A LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE: AN IN-DEPTH EVALUATION Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DALE GORDON MERKLE, SR. 1969 :- LIBRAI.‘ VT" IESIC Michigan St tc University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE: AN IN-DEPTH EVALUATION presented by Dale Gordon Merkle, Sr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Education degree in b,” / ajor profess Date May 12,1969 0-169 <:) Dale Gordon Merkle,8r. 1969 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT A LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE: AN IN-DEPTH EVALUATION BY Dale Gordon Merkle, Sr. Problem New elementary school science curricula are emerging rapidly today. The Michigan State University Leadership WorkshOp on Elementary School Science was designed to in- struct college teachers and school consultants in two of these new curricula: the Science--A Process Approach (AAAS) and Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). This Workshop, held at Michigan State University in the summer of 1968, had as one of its objectives the in- fluencing of the participants to promote these curricula and initiate change. It was unique in structure in that it incorporated into the format of the Workshop not just orientation to the programs, but also training in group- process skills, change-agent skills, and a participant- operated workshop which established initial contact for the participants with school systems in their areas. Dale Gordon Merkle, Sr. This study was designed to evaluate the reactions of the participants to the activities of the Workshop and to interpret the effect these activities have on the behav— ior of the participants after they leave the WorkshOp. Methodology Pre-Workshop, post-Workshop, and follow-up Mid- winter Conference measures were made on: knowledge of the two elementary science curricula, knowledge of group-process skills, knowledge of change—agent skills, and attitudes of the participants toward the two new curricula. An assess- ment was also made of the participants' perceived needs (pretest) and satisfied needs (posttest). Other attitudes were measured also. Statistical tests were made of the data to determine if meaningful learning took place and to identify correla- tions between the measures. Findings Significant differences in knowledge of the two programs, knowledge of group—process skills, knowledge of change-agent skills, and in attitudes toward the two ele- mentary science curricula were found. Investigations of the correlations between measures were made to determine if significant positive relationships between attitude and knowledge, or attitude and satisfaction of needs existed. Dale Gordon Merkle, Sr. No significant correlations were discovered with total group comparisons. When the participants returned to Michigan State University in December 1968 for the follow-up conference, instruments were administered to evaluate both the content of the Workshop and how the participants utilized the Summer Workshop experience. Meaningful changes in the behaviors of the partic- ipants were noted. Increased in-service activities and an altering of pre-service courses to include more of the AAAS and SCIS philosophies and activities were among the changes reported. The results of this study seem to indicate that workshOps can be an effective instrument for producing desired behavioral changes. A LEADERSHIP WORKSHOP ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SCIENCE: AN IN-DEPTH EVALUATION BY Dale Gordon Merkle, Sr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 «k. \3 . ‘ s \K‘ W LO 0 (T \9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. T. Wayne Taylor, chairman of his Doctoral Committee, for generous counsel and encouragement in the completion of this study. This study could not have been completed without the cooperation, advice, and understanding of Dr. Richard J McLeod, Director of the Leadership Workshop on Elementary School Science, who also served as a Committee member. The writer desires to express his gratitude to Dr. W. Robert Houston and Dr. Jack B. Kinsinger, the re— maining members of the Committee, for their interest and assistance. Appreciation is also due Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer and Dr. John M. Mason for valuable counsel throughout the duration of the writer's program. The thirty participants of the Leadership WorkshOp, their school administrations, the elementary teachers in- volved in the three day participant-run workshop, and cooperating staff of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center are recognized for their contributions to this study. The writer is indebted to his wife, Mary Lynn, and their sons, Gordon and ChristOpher, whose patience, con- fidence, understanding, and love made the whole endeavor possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O i i LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V LIST OF FIGURES O O I O I O O O O O O O O O I I O 0 Vi LIST OF APPENDICES O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O Vii Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 1 General statement of problem area . . . . l Assumptions and limitations . . . . . . . 6 Objectives of study . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Hypotheses of study . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Overview of the study . . . . . . . . . . 13 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 16 worth Of SCIS and AMS 0 O O O O I I O O l 6 Worth of institutes . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Need for studies of institutes, including a follow-up of participants . . . . . . . 20 Studies of institutes . . . . . . . . . . 21 Studies of institutes with follow-up of participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 References to "Training the Teachers of Teachers" (T3) type programs . . . . . . 26 III 0 RESEARCH PROCEDURES O O O O O O O I O O O O 3]- Participant description . . . . . . . . . 31 Description of evaluation methodology . . 34 Description of measures . . . . . . . . . 38 Description of research procedures . . . 42 Testing the hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 45 iii Chapter Page IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS I O O O O O O O O O O O O 52 Events of the Workshop . . . . . . . . . 52 Tests of hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Other descriptive data . . . . . . . . . 67 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUS IONS . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Implications and recommendations . . . . 85 BIBLIOGMPHY I O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O 8 7 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 3 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Gender and Employment Assignments of the Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2. Number of Participants and Their Years of Experience in Teaching . . . . . . . . . . 33 3. Results of Hypothesis Testing . . . . . . . 67 4. Elementary Science Program Preferred by Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 5. Perceived Needs and Satisfied Needs . . . . 72 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Instrument A: Knowledge of Program Characteristics and Program Imple- mentation Procedures . . . . . . . . . Instrument B: Attitude Toward Programs . Instrument C: Analysis of Personal Be- havior in Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Instrument D: Knowledge of Change-Agents Skills 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Instrument E: Perceived Needs . . . . . Instrument F: Attitudes Toward the Various Aspects of the Workshop ActiVities O O O O O O O O O I O O O O Instrument G: The Behavorial Changes of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrument H: Evaluation of Activities . An Implementation Model . . . . . . . . . NASA: Decision by Consensus . . . . . . MEA Camp Worksh0p Feedback . . . . . . . Outlines of Teams' Activities at MEA Camp Workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instrument M: Evaluation of Mid-winter Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Information Checklist . . . . . . Schedule of College Teacher Workshop ACtiVities I O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 93 109 115 120 124 134 145 152 163 167 172 174 188 192 202 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION General statement of_problem area There is a need to study summer institutes to determine what takes place in the institutes and how these activities relate to subsequent changes in the behavior of the institute members. Also, there is an urgent need to follow up participants of institute programs to determine the effectiveness of the programs in which they have engaged. It was pr0posed that this type of evaluation be conducted with participants from the Leadership Worksh0p on Elementary School Science which was held at Michigan State University during the summer of 1968. This Workshop was conducted by the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of the University under the direction of Dr. R. J McLeod and was funded by the National Science Foundation. During the past several years a number of national projects have produced new curricular materials for teach- ing elementary school science. The try-out programs which accompanied the development of the new curricula have already indicated the potential of these programs. The 1 emphases of the curricular efforts all purport to embody the best of current educational thought and to lead to a richer understanding of science on the part of the children involved.(2) School districts are becoming increasingly interested in the new science curricula. Some of these new curricular deveIOpments are now in commercial publica- tion, but there is a paucity of resource people available to consult with schools concerning implementation problems. The Leadership Workshop on Elementary School Science, held at Michigan State University from July 29, 1968, to August 23, 1968, was designed to help fill this need. The WorkshOp was designed to prepare the partic- ipants to help schools implement two of the new elementary science curricula. They are Science--A Process Approach develoPed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Science Curriculum Improvement Stggy_(SCIS). This Workshop is part of a large implementation model (Appendix I) aimed at the need for a fairly rapid retraining of large numbers of in—service elementary school teachers to make effective use of the new curricular ma- terials. At the same time, this Workshop for college teachers sought to produce changes in the pre-service preparation of elementary teachers to include the content and teaching modes recommended for the new materials so as to reduce or eliminate, if possible, the need for retraining. There is a large investment in terms of time and money in new curricular materials and in summer workshops for teachers. The subsequent influences on national edu- cation could prove noteworthy. Evidence was gathered in this study to determine whether a workshop such as that held at Michigan State University in 1968 is worth repeat- ing; and, if so, the modifications necessary to improve the effectiveness. There was a need to determine the degree of effectiveness of this Leadership Workshop on Elementary School Science as a producer of change agents. Each summer a large number of teachers gather at various universities and colleges across the United States to take part in summer workshops, institutes, or planning sessions. The participants spend their time in a variety of ways: develoPing new materials or methods of teaching, being introduced to new materials or methods, or practicing with new materials or methods, or a combination of these. One objective of such an institute is to provide a meaningful learning experience for the participants. Hope- fully they grow in awareness, interest, and competence in the subject of the institute as well as develop a positive attitude toward the programs with which the institute dealt. A second objective is the extent to which material learned at the institute is utilized when the participants return to their respective schools. This utilization takes two forms: as used in their own work, and as used in introducing the material to other teachers. Since the number of teachers attending institutes is far less than the total population of teachers, we must depend on those who attend to help disseminate the results of the insti- tutes to those who did not attend. A logical and legitimate activity of institute post-mortems concerns the success or failure of the insti- tute. Evaluation serves as one measure of feedback of the institute or workshop for the purpose of possible altera- tion in the format for the next year. In the past, insti- tute and worksh0p evaluations have pointed to the astounding faith that educators have in themselves to develop and conduct institutes and workshops, costing the taxpayers millions of dollars annually, with little anxiety, or even regard, to the efficiency with which they have met their objectives. What is done is not really well known. With what effect is - seldom considered. The Leadership Workshop group at Michigan State University was composed of twenty-one college teachers and nine science consultants. These participants were chosen for the institute on the bases of their involvement with pre-service teaching and in—service preparation of elemen- tary school science teachers. Their administrators indi- cated a willingness to permit them to engage in consulting and implementation activities subsequent to the Workshop. The participants agreed to return to Michigan State University for a Mid-winter Conference where the influence of the institute would be discussed and evaluated. Pref- erence was given to applicants from schools and colleges in Michigan. This Workshop was unique and lent itself to the evaluation proposed since it included as its objectives: (1) providing the participants with considerable knowledge of the purposes, history, recommended modes of teaching, objectives, materials, and teacher education procedures of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study and of Science-- A Process Approach; (2) providing opportunities for the participants to teach science to children using the new curriculum materials and to provide the participants with feedback on their teaching; (3) engaging the participants in giving feedback to elementary classroom teachers whom they have observed teaching children with the new curriculum materials; (4) familiarizing the participants with the school settings and with the administrative aspects of implementation; (5) assisting the participants as a group and as individuals to plan and to prepare appropriate ma- terials and activities for orientation sessions and in- service programs: (6) providing experience in organizing and presenting orientation sessions on the programs to groups of school teachers and administrators; and (7) that the participants would be engaging in change-agent activ- ities after they left the Workshop; i.e., put what was learned into practice. It was also unique in that experiences in group- process skills and change—agent strategies were an integral part of the program in addition to the training in the philosophies, processes, concepts, and materials of the AAAS and SCIS programs. The participants, as part of the Workshop activities, also prepared and gave a three day workshop for elementary school teachers and administrators. This three day participant-directed workshop served as an initial contact with elementary school personnel selected from the geographic area of the participant's institution. The three day workshOp was meant to establish an awareness in the surrounding communities concerning the new science programs and the availability of consultants. The partic- ipants were prepared to engage in a large scale implementa- tion project to develop a network model involving college or resource teachers (referred to as T3's), experienced in- service pilot teachers (referred to as Tz's), and pilot teachers (referred to as T '3). (See Appendix I) 1 The major thrust of this Workshop was toward the preparation of the participants to accept active roles as resource trainers in the implementation model. Assumptions and limitations Evaluating the effects of a four week summer work- shOp on the careers of participants is difficult. Persons who seek such experiences are already likely to be energetic, motivated, and successful achievers. Since four weeks is a short time in the lives of the participants, miracles of learning and redirection cannot be expected. Even if the summer workshOp did have considerable cumulative influence on a participant, this influence may be slow in appearing or clouded by interaction with other influences. Nevertheless, evidence needs to be gathered to determine whether or not such programs are worth repeating; and, if so, how they should be modified in order to be more effective. Within the limits of the following assumptions, it was the purpose of this thesis to study these effects. It was assumed that the Leadership Workshop on Elementary School Science held at Michigan State University in the summer of 1968 could make a contribution to the educational community and was worthy, therefore,of study. It was further assumed that the elementary science curricula which were studied in the Workshop are viable representa- tives of modern science education and that they were approp- riate to the goals of the WorkshOp and to the needs of school districts in Michigan. Also, it was assumed that the instruments utilized in this study were suitable for use with the group, and that in using the instruments ade- quate test conditions were maintained. Finally, it was assumed that there exists a wider population of college teachers and resource persons described by the participant description herein. The thirty participants of this Workshop are considered a representative sample of this population. While no specific population from which the partic- ipants are a random sample is delineated, conclusions are certainly not restricted just to these participants. There exists an additional unspecified population "like those observed." Inferences are made to this unspecified popula— tion. This procedure lengthens the statistical span of the study at the price of leaving the location at the far end vague. "This lengthening and blurring is likely to be worthwhile." (1) Objectives of study This study was an attempt to describe and evaluate the Leadership WorkshOp on Elementary School Science for College Teachers of Science and Science Education held July 29, to August 23, 1968, at Michigan State University. The principal focus of the study was concerned with the following items. 1. To report the content, methods, and procedures of the Workshop. 2. To report the participants' evaluation of their perceived needs and how the WorkshOp met these needs. To describe the changes in knowledge of and atti- tude toward AAAS and SCIS elementary school science curricula as measured on pre, post, and mid-winter evaluations. To describe the effects of various aspects of the WorkshOp activities on the attitudes of the partic— ipants. The activities considered are: A. Orientation to programs B. Laboratory and micro-teaching involvement using the AAAS and SCIS materials C. Group-process skills D. Change-agent skills E. Three-day workshops conducted by the college teachers (T3) for elementary school teachers (T1) and administrators- To describe the relationships that exist between attitude towards the SCIS and AAAS programs and attitudes towards the various aspects of Workshop activities as mentioned in objective number 4. To describe the relationships that exist between knowledge of the program characteristics and their implementation procedures, and the attitude toward various aspects of Workshop activities as mentioned in objective number 4. 10 To describe the relationships that exist in atti— tude and knowledge between Workshop measures and Mid-winter Conference measures. To describe the behavioral changes of the partic- ipants in their on-the-job implementation of cur- riculum change in activities related to the two programs studied in detail at the Leadership Workshop. To make recommendations for future workshop evaluations. Hypotheses of study 1. There will be a significant increase in knowledge of program characteristics and program implementa- tion procedures from pretest to posttest by the participants of the Workshop as measured on Instru- ment A (appended). There will be a significant positive change in attitude toward the programs (SCIS and AAAS) of the Workshop from pretest to posttest as measured on Instrument B (appended). There will be a significant change in the analysis scores of group-process skills from pretest to posttest by the participants of the Workshop as measured on Instrument C (appended). 11 There will be a significant increase in knowledge of change-agent skills from pretest to posttest by the participants of the WorkshOp as measured on Instrument D (appended). There will be a significant positive correlation between the participants' scores on their attitude toward the various aspects of the WorkshOp activ- ities as measured on Instrument F (appended) and the participants' knowledge of program character- istics and program implementation procedures as measured on Instrument A (appended). (The correla- tions are made with measures taken at the close of the WorkshOp and at the Mid-winter Conference.) There will be a significant positive correlation between the participants' scores on their attitude toward the various aspects of the Workshop activ- ities as measured on Instrument F (appended) and the participants' attitude toward the SCIS and AAAS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended). (The correlations are made with measures taken at the close of the WorkshOp and at the Mid-winter Conference.) There will be a significant positive correlation between the increase in knowledge of program char- acteristics and program implementation procedures as measured on Instrument A (appended) from pretest 12 to posttest and change in attitude toward the AAAS and SCIS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended) from pretest to posttest. 8. There will be a significant positive correlation between the satisfaction of perceived needs of the participants as measured on Instrument E (appended) and change in attitude toward the AAAS and SCIS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended) and utilizing: A. the difference between Workshop pretest and end-of-Workshop posttest given in August on Instrument B versus the posttest of Instrument E B. the Workshop posttests given in August C. the Mid-winter Conference tests given in December. Knowledge of program characteristics and program implementation procedures is defined as the amount of in- formation and understanding concerning the purposes, his— tory, recommended modes of teaching, objectives, materials, and the teacher education procedures of the SCIS and AAAS projects as revealed on Instrument A (appended). Attitude toward the programs and their content is defined as the amount of self-perceived value and relevancy of the content for the individual and for inclusion into elementary school curricula as revealed on Instrument B (appended). Analysis 13 of personal behavior in groups is defined as the partic- ipants' personal ratings in the specific concepts and processes of group procedures as revealed on Instrument C (appended). Knowledge of change-agent strategies is de- fined as the amount of information and understanding the participants have concerning methods of effecting change, as revealed on Instrument D (appended). A behavioral change of a participant is defined as a change in pre-service or in-service procedures resulting from participation in the Workshop and communicating the instructional intent of the Workshop. This change was evaluated by analysis of Instrument G (appended). One criterion of the failure or success of objectives of this Workshop was whether or not a significant change occurred in these areas. Overview of the study The general plan of this thesis is as follows: Chapter two is a review of the literature and its implications for the study. The first section of the review covers the value of the institute and viability of the elementary school science curricula that were the focus of the institute. After a discussion of the need for studies such as the one done here, the literature on related studies is reviewed. Finally, there are references and discussion of "Training the Teachers of Teachers" programs. 