of the most striking aspects of the development of physical theory during the last two centuries has been the growing use of mathematical symbolism as a medium for the expression of ideas. Logical deduction, in its traditional form of verbal or printed argumentation, is being supplanted to an astonishing degree among scientists by the more rigid and impersonal methods of mathematical 92 James T. Robinson, Science Teachipg and The Nature of Science, A Report to the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Convention, Chicago, February 13 to 15, 1965 (Chicago: The Convention, 1965), p. 11. (Mimeographed.) * 93Philipp Frank, Philosophy of Science (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1957), p. 44. 50 analysis. While this trend has developed to the greatest extent in the fields of physics and engineering, where it has proved to be indispensable, scientific disciplines of all kinds are commonly judged to have become more fundamental in proportion as they make an increasing use of formal mathematics. The intellectual impli— cations of this movement should be of the liveliest interest to the philosopher of science. Mathematics, at least in the hands of people who are not pro- fessional mathematicians, usually has a double significance, being at once a symbolic language and a compact form of logic. Though science and common sense differ, they reinforce each other. As was stated earlier, they both start with observation and in a very young science they are closely related. It is clear from the history of science that much of science began because of problems from the environment or apparent inconsistencies in the environment. In other words, science started where the environment differed with the common sense of the day. Although science does surge ahead of common sense, this is not to say that common sense does not change. A strong case can be presented, using for example the control of disease and the con- trol of energy, to indicate that common sense is changed by science and technology. To understand the relation of science and common sense, however, it is necessary to see how both relate to philosophy. Frank states: Science starts from common sense, and from generalization by induction or imagination one derives science; but the derived principles themselves may be very far from common sense. To connect these principles directly with common sense——this is the work done by philosophers. Frank illustrates these relations by a diagram: 94E. L. Hill, ”Quantum Physics and The Relativity Theory," Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 429. 95Frank, pp. 46—47. 51 Science Common Sense Philosophy This diagram illustrates that one can go from science to common sense in two ways: 1. The scientific way which involves empirical and rational methods. Essentially this means that a majority of the population would have to become familiar with the methods of scientific inquiry, acquire the attitudes necessary for successful inquiry and comprehend sufficient concepts of science to relate them to everyday living. 2. The philosophical way which involves relating scientific findings to common sense through philosophical interpretation. If we wish to reduce the gap between science and common sense, Frank diagramed two possible routes, but because of the intimate rela- tion of science, philosophy, and common sense, selecting one route is out of the question; we must incorporate both. Science influences common sense through technology. But to develop technology we begin with science and apply it to the solution of practical problems. Since science must precede technology, the change in common sense due to technology will lag considerably behind science. Therefore, in order to bridge the gap between science and common sense, 52 we must look also to the second facet--philosophy. It is possible for philosophy and science to influence common sense through science education. AS was stated earlier in this chapter, science education objectives are established through studies of the learner, the society, philosophy, and the nature of science. The estab- lishment and fulfillment of science education objectives, therefore, becomes a way of using both routes to change common knowledge of science. If the objectives of Science education reflect the nature of science and contemporary science and if these objectives are fulfilled by the teaching and learning of science in the nation's classrooms, then the knowledge of science that is common to the population increases con- siderably. One of the greatest challenges of our times is, then, to bridge the gap between science and common sense through science educa- tion. Educational Objectives, Nature of Science and Objectives of Science Education Earlier in this chapter, the validity of deriving the objectives of science education from educational objectives as developed by the NEA Project on Instruction and the nature of science was shown. Having just considered the nature of science, the objectives of Science educa- tion which served as the basis of Part I of the questionnaire can now be derived. Let us consider the first two educational objectives and relate them to the appropriate elements from the nature of science. *1earning how to learn, how to attack new problems, how to acquire new knowledge *using rational processes96 96Havighurst, et a1., p. 9. 53 When one considers the above objectives in terms of the specific area of science education, one realizes that they involve the elements of scientific inquiry. The two elements that are deeply involved in Scien- tific inquiry and are common to many definitions of science are the empirical and rational methods of inquiry. The empirical methods would include all observation with or without the aid of instrumentation. The rational methods would include the inductive and deductive reasoning pro- cesses as described earlier in this chapter. If science education is to reflect the nature of science and scien- tific inquiry, then one would expect emphasis on the empirical or the experimental methods. In fact experimentation would become the primary source of learning. Emphasis would be placed on methods of inquiry in- cluding rational methods as well as empirical methods: how to collect, organize and observe relations in data; how to use symbolic logic to build hypothetical constructs, predict facts based on these constructs, and generate hypotheses and design experiments to test the hypotheses to see if the predicted facts are verified. Emphasis would also be placed on the tentative nature of scientific conclusions by using methods of inquiry to make and revise conclusions. Since it is possible to ob~ tain supporting evidence for conclusions and not proof, others interested in the experiment must be able to replicate it. Science education, therefore, should emphasize communication to the extent that experiments are accurately described and data displayed so that others can replicate the experiment if they desire. If all of the above factors are considered, then the student in science education would be expected to acquire the following understand- ings and behaviors: 54 I. Observation and Rational Processes A. Observation Observe those things that are relevant to the problem at hand Understand the relationship of observation and theory-- without theory one does not know what to observe Design experiments so that desired observations can be made Understand the influence of the observer on what is being observed Use instruments properly to aid in observation and under- stand the role of instruments in science Quantify observations and organize data so that they are meaningful. Rational Processes Understand the distinction between inductive and deductive aspects of theory Organize data in such a way that