AN EXPERlMENTAL 3mm OF THE EFFECTS OF A.
PRESERWCE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE cuzzmcuwm , -.

INNOVATION 0N SELECTED MEASURES OF TEACHER ‘
AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE ”

Thesis for the Degree of .Ph. D‘- ,
MICHIGAN STATEUNI‘VERSWY
HAROLD HENRY GRUNAU '
191?.

\, rib;

lfl\lllllllLlllsllelllllllflllljflllllfllflflll :.-1*”'““‘fff'f”““‘“?

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF A
PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM
INNOVATION ON SELECTED MEASURES OF

TEACHER AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE

presented by

Harold Henry Grunau

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_Eh..D.._. degree in Jducation

awm

51$: professor
Date Zfi’fo CQj/¢7fl’

0-7639

 

 

ABSTRACT

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF A
PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM
INNOVATION ON SELECTED MEASURES OF

TEACHER AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE

BY

Harold Henry Grunau

The purpose of this study was to compare the effective-
ness of two instructional methods of preparing preservice ele-
mentary teachers to teach selected processes of science to
children. Another purpose was to compare the relationships
of initial attitudes toward teaching science and science pro-
cess skill competency to initial teaching behaviors.

One instructional method was designed to improve the
skills of observing, classifying, and inferring in the teach-
ers. The other was designed to improve directly the teachers'
ability to elicit observing, classifying, and inferring
behavior in children by questioning. Measures of teacher
attitude and behavior were assessed. Measures of pupil per-
formance made for each teacher consisted of the means of
pupil scores based on the extent to which lesson objectives
were achieved by the pupils taught by a given teacher.

Forty lower elementary preservice teachers were
randomly assigned to one or the other of two instructional

treatment types. Further division of the entire group into

Harold Henry Grunau

high and low initial process skill levels led to the 2x2
design used in the study.

Prior to and after instructional treatment, teachers
taught a science exercise to a small group of children.
Measures of pre- and postinstructional attitude and of behav-
ior during science teaching were made for all teachers. For
a subset of sixteen teachers, pre— and postinstructional
performance of pupils was also assessed.

The results indicated that even prior to instruc-
tional treatment, teachers performed a range of desirable
behaviors including a high question complexity level, and
that a teacher's knowledge of the processes of science has
precedence over her attitude toward the teaching of science
when relationships to desirable initial teaching behaviors
are considered. There were no significant differences in
the effects of the two instructional treatments. The
results did indicate, however, that preservice teachers of
high initial science process skill who had undergone one or
the other of the instructional treatment types demonstrated
teaching behaviors significantly different from those of low
initial science process skill. The differences were due in
large part to question complexity level, with higher initial
science process skill levels associated with a higher final
proportion of observing, classifying, and inferring ques—
tions asked. No significant interactions were found.
Finally, the Process Questioning Strategies instructional

method by itself was effective in reducing the amount of

Harold Henry Grunau

teacher-controlled silence including demonstrating to pupils.
The Process Skill deveIOpment instructional method by itself
was effective in increasing the prOportion of time teachers
devote to questioning and to allowing pupils to respond,
and in reducing the prOportion of time devoted to direction
giving by the teacher.

Implications for educational practice were that:

1) Teachers of science should be provided with better
equipment.

2) Prospective teachers should be selected in part on
the basis of attitude related to teaching science and
process skill ability.

3) Desirable inservice science teaching practices
should be used as standards of preservice behavior.

4) Self-paced modular teacher education programs should
be used to develop specific skills in teachers.

5) Pupil performance measures should be among those used
to assess the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs.

Recommendations for future research were that:

l) attitude as it relates to teachers of science be
further clarified.

2) data available from the study be further analyzed
to determine more patterns of influence.

3) inquiry behavior patterns be examined in intact

classrooms.

Harold Henry Grunau

4) research be conducted to determine when direction-
giving in science classes is perceived as restrictive, and
when not.

5) a replication of the study, with modifications, be
conducted.

6) applications of cognitive balance theory be used in

preservice instructional programs.

AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE EFFECTS OF A
PRESERVICE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM
INNOVATION ON SELECTED MEASURES OF

TEACHER AND PUPIL PERFORMANCE

BY

Harold Henry Grunau

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum

1972

49)

fl /T’~ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I

p

Those who contributed to the completion of this
study will long be remembered.

Margie, Elaine, and more recently Sonia, often had
to come last. We know. No more.

Dr. Julian R. Brandou, chairman of the guidance
committee, gave unfailingly of himself with encouragement,
counsel, and guidance throughout the long road to completion
of the entire doctoral program. My sincere thanks.

Dr. Erwin P. Bettinghaus, in the capacity of advisor
and committee member, gave generously of his time and
insight. Drs. Glenn D. Berkheimer and Richard L. Featherstone,
guidance committee members, were extremely helpful, particu-
larly in the final stages of thesis preparation.

Colleagues and friends, not only in Michigan but in
points as distant as Manitoba and Texas, played their parts,
as they well know.

Finally, to the students and cooperating teachers
and the school officials and eager youngsters who partici-

pated in the teaching phases of the study--thank you.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . .

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .

Purpose. . . . . . . . .
Objectives and Questions
Need for the Study . . .
Definition of Terms. . .
Assumptions. . . . . . .
Limitations. . . . . . .
Treatment of the Problem

Organization of the Thesis

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Overview of the Related Literature . . .
Elementary Science Teacher Objectives

and Characteristics. .
Role of the Teacher. . .

Selected Characteristics of Teachers .
Summary of the Review of the Literature

DESIGN OF THE STUDY. . . .

Selection and Description of the

Description of the Treatments.
Description of Instruments

Experimental Design. . .

Procedures of the Investigation.

Analysis of the Data . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . .
smary O O O O O O O O 0

iii

Sample.

Page

vii

viii

H

18
23

51
56

56
61
64
74
75
80
82
84

Chapter 1 Page

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Implications for Educational Practice. . . . 137
Recommendations for Future Research. . . . . 139

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 142

APPENDICES O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 15]-

iv

Table

1.

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Means and Standard Deviations of Entering
Characteristics of Teachers . . . . . . . .

Relationship Between Two Entering
Characteristics and Initial
Teaching Behaviors. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of the
Pretest Scores Used in the Several
Analyses of Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . .

Means and Standard Deviations of the
Posttest Teacher Characteristics for
the Two Methods of Instruction. . . . . . .

Comparison of Instructional Type (Process
Skills Versus Instructional Strategies)
for Teacher Attitudes and Behaviors . . . .

Comparison of Initial Process Skill Levels
(High and Low) for Teacher Attitudes
and Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . .’. . .

Comparison of Interaction Effect Between
Instructional Type (Process Skills Versus
Process Questioning Strategies) and Initial
Process Skill Level (High and Low). . . . .

Multivariate and Univariate Analysis of
Covariance Showing Effects of Initial
Attitude Toward Teaching Science Levels
(High and Low) for Teacher Attitudes
and Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Pretest and Posttest Scores and
Associated T-Values of Pre- and Post-
Instructional Comparisons for Four
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Pretest and Posttest Percent of
Behaviors and Associated T-Values of
Comparisons for Thirteen Categories of
the I.A.S.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

89

90

92

93

96

98

103

106

108

109

Table

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

Mean Pre- and Post Per Cent of Behaviors
for Each Instructional Treatment Type
and Associated P—Values of Pre— to Post—
Comparisons for Thirteen Categories
of the I.A.S.T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table of Individual Pretreatment Pupil
Competency Measure Scores and Mean Pupil
Performance Scores for Each Teacher With
Cell Means and Compositions . . . . . . . .

Table of Individual Posttreatment Pupil
Competency Measure Scores and Mean Pupil
Performance Scores for Each Teacher With
Cell Means and Compositions . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Effect of Instructional Type,
Level of Initial Process Skill, and
Interaction Effect of Treatment by Level
on Pupil Performance. . . . . . . . . . . .

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance Showing
Effects of Initial Attitude Toward Teaching
Science on Six Dependent Variables,
Including Pupil Performance . . . . . . . .

Mean Scores of Pupil Performance for Pre-
and Postinstructional Teaching. . . . . . .

vi

Page

112

116

117

118

119

122

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Selection and Assignment of Teachers
to Instructional Method and

Pupil Groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2. Overview of Type and Time of Measures Used. . . 64
3. Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

4. Cell Compositions Illustrating Total
Number of Teacher Subjects Per Cell
of the 2x2 Fixed Effects Design . . . . . . . 87

5. Regrouping of Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . . 9S

6. Pre- and Postinstruction Means for Measures
of Teacher Behavior for Three Variables
Measured From Teachers of High and Low
Initial Process Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . lOl

vii

Appendix

A.

B.

LIST OF APPENDICES

SCIENCE PROCESS TEST FOR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TEACHERS (3rd Revised Edition). . .

"SCIENCE PROCESS TEST FOR ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL TEACHERS" DATA FOR TWO GROUPS
OF MANITOBA TEACHERS . . . . . . . . . . .

LIST OF SCHOOLS USED IN THE STUDY
WITH SOME CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . .

ATTITUDE TOWARD TEACHING SCIENCE
INSTRUMENTS (FORMS A AND B) WITH
SCALE VALUES FOR SCORING . . . . . . . . .

ATTITUDE TOWARD DIFFERENT METHODS OF
TEACHING SCIENCE INSTRUMENT

SCORING PROCEDURE FOR ATTITUDE TOWARD
DIFFERENT METHODS OF TEACHING SCIENCE
INSTRUMENT o o o o o o o o o o I O I 0 O O

INSTRUMENT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE
TEACHING (I.A.S.T.) BASE SCALE

GROUND RULES FOR THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT
FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE TEACHING . . .

TABLE OF RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR USE OF
INSTRUMENT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE
TEACHING O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

SCIENCE TEACHING OBSERVATIONAL INSTRUMENT.

TABLE OF INTRA-OBSERVER RELIABILITY
ESTIMATES OF THE S.T.O.I. . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF SCORES FOR TWO OBSERVERS AND
INTEROBSERVER PERCENT OF AGREEMENT FOR
SCORING PUPIL COMPETENCY MEASURE,
INFERRING 5, PART D, SCIENCE--A PROCESS
APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

152

167

169

171

178

185

189

191

193

195

Appendix

K.

Page
LETTER TO PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS
DESCRIBING SCHEDULE NEEDS AND
LESSON MATERIALS OF THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . 197
CORRELATION MATRIX OF TEACHER
CHARACTERISTICS (4O SUBJECTS). . . . . . . . . 199
PRE- AND POST- INSTRUCTIONAL
CORRELATIONS OF PUPIL PERFORMANCE
WITH OTHER VARIABLES (l6 SUBJECTS) . . . . . . 203

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the
effectiveness of two instructional methods of preparing pre-
service elementary teachers to teach selected processes of
science to children. To achieve this purpose, entering
characteristics including teaching behaviors of a sample of
elementary science methods course candidates were first exam-
ined. The relation between levels of attainment of two
characteristics of teachers—~initial attitude toward teaching
science and initial process skill-—were assessed in relation
to the teaching behaviors.

The investigation next compared an instructional
method designed to improve the observing, classifying, and
inferring skills held by teachers with one designed to improve
directly the teacher's ability to elicit observing, classify-
ing, and inferring process skills in children through question-
ing. Comparisons were made both within and outside the context
of teaching children, and included measures of teacher atti-
tude, teacher behavior, and, for a subset of the pOpulation,
measures of pupil performance. The effect of initial process
skill level on postinstructional teacher characteristics and

1

a determination of whether or not the two instructional meth-
ods were differentially effective according to level of initial
process skill were assessed. Changes in teacher character-
istics which resulted over the entire group, within each
instructional method group and within each level of initial

level of process skill, were also assessed.

Objectives and Questions

 

The following questions reflected the major objec—
tives of the study:
1. What were the entering characteristics of teachers when
measured as listed and operationalized below?

a) Attitude toward teaching science (A.T.S.)-vas measured
by Millar's Attitude Toward Any Occupations Scale
(A.T.A.O.), modified to assess attitudes toward the
occupation of "teaching science."

b) Behaviors exhibited during science teachingv—as meas—
ured by the several categories of Hall's Instrument for
the Analysis of Science Teaching base scale (I.A.S.T.),
including the derived ratios of indirect to direct
behavior (I.D.) and student talk to teaching talk (S.T.);
and also questioning types (Q.T.) of behaviors exhibited
during science teaching--as determined from the percen-
tage of total questions categorized by Fischler and
Anastasiow's Science Teaching Observation Instrument

(S.T.O.I.), which relate to making observations,

inferring, and testing inferences (categories 3, 4,

and 5 of the S.T.O.I.).
2. What were the relationships between
a) Initial attitude toward teaching science (A.T.S.) and
b) Knowledge of processes of science as measured by
Sweetser's Elementary School Teacher's Science Process
Test (S.P.T.) and:
the initial teaching behaviors of the preservice
teachers as measured in question lb during science
teaching with pupils but before the commencement of
science methods course instruction?
3. What was the relationship between the use of a process
skills or a process questioning strategies instructional
method and
a) Teacher attitudes-—as measured by attitude toward
teaching science (A.T.S.) and also attitude toward
different methods of teaching science (A.T.D.M.T.S.)--
the latter as measured by Pickering's Attitude Toward
Different Methods of Teaching Science scale; and

b) Teaching behaviors--as measured by question types
(Q.T.), indirect to direct teaching behavior ratio
(I.D.), and the student talk to teacher talk ratio
(S.T.) .

Based on the characteristics listed in questions 3a and

3b, what were the effects of instruction on different

initial process skill levels of teachers, and were the

two instructional methods differentially effective for
different initial process skill levels held by teachers?
Was there evidence of change in teacher attitude (A.T.S.)
or teacher behavior (Q.T., I.D., S.T.) after science
methods instruction?

What was the relationship between the use of a process
skills or a process questioning strategies instructional
method and pupil performance (P.P.)--as measured by mean
scores determined for each teacher from individual Pupil
Competency Measure (P.C.M.) scores achieved by her pupils?
Considering pupil performance, what were the effects of
instruction on different initial process skill levels

of teachers, and were the preservice instructional
methods differentially effective for different teacher
initial process skill levels?

Was there evidence of change in pupil performance after
science methods instruction?

Of particular importance in this study was the problem

of adequately controlling a variety of possible confounding

variables. In that way the effects of the two instructional

methods taught in the college setting were carefully traced

to their effects on the attitudes and teaching behaviors of

the prospective elementary teachers. For a subset of the

sample of teachers, performance of pupils taught by the

teachers was also measured. While there were no additional

questions to ask in relation to this problem of design, the

 

the general efficacy of the technique was carefully considered

and will be further discussed elsewhere in the thesis.

Need for the Study

 

During the decade of the sixties, an impressive array
of elementary science curriculum materials was produced, all
of which offer partial solutions to the general problem of
providing effective alternatives in science education for
children. With the availability of these new curricula,
however, concern shifted to another aspect of the educational
process. Peter Gega pointed to this new problem as he dis-1
cussed the elementary classroom generalist:

How can we improve the preservice preparation of
these peOple? What specific experiences will pre-
pare them to guide children in ways that reflect the
spirit of modern science?

With few exceptions, those who have attempted to answer
Gega's questions have referred to the provision of experiences
in develOping process or inquiry skills. Curtis, for example,
has written of the need for "teacher-training for process-
oriented instruction."2 He further observed that the problem
of training teachers for a role in elementary science where

process skill teaching is a major goal "seems never to have

been attacked."

 

1Peter C. Gega, "The Pre-Service Education of Elemen-
tary Teachers in Science and the Teaching of Science," School
Science and Mathematics, LXVIII (January, 1968), 11-20.

2William C. Curtis, "Teacher-Training for Process
Oriented Science Instruction," Science Education, LI, 5
(December, 1967), 494-498.

3Ibid., p. 494.

 

 

While the need for teachers with more and better
process or inquiry skills has been championed by many workers,
others have voiced similar concerns about the teacher's abil-
ity to apply such skills. Hurd and Gallagher, for example,
observed that the challenge facing curriculum developers in
science is not only how to get teachers to employ an inquir-
ing teaching style, but how to help teachers learn to elicit
the inquiring behavior from children, which the new curricula
were designed to elicit.1 Esler, in a later review, sug-
gested that teachers may understand neither the process
skills themselves, nor the inquiry style of teaching that
seems to be associated with the develOpment of these skills
in children.2

The design of the study was consistent with that
recommended throughout the literature as worthy of careful
study. The literature contains considerable reference to the
complexity of the teacher-learner interaction in its class-
room context. Further, it calls for specific tests of prep-
aratory programs and their effects, tests which control for
extraneous sources of variation to the extent possible.

The effects of teacher preparation of pupils, however,

have seldom been directly tested. Difficulties in selecting

 

lPaul DeHart Hurd and James Gallagher, New Directions

in Elementary School Science Teaching (Belmont, CaIifornia:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1968).

 

 

2William K. Esler, "Structuring Inquiry for Classroom
Use," School Science and Mathematics, LXX, 5 (May, 1970),
454.

 

appropriate teacher and pupil objectives, followed by further
difficulties in measuring the learning outcOmes, are largely
responsible for such neglect. Blosser and Howe, in their
review of research on preservice science education, are among
many, however, who advocate such study:

More research needs to be done in science education at
the elementary level to show the relationship between
preparatory programs and product outcomes. . . .
Research should be done to determine the degree to
which prospective elementary teachers are being pre-
pared to make effective use of the new elementary
science projects. . . .

Areas for study should includ those concerning the
content and experiences to be provided in the elemen-
tary programme, and the relationship of these pro-
grammes to the classroom setting. '

In this study, difficuIties were 5:3..nt tenths extent that it
was possible to gather data regarding pupil performance for only
a subset of sixteen of the entire sample of forty teachers in
the study. Nevertheless, the need to assess pupil outcomes
in relation to preparatory programs was met to that extent.
Some interested groups have already produced modules
for use in elementary science teacher preparation. There is
a need to test and report the effects of these modules in a
variety of settings in order to assess their broad applica-
bility.
Finally, Canada, the site of the proposed research,

has goals and objectives completely compatible with any in

 

1Particia E. Blosser and Robert W. Howe, "An Analy-
sis of Research on Elementary Teacher Education Related to
the Teaching of Science," Science and Children, January/
February, 1969, pp. 58-59.

this study. Yet Canadian research efforts in the area of
preservice elementary science teacher preparation have been
few, and no Canadian research has been reported which
addressed itself to specific questions such as are raised in
this study. In the province of Manitoba, Canada, a four-
year integrated elementary teacher education program is cur—
rently being develOped and is soon to be introduced for the
first time. Answers to research questions such as proposed

can make a distinct contribution to such a program.

Definition of Terms

 

The following are definitions of terms as they were
used in this study.

Initial Process Level, as used in this study, refers
to one or the other of two groupings based on scores which
teachers achieved on Sweetser's Science Process Test for
Elementary School Teachers (Appendix A) prior to instruc-
tional treatment. Score ranges and corresponding classifica—
tions were: Range 40-19 = High Initial Process Level (I.P.L.);
18-0 = Low I.P.L.

Process Skills Method, for purposes of this study,
was that mode of instruction in science processes which con-
sists of modules number 1, 5, 10, and 11 contained in the

report: "Self-Paced Instruction--A Preliminary Report."1

 

1David P. Butts, "Self-Paced Instruction--A Prelim-
inary Report," (Austin, Texas: Science Education Center and
The University Research and DevelOpment Center for Teacher
Education, The University of Texas, 1970).

 

Process Questioning Strategies Method, for purposes
of this study, was that mode of instruction according to
"Elementary Teacher Performance Tasks: Supervision Module,"
specifically eliciting observations, eliciting classifica-
tions, and eliciting inferences.l

A Teacher is an undergraduate student enrolled in a

 

lower elementary (K-3) general education course at Faculty
of Education, University of Manitoba.

ILD; represents the ratio of indirect to direct
teacher behaviors exhibited during teaching, and is calcu-
lated by dividing the total frequencies of occurrence of
categories 1 through 4 on Hall's Instrument for the Analysis
of Science Teaching (I.A.S.T.) by the total frequencies of
categories 5 through 8 on the same scale.

SL2; represents the ratio of student talk to teacher
talk behaviors exhibited during teaching, and is calculated
by dividing the total frequencies of occurrence of categories
9 and 10 on Hall’s Instrument for the Analysis of Science
Teaching (I.A.S.T.) by the total frequencies of categories
1 through 7 on the same scale.

Microteaching, for purposes of this study, was teach-

 

ing within an arrangement of teacher and pupils such that
one teacher taught a group of three to seven pupils using one

set of laboratory materials for the group.

 

1John J. Koran, Jr., and Joan Judge, "Elementary
School Teacher Performance Tasks: Supervision Module" (Austin,
Texas: Research and DevelOpment Center for Teaching, The
University of Texas, 1969).

10

Assumptions

 

Several basic assumptions were made in view of the

nature of the study, the procedures, and the instruments used.

1.

Paper and pencil inventories of the type used in this
study can be used to make valid assessments of attitudes
and initial process skills of beginning teachers.

The modular treatments and the treatment procedures used
were sufficiently self—directed so that producing signifi—
cant differences between treatment groups due to differ-
ences in the instructor variable were avoided.

Pupils used in the study were uniformly exposed to the
activities and materials of the Science--A Process
Approach (S.--A.P.A.) exercise "Inferring 4," normally
preceding that taught by the teachers involved in the
study.

The methods of assigning teachers to schools, to pupils,
and to teaching schedules would not, of themselves, affect
the outcomes of the study.

The student teachers participating in this study were not
significantly different from others not included in the
study who have elected the lower elementary (K-3) teacher
preparation course at University of Manitoba.

Important teacher behaviors are observable, and these
observable behaviors may be described through the use of

objective rating procedures and trained observers.

 

11

 

7. A suitable goal for an elementary science methods course
is to prepare teachers to teach effectively to a small
group of elementary school pupils.

Limitations
A number of important limitations to the study
follow.

1. The study was limited in that only female subjects

who had elected a lower elementary teaching preference
(K-3) participated.

Although there are several attitudes and teaching beha—
viors that relate to the effects of the two treatments,
this study was limited in that it considered only atti—
tude toward teaching science, attitude toward different
methods of teaching science, and verbal behaviors as
measured by the content analysis and the interaction
analysis methods described.

The subset of the sample on which data regarding pupil
performance were gathered represented only 40 per cent
of the entire sample and the subset was treated separately
in the analysis in regard to pupil performance.

The experimental treatments were each limited to a total
of six hours of instructional time and to the modules
selected for use during this time.

The teaching behaviors of the subjects were demonstrated
in the context of only one exercise which had been

expressly selected for the study.

12

6. The study was conducted using a group of preservice
teachers in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Generality of results
was thus limited.

7. It was possible to measure the student teaching behavior
and effectiveness phases of this study only in a miCro-

teaching context and not in entire, intact classes.

Treatment of the Problem

 

This study was designed to determine the relative
effectiveness of two methods of teaching one portion of an
elementary science methods course.

Forty teachers regularly enrolled in and randomly
selected from the membership of two science methods classes
totaling fifty—two teachers at University of Manitoba
winter term, 1971, were randomly assigned to one or the
other of two treatment groups, either a process skills group
or a process questioning strategies group. After completing
tests to measure attitude toward teaching science and initial
process skills, teachers were each assigned to micro-teach a
selected exercise to a small group of third grade Metropol-
itan Winnipeg school children in one of seven schools par-
ticipating in the study. Audio—tapes of the teaching behaviors
were made with portable recorders. For a subset of sixteen
teachers in two schools, scores achieved by the pupils taught
by each teacher were also assessed.

On returning to their regular class meetings, teach-

ers received the instructional treatment to which they had

 

13

been assigned. Each instructional treatment was of six
hours duration. Teachers next completed two instruments to
measure their attitudes, specifically attitude toward teach—
ing science and second, attitude toward different methods of
teaching science. They were next rescheduled to teach and
subsequently taught another small group of third grade chil—
dren an exercise identical to the one which they had pre—
viously taught. Audio-tape records were again made. For
the subset of sixteen teachers already mentioned, scores
achieved by their pupils were assessed as before.

The remaining data were gathered from the audio—tapes
using several techniques of audio-tape analysis. Written
transcripts of the questions asked by teachers were made to
aid in the audio-tape analysis of teacher question types.

The instruments and techniques for these procedures are des-
cribed elsewhere in the thesis. Data resulting from the
interaction analysis observations of each teacher were sub-
mitted for computer analysis to determine the percentage

of class time devoted to each of the several behaviors
assessed by the instrument. Ratios of combinations of beha—
viors were also calculated and these, as variables, were
later used in the testing of hypotheses.

A correlation matrix was constructed and included all
of the independent and dependent variables used in the study.
It also included values for the individual subscores from
the I.A.S.T.; that is, the percentages of each of fourteen

categories of behavior which teachers used in their initial

 

14

and final teaching of pupils. The relationship of initial
process skill and initial attitudes toward teaching science
to initial teaching behaviors, as well as other relation-
ships of interest, were determined from the results of the
correlation matrix.

Hypotheses pertaining to the effect of instructional
treatment type, effect of instructional treatment of initial
process level,and differential effect of treatment on level
were tested. Separate two—way multivariate analyses of
covariance were used to test hypotheses associated with atti-
tudes of teachers (two variables) and teaching behaviors
(three variables). For the subset of sixteen teachers a
single two-way univariate analysis of covariance was used to
test hypotheses associated with pupil performance as a result
of instructional treatment and teaching. In all analysis of
covariance tests, scores on available preinstructional treat—
ment tests were used as the covariates.

The extent of changes in attitude and behavior within
groups was determined by performing t-tests of differences
between the means for measures of activity before and after
instructional treatment. A similar test was performed on the
measure of pupil performance, before and after instructional
treatment, for the sixteen teachers in the subset of the

entire sample.

 

15

Organization of the Thesis

 

Presented in Chapter I was the statement of the pur-
pose of the study. Objectives and questions to be answered
followed, along with a delineation of the need for the study.
Definitions of terms, assumptions, and limitations, as well
as a description of the overall treatment of the problem,
were presented.

Chapter II includes an overview, a review of the
literature related to the development of the problem, and a
summary of the literature pertinent to the study.

In Chapter III the overall methods of the study are
examined in detail. Specifically, the selection and des-
cription of the sample, description of the several treat-
ments and instruments, the research design, and the proce—
dures of the investigation are presented, as well as the
methods for analysis of the data and the research hypotheses.

The analysis of the data and the findings based on
this analysis are reported in Chapter IV.

Finally, Chapter V contains a summary of the findings,
conclusions from the study, a discussion of implications for

educational practice, and recommendations for future research.

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Overview of the Related Literature

 

A beginning point in the present study and consequently
in the review of the literature was an attempt to establish
the importance of science process objectives for pupils in
the science curricula of the schools. Objectives such as
learning to observe, classify, and infer were found to be
among the many science process objectives worthy of study by
pupils. These three objectives served as the target to which
questions regarding the nature of specific elements of teacher
preparatory programs could be directed. The literature
reviewed considered two approaches to the preparation of
teachers for such process-oriented instruction. One of these
consisted of improving in the teacher the cognitive skills of
observing, classifying, and inferring in order that she might
better understand and use them and hopefully find a suitable
way to teach the skills to children if called upon to do so.
The other approach centered on the need to practice and develop
specific behavioral skills, in this case the skill of elicit-
ing observing, classifying, and inferring behavior in children
through the use of questions. While each approach was shown
to have merit, and some results of the use of each were

16

17

documented, the literature did not reveal sufficient evidence
to suggest the efficacy of one approach over the other.
Self-paced instructional materials in module form were sub—
sequently located and reviewed. This study tested several
effects of the two instructional approaches to preparing
teachers to teach observing, classifying, and observing
through the use of appropriate self-paced modules. Some
problems of experimental design which occurred in previous
research were noted, and suggestions for improving the design
of this study were made.

Several important teacher characteristics were next
identified. One goal of teacher education was reported to be
satisfactory pupil performance on suitably selected objectives.
The literature also suggested several intermediate goals
which appeared worthy of investigation. For example, certain
teacher training procedures may result in desirable attitude
changes which precede selected behavior changes. The review,
accordingly, included reference to the nature and measurement
of attitudes generally, as well as to specific studies asso-
ciated with teacher attitudes toward elementary science and
its teaching. Another intermediate goal, which may be closer
to the ultimate criterion of modified pupil behavior, was
apprOpriate teacher behavior. The literature revealed sev-
eral theoretic bases from which such behavior could be exam-
ined. Studies based on a model of teaching viewed as a
sequence of logical operations,and dependent on verbal

actions such as questioning behavior, were reviewed and found

18

to be useful for purposes of this study. Another model
analyzed verbal behaviors exhibited during teacher-pupil
interactions. This model attempted to interpret teaching
behaviors in terms of psychological variables with conse-
quent effects described in terms of "classroom climate" or
"emotional control." The literature was examined to find
the results and significance of studies which viewed teach-
ing in this way. Finally, the measurement of effects on
pupils when process teaching was the goal were reviewed and
reported.

A summary of the most important findings and those
particularly germane to the purposes of the study completed
the review.