14 In chapter three the procedures that were followed for the collection of the data are reported as well as how the instruments used in collecting data were prepared. A detailed description of the participants of the study is followed by a description of the research procedures. In the last section of this chapter the hypotheses are stated along with the means that were used in testing these hypotheses. In chapter four the data collected on each instru- ment is presented and analyzed in reference to each hypothesis. In chapter five the conclusions and implications of the study are stated, and recommendations for further study are presented. BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER I l. Cornfield, J., and Tukey, J. W. "Average Values of Mean Squares in Factorials." The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27 (1956), 907-949. TeachingyChildren Belmont, CaIifornia: PP- 2. Kuslan, L. I., and Stone, A. H. Science: An Inquiry Approach. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1968. 183-188. 15 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Worth of SCIS and AAAS In order that a workshop can be worthy of the time and expense, the content of the workshop must be worthy of study. The participants should be exposed to relevant and useful material that is intellectually sound and applicable to their tasks. Current science educators generally agree that it is no longer adequate to relegate science in the elementary school to the incidental or chance-happening style of teaching that has characterized its mode in the past. This is not to say that some excellent teaching has not been done in the past without a structural program. But, the tremendous physical increase in knowledge coupled with the advanced technologies of communication and investigation seem to make it emphatically clear that teaching of only factual matter is inadequate today. In order to understand science and scientific change it seems evident that science education needs to direct greater emphasis toward the proc- esses of science and toward training for science literacy. In light of today's scientific advancement, the following 16 17 aspects of a structural science program seem necessary: A. A structured program provides a framework of science principles which can help teachers unify their own experiences and give them confidence in meeting difficult classroom situations that arise. The answer suggested a decade ago to children's ques- tions--'I don't know, but let's find out together' --is not sufficient for all of today's needs. A structured program does not have to be a rigid one. Within the broad content areas, there are many choices which permit the teacher to adapt the program to the needs of the class. Both the unit approach and the provision of a variety of materials and situations which foster children's creativity and originality are possible within a structured program. The freshness engendered by the use of unanticipated incidents is not lost in a structured program. Indeed, the incident becomes more significant be- cause the teacher sees it as a part of the whole and thus may be able to convey its importance to the pupil. A structured program helps the teacher anticipate, identify, and incorporate into the program the many incidents which arise during the school year. While it is true that children come to school with many interests, it is also true that interest can be aroused and cultivated by what takes place in school. A structured program makes it easier for children to acquire the science concepts essential for their understanding of the complex world they live in. A structured program is a democratic one: Many can share in building it and in changing it. It pro- vides a common framework for testing and evaluation by the children as well as by the teachers. (2) The College Teacher Workshop at Michigan State University was held in an effort to upgrade current pre- service science education classes and to stimulate elemen- tary school science courses through in-service programs. 18 The AAAS Science--A Process Approach and the Science Cur- riculum Improvement Study curricula were chosen for the basis of study in the College Teacher Workshop. These curriculum projects are unmistakably significant movements in the right direction, which is to teach science because it provides immediate Opportunities for children to learn what science is, how it grows, and how scientists work. (15) Most children appear to be naturally curious of their en- vironment. These new curricula draw upon this student interest, new knowledge of child growth, and upon the contributions of learning theory. These new elementary school science curricula, and others, are the result of national interest. The committees which spawned these new programs were composed of scientists from college and industry, educators from the university and grade schools, and consulting psychologists, who, together, were able to produce these new viable curricula. The insight of scientists, paired with the skill of experienced classroom teachers, has given the educa- tional world a veritable treasure of science-teaching knowledge that was previously unavailable. (15) Craig (4) indicated the need for such continuous science programs in the Thirty-first National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook. Powers (19), in the same 19 reference, pointed out some of the weaknesses of current science practices and the need for moving to curricula which reflect processes and interpretation of phenomena. Worth of institutes The teaching of science and the preparation of science curricular materials appear to be at the threshold of a new era. Since the initiation of the National Science Foundation in 1950 massive efforts by scientists and science educators to design entirely new curricula reflective of the best of modern education tools, philosophy, and psy- chology has been made possible by financial support. Pioneered by the Physical Science Study Committee, organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology by Dr. Jerrold R. Zacharias in 1956, new curriculum program committees are subsidizing pre-serviCe and in-service training programs for teachers as a means of testing programs and implementation procedures. The worth of summer institutes in the innova- tive process is easily noted. Hilgert (8) questioned whether a three week summer workshOp actually made any significant impact upon the teacher's training. Eighty-eight percent of the partic- ipants indicated that the workshop had been beneficial. Fifty percent stated that it had prompted them to do addi- tional study, and that the workshop had given them new insights concerning the importance of the workshop topic. 20 In the Fiftyeninth Yearbook of the National Sociepy for the Study of Education Hale (7) points out that some of the most valuable contributions to the advancement of science education have been made through sponsored programs which attempt to strengthen the academic backgrounds of teachers. Verrill (20) points out that the poor preparation of general elementary teachers to teach science makes summer school classes a necessary opportunity for improving teaching background. Need for studies of institutes, including a follow-up of participants One of the most important problems in science edu- cation today is the improvement of science teaching in the elementary schools. (9) One of the steps that needs to be employed in producing improvement is research ofwthe pro- grams that has been supported to train or retrain teachers. "Support for training of science teachers has been provided by the National Science Foundation since 1956. Few attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of summer institutes and academic year institutes have been reported to date." (13) A Harvard group found that little follow-up of graduates is formally provided to help a school evaluate the effectiveness of its science education programs. The report from the Harvard group concludes that the programs 21 are "almost entirely acts of faith with little or no feed— back or follow-up to support the practices that institutions follow." (5) Studies of institutes Very few in-depth studies of institutes and summer workshops have been reported. Fowler (6) completed a study of participants of a six-week Institute designed to train elementary school science resource teachers. The goal of the institute was to prepare persons to accept the respon- sibilities of a "Science Resource Teacher" in their home schools. The instructional goals of the institute were evaluated using the Reed Science Test, form AM, as a pre— test and form BM as a posttest. The gains of the partic- ipants were analyzed. On the objective of the workshop, deve10pment of a working knowledge of science, the tests seemed to indicate growth in science competence. Ziol (21) evaluated an eight-week summer institute to train instructors of instrumentation technology. The objective of the institute was to assist in the development of knowledges and skills essential for teaching specialized technical courses. The participants were sixteen (16) teachers in the technical-vocational area. A committee observed program characteristics and specific activities conducted at the institute. The purpose of the institute was successfully accomplished as evaluated by the committee. 22 The evaluation of knowledge and/or skill competency is not a difficult task if the objectives of the institute are clearly defined. The preceding institute evaluations accomplished this goal to varying degrees of success. But, the evaluation of the affective domain and how it may cor- relate with participant achievement at the cognitive level was not attempted. The preceding studies did not follow-up participants to determine the implementation of institute objectives. In the Evaluation of National Defense Education Act Institutes for Advanced Study in Reading, Final Report (10), the evaluation of thirty-four 1965 NDEA institutes was conducted. Recommendations of this study included: (1) children should be available for demonstration purposes and practice-teaching during the institute; (2) adequate provisions should be made to evaluate the institute; and (3) each institute should provide for some kind of follow- up. Studies of institutes with follow-pp of participants Some institutes have utilized various methods of follow-up study. Parker (18) studied various aspects of summer in- stitute participants after they had returned to their home schools. His principal findings related to participants 23 included: (1) 93% believed that they could better motivate students toward careers in science as a result of their attendance at the institute; and (2) 95% were of the opin- ion that they were better teachers as a result of their attendance at the institute. Responses from principals of the participants indicated that 91% believed that the par— ticipants were better teachers, were more enthusiastic in their teaching, had increased their knowledge of science, and had learned more effective use of laboratory equipment. Brandon (3) studied the effectiveness of a pilot program of the Elementary Science In-Service Conference. This was a four-week conference of sixteen selected high school teachers who were to return to their home districts and conduct in-service programs in science for elementary teachers. The participants prepared materials and 22212 Guides as outlines for their subsequent in-service classes. The major evaluation instruments were the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Brandou, in subsequent follow-up, found that the more experienced secondary teachers may be more effective. In another study, Bartlett and Edgerton (1) sub- mitted to factor analysis the characteristics of summer programs as reflected by the questionnaire responses of the participants. The study was part of a 1963 follow-up of participants in the National Science Foundation's program for secondary school students. 24 Approximately 5500 persons returned a questionnaire representing groups who had participated in 134 Summer Science Training Programs (SSTP's). The percent of persons for each SSTP responding in a given way to each item was tabulated. Fifty-seven items from the questionnaire were judged to be relevant and were included in the analysis. Twelve factors which emerged from the analysis were retained for interpretation. These factors described dif- ferences among SSTP's and offered cues for the evaluation of the programs. Although most of the factors were inter- preted toward the positive side because of the nature of the items, some negative interpretations, such as decreased interest in school subjects, were indicated. In conclusion, the study provides a meaningful set of dimensions which describe the nature of SSTP's and may be useful in subse- quent institute designs and evaluations. Follow-up studies of year-long programs were done by Jarvi 02) and Irby (11). Both programs were rated over- whelmingly successful. Another study of summer institutes held over a span of years not only looked at the programs and their rated success but also attempted to measure the impact of the institutes on the professional activities of the recipients. Martinen (16) completed a study designed to determine the impact of the Idaho Summer Institutes on the recipients' educational stature, professional stature, occupational 25 mobility, and their ability to initiate change in the cur- ricula of the secondary schools in which they taught. The study also elicited the recipients' reactions to the social and academic climates which prevailed at the Institutes. It was hoped that as a result of the study the significance of the contributions made by the summer programs would be realized. Data was collected by questionnaire from 206 of the 260 participants. Comparisons were made, using chi square and analysis of variance, between recipients who had one summer of training and recipients who had received three summers of training and had also received an advanced degree. The analyses revealed that the Institute training produced few changes in the recipients' educational and professional stature. It was found that the three year, degree recipients were most apt to alter the curriculum of the school in which they taught. It was noted that almost every unit of study added to the high school's curriculum could be traced to the curriculum offered by Idaho Institutes. The level of institute training also had a significant impact on the recipients' occupational mobility. It was found that sta- bility was correlated to the increase in Institute training frequency. 26 The recipients reacted positively toward the social and academic climates of the institutes, and almost all of the participants indicated that they had improved as class- room teachers as a result of the institute experience. References to "Training the Teachers of Teachers" (T,) type programs There is a great need for elementary school con- sultants today. The new curricula emerging from various committees across the country need to be piloted, evaluated, and altered to meet the needs, interests, and abilities of today's elementary children. Because diffusion is slow and communication of research largely uninterpreted from uni- versity to grade school levels, consultants are needed who can help bridge the gap. Kleinman (14) points this out lucidly in an article in School Science and Mathematics. The need for develOpment of these consultants has been a guiding principle in the design and intent of the College Teacher Workshop at Michigan State University. Olson (1?) pointed out the need for preparing teachers of teachers and describes the United States Office of Educa- tion's Triple T project--Training the Teachers of Teachers-- in a recent report. While essentially aimed at in—service develOpment of teacher trainers, the TTT project also helps to develOp a more effective relationship between teacher education departments and the needs of the school systems. 27 "Training the Teachers of Teachers“ programs have begun at four universities: University of Georgia, Univer- sity of California at Los Angeles, Michigan State University, and Hunter College of City University of New York. Olson reports that the Office of Education hopes that it will provide the answer to how, in response to present-day demands and within the framework of the relatively small amount of money it has to spend, it can manage to make a dynamic and effective impact on the training of teachers through the training of those who teach teachers. (17) It is hoped that this study will make some contri- bution to the design, operation, and evaluation of summer workshops which have as an objective the training of con- sultants and/or teachers of teachers. BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER II . Bartlett, C. J., and Edgerton, H. A. "Dimensions of Summer Science Training Programs as Reflected by Their Participants." Psychological Reports, 18 (1966), 67—73. Blough, G. O., et al. "Developing Science Programs in the Elementary School." Rethinking Science Educa- tion. Fifty-ninth Yearbook of The National Soc1ety for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. pp. 128. Brandou, J. R. "A Study of an Experimental Program for the In-service Science Education of Elementary School Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. pp. 29-47. Chemical and Engineering News. "Chaos in Science\ Teacher Training." Chemical and Engineering News, 47 (February, 1969), 46-47. Craig, G. S. "The Program of Science in the Elementary School." A Program for TeachingyScience. Thirty- first Yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932, pp. 133—162. Fowler, H. S. "Evaluation of an Institute for the Training of Elementary School Science Resource Teachers." Journal of Educational Research, 53 (May, 1960), 358-359. Hale, H. E., et a1. "Auxiliary Efforts to Improve the Secondary School Science Efforts." Rethinkin Science Education. Fifty-ninth Yearbook of Tge NationaISociety for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 172-195. Hilgert, R. L. "Teacher Reaction to Summer Workshops." School and Community, 54 (1968), 14-15. 28 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 29 Hurd, P. D., and Johnson, P. "Problems and Issues in Science Education." Rethinkinngcience Education. Fifty—ninth Yearbook of The National§ociety for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The Uni— versity of Chicago Press, 1960, pp. 329-338. International Reading Association. Final Report: Evaluation of NDEA Institutes for Advancement in Readin . Newark, Delaware: International Reading Assocxation, 1965. Irby, B. N. "A Follow-up Study of the Participants of the National Science Foundation Academic Year Insti- tutes for High School Teachers of Science and Mathematics Held at the University of Mississippi." Dissertation Abstracts, 28 (1968), 2120-A. Jarvi, M. E. "A Follow-up Study of the Carnegie Grad- uate Fellowship Program at George Peabody College for Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts, 22 (1962), 2706. Johnson, L. H., Obourn, E. S., and Blackwood, P. E. Research in the Teaching of Science. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin 1965, No. 10. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965. p. 104. Kleinman, G. S. "Needed: Elementary School Science Consultants." School Science and Mathematics, 65 (November, 1965), 738-746. Kuslan, L. I., and Stone, A. H. Teaching Children Science: An Inquiry Approach. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishifig Company, Inc., 1968. p. 187. Martinen, G. D. "A Study of the National Science Foun- dation Summer Institutes in Science and Mathematics Held at the University of Idaho from 1957 through 1964 and Their Impact on the Professional Activities of the Recipients." Dissertation Abstracts, 28 (1967), 2446-A. Olson, P. A. "Training the Teachers of Teachers." American Education. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, OE-58026, No. 7. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. 18. 19. 20. 21. 30 Parker, A. "A Study of Certain Aspects of Eight Summer Institutes for High School Science Teachers Con- ducted in Louisiana." Dissertation Abstracts, 22 (1961), 2537-25-38. Powers, S. R. "Some Criticisms of Current Practices in the Teaching of Science in Elementary and Secondary Schools." A Program for TeachipgScience. Thirty- first Yearbook of The National—Society for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932, pp. 13-26. Verrill, J. E. "The Preparation of General Elementary Teachers to Teach Science." Research in the Teach- ipg of Science. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, OE- 29000-61, Bulletin 1965, No. 10. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965, 126-127. Ziol, F. J. "An Eight Week Summer Institute Training Program to Train Instructors of Instrumentation Technology." Educational Resources Information Center. United States Department of Health, Educa- tion and Welfare, Office of Education, AD-010-433. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES Participant description Participants for the College Teacher Workshop were invited from the population of college and university pro- fessors currently teaching science and/or science education courses for pre-service elementary school teachers and from elementary science consultants and science supervisors. Since the "Training the Teachers of Teachers" model (appen- dix I) was established to promote educational leadership in Michigan, selection preference was given to applicants from the State of Michigan. Also, since it was expected (and proved to be so) that participants would receive requests for consultation services from local schools, selection preference was given to participants who were in a position to influence science education and who provided evidence, in writing, that their administration would permit them to engage in consulting and implementation activities. No discrimination was made for race, creed, color, national origin, or teaching locality in Michigan in selecting individuals for the Workshop. 31 32 The Workshop at Michigan State University was one of four leadership workshOps held in the summer of 1968 under National Science Foundation grants. Workshops similar in intent but different in method and content were also held at Teachers College, Columbia University, New York City, New York; Pennsylvania State University, Ogontz Campus, Abington, Pennsylvania; and The University of Texas, Austin, Texas. Of the fifty-four applicants to the Workshop at Michigan State University thirty were chosen to be partic- ipants. They ranged from twenty-nine (29) to sixty (60) years in age. The age mean was forty-one (41) years. The following table (1) shows the gender and employment assign- ments of the participants. Table l.--Gender and Employment Assignments of the Participants Science Subject Consultants Adminis. Education Area or Sci. Coord. & Research Female 2 3 0 0 Male 10 5 9 l All participants in the College Teacher Workshop were college graduates. Thirteen (13) had doctorates and the remainder had master's degrees. 33 The colleges which employ the participants range in size from less than one thousand (1,000) to over forty thousand (40,000). Five participants are employed in col- 1eges of 20,000 or more population. The consultants are employed in districts or schools ranging in size from less than five hundred (for a K-6 school) to greater than twenty thousand (for a large K-12 district). Collectively, the participants have broad educa- tional experience. Table 2, below, shows the number of participants and their years of experience at four different levels of teaching: elementary, junior high, senior high, and college. Table 2.--Number of Participants and Their Years of Exper- ience in Teaching Years of Experience Elementary Junior High Senior High College l - 2 4 2 2 5 3 - 5 6 3 5 2 6 - 10 3 4 4 4 11 - 15 - l 3 16 - 20 - 1 2 3 21 - 25 - - - - 26 & up - - - 1 The number of years in teaching ranges from zero to over forty. 34 A General Information Checklist was completed by each participant. A copy of this checklist and an item frequency response, as indicated by the participants, is included as Appendix N. No participants were lost across the duration of the Workshop and subsequent Mid-winter Conference. One participant failed to take the pretest due to family ill- ness. All participants took the posttest together on August 22, 1968. Twenty-six of the participants took the Mid-winter Conference posttest together on December 14, 1968. The other four participants were mailed the ques- tionnaire. All thirty responses were used in the following analyses. Description of evaluation methodology The study of the College Teacher WorkshOp at Mich- igan State University was conducted in two phases as seen in Figure 1. July 29 -------- August 23 December ----Workshop---- Mid-winter Conference --Phase I-- -—Phase II—— Figure 1. 