patterns can be observed and valid conclusions can be drawn Form hypothetical constructs to explain patterns and rela- tions within data Operationally define terms and concepts; understand the impossibility of divorcing concepts from the operations through which they are generated Predict phenomena from hypothetical constructs and design experiments to verify these phenomena and generate facts Treat scientific data and conclusions in such a way that an understanding of the tentative nature of the scientific II. III. 55 conclusions is evident 7. Understand the cyclic nature of science 8. Understand when experimental conclusions are valid 9. Express thoughts in some system of symbolic logic such as mathematics in order to validate the reasoning. Metaphysical Assumptions A. All science is based on two metaphysical assumptions: knowledge can be established by observation and experimentation; there is order or regularity in the universe. B. If science education is to reflect these metaphysical assumptions, then one would understandings 1. Understand inquiry 2. Understand methods of 3. Understand expect the science student to acquire the following and behaviors: the role of metaphysical assumptions in directing the limitations as well as the strengths of the science the relation between the assumption of regularity in the universe and prediction 4. Understand the role of man as an interpreter of nature; consequently, the study of language is essential to a scientist. Relation of Common Sense, Science, and Science Education When one considers the competencies and skills needed for successful citizenship in a technological society, then the relationship be- tween this topic and two additional educational objectives developed by the NEA Project on Instruction becomes apparent. 56 *building competence in basic skills *developing intellectual and vocational competence97 If one assumes that historically common sense has been changed by scientific technology and that it is desirable to reduce the gap between science and common sense, then science education is obligated to narrowing this gap. It may be no surprise to find that the type of science education already outlined would also be the kind most likely to narrow this gap because students of the general population would be taught to think more like contemporary scientists. Science education cannot be static, but must be as dynamic and rapid changing as science itself. Hence, the success in narrowing the gap between science and common sense will depend upon how accurately science education reflects contemporary science and how rapidly science itself changes. If the confusion of common sense ideas with knowledge derived by empirical methods has retarded the development of science and scientific technology, then science education should clearly distin- guish between the two and teach students to deal logically with empirical data even when it is contrary to common sense assumptions. Students should be taught to deal with abstract ideas, to rely on logic instead of common sense in drawing conclusions. In this way science education would be similar to mathematics education. A. Science and Common Sense 1. Common sense is based upon the experiences that the members of the population have in common. Science observations are usually made through the use of elaborate instrumentation 97Ibid., p. 9. 57 and these are not common to the population. 2. The language used to transmit science is much different than the language used to transmit common sense. 3. Science is based upon systematic observation and rational processes; common sense is based upon consensus of opinion. Science Education If science education is to reflect the relation of common sense and science, then one would expect science students to acquire the following understandings and behaviors: 1. Deal logically with abstract ideas of science even when they are contrary to common sense ideas 2. Exhibit a difference in their attitudes toward scientific findings and common sense information 3. Generate data by experimental procedures and think in terms of that data without interference from common sense notions 4. Understand that common sense lags behind science and that there is not necessarily a conflict between them 5. Does not take common sense notions for granted, but questions and tests them by scientific methods. IV. Development of Science A. As a science develops it becomes more quantitative, more theo- retical, more exact, and makes increasing use of mathematical systems. Various fields of science are at various stages of development, but the thrust of all sciences has been toward exact or theoretical procedures. Accordingly, the understandings and behaviors one would expect students to acquire through science education: 58 l. Increasingly be able to collect, organize, and see relations in data; to use symbolic logic to build hypothetical con- structs; generalize, hypothesize, and design experiments to test these hypotheses 2. Increasingly understand the development of a science 3. Increasingly understand the logical, mathematical, and syntactical structure of science. Scientific Discovery and the Structure of Science Although scientific discovery and the structure of science are an integral part of the cyclic nature of science, they are isolated here because of their relation to the last two educational objec- tives by the NEA Project on the Instruction. *exploring values in new experience *understanding concepts and generalizations A. 98 Scientific Discovery Discovery is part of the methodology of the sciences and does not rely on chance alone. According to most authors on the nature of science, it is the fruit of imagination through a well—prepared mind. Although chance has played a part in many discoveries, they were made by keen observation and the ability to see relationships previously unseen. Discovery, then, does involve chance, but it also involves intuition, creativity, and the ability to use the methods of scientific inquiry. If science education is to reflect scientific discovery, then the science student would acquire the following under- standings and behaviors: 981bid , p. 9. 59 1. Understand the relation of creativity, imagination, intui- tion, and methods of science to scientific discovery 2. Understand the relation between scientific discovery and the well-prepared mind 3. Understand that most scientific discoveries have taken place only after hard work 4. Understand that the elements of scientific methods are pre- requisite skills to discovery 5. Skill in using the elements of scientific methods 6. Skill in designing and conducting exploratory experiments to acquire knowledge. Structure of Science The structure of a discipline consists of the relatively few, but powerful, concepts and principles that hold the discipline together. These concepts and principles help the student make an entity of his own out of what otherwise is just a collection of isolated facts. Because the volume of scientific knowledge is so great, it is impossible to teach a child all the scientific facts and technology that he will need during his life. It is increasingly necessary, therefore, to teach him those concepts that are essential to the logic and the structure of science itself. Hence, science education must reflect accurately the structure of science. If science education is to reflect the structure of science, then the student in science would acquire the following under~ standings and behaviors: 1. Understand the distinction between the structure and the 60 development of science 2. Understand the distinctions among structure, concepts, and facts 3. Understand the relation of physical concepts to the opera- tions by which they were generated 4. Understand sufficient facts, concepts, and