Elementary Science Teacher Objectives
and Characteristics

 

 

Science Objectives for Pupils

 

Any pragmatic discussion regarding the nature of pro-
fessional courses for teachers must inevitably begin with a
consideration of goals and objectives for pupils in schools.
Important present—day elementary science objectives have been
traced to the time of Dewey some years ago.1 John Dewey's
contributions were numerous, but perhaps the most significant
for the developing field of elementary science was his con-

tention that the methodology of science was at least equal to

 

1J. F. Newport, "Are Science Objectives Changing?"
School Science and Mathematics, LXV (April, 1965), 359-362.

 

19

and perhaps of even greater significance than the actual
knowledge accumulated: "The present emphasis in science as
inquiry would seem to be a reaffirmation of a position which
Dewey took nearly half a century ago."1

Newport compared recognized elementary science objec-
tives from the 1927-1957 period with those based on 1957-
1964. He concluded that there was no evidence that a change
in objectives had occurred, suggesting instead that "rever-
berations from the Space Age" may have been responsible more
for the development of new science curriculum materials than
for a change in objectives.2

While Newport's basic view has not been seriously
challenged, more recently there has been a growing emphasis
on inquiry in science education. At any rate, one of the
major goals for elementary school pupils in the 70's, gen-
erally described, is the development of some skill in the
use of the methods and processes of science.3 Modern science
curricula tend to reflect this same goal: "All of the major

elementary science programs extant today were designed to

 

1Herbert A. Smith, "Educational Research Related to
Science Instruction for the Elementary and Junior High School:
A Review and Commentary," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, I, 3 (1963), 202.

2NeWport, op. cit., pp. 359-362.

3Willard J. Jacobson, The New Elementary School
Science (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1970). p. 15.

 

20

provoke children to inquire about relationships among natural
phenomena."1

According to Matthews, the fundamental assumption
underlying such modern objectives and curricula is that learn-
ing how to learn is of major importance to the elementary
school child and can be facilitated by school experiences.2
Renner and Ragan added that science is a natural vehicle to
develop these rational powers and repeated that the first
objective of elementary school science should be "to begin
to develop in the learner the ability to think and inquire."3

While there is as yet no general agreement regarding
a concise definition of "inquiry," the prevalence of inquiry-
related objectives at virtually all levels of education in
recent years suggests the need for such careful definition.
Pickering concluded that the term is frequently used to mean
a "process of investigation which generally uses an inductive

approach."4 "Inquiry" has also been used interchangeably

 

lMary Budd Rowe, "Wait-Time and Rewards as Instruc-
tional Variables: Their Influence on Language, Logic, and
Fate Control" (Paper presented at the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching meeting in Chicago, April, 1972),
p. 1.

2Charles C. Matthews, "Structuring Scientific Knowledge
by the Elementary Child" (Paper presented at the National Asso-
ciation of Science Teachers, Cincinnati, Ohio, March, 1970).

3John W. Renner and William B. Ragan, Teaching Science
in the Elementary School (New York: Harper andIRow, 1968),
p. 54.

 

4Robert S. Pickering, "An Experimental Study of the
Effects of Inquiry Experiences on the Attitudes and Compe-
tencies of Propsective Elementary Teachers in the Area of
Science" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970).

21

with a number of other terms, including "scientific method,"
"problem-solving," "heuristics," "inductive method," and
"discovery."1
One important dimension to inquiry remains to be dis-

cussed. Briefly, it concerns the complexity of the inquiry
process and the View that it is necessary to master such a
complex skill in stages. In pointing out the learning
requirements of inquiry, Gagné specified several rather dis-
tinct capabilities which persons need to master to achieve
later success in the complex process of inquiry. In refer-
ring to the most basic of skills, performance capabilities,
or competencies upon which he saw the remainder of the com-
plex process of inquiry to be based, Gagné said:

No one seems to have adequately faced up to the neces-

sity for identifying and describing these fundamental

competencies which underly all learning about science.

A good list would include not only number computation

but also spacial and manipulative skills, and the capa-

bilities of observing, classifying, measuring, describ-

ing, inferring and model conceptualizing.
In Gagné's view, the problem of designing an elementary cur-
riculum for the early grades is one of insuring that these
kinds of skills are well-learned, so that they may form the

basis for the later mastery of science as a discipline.

Hurd and Gallagher stated that "if children learn to use the

 

lIbid.

2Robert M. Gagné, "The Learning Requirements for
Enquiry," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I (1963),
144-153.

 

22

processes of science, they will come closer to understanding
the spirit of inquiry that characterizes science."1

The three major elementary science curriculum pro-
jects, developed largely during the 1960's, differ only a
little in the extent to which they purport to teach the
processes of science. The Science Curriculum Improvement
Study (S.C.I.S.) methods and materials provide, for example,
for children to have an abundance of experiences to help them
develop science process skills as they work toward the over-
all objective of achieving "scientific literacy." Examination
of the various curriculum materials of the S.C.I.S. reveals
that observing, classifying, inferring, measuring, predicting,
controlling variables, interpreting data, and experimenting
are among the processes that should be encountered by children
in the various units. These processes are encountered during
lessons which may consist of a rather loosely structured
"exploration" phase and also during the somewhat more struc—
tured "invention" and "discovery" phases.2 The developers
of another curriculum, the Elementary Science Study (E.S.S.),
produced units relating to a variety of science topics.
Pupil activities in this curriculum consist of somewhat
freely manipulating and exploring materials, during which

science processes and concepts are used and further

 

lHurd and Gallagher, 0p. cit., p. 7.

2Robert Karplus and Herbert D. Thier, A New Look at
Elementary School Science (Chicago: Rand McNally and Com-
pany, 1967).

 

 

 

23

develOped.l The curricular experiences in Science--A Process
Approach (S.—-A.P.A.), on the other hand, fit more closely
Gagne's learning requirements of inquiry. Consequently,

the objectives for that curriculum relate almost entirely

to activities designed to teach the basis skills, compe-
tencies, or processes as described in part by Gagné earlier
in this chapter.

Clearly, the process skills are sufficiently important
elementary school science objectives to be considered in terms
of their implications for the preservice preparation of teach-
ers. Those implications will be considered in the next sec-

tion of this chapter.

Role of the Teacher

While process skill objectives have been readily
established as among the most important in the elementary
school science curriculum, the skills required of preservice
teachers to achieve those objectives are less easily defined.
In a general treatise on the Science Methods Course and
teacher preparation, Ballou suggested that the skills and
competencies that a teacher must acquire to do a qualitative

job in modern science teaching are overwhelming.2 Other

 

1Robert E. Rogers and Alan M. Voelker, "Programs
for Improving Science Instruction in the Elementary School:
Part I, E.S.S.," Science and Children, VII, 5 (January/
February, 1970), 35—43.

 

2Mildred T. Ballou, "Science Methods Courses for
Elementary Teachers," Science and Children, VII, 1 (September,
1969), 7-9.

 

24

writers have reported that teachers encountering the new ele—
mentary curricula with their process—related objectives either
fail to understand or are unable to use prOperly the methods
which would best elicit the desired behaviors in children.1
The difficulties seem to lie in two broad areas of weakness

on the part of teachers:

1. A lack of knowledge and skill regarding the inquiry
process and the component process skills upon which
inquiry is based; and

2. A lack of ability to perform the complex teaching
behaviors that are required to properly teach for
process-related objectives.

Of the first area, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (A.A.A.S.), in a preliminary report
on Preservice Science Education of Elementary School Teachers,
said: "The science experiences for elementary teachers should
develop competence in the processes used in science as part
of systematic rational inquiry."2 Earlier, the National Asso-
ciation of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certifi-

cation and the American Association for the Advancement of

 

lEugene C. Lee, New DeveIOpments in Science Teaching
(Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1967), p. 42.

John J. Koran, Jr., "Two Paradigms for the Training
of Science Teachers Using Videotape Technology and Simulated
Conditions," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VI, 1
(1969), 22-28.

Esler, op. cit., Chapter I.

 

2"Preservice Science Education of Elementary School
'Teachers," AAAS Miscellaneous Publication 69-11 (February,
1969) I p. 140

 

25

Science (N.A.S.D.T.E.C.--A.A.A.S.) guidelines of 1963 had
advocated similar experiences. They suggested that college
study for prospective elementary teachers include a wide
variety of techniques and materials which lend themselves to
the development of the (inquiry) skills.l Hurd and Gallagher
expressed the widely held sentiment of science educators who
are active in the field:
The processes of scientific inquiry should be an integral
part of the instruction. It is only reasonable to expect
that, if elementary teachers are to emphasize in their
teaching such knowledge skills as observing, measuring,
formulating hypotheses and using numbers, the meaning
and significance of these must be a part of their own
college education. The teachers will also need to know
how these skills are related to the basic concepts of
science.

While such a review of the literature revealed con-
siderable support for emphasizing process skills in an ele-
mentary methods course, Rowe disagreed with the argument that
lack of knowledge of skills is the greatest inhibitor to
effective modern elementary science teaching.3 She compared
the instruction of children as carried out by a total of
fifty-four scientists and science educators with instruction
as conducted by a sample of classroom teachers. The patterns

of questions and responses were remarkably alike for the two

groups, although actual pupil outcomes were not measured.

 

1"Guidelines for Science and Mathematics in the
Preparation Program of Elementary School Teachers," AAAS
Publication No. 63-7 (1963), pp. 1-15.

2Hurd and Gallagher, 0p. cit., p. 129.

3 .
Rowe, op. Cit.

26

Nevertheless, the development of a teacher's science process
skills was one of the most frequent suggestions made for the
preservice experiences of those preparing to teach modern
elementary science to children. Consequently, an instruc-
tional method designed to teach such skills was included as
one instructional type compared in this study. A more
detailed description of the method is provided in another
chapter.

The second major area of weakness identified earlier--
an inability to master apprOpriate teaching behaviors--has led
to questions typified by these which resulted from a group
led by Buell:

1. Does inquiry teaching consist of isolable behaviors
which can be identified and for which prospective
teachers can be trained? How can this training be
be accomplished?

2. Can teacher behaviors be identified that are related
to student success in inquiry?l

Gage would be pessimistic, suggesting that "teaching is multi-
dimensional and that it is naive to assume that we can find
some general attribute of teacher behavior that will account
for a significant portion [of subsequent] pupil behaviors."2

Ballou, on the other hand, suggested that the behaviors of

the best teachers in action should be recorded, as well as

 

Robert Buell, "A Research Training Project in Science
Education" (Final Report Sponsored by The National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, November, 1969, Project
# 9-0172): p. 12.

2N. L. Gage, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 1034.

27

attempting to identify the "in-school and out of school
experiences that may have contributed to attitudes and modes
of behavior of these teachers."1
Some reasons for the difficulty in identifying teacher
behaviors appropriate to particular pupil outcomes have been
advanced by Saadeh.
Smith interpreted the teacher behaviors in the inter-
action as verbal and analyzed the interaction in terms
of logical Operations; others, like Flanders, Hughes,
etc. pictured it as psychological and analyzed it in
terms of emotional control; still others like Gordon,
pictured it as sociological and analyzed it in terms of
group leadership.2

Saadeh concluded, ironically, that none of the interpreta-

tions suggested is totally true or false.

Controversy aside, emphasis in recent years has indeed
shifted to identification and practice of appropriate beha—
viors when teacher preparation courses for process-related
outcomes are being designed. The underlying assumptions of
one attack on teacher education curriculum development by
workers at Michigan State University, developers of one of
the nine models of the Elementary Teacher Education Project,
rest on the assumption that the content and modes of inquiry

of the behavioral sciences are sufficiently well developed

to provide an adequate base for the preparation of

 

lBallou, op. cit., p. 7.

2Ibrahim Q. Saadeh, "Teacher Effectiveness or
Classroom Efficiency: A New Direction in the Evaluation
of Teaching," The Journal of Teacher Education, XXI, 1
(Spring, 1970), 80.

 

 

28

teachers.1 While Watson2 recognized the need for such a
behavioral model nearly ten years ago, Michal's research
showed little evidence of the use of such a prOposed model
at that time.3

A project in science teacher education undertaken
at the University of Texas led to the completion by the sum-
mer of 1970 of a number of self-paced "modules." The modules
included those directed at:

1. Developing selected process skills in teachers,
including specifically the skills of observing,
classifying, and inferring;4 and

2. Developing by a questioning strategy the ability to
elicit process skill behavior from children, namely
observation, classification, and inferring behavior.5

These two modules were developed specifically to help correct
the two broad areas of weakness already identified. Feedback
from the results of a college teacher leadership conference,
where the modules were tested during 1969, included comments

to the extent that the Performance Task module, which included

 

1S. L. T. Clarke, "The Story of Elementary Teacher
Education Models," The Journal of Teacher Education, XX, 3
(Fall, 1969), 286-293.

2Fletcher Watson, "Novak's Research," National Asso-
ciation for Research in Science Teaching, I (1963), 133.

3Bernard E. Michals, "The Preparation of Teachers to
Teach Elementary School Science," Science Education, XLVII,
2 (March, 1963).

4Butts, 0p. cit., p. 25.

5Koran and Judge, 0p. cit.

 

29

the Process Questioning Strategies instructional treatment,
alone could meaningfully occupy the time of an entire typi-
cal science methods course.1 The need for testing the rela-
tive effects of one or the other instructional treatment
appeared to be one way of resolving the dilemma of content
selection for methods courses. The modules chosen are
further described in Chapter III.

Testing the relative effects of two instructional
methods to the extent of comparing teaching behaviors had
implications for careful experimental design. Several
studies were reported in the literature in which the experi-
mental design was such that it was difficult to distinguish
whether effects measured were a result of training methods
or of differences in the materials subsequently used in
teaching by those teachers involved in the study.2 Moon,
for example, found that inservice teachers trained in the
methods and materials of the S.C.I.S. and subsequently using
such materials in classrooms differed significantly from a
control group in question types generated during subsequent

science teaching. The control group, however, used

 

1David P. Butts, Gene E. Hall, and John J. Koran, Jr.,
"College Teachers: A Resource for Implementing Change," Report
Series #55 (Austin, Texas: The Research and DevelOpment Cen-
ter for Teacher Education, University of Texas, 1970), p. 25.

2John H. Wilson and John W. Renner, "The 'New' Science
and the Rational Powers: A Research Study," Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, VI (1969), 303-308.

Thomas Charles Moon, "A Study of Verbal Behavior
Patterns in Primary Grade Classrooms During Science Activities'
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
1969)! p. 114.

 

 

 

30

conventional science materials as normally supplied by the
local boards, while the experimental group used the consid—
erably different S.C.I.S. materials. Moon concluded that:

Although the SCIS summer workshop's activities seemed

to have a pronounced influence upon the experimental

teachers' science presentations during those fall months

immediately following its conclusion, the possibility

cannot be discounted that the types of science materials

used by these teachers might also have contributed to

this influence.1

Tucker did control for type of "materials," in that
after each of several groups of teachers completed a differ—
ent experimental treatment he observed all teachers in his
sample as they taught "Mystery Powders," a unit selected from
those developed by the Elementary Science Study (E.S.S.) cur—
riculum development group. Tucker found not only that sig-
nificantly different questioning effects earlier attributed
to treatment disappeared when all groups taught "Mystery
Powders," but also that some groups used higher level ques-
tions, apparently as a result of the materials used.2
In the present study, materials and facilities were

controlled to the extent that where teaching behavior was

being assessed, each.teacher was provided with identical

materials, as described in Chapter III.

 

lMoon, op. cit., p. 114.

2Jerry L. Tucker, "The Effect of Televised Science
Instruction on Verbal and Nonverbal Process Behaviors of
Teachers and Students in Grades 1 - 4" (Paper presented at
the National Association for Research in Science Teaching
meeting in Chicago, April, 1972).

31

Selected Characteristics of Teachers

 

A useful criterion of a teacher's effectiveness may
be defined as his effect on his pupils' performance in view
of a set of educational objectives defined in terms of
desired pupil outcomes.1 The immediate objective of much
teacher preparation, however, is to bring about teacher
behaviors which are largely describable. Failing that, a
propensity to behave in a certain way, given selected stimuli,
can be justified as a less desirable, yet worthwhile, objec-
tive. For a subset of teachers in the present study, an
attempt was made to assess teacher effectiveness directly
on the basis of pupil performance, but other behavioral and
attitudinal characteristics were measured for those and the
entire sample of teachers.

In order to provide a better background for interpret-
ing the design, instrumentation and results of this study,
the subsequent section of this chapter is devoted to the
major variables of interest in the study.

Attitudes, verbal behaviors in general, and question—
ing behaviors in particular will be examined. Insight into
the methods and results of previous research will thus be
gained. Finally, the methods and results of studies con-
cerning the determination of pupil performance in relation

to process skills will be reviewed.

 

lSaadeh, 0p. cit., p. 76.

 

32

Teacher Attitudes

 

Consideration of attitudes in this study results
from the notion that "effectiveness in teaching elementary
school science is to some extent a function of the teacher's
attitude toward science."l

Indeed, the need to develop positive attitudes toward
aspects of science instruction has been advanced as a major
guideline for preservice elementary science preparation.2
Yet Aiken and Aiken reviewed dozens of published articles
and dissertations in science education from the last decade
and found no highly consistent picture of the nature, causes,
and development of science attitudes in those studies.3
Nevertheless, the underlying assumption "that changes in

attitude always precede other changes,’ warrants a careful
study of the attitude construct for its implications for
science education.4

The nature of an attitude may be characterized by

the following statement by Allport:

A mental or neural state of readiness, organized through
experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence

 

lPatricia Schwirian, "Characteristics of Elementary
Teachers Related to Attitudes Toward Science," Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, VI, 3 (1969), 203.

 

 

2"Preservice Science Education of Elementary School
Teachers," op. cit., p. 12.

3Lewis R. Aiken, Jr., and Dorothy R. Aiken, "Recent
Research on Attitudes Concerning Science," Science Education,
LIII, 4 (October, 1969), 295-305.

4Erwin P. Bettinghaus, Persuasive Communication
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 22.

 

 

33

upon the individual's response to all objects and

situations with which it is related.
Allport's definition implies that attitudes are learned and
may be inferred from the behavior that the individual reveals.
Bettinghaus noted, however, that if the relationship between
the attitude held and the behavior revealed were complete,
there would be no need for the conceptualization of an atti-
tude.2

Staley listed four Specific referents to which teach—

ers should hold positive attitudes. They are:
. Science
. Teaching

. Teaching elementary school science 3
. Involvement of students in learning activities.

#WNH

Moore, however, reported that no single instrument was, in
fact, available to measure attitudes toward "teaching science
in the elementary school."4 He later constructed and reported

such a scale.

 

lCarl Allanmore Murchison, ed., A Handbook of Social
Psychology (Worcester, Mass: Clark University Press, 1935).
Chapter 17 by Allport; p. 810.

 

 

2Bettinghaus, op. cit., p. 21.

3Frederick Staley, "A Comparison Study in the Effects
of Pre-Service Teachers Presenting One or Two Micro-Teaching
Lessons to Different Sized Groups of Peers on Selected Teach-
ing Behaviors and Attitudes in an Elementary Science Methods
Course" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1970), p. 58.

4Richard W. Moore, "The Development, Field Test and
Validation of Scales to Assess Teachers' Attitudes Toward
Teaching Elementary School Science" (paper presented to the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Chicago, April, 1972).

 

34

The writer decided that several existing scales based
on different reference objects, "teaching science," and
"different methods of teaching science" would lead to the
best inferences about attitudes for purposes of this study.
Those scales and their measure are described in Chapter III.

Considerable research has been conducted to deter-
mine the effect on attitude of various teacher education
programs, but such changes in teachers as a result of science
methods courses or portions thereof are few. Butts and Raun
showed that some teachers' attitudes do change significantly
when experienced teachers are involved in an inservice pro-
gram which is directed toward increased competence in the
processes of science.1 Bruce, however, also using a sample
of experienced teachers, found no significant differences
in teacher attitude toward the teacher-pupil relationship
before and during involvement in the activities of an
inservice workshop in the methods and materials of the
S.C.I.S.2 Rose conducted an extensive study into the
effects of a methods course in science with preservice sub-
jects. She found that a treatment consisting of a methods

course in the teaching of science in the elementary school

 

1David P. Butts and Chester H. Raun, "A Study in
Teacher Attitude Change," Science Education, LIII, 2 (March,
1969), 103.

 

2Larry Rhea Bruce, "A Determination of the Relation-
ships Among SCIS Teachers' Personality Traits, Attitude
Toward Teacher-Pupil Relationship, Understanding of Science
Process Skills and Question Types" (unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Michigan State University, 1969).

 

35

purporting to emphasize the growth in positive attitudes
toward science, and knowledge of science processes, given a
group of preservice elementary school teachers, can effect

a change in their position in these two areas within a thirty-
two hour instructional sequence. She further concluded that
a preservice elementary school teacher's knowledge of the
processes of science has precedence over her knowledge of
the content of science or her attitude toward science when
relationships to initial teaching behaviors are considered.
Finally, she reported that these teachers who do have posi-
tive attitudes toward science are not necessarily those who
show high knowledge of the processes of science.

Oshima compared lecture-demonstration and individual
investigation methods of instruction in preservice methods
classes and found no significant changes occurred in either
the experimental or control groups on measures of attitude
toward science. The experimental group, however, showed a
significant positive change in confidence in teaching
science.2 Liddle, on the other hand, found that a lecture-
demonstration mode of small group instruction in an elemen-

tary science methods course produced greater positive changes

 

lRyda D. Rose, "The Relationship of Attitudes, Knowl-
edge, and Processes to Initial Teaching Behaviors in Science"
(paper presented at the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, Chicago, April, 1972), 11.

2Eugene A. Oshima, "Changes in Attitudes Toward
Science and Confidence in Teaching Science of Prospective
Elementary Teachers," Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII, 12
(1966).

 

a

36

in a group of attitude measures related to science and the
teaching of science than did an auto-instructional mode.1
Moon reported separate studies by Kleinman and Hines which
collectively concluded that "The largest handicap to adequate
science presentation in the elementary schools was a reluc-
tance of teachers to teach science because of inadequate
backgrounds."2

One study was found in which a deliberate strategy
was being used to manipulate scientific attitudes in pre-
service elementary science teacher trainees. Manipulated
conditions, including written persuasive communication, were
being assessed for their effects on attitude change. Results
indicated that presenting a persuasive communication is an
effective means of modifying the science attitudes of elemen—
tary teacher trainees.3

Regarding the relationship between teacher attitude

and pupil characteristics, Bixler reported that positive

teacher attitudes have a positive effect on pupil achievement

 

lEdward Maynard Liddle, "A Quasi-Experimental Study
of the Effects of Two Modes of Instruction on the Attitudes
of Preservice Elementary Teachers in the Area of Science
Teaching" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1971), 98.

2Moon, op. cit., p. 36.

3Earl F. Hughes, "Role Playing as a Technique of
Developing a Scientific Attitude in Elementary Teacher
Trainees," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VIII,
2 (1971), 121.

37

in science.1 In general, however, there is inconclusive
research regarding the relationship between teacher atti-
tudes and pupil achievement.
By contrast, teacher attitudes have been found to
relate positively to pupil attitudes. Pickering reported
that Blackwood, Litwiller, Mastin, and Faust were among
those who agreed that a pupil's attitudes toward topics,
materials, and ideas are strongly influenced by the attitude
of the teacher. He found no contradictory results.2
Aiken and Aiken reported that Greenblatt and Bixler found
a correspondence between teachers' and students' attitudes
toward science in elementary school.3 Wick and Yager also
reported that there is a positive relationship between teacher
attitudes in science and the attitudes which students develop.4
Based on the literature reviewed, the conclusion is
warranted that although teacher attitude may not be a good
predictor of pupil achievement, it appears to be of consid—

erable importance in developing positive pupil attitudes.

 

1James Bixler, "The Effect of Teacher Attitude on
Elementary Children's Science Information and Science Atti-
tudes" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University,
1957), p. 138.

2Pickering, op. cit., p. 36.
3Aiken and Aiken, op. cit., p. 298.
4J. W. Wick and R. E. Yager, "Some Aspects of the

Student's Attitude in Science Courses," School Science and
Mathematics, LXVI (March, 1966), 269-273.

 

38

Teacher Classroom Behaviors

 

The complex teacher-learner interaction which results
in observable behaviors of teachers and their pupils has been
studied from several theoretical orientations. One View holds
that teaching behaviors may best be interpreted in terms of a
model in which teaching has been viewed as psychological,
with the result that teaching behaviors are analyzed in terms
of socioemotional control. In any case, most of the functions
that are associated with teaching are implemented primarily
by verbal communication.1

An analysis of question types asked during science
classes has been suggested by Taba to be a promising line of
research. Such an approach is consistent with a model of
teaching as a series of logical Operations. Taba suggested
that the role of questions becomes crucial, and the way of
asking questions by far the most influential single teach—
ing act.2 The importance of questioning in science is fur-
ther reflected by the number of reviews which underline

the importance of questions properly asked and answers to

 

lNed Flanders, "Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes
and Achievement," U.S.O.E. Report 65, O.E. Cooperative
Research Monograph No. 12 (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, 1965), p. l.

2Staley, op. cit., p. 52.

39

them prOperly used.l Furthermore, Bloom suggested that
studies have shown that there are specific kinds of questions
that evoke similar kinds of student responses.2 Observa-
tions by Strasser supported the position that the kinds Of
Operations children perform are largely determined by the
kinds of questions teachers pose.

The importance attached to question types in science
classes has resulted in a variety of modes of classifying
questions. Karplus and Thier, for example, suggested "con-
vergent" and "divergent" to be useful categories. They sug-
gested that "convergent" questions tend, in part, to cause
children to summarize and draw conclusions, while "divergent"
questions lead to further questions or to cause children to

plan or carry out experiences with equipment and materials.4

 

lRenner and Ragan, Ob. cit., p. 220.

Gerald S. Craig, What Research Says to the Teacher:
Science in the Elementary Schools (Washington, D. C.:
National Education Association, 1957), p. 25.

Hurd and Gallagher, Op. cit., p. 129.

Arthur A. Carin, "Techniques for Developing Discov-
ery Questioning Skills," Science and Children, VII (April,
1970), 13-15.

Willard J. Jacobson and Allan Kondo, SCIS Elementary
Science Sourcebook (Berkeley: University of California

Regents, 1968): p. 45.

2Judith M. Bloom, "Videotape and the Vitalization Of
Teaching," Journal Of Teacher Education, XX, 3 (Fall, 1969),
311-319.

3John H. Wilson, "The 'New' Science Teachers Are
Asking More and Better Questions," Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, VI, 1 (1969), 49-53.

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Karplus and Thier, Op. cit., p. 86.

40

Hall used "Open" and "closed" question categories. The
parallel with "divergent” and "convergent" is apparent from
Hall's operational definitions of the terms:

An "Open" question requires a divergent or evaluative

response: A "closed? question is a question reguiring

a cognitive, memorative or convergent response.
Moon reviewed the question categories used in elementary
science research. He noted that "lower" and "higher"; "con-
crete," "abstract," and "creative" are among the question
categorizations found useful by various workers.2

Several studies were found in which question cate-

gories conformed more directly to the processes of science.
Wilson called such questions "demonstration of skill" ques-
tions. In a study comparing experienced teachers using
S.C.I.S. and conventional science materials, Wilson found
that the "new science" teachers used significantly more
demonstration Of skill-type questions than the conventional
group. This would suggest that the "new science" teachers
were placing more emphasis upon the development Of such
science skills as observation, measurement, interpretation,
and prediction instead Of emphasizing science content. The

traditional science teachers, meanwhile, used significantly

. . 3
more comprehenSIOn-type questions. Tucker recommended, on

 

1Gene E. Hall, "Teacher—Pupil Behaviors Exhibited by
Two Groups Of Second Grade Teachers Using Science--A Process
Approach," Science Education, LIV, 4 (October-December, 1970),
328. '

 

2Moon, Op. cit., pp. 41-42.

3Wilson, op. cit., p. 50.

41

the basis of his research, that the analysis of teacher ques-
tions along "process" dimensions in science be continued.1
Koran simply determined the frequency of each class of
science process skill questions generated under controlled
experimental conditions for the particular process selected
for instruction.2

An experiment in which question complexity was manip-
ulated was conducted by Yost using a sample Of 190 seventh
grade students. He found that as the complexity of questions
to which students responded following segments of instruction
increased, student achievement on science subject content also
increased. Furthermore, students who responded to complex
questions made more incorrect responses than did students
responding to less complex questions. Collectively, these
results suggested that students learned more when asked more
complex questions following science instruction, even though
they also tended to make more errors in their responses.

Using the question types instrument selected for

the present study with S.C.I.S.-trained and conventional

 

lTucker, op. cit., p. 17.

2John J. Koran, Jr., "The Relative Effects of Class-
room Instruction and Subsequent Observational Learning on
the Acquisition of Questioning Behavior by Pre-Service
Elementary Science Teachers," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, VI, 3 (1969), 217-223.

3Michael Yost, Jr., "The Effect on Learning Of Post
Instructional Verbal Responses to Questions of Different
Degrees of Complexity" (a paper presented to the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Minneapolis,
March 5-8, 1970).