35 Phase I was an evaluation of the first objective as measured by the learning experiences of the participants during the actual Workshop. Phase II was the evaluation made at the Mid-winter Conference. Figure 2 shows in detail the areas evaluated in each phase. Areas of Evaluation Phase I Phase II A. Changes in: A. Measures of: Knowledge of program Knowledge of program characteristics and pro- characteristics and pro- gram implementation gram implementation procedures. procedures. Attitude toward programs Attitude toward programs and their content. and their content. Knowledge of change- agent strategies. Analysis of personal behavior in groups. B. Satisfaction of per- B. Satisfaction of per- ceived needs. ceived needs. C. Behavioral change in participants. Figure 2. Phase I was an evaluation of the Workshop in these areas as well as measuring the extent to which the WorkshOp satisfied the perceived needs of the participants (Instru- ment E as appended). 36 Phase II evaluated the participants in many of these same areas, and measured the behavioral changes of the participants as reflected in their utilization of the two curricula studied in Workshop (Instrument G as appended). Figure 3 shows the test schedule. Phase I Phase II Pre-institute Attitude Post-insti- Mid-winter test over change eval— tute test test over areas out- uations cor- over areas areas out- lined in responding to outlined in lined in Figure 2 major change Figure 2 Figure 2 in the empha- sis of the Institute Figure 3. In Phase I a measurement instrument was adminis- tered at the beginning and at the close of the Workshop. This instrument included an assessment of perceived needs, knowledge of science program characteristics and program implementation procedures, attitude toward programs and their content, and knowledge of change-agent strategies, as well as an analysis of personal behavior in groups. Difference scores for each area show gain or loss for the individual participants and for the Workshop as a group. During the Workshop attitude evaluations were made at the termination of each of the major phases of emphases, which were: (1) Orientations to AAAS and SCIS; (2) Laboratory and micro-teaching activities using the AAAS and SCIS 37 materials; (3) Group-process skills; (4) Change-agent skills; and (5) Three—day elementary teacher worksh0p con- ducted by participants during the Leadership WOrkshop. On the post measure in Phase I, an evaluation of these major phases of the Workshop was made on Instrument F (as appended). For Phase II the same tests as used for Phase I were administered at the Mid—winter Conference. Also, measures were made at the Mid-winter Conference to deter- mine the amount and types of behavior changes that reflect the objectives of the Workshop. This study would seem closely related to others if it were not for the unique format of the Workshop. This Institute included, within the duration of the Workshop: (1) providing the participants with considerable knowledge of the AAAS and SCIS programs, (2) opportunities to use AAAS and SCIS materials with elementary children, (3) a three-day workshOp, designed by the participants, that provided an initial contact with elementary school science teachers, and (4) instruction in group-process skills and change-agent skills to assist the participants in their implementation efforts. The follow-up of participants to see if what was learned at the Workshop was put into prac- tice is not only unique but essential to a total evaluation of the WorkshOp. 38 Description of measures All measures and questionnaires used in this study were created by staff of Michigan State University. In- struments A, B, D, E, and F were written by members of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center under the direction of the Workshop Director, Dr. Richard J McLeod. Instrument C was prepared by the Institute for Extension Personnel Development at Michigan State University. Instrument A, Knowledge of Program Characteristics and Program Implementation Procedures, is a measure of Workshop content. This instrument assesses knowledge of the AAAS and SCIS programs and was constructed to reflect the objectives and Operations of the College Teacher Work— shop. In the Opinion Of the WorkshOp staff, the questions included in Instrument A are valid in that they represent faithfully and proportionally the content of the Workshop and provide the definition of achievement in the Workshop. (2) Because Instrument A, and the other instruments as well, were prepared for this Workshop, no reliability in- formation was available prior to the Workshop. The relia- bility established on these instruments at the College Teachers WorkshOp is reported later in this study. 39 Instrument A was administered at pre+WOrkshop, post Workshop, and Mid-winter Conference testing sessions. A copy of the instrument, a key, and item analysis data are included as Appendix A. Instrument B, Attitude towards the AAAS and SCIS Programs and the Content of These Programs, was adminis— tered at pre-Workshop, post-WorkshOp, and Mid-winter Con- ference sessions. This instrument was designed to measure attitude changes due to Workshop activities and content. The seven levels of response, from very strongly disagree to very strongly agree, were weighted one (1) to seven (7). For all items except numbers nine and ten, the highest level (7) was found at the right. For items nine and ten, the ranking increases to the left with seven being at the extreme left. A "no Opinion" Option was weighted as four (4). Sixteen of the eighteen items could be scored as described above. The last two items, number 17 and 18, were not scored as such, only noted and mentioned as indi- vidual responses. A copy of the instrument and testing results are included in the Appendix. Instrument C, Analysis of Personal Behavior in Groups, was-administered only as a pre and post summer WorkshOp measure. The participant received the same COpy of the measure both pre and post. As a pre-WorkshOp measure the participant used an "a" to indicate the place on the 40 scale where he thought he was at that time in the Workshop. When used as a post-measure, the participant used a "b" to indicate his position. In a sense the instrument is self scoring since the participant could readily relate to his growth or lack of growth while he was indicating his post test responses. The rankings were weighted one (low) to seven (high). The purpose of this measure was to obtain some idea of the effectiveness of the group process sessions in creating an awareness of and gains in personal/group behaviors. A copy of the instrument and results of testing are included as Appendix C. Instrument D, Knowledge of Change-Agent Strategiee, was designed to determine if the participants gained sig- nificantly during the WorkshOp in the area of change-agent skills. In working with schools, the identification of and communication with change agents is thought to facilitate the acceptance and successful implementation of new pro- grams. (4) A segment of the Workshop was devoted to dis- cussion of this tOpic. The instrument was scored on a basis of the number correct. A copy of the instrument, a key, and item analysis results are included as Appendix D. 41 Instrument E, Satisfaction of Perceived Needs, was designed by WorkshOp staff to determine the areas of need, and to measure how well the Workshop satisfied these needs. A variety of tOpics concerning the new science curricula and school community expectation of the participant were scored on a weighted basis, from very low (1) to very high (5). Although the list of topics to be ranked were thought to be quite inclusive, additional topics were requested from participants. No additional topics were offered by the participants. A OOpy of the instrument and test results are in- cluded as Appendix E. Instrument F, Evaluation of the Divisions of the Workshop, was given as a post-Workshop and Mid—winter Con- ference measure. This instrument was used to determine the attitudes of the participants toward the various divisions of the Workshop. The four—week College Teacher WorkshOp was arbitrarily divided into five divisions. They are: l. Orientation to programs a. lectures (McLeod, Arbanas, Kageyama, Irwin, Berger, Berkheimer) b. films of AAAS and SCIS c. printed materials d. discussions of programs 2. Laboratory and micro-teaching activities using AAAS and SCIS materials 42 a. taping and television replay of sessions with children and Resource Teachers (Tz's) b. involvement with kits, and other experiences with manipulative materials of SCIS and AAAS 3. Group process skills with Dr. Mason Miller and Dr. Shirley Hurley, both of the Michigan State University staff 4. Change Agent skills session with Dr. Everett Rogers of the Michigan State University staff 5. WorkshOp conducted by participants at Michigan Education Association (MEA) Camp, August 19-21, 1968. Their Opinions on statements as they pertained to each division were recorded on a weighted rank scale. The range of responses was from very strongly disagree (1) to very strongly agree (7). The rankings of the divisions of the WorkshOp will give directors of subsequent workshops feedback that could be useful for designing those workshops. A copy of the instrument and test results are in- cluded as Appendix F. Description of research procedures The design for this study is best described as a one-group pretest-posttest design. (1) Although this design has recognized weaknesses, it is sometimes necessary 43 to utilize the design to complete a study and to capitalize on the contribution of the design to research. Some of the weaknesses of a one-group pretest- posttest design are not considered to be troublesome in this study. The narrow range of Workshop activities, ex- periences with the AAAS and SCIS programs, seems to reduce the possibility that history interferes. Change-producing events which could have had an effect on Workshop performance are unlikely. The partic- ipants were housed together on campus, and no participant had a teaching or consultant assignment during the Work- shOp. Since the subject of the Workshop was unique in comparison to common daily toil, and since the interaction of participants during the Workshop was considered an integral part of the Workshop, history is not considered as a threatening rival hypothesis. Maturation as a source of invalidity is also of low probability. The chance that consequential biological or psychological processes occurred is slight for persons of this age during the short time span involved. Testing is not a weakness in this study since the pretest is defined as part of the treatment, i.e., Work- shop. If this study has merit enough to be replicated or imitated, then testing must be accepted as an integral part of the Workshop design. 44 For each hypothesis a method of analysis was chosen which would describe the results of the tests in a meaning- ful manner. TO utilize parametric statistics, some assump- tions had to be made. They were: (1) independence of observations; (2) normal distribution on each dependent variable in the theoretical population; and (3) homogeneity of variance. Since testing was an integral part of the WorkshOp and the activities of the Workshop were not altered by testing, it was assumed that testing was not reactive. Whether the participants had been tested or not, the preceding activities of the Workshop would have re- mained unchanged. The first assumption, independence of observations, is slightly suspect since the participants did interact between pretesting and posttesting. However, the testing was not affected by observer bias since the tests were paper written and the participants were tested separately. According to Hays (3) the second assumption is not critical for this sample size. The t—test (and F test) are sufficiently robust to be used with the number of partic- ipants in the Workshop. And, since equal sample sizes were used on pretests and posttests, the third assumption tends to give relatively small consequences when using these tests. The procedures for testing each hypothesis follow. 45 Testing the hypotheses Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant increase in knowledge of program characteristics and program implementation procedures from pre— test to posttest by the participants of the WorkshOp as measured on Instrument A (appended). HO 3 NI : U2 Hl : u; > H2 (hypothesis of interest) let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) U2 = mean of pretest u; = mean of posttest Assumptions: (1) Normal distribution in the population (2) Homogeneity of variance Test: paired t-test, df = N-l (N = number of pairs, 29) Decision Rule: Reject HO if t-test value with 28 degrees of freedom exceeds 1.701, the critical value of the one-tailed t value at the 0.05 level of significance tables. (3) Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 3: 46 Data: (1) will use 29 participant scores from pretests and posttests (one person failed to take pretest due to illness) (2) mean scores on pretests and post- tests will be recorded (3) standard deviation on pretests and posttests will be recorded There will be a significant positive change in attitude toward the programs (SCIS and AAAS) of the Workshop from the pretest to posttest as measured on Instrument B (appended). HO 3 U1 j’U2 Hl : u; > uz (hypothesis of interest) let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) Assumptions: See Hypothesis 1 Test: See Hypothesis 1 Decision Rule: See Hypothesis 1 Data: See Hypothesis 1 Recognized weaknesses: See Hypothesis 1 There will be a significant positive change in the analysis scores of group-process skills from pretest to posttest by the par- ticipants of the Workshop as measured on Instrument C (appended). Hypothesis 4: Hypothesis 5: 47 : < HO U1 _.U2 U1 > U2 (hypothesis of interest) [—1 .0 let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) Assumptions: See Hypothesis 1 Test: See Hypothesis 1 Decision Rule: See Hypothesis 1 Data: See Hypothesis 1 There will be a significant increase in knowledge of change-agent skills from pre- test to posttest by the participants of the Workshop as measured on Instrument D (appended). HO=U1_<_U2 . . (hypotheSis of interest) H1 3 U1 > U2 let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) Assumptions: See Hypothesis 1 Test: See Hypothesis 1 Decision Rule: See Hypothesis 1 Data: See Hypothesis 1 There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the participant's scores on their attitude toward the various aspects of the Workshop activities as measured on Instrument F (appended) and the participants knowledge of program characteristics and program implementation procedures as Hypothesis 6: 48 measured on Instrument A (appended). The correlations will be made with measures taken both at the close of the Workshop and at the Mid-winter Conference. A = Attitude Score K = Knowledge Score HO : p = 0 (there is no relationship between the two measures) Hl : H0 is false (a linear relationship exists) Assumptions: None (see pages 509, 510 Hays) Test: Pearson Product-Moment Correlation and the F-test for testing the sig- nificance of correlation Decision Rule: Correlation is significant if the F-value at a = 0.05, and with l and 28 (N-2) degrees of freedom exceeds 4.20, the table value (Hays, page 677). Data: These tests will be run on post- Workshop and Mid-winter Conference scores. There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the participant's scores on their attitude toward various aspects of the WorkshOp as measured on Instrument F Hypothesis 7: Hypothesis 8: 49 (appended) and the participants' attitude toward the SCIS and AAAS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended). The correlations will be made with measures taken both at the close of the Workshop and at the Mid-winter Conference. (This correlation will be run for the total group, and for those partic- ipants who elected one of the programs for emphasis (workshop run by participants) a separate attitude correlation will be run versus that selected program.) For methodology: See Hypothesis 5 There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the increase in knowledge of program characteristics and program imple- mentation procedures as measured on Instru- ment A (appended) from pretest to posttest and change in attitude towards AAAS and SCIS programs as measured on Instrument B (ap- pended) from pretest to posttest. For methodology: See Hypothesis 5 There will be a significant positive corre- 1ation between the satisfaction of perceived needs of the participants as measured on Instrument E (appended) and their attitude 50 toward AAAS and SCIS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended) and utilizing: A. the difference between Workshop pretest and end-of-Worksh0p posttest on Instru- ment B versus the posttest of Instrument E B. the Workshop posttests given in August C. the Mid-winter Conference tests For methodology: See Hypothesis 5 BIBLIOGRAPHY CHAPTER III Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: American Education Research Association, Rand McNally and Company, 1963. p. 7. Ebel, R. C. MeasuringlEducational Achievement. Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice- Ha II, Inc., 1965. p. 381. Hays, W. L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Co., 1963. pp. 322, 509, 510, 674, 677. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. Galt, Ontario: Free Press of Glencoe, Division of Macmillan Co., 1962. p. 260. 51 CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS The purposes of this chapter are: (1) to examine the events of the WorkshOp; (2) to discuss the results of testing; and (3) to describe and report the results of those methods, other than testing, used in evaluation. Events of the WorkshOp The schedule of the Workshop illustrating the topics that were covered during the four weeks of activities is included as Appendix 0. All of the WorkshOp activities were held at Michigan State University except for the three day, participant-run workshOp. During the Workshop many resource persons were invited to give leadership, and to share knowledge and experiences with the participants. Those who made major contributions to the WorkshOp were: Dr. Shirley Hurley and Dr. Mason Miller from the Institute for Extension Per- sonnel Development at Michigan State University; Mr. Jack Arbanas and Dr. Scott Irwin (The University of Texas) rep- resenting the AAAS' Science--A Process Approach; Dr. Glen 52 53 Berkheimer (Michigan State University), Dr. Carl Berger, and Mrs. Christine Kageyama representing the Science Cur- riculum Improvement Study; and Dr. Everett Rogers from the Communications Department of Michigan State University. On the first day of the Workshop a National Aero- nautical and Space Administration (N.A.S.A.) test called Decision by Consensus was given to the participants. The participant reaction to this instrument was positive. The test showed that while consensus is difficult to reach, it is worthwhile. The problems of group processes were em- phasized in this activity and related to tasks of the Work- shop. The N.A.S.A. test is included in the thesis as Appendix J. Various other handouts were distributed during the Workshop. Representatives of SCIS and AAAS made promotional materials available as well as some complimentary program texts and equipment. The materials used by the Workshop staff and the hardware examined and manipulated by the participants during the Workshop was furnished by Michigan State University under the National Science Foundation grant. The participants were exposed to the new science curricula through a variety of activities. Consultants for AAAS and SCIS made presentations, directed activities, and discussed with the participants a broad range of topics. The philoSOphies, the psycholog- ical background, the role of the teacher, and the 54 importance Of demonstration teaching were among the tOpics covered during WorkshOp sessions. The participants received experiences in teaching children and elementary teachers in micro-teaching situa- tions. They also participated in feedback sessions with elementary teachers (T3's in the implementation model) who were members of another workshop that was being held at Michigan State University. In general, the meetings began each day at 9:00 A.M. and continued until 4:00 P.M. with one hour (noon until 1:00 P.M.) for lunch. The testing program was integrated into the sched- ule. Most of the testing took place during the first and last few days of the Workshop. On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the last week of the Institute the participants presented a workshop for a small group of elementary teachers at the Michigan Educa— tion Association (M.E.A.) Camp near Battle Creek, Michigan. After studying both of the elementary science pro- grams, the participants selected either AAAS or SCIS for in-depth study. As the Workshop progressed, the partic- ipants studied the philosophies, implementation procedures, and activities of the program they had selected. Preparations for giving the three day workshop were coordinated as to establish three and four man teams. 55 These teams were formed in such a way that both programs (SCIS and AAAS) were represented on each team. While at the M.E.A. Camp, these teams put on a three day workshop for teachers and administrators from schools in Michigan. The teachers and administrators who attended the three day workshop were those who had accepted an invitation from the Institute Director. This invitation had been made to all school principals in the State of Michigan. It was suggested that the schools send teams of teachers (at least two) and administrators (at least one) to the workshOp. All teams desiring to attend the workshOp were accepted. The peOple attending the workshOp were grouped by geographical location and then matched with the participant teams so as to put at least one participant from that geographical location in each team-teacher group, if possible. The three day workshop utilized materials which had been brought to the M.E.A. Camp from Michigan State University. Since the close of the Summer College Teacher Workshop, newsletters have been sent to all of the Michigan school districts in an attempt to make them aware that in- service leadership and consultant services are available from these participants. 56 The workshop at the M.E.A. Camp was considered by the participants to be the most important component of the total Workshop. Feedback data concerning the three day workshop is included as Appendix K. Each team prepared an outline of the activities included in the three day work- shOp. This outline in included as Appendix L. Evaluations of the various activities of the College Teacher Workshop are included later in this chapter. Some feedback was obtained for each activity in addition to the testing programs outlined in Chapter Three. Also, a description of the activities of the Mid-winter Conference is included later in this chapter along with feedback ob- tained at that time. Tests of hypotheses Data from the testing instruments for the Workshop, as outlined in Chapter One, were analyzed using the CDC 3600 computer. Item responses and total scores on each measure for each participant were punched on data proces- sing cards and programs from the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station: Statistical Series were utilized in analyzing the statistical data. The t-test results, Pearson product—moment correlations, and the F- test results which are used in this thesis are taken from the computer printout. 57 The first four hypotheses were analyzed using the paired t-test. Each participant was matched with himself using his pretest and posttest scores as the pair. By matching, one or more sources of variability were removed, thus lowering the sampling error. When matched in this pairwise manner, the difference between the means continues to be an unbiased estimate of the population difference. However, the matching and the consequent dependence within the pairs changes the standard error of the difference; i.e., introduces a covariance of the means. This unknown value was not a problem, however. By utilizing the paired t-test and allowing N (number of scores) to represent the number of differences, an ordinary t—test for a single mean could be carried out. In the analysis for this study it was assumed that the sample size was large enough that the normal approxima- tions are sufficiently accurate. The t-test is relatively powerful for a population of thirty subjects at the 0.05 level of significance. The one-tailed test was utilized for these hypo- theses since it was assumed that the Workshop was of worth to the participants. No difference scores and a lessening of test scores were both considered to be unacceptable if the Workshop was to have met the Objectives for which it was established. 