_ ."q’ 92‘) PM V WM; Ehzamfl’zg I ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SUITABILITY OF VARIOUS TYPES OF BIOLOGY LABORATORY DESIGNS FOR CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES By John T. Norman Jr. The purpose of this study was to investigate the instruc- tional suitability of various laboratory designs, as perceived by the secondary biology teachers currently teaching in these laboratories. To provide a framework for the investigation of this problem, the human engineering approach to design evaluation was used in the study. In this approach it is first necessary to describe the structure~and function of the system to be evaluated. This analysis is then generally followed by observations of how well various alternative designs accomplish the desired functions of the system. The problem in this study was thus studied in two parts. Part I dealt with a description of four high school biology laboratory systems. These systems were described in relation to the significant interacting elements of: the instructional process, the teacher and student participants, and the arrange- ment of the physical facilities. These four laboratory systems differed primarily in the design of their physical' John T. Norman Jr. facilities. Specifically, these four laboratory design types were: (1) split lecture—laboratory design, (2) perimeter tables design, (3) central—fixed tables design, and (A) central—movable tables design. A pre-survey instrument was constructed and sent to the Class B and Class C high schools in Michigan, to obtain the specific information needed for the above description of the four types of laboratory designs. Part II of the study consisted of an evaluation of these four types of laboratory designs as to their perceived suitability for different types of instruction, namely: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. The form of this evaluation was a teacher opinion survey. A survey instrument was developed and sent to a random sample of Michigan Class B and Class C high school teachers from each of the four design categories identified in the pre—survey. On this survey instrument the biology teachers rated the suitability of their laboratory design for the instructional methods of: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Of the 140 survey instruments mailed, 133 instruments were returned for a 95.0 per cent response. This survey was followed by field visitations to discover possible explanations for laboratory design adequacy and inadequacy. Internal consistency reliabilities were calculated for each of the survey item types and the resultant coefficients indicated a high degree of reliability for each of these John T. Norman Jr. categories. Optimum weights were determined for each of the items by the reciprocal averages method, so that the data would be more quantifiable. A repeated measures analysis of covariance procedure was applied to the ratings from the survey instrument, to determine if the four types of laboratory designs differed in their instructional suitability, as perceived by the high school biology teachers currently teaching in these laboratories. The covariate used here was "recency of laboratory construction," because it was found to have a fairly high correlation with the dependent variable of per— ceived instructional suitability. The repeated measures were the instructional methods item categories of: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Based on this analysis, the teachers from the four laboratory design groups differed significantly in their perception of their laboratory design's suitability for the three instruc- tional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction: furthermore, there was no significant interaction between the design groups and the repeated measures. Comparisons of the four design group means indicated that: (l) the mean scores of the split design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the perimeter, central-fixed, and central—movable design groups for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; (2) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were not significantly John T. Norman Jr. different from the mean scores of the central-fixed design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; (3) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were signifi- cantly greater than the mean Scores of the central-movable design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; and (A) the mean scores of the central—fixed design group were not significantly different from the mean scores of the central—movable design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Categorization of the teachers' recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designs indicated that the following categories were mentioned most frequently: (1) more functionally designed laboratory tables, ventilation system, individual student stations, and room darkening facilities; (2) more classroom space for individual and small group activities; (3) more electrical outlets, gas outlets, sinks, and faucets; and (A) more storage space. Findings from field visitations to typical laboratories from each of the four design groups indicated that: (l) the pre-survey laboratory design drawings were accurately done; (2) the directions and the items from both the pre- survey and instruments were clearly understood; (3) teachers from the split and perimeter design groups were more John T. Norman Jr. satisfied with their laboratory design's instructional adequacy than were those from the central—fixed and central— movable design groups; and (A) the physical design variables of room lighting, leg room beneath tables, and storage space Were frequently mentioned as having an affect on the instructional adequacy of the laboratory facility. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE SUITABILITY OF VARIOUS TYPES OF BIOLOGY LABORATORY DESIGNS FOR CERTAIN INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES By John TtflNorman Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1969 30/757 4/12.?~ 7‘9 Copyright by JOHN T. NORMAN JR. 1969 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Julian R. Brandou, whose inspiration resulted in the initiation of this study, and whose continued support of this endeavor took much time and effort. Likewise, gratitude is extended to the other members of the guidance committee, Dr. Robert C. Craig and Dr. Floyd G. Parker, for their encouragement and help. The sponsorship of this study by the ESEA Title III unit of the Michigan Department of Education was greatly appreciated.' I am also indebted to Dr. Andrew C. Porter for his counsel on the statistical procedures used in the study. And to my wife, a special note of thanks for her assistance and encouragement. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi LIST OF EXHIBITS. . . . . . . . . . '. . . vii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . 3 Objectives and Questions . . . . . 5 Need for the Study . . . . 7 Treatment of the Problem . . . . . . 1U Definitions of Terms . . . . . . . . l6 Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . 18 Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . 20 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . 22 Relationship of Spatial Design Factors to Differences in the Performances of Occupants . . . . 23 Relationship of Certain Non—design. Factors of the Classroom Environment to the Performance of the Occupants. . . 36 The Human Engineering Approach to the Planning of Functional Workplaces . . . 38 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . A3 III. DESIGN I: DESCRIPTION OF THE BIOLOGY LABORATORY SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . . ”6 Introduction . . . . . A6 Description of the Biology Laboratory Systems . . . . . . . . . 48 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 iii Chapter IV. DESIGN II: EVALUATION OF SELECTED BIOLOGY LABORATORY SYSTEMS. Evaluation Design Selection of the Sample Development of the Survey Instrument Collection of Data Analysis . . . Summary. . . . V. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Survey Findings Field Study Findings Summary. . . . VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary. . . Conclusions . . Implications for Educational Practice. Recommendations for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . APPENDICES. iv 106 108 116 Table 10. ll. 12. LIST OF TABLES Ratings of Secondary Laboratory Facilities Constructed between 1953 and 1958 . . . . Basic Biology Laboratory Designs of the Class B and Class C Michigan High Schools in 1969 o o o o o o o o I o o o o o o o o 0 Facilities Available to Michigan Class B and Class C High School Biology Students in 1969 o o o o o o c o o o o o o o The Four Types of Biology Laboratory Designs Selected for the Evaluation of Instruc- tional Suitability . . . . . . . . . . . Hoyt's Internal Consistency Reliabilities by Item Type in the Survey Instrument . . . . Pearson-Product Correlations between Each of the Possible Confounding Variables and Their Instructional Suitability Ratings Pearson-Product Correlations between Ratings on the "Frequency of Use" Scales and the "Suitability" Scales. . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Covariance Design . . . . . . . . Unadjusted Design Group Means and Standard Deviations of the Instructional Suitability Survey Scores . . . . . Analysis of Covariance Results for the Instructional Suitability Survey Scores Scheffe' Constrasts of Adjusted Design Group Means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations of Teachers for Improving the Instructional Adequacy of Their Biology Laboratory Designs . . . . . . . . . Page 25 6O 61 62 7A 77 78 79 88 88 9O 91 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Illustration of human engineering approach to design and elements used in a biology . . . AO laboratory system study . . . . . 2. The use of human engineering terminology . . . . . A7 in this study vi LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibits Page I. Photographs and Drawings of the Two Split Biology Laboratory Designs Visited in the Field Study . . . . . . . 93 II. Photographs and Drawings of the Two Perimeter Biology Laboratory Designs Visited in the Field Study. . . . . . . 9A III. Photographs and Drawings of the Two Central- Fixed Biology Laboratory Designs Visited in the Field Study . . . . . . . . 95 IV. Photographs and Drawings of the Two Central- Movable Biology Laboratory Designs Visited in the Field Study . . . . . . . . 96 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Pre-survey Cover Letters,_Instrument, and FOllOW-up Letter 0 o o o o o B. Survey Cover Letters, Instrument, and Follow-up Letter . . . . . . . . . C. Biology Laboratory Visitation Guide viii Page .1. . 117 . . 12A . . . . 132 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The effect that the physical environment of a building can have on its occupants was recognized by the late Sir Winston Churchill when he said, "We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us."l Churchill was reported to have made this statement to express his fear that proposed changes in the design of the House of Commons building might seriously alter future pat- terns of government.2 Similarly, there are many prom- inent educators today who feel that the physical envi- ronment of a school classroom can affect the nature of the instruction and learning that takes place within that classroom. Brandwein says that a reason for the lack of instruction in "inquiry" or "process" in science classrooms today is that "school buildings are, in large part, not built to facilitate the arts of investigation."3 1"Schools of Tomorrow," Time, LXXVI, No. 11 (September 12, 1960), 7A. 2Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension, (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1966), p. 100. 3Paul F. Brandwein, "Observations on Teaching: Overload and 'The Methods of Intelligence,'" The Science Teacher, XXXVI (February, 1969), 38-39. Addison Lee also emphasizes the importance of good facilities to the instructional process when he says. Science teaching, like research, is important to the advancement of science. Teaching, like research requires satisfactory equipment and facil- A ities-—it cannot be successful without them, The foreword of a National Science Teachers Association report on science facilities states, The continuing attention given to science teaching facilities by the National Science Teachers Asso- ciation is evidence of the conviction that science facilities are far more than facilitating or ena— bling implements in the science program of the school. Therefore, these educators acknowledge that the physical environment of the classroom can affect the instructional process. To study scientifically classroom environmental relationships, it is helpful to think of the classroom as a dynamic "system" involving humans, the physical environment, and the instructional process.6 The attempt to relate aspects of the physical environment of the classroom to other important aspects of this system “Addison E. Lee, "In My Opinion," The American Biology Teacher, XXV, No. 5 (May, 1963), 32A, citing from BSCS High School Biology: quipment and Techniques for the Biology Teaching Laboratory. 5National Science Teachers Association, Science Facilities for Our Schools K-12, (Washington: NSTA, 1963), p- 1- 6SER 3: Environmental Analysis, School Environ- ments Research Project, Architectural Research Labora- tory, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, July, 1965), p. 1/2. contributes to the development of an environmental science of the classroom. John Dewey says, Facts which are . . . interrelated form a system, a science. The practitioner who knows a system . . is evidently in possession of a powerful instrument for observing and interpreting what goes on before him. This intellectual tool affects his attitudes and modes of response in what he does. In this study, the environmental variable, the class- room, is examined to determine its perceived effect on the instructional process. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to investigate the instructional suitability of various laboratory designs as perceived by secondary biology teachers. To provide a framework for the investigation of this problem, the human engineering approach to design and design evaluation is utilized. The use of the human engineering approach to facility design problems is fairly novel in education, but it has been used successfully in other fields for the design of such things as factory workspaces, aircraft cockpits, automobile interiors, and space vehicles.8 ~Human engineering is a scientific approach to the problems of designing workspaces 7 ~John Dewey, Sources of a Science of Education, (New York: Liveright Publishing Corp., 1929), p. 20. 8Alphonse Chapanis, Man—machine Engineering, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1965). p. 10. which people are expected to use so that the users will accomplish their tasks more ably and efficiently.9 Wood- son and Conover imply that the application of the human engineering approach to school facility design problems could produce a more functional environment10 when they say, Frequently, human engineering is considered to be something which is applied to a very limited list of design problems . . . Unfortunately, we have tended (particularly in the United States) to ignore some of the more common everyday problems-~- in terms of not applying good human engineering principles. For example, very little has been done in the design of . . . schools.ll The problem in this study is examined in two parts. Part I deals with a description of how the human engi- neering approach might be applied to the design of func- tional biology laboratory facilities. Using this approach, one can describe the significant interacting ele- ments in the system called the biology laboratory; these elements can be grouped under the categories of human operators, physical environment, and the instructional process. Part II of the study consists of an investiga- tion of the instructional suitability of selected types of laboratory designs as perceived by secondary biology teachers who are currently teaching in these rooms. The 9Wesley E. Woodson and Donald W. Conover, Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers, Second Edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 196A), p. 1-1. 10 Ibid., p. 1-3. lllbid. laboratory designs are examined in terms of the spatial organization of their major fixed and movable facilities. With regard to the major elements of a laboratory system, this study deals with the spatial factor of the physical environment (independent variable), in relation to its perceived effect on the instructional process (dependent variable). The reason for selecting the spatial factor out of all of the other possible physical environmental factors is that it seems the most important factor related to the success of the instructional process in secondary biology laboratories. According to the National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, the importance of this spatial factor in schools should be recognized "because the spatial factor can make it possible to either carry on the desired educational program efficiently or virtually preclude certain desired developments . . ."12 The dependent variable of perceived instructional suit- ability was chosen here because it is one of the most important indicators of the success of the entire biology laboratory system. Objectives and Questions Part I.--To describe the human engineering approach to design, and how it might be applied to the planning of functional secondary biology laboratories. 12National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, NCSC Guide for Planning School Plants (East Lansing: NCSC, 196A), p. 92. Questions: I. What does the human engineering approach to the design of workspace yield? What are the significant interacting elements that describe the system called the secondary biology laboratory? Is there sufficient data available at this time to predict the instructional suitability of various biology laboratory designs? Part II.