42

groups of inservice teachers, Moon reported that the S.C.I.S.
teachers used significantly higher level questions than in
their own pretraining performance, where they used conven—
tional science materials.1 In a similar investigation,
Fischler and Anastasiow concluded that S.C.I.S. teachers
asked fewer questions than did control teachers, but they
also asked more indirect questions.2

In general, to classify questions based on the
science process skill which they were designed to elicit
has been found to be a valuable technique for question analy-
sis, and this was one method Of analysis used in this study.

The literature was unclear in suggesting the optimum
number of questions teachers should ask while encouraging
children to engage in science process skill behavior.
Carin, for example, suggested that the number of questions
used should be reduced or limited.3 Rowe would agree, but
emphasized that a carefully managed time interval, or "wait-
time," following verbalization of the question was the key
to such reduction Of question numbers. Yet Wilson reported
in his research that inservice "new science" teachers were

asking 49 per cent more questions than their traditional

 

lMoon, op. cit., p. 114.

2Abraham S. Fischler and N. J. Anastasiow, "In-
Service Education in Science (A Pilot)," Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, III, 3 (1965), 283-284.

 

3Carin, Op. cit., p. 13.

43

counterparts, suggesting that this was "encouraging to note."1

The instructional conditions manipulated in the present
study, however, did not suggest Optimizing the number of
questions used, nor did the investigator make any such sug-
gestion to the subjects in the study.

The second model Of teacher behavior during pupil-
teacher interaction rests on the supposition that the behavior
Of the teacher, more than any other individual, sets the
climate of the class. In terms of verbal behavior, class-
room climate has been defined according to two variables:

1. Direct or dominative influence consisting of stating
the teacher's own Opinions or ideas, directing the
pupil's action, criticizing his behavior, or justi-
fying the teacher's authority or use of that authority.

2. Indirect or integrative influence consisting of
soliciting the Opinions or ideas of the pupils,
applying or enlarging on those opinions or ideas,
praising or encouraging the participation of pupils,
or clarifying and accepting their feelings.

While there are times for any teacher when direct
influence is most appropriate and other times when indirect
influence is most apprOpriate, Flanders found that in general,
over long periods of time, when teachers exhibited a greater
proportion of indirect behaviors their pupils showed greater

achievement than pupils of teachers exhibiting a lower

indirect to direct (I.D.) ratio.3

 

lWilson, Op. cit., p. 53.

2Edmund Amidon and John Hough, eds., Interaction
Analysis: Theory, Research and Application (Reading:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967), p. 109.

31bid.

44

The system of interaction analysis provides an
explicit procedure for quantifying direct and indirect influ—
ence that is closely related to the teacher behaviors iden—
tified by research on classroom climate. The Instrument for
the Analysis of Science Teaching (I.A.S.T.) base scale,
designed especially for such measure and described in Chapter
III, was used in this study.

Research suggests that where the classroom atmosphere
is highly integrative, pupils show greater spontaneity and
initiative, more voluntary social contributions, and more
acts of problem solving.1 Conversely, if the teacher is
highly dominative, pupils tend to be easily distracted, and
have greater compliance with as well as rejection of teacher
domination.2 The writer felt that determining the I.D.
ratio and examining its relationship to other teacher char-
acteristics as well as to pupil effects would be worthwhile
in that tentative results of other workers suggested such
relationships, particularly to pupil attitude3 and pupil
achievement.4 The relationship Of I.D. to the pupil vari-
ables, however, has not been reported under conditions of
short-term teacher influence, such as existed in this study.

Rezba, using a sample of preservice science teachers, found

 

lFlanders, op. cit., p. 4.

21bid.

3Amidon and Hough, op. cit., p. 224.

4Ibid., p. 229.

45

significantly more indirect behaviors and significantly fewer
direct behaviors were demonstrated during microteaching after
a treatment designed to provide a model of laboratory beha—
viors appropriate to inquiry-oriented laboratory activities
and experiments.1 Moon found that, when compared to con-
ventional teachers, there was a significant difference in
the experimental teachers' I.D. ratios during science activi-
ties after the introduction Of S.C.I.S. teaching methods and
materials. Furthermore, the ratios were lower for the S.C.I.S.
teachers.2 In a study designed to compare the effects Of
several types of preparation on inservice science teachers,
Hall found no differences in I.D. between the several treat-
ment and control groups when teachers taught science lessons
to classes of children.3

A revised I.D. (i.d.),constructed by removing from
the calculation of the ratio the substantive behaviors of

4

lecturing and asking questions, has also been used by Hall.

The I.D. is closely related to the i.d., but the i.d. is

 

1Richard J. Rezba, "Training Pre-Service Science
Teachers for Laboratory Instruction Using I.S.C.S. Micro-
teaching Sessions" (a paper presented to the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago,
April, 1972).

2Moon, op. cit., p. 114.

3Gene E. Hall, "A Comparison Of the Teaching Beha—
viors of Second Grade Teachers Teaching Science——A Process
Approach With Second Grade Teachers Not Teaching a Recently
Developed Science Curriculum" (unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, Syracuse University, 1968), p. 66.

4Ibid., p. 67.

46

less lesson specific or less content oriented.l Hall found
that inservice teachers trained in the use of S.--A.P.A. and
having the support Of a school system science coordinator

had lower i.d.‘s and thus were more direct in their motivation
and control of the classroom than a group not teaching a
recently developed science curriculum.2 The I.D., but not

the i.d., was used in the present study.

In regard to the student talk to teacher talk (S.T.)
variable, Flanders develOped what he called the "rule of
two—thirds" to generalize about classroom "talk." The rule
states that:

In the average classroom someone is talking two-thirds
of the time; two-thirds of that time the person talking
is the teacher, and two-thirds of thg time the teacher
talks, he is uSing direct influence.
For the teachers of high—achieving children and teachers of
low-achieving children, the rule was modified to less and
more teacher talk, respectively. For the low-achieving

groups, moreover, teachers used direct influence about 80 per

cent Of the time, while the teachers of the high-achieving

 

1Albert C. Bosch, "Relationships of Teaching Patterns
to Indices of Classroom Verbal Interaction Behavior" (a
paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Asso—
ciation for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, April,
1972).

2Hall, "A Comparison,"

Op. cit., p. 67.

3Edmund Amidon and Michael Giammatteo, "The Verbal
Behavior of Superior Elementary Teachers," in Interaction
Analysis: Theory, Research and Application, ed. by Edmund
Amidon and John Hough (Reading: Addison—Wesley Publishing
Company, 1967), p. 188.

47

groups used direct influence about 50 per cent of the
time.1

One reference was located that discussed the S.T.
ratio in student teachers. Kirk found that student teach—
ers talk more than their pupils, but tend to Speak less as
time goes on. Their use of "lecture," however, increases.
Pupil contributions also typically increase during a student-
teaching term.2

Rose found that preservice elementary teachers teach-
ing science encourage more pupil talk, more pupil—initiated
response, and higher level inquiry behavior patterns during
microteaching than during single tutorial experiences. Fur-
thermore, Rose implied that some student teachers talk less
and that some involve pupils in more manipulative activities

in a microteaching than in a tutorial situation.

Pupil Achievement

 

Agreement was found in the literature for the posi—
tion that the most valid measures of teaching influence are

measures of pupil change consistent with selected learning

 

lIbid.

2Jeffery Kirk, "Elementary School Student Teachers
and Interaction Analysis," in Interaction Analysis: Theory,-
Research and Application, ed. by Edmund Amidon and John
Hough (Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967),
pp. 299-306.

 

3Rose, Op. cit., p. 11.

48

objectives.l Cogan, however, listed at least three important
problems which still remain unsolved in the measurement of
pupil change:
1. Lack of adequate subject-matter tests in most areas
of achievement.
2. Lack of precise instruments capable of measuring
changes in social learning skills and in attitudes.
3. The difficulty Of isolating changes dpe to a single
teacher in a departmentalized school.
The design used in this study minimized the first two problems
listed largely by choosing very specific Objectives and a
clear test Of the instructional outcomes. The influence Of
other teachers was also controlled in the design Of the study.
NO studies were located in which preservice science
teachers just learned a skill in a college setting, then had
an Opportunity to practice it with children, followed by
subsequent measurement of pupil performance. There were
many instances reported, however, in which children were
taught process skills and subsequently were measured for
attainment of these skills. Such measurement for third grade

and other children was conducted and reported by the develop—

ers of Science--A Process Approach (S.——A.P.A.) as part of

 

1Gage, op. cit., p. 248.
Gregor A. Ramsey and Robert W. Howe, "An Analysis of

Research Related to Instructional Procedures in Elementary
School Science," Science and Children (April, 1969), pp. 25—
36.

 

Saadeh, Op. cit., p. 76.

2Morris L. Cogan, "Theory and Design of a Study of
Teacher-Pupil Interaction," in Interaction Analysis: Theory,
Research and Application, ed. by Edmund Amidon and John
Hough (Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967),
p. 188.

49

their program evaluation.1 TorOp also measured third and
other elementary grades in a school district in which
S.--A.P.A. was in use. He reported 88 per cent correct
responses to the individual competency measure designed for
an "inferring" exercise identical to the one taught to chil—
dren in the present study.2

There was a stated need in the literature for group
process tests for children, in addition to the individual
competency measures develOped by S.---A.P.A.3 Using a group
process measure which he did not further identify, Wideen
found that pupils taught by S.--A.P.A. methods and materials
achieved significantly better scores than pupils taught with
conventional methods and materials.4

Tucker, using a sample of inservice teachers, manip-
ulated several conditions Of T.V. and non—T.V. instruction

directed at increasing science process skill levels and their

 

1Henry H. Walbesser, Jr., "An Evaluation Model and
Its Application," American Association for the Advancement
of Science, Miscellaneous Publication 68-4, 1968.

 

2William TorOp, "Pupil Achievement in Science-—A
Process Approach--Part E" (a paper presented at the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting in
Chicago, April, 1972).

3Henry H. Walbesser and Heather L. Carter, "The
Effect of Test Results Of Changes in Task and Response For-
mat Required by Altering the Test Administration From an
Individual to a Group Form," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, VII (1970), 1-8.

4Marvin Wideen, "Comparison of Student Outcomes for
Science--A Process Approach and Traditional Science Teaching
for Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Grade Classes: A Product
Evaluation" (a paper presented at the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching meeting in Chicago, April,
1972).

50

application. Group "Picture Tests for Science Processes"
administered to the pupils of those teachers in first through
fourth grades revealed no significant differences among
pupils for any treatment.1 MacBeth and Fowler found no sig-
nificant differences when they compared the effects on third
grade pupil achievement when pupils manipulated or did not
manipulate S.--A.P.A. materials. Individual competency
measures were used in the study.

Research conducted by Abraham and Nelson used
inservice teachers but was otherwise parallel to the present

3 The effect of two distinct discussion techniques on

study.
the develOpment of four inquiry skills emphasized in several
of the new elementary school science curricula was determined
using an Inquiry Skill Measure. The sixth grade pupils of
both treatment groups significantly increased in their abil-
ity to make observations. Pupils in the probing discussion
group differed significantly from their nonprobing discussion

counterparts, in making inferences based on Observations.

The differences resulted in the one group making both more

 

lTucker, Op. cit., p. 9.

2Douglas Russell MacBeth and H. Seymour Fowler, "The
Extent to Which Pupils Manipulate Materials and Attainment
of Process Skills in Elementary School Science" (a paper pre—
sented at the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching meeting in Chicago, April, 1972), p. 9.

3Eugene Abraham and Miles Nelson, "Post Laboratory
Discussion Techniques and Inquiry Skill Development in
Science" (a paper presented at the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching meeting in Silver Springs,
Maryland, April, 1971).

51

and more accurate inferences than the other. No significant
pupil effects were found, however, where pupils were: 1) to
formulate tests in order to verify inferences and 2) to

classify.

Summaryiof the Review Of the Literature

 

Process skill develOpment Objectives were found to be
among the most important objectives for children studying
science at the elementary level. Modern curricula reflect
that importance by providing situations for children that
encourage the develOpment of such skills. Teachers were
found to lack a sufficient background in the skills and also
in the complex behaviors associated with eliciting the apprOp—
riate process skill behavior in children.

Concentrated efforts to develop materials for teacher
education have recently been made. Important among these
were the materials developed by the Research and DevelOpment
Center and the University Of Texas.1 These materials were
develOped to correct the specific teacher weaknesses of
1) lack of knowledge and ability to use science process
skills and 2) lack Of ability to teach such skills effectively

in a classroom.

 

lButts, Op. cit.
Koran and Judge, Op. cit.

52

The need for a careful research design as implied by
Moon1 and Tucker2 and pertaining to the independent testing
of instructional methods and the materials used was reviewed.

In order to determine the results of science methods
instruction with preservice methods students, some important
teacher characteristics were selected for review.

Attitudes were thought to be important predictors of
behaviors,3 but there was no consistent pattern to indicate
that science methods courses improved attitudes. Hughes,
who planned and executed a deliberate strategy to change
attitudes using persuasive communication, however, was able
to modify the science attitudes of elementary teacher
trainees.

There was considerable evidence to suggest that
teacher attitudes were positively correlated with pupil atti-
tudes. Aiken and Aiken, however, cautioned that the pupils'
attitudes toward their teachers, irrespective of subject,
also seem to play an important role in shaping the former's
attitudes toward science courses.5 There was no conclusive
evidence to suggest that teacher attitudes toward science

and its teaching affected pupil achievement.

 

lMoon, op. cit., p. 114.
ZTUCker, OE. Cit-.0! p0 160

3Schwirian, op. cit., p. 203.
Bettinghaus, op. cit., p. 22.

4Hughes, op. cit-, p. 121.

5Aiken-and Aiken, Op. cit., p. 298.

53

Several theoretical models for interpreting the com-
plexities of teacher—pupil classroom interaction were reviewed.
Questioning strategies, sometimes within a model which viewed
teaching as a series of logical operations, were often advo-
cated as worthy of study for preservice elementary science
teachers preparing to teach inquiry-oriented science lessons.
Bloom1 and Wilson2 suggested that the Operations and responses
that children perform or make are largely determined by the
types of questions teachers pose.

A variety of ways to classify questions was reviewed.
"Open" and "closed," "divergent" and "convergent," "higher"
and "lower" categories, as well as to classify directly on
the basis of the process skill that they were designed to
elicit, were found to be useful by various workers. Changes
in levels of questions used were found in experienced teach-
ers by Moon3 and Fischler and Anastasiow4 when the teachers
were exposed to the methods and materials of a recently
developed elementary science curriculum.

A second model of teacher verbal behavior during
pupil-teacher interaction was based on the socioemotional

climate that develops in a classroom over a period of time.

 

lBloom, op. cit., p. 313.
2Wilson, op. cit., p. 50.

3Moon, Op. cit., p. 114.

4Fischler and Anastasiow, Op. cit., p. 284.

54

Amidon and Houghl found that in general, over long periods

of time, greater achievement was demonstrated by the pupils
of teachers who had higher indirect to direct verbal behavior
ratios. Both Moon2 and Hall3 suggested that experienced
teachers using the methods and materials Of a new curriculum
were more direct in their verbal behavior than they were
prior to the introduction of the curriculum. Rezba, however,
using a sample of preservice science teachers, found signif-
icantly more indirect behaviors were demonstrated during
teaching after a treatment designed to provide a model of lab-
oratory behaviors appropriate to inquiry-oriented activities.

The literature relating to the S.T. ratio generally
supported the claim that slightly higher S.T. ratios were
used by more superior teachers.

Pupil performance consistent with prior Objectives
was listed as perhaps the most valid Of measures of teacher
influence.4 Yet difficulties relative to obtaining adequate
instruments, and also to establishing of cause and effect
relations in complex social settings such as schools, were
responsible for the fact that pupil performance was seldom

used as a measure of teacher effectiveness. However, Abraham

‘

1Amidon and Hough, Op. cit., p. 109.

2Moon, Op. cit., p. 114.

3Hall, "A Comparison," Op. cit., p. 67.

4Rezba, Op. cit., p. 11.

55

and Nelson manipulated discussion techniques with inservice
teachers and found that some groups of students gained sig-
nificantly in making observations, and one gained in making

. . 1
inferences based on Observations.

 

1Abraham and Nelson, Op. cit.

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This chapter includes a discussion Of the selection
and a description of the sample, descriptions of the treat-
ments and instruments. The research design and procedures
of the investigation are develOped with a description of the
preliminary arrangements, collection of data, analysis of

data, and research hypotheses.

Selection and Description of the Sample

The subjects selected for this study were lower
elementary (K-3) education majors completing, in some 90 per
cent of the cases, their sophomore year in the Faculty Of
Education, University Of Manitoba at Winnipeg. The remain—
ing subjects were in either their junior or senior years.

Subjects selected in the experimental study consisted
of 40 individuals, each regularly enrolled during winter term,
1971, in one or the other Of two classes Of "Teaching of
Science: Primary." All preservice teachers electing the
lower elementary level for emphasis in their program, and
enrolled in the two-year teacher certification program, were
required to take the course. Prospective teachers Special—

izing in lower elementary education at University of Manitoba

56

57

were required to take a minimum Of five full University
courses, comprising 30 term credits of general Arts and
Science instruction, in addition to a number of methods,
options, and other professional courses. The methods courses
included those in language arts, social studies, science,
mathematics, music, art, and physical and health education.
The group of teachers selected for purposes of this study
had already completed methods courses in language arts,
social studies, art, and music during fall term, 1970. They
were enrolled in methods courses pertaining to the teaching
of mathematics, physical and health education, and science
during winter term Of 1971. Consequently, the teachers
involved had already learned some teaching skills prior to
the onset of the study. Included in this experience was the
equivalent Of some three weeks during the fall term that were
devoted to student teaching. In many, but not all cases,
teachers conducted science lessons during that time. Thus,
while they had not yet encountered formal instruction in
science methods, many did in fact have limited experience
in teaching science.

The subjects were all female, with a range Of ages
from 18 to 38, and with mean and median ages Of 21 and 19,
respectively. A random sample Of 20 subjects was selected
without replacement from a total of 52 subjects enrolled in
one or the other of two sections of "Teaching of Science:
Primary," using a random numbers table. Each Of these indi-

viduals was assigned to the "Process Skills" instructional

58

group. An additional 20 subjects were randomly selected
without replacement and were assigned to the "Process Ques-
tioning Strategies“ instructional group.

The total sample Of 40 subjects was thus statistic-
ally comparable to the 12 teachers remaining in the two
classes which made up the sampling universe. On the basis
of several characteristics, they were similar to an addi-
tional group of 55 education majors enrolled in the lower
elementary (K-3) course at Faculty of Education, University
of Manitoba, during the fall semester of 1970. (See Appen—
dix B).

Seven metrOpolitan Winnipeg schools were selected
to provide the necessary third grade pupils who were to be
taught by the teachers participating in the study. The
schools were representative Of those in the southwest
quadrant of metropolitan Winnipeg, but did not exhaust the
total elementary school population of the area. Proximity
to the University of Manitoba and ease of access to third
grade classes were important factors involved in the choice
of schools. The Faculty of Education regularly places
student teachers in all of the schools selected. A list of
the schools selected, with some of the characteristics of
schools and pupils involved in the study, appears in
Appendix C.

The design chosen calls for each teacher to teach at
each of two different times to two small groups of pupils

chosen from and representative of an intact third grade

59

class. In order to select such groups of pupils within each
class, the writer first prepared a list of random numbers
ranging from 1 to 35, a number which would include the num—
ber of pupils on any class roll in the sample. Next, the
total class membership number was found for each class, and
numbers on the random number list exceeding those for that
particular class roll were deleted. Names of any pupils
absent from class on the initial day of teaching by student
teachers were noted. Next, the entire class, including
those absent, was divided into quarters based on the list

of random numbers, with each number representing an individ—
ual in the class. The first two quarters were selected to
be taught during the pretest phase. Figure 1 describes the
selection and assignment of teachers to instructional method
and pupil groups.

The procedure for selecting groups of pupils for
teachers was modified in two schools where some 100 pupils
were normally taught in a single large, open area. In these
schools, the entire group of pupils was used as a pool from
which random groups of five were chosen for teaching in the
same way as described for the regular classes. Since pupils
absent on the first day of teaching were added to the groups
left for the second or posttest phase, pupil selection may
be called representative, but not strictly random. Any
pupils scheduled for the second teaching phase but absent

from class on that day were not included in the sample.

60

Teacher
Sample

 
  
  
  

Pupil Sample,
37085 (for a
given reproach-
tative Classrfiom
they were
divided as

Teachers Enrolled
in Teaching of

 

 

Science: Primary 1. Process below).
(Winter Term) Skills Group
y W
(one teacher 586 585
from each Pretest Posttest
group to the
:gmeucggge 5s. 53.
p p Pretest Posttest
A A

 

 

 

 

2. Process
Questioning
Strategies
Group

Figure 1.——Se1ection and assignment of teachers

to instructional method and pupil
groups.

 

 

61

In two schools, Dalhousie and Ralph Maybank, and
for the 16 teachers assigned to those schools in this
study, pupil performance based on lesson Objectives was
determined. While the schools were representative of the
remainder used in the study, they were not randomly selected
for the purpose of collecting pupil performance data. The
measures used to determine performance are described later

in this chapter.

Description of the Treatments

 

The materials used in administering the experimental
conditions consisted of modules and related materials devel-
Oped by the Science Education Center and the University of
Texas. The initial modules developed in the series were
designed for group instruction but were later revised to a
self-directed format. The self—directed format of the mod-
ules permits instruction which:

1. is aimed at the personal needs of the student and

2. provides immediate feedback to the student.1
Modules were develOped and field tested at a number of
institutions including the University of Manitoba. Data
collected during the development phase were largely des—
criptive, but were used in part by the develOpers to revise

the modules to the form used in the study.

 

1David P. Butts, "The Teaching of Science, Self-
Directed Planning Guide, Evaluation Plan" (Austin, Texas:
Science Education Center and The University Research and
DevelOpment Center for Teacher Education, The University Of
Texas, September, 1970).

62

Process Skills Method

 

The "Process Skills" group received instruction
according to four modules selected from a larger group.1
Modules chosen were: (1) "The Cube," (2) "Vegetables and
Other Stuff,“ (3) "Cartoons," (4) "S and P Boxes.“ Each
module consisted of a Task Sheet with the following sub—
divisions:

A. Task Objectives

B. Task Focus

C. Task Activities

D. Task Appraisal
The modules were designed tO increase the science process
skills of people who used them. Specifically, the process
skill development objectives Of the modules were related to

the following processes:

"The Cube" - Observing
"Vegetables and Other Stuff" - Classifying
"Cartoons" - Inferring
"S and P Boxes" - Inferring

The modules included sufficient materials to carry out the

. . . 2
various objectives and tasks.

 

1David P. Butts, "Self-Paced Instruction—-A Prelim-
inary Report," Appendix B, pp. 1-108.

2Ibid., "The Cube"-—Appendix B, pp. 1-4; "Vegetables
and Other Stuff"-—Appendix B, pp. 26-29; "Cartoons"--
Appendix B, pp. 53-60; "S and P Boxes"-—Appendix B, pp. 61-66.

63

Process Questioning
Strategies Method

 

 

The "Process Questioning Strategies" group received
instruction in accord with parts of Elementary School Per-

formance Tasks: Supervision Module.l This module was

 

developed to help teachers acquire certain specific behaviors
thought to be related to pupil learning. Some Of these spe-
cific behaviors included the questioning techniques neces-
sary to elicit various kinds Of inquiry behavior from children.
The presentation Of tasks to the subjects took place through
written materials which depicted the characteristics of the
task. Each Task Sheet included:

1. The name of the behavior class desired

2. A short definition of that behavior

3. A written description Of representative question

types (behaviors)

4. A rating scale
Specifically, the tasks chosen for the experimental group in
this study were:

1. Eliciting Observations

2. Eliciting Classifications

3. Eliciting Inferences2
A micro-teaching setting with peers and audio-tape recorders

was the Option chosen in this study for the task acquisition

 

lKoran and Judge, Op. cit.

2Ibid., pp. 24—26.

64

phase. In such a setting, subjects fulfilled the objectives

for the tasks chosen.

Description Of Instruments

 

A number of instruments were used to collect data in
the study. Figure 2 gives an overview of the various meas—

ures and the time at which they were made.

Pretest Posttest
For 40 Ss:
a) Science Process Test for
Elementary School Teachers yes no
Teacher Attitudes:
b) Attitude Toward Different
Methods Of Teaching Science no yes
c) Attitude Toward
Teaching Science yes yes
Teacher Behaviors:
d) Question Type Ratio yes yes
e) Indirect/Direct Ratio yes yes
f) Student Talk/Teacher
Talk Ratio yes yes
For 16 Ss:
g) Pupil Performance yes yes

Figure 2.--Overview of type and time of measures used.

65

Independent Measures

 

Based on a review of the related literature, it was
decided that a measure Of teacher general ability in the cog—
nitive skills as measured by the paper and pencil test to
be described could serve as a useful predictor of the teach—
ing characteristics to be described later in this chapter.
Accordingly, the Science Process Test for Elementary School
Teachers was chosen. Classifications of High and Low Initial
Process Levels were determined from pretest raw scores on
the instrument by dividing the scores at the mean into two
nearly equal groups. Score ranges and corresponding classi-

fications were:

 

Range Initial Process Level
19 & above High
18 & below Low-

The Science Process Test for Elementary School

 

Teachers is a 40-item multiple-choice instrument designed

by Sweetser to measure process skills held by elementary
science teachers.1 (See Appendix A.) An item analysis

on the test reported by Sweetser and Taylor showed an overall
Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient of 0.76 for two

groups of 49 and 54 experienced teachers.2 For a group of

 

lEvan A. Sweetser, Science Process Test for Elementary

 

School Teachers (3rd. ed.; East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, 1968).

2Evan A. Sweetser and Wayne Taylor, "The Development
Of an Objective Science Process Test for Elementary Teachers"
(paper presented at the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching meeting in Chicago, April, 1972).

 

66

lower elementary (K-3) education majors similar to the group
studied and measured by the writer in fall, 1970, the Kuder-

Richardson estimate was .72.

Dependent Measures

 

Each instrument to follow served to provide one or
more measures of the teacher characteristics of interest.

Attitude Toward Teaching Science.-—One method of

 

measuring attitude toward teaching science was suggested by
Millar.1 In order to devise an instrument designed to meas-
ure attitude toward any occupation, Millar constructed an
equivalent forms generalized master scale. Each form con-
sists of 45 statements to which the subject may respond by
placing a plus sign next to each statement with which he
agrees. The instrument is scored by determining the median
of the scale values chosen by the subject.

The term "teaching science" was substituted for the
terms "job," "work," "occupation," or "this" and, because
the subjects were preservice teachers, each statement was
written in the future tense. Copies of the scale, along
with scale values associated with each statement of each
test, are included in Appendix D. Equivalent forms reliabil-

ities for the two forms used have been reported ranging from

 

1H. E. Millar, "The Construction and Evaluation of
a Scale of Attitudes Toward Occupations," Purdue University
Studies in Higher Education, XXXV (1934), 68-76.

 

67

0.71 to 0.92 by Shaw and Wright for the original scale.l

Pickering, in a study using prospective elementary teachers
in Wisconsin, calculated equivalent forms reliability with

a resulting reliability coefficient of 0.83.2

The technique
used consisted of administering one form of the test during
one class session, followed by the other form during the

next class session.

Attitude Toward Different Methods Of Teaching

 

Science.--A Likert-type scale developed and first tested by
Pickering was used as one measure of attitude.3 For the
scale, five items, each reflecting a positive attitude toward
each of four approaches to class "control," were designed.
Five matching items, each reflecting a negative attitude
toward the several approaches to control, were also con—
structed. The approaches selected were:

1. Teacher-Centered

2. Teacher-Oriented

3. Pupil-Oriented

4. Pupil-Centered

A OOpy of the instrument appears in Appendix E.
Pilot studies by the test author using a split halves method

revealed an internal consistency of 0.95.4 A test-retest

 

lMarvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for the
Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1967).

 

 

2Pickering, Op. cit., p. 131.
3Ibid., p. 100.
4Ibid., p. 102.

68

technique was also used to determine the total reliability
of the instrument. A coefficient of stability Of 0.81 was
thus determined.1

In regard to validity, Pickering reported:

In general, student teachers who had indicated a pref-
erence for the teacher—centered, or teacher—oriented
approach tended to follow these procedures in the
classrooms. The same results were indicated for stu-
dent teachers who had selected the pupil-oriented or
pupil-centered approach. They were generally less dog—
matic and more flexible in their planning and presenta—
tion Of science lessons than the students that indicated
a preference for the teacher-centered or teacher—
oriented approaches.2

Details of the method Of scoring Of the instrument are

found in Appendix B.

By following the procedures referred to, a score
could be determined for each individual. The example
already cited in Appendix E represents an attitude toward
different methods of teaching science that is somewhat
teacher—centered, teacher-oriented. Using the technique
described ensured that positive numbers representing points
on a continuum of approaches to class "control" could be
statistically compared.

Instrument for the Analysis of Science Teaching Base
Scale (I.A.S.T.).--The I.A.S.T. is a l4-category system of

interaction analysis constructed by Hall.3 The instrument

 

 

lIbid., p. 103.
2Ibid., pp. 101-102.