58 Whether or not there exists a significant positive correlation between different sets of data is tested in the last four hypotheses. The Pearson product-moment correla- tion provides a precise estimate of the degree of relation- ship in the data. A test of each correlation was made using the F test. The F statistic is quite sensitive when used to test the significance of the correlation ratio. The discussion of the results of testing is organ- ized according to the hypotheses as stated in Chapter Three. Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant increase in knowledge of program characteristics and program implementation procedures from pre— test to posttest by the participants of the Workshop as measured on Instrument A (appended). The hypothesis tested was: HO : pl i U2 Stated symbolically the hypothesis of interest was: Hl : pl > p2 A one-tailed test of significance at the 0.05 level using the paired t-test was used to test the null hypo- thesis, u1 : U2. Since there were twenty-nine paired scores (one participant failed to take the pretest) analyzed, the degrees of freedom for this test is N—l or 28. Using these degrees of freedom a t-value of greater than 1.70 is significant at the 0.05 level of significance. Data analysis gave a t-value for this test of 4.54. This 59 shows that there was a significant difference between pre- test scores and posttest scores on Instrument A. There was also a significant difference between the pretest scores of the Workshop and the Mid-winter Conference scores. Analysis of these scores gave a t-value for these scores of 4.34. The null hypothesis, HO, was rejected. It may be possible to conclude that the Workshop had an effect on the knowledge of the participants, and this knowledge persisted. Other descriptive data collected on the raw scores for the pretest, posttest, and Mid-winter test using In- strument A are shown as part of Appendix A. There was a shrinking of the standard deviation and a lowering of the Kuder-Richardson (Number Twenty) relia- bility from pretest to posttest. This was anticipated since the range of scores were expected to collapse and did so. Some items of this test proved to be poor discrim- inators and other items to be of too high or too low a difficulty. The coefficient of reliability could be im- proved by rewriting or replacing the weaker test items. If this instrument were to be used for subsequent workshop evaluations, a strengthening of the reliability is suggested. Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant positive change in attitude toward the programs (SCIS and AAAS) of the Workshop from pretest to 60 posttest as measured on Instrument B (appended). Stated symbolically the hypothesis of interest is: Hl : p1 > U2 The paired t-test with 28 degrees of freedom and at the 0.05 level of significance was used to test the null hypothesis, u; i|u2. A t-value of greater than 1.70 is significant. Analysis of Instrument B scores gave a paired t-test value of 3.05 for this hypothesis test, high enough to reject the null hypothesis. This rejection may lead to the conclusion that there was a positive change in attitude toward the programs during the Workshop. The total scores on Instrument B, and some other measures, were Obtained by totaling the rank level responses of the participants to all items. Descriptive data concern— ing the measure is included as part of Appendix B. Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant positive change in the analysis scores of group-process skills from pretest to posttest by the par- ticipants of the Workshop as measured on Instrument C (appended). Stated symbolically the hypothesis of interest is: Hl : U1 > U2 The paired t-test was also used to test the null hypothesis. The level of significance was established at 0.05 and the number of degrees of freedom was N—l or 28- 61 The calculated t—value is 6.54. This value is greater than the table value of 1.70 for testing significance. The conclusion, therefore, is to reject the hypo- thesis of no difference in the scores on group-process skills as indicated by the participants' reactions recorded on Instrument C. Other statistical data are reported as part of Appendix C. Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant increase in knowledge of change-agent skills from pre— test to posttest by the participants of the Workshop as measured on Instrument D (appended). The null hypothesis is: HO : u; §,U2 The directional hypothesis stated symbol— ically is: Hl : u; > uz Using 28 degrees of freedom and a significance level of 0.05, a value greater than the table value of 1.70 would indicate a significant increase on this measure. The value for the paired t-test using participant scores was calculated to be 2.93. The null hypothesis, H0, is rejected. The possi- bility exists that a significant increase in change-agent skills knowledge is indicated by the participants' scores on this measure. 62 Descriptive data collected on the raw scores of the participants for the pretest and posttest are reported as part of Appendix D. The low reliability, to a large degree, is due to the small number of items (nine) in this measure. Hypothesis 5: There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the participants' scores on their attitude toward the various aspects of the WorkshOp activities as measured on Instrument F (appended) and the participants' knowledge of program characteristics and program implementation procedures as measured on Instrument A (appended). The correlations will be made with measures taken both at the close of the Workshop and at the Mid-winter Conference. The null hypothesis, H is: p = 0 (no 0' linear relationship) Hl : H0 is false (there is a linear relationship between the two measures) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.09 for the post-Workshop scores was found. The rela- tionship between these measures was not significant. The F-test further concluded this by showing a value of 0.83, well below the necessary value of 4.20 for significance. 63 On comparison of the Mid-winter Conference scores, calculations gave a correlation coefficient of 0.17. This value indicates that there was no significant correlation of these two measures. The F-test supported this conclu- sion by giving for this data a value of 0.94. This is below the necessary significance level of 4.20 given in the tables. Hypothesis 6: There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the participants' scores on their attitude toward various aspects of the Workshop as measured on Instrument F (ap- pended) and the participants' attitude toward the SCIS and AAAS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended). The correlations were made with measures taken both at the close of the Workshop and at the Mid-winter Conference. A correlation value of 0.36 between the Instrument B and Instrument F was reported for measures taken at the close of the WorkshOp. The F value for these data is 3.83, slightly below the necessary value for significance of 4.20. While this correlation is not significant at the 0.05 level, it is significant at the 0.06 level. For the Mid—winter Conference tests a correlation coefficient of 0.22 is reported. This is a small relation- ship. The F-test for these data was 1.34, considerably 64 under the 4.20 table value for this level. The HO of no significant relationship cannot be rejected. Correlations were also made for those participants who elected one of the programs for emphasis; i.e., he or she elected to concentrate on one of the two elementary school science programs, AAAS or SCIS, in preparation for the three day participant-run workshop. These correlations were made with data taken at the close of the Workshop and at the Mid-winter Conference. When comparing the post-Workshop scores for the SCIS group, a correlation coefficient of 0.25 was obtained. This appears to be a small relationship. However, the F— test of significance gives a value of 0.76, well below the necessary value of 4.84 taken from the tables. It can be concluded, therefore, that for the SCIS group a significant relationship does not exist between the thirteen posttest scores of Instrument B and the posttest scores of Instru- ment F. Analysis of the Mid-winter Conference scores on Instrument B and F yields a correlation coefficient of 0.05, not significant. The same tests for a significant correlation were made using the scores of the AAAS group. Analysis of the fifteen AAAS post-Workshop measures gave a correlation coefficient between Instrument B and Instrument F of 0.50. This is a significant relationship. The F-value calculated 65 from test scores is 4.25. The correlation is significant at the 0.05 level. Members of the AAAS group apparently looked favorably on the activities of the Workshop. The correlation coefficient found with Mid-winter Conference scores is 0.40, not significant. Hypothesis 7: There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the increase in knowledge of program characteristics and program imple- mentation procedures as measured on Instru- ment A (appended) from pretest to posttest and change in attitude towards AAAS and SCIS programs as measured on Instrument B (ap- pended) from pretest to posttest. The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficient calculated for these difference scores is 0.36. This value is not significant and was confirmed by the F-test value of 3.85, slightly below the necessary value of 4.20 at the 0.05 level. This correlation coefficient is, however, significant at the 0.06 level. Hypothesis 8: There will be a significant positive corre- lation between the satisfaction of perceived needs of the participants as measured on Instrument E (appended) and their attitude toward AAAS and SCIS programs as measured on Instrument B (appended) and utilizing: 66 A. the difference between Workshop pretest and end-of-Workshop posttest on Instru- ment B versus the posttest of Instrument E B. the Workshop posttests given in August C. the Mid—winter Conference posttests Analysis gives a correlation coefficient for the first comparison (A) of 0.26. This is not a significant relationship and is confirmed as such by the F-test of sig- nificance which gives a value of 1.86. For the second relationship (B from above), the Pearson product-moment correlation is 0.36. This correla- tional value is almost significant at the 0.05 level. The F-test for this correlation is calculated at 3.80, slightly below the necessary table value for these data of 4.20. This correlation is significant at the 0.06 level, however. The third correlation (C) made with data collected at the Mid-winter Conference yields a coefficient of rela- tionship of 0.12. This is not significant; therefore we cannot reject the hypothesis of no difference.‘ In Table 3, below, are capsulized the results of the hypothesis testing. All tests were made at the 0.05 level of significance. 67 Table 3.--Results of Hypothesis Testing Table Calculated Hypothesis Test used value value Decision 1 paired t-test 1.701 4.34 Reject null (df=28) hypothesis 2 paired t-test 1.701 3.05 Reject null (df=28) hypothesis 3 paired t-test 1.699 6.54 Reject null (df=28) hypothesis 4 paired t-test 1.701 2.93 Reject null (df=28) hypothesis Calculated Table value F—test Corre- for F-test value lation (df=l,28) (df=l,28) Decision Pearson No linear 4 Product-Moment 0.09 4.20 0.83 relationship Pearson No linear 5 Product-Moment 0.36 4.20 3.83 relationship Pearson No linear 6 Product-Moment 0.36 4.20 3.85 relationship Pearson No linear 7 Product-Moment 0.26 4.20 3.80 relationship _Other descriptive dape One way to examine the activities of the Workshop is through the reactions of the participants. At the close of the various activities of the Work- shop, the reactions Of the participants were obtained on a short questionnaire. Appendix H shows the date of each 68 questionnaire and reports the activity which was evaluated. The questionnaire items were ranked on a low (1) to high (7) basis, and the total score for each person and each test recorded. Those activities that received the highest ranking by the participants were: number 10, Mrs. C. Kageyama with the SCIS demonstration lesson; number 12, Mrs. C. Kageyama with SCIS; number 13, Dr. R. McLeod with AAAS; number 17, Dr. Carl Berger with SCIS; and number 21, M.E.A. Camp workshOp conducted by the participants. The activities receiving the lowest ranking by the participants were: number 4, Dr. G. Berkheimer with SCIS Objectives; number 6, Mr. J. Arbanas with a general discussion of AAAS; and number 19, Dr. E. Rogers with change-agent skills. A report of the comments made by the participants on the various activities is included in the appendix following Instrument H. It appears that activity-oriented sessions such as those directed by Dr. Berger and Mrs. Chris Kageyama, and the participant-run workshop should be considered for subsequent workshops. Some of the tests used during the Workshop included a question or two which were short answer or comment requests. On Instrument B the participants were asked to indicate which of the two programs they favored more. 69 The table below shows the responses for each of the three times that this instrument was given. Table 4.--Elementary Science Program Preferred by Participants Prefer Prefer SCIS AAAS Both Neither Pretest 7 14 - 8 Posttest 12 13 4 1 Mid-winter test 15 ll 3 l There was a slight attrition of participants from the AAAS program. This is probably due in some part to the poor service which some of the participants experienced when they began to order supplies after returning to their school assignments. Those persons who were borderline at the beginning of the Workshop appear to have moved to the SCIS program. A general feeling was that the SCIS program would be easier to install and implement into traditional schools. On Instrument E, besides the correlations run on total scores in testing Hypothesis 8, an analysis of the pretest, perceived needs, and the posttest, satisfied needs, was completed. An item by item response tally is included in the appendix following Instrument E. Those items which were perceived as the greatest needs, i.e., 70 75 percent or more of the responses were at the 4 and 5 rank level, include: number 1, philosophy of the programs; number 2, knowledge of the written materials; number 3, knowledge of the manipulative materials; number 10, the types of workshops which might be used in implementing the new curricula; number 12, grade levels at which new science curricula can be implemented; number 14, how one gets ma- terials for use in teacher workshops; number 15, orienta— tion programs; number 16, talks to PTA, School Board, teachers, etc., about the program; number 17, workshops; number 26, on-going in-service work and help; and number 28, know how to help implement new programs. Perceived as needs by 50 percent to 74 percent of the responses at the 4 or 5 level were: number 13, where scientific principles should first be introduced; number 18, visit classes; number 19, demonstration teaching; num- ber 22, help schools to select appropriate program; and number 25, possibility of offering regular college courses for credit in the new programs. At the close of the Workshop the same items were used to measure the satisfaction of perceived needs. Seventy-five percent or more of the responses indicated that the following items were at the 4 and 5 level rank: number 1, philOSOphy of the programs; number 10, the types of workshops which might be used in implementing the new curricula; number 12, grade levels at which new science 71 curricula can be implemented; number 15, orientation pro- grams; number 16, talks to PTA, School Board, teachers, etc., about the program; number 17, workshOps; number 20, consultation on problems; number 26, on-going in-service work and help; and number 28, know how to help implement new programs. At a slightly lower percentage of response, 50 percent to 74 percent at the 4 and 5 level, were items as follows: number 2, knowledge of the written materials; number 3, knowledge of the manipulative materials; number 13, where scientific principles should first be introduced; number 14, how one gets materials for use in teacher work- shops; number 19, demonstration teaching; number 22, help schools to select appropriate program; and number 27, change agent in local schools. By putting these pretest and posttest results into a table, it is possible to get some measure of the influence of the WOrkshOp. Table 4, below, shows that those areas that were considered to be the most outstanding needs by the participants were satisfied almost fully. It is in- terpreted to indicate that the Workshop was most successful in reaching its intended objective of providing the partic- ipants with knowledge and philosophy of the SCIS and AAAS programs and experiences in conducting a workshop and assisting in implementation. 72 Table 5.--Perceived Needs and Satisfied Needs Pretest (Perceived Needs) Posttest (Satisfied Needs) High_ Greatest High Greatest l A l 2 2 3 3 10 10 12 12 13 13 l4 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 19 19 20 20 22 22 25 26 26 27 28 28 Some additional investigation of Instrument F was also accomplished. The results of the post-WOrkshOp test were analyzed separately to find which of the five divisions of the Workshop, as arbitrarily set by the staff, were 73 considered to be the most worthwhile to the participants. A complete Question/Division data report is included fol- lowing Appendix F. As a result of this analysis, it was discovered that the workshOp at the M.E.A. Camp scored consistently high in the ranking by the participants. Those portions of the College Teacher Workshop which dealt with orienta- tion to programs also scored high in all categories. This further supports other evidence already reported that a workshOp run by the participants probably should be in- cluded in subsequent summer workshops. The participants ranked the sessions on Change- Agent Strategies and Group Processes low in every category of measure. This is interpreted in light of other written responses to indicate that the participants felt too much time was given to Group-Process Skills. Twenty-three of the participants indicated this opinion in comments on Instrument F. Perhaps future workshops should consider giving less time for Group Process Skills, and consider eliminating Change-Agent sessions or changing the method or personnel involved in handling this aspect of the work- shOp program. The Mid-winter Conference was held at Michigan State University in December, 1968. The follow-up session was aimed primarily at exchange of feedback. 74 One of the objectives of this study was to describe the behavior changes of the participants in their on-the- job implementation of curriculum change in activities related to the AAAS and SCIS programs. Instrument G was designed to obtain data that might indicate how the partic- ipants were performing in comparison to how they performed a year ago. Instrument G was given at the Workshop but was not used to test any hypothesis. This measure was rather used to obtain data on the post-WorkshOp activities of the par- ticipants and to look at changes in their behavior that could be considered as having resulted at least in part from their Workshop participation. This questionnaire was given at the commencement of the Mid-winter Conference. It was hOped that by giving the measure at this time, before interaction Of the participants could begin, that individual responses would be recorded. A question response data form is included in the appendix following Instrument G. Some interesting results were obtained. A notable increase in the number of formal class sessions, laboratory sessions, and assignments devoted to AAAS and SCIS programs and materials was indicated. The participants indicated that almost one hundred (100) sessions or assignments were given in SCIS and AAAS this year as compared to only twelve (12) or thirteen (13) last year. 75 Seven of the participants indicated they had intro- duced AAAS or SCIS in the first weeks of school. Thirteen of the participants had given work on these programs to their classes before returning to the Mid-winter Conference at Michigan State University. Sixty-one workshOps which have included AAAS and/or SCIS in their format were reported to have been given be- tween the Summer Leadership Workshop and the time of the questionnaire in December. The participants also reported that forty-two AAAS activities and thirty-six SCIS activities, all taken directly from the programs, had been included in their laboratory or regular classes. A great number of materials had also been purchased by the participants for their classes or for workshOps. The amount of time that the participants are now devoting to in-service training has increased over last year. Five of the participants report that 90 percent or more of their current in-service work is in AAAS or SCIS. Eight others reported doing up to 40 percent of their in-service work in one or the other of the programs. The effects of the WorkshOp appear to have diffused to colleagues of the participants. The participants report forty-four other persons on their staffs have used AAAS or SCIS this year as compared to only nine who were reported as using any of these materials a year ago. 76 One of the objectives of the WorkshOp was to create resource persons (T 's in the implementation model). The 1 participants reported in the mid-winter questionnaire that they had been contacted, collectively, thirty-six times for AAAS and twenty-seven times for SCIS as a direct result of the M.E.A. Camp Workshop. This indicates that the partic— ipants have been established as consultants to some degree in many Michigan areas. The participants had also been involved in discussions with nine school boards and nine parent-teacher associations. Generally, the participants do not feel that any barriers exist in the applicability and suitability of these two elementary school science programs in reference to the grade levels for which they were designed. Almost exclusively, the problems of implementation of AAAS and SCIS programs into the pre-service classes of the partic- ipants and into elementary school classrooms are those of funding. From the participants responses on Instrument G, it appears that a definite increase in the use of the processes of science and a definite re—alignment of many pre-service programs has begun. Most of the participants, in response to the question "What major things are you doing differently than you probably would have done if you had not attended the Leadership Workshop?" answered that they are more involved in the two programs, more involved 77 with workshops, and are drawing from their experiences at the Workshop. The staff of the WorkshOp sought to reduce some of the problems met by the participants in their attempt to teach or implement the AAAS and SCIS programs. One prob- lem, the difficulty in obtaining AAAS supplies, was dis- cussed with the representative, in person, and the general sales manager of Xerox, the distributor, via a group tele— phone hook-up. The discussion of this problem brought into clearer focus the difficulties of articulating new national curricula. The WOrkshop seems to have been very effective in preparing the participants as resource persons in elementary school science. The response to the Mid-winter Conference was over- whelmingly positive. The questionnaire on which partic- ipants responded is included as Appendix M. Following the instrument in the appendix are the data that was collected from the participant responses. Sharing of experiences was listed as the thing they most liked about the Mid- winter Conference. One person commented, "I've completely changed my attitude about elementary science as a result of the Workshop. Thank you." CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter has two major divisions. The first section is concerned with the conclusions which can be drawn as a result of analysis and interpretation of the data collected during the study. In the second section of this chapter the implications of this study are con- sidered, and recommendations are made. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reactions of the participants of the Leadership Workshop on Elementary School Science held at Michigan State Univer- sity in the summer of 1968 so as to gain insight into the worth of the Workshop as a learning situation and as a vehicle for change. The Leadership Workshop was designed to help fill the need for resource peOple who could assist school districts with the implementation of two new ele- mentary science curricula: the AAAS Science--A Process Approach and Science Curriculum Improvement Study. 78 79 In order to accomplish this evaluation, several instruments were devised to measure the OOgnitive and affective results of the Workshop program. Also, an in- strument was designed which would look into the behaviors of the participants many months after the Workshop in order to determine if changes occurred. The program of the Workshop was designed to prepare the thirty participants to be consultants in the new ele- mentary school science curricula. Also, changes in the participants' pre-service classes for teachers, stressing the philOSOphies currently accepted by science education leaders, was desired. The study was based on data obtained from the college teachers and science coordinators who were the participants of the Workshop. These participants are con— sidered a representative sample of a larger population of college science teachers and science consultants. The study used statistical techniques to test directional hypo- theses, and used the reactions of the participants on many measures to obtain knowledge concerning the worth of the Workshop. The hypotheses tested are given in Chapter One. Shortened forms of these hypotheses are included below with the results of the testing. Paired t—tests and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation coefficients were used to test the hypotheses. 80 Hypothesis 1: There will be a significant increase in knowledge concerning the topics of the Workshop as measured on Instrument A. The participants scored consistently higher on the posttest than on the pretest. A significant difference was found in the data from the pretest to the posttest for the Workshop, and from the Workshop pretest to the Mid-winter Conference test. Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant positive change in attitude toward the AAAS and SCIS pro- grams over the course of the Workshop. A significant positive change in attitude was reported. The participants appeared to accept the two elementary school science curricula and to believe that they merit consideration for implementation in their courses and in elementary schools. Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant increase in the participants' scores on the measure for group-process skills due to activities of the WorkshOp. The paired t-test showed a significant increase in participants' scores. It was concluded that the partic- ipants gained knowledge of the necessary skills and/or confidence in their abilities to work with groups. Hypothesis 4: A significant increase in knowledge of change-agent skills will be measured. 81 A significant positive change in knowledge about change-agent skills was indicated by the participants' scores. Hypothesis 5: A significant positive correlation will exist between knowledge of the programs and attitude towards the activities of the Workshop. No significant correlation was found. The fact that no relationship between attitude concerning the pro- gram and knowledge of the program exists suggests that factors not considered complicate this comparison. Hypothesis 6: A positive correlation will exist between attitude towards the two elementary science curricula and attitude towards the Workshop. The correlation generated by the data from the post-Workshop test was not significant at the 0.05 level. However, some correlation in these data did exist, and further analysis showed it to be significant at approx- imately the 0.06 level. The correlations were also run with Mid-winter Conference scores and found to be not significant. Corre- lations were also tried between scores from those partic- ipants who stressed one of the programs (AAAS or SCIS) of the Workshop. No relationship appeared to exist between scores from the SCIS group. A significant relationship was indicated between the scores of the AAAS group. 82 The difference in correlation significance between the SCIS and AAAS groups may be due to a change in attitude towards the AAAS program due to the difficulties in obtain- ing their materials. Although in the case of SCIS some problems with obtaining materials were encountered, many more problems were found with obtaining AAAS supplies. Perhaps the logistics and mechanics of distribution need to be considered more thoroughly and more lead time planned for these programs before they are released on a commercial basis. Hypothesis 7: There will be a correlation between the in- crease in knowledge concerning program topics and the increase in attitude scores towards the two elementary science curricula. No relationship was found. The correlation coeffi- cients were less than significant for these difference scores. Hypothesis 8: There will be a significant positive rela- tionship between the satisfaction of per- ceived needs scores and the participants' attitudes towards AAAS and SCIS curricula as measured at post-WOrkshop and Mid-winter Conference. No relationship was found between the change in attitude towards the programs from pretest to posttest and the satisfaction of perceived needs. A small correlation 83 was found between post-WorkshOp measures on the two tests, but the degree of relationship was not significant at the 0.05 level. No significant correlation was found between Mid- winter Conference test scores for these measures. The significant differences between pre-WorkshOp and post-Workshop measures as indicated by the first four hypotheses show that the Workshop was a successful vehicle for increasing the knowledge of the participants in the tOpic of the workshop and creating a positive attitude toward the AAAS and SCIS programs. The participants also showed marked gains in knowledge of group process skills and knowledge of change-agent skills. These gains in factual knowledge along with the significant positive change in attitudes toward the AAAS and SCIS programs are among the factors that can be posi- tively identified as contributing to the success of the Workshop. The attempts to show correlation among different measures were largely unsuccessful. It was anticipated that such correlations would assist future designers of workshops in their selection of activities and participants. The lack of relationships in this study does not indicate that relationships do not occur. It only indicates that, for this study, those factors chosen were not significantly related. 84 The results of other measures not included in the testing of hypotheses point to the positive reaction of the participants toward the activities and staff of the Work- shop. Of particular importance are the comparisons of perceived needs and satisfied needs as indicated by the participants' reactions listed on Instrument E. From the twenty-eight needs listed, twelve were identified as being of greatest need on the pretest. Eight of these "greatest needs" were largely satisfied according to 75 percent or more of the participants. This high degree of satisfaction is one index of the success of the WorkshOp. At the Mid-winter Conference a questionnaire was used to measure the behavioral changes of participants. There was a large increase in the number of workshOps given by participants. The amount of AAAS and SCIS materials used in pre—service teacher training classes also increased significantly. Some diffusion of the participants enthus- iasm for the two new elementary school science programs seems to have occurred. This is indicated by the increased numbers of colleagues of the participants who are utilizing AAAS and SCIS in their classrooms. The Leadership WorkshOp appears to have been a successful mechanism for producing change in the participants. This change also appears to be advantageous to the goals of the Workshop. During the Workshop reactions and comments were period- ically solicited from the participants in regard to activities. These comments were overwhelmingly favorable. The activity most 85 often praised was the three day participant-run workshOp held during the final week of the Leadership WorkshOp. Implications and Recommendations The results of this study indicate that cognitive and affective changes were brought about in this Leadership Work- shop. Furthermore, the results seem to indicate that the WorkshOp was an effective instrument for producing desired behavioral changes. There now appears to be general acceptance of science as an integral part of the elementary school curriculum. This acceptance magnifies the need to train new teachers and retrain experienced teachers in science education in a manner which re— flects current thought and practice. For this reason, it is recommended that more leadership workshops be given. The writer recommends that evaluations be included as an integral part of the workshOp, and that follow-up studies be included as part of the total evaluation. If instruments from this study are utilized in subsequent institutes, the investi— gator suggests that revisions be made to increase the relia- bility of the instruments. On Instrument A, for example, item analyses of test results shows that items number two, six, seven, twelve, nineteen, twenty one, forty eight and fifty seven were poor discriminators or had low difficulty indices on both of the post-WorkshOp measures. These and perhaps other weak items could be removed, improved, or replaced. 86 It is suggested that Instrument C be lengthened. Nine items are too few to insure a good sampling of participant knowledge. Typically the reliability coefficient will be greater for scores from a longer test than from a shorter test. It is the investigator's intuitive feeling that posi- tive correlations between measures should have been found; re: hypotheses five, six and seven. Weaknesses within the instru- ments may have been responsible for the lack of relationships. Perhaps if all attitude measures had used seven rank levels (Instrument E used five) and if all attitude instruments had used a parallel form a more meaningful interpretation would be possible. Also, a study of the classification of instrument questions on an hierarchial basis may lead to a strengthening of the tests. Other studies currently in progress at Michigan State University are investigating the diffusion effects of this Leadership WorkshOp and various aspects of recently trained classroom teachers (Tl's). One of the questions which emerged from this study ap- pears to be important in light of national assessment and future finding. That is: Are science educators more, or less, amenable to change than other educators? It is recommended that future researchers look into this question. The writer is convinced that continued support of work- shops for science educators can be a meaningful and economical method for improving teacher education and elementary school science instruction. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. Ex erimental and Quasi- experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: American Education Research Association, Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Cox, D. R. Planning of Experiments. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Ebel, R. C. Measuring Educational Achievement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-HaII, Inc., 1965. Hays, W. L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, ahd Winston Co., 1963. Johnson, L. H., Obourn, E. S., and Blackwood, P. E. Research in the_Teaching of Science. United States Department of Health, EducatiOn and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin 1965, No. 10. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965. Kuslan, L. I., and Stone, A. H. Teachin Children Science: An In uir A roach. Belmont, California: Wads- worth Puinshing Company, Inc., 1968. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. Galt, Ontario: Free Press of Glencoe,Division of Macmillan Co., 1962. Articles and Pamphlets Bartlett, C. J., and Edgerton, H. A. "Dimensions of Summer Science Training Programs as Reflected by Their Participants." Peychological Reports, 18 (1966), 67-730 87 88 Blough, G. O., et a1. "Developing Science Programs in the Elementary School." Rethinking Science Education. Fifty-ninth Yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. Chamberlain, W. D. "Development and Status of Teacher Education in the Field of Science for the Elementary School." Science Education, 42 (December, 1958), 406-409. Chemical and Engineering News. "Chaos in Science Teacher Training." Chemical and Engineering News, 47 (February, 1969), 46-47. Cornfield, J., and Tukey, J. W. "Average Values of Mean Squares in Factorials." The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27 (1956), 907-949. Craig, G. S. "The Program of Science in the Elementary School." A Program for Teaching Science. Thirty- first Yearbook of The National Society fOr the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932, 133-162. Creswell, J. C. "How Effective Are Modern Mathematics Workshops." The Arithmetic Teacher, 14 (March, 1967), 205-208. Dunfee, M., and Greenlee, J. "Elementary School Science: Research, Theory, and Practice." Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 67, Wash- ington, D. C.: the Association, 1957? Fowler, H. S. "Evaluation of an Institute for the Training of Elementary School Science Resource Teachers." Journal of Educational Research, 53 (May, 1960), 358-359. Hale, H. E., et a1. "Auxiliary Efforts to Improve the Secondary School Science Efforts." Rethinkin Science Education. Fifty-ninth YearEOOE of Tge NatiOnal Society for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960, 172-195. Hilgert, R. L. "Teacher Reaction to Summer WorkshOps." School and Community, 54 (1968), 14-15. 89 Hurd, P. D., and Johnson, P. "Problems and Issues in Science Education." RephinkingScienee Education. Fifty-ninth Yearbook of The NatiOnal Society for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1960, 329-338. Irby, B. N. "A Follow-up Study of the Participants of the National Science Foundation Academic Year Institutes for High School Teachers of Science and Mathematics Held at the University of Mississippi." Disserta- tion Abstracts, 28 (1968), 2120-A. Jarvi, M. E. "A Follow-up Study of the Carnegie Graduate Fellowship Program at George Peabody College for Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts, 22 (1962), 2706. Johnson, L. H., Obourn, E. S., and Blackwood, P. E. Research in the Teaching of Science. United States Department of Health, EducatiOn and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin 1965, No. 10. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965. Karplus, R. "The Science Curriculum Improvement Study." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2 (1964), 293-303. Kleinman, G. S. "Needed: Elementary School Science Con- sultants." School Science and Mathematics, 65 (November, 1965), 738-746. Kleinman, G. S. "Progress Report of an Experimental In- Service Institute in Science for Elementary School Teachers of Grades K-6." Science Education, 50 (March, 1966), 136-139. Livermore, A. H. "The Process Approach of the AAAS Commis- sion on Science Education." dournal of Research in Science Teaching, 2 (1964), 27le282. Lyon, M. C. "Evaluation as an Integral Part of a Summer Science Program for Talented High School Students." Science Education, 47 (October, 1963), 377-382. Martinen, G. D. "A Study of the National Science Foundation Summer Institutes in Science and Mathematics Held at the University of Idaho from 1957 through 1964 and Their Impact on the Professional Activities of the Recipients." Dissertation Abstracts, 28 (1967), 2446-A. 90 Michals, B. E. "The Preparation of Teachers to Teach Ele- mentary School Science." Science Education, 47 (March, 1963), 122-132. Olson, P. A. "Training the Teachers of Teachers.“ American Education. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, OE- 58026, No. 7. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1969. Orr, D. B., and Young, A. T. "Who Attends NSF InstituteS?" The Science Teacher, 30 (November, 1963), 39-40. Parker, A. "A Study of Certain Aspects of Eight Summer Institutes for High School Science Teachers Con- ducted in Louisiana." Dissertation Abstracts, 22 (1961), 2537-2538. Powers, S. R. "Some Criticisms of Current Practices in the Teaching of Science in Elementary and Secondary Schools." A Program for TeachingScience. Thirty- first Yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education Part I. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1932, 13-26. Sims, W. C. "The Development and Evaluation of an In- Service Education Program in Elementary School Science." Science Education, 42 (December, 1958), 391-398. Other Sources Barnard, J. D. "Implications for Science Education." Supervision of Qualipy Education. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, OE-29039, Bulletin 1963, No. 3. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1963. Bixler, J. E. "The Effect of Teacher Attitude on Elementary Children's Science Information and Science Atti- tude." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, 1957. Board of Education, Watertown, Connecticut. "Regional Elementary School Teacher Up-grading Project." Educational Resources Informepion Center. United States Department of Health, EducatiOn and Welfare, Office of Education, ES-000-419. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. 91 Brandou, J. R. “A Study of an Experimental Program for the In-service Science Education of Elementary School Teachers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Cooley, W. W., and Bassett, R. D. "Evaluation and Follow- up Study of a Summer Science and Mathematics Pro- gram." Educational Resources Informetion Center. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office Of Education, ED-002-923. Wash- ington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1960. Gatewood, C. W., Obourn, E. S., and Ellsworth, S.. "Improv- ing Science Education in The United States." Edu- cational Resources Information Center. United States Department odeealth, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, ED-011-512. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1963. International Reading Association. Final Report: Evalua- tion of NDEA Institdtes for Advancement in Reading. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Associa- tion, 1965. Kerr, E. F. "The Role of the Consultant in Elementary Science." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956. Office of the County Superintendent of Schools, Riverside, California. "Accelerating Diffusion of Innovative Science Programs." Educational Resources Informa- tion Center. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, ES- 000-774. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. Taylor, T. W., et al. "Review of Research Studies in Science Education." gdpcational Resources Informa— pion Center. United States Department of Health, Eddcation and Welfare, Office of Education, ED- 012-235. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. Verrill, J. E. "The Preparation of General Elementary Teachers to Teach Science." Research in the Teach- ingof Science. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, OE- 29000-61, Bulletin 1965, No. 10. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1965, 126-127. 92 Westmeyer, P., et al. "A Comparison of Various Techniques for the Dissemination of a New Science Curriculum in Florida." Educational Resources Information Center. United States Department of HeaIth, Edu- cation and Welfare, Office of Education, ED-010- 632. Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Wheatland-Chili Central School, Scottsville, New York. "Regional Center for Study and Improvement of Elementary Science Education." Educational Re- sources Informapion Center. United States Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, ES-000-489. Washington, D. C.: Govern- ment Printing Office, 1966. Ziol, F. J. "An Eight Week Summer Institute Training Pro- gram to Train Instructors of Instrumentation Tech- nology." Educational Resources Information Center. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, AD-010-433. Washing- ton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1966. APPENDIX A Appendix A NUMBER DIRECTIONS: Multiple Choice. Choose the best answer. 1. Which of the following persons is the project director of AAAS? A. Robert M. Gagne B. Robert Karplus C. John R. Mayor D. Charles Walcott E. Jerrold R. Zacharias Which of the following persons is the project director of SCIS? A. Robert M. Gagne B. Robert Karplus C. John R. Mayor D. Charles Walcott E. Jerrold R. Zacharias The grade levels to be included in Science--A Process Approach are: A. K-16 B. K-12 C. K-8 D. K-6 E. 1-6 The grade levels to be included in the SCIS cur- riculum are: A. K-16 B. K-12 C. K-8 D. K-6 E. 1-6 The main funding agency for AAAS is: A. American Association for the Advancement of Science B. National Science Foundation 93 10. C. D. E. 94 Number National Science Teachers Association United States Office of Education University of California The main funding agency for SCIS is: A. B. C. D. E. American Association for the Advancement of Science National Science Foundation National Science Teachers Association United States Office of Education University of California The current publishing agency (if any) for AAAS is: MUCH)? Holt, Rinehart, Winston Harcourt, Brace and World Rand McNally Raytheon Xerox The current publishing agency (if any) for SCIS is: MOON» Holt, Rinehart, Winston Harcourt, Brace and World Rand McNally Raytheon Xerox The approximate cost of a complete set of AAAS materials per class (30 students) in grade one is: A. B. C. D. E. $450 $350 $250 $150 $50 The approximate cost of SCIS materials per class (32 students) in grade one is: $450 $350 $250 $150 $50 11. 12. 13. l4. 95 Number The final commercial edition of AAAS materials that will be commercially available for 1968-69 are: A. Science--A Process Approach Parts I-II only B. Science--A Process Approach Parts I-III only C. Science--A Process Approach Parts I-IV only D. Science--A Process Approach Parts I-VI only E. Science--A Process Approach Parts I-VII The SCIS materials that will be commercially available for 1968-69 are: A. B. C. D. E. Interaction, Life Cycles, Material Objects, Organism, Relativity, and Subsystems Interaction, Material Objects, Organisms, Relativity, and Subsystems Interaction, Material Objects, Organisms, and Subsystems Interaction, Material Objects, Organisms None Of the above are correct The AAAS evaluation instruments that will be com- mercially available for 1968-69 are: A. B. C. D. The "Process Instrument" The "Competency Measures" for all grades covered by Science--A Process Approach Both the "Process Instrument" and the "Com- petency Measures" No evaluation instrument will be commercially available The SCIS evaluation instruments that will be com- mercially available for 1968-69 are: MUCH!» The "Process Instrument" STEP The "Content Instrument" The "Materials and Interaction" instrument No evaluation instrument will be commercially available 15. 16. l7. 18. 19. 96 Number The primary evaluation emphasis of SCIS has been on: A. Comparing students who have had SCIS with those who have not B. A definitive measure of the scientific literacy of the pupils emerging from SCIS courses C. Evaluating the program by collecting feedback information from teachers and Trial Center Coordinators AAAS materials that will be available for teacher workshops in 1968-69 include: A. "Commentary for Teachers" B. "Guide for the Instructor of a Teacher Education Program" C. Both A and B D. None SCIS materials that will be available for teacher workshop in 1968-69 include: A. SCIS Developmental Skill Commentary B. "SCIS Sourcebook" C. Both A and B D. None The major psychological influence on the AAAS program? A. Bruner B. Gagne C. Piaget D. Skinner E. Thorndike The major psychological influence on the SCIS program? A. Bruner B. Gagne C. Piaget D. Skinner E. Thorndike 20. 21. 22-23 22. 23. 