--To evaluate selected types of secondary biology laboratory designs as to their perceived suit- ability for different types of instruction, namely: large group instruction, small group instruction, and independent study. Questions: I. Is the teacher's perception of the suitability of his laboratory for large group instruction, for small group instruction, and for independent study, affected by his laboratory's design type? Is the teacher's perception of the suitability of his laboratory for large group instruction, for small group instruction, and for independent study, affected by the possible confounding variables of: I a. recency of laboratory construction? b. type of curriculum materials used? 0. average class size? d. amount of academic biology coursework com- pleted by the teacher? e. number of years of biology teaching exper- ience? 3. What recommendations do these secondary biology teachers have for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designs? Need for the Study The need for research on the effect of biology room designs on instruction results from the apparent importance of the physical environment to the instructional process, and from the general lack of knowledge concerning such environmental relationships. The Physical Environment and the Instructional Process Though it is generally held that teacher behavior 13 can greatly influence student learning, what a teacher will aspire to do is considered to be dependent upon what he perceives to be possible.1u And the physical l3Archie L. Lacey, Guide to Science Teaching in Secondary Schools, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Pub- lishing Co., Inc., 1966), p. 73; D. A. Prescott, The Child in the Educative Process, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1957), pp. 6-7. 1“B. Othanel Smith, "Conditions of Learning," Designing Education for the Future, No. 2: Implications for Education of Prospective Changes in Society,TNew York: Citation Press, 1967), p.[68. environment of the classroom is thought to influence teacher perception of the instructional practices that are possible.15 According to B. Othanel Smith, learning in the class- room is largely a result of teacher behavior in initiating and guiding student activities, in reinforcing student responses, and in accentuating student involvement in the learning process.16 Gage says, furthermore, that "changes in how learners go about their business of learning occurs in response to the behavior of their teachers or others 17 in the educational establishment." Thus, these educa— tors feel that student learning can be greatly affected by teacher behavior. There are, also, several educators who feel that teacher behavior is influenced by the physical environ- ment of the classroom. For example, Hurd says, Outstanding facilities always denote a good learning environment. The arrangement of a room and its equipment should make possible the teaching techniques essential tg the achievement of the specified objectives.l 15National Science Teachers Association, Science Facilities for Our Schools K—12, op, cit. l6Smith, op. cit., p. 73. 17N. L. Gage, "Theories of Teaching," Theories of Learning and Instruction, Sixty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: NSSE, 196A), p. 271. 18Paul DeH. Hurd, "How to Achieve Outstanding High School Science Facilities," American School and University, XXVII (1956), 317. Likewise, Lehmann states that adequate physical facili- ties that are managed intelligently can multiply teaching- 19 learning possibilities. He says, At the very least, it is reasonable to expect that the classroom . . . can be designed to keep out of the way of the teaching-learning nexus. To ask a little more, we should expect the space to be ample, responsive to change, or even to the whimsical demands of teacher talent. . . . It could possibly be the catalyst for an improved total experience in learning. Alfred Novak says, furthermore, that the degree to which laboratory experiences in biology are "structured" depends on the type of facilities available.21 Hence, if teacher behavior does influence learning, and if the physical environment of the classroom does influence teacher behavior, then it would be important for educators to have knowledge about such environmental relationships. Need for Knowledge about Environmental Relationships It is estimated that in the next ten years the American people will spend over forty billion dollars 190. F. Lehmann, "Analyzing and Managing the Physical Setting of the Classroom Group," The Dynamics of Instruc- tional Groups, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II (Chicago: NSSE, 1960), p. 25A. 20 Ibid., p. 267. 21Alfred Novak, "Scientific Inquiry in the Laboratory," The American Biology Teacher, XXV, No. 5 (May, 1963), 3A3. 10 building educational facilities, and that a large portion of this will go for science teaching facilities.22 How- ever, there is no generally accepted theory in education which can describe or predict which science facility would be best for a particular type of instruction.23 In the fifty—ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Hurd and Johnson declare that one of the major problems in science education today is, "How can the adequacy of facilities for instruction in science be increased?" Furthermore, they state that appro— priate facilities are essential to any level of credit— able teaching performance.2u Martin stresses the partic— ular need for adequate science teaching facilities for individualized instruction. He says that many of our high school facilities today are stereotyped because they were copied originally from those provided in German uni- versities that were designed primarily for lectures, 22Robert B. Sund and Leslie W. Trowbridge, Teaching Science byilnquiry in the Secondary School, (Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967), p. 225. 23O. M. Stephan, "The Design of Biological Labora- tories for Secondary Schools," The Design of Biological Laboratories, H. V. Wyatt, Editor (London: F. J. Milner & Sons Limited, n.d.), p. 18. 2“Paul DeH. Hurd and Philip G. Johnson, "Problems and Issues in Science Education," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty—ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: NSSE, 1960), p. 336. ll demonstrations, and prescribed experiments.25 In dis- cussing four serious gaps that have appeared in the sci- ence education spectrum in recent years, Stotler says that one of these gaps is in the physical facilities for teaching science. He says that the filling of this gap involves more than the provision of funds. What is needed, he says, "is a clear understanding of the activities in which modern~day science students should engage and the type of facilities and equipment which will encourage the many aspects of problem solving.26 Likewise, Eugene Lee says that of the two major headaches facing public education today, one of these is the provision of adequate facilities and equipment for optimum learning conditions. He mentions there is a particular need for adequate lab- oratory facilities in the secondary school.27 Thus, there appears to be an acknowledged need for more functional science facilities. The need for more research on the instructional adequacy of school facilities is further emphasized by 25W. Edgar Martin, "Facilities, Equipment, and In- structional Materials for the Science Program," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1 (Chicago: NSSE, 1960), pp. 231-232. 26Donald Stotler, "The Supervision of the Science Program," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Year— book of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: NSSE, 1960), p. 218. 27Eugene C. Lee, New Developments in Science Teaching, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1967), pp- A7-A8. l2 Lehmann. He says that in the last decade architects and educators have gained much information on the relation- ship between school facilities and discomfort, accident and disease. However, what is not clear, he says, is the relationship between the building facilities and the teaching-learning process. In mentioning the paucity of research in this area, he stresses that the type of infor- mation really needed is that which would show the extent single physical facility variables bear upon the total matrix of the class or a group.28 The lack of scienti- fic research on environmental relationships is also emphasized by Handler who says that a large body of folk- lore has come into existence, as well as the "art of pre— tentious know-how" in designing school facilities. He says that "scientifically grounded knowledge about the effects buildings should have on their inhabitants seems to be minimal." Furthermore, he emphasizes the need for an accelerated program of research on environmental rela- tionships so that we can have an "environmental science sufficiently broad to serve as a basis for environmental design."29 ‘The need for scientific research on the effect 28Lehmann, 92, cit., p. 253. 298ER 2: Environmental Evaluations, School Environ- ments Research Project, Architectural Research Laboratory, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, May, 1965), p. 11, citing A. Benjamin Handler, from a paper presented at the Conference of the Building Research Institute, 1960. 13 of the spatial environment of a school facility on man is also mentioned by Himes. He feels that two-dimensional graphics or three—dimensional models describing the phys— ical characteristics of a particular space are not an adequate description. Such graphics or models, he says, do not adequately account for the psychological and cul- tural effects of these spaces on people.30 Edward T. Hall also emphasizes the importance of this non-physical dimension of space which he calls "the hidden dimension." He says that it consists of social and personal space and man's perception of it.31 Thus, Himes and Hall feel that the spatial environment of a classroom facility has to be experienced in order to be evaluated. They feel that research on the spatial factor of the physical environment can yield experimental data that could not be predicted from a consideration of the physical aspects of the space alone. The School Environments Research project at the University of Michigan has analyzed almost six hundred reference documents dealing with environmental’ 32 relationships. The result of this analysis, according 30Harold W. Himes, "Space as a Component of Environ— ment," SER 2: Environmental Evaluations, School Environ- ments Research Project, Architectural Research Laboratory, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, May, 1965), pp. 58-59. 3_1Hall, QR. cit., pp. 1-178. 32SER 1: Environmental Abstracts, School Environments Research Project, Architectural Research Laboratory, Uni— versity of Michigan (Ann Arbor: “The University of Michi- gan, February, 1965), pp. 1—765. 1A to their recent report, demonstrates that our current knowledge of environmental relationships is "woefully inadequate."33 Hence, there is a need for research on the instruc- tional suitability of various types of biology room designs. This need is manifested from the importance given to the effect that the physical environment can have on the instructional process, as well as from the current lack of knowledge in education concerning environmental relationships. Treatment of the Problem The study was designed to investigate the instruc- tional suitability of various laboratory designs, as per- ceived by secondary biology teachers. Initially, a description of the important inter— acting elements of the secondary biology laboratory sys- tem was obtained. To aid in the description of the phys- ical.facilities of this system, a pre-survey instrument was sent to various biology high school teachers in Michigan. The drawings of laboratory designs that were returned from this pre—survey instrument were then used to categorize laboratory design types. Four laboratory design categories were then selected for the subsequent evaluation of their instructional suitability. 33SER 2: Environmental Evaluations, 22° cit., p. 10. To evaluate the instructional suitability of these laboratory designs, a survey instrument was constructed, pretested, revised, and mailed to a random sample of biology teachers from each of the four laboratory design categories. On this survey instrument, the biology teach- ers were asked to rate the suitability of their biolOgy laboratory design for each of thirty instructional prac- tices. Although not noted on the questionnaire, ten of these instructional practices were indicators of large group instruction, ten were indicators of small group instruction, and ten were indicators of independent study. Space was also provided for these teachers to describe how their biology laboratory designs could be improved for instructional purposes. In addition, descriptive information was collected on variables that might have been confounded with the teacher perception of the instructional suitability of their laboratory design. Hypotheses were examined regarding: (l) differences in the perceived instructional suitability of the four laboratory designs, and (2) the possible overall interaction between the repeated measures of instructional suitability and the different laboratory design types. An analysis of covariance model was used for the analysis of the instruc- tional suitability ratings. A field visitation was conducted with two biology teachers from each of the four laboratory design categories 16 included in the survey. From these interviews, infor- mation was obtained on the validity of the pre-survey instrument and the survey instrument, as well as infor- mation on other variables that might be important deter- minants of the instructional suitability of the laboratory. Definitions of Terms The following are definitions of terms used in this dissertation. Secondary schools refers to those Class B and Class C high schools in Michigan as classified by the Michigan High School Athletic Association.3l4 Laboratory designs refers to the physical environ- ment of the room where biology laboratory is taught, in terms of the spatial organization of the major fixed and movable facilities.35 Large group instruction refers here to a category of instructional practice, where at least an entire class of approximately twenty-five to thirty-two students are engaged in the same teacher—dominated activities and presentations.36 3“Michigan High School Athletic Association Bulletin, November Supplement, Directory Issue 1967-68 School Year, XLIV, No. A-s (November, 1967), pp. 232-23A, 236. 35 36J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynham, Focus on Changg: Guide to Better Schools,(Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1961), p. 30. National Council on Schoolhouse Construction, pp: 0 t. 17 Small group instuction refers here to a category of instructional practice where two to fifteen students are actively engaged in small group discussions or activities, either with or without the teacher being . present in the goup.37 I Independent study refers here to a category of instuctional practice, where individual students are engaged in different projects and activities on their own, with minimum of outside interference by other students.38 Pre-survey instrument refers to the first ques— tionnaire sent to all of the Class B and Class C high schools in Michigan. It called for the biology teachers to draw and label their biology laboratory design on graph paper, as well as to provide other descriptive information pertaining to their laboratory facility. Surveyginstrument refers to the second ques- tionnaire that was sent to a random sample of teachers chosen from the four types of biology laboratory designs categories that were selected. In this instrument the lteachers were asked to rate the suitability of their laboratory design for thirty listed instructional practices. Other deScriptive information collected 37Trump and Baynham, pp. cit., p. 2A-25. 38Trump and Baynham, pp. cit., pp. 26—29. 18 in this questionnaire included recency of labora— tory construction, type of curriculum materials predominately being used, average class size, amount of teachers' academic biology coursework, years of teaching experience in biology, frequency of use of the various inStructional practices, and recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designs. Field study refers to the visitations that were made to two biology laboratories from each of the four design categories that participated in the survey. Human engineering refers to an approach to design problems that consists of two basic processes: systems analysis and system evaluation. The system analysis gives a picture of the structure and functions of the system. Whereas, the system evaluation provides a measure of how well alternative systems serve an intended purpose. Assumptions and Limitations It was assumed in this study that the biology teachers could objectively evaluate the instructional suitability of their laboratory design. The limitation of such an assumption might be that these teachers were not capable of making such an objective evaluation. Furthermore, it was assumed that the teacher's drawing of his laboratory design was an accurate representation 19 of the spatial organization of his room. It was assumed, also, that these laboratory designs could be categorized fairly accurately from these drawings. The facttfiun;the biology teachers were not ran- domly assigned to the various laboratory designs was a major limitation of the study. Because of this limit- ation, differences observed in the perceptions of teachers from different types of laboratories could have been attributed to a multitude of other variables besides that of the design itself. The room design investigated here was limited to that of a single room where biology laboratory was being taught. Perhaps the evaluation of the design of an entire complex of science rooms would have produced a different evaluation. This investigation was further limited by the variety of biology laboratory design types that were available. The four types of laboratory design cate- gories that were chosen for this evaluation were not as widely different from each otherznsmight be desired. Another possible limitation of this study could be in the validity of the measures used in the survey instrument as indicators of the instructional practices of large group instruction, small group instruction, and independent study. 