principles in at least one field of science to see the underlying structure of the discipline 5. Understand the relation of validity and the theoretical structure of science 6. Understand the relation of hypotheses and the theoretical structure of science. Role of the Science Supervisor The current literature on general supervision, special supervision, and science supervision together with the objectives of science educa- tion as developed in this chapter served as valuable background for developing questionnaire items related to the role of the science super- visor in selecting and implementing science curriculum materials. The literature also indicates some differences in emphases between general and special supervision. Special Supervisor The term special supervisor appeared in the literature after 1870 to describe those persons employed to help teachers and administrators implement the new subjects, including music, drawing, manual training, and home economics. The meaning of this term in the current literature 61 has been extended to include supervisors in any subject discipline such as English, social science, mathematics, and science. Most authors deal with elementary or secondary supervision or supervision in general and give little or no emphasis to special supervision. Then, too, authors who mention special supervision disagree as to its value. Some authors imply that special supervision is against the principles of democratic leadership. The concept of democratic supervision based upon cooperative relationships in the total school program makes it more and more evident that specialized supervision should give way to general supervision. Other authors take quite an opposing view: Supervisors of specialized subject matter, such as art, music, and physical education, have an even more important job to do in implementing the philosophy and objectives of a school than does the general supervisor . . . . They can be expected to render more specific help in curriculum and instruction than the general supervisor. McKean and Mills maintain that there is no general agreement whether general supervision or special supervision is superior; each has advantages and disadvantages. The general supervisor is able to bring together teachers of various subjects to explore the possibilities of coordination and integration. He seeks to intensify horizontal articulation while the ”special supervisor, on the other hand, is more likely to accomplish equally vital progress toward vertical articulation within his subject area.”101 99Harold P. Adams and Frank G. Dickey, Basic Prinpiples of Spper- vision (New York: American Book Company, 1953), pp. 15-16. 100Robert C. Hammock and Ralph S. Owings, Supervising Instruction in Secopdary Schools (New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955), p. 81. 101Robert C. McKean and H. H. Mills, The Supervisor (Washington, D C.: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1964), p. 22. 62 Apparently, both the general and the special supervisor have important roles to play in improving the learning and teaching within the school systems. Even those authors who are opposed to special super vision recognize the need for vertical articulation and recommend that the general supervisor secure the help of outside consultants for this purpose. Many authors agree that "the need for expert assistance in special . . l.102 . . H . areas is seldom questioned and that spec1al superVisors are guided by the same principles of leadership found useful by other instructional 102 leaders.” Mchan and Mills state: The special supervisor attached to the central office operates much like a general supervisor except that he tends to be called upon more as a resource in his content speciality rather than his ability to coordinate and facilitate group action. The special supervisor must possess expertness in subject matter in which he specializes and in the methods of teaching it. For example, he may make important contributions in developing vertical articu- lation . . . .103 Apparently the functions of the special supervisor are similar to those recommended for the general supervisor and in addition he is expected to be an expert in his particular subject area, know the methods of teaching unique to that area, and be concerned with vertical articulation. The above statement served as a guide in using the recommended activities of general supervisors to determine items in Part II of this study's questionnaire. 1onane Franseth, Supervision as Leadership (New York: Row, Peterson and Company, 1961), p. 171. l03McKean and Mills, p. 21. 63 Science Supervisor For the purposes of this study, science supervisor is used to denote a person to whom responsibility has been delegated for the super- vision, leadership, and improvement of the elementary and/or secondary school science program and who devotes a portion of his regular working time to fulfilling this responsibility. Various titles are used for this position such as science consultant, science coordinator, and specialist in science. In reviewing the literature for this section, the investigator assumed that the title is not important so long as the individual adequately fits the above definition. The current literature indicates that the employment of science supervisors may aid school systems to improve the quality of science teaching; to develop an articulated science program, grades K-6 and/or 7-12; to develop an adequate in-service teacher training program; and to select from the abundant commercial and NSF sponsored science curric— ulum materials and to aid teachers in implementing these materials to improve the science program.10[+ Stotler, after considering the problem in science education and the role of the science supervisor in aiding in their solution, stated: In this period of increasing emphasis upon science education, it is imperative that small city and suburban systems provide adequate science supervisory service. It is a prime factor in the improvement of science instruction. Wherever feasible, a fullmtime science consultant should be employed to assist with the program in Grades I through XII.105 104J. Myron Atkin, ”Elementary School Science Programs: Appraisal and Recommendations,” Improving Science Programs in Illinois Schools ed. William 0. Stanley, Harry S. Broudy, and R. Will Burnett (Urbana; University of Illinois, 1958), p. 42. 105 H . . . u Donald Stotler, The Superv1Sion of the Sc1ence Program, Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), pp. 226—227. 64 The supervisor's responsibility in developing an adequate in— service program seems to be constantly emphasized. In science education, the need for in—service training of teachers has been intensified by the rapid changes made in both content and methods of teaching. Eiss related this problem to science curriculum materials developed by pro— jects sponsored by the National Science Foundation when he stated: The majority of science teachers being graduated from our colleges in June will be prepared to teach science of the 1940's. Most of them will be relatively uninformed of the results of scientific research of the last decade, and with the courses of study now being used in hundreds of our nation's schools administrators cannot find enough teachers qualified to teach BSCS biology, CBA or CHEMS chemistry, or PSSC physics.106 Woodburn in speaking to state science supervisors also related the new science curriculum materials to the functions of the science supervisor. Things are building up on your side. Textbooks are becoming available that must be literally millions of dollars better than those they are to replace. . . . I know of no better way of improving science teaching than for supervisors to help science teachers to teach in the true Spirit of science consistent with its methods, and complementary to its functions. Most of the literature dealing with the role of the science super- visor indicates supervisory activities similar to those recommended for the general supervisor except those activities that are unique to science education and vertical articulation. Atkin states that the procedures used by a science consultant as he attempts to improve the quality of science instruction would include: . demonstration teaching, developing printed curriculum aids, conducting workshops in elementary science for teachers, holding 106Albert F. Eiss, "Report of the Committee for Relations with Supervisors of Science,” (Thirty-Seventh Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, March 21~24, 1964), p. 1. (Mimeographed.) » 107John H. Woodburn, "The First—Problem: Helping the Teacher,” School Life, Vol. 45 (October, 1962), 32. 