3Gene E. Hall, The Instrument for the Analysis of
Science Teaching: A System for Measuring Teaching Behavior,
Report Series No. 19 (Austin: The Research and Development
Center for Teacher Education, University of Texas, 1969).

69

is similar to Flanders' 10-category system in that teacher
verbal behaviors are recorded. The I.A.S.T. differs chiefly
in that it provides for distinguishing between various kinds
of student behaviors, and also in that it provides specific-
ally for recording of additional behaviors which have been
found to be important in the teaching of science.1 An excel—
lent description of the instrument, its use and application
may be found in a teaching module developed under the direc—
tion Of Hall.2 A set Of ground rules is used in addition to
the category system to aid in reliably coding classroom ver-
bal behaviors. In consultation with Hall and Gouge, several
additional ground rules were established to facilitate better
the utilization Of the instrument in the micro—teaching
setting.3 The I.A.S.T., with its categories named and
described, followed by a list of ground rules used, is
included in Appendix F.

The writer analyzed all of the audiotapes of class-
room behavior made during the course of the study. Audio-

tapes were analyzed during July and August of 1971 using the

 

lGene E. Hall, "Changes in Teaching Behavior of Pre-
service Elementary Education Majors as a Result of Training
in Using the IAST Base, A System of Interaction Analysis"
(paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, Washington,
D. C., March 24, 1971).

2Gene E. Hall, Analygis of Teaching Behavior, First
trial edition; An Instructional Module (Austin: The Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education, The University
of Texas, 1969).

3Gene E. Hall, personal communication, July 20, 1971.

Charles Gouge, personal communication, July 20, 1971.

7O

instrument. Preparation to analyze the audiotapes was made
first by achieving the Objectives for the "Analysis of
Classroom Behavior" module under the direction of Hall dur-
ing several sessions totaling some four hours of time.1
Subsequent training included preparation for and teaching of
the module to two classes of preservice elementary teachers
at the University of Manitoba during 1969-70. Finally,
further literature review and subsequent practice led to a
good working knowledge of the categories and their applica~
tion. Trials using several of the audiotapes recorded in a
pilot test of the study were made to complete the list of
ground rules and to achieve consistency with a mean reliabil-
ity of 0.83 as calculated by use of Scott's coefficient.2
A complete list of reliability estimates calculated appears
in Appendix G.

Science Teaching Observational Instrument (S.T.O.I.).——
The S.T.O.I. was the second of three parts of an instrument
first developed to assess a range of behaviors exhibited by
teachers in the course Of teaching general science. "Part
II" was constructed to facilitate classification of teacher
questions into one Of five types, according to the type of
student response elicited by the question. The S.T.O.I. is

similar to a number of instruments and category systems used

 

lHall, Analysis of Teaching Behavior.

2Edmund J. Amidon and Ned A. Flanders, The Role Of
the Teacher in the Classroom (Minneapolis: Amidon Asso-
cIates, Inc., 1963), p. 10.

 

 

 

71

to determine the level Of teacher questions. It differs
from most others in that it distinguishes between several
levels of "Open" questions, including specifically between
questions designed to elicit the process skills of observing,
inferring or hypotheses forming, and testing inferences or
hypotheses. Since in this study the lesson taught by all
teachers concerns objectives directly related to the develop—
ment of such process skills as were mentioned under the ques~
tion categories, the instrument was ideally suited for use
in this study. A cepy Of the instrument appears in Appen-
dix H. Fischler and Zimmer further described the use of
the instrument, including ground rules.1
Fischler and Anastasiow reported little difficulty
in scoring the questions types in one study; however, relia—
bility estimates were not made.2 Moon reported reliability
coefficients with a mean of 0.76 over a number of measures.
His calculations were made using Scott's technique and for a
sample of inservice teachers teaching second grade children.4
For the present investigation, an assistant prepared
a written record from audiotape recordings Of all questions

asked by teachers during each of their two sessions with

 

lAbraham S. Fischler and George Zimmer, "The DevelOp-
ment of an Observational Instrument for Science Teaching,"
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V (1967-68), 127-
137).

2Fischler and Anastasiow, op. cit., p. 283.

3Moon, Op. cit., p. 74.
4Amidon and Flanders, op. cit., p. 10.

72

pupils. Each usable question was numbered consecutively,
beginning with one for each transcript. Next, another
assistant was employed, who underwent a training period con—
sisting of categorizing questions while listening to each
audiotape again. The assistant referred to the written
record of questions if necessary, for purposes of additional
clarification. Ground rules and other references were con—
sulted during the training period, which continued for some
four hours. TO facilitate rapid feedback, several estimates
of Scott's coefficient were made during training using the
shortcut method described by Flanders.l By the end of the
training period, Scott's coefficients Of 0.75 and above were
reached consistently.

Finally, the audiotapes were scored by making a tally
record of question types for each category. Intraobserver
reliability estimates with a mean of 0.85 were made during
the scoring period by using Scott's technique and by repeat—
ing the scoring procedure already described for four randomly
selected audiotapes. Calculations of Scott‘s coefficients
for original and recoded audiotapes appear in Appendix I.

Science--A Process Approach: Pupil Competency

 

Measure.--The Pupil Performance Score for any teacher was
obtained by finding the mean score that her pupils achieved

on the Compenency Measure associated with the teaching

 

lNed A. Flanders, "The Problems of Observer Training
and Reliability," in Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research
and Application, ed. by Edmund Amidon and John Hough
(Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967), pp. 158-
166.

 

73

materials of the exercise taught to all children. The
exercise was: "Inferring 5, Part D, Science—~A Process
Approach."

The pupil individual competency measures were devel-
oped primarily for purposes of curriculum evaluation. For
each lesson Objective, pupil tasks in terms of easily Observ—
able behavior were devised. Response categories are limited
to "yes" or "no" on the five—task instrument. Testers read
the questions tO the pupils and they either attempt to per—
form the behaviors required Or verbally give answers to the
questions asked. Responses are scored on evaluation sheets.
Validity is face or natural.

The develOpers of Science--A Process Approach planned
that 90 per cent of all the objectives of the program would
be met by 90 per cent of the pupils participating when the
pupils had been taught the various parts and exercises Of
the program in the suggested sequence. Data collected for
the curriculum evaluation pertaining to the exercise chosen
revealed that 88 per cent of the pupils tested achieved 90
per cent of the objectives of the Competency Measure.

Interobserver reliability coefficients utilizing
per cent of agreement between each Of two observers were
calculated for eight pupils. The mean per cent of agreement
recorded was 78. A table of scores for two Observers and
interobserver per cent of agreement for scoring pupil com—
petency measure(s) Inferring 5, Part D, Science——A Process

Approach appears in Appendix J.

74

Experimental Design

 

The study was conducted using a pretest—posttest
comparison group design. As such, it is similar to the
pretest-posttest control group design described by Campbell
and Stanley.1 Opportunities for randomization to treatment
groups were present and were utilized in the study.

Diagrammatically, the design may be depicted:

R 01 XA 02

R 03 XB 04

Thus, the basic Campbell and Stanley design2 becomes a com—
parison group design, but including an independent variable,
"Initial Process Level" used as a blocking variable. Figure
illustrates the design Of the study.

The experiment comparing instructional types was
replicated in each of the seven schools used in the study in
order to effect control. Because data based on pupil scores
were collected on only 16 of the teachers, eight from each
treatment group, and these in Dalhousie and Ralph Maybank
schools, it was necessary to include in the design provision
for two separate comparisons. The first of these utilized
the entire sample of 40 teachers for purposes of comparison

Of the two treatment groups on four Of the criterion measures

 

1Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Ex eri-
mental and Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research (Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1966), p. 13.

2

 

Ibid 0

of interest, omitting specifically the pupil performance
variable. The second included only the subset of 16 teachers,
and involved only the mean outcOme for each teacher on the
pupil performance data gathered from the children taught by

a given teacher.

Mode of Preparation

 

 

T T
m A B
m
m
0
8'4 High
Q;
F*g (Schools (Schools
rd 0) 1-7) 1-7)
'35-?)
.H Low
:2
H

 

 

 

 

Legend:
Mode TA = Process Skills Method

TB = Process Questioning Strategies Method
School - Dalhousie

l
2 - Ralph Maybank
3 - St. Avila

4 — Aggassis Drive
5 - General Bying
6 - St. Norbert

7 - Montrose

Figure 3.——Design of the study.

Procedures Of the Investigation

Preliminary Arrangements
Access to schools and classes of third grade children

was arranged informally during December, 1970, through

76

personal or telephone contact with building principals of
the seven schools involved in the study. Permission was
granted to the writer to meet individually with the class-
room teachers with the intent Of arranging suitable teaching
and testing schedules for January and February, 1971, subject
only to certain limitations of school and teacher timetables
and teacher wishes in the matter. A letter explaining the
schedule needs of the study, along with a description of
some of the lesson materials to be used, was drafted and
copies delivered to the various principals and teachers
involved, during early January, 1971. (See Appendix K.)
Where there were questions about the schedules, materials,
and/or procedures these were answered. In the next phase,
preparatory to the beginning of the study itself, lesson
materials for use with S--A.P.A., "Inferring 4," Part D were
prepared. "Inferring 4" was subsequently taught to the
selected classes according to schedule. Fourteen students
in the Faculty of Education, who had already received train—
ing in a science methods course, assisted the writer and
participating classroom teachers in this phase. Each class
was assessed by the General Appraisal measure after the
"Inferring 4" exercise had been taught. Since there was no
individual assessment made of pupils at this stage, it would
be apprOpriate, from the results of the appraisals, to say
only that in general the Objectives of the lesson prerequisite
to the one to be taught under experimental conditions had

been met for all classes.

77

Collection of the Data

 

All subjects were assembled on January 18, 1971, and
completed the Attitude Toward Teaching Science and the
Science Process Test for Elementary School Teachers instru—
ments. During their next meeting with the writer, the first
of a series of regularly scheduled science methods classes,
subjects were informed of the following:

1. That their next "class" would consist of each person
teaching some five third grade children in a group
in a school setting according to a set of objectives,
suggested activities, and materials about to be dis-
tributed. These materials consisted of "Inferring 5,"
Part D materials, excluding specifically the Appraisal
and Competency Measure for the exercise.

2. They would be allowed during the remainder of that
science methods class period to look at the printed
and other materials about to be distributed.

3. A11 lessons with pupils would be audiotape recorded,
and that portable recording facilities would be
provided.

It was felt that at this stage some anxiety had been
introduced. For that reason, the researcher encouraged
questions and attempted to answer fairly those few questions
that were raised. Schedules for the teaching of pupils in
schools were arranged with the teachers, with the stipula—

tion that whether their scheduled time coincided with science

78

methods class or not, they would not meet as an entire class
until Wednesday of the following week.

A teaching schedule was drawn up, which paired each
member of one treatment group with a member of the other.
Choices of pairs were made arbitrarily, with the only con-
dition being that the teacher's class schedule allowed her
to leave the university for a long enough period to travel
to and from her school and to complete the approximately
one-half hour of teaching once at the school.

On January 22, 25, and 26, 1971, the initial in-
school phases of teaching were completed according to sched-
ule. Audiotapes of approximately 15 minutes duration were
made of the teaching episodes in each case, and were col-
lected and stored for later analysis.

From three to five days, respectively, after teaching,
S.--A.P.A. "Inferring 5," Competency Measures were admin-
istered to the pupils of a previously described total of
16 teachers in two large schools in the sample, namely
Dalhousie and Ralph Maybank.

The testers, under the direction and with the assis—
tance of the writer, presented the appropriate test stimuli
to individual pupils. Scores were recorded for later com-
putation of group mean of pupil scores, which would serve
as the dependent measure of “pupil performance" for teachers.
Interobserver reliability coefficients using per cent agree—

ments were calculated as earlier reported (Appendix J).

79

Beginning January 27 and ending February 5, treat-
ments were administered to the two groups in accord with
the treatment objectives and descriptions presented earlier
in this chapter. The two groups worked to meet their
objectives in separated classrooms at the Faculty of Educa—
tion, University of Manitoba. Since the modular treatments
were in self-paced form, each teacher could proceed at her
own rate through the work, thereby minimizing the effect of
any possible differential instructor bias in favor Of one
or the other of the groups. Each teacher received feedback
based on task appraisals or rating sheets for her respective
treatment condition. These measures were used as formative
evaluation, and thus were included in the treatment effect.

At the conclusion Of the treatment phase, all sub-
jects completed the Attitude Toward Science and Attitude
Toward Different Methods Of Teaching Science instruments.
These were administered with teachers of the two treatment
groups together in a single room. Teachers were informed
that they would repeat the teaching procedure of several
weeks earlier using identical equipment and materials, but
to different groups of third grade children. Schedules were
arranged as before, and teachers subsequently returned to
the schools they had visited earlier, this on February 8, 9,
and 10. Here they taught a new group of pupils in accord
with the design and procedures already described in this
chapter. Audiotape records were again made for each teacher.

The pupil Competency Measure was administered for pupils in

80

the same two schools as before, and using the same methods
as already described. All scores were recorded for later
analysis. Interobserver reliability estimates were made
and the scores, percentage agreement between observers, and

mean per cent of agreement were calculated (Appendix J).

Analysis of the Data

 

Instruments administered to teachers to measure
initial process skill and attitudes toward teaching science
Of teachers were first scored. Pupil individual competency
scores were gathered from the pupils of the subset of 16
teachers for whom pretest and posttest instruction pupil
scores were assessed. Interaction analysis using the I.A.S.T.
was next performed. Raw data for the analysis of the two
audiotape Observations of each teacher were submitted for
computer analysis to determine the per cent of class time
devoted to each of the several behaviors assessed by the
instrument. Ratios Of combinations of behaviors were also
calculated, and these, the I.D. and the S.T., were later
used in the testing of hypotheses. A content analysis of
the audiotapes was performed to categorize questions accord—
ing to the method already described in this chapter. Two
attitude measures made after instructional treatment were
scored. The data gathered were punched on computer cards
for analysis.

A correlation matrix was constructed and included

all Of the independent and dependent variables used in the

81

study. It also included values for the percentages of each
of 14 categories of behavior that teachers used in their
initial and final teaching of pupils. The relationship of
initial process skill and initial attitudes toward science

to initial teaching behaviors, as well as other relation-
ships Of interest, were determined from the results of the
correlation matrix. One other computer analysis that was not
prOposed in the initial design, a separate multivariate
analysis of covariance, was also conducted. It made instruc~
tional treatment, high versus low initial attitudes, and
interaction effect comparisons. This additional comparison
was useful to interpret better a question relative to effect
of initial attitude tO subsequent measures of teacher atti—
tude and behavior.

Hypotheses pertaining to the effect of instructional
treatment type, initial process level, and differential
effect of treatment on level were tested. Two separate two-
way multivariate analyses of covariance were used to test
hypotheses associated with attitudes of teachers (two vari-
ables), and teaching behaviors (three variables). For the
subset of 16 teachers, a single two-way univariate analysis
of covariance was used to test hypotheses associated with
pupil performance as a result of teaching. In all analysis
of covariance tests, scores on preinstructional tests were
used as the covariates.

The extent Of changes in attitude, behavior, and

teaching performance over the instructional period were

82

determined by performing t-tests of differences between the
means for measures of activity before and after instructional
treatment. Differences were assessed in this way both for
the group of teachers as a whole and for each of the two
groups which underwent different instructional treatment,

and also for the subset Of 16.

Hypotheses

 

The following null experimental hypotheses were

tested at d = .05:

Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences in
the mean vectors of postinstructional
scores Of attitudes (ATS, ATDMTS) between
the two instructional groups nor between
levels of initial process skill nor dif—
ferentially between treatment and level.

Symbolically:
HO: ul ui for each Of treatment,
= level, and interaction
I
u2 u2 effects
0 I
H1. ul ul
f
u2 u'
Legend: Instructional Groups 1. Process Skills

2. Process Questioning
Strategies

Initial Process Levels 1. High Initial Process

Skill
2. Low Initial Process
Skill
u = ATS = Attitude Toward Teaching Science
u = ATDMTS = Attitude Toward Different Methods

of Teaching Science

Hypothesis 2:

 

 

83

There are no significant differences in
the mean vectors of postinstructional
teaching behavior scores (QT, ID, ST)
between the two instructional groups nor
between levels of initial process skill
nor differentially between treatment and
level. '

 

 

 

 

Symbolically:
. I I I.)
HO. [Ell ul
_ . for each of treatment,
u2 ‘ uz
level, and interaction
I
un u3 effects
)- L J»
- . 1
H1: ul [u'
I
u2 # u2
u u'
L :31 l- 3.1
Legend: Instructional Groups 1. Process Skills
2. Process Questioning
Strategies
Initial Process Levels 1. High Initial Process
Skill
2. Low Initial Process
Skill
u = QT = Question Types ratio
u = ID = Indirect to Direct teaching behavior ratio
u3 = ST = Student Talk to Teacher Talk ratio

Hypothesis 3:

 

There are no significant differences
between measures of teacher attitude (ATS)
or behavior (QT, ID, ST) collected prior
to and after instructional treatment.

Symbolically:
HO: u1 = ui
for each measure
I
H1. ul # ul

84

For the subset of 16 teachers for whom Pupil Performance

scores were available, the following hypotheses were tested:

Hypothesis 4: There are no significant differences in
the mean postinstructional Pupil Perform—
ance measures according to the instruc-
tional method used, or according to level
of initial process skill held by the
teacher or differentially with instruc-

tional type according tO level of initial
process skill.

Symbolically:

HO: u = ui for each of treatment,

level, and interaction
0 I
Hl' u1 I u1 effects

Hypothesis 5: There are no significant differences in
Pupil Performance score prior to and after
instructional treatment.

Symbolically:

Ho: u1 = u

[—4-

H1: ul < u

H'-

Summary

This chapter included the method Of selection and
the description of teacher and pupil subjects used in the
study. The self—paced instructional modules which were used
were described, as were the several instruments that were
used to make the various measures. The research design,
procedures of the investigation, including preliminary

arrangements and collection of the data, were described.

85

Finally, the procedures for the analysis of the data and a

statement of the hypotheses tested completed the chapter.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS

Introduction

 

The data that will be used to answer the questions
raised in Chapter I will come in part from a descriptive
account of pre— and postinstructional teacher characteris—
tics, in part from an analysis Of correlations between a
number of variables, as well as from a testing of the
hypotheses first stated in Chapter III.

Presented in this chapter are a description Of the
teacher and pupil samples and a description Of the cell com-
positions for each cell in the design selected for use in
the study. Questions asked or hypotheses that were tested,
along with a presentation of data that were analyzed in

relation to them, follow.

The Sample

 

The 40 teachers and 370 pupils involved in this
study are characterized by the data presented in Chapter III
and Appendix C. The method Of selection of teachers and
pupils for inclusion in the sample was presented in Chapter
III. From the entire sample, 16 teachers and 148 pupils

were selected, as described in Chapter III, for a Special

86

87

extended study. The extension related to Hypotheses 5 and 6
first stated in Chapter III, and considers the important

variable of pupil performance.

Cell Compositions
Figure 4 is a description of the cell compositions
for both 40 and 16 teacher subjects, as described by the two
independent variables Of instructional type and initial
process skill, each variable having two levels. These com—

positions relate tO the testing of the major hypotheses

that follows in this chapter.

Process Questioning
Process Skills Strategies

 

Cell #1 Cell #3

High For 40 Ss (For 1685)

 

 

 

 

Initial 11 (5) 11 (6)
Process J
Level 1
Cell #2 Cell #4 f
Low ‘
9 <3) 9 <2) ;

 

Iiigure 4.--Cell compositions illustrating total number of
teacher subjects per cell of the 2x2 fixed
effects design.

Entering Characteristics Of Teachers
(maestion 1: What were the entering characteristics of teach-

ers (as listed and operationalized in Chapter I)?

88

Entering characteristics were those measured before
instructional treatment began. These included both paper
and pencil measures of Attitude Toward Teaching Science
(A.T.S.) and science process Skills as measured by the
Science Process TeSt for Elementary School Teachers (S.P.T.).
Also included were a variety Of teaching behaviors, namely
Question Types ratio (Q.T.), Indirect to Direct Behavior
ratio (I.D.), and Student to Teacher Talk ratio (S.T.). The
teaching behaviors were measured from audiotapes of teacher
performance.

Table 1 provides means and standard deviations for
the five variables of interest, as well as for the entire
Instrument for the Analysis of Science Teaching (I.A.S.T.)
categories from which the I.D. and S.T. variables are
derived. Special comments regarding the use of category 14
have already been made in Appendix F. Since the use of the
category in this study was entirely to mark beginnings and
endings of teaching sequences, no data regarding the use of
the category have been included.

Relationships Between Entering Characteristics
and Initial TeachIng Behaviors

 

Question 2: What were the relationships between
a) initial attitude toward teaching science
(A.T.S.) and
b) knowledge of processes of science (S.P.T.) to:
the initial teaching behaviors of the preservice

teachers during science teaching with pupils

89

Table 1.--Means and standard deviations of entering character-
istics Of teachers.

 

 

Variable Mean Standard Deviation
S.P.T. 18.35 5.246
A.T.S. 7.648 0.591
Q.T. 0.944 0.060
I.D. 1.201 0.464
S.T. 0.452 0.123
I.A.S.T. Categories

#1 0.048 0.000
#2 0.653 0.744
#3 7.699 2.393
#4 16.101 4.856
#5 5.935 2.304
#6 15.127 6.102
#7 0.357 0.516
#8 10.245 7.607
#9 18.572 4.443
#10 0.994 0.874
#11 0.351 0.304
#12 24.074 11.088
#13 0.009 0.000
.Legend: A.T.S. = Attitude Toward Teaching Science
S.P.T. = Science Process Test for Elementary Teachers
Q.T. = Question Types ratio
I.D. = Indirect to Direct behavior ratio
S.T. = Student Talk to Teacher Talk ratio
For I.A.S.T. Categories see Appendix F.

90

but before the commencement of science methods
course instruction?
Table 2 lists the correlations of attitude toward
teaching science (A.T.S.) and knowledge of processes of
science (S.P.T.) with initial teaching behaviors.

Table 2.--Re1ationship between two entering characteristics
and initial teaching behaviors.

 

Initial Teaching Entering Characteristic

 

 

Behaviors A.T.S. S.P.T.
Q.T. 0.026 0.264**
I.D. -0.078 0.113
S.T. -0.226 0.237

I.A.S.T. Categories

#1 0.000 0.000
#2 -0.315* -0.095
#3 -0.163 -0.136
#4 0.163 0.090
#5 -0.208 0.049
#6 0.172 -0.173
#7 —0.024 0.191
#8 0.287** —0.203
#9 -0.172 0.222
#10 -0.141 0.296**
#11 0.166 —0.070
#12 -0.204 0.099
#13 0.000 0.000

*Significant at p = .05

**Significant at p = .10

Legend: A.T.S. Attitude Toward Teaching Science

S.P.T = Science Process Test for Elementary Teachers
Q.T. = Question Types ratio

I.D. = Indirect tO Direct behavior ratio

S.T. = Student Talk to Teacher Talk ratio

For I.A.S.T. Categories see Appendix F.

 

91

The data reveal that initial positive attitudes
toward teaching science are negatively correlated with
teacher "praise" (I.A.S.T. category 2) at the p = .05 level,
and positively with "teacher—controlled silence" (I.A.S.T.
category 8) at p = .10. Other correlations Of initial atti—
tude with behavior are small.

Initial science process skills appear to be nega-
tively correlated, beyond p = .10, with initial attitudes
toward teaching science. There is a low correlation, beyond
p = .10, of process Skill with question type preference
during initial teaching. For correlations of initial science
process skill with the individual categories of the Hall
instrument (I.A.S.T.), only category 10 ("student questions")
reaches the p = .10 level. It is a positive correlation.
The remaining correlations of process skill with other char—

acteristics and behaviors are small.

Introduction to the Testing of Hypotheses

The remaining questions asked in Chapter I were
answered largely from tests of hypotheses.

The mean pretest scores for the several independent
variables, divided by instructional type and initial process
skill level, and including pooled within standard deviations,
appear in Table 3. Similarly, the corresponding posttest
mean scores and standard deviations appear in Table 4.

The following sections provide data sufficient to

answer Question 3 Of Chapter 1, through an analysis of two

92

A.B.mv oflpmm Mame Hosomme ou Dampoum
A.O.HV oflumm Hofl>mzmm pomuflo ou uomufich

A.B.OV Owumm mmmhe coflumwoo

H

A.m.e.«v mocoflom maflaomme pum3oe opoufluum

m#
V#
mw
at

mapeeee>
mapeepe>
esneepe>

manoeum> "pcmmmq

 

 

 

 

maa.o omv.o omo.o mnm.o GOHDMH>OQ pumpcmum
cflnuflz Uwaoom
m m
emm.o eem.H emm.o mem.e son mmamowwmwww
o o o o mflm . .
mmm o mmm H mmm o mmm h z . mmmooum
www.o mam.o mmm.o 0mm.h Boa maaflxm
mee.o HmH.H mmm.o emm.n Baez mmeoonm
m¢ .um> V# .um> me .Hm> H¢ mabmflum> Hm>oq coflpoouumcH
mmoooum mo posses
mnofl>w£om genomes mocsuwuud genomes aoHDHcH

 

mmHOUW mHflwflHM> HGQUGOQHCfi 3M0:

 

.momosuommn Mo memmamcm

Hmuo>om 039 CH pom: mouoom amouonm on» mo mooHusH>mp puwccmum pom mcmozui.m manna

93

A.B.mv Owumm xame Honomoe OD pampoum
I.D.HV oHpmm Hoa>mzmm Domuflo on DOOHHUGH

A.B.OV ofiumm mmmme coflumoso

“.m.B.E.Q.B.¢V
cocoaom mcflnomoe mo moonumz DOOHOMMHQ pum3oa mpsuflpud

“.m.e.<c ooemeom meeeoeme euezoe meeuenpe

m¢
v*
M#

m#
aw

maeeepm>
manmepe>

eflpmepe>

espeepe>

wannaum> "pcmmoq

 

 

 

 

mma.o mme.o Neo.o emm.o ome.o peepee>eo epepemum
peeps; eeaooe
m mm

mmm.o moa.H mam.o mme.aa mew.» zoo mewwoawmmwm
mam 0 «Am A mes 0 com an ego m Beam mweoope
Hme.o eoo.a mam.o eem.HH mme.e zoo maaexm
aee.o aem.a mem.o eee.aa ome.e Beam mmepppe

me .pe> es .pe> me .ue> «I .pe> He .pe> He>eo coheosppmee

mmmooum mo vogue:

mwofl>msom ngomme mopsuflupm Honomoe aneuficH

 

mouoom amouumom one:

 

.cowuoouumcw mo moonuoe OBD map

MOM moflumflumuomnmzo Homomou pmmuumom on» NO mcoflnsfl>mp peopcmuw pom mcmmzul.e manna

94

hypotheses first stated in Chapter III. In order to group
variables which were conceptually similar, two separate
multivariate hypotheses were stated and tested, grouping
attitudinal variables and teacher behavior variables,
respectively. To facilitate reporting of effects of instruc—
tional type, initial process level, and interaction of

type and level, however, the hypotheses have been regrouped
in this chapter for the clarity and convenience to the
reader. Figure 5 describes graphically the manner of stat—
ing of hypotheses in Chapter III, along with the regrouped

form Of Chapter IV.

The Effect Of Instructional Type

 

The effects of instructional treatment type may be
considered by analyzing the data pertaining to the follow—
ing hypothesis:

There are no Significant differences in mean post—
instructional scores of A) teacher attitudes (A.T.S.,
A.D.M.T.S.) nor B) teacher behaviors (Q.T., I.D., S.T.)
between the two instructional groups (Process Skills
and Process Questioning Strategies).

The data presented in Table 5 Show that the F—ratio
for the multivariate test of equality of the mean vectors
tested in Hypothesis l.(A) was equal to 1.412. This ratio
generates a p—value less than 0.258. Since the alpha level
had previously been established at .05, the multivariate
null hypothesis was not rejected. The two univariate analy-

ses of covariance associated with the multivariate test are

also listed in Table 5. Their separate contributions to the

95

Method of Grouping and Numbering

In Chapter III In Chapter IV

 

Hypothesis 1
(Relating to Attitudes)

1. a) Treatment Effects
b) Level Effects

c) Interaction Effects Hypothesis 1

Treatment Effects
A) Relating to attitudes
B) Relating to behaviors

ypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 Level Effects
A) Relating to attitudes

(Relating to BehaVlors) B) Relating to behaviors

2. a) Treatment Effects

Hypothesis 3

b) Level Effects Interaction Effects

A) Relating to attitudes
0) Interaction Effects B) Relating to behaviors

Figure 5.--Regrouping Of hypotheses.