20 This investigation was limited to the perceptions of biology teachers from the Class B and Class C high schools in Michigan. Organization of the Thesis Presented in Chapter I was the statement of prob- lem, the need for the study, an overview of the treatment of the problem, and the assumptions and limitations of the study. 8 Included in Chapter II is a review of related research studies, as well as a description of the human engineering approach to design. In Chapters III and IV the overall research design of this investigation is described. Included in Chapter III is a description of the secondary biology laboratory systems. This description will include findings from the pre-survey instrument concerning the types of biology facility existing in Michigan. Included in Chapter IV are the procedures used to evaluate the instructional suitablility of various laboratory designs. This includes the survey design, the selection of the sample, the development of the survey instrument, the collection of the data, and the analysis. In Chapter V, the findings from the survey and the field study are presented. 21 Finally, Chapter VI contains a summary of the entire thesis, the conclusions, the implications for educational practice, and the recommendations for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This review consists of three sections. In the first section, research studies are examined that have dealt with the relationship of the spatial design fac- tors in school facilities and differences in the per- formances of the occupants of these facilities. This section of the review bears most directly on the prob- lem of this study, the investigation of the relationship of different biology classroom designs to the perceived instructional suitability of these different rooms. In the second section, research that is less directly related to this study is reviewed. This section consists of studies of the relationship of certain non-design factors of the school environment to differences in the performance of the occupants of these facilities. The purpose of this latter review was to identify those non— design factors which have been shown to be significantly related to teacher and student behavior in the classroom. The third section consists of a description of the human engineering approach to workplace design, and the use of this approach in the investigation. 22 23 ' Relationship of Spatial Design Factors to Differences in the Performances of Occupants The available literature often deals with spatial design environmental factors of the entire school as well as of the individual classroom. Although of pri— mary interest in this study were the classroom spatial design factors, the evidence presented from studies of entire school buildings also relates to this problem. Thus, this section has been divided into two parts, the first part which deals with studies of classroom design factors and the second section which deals with studies of entire school building design factors. Spatial Design Factors of the Classroom The National Science Teachers' Association (NSTA) undertook a nation—wide survey of the effectiveness of secondary school science facilities constructed between the years of 1953 and 1958.1 In this survey science teachers were asked to rate certain facilities within their rooms on the following scale: 1 = superior, 2 = good, 3 = fair, A = poor, and m = missing. Most of the items dealt with isolated pieces of equipment or furni- ture, rather than with the room design as a totality. 1Theodore W. Munch, "Secondary School Science Facilities: Recent Construction—-How Effective?" The Science Teacher, XXV (November, 1958), 398-A00. A16, A183A19. 2A However, there were some items that pertained to specific areas of the science room or to characteristics of the room as a totality, and these items are listed in Table l. The majority of the items here received either "superior" or "good" ratings. Those teachers who rated a facility as "poor" were asked to state briefly what was wrong. Some of the comments included: a desire for more area in which students could work on projects and store the same for extended periods of time; the preparation area was reported as having inadequate utilities, ventilation, space, and shelving; some felt that the laboratory space could have been better utilized through better desk arrangement; and many approved highly of perimeter work benches or permanent laboratory tables at one end of the room with movable furniture in the center of the room.2 Although it was reported that the majority of teachers who responded to this NSTA survey were teaching in multipurpose science rooms,3 the specific design of these rooms was not ascertained. Therefore, it was virtually impossible to detect from this data which facility designs or equipment designs received the higher ratings. Furthermore, one might question the basis used by the teachers for evaluating their facilities, since 21bid., p. A16. 31bid., pp. 399-u00. TABLE l.--Ratings of secondary laboratory facilities constructed between 1953 and 1958. Item Rating % % % % % Superior Good Fair Poor Missing 1. Space utilization A3 38 ll 6 2 2. Dispensing area for laboratory materials 26 30 23 8 l3 3. Preparation area 38 32 16 ’6 8 A. Amount of individual work space 35 36 2O 6 3 5. Area for "permanent" project "set-ups" 8 21 22 13 36 6. Accessibility to - student work areas AA 38 12 A 2 Source: Theodore W. Munch, "Secondary School Science Facilities: Recent Construction-—How Effective?" The Science Teacher, XXV (November, 1958), A16. an adequate basis was not provided in the questionnaire for this purpose. It might be hypothesized that some teachers may have rated their facilities superior because they were comfortable, or because they seemed durable. Despite these limitations, this study did provide some useful information of a broad range of facility and equipment needs of new schools. The data suggested thatteachers felt that cer- tain room arrangements were more suitable than others for instructional purposes. This was indicated by the fact that certain types of facilities received high ratings while 26 others received low ratings. Likewise, it was implied by some of the comments of teachers who felt that their laboratory space could be better utilized through bet- ter desk arrangement. It also was suggested by the many comments expressing high approval of perimeter or split classroom—laboratory room designs. Kyzar (1961)“ compared various aspects of instruc- .tional programs and problems in elementary schools having the "Open-plan" classrooms with those having "conventional" four-walled classrooms. More specifi— cally, the aspects compared here were: (1) curriculum organization, (2) teaching techniques, (3) social organ- ization, (A) psychological climate, (5) order—maintaining techniques, and (6) provisions for individual differences. Statistically significant differences were found favoring 5 or the total list of the "open-plan" design classrooms. ten aspects of the instructional program investigated, the categories most directly related to the definition of instruction to be used in this study were: (2) teaching techniques,6 (6) provisions for individual differences,7 “Barney Lewis Kyzar, "A Comparison of Instructional Practices in Classrooms of Different Design" (unpublished Ed.D dissertation, The University of Texas, 1961), pp. 3-A. 5Ibid., p. 157. Ch Ibid.,/pp. 170-172. 71bid., pp. 186—19A. 27 and (7) activities utilized.8 In only one of these latter three categories, (6) provisions for individual differences, were statistically significant differences found favoring the "open-plan" design classrooms. The latter category A was the closest to the definition of instruction used in the present study. Kyzar's data has lent some support to speculation that different biology laboratory designs also might differ in their suitability for various types of instruction. Caution should be taken in generalizing these results, since the data came from a non—random selection of only thirty-six classrooms from just six school systems.9 Furthermore, each classroom was observed only three times for one and one-half hours within the period of just three days.10 For such a small sample, unusual events within just one of these six school systems could have biased the results of over sixteen per cent of the class- room data collected. No attempt was made in the study to, relate the spatial organization of the major fixed and movable facilities, other than walls, to the type of instruction observed. The physical environment examined in Kyzar's study was the number of walls in elementary class- rooms, whereas the physical environment examined in the 8Ibid., pp. 196-199. 28 present study was the spatial organization of the major fixed and movable furniture in secondary biology rooms. 'Thus, Kyzar's study has provided valuable data concerning the relationship of one aspect of the classroom physical environment to instructional practice. Several researchers have recently investigated the relationship of gross classroom area to instruction facilitated in certain rooms. Stottlemyer (1965)11 measured the academic achievement of groups of secondary students in rooms from 600 square feet to 950 square feet. The findings from this experiment support the hypothesis that no significant differences in achieve- ment can be attributed to classroom size. Vanzwolll2 reported twenty-three pilot studies and three more sophisticated experimental studies that recently have inquired into the effect of room size variations upon learning activity. From these studies he concludes that, "there is no indication that instruction has been facili- tated by increased area per pupil." Several reasons might be hypothesized for the lack of significant differences in the achievement of groups 11Richard G. Stottlemyer, "Secondary School Class- room Space Requirements - A Study to Examine Relationships Between Gross Room Area Per Pupil and Academic Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966), 90—A. 12James A. Vanzwoll, "Classroom Size Standards Shrinking," American School Board Journal, CLIII (September, 1966): pp. 57-58- 29 of students from different room sizes. First, the criterion of achievement, as measured by traditional achievement tests, was too narrowly defined. Other important outcomes of instruction that might have been evaluated include such things as; changes in student attitudes, preferences, critical judgments, and creativity. Another possible reason for the lack of significant differences related to classroom size might be attributable to a "masking effect"13 of more important variables. If classroom size is not a very important variable in student and teacher behavior, then it might easily be masked by uncontrolled variables that have a greater influence on behavior. Thus, it is important that in investigating environmental relation- ships one choose variables of the physical environment that appear to have the most important influence on stu- dent and teacher behavior. Maunier (l967)lu investigated the relationship of another physical facility factor of the classroom to 'student academic achievement. Specifically, this investi- gation sought to ascertain whether a significant difference existed between the academic achievement of sixth grade 13Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, Class Size, Memo to the Faculty, No. 17 (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, May, 1966), p. 58. 1“Russell LeRoy Maunier, "The Relationship of Facilities to Student Academic Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1968), 2950 A. children taught in relocatable facilities and those taught in permanent facilities. The results of the anlysis of data revealed no significant differences between these two groups. Limitations of this study included the fact that the number of classrooms examined here was small, and that all of these classrooms came from one school district. A recent experimental study by Rose (1969)15 sought to determine the effect that variations in the qualitative characteristics of space had on the behavior of college students that were performing an educational activity in the space. The educational activity was the performance of a series of educational tasks by means of small group discussion. The dependent variable was the behavior of the students which consisted of: (l) task achievement, (2) quality and quantity of interaction, and (3) attitude expression towards the activity and towards the activity subject matter. The independent variable here was the qualitative characteristics of the space which included considerations of position, form, color, contrast, and textual attributes of the wall, floor,~ and ceiling of the space.16 From a pre—test the students' 15Stuart W. Rose, "The Effect on Behavior of the Qualitative Attributes of the Elements that Define an Educational Activity Space" (unpublished Ph.D. dissert- ation, Michigan State University, 1969), p. 1. 16Ibid. 31 attitudes toward these qualitative characteristics as well as toward the activity was determined.17 Two spaces were then designed and constructed for the treatment; one of these spaces was called "consonant 1 space,‘ and the other was called "dissonant space." These two types of space differed physically in their size, shape, contrast, textures, and colors.18 Both spaces, however, had a table and chairs in similar positions.19 From the pre—test information it was hypothesized that groups of students in these spaces would differ in task achievement, interaction quantity and quality, and attitudes toward the activity.20 The analysis of the data showed that none of the hypotheses achieved statistical significance.21 However, with certain reservations, Rose felt that the hypotheSes were supported by the direction of the differences of the data from the two groups.22 Lack of statistically significant results in Rose's study might well be attributable to the fact that only five groups were tested in each space. Furthermore, the dramatic color differences in the two types of spaces might have caused a "Hawthorne effect" in one of the spaces that could have masked any differences that might l7lbid., p. 27. 18Ibid., p. A1. 191219-, pp. 86-87. 2OIbid.. pp. 57-59. 21 22 Ibid., p. A7. . Ibid., pp. A7-59. 32 have been caused by the space itself. The shapes of the table and chairs and their position in the space were kept fairly constant in both spaces. Oddly enough, this design factor that was held fairly constant in Rose's study was the primary design factor that was evaluated in the biology facility study. Nevertheless, Rose's study demonstrated an innovative approach to the research of environmental relationships. It has also contributed data that will help further the development of a scienti- fic theory of classroom environmental design. Spatial Design Factors of Entire School Buildings There have been several researchers that have investigated the relationship of the entire school building design to the instructional practices facili- tated by this building design. Monacel (1963)23 studied the effects of going from an old elementary school building to a new, well-planned school building. The effects looked for were changes in the curriculum experiences and the related attitudes and aspirations of teachers, pupils, and parents. The length 23Louis David Monacel, "The Effects of Planned Educational Facilities upon Curriculum Experiences and Related Attitudes and ASpirations of Teachers, Pupils, and Parents in Selected Urban Elementary Schools" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963). p. 56. 33 of time that these parties were exposed to the new school facility was seven months, from June 1962 to October 1962.2“ Realistically, the exposure for students was closer to only two months, since school start in September. The findings from thisennuhrwere compared with the findings from a concurrent similar study.25 Data from both studies showed almost no change on the part of teaChers and~ students in curriculum experiences and related attitudes and aspirations.26 The specific nature of the various room designs of both the old and new school buildings were not disclosed. The fact that only data from two schools were collected, greatly decreases the general- izability of the results. However, the most important limitation of this study appeared to be the insufficient exposure time to the new facility for behavior changes to take place. Even if changes hadoccurred because of the lack of controls one would not be able to ascertain whether these were the results of the planning, of the building design,or of world events in general. Price (196527studied the acceptance of variable 2”Ibid., pp. 88-89. 251616., p. 63. 26Ibid., pp. 156-171. 27John William Price, "An Investigation of Relation- ships between School Plant Design and Flexibility of Student Grouping in Secondary Schools of Suburban New York" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1965), PD' 39- 1. 3A grouping plans for teaching and the curriculum of old and new secondary school buildings. Furthermore, the physical needs inherent in these various school programs> were examined, and facility modifications were recommended. The findings showed no significant difference between the older and newer schools in the acceptance of the teaching methods examined. It was interesting to note that 75 per cent of the school respondents reported that they used large group instruction, 52 per cent used small group instruction, and 35 per cent used individual— ized instruction.28 However, of those schools commenting on housing requirements in another section of the question- naire, 65 per cent mentioned the need for "Individual Study Areas," 65 per cent mentioned the need for "Additional Large Group Areas," and 59 per cent included the need for "Additional Small Group Areas."29 Price concluded that three types of spaces were considered important to success of fluctuating class groupings in many of the schools visited. These were (1) space for large numbers of students, (2) space for small groups, and (3) spaces for individual study areas.30 In this study the type of facility design 28Ib 35 was not determined. The only factor considered here was the age of the facility and its relationship to flexibility of student grouping. Mace (1967)31 examined the differences in adapt— ing secondary buildings to large— and small- 'group instruction with respect to the type of building design and layout plan. The findings showed that no specific design or layout plan was the most limiting or the most facilitating. The schools that were selected for this study were not randomly chosen, and were located in eighteen school districts. This study examined the adaptability of school buildings for certain types of instruction; it did not evaluate the suitability of the current floor plans or designs for these types of instruction. The relationship of school size to certain teaching practices was studied by Kimble (1968),32 who concluded that there was little relationship between the classroom behavior of the teacher and the size of the school. 