97 Number Piaget's ideas of development have influenced both AAAS and SCIS. Which statement(s) best illustrate this school of thought? A. DevelOpment is limited to external situations, and is thereby provoked. B. Children's intellectual capacity passes through a number of qualitatively contrasting stages before adulthood. C. A child's interaction with his environment plays a very significant role in his transi- tion from one stage to another. D. A child can learn any subject matter at any stage of his development. E. Combination of A and B F. Combination of B and C G. Combination of B and D The AAAS curriculum makes use of hierarchy charts. Which of the following statements about them is most accurate? A. They illustrate the types of skills considered, and the relationships among skills within one process and among the several processes. B. They only illustrate the types of skills con- sidered, and the relationships among skills within one process. C. They only illustrate the types of skills con- sidered in flow chart form. In comparing AAAS and SCIS approaches to the inte- gration of their curricula, one can find significant differences in emphasis in the three elements: concepts, phenomena, and processes. AAAS is structured on . Concepts . Concepts and Phenomena . Concepts and Processes . Phenomena . Processes MUOWS’ SCIS is structured on A. Concepts B. Concepts and Phenomena C. Concepts and Processes D. Phenomena E. Processes 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 98 Number The relative importance of sequencing in the SCIS and AAAS programs: A. B. C. D. Important only in AAAS Important only in SCIS Important in both None are sequenced The relative amount of quantitative science in- corporated in the SCIS and AAAS programs: A. B. C. D. More quantitative science in SCIS than AAAS More quantitative science in AAAS than SCIS Both have about the same amount of quantita- tive science Little or no quantitative science incorporated in either program The primary objective of each of the exercises in the AAAS curriculum is: A. B. C. D. E. to gain a better understanding of a science principle to gain scientific literacy to teach one or more of the processes of science the deveIOpment of competent scientists None of the above correct The primary purpose of the SCIS curriculum is: A. B. C. D. E. BY the development of competent scientists to develop more meaningful science materials for children the development of specified process skills the development of scientific literacy None of the above "invention" lesson in SCIS, we mean: the children recognize a scientific principle when presented with various examples of a concept the children create new solutions to problems the teacher introduces the science concept that describes what the children have observed None of the above are correct 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 99 In the "discovery" lesson in SCIS: A. experiences are provided that present further examples of a previously described concept B. materials are provided whereby children can arrive at a scientific principle without teacher prompting C. students study the history of famous scienti- fic discoveries D. None of the above are correct The average amount of time required to teach each of the AAAS units (e.g., part A) in the elementary schools is about: A. 11-12 months 8-10 months 5-7 months 3—5 months . 1-2 months MUCH! The average amount of time required to teach each of the SCIS units (e.g., Organisms) in the elementary schools is about: A. 11-12 months B. 8-10 months C. 6-7 months D. 3-5 months E. 1-2 months The title of the first unit commonly used in SCIS is: A. Interaction B. Material Objects C. Organisms D. Subsystems E. Temperature The primary emphasis of Part A of the AAAS curricu— lum is: A. Classifying B. Measuring . Observing . Using space/time relationships . None of the above are correct MUD 34. 35. 36. 37. 100 Number The process(es) dealt with in Part B of the AAAS curriculum: A. Classifying, communicating, measuring, observ- ing, using numbers, and using space/time relationships B. Classifying, communicating, measuring, observ- ing, using numbers C. Classifying, communicating, measuring, observing D. Classifying and Observing E. Communicating As a "laboratory director" in one of the new elementary science curriculums, you can best make use of the technique of asking questions by: A. using them to find out if they remember what you told them yesterday B. using them in order to allow the children to hunt for a predetermined answer C. using mostly "why" questions D. using mostly "how" questions The approximate amount of preparation time needed for teaching a lesson in SCIS is: A. 0 minutes B. 10 minutes C. 30 minutes D. 45 minutes E. 60 minutes at least The amount of time required for preparing a SCIS lesson as compared to that required for preparing a AAAS lesson: A. SCIS required more time B. AAAS required more time C. Both AAAS and SCIS require about the same time 38. 39. 40. 41. 101 Number In considering the possibility of teacher self- instruction as a means of gaining the competency required for teaching the new science programs, which statement is most accurate? A. Generally, both SCIS and AAAS teaching com- petency can be gained by teacher self-instruction B. Generally, neither SCIS nor AAAS teaching com- petency can be gained by teacher self-instruction C. Generally, only SCIS teaching competency can be gained by teacher self-instruction D. Generally, only AAAS teaching competency can be gained by teacher self-instruction The amount of storage space needed to adequately accommodate the AAAS materials for a class of 30 students is: A. five cubic feet B. ten cubic feet C. twenty cubic feet D. forty cubic feet The minimum amount of storage space needed to adequately accommodate the SCIS materials for a classroom of 30 students is: A. five cubic feet B. ten cubic feet C. twenty cubic feet D. forty cubic feet What is the intensity of the problems that a third-grade transfer student might encounter upon entering either SCIS or AAAS from some other program? A. Could easily adapt to both SCIS or AAAS . Could adapt more easily to SCIS than to AAAS . Could adapt more easily to AAAS than to SCIS . Would find many adaptation problems in a similar amount in both AAAS and SCIS 00w 102 Number 42. The distribution of content in the AAAS program is approximately: 43. 44. A. How do SCIS and AAAS lend themselves integration with existing curricula? A. B. C. D Life Sciences Physical Sciences Mathematics Life Sciences Physical Sciences Mathematics Other Life Sciences Physical Sciences Mathematics Other Life Sciences Physical Sciences Other Content and methods can easily be both SCIS and AAAS Content and methods can easily be 50% 25% 10% 25% 25% 10% 40% 25% 40% 20% 15% 10% 75% 15% SCIS but not from AAAS Content and methods can easily be AAAS but not from SCIS Content and methods cannot be easily adapted from either SCIS or AAAS to local adapted from adapted from adapted from The main purpose of using Mr. O in SCIS is: A. B. C. D to aid in identifying similarities and dif- ferences among animals outside the classroom to enable the students to describe properties of an entire organism to experiment with, to find the origin of detritus to act as a reference frame 103 Number 45. In studying magnetism a child used an electromag- net to attract some paperclips. Which of the following would best describe the "system" under study? 46. 47. 48. A. B. C. D. In Child, electromagnet, and paper clips Child and electromagnet Electromagnet Electromagnet and paper clips SCIS, the purpose for the activity in which the children compare similarly shaped pieces of aluminum, brass, pine, walnut, plexiglass, and polystyrene is: A. B. C. D. In to lead to the introduction of the concept of material for the identification and naming of two or more characteristics of an object (such as color and texture) for the construction and demonstration of the use of a single-stage system for classifying materials to gain a better understanding of the concept of inequalities SCIS the investigation of freon was used as a study of a(n) A. FIDO!!! In material object using space/time relationship measurement subsystem system SCIS the "systems" concept is introduced for what primary reason? A. B. C. D So that the student can better identify differences within a set of similar objects So that the student can better identify body move- ments other than those of locomotion So that the student can learn to focus his atten- tion on parts of his environment To emphasize the principle of conservation of matter as a conceptual tool for dealing with all natural phenomena 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 104 Number The measurements Of the earth's magnetism and the relationship of this to map reading is encountered in: A. SCIS only B. AAAS only C. Both SCIS and AAAS D. Neither SCIS nor AAAS The ordering of clam shells by property, using comparison signs, is encountered in: A. SCIS only B. AAAS only C. Both SCIS and AAAS D. Neither SCIS nor AAAS The best operational definition of the term "mass" is: A. quantity of matter B. the size of an object whether it is in space or on earth C. that property of an object which determines the amount of acceleration that will be im- parted to it by a force of a given magnitude D. that quantity of matter that when acted upon by a force will not change its velocity The use of "models" is found in: A. AAAS only B. SCIS only C. Both SCIS and AAAS D. Neither one The relative amount of reading the fourth grade student is required to do in SCIS, AAAS, and E88 would be: A. more reading in ESS than in SCIS or AAAS B. more reading in SCIS and AAAS than in ESS C. about the same amount of reading in all three programs 54. 55. 105 Number The case of the "suffocating candle" was used in AAAS to illustrate what process? . Observing Classifying Measuring Communicating Inferring Predicting None of the above OWNUOUHP‘ Where are we most likely to encounter such a drawing? A. AAAS - Observation B. AAAS - Using space/time relationships C. SCIS - Subsystems D. SCIS - Relativity 106 Number 56. The objective most closely associated with this laboratory setup in one of the new elementary science programs is: ” A. State that if an object does not move, the forces acting upon it must be in balance B. Identify the two-dimensional projections of a given three-dimensional object C. Describe the positions of objects or systems D. Isolate and manipulate groups of objects C); - d I \ J! 57. The series of pictures above were used in SCIS to illustrate A. Material Objects B. Inventions C. Measurement D. Relativity E. Interaction 107 Appendix A--Key Question Answer Question Answer 12423143122223444144213316425 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 3244225421313533223615232343 1234567890123456789012345678 1111111111222222222 Appendix A.--Descriptive data of Instrument A. 108 Middwinter Pretest Posttest Test Range 3-43 23-45 23-49 Mean 22.71 34.89 33.68 Standard Deviation 11.90 5.55 5.55 Mean Item Difficulty 60 39 41 Mean Item Discrimin. 53 23 23 Kuder Richardson Reliability No. 20 .9319 .6770 .6769 Standard Err°r °f 3.0499 3.0802 3.1717 Measurement APPENDIX B Appendix B VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE We are interested in your Opinions on the following statements. Below each statement are seven blanks that correspond to various shades Of agreement and disagreement. Check the blank that most closely corresponds to your own feeling as you read that statement. The following is an example of how to answer the questions: 1. Cigarette smoking is harmful to a person's health. STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE If you very strongly agree with the statement, you should place an X in the blank labelled "very strongly agree" and your answer should look like this: X STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE If you moderately disagree with the statement, you should place an X in theihlank labelled, "moderately disagree" and your answer should look like this: X STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY AGREE CHECK ONLY ONE BLANK FOR EACH QUESTION: ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. 109 110 Number 1. As a taxpayer, I can justify the costs of SCIS being put into the schools because of the gains that will result from the use of these programs. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 2. As a taxpayer, I can justify the costs of AAAS being put into the schools because of the gains that will result from the use of these programs. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 3. I would recommend SCIS to the schools my children attend (or did attend, or will attend). VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 4. I would recommend AAAS to the schools my children attend (or did attend, or will attend). VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 5. If I had the opportunity to redesign the elementary school curriculum, I would include SCIS in the curriculum. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 111 Number 6. If I had the opportunity to redesign the elementary school curriculum, I would include AAAS in the curriculum. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 7. The de-emphasis of the teacher as the primary information source of science is a good part of the SCIS science project. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 8. The de-emphasis of the teacher as the primary information source of science is a good aspect of AAAS. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 9. The fact that many traditional concepts are excluded by SCIS is a detraction from that program's quality. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 10. The fact that many traditional concepts are excluded by AAAS is a detraction from that program's quality. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 112 Number 11. Teachers should be able to make the transition from teaching traditional science programs to the teaching of SCIS with little or no difficulty. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE - AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 12. Teachers should be able to make the transition from teaching traditional science programs to the teaching of AAAS with little or no difficulty. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 13. The learning of scientific concepts such as conservation of energy should be incidental to the learning of the process approach such as classification and serial ordering. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 14. Scientific concepts appropriate to the age level of the child should receive as much emphasis as the scientific process in the teaching of science. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 113 Number 15. I would recommend SCIS to most schools. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 16. I would recommend AAAS to most schools. VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 17. Which of the two programs do you favor more? VERY STRONGLY MODERATELY ‘NO MODERATELY STRONGLY VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE OPINION AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE AGREE 18. Give three concise short reasons for your answer to number 17. Appendix B 114 Table III.--Elementary science program preferred by participants. Prefer Prefer SCIS AAAS Both Neither Pretest 7 l4 - 8 Posttest 12 13 4 l Mid-Winter Test 15 ll 3 l Appendix B Table III.--Descriptive data from Instrument B scores. Pretest Posttest Mid-Winter Test AAAS Sub-Group Mean 80.07 87.73 87.33 Standard Deviation 9.43 9.75 6.79 SCIS Sub—Group Mean 77.15 88.15 90.38 Standard Deviation 10.16 9.11 6.64 APPENDIX C MSU COLLEGE TEACHER WORKSHOP July 29-August 23, 1968 YOur Identifying Number ANALYSIS OF PERSONAL BEHAVIOR IN GROUPS Direction: Read over the scales and on each one place an "A" indicating the place on the scale where you think you are at this point in this Institute. 1. Ability to listen to others in an understanding way 1 2’ 3 4 5 6 7 Low High 2. Tendency to build on the previous ideas of other In- stitute members l 2 3 4 5’ 6 7 Low High 3. Likely to trust others 1 2 3 4 5 6’ 7 Low High 4. Willingness to discuss my feelings (emotions) in a group If 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unwilling Willing 5. Willingness to be influenced by others If 2' 3 4 5 6 7 Unwilling Willing 115 116 6. Tendency to seek close personal relationships with others in a group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low High 7. My reaction to comments about my behavior in a group 1' 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reject Welcome 8. Awareness of the feelings of others Id 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unaware Aware 9. Degree of understanding why I do what I do l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low High 10. Reaction to conflict and antagonism in the Institute l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low High Tolerance Tolerance 11. Reaction to expressions of affection and warmth in the Institute 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low High Tolerance Tolerance 12. Reaction to opinions opposed to mine IV ’2 3 4 5 6 7 Low High 'Tolerance Tolerance 117 13. How easily were you able to accept the staff as persons j l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very Difficult Easy 14. Anything you want to tell the staff about themselves: 118 Instrument Ca--Question 14: Collected Comments 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. Communications consultant excellent. Attitude of Re- sources Consultant excellent. Great job. Great job. Keep it up. Competent. Willingness to listen and react. Excellent group of professional people. Very OOOperative, willing to help, and well versed in their jobs. Great people. They had good mothers and fathers. Staff has been very cooperative and down-to-earth. "Good Joes." Very patient, very accepting, very hard-working. Everyone I've met so far has been personable and com— petent in their field. You're a very good bunch of guys, helpful and all. You're a wonderful bunch. Good staff, good spirit. Equality Of treatment of all participants was commendable. Did very good job. Some lack of organization. Their efforts far outshine the participants. As in many institutes, there appears to be a lack of communication among staff members and some lack of organization. On the whole the staff is friendly, adequate, and well organized. The Workshop is moving very well, and I feel I have learned considerably from the meetings. Good fellows! Sincere and anxious to help. 119 19. I feel that those participating in this WOrkshop are leaders in their own schools, and therefore there is a struggle for leadership among the group at this Workshop. Some individuals try to control the groups too much by themselves. (I still agree with the above.) 20. An effort should have been made at the very beginning to get everyone better acquainted, oriented to the campus, and to the city. Need more direction to avoid confusion. Can't trust this group any more than other. Appendix C.--Descriptive data from Instrument C scores. Pretest Posttest Mean 64.13 67.60 Standard Deviation 8.62 7.72 Prepared by Institute for Extension Personnel Develop- ment, Michigan State University, East Lansing APPENDIX D Appendix D Number In the blank at the left of the question number, place the letter of the best possible answer to that question. 1. Which of the following would make the better pilot teacher? a. Mr. Roberts is the steady man of the science field. He is willing to listen to new ideas but is selective in which ones he will work with. He is not usually the first nor the last to switch to a new method or to use new materials. His advice is Often sought out and is well respected. Mr. Bruce is a dynamic, enthusiastic teacher who is willing to try new teaching techniques and materials when they appear. The other teachers know that if there is a new develOp- ment or a new piece of equipment in science, Mr. Bruce is probably using it right now or has used it and is already using something newer. If teachers want information on the new developments, Mr. Bruce usually has the answer. If the same teacher is used to initiate all new programs, which of the following is most likely to result? NO one else has the opportunity to test and evaluate new programs. A biased result because only one person uses all the programs. The effective leadership of the teacher is increased. The effective leadership of the teacher is decreased. 120 121 Number Which group would make the better pilot teachers? a. b. Those who conform more closely to the society norms than the average individual. Those who have a small, close circle of friends within the school and social relationships with these same people, with little overlap of social and professional relationships to peOple outside the school. Which group would make the better pilot teachers? a. b. Those who have relatively more participation in formal and informal organizations. Those who have relatively more desire to concen- trate on school and classroom activities. When working with an Elementary Teacher, at what stage will you be of most use to him? d. In When he wants to learn about the science programs. When he is forming an opinion as to the merits of the program. When he is trying to convince other teachers of the merits of the program. Equal importance at all stages. picking a school for a pilot program, which of the following is most important for the long-range success of the program? a. The school system has enough money to finance the program. The program fills a recognized void or deficiency in the school. The superintendent, principal, and science co- ordinator are in favor of the program. The social climate of the community exhibits a willingness and a desire for curriculum modifications. Mark a T F if the 122 if the following statements are true and mark an following statements are false. I should experience relatively little or no re- sistance to the new programs once the advantages are explained. I can identify the opinion leader of a group of teachers by looking for the teacher who is always willing to be one of the first to try out new ideas. The responsibility for anticipating the conse- quences of the science program lies with those who use the program and not with those who are merely introducing it into a school. APPENDIX E 123 Appendix D--Key Question 1 2 Answer 9) '11 '11 '11 0" Appendix D.--Descriptive data from Instrument D scores Pretest Posttest Range 2-8 1-8 Mean 4.68 4.89 Standard Deviation 1.72 1.64 Mean Item Difficulty 48 48 Mean Item Discrimin. 49 49 Kuder Richardson Reliability No. 20 .4303 .4742 Standard Error of LMeasurement 1.2832 1.3124 Appendix E Number (Pre Test) DIRECTIONS: The following items deal with the question: What do eou want to et out of this Workshop concerning the new ementary sc1ence _curricu1a? Please circle one of the five numbers to the left of each item that most cIearly represents the intensity of your desire to find out about that item. KEY: 1. very low 2. low 3. neutral 4. high 5. very high Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 l. PhiloSOphy of the programs 1 2 3 4 5 2. Knowledge of the written materials 1 2 3 4 5 3. Knowledge of the manipulative materials 1 2 3 4 5 4. How to present new programs to academic college community 1 2 3 4 5 5. Instructional pattern now prevalent in our schools 1 2 3 4 5 6. The amount of money now spent on science in the elementary schools 1 2 3 4 5 7. The amount of time now devoted to science in the elementary schools 1 2 3 4 5 8. The average elementary teacher's know- ledge of science 1 2 3 4 5 9. The school organization 1 2 3 4 5 10. The types of workshops which might be used in implementing the new curricula 1 2 3 4 5 11. Science facilities in the elementary school classroom 1 2 3 4 5 12. Grade levels at which new science cur- ricula can be implemented Please list others not mentioned above on the back of this sheet. 