96

 

 

 

A.B.mv oflumm Mame Honomme ou ucmpsum u m manmflum>

A.D.HV oflumm HOH>mzwm powuflo on Doouflch u v manmflum>

A.B.ov oflpmm momme coaummso u m mannaum>

A.m.B.Z.Q.B.€V
cocoflom mcflnomms mo mponuoz DGOHOMMHO pumzoa mpsufluum n N mannaum>
A.m.9.¢v mocmflom anemones pum3oe opsufluum u a maomwum> "pammoq
.memeepoese . . .ue
Hana mama Nwm o mma o m > 4>OUZ¢D
IHM>HDHSE may >v>.o moa.o v .um> ¢>0024D
powwow no: op . . .Hm
no: meow moam> mandoocmuaseflm
-e pee eoeem oes.o Hme.o m pee .e .m .pe>
muofl>mcmm genomes ¢>ouz¢2 Amva
mmn.o moo.o m .um> ¢>ouzas
. Ae>oozmoc
mmmflflpmmwm mmo.o mmm.m H .um> mocmanm>oo mo mam
lum>flpaofi on» Imamcm ODMHHo>HcD
powwow Doc op A¢>OUZEZV
.mo.um pomoxm mamsoocmuaseflm dogmaum>ou
no: meow moam> mm~.o mHv.H m .Hm> pom H .um> mo mammamce
um ecu mocflm , mopsufluud Honomoa oumflum>flpasz Adva
coflmfiomo can moam>lm owummim pmumoe moansfluo> posuoz amoaumfluoum memosuommm

Hm>mq c

 

.muofl>mnon pom mocsufiuum Honomou How Amoflmoumuum

Hmcofluosuumcfl mSmHm> maawxm mmoooumv mama Hmcofluoouumcfl mo somwnmmEOOIl.m OHQMB

97

total effect of instructional treatment on teacher attitudes,
however, should only be assessed where Significance is found
for the multivariate case.

The data in Table 5 further reveal that the multi—
variate analysis of covariance performed to test Hypothesis
l.(B) yielded an F-value of 0.421 and a p—value of 0.740.

The multivariate hypothesis was not rejected at the p = .05
level. The F—ratios and p—values of the associated univar—
iate hypotheses are listed for reference as before.

1 When both tests Of treatment effect are considered
together, the reported data reveal that there were no effects
on the several teacher characteristics that may be attrib—

uted to differential treatment effect.

The Effect of Initial Process Skill Level

 

The effect of initial process skill level on subse—
quent teacher behavior may be determined by examining the
data pertinent to the following hypothesis:

There are no significant differences in mean post—
instructional scores of A) teachers' attitudes (A.T.S.,
A.D.M.T.S) nor B) teacher behaviors (Q.T., I.D., S.T.)
between levels of initial process skill (High and Low).

The data presented in Table 6 Show that the F—ratio
for the multivariate test of equality of the means for both
teacher attitude measures considered simultaneously is 1.540.
This ratio generates a p—value of less than 0.229, not sig-
nificant at the p = .05 level. The decision was not to

reject the multivariate null hypothesis. The F—ratios and

p-values of the two univariate hypotheses associated with

98

A.9.mv oflumm xame umgomms ou ucmpsum u m manmflum>

fi.o.Hv oaumm H0fi>mnmm uomuflo ou uomuHUcH u v manmflnm>

A.B.OV oflumm momma cowummso n m wanmflum>

“.m.s.2.o.a.<v
mocmflom mcwsomme mo mpocumz ucmuwmmwo Unmzoe mpsuflupd n N manoeum>

 

 

 

 

A.m.B.¢v moamflom magnomms pamBOB mpsufluud u H manmflum> "Ucmmmq
.uxmu ca
---muwmmmm£uommn- . . .um
mumwum>flcs van o mom a m > <>ooz<a
ummwmcoov mfimm ono.o wom.m v .um> <>oozmo
uguo a Hand mum . . .
nflum>flpasfi map mmo 0 sun m m um> ¢>ouz¢a
powwow .mo.um wawsomcmuaseflm
mpwmoxm msHm> mvo.o nmm.m m can .v .m .Hm>
In on“ mocflm muofl>mnmm umnomme ¢>00242 Amvm
vnm.o nmmo.o m .um> <>ouz¢a
.mammnuommz
was: mnma A¢>ooz<ov
lum>HuHsE mnu mmo o omo m H um> mmcMflumwooamo mam
powwow no: 00 I A c4 um.um>HCD
.mo.um cmmoxm A¢>oozazv
boa mmop msam> mamsomcmuaseflm mocmfium>oo
um may moaflm mmm.o ovm.a m .um> can H .um> no mumsflmca
mopsufluud nonomma manaum>fiuasz Amvm
:ofimwomn can msam>um oflummum wmumma mmanmflum> wonumz Hmoaumflumum mummnnomsm
Hw>mq a
.muow>mnmn can mmpnuwuum
Horommu u0m A30H paw nmflnv mam>wa HHme mmmooum Amanda“ mo acmflummsoouu.m manna

99

the same test also are listed in Table 6 for convenient
reference.

The data in Table 6 further reveal that the multi-
variate hypothesis performed to test Hypothesis 2.(B) yielded
an F-value of 2.94 and a p-value of 0.049. The multivariate
hypothesis of no difference of mean vectors was rejected at
the p = .05 level. The multivariate statistical model used
allows for the examination of the univariate hypotheses
associated with the rejected multivariate hypothesis in
order to determine possible sources for the overall differ-
ence in teacher behaviors attributed to the effect of
instructional treatment on initial process skill level. The
univariate test performed to analyze the difference between
teacher behaviors associated with question type ratios
results in an F-ratio of 5.774 and a p—value of 0.022
(Table 6). The direction of the difference reveals that the
ratio of high to low level question types (Variable 3) is
higher for teachers of high initial process skill level.
Further examination of the two remaining associated univar—
iate hypothesis shows no differences at the p = .05 level.
However, the p-value of 0.07 associated with Variable 4
(student talk to teacher talk ratio) would suggest that part
of the overall significance of the multivariate hypothesis
may be due to slightly higher indirect to direct behavior
ratios for teachers of high initial process skill level.

The remaining univariate hypothesis associated with teacher

behavior had a p—value of 0.214 (Table 6). While little

100

importance may be attached to the contribution of this dif-
ference to the overall effect on teacher behavior, the
direction again is such that higher initial process skill
levels may result in higher student talk to teacher talk
ratios. Figure 6 shows a graph to illustrate teacher behav-
iors according to level of initial process skill both before
and after instructional treatment. It demonstrates how,

for each of the three variables considered, slight initial
differences, not significantly so at the p = .05 level of
significance, increase between high and low initial process
level groups to significant differences after instruction
has occurred.

The differences between means of the high and low
initial process skill level groups for the several post—
instructional teacher behavior variables should be examined
in relation to the standard deviations for each variable.
Table 4 provided a list of variables, accompanied by pooled
standard deviations for each. These standard deviations can
be considered in relation to differences between means of
the postinstructional means for the several teacher behavior
variables at each of the high and low initial process levels.
Considering the variables in the order of Figure 6, these
differences then amount to approximately 1.0, 0.59, and 0.75
standard deviations for the Q.T., I.D., and S.T. variables,
respectively. When considered together in a multivariate

test of the null hypothesis and given the number of subjects

lOl

Means

YEEEEElEE Preinstruction Postinstruction

 

 

 

 

i fizz—’7“...
.d (0.954)
(O'iil) Legend:
‘ \ High Initial
\\ Process.
Q-T _ \ \ ------ Low Initial
.\ Process
_ \ Q.T. = Question Types
\ Ratio
\.
._ 40.896) I.D. = IndiIECt to
4 Direct
Behavior Ratio
~ S.T. = Student to
i Teacher Talk
(1.441) Ratio
I.D. '-
c
(1.259)
C\ ‘
d (1.130) ‘ ‘ ~ \
‘--o
(1.055)
_)
x (0.502)
_ (0.489)
SOT.
. (0.410)
.1 (0.407) ’ __ __x

 

Figure 6.--Pre- and postinstruction means for measures of
teacher behavior for three variables measured

from teachers of high and low initial process
levels.

102

in the study, such differences were sufficiently large to,
collectively, give reason to reject the null hypothesis.

When both tests of effect of level of initial process
skill are considered together, the data reveal that only in
those teacher characteristics associated with teacher ver—
bal behavior are there statistically significant differences.
Specifically, the differences appear to lie in the level of
questions asked, with teachers of high initial process
levels having higher question type ratios than their low

counterparts.

The Differential Effect of Instructional Type

on Level of Initial Process Skill
(Interaction Effect)

The differential effects of instructional type on
level of initial process skill may be considered by analyz-
ing the following hypothesis:

There are no significant differences in mean post-
instructional scores of A) teacher attitudes (A.T.S.,

A.D.M.T.S.) nor B) teacher behaviors (Q.T., I.D., S.T.)
differentially between treatment and level of initial

process skill.

The data presented in Table 7 show that the F—ratio
for the multivariate test of equality of the mean vectors
tested in Hypothesis 3.(A) was equal to 0.207. This ratio
generates a p-value less than 0.814. The multivariate
tlii’pothesis was not rejected. The associated univariate

F-ratios and p-values are also listed in Table 7 for ref—

erence.

103

A.e.mv
A.D.HV oHpmm uoH>mnmm pomHHo ou uomqucH u w mHQMHum>

oflnmm mea umgomme on ucwwzum u m memHnm>

A.B.Ov oHumm momma coHummso u m mHQmHHm>

A.m.B.E.Q.B.<V
mocmHom mcHgommB mo mpoaumz ucmumHMHo pumBoe mUSUHHud u m QHQMHHM>

 

 

 

A.m.9.dv mocmHom mcHnommB pumSoe mpsuHuud u H mHQMHHm> "pammmq
.mHmmzuommn mmm.o chH.o m .um> m>ouz¢b
HH2H mpMH mHm.o NHm.H v .Hm> ¢>OUZ¢D
lum>HuHse map . . .
powwow uoc op mmm o ham 0 m um> ¢>OUZ¢D
.mo.nm Ummoxm mHmsomsmeDEHm
nos mmow msHm> anm.o oso.o m can .4 .m .nm>
IQ on» moch mu0H>mzmm umcomme <>Ooz¢z Amvm
nmm.o mmmH.o m .um> ¢>OUZ¢D
m..mm.mmmm 14>ooz.pv
HH . moo.o onm.o H .um> mocmflum>oo mo mam
Inm>HquE map >
I Hmcd muwaum>asb
powwow nos op . .
.mo.um ammoxm la>oozazv
no: mmop msHm> mHmdomcmuHSEHm mocmHHm>ou
um mcu moch «Hm.o nom.o m .nm> paw H .Hm> mo mHmmHmcd
mopsqupd umgomme mumHnm>HuHsz Amvm
conHomo 6am msHm>Im oflummsm wmumma mmHanHm> wonumz HmoHumHnmpm mflmmnuoasm

Hm>mH d

 

.A30H paw annv Hm>mH HHme mmmooum HMHquH paw HmmHmmumnum mchoHummnq mmmooum mdmum>
wHHme mmmooumv mmwu HmcoHuosuumcH cmmzumn pommmm coHuomumucH mo acmHummEoolu.h anme

104

The data in Table 7 further reveal that the multivar-
iate analysis of covariance performed to test Hypothesis
3.(B) yielded an F-ratio of 0.670 and p—value of 0.577.

The multivariate hypothesis was not rejected at the p = .05
level. F-ratios and p-values of associated univariate
hypotheses are listed.

When the several tests of interaction effect are
considered together, the analysis of the data reveals that
there were no effects on the several teacher characteristics
that may be attributed to differential effect of instruc—
tional treatment according to level of initial process skill.

Effect of Initial Attitude Levels on Selected
Postinstructional Characteristics

An additional multivariate hypothesis, not included
in the original design, was tested and is reported in this
section. For this section, the sample of 40 teachers was
divided about the median into High and Low Initial Attitudes
Toward Teaching Science. The data and analyses used to
examine the question of associated teaching behavior came
from two sources. First, a multivariate and univariate
analysis of covariance was used to determine instructional
treatment effects based on the five variables of teacher
attitude and behavior that were considered throughout the
study for the sample of 40 teachers. The effects of instruc-
tional treatment according to level of initial attitude
toward teaching science were also calculated, as were inter-

acting effects on attitude and behavior of treatment type

105

and initial attitude level. Second, data resulted from an
intercorrelation matrix, for which correlations and p—values
were computed for all dependent, independent, and covari-
ables, as well as for the measures for individual categories
of teaching behavior as determined by the use of the I.A.S.T.
(Appendix F). Table 8 illustrates the abbreviated results
of the multivariate and univariate analysis of covariance.
The analysis suggests that there are no overall
significant effects on any of the group of five variables
that are associated with instructional treatment, level,
or interaction. However, since this portion of the study
was included after the original design was established, and
no hypotheses were actually being tested, it was feasible
to inspect the univariate tests for additional insight.
Accordingly, the analysis suggests that attitude toward
teaching science (A.T.S.), not surprisingly, still differs
between levels of high and low initial attitude toward
teaching science even after instruction. Finally, for the
student to teacher talk ratio (S.T.), an interaction effect
is suggested. Further inSpection of the data suggested that
the effect might be caused by the Process Questioning
Strategies module being most effective for teachers of low

initial attitude toward teaching science.

Based on inspection of the correlation data, the
following additional observations were made. Initial atti-
tudes toward the teaching of science, surprisingly, show

a negative correlation at the p = .05 level with

106

mOflmflOm

l.a.mv oHumm mea umaomme on ucmwsum u m
A.D.Hv oHumm HOH>mnmm HomuHo ou uomqucH u v
A.a.ov oHumm mmmse aoHummso u m

A.m.e.2.o.e.av
maHnommB wo moonumz pcmHmHMHQ pum309 mpsuHuud u N
l.m.e.<v mocmflom maflaomma amazes mwsufluua n H

mHQMHnm>
mHanum>
mHQMHHm>

oHQMHum>

mHnMHHm> "Ucmmmq

.mmmm mchwomum may :0 coHumcmmem wuozm

 

 

Amo.o u m
«.mmmmanoas: Hana ..a.mv HFH.o u a mmm.H mcofluomumucH
mvaum>HpHDE Hmnm>mm
mcu pommmu uoc Ammo.o n m
on 6n sHsoz con ..m.e.<v mmm.o u a mmm.H mHm>mq
-Homs was .mo. u a
pmmoxm uos 0p ANH.o u m
mmsHm>um map macaw ..m.e.av mmm.o u a HN$.H muommmm usmEummua
COHmHomQ mam mmsHm>lm mmsHm>Im mmsHm>um
Hm>mH a muMHHm>HcD muMHHm>HuHDS mHMHHm>Hquz
UmuomHmm

 

.muoH>mnmn paw mopsuHuHm umaommu

How ABOH paw annv mHm>mH mocmHom mcHnommu UHMBO» mpsuwuum
HMHHHQH mo muommmm qu3O£m mUGMHum>oo mo mHmemcm mumHum>Hcs paw mHMHum>HuHUEII.m mHnme

107

postinstructional attitude toward different methods of teach-
ing science. This result reveals that those with favorable
initial attitudes toward teaching science tend to be more
teacher-centered and less pupil-centered in their approach

as they get more positive in their attitudes toward teaching
science. The data also reveal a small correlation beyond

p = .10 of age with initial attitude toward teaching science,
but that age by attitude correlation weakens when the post-

test attitude is considered with age.

Additional Data Related to Treatment Effects

 

This study was primarily concerned with the relative
effects of the two instructional treatment types. Since the
data revealed no significant differences between treatment
types, an examination of means of dependent variables of
interest measured both prior to and after instruction was
conducted. The following hypothesis was tested:

There are no significant differences between measures
of teacher attitude (A.T.S.) or behavior (Q.T., I.D.,
S.T.) collected prior to and after instructional
treatment.

Table 9 lists the means of those dependent variables
for the entire sample of 40 teachers for whom pretests and
posttests were available. The values of t-tests performed
to help interpret the extent of differences between the
means are also listed. Finally, Table 10 lists the mean
percentage of each category of behavior in the 14ucategory

Hall Instrument for the Analysis of Science Teaching

(I.A.S.T.), both prior to and after treatment. Portions

108

 

 

 

1.9.mv oHnmm mee umaomme on ucmvsum n v mHQMHnm>
H.Q.Hv 0Humm HOH>msmm uomuHo ou HomuHUGH u m mHQwHHm>
A.B.Ov oHumm momma coHummso n N mHQMHHm>
H.m.9.¢v mocmwom mcHnommB UHMBOB mpsuHup< u H wHQMHHm> “pcmmmH
.mHmmnpommn A+va.o Hmv.o va.o aw
wwwwmflwmwwwwwmmmmmw l+vmmflo nmmfla HONHH ms nozuwswwwmw s
mmsHm>|u wnu moch Alvmo H mNm o vvm o N# mocmwwwwwm
No.Nnu A+va.H mNm.n mvm.h H¢ mo ummplu
mconHomo paw mmSHm>1u umom mum ponwmz mHmmnuomwm
HGmHHMHIOSHy pmudeonu HMUHumHumam

mo. u a pm
msam>uu

pmumma mmHanHm>

 

.mmHanHm> ucmpcmmmp HSOM How msOmHummEoo HmsoHaosupmcH
lumom paw imam mo mdem>lu UmumHUOmmm paw mmuoom ummuumom Ucm ammumnm cmmzll.m mHnma

109

.chumc pmumHH H0H>msmn mo

wnommumo sumo meHHOmmU m xHUcmmmfim

 

 

 

pmumHsono Doc ooo.o ooo.o MH
Alvom.H mnm.mH omH.mN NH
Anvmm.H mNo.o 00H.o HH
A+Vmoo.o mnm.o mhm.o 0H
«H+va.N ooo.HN omw.mH m
afllvmm.N ooo.m mnm.m m
OHch I O 0
may powwow on on h+vmm o th o com o n Apmscchoov
case; mflmmauoasa l+v00.a 000.0H mms.0a 0
HHsc m Hops: I . . .
conHomp 03p .No.N «A VHN N th v omm m m AUmHamu
mo msHm>lu Hmo «A+va.N mhv.mH omn.mH v Iosuv
-HuHHo may ammoxm 1-000.0 000.0 000.0 m mamma
Agv mwde>nu pout: cmmzpmn
-mfimmw may moaflm luvmm.H mmm.0 000.0 m moamumuuae
. I meMHdono uo: ooo.o ooo.o H m0 ummulu
No NIH
mconHowQ paw mmSHm>lu umom mum mmuommumo ponumz mHmmnuomwm
HUmMHmnnozpv pmumHsonu H0a>mnmm .B.m.<.H HMUHumHumum
mo u e um . ... . o
wsHm>|u B m d H m

ammo umm cmmz

 

.B.m.<.H can no mmHuommumo cmmunwnu MOM mGOmHummEoo
mo mmsHm>np pmumHoommm can mHoH>mnmn mo unmoumm pmmpumom dam ummumum cmmzll.0H mHQma

110

of the I.A.S.T. data were used to determine the I.D. and
S.T. ratios already reported in Table 9, but reporting the
several categories which made up the entire instrument had
merit, as will be explained later in this section.

The data in Table 9 reveal that some differences
favoring higher attitudes toward teaching, I.D. ratios, and
S.T. ratios were measured after instructional treatment.

One other difference showed lower question type ratios were
measured after treatment than before. None of these dif—
ferences reached the p = .05 (two—tailed) level of signifi—
cance. The decision was to not reject the null nypothesis.
While this decision was clear, additional examinations of
t-values computed for changes in the several categories of
the I.A.S.T. from pre— to postinstructional treatment were
made. Since the reliability of the I.A.S.T. was established
on the entire instrument, but not the separate categories,
the following results should best be considered as "inspec—
tion." 1

Examination of the results for the various categories
of behavior measured by the I.A.S.T. (Table 10) reveal that
differences at the p = .05 level (two-tailed) occur in cate-
gories which represent some 50 per cent of all the behaviors
measured by the instrument. The t-test of differences indi—
cated increased percentages at the p = .05 level for Cate—
gories 4 and 9, (teacher) "question" and "student statements,"
respectively. (Appendix F has a more complete description

of these and following categories.) Decreased percentages

111

of Categories 5 and 8, (teacher) "direction" and "teacher-
controlled silence," are revealed by the t—test at the

p = .05 level. Other trends that do not reach the p = .05
level are suggested by the increase in Category 6, (teacher)
"initiating substantive information," and decrease in Cate—
gory 12, "pupil laboratory activity."

Remaining categories together represent only 7 per
cent of all activity categorized by the instrument. No
appreciable differences resulted in those categories.

A summary of a series of univariate analyses of
variance is presented in Table 11. Thus when the two instruc-
tional types are considered separately, the “process skills"
treatment group appeared to use more Category 4 "teacher
questions," less Category 5 "teacher controlled silence,"
and more Category 9 "student statement" behaviors than the
"process questioning strategies" group, all at the p = .05
level of significance. Table 11 lists the percentages of
each category of behavior for each treatment group both
prior to and after instruction. The "process questioning
strategies" group revealed a decline at the p = .05 level
in Category 8, "teacher-controlled silence."

The importance of recalling the threats to internal
validity for the results of this section cannot be over-
emphasized. History, maturation, and especially test inter—
action may be among the factors affecting the results. In
addition, reliabilities earlier reported for the I.A.S.T.

were calculated using the entire instrument. The separate

 

112

.HHsa may uomnmu ou ma pHsoz mHmmauomma
HHsa m Hmpas :onHomp map .mo. u m pmmoxm mmsHm>Im pmumamHmmp map mocha

.gHmuma UmumHH u0H>mama mo muommumo aomm mmaHuommp m xHUammmam

 

 

.OHmo poa ooo.o ooo.o .OHmo #0: 000.0 NHo.o MH
mum.o HHm.ON Nnm.HN mHH.o wa.mH th.mN NH
hmm.o nbN.o mmm.o HmH.o Hem.o mom.o HH
mmm.o mVN.H Nmo.H mmm.o mNo.H mNm.o 0H
HNm.o th.HN mmv.mH ammo.o ov¢.HN www.5H m

aNmo.o mmh.m VbH.HH vOH.o mNN.m mHm.m m
vmn.o Hmv.o mHv.o mNm.o mhv.c th.o n
mNH.o HHm.hH >mm.mH «HH.o oom.mH va.mH m
NmN.o NHH.m nmm.m amNo.o mom.v NHm.m m
mom.o omm.mH mNo.wH ammo.o mvn.mH th.mH v
mHm.o owN.h mnn.n ooo.H va.m wNm.m m
mHN.o va.o nnm.o MNw.o mom.o mNm.o N

.OHmo uoa mmo.o ovo.o .OHmo uoa moo.o omo.o H

msHm>|m umom mum dem>lm umom mum mmuommumo

.B.m.¢.H

HOH>mamm .B.m.<.H
mo usmu Hmm ammz

H0H>mamm .B.m.<.H
mo ammo Hmm ammz

 

 

mmHmmumuum mchoHummso mmmooum mHHme mmmooum

mama HmGOHuosuamaH

 

.B.m.d.H map mo mmHuom
Imumo cmmuuHap How mGOmHummEoo tumom on [mum mo mmsHm>|m pmHMHUOmmm paw mmmu ucmE
lummuu HmaoHuosHumaH aomm How mu0H>mama mo pamo umm tumom paw Imum cmszI.HH mHama

113

categories reported here each represent only a part of or

contribution to that entire instrument.

Correlational Data Regarding Teacher Variables

 

A few correlations have already been considered in
previous sections in order to preserve continuity of those
sections. Those of major interest that remain will be con-
sidered here. The remainder are found in Appendix L.

Weak correlations, negative in each case, exist
for both pre and post measures of I.D. and S.T. with age.
While these correlations are low, reaching p = .10 in only
a few cases, the trend remains teacher-centered when age is
correlated with several categories of the I.A.S.T. The
only two correlations showing significance beyond the p = .05
level, however, should be interpreted cautiously in light
of the small proportions of total behavior which they rep—
resent.

High scores on attitude toward different methods of
teaching science generally reflect a pupil-centered approach.
Teachers with high scores on the variable do tend to be
pupil-centered, as reflected by several correlations at
p = .02 and several more at p = .10 with pupil—centered
categories of the I.A.S.T.

Positive correlations occur at p = .05 when the
pretest of question types ratio is compared with pupil ques—
tions. This result indicates that more complex questions

by teachers tend to result in more pupil questions. Also,

114

that teachers who use more complex questions in the pretest
lecture somewhat less is revealed again at the p = .05 level,
especially in the posttest.

I.D. and S.T. ratios tend to correlate largely with
I.A.S.T. categories, which were themselves elements in
constructing the ratios. Posttests of I.D. and S.T., however,
correlate at p = .05, a result generally consistent with the
review of the literature.

A few correlations of interest within the I.A.S.T.
categories may be best described in general terms. Some
evidence at the p = .05 level and beyond suggests that
greater use of teacher verbal acceptance or mere restatement
of pupil answer correlates with less pupil manipulation of
materials and less student—initiated response generally,
including fewer student questions. Further correlations
indicate that increased verbal and/or other teacher—
controlled activity generally results in decreased pupil
activity and pupil-initiated response.

Finally, of considerable importance is the strong
positive correlation of “teacher direction" activity in the
posttest setting with pupil manipulative activity. While
teacher direction is normally considered a form of direct
behavior, this result reveals that for the lesson materials
used, teacher instructions were directed at the use of mate—
rials, activity that is generally considered to be very

much pupil-centered or indirect behavior.

115

Analysis Pertaining to Pupil Performance

Tests of effects on Pupil Performance were carried
out on a subset of 16 teachers and the pupils taught by
those teachers. Those teachers and their pupils have been
described elsewhere in the thesis. Tables of preinstruction
pupil individual competency measures and Pupil Performance
scores associated with each teacher are presented in Table
12, along with data pertaining to cell means and composi—
tions. The postinstructional equivalent of Table 12 is
presented in Table 13.

The Effect of Instructional Type, Initial

Process Level, and Differential Effect
of Instruction on Level

 

The following null hypothesis was tested:

There are no significant differences in mean post—
instructional Pupil Performance measures according to
A) the instructional method used nor B) according to
initial process skill level held by the teacher, nor
C) differentially with instructional type according
to level of initial process skill.

A univariate analysis of covariance using preinstruc—
tional Pupil Performance as a covariate for each teacher
resulted in the F-ratios and p-values of Table 14.

The analysis reveals that the F-ratios for instruc-
tional type, initial process level, and instructional type
by level interaction are 0.263, 0.002, and 0.326, respec-
tively. Associated p-values reflect the low F-ratios and
are p = 0.61, p = 0.964, and p = 0.547, respectively. The

decision is not to reject the null hypothesis for treatment,

nor for level effect, nor for interaction effect.

116

Table 12.--Tab1e of individual pretreatment pupil competency
measure scores and mean pupil performance scores for each
teacher with cell means and compositions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial Pupil Mean Pupil Cell Mean

Subject Cell Process Competency Performance Pupil
Number No. Level Scores Per Teacher Performance

#1 P 1 High 2,1,3,2 2.00 2.944

#5 5,3,4,3,2 3.40

#7 4,4,2,3,4 3.40

#13 1,4,3 2.67

#20 2,4,3,4 3.25

#9 P 2 Low 2,3,4,3,l 2.60 2.323

#10 2,1,4,2,2 2.20

#18 2,2,l,l,5,2 2.17

#24 S 3 High 4,4,3,2,3 3.20 2.800

#25 5,3,4,1,2 3.00

#27 3,3,2,3,2 2.60

#28 3,2,3,5,2 3.00

#31 2,4,l,4 2.75

#36 3,1,2,3 2.25

#21 S 4 Low 3,4,l,3 2.75 3.075

#22 3,3,4,5,2 3.40
Pooled Within Standard Deviation 0.446

 

Legend: P = Process Skill Treatment Group
S

Process Questioning Strategies Treatment Group

117

Table 13.--Table of individual posttreatment pupil competency
measure scores and mean pupil performance scores for each
teacher with cell means and compositions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Initial Pupil Mean Pupil Cell Mean

Subject Cell Process Competency Performance Pupil
Number No. Level Scores Per Teacher Performance

#1 P 1 High 2,3,2,2 2.25 3.034

#5 3,3,4,2,3 3.00

#7 4,5,2 3.67

#13 2,5,4,2 3.25

#20 3,3,2,3,4 3.00

#9 P 2 Low 4,4,3,l,3 3.00 2.693

#10 5,2,3,l 2.75

#18 1,3,2,3,2,3 2.33

#24 S 3 High 3,1,4,3 2.75 3.000

#25 4,1,3,4,5 3.40

#27 3,3,l,4,5 3.20

#28 l,3,2,2,4 2.40

#31 3,3,3,4 3.25

#36 4,1,4,3 3.00

#21 S 4 Low 4,3,2,4 3.50 3.250

#22 5,1,3,2,2,5,4 3.00
Pooled Within Standard Deviation 0.419

 

Legend: P - Process Skill Treatment Group
S

Process Questioning Strategies Treatment Group

118

 

.mHmmayomma nvm.o mmm.o a>oozab onm

 

HHSa may
pomflmu yon 000.0 000.0 <>oozas 1000
cm .mo.um
Ummoxm you aa>ouz¢DV
ow mmnHm>lm mOCMHHm>ou
myMHHm>Has mHm.o mmN.o moamEHOMHmm mo mHmmHmad
may moaHm HHmsm myMHym>HaD aavm
conHomo paw msHm>Im oHymmtm UmymmH mHamHum> poaymz HMUHymHymym mHmmayommm
Hm>mH a

 

.moamEHOMHmQ HHmsm so Hm>mH ha yamEymmuy mo yomwmm COHyomumyaH paw
.HHme mmmooym HMHyHaH mo Hm>mH .mmwy HmaoHyOdHymaH wo yommmm mo COmHymmEounn.vH mHame

119

An additional analysis, not part of the original
study design, was performed to determine the effect of
instructional type on Pupil Performance, as well as on
measures of attitude and behavior when teachers were first
divided into levels about the median on initial attitude
toward teaching science. A multivariate and univariate
analysis of covariance testing the effects of treatment,
level, and interaction on Pupil Performance and five other
variables, as listed in Table 4, was performed. Table 15
illustrates the abbreviated results of the analysis.