31William Randolph Mace, "Adapting Secondary School Buildings to the Space Needs of Large— and Small-group Instruction." Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1968), 2A90A. 32Richard Morris Kimble, "A Study of the Relation- ship of School Size and Organizational Patterns to Certain Teaching Practices," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1969), 2928. 36 The Relationship of Certain Non-design Factors of the Classroom Environment to the Performance of the Occupants The purpose of this brief section is to identify non—design variables that may be important enough to be controlled in the research design of this study. Since teachers were not randomly assigned to the biology room designs in this study, it was important to try to identify and control variables that might be affecting the responses of the teachers besides the facility design itself. The variables investigated recently included: (1) the age of the facility, (2) the curriculum materials utilized, and (3) the amount of academic coursework taken by the teacher. 1 Findings from studies by Monacel (1963L Price (1965), and Mace (1967) have shown that teachers from older and newer schools did not differ significantly in certain teaching methods and attitudes examined.33 Thus, the age of the facility was not considered to be a variable of major importance. There have been several studies of the relationship of the curriculum materials used to the behavior of the teachers and students. Barnes (1966)3u found that those 33 3“Lehman Wilder Barnes, "The Nature and Extent of Laboratory Instruction in Selected Modern High School Biology Classes," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1967), 2931-A. Monacel, pp; cit.; Price, pp; cit.; Mace, pp; ci . 37 high school biology teachers that had been using Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) materials had a greater degree of conformity of laboratory activ- ities to those laboratory activities recommended by BSCS than did the teachers who were using other curricu- lum materials. Salmon (1968)35 investigated the relation— ship of the use of the BSCS programs in biology instruction to the teachers perception of the adequacy of their biology facility. No evidence was found by Salmon to indicate a significant difference between the means of the facility scores of teachers from schools with the BSCS program and those that had no BSCS program. Balzer (1969)36 in an exploratory investigation of the verbal and non-verbal behaviors of BSCS teachers and non-BSCS teachers reported that there were no significant differences found between the BSCS teachers and the non—BSCS teachers. From these three studies one might conclude that the use of BSCS materials was not found to be a major variable in influencing teacher behavior. The effect of various amounts of academic coursework on teaching has been investigated by Salmon (1968).37 35Richard Joseph Salmon, "The Relationship of Selected Factors to the Biological Facilities in Connecticut Secondary Schools, Dissertation Abstracts, XXXIX (1969). 2616A. 36LeVon Balzer, "An Exploratory Investigation of Verbal and Non-verbal Behaviors of BSCS Teachers and Non— BSCS Teachers," Paper presented at the A2nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching at Pasadena, California, February 6-9, 1969 38 He reported that no evidence was found for a significant relationship between the number of credits in biology that teachers possess and their respective perception of biology facility adequacy. Thus, the variable of teacher academic biology coursework was not considered to be of major importance in this study. The Human Engineering Approach to the Planning of Functional Workplaces Human factors engineering is an interdisciplinary approach to design problems, that starts with man and then provides what accessories he needs to carry out or reach a prescribed objective.38 Fundamental to this design approach has been the "systems concept," which is the idea of a group components designed to serve a given set of purposes. This system concept is applied not only to physical facilities, but also, to the humans who are the users and the Operators of the facilities. Thus, has come the term "man-machine system" which denotes any group of men and machines (physical facilities) that Operates as a unit to carry out an assigned task or tasks.39 37Salmon, pp. cit. 38Wesley E. Woodson and Donald W. Conover, Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers, Second Edition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 196A), pp. 1—1 to 1-3. 39Woodson and Conover, pp. cit., p. 1-22. 39 According to Woodson and Conover, the systems approach is applicable to all design problems.L40 The human engineering approach to the design of work— places consists of two basic processes: systems analysis and system evaluation“l (see Figure 1). The system analysis gives a picture of the structure and functions of the system. Whereas, the system evaluation yields a measure or set of measures to indicate how well the system serves its intended mission or objective]42 The application of the systems analysis to a design problem does not guarantee that 5 single optimum workplace layout will be suggested.”3 This is particularly true when the design problem deals with a highly complex system, like the school classroom. Sometimes, through the application of systems analysis to a design problem, certain workplace con- figurations will be found unsuitable. To determine which of the remaining design alternatives are the most appropriate, they are tested or observed in the system evaluation phase of the human engineering approach. uoWoodson and Conover, pp. cit., pp. 1—22. ulClifford Morgan, Jesse S. Cook, III, Alphonse Chapanis, and Max W. Lund, eds., Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963), 13- 3. u2Ibid. 143Kenneth W. Heathington and Gustave J. Rath, "Applying Systems Engineering, PPBS, and Cost—Effectiveness to Trans- portation Problems," C.A.T.S. Research Newp (October-November, 1967), P- 7- .AUSQm Empmzm spousaoan zwoaofin m CH com: mucmsmam pew cwflmmp on zomondqm wcfipomcfiwcm sass: mo scepmmumSHHHnn.H msswfim N 1 u w \M ; U hzmzzo¢_>zw m¢Oh<¢w¢o mmwuomm w>_huwfimo 4:¢. zw wxmhm>m \. m_m>4m zo_mmo op Iuo>ssm|osq man» do zOOO < .pcoezspmcfi mo>ssmumsa on» :H m>fipmcsmpam page OouooHom on: msonomou on» do Scoosoa on» OumOHch mononucosmd ea mommpccohmq one D .pcoaspumcfi >O>ssmlmsq ecu Op mmcoamos Hoocom mmm cm no ommmn who: mmCHochm Aam.av Aa:.mpv Aga.mmv Eoox so mops uncommox oz 02 wow mpomnosm Hwaomdm pcopspm Ham.v Aeo.mav Aam.emv Oncoommm oz oz mm» mumspfiq mocofiom Amm.av Aam.msv Amm.oav OmCOOmmm 0: oz mow m>OOH< mafia “wa.av Amfi.ssv Amm.amv mmCOOmom 0: oz mow mmsoccomso AmH.HV Aws.osv Agm.mmv omCOOmom o: 0: mm» poo: mass lem.v lem.eav Aem.mms Aam.av Aem.oas Aam.msv oncocmmm oz 0 m m m m mumapso mmo go Lonesz mm.av Aam.v Ago.sv Ame.mv Aem.aav hem. Av appaoso OmCOmem oz 0 m m m s. HmOHLpOOHm do Longsz gem.v Aam.v Aao.mav Asm.mav Aeo.mav Amm.pmv omcoamom oz 0 H m m : mxcfim do LonEsz . . . in. z . .0. wow saw so: O lam.me ism as law gas 1.1 see its me it. was tops“ some mausea pm omcsamom oz 0 mm om am pm . . . possmmosv mOHome ago» :msopma opossum so phase: Auo.av Aeo.mav Aam.sav Aes.mmv Aaa.mmv Aem.aav Aeooe appease mmCOOmOm Oz 0 ma om ow om oomam sepcsou xsos ucmosun Awa.mv Aem.zmv Anm.mav Am:.oav Asa.ov Ama.mv goose smo:aav moooaoss uncommon oz 0 OOH oom oom co: Scopsum sou owmsouw eaozm hoopeoaocH moaeaaaoms so moapapcoso on» wcfi>mx mOHsOpmsonm4 do ucoosom zufiafiomm . momma CH mpcmvdum hmoHon Hoocom :wfi: o mmmao ncm m wmmHQ Cmmfizoaz 0» vHDMHHm>< mmHuHHHommll.n mqm<9 \ 62 TABLE A.--The four types biology laboratory designs selected for the evaluation of instructional suitability.a Design Type Number of Laboratories Split 37 Perimeter 39 Central-Fixed Tables A0 Central-Movable Tables A6 aThese design groups were selected from the basic design categories shown in Table 2. ' criteria: (1) whether the laboratory tables were fixed or movable; (2) orientation of the laboratory tables; (3) amount of student work counter space (linear feet); and (A) height of the laboratory tables (inches). A more detailed description of each of the design groups in Table A will follow in the succeeding paragraphs. Split Design I In the split design there are separate areas at Opposite ends of the laboratory that are provided for different instructional purposes. One area is basically for demonstration and discussion, while the other area is for laboratory activities. The laboratory tables located at one end of the room are fixed. They may be oriented parallel to the long axis, perpendicular to it, and may extend from the walls. There is less than fifty feet Of student work counter space in addition to that 63 provided by the laboratory tables. The laboratory tables are stand-up tables, being taller than thirty-three inches. The lecture desks at the other end of the room are movable. Facing these lecture desks is a demonstration table. Drawings and pictures of two of the laboratory designs in this group are shown in Exhibit I of Chapter V. Perimeter Design In the perimeter design there are movable lecture tables in the center of the room, and at least fifty feet of fixed perimeter student work counter space or tables along at least two sides of the room. These perimeter work counters or tables may be either of the sit-down or stand—up variety. The orientation Of the movable lecture tables in the center of the room may be either horizontal or vertical. There is a demonstration desk at one end of the room. Drawings and pictures of two of the laboratory designs in this group are shown in Exhibit II Of Chapter V. Central-Fixed Tables Design In the central-fixed tables design there are fixed laboratory tables in the center of the room. These tables are oriented horizontally to the demonstration table at the front of the room. There is fifteen feet or less Of perimeter student work counter space in this room. The central tables are sit—down tables, typically being either twenty-nine or thirty inches high. Drawings and pictures of two of the laboratory designs in this group are shown in Exhibit III of Chapter V. 6A Central-Movable Tables Design In the central-movable tables design there are movable laboratory tables in the center Of the room. These tables are oriented horizontally to the demon- stration table at the front of the room. There is fifteen feet or less of perimeter student work counter Space in this room. The central tables are Sit-down tables, typically being either twenty-nine or thirty inches high. Drawings and pictures of the laboratory designs in this group are shown in Exhibit IV of Chapter V. Each of the four types of designs have a demon- stration table at one end of the room. Likewise, the great majority of these designs are housed in rectangular rooms. The amount of shelf storage Space available for student projects in these four design groups decreases in magnitude going from the split design group to the central- movable tables design group. Both the split and the perimeter design groups typically have approximately one- hundred or more linear feet Of Shelf storage space; how- ever, both the central-fixed and the central-movable designs typically have about half of the members of their groups having approximately one-hundred or more linear feet Of shelf storage space, and about half of the members of their groups having almost no Shelf storage Space. The 65 size of the room in these four design groups decreases in magnitude going from the split design group to the central-movable tables design group. Both the Split and the perimeter design groups typically have more than one-thousand square feet of room area; however, both the central—fixed and the central-movable design groups have typically less than one-thousand square feet of room area. Summary The biology laboratory systems have been examined in this chapter with regard to their three principal interacting elements—-the instructional process, the teacher and student participants, and the physical facility arrangements. The central objective or goal of this system appeared to be instruction in the arts of inquiry or investigation. The methods through which this objective might be accomplished were illustrated by independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. The students in this system are characterized by many physical and psychological indi- vidual differences, which would seem to require flexible instructional methods and facilities. The description of the physical facilities here were with special reference to the Michigan high schools. This information was Obtained through a pre-survey instrument that was sent to all Of the Michigan Class B and Class 0 high schools. 66 Laboratory designs described in these pre—survey instruments were categorized, and four design groups were selected for the subsequent evaluation of their instructional suitability to be described in Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV DESIGN 2: EVALUATION OF SELECTED BIOLOGY LABORATORY SYSTEMS This chapter includes: (1) the evaluation design, (2) the selection of the sample, (3) the development of the survey instrument, (A) the collection of data, and (5) the analysis. Evaluation Design From the description of the biology laboratory systems given in Chapter III, an important criterion was suggested for the evaluation of the systems. The criterion was the perceived suitability Of the design for different methods of instruction, namely, for in-' dependent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. These instructional methods rep- resent the means through which the overall Objectives Of the system are Obtained. Also in Chapter III, four types of biology facility arrangements were identified and described in Michigan. These facility arrangements constitute variations in the spatial factor of the physical environ- ment of the laboratory system. 67 68 The next step in the study plan was to have the biology teachers of these four types of facility arrangements rate the suitability of their own facility for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. This was done through an "Operator opinion survey," in which the Operators were the biology teachers. In addition to this evaluation, field visitations were made to laboratories from the four design categories to Obtain in depth information on reasons for their instruc- tional adequacy or inadequacy. Selection of the Sample The population consisted of the four categories of Michigan Class B and Class C high school biology labora- tory designs listed in Table A of Chapter III. These design categories were the: (1) Split, (2) perimeter, (3) central-fixed; and (A) central-movable.1 A random sample of thirty-five designs was selected from each of the four design groups for a total sample of 1A0 designs. The biology teachers using these 1A0 designs were con- tacted through a survey instrument. 1Description of these four design categories can be found in Chapter III on pages 62-6A. 69 Development of the Survey Instrument A survey instrument was developed primarily for the purpose Of collecting information on the perceived suitability of the four laboratory designs for the instructional methods of: (1) independent study, (2) small group instruction, and (3) large group instruction. In the development of this survey instrument, three lists of instructional practices were originally compiled. One list represented independent study, one list represented small group instruction, and one list represented large group instruction. Then the items on instructional practice in these three lists were randomly distributed in the survey instrument, without identification in the instru- ment as to which of the three types of instructional method they represented. Beside each of these items, a scale Of one to five was provided so that the respond- ents could rate the suitability Of their laboratory's design for each of these instructional practices. Additional sections of this survey instrument pertained to: (1) teacher recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology design, and (2) data on variables that might have been confounded with the teacher's perception Of their laboratory's instructional suitability. These variables included: recency of laboratory construction, type of biology 7O curriculum materials used, average number of biology students per class, amount of biology coursework taken by the teacher, and the years of biology teaching experience. \ To develop lists of instructional practices that represented the three instructional methods, the definitions and descriptions of these methods by Trump and Baynham were used as a basic guide.2 These defini- tions were discussed in Chapter III. Furthermore, additional sources were used to obtain the specific instructional practice items.3 The resultant lists of 2J. Lloyd Trump and Dorsey Baynham, Focus on Change: Guide to Better Schools. (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1961) pp. 2A-33; J. Lloyd Trump, "Some Problems Faced in Organizing Science Teaching Differently," The Science Teacher, XXXI, NO. A (May, 196A), 37-39; J. Lloyd Trump, iiSchool Buildings for Modern Programs-Some Informal Comments on Functional Architecture," High School Journal (November, 1966) pp. 79-96. 