65 individual planning conferences with teachers to make suggestions for improvement of the science program, ordering and storing science equipment and books, and working with administrators in helping them to see the importance of science in the total cur- riculum. 109 . . Tannenbaum stresses that the sc1ence superVisor serves four functions: develops an in—service program in science; prepares or super- vises the preparation of the science curriculum; helps teachers see their weaknesses and capitalize on their strengths; and coordinates the science program of the entire school system. 110 . . . Battle agrees With these, but also emphaSizes that the sc1ence supervisor should assist in the identification and acquisition of in- structional aids; should share in the evaluation of programs and in the revision of goals and procedures. MacLean, in addition to those activi- ties already stated, stresses that the science supervisor should "act as . . . . . ”111 liaison between community, industry and the sc1ence teacher. . As one result of a conference June 25-29, l962,sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education, guidelines for the activities of state science supervisors were developed in the areas of "professional and public re- lations, preservice and inservice education, curriculum facilities and . . 112 equipment, research, and the nature of sc1ence.” 108J. Myron Atkin, ”Needed: Elementary School Science Counsultants,” The Science Teacher, XXIV (October, 1957), 271. . 109Harold E. Tannenbaum, "Supervision of Elementary School Science: In-Service Courses,” The Science Teacher, XXVII (April, 1960), 50~51. 110Haron J. Battle, ”Supervision in Science and Mathematics,” School Science and Mathematics, LXI (April, 1961), 303. 111Archie J. MacLean, ”Supervision of Guidance Toward Science," Education, LXXIII (March, 1953), 437. 112Uhlman S. Alexander, Supervision for Quality Education in Science (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1963), p. 163. 66 In a recent pamphlet developed for the National Science Teachers Association, George stressed that the typical duties of the science con- sultant were to . . . be of specific help to teachers in the classroom carry out a continuing inservice program . . .; to develop specific items of assistance for the science teacher such as newsletters, and lists of equipment and materials . . .; help teachers work with, and plan for, special groups of students . . .; help guidance bureau by alerting teachers and guidance counselors to science career materials . . .; assist administrators plan for and carry out the science program . .; coordinate the work of the elementary and senior high schools . . .; help in evaluation of textbooks, library books and other printed materials . . .; advise or accompany teachers on field trips by helping with pre-trip and post-trip activi- ties . . .; help in such activities as science fairs, con- gresses, and clubs . . .; and develop or review a curriculum guide for the teaching of science by serving as chairman of the curriculum committee. Related Studies Studies have been conducted concerning the duties and responsi- bilities of the science supervisor, but no studies have been conducted to determine his responsibilities as related to the selection and im- plementation of different science curriculum materials. The studies in this and previous sections dealing with the role of the general and special supervisor were used as the basis for writing questions for Part II of the questionnaire. The review of related research, there~ fore, reveals that previous studies are different than the present study and resulted in a summary of those duties and responsibilities of the science supervisor which would have a high probability of being perti- nent to the present study. 3 Kenneth D. George, "How to Utilize the Services of a Science Consultant...to Improve School Science Programs," How To Do It Pamphlet Series (Washington, D. C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1965), 2. 67 Culver conducted a statistically treated survey of learning prob- lems in science education of nearly 900 pupils in a selected high School, accepted the objectives of science education as outlined by the Thirty- first and Forty-sixth Yearbooks of the National Society for the Study of Education and made a series of recommendations which represented ”the pooled judgements of the majority of 32 jury members."114 The super- visory program, outlined in this study for a specific high school, illustrates the importance of science curriculum materials, including textbooks, laboratory facilities, and audio-visual materials. The weakness of Culver's study was that it presented a supervisory program for a specific high school and the results, therefore, cannot be gen- eralized. Kerr115 interviewed 50 professional school employees, made 25 observations, and collected statements from working consultants con- cerning effective supervisory practices to determine the role of the consultant in elementary school science. Among the most important functions of the science consultant found were: to plan, organize, and maintain a continuing in-service program for teachers and to assist with instructional materials and equipment. Kerr concluded that the functions of the elementary science consultant were: to initiate, expand and enrich the science program; to work toward better personal relationships; to coordinate cur- riculum activities; to act as a resource person; to assist in 114Ivon E. Culver, "A Supervisory Program for Improving the Learning of Science in a Senior High School" (unpublished Ed.D. dis- sertation, School of Education, University of Pennsylvania, 1952), p. 204. 115 . n ‘ El1zabeth Feeney Kerr, The Role of the Consultant in Elemen— tary Science: A Report of a Type C Project" (unpublished Ed.D. disser- tation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956), pp. 15-36. 68 in-service education programs; and to provide for continuous evaluation. In 1958 Lee reported the results of a questionnaire study to determine the status of supervision of secondary school science instruc- tion at the state and local level and to evaluate the performance of supervisory activities in light of the established values procured through the judgements of a jury of 25 science educators. A check-list questionnaire was sent to 30 science educators, 44 local science super- visors, and 10 state science supervisors. Respondents ranked the 106 supervisory activities which were in eight major categories. The science educators who were declared the jury showed that the rank order of cate- gories of activities used in the study were: (1) methods, (2) curriculum study, (3) research, (4) in-service growth of teachers, (5) self—growth, (6) public relations, (7) administration, and (8) materials and equipment.117 But the science supervisors did not entirely agree with this rank order. The three highest ranked categories of activities in terms of extent of performance by the supervisors of science are (1) Methods, (2) Administration, and (3) Curriculum study. The re- maining categories are ranked in the following order: (4) Materials and Equipment, (5) Public Relations, (6) Self—Growth, (7) In-Service Growth of Teachers, and (8) Research.11 He found the following rank correlations: between state science super— visors and the jury of +0.45; between the jury and the local science supervisors of +0.53; and between state and local science supervisors of +0.85. Rank correlations according to Siegel119 indicate the degree 1161bid., p. 96-97. 117Verlin Wiley Lee, ”The Evaluation of Supervision of Secondary- School Science Instruction” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1958), p. 246. 118Ibid., p. 251. 119 . . . . . . Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav1oral Sciences (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1956), pp. 202-239. 69 of agreement between the groups. The results of Lee”s study, therefore, indicate that there was much greater agreement between local and state science supervisors than between state science supervisors and college science educators or between local science supervisors and college science educators. If these results are valid, it is then more logical to consider the local science supervisors in the same category or group than to consider college science educators and science supervisors in the same category or group. From the design of the study and the recom- mendations Lee made from it, apparently he assumed that science educators knew what the role of the science supervisor ought to be. For example, he stated: The greatest need is more consultative aid to carry on programs that will more nearly correlate with values expressed by leading science educators.120 In 1959 Heimler121 reported a study which resulted in the develop- ment of a guide for supervision in science in small New York Central schools. He developed a check-list questionnaire and mailed it to 529 science teachers employed in 249 small New York Central schools. From analyses of the questionnaire data, he determined the status of science education, the problems encountered by the science teachers, and devel- oped a list of 96 science teaching recommendations. He then searched the literature on instructional supervision and developed a list of 16 supervisory methods and techniques which were validated by a jury. This list included: observational visits; individual and group conferences 120Verlin Wiley Lee, ”The Evaluation of Supervision of Secondary- School Science Instruction," Dissertation Abstracts, XIX (1959), 2290. 121Charles Herbert Heimler, "A Guide for Science Supervision in the New York Central School” (unpublished Ed.D° dissertation, School of Education, New York University, 1959), pp. 87-90. 70 with teachers; workshops; in-service education including on-campus and off-campus college courses; furnishing teachers with instructional aids and materials; providing consultant services; encouraging teachers to participate in professional organizations; arranging for teachers to visit and observe other teachers; evaluation, planning, the use of com- munity resources and resource people; summer institutes; and summer employment. Three additional methods and techniques were added by the jury: teachers demonstrate successful classroom procedures to other teachers; teachers share summer institute experience; and demonstration teaching by the supervisor. These supervisory activities together with the analysis of teacher problems were used to develop a Guide for Science Supervision in the New York Central School. Ploutz, in 1960, reported a questionnaire survey conducted to determine the conditions of employment, status, and professional respon- sibilities of science supervisors. The responses of 25 science super— visors in each of the areas of elementary, secondary, K-12, and state science supervisors were used in the study. Of the 38 items in the questionnaire that dealt with the responsibilities of the science super- visor, the following ten are listed in descending order of the number of times reported by science supervisors at the four levels: 1. Class visitation and teacher conference. 2. Curriculum development. 3. Promote in-service training, workshops, etc. 4 Provide equipment and materials for instructional purposes. 5. Provide or produce newsletters, bulletins, materials and information. Evaluation of schools, courses, or instruction. 7. Survey films, texts, teaching materials for libraries, schools and teachers. 8. Promote and attend local, state, regional and national organi- zations. 9. Keep informed of new methods and materials by attending meetings and devoting time each day to reading professional literature 0\ 71 and reports. 10. Be available to answer questions, assist classroom teachers. 122 However, since the science supervisors responded yes, no and/or on request, the data does not reveal the frequency in which the activities were per— formed or their relative importance. Rather it means that the science supervisors, as a group, feel these activities are performed by the science supervisor. Turner conducted a questionnaire study to determine the practices employed by 25 science consultants working in the elementary schools in New York City and the relative efficiency of these practices as judged by school personnel. He found that the "three science consultant prac- tices rated most valuable were: (1) held a grade workshop in science, (2) gave a science in-service course, and (3) gave a demonstration lesson.”123 He found a relatively high rank correlation between the following categories of respondents: between science consultants and principals; between consultants and superintendents; and between prin- cipals and superintendents. But he found a relative low correlation between practices which were actually employed and those rated valuable. This is further evidence that any study concerning the science super- visor's role should include actual and recommended behaviors of the supervisor.124 In 1961 Harwell reported a questionnaire inquiry concerning the responsibilities of the science supervisor as indicated by science 122Paul F. Ploutz, "The Science Supervisor" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Colorado State College, 1960), p. 108. 123Richard Timothy Turner, ”An Appraisal of the Practices of Twenty-Five Science Consultants Operating in the New York City Elementary Schools" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1960), pp. 85-86. 124M“. p. 55. r""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'—————T:::tf::fttr———--—rr 72 teachers employed in school systems with a science supervisor and who were members of the National Science Teachers Association. Each par- ticipant was asked the frequency with which the science supervisor per- formed the listed responsibility, which item in each section was thought to be most important, and whether each item should be the responsibility of the science supervisor. The items from each section of the questionnaire which were con- sidered most important by the greatest number of respondents indicated that the science supervisor: 1. Visits the new teacher in the system more often than others. 2. Holds group meetings of science teachers at intervals during the school year to encourage the exchange of ideas. 3. Encourages teachers to strive constantly to develop scientific attitudes and an appreciation for the method of science. 4. Assumes the leadership role in preparation of recommended courses of study for science. 5. Prepares lists of recommended equipment and supplies to be used in science classes. 6. Encourages the teacher to experiment and discuss findings to create a desire in students to do research. 7. Serves as a coordinator in developing an instructional phi— losophy of science. 8. Attends institutes and workshops held at colleges and univer- sities. 9. Participates in policy making in regard to the science pro- grams of the school system. 10. Is available for personal counseling of science teachers. 11. Assists in making plans for science facilities in new buildings. 12. Publicizes events concerning the science program.125 Wrobleski126 conducted a questionnaire study concerning the duties and responsibilities of science coordinators in large public school 2 1 5John Earl Harwell, ”The Responsibilities of the Science Super- visor as Indicated by Science Teachers” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Mississippi, 1961), pp. 176-177. 126Bernard E. Wrobleski, "The Duties and Functions of a Science Coordinator in a 9—12 Science Program in Selected School Districts in the United States” (unpublished Master's thesis, Indiana State College, Indiana, Pennsylvania, 1965), p. 40. 73 districts in the United States as to their current and recommended super- visory practices. He found that science coordinators recommended more involvement than is in current practice in the following areas: (1) science curriculum development, (2) science materials of instruction, (3) in-service training of science teachers, (4) personnel responsibil— ities, and (5) activities and services related to instruction. The National Science Supervisors Association's (NSSA) Commission on the Role of Science Supervisors distributed a questionnaire to those NSSA members who attended the 1965 NSSA Annual Convention to obtain in- formation concerning the role of the science supervisor. A study of the completed questionnaires indicate that the most significant duties of the science supervisor are related to: improving classroom instruc— tion, curriculum development and implementation, counseling teachers and helping them, in-service teacher training, providing leadership, and providing instructional materials. Jackson127 studied the part-time supervisor of science-mathematics in Oklahoma public schools and a portion of his findings were the super- visory functions these supervisors think they should perform. Eighty percent or more of the part-time supervisors thought they should help determine the courses in science-mathematics; help formulate rules and . regulations concerning how courses are taught; help formulate policy dealing with course enrollment requirements; consult with teachers when they have instructional problems; provide leadership in the formulation of course objectives; provide leadership in the selection of textbooks, 127Tillman V. Jackson, ”The Scope and Nature of Quasi-Supervision in the State of Oklahoma with Focus upon the Status and Role of Quasi— Supervisors of Secondary Science and Mathematics” (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1965), p. 126. 74 audio-visual aids, and other teaching materials; subscribe to at least two professional journals; keep well informed of the latest surveys, ex— periments, and other activities in their field; initiate or recommend program changes or changes in practices based upon current research findings; and keep teachers informed of the latest findings and programs. To the knowledge of the writer, these are the only studies that relate directly to the role of the science supervisor. None of these studies considered the type of instructional materials being implemented as influencing the activities or responsibilities of the science super- visor. Most of the studies, however, offer evidence of the importance of curriculum development or the selection and implementation of science curriculum materials as being an integral part of the science super- visor's role. After considering all the factors discussed in this chapter, it appears that the present study builds logically upon the findings of previous studies and extends the present knowledge concerning the role of the science supervisor by determining whether science supervisors use the same activities to the same extent in implementing NSF sponsored science project materials as those science supervisors implementing com— mercial materials. Summar The current literature on the role of the general supervisor in- dicates that his responsibilities are in the areas of curriculum develop- ment, leadership, in-service programs, self-growth, public relations, selection and use of curriculum materials, evaluation, and research. Further, the literature concerning the special supervisor indicates that he assumes a role similar to that of the general supervisor, but with 75 greater emphasis on the articulation among the several grade levels, the selection and implementation of the specific instructional materials in the discipline, and the methods of teaching that particular discipline. The studies concerning the science supervisor tend to reinforce these conclusions because the role, as revealed by the studies reviewed, places greater emphasis on the selecting and use of instructional mater- ials including equipment-supplies, and on the use of laboratory facili- ties than did the studies on the role of the general supervisor. From the literature, therefore, it seems logical that the areas of curriculum, leadership, in-service programs, and equipment-materials would be among the most pertinent areas in studying the science super- visor's role in relation to the type of curriculum materials being imp l ement ed . CHAPTER III PROCEDURE AND DESIGN This chapter includes: (1) the design of the study, (2) the selection of the population, (3) the development of the questionnaire, (4) the establishment of procedures for the collection of data, and (5) the procedures for the analyses gfmdata. Design of the Study The study was designed to determine and analyze the role of the science supervisor in the selection and use of both commercial and National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored science curriculum project materials. Responses from a large number of persons were desired in determining the role of the science supervisor, and the questionnaire technique was especially appropriate for the purpose. A mailed question- naire was used, therefore, to collect data from a national population of science supervisors, college science educators, and elementary and secondary school teachers. The hypotheses of the study were developed from a careful review of science curriculum materials intended for grades K-12 and the pro- fessional literature concerning supervision. A comparison of the NSF sponsored science project materials with various commercial science curriculum materials raised several questions which eventually were transformed into hypotheses l and 2. A review of the professional 76 77 literature and studies to find recommended science supervisory practices for implementing these widely different programs raised several other questions which were eventually transformed into hypotheses 3, 4, and 5. The following null hypotheses, then, set the major structure for this study: Null Hypotheses Ho1 Science supervisors and teachers using National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored science project materials do not differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the perceived relative importance of particular characteristics of science curriculum materials (H01: CM1 = CM2)' Ho2 Science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials do not differ from those using commercial Science curriculum 4 materials as to the perceived relative importance of selected objectives of science education (H02: Obj1 = Objz). Ho3 Science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials do not differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the perceived actual behavior of science supervisors (H03: ABl = ABZ)' Ho4 Science supervisors and teachers using NSF sponsored science project materials do not differ from those using commercial science curriculum materials as to the recommended behavior of science supervisors (H04: RB1 = RB2)' Ho5 The perceived actual behaviors of science supervisors of grades K-6 do not differ from the perceived actual behaviors of science supervisors of grades 7-12 (H05: ABele = ABseC). 78 The null hypotheses were rejected and corresponding alternate hypotheses were accepted if statistical test values fell within the region of rejection set at the 0.05 level of significance. The alter- nate hypotheses were stated in Chapter I and in each case indicate dif- ferences between the two professional groups compared. Symbolically the alternate hypotheses may be stated as: H1: CM1 94 CM2 H : Objl # Obj2 2 H3: ABl # AB2 H4: RB1 # R32 H5: ABele # ABsec Many research designs were possible to collect sufficient data to test the null hypotheses and also limit the mailed questionnaires to a manageable number. For example, all of the NSF sponsored science pro— ject materials could have been studied within one state, or materials from several projects could have been studied nationally. Since the objectives of the NSF sponsored science projects are similar, the better design was to select materials from a few elementary and secondary sponsored projects and select respondents from a national population of science supervisors, elementary and secondary school teachers, and col- lege science educators. This design enabled a greater generalization of results than many of the other possible designs. Since elementary teachers usually teach other subjects as well as science, they are less likely to be familiar with NSF sponsored science projects than are secondary school science teachers, who usually specialize in one subject area. Science curriculum materials were, therefore, selected from three elementary NSF sponsored science projects 79 and one secondary NSF sponsored project. A questionnaire structured to obtain responses on a five—point scale was designed, pretested, revised, and mailed to a national sample of science supervisors and science teachers who were involved in the implementation of NSF sponsored and commercial science curriculum mate— rials. Questions in Part I of the questionnaire were concerned with the relative importance of characteristics of science curriculum materials and in Part II with the relative frequencies of those supervisory activ- ities directly related to the implementation of science curriculum materials: namely,activities related to curriculum, leadership, in- service programs, and equipment-materials. Relationships in the data were determined by Spearman rank cor- relation coefficients and hypotheses were tested by the chi square test. A flow chart of the study design is shown in Diagram I. Selection of the Population To fulfill the purpose of this study, it was necessary to clas— sify each respondent as using NSF sponsored science project materials or as using commercial science curriculum materials. Since science teachers and science supervisors are directly involved in activities related to the utilization of science curriculum materials, they could readily be classified. In addition, previous studies and role theory indicate that teachers influence the science supervisors' role greatlyw For these reasons, teachers, as well as science supervisors, were designated as role definers in this study. The population, therefore, consisted of: (l) the total member- ship of the National Science Supervisors Association (NSSA), those 80 .quu mumsvm «Lo ofiu pow .mfimfipoumsuucmEaflsvo mEmuwoud oofl>uwmucfl "mo wmopm osu CH wmwufl>fluom hu0mw>uma3m mo hocosvouw mfiu wcficumocoo mEouH cu momcommom aflcmuoomma Esflsofiuudo .mHmHuoumE Esfisoflnpso oocoflom HmflouoEEoo mcflm: muofiomwu cam mMOmH>uod3m mosoflom owMMCGOHummso ozu :Hom mo mw>wuoomno onu mam mHmHumumE EsasoHHHSo mono nwom mo moflumflumuomumfio ozu IIIIIIIN mo mucoupanH o>HumHop osu wcHCHoocoo mEmufl ou momsommwm .EOHuNUSUm woflmw Honezw o:u mH mgr .mamwpmumEIuCoEmflsvo mEmuwoua wofl>pomucH mflsmuowmma Esfisofluuso "mo mmoum mzu on moflofl>fiuom ku0mfi>uom5m mo zocoswopw osu wcficpmocoo mEmufi Op momcoamwm mo HH uumm .mHMHHmumE moonoua wocofiom woMOwcomm mmz mcflm: mpozomou vcm mHOmH>nod5m oocoflom .GOHomoswo mono -flow mo mo>fiuoonno ago wow mfimfluoume Eoflsofluuoo mono ufiom wo moflumflpouomumso oso mo oocmuHOQEH m>HumHoH och magnumocoo mEmuH ou momcoamom oHHMCCOMumoSO mnu mo H upmm ZUHmmo mommz hp mmfluom m.om H.¢ o.N N.m m.m m.m mocowom muonmflanom .Bom m nomnmm soofioanom waflz cam m.Hm N.NH N.m m.m s.m m.o assume an .00 was gamma .0 .o xooflaom pom hound .QOmnoowh ma o.¢H q.N «.0 ¢.o m.m H.w moflumm mocmfiom .oo xoom cmowuwe< nonusse he H.¢H N.m I- N.H ¢.N m.s mofiuom oocoflom coomm cam chaam HmHoHoEEoo uumhz cam awxu< "muouoouwvuoo .mfiocfiHHH mo muwmno>flcp anmwumumz m.m N.H a- nu .. m.w oomhoum moamwom Hoosom zumuamEon coaumosom mocowom so cowmmHEEoo m<<< ago he mHmHumumz ESHSUHHMDU o.mH e.o -- m.o «.0 e.HH mommaom Hoonom ssmucmamflm A.oo caacmaz acunwsomv .ocH .mmow>uom Hmcowumoswm H.4H w.o m.o o.H ¢.~ m.m an sesum mommaom Sumucmamfim monomcomm mmz ow cm I Ho 00 u as oq . Hm ON I HmuOH coco once mamwumumSVESH50wnuso cosmwom wommmao mo smouaoouom ©¢N u z mMOmH>mmmDm MUZMHUm Nm QMH¢UHQZH m< Ang 0.0H w.o s.o w.~ o.N o.oH no somehow was ”sonOSm massowmxm HmfiopoEEoo mammEoo cflfiwmflz deunwdom .Acoamno> spam I- mommv cm: 0.0m o.N N.H ¢.N H.o m.wH Ou mmHSUmHoS "mocwflom Hmofionon kcmano vapoz wow .momnm .uudooumm .AcOSmuo> soHwa II mommy oMHA cuCH o.m¢ m.o N.m o.m o.HH m.wa NuflvmcH c< "oocofiom Hmowonowm hammfioo kHHmZoE comm .Nwofioflm m.mm m.¢ m.~ N.H m.m m.mH Hoosom swam "coflmum> compo mumm Ump0mcoam hmz «.0N o.HH q.~ w.N s.m m.q emauauwaw mumauo Haa onwauo can xoOQm “poawcoum .vumcnmm n.HH N.m N.H w.o II m.o he mwfluom mocmflom :wHHwEomz ow cm I Ho 00 I as oq I Hm ON I HmuOH coco ouoE mHmHuoumz Esfisoflundo mocowom mommmao mo ammusooumm UoDaHuEOUIIq mqm I IJ I. - p1") 5 Oil .qua ;13 ‘d I J '2‘ i: .‘I I I 1.. '\ ~, ....I o-\. 'J v- yiln In?! 5‘. .D . I Q... .. \ Dill 'l U \ ...—st-..— —....~—- .. . --—~— ..“J‘l | iaeu M-i~n~u.u.a~-— ”53' - a I - . .... .. ..- L ; ...... u I". IJ I“) I...) .vW' ‘3- 'I ‘1 / . .--—..——-—~ "...-...- ...v. . .:I Hi so i :;.;qr. .fx' ...; ‘II. I Z. i I I) ..K. (3 5 j I :1 I? L i l.’ K ‘1". I I ii: To yin h--. ‘r ll) w . u— a.-- ———..o-.q- HM I o "I ... ... v. i w...- ...-o..— '\ ii i v . “..-. mm 9.}:‘3' l APPENDIX D CHI SQUARE VALUES CALCULATED FROM RESPONSES OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORS AND TEACHERS USING NSF SPONSORED SCIENCE PROJECT MATERIALS AND THOSE USING COMMERCIAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM.MATERIALS N = 557; DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4 H01: CM1 = CM2 H02: Objl = Obj2 Characteristics of Science The Objectives Curriculum Materials of Science Education 2.3 21.013*** 1. 11.589* 4. 6.341 3. 11.118* 5. l9.056*** 6. 23.043*** 8. 4.446 7. 3.996 10. 11.374* 9. 25.772*** 11. 32.407*** 12. 2.802 13. 7.665 14. 5.747 16. 13.829** 15. 15.001** 17. 6.321 18. 28.471*** a These numbers correspond to those on the ques- tionnaire presented in Appendix B. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 164 APPENDIX E CHI SQUARE VALUES: A COMPARISON OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE SUPERVISORS AND TEACHERS USING NSF SPONSORED SCIENCE PROJECT MATERIALS WITH THOSE USING COMMERCIAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM,MATERIALS N = 280; DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4 Curriculum Leadership Actual Recommended Actual Recommended Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior 27.a 4.828 6.668 19. 5.836 3.188 29. 20.889*** 11.851* 20. 1.994 2.509 34. 32.216*** 32.903*** 21. 2.503 2.464 37. 13.529** 17.400** 22. 1.423 4.183 40. 5.174 6.123 26. 2.336 3.487 41. 1.178 1.889 28. 11.889* 8.830 42. 2.577 1.151 47. 12.496* 8.822 43. 1.929 0.380 48° 2.986 4.668 44. 1.349 3.890 49. 5.951 2.381 45. 3.349 3.030 57. 11.798* 4.216 46. 9.447 6.442 58. 7.825 1.397 50. 7.881 5.485 59. 8.268 7.108 67. 3.137 1.422 61. 1.422 5.205 69. 8.748 1.392 71. 7.269 2.455 70. 4.682 3.117 72. 2.079 1.156 74. 2.351 1.035 73. 11.729* 2.606 76. 3.507 2.507 75. 10.674* 5.595 77. 10.796* 7.106 a These numbers correspond to those on the questionnaire presented in Appendix B. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 165 166 APPENDIX E--Continued In-Service Equipment-Materials Actual Recommended Actual Recommended Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior 23. 6.080 3.539 30. 5.276 0.353 24. 7.095 1.371 31. 7.003 4.212 25. 2.693 0.858 32. 4.319 2.977 51. 1.847 3.437 33. 10.396* 3.053 52. 8.610 2.255 35. 9.711* 8.662 53. 0.661 0.872 36. 9.479 17.379** 54. 2.124 7.457 38. 3.789 5.247 55. 4.004 4.921 39. 6.151 5.334 56. 3.297 2.871 65. 1.596 3.765 60. 4.061 1.174 78. 3.378 0.105 62. 3.851 1.126 79. 7.899 5.995 63. 5.490 4.851 80. 19.227*** 6.678 64. 6.289 6.595 81. 6.881 11.372* 66. 19.578*** 2.710 82. 2.509 1.844 68. 3.397 1.890 *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. APPENDIX F CHI SQUARE VALUES: A COMPARISON OF SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE SUPERVISORS AND BIOLOGY TEACHERS USING NSF SPONSORED SCIENCE PROJECT MATERIALS WITH THOSE USING COMMERCIAL SCIENCE CURRICULUM MATERIALS N = 372; DEGREES 0F FREEDOM = 4 Curriculum Leadership Actual Recommended Actual Recommended Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior 27.a 6.285 2.381 19. 7.338 3.697 29. 23.889*** 10.209* 20. 0.620 1.815 34. 11.328* 18.538*** 21. 2.961 3.297 37. 15.695** 5.862 22. 9.924* 5.520 40. 1.360 4.029 26. 0.865 1.540 41. 11.394* 10.249* 28. 21.779*** 8.190 42. 3.424 2.507 47. 2.662 8.048 43. 9.612* 7.449 48. 12.269* 9.388 44. 9.222 12.013* 49. 6.114 0.569 45. 11.031* 9.369 57. 22.579’?* 6.654 46. 4.427 4.860 58. 13.855** 3.401 50. 9.673* 8.558 59. l3.893** 7.731 67. 15.803** 9.608* 61. 3.110 5.106 69. 4.278 3.088 71. 6.837 3.411 70. 0.841 3.365 72. 6.392 3.036 74. 6.465 3.986 73. 11.382* 0.878 76. 7.926 2.315 75. 12.053* 11.6277'c 77. 7.916 4.424 a . . These numbers correspond to those on the questionnaire presented in Appendix B. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 167 168 APPENDIX F--Continued In-Service ‘fiEquipmentnMaterials Actual Recommended Actual Recommended Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior 23. 6.142 [2.322 30. 1.691 0.400 24. 1.847 1.183 31. 4.271 4.904 25. 2.997 5.409 32. 1.361 2.946 51. 12.219* 4.771 33. 6.578 0.816 52. 1.408 2.175 35. 4.703 2.462 53. 5.260 3.344 36. 7.897 9.199 54. 12.503* 10.724* 38. 4.457 13.703** 55. 5.547 2.124 39. 7.505 11.291* 56. 15.477** 6.217 65. 1.703 1.250 60. 2.763 2.070 78. 3.316 10.364* 62. 7.544 4.306 79. 4.186 10.664* 63. 5.128 3.376 80. 7.223 3.459 64. 1.832 2.656 81. 1.815 5.842 66. 2.979 1.119 82. 4.606 2.474 68. 5.800 6.107 7“Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. APPENDIX G CHI SQUARE VALUES: A COMPARISON OF THE ACTUAL SCIENCE SUPERVISOR BEHAVIORS AS PERCEIVED BY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE SUPERVISORS AND TEACHERS WITH THOSE PERCEIVED BY SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE SUPERVISORS AND BIOLOGY TEACHERS N = 462; DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4 Curriculum Leadership Actual Recommended Actual Recommended Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior 27.a 27.055888 13.0518 19. 10.4428 8.806 29. 6.234 2.937 20. 1.248 2.807 34. 4.973 9.650* 21. 10.450* 4.844 37. 6.156 1.867 22. 10.279* 3.126 40. 21.742*** 2.435 26. 3.130 2.686 41. 43.991*** 13.780** 28. 15.856** 8.390 42. 23.103*** 21.732*** 47. 18.001** 2.037 43. 24.756*** 6.071 48. 16.913** 9.122 44. 15.095** 1.683 49. 26.184*** 6.452 45. l3.833** 0.975 57. 7.371 0.834 46. 10.589* 4.991 58. 11.529* 3.683 50. 6.886 3.951 59. 29.208** 15.745** 67. 5.894 6.690 61. 49.821*** 41.271*** 69. 20.259*** 7.260 71. 12.983* 3.523 70. 11.326* 10.463* 72. 5.754 6.244 74. 17.896** 4.877 73. 14.427** 2.138 76. 8.189 3.557 75. 30.785*** 20.516*** 77. 14.602** 5.943 in a . . These numbers correspond to those on the questionnaire presented Appendix B. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 169 170 APPENDIX G~-Continued In-Service Equipment—Materials Actual Recommended Actual Recommended Behavior Behavior Behavior Behavior 23. 81.369*** 46.168*** 30. 21.680*** 14.573* 24. 8.297 2.893 31. 24.560*** 3.956 25. 36.516*** 6.650 32. 1.059 5.307 51. 31.345*** 22.452*** 33. 24.267*** 14.498** 52. 7.855 11.153* 35. 13.057* 11.270* 53. 43.483*** 29.188*** 36. 14.157** 22.755*** 54. 20.325*** 11.573* 38. 19.422*** 3.195 55. 34.397*** 17.597** 39. 4.465 2.329 56. 5.518 7.562 65. 46.102*** 25.707*** 1 60. 13.256* 4.763 78. 20.958*** 8.780 62. 8.612 5.420 79. 35.115*** 14.338** 63. 14.610** l4.690** 80. 10.054* 3.342 64. 33.774*** 21.055*** 81. 12.911* 7.579 66. 16.140** 10.381* 82. 18.837*** 6.550 68. 10.690* 6.407 *Significant at the ***Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. .001 level. APPENDIX H CHI SQUARE VALUES: A COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED SCIENCE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIORS BY COLLEGE SCIENCE EDUCATORS WITH THOSE OF SCIENCE SUPERVISORS N = 464; DEGREES OF FREEDOM = 4 Equipment Curriculum Leadership In-Service ‘Materials 27.a 3.922 19. 14.13988 23. 3.618 30. 11.7098 29. 1.876 20. 3.127 24. 9.6568 31. 1.138 34. 0.821 21. 9.296 25. 14.99388 32. 20.136888 37. 6.504 22. 8.117 E 51. 5.679 33. 2.995 40. 6.573 26. 26.465888 52. 6.342 35. 3.645 41. 7.311 28. 7.832 53. 2.923 36. 15.54488 42. 3.860 47. 10.8158 54. 2.687 38. 12.4018 43. 2.463 48. 22.468888 55. 8.092 37. 28.495888 44. 0.264 49. 2.625 56. 9.408 65. 1.807 45. 1.571 57. 5.463 60. 13.85188 78. 9.7078 46. 11.0648 58. 25.874888 62. 0.594 79. 6.669 50. 2.238 59. 10.1578 63. 2.726 80. 33.204888 67. 6.302 61. 13.1798 64. 1.576 81. 8.937 69. 3.706 71. 0.442 66. 5.444 82. 24.980888 70. 5.616 72. 2.397 68. 4.924 74. 5.217 73. 11.4418 76. 1.497 75. 0.856 77. 11.2108 a . . These numbers correspond to those on the questionnaire presented in Appendix B. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 171 APPENDIX I CHI SQUARE VALUES: A COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED SCIENCE SUPERVISORY BEHAVIORS BY COLLEGE SCIENCE EDUCATORS WITH THOSE 0F ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS N = 529; DEGREES 0F FREEDOM = 4 Equipment- Curriculum Leadership In-Service Materials 27.3 1.904 19. 5.856 23. 8.603 30. 12.5588 29. 11.070* 20. 4.087 24. 50.268*** 31. 4.281 34. 13.432** 21. 4.900 25. 5.119 32. 38.784*** 37. 13.906** 22. 9.645* 51. 8.529 33. 23.270*** 40. 7.425 26. 17.922** 52. 9.758* 35. 11.346* 41. 3.533 28. 6.335 53. 4.940 36. 50.186*** 42. 3.972 47. 7.281 54. 18.923*** 38. 7.879 43. 6.814 48. 7.135 55. 2.581 39. 19.469*** 44. 6.631 49. 14.973** 56. 23.419*** 65. 7.735 45. 3.272 57. 3.801 60. 20.220*** 78. 2.501 46. 3.733 58. 40.226*** 62. 12.328* 79. 4.941 50. 6.380 59. 17.495** 63. 9.784* 80. 15.639** 67. 18.321** 61. 26.947*** 64. 10.080* 81. 11.924* 69. 9.120 71. 8.596 66. 24.976*** 82. 47.656*** 70. 6.765 72. 5.604 68. 13.028* 74. 9.739* 73. 4.368 76. 32.975*** 75. 7.302 77. 4.591 a . . These numbers correspond to those on the questionnaire presented in Appendix B. *Significant at the .05 level. **Significant at the .01 level. ***Significant at the .001 level. 172 M'TlTl'llflllLlflllflfilfillflfflfljflflfllfllflll“