Table lS.--Multivariate analysis of covariance showing

effects of initial attitude toward teaching science on
six dependent variables, including Pupil Performance.

 

Multivariate Multivariate a Level
F-Ratios P-Values and Decision

 

The decision would

Treatment be t0:
Effects 0.709 0.672 — not reject
Levels 11.794 0.034 - rejecta
Interactions 3.505 0.165 — not reject

the several
multivariate null
hypotheses at the
p=.05 level.

 

aNote explanation in the following text.

The analysis reveals that were such an hypothesis
being tested, an F-ratio of 0.709 and associated p-value of

0.672 would result for treatment effects. The decision

120

would be not to reject the null hypothesis. An F-ratio of
11.749 would result for the effect of initial attitude level
on performance. The associated p-value would be 0.034.

Such a value would normally result in rejection of the null
hypothesis. This result, however, might well be attributed
to small sample size, since an earlier test of initial atti—
tude toward teaching of science but using the entire sample
of 40 teachers revealed no differences attributable to
effect of treatment on initial level of attitude. Inspec—
tion of the Pupil Performance variable alone revealed a
univariate F-ratio of 0.125 and associated p—value of only
0.733.

Finally, Table 15 reveals an F-ratio of 3.505 and
associated p-value of 0.165, results that would not warrant
rejecting the null hypothesis for interaction effects;
that is, effects of six variables including Pupil Perfor-
mance differentially by treatment according to level.

Descriptive Data Relative to Treatment
Effects on Pupil Performance

 

 

An important question in this study related to
measuring changes in Pupil Performance. Since the data
revealed no significant differences in Pupil Performance
between instructional treatment types, an examination of
the difference between Pupil Performance variables measured
both before and after instruction was conducted. The fol-

lowing hypothesis was tested:

121

There are no significant differences in Pupil Per—
formance scores prior to and after instructional
treatment.

Table 16 lists the means of Pupil Performance for
pre- and postinstruction for the subset sample of 16 teach—
ers and their pupils, which has been defined in Chapters
III and IV. V

A t-test of differences performed on the means of
Table 16 results in a t-value of 0.67. The decision is not
to reject the null hypothesis with a = .05 (one-tailed).

Examination of correlational data regarding the
Pupil Performance variable revealed only several correlations
that reached the p = .10 level. Thus, the pre— and post—
instructional treatment Pupil Performance variables corre—
lated to that extent, as did the premeasure of Category 7
of the I.A.S.T. with pre- and postinstructional measures
of Pupil Performance. This result would suggest that those
teachers who "justified their own authority,“ disciplined,
or criticized pupils achieved higher Pupil Performance
scores than those who did not. Both the low correlation
(at the p = .10 level) and the very small percentage of
Category 7 behavior (Table 11) suggest that these results
be interpreted carefully. While the remaining correlations

with Pupil Performance do not reach 0.10, they are included

in Appendix M.

122

 

 

uomflmy you 00 0H0.0 H00.0 cofiymfl>ma
pumpamym mymp
pmymHmuuoo m
mm.H no.0 mm.N mn.N mOCMEHOHMmm How ymmyty
aonHomQ paw mmsHm>Iy .ymaHymom .ymaHmHm Umymme poaymz mHmmayomwm
AUmHHmytmaov UmymHsonu mHQMHym> HMOHymHymym
mo.ud ym

msHm>uy .

 

.maHaommy HmaoHyosyymcHymom paw Imum How moamEHOMMmm HHmsm mo mmyoom ammzun.oH mHamB

123

Summary

Following is a summary of the hypotheses

statement of whether to reject or not reject the

a Level
There are no significant differ-
ences in mean postinstructional
scores of A) teacher attitudes .05
(A.T.S., A.T.D.M.T.S.) nor
B) teacher behaviors (Q.T., .05
I.D., S.T.) between the two
instructional groups (Process
Skills and Process Question-
ing Strategies).
There are no significant differ-
ences in mean postinstructional
scores of A) teachers' attitudes .05
(A.T.S., A.T.D.M.T.S.) nor
B) teacher behaviors (Q.T., .05
I.D., S.T.) between levels of
initial process skill (High

and Low).

and the

nulls.

Decision

 

not reject

not reject

not reject

reject

Further analysis of associated univariate hypotheses

showed significant differences to be in question type

preference.

124

a Level
There are no significant differ-
ences in mean postinstructional
scores on A) teacher attitude .05
(A.T.S., A.T.D.M.T.S.) nor
B) teacher behaviors (Q.T., .05
I.D., S.T.) differentially
between treatment and level of
initial process skill.
There are no significant differ—
ences between measures of
teacher attitude (A.T.S.) or .05
(two-
behavior (Q.T., I.D., S.T.) tailed)

collected prior to and after

instructional treatment.

Decision

 

not reject

not reject

not reject

For the following portion of the summary, results pertain

only to the subset of 16 teachers and their pupils.

5.

There are no significant differ-

ences in mean postinstructional

Pupil Performance measures

according to A) the instructional .05
method used, nor

B) according to initial process .05
skill level held by the teacher,

nor C) differentially with .05
instructional type according to

level of initial process skill.

not reject

not reject

not reject

125

2121721
There are no significant differ-

ences in Pupil Performance

scores prior to and after .05
instructional treatment. (one—

tailed)

Decision

 

not reject

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to compare the effective-
ness of two instructional methods of preparing preservice
elementary teachers to teach selected processes of science
to children. Another purpose was to compare the relation-
ships of initial attitudes toward teaching science and science
process skill competence to initial teaching behaviors.

Each of the two instructional methods compared con—
sisted of a self-paced module designed to improve elementary
science teachers' ability to teach process skills to children.
One module was designed to improve the skills of observing,
classifying, and inferring in the teachers. The other was
designed to improve directly the teachers' questioning abil-
ity, specifically the ability to elicit observing, classify-
ing, and inferring behavior in children. The two measures
of teacher attitude assessed were attitude toward teaching
science and attitude toward different methods of teaching
science. Three measures of teacher behavior assessed were
teacher question complexity level, indirect to direct beha-
vior ratio, and student to teacher talk ratio. Measures of
pupil performance made for each teacher consisted of the

126

127

means of pupil scores based on the extent to which lesson
objectives were achieved by the pupils taught by a given
teacher.

A review of the literature revealed that process
skill development objectives were among the most important
objectives for children studying science in the schools. In
the literature, teachers were found to lack a sufficient
background in science process skills and also in the complex
behaviors associated with eliciting the appropriate process
skill behavior in children. Instructional modules designed
to develop either science process skills or apprOpriate
teacher behaviors were reviewed.

Attitudes and teacher verbal behaviors, including
especially questioning behaviors, were found to be of major
importance to modern teacher preparatory programs. Finally,
the review underlined the importance of measuring pupil
outcomes in relation to preparatory programs, but it also
suggested that little such activity has been conducted.

Forty lower elementary preservice teachers enrolled
in a science methods course at the University of Manitoba
during winter term of 1971 were randomly selected from a
larger group. Each group was subsequently randomly assigned
to one or the other of the two instructional treatment types.
Further division of the entire group into high and low ini-
tial process skill levels led to the 2x2 design used in the

study.

128

Prior to the instructional treatment, teachers com—
pleted tests to assess attitudes toward teaching science, as
well as to assess their science process skill level. Prior
to instructional treatment, teachers also taught a science
exercise to a small group of children, during which time
three initial teaching behaviors were assessed. The two
measures of postinstructional attitude and the three measures
of behavior during science teaching were made for all teach—
ers. For a subset of sixteen teachers, postinstructional
performance of pupils was also assessed.

The results indicated that even prior to instructional
treatment, teachers using the lesson objectives and materials
provided in the study performed a range of desirable beha-
viors including a high question complexity level. The
results indicated, too, that a teacher's knowledge of the
processes of science has precedence over her attitude toward
the teaching of science when relationships to desirable
initial teaching behaviors are considered.

The results also indicated that there were no signif—
icant differences in the effects of the two instructional
treatments as measured in the study. It was indicated, how-
ever, that preservice teachers of high initial science pro-
cess skill who had undergone one or the other of the instruc-
tional treatment types demonstrated teaching behaviors
significantly different from those of low initial science
process skill. The differences were due in large part to

question complexity level, with higher initial science

129

process skill levels associated with a higher final propor-
tion of observing, classifying, and inferring questions asked.
No significant interactions were found. Finally, the Process
Questioning Strategies instructional method by itself was
effective in reducing the amount of teacher—controlled

silence including demonstrating to pupils. The Process Skill
develOpment instructional method by itself was effective in
increasing the prOportion of time teachers devote to ques—
tioning and to allowing pupils to respond, and in reducing

the prOportion of time devoted to direction giving by the

teacher.

Conclusions

 

In View of the data collected, the testing of hypoth—
eses, and the analysis of the findings of this study, the
following conclusions were drawn:

1. Given lesson objectives and materials based on an
exercise from a recently developed elementary science cur-
riculum, Science—-A Process Approach, preservice teachers who
have not had formal instruction in the methods of teaching
science nevertheless perform a range of behaviors thought to
be important to the teaching of elementary school science.
Specifically, for example, their questioning behavior includes
a very high prOportion of high complexity level questions
which appear to be designed to elicit science process skill

behavior from children.

130

2. Teachers of high initial attitudes toward teach-
ing science use less praise during their initial teaching.
They are more teacher-directive in their teaching behaviors,
including, for example, a high proportion of teacher-controlled
silence during which they instruct pupils by demonstrating to
them.

3. Teachers of higher initial science process skill
encounter more questions from their pupils during initial
teaching. They tend to be more pupil-centered in their teach—
ing behaviors. They also have lower attitudes toward teach—
ing science, and are younger.

4. The two instructional types of teacher prepara-
tion, namely the Process Skills and the Process Questioning
Strategies modules, do not differ significantly in their
effect on teachers where the criteria are postinstructional
scores on:

a) attitudes (attitude toward teaching science,
attitude toward different methods of teaching
science),

b) teaching behaviors (question type preference,
ratio of indirect to direct behavior, and ratio
of pupil to teacher talk), and

c) pupil performance based on lesson objectives.

5. The two instructional treatment types considered
together do not affect teachers such that those who differ
on initial process skill level differ on postinstruction

scores of:

 

131

a) attitudes (attitude toward teaching science, atti—

tude toward different methods of teaching science).

b) pupil performance based on lesson objectives.

6. The two instructional treatment types considered
together affect teachers such that those who have a high level
of initial science process skill demonstrate behaviors dif-
ferent from those of low initial science process skill. The
differences are due in part to level or complexity of ques—
tioning, with higher final proportion of observing, classify-
ing, and inferring questions asked. To a lesser extent, high
initial process level teachers have a higher indirect to
direct behavior ratio (I.D.) than their lower level counter—
parts.

7. There is no evidence of a differential effect
such that either one instructional treatment type affects
the attitudes, behaviors, and pupil performance of teachers
of one level of initial science process skill more than
another. Instruction in one or the other of the instruc-
tional types used in this study seems to be effective in
increasing the percentage of time in a lesson which is
devoted to teacher questions and pupil verbal responses.
Furthermore, such instruction seems to lead to less teacher
direction-giving and more teacher—controlled silence includ—
ing demonstrating to pupils.

9. The Process Skill development instructional type
by itself seems to be effective in increasing the proportion

of time teachers devote to questioning and to allowing pupils

132

to respond. Conversely, instruction in the module seems to
reduce the use of teacher directions.

10. The Process Questioning Strategies instructional
type by itself seems to be effective in reducing the use of
teacher-controlled silence including demonstrating to pupils.

11. No differences in pre and post measures of
pupil performance can be attributed to the effects of
instruction on teachers who have undergone training in one

or the other of the instructional types.

Discussion

 

The methodological decision to use a particular
set of objectives and lesson materials chosen from a recently
develOped curriculum, Science--A Process Approach, itself
probably contributed to the use, during initial teaching,
of a much higher proportion of high level questions by
teachers than is reported in any of the literature reviewed.
Extensive provision of Opportunity for involvement of pupils
in the manipulation of science materials and apparatus was
among other behaviors used by all teachers. Factors such
as the novelty and challenge of beginning a science methods
class by teaching to a group of children and the tape-
recorded observations may have contributed to a sensitizing
effect which resulted in the unusually high levels of per—
formance displayed by teachers during initial teaching prior
to the onset of instructional treatment. Initial performance

also resulted in higher levels of questioning in research by

133

Tucker and Moon when that performance was compared to that
using either traditional materials or to that during later
performance using new materials. Whether or not pupil group
size also contributed to the desirable initial teaching
behaviors was not investigated, but Rose found that teachers
show higher level inquiry behavior patterns during micro—
teaching to small groups than during single tutorial exper—
iences. Nevertheless, certain of the behaviors that were
displayed in this study might be considered particularly
desirable in the context of a model of teaching based on
logical Operations involving verbal communication between
teacher and pupils. Others would be less important in the
context of a model that views teaching to be largely asso-
ciated with managing socioemotional climate or one which
relates much of the important learning of young children to
concrete experiences children have as they manipulate objects
in their environment.

Interrelationships found between initial attitude
and process skill characteristics and initial teaching beha—
viors are consistent with those of Bruce, who found strong
correlations between science process skill and degree of
pupil-centeredness of teachers, and also negative correla-
tions between change on science process skill and age.
Furthermore, the conclusions are consistent with those of
Rose, in that they support the generalization that a pre-
service elementary teacher's knowledge of the processes of

science has precedence over her attitude toward the teaching

134

of science when relationships to desirable initial teaching
behaviors are considered.

The overall test of comparison Of the effects of
the two types of preservice preparation was inconclusive,
based on the three major criteria of teacher attitude,
behavior, and pupil performance. Research such as that done
by Koran would suggest that the logical Operations component
of the Process Questioning Strategies module might have been
strengthened by the use of video-taped film—mediated models
along with, or as a substitution for, the written models of
teaching behavior that were used in the treatment. Little
if any additional teaching time would have been needed to
incorporate such a change in the treatment. Another methode
ological issue relates to the fact that the teachers were
asked to teach the same lesson after instructional treat—
ment as they did before. While this had advantages with
respect to controlling variables, planning Of new teaching
strategies beyond their initial preparation did not appear
to be undertaken by all teachers once they found they were
to reteach a lesson previously taught. Had more new strate-
gies been planned, teachers might have been prone to incor-
porate more of the experiences gained from the treatments,
with the result that greater differences might have occurred
between the two instructional types. Finally, the instru-
ments used to measure the several variables might not have
been valid or reliable enough to make the necessary fine

distinctions based on a short training period using modules

 

135

which had considerable conceptual similarities along with
their differences. Much of the research cited was incon-
clusive as to effects on variables, even when treatments
conceptually more different from one another were being
tested.

Considering gain scores rather than comparisons, the
overall gains made in the prOportion of time devoted to
teacher questioning behavior, pupil verbal response, and
teacher-controlled silence after instructional treatment seem
to be at the expense of decreased percentages of time devoted
to direction—giving, followed by somewhat reduced evidence
of pupil manipulative activity. Recently developed elemen—
tary science curricula were designed to include generous
Opportunity for pupil manipulation, in view of the need for
concrete experiences at early stages of intellectual develop—
ment suggested by theorists such as Jean Piaget. NO research
was reviewed which suggested Optimum numbers of questions
and their complexity levels, nor the Optimum prOportion of
time to be devoted to pupil manipulative activity. Thus
while it can be concluded that there were changes as des—
cribed, it cannot be concluded that in the end these are
more beneficial for the child.

Examination of findings pertaining to differences
in postinstructional teaching behaviors depending on level
Of initial process skill revealed that after treatment the
teachers who demonstrated low initial process levels asked

more Of what were essentially lower level review questions

 

136

in an attempt, apparently, to establish a better base for
the process develOpment activities to follow. Those teachers
who used the review technique may have accomplished more by
doing so than their counterparts who did not do so as Often
or as effectively, but rather tended to limit themselves to
a higher prOportion of higher level process skill questions.
While research by Yost demonstrated that asking more complex
questions results in more pupil learning, there was no evi—
dence to support that conclusion based on the performance of
pupils in this study. The higher postinstructional I.D. and
S.T. ratios for high initial process teachers suggest that
these teachers also establish a more pupil-centered or
integrative socioemotional climate than their low-level
counterparts. Positive relationships between science process
skill and both question type preference and degree of pupil-
centeredness found for inservice teachers by Bruce would
support these conclusions. Finally, high initial process
level teachers began with low attitudes toward teaching
science as already noted earlier in this discussion, but
gains by the high process skill group throughout the study
were such that after instruction their attitudes toward
teaching science were higher than their low-level counter—
parts, if not significantly so.

The one most likely explanation for the lack of
pupil performance differences is that several of the teacher
variables discussed, such as I.D. ratio and attitude toward

teaching science, have been shown by other researchers to

 

137

have an effect on pupils after longer periods of time than
the single encounter which teachers had with each group of
pupils. While this explanation does not hold as readily

for question complexity level, the methodological issue of
small numbers Of teachers in both of the “teacher low-initial
process level" cells of the pupil performance design helps

to account for the fact that the small gains in pupil per—
formance did not reflect the differences in teacher behavior

and attitude which were Observed.

Implications for Educational Practice

 

1. Since preservice teachers, given adequate
Objectives and materials, perform a range of desirable
behaviors even prior to instruction in the methods of teach—
ing science, and since the manipulation Of materials is an
integral part of the learning experience of a child, empha—
sis should be given in their preparatory programs to the
methods of selection, acquisition, and preparation of such
aids to instruction. Furthermore, where school science
instruction is weak, school boards should assess the science
materials easily accessible to teachers to ensure that these
are available in adequate supply.

2. Selection of prospective teachers should be based
in part on characteristics such as attitude related to teach-
ing science and science process skill ability. The initial
characteristics should be used as the basis for planning
more specific and individualized programs for prospective

teachers.

138

3. Since low attitudes toward teaching science
improve rapidly given apprOpriate experiences such as either
of the instructional modules used in this study and since a
preservice teacher's science process skill ability bears a
higher relationship to desirable teaching behaviors than
does attitude toward teaching science, initial science
process skill level should take precedence over initial
attitude toward teaching science when choosing candidates
for entry into the teaching profession.

4. Preparatory programs for teachers of science may
be effectively assessed from measures including those of
pupil performance when the objectives Of the preparatory
program bear a close relationship to the objectives used in
teaching children.

5. Self—paced modular instructional methods of the
type used in this study may be used effectively by those
charged with preparing teachers for service where the objec-
tives for teachers include:

a) increasing the prOportion of teaching time devoted
to teacher question and pupil response, and in
reducing the use of teacher direction-giving
(Process Skill development module).

b) reducing the use of teacher-controlled silence
including demonstrating to pupils (Process Ques-
tioning strategies module).

6. Videotaped models of teaching behavior which

exemplify desirable teaching practice should be made. The

139

interaction of teachers demonstrating such behavior with
their pupils should be examined using a number of techniques
of content analysis including verbal and nonverbal inter-
action analysis. The norms which result from coding such
teaching should be used as standards toward which preservice

teachers should work.

Recommendations for Future Research

 

l. The concept of attitude as it relates to teach-
ers of science needs further clarification. Confidence in
teaching science, perceived ability, and the wish to be able
to teach science, along with attitude toward the teacher—
pupil interaction, are among the examples of distinctions
which may be made using techniques such as the semantic
differential first develOped by Osgood. An attitude instru-
ment which assesses those attitudes that are important to
the teaching of science in the elementary school should then
be developed and tested with preservice elementary school
teachers.

2. Data available from the present study and which
(include the sequence of teaching behaviors as they occurred
during the several teaching episodes should be further
analyzed. Hall, the develOper of the I.A.S.T., recommended
that patterns of influence or strategies may be thus docu-
mented. Readily available techniques of interaction analy-
sis as develOped by research such as that of Flanders and

Amidon should be used to interpret the data. Research by

 

140

Hall would suggest that such data used as feedback for
teachers are an effective teaching tool. Whether or not they
are could be determined from a comparative study.

3. Rose noted the use by teachers of higher level
inquiry behavior patterns in science teaching situations
where teachers are involved with pupils in small group as
Opposed to single tutorial situations. Interaction should
be analyzed in terms of the communication networks which
exist in an intact classroom. Variables such as heterophily
in dyadic and group communication should be examined. Tech—
niques of content analysis, including episodic and verbal
and nonverbal interaction analysis as develOped by Flanders
and Amidon, should be used.

4. Studies by Hall and Moon indicated that increased
direction-giving on the part of inservice teachers occurs
when these teachers are introduced to and subsequently teach
the curricula Science-~A Process Approach and Science Cur-
riculum Improvement Study. Whether or not such increased
direct behavior is perceived as more restrictive than in
traditional settings could be determined by a comparative
study of both teacher and pupil attitudes for each of the
new curricula and cases. The semantic differential develOped
by Osgood could be used for assessment of the attitudes.

5. Replication of the basic comparative design and
field-testing components of the present study should be
undertaken. Teacher subjects of both sexes and both upper

and lower elementary preference should be involved, since

141

studies by Butts and Raun and others have suggested some
differences in such different samples. New modules which
develop desirable teacher characteristics should be tested.
Teachers should be allowed to diSplay the changes they have
undergone as a result of teaching. Science exercises, group
size, amount Of direction, and materials given to teachers
are among the variables which should be manipulated.

6. Teacher attitudes toward a set of stated posi-
tions regarding aspects of science teaching should be
measured using a Likert-type scale. Each position should be
accompanied by another scale, on which teachers could indi-
cate their degree of knowledge and understanding of the use
of the particular aspect of teaching. Research by Festinger,
Heider, and others would suggest that where there is per-
ceived cognitive imbalance the subject will be motivated to
restore the balance. Groups which have assessed their atti-
tudes and understandings could be provided with access to
individualized modules including written, audiotaped, and
videotaped models of behavior. Comparisons could be made
with control groups which had access to the module but not

the balance-imbalance motivating device.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

142

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abraham, Eugene, and Nelson, Miles. "Post Laboratory Dis-
cussion Techniques and Inquiry Skill DevelOpment in
Science." Paper presented at the National Association
for Research in Science Teaching meeting in Silver
Springs, Maryland, April, 1971.

Aiken, Lewis R., Jr., and Aiken, Dorothy R. "Recent Research
on Attitudes Concerning Science." Science Education,
LIII, 4 (1969), 295-305..

Amidon, Edmund J., and Flanders, Ned A. The Role of the
Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolisa~ Amidon
Associates, Inc., 1963.

 

 

Amidon, Edmund, and Giammatteo, Michael. "The Verbal Beha-
vior of Superior Elementary Teachers." Interaction
Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Edited
by Edmund Amidon and John Hough. Reading: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, 1967.

 

Amidon, Edmund, and Hough, John, eds. Interaction Analysis:
Theory! Research and Application. Reading: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company, 1967.

 

 

Ballou, Mildred T. "Science Methods Courses for Elementary
Teachers." Science and Children, VII, 1 (1969), 7—9.

 

Bettinghaus, Erwin P. Persuasive Communication. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.

 

Bixler, James. "The Effect of Teacher Attitude on Elementary
Children's Science Information and Science Attitudes."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Stanford Univer-
sity, 1957.

Bloom, Judith M. "Videotape and the Vitalization of Teaching."
Journal of Teacher Education, XX, 3 (1969), 311-319.

 

Blosser, Patricia E., and Howe, Robert W. "An Analysis of
Research on Elementary Teacher Education Related to
the Teaching of Science." Science and Children,
January/February, 1969, pp. 50-60.

143

 

144

Bosch, Albert C. "Relationships of Teaching Patterns to
Indices of Classroom Verbal Interaction Behavior."
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teach-
ing, Chicago, April, 1972.

Bruce, Larry Rhea. "A Determination of the Relationships
Among SCIS Teachers' Personality Traits, Attitude
Toward Teacher—Pupil Relationship, Understanding of
Science Process Skills and Question Types." Unpub—
lished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1969.

Buell, Robert. "A Research Training Project in Science
Education." Final Report sponsored by The National
Association for Research in Science Teaching.
Project #9-0172. November, 1969, p. 12.

Butts, David P. "Self-Paced Instruction-—A Preliminary
Report." Austin, Texas: Science Education Center
and The University Research and Development Center
for Teacher Education, The University of Texas,

1970.
. "The Teaching of Science, Self—Directed Planning
Guide, Evaluation Plan." Austin, Texas: Science

Education Center and The University Research and
Development Center for Teacher Education, The Univer—
sity of Texas, September, 1970.

Butts, David P.; Hall, Gene E.; and Koran, John J., Jr._
"College Teachers: A Resource for Implementing
Change." Report Series #55. Austin, Texas: The
Research and Development Center for Teacher Educa-
tion, University of Texas, 1970.

Butts, David P., and Raun, Chester H. "A Study in Teacher
Attitude Change." Science Education, LIII, 2 (1969),
101-104.

Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental
andeuasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1966.

 

Carin, Arthur A. "Techniques for Developing Discovery
Questioning Skills." Science and Children, VII
(1970), 13-15.

 

Clarke, S. C. T. "The Story of Elementary Teacher Education
Models." The Journal of Teacher Education, XX, 3
(1969), 286-293.

145

Cogan, Morris L. "Theory and Design Of a Study of Teacher-
Pupil Interaction." Interaction Analysis: Theory,
Research and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon
and John Hough. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Company, 1967.

 

 

Craig, Gerald S. What Research Says to the Teacher: Science
in the Elementary Schools. Washington, D. C.:
National Education Association, 1957.

 

Curtis, William C. "Teacher—Training for Process Oriented
Science Instruction." Science Education, LI, 5

Esler, William K. "Structuring Inquiry for Classroom Use."
School Science and Mathematics, LXX, 5 (1970), 454-
458.

 

Fischler, Abraham 8., and Anastasiow, N. J. "In-Service
Education in Science (A Pilot)." Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, III, 3 (1965), 283—284.

 

Fischler, Abraham 8., and Zimmer, George. "The Development
of an Observational Instrument for Science Teaching."
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V (1967-
68), 127-137.

Flanders, Ned. "Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and
Achievement." U.S.O.E. Report 65, O.E. 25040
Cooperative Research Monograph No. 12. Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

. "The Problems of Observer Training and Relia-
bility." Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research
and Application. Edited by Edmund Amidon and John
Hough. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,
1967.

 

Gage, N. L., ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago:
Rand McNally and Co., 1963.

 

Gagné, Robert M. "The Learning Requirements for Enquiry."
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I (1963),
144-153.

Gega, Peter C. "The Pre-Service Education of Elementary

Teachers in Science and the Teaching of Science."
School Science and Mathematics, LXVIII (1968),
11-20.

Gouge, Charles. Personal communication, July 20, 1971.

 

146

"Guidelines for Science and Mathematics in the Preparation
Program of Elementary School Teachers.“ American
Association for the Advancement of Science,
Publication NO. 63—7 (1963), pp. 1-15.

Hall, Gene E. "A Comparison of the Teaching Behaviors of
Second Grade Teachers Teaching Science--A Process
Approach With Second Grade Teachers not Teaching
a Recently Developed Science Curriculum." Unpub-

lished Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University,
1962.

. Analysis of Teaching Behavior. First trial
edition. An Instructional Module. Austin, Texas:
The Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, The University of Texas, 1969.

. "Changes in Teaching Behavior of Preservice Ele-
mentary Education Majors as a Result of Training in
Using the IAST Base, A System of Interaction
Analysis." Paper presented at the 44th annual meet-
ing of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Washington, D. C., March 24, 1971.

. Personal communication, July 20, 1971.

. "Teacher-Pupil Behaviors Exhibited by Two Groups
of Second Grade Teachers Using Science——A Process
Approach." Science Education, LIV, 4 (1970), 325—
334.

. The Instrument for the Analysis of Science
Teaching: A System for Measuring Teachinquehavior.
Report Series No. 19. Austin, Texas: The Research
and Development Center for Teacher Education,
University of Texas, 1969.

Hughes, Earl F. "Role Playing as a Technique for Developing
a Scientific Attitude in Elementary Teacher Trainees."
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VIII, 2
(1971), 113-122.

 

Hurd, Paul DeHart, and Gallagher, James. New Directions in
Elementary School Science Teaching. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1968.

 

 

Jacobson, Willard J. The New ElementarypSchool Science.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1970.

 

Jacobson, Willard J., and Kondo, Allan. SCIS Elementary
Science Sourcebook. Berkeley: University of
California Regents, 1968.

 

 

147

Karplus, Robert, and Thier, Herbert D. A New Look at Ele-
mentary School Science. Chicago: Rand McNally and
Company, 1967.

 

 

Kirk, Jeffery. "Elementary School Student Teachers and
Interaction Analysis." Interaction Analysis:
Theory, Research and Application. Edited by Edmund
Amidon and John Hough. Reading: AddisonAWesley
Publishing Company, 1967.