3Sources used included: Paul F. Brandwein, Fletcher G. Watson, and Paul E. Blackwood, Teaching High School Science: A Book of Methods (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1958) pp. A75-50A; Barney Lewis Kyzar, "A Comparison of Individual Practices in Classrooms of Different Design," (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, The University of Texas, 1961), pp. 170-172, 186-19A, 196-199; Archie L. Lacey, Guide to Science Teaching in Secondary Schools, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., In., 1966), pp. 73-8A; Evelyn Morholt, Paul F. Brandwein, and Alexander Joseph, A Sourcebook for the Biological Sciences, Second Edition, (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1966), pp. 2-18; John S. Richardson, ed., School Facilities for Science Instruction, (Washington: National Science Teachers Association, 195A), p. 3. 71 instructional practices were then read for their clarity and validity by four staff members of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center at Michigan State University and by the science consultant for the Michigan Department of Education. The lists of items were then revised, and after this revision there were twelve items that repre- sented independent study, twelve items that represented small group instruction, and twelve items that represented large group instruction. These thirty—six items on instructional practice were then further refined through a pilot study. In the pilot study, three different survey instruments having the same items on instructional practice were distributed. These three instruments differed in the rating scales that appeared beside each of the instructional practice items. All three instruments had a "suitability" rating scale on the right Side of each item. However, one instrument also had a "frequency Of use" rating scale on the left side of each item, while another instrument had an "importance" rating scale on the left side. Thus, two of the instruments had a double rating scale for each item, while one of the instruments had a single rating Scale for each item. The purposes for pretesting these three survey instruments were: (1) to determine which type of instrument yielded the greatest spread of "suitability" rating scores; (2) to eliminate items that 72 were not considered important to biology teaching through the use of the instrument with the "importance scale;" and (3) to see if "frequency of use" of an instructional practice was re ated to the laboratory's "suitability" for that practice. These three types of survey instruments were sent lo a total of thirty biology teachers who had responded earlier in the pre—survey, but had not been selected for this evaluation survey. Each of the three types of the pilot survey instruments had an excellent ieturn rate. Furthermore, there was no obvious difference in the spread of the suitability scores for these three instruments. Several items were not rated "importart" to biology instruction and these items were subsequertly eliminated in the final revision of the survey instrument. The "frequency of use" responses appeared to oe related to the "suita- bility" responses for each iten on the list. This was determined from a Spearman ran< correlation coefficientLl of rS=.69 that was calculated Jetween the ratings of the two scales. The double-scaled instrument having "frequency of use” on the left side and "suitability'on the right was selected for the final survey aecause of interest in the apparent relationship between she ratings of the items on both scales. “William L. Hays, StatiSLics for Psychologists, (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winaton, 1963), pp. 6A3-6A6. 73 From the pilot study six items on the survey instrument were eliminated, two from each of the three types of instructional methods. Likewise, from the pilot study results one type of instrument was selected for the final survey. Other minor revisions were made in the form of the instrument. The final revised survey instrument is presented in Appendix B. In this instrument items numbered 1, 3, 8, ll, 12, 15, 20, 25, 26, and 30 represented independent study; items numbered A, 6, 7, 9, 10, 1A, 18, 23, 28, and 29 represented small group instruction; and items numbered 2, 5, 13, 16, l7, 19, 21, 22, 2A, and 27 represented large group instruction. Hoyt's internal consistency reliabilities were de- termined from the responses to the final survey instrument" for each of the item types. This was done with the use of the Reciprocal Averages Program (RAVE)5 in the Control Data 3600 Computer. These reliabilities, as shown in Table 5, were considered to be fairly high for all item types. In order to quantify the ratings, the method of reciprocal averages technique was employed to each item type of the survey instrument. Through this technique it 5David J. Wright and Andrew C. Porter, "An Adaptation of Frank B. Baker's Test Analysis Package for Use on the Michigan State University CDC 3600 Computer," Occasional Paper NO. 1, Office of Research Consultation, School for Advanced Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University, January, 1968, (mimeographed), pp. 13-5A. 7A TABLE 5.--Hoyt's internal consistency reliabilities by item type in the survey instrument Item Type Hoyt's Internal Consistency Reliabilities Suitability Scale Frequency Of Use Scale Independent study .86 .79 Small group instruction .8A .76 Large group instruction .83 .71 is said that one can quantify qualitative data.6 This method yields an optimum set of weights for each item in each subsection of the instrument.7 Collection of Data The final 1A0 survey instruments were then distri- buted to the various biology teachers through their princi- pals. In order to make sure that the correct teacher got the instrument, the name of the teacher was typed on the cover letter Of the instrument. In an effort to increase the number Of reSponses the following additional techniques were used: 61bid., p. 13. 7Ibid., p. 1A. 75 l. The study was Sponsored by ESEA Title III of the Michigan Department of Education. This resulted in the use of the Department's letterhead stationery, as well as the use of the signature of a Department Official in the cover letters to the principals. 2. Each of the cover letters to the principals were personally signed. 3. A self-addressed envelope was supplied to facilitate returns. A. A date for the return of the forms was listed in the cover letters for both the principals and the teachers. 5. Follow-up letters were mailed promptly to those who had not returned forms by the designated date. Included with this follow-up letter was a self-addressed postcard for the teachers to explain why they hadn't returned the instrument. A week after this follow-up letter was sent, those teachers who had not responded were phoned. 6. A summary of the results was promised to those schools participating in the study. A copy of the cover letters, survey instrument, and the follow-up letter are included in Appendix B. Of the 1A0 survey instruments mailed, 133 instruments were returned for a 95.0 per cent response rate. Seven of these instruments were eliminated from the subsequent analysis because they were not completely filled out. In order to simplify the analysis of the data by having an equal number of respondents in each category, two more questionnaires were randomly eliminated from the analysis. Therefore, 12A instruments (31 for each design category) 76 were used for the analysis of data, and this represented an 88.6 per cent response. The returns from the final survey instrument were classified dichotomously according to each Of the possible confounding variables recorded on the last page of the instrument. Pearson-product correlation coefficients were than determined for each of the possible confounding variables, and their scores on the dependent variable of Pperceived instructional suitability. These correlations were done in Morris's program8 on the 3600 Control Data Computer. In this same program, significance tests were computed for each of the correlation coefficients to indicate the one-tailed probability that this correlation was greater than a correlation of zero. These correlation coefficients are presented in Table 6. An examination of these correlation coefficients shows that only the variable "recency Of laboratory construction" appeared to be confounded with the dependent variable of instructional suitability. To determine if significant relationships existed between the scores on the "frequency of use" scales and the scores on the "instructional suitability" scales for 8John Morris, "Technical Report No. A7: Rank Correlation Coefficients," Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, January 5, 1967, (mimeographed), pp. 5-6. 77 TABLE 6.--Pearson-product correlations between each of the possible confounding variables and their instructional suitability ratings Possible Confounding Suitability Variables Independent Small Group Large Group Study Instruction Instruction 1. Recency Of labora- a a a tory construction .Al .A2 .A9 2. Curriculum materials used -.17 -.06 -.08 3. Average class size .17 .10 .16 A.-Academic biology coursework taken by the teacher .0A .02 .00 5. Years biology teaching expe- rience .00 .03 .0A aCorrelations were significant beyond the .01 level. each of the levels of the dependent variable, Pearson- Product Correlations Coefficients were calculated using 9 These correlations are this same Morris program. presented in Table 7. These correlations support the Observations from the pilot study, that the two scales are, indeed, correlated significantly. These findings lend support to theassumptiontflmn;a.teacher's perception 9Ibid. 78 TABLE 7.--Pearson-product correlations between ratings on the "frequency of use" scales and the "suitability"scales "Suitability" Scale "Frequency of Use" Scale Independent Small Group Large Group Study Instruction Instruction Independent Study .A9a - - Small Group a Instruction — .31 - Large Group a Instruction - - .Al aCorrelations were Significant beyond the .01 level. of their laboratory's instructional suitability is related to their utilization of these instructional methods in the laboratory. Analysis The purpose of the analysis was to determine if teachers from the four laboratory design categories differed significantly in their perceptions of their laboratory's suitability for the instructional methods of: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Because of the relatively strong correlation of the variable of "recency of laboratory construction" with the dependent variable of "instructional suitability," it appeared advisable to statistically control for this confounding variable in the analysis. 79 A repeated measures analysis of covariance model10 was used to analyse the instructional suitability ratings. The covariate used here was "recency of laboratory construction," which was given the two values: (1) constructed before 1960 and (2) constructed in 1960 or later. The plan for the collection of data in this analysis is presented in Table 8. TABLE 8.——Analysis of covariance design Tests Design M1 M2 M3 Group Subject X Y X Y X Y D1 T1 T31 T32 D2 . T62 T63 D . 3 T93 T9“ DA T12A Key: D1 . . . DA represent the four laboratory design groups. T . . . Tl A represent the biology teachers that are nested witRin the vagious design categories. M , M2, and M3 represent the repeated measures Of instructionaI practice, namely independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. X's represent the values Of the covariate. Y's represent the scores Of the instructional suitability ratings. 80 The Open—ended responses on the survey instrument regarding recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy Of their facilities were typed on cards and sub— sequently categorized. Field visitations were conducted with two typical examples of designs from each of the four laboratory design categories included in the survey. The purpose of these visitations was to explore, in depth, possible explanations for laboratory design adequacy or inade- quacy. A guide for this visit is included in Appendix C. Statistical Hypotheses ‘ Because of the lack of research on the instructional adequacy Of various room designs, (See Chapter 2), it was decided that predictive hypothesis could not be adequately justified. Therefore, the following null hypotheses were tested: 1. There is no significant difference on the adjusted mean scores for instructional practice suitability between secondary biology teachers from different laboratory designs. 10B. J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962), pp. 606-618. 81 Symbollcally: Hozul=u2=u3=uu leu1¢u2su3suu Legend: “1 = split design group adjusted mean u2 = perimeter design group adjusted mean u3 = central-fixed design group adjusted mean u,1 = central-movable design group adjusted mean 2. There is no significant overall interaction between the repeated measures and the different laboratory design groups. Symbollcally: HozYDM=O Legend D=design groups M=repeated measures YDM=interaction between D and M An alpha of .05 was set as the critical level for statis- tical significance of both hypotheses. If the overall F065 was significant for the first null hypothesis, then post—hoc comparisons would be made through the Scheffe method.ll Assumptions of the Analysis of Covariance Model The assumptions for the repeated measures analysis Of covariance model include: 11William C. Guenther, Analysis of Variance, (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196A), pp. lA9-150. 82 l. Assumptions about the regression effects include: a. The treatment effects and the regression effects are additive. Implicit in this assumption is that the within-class regressions are homogeneous. According to Winer, the effects of violating this assumption have not been investigated and thus he recommends a procedure for examining this assumption.12 Therefore, in this study a test of the hypothesis that the within- class regressions were homogeneous was done. The resultant F3’116=.69 was not significant at the .10 level. Therefore, it was con- cluded that this assumption was met. b. The residuals are normaliy and indppendentiy distributed with zero means and the same variance. According to Winer, the F tests in the analysis of covariance are robust with respect to the violation Of these assumptions.13 Thus, it was assumed unnecessary to test these assumptions. 2. Assumptions for the special analysis of variance case of repeated measures include: a. The teacher variance within laboratory design groups is homogeneous from group to gropp in order to assess the differences between design groups. Furthermore, that the teachers by repeated measures interaction within desigp groups is homogeneous from group to group in order to test the significance of the DM interaction. Winer states that the F tests are robust, however, with respect O minor violations of these assumptions.1 Thus, it was assumed unnecessary to test these assumptions. b. The pattern Of the variance-covariance 12Winer, pp; pip,, pp. 586-587. l3Winer, pp: pip., p. 586. l“Winer, pp; cit., p. 305. 83 matrix must be the same from group to group in order to assess the signifi- cance of the DM interaction.15 If the F.05 test for the DM interaction is not significant using the degrees of freedom in the traditional analysis of covariance table, then there is no need to examine the variance-covariance patterns according to Greenhouse and Geiser.l In this study, the DM interaction was not signi— ficant, thus it was not necessary to explore this assumption further. 3. The usual analysis of variance assumptions of: a. Individuals in the various design groups should have been selected on the basis of random sampling from normallyidistri- buted populations.l/ However, Box and Andersen state that the F test of the analysis of variance is "remarkably insensitive to general non-normality."18 Thus, it was assumed unnecessary to test this assumption. b. The variance of each'ofnthe design groups Should belhomogeneous.19’ However, Box and Andersen state that the analysis of variance test "where the group sizes are equal . . . is not very sensitive to variance inequalities from group to group."20 15Winer, pp, 912-, p. 305. 168. W. Greenhouse and S. Geisser, "On Methods in the Analysis of Profile Data," Ppychometrika, XXXIV (1959), 98-102, 110. 17N. M. Downie and R. w. Health, Basic Statistical Methods, Second Edition (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1965), p. 177. 18G. E..P. Box and S. L. Andersen, "Permutation Theory in the Derivation of Robust Criteria and the Study of Departures from Assumptions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. XVII, NO. 1 (1955), p. 2. l9Downie and Heath, pp; cit., p. 177. 20Box and Andersen, pp: cit., p. 2. BA Since the design group sizes were equal in this study, it was assumed that this assumption was met. c. The individuals comprising each of the design groups should be independent.81 Because of the research design of this study, it was assumed that this assumption was satisfied. Therefore it was assumed that the foregoing assumptions for the repeated measure analysis of covariance model were satisfied in this study. Summary A teacher Opinion survey was devised to evaluate the instructional suitability of four types Of secondary biology laboratory designs, namely: the split design, the perimeter design, the central-fixed design, and the central-movable design. A survey instrument was constructed, pretested, revised, and distributed to a random sample of Michigan Class B and Class C high school biology teachers from each of the four types of laboratory designs. On this survey instrument the teachers were asked to rate the suitability Of their laboratory design for each of thirty instructional practices. These instructional practice items could later be grouped into the item types of: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Internal consistency 21Downie and Heath, pp; cit., p. 177. 85 reliabilities were calculated for each of the item types and the resultant coefficients indicated a high degree of reliability for each of these categories. Optimum weights were determined for each of the items in each of the item categories, so that the data would be more quantifiable. An analysis Of covariance model was used to analyze the survey data. The covariate here was the recency of laboratory construction, which was found to have a fairly high correlation with the dependent variable of perceived instructional suitability. ' The assumptions underlying the analysis of covariance model were examined, and this model was found apprOpriate for analyzing the survey data in this study. A hypothesis was tested regarding differences in the perceived instructional suitability Of teachers from different laboratory design categories. Furthermore, the hypothesis of no overall interaction between the repeated measures and the laboratory design types was tested. Field visitations were made to typiCal examples of these laboratory designs to gain, in depth, information on design adequacy or inadequacy. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Presented in this chapter are the findings from the analyses Of the survey and field study data. Survey Findings The following null hypotheses were tested: 1. There is no significant difference on the adjusted mean scores for instructional practice suita- bility between secondary biology teachers from different laboratory designs. Symbolically: Hozul=u2=u3=uu leul#u2#u3#uu Legend: =split design group adjusted mean "1 u2=perimeter design group adjusted mean u3=central-fixed design group adjusted mean uu=central-movable design group adjusted mean 2. There is no significant Overall interaction between the repeated measures and the different laboratory design groups. Symbolically: 0 HO:YDM= H1“’I>M"‘O 86 87 Legend: D=design groups M=repeated measures YDM=interaction between D and M An alpha of .05 was set as the critical level for statis- tical significance of both hypotheses. Differences in the instructional suitability ratings for the four laboratory design groups were analyzed by the repeated measures analysis of covariance procedure presented by Winer.l The repeated measures were the scores for the survey item categories of: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. The covariable used here was recency of laboratory construc- tion. The F test was used to compare the relationship between the adjusted design group means. The unadjusted design group means and standard deviatiomsare Shown in Table 9. Treatment Of the data using the analysis of covariance technique indicated (Table 10) that: (1) Significant differences existed between the adjusted design groups, and (2) the overall laboratory design group by repeated measures interaction was not significantly different from zero. Thus, the hypothesis of no significant difference between the design group means was rejected, and the. hypothesis that the design group by repeated measure inter— action was equal to zero was not rejected. 1B. J. Winer, Statistical Principles in Experimental Desi n, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962), pp. 06-618. ‘ 88 TABLE 9.--Unadjusted design group means and standard deviations of the instructional suitability survey scores (equal cell N=3l) Independent Small Group Large Group Design Study Instruction Instruction GPOUP Xj . s Xj S X3 5 Split 3A.58 6.7 37.55 6.A Al.00 8.1 Perimeter 31.32 6.0 33.71 6.7 38.32 6.2 Central- - .Fixed 26.A5 7.5 29.35 6.6 3A.6l 6.0 Central- Movable 23.90 6.9 28.6A 6.3 33.55 6.6 TABLE 10.--Ana1ysis of covariance results for the instructional suitability survey scores Sources SS df MS F Design Groups (D) 3,5A5.39 3 1,181.79 ll.A2a Teachers within D 12,311.A1 119 103.A5 Repeated measures (M) 3,813.6A 2 1,906.82 DM Interaction 11A.53 6 19.09 1.A8 Residual 3,087.83 239 12.92 asignificant at the .05 level of confidence. 89 Contrasts of design group means were made over the (repeated measures, since there was no design group by repeated measures interaction. The Scheffé technique as presented by Guenther2 was used for this analysis. These contrasts indicated (Table 11) that: (l) the mean scores of the Split design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the perimeter design grOup; (2) the mean scores of the split design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the central-fixed design group; (3) the mean scores of the split design group were Significantly greater than the mean scores of the central-movable design group; (A) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were not significantly different from the mean scores of the central-fixed design group; (5) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the central-movable design group; (6) the mean scores of the central-fixed design group were not significantly different from the mean scores of the central-movable design group. In the survey instrument the biology teachers were also requested to list recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designs. 2William C. Guenther, Analysis of Variance, (Englewood Cliffs; N.J.,: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196A), p. 1A9. 90 TABLE ll.-—Scheffe' contrasts of adjusted design group means ‘ Perimeter Central-Fixed Central—Movable 33.20 31.31 29.56. Split 36.92 3.71a 5.60a 7.35a Perimeter 33.20 ___. 1.89 3.6Aa Central— .11-- Fixed 31.31 i 1.75 asignificant at the .05 level of confidence. Of the 133 survey instruments returned, 10A answered this question. The recommendations were categorized, and a summary of these can be found in Table 12. Field Study Findings Two biology laboratories from each of the four design groups were visited to explore, in depth, possible explanations for their instructional adequacy or inade- quacy. Teachers from these laboratories were interviewed, and photographs were taken of the facility. The photo- graphs and the teachers' original pre-survey drawings are presented in Exhibits I-IV. From the photographs and from the on-Site facility measurements, it was concluded that the pre-survey instrument was accurately interpreted and completed. 91 TABLE l2.--Recommendations of teachers for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designsa Recommendation FrequenCyb More functionally designed labora— tory tables, ventilation system, individual student stations, and room darkening facilities A0 More classroom space for individ- ual and small group activities 33 More electrical outlets, gas out- lets, sinks, and faucets 32 More storage Space 31 More equipment 27 More display area 15 Need separate areas for laboratory and for lecture 10 Need a greenhouse 9 Need a science reference library 8 Need an animal room A 2 aThese findings were based on the opinions of 10A of the 133 survey respondents who answered this question. bThe term "frequency" represents the total number of such recommendations received from the survey respond- ents. Most respondents listed more than one recommenda- tion. ‘ 92 Likewise, the comments of teachers in the visitation indicated that the directions were clearly understood for completing the final survey instrument. The question was asked "What is most needed to improve your biology teaching?" Teachers from the split and perimeter designs listed things that would not have affected the basic design of their rooms such as, reference materials, and equipment. However, teachers from the central-fixed and central-movable designs, generally felt the need for a new or greatly altered laboratory room. The question was asked "How adequate is your biology room design for independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction?" Teachers from the split and perimeter designs expressed greater satisfaction in the instructional adequacy of their room designs than did the teachers from the central— fixed and central-movable designs. Other variables that were mentioned as having an affect on the instructional adequacy of the laboratory design included: improper lighting, inadequate legroom beneath the student tables, scheduling of other teachers in the room, and lack of storage space for both teachers and students. 93 spasm oases on» as oopana> memento shopeaoocq 0.. o o ‘ l a . I g e . wher-Ehatyi 3‘. I 33.0%!) t to; ca. .0. . I 1‘! '- l 1 O . ...........zflfi.///;fl., .,./-- . 9A aspen cases the 2H emeaea> memento shoresoood mwoaofim pmpofifihwm 035 on» go mwcfismsa new mammmwOponm I HH pflnfisxm . .. ........n... f . ......)\.C.......\.\.-\C.N\s S. . . 426%. on .Q.‘I- 9.x .. 1 0 5 . . . . L x o X... . a. . r o ' .lfll... I . “‘\.\ ifi ..\\. u. -\ . is} \I‘ .uloliiiliI .1... u. 9 .. sees-O . p. . . a . larch)!» a... ..W. a}? bra; . A\;‘OA. 1..-." . . A Wit 5‘ ........ v a 1 ..A.A,nparan»///%. D o .v4yrl . 95 spasm oases one as ooeama> penance shopcsoosq swoaoam spasm Hespzmo 039 ecu mo mwcfismsm pew mammstponm I HHH pfinfinxm $422.... e v o .. a 4 c c o .. 9.30.4... w .3 96 sesem UHwfim m mHnm>o I Sp CH 2 actuate omMpme> mcwfinoo as p O a he fiWLHmwnvnan as l > H page cxm all 0.. a O O t t I O U ‘1 . O’OOII ,- D I a Q I u I 0...... o I \ .a. 0...... up... .u. r . E... w a ..17 O c a o u- ‘ the-.. “#fiuvmwgun . .aNMMWWh Co. 0 _. .eno... . . . , . . .. . y b O v.01. '1'. u a r . . 14 up. . . . ...I p . p as. n A ! II I I I. .47] II A I) (I 97 Summary Teachers from the four laboratory design groups differed significantly from each other in their per- ception of their laboratory design's suitability for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Furthermore, there was no significant interaction between the design groups and the repeated measures. Comparisons of the four design group means indicated that: (l) the mean scores of the split design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the perimeter, central-fixed, and central-movable design groups for the instructional methods of inde- pendent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; (2) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were not significantly different from the mean-scores of the central-fixed design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; (3) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the central-movable design group for the instructional methods Of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; and (A) the mean scores Of the central-fixed design group were not signifi— cantly different from the mean scores Of the central- movable design group for the instructional methods of 98 independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. Categorization of the teachers' recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designs indicated that the following categories were mentioned most frequently: (1) more functionally designed laboratory tables, ventilation system, individual student stations, and room darkening facilities; (2) more classroom space for individual and small group activities; (3) more electrical outlets, gas outlets, sinks, and faucets; and (A) more storage Space. Findings from field visitations to typical laboratories from each of the four design groups indicated that: (l) the pre-survey laboratory design drawings were accurately done; (2) the directions and the items from both the pre-survey and survey instru- ments were clearly understood; (3) that the split and perimeter design groups were more satisfied with their laboratory design's instructional adequacy than were the central-fixed and central-movable design groups; and (A) the physical design variables of room lighting, leg room beneath tables, and storage space were fre- quently mentioned as having an affect on the instruc- tional adequacy Of the laboratory facility. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to investigate the instructional suitability of various laboratory designs, FXas perceived by the secondary biology teachers currently teabhing in these laboratories. To provide a framework for the investigation of this problem, the human engineering approach to design Vevaluation was used in the study. In this approach it is first necessary to describe the structure and func- tion Of the systems to be evaluated. This analysis is then generally followed by observations of how well various alternative designs accomplish the desired functions of the system. The problem in this study was thus studied in two parts. Part I dealt with a description Of four high school biology laboratory systems. These systems were described in relation to the Significant interacting elements of: the instructional process, the teacher and :student participants, and the arrangement Of the physical facilities. These four laboratory systems differed primarily in the design of their physical facilities. Specifically, the four laboratory design types were: 99 100 (1) split lecture-laboratory design, (2) perimeter tables ldesign, (3) central—fixed tables design, and (A) central-movable tables design. A pre—survey instrument was constructed and sent to the Class B and Class C high schools in Michigan, to Obtain the Specific information heeded for the above description of the four types of laboratory designs. Part II of the study consisted of an evaluation of these four types of laboratory designs as to their perceived suitability for different types of instruction, namely: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. The form of this evaluation was a teacher opinion survey. A survey instrument was developed and sent to a random sample of Michigan Class B and Class C high school teachers from each of the four design categories identified in the pre-survey. On this survey instrument the biology. teachers rated the suitability of their laboratory design for the instructional methods of: independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruc- tion. Of the 1A0 survey instruments mailed, 133 irmstruments were returned for a 95.0 per cent response. This survey was followed by field visitations to discover possible explanations for laboratory design adequacy or inadequacy. Internal consistency reliabilities were calculated fkn? each of the survey item types and the resultant 101 ‘ ccxefficients indicated a high degree of reliability for eeach of these categories. Optimum weights were determined fYDr each of the items by the reciprocal averages method, sca that the data would be more quantifiable. A repeated measures analySis of covariance procedure vvas applied to the ratings from the survey instrument, tzo determine if the four types of laboratory designs ciiffered in their instructional suitability, as perceived lay the high school biology teachers currently teaching 1J1 these laboratories. The covariate used here was ' because it was "recency of laboratory construction,‘ fkound to have a fairly high correlation with the dependent ‘vaidable of perceived instructional suitability. The Iwepeated measures were the instructional methods item certegories of: independent study, small group instruc- ti<3n, and largeggmpp instruction” IBased on this analysis, thee teachers from the four laboratory design groups di Efered significantly in their perception of their lalaoratory design's suitability for the three instruc- ticanal methods of independent study, samll group instruc- tican, and large group instruction; furthermore, there was rm) significant interaction between the design groups and tflie repeated measures. Comparisons of the four design ,grwaups means indicated that: (l) the mean scores of the SEDllt design group were significantly greater than the nkaan scores of the perimeter, central-fixed, and central- 102 movable design groups for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; (2) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were not significantly differ- ent from the mean scores of the central-fiXed design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; (3) the mean scores of the perimeter design group were significantly greater than the mean scores of the central—movable design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction; and (A) the mean scores of the central-fixed design group were not Significantly different from the mean scores of the central-movable design group for the instructional methods of independent study, small group instruction, and large group instruction. CategorizatiOn of the teachers' recommendations for improving the instructional adequacy of their biology laboratory designs indicated that the following categories were mentioned most frequently: (1) more functionally designed laboratory tables, ventilation system, individual student stations, and room darkening facilities; (2) more classroom space for individual and small group activities; (3) more electrical outlets, gas outlets, sinks, and faucets; and (A) more storage space. 103 Findings from field visitations to typical laboratories from each of the four design groups indicated that: (l) the pre-survey laboratory design drawings were accurately done; (2) the direc- tions and the items from both the pre-survey and survey instruments were clearly understood; (3) teachers from the split and perimeter design groups were more satisfied with their laboratory design's instructional adequacy than were those from the central-fixed and central-movable design groups; and (A) the physical design variables forroom lighting, leg room beneath tables, and storage space were frequently mentioned as having an affect on the instruc- tional adequacy of the laboratory facility. Conclusions The conclusions drawn from this study pertain to the population of four biology laboratory design groups from which the samples were taken. Furthermore, the conclusions were based on the analyses of the Opinions Of the biology teachers from these various laboratory design groups, as expressed in the survey instrument. A. The application of the human engineering approach to design provided a useful conceptual tool for the evaluation of the instructional suitability of alternative laboratory designs. 10b B The four biology laboratory design types of (1) split lecture—laboratory, (2) perimeter, (3) central-fixed, and (M) central—movable, differ signif- icantly in their perceived suitability for instruction. C. The split lecture-laboratory design was perceived to be superior to the other three biology laboratory design types for independent study, for small group instruction, and for large group instruction. D. The perimeter design was not perceived tobe significantly different from the central-fixed biology laboratory design for independent study, for small group instruction, and for large group instruction. E. The perimeter design was perceived to be‘ superior to the central-movable biology laboratory design for independent study, for small group instruction, and for large group instruction. F. The central-fixed design group was not perceived to be significantly different from the central-movable biology laboratory design for independent study, for small group instruction, and for large group instruction. Implications for Educational Practice The finding that different biology laboratory design groups differed in their perceived suitability for instruction has major implications for future laboratory planning. Given the limitations of this study, educa- tional planners who are faced with having to make decisions about laboratory designs will now have some data on which to base their decisions. 