124 125 Number Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 13. Where scientific principles should first be introduced 1 2 3 4 5 14. How one gets materials for use in teacher workshops DIRECTIONS: The following items deal with the question: What do you think that the school community expects of coIIegeteachers like yourseIf2 Please circle one of the five numbers to the left of each item, that most clearly represents the relative strength of this community feeling. KEY: 1. very low 2. low 3. neutral 4. high 5. very high Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 15. Orientation programs 1 2 3 4 5 16. Talks to PTA, Board, Teachers, etc. about the program 1 2 3 4 5 l7. Workshops 1 2 3 4 5 18. Visit classes 1 2 3 4 5 19. Demonstration teaching 1 2 3 4 5 20. Consultation on problems 1 2 3 4 5 21. Science content instruction 1 2 3 4 5 22. Help schools to select appropriate program 1 2 3 4 5 23. Help schools to find financial support for implementation 1 2 3 4 5 24. Help schools to locate materials which are not included in kit Please list others not mentioned on the back of this sheet 126 Number Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 25. Possibility of offering regular col— lege courses for credit in the new programs 1 2 3 4 5 26. On-going in—service work and help 1 2 3 4 5 27. Change agent in local schools 1 2 3 4 5 28. Know how to help implement new programs Please list others not mentioned on the back of this sheet 127 Appendix E Number (Posttest) DIRECTIONS: The following items deal with the question: What did you et out pf the WOrkshop concerning the new elementary sc1ence curricuia? Please circle one of the five numbers to the left of each item that most clearly represents the intensity of your feelings about that item. KEY: 1. very low 2. low 3. neutral 4. high 5. very high Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 1. Philosophy of the programs 1 2 3 4 5 2. Knowledge of the written materials 1 2 3 4 5 3. Knowledge of the manipulative materials 1 2 3 4 5 4. How to present new programs to academic college community 1 2 3 4 5 5. Instructional pattern now prevalent in our schools 1 2 3 4 5 6. The amount of money now spent on science in the elementary schools 1 2 3 4 5 7. The amount of time now devoted to science in the elementary schools 1 2 3 4 5 8. The average elementary teacher's know- ledge of science 1 2 3 4 5 9. The school organization 1 2 3 4 5 10. The types of workshops which might be used in implementing the new curricula l 2 3 4 5 11. Science facilities in the elementary school classroom 1 2 3 4 5 12. Grade levels at which new sCience cur- ricula can be implemented Please list others not mentioned above on the back of this sheet. 128 Number Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 13. Where scientific principles should first be introduced 1 2 3 4 5 14. How one gets materials for use in teacher workshops DIRECTIONS: The following items deal with the question: How did the Workshop satisfy what you think the school communipy expects of college teachers and coordinators like ourself? _— Please circle one of the five numbers to the left of each item, that most clearly represents the relative strength of your feeling about that item. KEY: 1. very low 2. low 3. neutral 4. high 5. very high Very Very Low High 1 2 3 4 5 15. Orientation programs 1 2 3 4 5 l6. Talks to PTA, Board, Teachers, etc. about the program 1 2 3 4 5 l7. Workshops H N w .b U1 18. Visit classes 1 2 3 4 5 l9. Demonstration teaching 1 2 3 4 5 20. Consultation on problems 1 2 3 4 5 21. Science content instruction 1 2 3 4 5 22. Help schools to select appropriate program 1 2 3 4 5 23. Help schools to find financial support for implementation 1 2 3 4 5 24. Help schools to locate materials which are not included in kit Please list others not mentioned on the back of this sheet Very Low Very High 129 Number 25. Possibility of offering regular col- lege courses for credit in the new programs 26. On-going in-service work and help 27. Change agent in local schools 28. Know how to help implement new programs Please list others not mentioned on the back of this sheet A? It 130 Appendix E.--Descriptive data for Instrument E. PerceiVed Needs Pretest Responses (%) Satisfied Needs Posttest Responses (%) Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 10.3 34.5 48.3 13.3 50.0 36.7 2 6.9 31.0 62.1 3.3 26.7 46.7 20.0 3 3.4 37.9 55.2 13.3 20.0 43.3 23.3 4 20.7 13.8 17.2 20.7 27.6 10.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 16.7 5 20.7 13.8 41.4 13.8 10.3 16.7 33.3 30.0 16.7 3.3 6 24.1 27.6 31.0 13.8 3.4 26.7 40.0 30.0 3.3 7 20.7 17.2 41.4 17.2 3.4 23.3 30.0 43.3 3.3 8 13.8 24.1 20.7 31.0 10.3 23.3 23.3 26.7 23.3 3.3 9 24.1 37.9 31.0 6.9 33.3 26.7 40.0 10 3.4 27.8 69.0 3.3 40.0 56.7 11 13.8 27.6 24.1 24.1 10.3 13.3 23.3 50.0 13.3 12 10.3 10.3 51.7 27.6 13.3 53.3 33.3 13 3.4 10.3 20.7 34.5 24.1 .7 10.0 33.3 43.3 6.7 14 6.9 13.8 41.4 37.9 .3 10.0 36.7 23.3 26.7 15 . 6.9 48.3 34.5 6.7 66.7 23.3 16 . 6.9 13.8 51.7 24.1 3.3 13.3 46.7 33.3 17 10.3 24.1 65.5 6.7 43.3 50.0 18 3.4 44.8 34.5 17.2 20.0 40.0 26.7 13.3 19 17.2 27.6 31.0 20.7 3.3 16.7 26.7 33.3 16.7 20 6.9 31.0 62.1 10.0 10.0 43.3 36.7 21 6.9 10.3 34.5 27.6 17.2 13.3 16.7 46.7 20.0 3.3 22 10.3 20.7 31.0 34.5 6.7 20.0 40.0 33.0 23 37.9 13.8 31.0 13.8 3.4 20.0 40.0 30.0 6.7 3.3 24 13.8 10.3 37.9 24.1 10.3 16.7 26.7 40.0 13.3 3.3 25 6.9 3.4 24.1 31.0 27.6 10.0 30.0 26.7 26.7 6.7 26 3.4 41.4 55.2 10.0 53.3 36.7 .27 10.3 13.8 27.6 24.1 20.7 3.3 30.0 40.0 26.7 28 3.4 37.9 58.6 6.7 50.0 43.3 131 perceived as greatest needs: (75% or greater of responses at 4 and 5 level) 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28 Perceived as needs: (50%-74% of responses at 4 and 5 level) 13, 18, 19, 22, 25 Greatest satisfaction of needs: (75% or greater of responses at the 4 and 5 level) 1, 10, 12, 15, l6, 17, 20, 26, 28 Satisfaction of needs: (50%-74% of responses at 4 and 5 level) 2, 3, 13, 14, 19, 22, 27 132 Perceived Needs Satisfied Needs High Greatest High Greatest l l 2 10 10 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 l6 l6 17 17 18 l9 19 20 . 20 22 22 25 26 26 27 28 28 No. 25 \vsis ranked by 60.1% of the participants at the 3, 4, and 5 ltaxrels on the posttest, satisfied needs. No. 27 V0213 ranked by 72.4% of the participants at the 3, 4, and 5 lfiaxrels on the pretest, perceived needs. 133 Appendix E.--Descriptive data from Instrument E scores. Pretest Posttest Middwinter Test Mean 99.40 96.67 95.40 Standard Deviation 10.67 12.99 10.25 APPENDIX F Appendix F Number EVALUATION DIRECTIONS: We are interested in a total workshOp evaluation. We have arbitrarily divided the four-week College Teacher WorkshOp, now concluding, into five parts. They are: A. Orientation to programs 1 - lectures (McLeod, Arbanas, Kageyama, Irwin, Berger) 2 - films of AAAS and SCIS 3 — printed materials 4 - discussions of programs. B. Laboratory and micro-teaching activities using AAAS and SCIS materials 1 - T.V. sessions with children and Tz's 2 - involvement with kits, and other experiences with manipulative mate- rials of SCIS and AAAS. C. Group Process Skills sessions with Dr. Miller and Dr. Hurley D. Change Agent Skills session with Dr. Rogers E. Workshop conducted by participants at MEA Camp, August 19-21, 1968 We are interested in your opinions on the following statements as they pertain to each of the above out- lined divisions Of the workshop. Below each state- ment, the five divisions are listed; each is followed by seven blanks that correspond to various shades of agreement and disagreement. Check the blank that most closely corresponds to your own feeling about each division. 1- EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP SATISFIED NEEDS THAT I HAD WHEN THE INSTITUTE BEGAN. A' Or ientation to Programs “——————__._________ _________ StverY' Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very D.r°n91y Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly lsagree Agree 134 135 B. Lab and Micro-teaching Very Strongly Moderatély NO Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Disagree C. Group Process Sessions kVery Strongly Moderately No Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Disagree D. Change Agents Session Very Strongly Moderately No Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Disagree E. Workshop in MBA Camp Very Strongly Moderately No Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Disagree Number Moderately Stroneg Very Agree Agree Strongly Agree Moderately Strongly Very Agree Agree Strongly Agree Moderately Strongly Very Agree Agree Strongly Agree Moderately Strongly Very Agree Agree Strongly Agree 2. THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED IN EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP WILL BE HELPFUL TO ME IN BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN SCIENCE PROGRAMS IN MY SCHOOL AND/OR AREA. A. Orientation to Programs Very Strongly Moderately No Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Disagree Moderately Strongly Agree Agree Very Strongly Agree 136 B. Lab and Micro-teaching Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree C. Group-Process Very Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree D. Change-Agents Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Number Strongly Moderately No E. Workshop at MEA Camp Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Moderately Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Agree Sessions oderately No Moderately Strongly Very Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Agree Session Moderately Strongly Very Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Agree No Moderately Strongly Very Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Agree 3. EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP HAD GREAT VALUE AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN SUBSEQUENT INSTITUTES OF THIS KIND. A. Orientation to Programs Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Strongly Moderately No Opinion Disagree Moderately Strongly Very Agree Agree Strongly Agree 137 B. Lab and Micro-teaching Number Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree C. Group—Process Sessions Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree D. Change-Agents Sessions Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree E. Workshop at MEA Camp Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 4. EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP IS LIKELY TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO A CHANGE IN MY BEHAVIOR, MAKING ME A MORE EFFECTIVE LEADER IN THE AREA OF SCIENCE TEACHING. A. Orientation to Program Strongly Moderately No Disagree Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Moderately Strongly Very Agree Agree Strongly Agree 138 B. Lab and Micro-teaching Number Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly’ Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly DiSagree Agree C. Group Process Sessions Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree D. Change Agents Session Very Shrongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree E. Workshop at MEA Camp Very Strongly Moderately No Moderately Strongly Very Strongly Disagree Disagree Opinion Agree Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5. WHAT TWO THINGS DID YOU LIKE MOST? WHY? A. 8. 139 Number WHAT TWO THINGS DID YOU LIKE LEAST? WHY? A. IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF ORGANIZING A WORKSHOP SUCH AS THIS ONE NOW CONCLUDING, WHAT EXPERIENCES WOULD YOU DELETE, AND WHAT EXPERIENCES WOULD YOU INCLUDE THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED? DELETE INCLUDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 140 Appendix F.--Final evaluation of five parts of workshop. H N U h Participant I.D. No. L U L111 5 O U v w 0 D It!) Chasmmmmw4mm444m4wm4mmm01401cn 00cm hJ(fl 01rd Gala no P‘Ch 0 01:0 halo 00.5 uatn O\|d Ln Oi~4 0\IO kacn 01Ln O\.> 01rd 01.5 0:.5 oa Flak 0:Ln P'Ln m F4t» Pita KJLn O m FJIH mac» oxcb 01-4 P'Lfl 4 ~J~4 chn D.ra m oxOuo¢ .mfiOHOSHosoo uHmsu um mmHuH>Huom mo mcowumsHm>mII.m wacommd 156 Total Number Activity No. Total Pt. Count Persons Mean 1 618 30 20.60 2 596 26 22.92 3 568 26 21.85 4 533 27 19.74 5 634 29 21.86 6 563 29 19.41 7 734 30 24.47 8 651 30 21.70 9 637 30 21.23 10 706 28 25.21 11 631 26 24.27 12 730 29 25.17 13 706 28 25.21 14 667 29 23.00 15 668 30 22.27 16 348 15 23.20 17 370 14 26.43 High 18 563 25 22.52 19 574 29 19.79 20 427 29 14.72 Low 21 780 30 26.00 High averages (above 25.00); 11, 21, 10, 13, 12 Low averages (below 20.00); 19, 4, 6, 20 157 Appendix Ha.--Pertinent comments on activities. Activity Number Suggestions PositiVe Comments Negative Comments 1 Needs fol- I will use this Not relevant low-up activity. 2 --- Very appropriate What is expected introduction. of in-college science teacher? 3 -_- -__ __- 4 More dis- Good contrast of More involvement cussion AAAS and SCIS with children needed. Some were bored. 5 Needed a Movies quite More apprOpriate bigger and helpful activity could glagiboard Demonstration les- have been chosen. son was an excel- lent supplement to movie Movie may replace child contact 6 Would have --- He seemed indeci- 1iked a sive at times. closer look at "opera- tional defi- nition" Hedged. Need more doing and less telling. Afternoon a waste of time. Too much argument over semantics. Turned some pe0ple away from AAAS. 158 better understand- ing of SCIS and flexibility of program. Activity Number Suggestions Positive Comments Negative Comments 7 Give more Greatest. Must do Activity did not time to this more. follow the model. Would have Excellent part of Too many simultan- liked a workshop eous activities cggézelggels I will try this in one room. 9 with my classes Could have and in-service used more work Space Should be in- cluded in future work- shops 8 —-- Confirmed some I am not a sales- ideas I previous- man. 1y felt intui- tively. This is the essence of implementing new materials into a school district Most practical so far 9 I need more --- --- information on Piaget 10 --- Any workshOp will I'm quite puzzled GO if she is about what the there children are Best yet! learning. Practical Undoubtedly one of the best sessions we have had. 11 --- Gave me a much --- 159 Activity Number Suggestions Positive Comments Negative Comments 12 --- A rare flower! --- Quite down to earth. I'll use many of the sug- gestions. 13 --- Answered many Directions not questions left clear enough. Not dangling from last enough time to week. complete the exer— Need more of this. c1se. You've recaptured a AAAS follower. l4 --- Very helpful. A little disorga- nized with picture taking. 15 --- --- --- The comment position of the instrument was changed at this The altered form requests two positive and two nega- tive comments on each evaluation. point. 16 17 Wish we could have had equal time with AAAS (Dr. Irwin) Interaction with consultant. Removed last doubts about this program. Role playing. Opportunity to plan workshop. Actual group act- ivity of building in-service schedules. Chance to interact and contribute. Best days spent in long time. Too much control by consultants. Not enough action. Seemed to be lack of communication between staff and Dr. Irwin. Not enough AAAS activity involve— ment. Too much talking. Lack of materials. Films could have been discussed more. The psychological bases of these pro- grams seems essen- tial. 160 Should consider television Useful. Stimulat- ing. Good approach to subject. Informative. Patterns of dis- semination. Locating change agents. Activity Number Suggestions Positive Comments Negative Comments 17 Discussion of Organisms not (Cont.) workshop activi- meaningfully ties related. Practice in using Lack of time to st0p-action films. pull things to- Dealt with signifé gether. icant concepts at adult level Working with SCIS materials. sincerity. For two days I was part of SCIS 18 Possibly a Opportunity for Too much noise. better loca- feedback. . . d tion. . Disorganize . Opportunity to Some children had Less crowded work with children same lesseon from conditions. Interactions with Eggcgéfigerent other teachers. ' Opportunity to try Very artifiCial. out materials with Out of context. children. No pre-knowledge Taping of session. about children to Working with expee be taught. rienced teachers. 19 --- Great entertainer. Could have said it in ten minutes. (another fifteen minutes. Earthy language Wish he could have been here for both of his scheduled times. Ran too fast. I can waste my time in better ways. 161 Activity Number Suggestions Positive Comments Negative Comments 19 Understanding of He was unprepared. (C°nt‘) °ur needs' He hadn't bothered Based on research to learn our aim here. 20 Should have Excellent inter- Almost total 21 come earlier in Workshop. Time could have been used to give us more back- ground in both programs.feedback. More informa- tion on peo- ple who come to meeting. Suggest camp- us location next year. Eliminate packing and unpacking. Not including schools al— ready commit- ted to one of programs. personal approach. waste of time. Comparison of pro- Time spent way out grams. of proportion to Informal. value. ized. Organ- Too much dialogue on group process skills. Already covered earlier. Help in designing Getting better ac- quainted Treated as if we could not make decisions. Need for AAAS materials. MEA Camp Facilities could have been improved. Interaction with classroom teach- ers. Excellent oppor- tunities to study the techniques of others. Attitudes. Demonstration room. Lack of evening get-together. Too hot. Try-out activities Lack Of audio- . 'visual equipment. Opportunity to meet people inter- ested in science. Prices. More information on people who Meals. come. Opportunity to con- duct a workshop on my own. Plans too rigid. Participants not fully aware of pur- Michigan State Uni-pose of the program. versity team ap- proach. 162 Activity Number Suggestions Positive Comments Negative Comments 21 (Cont.) Chance to work in a realistic situa- tion. Relaxed atmosphere. Communication with new groups and new people. Length of workshop. Combining of per- sons already com- mitted to one of the programs with others with no previous commit- ment. Direct contact with teachers. Excellent job by Paul (workshop assistant) Both teachers and administrators in- volved. APPENDIX I Appendix I AN IMPLEMENTATION MODEL A four-week summer leadership workshop is proposed as one part of a larger model to meet the needs outlined. The primary purpose of the workshop will be to prepare selected college and school personnel for active involvement in a major effort to implement two science curriculum programs in elementary school classrooms. The conference itself will deal directly with the materials of both projects and provide experiences for the participants with children, teachers, and school administrators. The implementation model will involve colleges, state department personnel, and certain government agencies in addition. The model is intended for schools and colleges in Michigan, but some elements may be applicable to other situations. The initial phase will consist of a series of communi- cation efforts to inform schools and colleges of their opportunity to participate in subsequent phases. The first meeting is to be held in mid-December at Oakland University with a group of representatives from the colleges in Michi- gan which prepare teachers for certification. Since the majority of the participants are expected to come from these institutions, this early opportunity to discuss the model seems especially important. Planning for evaluation procedures and suggested ways to carry out the remaining phases will also be conducted in this phase with school personnel and college representa- tives. A brochure describing the total program will be distributed throughout the state with the c00peration of the State Department. Formal selection of participants for the workshop will be made and orientation information dis- tributed. Colleges may begin to invite schools to partici- pate in direct relationships with specific resource trainees later in this first phase. Phase two will be the workshop period itself and is examined separately as the central purpose of this propo- sal. The success of the three-day program for school teams depends upon the advance notice mentioned in phase one and will immediately bring considerably attention to the new curriculum materials in this state. 163 164 Phase three is the actual implementation model as it is intended to operate and to alter the teaching of elementary school science. The diagram, Figure 1, gives a skeletal picture of the order of events during the full two-year cycle the T3 or resource-trainer has received his workshOp preparation and, operating from his school or college position, makes initial contact with the school. This may also have been done prior to the workshop or have occurred during the work with school teams. The T3 must next help the school group to decide whether or not to pilot a program. This orientation he may conduct himself or in conjunction with other resource-trainees. If the decision is favorable, he should help the school group se- lect pilot teachers (T1) and begin the planning for their orientation. The details of the in-service activities, consultative sessions and feedback activities are estab- lished with his college and the school. The intensive orientation period will be based on the project teacher education materials and procedures and those ideas devel- Oped during the workshop. The T1 group continues to teach their children with the new materials and to gain in skills throughout the year. Near the end of the year, the T3 in c00peration with the school administrators, pilot teachers, and other selects several of the first year pilot teachers to become leaders (T2) for subsequent in-service programs. A second-summer experience is planned to give this group additional knowledge of the program and to provide them with leadership skills necessary for their work with new T 's 1 . The second year begins with a decision by the school to expand the implementation, to re-pilot or to drop the program. Again the T3 is involved, but now aided by the T3 group. If expansion is the decision the T can now be expected to carry forward the orientation and in-service work. The T3 may occasionally be needed as a consultant, but he is largely free to work with another school or pur- sue other problems. (See: Implementation Cycle, next page.) Phase four is directed at one of the other problems which a T may find attractive. The selection of partici- pants from teacher education colleges and their involvement in this implementation model should bring to their atten- tion the needs of the pre-service teacher. At a mid-winter feedback session during the program this question will be examined. Specific proposals to modify pre-service courses have not yet been formulated, but it is anticipated that such ideas may come as a result of this program. 165 IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE )1. School -T3 (T2) Pilot teacher orientation and preparation for‘teaching. First 3. a) T1 » S Academic Year Pilot teachers use materials with their children. \ S Resource trainer continues with in- service program and dmonstration work with children. c) T3 I‘——#> Center Feedback and support from Center. 4. T3 T1 School selections are made from pilot teachers of those individuals likely to serve as in-service trainers for imple- mentation. T2 Second 5. T3 ‘OO’T' T2 Orientation and training summer "“ 5 Center for role as in-service trainer. 6. T2 <———>’ School plan for large scale im- plementation, re-pilot, or may drop program. T2 now serves as )1 local T3 to continue program. Second 7. T .‘___,. Tl Orientation and in-service year 2 follow-up with assistance from T3 or Center. ;<8. T3 Ready to recycle at new grade level, or in another school or to change activity. Classroom Teacher *3 H N II II Leader Teacher Resource Trainer I-Sl u» ll 166 This appendix was taken from a Research Proposal submitted by Dr. J. R. Brandou, chairman of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center at Michigan State Uni- . versity, to the National Science Foundation on December 19, 1967. It was given number 8/848-369 by the National Science Foundation. APPENDIX J Appendix J N A S A DECISION BY CONSENSUS Instructions: This is an exercise in group decision-making. Your group is to employ the method of Grgup_Consensus in reaching its decision. This means that the prediction for each of the 15 survival items must be agreed upon by each group member before it becomes a part of the group decision. Consensus is difficult to reach. Therefore, not every rank- ing will meet with everyone's complete approval. Try, as a group, to make each ranking one with which all_group members can at least partially agree. Here are some guides to use in reaching consensus: 1. Avoid arguing for your own individual judgments. Approach the task on the basis of logic. 2. Avoid changing your mind only in order to reach agreement and avoid conflict. Support only solutions with which you are able to agree some- what, at least. 3. Avoid "conflict-reducing" techniques such as majority vote, averaging or trading in reaching decisions. 167 168 4. View differences of opinion as helpful rather than as a hindrance in decision—making. Take as much time as you need in reaching your group deci- sion. Then enter the group rankings on each individual's DECISION FORM under Column D, "My Group's Scoring." 169 Name Group DECISION FORM Instructions: You are a space crew originally scheduled to ren- dezvous with a mother ship on the lighted surface of the moon. Due to mechanical difficulties, however, your ship was forced to land at a spot some 200 miles from the rendezvous point. During re-entry and landing, much of the equipment aboard was damaged and, since survival depends on reaching the mother ship, the most critical items available must be chosen for the 200 mile trip. Below are listed the 15 items left intact and undamaged after landing. Your task is to rank order them in terms of their im- portance in allowing your crew to reach the rendezvous point. Place the number 1 by the most important item, the number 2 by the second most important, and so on through number 15, the least important, in Column B. _— A B C D E Difference My NASA My Group's Difference B & C Scoring Scoring Scoring C & D Box of matches Food concentrate 50 feet of nylon rope Parachute silk Portable heating unit Two .45 calibre pistols One case dehydrated Pet milk Two 110 lb. tanks of oxygen Stellar map (of the moon's constella- tion) Life raft Magnetic compass Five gallons of water 170 A B C D E Difference My NASA My Group's Difference B & C Scoring Scoring Scoring C & D Signal flares First aid kit containing injec- tion needles Solar-powered FM receiver- transmitter Total of Total of Column A Column E 171 N A S A SCORING KEY Little or no use on moon Supply daily food required Useful in tying injured to- gether, help in climbing Shelter against sun's rays Useful only if party landed on dark side Self-propulsion devices could be made from them Food, mixed with water for drinking Fills respiration requirement One of principal means of find- ing directions CO bottles for self-propulsion across chasms, etc. Probably no magnetized poles: thus useless Replenishes loss by sweating, etc. Distress call when line of sight possible Oral pills or injection medi- cine valuable Distress signal transmitter, possible communication with mother ship 13 11 12 Box of matches Food concentrate 50 feet of nylon rope Parachute silk Portable heating unit Two .45 calibre pistols One case dehydrated Pet milk Two 100 1b. tanks of oxygen Stellar map (of moon's constellations) Life raft Magnetic compass 5 gallons of water Signal flares First aid kit contain- ing injection needles Solar-powered FM re- ceiver-transmitter APPENDIX K Appendix K COLLEGE TEACHER WORKSHOP M.E.A. CAMP WORKSHOP FEEDBACK Comments: 1 2 Have three tracks: AAAS, SCIS and non-committed. Invite only non-committed. Those who already had purchased AAAS or SCIS needed as much help as the others. Procedure may not have been clear--some felt that when they were to leave they would then be ready to teach. Perhaps institute should direct itself to those coming in at different levels: Awareness, need philos0phy, need in-service. Have comparable materials for each program. This time SCIS was 1-3, and AAAS was K-2. Team construction of scientists and educators together was good. What activities went over well? (McLeod) a - Those at teacher's grade level b - Sequence of activities at various grades c - (Lammel) took eight observation lessons through each grade (including space-time and how it coordinated) d - (Sweetser) showed sequence of SCIS and the inter- action of some related divisions and activities e - Avoid Showmanship-emphasis programs f - Include activities--involve participants to create 9 - Show how parts are connected by using the table of contents and pointing out interrelationships h - One thing that made W.S. go was that teams were well prepared. (dittoed) i - Outlines handed out were helpful j - Another strength of W.S. was that the teachers eval- uated one team each day the solicited feedback was used to change format to meet needs 172 :38 173 Showed film--got written reaction then showed film again and verbally analyzed the film and had group reactions and discussions One group used AAAS film and teachers told them it was contrary to what W.S. proposed to do Lighbulb experiment--good Generated good discussions on "behavioral objective and action words? (another group felt they didn't generate enthusiasm) AAAS classification--only so-so reaction. Button kit (SCIS) great enthusiasm (Another group--AAAS classification--just great) (One of best experiences) (Sandpaper classification--not so good) Snails experience--very good (better than whirley- birds)(another reaction--not so good) Whirley birds--good// fair/ not so good/ Sugar cubes - ? Freon--lost one person completely but others were very interested; helped with graphing One good thing was meeting (Ragy and Ron) people with whom we can continue to have contact Good luck with solutions (SCIS)(Berger gave to group) APPENDIX L Appendix L.-—Outlines of teams' activities at M.E.A. camp workshOp TEAM ONE SCHEDULE Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Introduction activity Goal setting Observation session (sugar cube) Break Overview of new sciences, ESS, SCIS, and AAAS Lunch SCIS Overview of SCIS Break Programs, AAAS & SCIS: Comparisons (poor group reaction) SCIS activity (CuClZ) Dinner ESS materials demonstration and history and derdopment AAAS lesson planning experience AAAS demonstration lesson Symmetry Measuring Break Examination of Materials AAAS and SCIS Lunch SCIS training session (Whirlybirds) SCIS training session (Buhons) Break Booklets and teacher materials SCIS Dinner Movie "Science in Education" SCIS training session (Freon) Movie SCIS "Interaction and Air" Break AAAS training session (Classifying) Lunch Wrap up and panel discussion Where do we go from here Evaluation 174 175 TEAM TWO SCHEDULE Monday Rooms l4-15 9:00-10:15 Introduction and Lab Activity 10:30-12:00 Why When and How 1:00-2:45 Lab. Activity and Film 3:00-4:00 Lab. Activity Tuesday Team IIA Room 14 9:00-9:30 Development of the Science-A process Approach program 9:30-10:30 Behavioral objectives and Action words lO:45-12:00 Sample Lessons and Hierarchy Chart 1:00-2:20 Lab. Activity Room 15 2:40-3:10 Development of the Science Curriculum Improve— ment Study Program 3:10-4:00 Lab. Activity Tuesday Team IIB Room 15 9:00-9:30 Development of the Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study Program 9:30-10:00 Film 10:15-12:00 Lab. Activities 1:00-2:20 Film and Lab. Activities Room 14 2:40-3:10 Development of the Science--A Process Approach Program 3:10-4:10 Behavioral Objectives and Action Words Wednesday Team IIA Room 15 9:00-10:30 Film and Lab. Activity 10:45-11:15 Film 11:15-12:00 Lab. Activity Wednesday Team IIB Room 14 9:00-10:15 Sample Lessons and Hierarchy Chart 10:30-12:00 Lab. Activity Teams IIA and IIB Rooms 14-15 1:00-1:30 Implementation of a Program and Materials 1:30-End Questions, Evaluation and Closing Remarks TEAM THREE SCHEDULE Monday, August 19 9:00 10:00 10:30 11.00 12:00 1:00 1:30 2:30 3:00 a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. noon p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Tuesday, August 20 9:00 10:30 11:00 noon p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. 176 Introduction and Orientation Film: Interaction Coffee Break Laboratory Activity Lunch Process skill involved in Lab Activity Laboratory Activity Coffee Break Film: Piaget's Developmental Theory Laboratory Activities Coffee Break Laboratory Activities Film: Science in the Classroom Lunch Overview of Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) Overview of Science--A Process Approach (AAAS) Coffee Break Division into AAAS and SCIS groups for more specific information on programs Wednesday, August 21 9:00 10:00 10:30 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 aomo 177 Film: Interaction Response to participant's concerns Coffee Break Film: Classroom Teaching of Science lesson Lunch Objectives of Elementary School Instruction Wrap-up TEAM FOUR SCHEDULE Monday 9:00 9:30 10:30-11:00 11:00 12:00-1:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 6:00-7:30 178 Small group orientation Group session Coffee Break Background and Philos0phy AAAS: Science a Process Approach SCIS Science Curriculum Improvement "Scientific Literary" Lunch SCIS Activity Adult concept to kits AAAS Activity Feedback Dinner Evening Open-—Individual Investigation, etc. Tuesday Film: Implementation processes: Inservice guide lines: Activity: Activity: "Science in the classroom" SCIS film discussion Discussion Discussion NASA Classification 7 discussion--systems and sub-systems Communicating and Classifying: Activity: Film: Activity: Consultation: Film: Wednesday Film: Activity: Activity: Demonstration: Activity: Independent activity and discussion multi-stage system AAAS Action Words and discussion "Experiment with Air" SCIS film Interaction and discussion--COpper Chloride Independent and small groups Conservation (SCIS)--Piaget theory Feedback Relativity (SCIS) Interaction Whirly Bird-System and Sub-System Ordering 0 ams Life cycles and Organisms SCIS e.g. daphnia model Lesson No. a--Level No. A AAAS 179 Question and answer session Summary remarks Evaluation Materials passed out SCIS chart AAAS booklet by Gagne AAAS outline TEAM FIVE SCHEDULE MONDAY, AUGUST 19 9:00 9:45 10:30 11:00 12:00 1:00 1:15 2:00 2:45 3:50 7:00 TUESDAY, AUGUST 20 9:00 10:45 12:00 1:00 3:50 7:00 aomo a.m. aomo a.m. noon p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. a.m. a.m. noon p.m. p.m. p.m. 180 Introduction To participants To conference Science and inquiry Lab Sciences and Inquiry Lab - continued Science and Children (Including Piaget Film) Lunch Introduction to AAAS Science--A Process Approach Processes of Science Lab AAAS Structure and Philosophy AAAS Process Lab--Space/Time VIBRATIONS AAAS Classroom Film Excerpts and Materials Kits (Optional) AAAS Process Lab - Classifying AAAS Process Lab - Student Level Activity on Inferring Lesson Structure and Evaluation Lunch SCIS Exploration, Invention and Dis- covery Labs-~Adult Level Concepts: Material Objects Lab on Classifying, Organisms Lab on Daphnia Break Overview of SCIS units: 16 mm. films on Material Objects and Interactions, slides on Organisms, Chronology: with Materials Kits VIBRATIONS SCIS Classroom Film Excerpts and Ex- ploration of Materials Kits (Optional) WEDNESDAY , 9:00 9:45 10:45 12:00 1:00 1:20 1:40 AUGUST 21 noon p.m. pom. pom. 181 SCIS Exploration, Invention, and Discovery Pupil Level Concepts: Interactions Lab Analysis of Classroom Activity utilizing 16 mm. film: Inter- actiOn Documentary Systems and Subsystems Lab--Adult Level Concepts Lunch Research on SCIS and AAAS After Awareness--What? FINAL VIBRATIONS TEAM SIX SCHEDULE Sunday 5:00-6:00 6:30 7:30 Monday 9:00 10:30 12:00 1:00 3:00 Tuesday 9:00 9:45 10:30 12:00 1:00 3:15 Wednesday 9:00 10:30 12:00 1:00 3:00 182 Registration Dinner Opportunity to meet other participants Who are the participants in your group? PhiIOSOphy of the new science pro- grams--Behavioral objectives Sequential Activity Oriented Pupil Involvement Questionnaire Approach Material available in "kit" form Inferring exercise Classifying exercise Lunch Film showing teaching-—Chris w/Air Discussion and review of film Look at kits and material--free time to- explore kits Film--Piaget: Conservation Discussion of film What is the SCIS program? Activities (experiments) from SCIS program--Freon II w/bags Lunch What is the AAAS program? AAAS activities--sugar cube More AAAS activities--Measurement, Equal arm balance, springs Look at kits Film--Piaget: Classification AAAS circuit boards Film--Science in the Classroom Lunch Advantages and disadvantages of these programs Questions and answers . . . Homeward bound TEAM SEVEN SCHEDULE Monday 9:00-10:15 10:15-10:45 10:45-12:00 1:00-2:15 2:15-2:45 2:45-4:00 Tuesday 9:00-9:45 9:45-10:45 10:45-11:30 11:30-12:00 12:00-1:00 1:00-1:45 1:45-2:15 2:15-2:45 2:45-3:45 3:45-4:00 Wednesday 9:00-10:15 10:15-10:45 10:45-11:45 11:45-12:00 12:00-1:00 1:00-1:30 1:30-2:00 2:00-3:00 183 Introduction of participants Goal setting Introduction to AAAS--Science A Process Approach Coffee break Observing session Behavioral Objectives Action Words Examination of Exercises Coffee break Classifying Session Film--Science in Classroom and back- ground of SCIS Coffee break Object Collections Interaction Task film--Interaction Documentary Lunch Pulley Systems Get into kits Coffee break Interaction--printed materials and copper chloride Evaluation Inference boards AAAS Coffee break Whirlybirds SCIS Description of Life Science Series SCIS Lunch Film--Experimenting with Air Discussion of common elements of two programs Questions of Implementation TEAM EIGHT SCHEDULE Monday 9:00 9:30 10:00 10:30 10:45 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 2:30 3:00 4:00 Evening Tuesday 9:00 10:45 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 2:45 3:00 5:00 Evening Wednesday 9:00 10:45 184 Small groups: gp concern [sic] What are they doing in science[sic] Gen. Session gps 3, 8, 9 - Grabber boxes [sic) Film--"Interaction" Discussion of film X "What Is Science?" Coffee Small groups--Sugar Cube AAAS (In- ference, senses)--feedback Lunch SCIS Copper Chloride Interaction (Invention) Introduce two programs: AAAS SCIS Coffee Snail SCIS, feedback EXIT Open-end/Leaders meet to rechart if necessary kit exploration films AAAS Observations (4-5) sequence, heirarchy Coffee AAAS Action Words/objectives Feedback Lunch SCIS--Interaction, Electrical Circuits Talk about SCIS, Film, Piaget "Conservation" Coffee SCIS--Resource person--Field trip, Bird Sanctuary Feedback dev. design for classifying EXIT Open end--see Monday AAAS--C1assifying and communicating Coffee 185 11:00 SCIS, Film "E&P in Classroom" Feedback 12:00 Lunch 1:00 AAAS, Film What does it all Planned by group mean? Reports of groups Where do we go from here? What can you use? How will it work in your class- room? Does it make sense? How to get consul- tant help? 186 TEAM NINE SCHEDULE Monday 9:00-9:30 9:30-10:30 10:20-11:00 12:00-1:00 1:00-2:00 2:00-2:30 2:30-3:00 3:00-4:00 Tuesday 9:00-10:30 10:30-11:00 11:00-12:00 12:00-1:00 1:00-2:30 2:30-3:00 3:00-4:00 Introduction identification of par- ticipants; Goal setting Combined Group Session "Birthday Box" Introduction to AAAS--Science A Process Approach Lunch Activity on Observing from AAAS-- The Sugar Cube AAAS film--Measurement Coffee break Discussion of Behavioral Objectives Activity on Classification and Mag- netism from AAAS Coffee break Overview of SCIS; film "Science in the Classroom" Lunch Material Effects Activity 6 "Grandma's Button Box" Activity 7 "Objects Grab Bag Game Activity 23 "Calico Clam Sheels" Interaction Chapter 12 "Making COpper Chloride Solution" Chapter 15 "Aluminum Foil and Cop- per Chloride Solution" Film "Interaction" Coffee Interaction Chapter 5 "Pulley System" Chapter 8 "Comparison of Pulley Systems" Wednesday 9:15-9:45 9:45-10:00 10:00-10:30 10:30-11:30 11:30-12:00 187 Organisms Part One "Natural Events in Aquaria" Part Three "Diversity of Organisms" Part Six "Daphnia" Part Seven "Food Web" Film logs "Daphnia" Completion of evaluation sheets Coffee and discussions Film "Material Objects--Exploration of Air" Life Cycles Summary of booklet Activity Part Six "Meal Worms" Systems and Subsystems Part Five "Water, Ice, Freon" Part Four "The Whirly Bird System Summary--and comparison of AAAS and SCIS 188 Appendix M Activity: Mid-winter Conference December 13-14, 1968 Identification Number DIRECTIONS: We are interested in your Opinions on the 4. following questions as they relate to the Mid-Winter Conference. What two things did you like most about this conference? Why? a— What two things did you like least about this conference? Why? a- b- If you were in charge of organizing a follow-up con- ference such as this one now concluding, what experiences would you delete, and, what experiences would you include that were not included? Delete Include Additional comments: MERRY CHRISTMAS 189 Ma-Mid-winter Conference Comments 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Liked Most Sharing of experiences (17) Problem discussion ses- sions (5)* Hearing about problems of Heath and Xerox (2) Dialogue with Marsten & Boone New insights into the conducting of work- shOps Facilities at Kellogg Center Dissemination ideas Realization that it is the philos0phy of the programs we are selling Clarification of status of programs Informality. of ideas. Exchange Opportunity to face up to real problems. Renew friendships and trade experiences. Prepared agenda. In- formative Ideas of workshOp for credit. Information on pre- service. 13. 15. 16. Liked Least AAAS represented, but SCIS was not (2) Cold Weather Sitting too much Rather had it held later in school year. More time. Rather start at 9:00 A.M. than 8:00 A.M. and take shorter breaks Attitude of frustration Crowded conditions of conference room Four cents a mile for travel Starting hour Talk with Xerox people Marston & Xerox problem AAAS and SCIS company rep- resentative not a sales person Insufficient time. Longer. Evening with Marston Unnecessary rehashing All comments not relevant 190 Liked Most Liked Least l6. Follow-up of summer activities 17. Re-build my confidence in programs 18. Talk with Boone 19. Suggestions given on Saturday morning most valuable *The number after each comment indicates the number of persons who made that comment, or similar remarks. No number indicates a single response. Delete Include l. Salesmen present 1. Short and sweet. All was fine. 2. Talk to Xerox peOple 2. Analysis of other programs; 3. Marston--we've heard such as ESS, COPES, etc., that before textbook programs. 4. Problem of distribu- 3. Invite teachers who have tion of materials started using the programs, and get their point of view. 4. More about what others have done and their problems. 5. Presentation of new material of programs. 6. Do it the same way. Very good. 7. Do it the same. 8. SCIS representative. 9. Mimeo of data on activities of others. 10. Make conference longer. 191 Additional Comments Good conference. (3)*' Surprised at large return of participants and the fact that the participants have looked at their own situations and positions. Would like copy of this study. Enjoyable, useful. Can't think of how it could be improved. Michigan State University staff have gone way beyond the call of duty. Well worth attending. I've completely changed by attitudes about elementary science as a result of the Workshop. Thank you. It was great! *The number after each comment indicates the number of per- sons who made that comment, or similar remarks. No number indicates a single reSponse. APPENDIX N 192 Appendix N GENERAL INFORMATION CHECKLIST DO NOT WRITE IN THESE SPACES Name 1 - 5 Age Date 6 - 7 Sex 8 Marital Status > 9 1. Education Major Degree Year Institution 10 ll 12 - l3 l4~- 15 16 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 23 24 - 25 26 - 27 2. Experience Number of Years Locations 28 Public School - Elementary 29 30 Public School - Jr. High 31 32 Public School - Sr. High 33 34 College 35 36 Industry 37 Present position 38 193 3. Your present position: a. b. Teaching responsibility for 1967-68 (excluding summer) _ % of time If college teacher, please name the course credit hours course If not college, which grade level did you teach? Research responsibility % of time Administrative responsibility % of time Other % of time Specify Professional organizational memberships AAAS AERA NARST ACS AAPT AGS AIBS Other (please specify) 39 40 42 44 46 48 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 41 43 45 47 49 194 What teacher education institutions are available in your area? how many? a. state supported schools 62 b. private institutions 63 Which school districts have indicated 'intereSt to you in improving their science instruction? (These are groups of teachers with whom you might work.) District 64 For each district you have indicated above please fill out Appendix A 195 Appendix N Collected Data Sex Number of Males 25 Number of Females 5 Marital Status Single 5 Married 23 Divorced l Widowed -- Education Degree Number 1 Mr Natural Science, Biology Social Science, Sociology English History, Government Foreign Language Mathematics Elementary Education, Science Education Engineering Other Kind of Degree B.A. BIS. M.A., M.Ed. Ph.D., Ed.D. M.S. BQBOAO 11 ‘14 196 Degree Number 2 M3123 ' Kind of Degree_ Natural Science, Biology _11_ B.A. _;:;_ Social Science, Sociology _::_ B.S. __2_ English __1_ M.A., M.Ed. _14_ History, Government _::__ Ph.D., Ed.D.__l_ Foreign Language _::_ M.S. _19_ Mathematics __1_ B.B.A. __2_ Elementary Education, Science Education __8_ Engineering _;:_ Other 8 Degree Number 3 Major' Kind of Degree Natural Science, Biology __§__ B.A. ';:;_ Social Science, Sociology _::_ B.S. __3_ English _::__ M.A., M.Ed. __1_ History, Government _::__ Ph.D., Ed.D._12_ Foreign Language _;::_ M.S. _;:;_ Mathematics _::__ B.B.A. _:;_ Elementary Education, Science Education __jL_ Engineering -- Other 4 Experience Public School, Elementary Number of Years 11 16 21 26 and up 0 2 5 10 15 20 25 197 Number of Participants 0 4 Public School, Junior High Number of Years 11 16 21 26 and up 0 2 5 10 15 20 25 Number of Participants 1 2 198 Public School, Senior High Number Oleears 11 16 21 26 College Number of Years and up 0 2 5 10 15 20 25' 11 16 21 26 Industry Number of Years and up 0 2 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 - 2 3 - 5 Number of Participants 1 2 Number of Participants 1 5 Number of Participants 3 199 Number of Years Number of Participants 6 - 10 2 ll - 15 -- l6 - 20 -- 21 - 25 -- 26 and up -- Present Position Number of Years Number of Participants 0 3 l - 2 3 3 - 5 -- 6 - 10 2 ll - 15 6 l6 - 20 -- 21 - 25 l 26 and up 3 Information about Present Position Per cent Teaching Time Number of Participants 0 - 25% 5 26 - 50% 4 51 - 75% 2 76 - 100% 14 200 Per cent of Time Research Responsibility 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% Per cent of Time Administrative Responsibility 0 - 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 76 - 100% Professional Organizations Organization American Association for the Ad- vancement of Science American Educational Research Association National Association for Research in Science Teaching American Chemical Society American Association of Physics Teachers American Geological Society American Institute of Biological Sciences Number of Participants 5 Number of Participants 6 5 Number of Participants 201 Teacher Education Institutions Available in Participants' Areas Number of State Supported Schools 29 Number of Private Institutions 20 Other answers varied and were not con- sidered appropriate for collection in this study report. APPENDIX 0 Appendix 0 Dates July 29 July 30 July 31 August 1 August 2 August 5 August 6 August 7 August 8 August 9 Schedule of College Teacher WOrkshop Activities Major Activities Introductions Tour of Science and Mathematics Teaching Center WOrkshop format--Dr. MOLeod Pretesting Group Process discussion--Dr. M. Miller Process Skills--Mr. Arbanas Objectives of Science Education and Role of Observation in Micro-Teaching--Dr. Berkheimer Role of Teacher, Psychological Basis of AAAS, and Demonstration Teaching--Mr. Arbanas Micro-teaching with children--participants Contacting and Working with Schools--Dr. Berk- heimer Workshop Plan--Dr. Berkheimer Introduction to SCIS--Dr. Berkheimer and Mrs. Kageyama Demonstration Teaching with Children--Mrs. Kag- eyama SCIS as Viewed by Teachers--Dr. Berkheimer and Mrs. Kageyama SCIS Involvement and Materials--Dr. Berkheimer and Mrs. Kageyama Demonstrations with children--Mrs. Kageyama SCIS--Mrs. Kageyama AAAS--Dr. McLeod Individual Activities with Materials Workshop Planning Observation of SCIS WOrkshop for Elementary Teachers--An Inquiry Laboratory Experiences with AAAS--Dr. S. Irwin Experiences with SCIS--Dr. C.-Berger Same Same 202 August August August August August August August August August August 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 203 Group Processes and Communication--Dr. M. Miller Work on Workshop Plans One-half of Participants Micro-teaching with Elementary Teachers from SCIS Workshop One-half of Participants Continue with Work- shop Plans MEA Camp Workshop Coordination--Dr. McLeod Plans for Workshop--Dr. Harley and Dr. Miller Teams set for Workshop One-half of Participants Micro-teaching with T3's while one-half Continue with Work-shop Plans (reverse of August 13) Workshop Planning Change-agent Strategies--Dr. E. Rogers MEA Camp Final Details--Dr. McLeod National Science Foundation Consultant--Dr. Bender Workshop Planning Workshop at MEA Camp--presented by participants Same Same Evaluation Feedback of MEA Group Workshop Posttesting Workshop Evaluation Discussion Planning of Follow-up Activities MIC R II'I‘I'I‘IIII’IIII‘IIILIIIIIIIIII'I'IISIIIIEIII‘ITI“