 

 

Koran, John J., Jr. "The Relative Effects of Classroom
Instruction and Subsequent Observational Learning on
the Acquisition of Questioning Behavior by Pre-
Service Elementary Science Teachers." Journalgf
Research in Science Teaching, VI, 3 (1969), 217-223.

 

 

. "Two Paradigms for the Training of Science Teach—
ers Using Videotape Technology and Simulated Condi—
tions." Journal of Research in Science Teachipg, VI,

 

Koran, John J., Jr., and Judge, Joan. "Elementary School
Teacher Performance Tasks: Supervision Module."
Austin, Texas: Research and DevelOpment Center for
Teaching, The University of Texas, 1969.

Lee, Eugene C. New DevelOpments in Science Teaching.
Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1967.

Liddle, Edward Maynard. "A Quasi—Experimental Study of the
Effects of Two Modes of Instruction on the Attitudes
of Preservice Elementary Teachers in the Area of
Science Teaching." Unpublished Doctoral disserta-
tion, Michigan State University, 1971.

Macbeth, Douglas Russell, and Fowler, H. Seymour. "The
Extent to Which Pupils Manipulate Materials and
Attainment of Process Skills in Elementary School
Science." Paper presented at the National Associa-
tion for Research in Science Teaching meeting in
Chicago, April, 1972.

Mathews, Charles C. "Structuring Scientific Knowledge by the
Elementary Child." Paper presented at the National
Association of Science Teachers, Cincinnati, Ohio,
March, 1970.

Michals, Bernard E. "The Preparation Of Teachers to Teach
Elementary School Science." Science Education,
XLVII, 2 (1963).

148

Millar, H. E. “The Construction and Evaluation of a Scale
of Attitudes Toward Occupations.“ Purdue University
Studies in Higher Education, XXXV (1934), 68-76.

 

Moon, Thomas Charles. "A Study of Verbal Behavior Patterns
in Primary Grade Classrooms During Science Activi—
ties." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1969.

Moore, Richard W. "The Development, Field Test and Valida—
tion of Scales to Assess Teachers‘ Attitudes Toward
Teaching Elementary School Science." Paper presented
to the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Chicago, April, 1972.

Murchison, Carl Allanmore, ed. A Handbook Of Social Psy-

 

chology. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University Press,
1935.
NeWport, J. F. "Are Science Objectives Changing?" School

Science and Mathematics, LXV (April, 1965), 359-362.

Oshima, Eugene A. "Changes in Attitudes Toward Science and
Confidence in Teaching Science of Prospective Ele—

 

mentary Teachers." Dissertation Abstracts, XXVII,
12 (1966).
Pickering, Robert S. "An Experimental Study of the Effects

of Inquiry Experiences on the Attitudes and Compe-
tencies of Prospective Elementary Teachers in the
Area of Science." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1970.

"Preservice Science Education of Elementary School Teachers."
AAAS Miscellaneous Publication 69-11 (February,
1969), p. 14.

Ramsey, Gregor A., and Howe, Robert W. "An Analysis of
Research Related to Instructional Procedures in Ele-
mentary School Science." Science and Children
(April, 1969), PP. 25-36.

Renner, John W., and Ragan, William B. Teaching Science in
the Elementary School. New York: Harper and Row,
1968.

 

Rezba, Richard J. "Training Pre-Service Science Teachers for
Laboratory Instruction Using I.S.C.S. Microteaching
Sessions." Paper presented to the National Associa-
tion for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago,
April, 1972.

149

Rogers, Robert E., and Voelker, Alan M. “Programs for
Improving Science Instruction in the Elementary
School: Part I, E.S.S.“ Science and Children, VII,
5 (1970), 35-43.

 

Rose, Ryda D. "The Relationship of Attitudes, Knowledge,
and Processes to Initial Teaching Behaviors in
Science." Paper presented at the National Associa-
tion for Research in Science Teaching, Chicago,
April, 1972.

Rowe, Mary Budd. "Wait—Time and Rewards as Instructional
Variables: Their Influence on Language, Logic, and
Fate Control." Paper presented at the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting
in Chicago, April, 1972.

Saadeh, Ibrahim Q. "Teacher Effectiveness or Classroom
Efficiency: A New Direction in the Evaluation of
Teaching." The Journal of Teacher Education, XXI, l

 

(1970)! 73’91.

Schwirian, Patricia. "Characteristics of Elementary Teachers
Related to Attitudes Toward Science." Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, VI, 3 (1969), 203-213.

 

Shaw, Marvin E., and Wright, Jack M. Scales for the Measure-
ment of Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1967.

 

Smith, Herbert A. "Educational Research Related to Science
Instruction for the Elementary and Junior High School:
A Review and Commentary." Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, I, 3 (1963), 202.

Staley, Frederick. "A Comparison Study in the Effects of
Pre-Service Teachers Presenting One or Two Micro-
Teaching Lessons to Different Sized Groups of Peers
on Selected Teaching Behaviors and Attitudes in an
Elementary Science Methods Course." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1970.

Sweetser, Evan A. Science Process Test for Elementary School
Teachers. 3rd ed. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan
State University, 1968.

Sweetser, Evan A., and Taylor, Wayne. "The Development of
an Objective Science Process Test for Elementary
Teachers." Paper presented at the National Associa—
tion for Research in Science Teaching meeting in
Chicago, April, 1972.

 

150

TorOp, William. "Pupil Achievement in Science«—A Process
Approach—~Part E." Paper presented at the National
Association for Research in Science Teaching meeting
in Chicago, April, 1972.

Tucker, Jerry L. "The Effect of Televised Science Instruc-
tion on Verbal and Nonverbal Process Behaviors of
Teachers and Students in Grades 1—4.“ Paper pre—
sented at the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching meeting in Chicago, April, 1972.

Walbesser, Henry H., Jr. "An Evaluation Model and Its
Application." AAAS'Miscellaneous Publication 68-4
(1968).

 

Walbesser, Henry H., Jr., and Carter, Heather L. "The
Effect on Test Results of Changes in Task and
Response Format Required by Altering the Test Admin-
istration From an Individual to a Group Form,"
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VII (1970),
1-8.

 

Watson, Fletcher. "Novak's Research." National Association
for Research in Science Teaching, I (1963), 133.

 

 

Wick, J. W., and Yager, R. E. "Some Aspects of the Student's
Attitude in Science Courses." School Science and
Mathematics, LXVI (March, 1966), 269—273.

 

 

Wideen, Marvin. "Comparison of Student Outcomes for Science--
A Process Approach and Traditional Science Teaching
for Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Grade Classes:

A Product Evaluation." Paper presented at the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching
meeting in Chicago, April, 1972.

Wilson, John H. "The 'New' Science Teachers Are Asking More
and Better Questions." Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, VI, 1 (1969), 49—53.

 

Wilson, John H., and Renner, John W. "The 'New' Science
and the Rational Powers: A Research Study." Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, VI (1969), 303-308.

Yost, Michale, Jr. "The Effect on Learning of Post Instruc-
tional Verbal Responses to Questions of Different
Degrees Of Complexity." Paper presented to the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
Minneapolis, March 5-8, 1970.

 

APPENDICES

151

 

APPENDIX A

SCIENCE PROCESS TEST FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS

(3rd Revised Edition)

152

 

DIRECTIONS:

SCIENCE PROCESS TEST

for

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS
(3rd Revised Edition)

Choose the response that is most correct and
mark its corresponding number on the IBM Scoring
Sheet. Be sure your name, student number, and
course number are completed on the Answer Sheet.

DO NOT MARK IN THE TEST BOOKLET

 

153

Items 1-

154

11 are concerned with an experiment on behavior in

mealworms. In this experiment a Q-tip was used. This is a
small stick with a bit of cotton firmly attached to the end.

A Q—tip

saturated with water was thrust near the mealworm.

The mealworm backed up.

1. The

hypothesis which was best tested in the above experi—

ment is:

(l)
(2)
(3)

(4)

Mealworms are sensitive to water.

Mealworms can see objects moving toward them.
Mealworms are sensitive to (or will react to) a
Q-tip saturated with water.

None of the above hypotheses were tested.

2. At this stage there is most justification for saying that

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

3. The

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

4. How

(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

the mealworm responded negatively to water.

the mealworm could see an object moving towards it.
the mealworm responded to moist approaching cotton.
mealworms do not like to be disturbed.

mealworms will respond negatively to anything foreign
to their environment.

experimental variable in this experiment was

the mealworm.

the Q-tip.

the water.

the habitat of the mealworm.
none of the above.

could the initial aspect of this experiment be improved?

Use a larger piece of cotton and more water.

Use 15-30 mealworms, one at a time.

Run 15-30 trials on successive days using a single
mealworm.

Do both (1) and (2) above.

Do both (2) and (3) above.

The experiment described above was extended by testing the
single mealworm with 30 trials with the following results:
The mealworm

(a)
(b)
(C)
(d)

backed up 10 times.

went sideways 2 times.

advanced 10 times.

gave no observable reaction 10 times.

 

155

5. In this series of experiments the control (constant
factor) was

(1) the water.

(2) the Q-tip.

(3) the temperature.

(4) the habitat Of the mealworm.
(5) none of the above.

6. Based upon this and the preceding data, the best inter-
pretation of these results would be that

(1) this mealworm was getting tired.

(2) this mealworm will move away from a Q-tip.

(3) this mealworm is usually sensitive to (reacts to)
the moving Q-tip.

(4) this mealworm is usually sensitive to (reacts to)
the water on the moving Q-tip.

(5) both (2) and (4) above are correct.

7. In this series of experiments there was an experimental
variable. The experimental variable was

(1) the water.

(2) the Q-tip.

(3) the mealworm.

(4) the habitat of the mealworm.
(5) none of the above.

The following graph shows the reaction of several mealworms,
each used separately, over a large number of trials using
alternately a dry Q-tip and a Q-tip saturated with water.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100- .rH /
Number . F‘ j?”
of 75— g
Mealworm 50_ é; r1
Trials .¢;
25—1 %
f /
NO Backed Went Advanced
Reaction 'Up Sideways

Key: [3 Dry Q-tip @ Q-tip with water

 

156

8. If you approached a mealworm with a dry Q-tip, the best

prediction that you could make based upon the above data
would be:

 

(l) the mealworm would not react to the stimulus.
(2) the mealworm would go sideway from the stimulus.
(3) the mealworm would advance toward the stimulus.
(4) the mealworm would back away from the stimulus.
(5) either (2) or (4).

9. The best interpretation that can be made based upon the
data in the chart is that

(1) mealworms see Q—tips.

(2) mealworms are sensitive to water on Q-tips.

(3) mealworms are sensitive to Q-tips thrust at them.

(4) mealworms are not sensitive to wet Q—tips.

(5) none of the above interpretations can be accurately
made.

10. Refer to the chart. What is the average of the combined
number of trials in which a mealworm reacted negatively,
that is, backed up or went sideways?

(l) greater than 150.
(2) less than 60.

(3) between 40 and 50.
(4) between 75 and 100.
(5) between 100 and 150.

11. Which of the following hypotheses was best checked by
the experiment shown in the chart?

(1) mealworms will react to Q-tips.

(2) mealworms will react to water on a Q-tip.

(3) mealworms will respond negatively to anything foreign
to their environment.

(4) mealworms will respond to any moving object.

(5) none of the above hypotheses were checked in this
series of experiments.

12. The following type Of shadow was observed cast by an
object in bright sun light in the approximate position
shown in the diagram.

Close-up of
shadow--actual

Object shape of shadow

Shape?

 

 

 

Shadow

 

 

 

157

Which of the following objects could have cast a shadow in

that given situation? NOTE: The view of the object is that
side (or front) view toward the sun.

(1)

 

 

 

.m‘, (3)! ),(4)[1,<5)U

 

Items 13-17 are concerned with the classification of buttons.

0

The following button shapes are to be classified using
the chart below. The dots represent holes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AQGQQtt-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A B H I
1. All Buttons
Level 1 2. 3.
Level II 4, 5. 6. 7.
Classification Chart
13.

Which of the following would be the best observable
characteristic to use to classify the buttons at Level 1?

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

foundness vs. number of holes.
squareness vs. number of holes.
one hole vs. two holes. ‘
one-holed vs. not one hole.
roundness vs. squareness.

158

14. If only buttons H, I & B are to be classified into box 3,
what are the characteristics of the buttons in box 2?

(1) round, triangular.

(2) round, non—square.

(3) round, non-round.

(4) all buttons with less than four holes.
(5) round.

15. If only buttons H, I, & B are in box 3, and if some
round buttons are found in box number 4 of Level II,

what is (are) the characteristic(s) of all buttons found
in box number 2 of this key?

(1) round and one hole.

(2) round and more than one hole.
(3) not square.

(4) square less than four holes.
(5) both round and square.

16. Based upon the information in the preceding question
number 15, what is the characteristic to be found in
Level II box number 5 of the classification key?

(1) not round and more than one hole.
(2) round and more than one hole.

(3) square.

(4) round and one hole.

(5) not round and one hole.

17. Based upon the information in the preceding question
number 16, what buttons would be classified in box
number 5 of Level II of the key?

(1) A

(2) B, C: G: H
(3) D, E: F
(4) C: G

(5) B; H: I

159

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18. Which of the following diagrams would represent a circuit
in which the light and/or the motor would operate?
The battery is of a high enough voltage that it will
Operate the above-mentioned items.
11 ht bulb switch motor switch
/'
it 4:
A- battery C battery
light bulb motor
switch ‘6 ///’sw1tct
/
%: )4 .Q .
B. battery D. battery light bulb
(1) Diagram A
(2) Diagram B
(3) Diagram C
(4) Diagram D
19. The following graph was plotted on the amount of evap-
oration from a wet paper towel over a period of time.
The relative humidity was 40%.
40-
, 35-
Number 30-
25-
of 20_
Washers 15
Weight _
10-
5..
0

 

 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Time in Minutes

Of washers NO. of washers

NO.

4:.
O

N
O

0 ,

40

20

0

160

Based upon the data in the graph, one could best conclude
that more water evaporated:

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

between 0 and 10 minutes.
between 10 and 20 minutes.
between 20 and 30 minutes.
between 30 and 40 minutes.
after 40 minutes.

Items 20-21 and concerned with the following information.

In the preceding experiment in question 19, if certain
conditions were varied the plot of the data might look like
some of the following.

 

 

 

 

 

q

.1

.1

fl

'1

d

d

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
H40,
m J
'C: 4
U)
(U .
3 20.
‘H .
O
O 0‘
7 go Z T r1 1 I I I I I SO
A. Time in minutes B. Time in minutes
)4 (D
0) " .C.‘ 4
I: . U)
U) (U 7
g . 3 J
20.) “201
”H .. o 4
O O
0 d O T
O “ z j
I r r T I I I I I I z O I I I I ffi I T r O l 1 I II I 7 I I 1
50 {o 50

C. Time in minutes D. Time in minutes E. Time in minutes

 

161

20. On a dry day the results might best be represented by

(l) chart A.
(2) chart B.
(3) chart C.
(4) chart D.
(5) chart E.

 

21. If a larger paper towel was used and the day was humid,
the data could best be represented by

(l) chart A.
(2) chart B.
(3) chart C.
(4) chart D.
(5) chart E.

 

 

------—----—---—---_—-------_-----—----—-—_——-—--—--—-—-—-——

Items 22-26 are concerned with the following chemical test.
Certain chemical tests were conducted as follows. A series
of powders (solids) were checked with a series of liquids
with the following results:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

POWDERS A B C
LIQUIDS Rx Rx NR KEY: RX = Bubbled
1 RY = Turned green
RX RX Ry NR = No reaction
2 RY
3 N R RY RY
22. In an experiment in which one wishes to determine what

an unknown chemical substance consists of, what is the
purpose of running a series of tests on known substances
which may be the unknown substances?

(1) to establish an experimental variable.
(2) to establish an unknown variable.

(3) to check on known variables.

(4) both (2) and (3) above.

(5) both (1) and (3) above.

23. From the results indicated in the chart, one can conclude
that:

(l) substance
(2) substance
(3) substance
(4) substance
(5) substance

and B are the same chemical substance.
contains some of substance A.
contains some of substance B.
contains some of substance C.
contains some of substance C.

CDS’ZP'UICD'

162

24. One can conclude from these chemical tests that:

(l) Liquids l, 2, and 3 are unique.

(2) Liquids l and 2 are unique.

(3) Liquids l and 2 are the same.

(4) Liquid 2 contains some of liquid 1 and 3.
(5) Liquid 3 contains some of liquid 1.

 

25. If one was given an unknown which was tested with a
mixture of liquid No. l, and No. 3 and the only observed
reaction was RY, what could you conclude about the
composition of the unknown substance:

(1) that it was the same as substance A.

(2) that it was the same as substance B.

(3) that it may have contained some of substance B.
(4) that it may have contained some of substance C. t
(5) that it may have contained some of substance A.

 

26. In using the chemical test of question 23 as a basis of
conclusions for question 25, we have used the chemical
tests in question 23 as:

(l) Unknowns.

(2) Controls.

(3) Uncontrolled variables.
(4) None of the above.

Items 27-28 are concerned with the following experiment on
the growth of bean seeds.

An experiment was conducted in fourth grade on the growth of
bean seeds. The pupils measured the plants three days to
determine the amount of growth. The rate of growth was
defined as the average of all plants growth every three days.
The class wanted to place a graph of this on their bulletin
board.

27. What type of measuring factor were they using when they
translated rate of growth measure to a graph?

(1) Scalar.

(2) Predictive measurement.
(3) Vector measurement.

(4) both (2) and (3) above.
(5) None of the above.

163

28. The average of the measured growth for four measuring
periods was: 1/2", 3/4", 1", 1-1/4". What is the ratio
they would use if the first measurement is to be trans-
lated into 1" on the graph?

(1) 1-1/2 to l.

(2) 1 to 2.

(3) Not applicable.
(4) 1/2 to 2.

(5) 4 to 2.

---————--------—-_——_---—----------—-~-—--—-—-_——--_————"'—-—

29. Which Of the following diagrams are symmetrical?

O XX XXX
X XXX

A B C D

 

X

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

&
&
and C.

and D. \

 

3’3’3’3’3’

B
C
I B:
IE!

30. An elementary science class is studying the phenomena
of a swinging pendulum. They set up a pendulum 3 ft.
long. If it took time x to swing through arc (distance)
A to B, see drawing below, what would be the rate of

time needed to cover the same arc if the pendulum was
shortened?

(1) increased.

(2) decreased.

(3) remain the same.

(4) insufficient evidence.

 

 

3 ft. Pendulum Shorten Pendulum

 

31.

32.

33.

164

The following is a diagram of an experiment conducted

by John Brown. He was to find out whether the top stick
in the diagram would cast a shadow and if so where would
the shadow fall. The bottom stick is set up such that
the shadow is at a minimum at its base. Both rods are
perpendicular to the sphere and on the same longitude
line. Examine the diagram and then predict in which of
the three positions labeled A, B, C the top stick would

 

 

cast its shadow. 4.

.0

w

a!” I
.1.) 0
S 9 Q
.3‘ _‘>
r; __'> Stlck :
53) ——>
>

(1) Shadow A.

(2) Shadow B.

(3) Shadow C.

(4) It would cast a shadow in a position not labeled
A, B, or C.

The best operational definition of the area of this
paper is:

 

(1) how many one-inch blocks will fill it.

(2) how large it is.

(3) how many one—inch squares will cover its surface.
(4) both (1) and (2) above.

(5) both (1) and (3) above.

Mrs. Smith's class was studying science when the word
porosity appeared. Mrs. Smith had prepared illustrations
to aid the students' understanding of the word. The
illustrations were as follows:

A. Took a box Of marbles and poured one cup of sand
over the marbles before the box was entirely full.
B. Took a jar of sand and added one pint of water before

the water was ready to spill over the edge of the jar.

Probably the best operational definition of the word
porosity would be:

(1) The amount of solid you can add to a loosely packed
solid without changing the volume.

(2) The amount of liquid or solid that can occupy the
spaces between liquid or solid particles without
changing the volume.

(3) The amount of liquid that can be added to a solid
without changing the volume.

(4) The amount of liquid or solid that can be added to a
loosely packed solid without changing the volume.

 

 

165

34. Select one of the following as the best Operational

definition of density:

(1)
(2)
(3)

(4)

 

The amount of matter in 1 gram of lead.
10 cubic centimeters of substance weighing 5 grams.

The volume of water displaced by an immersed body,
as compared to its mass.

The mass of an Object compared to its weight.

35. The selection of the answer in question 34 is based
upon

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Numerical factors of a specific density.

What to do and what to Observe in determining density.
How much something weighs.

None of the above.

36. When a student uses a series of small washers in one

pan to counter balance a penny in a 2-pan level arm
balance, he is:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

deriving his own measurement scale.
substituting washers for gram weight.
using the gram as a unit of weight.
doing (1) and (2).

doing (1) and (3).

37. A candle goes out when a closed glass jar is inserted
over it. Which of the following can we conclude from

the

(l)
(2)
(3)

(4)
(5)

 

information given.

Oxygen is required for burning.

The air was all used up.

The candle no longer has enough of something to
continue burning.

Candles burn oxygen.

Both (1) and (4).

38. A classification system can be based upon:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

Structural similarities.
Structural differences.
Functional similarities.
Both (1) and (2) above.
(1). (2), and (3).

 

39.

40.

166

Prediction is used in science learning activities
because it allows us to

(l)
(2)
(3)
(4)

The

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

go from the unknown to known.

go from the known to unknown.

make judgment on very little evidence.
Both (1) and (3).

concept of measurement

is limited to area and volume.

may involve arbitrarily chosen units.
is limited to length and weight.

does not involve time.

Both (1) and (3).

 

 

APPENDIX B

"SCIENCE PROCESS TEST FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS"

DATA FOR TWO GROUPS OF MANITOBA TEACHERS

167

 

 

"SCIENCE PROCESS TEST FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS"

DATA FOR TWO GROUPS OF MANITOBA TEACHERS

I: a
Number in group 55 40
Mean 18.47 18.35
Standard Deviation 5.17 5.25
Variance 26.73 27.56

Legend:
Group A: Education majors enrolled in science methods
course (K-3) during Fall, 1970.
Group B: Education majors enrolled in science methods
course (K-3) during Winter, 1971, and par—

ticipating in this study.

168

 

 

APPENDIX C

LIST OF SCHOOLS USED IN THE STUDY WITH

SOME CHARACTERISTICS

169

 

LIST OF SCHOOLS USED IN THE STUDY WITH

SOME CHARACTERISTICS

 

 

NO. of Classes Pupil
School School Involved Performance
Number School Name Size (3rd grade) Data
1 Dalhousie 647 (3) open area
classroom* X
2 Ralph Maybank 549 (3) X
3 General Byng 609 (2) —
4 Agassiz Drive 199 (1) -
5 St. Avila 530 (3) -
6 Montrose 370 (2) -
7 St. Norbert 736 (3) Open area
classroom* -

*Single large, open area classroom.

170

APPENDIX D

ATTITUDE TOWARD TEACHING SCIENCE INSTRUMENTS

(FORMS A AND B) WITH SCALE VALUES FOR SCORING

171

 

ATTITUDE TOWARD TEACHING SCIENCE-—FORM A

Please read each of the following statements carefully. Put
a check mark (/) if you agree with the statement. Put a
cross (X) if you disagree with the statement. If you simply
cannot decide about a statement, you may place a question
mark beside it.

 

WI

(Scale
Values)
(10.4) 1. I would rather teach science than eat.
(10.3) 2. I will love teaching science.
(10.1) 3. The most lasting satisfactions in life will come
from teaching science.
(9.8) 4. Teaching science will fascinate me.
(9.7) 5. I won't mind teaching science seven days a week.
(9.5) 6. Teaching science will be more enjoyable than
most play.
(9.4) 7. I will like teaching science too well to give
it up.
(9.3) 8. Teaching science will be one of my favorite
pastimes.
(9.2) 9. Teaching science will give me a great deal of
pleasure.
(9.1) 10. I will feel as though I am being of benefit to
mankind when I teach science.
(9.0) 11. Teaching science will Offer me a chance to put
my own ideas into operation.
(8.9) 12. Teaching science will mean a great deal to me
when I am old.
(8.6) 13. Teaching science will be a good job.
(8.4) 14. Teaching science will bring benefits to everyone
who does it.
(8.3) 15. Teaching science will have several very decided

advantages over most other jobs.

172

173
(Scale
Values)

(8.1) 16. Teaching science will undoubtedly be a job worth
having.

(7.9) 17. Many things about teaching science will be
advantageous.

(7.6) 18. Teaching science will be a good pastime.
(7.5) 19. Teaching science will have its merits.

(6.8) 20. Teaching science will be good enough for me.
(6.7) 21. Teaching science will be satisfactory.

(6.5) 22. Teaching science will be a pleasure some of the
time.

(6.1) 23. I don't think teaching science will harm anyone.

(5.5) 24. The advantages and disadvantages of teaching
science will about balance each other.

(4.7) 25. Teaching science will be all right when there is
nothing else to do.

(4.6) 26. Teaching science could be much more interesting.

(4.2) 27. Teaching science is all right, but I won't want
to do it.

(4.0) 28. Some peOple will like to teach science, but more
of them will dislike it.

(3.9) 29. Part of the time I will enjoy teaching science;
most of the time I won't.

(3.7) 30. To me teaching science will be more or less
boring.

(3.6) 31. Many peOple will not like teaching science.

(3.4) 32. Why should one teach science when so many other
jobs will be better?

(3.3) 33. An intelligent person will not be satisfied to
teach science very long.

(3.1) 34. The advantages of teaching science will never
outweigh the disadvantages.

 

(Scale
Values)
(2.8)

(2.7)
(2.4)

(2.1)

(1.8)

(1.7)

(1.3)
(1.1)

(1.0)

(0.7)
(0.6)

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

174

There will be many more disadvantages than
advantages in teaching science.

I will have no desire to teach science.

One won‘t be able to keep up a decent standard
living by teaching science.

I will be better off without teaching science.

The less I see of science teaching, the better
I will like it.

Only a very stupid person will be satisfied with
teaching science.

Teaching science could be buried for all I care.

The best one can hOpe for from teaching science
is a long life which will end up in the poorhouse.

I will have a feeling of hatred for teaching
science.

Under no conditions will I like teaching science.

Teaching science will be the worst occupation in
the country.

 

175

ATTITUDE TOWARD TEACHING SCIENCE--FORM B

Please read each of the following statements carefully. Put
a check mark (/) if you agree with the statement. Put a
cross (X) if you disagree with the statement. If you simply
cannot decide about a statement, you may place a question
mark beside it.

(Scale
Values)

(10.4) 1. Teaching science will be the ideal vocation for
a life work.

(10.2) 2. No matter what happens, teaching science will
always come first.

(10.0) 3. I will like teaching science better than any
other thing I can think of.

(9.8) 4. Self-respect, social approval, reasonable pay
and hours, and steady employment—~these will be
the advantages of teaching science.

(9.7) 5. Teaching science will be my hobby.

(9.5) 6. I will really enjoy teaching science.

(9.4) 7. I have always wanted to teach science.

(9.3) 8. I will enjoy teaching science even when I am
independent.

(9.2) 9. I can think of few jobs I would rather have than
teaching science.

(9.1) 10. There are only a few vocations I would rather
have than teaching science.

(9.0) 11. Anyone who dislikes teaching science is a fool.

(8.9) 12. Teaching science will bring one greater respect
from both oneself and others than most jobs.

(8.6) 13. Teaching science will develOp a good character
in me.

(8.4) 14. Everyone should like teaching science.

176

(Scale
Values)

(8.3) 15. Teaching science will be interesting.

(8.2) 16. Most people will like teaching science.

(7.9) 17. Teaching science will develOp a favorable attitude
toward work in general.

(7.6) 18. I can think of a lot more advantages than dis—
advantages tO teaching science.

(7.4) 19. At least I won't be worn out at night when I come
home from teaching science.

(6.8) 20. I will like teaching science only fairly well.

(6.7) 21. Teaching science could be made beneficial to one.

(6.5) 22. The advantages of teaching science will slightly
outweigh the disadvantages.

(6.0) 23. I will enjoy only parts of teaching science.

(5.5) 24. My likes and dislikes for teaching science will
about balance one another.

(4.7) 25. There will be a few unpleasant things connected
with teaching science.

(4.6) 26. Teaching science would be all right if it weren't
for a few disagreeable things.

(4.3) 27. There will be a few more disadvantages to teaching
science than there will be advantages.

(4.0) 28. I will be able to get along without teaching
science.

(3.9) 29. There are many occupations I will like better
than teaching science.

(3.7) 30. Teaching science used to be a good job, but not
any more.

(3.5) 31. Why should I teach science when there will be so
many more pleasant things to do?

(3.4) 32. Quite a number Of things about teaching science

will annoy me.

 

177

(Scale
Values)

(3.3) 33. Anyone who teaches science must be unambitious.
(3.2) 34. I won‘t care about teaching science.

(2.9) 35. After the age of 45 one will be useless in
teaching science.

(2.7) 36. There will be too many undesirable qualities
about teaching science.

(2.4) 37. Teaching science will do one more harm than good.