105 If independent study, small group instruction, or large group instruction is desired, then this investigation would indicate that the split lecture—laboratory design would be superior to perimeter designs, to central- fixed tables designs, and to central-movable tables designs. The remarkable homogeneity of laboratory designs indicates a limited application of creativity to design problems. Since only fourteen per cent of the biology teachers in the Class B and Class C Michigan high schools are using split laboratory designs, the strong possibility exists that the other eighty-six‘ per cent of the teachers are using designs that are not the most productive. Each decision-making situation has unique elements, which should also be considered in the interpretation and use of this finding. Since the human engineering approach to design was found to be useful in the conceptualization of the biology laboratory designs in this study, and the identification of criteria for evaluations, the impli— cation would be that the human engineering approach could be useful in the planning of laboratories. From an inspection of the four types of laboratory designs investigated in this study, one might question how adequate any of these are for independent study and for small group instruction. HOpefully, the finding that certain designs were perceived to be more suitable 106 than others for these instructional methods will spur the deve10pment of new and more improved laboratory design types. Another implication from this study would be that laboratory planners should consider having rooms of greater than one thousand square feet of area, as well as having more than one hundred linear feet of shelf storage space available for student projects. This implication is based on the fact that both the split and the perimeter designs investigated in this study had a majority of rooms of over one thousand square feet area, and had over one hundred linear feet of shelf storage space available for student projects. However, the central-fixed and central-movable design groups were deficient in both of these items. Furthermore, biology laboratory planners would be wise to favor either the split or the perimeter design types since these types generally were found to have more instructional advantages than the other two design categories in both the survey and the field visitations. Recommendations for Future Research Some of the questions posed by this study for future research are: I 1. Would the results from this survey study be supported by an experimental study, where subjects could be randomly assigned to the laboratory design types? 107 2, Does the type of administrative leadership in a school, affect the teacher's perception of their laboratory's instructional suitability? 3. Do laboratories of different design differ in their instructional suitability for students of different academic abilities or socio-economic back- grounds? u.’ Does the laboratory planning process differ in those schools having the split lecture laboratory design from those in the other three design types? 5. 'What is the relative effect of variables such as, administrative style, available furniture, and curriculum type on science facility decision making? BIBLIOGRAPHY 108 BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘Books Chapanis, Alphonse. Man-Machine Engineering. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1965. Downie, N. M., and Heath, R. W. Basic Statistical Methods. Second Edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. Guenther, William C. Analysis of Variance. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196“. Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966. Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 196?. Hurd, Paul DeH. Biological Education in American Secondary Schools 1890-1960. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Bulletin No. 1. Baltimore: Waverly Press, Inc., 1961. Lacey, Archie L. Guide to Science Teaching in Secondary Schools. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publish- ing Co., Inc., 1967. Lee, Eugene C. New Developments in Science Teaching. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1967. Martin, William Edgar. The Teaching of General Biology in the Public High Schools of the United States. Bulletin No. 9, Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1952. Morgan, Clifford and Others, eds. Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963. Morholt, Evelyn, Brandwein, Paul F., and Joseph, Alexander. A Sourcebook for the Biological Sciences. Second Edition. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1966. 109 110 National Council on Schoolhouse Construction. Ngsg Guide for Planning School Plants. East Lansing: NCSC, 1963: National Science Teachers Association. Science Facilities for Our Schools K-l2. Washington: NSTA, 1963. . Theory into Action . . . in Science Curriculum Development. Washington: NSTA, 196A. Panel on High School Biology Courses of the Committee on Educational Policies. Outline for Sourcebook of Laboratory_and Field Studies for Secondardy-School Biology Courses. Washington: National Academy of Sciences -- National Research Council, 1957. Richardson, John S. (ed.). School Facilities for Science Instruction. Washington: National Science Teachers Association, 195“. Schwab, Joseph J. (supervisor). Biology Teachers' Hand- book. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965, SER 1: Environmental Abstracts. School Environments —_——_—Research Project, Architectural Research Laboratory, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, February, 1965. SER 2: Environmental Evaluations. A School Environments __-_——Research Project, Architectural Research Laboratory, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, May, 1965. SER 3: Environmental Analysis. School Environments —————"Research Project, Architectural Research Laboratory of University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, July, 1965. Smart, Mollie S. and Smart, Russell C. Children: Develop- ment and Relationships. Second Edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967. Sund, Robert B. and Trowbridge, Leslie W. Teaching Science by Inqpiry in the Secondary School. Columbus; Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967. Trump, J. Lloyd and Baynham, Dorsey. Focus on Change: Guide to Better Schools. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1961. 111 Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. Woodson, Wesley E. and Conover, Donald W. Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers. Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1964. Articles in Books and Periodicals Adams, James F. "An Introduction to Understanding Adolescence," Understanding Adolescence: Current Developments in Adolescent Psychology, James F. Adams, ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, In:.,(l968), pp. 1-12. Barnes, Lehman Wilder. "The Nature and Extent of Laboratory Instruction in Selected Modern High School Biology Classes,” Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1967) 2931-A. Bills, Robert E. and Hopper, Robert L. "Adolescents and Their Schools," American School and Universigy, XXVII (1956), 193-198. Box, G. E. P. and Andersen, S. L. "Permutation Theory in the Derivation of Robust Criteria and the Study of Departures from Assumptions," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, XVII, No. 1 (1955), PP- 1—3A. Brandwein, Paul F. "Observation on Teaching: Overload ’and 'The Methods of Intelligence'" The Science Teacher, XXXVI (February 1969), 38-50: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. Class Size. Memo to the Faculty, No. 17. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, May, 1966. Gage, N. L. "Theories of Teaching," Theories of Learning and Instruction, Sixty-third Yearbook of the Nation— al Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: NSSE (196A), 268—285. Greenhouse, S. W. and Geisser, S. "On Methods in the Analysis of Profile Data," Psychometrika, XXIV (1959), 95-112. 112 Heathington, Kenneth W. and Rath, Gustave J. "Applying Systems Engineering, PPBS, and Cost-Effectiveness to Transportation Problems," C.A.T.S. Research News, (October-November, 1967), pp. 3-13. Hurd, Paul DeH. "How to Achieve Outstanding High School Science Facilities," American School and University, XXVIII (1956), 317-326. , and Johnson, Philip G. "Problems and Issues in Science Education," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty—ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1.. Chicago: NSSE (1960), 329—338. Kimble, Richard Morris. "A Study of the Relationship of School Size and Organizational Patterns to Certain Teaching Practices," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1969), 2928A. Lee, Addison E. "In My Opinion," The American Biology Teacher, XXV, No. 5 (May, 19631, 323-335- Lehmann, C. F. "Analyzing and Managing the Physical Setting of the Classroom Group," The Dynamics of Instructional Groups, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: NSSE (1960), 253-267. Mace, William Randolph. "Adapting Secondary School Buildings to the Space Needs of Large- and Small- group Instruction," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1968), 2A90A. Martin, W. Edgar. "Facilities, Equipment, and Instruc- tional Materials for the Science Program," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: NSSE (1960), 229-257. Maunier, Russell LeRoy. "The Relationship of Facilities to Student Academic Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVIII (1968), 2950A. Michigan High School Athletic Association Bulletin, November Supplement, Directory Issue, 1967-68 School Year, XLIV, No. A-S (November, 1967), pp. 232-23”, 236. Munch, Theodore W. "Secondary School Science Facilities: Recent Construction -- How Effective?," The Science Teacher, XXV (November, 1958), 398-AOO, A16, A18-19. 113 Novak, Alfred. "Scientific Inquiry in the Laboratory," The Ameglcan Biology Teacher, XXV, No. 5 (May, 1963) 3A2—3A6. Novak, Joseph D. "A Case Study of Curriculum Change -— Since PSSC," School Science and Mathematics, (May, 1969), pp. 37A—38A. Salmon, Richard Joseph. "The Relationship of Selected Factors to the Biological Facilities in Connecticut Secondary School," Dissertation Abstracts, XXIX (1969), 2616A. Sinaiko, H. Wallace and Buckley, E. P. "Human Factors in the Design of Systems, Selected Papers on Human Factors in the Design and Use of Control Systems, H. Wallace Sinaiko, Editor, New York: Dover Publi— cations, Inc. (1961) pp. l-Al, reprinted from NHL Report A996. Washington: Naval Research Laboratory (August 29, 1957), pp. iv—A9. Smith, B. Othanel. "Conditions of Learning," Designing Education for the Future, No. 2: Implications for Education of Prospective Changes in Society. New York: Citation Press, (1967), pp.I61-76. Stephan, O. M. "The Design of Biological Laboratories for Secondary Schools," The Design of Biological Laboratories. H. V. Wyatt, Editor. London: F. J. Milner & Sons Limited (1965), pp. 18-26. Stotler, Donald. "The Supervision of the Science Program," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: NSSE (1960), 213—228. I Stottlemyer, Richard G. "Secondary School Classroom Space Requirements--A Study to Examine Relation— ships Between Gross Room Area Per Pupil and Academic Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII (1966), 90-A. . Trump. L. Lloyd. "School Buildings for Modern Programs -- Some Informal Comments on Functional Architecture," High School Journal, (November 1966), pp. 79-86. . "Some Problems Faced in Organizing Science Teaching Differently," The Science Teacher, XXXI, No. A (May, 196“), 37-39- 11A Tyler, Ralph W. "The Behavioral Scientist Looks at the Purposes of Science—Teaching," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I. Chicago: NSSE (1960), 31—33. Vanzwoll, James A. "Classroom Size Standards Shrinking," American School Board Journal, CLHI (September, 1966), pp. 57-58. Unpublished Materials Kyzar, Barney Lewis. "A Comparison of Instructional Practices in Classrooms of Different Design." Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas, 1961. Monacel, Louis David. "The Effects of Planned Educa- tional Facilities Upon Curriculum EXperiences and Related Attitudes and Aspirations of Teachers, Pupils and Parents in Selected Urban Elementary Schools." Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963. Morris, John. "Technical Report No. A7: Rank Correla- tion Coefficients. Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, January 5, 1967. (Mimeographed). National Association for Research in Science Teaching. New Approaches to Science Education Research. Abstracts of Presented Papers at the A2nd Annual NARST Meeting, February 6-9, 1969. Columbus: ERIC Information Analysis Center for Science Education, 1969. Price, John William. "An Investigation of Relationships Between School Plant Design and Flexibility of Student Grouping in Secondary Schools of Suburban New York." Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1965. Rose, Stuart W. "The Effect on Behavior of the Qualitative Attributes of the Elements that Define an Educational Activity Space." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. 115 Wright, David J. and Porter, Andrew C. "An Adaptation of Frank B. Baker's Test Analysis Package for Use on the Michigan State University CDC 3600 Computer." Occasional Paper No. 1 Office of Research Consulta- tion, School for Advanced Studies, College of Education, Michigan State University, January, 1968. (Mimeographed). APPENDICES 116 APPENDIX A FEE-SURVEY COVER LETTERS, INSTRUMENT, AND FOLLOW—UP LETTER STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION srAIr eons or roucmow Lensmg, Mochngsn 48902 pares OPPEWALL President THOMAS J. BRENNAN Vice President IRA mum MICHAEL J. mass Superintendent of Public Instruction 3mm JAMss r. O'NEIL December 16, 1968 Treasurer manor 0. AUGENSTEIN MARILYN JEAN KELLY CHARLES E. MORTON EDWIN L. NOVAK. 0.0. , GOV. WILLIAM G. MILLIst . Bx-Officio Dear Principal: We are asking for your assistance in helpirg the FSEA Title III project office of the Michigan Department of Education to study the relationship of classroan design to instructional practice. An in-depth prototype study in one specific curriculun area will be conducted by Mr. John Norman. 'Ihe stucb' will examine secondary biolog roan designs and their suitability for various types of instruction. A two—part stumr has been devised. Part I will consist of collecting information thrqgi questionnaire regarding the types of biology facilities that exist in the State. In Part II, additional information will be gathered througi a field visitation. Analyses of this information will be made concern- ire the instructional adequacy of various types of biolog facilities. Results of the studv will be made available to those schools which retmn qmstiomaires. Your cooperation is urgently needed at this time in order to carryoutPartIofthestumJ. Weareasldngthatyougivemeof the enclosed questionnaires to each teacher in your high school whose major assigment is in biology (any extra questiomaires can be inept for future reference). Upon canpletion of the questionnaires, would you please assune the responsibility for returning than in the large enclosed envelOpe by January 15, 1969, to: ESEA Title III State Department of Education Lansing, Michigan A8902 'Ihank you for cooperating in this activity. Sincerely yours , ./ ' .. Lid/416v? AJ/agé?‘ /‘,.._—-- +37" E ellogg/ Ralph Director, Curriculun Division Bureau of Educational Services ERIN ' Enclosure 118 119 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lansing, Michigan December 16, 1968 TO: The Biology Teacher :11 LT] The ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study This study is being conducted by the ESEA Title III project office of the Department of Education for the purpose of investigating the relationship of biology laboratory design to instructional practice. Mr. John Norman will be the person in this office respon- ible for conducting this study, and he may be contacting you later concerning follow—up materials. A two-part study plan has been developed to help us achieve this overall objective. Part I will consist of collecting information through questionnaire regarding the types of biology laboratory facilities that exist in the State. In Part II, additional information will be gathered through field visitation. Analyses will be made concerning the instructional adequacy of various types of laboratory designs. Results of the study will be made available to those teachers who return question- naires. Your assistance in completing this questionnaire is needed at this time in order for us to carry out Part I of the study. Information obtained from this study could prove to be invaluable to educators seeking to improve their biology laboratory facilities. Please note that this questionnaire largely pertains to the room where YOU teach biology: if you teach in several rooms, then please answer with regard to the one where biology laboratory is taught. Upon completion of the questionnaire, it should be returned to your principal before January 15, 1969, so that he can send it to the Department along with any others from your school. Please make sure you have written your NAME and SCHOOL ADDRESS on the questionnaire, since this information is needed for Part II of the over— all study plan. Thank you for assisting us in this project. 120 Name of Biology Teacher School Address I. BASIC FLOOR PLAN OF YOUR BIOLOGY LABORATORY In this section we are interested in obtaining a verbal and graphical description of the floor plan of the room where YOU teach biology laboratory. The room of interest here should not include adjacent special purpose rooms (i.e. greenhouse, special pro- jects room, storage room) or other more removed supplementary rooms (i.e. auditorium, library, out- door nature center). In this description we are not only interested in the QUANTITIES and SHAPES of the major fixed and movable furniture, but also in its SPATIAL ARRANGEMENT in the room. 1. Directions: Listed below are several categories of biology laboratory floor plans. Please CIRCLE the letter of the category that best describes the floor plan of your room. The category "OTHER" is provided for those rooms that do not fit any of these categories. If the latter is true, then please give a verbal description here of your floor plan in similar terms. A. SPLIT AREA FLOOR PLAN Separate areas at opposite ends of the labora- tory are provided for different instructional purposes. One area is for demonstration and discussion, and the other area is for labora— tory activities. B. PERIMETER LABORATORY TABLE FLOOR PLAN Student laboratory tables and/or work counters are along two or more of the walls. In the center of the room are student desks and/or tables that are facing a demonstration table. C. CENTRAL LABORATORY TABLE FLOOR PLAN Student laboratory tables are located in the center of the room. There is a demonstration table in the front of the room. There is. limited, if any, student work counter space along the walls. ~ D. MULTIPURPOSE CLASSROOM FLOOR PLAN Student lecture desks are located in the center of the room. At the front of the room is a 121 demonstration table. There is limited, if any student work counter space along the walls. E. OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) 2. Directions: On the following page, a piece of graph paper is provided for you to sketch the floor plan of your biology laboratory. This drawing may be done free- hand but should approximate the QUANTITY, SHAPE, and LOCATION of the major equipment and features of the laboratory. Listed below are the items that should be included in your drawing, if they are present in your room. Please LABEL THESE ITEMS WITH THE LETTER THAT PRECEDES THE ITEM IN THE LIST. Figure I is an example of how such a laboratory floor plan might be drawn. ROOM ITEMS Fixed Installations - Furniture Movable Furniture - and other major room items that Furniture that can be are attached to the floor and/ easily moved from one or wall, or that are so cumber- location to another some to move that for most for different instruc- instructional purposes they tional purposes. stay in the same place. A. Demonstration Table L. Demonstration B. Student Laboratory Tables Tables and/or Work Counters M. Student Laboratory C. Storage Cabinets Tables and/or Work D. Display Cases Counters E. Book Cases N Student Lecture F. Doors Desks (Give Number) G. Windows 0. Student Laboratory H. Other (Specify) ' Chairs or Stools I. Other (Specify) P. Other (Specify) J. Other (Specify) Q. Other (Specify) K. Other (Specify) R. Other (Specify) ' S. Other (Specify) ’ “t V ~15: an ”L5 1 1 r 441 l . . F 1632?. DESK AREA (10) I4 1,, .yvl', r-T—lfi .J Aunt -. F L 1'0 Lorndor 123 'FACILITIES AVAILABLE TO YOUR STUDENTS BOTH WITHIN YOUR LABORATORY ROOM AND/OR IN NEARBY ROOMS In this section we are interested in the major facilities available to YOUR STUDENTS, both within your laboratory room and/or in nearby rooms. Directions: For each item listed below, CIRCLE the category that best describes the facilities available to your students. If the item referred to is not available to your students, then circle a "zero" or "no. I! 1. Shelf Storage for Student A00 300 200 100 0 Projects (linear feet) 2. Student Work Counter 90 6O 30 15 0 Space (linear feet) 3. Height of Student 36 3A 30 29 0 Laboratory Tables (Measured in Inches From Floor to Work Surface) A. Number of Sinks A 3 2 l O 5. Number of Electrical 7 5 3 2 0 Outlets 6. Number of Gas Outlets 7 5 3 2 O 7. Fume Hood , Yes No 8 Greenhouse Yes No 9 Life Alcove Yes No 10. Science Library Yes No 11. Student Special Projects Area or Room Yes No 12. Other (Specify) 13. Other (Specify) 1A. Other (Specify) APPENDIX B SURVEY COVER LETTERS, INSTRUMENT, AND FOLLOW—UP LETTER 12A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION sure some or roucmow ‘Lansing, Michigan 48902 PETER OPPBWALL President THOMAS J. BRENNAN Vice President MICHAEL J. DEEII Secretery JAMES 1’. ONE“. Treasurer IRA POLLEY superintendent of Public Inumcu'ou - LEROY c. AUGENSTEIN A e ,- up P11 53 ’ 1969 MARILYN JEAN KELLY CHARLES E. MORTON EDWIN L. NOVAK. 0.0. GOV. “’ILLIAM G. MILLIKEN Ex-Officio Dear Principal: Thank you for participating in the Michigan Department of Education's ESEA Title III Study of the relationship of classroom design to instructional practice. As you may recall, a two-part study has been devised. Part I of this study consists of collecting information through several questionnaires regarding the types of biology facilities that exist in the State. In Part II, additional information will be gathered through field visitations to selected schools. Results of the entire study will be made available to those schools participating in the study. We are now asking for your further COOperation in helping us complete the final phase of Part I Of this study plan. This is the most important section of the overall study, because it deals with the instructional advantages Of various room designs. We are asking that you give the enclosed questionnaire(s) to the biology teacher whose name appears on the front cover of the Questionnaire, -Upon completion of the questionnaire, would you please assume the responsibility for returning it in the large enclosed envelope by May 7, 1969 to: - ESEA Title III State Department of Education Lansing, Michigan u8902 Again we would like to thank you for your COOperation. Sincerely yours, Don E. Goodson, Coordinator ESEA Title III John T. Norman Jr., Researcher ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study JTN:mjn Enclosure 125 126 STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT-OF EDUCATION mm Lansing, Michigan 48902 _ PETER OPPEWALL President THOMAS J. BRENNAN Vice President IRA POLLEY MICHAEL I. DEER Superintendent of Public Instruction Secretory JAMES P. O'NEIL Tremrer LEROY G. AUGENSTEIN MARILYN JEAN KELLY CHARLES E. MORTON ElfiVIN L. NOVAK. 0.0. CO". “'IUJAM (3. MILLIKEN Ex-Offlcio Dear Principal: Perhape you have already returned the ESEA Title III Biology Facility.5tudy Questionnaires that were recently sent to you. If so, we want to thank you. However, if you have not nailed these questionnaires as yet, we request your eaeietence in this endeavor. A queetionnaire should be completed by each teacher in your high school whoee Iejor teaching assignment is in the area of biolog . Upon coupleciou of the queeciouneireo they should be returned by February 1, 1969, to ESEA Title 1!! Biology Facility Study, Department of Education, Lansing, Hichigen £8902. Reeulte of chie etudy any contribute significantly to the planning of future school fecilitiee. In order that thgse results will be as representative ee poeeible of such facilities in the State, questionnairee ehould be returned free all high echoole. If for any reason it is impossible for you to return the questionnaire, we would appreciate it if you would complete the enclosed poetcerd eo that we can account for ee easy schools as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Do E. Goodeon, Coordinator ESEA Title III Raf Wop John '1'. Norman, Jr., Researcher . ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study DBG:JTN:kee 127 ESEA Title III DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Lansing, Michigan April 23, 1969 TO: RE: The ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study We appreciate your participation in the Michigan Department of Education's ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study. As you may recall, a two-part study plan has been developed to help us study the relationship of biology laboratory design to instructional practice. Part I consists of collecting information through several questionnaires regarding the types of biology facilities that exist in the State. In Part II, . additional information will be gathered through field visitations to selected schools. Results of the entire study will be made available to those schools participating in the study. We are now asking for your assistance in completing this final questionnaire. It is the most important question- naire of the study, because it deals with the instructional adequacy of various types of room designs. In this questionnaire the term "room design" refers not only to the quantities and shapes of the major fixed and movable furniture, but also to its spatial arrange— ment in the room. The room of interest here does not refer to nearby special purpose rooms (i.e. greenhouse or storage room) or other more removed supplementary rooms (i.e. auditorium, library). Upon completion of the questionnaire, it should be sealed in the enclosed envelope and returned to your principal before May 7, 1969 so that he can send it to the Department along with any others from your school. Please make sure you have answered every question, since an unanswered question may invalidate your return. Thank you again for assisting us in the final phase of this project. Infrequently Used Very N 1.233 QUESTIONNAIRE, PART I DIRECTIONS: For each of the following instructional practices listed below please re— spond twice, once to the scale on the left and once to the scale on the right. In the left scale please circle the number that best indicates how FREQUENTLY you use this practice in your biology teaching. In the ri ht scale, please circle the number that most accurately represents how SUITABLE you feel your biology room design is for this practice. Infrequently Used Neutral Frequently Used Very Frequently Used Very Unsuitable Unsuitable Neutral Suitable (A) b U1 _.5 ._n N 00 .5 Providing the opportunity for students to come in before or after school to work on advanced projects. 3 4 5 2. Helping a class follow prescribed experi- l 2 3 4 ments in the chemistry of digestion, which might require the heating and mixing of various chemicals. 3 4 5 3. Assisting the students of a class in inde- l 2 3 4 pendent laboratory investigations, where each student may be doing a different in- vestigation that may require different chemicals and equipment. 3 4 5 4. Meeting with a biology club of about fifteen l 2 3 4 students that is involved in various club projects and activities. 3 4 5 S. Assisting the class in their study of pro- l 2 3 4 tozoa under microscopes. 3 4 5 6. Viewing single concept films (film loops) 1 2 3 4 in groups of about eight students each. 3 4 5 7. Conducting relatively free and open in- l 2 3 4 terest group discussions where pupils may express complaints, outline procedures, or just brainstorm. 3 4 5 8. Providing the opportunity for a large number I 2 3 4 of your students to work on long term extra; class science fair projects, such that their projects can be left intact in the room and away from interference from other students. 3 4 5 9. Involving small groups of students in the l 2 3 4 planning of long term biology experiments, such as the effect of light color on the growth of seedlings. 3 4 5 10. Assisting a group of about three or four 1 2 3 4 students in making a model or a replica that illustrates a biological phenomena (such as a model illustrating the action of the flexor and extensor muscles in humans) while other students are working at other activities. Very Suitable U1 Infrequently Used Infrequently Used Frequently Used Frequently Used Very Neutral Very _.e D _II II. 12. l3. 14. IS. 16. I7. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 129 Giving assistance to a student who has asked for help. Providing the opportunity for students to engage in "discovery type" laboratory ac- tivities. Having the members of a class dissect a small animal with the aid of a prepared guide. Using the microprojector with a small number of students to demonstrate the microscopic structure of an onion root tip, while other students are working at other activities. Involving students in microscope laboratory activities where they are using programmed learning materials that enable them to work at their own speed. Giving a class demonstration to illustrate the effect of certain drugs on the heart rate of a frog or other small animal. Giving a standardized biology test to the entire class. Participating in a science seminar where various unresolved biological issues are discussed. Having a small group of students report to the class about the results of a biology investigation in which they were involved. Providing within easy reach of every student a wealth of diversified materials which lend themselves to a variety of approaches to learning. Introducing a biological concept such as mitosis through the showing of a 16mm movie to the class. Involving several classes of biology students in a seed germination experiment which re- quires that each student's materials be stored in the room so that they may be re- examined after a period of four days. Meeting with small groups of students for the purpose of asking questions that will better allow the teacher to measure indi- vidual student progress. Very Unsuitable Unsuitable Neutral Suitable Very Suitable —e N w b 0'! b Used Infrequently Very 130 ‘O Q) 2’; as “Q will +3 3 D: w-QJ s. 2:: 2% Um 3 33%.??? 5‘8 2:333:23.- ’3 2 3 5 24. Having a guest speaker present a forty-five l 2 minute lecture to a class on an important biological phenomenon. 2 3 4 5 25. Allowing individual students to display the l 2 results of their independent study projects. 2 3 4 5 25. Providing the opportunity for the students I 2 of several of your classes to work on bi- ology experiments of their choice that may require several weeks to complete. 2 3 4 5 27. Having each member of the class prepare bac- l 2 - terial cultures that may be incubated at room temperature for future observation. 2 3 4 5 23. Having several groupings of six to eight I 2 students working on a different laboratory experiment, with a minimum of disturbance from other groups. 2 3 4 5 29. Dividing a class of about twenty-four stu- l 2 dents into two or three interest groups so that each may do a different laboratory experiment cooperatively and discuss the results among themselves. 2 3 4 5 30. Allowing students to move at their own dis- 1 2 cretion from a group activity to that of independent reading and research. PLEASE CHECK TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE RESPONDED T0 EVERY ITEM. DIRECTIONS: List here the recommendations you have for improving the instructional adequacy of your biology laboratory design. Neutral Suitable Very Suitable (a) b 01 131 QUESTIONNAIRE, PART II DIRECTIONS: 'Please answer each of the following questions by checking . the most appropriate box. l. When was your biology laboratory 3. What is your average number of constructed? biology students per class? D before the year I950 D 24 or less E] l950 - l959 E] 25 - 32 E] l960 or later [3 more than 32 2. What type of biology curriculum 4. How much college biology materials are predominately coursework have you had? being used in your classes? (Check only one) [:Iless than 20 semester hours (27 quarter hours) [1 Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life (BSCS [ZJbiology minor or about Yellow Version). Harcourt, 22 semester hours (30 Brace & World, Inc. quarter hours) [3 Biological Science: Molecules [:Jbiology major or at least to man (BSCS Blue Version). (45 quarter hours) [:IBiological Science: Patterns 5. How many years have you taught and Processes (BSCS). Holt, high school biology? Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. [13 years or less EJBSCS Green Version: High School Biology. Rand McNally Elmore than 3 years Company. l:jGregory, William H. and Edward H. Goldman. Biological Science for High School. E] Kimball, John W. Biology. DOtto, James H. and Albert Toole. Modern Biology. E] Smith, Ella Thea. Exploring Biology: The Science of Living Things. DTrump, Richard F. and David L. Fagle. Design for Life. .Weinberg, Stanley L. Biology: An Ingyiry into the Nature of Life. E]Other (Please Specify) APPENDIX C BIOLOGY LABORATORY VISITATION GUIDE 132 STATE or MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION wflik‘ L8HSII’IQ, Michigan 48902 ppm“ OPPFJVALL ‘1 ' ' President . “‘i‘ I ‘ THOMAS I. BRENNAN ‘tel- Vice President “'kg'o'é‘ w \ ”in, ' MICHAEL J. DEER Iurrnulrndrnl n! PuI'IIc lmrrm‘tmlr Slflflafv IAMES F. O'NBTL May 12, 1969 Treasurer LEROY G. AUCFNSTETN MARILYN WAN KELLY CHARLES E. MUNICN T'I)\\'IN L. NOVAK. OJ). GOV. “'ILLIAM (I. MTLIJKFN Exrnfflcio Dear Principal: Perhaps you have already returned the ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study questionnaire that was recently sent to you. If so, we want to thank you. However, if you have not mailed this questionnaire as yet, we request your assistance in this endeavor. The enclosed questionnaire(s) should be‘given to the biology teacher whose name appears on the front cover of the questionnaire. Upon cOMpletion of the questionnaire, would you please assume the responsibility for returning it in the large enclosed envelope by May 19, 1969, to ESEA Title III, State Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan u8902. Results of this study may contribute significantly to the planning of future school facilities. In order that these results will be as representative as possible, questionnaires should be returned from all schools that were selected to participate in the study. If for any reason it is impossible for you to return the questionnaire, we would appreciate it if you would complete the enclosed postcard so that we can account for as many schools as possible. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours, Dow 6.10% Don E. Goo son, Coordinator ESEA Title III T. W . Jo T. Norman r., Rssear er ESEA Title III Biology Facility Study pm : J'l‘limjn Enclosure I34 Biology Laboratory Visitation Guide Ask the teachers the following questions: a. What is most needed to improve your biology teaching? L. How could the design of your biology facility have been improved? 0. How adequate is your biology room design for: (1) small group instruction (2—15 students) (2) large group instruction (full class) (3) independent study (I) Take out both the pre-survey and survey instruments, and ask the teacher to conment on their clarity. Take photographs of the laboratory design, and check the measurements listed on their pre—survey instru- ment. III I: Y