(2.1) 38. I will hate to think of Monday morning coming
and having to go back to teaching science.

(1.8) 39. Teaching science will be a waste of time.

(1.7) 40. Teaching science will have no place in the modern
world.

(1.3) 41. More people will hate teaching science than any
other work.

(1.2) 42. Teaching science will be all bunk.
(1.0) 43. Teaching science will be disliked by everyone.

(0.7) 44. I wouldn't take a job teaching science under any
circumstances. ‘

(0.6) 45. I will refuse to teach science even if I am
starving.

 

APPENDIX E

ATTITUDE TOWARD DIFFERENT METHODS OF
TEACHING SCIENCE INSTRUMENT

SCORING PROCEDURE FOR ATTITUDE TOWARD DIFFERENT
METHODS OF TEACHING SCIENCE INSTRUMENT

178

ATTITUDE TOWARD DIFFERENT METHODS
OF TEACHING SCIENCE
Your responses to the following items will permit us to
determine what prospective teachers of elementary science
think of various classroom techniques. There are no right
or wrong responses to the items in the booklet. Our interest

is teacher Opinion on the issues presented in this booklet.

Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree
with each of the statements on the following pages, by
responding on the separate answer sheet. Mark your response

to each item in the following way:

A - Strongly Agree
B - Agree in General
C - Undecided

D - Disagree in General

E Strongly Disagree
Thus, if you "Strongly Agree" with the item circle the letter

"A.“ If you "Strongly Disagree," circle the letter "E."

Please reSpond to all the items. Responses made to any
items in this booklet will have n9 bearing on the grade you
will receive in any course or courses for which you are

enrolled so--BE HONEST.

179

 

10.

11.

12.

180

Laboratory activities, which encourage all pupils to
arrive at the same answer, are probably of little value
in developing real scientific understandings.

If all teachers of elementary science were to subscribe
to the notion that children should "find out things for
themselves," we would have some poorly informed elemen-
tary pupils.

The teacher demonstration frequently accomplishes little
more than to provide entertainment for the elementary
science pupils.

The teacher of elementary science should consistently
provide Opportunities for children to apply their new
ideas, and he should encourage divergent paths of think—
ing, followed by independent study or investigation.

Since children in the elementary school lack many of

the skills necessary for laboratory work, the laboratory
exercise is most effective when it provides specific
directions for conducting experiments and Obtaining
apprOpriate results.

Teachers of elementary science should spend considerable
time explaining scientific principles, which the pupils
have difficulty in understanding.

The effectiveness of an elementary science program,
which promotes the sequential develOpment of simple to
complex skills, is highly questionable.

In order to be meaningful, the elementary science cur-
riculum should not be established by the pupils, but it
should be structured by the teachers according to their
own preconceived goals.

The value of the textbook in providing the elementary
pupil with basic scientific understandings is, at best,
highly questionable.

Pupil response to teacher questioning seldom reveals
whether the children have develOped understandings of
the scientific principles presented through teacher
demonstration.

A good elementary science program should not downgrade
the role of the teacher, thus encouraging the child to
learn through trial and error.

Elementary science programs should de-emphasize the
importance of scientific content and concentrate on the
teacher-guided develOpment of the skills of investigation.

 

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

181

One of the most important functions of elementary science
teachers is prOViding children with the "right answers"
to their questions.

A science program based on teacher-guided activities,
which are aimed at developing specific observable behav-
iors in the pupils, is most apprOpriate for the elemen—
tary school.

One of the biggest wastes of time, which can best be
described as "busy work," is the practice Of answering
questions in the textbook.

It is doubtful whether teacher questioning, designed to
lead children to their own conclusions during a demon-
stration, would be an effective means of develOping a
good understanding of scientific principles on the
elementary level.

Elementary teachers should base their science teaching
on the philoSOphy that every time we tell a child
something, we deprive him of the Opportunity of learning
it for himself.

Teacher demonstrations are very effective in developing
scientific understanding when members of the class are
allowed to plan and assist with the presentations.

Teacher demonstration is one of the most effective means
of develOping a good understanding of basic scientific
principles.

It is questionable whether the elementary science prO*
gram should provide class time for pupils to pursue
areas of their own choosing, even when some guidance is
provided by the teacher.

It is better to provide elementary pupils with situations
where they can discover scientific principles for them—
selves, without interference from the teacher, than to
systematically teach them the same principles.

TOO frequently, teachers of elementary science waste
valuable time explaining basic scientific principles,
which could be learned more effectively through some
other type of activity.

Elementary science teachers who generally encourage
pupils to study and investigate their own ideas inde-
pendently can usually look forward to classroom disorder
where development of the more basic scientific under-
standings is often lacking.

 

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

182

Teacher assignment of science projects and reports is a
valuable means of expanding pupil interest and under—
standing Of basic scientific principles.

Development of scientific understandings is not promoted
through laboratory activities which include specific
directions for setting up the apparatus, experimental
procedures to use, and questions to answer.

Good elementary science teachers seldom provide ready
answers to pupils' questions.

The learning situation in the elementary science class—
room should be determined by the purposes or goals set
by the learner as a result of his prior investigations.

Teacher questioning with student response, following a
teacher demonstration, is an excellent means of deter—
mining whether the children have developed a good
understanding of the scientific principles being dealt
with.

The technique Of assigned readings, in the elementary
science text, is an indispensable means of providing a
good understanding of basic science principles.

The teacher Of elementary science should be advised to
"leave the child alone. Let him make his own mistakes.
Don't give him any answers right away. It is better to
have him make mistakes than to be given the correct
answers."

One of the most effective elementary science teaching
techniques is the use of demonstrations, accompanied
by teacher-guided student interactions which have been
designed to lead pupils to their own solutions.

Answering the questions at the end of a reading assign-
ment is still a good practice even though some of the
"ivory tower" educators disapprove.

The involvement Of pupils, through planning and assist-
ing with teacher demonstrations, really adds very little
to the total develOpment of scientific understandings.

Placing children in positions where they can discover
certain scientific principles, without any teacher
guidance, is a rather idealistic method to use in the
elementary science classroom.

 

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

183

Teachers of elementary science would do well to promote

a program of guided project work in which the child
explores his own areas of interest with minimal direction
from the teacher.

Science projects or reports, when teacher assigned, are
generally a waste Of time in develOping better under—
standings of the scientific principles being taught.

Science programs which emphasize the develOpment of
Specific pupil behaviors through teacher—guided activi—
ties should not be stressed at the elementary level.

Well-structured laboratory exercises, designed to find
answers to specific questions, are more effective and
meaningful than those that encourage pupils to go in
many different directions.

A good elementary science program will provide a step-
by-step develOpment of scientific skills, beginning with
the very basic and leading to the more complex.

Teachers of elementary science who Spend most of their
time systematically developing the child's problem-
solving skills frequently fail to provide pupils with
adequate science content.

184

SCORING PROCEDURE FOR ATTITUDE TOWARD DIFFERENT
METHODS OF TEACHING SCIENCE INSTRUMENT

1. Average responses to the ten items within each of the
four categories were computed. These scores were then
recorded for each of the respondents. One such example
might be: teacher—centered 3.5, teacher—oriented 4.0,
pupil-oriented 3.0, pupil—centered 2.5.

2. Next, a single score, representing a point on a con-
tinuum, ranging from teacher—centered to pupil—centered,
was Obtained. This was accomplished by adding first the
teacher-centered, teacher-oriented mean scores, and then
the pupil-oriented mean scores. The difference between
the two resulting scores was then calculated. Using
the data previously cited, this procedure can be illus—
trated as follows: teacher-centered (3.5) + teacher—
oriented (4.0) + pupil-centered (2.5) + pupil—oriented
(3.0) = 5.5. The difference being 2.0.

 

3. The final step in converting the scores to a single
point on a continuum was based on the following rationale.
Since the greatest difference that could occur between
the two scores would be eight, the nondecision point was
arbitrarily established at ten. Thus, when the differ-
ence score was in favor of the teacher—centered, teacher—
oriented approach, this score was subtracted from the
nondecision point. Conversely, when the difference
score was in favor of the pupil—centered, pupil-oriented
approach, the score was added to the nondecision point.
Therefore, the highest score obtainable would be 18,
while the lowest score would be two. Using the differ—
ence score from the above illustration, the final step
is illustrated as follows:

Teacher-centered Nondecision Pupil-centered

2 10 18

 

 

Using the above procedures, the four individual scores
of the students were converted to a single point on a contin-
uum. In the example cited the point represents an attitude
toward different methods of teaching science, which tends to
be somewhat teacher-centered, teacher-oriented. By using ten
as a non-decision point the use of negative numbers, which
usually appear on a continuum, was avoided.

APPENDIX F

INSTRUMENT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE
TEACHING (I.A.S.T.) BASE SCALE

GROUND RULES FOR THE USE OF THE INSTRUMENT FOR
THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE TEACHING

185

 

INSTRUMENT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE
TEACHING (I.A.S.T.) BASE SCALE

 

 

Accept feelings: Recognizes and identifies with
feelings of students (empathetic), non-evaluative
encouragement or joking positive affective response.

Praise: A positive value judgment. r]
. 1

Acceptance of student's statements: A restatement
of the student's statement, either written on the
board or verbal. This category would also include
short, non-evaluative confirmation such as "okay,"

"all right." r

 

Question: All questions which require a student
response.

Direction: Giving directions and procedures; tell—
ing the students how to do something. This requires
an immediate student response or behavior.

 

Initiate substantive information: Lecturing, giving
facts, calculating, including writing new information
on the board, rhetorical questions, and review
information would be included in this category.

Justification of authority: Disciplinary action and
criticism of a student‘s behavior would be included
in this category. ‘

Teacher-controlled silence: Periods of silence which
would include teacher demonstration, or the teacher
lecturing, or a teacher examining her notes would

be included under this category.

 

S T U D E N T

10.

11.

12.

Student statements: This would include all student
statements that are not questions.

Student questions: Questions asked by the students of
one another or of the teacher would be placed in this
category.

Affective response: Student responses that reflect
student emotions or feelings about a certain topic.

Student activity: This would include activity such as
students working in workbooks, reading silently to
themselves or working with scientific apparatus, etc.

 

186

13.

14.

187

Division of student-to-student interaction: A
mark for the separation between two students'
interactions.

Nonfunctional behavior: Behavior without direction
or purpose where no effective instruction is
occurring.

 

 

188

GROUND RULES FOR THE USE OF THE I.A.S.T.

DURING THE STUDY

In addition to the category descriptions of the
I.A.S.T., the following ground rules were Observed during
coding.

1. If uncertain as to category, use either category
6 or the first category which is more applicable that is
nearest to category 6.

2. Do not shift categories from one type of control
(i.e. direct to indirect) unless there is a clear indication
of change of type of control.

3. Categorization should be as it is perceived by
the pupils (i.e. if a pupil perceives it is up to him to
respond it is not a "teacher" category).

4. Changes in categories which occur during three-
second intervals should be recorded.

5. In order to be scored as category 5 behavior,
pupil response must be immediate; that is, not more than
three seconds later.

6. Category 14 is to be used to signal beginning and

end of teaching episodes. Where there is a delay of over
three seconds in getting materials such as when a teacher
leaves the group momentarily to repair or replace malfunc-
tioning or expended materials, a 14 is scored at the end of
three seconds and when the teacher returns and resumes her
role as a group leader a category 14 is used once more to
signal a new beginning.

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

TABLE OF RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR USE OF INSTRUMENT

FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE TEACHING

189

TABLE OF RELIABILITY ESTIMATES FOR USE OF INSTRUMENT

FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SCIENCE TEACHING

Training Period

 

Reliability Estimate

 

Tape #1 0.84
Tape #2 0.26
Tape #3 0.85
Tape #4 0.87
Mean 0.83

Test Period

 

Reliability Estimate

 

Tape #1 0.84
Tape #2 0.80
Tape #3 0.75
Tape #4 0.77
Mean 0.79

190

 

 

APPENDIX H

SCIENCE TEACHING OBSERVATIONAL INSTRUMENT

191

SCIENCE TEACHING OBSERVATIONAL INSTRUMENT-—Part 2

Teacher Date

 

 

Remarks

Observer

 

 

 

NUMBER OF

QUESTION TYPES

QUESTIONS ASKED

% OF TOTAL

 

RECALL FACTS

Teacher asks any simple
factual question. She
appears to expect only
information.

 

 

SEE RELATIONSHIPS

 

Students must relate
facts, but without going
much beyond given facts.

 

MAKE OBSERVATION

Students must Observe
some ongoing activity
and report sense data.

 

 

HYPOTHESIZE

Student asked to reason
out or guess an answer
which is not given as
an immediate fact.

 

 

TEST HYPOTHESIS

Student is asked to
validate or test answer,
fact, or hypothesis.

 

 

Total number of questions asked

 

192

-..:A It;
.‘ h
-'

 

 

APPENDIX I

TABLE OF INTRA-OBSERVER RELIABILITY ESTIMATES

OF THE S.T.O.I.

193

 

 

TABLE OF INTRA-OBSERVER RELIABILITY ESTIMATES

OF THE S.T.O.I.

Training Period

 

Tape #1 0.79
Tape #2 0.75
Tape #3 0.85
Tape #4 0.86
Mean 0.81

Test Period

 

Tape #1 0.88
Tape #2 0.85
Tape #3 0.81
Tape #4 0.86
Mean 0.85

194

 

 

 

APPENDIX J

TABLE OF SCORES FOR TWO OBSERVERS AND INTEROBSERVER
PERCENT OF AGREEMENT FOR SCORING PUPIL COMPETENCY
MEASURE, INFERRING 5, PART D,

SCIENCE--A PROCESS APPROACH

195

 

TABLE OF SCORES FOR TWO OBSERVERS AND INTEROBSERVER
PERCENT OF AGREEMENT FOR SCORING PUPIL COMPETENCY
MEASURE, INFERRING 5, PART D,
SCIENCE--A PROCESS APPROACH

 

 

 

 

Observer Observer Percent of Agreement
Pupil Subject 1 2 Between Observers
A 5 4 80 In
B 3 3 100
C 2 3 67
D 1 2 50
E 4 4 100
F 1 l 100
G 2 4 50
H 4 3 75

 

Mean percent of agreement over eight comparisons: 0.78

 

196

 

 

APPENDIX K

 

LETTER TO PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS
DESCRIBING SCHEDULE NEEDS AND

LESSON MATERIALS OF THE STUDY

197

 

198

To the Teacher

Recent changes in science curricula at all levels have
implications for teacher education. In order to attempt to
improve the quality of one part of the teacher education
program at Faculty of Education, I have proposed a project
concerning some aspects of student teaching in science at
the Primary level. F

Accordingly, I would like to arrange for certain stu- i
dent teachers to teach science under my supervision to some
"Grade 3" pupils in the Greater Winnipeg area. The student .
teachers chosen will be provided with instruction and mate— .
rials adapted from a recently developed K—6 science curric- '
ulum, namely Science--A Process Approach. Some teaching of
this program has already taken place in Manitoba.

It is most desirable that the pupils involved have an
experience based on the lesson outline, "Tracks and Traces"
prior to the student-taught lesson, namely "The Displacement
of Water by Air." Materials for the Tracks and Traces lesson
will be supplied by those full-time teachers who agree to
teach such a lesson--except for severalppairs of nutcrackers
and 4 or 5 teaspoons. Could you and/or your pupils bring
these? Where the teacher would prefer not to teach "Tracks
and Traces," arrangements will be made for student—teachers
to teach the lesson.

In most cases it may be possible to teach "Tracks and
Traces" by Wednesday, Jan. 20. Arrangements will then be
made for student teachers to teach one-half of the class (or
group), possibly Thursday or Friday, or possibly even Mon-
day, Jan. 25, if necessary. Some two weeks later the remain-
ing one-half of the class (or group) would be taught by the
same student teachers.

The lesson objectives center around inferring. The
work "inference" simply means a statement of explanation of
an Observation.

“Observations" in turn may be thought of as "properties
or characteristics of an object or situation determined from
use of one or more of the five senses." (It is worth noting
that the process of observing is basic to the development Of
most other skills in science-~certainly basic to the combi-
nation of skills or processes used while "experimenting.")

Neither the Generalizing Experience nor the Appraisal
(both on Page 4) are absolutely necessary--although somewhat
desirable. The intent is to teach to fulfill the objectives.

YOU WILL HAVE QUESTIONS! You could call me Monday
evening at 269—1106 (say 5:30-9:00), or at 474-9741 anytime
Tuesday. If I don't hear from you, I will "infer" that you
have no problems--and that you can/did or will teach by
Wednesday, Jan. 20.

 

 

 

 

 

Good luck, and thanks,
WK

Harold H. Grunau

 

APPENDIX L

CORRELATION MATRIX OF TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS

(4O SUBJECTS)

199

 

‘ II". ... ll.

 

vH.I «OM. «“NN.I MH.I mo. «tmN. OH. HN. ¢«MN.I NH. NO.I Humomv NH* .B.m.<.H .MM
OH. OH. OH. NH. NH. OH. OO. ¥«VN.I «tmN. OO.I mo. Hymomv HH* .B.m.<.H .NM
MH. OH.I «Ov.I NN.I NO. NH. «OM. NH. mo.) VH. MO.I Hymomv OHn .8.m.¢.H .HM
«em. NO. «NO. «OM. mo. OH. NH.I ROM.I «aNN. OO.I «“NN. Aymomv Ow .B.m.¢.H .OM
«HM.I OO. HN.I «awN.I MO.I mo. vN. OO. NO. OH.I NO.I Hymomv w* .B.m.¢.H .ON
OH. MN. vo.l OM. OH.I OO. NO. «ov.l HO. NO.I OH. Hymomv NO .B.m.€.H .ON
«mv.l «HO.I «OO.I «OM.I MN.I «HM. OH.I OH. HH.) HO.I «OM.I Hymomv O¢ .B.m.¢.H .NN
«OM.I OO.I «mv.l mO.I OO. OH. mo. «O. NH.I NO.I NO.I Aymomv mt .B.m.<.H .ON
HH. vO.I «MN. «amN. OH. NO. HH.! mH.I ««MN. OO.I OH. Aymomv Vt .B.m.¢.H .mN
MN. OO.I «Om. OH. mO.I NO. vN.I MH.I mo. OH.I MO.I Humomv M* .B.m.¢.H..VN
VH.I tVM.I HN.I OO.I OH.I NH. HN.I ««ON. NH.I mo. HN.I Aymomv Nm .B.m.<.H .MN
OO.I «cON. NO.I MO. NO.I NH. NO.I ON.I NH. NO.I OH. Awumv NHa .B.m.¢.H .NN
NO.I vO.I «sON.I HN.I NH.I NO. ON. NH. HO.I NO. NO.I Amway HH* .B.m.<.H .HN
VH. «em. OO.I OO.I OH. «OM. mO. VH.I OO. ««NN.I «OM. Hmumv OHt .B.m.¢.H .ON
«OM. «OO. «mv. «NM. OO. OO. HH. NH.I OH. HH.I NN. Hmumv Ow .B.m.¢.H .OH
HO. OH.I csNN.I OH.) MH. NN. OH. «amN. MH.I «OM. ON.I Hmumv m* .B.m.¢.H .OH
MH. sNM. mo. OH. NN. NN. HN.I NO.I MH.I NO.I OH. Amway Nw .B.m.4.H .NH
tHM.I sew.) OH.I «VO.I NH.I OH. NH. NH. «OM.I NO.I NH.I Amumv O* .B.m.¢.H .OH
OH.I OO.I NH.I NO.I NO.I OH. «HM.I HN.) tNM. «eNN.I mO. kumv Ow .B.m.<.H .mH
OH. ON.I *NM. *MO. OH. OO. OH. OH. HH.| NH. mo. Hmumv «a .B.m.<.H .vH
VO.I «OM.I «NM. «HM. «cNN.I OO. MN.I OH.I HO. NH.I VH.I Amumv Mt .Brm.4.H .MH
ON. VH.I v0. mH. vO. mo. «OM.I *NM.I OO. MH.I mO. Amumv Nt .B.m.4.H .NH
«HM. «vv. ON. OH. VO. MO. atmN.I ««VN. OO. «MM. Hymomv .B.m .HH
MN. MN. OH. ON. vH. NN.I OH. NH.I MN. Amumv .B.m .OH

«mu. OH. mo. NO. vH.I OH. HO.I HN. Hymomv .Q.H .O

mo. mo. HO.I NO.I HH. HN. HH. Hmumv .Q.H .m

st. HO.I vo. vo.l NO.I uvv. Aymomv .B.O .N

OO.I NO.I NO.I «HM.I «:ON. Hmumv .8.0 .O

«OM. vo.l OH. HO.I Aymomv .m.9.¢ .m

tOM.I «aNN. ccmN.I Hmumv .m.B.< .¢

HO.I NO. Hymomv .m.B.Z.D.< .M

..0~.- mac .m

Hmumv .B.m.m .H

HH OH O m N O m v M N H mOHQMHHm>

 

Amyomflnsm 00V moHemHmmBO<m<mo mmmo<me mo meeaz oneaqmmmoo

201

 

HN. 0N. ..0N. 00.- NH. 00. HN.- N0.- 0H.- .00.- .Hm.- Humomv NHH .e.m.¢.H .mm
N0. 00.- N0. 0H. 0H.- 00.- ..0N.- .N0. 00. 00.- 0H. Hymome HH* .e.m.4.H .Nm
0H.- .00. H0.- 0N.- .00. 0H.- NH. m0.- 00.- .Nm.- HH.- Hymoav 0H¢ .e.m.¢.H .HN
00.- 0N.- 00.- ..0N. mH.- 00. 0H.- HH.- 0H. ..0N. .00. Humomv 0* .e.m.<.H .00
00.- 00. NH. 0H.- 0H. N0.- 00. MN. 0H.- 0H.- ..0N.- Hymoav 0* .e.m.<.H .0N
HH.- 0H.- H0.- .00. 00.- NH. 0H.- 0H. 0H. HH. ..0N. Humoav NH .e.m.<.H .0N
00.- NH. .Hm.- .00.- N0. NH.- .H0. H0. HH.- 00. 00. Hymomv 0* .e.m.<.H .NN
00. HN. 0H. 0N.- 0H. 0H.- 0H.- 0H. 00.- 00.- 00.- Humoae 00 .e.m.<.H .0N
00.- ..0N.- 0H.- ..0N. .00.- 00.- 00. 0H.- ..0N. .00. 00. Hymomv 0* .e.m.<.H .0N
0H.- .0m.- NH.- 0H. N0.- 00. H0. 00.- 00. .H0. ..0N. Hymoae me .e.m.<.H .0N
00.- 0H. NH.- ..0N.- 00. N0. HH. 00. 0H. H0. 0N. Hymomv N0 .e.m.¢.H,.mN
0H.- 0H. .0m.- .N0.- NN.- .00.- N0. .00.- .0m.- HN.- Hmumv NHH .e.m.<.H .NN
0H. 00. H0.- 0H. ..0N. 00. 00. .mm.- 0H.- Hmuae HHH .e.m.4.H .HN
HH. N0. .00. ..NN.- N0.- HN.- .0m.- 0H.- .muav 0HH .e.m.<.H .0N
.0m.- .N0. 00.- N0. .00. 00. 00. Hmuav 00 .e.m.<.H .0H
00.- N0. 0H.- 0N.- 00.- H0.- Hmuae 0* .e.m.m.H .0H
NH.- N0. HN. NH.- 00. Image 0* .e.m.«.H .0H
..mN.- 00.- NH. 00.- Hmumv 0N .e.m.¢.H .0H
00. 00.- ..NN. Hmuav 0* .e.m.¢.H .0H
..0N. HN. Hmume 0* .e.m.<.H .0H
0H. Hmume ma .e.m.<.H .NH
Hmuav N0 .e.m.<.H .NH
Hymoav .e.m .HH

Hmumv .e.m .0H

Humome .o.H .0

Hmume .o.H .0

Hymome .e.o .0

Amway .e.o .0

Hymomv .m.e.< .0

Hmuae .m.e.¢ .0

Humomv .m.e.z.o.¢ .0

00< .N

Hmume .e.m.m .H

 

NN HN ON OH OH NH OH OH «H MH NH mmHQmHum>

 

UODCHyCOUIIHmyOONQHHm O: mUHBmHmmBUNm/mmu mmmu<m9 .mO meBSz ZOHqummmOU

 

.m vacmmmd mmm .mmHuommymu .B.m.<.H Mom

 

202

 

oHymm mee umcomme on ycmesum n .e.m
OHymm uoH>mamm yomuHo Oy yomqucH u .O.H
OHymm mmmxe :oHymmso n .9.0
mocmHum maHaumme pum3oe mpsyHyyd u .m.e.<
mucmHom mcHaomme no meoaymz yamummmHo pumzoe musyHyyd u .m.B.z.o.¢
mumaomme Hooaom NumycmEmHm qu ymme mmmooum mocmHom « .9.m.m "pcmmmq
00050000» HaaoHuosuumaH 00000 n umoa 1N0.0uue 0H.-a um uamoHuHcaHm..
ycmEymmuy HmcoHyoauymcH 0y uoHud u mum Hmw.ouuv mo.nm ym yCOOHchmHm.
vo. .Nm.- 00.: OH.- .mv.- .mm. .0m.I .Nm.- mo.- Aymomv NH¢ .B.m.4.H .mm
00. NH. mo. .Hv. NH.- «H.- No. NO.I NO.I Hymomv HH* .B.m.<.H .Nm
mo. mo. No. .Hm. NH. .vv.- .Nm.- mH. Hymomv OHH .B.m.<.H .Hm
.Hv.- vH. mH.- .mm.- .Ov. .Nm. mo.- Hymomv m* .a.m.¢.H .om
OH. NH. mo.- NN.- NO.I ..mN.- Hymomv m* .B.m.¢.H .mN
Oo.- No.- HH.- Ho.- mH.- Hymomv Nt .9.m.<.H .mN
0H.- 0H.- Ho.- ..mN. Aymomv Ow .e.m.¢.H .NN
.vv.- .mv.- OH. Aymomv mt .e.m.¢.H .ON
«mm. mH.- Hymomv 0* .e.m.4.H .mN
MO. Aymomv Mn .B.m.<.H .eN
Hymomv Nt .B.m.<.H .MN
Hmumv NHm .B.m.<.H .NN
Hmumv HHt .B.m.¢.H .HN
Hmumv OH¢ .B.m.¢.H .ON
Hmumv at .B.m.<.H .mH
Amway ma .B.m.<.H .OH
amumv Na .B.m.<.H .NH
Hmumv Ot .B.m.<.H .OH
Hmumv mt .B.m.<.H .mH
Hmumv V# .B.m.<.H .vH
Hmumv mu .B.m.<.H .MH
Amumv Nt .B.m.¢.H .NH
Hymomv .9.m .HH
Hmumv .e.m .0H
Hymomv .Q.H .m
Hmumv .Q.H .m
Hymomv .9.0 .N
.mumv .9.0 .O
Aymomv .m.9.< .m
Hmumv .m.e.< .0
Aymomv .m.9.2.o.< .M
03. .N
amumv .B.m.m .H
Hm Om mN mN NN 0N mN vN MN mmHamHum>

 

UOSCHyCOUIIHmyOOflflflm qu mUHBmHmmBU<m<mU mmmudm9 hO XHmB<E ZOHfiddmmmOU

APPENDIX M

PRE- AND POST- INSTRUCTIONAL CORRELATIONS OF PUPIL

PERFORMANCE WITH OTHER VARIABLES (16 SUBJECTS)

203

 

PRE- AND POST- INSTRUCTIONAL CORRELATIONS OF PUPIL

PERFORMANCE WITH OTHER VARIABLES (16 SUBJECTS)

Pupil Performance Scores

 

 

Variables Preinstructional Postinstructional
1. P.P. (Pre) 1.00 0.46**
2. S.P.T. (Pre) 0.14 0.23
3. Age -0.02 0.09
4. A.D.M.T.S. (Post) -0.21 0.36
5. A.T.S. (Pre) 0.16 -0.13
6. A.T.S. (Post) 0.27 0.15
7. Q.T. (Pre) 0.30 0.25
8. Q.T. (Post) 0.26 0.02
9. I.D. (Pre) 0.14 0.22
10. I.D. (Post 0.09 —0.02
11. S.T. (Pre) 0.09 0.33
12. S.T. (Post) -0.11 0.13
I.A.S.T. Category (Pre)
#2 0.06 0.38
#3 -0.27 -0.38
#4 0.40 0.19
#5 0.10 0.15
#6 0.04 —0.36
#7 0.50* 0.45**
#8 -0.33 -0.03
#9 0.22 0.28
#10 0.12 0.27
#11 0.17 0.33
#12 -0.07 -0.08
I.A.S.T. Category (Post)
#2 -0.11 0.01
#3 -0.18 -0.28
#4 0.03 0.04
#5 0.03 0.03
#6 -0.09 -0.13
#7 -0.17 -0.11
#8 -0.09 -0.14
#9 -0.29 -0.00
#10 -0.12 0.13
#11 0.00 0.00
#12 0.40 0.17
*Significant at p=.05 (r 0.49)
**Significant at p=.10 ( —0.42)
Legend: See Appendix L.

 

 

HIGQN STRTE UNIV.

“III

III III IIIII BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII