\ ' . . :gov". " _"f_.....- I" '. bunt-U" ago-- . U- I 3"‘~:o . A. ~.~‘ '0‘... m.. 4 " h L ucv‘. “S U“; . v h ~ . "v‘_":’n’ "My FF § VA ‘V .9: v ‘\ ABSTRACT ‘A STUDY OF THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT STUDY RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED FACTORS AND SUBSEQUENT PARTICIPANT ACTIVITY BY Richard Ellis Cooper Problem The National Science Foundation (NSF) has attempted to train resource personnel for the new science education programs by funding Leadership Training and Resource Personnel workshops (RPW). These training pro- grams have been in existence since 1967, but little infor- mation has been reported regarding the activity of these people once they have completed the summer workshops. To correct for this lack of information, the National Science Foundation funded follow-up programs to assist the par- ticipants after they return home and to monitor their activity as resource personnel. This study reports the workshOp activity of the thirty-one participants in the 1971 Resource Personnel WOrkshop on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) at Michigan State University (MSU). The - .- ,.u '8; 3 "'fl'._‘;,. . or I v l n r v I l.‘ ; IP“ . .o' w a ...“O ‘~-‘oo r '.A s. ‘ £5.03 "‘ . ‘ . ..A 1r-‘H' . 4-“ ‘ . ,- "p.79: ’7' rcoa coi' "‘ . ",4...” 5". "" s “no'o- 4 -'§ warn v ‘ . v ‘ ”- .u.»»-~b' U gt . u . u- "I u A nprr "‘ ' (I 7’9"" v'--.-b A¥.by 1 nun-- l 4 "'OUo.“ :uuq; zbbc‘o—r‘ . "H's abs». .5 h . I ‘ | 'V" R. 5' r,‘ T 'i e .A "‘ V. boa 51“ a a v. ‘ ‘ ‘-;' "nyl.a,.,.‘ . " Buns-av . u.- 0! “Cu: :"Fr‘ . "' "‘VA v F .. ._, ‘ I. .- val-p. on» y.'.-. . u u. . .’.u \. I "F‘ . .“v.—;:,:“- I. n. ‘ "L "F ;.. b...“ ~V' >-, ‘ .““I‘=§av. . P-t u: ,a :I; .- ha “‘ P ". Ig5 ‘ . ‘0 ‘ g... t “M. " ' '5 ~59": 1' t. A Q I‘ n. Q s. O . I nu... a c‘ F _ a.“: ‘noub' .u Richard Ellis Cooper participants were college teachers or science supervisors. Twenty-two of them attended the WOrkshop as two- or, three-man teams, and the remaining nine participants attended as individuals. This study compares the workshop activity of teams and individuals following the summer Workshop and reports the relationship of the participants' workshop activity to the following factors: knowledge of general science, perception of SCIS, activity prior to the Resource Personnel WOrkshop, teaching experience, occu— pational assignment, and academic degree. Since an active attempt was made by the MSU staff to support the work of the participants during the year following the summer Workshop, the reactions of the participants to these efforts were also studied. In addition, a sample of the people attending workshOps presented by the RPW participants was surveyed to determine reactions to these workshOps. Methodology Data for this study were collected before, during, and after the Resource Personnel Workshop. The instru— ments used in the study included a standardized test of general science knowledge, a questionnaire of the par- ticipant's perception of SCIS, a WOrkshop evaluation form, a final inventory of the participants' reactions, and a survey form for the reactions to the workshops mm" *’- - l Q ...~ 9" - fl. ' - .. ,v"" 5" ‘:'~ Jul-IV 1....» l- 0 . t" 2 ';"¢! .».. ‘..J. ' "~~'~v-~I 0 an. ..nv0 . 0"(: v. a! . Q-n‘. nan - '-\u 3. "Ugh-Ibuv-‘u‘v I u. . "RP e I ' p t 40.. '5‘5‘ . ' A r A ‘ .... “-V ‘4.. d ‘u.. ' ~ v .:.:. C: h” V ( 5 f, V. -I ‘ ‘ .w" the ‘A' “"““ on . bdbn " ‘on' . HF l1 ‘ ”‘h‘du .as 0., .. .y. It to :gr.‘~‘ .“o 55L . '- N. '~Q"“rn ' h "“u» i a P p; >~¢.. ‘9“ 3r. 1.. . |. l.. ._. :‘P‘s. On.“‘.' 0-; ‘ ~ .~_ .c'flr an.“ . “‘- A».~ *' ..h' ‘v. d Richard Ellis Cooper presented during the follow-up period. Participant activity was monitored by feedback forms which were returned monthly to Michigan State University. The data were analyzed using t—tests, F-tests of Pearson Product-moment correlations, and multiple regression analysis. Results During the ten-month period following the Resource Personnel Workshop, participants invested 699 hours in the presentation of 214 workshops for approximately 4,230 people. No significant difference was found between the level of workshop activity of teams and of individuals during the follow-up period. A significant positive cor- relation was found between the amount of workshop activity of the participants reported prior to and subsequent to the Resource Personnel Workshop. Most of the participants reported an increase in their resource personnel activity, but the relative rank of participants in regard to the number of workshOps they conducted remained the same. No significant correlation, however, was found between the dependent variable, level of activity during the follow-up period, and the independent variables: knowledge of general science, perception of the SCIS program, years of teaching experience, age, and academic degree. . n . o- .4 ' U .ai ‘ ' .. . f .u- ". .F" r F . . ".¢ ~be‘. 0 u. . . -. r “ lulu? DP.‘ /. u a..- r“. (9 ‘ u'V “" ‘ s you a 3;" .P 'u- ,.,. H.‘ 'V h‘r g‘. .‘ A ': ‘V‘e rare... ""‘cb u \r . .Ugl :v“ n.” o «Her 5 u A. :I.u‘::s. F.»- A”: I. :_:"‘vb .‘ ‘ 0:‘.b “‘r" ‘s. :‘PA' ‘ "'- ‘W \- v‘ ‘.‘ v . ‘l § ‘ - s. ‘ M.‘ . + .5 ~ '- .--u‘ . 9-. . 3““:5 1r . l a n; .I‘v‘. ‘ v ~ 5. “~‘U ‘ ‘ C ‘I‘ g -‘~‘ "1 ;'~- . u ib§:|..: ‘- ‘ . Richard Ellis Cooper Multiple regression analysis indicated that approx- imately 43 per cent of the participants' workshop activity during the follow-up period was associated with the amount of activity the participants reported prior to the WOrk- shop and their perception of the SCIS program. During the Workshop the participants' perception of the SCIS program became significantly more positive. The participants reported that the opportunity to perform the science activities and to present orientation and implementation conferences were the most valuable features of the Resource Personnel workshop. Implications From a cost-effectiveness point of view, there seems to be no advantage to the selection of teams of resource personnel instead of individuals. However, factors other than those considered in this study may still offer support for the training of teams for other purposes. The response of the participants indicates that support during the follow-up period may be an influential factor in improving their resource personnel activity. If this is true, then follow—up programs should be included in future Resource Personnel WOrkshops and may be helpful to similar situations in other areas of leadership training. a: :. T. A v .- - .9 a. uh“ a: - "I r" ..w .‘i \hu .A STUDY OF THE SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT STUDY RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS TO DETERMINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELECTED FACTORS AND SUBSEQUENT PARTICIPANT ACTIVITY BY Richard Ellis Cooper A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1972 'U ,I v i -"; "T . .ahb I. - n " _ ', .fi ' '4’. u. :ovtfl‘ ~. ~— ‘ u.’ .,... .v-4 ‘7' pa- 4 ~..b~' ‘05- n- o- . haul- \q-;’—‘; r...~ abownoub a IR: ’4 - u- . p no.0...vv ‘0‘ \ro 'uo.‘ I o v;.:-’|.~ ~T~2 .fiA-g.....‘ “Is. J ‘ _ \o, ‘P a..: as “w. . . ~.__-v,;.nn s"l“ ‘ VI. § .‘71. Q a. ‘1' “FA 0 . H i p o :vas“. ‘1 f! V"‘ v " . s“ - ng.‘ u.: “A” ‘ "“v" "n A.“ ?\ q (HES?) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Ilr. Glenn D. Berkheimer, chairman of his doctoral com- Inittee, and Director of the Resource Personnel workshOp on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study, for constant guidance and encouragement in the completion of this study. Gratitude is also extended to Dr. T. Wayne Taylor, Dr. Maryellen McSweeney, and Dr. Jane E. Smith, the remaining members of the committee, for their generous advice and assistance. Sincere thanks are given to the thirty—one par- ticipants of the 1971 Resource Personnel workshop on SCIS at Michigan State University for their support and cooperation in supplying information which made this study possible. Grateful appreciation is extended to Dr. Julian Brandou and the entire faculty and staff of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center for making the graduate education of the writer a most enjoyable and profitable experience. ii p" 'v‘ D ..a 00" «I, _..-'-o- a" i “if “u . .g.‘_‘.‘ h ‘ ‘ ‘.a" A. .4 5 ‘- d".d . 'l-.‘--P' - -~ ‘ 0‘ ¢~.'. a. u..- The writer desires to express deep-felt appre- ciation to his wife, Kathy, for her patience, under- standing, and encouragement throughout his graduate work. Her assistance in completion of this thesis was inestimable. iii cu" ‘ "— .3. .xv-v v un— ~«. f» .0 a..." H~QI-V-v h- 3w: Q .,_‘ . Ann... C“... Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 0 O O O I O 0 Statement of the Problem . . Need for the Study . . . . Procedures. . . . Objectives of the Study . . Hypotheses of the Study . Overview of Procedure and Analysis Limitations and Assumptions . Organization of the Study. . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . Introduction . . . . . Need for In-Service Education Suggestions for Change. . . NSF Support . . . . . . Team Training. . . Behavioral Changes Related to Training . . . . Perception and Behavior . . Methods and Suggestions for Evaluation Chapter Summary . . . . . RESEARCH PROCEDURES. . . . . Overview of the Chapter . . Design of the Study. . . . Participant Description . Description of Evaluation and Methodology. . . . . . Description of Instruments . Description of Activity . . Testing the Hypotheses. . . Other Study Questions . . . Methods of Analysis. . . Summary of Research Procedures iv In-Service Page H l6 16 18 23 27 30 35 43 48 53 55 55 55 57 60 69 77 78 82 83 85 '0... . _ "“ I.~..‘ :- \‘§-‘_ ' 5- ' .o'd‘ ‘ 'l ’c. I. ‘.II ‘ l U I.““‘. ha U) l" 1 o r- .’ n (J 94 u (I) (I) h) ‘_ ..4 ’y, cw.”1"... . . n' A bb-nnu‘xc “n-.‘. any"! ‘ou ‘6‘ ‘VHA \ r int} ‘ m; V“ C. E I in Y (D ("1 rn (n f I o Chapter Page IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . 87 Overview of the Chapter . . . . . . 87 Report of Results . . . . . . . . 87 Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . . . 88 Regression Analysis . . . . . . . 98 WOrkshop Procedure. . . . . . . 107 Resource Personnel Workshop Evaluation . 112 Rank Ordering of WOrkshop Objectives. . 117 SCIS Perception Questionnaire . . . . 119 Results of Activities and Data Col- lection During the Follow-Up Period . . . . . . . . . . 121 RPW WOrkshop Survey . . . . . . . 140 Participant Description . . . . . . 151 Summary of the Chapter . . . . . . 162 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 165 Overview of the Chapter . . . . . . 165 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 165 Recommendations. . . . . . . . 180 Implications for Further Research. . . 188 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 APPENDICES Appendix A. WOrkshop Schedule . . . . . . . . . 201 B. Information for Testing Hypotheses, Infor- mation for Testing Study Questions. . . 211 C. SCIS Perception Questionnaire . . . . . 213 D. Rank Ordering of Workshop Objectives. . . 218 E. Daily Feedback . . . . . . . . . . 219 F. Orientation and Implementation Conference Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . 222 G. Resource Personnel workshop Evaluation, Summary of Data From Total Workshop Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 224 o I O p... ..-‘-) .fi v va’W .0-.. 'n' it: -- [of Appendix Page H. Monthly Feedback Form . . . . . . . . 229 I. RPW WOrkshop Survey. . . . . . . . . 230 J. Final Inventory of the MSU Resource Person- nel workshop on SCIS ReSponses to the Final Inventory . . . . . . . . . 232 K. Description of Variables and Correlation Matrix . O O O C O O O O C .1 O 242 L. Resource Personnel WorkshOp Brochure and Application. . . . . . . . . . . 245 vi \" . '-' A.— v ..' I--. U . ‘ (J) (I) >-’. --_ 1. ~- . V-.O‘ A. Q' - 'F‘I'Qv' fl boobol -a - ‘-~-v--'qo V“-~. I 0 PA'. .“~~ u n D'A-q H.“ ‘.c"‘tln O O I LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Employment Distribution of Participants and Sex 0 O O O O O I O O O C O O O 59 2. Level and Years of Teaching Experience of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3. Team Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4. Individual Activity. . . . . . . . . . 92 5. Summary of Overall Regression Analysis . . . 100 6. Summary of Regression Analysis for Independent Variables from Hypotheses. . . . . . . 101 7. Individual Activity One Year Prior and Sub- sequent to the Resource Personnel work- Shop. 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 102 8. Frequency of Ranks Assigned to workshop Objectives by Participants . . . . . . 118 9. Survey Distribution of People Whose Names were Submitted by the RPW Participants . . 142 10. Means for the RPW Workshop Survey . . . . . 145 11. RPW Workshops Survey Responses for Partici- pant 032 . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 12. Simple Correlations. . . . . . . . . . 244 vii . I -u-OF " .' .~oc§ob-. O O .0: ' " .u .05 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Monthly Distribution of Workshop Presen- tations . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 viii L . . ..., ..'-.'n o - A :n- a’GGQIab- . u > - . ~- '.A “Q'.‘ N‘ I0 a u on- VI. v‘bd I ‘ .- .::' '9 ,EVQ' ‘ttgv . ‘y v ' 'I-.'IO b n .9 - - v."u-,..". c. .0. ~,‘ 4 V . ._. . _- '7 ”r. c.‘ "": bov‘x .. . " u“: ‘r.f‘r» ‘40.J“ ‘. i 3... n... ‘:‘ -7‘“ P s... :4.“ h A c... a, r I, ..h “Ht ‘r .v '5 ¢ 0 -. e» w..., ‘ 5n.t' ‘ ‘ . I o. . . "1 c‘;n., . s.h“ > L._ C u \ I \ “¢. 4:, u'.‘ ‘ ~: $471 H "4 3:. ¥ 6., he" sud. e C“? ‘4. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The purposes of this study were to assess work- shop activities and to assess the academic year activities of the participants of the 1971 Michigan State University Resource Personnel WOrkshop on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study by comparing teams and individuals by using selected factors. Participants of the National Science Foundation (NSF) leadership training workshops and resource person- nel workshops have been selected primarily on the basis of the information supplied on their applications and the assumptions of the workshop directors. Little has been done to study these newly trained resource personnel after they finish their summer preparation. In an effort to remedy the deficiencies in both of these areas, personnel at the National Science Foundation strongly encouraged research in aSpects of these workshops. Data were collected before, during, and after the 1971 Resource Personnel workshop (RPW) on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) at Michigan Vu’C ..\d0 I . ' lA--; ,5. ., v. .... .. x ‘a ”..v ‘ . _.,.'.-O'V :Iv.....' ....'.oan A ":_,V' a :U-u..-: c&\.~'h , . . .nn-p-sn n N'& . a .. a unOwcb \0 4. ~ ,. .o- n.--- ‘ ,v "r v o'- l‘n—«b. & . '- A 46" O a H a 1'" 0'56 "u." in. ‘ ly- 0" - . v «z. .: E . .. - .‘ Inn..." """‘On 4 I t" V’ n,“ 3.. I. . A tug ‘ . '.:~b. A. n 0". .‘Vl‘: v~~ 4 .C, C“' sym- 0L- .. 500* . ”Fr. ”yr to Op- 5" .~ I" . N ‘.\Cp~. , ”"fl 4.. 1‘. ‘W 5" awn“ .gum". LG| . b I:. ‘F \ - "~ Jun - ‘5‘ hf; a: ‘, ‘ u... I: 9v“ ' "v I t t" I ‘n . . N: '.r1-‘. :V‘. N‘ l.¥‘. ‘.“I \ .z w. ‘. D ‘0... , I l. ‘:.:-"n bu" State University (MSU). This study compares the workshop activity of teams and individuals following the summer WOrkshop and reports the relationship of the partici- pants' workshop activity to the following factors: knowledge of general science, perception of SCIS, activity prior to the Resource Personnel Workshop, teaching experience, occupational assignment, and academic degree. Since an active attempt was made by the summer WOrkshop staff to support the work of the participants during the year following the summer Work- shop, the reactions of the participants to these efforts also were studied. In addition, a sample of the people attending the workshops presented by the Resource Person- nel WOrkshop participants was surveyed to determine reactions to these workshops. Need for the Study A problem with most educational innovations is the dissemination of information and the assistance with implementation once the decision to adopt the innovation has been made. Printed material describing the new edu- cational programs is generally available, but as Rogers has pointed out, the tendency is to over-utilize this medium. Rogers also mentioned that the number of con- ferences, in-service programs, workshOps, and related ”.r'I.‘ l .o' ”>5 .nA"'~ 1“ V "1‘0 0 jut)“ 'yil fl‘ '- V'; :1: .odv “""' '..-- r C'i’f- .'".. so Ub"' .... ~.- '2'“ w an: 3“: ”“' a 1 ozt~av F” "" a...» .098 .- -I . :. :una uyA~r:‘ r.. pub '.- - o (I! (If, f'l ‘ A r‘ 2" ~".c“. r', V r... A C y—o U.u‘. ‘4 b J O; ‘0' vdny' I 4 In.“ ‘4" (I'D ’ 1 f . : 1 (D rt- (h '9‘ (‘1 '(J r? (3 v1 v1 1 m l n U Q 4 J. S ‘ 5 activity oriented efforts is increasing, but the number of resource personnel able to conduct these sessions is limited.1 The Resource Personnel Workshop conducted at Michigan State University was designed to help fill this need. The participants were prepared to conduct orien— tation and implementation activities in the new elementary science programs in general, but the specific program studied was the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. The six major objectives of the Resource Personnel Work- shop as they were stated in the participants' applications are listed below: A. to provide the participants with considerable knowledge of the teacher education procedures, purposes, history, recommended modes of instruction, objectives and materials of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). B. to assist the participants as a group and as individuals to plan and to prepare appropriate materials and activities for orientation sessions, and in-service and pre-service teacher education programs. C. to provide opportunities for the participants to teach children science using the new cur- riculum materials and to provide them with feed- back on their teaching. D. to familiarize the participants with the school setting, administrative aspects, teacher education needs, and various strategies for implementation of a curriculum innovation. E. to provide direct experience in organizing and presenting orientation sessions on the SCIS program to groups of school teachers and admin- istrators. lEverett M. Rogers and Lynne Svenning, Mana ing Change (San Mateo, Calif.: San Mateo County Board of Education, 1969), p. 53. -' V. I! ,..-u"’ " I _. .. b. o « .. o-‘I' ._ ‘ouh-I. O “n-'- l n .h" "9 . 9' ,7 it " a»- 2'. :3 LAD. k- - .1 00v ‘ u- a; a. to ”I DPzt DOO‘b “O.- ‘: V's-e" - b- ‘5' ‘u‘ O':*.~“~ b.u.an..o‘l ( . ‘::“";r O- Db‘vso-‘ Pu. -,‘ ‘ «no.5.s C¢. _ . :.:---- ;. ‘~~~.‘.‘_' 4"“ ~54- ""”“1—‘IJ a... . \n- . § '52:... ‘0 1 In .1 ‘- L‘. “ O; F. to help each participant to engage in orien- tation, consulting, and implementation activities after leaving the Michigan State University Campus.2 In order for a resource person to meet these six objectives and for him to be effective as a resource person, he must, in many cases, be reeducated and trained to think of himself in this new role. As Miles states: Re-educative systems tend to begin with an unlearning or corrective phase in the change effort, followed by a relearning phase in which new material replaces that which has been discarded. Much adult learning is re-educative, as in the case of human relations training laboratories, National Science Foundation teacher training institutes and brainwashing attempts; the person must give up or "unfreeze" old, durable habits and attitudes before the new can be assimulated. . . . "Team training" and various simulation exercises, such as business games, also seem to involve an unlearning-relearning sequence.3 In the new elementary science programs, the role of the teacher and the student is quite different from the traditional pattern.4 To supply teachers who can take on these new roles, either new teachers must be 2See Appendix L, p. 245. 3Matthew B. Miles, "On Temporary Systems," in Innovation in Education, ed. by Matthew 8. Miles (New YorK} Teachers College Press, 1964), p. 444. 4Marjorie A. White, Chester E. Raun, and David P. Butts, "A Study of Contrasting Patterns of In-Service Education," Science Education, LIII (February, 1969), 13. (Hereinafter r§?erred to as‘VContrasting Patterns of In- Service.") .-...- o ' i 1' - -00-“ ‘...II .. .03. _-- -. :. ,. -... .v“ v--‘ 0.. Yo "" ‘5 .v' ‘ . .v '__ :- __.. ' " (:4 4..-. 54" . . ’ an F. .- .F ' " 9.5a.- ..o-O‘ UV - .9- '.1 u' p..- nab. . .4 U ”c.0904vv‘ ' ~ - n‘v'fifi’fl“ § — r- b 22:13.; ::.e 1 I " "Frr- «p- - ' ‘ 2 P " ‘DVou-‘Vnob D. ';""“ ‘t- tn.- '.'."‘ 5-! bot: .C.‘ 3" “C: “v- “w ‘.0‘ Y "' rum. - P ' O .___ ‘x '“A- "nah,“s. . I. ‘ ":5 w... , “lave M . ,... : ' c 1» “v”: " ‘r 'V hf. ‘ . “‘ “‘5‘ -.' u. . 0. 4V‘\ ‘ :"n‘.-:;v--‘ ~. 4 . 3'”: ‘ "Va r-.‘ “"1 to“ § brought into the classroom or those teachers now in the classroom must be changed.5 It would be difficult to find enough new teachers to fill the elementary classrooms, and if new teachers could be found, there is no way of being sure that they could assume the new role of an elementary science teacher without further training. Since both new and experienced teachers will need some preparation before teaching the programs as they were designed to be taught, two approaches are possible. Either the teachers can return to the colleges and universities for special institutes and conference—type experiences or the in- service programs can be taken to the teachers and their classrooms.6 The latter may be the more efficient use of resource personnel skills since it would allow inno— vations to be initiated immediately. Little information is available on the activity of participants after they leave Resource Personnel Work- shops, but it has been assumed that if they return home ‘with a team member who shares their enthusiasm, they Inight be more active in assisting schools with elementary SGordon N. Mackenzie, "Curricular Change: Par- ticipants, Power, and Process," in Innovation in Edu- cation, ed. by Matthew B. Miles (New York: Teachers CoIIege Press, 1964), p. 417. 6White, Raun, and Butts, "Contrasting Patterns of III-Service," p. 13. v“ .;" :~_.,.A ; .'w o . . fir ,-»rc 2 a. 'L V... o“ “ a a- U ,_.-....-v Vb ‘0’: oou-{ybzn5 0.- why. rut- § o . ":0 on; F_.". W. 00" y“- 5 . . IO ,; :AGA-w- a C' -' ‘hioo-‘ggg . o L“; science innovations than they would be as individuals. The team approach is designed to increase productivity of members in a group. According to Stogdill, the stated purpose of a group or team represents the outcomes the group expects to experience; the Operations of the group, or per- formances of its members, are designed to bring about these outcomes. The more closely knit the group and the more important the goals, the more important it becomes that the performance of each member contributes toward the accomplishment of the group purpose. Stogdill goes On to say that: Group structures of expectations, once differentiated and reinforced by the performances and interactions of the members over a period of time tend to exhibit a high degree of stability. The stability of these structures increases the predictability of the behavior of the members of the group. Just as the power of the group to produce exceeds that of the individuals, stable structures also increase the probability of experiencing anticipated outcomes. The individual who has not experienced a high degree of personal success in confirming his probability estimates may find that membership in a group with stable structure provides him with higher degrees of certainty and reward than he could obtain by acting alone. Thus there is a real sense in which a structured group is able to provide a higher degree of predictability than does the larger environment in which it operates. The position taken by Stogdill is supported by Miles who relates the effect of group support to 7Ralph M. Stogdill, Individual Behavior and Group Achievement (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. SUI . '. 9 "‘ A ...40a ‘3 9‘ f ‘. D a - r .....--q tar Q :o'ub‘ svb i -..,.;,:.' 5., I ,. lfl.‘v.'." 6. . 1 -.-- .sp“ .5 ..::E...:-.. a- D _-—--..'. '11' ‘FF. “ 7‘ ‘5'. 5“: d-‘ ' ' Q . ‘ '-Q«‘ H" ‘r v - . . .~"‘ ~' $5.- O nu!” ‘ . ."~:~=e C. ‘ :;‘:' V :A"',‘ .Ici . 'V“‘ (0.,_‘ . ’ “$6236 0; ‘I'R '0',” "fl-v‘ ‘u’g U.‘ II.‘Q . . ..""¢¢:; lr" .‘l . . , .m ‘ :m“ “"‘\ *A" ‘h A“ '.“.“V~ k t _ "a... C “‘5‘. : ‘ «a . ‘A .9 Wk: 3'; .. a ‘§ ;:\ ~ - I ‘5‘" ~"-‘: ran,“ 5“ ' V. . ~. _a“t, “5..‘efi~y a P individual innovators such as those who might decide to try one of the new science programs in a public school SYStem. He indicates that group support for a single innovator is probably as important as mutual support among a number of innovators.8 Procedures The Resource Personnel WOrkshOp, reported and analyzed for this study, was conducted at Michigan State University from July 5, 1971, to July 30, 1971. It was presented at the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center under the direction of Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer and was funded by the National Science Foundation. The primary purpose of the Resource Personnel WOrkshop was to pre- pare resource personnel who would have considerable knowledge of the various aSpects of the SCIS program, and who would be familiar with teacher education needs and the various strategies for implementation of a cur- riculum innovation. Another important goal was to obtain a multiplier effect by having the Resource Personnel WOrkshop participants convey the information gained at Michigan State University to school systems in their home areas. 8Matthew B. Miles, "Innovations in Education: Some Generalizations," in Innovation in Education, ed. by Matthew B. Miles (New York: Teachers College Press, 1964), p. 642. ‘Afl‘ P'. 4,‘ ‘bde L, ;:.‘..‘~v‘: ‘ - o ; ‘nvavO" ”" fl ‘ ~*'*. M ‘ .03. “50V . . 4 vl".'p .0- i" ‘ . v- 4 "0‘... .as .u“. "u... - .i- ¢~7" "“ ’4‘. ' v at! I. ,o-v vbvu U. ,o-suual A: r 4 ,5 Ease Pars: .:;: .v.;. *Q ‘0' bo-u. Eb .:.":e:‘:ty f0: ~-. .'._ ' V u: out: 531‘ :E: Wife 5.; y- s} .l in '-~‘-.‘..,. fl. ,. A q ‘Vu.u‘ 3 .- ‘ I . . 5‘4 A. . \ ‘IAA. ":::: '10-'18 -:vn ' -~.=:r:.el 'n The - p'vu .- \A"‘A‘ v. i. . H vVn..." 'I‘ u 6“, .‘ . Hr ., ‘ 3.. §_' ‘V i The 1971 SCIS Resource Personnel Workshop had the additional advantage of a follow-up program which continued through the school year. During this period, contact was maintained between Michigan State University and the participants so that assistance could be offered t0 promote a multiplier effect. In order to sample the reaction of people to the workshops presented by the Resource Personnel Workshop participants, requests were made that attendance rosters be mailed to Michigan State University for each of the workshops presented. A survey was then mailed to a selected sample of the people whose names were submitted. On the basis of participant reaction to the Michigan State University follow-up efforts and the results of feedback concerning participant activity, suggestions for constructive changes in future Resource Personnel Workshops were made. The thirty-one participants in the Resource Personnel WOrkshOp, chosen for their eXpected abilities to effect change, included members who were college teachers, science supervisors, administrators, and teachers with leadership responsibility. Qualification for selection depended on two factors: first, the com- pletion and return of the application and second, the submission of a letter from the applicant's immediate supervisor stating that the applicant would be given .16: ,V.- 4 ....-o rv‘ ”Y ..~...u - ,- -.n- ”av , i ‘- A. (1') r1 . pa. . 3‘; 153...- . vov O u '...':.ES ."'Voib . t- h L 0- ~.,:'. .. u.‘ s \ ‘fnh. y :9 '6 ,C' 4. . A. - "lv w“ A. “~ ' 1 ‘AD _ : :HLQ‘ c H.~e 5‘... ~ I F .h‘“ an- n _ ‘ 9! pe‘ Q‘ nun .fl. “‘6‘... l “It. 00-. V.“'-‘-~. 4“»..“:‘ r “P'nr ‘ b ‘ "‘lun. 10': "L. released time during the following school year for his activities as a resource person. Teams were given priority over individuals, and teams composed of one college teacher and one science supervisor were given highest priority. In cases where individuals applied, they were requested to find a person to attend with them as a team-mate. The final list of participants included eight two-man teams, two three-man teams, and nine indi- viduals. Of the thirty-one participants, nineteen were male and twelve were female. In terms of education, five possessed a bachelor's degree, eighteen possessed a master's degree, and the remaining eight had their doctorates. Nineteen of the participants were from the school setting as administrators, teachers, or science supervisors and twelve were college teachers or had similar jobs. Objectives of the Study This study describes the activities of the par- ticipants subsequent to the 1971 Resource Personnel Wbrkshop on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study at Michigan State University. After considering the relationship of activity to selected factors, recom- mendations for future study were made. -, “.".Q. U .- not 5" " ' ’ '..A-r“ y. ,-;:.... - gr '0... ""- .‘. '= .Anv ‘. o - owl""‘ ‘ a: .uea' O“ Inc-“a: : _'.'..-~,v-«- M— .A . n;' ‘S _ .al'. ‘ M 9 '-ug' A0 i u . . .-I». V. - l O. O. .l' 'Vr - .VOOVI I: . '.:::.r' M .‘Ui' V.‘ law-w Ar‘u' - N, H ,. I'HIbilb‘ifi I i Q .Arw I‘ F ivoh 04o. ‘ I CC ‘ hvullyu. “— .. "'6: l: on”. y .'e '3'. .“ ~‘. ‘ . u . -Q I'- A . p '- 5. s ' L .- uo;_ \ '- 65. A DJ 5 b . be.» ‘ .p. . ..,‘:r on. 5‘54 f‘ . \‘qu ~"u I H .. f‘ a. .‘ “V d‘ 10 Hypotheses of the Study Hypothesis 1: The activity of participants who attended the Resource Personnel WOrkshop as members of teams is significantly greater than the activity of partici- pants who attended the Resource Personnel WOrkshop as individuals. Hypothesis 2: There is a significant positive correlation between the level of activity of the participants during the follow-up period and their knowledge of science based on the scores from the science portion of the Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Series II, Form 1A. Hypothesis 3: There is a significant positive correlation between the participants' level of activity during the follow-up period and their perception of the SCIS program. Hypothesis 4: There is a significant positive correlation between the level of activity during the follow-up period and the number of workshOps presented by the par- ticipants prior to attending the Resource Personnel WOrkshop. Other study questions considered were: Studquuestion l: Do differences in years of teaching experience indi- cate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? u.. ! :. 'v;.‘c 1 . -9 1 __ ._ooy': o I .5.." ,- v -I .. v y ';'u._ .5, . D”. ~~ .- 9:7'1: urea." D :. «II ":- -’.‘l ‘V . '- n'. ..pt._' J. ‘..ob- .un'v-z": ,...~‘0-*" O ‘...Qv'." o ...-I.v‘. " nag ‘lfir‘ n- . '— 9“. 5'... I. ‘ v. «p. ~- .- .- .o‘vn.-duol a 0 ON. ... 3’5 suv‘ '.\r . . ‘0 ‘a'. sun.‘ I r- .. -..‘,~ H” v .5- w (n 1: r1” V - ‘ u. h-Z‘h ,. ° ~‘Vo. - \r- "I - '.’~:.‘ q ‘1L‘c. .-. . b..." . ~ 0’ n‘fi ‘ 1..“ J n. I ‘5 .. . ._ )MA 0“ I L U.. 'D ‘V e N" :6 v . 11 Study Question 2: Do differences in age indicate significantly dif- ferent levels of activity during the follow-up period? Study Question 3: Do differences in academic degrees held by the par- ticipants indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? Studpruestion 4: What types of follow-up activities on the part of the Michigan State University staff do the participants feel are the most helpful and/or stimulating? Study Question 5: What are the reactions of people who attended the workshops presented by the Resource Personnel WOrk- shop participants during the follow-up period? Overview of Procedure and Analysis Hypothesis 1 was tested with a t-test for the dif- férence between means of small samples. Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 as well as study questions 1, 2, and 3 were tested uSing Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients for each of the independent variables with the dependent variable. In addition, the independent variables in f’Y'Dotheses 2, 3, and 4 as well as study questions 1, 2: iand 3 were analyzed using a multiple regression equation to calculate how well the best linear weight- lnSI of the independent variables predicts or correlates witfln the single dependent variable. The data were a .-‘u~ Na“ 5...“ 1". ,:u I a ’5 Q"~:F : v I ...oy o R‘F'. man-:5 O. VVOO- - 1 'o..-r a - z - [ASN.- UC“. a O ""O Rnu.-~. ,- Iuvb- Mvuba» . . " 0- era».- -- .- p p 3‘ Ivovv::voov A ._ . "’Von,‘ . . ‘Dc onlth as a In; nzr...." V“ "‘ :n. ~¢v.s.. 5 .‘OIA .. .30». uni,“" d l"- r -6 . r .\O u . “‘ In: I n "I05. 2 fl 9 “N t. '7. "v1; WC‘V‘q . A ‘V‘..‘ / .0 X '1’ '\ I LA, - I. M' I!" \ ‘3 2; I‘SO : f ' _ ”aIg:-. 9- . 12 analyzed using the CDC 3600 and the CDC 6500 computers at the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. The correlations, F-values, levels of significance, and results of multiple regression analysis were taken directly from the computer print-out. The dependent variable of the study was the number of contact hours each participant acquired in a workshop dealing with science education. These were direct contact hours and did not include such things as telephone calls and letters. A contact hour was defined as a period of time, one-hour minimum, that the participant had in direct contact with one or more persons. For example a three—hour workshop conducted by a participant for twenty-five people was equal to seventy-five contact hours. No difference between teams and individuals was fOund and therefore all participants were treated as a group using a single regression equation to test Hypothe- Ses 2, 3, and 4. Regression analysis was also used to analyze study questions 1, 2, and 3. Limitations and Assumptions This study assumed that the Resource Personnel wblikshop model was educationally sound and that it con- tributed significantly to the educative process. It was; also assumed that the specific Resource Personnel WOli‘kshop model used for SCIS at Michigan State University ’ '5." 1.; 'v- ‘ .. P' fl, .3‘, .: uh I v: .pA .5-. ‘.‘ ::u:"' a - . '.-A"'A : .I2:-::".b ,. H r v 1‘. u; U) F 'u'..VV~;F \. ',.,u¢'db‘ V ' u ' - I. ' .. n ""7"" q we vo-O‘ "' ‘ l '-vHI-'. fr '- ‘ ~‘ V.' u.--ounb ‘ v-DAF |'|\ c v‘ lbw-“via U a . . onloo‘l nunlb o I. ‘..A IF.--. "‘ A hi...“ 5.“- s u: n‘:fl=‘va‘ "‘ "c'vvusye ‘0 c... I ‘ - \‘Ian . V. '.'"‘V utde 't‘ on ~‘*"A '~ 'Vu..d 0A s 233.126 BIKE?” ‘1. v‘, --..,', vbya‘uec f.- V- "OE :7...’ .. 'WI : u" l A "ht “Cb .. I. g : . 4 ’0 A .sggr +5 e 5.). I“ 1 A O .. ~ H. ‘ I:C n .. v 5“ \ H n ‘0 . '5 HA“ ”bu” ., A 13 made use of the knowledge and experience of its director and staff, and that it was a model which met the criteria of a Resource Personnel Workshop. It was assumed that all the participants met the selection criterion of the Resource Personnel Workshop at Michigan State University. This study was limited to the thirty-one participants of the 1971 Resource Personnel WOrkshop on SCIS and the people who attended workshops presented by them during the ten-month period subsequent to the summer Wbrkshop. It was also assumed that the participants gave intellectually honest and complete information during the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop and on feedback regard- ing their activity subsequent to the summer Workshop. Since the participants were not randomly selected and Ix>control group was established, the ability to generalize the results of this study are limited. However, it was assumed that similar results could be Obtained with a sample of participants selected using the same selection criteria. Since the participants were not selected on the basis of their workshop activity prior to the Resource Personnel WorkshOp, it was assumed thuit the distribution of this variable within the sample “353 the same as the distribution within the population of'jpe0ple meeting the selection criteria. ....V .'g oar . E" '5‘.“ 'V‘ 1' .:.e *' a 1 .c .~-‘9:“f‘ ?. '3 owO'Vu 5’ 1 R u. ”S ‘gosbov O ‘ br- 5‘. 'D u" :OOI-nor ..:.. ...t~..t . "’ W‘vvebo ." ' uo«.¥b . ‘. 'ID V n a r ““bobutu‘, . ‘ . 3“ "' a C» 4 ““~.\- ‘Uy. , .. Ma: M v»._u‘ V. V -'~' "n“ v- 'v ‘.1' Ii 0 T. A V‘- *‘;"E;‘ '~-~.t. C . .-':A'v~ - .. w cyan“: p. . ~:‘.. A ‘- in. .V. .._ . 5...: ‘* ‘ u.. “‘ a. hit ,- ‘ ‘ l . p -v._ 14 This study also assumed that all instruments were valid for the purposes used. Although interval data were not obtained, all data were at least ordinal and for the purpose of correlation analysis, the inter- val nature of the data was assumed. The interpretation of the dependent variable was limited because of the possibility of confounding variables. The workshop activity of the participants subsequent to the Resource Personnel Workshop may have been affected by: the amount of time the participant's job permitted him to engage in resource personnel activities, the geographic range of the participant's influence or the number of schools which were locally available for the presentation of workshops, and the interest of school personnel in using the skills of the resource person. It was assumed that the quality of the workshops presented by the participants following the Resource Personnel workshop was comparable. A measure of the reaction of the people attending the workshops during the follow-up period was taken, but no measures were made of the effect the workshops had on the teacher's Performance in class or the change in the students' be=havior as a result of workshop attendance of their teatcher . ,. um; "eY: . 5.. .u ‘- ou‘ . . .A A..- . . ‘C‘ .. ~99 RAF 7:“; -¢.» vain-v - -oo--c- bu . u-ov¢o‘ a a n..- A r O \ogub . 0 em... and 3" «p ‘. I-u‘ : :."n “a; I L ‘ ‘ l n'.‘ ‘V-v ‘ ““cva. ‘_ E 15 Organization of the Study The general plan of the dissertation is as follows: Chapter II is a review of the literature related to this study. The first section reviews the research and the literature related to team and group training. It is followed by the section which discusses the lit- erature concerning factors which may be related to activity. Chapter III describes the methodology of the present study. A description of the selection of the study sample is followed by a description of the WOrk- shop and the procedures for data collection. Next is a description of the instrumentation, statement of the hypotheses, and finally the statistical procedures utilized in analyzing the data. In Chapter IV, the data collected are presented and analyzed in reference to each of the hypotheses. Following this, a description of the reaction of the Participants to the summer WOrkshop and follow-up pro- Cedures is presented. In Chapter V, the conclusions and implications of 'the study are stated along with the recommendations for future studies. a Q . o n .1 b I u H-O‘FI. qv-H . ol‘ ~ A lvbvlod “ - v:¢4'o:‘q 5;- fi".. Vb“ 5.- n (I: ‘ so.... a '¢ OHID‘. ‘. "“ I‘uu " "5' not.' Ito Kl. 9‘ u: - " ‘Z‘Vrr A new..".. v '1 ‘D ("7" ‘.v_ (I (I) l 7 0‘ D t J. L) 0 9' m. , '7‘, 5. ‘ -... ‘~ 1 I‘“ .‘ u q . "‘vfi ‘ I o- I.» ~I 7s u ‘Kt “"\‘u CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The intent of this chapter is to explore the findings of researchers in the area of curriculum inno- vations and to study the feelings of educators who have reported their concerns and hopes for continued edu- cational improvement. The need for in-service education is not new, but demands for it seem to be increasing at a.rapid rate. With the increased need for in-service education come the demands for qualified consultants or resource personnel to help fill in the gaps. In order to supply resource personnel, the leaders in the field of education must be aware of factors associated With changes in education and methods of implementing Curriculum innovations. The search of the literature Should yield suggestions for further study and advice ‘ancerning improvement in methods of training resource Personnel. The need for in-service education extends far belck into the history of American education. In the t1Lirty-year period surrounding 1860, teachers depended 16 ‘ «p ' .I. 'Fufl .1' . 'u.,... I“ ‘ ...~n‘v" , -- " : Lu - u~lol-- . F' ..—‘f ”'- rut ' w-‘o"' 1.0-" - s .-- Ir:"‘ '1‘ .- I.I"."~. . n 0-- D! p A Q ~ n I..‘." .. . ~ . 9.5. C ...OVVU. 5 . "0- ‘ "1' CEO”. U . . "been n..“' ‘ a ‘1 F ,‘o "N-.u‘ .."fi 4 it", etc... b-.".A 5: ”E :1 voay‘- - do ‘ 9 3 . ‘ V. “. R‘ ' -A." any, 5 an‘ \ "I ~»... .‘ o a «A‘- A. ‘1 . '4.; c ..‘ u..- 3“. -‘ 17 on two- and three-day institutes and evening courses to furnish them with the necessary in-service education. During the forty-year period from 1880 until World War I, teachers in the normal schools relied primarily on summer courses to keep up with the current educational practices. After WOrld War I, teachers were required to obtain a college degree and in response to this requirement the in-service education programs shifted their emphasis toward supplying credits for college degrees. Since 1930 the emphasis of in-service edu- cation seems to be that of assisting schools in imple- menting new educational programs.9 As is indicated by Rubin, there seems to be a dichotomy in the reasons why teachers seek in-service education today. Of all the tradition-bound practices in American edu- cation, the current state of in-service teacher train- ing is probably the most indefensible. Such training as there is seems to be guided by two mutually incom- patible perspectives: (l) in-service training as relevant to the upgrading of teachers' professionalism and classroom performance; (2) in-service training as a convenient way to pile up units, which will move a teacher horizontally across the pay schedule.10 9Ralph W. Tyler, "In-Service Education of Teachers: ALook at the Past and Future," in Improving In-Service Education: Pro osals and Procedures for Change, ed. by LCNJiS J. Rubin iBoston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), pp. 6-14. 10Robert N. Bush, "Curriculum-Proof Teachers: Who Does What to Whom, " in Improving In-Service Education: P113 osals and Procedures for Change, ed. by Louis J. gubin (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971), . 109. '- . v 1 v1 | ‘gl ‘0‘ . .. K . ’°": \ . I.".’v' ,- a. u, I ....,.n rrO' ’ .- . ‘ V.“ ...-a 'V b c n ... Gar-AA an...» DVI-w‘» - I ' t ": "pr: my o.u5.uv-A ‘ .' ';;_~ *Ar «P- “W ‘H. by- '.:":v: «v- ""Iu-.u 3.. . A ~u-A DJ vi.» 5" ’ A. ""v~1,- 9w . V..‘Oti'\ . ., . "';_o.. I'U..~‘ ‘ . .._ ’4' AJ- -“‘ V)“ Y fly. ‘I . '. U Q ‘ v1.5: .r 'A V l 'v, I I J‘NI 18 In an article describing both the pre-service and in-service education of teachers Reynard reported that in-service education was stimulated by courses which were offered at teacher education institutions and by federal support offered to education through several agencies, but " . . . little has been written concerning in-service programs of public schools or concerning cooperative efforts between teacher education institutions and the public schools for deve10pment of such programs."11 From the literature one can conclude that there was an expressed need for cooperative in-service efforts between college teachers and public school systems for at least a decade. Need for In-Service Education One of the few certainties in education today is that change is a dominant factor in meeting the needs of society. It is not uncommon to read in magazines or hear on radio or television of the innovations occurring in today's educational system. These changes bring Pressure to bear on all aspects of the educational com- munity: students, teachers, administrators, and parents. In a 1966 survey, made of directors and super- ‘Wisors of elementary education, Miel reported that from llHarold E. Reynard, "Pre-Service and In-Service Education of Teachers," Review of Educational Research, xxXII]: (October, 1963), 373. 1: . ‘ s: .gb“ - ‘ ' a .A .n- “ 4"-“ J F d '0 «I. anV a, A ‘ .,'.‘ but. ‘ ‘ . ‘Il: .aa (1- [b a» Q . . ....-'A-n“q q l ’ (' _. ,_ v D - .:u--¢.-mad ‘- 4 . . "qt-,5 vvfio .... C n.. u i :‘S" 2"! 'ombo- U“. " 2 n ‘ . - "‘2' M- L... ’ e-..‘ ‘5' n ugwaytbb t. . 19 all sections of the country an increased emphasis was being placed on in-service training.12 Many of the institutes studied were designed for secondary teachers. Most institutes in the disciplines are for secondary teachers or for elementary teachers with majors in the subject areas. It is very difficult for ele- mentary teachers to get into these.13 Some elementary teachers also wanted to improve their background in the subject areas but it was difficult to do so without in-service programs designed to include elementary teachers. Carlson also mentioned that a weak knowledge base concerning the new educational practices was a factor which retarded educational change.14 In order to expect new educational programs to be implemented with any degree of success, teachers need help in making the change. Kleinman states that the greatest stumbling block to the successful operation of 12Alice Miel, "New Patterns of In—Service Edu- cation of Elementary School Teachers," in The Elementary School, ed. by Alexander Frazier (Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1968), p. 72. (Hereinafter referred to as "New Pattern of In-Service.") 13Ibid., p. 75. 14Richard O. Carlson, "Barriers to Change in Public Schools," in Change Processes in the Public Schools, ed. by Richard O. CarlSon, et aI. TEugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965), p. 5. (Here- inafter referred to as "Barriers to Change.") AR ‘ , . u c an " ago»: . ~~ . ".-¢"; 7'" ‘\ c . 5- ;..vww" U“ "t b F n...- ..--- 3' A' :povvb b. ‘- l O I . .— ilc "' vgtl b-- IA.A'G HC-vev - A F‘ n»- ‘uuv '3. 6A Fr!- v- .9 b‘g‘oo - w F‘9I-n-‘r- .— I‘bbllv‘-_ Q“. ' "n 3 hr ”Mud...“ . '3‘. I “4.1 I'VE. \“V. :v"~y‘ v“‘n‘ , 4 m ‘e “KT {1 I & 'H" 5.05. t b ‘ ».e:~, ~- 1"} . in" Ilv '! ‘- 20 effective science programs is the reluctance of teachers to teach science because of the inadequacy in their science backgrounds.ls With the increase in the number of new elementary school science programs available, pressures are brought to bear on school personnel. . . . teachers and school administrators will need to take time to thoroughly study the programs in depth before committing themselves to a given course. Once committed, in-service education will be needed to bring teachers into contact with the unique methodology required.l6 At this point the logical questions to ask are, "Who will furnish the assistance required to make the changes and where will these people get their training?" Many people have recognized the need, but few people have been able to offer much contribution to its solution. Both Vannan and Carlson list the lack of consultants or resource personnel as effective barriers to change in public schools.17 In addition, Goodlad stressed the consequences of inadequate guidance and direction. 15Gladys S. Kleinman, "Needed: Elementary School Science Consultants," School Science and Mathematics, LXV (November, 1965), 7401 16Shirley A. Brehm, "The Impact of Experimental Programs on Elementary School Science," Science Education, LII (April, 1968), 297. . 17Donald A. Vannan, "How to Obtain an Elementary Solence Consultant for Your School," Science Education, LIV4(Apri1-June, 1970), 141; Carlson, "Barriers to Changer" P- - la .26 - I,‘.;-: ‘1'!" V I . ,r:oo-V‘ .. V ' ‘ u :v"“ e V. L‘..." ‘ {.338 :65: Ann. bIr- Iur y ca:- 5.5 'y - . F I... 1 F‘.‘ ' _-o«~3 I cry" ' a ’: ‘Ql.‘§.- ““ dub‘.- v V - r~;p~~ "“v own .I . :v. . I “"I“" "'"v.su\4 J -IP . tloe e‘ {€52}: C 3. 2e: . ‘ F‘VI “‘v“‘ ‘ Q A ::‘\A“ ‘ "‘vu 13 Q I 2 a , k. ‘ ”‘3'; up. A .~ \ ‘6. .9 It Ah.>:y . c. "Vs. VHIy‘y-"u Q“ .491 (“I 1‘ r- . IVA.‘ I 0‘ i ‘J I J‘- 3. a," '_ ‘ P . ‘ut A. . O H " t‘vqp" I. 5. I'Fv ed" ‘ Ivbl‘ 21 . . . there often is a formidable gap between the intent of curriculum projects and what actually happens in the classroom. This problem is regarded by many as a direct consequence of the teachers' inadequacy in the subject's content, a deduction that follows consistently from the naive notion that teaching begins and ends with the subject.18 The feeling expressed by Goodlad may have resulted from reports such as the one by Fowler. In an article reporting the evaluation of an elementary science resource teachers' institute, Fowler concluded that the workshop was a success in at least one respect because there was a considerable gain in the partici- pants' knowledge of general science during the workshop. The justification for the use of gain in general science knowledge as an indication of success is given in the following quote. The elementary-school teacher who acts as a science- resource-teacher must have a good working knowledge of general science. This development of a working knowledge of science had been proposed as one of the objectives of our institute.l It should be quite apparent that in-service edu- cation is an essential part of current school practice. In a paper concerning the guidelines for curriculum 18John I. Goodlad, "The Curriculum," in The Chang- ing American School, Sixty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ed. by John I. Good- lad (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 53. (Hereinafter referred to as "The Curriculum.") 19H. Seymour Fowler, "Evaluation of an Institute for the Training of Elementary-School Science Resource Teachers," Journal of Educational Research, LIII (May, 1960), 359. _~— " n ‘4 .0. :v‘ .p“' '. ;..vo ' ’v I...‘ .6; :bo-i" ' " '0'. ‘ a V"""- I :.‘A-th . . 'Q.:~fl 1 _ .Juva .6. 'IA‘I I‘ . “to. up S. .. I D N». .u ‘. n I “I. m'(‘ f, ‘4 ~QI“ ‘V‘Il‘,“. , ‘bfib‘b- ‘::""" v 'V—VA. . “ 5* A, - ' "VLI; Q"“‘C.r 1‘...‘ ~‘ tea~hp Q Y;~;Jv-. .‘ Vs. VAR- p It .’ D V‘ 5‘ p... .- ‘t -. Ifl~~ :‘ ‘ P‘. ~‘_“. A : u‘fic‘ web.‘~" -l h“ P a .. . ~ a I >- ‘ I “a ‘ O 22 installers Mahan makes the importance of personnel trained in workshop presentation and implementation strategies quite clear. Pilot teachers on pre- and post-workshop ranked the in-service education workshops as the most important resource for implementing curriculum change. At the conclusion of their initial installation year a random sample of demonstration school teachers rated in-service education workshops as "absolutely necessary" for curriculum installation.20 An additional benefit for teachers who partici- pated in summer conferences was reported by Hilgert after a study of seventy participants of a three-week workshop. Workshops and institutes can make an important con— tribution to the improvement and furtherance of teacher knowledge and teacher practice in our edu- cational system. Perhaps, if nothing else, a summer academic experience is an opportunity for teachers self-renewal, which in itself can be of tremendous importance in maintaining the vitality of a teacher's classroom performance.21 The NSTA Position Statement on School Science Education for the 705 indicated that: "The goal of science education should be to develop scientifically literate citizens with the necessary intellectual resources, values, attitudes, and inquiry skills to 20James H. Mahan, "Overview of a Systematic Effort to Engineer and Monitor Curriculum Change: Emerging Guidelines and Encouraging Findings for Curriculum Installers" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, February 6, 1971), p. 11. (Mimeographed.) (Hereinafter referred to as "Guidelines for Curriculum Installers.") 21Raymond L. Hilgert, "Teacher Reaction to Summer WOrkShOps," School and Community, LIV (January, 1968), 15. 5-; ",.-.E ...v u- .-. ~- . ..__,: ,‘o l- ..:. #0 Cad . . t.. 'a «'ufl' v ‘ v. '-v AV."‘ I":v:' “‘ ‘ .OvI‘e" V‘ "'vour Ni. 5‘. ’I-.. ‘ o n- n‘ _ .— ,.J-‘ “I ..: "I‘M... O n II I :IIflI““v- “.b“.‘ . I,‘ Q 5 “s§.:. 23 promote the development of man as a rational human being."22 As will be discussed in a later section, much of the direction of educational change is controlled by local, state, and federal governmental agencies. In a long-range view of educational change, Gatewood and Osborn consider the relationship between the development of scientifically literate citizens and the practical application of this knowledge. . . . the major source of financial support for science has passed from private foundations and industry to governmental agencies both state and federal. The ultimate control of these agencies lies in the hands of the citizen and his elected representative. Thus, for another vital reason, the citizens understanding must be secured and nurtured.23 Numerous references to people and their arguments could be given, but energy might be more efficiently expended in examining what has been done and what additional efforts can be made to implement educational reform. Sgggestions for Chagge In the previous sections some of the recommen- dations for alleviating areas of concern were implied 22Glenn D. Berkheimer, chairman, "NSTA Position Statement on School Science Education for the 705," The Sc1ence Teacher, XXXIIX (November, 1971), 47. 23Claude W. Gatewood and Ellsworth S. Osburn, "Improving Science Education in the United States," Journal of Research in Science Teachin , I (December, 19335: 375. (Hereinafter referred to as "Improving Science Education . ") n' r0 '..- 3".v‘ .9 CO; .- .--o'f"‘: M :5 ,u'.u.. '..I" .;.~--~ 7" u " v..- ‘ 5,... n v...- . um... .. -r ‘4 34 '0'...‘ Monk 0 d . ....,- a, ._ ,V . Iva-uh. a... I ' ’ - to n;- ‘Ffl. . " Vt étoC. - b I: 1“.” u .U UV: .,_ ...‘ , ~-g C I...u..:u ‘ ~ ’. .. .‘3""‘ I~ . C 1‘.“0|\.‘ ‘ 24 in the statement of the problem. However specific suggestions have been offered by writers and researchers in education. A commonly held belief is that "teachers tend to teach as they were taught, not as they were taught to teach."24 Burnett elaborates on this statement by Saying that it is his " . . . considered belief that teacher education both in sciences and in pedagogy tends to be ineffective and without focus and direction because it is commonly carried on without explicit reference to and use of concrete programs and materials of instruction designed with the ultimate use of the teacher in the science classroom."25 Jacobson agrees with Burnett regarding the use of particular materials and specific programs to be used in teacher education. Effective science teaching is not a step-by-step procedure; instead, it is an interaction between children, teacher, materials, equipment, and facilities. The teacher nurtures, stimulates, and guides these interactions. In order to do this effectively, the teacher needs foundational under- standing of the new programs. In order to develop these understandings, especially designed teacher education programs will have to be prepared for use in conjunction with the new programs.2 24R. Will Burnett, "New Concepts in the Education of Science Teachers," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I (March, 1963), 70. 251bid., p. 69. 26Willard J. Jacobson, "Teacher Education and Ele— mentary School Science—-l980," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V (March, 1968), 77. l . — ,. “fun a: ’3 v...“ C .uo v '~.fi\‘fl "3 5 b..v vi. - ..o;¢' n ";S ‘2 ,. .v" I v a . q . . :III :(Ioacs ‘I r‘ "' . o w - ""‘e b \ 9. .. . x I. u. " F .VIIA. ‘3‘ p ‘ .'-I-‘ ~; 'I —~‘ 3" :. 'IIr I ~"A 25 Shinpoch stated a list of objectives which he felt would assist elementary schools in the development of a science program to fit local needs. Among the objectives were the development of teacher knowledge and skills in science as well as the implementation of improved science programs.27 To meet these objectives he suggests that the following program should be used: 1. An intensive four-week summer program with selected elementary teachers working with materials to be used in their classrooms during the academic year. 2. Specialized consultant help during the summer and academic year.28 This program sounds fine as far as the local schools are concerned, but no mention is made of the source of the resource personnel for the proposed workshops with con— sultant help during the year. The comments of a science education consultant might give a different perspective to the problem. Mahan, who has had considerable experience in assisting schools with implementation of science programs, offers the following suggestions for good participation of schools with curriculum installers. l. geachers and administrators attend demonstration ays. 2. Principals are required to participate in activities. 27John R. Shinpoch, "Improving Instruction of Ele- mentary School Science," School and Community, LV (May, 1969), 35. 28Ibid. a F III II IVVHD‘. I W 3. ad“.-‘ . JO ‘ a Ian“ " r ”.o-rO‘“ o ' F AA ’I . ~ 't ' .wv. l.:--' 4 " ‘U‘ay - "-vI . l- .. “vo"' '.-~” .44- bvu"' . . ,. .AI“" .-I w “nu-t. 5"“ .‘ :vw :Pr- 1 n "".‘.-V. ~ ... . .‘O‘ A'- I. . OUOVIIQ “w" 26 . Consultant service should be structured. . Explicit goals are set at the beginning. . Roles are understood and accepted in advance of implementation. 6. Scorekeeping is made on the degree of curriculum usage from the beginning. 7. Workshops should include both principals and teachers.29 The consultants who might follow Mahan's suggestions could be from the local college or university or from the interested school system. The logical persons to fill this position in the school would be the science supervisors and Stotler has specific recommendations for the qualifications of this supervisor-consultant position. It is important that the supervisor be familiar with the recent developments in the field of science edu- cation. The consultant certainly must qualify as a superior teacher and should have at least five years of successful teaching experience in the grade levels concerned.3o Where should this in-service education be con- ducted? White, Raun, and Butts suggest that either teachers should be brought back to college campuses for Special institutes or conference-type experiences or the in-service program should be brought to the teacher in her classroom. Neither of these alternatives, however, 29 pp. 5-6. Mahan, "Guidelines for Curriculum Installers," . 30Donald W. Stotler, "The Supervision of the Science Program," in Rethinking_Science Education, Fifty- Ninth Yearbook of the NationaIIScoeity fOr the Study of Education, ed. by Donald W. Stotler (Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 227. .1“':'. qt- I '.v. ' . I v- . ne'VI‘ ‘e l" ':c. I .V ,4 ‘ I ”U. "_ I'Ivoav‘ ‘ ' wo‘vt" 'A 40" "n‘ ,_ 4 .. pt» Levi. u: Inca. S: ‘90! .o» nuaA h; n \ luv .0- V. .‘.Ip.' R- . o F A re-nv. ‘JM u r "a cw ""5 UVAJ» II '3"‘ rav- -' ~"".Vu. ';’Poup.\ I, v n- . 9 VI...» . I No, q INVC C. Q“. 27 is mentioned as the superior method.“ While listing the cmnmcteristics of a well-planned long-range program of in-service education, Meil indicated that some of the hrservice instruction should take place on the college andtuuyersity campuses and some of it should be offered bathe local community. Since neither the college nor flmelocal school setting is specifically recommended for fluzsite of in-service training, it may be assumed that efither location.may have advantages for a certain set of circumstances . A variety of suggestions has been offered to mflye some of the problems of in-service education, but manmntion has been made of the source of the resource personnel necessary to direct and support the changes. NSF Support The need for updating education, particularly in the area of science, was realized not only by educators bmt also by the scientists. Consequently it is not sur- EHiSing to learn that scientists have been instrumental in the development of many of the current science edu- cation programs in both the elementary and secondary schools. Both scientists and educators have worked 31White, Raun, and Butts, "Contrasting patterns 0f In-Service," p. 13. 32Miel, "New Patterns of In-Service," p. 93. sssss :CZSL CA1 teas.“ er . masis On t5" .: went (I :5881JVI :CICC goth effcrLS SCI-33158 as a "c. :Ef-r sefit‘f“ Ins I“ the law of the ::::ebasis of a r. :fgarticip nts in ...1 utes s 2;; a .ea chers a..d a 55-115 to be little 3?: :ffer ed sic inif Iliie the Rational serous in-servi ce D l (‘f 3e (level-32,." ism . ' Hence educatu Some of the “33.11031 realize £33 .. “I SUPPOl’t HILLS :I‘:C:c " ‘- =~Ill imnlen 28 together to make federal projects which support education rmne effective. The major areas of two of the federal guojects concerned with improving education are reported by Tanner. The major emphasis of the first effort (NSF) has been on teachers, subject matter, and methods, and emphasis on the second (NDEA) has been on students and equipment (materials). Of no small importance to both efforts was the legal designations of "critical area" for the nation's science as a defense-~thus making change in science curriculum the law of the land.33 On the basis of a report by Goodlad, the testimonials of participants in "NDEA--and NSF--Supported Workshops and Institutes suggested significant rejuvenation of There many teachers and an envigorated profession." Seems to be little doubt that these federal programs hEixreeoffered significant support to American education. Since the National Science Foundation not only supports nLlInerous in-service education activities but also has funded the development of many of the current programs in Science education, it will be discussed in more detail. Some of the administrators at the National Science Foundation realized that, in addition to developing pro- grams, support must be given to the schools to insure s tl<==<2essful implementation. One of the first attempts \ pt) 33Laurel N. Tanner, "Curriculum Change in Science: 196‘“) er and Process," Educational Leadership, XXVI (March, Ch; 5’) , 575. (Hereinafter referred to asiyburriculum ange.n) 34Goodlad, 47. "The Curriculum," p. ‘ - onf‘wrt " virzatl’fin 5“?- ’,' .nA '2 for 9: 5....9v3 '00 “.365 over p ‘- _' .nw'“fe . ...t." ,3: .1 ,.:ou:oers..d5 The I.» 'Ar-r: * f‘ " -:=..:....::. that pearsw 3.::'-‘e:e at a curric: 3 f are .0 support CO? 72.25 stated that " Ea"ai'.a'r.le funds K6: 3;; developed cur r i : :yspcnsored by 0:: major-and by t':. 2531515 and educa’ in; the decisions 52 5.219! that winil :Et‘iv“ . . -.:2. SESSlQn for; M... ‘ l.“i.‘a * . . he .he hatic \ 3S 1:“. a GatEWQoC “in, p. 375 o ¥ 29 at implementation support was in 1962 when NSF "prOVided more than $100,000.00 for the purpose of holding nine regional conferences over the United States for School administrators."35 The result of this effort is not known . More recently Fontaine reported some of the Concerns of the National Science Foundation staff during a Symposium on School Science in Boston, Massachusetts. He cautioned that personnel at the National SCience Foun- dation were at a curriculum crossroad and they would not How- Cmutinue to support certain areas of education. . a proportionate increase in ever , he stated that " the available funds was needed for implementation of newly developed curriculum materials (NSF sponsored and tho Se Sponsored by others) into the school systems of the Nation--and by the democratic process whereby the Sc"hi—elitists and educators in colleges and school systems ..36 m Elke the decisions as how best to accomplish this. So on after that Winter, in a paper presented to a jOint 9e IIetl:al session for the National Science Teachers Assoc1- at - 1011 and the National Association for Research in \ "Improving Science Edu- cat - 5Gatewood and Osburn, :Lon," p. 375. "Federal Programs for the " Science 111;) 6Thomas D. Fontaine, Equ J:‘Ovement of School Science and Mathematics, I:.‘<=ation, LIV (July-September, 1970), 209. (Hereinafter eII':re to as "Federal Programs.") ’’’’’’ ‘ I W P R” ‘ ”LN ‘ h " ' u 33:: .eaw» ,I Ninter t .21.:21 Science Fe :5 fiscal year 196 ""e aisle spre I In... rials is o: .5. owl-l . t I: ...£.€IE O. €.-I DEC-05.133130: l "‘i‘hr in com “honvb 23c groviomg " c , 2., 131.33 05. tilt: egaaSis by t: ;::;:a:s has take: :3:;:;i:es, and wc a: 549;." , .......mg hays tr 252515650015 in . :o. A, ""V‘u . It is a C acciologists that 15 a more profit: The feeling seem. Ilz'e than an in." A: L, t..e 24th 2mm ““Jtiu hm :eitiefi‘s Joint .971) Aisoc: i a 30 Science Teaching, made a statement similar to that of Humaine. Winter took the following quote from the national Science Foundation's 19th Annual Report for the fiscal year 1969. While wide spread adoption of NSF--Supported course materials is one indication of their success, the problem of effective use of materials is a matter of continuing concern. Since the new materials differ in content and approach, training of teachers and providing assistance to schools in the implemen- tation of these materials have been given increased emphasis by the Foundation. The attempt at assisting implementation of the science PrOgrams has taken the form of NSF--Supported conferences, irisstitutes, and workshops. The present concern is that <31? finding ways to most efficiently train personnel to Eissssist.schools in their efforts to upgrade science edu- Cation. Team Training It is a commonly held belief among educators and Sc><=iologists that training of teams of resource personnel i.ss E1 more profitable venture than training individuals. The feeling seems to exist that a team may be more effec- ‘tuir‘u'ee than an individual where leadership is involved. 1‘12‘ ‘the 24th Annual Conference of the Association for £3 I"111:3(ex-vision and Curriculum Development, Muriel Crosby \\ 11:1 37Stephen S. Winter, "Science Curriculum Reform NA the United States and Abroad" (paper presented at the Te S'I'wAETS Joint General Sessions for the National Science Q11ers Association 19th Annual Convention, March 26-30, Isaaea. :741.), p. 5. (Mimeographed.) ‘ ..‘ 9c : Vie IESu‘” ,.-f';‘ y. 'u '. .v ,- u r‘ --":.'e‘ o a ‘y' .3.- -:sa: process whic 2:3, and princ ipa ism that the 1 reszning is giv n A rationab 12;:5, institutes, $523.0 in a var finese statement 3376:: by C rtwr workshop no‘. ascng the par‘ afirm resolvl senderful in heme? The tr isn‘t share h of changing 0 things is dis perh ;s not \ iifference ir 990919. Shari: Him. he coulc Sequences of emotional an. to training - 223:er that .. Muriel sews. BeCOIEir‘" ‘4’ Ed- by Rc 310: e H 2 5 Or 3925631) 31 reported the results of a study of fifteen articles characterizing leadership. A common thread running through the articles was, " . . . that supervision is a team process which usually includes teachers, super- visor, and principal."38 These statements generally indicate that the team concept is a good one but little reasoning is given to support the statements. A rationale for teams, particularly in work- sh0ps, institutes, and special training courses, can be found in a variety of sources. One of the earliest 01? “these statements, discussing the advantages of teams, is given by Cartwright. A.workshop not infrequently develops a keen interest among the participants, high morale and enthusiasm, and a firm resolve on the part of many to apply all the wonderful insights back home. But what happens back home? The trainee discovers that his colleagues don't share his enthusiasm. He learns that the task of changing others' expectations and ways of doing things is discouragingly difficult. He senses, perhaps not very clearly, that it would make all the difference in the world if only there were a few 'people sharing his enthusiasm and insights with ‘whom he could plan his activities, evaluate con- sequences of efforts, and from whom he could gain emotional and motivational support. The approach to training which conceives of its task as being merely that of changing the individual probably \ Cc: _ 38Muriel Crosby, "The New Supervisor: Caring, Sniping, Becoming," in Changing Supervision for Changing at:lr‘€3£s, ed. by Robert R. Leeper (washington, D.C.: Associ- p 1011 for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969) , ‘5 "misses film-Ia. .ciC‘TEET.t in aS 1 acre oositive r85 -519 fact that ass3ei that this st ) 1 '. and feeling. 2:335. However. hi 3";by Lippitt, i We found that l; difference in t were to be trai to be trained a workshop howevt isolates were ( the workshop, \ of strong trai: We do not have be quite certa ACClVlty over such better f: the effect of of a 's‘not in It Produced a team provided of its mefi‘ber this basis of C .1. i I .a. teams are r The Stilt}, "iih to e trainir. 32 produces frustration, demoralization, and disillu- sionment in as large a measure as it accomplishes more positive results.39 Due to the fact that no study is referred to it is assumed that this statement represents Cartwright's opinion and feeling, probably based on personal exper- iences. However, he later mentioned the results of a study by Lippitt, in which team training was examined. We found that before the workshop there was no difference in the activity level of the people who were to be trained as isolates and those who were to be trained as teams. Six months after the workshop however, those who had been trained as isolates were only slightly more active than before the workshop, whereas those who had been members of strong training teams were now much more active. we do not have evidence on the point, but we would be quite certain that the maintenance of heightened activity over a long period of time will also be much better for members of teams. For the isolates, the effect of the workshop had the characteristic of a "shot in the arm" while for the team member it produced a more enduring change because the team provided continuous support and reinforcement of its members. 2 (>11 ‘the basis of Cartwright's report it may be assumed tlllétt "teams are more effective than individuals." The study conducted by Lippitt was concerned VVEiPtzh.the training of personnel to improve community relations. The size of the teams selected for Lippitt's £3"t:-‘|..‘1dy is a factor of special interest. \ 5; 39Dorwin Cartwright, "Achieving Change in PeOple: Rama Applications of Group Dynamics Theory ," Human “—-__~§£Eign§, IV (1951), 386. 4oIbid. 'czts of six or t:.;ties. . . . c a q .r ;:E':ELC;:1€..t O . . . v A ""unities f. o vgm... ”if. It was 3 mam ~ bun-I . , . Inn ‘ H "“"I t..e to '3.“ 3:- real tear: the far as back-her Mali aPPEP‘r fr: :2: of nerbers tin-attly more €53 tinfortration re? gran. Analysis 5 jSithesis that ' :trznity action t glazing and learr :2; setting, does significances will IES'Lt of the tra iéfcze a statemen iasecl on Lippitt‘ zeal and the type least imp-lied. In descrj its :9“- Specific 5:31 , q the SyStem tr 41 {V Y! Reflall; ““5“ Ycrk \- . V ‘ har; b 33 Teams of six or seven were recruited from four com- . As far as could be perceived, little munities. . . deve10pment of any team structure took place in the communities from which two or three representatives It was decided that they could be grouped came. with the "community isolates" as persons who had no real team membership, but were on their own as far as back-home initiative was concerned.41 It would appear from this statement that some minimum .number of members is required before a team becomes sig- .1 Ilificantly more effective than an individual, although In) information regarding the optimum size of a team was Analysis for the data confirmed Lippitt's is“ g iven . . being trained as a member of a tqylpothesis that " (:CDmnmunity action team, with opportunities for strategy Planning and learning of team work skills in the train- erig; setting, does greatly increase the probability that Significances will be exerted in the community as a 42 It would seem then that result of the training." before a statement, such as the one Cartwright made based on Lippitt's study could be made, the size of the tzeeéaxn and the type of effect should be reported or at 1 ea st implied . In describing the effects of team training, Miles as more speCific in his description of selection process and the system to be effected. \\ 41 ( Jew York: Ronald Lippitt, Training in Community Relations Harper and Brothers Publishers, I949), p. 213. 421bid., p. 220. In this a; 3:33? (for em Siiice e650?" .Ii‘f from the: trier t1”? "IC‘P US$31-» fee: irs Cl: e .723" Other. . ~A35‘4cts in "UV LOVIN- 5‘.“ I: e effec... 1:; their abi 2t :rkshcp seti LECf cons; ltan‘ :v-urq L'AI hut- booe same SC :5: =.~‘~ e....ers fror' 32'011 two c within each ricelun inst Charge is be teachers. CESiC gllid a ad nearly 34 In this approach, the members of an intact work group (for example, the superintendent and his central office personnel) meet for a period of several days away from their offices, with consultant help. . . . Under these circumstances, the members of the group usually improve their abilities to express feelings directly and to listen to and to understand each other. . . . The members also deal with internal conflicts in the team, and learn to solve problems more effectively as a unit, thus presumably increas- ing their ability to meet the demands placed upon them by the other parts of the system.43 O'Rourke suggested a list of areas for study in ' tune workshop setting and among them were the effective use of consultant service and the value of having teams from the same school attend workshops.44 Mahan indi- 2,. cated that consultants would prefer to work with teams of teachers from a school. Enroll two or more teachers per each grade level within each innovating school engaged in a cur- riculum installation effort. The challenge of change is better accepted when shared among teachers. . . . In a 1969-70 survey, 517 pilot and demonstration teachers rated the assistance of fellow teachers almost as valuable as the basic guidance provided by the curriculum syllabus, and nearly equivalent to the assistance inherent in the preparatory workshops.45 43Matthew B. Miles, "Planned Change and Organi- fational Health: Figure and Ground," in Change Processes ~2rEEL__Public Schools, ed. by Richard O. Carlson, et aI. lirtlgene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of ‘3’ ‘Llcational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965), - 28. Eijb: 44Mary A. O'Rourke and William H. Burton, WOrk- 'if‘-IELES for Teachers (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, :lc., 1957), p. 13. g; 45Mahan, "Guidelines for Curriculum Installers," ‘ lz. from the Sta: “ 1 rpafent .15 9:: ;...e a ire effect.”e i ~i;;-;.:";ais. however . I ,4. has been Used . 4 q ‘ '. garticuiar awan Most of ‘1'“ mishaps, institu‘. 2e associated wit. 312% may of the 1 atation today ar as associated wi‘ ‘5. apply to resc 1‘. these worksho ass;stance to Cl 1:. activity of In repc :3: my. .e. .ice educ .I.‘ “'6‘ L b the dflOURt 35 From the statements in this section it would seem quite apparent that under certain conditions teams are more effective in bringing about change than are individuals, however, whether team selection and training as it has been used in Resource Personnel WOrkshops has any particular advantage should be examined more closely before any definitive statements can be made. Behavioral Changes Related to In-Service Training Most of the reports concerning the successes of workshops, institutes, and in-service training programs are associated with the training of teachers. However, since many of the consultants and resource personnel in education today are, or were, teachers, factors which are associated with successes with teacher workshops may apply to resource personnel in general. The success of these workshops is often measured in terms of their assistance to curriculum implementation and the change in activity of teachers in their classroom. In reporting a study of various patterns of in-service education, White, Raun, and Butts indicate that the amount of science training and the background of teachers seems to have a significant effect on the teacher education program. They report that no relation- Skfir>seems to exist between the amount of teaching experience and the teachers' competency in science, but ngViC-US science .;::;air.s made dur i: 7:5 sagports the i as provides a grea Lila: stud' , Butts :getercy in scien: _::a::ice of the cur; fir results hickshank, and Fr; reported above Cont :ofimrconpetency 153393935. the ant: :3er0f Years o: «.-;‘.h improved qua; Another f I a Person‘s Per 33“? :3: v \ 3: I“ “Write, ' “Service , n 36 that previous science training is an asset associated with gains.made during in-service education programs. ”This supports the inference that an extensive knowledge "46 In a base provides a greater potential for change. similar study, Butts and Raun also found that a teacher's competency in science was positively associated with her practice of the curriculum innovation.47 The results of a study reported by Barnes, yea Cruickshank, and Foster conflict with the findings reported above concerning teaching experience and teacher competency. In this study of mathematics teachers, the authors reported that an increase in the number of years of teaching experience was associated with improved quality of arithmetic instruction.48 Another factor which seems to be closely related to a person's performance is age. Lehman studied the patterns of achievement in various occupations and found that very outstanding performances generally occurred 46White, Raun, and Butts, "Contrasting Patterns of In-Service," p. 17. 47David P. Butts and Chester E. Raun, "A Study of Teacher Change," Science Education, LIII (February, 1969), 8. (Hereinafter referred to as "Teacher Change.") 48Kenneth Barnes, Raymond Cruickshank, and James lFoster, "Selected Educational and Experience Factors sand Arithmetic Teaching," The Arithmetic Teacher, VII (December, 1960), 420. ‘22: life is ll gated that for "293.15. from 35 siiffi:.it to U age a: the activi 32::er other tha direct cont on"... and ac: “It incer tives , 23::rted the fi Tat: 'Age of t enerience SEE??- :ela:icnship Vi tiers is evider effectiveness l :erce during t lisc supportih m S‘ated th ALC 37 early in life and that the quality of the performance in later life is less than that in early years. He reported that for psychologists, the periods from age 25 to 29 and from 35 to 39 were the most productive. It is difficult to tell whether achievement is related to age or the activities that are associated with it. Factors other than age which also relate to achievement are: direct contact with younger people and new ideas, studying and acquiring new information, competition, work incentives, and incentive to take risks.49 Ryans supported the findings in Lehman's study when he stated that: "Age of the teacher and amount of teaching experience seem to manifest an over-all negative relationship with teaching effectiveness, although there is evidence of a curvilinearity, increase in effectiveness being positively correlated with exper- ience during the early years of teaching careers."50 Also supporting this relationship is a report by Eliena who stated that teaching effectiveness seems to rise 49Lehman, cited by Gordon J. Klopf, "Helping Adults Change," in The Supervisor: New Demands, New Dimensions, ed. by William H. Lucio (waShington, D.C.: Assoc1ation for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969), p. 22. 50David G. Ryans, "Prediction of Teacher Effec- tiiveness," Engyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: Macmfllan Co., 1960), p. 1,490. ‘I. 13"- ! Ir- I r' * intne 11:5. 'L' ;'.at" v u, -.':"l Still mre e ace is associat ''''' Z::.:'fatorS 3‘59 3:5 L655 1156;} :ractices Wite‘i tecretical CIC irrovat ive . 52 Ryans repc: :5 teacher charact i: not contradict :eazhers who recei A“. r... behaviors we: , . at" .' assessments . :a teasers wit ages of 35 and 49 :.if:rr.ly low ass $59.53 No co: 133“": ' vyatgrs with a SECS“ . "flail teacne its}..- ‘ n (“We Proce a; “OOH, 9* 1.":‘n \. 4 “My" \ if Oreid Stun] I .. :0 * 'm; “I 1963 L 38 rapidly in the first years of teaching and then level 51 Off. Still more evidence in support of the hypothesis that age is associated with achievement is given by Rogers. He makes the statement that: Innovators are generallyyyoung. Since the young are less likely to be conditioned by traditional practices within the established culture, there are theoretical grounds for expecting them to be more innovative.5 Ryans reported the results of an extensive study of teacher characteristics which somewhat qualify but do not contradict his earlier statement. In this study teachers who received high assessments of observed class- room behaviors were compared with teachers who received low assessments. At the elementary level, he reported that teachers with high assessments were between the ages of 35 and 49 and the elementary teachers receiving uniformly low assessments were between the ages of 50 53 and 59. No correlation was given for the secondary teachers with a high assessment, but Ryans reported that secondary teachers with a uniformly low assessment were 51Butts and Raun, "Teacher Change," p. 4. 52Everett M. Rogers, "What Are Innovators Like?" in Change Processes in the Public Schools, ed. by Richard O. Caflson, et a1. (Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965), p. 58. (Hereinafter referred to as "What Are Innovators?") 53David G. Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers (Menasha, Wisconsin: George Banta Co., Inc., 1960), p . 353. LL 5 rv :: 7:315 0‘ 35 e or c granary and seccr :32; of 40 to 49 y! "““t of obser 2:2:3-5“ 3:: of 55 and 013 Several 5t; relationship “is“ 1:23: of science 1 gazis-n concern ' 39 :felenentary SCie 1;;‘1 aspirations t :.e Zactors of ag ‘ :aie little differ Li was therefore 57 «w. Taylor Seated teacher .Lr:Pfl '~*-~:95, reporte“. 5:?“ L :: UEtWEEn (3:0. «.1: the number c 39 54 When the combined group of 55 years of age or older. elementary and secondary teachers was examined the age group of 40 to 49 years old was given the uniformly high assessment of observed classroom behavior55 and the age group of 55 and older was given uniformly low assess- ments.56 Several studies indicate that no significant relationship exists between the age of teachers and the amount of science taught. Piltz reported an investi- gation concerning the difficulties encountered by teachers of elementary science. He indicated that teachers with high aSpirations tended to teach more science but that the factors of age, degrees, certificates, and salary, made little difference in the aspirations of the teachers and was therefore not related to the amount of science 57 Taylor, in a study of the relationship between taught. selected teacher characteristics and associated student changes, reported that there was no significant relation- ship between growth of science interests in the students and the number of years their science teachers had taught. 54Ibid., p. 357. 551bid., p. 358. 561bid., p. 359. 57Albert Piltz, "An Investigation of Teacher- ;Recognized Difficulties Encountered in the Teaching of £3cience in the Elementary School of Florida," Science Education, XLII (December, 1958), 443. -..;v 15‘ Ly, he r890: -;'=:icns‘nip be W99- :ghgngf'ent and tue . 58 =::.e:s. When planni ‘v' '=: the positi e a szzei and that tra; :leanning the in :e :axinun teache 5;;gests that in-s Li tollowing gr; 1C 1. Identify ' concerns 2. Utilize t concerns service ;. 3. Provide a inform C: relevan 4- Guarante» terns.59 SLEEIMES Such teachers, but i: Emma Person: Ems Of High 5 ram! (Lin u; re College 59 Loni Ev: SUCCQsz Cul LeaderSl “ \E‘I X“ . I 40 Similarly, he reported that there was no significant relationship between the students' growth in science achievement and the amount of experience of their teachers.58 When planning a training program Waynant suggests that the positive aspects of trainees should be empha- sized and that trainees should be involved in all stages of planning the in-service education program. So that the maximum teacher involvement may be obtained, Waynant suggests that in-service work be planned according to the following guidelines: 1. Identify teachers' strengths, interests, and concerns through observation and discussion. 2. Utilize teachers' strengths, interests, and concerns in planning and conducting the in- service program. 3. Provide a feedback system whereby teachers can inform consultants if information is useful, relevant, and clear enough for implementation. 4. Guarantee consultant results in performance terms.59 Guidelines such as those suggested by Waynant would be useful not only in planning in-service programs for teachers, but in the planning and presentation of resource personnel or leadership training workshops as well. —__ 58T. wayne Taylor, "Relationships Between Achieve- nmnts of High School Science Students and Their Science Teacher" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, North Texas State College, 1957), p. 76. 59Louise F. waynant, "Teachers' Strengths: Basis for Successful In-Service Experiences," Educational Leadership, XXVII (April, 1971), 711. C 1 Because 0. . "'norcgrans hart; iggiar with factc - O * 'WF‘l-Oll eftor.s. gum-u- sane tine that * 5533525225 the char 5.52.5 be increase 23:15.15 mentioned efforts of schools cational Programs, Experienced t: replacements ;- Seeded equip?” is not distri distributed e and administr lation of sci Teachers and sessions to a problems are are introducs and connitrtef Ynastered.60 TWO add; nations as char 41 Because of his experiences with implementation of new programs Mahan has had the chance to become familiar with factors which both help and hinder imple- mentation efforts. If problems could be eliminated at the same time that new and innovative ideas are being introduced the chances of successful implementation should be increased. Elimination of the following problems mentioned by Mahan could greatly help the change efforts of schools wishing to try some of the new edu- cational programs. Experienced teachers leave the school, and their replacements are not trained to use the curriculum. Needed equipment is not ordered; available equipment is not distributed to the appropriate teachers; distributed equipment is not always used. Teachers and administrators have not planned for the articu- lation of science exercises from grade to grade. Teachers and principal do not feel that faculty sessions to assess progress and resolve reoccurring problems are necessary. Other innovative practices are introduced that compete for the teachers' time and commitment before previous innovations are mastered.50 Two additional generalizations which Rogers mentions as characteristic of innovation include status and the cosmopolitan atmosphere. He states that "inno- vators have relatively high social status, in terms of amount of education, prestige ratings, and income."61 60James H. Mahan, "Notes from a Consultant's .Ddary: Concerns for Elementary School Innovations," The ,Eflementary School Journal, LXXI (April, 1971), 374. 61Rogers, "What Are Innovators," p. 58. L tags 1085 on to S: 'n .. 5.5:: he means t‘“ r . "z: ‘IOZL ‘mPeISOR 515:5 are. for the t ‘ 62 «'3‘, SVSZEIU- Both the C1 55;:azion programs 51:51:; innovation 55-: to be direct‘. stance training 5 121;, the amount misread might '. training in a res :55 science progr Age and i Variable which h relation to perf Personnel as we‘; ber‘afaictor in a Raise of acti', “Crkshop, SinC5 :‘e w W tile training. -L ,n' 5w.) id be imle: x ”“9 for t: \ 42 Rogers goes on to state that innovators are cosmopolite. By this he means that they obtain information and new ideas from impersonal sources such as the mass media which are, for the most part, outside of the innovators' social system.62 Both the changes which occurred in teachers during education programs and the amount of practice of cur- riculum innovations they demonstrated in the classroom seem to be directly related to the amount of previous science training or their science competency. Simi- larly, the amount of science in a resource person's background might well be related to his activity after training in a resource personnel workshop on one of the new science programs. Age and factors associated with it is another variable which has been mentioned by several people in relation to performance. If this applies to resource personnel as well as to teachers then age may, indeed, be a factor in selecting participants with the greatest promise of activity after attending a resource personnel workshop. Since none of the literature referred directly to the training of resource personnel the relationship Should be investigated further before any implications are made for these people. 621bid. The atti .395 as the 5 rages 153'] aff :55xaticn ti” 555 new prograr 55:5er in the: ' 1 ~ .. 55.: I“... u I I affect the ads :5555 of these Butts felt were assc 35§tion of an results of th; 12 science, a ‘35 Significa sf the Curric Waite, Raun, the relatiOns 3:. the cUrri< EVide QIEater é Promote 5 t9 CIEatg View of 1 \ 63 But 43 Perception and Behavior The attitudes that peOple form about such trivial things as the shape of a catsup bottle or the color of oranges may affect the consumption of these products. In education the impression that people have regarding the new programs may be influenced by a variety of factors in their background and their perception, in turn, may influence the use and support of an innovation. The way that people perceive innovations may greatly affect the adoption of innovations and the diffusion rates of these new ideas. Butts and Raun studied four factors which they felt were associated with a teacher's change in per- ception of an innovation and the practice of it. The results of this study indicated that teacher's competence in science, as well as her previous teaching experience, was significantly related to a change in her perception of the curriculum innovation.63 In a similar study White, Raun, and Butts also provided some insight into the relationship between science training and perception of the curriculum innovation. Evidence from this study indicates that a greater amount of previous science training will promote a more positive value of science but tend to create a negative evaluation of a community' 8 view of the curriculum innovation. . . . 63Butts and Raun, "Teacher Change," p. 8. KL“ 1 Previous sc; 55:52:55 a teacm be involved in 5 fetuses on so 15:: 2'2553‘5 Butts and 1:555:55: contr ib- £:.:5restir.g to r 5 szienee knowledg :555 perception a is 'active' phase .5 55555 of actiw ?55 is centered :5: teachers wit filtselves less '1 2555559,: of inf rterpretatioh t has: .Ef'urs to be 1 44 Previous science training does appear to enhance a teacher's attitude toward wanting to be involved in a curriculum innovation that focuses on science.64 Although Butts and Raun found that science competence and course work contributed to a change in perception, it is interesting to note: " . . . that with an increase in science knowledge there is a corresponding decrease in the perception a teacher has of his involvement in the 'active' phase of teaching science. . . . "65 Since the focus of activity in the new elementary science pro- grams is centered on the student, Butts and Raun suggest that teachers with greater knowledge of science may see themselves less involved in their previous roles as a 66 The number of course hours presenter of information. completed in science correlated significantly but nega- tively with the teachers' perception of the impact of the scientist and of the curriculum innovation. Their interpretation of this finding is that "the teacher appears to be less critical of the curriculum innovation, Science--A Process Approach, if she has had fewer formal . . 67 courses in college sc1ence." 64White, Raun, and Butts, "Contrasting Patterns of In-Service," p. 17. 65Butts and Raun, "Teacher Change," p. 5. 66 67 Ibid., p. 7. Ibid. '7’— 555. In an artic 55:555. Russel ar 255555555 that t ' “ ‘ a b ‘ k :55: sngesed The oide (or teacher) 1‘. the schoc Teacher ience are r: ther teac'r 91,. :I'Al'fin . m: .l.5L.“,\js 0 335111185525 pr 129.5551 repo: Erich variab] itgreater gai: 155.25”: :5 Vho 5.53 mention... E"Périehce ar senviCe PrOg: 3‘1. ‘ if" they do 1 \ 68 . A! . m'fla 055.35..” }‘Y,h (ILLS Innc NV iJanuary, .: Whit a In'Service. 7 45 Attitude and perception of science innovations seem to be related to age and years of teaching exper- ience. In an article discussing obstructions to inno- vations, Nussel and Johnson conclude their article with hypotheses that they feel should be tested. Two of these suggested hypotheses are that: The older the chronological age of the principal (or teacher) the less receptive he is to innovation in the school. Teachers with more than fifteen years of exper- ience are more likely to discourage innovations by other teachers.68 The findings of White, Butts, and Raun would qualify the hypotheses proposed by Nussel and Johnson. White, Butts, and Raun reported that "in six of the thirty-six cri- terion variables of the Semantic Differential there was a greater gain in the teacher's attitude for those 69 They teachers who had previous teaching experience." also mentioned that "teachers with more previous teaching experience are more perceptive of the impact of an in- service program and their active involvement in it."70 But, they do not mention whether this increased perception is a positive or a negative factor. In addition to hours 68Edward J. Nussel and Mildred Johnson, "Who Obstructs Innovation?" Journal of Secondary Education, XLIV (January, 1969), 10. 69White, Raun, and Butts, "Contrasting Patterns of In-Service," p. 17. 7OIbid. . c ,1 “”‘Etency 1“ V bib": ""I’PY'S previous -‘~-e's;on that is : "areacher's per: Numerous g attitude on teache :5: be found. But “waived changes 55. e in She beco: ib)She acquj to EXpec1 (5)5he gain: CUrricul- :55}: state also cation and praC 555:5.ers when tk 35mg other thiz Asizilar state: t5 use a techni-z 551555.34 The -5 perception . assented to ii the informatio; 46 and competency in science, Butts and Raun state that a teacher's previous teaching experience is also a dimension that is significantly related to a change in a teacher's perception of a curriculum innovation.71 Numerous general statements about the effect of attitude on teachers' acceptance and use of new programs can be found. Butts and Raun indicate that a teacher perceived changes in her behavior as desirable if: (a) She becomes familiar with the innovation. (b) She acquires experience so that she knows what to expect from student's reSponses. (c) She gains self-confidence in working with the curriculum innovation.72 They state also that the greatest change in both per- ception and practice of an innovation will occur in teachers when the in-service training program included, among other things, a relevance to classroom practice.73 A similar statement was made by Rubin. "The willingness to use a technique is inseparable from attitude and belief."74 The list of general statements about attitudes and perception could go on and on but enough has been presented to illustrate the point. Fox sums up much of the information reported up to this point with a simple paragraph. 71Butts and Raun, "Teacher Change," p. 8. 72 73 Ibid., p. 3. Ibid., p. 8. 74Louis J. Rubin, "The Self-Evolving Teacher," in Improving In-Service Education: Proposals and Procedures fbr‘Change, ed.—by Louis J. Rubin (Boston, Mass.: Allyn andiBacon, Inc., 1971). P. 269. .. ' r father or “C the: believe 5555'. t0 be t: whether or m set. If the change or an in ovation i 3:.5':aticns in E easier of fac‘ 5.:5itive teache 5555555551 inpi aresource per- ail". be transf aresource per ixPected to 535 '45?- a person P333512. Thi it: needs to 15 some disae the dilOugt 0 :EPQORS of fifscnnel a1 47 How teachers feel about the proposed innovation, whether or not they accept it, and whether or not they believe it is superior to the present practice seem to be the principle factors in determining whether or not an innovation will be successful or not. If the teachers do not accept a curricular change or are not prepared to practice it, the innovation is doomed to failure.75 Although the teachers' perceptions of curriculum innovations in science education seem to be related to a number of factors, it is generally agreed that a positive teacher attitude is a primary concern in the successful implementation of new programs. It may be reasonable to assume that some of the positive perceptions a resource person has for the program he is advocating will be transferred to the teachers using it. Likewise, a resource person with a positive perception might be expected to be more actively involved with a program than a person with a less positive perception of the program. This statement is only an assumption, however, and needs to be supported with research. Because there is some disagreement regarding the relationship between the amount of science background and the teachers' per- ceptions of the innovations, this relationship in resource personnel also deserves further study. 751bid. ,5. In an ‘ . ‘ 2:555 2555: o a": r ,. :3 :Cr.5.ueb e ..... q 5 a "' ..Ou 0‘ . I ‘ swim tile 5.... but 'fi,‘ ‘ 9 II . I .2» .U'Llow » ‘ '71 IAF"~es ' t is nc or curr: WWW? m 2’. VB. Au ML . .558 Sta 5‘ 05.39! S tn“ all ‘1' b C" a V» 'a‘oc‘, ‘bAL C practices a }‘ 5 "3» he doe 9f reasoni 48 Methods and Suggestions for Evaluation In education as in many other fields changes are often based on very subjective judgments. Schools which are considered to be the educational leaders in a given section of a state may try the latest innovation to maintain their reputation as leaders. Other schools may follow this lead in an attempt to "keep up with the Joneses." Frymier states that: It is not uncommon, for example, for superintendents or curriculum directors to urge adoption of some new program "because most of the best schools have it." The stated assumption, of course, is that "the other schools must have examined the program care- fully before they tried it, so why should we?"75 Frymier does not advocate this rationale for diffusion since the same type of reasoning would also support such practices as crime, prostitution, and discrimination. But he does indicate that changes are based on this type of reasoning more often than they should.77 Another feeling that may be too common in today's educational institutions is that all change is good. Fox criticizes this type of reasoning by stating that . . . too often changes and innovations are auto- matically considered to be improvements; conse- quently, no method of evaluating an innovation is established at the time of its adoption. As a 76Jack R. Frymier, Fostering Educational Change (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrilf Publishing Co., 1969), p. 21. 77 Ibid. vI",.‘lfil wan-a II. ”no. IT“.- ..LI- .pUt- V... :55. F f .1 3V." re» ‘ 555516 'a'lt.’ I A hcse 1 h is p‘ 5.5.? r. "Vf “~ 3155:... CdRflO 1 their 7 ' 11 if“ no. "stus.a‘ ‘ let as irr In are he :ese ace: 55‘ e“ .1 \A ‘ '1‘“ . ‘ ‘ thug-1““. 49 result, much of what we know about the effectiveness of specific innovations is based upon testimonials of administrators, teachers, and students rather than upon the findings of objective studies.78 Since many of the innovative programs in science education are not only deve10ped but are supported by grants from the federal agencies, concern is expressed by some peOple that change is controlled and directed by people with too much power. One such concern is expressed by Tanner who states that: We may be delegating our long-range planning to those who give grants and who cannot really be held publicly accountable. . . . Because they have no legal connection with the educational system, those who now hold the mandate for change cannot be held accountable for the results of their efforts.79 Potentially, this could happen, but these agencies are not as irresponsible as some people might think; they too are held accountable. The concern of peOple in these agencies for sound educational practices is reflected in the type of projects which they fund. Fontaine reported that one area which NSF is funding includes: . . . studies of the educational system with emphasis on the application of scientific prin- ciples to educational processes. Of particular interest are fundamental studies of the learning process, evaluation (and development of 78Raymond B. Fox, "Innovations in Education," Illinois Education, LVIII (March, 1969), 294. 79Tanner, "Curriculum Change," p. 575. v 0‘ AF: or: ,.- .’..V‘ ::i:i:izes 5:211:35 8‘3 s::.:-:.s in 5: :rree c l. W: V 5' 51:.panr C AA~~ )1 ) a res; fixed b: etion Of these he C”'Q . s "Viv :‘H ‘vu‘ ‘ “shat: h, 1 "71 , “Jul. 5' (‘3 O \o 50 methodologies therefore) of the effect of new curricula and other changes introduced in the schools and colleges, and studies of how inno- 0 vations diffuse through the educational system. Welch praises the summer institute program as the "greatest effort of the new projects to provide assistance for effective teaching."81 However, he criticizes these institute programs for the lack of studies evaluating the achievement of their objectives. The kind of information that Welch feels would assist schools in making adoption decisions would be in answer to three questions: 1. What evidence is available that the proposed curriculum has achieved its stated objectives? 2. What evidence is available to indicate that the curriculum contributes to the general objectives of science education? 3. What evidence is available that the curriculum will be successful in my school?82 Various methods have been used to study the par- ticipants and the changes that have taken place in them as a result of the workshop. One such study was con- ducted by Merkle who examined the participants' evalu- ation of their perceived needs and how the workshop met these needs, changes in knowledge and attitude toward SCIS and AAAS elementary science curricula, attitude 80Fontaine, "Federal Programs," p. 221. 81Wayne W. Welch, "Curricular Decisions-~How Can Evaluation Assist Science Teachers?" The Science Teacher, XXXV (November, 1968), 23. 821bid. Q . “ c #1” varl ". HI”. ..... 1: addition :;i:.ions of 2:3;arative trained in a 12;. The WC fitment v srfent act: Eterials i: 83‘ IA. J canary 53L ' 08‘ t y“LCP ,"2 0f the :Etioped Sc .3313}; w. 51 toward various workshop activities, and behavioral 83 Another leadership changes following the workshop. workshop reported by Maertens and Schminke was evaluated with a questionnaire in which the participants were asked: (a) Were you able to use information and techniques received? (b) Is the idea of a summer workshop valuable? (c) Did your attitude toward the profession become more positive? (d) Did your workshop attendance help you to fulfill your position of local leadership? 4 In addition participants were asked to write their opinions of the workshop. Wasik and Nicodemus ran a comparative study between the activity of teachers trained in a workshop and those without workshop train— ing. The workshop was not evaluated but an observation instrument was developed to evaluate teacher activities, student activities, group configurations, and use of materials in classrooms following the workshop.85 83Dale G. Merkle, "A Leadership WOrkshop on Ele- mentary School Science: An In-Depth Evaluation," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VII (June, 1970), I22-23. 84Norbert Maertens and Clarence Schminke, "Develop- ing Local Leadership," Today's Education, LVIII (February, 1969), 73. 85John L. Wasik and Robert B. Nicodemus, "A Study of the Effects of a workshop and Use of Specially Developed Science Materials on Fifth Grade Science Class- room Practices," Science Education, LIII (October, 1969), 347. :zn (r n. I be: at. $.2- ’ F-) o f "'5; ‘5; # 0-.- .. \- :aticnal cc :«i‘y n l 7‘. glue h "M r . r c 55:?" 6305 52 Suggestions for evaluation are quite numerous. This is in part due to the fact that a wide variety of training programs exist and each presents its own problems. In evaluating in-service education programs Barrows offers a list of questions which he feels could be valuable as general guidelines: 1. What information will govern decisions to revise, continue, or discontinue programs? At what point is design the strongest? . At what point is measurement the strongest? 86 . What evaluation costs will the project bear? hWN This list of questions is general enough to guide edu- cational considerations in many fields of education. Based on the examples of evaluation and suggestions for studies the conclusion seems to be that no one recom- mendation or pattern of study is appropriate. Instead, evaluation must be tailored to the individual needs of each specific situation. The one idea which has been presented again and again is that evaluation is necessary at all levels of curriculum innovation, whether it be at the curriculum development level, the implementation level, the effectiveness of a teacher in her classroom, or any place in between. 86Thomas S. Barrows, "In-Service Education Pro- grams," in Curriculum Innovations and Evaluation, ed. by Anna Dragositz (Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969), p. 85. .4 V TOua; 3:25:13 as :- .y-‘PV Of :38 I 0 . ‘ * ‘ .nu‘ H 3:: iwuodls " oi ;‘. tile :fcrtat‘on personnel a1 resource 96: :f workshop is Limited. selection c the criter :iat maxim gestions 1. Is In 53 Chapter Summary Today, the need for in-service education is probably as great as it has ever been. Change is the order of the day, and to keep up with new ideas, teachers and administrators need to have a continual source of current information as well as a method of incorporating it into the education system. In order to supply this information and support educational innovations resource personnel are being trained during the summer. These resource personnel have quality training and the number of workshops for the preparation of resource personnel is limited. Since not only the training but also the selection of participants for workshops must be efficient, the criteria must be supported by research findings. So that maximum use can be made of limited funds, certain questions need to be answered. 1. Is it more efficient to train teams of partici- pants or individuals? 2. What content background is beneficial to implementation efforts in specific subject matter area? 3. What effect does the perception of a program have on subsequent activity? 4. What other factors are associated with activity subsequent to the workshop? l . Liv - t ?.'Y. n- 5‘ RAW-" yv... .bl :eei to be a: "‘2" "‘r V". ‘ ‘ loud. LV‘ 5‘. 54 5. What indication is there of the quality of the resource personnel training? 6. What indication is there of the quality of the interaction of participants and the educational community subsequent to the training period? The literature indicates that these questions need to be answered and consequently they formed the l ’ 1 basis for the study. T g. — This czaracterisi Personnel in =-S: new: analysis u iéestions "9 lead: “F CHAPTER III RESEARCH PROCEDURES Overview of the Chapter This chapter contains a description of selected characteristics of the participants of the Resource Personnel WOrkshop on SCIS at Michigan State University along with descriptions of the Wbrkshop and the follow-up program. Descriptions of the instruments used in the study and the questions they were designed to answer are also included. To complete the chapter, the methods of analysis used to test the hypotheses and answer the questions are discussed. Design of the Study The National Science Foundation has been sponsor- ing leadership training workshops since 1967, but because of a lack of information concerning the participants of these workshops, no benchmark data were available on which.to base the relative success of these workshops. To correct part of the problem, this study supplies information to act as a guide for future workshops and aid in the selection of their participants. 55 .6‘ a: O 4" V‘ ll- () 56 Following the selection of participants for the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop on SCIS at Michigan State University, information was gathered to answer questions posed in the study. Each participant was requested to bring a copy of his undergraduate and graduate transcripts so that a record of his science courses could be obtained. During the workshop, data were collected which were later correlated with the dependent variable. At the beginning and again at the end of the WOrkshop, a questionnaire was administered to the participants to determine their perception of the SCIS program. The participants' knowledge of general science was measured using the Sequential Test of Educational Progress. In addition, information was gathered regarding the partici- pants' prior workshop activity and years of teaching experience as well as occupational assignment and academic degree. The dependent variable in this study, workshop activity during the follow-up period, was measured in contact hours. This information was gathered by means of feedback forms mailed monthly to Michigan State Uni- versity by each participant. After the data were collected, the activity of teams was compared with that of individuals to determine if a significant difference existed in favor of teams. The activity of the participants was then correlated, V‘, i_ L.“ I .'e ,. ,. ‘ W I." 5...!" v; \ :t;~""“ 5 ~ ‘ A! I ‘ ' z’. e U‘ If”. . . . .nrl" ..IC '. .IO' , V . n v: 2. ‘, .bfiufi' . 'A" ”I. U P‘ iQQUU“. . ""I‘Y 1. no. ' era V Uni-AF I 5" . .wpe :nt -~.¢OW‘ a. \ "N: b NIH .:~5. 9" 7“ 55"}, ‘Ce 57 with the independent variables in the study using a Pearson product-moment correlation. Following these simple correlations, the data were treated using multiple regression analysis to determine the amount of relationship that existed between each of the inde- pendent variables and the dependent variable. After completion of the Resource Personnel WOrk- shop, the participants were asked for their reactions and suggestions for improvement. At the end of the follow-up period, the participants were again asked to express their feelings about the Workshop as well as about the support and assistance from Michigan State University following the workshop. In addition, the people who attended the workshops presented during the follow-up period were surveyed for their reactions and suggestions for change or improvement. Participant Description The participants for the Resource Personnel WOrk- shop were invited from the population of college or uni- versity professors currently teaching science and/or science education courses for pre-service elementary school teachers and from elementary science consultants and science supervisors. Since it was expected that the participants would receive requests for consultation services from local school personnel, the requirement . . rs 5' 7;" M 5\ .v“. .l..'.~ ~0r; :~““ 9. u w}, A?“ .:b dun! “vodtt -.51.AL .. 5 21.-3.“. to science e fine same a: neigh} ;e:sor.r.e 'M {J 1‘! W. .‘ ‘ :u‘RW 1‘2“ ‘::" V“. RA~I n - r LV..~‘, :1 a»? e“ n 58 was made that the participants be in a position to influence science education. In addition, they were required to provide evidence in writing that their administrations would permit them to engage in consul- tation and implementation activities. No discrimination was made because of the race, creed, color, or national origin of any applicant or participant. Preference was given to applicant teams in the following order: college science educators and school science supervisors from the same geographic area, college teachers from the same or neighboring institutions, and school leadership personnel. The positions for the Workshop which were not filled with teams were completed with individual applicants. Of the thirty-one participants selected for the WOrkshop, nine attended as individuals and twenty-two as members of teams. There were two three—member teams and eight two-member teams. Each three-member team was com- posed of a college teacher and two science supervisors from the same location. Of the eight two-member teams, four were comprised of college teacher-science supervisor combinations, three were teams of two science supervisors, and one was a team of two college teachers. The thirty-one participants selected for the WorkshOp at Michigan State University ranged in age from twenty-three to fifty-six years, with an average age of ' V .s'f’. 9"” '1 ac? A: 3"" U .30 ~- - ‘ 4‘” g..‘ “2 ”n (n (I) ‘J 59 thirty-nine. The following table shows the sex and employment distribution of the participants. TABLE l.--Employment distribution of participants and sex College Consultants Science or Science Teachers Educators Coordinators Administration and Research Female 1 2 9 0 Male 8 2 4 5 All of the participants in the Resource Personnel Workshop were college graduates. Eight of the partici- pants had doctorates, eighteen had master's degrees, and five had bachelor's degrees. Collectively the participants had broad edu- cational experience. Table 2, below, shows the number of participants and the number of years of experience at three different levels of teaching: elementary, secondary, and college. TABLE 2.—-Leve1 and years of teaching experience of par- ticipants Number of Years Level l-3 4-6 7-10 11+ Elementary School 6 l 4 12 Secondary School 4 2 4 College or University 6 3 1 60 The number of years of teaching experience ranged from one to thirty-nine with a mean of thirteen years. No participants were lost across the duration of the WOrkshop and during the follow-up period, although due to a previous commitment, one participant did fail to take the perception test on the second day and the STEP test. All thirty-one participants took the per- ception test on the nineteenth day of the Workshop and all thirty-one responses were used in the analysis. Of the 360 questionnaires sent to people who attended workshops presented by the participants during the follow-up period, only 145 were returned. The poor response to this instrument limited the conclusions which could be drawn from this data. The Resource Personnel WOrkshop on SCIS at Michigan State University was one of four SCIS leader- ship workshops held during the summer of 1971 under National Science Foundation grants. Workshops similar in intent but different in content and methodology were held at Kansas State Teachers College, Emporia, Kansas; San Francisco State College, San Francisco, California: and Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Description of Evaluation and’MethOHOIOgy Before the workshop could be presented, a number of plans and arrangements needed to be made. Applications Q 1" | 35 initial” Sexual 3550; {.32 at the 1* 32:53.39 thr: \ ‘;:.-’~ *Pe "Vice“: bu p u- “... ‘ ' answers “5, . v Etarials . S; that it :6 W035i “939 regi ’ . l \ PEIOchia Cf thESe 61 were initially sent to the complete membership of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching also at the request of people who became aware of the workshop through the National Science Foundation brochure listing the summer workshops and institutes. Applications also were available at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching and the National Science Teachers Association Conventions where final recruitment for the summer Wbrkshop was carried out. In addition to arranging for participants, the actual WOrkshop required considerable planning. Physical materials were purchased and live material was ordered so that it would arrive at the appropriate time during the WOrkshop. Children for micro-teaching activities were registered in advance and arrangements were made for orientation and implementation conferences to be set up throughout the state of Michigan. To announce the orientation conferences, brochures were mailed to all elementary school principals, both public and parochial, in the state of Michigan. The net result of these efforts was four, one-day orientation conferences located at Traverse City, Grand Rapids, Saginaw, and Flint. So that all of the participants could have a Chance to conduct workshops before leaving the Michigan State University Campus, four, three-day implementation cxnlferences were arranged for teachers in school systems _‘.o " V ‘3; IE: .',_. Q“'C -_,C 9".” ' . no:' F" 4n~““" ‘ I. qua- H: F ”.Uoo‘b“ 4 ~ “ u-nny‘ r' DI ' d‘v'V-Oy‘ ‘Fb . h 1‘". ngafu. 62 that were presently using or planning on implementing the SCIS program. These conferences were located at Lansing, Benton Harbor, West Branch, and Detroit, Michigan. The Resource Personnel Workshop can best be described on the basis of the activities which took place during each of the four weeks. The activities of the first week were probably more critical to the success of the entire WOrkshop than were those of any other portion of the summer program. The participants were greeted on the night of their arrival with an informal reception so that they could meet the Workshop staff and get acquainted with their fellow participants. On the first day, the participants were officially welcomed to the Michigan State University Campus and formally introduced to the SCIS program. Starting with the first day and continuing throughout the week the participants performed the exercises from the physical science units. The content of these units was placed partially in perspective by having the participants view a demonstration class conducted by an experienced SCIS teacher and by having the participants micro-teach physical science lessons to first, second, and third grade children. On the first day of the WOrkshop the first of many group process activities was conducted. Lu ‘0' .u A! ' on“: i . O :.E:u~u~' . . :l' on}? I Don‘t , u' ' u AU" "“ .i..vfi gnu: :l0!v"‘ 09‘ .v-oiobk‘ 5'- ”1‘ ' .£ a.. s v '5?" ‘ PI "inbu‘ku :ILES. L O 5V “I “in b 63 At the end of the first two days of the WOrkshop, a feedback form was completed by each of the participants. The information collected on these forms was summarized and shared with the participants at the beginning of the following day. On the basis of this information, modifications were made in the Workshop schedule and activities. After the second day, information was collected on a more informal basis. The second week was similar to the first in that the activities included demonstration lessons and micro- teaching, group process activities, and content labora- tories. The major change to occur in the second week Was that the content of the SCIS exercises centered around the life science units. The activity of the third week differing from that of the first two weeks, stressed the application of the activities to workshop and teaching situations. The final content laboratories in both the life and the physical science portions of the program were presented and a review of all the SCIS activities was made so that the participants would have a chance to examine them in terms of their usefulness in future workshops. The group process sessions during the third week were directed toward skills which would be directly applicable to the workshop environment. Much of the time during the third week was devoted to preparation and planning 0"-1- 'I'Ji [. ' . p A' ' A ...C c 'IcoA 'l’l “VI '0 ' .‘.'.~'.~ ‘d m V ‘1 ,... An I ”waif“ :4. x C F “IOU 04 by 003‘ 0. IV: D I :Av (- od‘ E Yff‘v' “a...“ :59: be..i '1 I95! 64 of the orientation and implementation conferences. This involved the designing of the workshops, trial runs through the activities, redesigning of the workshops, and finally collection of the materials for the presen- tations. During the final week, the participants packed SCIS materials into rented station wagons and vans and traveled to the workshop sites. The four teams who presented three-day implementation workshops stayed on location all three days. The two teams which presented orientation conferences traveled back to Michigan State University after their first day's workshop. The second day they discussed their experiences and made preparations for their second presentation. The last two days of the WOrkshop were spent planning the follow-up activities, Cleaning up after the orientation and implementation Conferences, sharing plans for the following school year, and the answering of last-minute questions. A common thread running throughout the Wbrkshop was the group process sessions conducted by Dr. Mason Miller. From the beginning, these activities were designed to demonstrate the advantages of group activi- ties and to develop skills in the areas of communication, observation and inference, establishing rapport, and constructive analysis of various situations which would " a. p b ‘l' a p V .r‘ .n4 ’ 'voovv no". ’ fl .lq... bb‘ (I! (I) I 0‘ :Ab; nv.‘ 5"“. I g) I 1 ‘1; 65 allow teams to be more efficient in their workshop presentations. For a more detailed WOrkshop schedule, see Appendix A. During the WOrkshop a variety of data were Collected. Some of which were used for the purpose of monitoring the direction and progress of the WOrkshOp itself. In addition, data were collected so that they could be correlated at a later time with information gathered during the follow-up period. On the first day of the workshOp, applicant information sheets were com- pleted and collected for the National Science Foundation. During the first several days a brief survey was taken of the participants' reactions to the daily schedule, activities, and their general feelings. The information collected in this way was used to modify the WOrkshop and to establish rapport between the participants and the MSU staff. At the beginning and at the end of the Workshop, a perception instrument was administered to sample participants' reactions to the SCIS program. Data collected in this way were used to note changes in the participants' perception of the SCIS program during the WOrkshop and to supply information which could be correlated with participant workshop activity during the follow-up period. During the WOrkshop, a measure of the participants' knowledge of general science was made using the science portion of the 3,-3.5 were a: ion-ation ' men- from t ::ier to obi icrks‘acp. ; tation and week, they their {eat :13; and p C’:erall in 't-Pre C0111 D the Parti ‘ H “Y me dI‘. m . sqelr E XEEQ‘S E f: . “e‘d. 66 Sequential Test of Educational Progress (STEP), Series II, Form lA. At the completion of the WOrkshop, the partici- pants were asked to rank order the objectives. This information was then compared with the same information taken from the participants' original applications in order to obtain another measure of change during the WOrkshop. After the participants conducted the orien- tation and implementation conferences during the fourth week, they completed a questionnaire which asked for their reactions to various parts of the conference plan- ning and presentations. On the last day the participants' overall impressions of the Resource Personnel Workshop were collected. During the ten-month follow-up period, data on the participants' activity were collected periodically by means of a monthly feedback form. Newsletters were sent periodically to all of the participants. It included information which could be helpful to the participants in their workshops and served as a means 0f communication for the successes and failures that people noted during their elementary science efforts. Following Christmas vacation, all of the participants were contacted by telephone to complete information on their activity up to that point, and to survey their needs and reactions to problems encountered in the field. A request was made of the participants for the 2;:i:ar.ts t: :5 the Wc fit: :3. Q 'Utio'i-UP P u '7". ‘65 in bi! “3 Lela f0: 1. Le f" 67 names and addresses of people who attended their work- shops. A questionnaire was then sent to a random sample of 360 names from the lists which were submitted. During the tenth month of the follow-up, a final inventory was mailed to each of the Resource Personnel Workshop par- ticipants to obtain their reactions to various portions Of the Wbrkshop and to areas of activity during the follow-up program. The MSU staff offered assistance and reinforce- ment of participant activity during the follow-up period in the following ways: 1. Letters were sent on October 6, 1971, to school personnel named by the participants as possibly being interested in using their services. 2. During and after the WOrkshop, interested par- ticipants were given advice on the writing of CCSS proposals for schools in their home areas. 3. Names and addresses of the Rand McNally sales representatives to be contacted for supplies, printed material, and information about school personnel interested in, or presently using the SCIS program were supplied to the participants. 4. Letters were also sent on October 27, 1971, to the Rand MoNally sales representatives indicating that ti local . activi S. Lettei the p 6. Films Tell use bets 7- A n 68 that the personnel who were available in their local areas for SCIS consultation and workshop activities. Letters and telephone calls were exchanged between the participants and the MSU staff. Films, particularly the three prints of "Don't Tell Me, I'll Find Out," and SCIS materials for use during workshop activities were exchanged between the MSU staff and the participants. A newsletter was sent periodically to the partici- pants informing them of the activities of other participants, Dr. Glenn Berkheimer and the staff, and information that might be useful to them, e.g., the SCIS Newsletter, photocopied articles concerning implementation strategies, and a revised roster of participants. The state departments of education were given the names and addresses of participants urging them to use these resource people who were willing and interested in conducting activities involving SCIS in their respective states. During the state science teachers' conventions, regional NSTA conventions, as well as the regional NSF Directors meeting, the participants met with each other and with the MSU staff when possible. .‘v- 11. l3. rt '0 L4 69 10. Throughout the follow-up period eleven of the participants were visited in their home areas and were encouraged to conduct workshops. 11. The communication network of the 1971 SCIS Resource Personnel Workshop was expanded to include SCIS Resource Personnel previously trained at Michigan State University, the SCIS personnel trained at other Resource Personnel WOrkshops during the summer of 1971, and the ISCS (Intermediate Science Curriculum Study) personnel that were trained at Michigan State University during the same summer. 12. At the National NSTA Convention in New York City the participants met with the MSU staff to share experiences which occurred following the summer workshop. 13. To allow the participants to conduct workshOps for school systems which could not afford to pay for outside consultant help, $50.00 per day was available upon request. Descrippion of Instruments Instrument A, SCIS Perceptionguestionnaire, was administered on the second and nineteenth day of the WOrkshop. This instrument was designed by the MSU staff to measure participants' perceptions of various :5 thirty-fi 355902565. 3: strongly .. the sec: was“ it "'s uvu v06 b u. :‘zt:.er be sate any c :V .: pro: 4 '9’ch ptic \ ”Q‘- s \‘Ce 9. +Q g\ t 5 C) H (I! 7O aspects of the SCIS program. The instrument is composed of thirty-five items with a five-point scale for responses. The scale ranges from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). The instrument administered on the second day of the Workshop had an additional seven items at the end for the purpose of collecting further baseline information about the participants. The reason for administering this instrument was to note any change in the participants' perception of the SCIS program during the WorkshOp and to use the initial perception scores as a factor which could be correlated with participant activity during the follow-up period. Reliability figures were not available prior to the WOrkshop, but information on the reliability of this instrument is reported in Chapter IV. For a c0py of this instrument, see Appendix C. Instrument B, Rank Ordering of WOrksth Objectives, was administered at the time the participants filled out their original applications for the Resource Personnel WOrkshop and again on the nineteenth day of the WbrkshoP coinciding with the administration of the second per- ception instrument. This instrument was designed by the MSU staff to allow the participants to express their perception of the relative importance of each of the stated WOrkshop objectives. The participants were asked to rank order the six objectives. The initial rank i4)“ .,.‘ering gay ‘ICI the par :erseen tne V. ::::.etion ::;'s instri “I Q I ,5" :onbeSS' * 3:. the sex milable L i. .Y Vw_p«‘ ‘5 w. A. .6. € 6“. WI. ‘V-N “all 71 ordering gave the staff one measure of what to expect from the participants. The change in rank ordering between the time of the initial application and the completion of the workshop provided a measure of the effect of the WOrkshop on the participants. A copy of this instrument is listed in Appendix D. Instrument C, the Sequential Test of Educational Proggess, Series II, Science, Form 1A, was administered on the seventh day of the WOrkshop. It is a commercially available test designed to measure the general science knowledge of college freshmen and sophomores. The instrument is composed of seventy-five items, with four multiple choice reSponses. Reliability information on the test was not available at the time of the Work- shop, but information is reported later in this study for the participants of the Resource Personnel Workshop. This instrument was administered for the purpose of obtaining information which could be correlated with the activity of the participants during the follow-up period. The use of this information was recommended as a measure of general science knowledge of college 87 students because of a lack of other suitable tests. A copy of the instrument is available through the 87George G. Mallison, The Sixth Mental Measure- ment Yearbook, ed. by Oscar K. Buros (Highland Park, N.J.: The nyphon Press, 1965), p. 1,162. M _-“|':. ‘-‘ Cs:;erative ' 2231129 Serv 53? test ar Inst fixing the iesigned P: re Ction cf comnicatq inicmfitig the 1RStrr action-19! a 51.,ch the Part1 V A 72 Cooperative Tests and Services Division of the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey. Results of the STEP test are given later in the study. Instrument D, Daily Feedback, was administered during the first two days of the WOrkshop. It was designed primarily to get immediate feedback on the reaction of the participants to the Workshop and to communicate to the participants that their feedback of information was critical to the success of the WOrkshop. The instruments are composed of a listing of the.major activities of the day to which responses are given on a five—point scale. A response of (5) indicates that the participant considers the activity to be useful; a response of (1) indicates that the participant sees the activity as useless. In addition, this instrument collected information on such tapics as preferences for WOrkshop time, nominations of social committee members, and expression of feelings through adjectives toward the workshop at the time. This instrument could generally be described as a quick method of obtaining an estimate of the participants' reaction to the start-up of the Workshop. Examples of the instrument used can be found in Appendix E. Instrument E, Orientation and Implementation Conference Questionnaire, was administered on the nine- teenth day of the WOrkshop. This instrument was designed '1;- V I‘ll . iV ‘ :es;or.ses ‘ iirect the tation of Lecteo‘. by he used t. For a co; 73 by the staff to obtain feedback on the adequacy of preparation for these workshOp presentations and on the successes and problems experienced by the participants during the actual presentation of these workshops. The instrument is composed of ten categories for which written responses were requested. This instrument was used to direct the participants' discussion following the presen— tation of their conferences. The forms were then col- lected by the staff to provide information which could be used to modify future Resource Personnel Workshops. For a copy of this instrument, see Appendix F. Instrument F, Resource Personnel Workshop Evalu- 22122! was administered on the last day of the WOrkshop. This instrument was used to determine the participants' opinions of the various parts of the Wbrkshop. The four- week Resource Personnel WOrkshop was arbitrarily divided into five parts. They were: A. Orientation and the SCIS Physical Science Program. This part included the first week of work with Dr. Glenn Berkheimer and Mr. Donald Maxwell, which emphasized the physical science units, the demonstration lessons, kit exploration, discussions concerning the role of the teacher, and micro-teaching. 74 B. The second week of the program with Dr. Robert Knott. Dr. Knott stressed the SCIS life science units, laboratory experiences, the role of the teacher, and care of organisms. This part was aimed at giving better understanding of the scope and sequence of the life science program and in particular, activities appropriate for the design and presentation of teacher workshops. C. The third week. This part included interaction with local SCIS teachers, time to design orientation and imple— mentation workshops, and preparation of workshops for the fourth week. D. The fourth week. The primary elements of the fourth week were the actual workshop presentations, and the group interaction concerning the success and problems of the workshops. E. Group process skills with Dr. Mason Miller. These sessions formed a continuous thread through- out the four weeks and were aimed at maximizing the team efforts. The participants' opinions of statements as they pertained to each part of the WOrkshop were recorded on 1.. Ivflpg‘Q‘ x ‘Jv.i‘4 u:- 6"~- .us u. Hone: 75 a seven-point scale which ranged from very strongly disagree (1) to very strongly agree (7). The reaction of the participants to the various parts of the WOrkshop and their comments at the end of the instrument will give directors of subsequent workshops information that may be useful in designing their workshops. A copy of the instrument and results is included in Appendix G. Instrument G, Monthly Feedback Forms, were given to the participants with the instructions that they were to return them at the end of each month. The first three months supply of these forms was given to the participants at the end of the WOrkshop, and the forms for the next seven months were mailed to the participants with the newsletter during the follow—up period. These forms were designed to be easily completed and yet supply information of participants' activity to Michigan State University. In addition to the month and the partici- pant's name and address, information about each workshop included: who it was for, where it was located, the date, the topic of the workshop, the number of people attending the workshop, the length of time and various other bits of information that could easily be checked off. This information was tabulated and used to calcu- late the final activity for the participants. A copy of the first page of the three-page form is located in ' o. ‘9‘. db:- km} the ”I. ay ‘- “::O"'l‘ :Zate 7' 76 Appendix H. Except that the name, address, and month were not repeated, pages two and three of this form were the same as the first page. Instrument H, RPW WOrkshop Survey, was mailed to a sample of the names submitted by the participants. These people who had attended workshops presented by the participants of the summer WOrkshop at Michigan State University were asked to give information about the way the workshop was announced, their reasons for attending the workshop, and their reaction to the work- shop itself. This information was collected to aid in improving future Resource Personnel Workshops at Michigan State University. A copy of the instrument is included in Appendix I. Instrument I, the Final Inventory of the MSU Resource Personnel Workshgp on SCIS, was mailed to the participants during the tenth month of the follow-up period. This instrument was designed by the MSU staff to obtain a final reaction of the participants to areas of the Workshop and activities during the follow-up period. This instrument is composed of seventy items which are responded to on a seven-point scale. A response of very strongly agree is represented by (7) and a response of very strongly disagree is represented by (l). The participants returned these forms by mail to Michigan State University and on the basis of the DCIClCI‘S C for a cop: vidual a: me Spe '33s}! 77 information obtained from this instrument, modifications have been made in the 1972 Resource Personnel WorkshOp at Michigan State University. The follow-up activities will also be changed in accordance with the participants' responses to portions of this final inventory. Refer to Appendix J for a copy of the instrument and the results. Description of Activity In order to equate team activities with indi- vidual activities, the team activity had to be defined more specifically. The following formula was used: length of TEAM ACTIVITY = E x n‘m‘be’? °f ”"919 x workshop N attending workshop in hours n = number of team members presenting the workshop N.= number of people in the team For example, if one member of a two-man team presented three hours of workshOp to twenty—six people, the team was credited with thirty-nine contact hours of activity. If both members presented the workshop as a team, the team was credited with seventy-eight contact hours of activity. Similar calculations were made for the two three-man teams by allowing (N) to become three instead of two and by using (n) in the same way it was for the two-man teams . context no” O. y I I‘m Ill Yyk Voul int 78 To calculate the total number of individual con- tact hours for members of teams, the following formula was used: number of individual INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY contact hours number of team contact hours n n = number of team members pre- senting the workshop For example, if an individual who was part of a two~man team conducted 400 contact hours of activity by himself and 200 contact hours of activity with his team member he had 400 contact hours plus one-half of the 200 team contact hours, or a total of 500 individual contact hours. Testing the Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: The activity of participants who attended the Resource Personnel WOrkshop as members of teams is not sig- nificantly greater than the activity of participants who attended the Resource Personnel WOrkshop as individuals. H : “l > “2 (hypothesis of interest) let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) Deci . p; Lg: 79 “l = mean activity for teams “2 = mean activity for individuals Test: t-test for differences of means for two small samples, df = N + N - 2 (N1 = number of l 2 teams, N2 = number of individuals) Decision Rule: Reject Ho if t-test value with 17 degrees of freedom exceeds 1.740, the critical value for the one-tailed t-value at the 0.05 level of signifi- cance tables.88 Hypothesis 2: There is no significant positive correlation between the level of activity of the participants during the follow-up period and their knowledge of general science based on their scores on the science portion of the STEP test, Series 11, Form 1A. Ho : p = 0 (there is no linear relationship between the two measures) Hl : p > 0 (a positive linear relationship exists) 88Sidney J. Armore, Introduction to Statistical Analysis and Inference_for PsychOIo and Education (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,“I'66), p. SDI. U [\r-l ' Q!“ 1 C UV T)— ‘An I the fell pros TES‘ Test: 80 Pearson product-moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. The sign of the correlation was reported since the F-test is not sensitive to the direction of the relationship. Decision Rule: The correlation is significant at a = 0.05 with 1 and 29 degrees of freedom if the direction of the cor- relation is positive and the F-value is 4.18 or greater. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant positive correlation between the participants' level of activity during the follow-up period and their perception of the SCIS program. Test: Ho : p = 0 (there is no linear relationship between the two measures) Hl : p > 0 (a positive linear relationship exists) Pearson product-moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. The sign of the correlation was reported since the F-test is not sensitive to the direction of the relationship. TeSt Dec. 81 Decision Rule: The correlation is significant at a = 0.05 with l and 29 degrees of freedom if the direction of the cor- relation is positive and the F-Value is 4.18 or greater. Hypothesis 4: There is no significant positive correlation between the number of workshop presentations the participants had prior to attendance at the Resource Personnel workshop and the amount of activity they exhibit during the follow-up period. Ho : p = 0 (there is no linear relationship between the two measures) H : p > O (a positive linear relationship exists) Test: Pearson product-moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. The sign of the correlation was reported since the F-test is not sensitive to the direction of the relationship. Decision Rule: The correlation is significant at a = 0.05 with l and 29 degrees of freedom if the direction of the cor- relation is positive and the F-value is 4.18 or greater. I ’ii . . " ‘n F1 ‘WIAO . _ :..'Jg,u D- on "Viv". fin Sun 1 -1’ IECCEu a; 82 Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 were analyzed using multiple regression analysis. Since there was no sig- nificant difference between teams and individuals in Hypothesis 1, all of the WOrkshop participants were analyzed as a group using a single multiple regression equation. As was mentioned earlier, individual activity for members of teams was calculated on the basis of the activity they presented as individuals and on the cor- rected activity that they presented as members of teams. Other Study Questions Do differences in years of teaching experience indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? Do differences in age indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? Do differences in academic degrees held by the participants indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? What types of follow-up activities on the part of the MSU staff do participants feel are the most helpful and/or stimulating? What are the reactions of people to the workshops presented by the Resource Personnel WOrkshop par- ticipants during the follow-up period? (n 3;"“t CC :— ’vo‘ ' ‘ .‘QI‘ C.‘ t :Svd ‘ ob";lf ""‘ , . ’:"‘ ‘ V“ a"... b- of O . ~Arr"! " v»..t‘ V E-test i VA ‘, tits .1: r: 5.5" “E 83 Simple correlations using the Pearson product- moment correlation coefficient were calculated between each of the independent variables in the first three study questions and the number of contact hours the participants reported during the follow-up period. The correlations were checked with F-tests, and since an F-test is not sensitive to the direction of the relation- ship, the sign of each correlation was also reported. These correlations were significant at a = 0.05 with l and 29 degrees of freedom if their F-values were 4.18 or greater and the sign of the correlations were positive. Question 4 was examined using the summation of the responses to the items and written comments on the final inventory. Question 5 was analyzed using the tabulated results from the questionnaire returned by the partici- pants of workshops conducted during the follow-up period. Methods of Analysis The t-test for Hypothesis 1 was calculated using an estimate of the common variance for both teams and individuals made by pooling the data for the two samples. Since the samples were small, this estimate of the common variance based on the pooled sums of squares, had a greater number of degrees of freedom than would have been obtained from the separate sums of squares of the two samples.89 89Ibid., p. 390. .; ‘\l (I) ( x a O N o] ‘I gin-r" Vegahr II 5 ‘-4.—. .90.” . b... I fly- Vs. '93: "was a}. ‘c p: 84 A Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient was calculated between each of the independent variables in Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, as well as in study questions 1, 2, and 3, and the dependent variable using a CDC 3600 computer program. The direction of each linear relation- ship was indicated by the sign of the correlation and the significance of the correlation was checked with an F-test. The multiple regression analysis conducted for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 as well as study questions 1, 2, and 3 was computed with the CDC 3600 computer pro- gram. The program provided data which included a matrix of simple correlations between all variables, multiple correlations of selected variables with the dependent variable, beta weights, and partial correlations between each predictor and the dependent variable. Refer to Appendix K for a description of the variables and a matrix of simple correlations. There were several advantages in using regression analysis. It not only estimated the statistical signifi- cance of the relationship between independent and dependent variables, but it estimated the magnitude of the relationship at the same time. By observing R2, the multiple regression coefficient squared, an estimate of the overall variance in the dependent variable associated with or accounted for by the independent .‘.‘ ' V5.4 $3-935 $25985 in :‘zserved as . 9O atzze. Th! the activ' Resource P 11;: overs n glarticipar teachers V training ( in works‘m The resou a four-we ”Shich 113‘.) hY the MS I the Part; ceptiOn < tatiOn a' 85 variables was noted. By using stepdwise regression, changes in the multiple correlation coefficient were observed as independent variables were deleted one at a time.90 Summary of Research Procedures The goal of this study was to observe and report the activity of the thirty-one participants of the 1971 Resource Personnel Wbrkshop on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study at Michigan State University. The participants were science supervisors and college teachers who attended the four-week WOrkshop to receive training designed to improve resource personnel skills in workshop presentations and consultation activities. The resource personnel training program was composed of a four-week WOrkshop and a ten-month follow-up program which involved the active support of the participants by the MSU staff. During the WOrkshop, measurements were made of the participants' knowledge of general science, per- ception of the SCIS program, impressions of the orien- tation and implementation conferences, and overall WOrk- shop evaluation. In addition, reports of the partici- pants' activity were gathered monthly and a final 90Herbert J. walberg, "Generalized Regression Models in Educational Research," American Educational Research Journal, VIII (January, 197I), 76. we; was '~: res sips p seriod . relative e relations: trcgram , 599, year 86 inventory was administered to determine the participants' reactions to all aspects of the training program. A survey was also made of the people who attended the work- shops presented by the participants during the follow-up period. The specific factors which were studied were the relative effectiveness of teams and individuals, and the relationship of workshOp activity to such factors as: knowledge of general science, perception of the SCIS program, prior experience in workshop presentation, age, years of teaching experience, academic degree, and sex. The data were analyzed using t-tests, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients, F-tests, and multiple regression analysis. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS Overview of the Chapter The purposes of this chapter are: (l) to examine and report the activity of the participants after leaving the Resource Personnel workshop, (2) to discuss the reaction of the participants to the workshop, and (3) to describe and report the results of the methods used during the follow-up period. Report of Results Two of the instruments used to gather data for testing hypotheses need to be examined more closely. At the time they were administered, no information was available about the reliability of the STEP Test or the SCIS Perception Questionnaire. The Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Series II, Science, Form 1A, was copyrighted in 1969. Since little information has been reported regarding this series of the test, the results obtained during the workshop were processed through the Evaluation Services at Michigan State University to 87 min relia Reliability 2.91 was ob For Perception By sub‘ items" square which crepen varia: than t and er, Using Boys for the S CePtion Q “d a rel the end ( 3600 C01: 5am Par 1‘15. aha: Enivel‘s: Series . 88 obtain reliability data. Using the Kuder-Richardson Reliability Formula 20, a reliability coefficient of 0.91 was obtained. For an estimate of the reliability of the SCIS Perception Questionnaire, Hoyt's Method was used. By subtracting the "among students" and the "among items" sums of squares from the total sums of squares, we have left the residual sums of squares which is used as the basis for estimating the dis- crepency between the obtained variance and.the true variance. This estimate of discrepency is better than that obtained by dividing the test into odd and even halfs. . . . 91 Using Hoyt's Method a reliability of 0.6877 was obtained for the scores of the participants on the SCIS Per- ception Questionnaire at the beginning of the WOrkshop and a reliability of 0.6475 for the same instrument at the end of the Workshop. Tests of Hypotheses Data for the tests were analyzed using the CDC 3600 computer. Information, responses, and scores for each participant were punched on to data-processing cards and analyzed using programs from the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station Statistical Series. The Pearson productemoment correlation, least 91Cyril J. Hoyt, "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance," in Principles of Educational and P3 cholo ical Measurement, ed.'by WIlIiam A. Mehrens and Rogert L. EBeI (Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1967), p. 110. "1'85 reg :c O‘" C Q J this thE t l The 5:: small : the corner. the separa vii‘ials we tours, for éescribed Or participar ietermine: by the th; following Pants inv. and Conta 89 squares regression coefficient, and F-test results used in this thesis were taken from the computer print out. The first hypothesis was analyzed using a t-test for small samples. To give a more accurate estimate of the common variance than would have been obtained from the separate samples, the variances for teams and indi- viduals were pooled. The dependent variable, contact hours, for both teams and individuals was calculated as described in Chapter III. On the basis of information supplied by the participants on the monthly feedback forms, it was determined that a total of 214 workshops were conducted by the thirty-one participants during the ten-month period following the Resource Personnel workshop. The partici- pants invested 699 hours in actual workshop presentations and contacted approximately 4,230 people. Although the information was carefully checked, the exact number of people contacted cannot be given since there is no way of being certain that any given person did not attend more than one workshop. Further discussion of the results of testing is organized according to the hypotheses and study questions as stated in Chapter III. . thesf as...— The acti‘ Personne nificant who atte individu It. hype Stated E El : “1 Data 0. LA, 6. Acco 1.740 or gr test, there The as W811 as S'~'~:"‘1.".':al‘ized also were C DE activit} test, the < fours to t the “Orksh the aCtivi lI'as divide was done i Pooled Va 90 Hypothesis 1: The activity of participants who attended the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop as members of teams is not sig- nificantly greater than the activity of participants who attended the Resource Personnel workshop as individuals. The hypothesis tested was: Ho : “l “2 Stated symbolically the hypothesis of interest was: Hl : “1 “2 Data analysis gave a t-value for this test of 0.36. According to the degrees of freedom, a t-test of 1.740 or greater is significant at the 0.05 level. The test, therefore, failed to reject the null hypothesis. The information used in calculating this t-test as well as further discussion of teams and individuals is summarized in Tables 3 and 4. Two additional t-tests also were conducted on the differences of the mean level of activity for teams and for individuals. For the first test, the dependent variable was changed from contact hours to the number of workshops. As with contact hours, the workshops presented by teams were corrected so that the activity conducted by team members as individuals was divided by the number of members in the team. This was done to truly compare team activity with individual activity. The t-value for this test, using small sample pooled variance and seventeen degrees of freedom, was 0.79. Again, the test failed to reject the null hypothesis. ""r 3.--Te .1' and“ lientif icat Number # 011 012 021 022 023 031 032 041 042 051 052 061 062 071 072 081 082 091 092 101 102 103 Total \ E 91 TABLE 3.--Team activity Identification Total Number gorfzgtgg Team Number of WOrkshops WOrkshops Contact Hours 011 012 17 17 1,621 021 022 2 1.33 91.5 023 031 032 17 9 636 041 042 50 25 2,212 051 052 10 10 1,283 061 062 34 17 789 071 072 6 3 81 081 082 16 8 839 091 092 0 0 0 101 102 4 2.67 156 103 Total 156 93 7,708 Mean 15.6 9.3 770.8 33:3 4."Ind: M Identif ic Nur'abe ______..___ 001 002 003 004 005 00€ 00'. ODE 005 Tot; Mea \— The imparing tt teams and i: the mean nil: m Present t‘tESt with 1.1690031. r: to {Eject T (luring the S‘x. . “mauled 92 TABLE 4.--Individua1 activity Identification Number of Individual Number workshops Contact Hours 001 5 164 002 l 36 003 l 168 004 9 1,398 005 22 1,362 006 0 0 007 12 1,998 008 0 0 009 8 592 Total 59 5,718.5 Mean 6.5 635 The third and most liberal test was conducted comparing the total number of workshops presented by teams and individuals. Again, the difference between the mean number of workshops presented by individuals and presented by teams was tested using a one-tailed t-test with a pooled variance and seventeen degrees of freedom. The resulting value of 1.59 once more failed to reject the null hypothesis. The aCtivity of teams and individuals as indicated by the number of workshops they presented and the distribution of this activity during the course of the ten-month follow-up period is summarized by Figure 1. V‘ V 33%! icrisacps F pIESentat I) \43 Number ” of n WOrkshops ” O—Nwrmowaom 93 Teams Individuals - - - — — - - Total Ion-00.00.00.000... Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Aprll Hay Months Figure l.--Monthly distribution of workshop presentations I'— No sic Level of acti terefore, f‘d all participa hours which t activity of 1 :ase between Because of t treated as i as if indepe assumption c Sinc SCIS Percepi 35 Prior wo 39.11%, 0111 testing, The 5190318595 and 3 are Of these i; a mUltiplE 94 No significant difference was found between thex level of activity for members of teams and individuals; therefore, further analysis was conducted by treating all participants as individuals. The number of contact hours which these participants gained through the joint activity of team members was equally distributed in each case between the participants presenting the workshop. Because of the joint activity of team members, there was a lack of independence when these participants were treated as individuals. Although the data were analyzed as if independence was achieved, the violation of the assumption of independence should be noted. Since one participant did not fill out the first SCIS Perception Questionnaire which included the report of prior workshop activity and other pertinent infor- mation, only thirty scores were used in subsequent testing. The discussion of the results of testing for Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4 as well as study questions 1, 2, and 3 are given following study question 3 since all six of these variables were analyzed at the same time using a multiple regression equation. Hypothesis 2: There is no significant positive correlation between the level of activity of the participants during the follow-up period and their knowledge of general science based on their scores on the science portion of the STEP test, Series II, Form 1A. The null V relations 1 ' 9" between t A Pee the STE“ ' Sate the ca 515535 not H'ny‘ Ls , I v.48. There '1 the par follow— Progran The nu] relatic fOileinQ COIrelati additiOn was foum was in tl 95 The null hypothesis, H , is: p = 0 (no linear relationship). 0 H1 : p > 0 (there is a positive linear relationship between the two measures) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.197 was found between the scores of the participants on the STEP Test and their activity in contact hours. Since the calculated F-value was 1.13, the null hypothe- sis was not rejected. Hypothesis 3: There is no significant positive correlation between the participants' level of activity during the follow-up period and their perception of the SCIS program. The null hypothesis, H0, is: p = 0 (no linear relationship between the two measures). H1 : p > 0 (there is a positive linear relationship between the two measures) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of —0.308 was found between the participants' positive perception of the SCIS program and their activity following the Workshop. The F-value of 2.94 for this correlation did not reject the null hypothesis. In addition to the fact that no significant relationship was found at the 0.05 level, what correlation did exist was in the direction opposite that stated in the HYpothesis . E :0 t rue S ‘. H- There is the must had pric Workshc; during t The nul'. relation 81:: between A 1* 3f 0.551 we §5fticipant and the an: n'f-P'C‘ti‘xes i s Significar‘ durin We? “Shoe. rejected . all with Stuan \ 00 (ii ererl 96 gypothesis 4: There is no significant positive correlation between the number of workshop presentations the participants had prior to attendance at the Resource Personnel Workshop and the amount of activity they exhibit during the follow-up period. The null hypothesis, H0, is: p = 0 (no linear relationship between the two measures). Hl : p > 0 (there is a positive relationship between the two measures) A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient Of 0.551 was found between the amount of activity the participants presented prior to attending the Workshop and the amount of activity following it. The null hypothesis was rejected since the F-value of 12.21 was significant at the 0.002 level. Study Question 1: Do differences in years of teaching experience indi— cate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.246 was found between the years of teaching exper- ience and the activity of participants following the WOrkshop. The null form of the question could not be rejected since the calculated F—value of 1.81 did not fall within the region of rejection. Study Question 2: Do differences in age indicate significantly dif- ferent levels of activity during the follow-up period? .‘V‘Qtfi; :4"... v.3; $32185: on, Waite 97 A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.146 was found between the age of participants and their activity following the Workshop. Since the calcu- lated F-value of 0.61 was not significant at the 0.05 level the null form of the question was not rejected. Study Question 3: Do differences in academic degrees held by the par- ticipants indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? For the purpose of analysis, the degrees the participants held were differentiated into three cate- gories: Bachelor's Degree, Master's Degree, and Doc- torate. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient of 0.132 was found between the degrees held by par- ticipants and their activity during the follow-up period. The null form of the question was not rejected since the F-value of 0.50 was not in the region of rejection. The summary of the data used for testing the hypotheses and analyzing the study questions is given in Appendix B. In the process of analysis, the correlation of 0.344 was noted between sex and workshop activity during the follow-up period with women being more active than men. A statement of this relationship in null form -l 'ufl". ) 98 would be that no relationship exists between the sex of the participants and their activity during the follow-up period. The F-value of 3.75 was calculated for the cor- relation and since this was not significant at the 0.05 level the null form of the statement cannot be rejected. Regression Analysis The following discussion of regression analysis was taken from an explanation of multiple and partial correlation given by Blalock. He explains partial cor- relation in the following manner: "If we have a large number of independent variables we can obtain an indi- cation of their relative importance by relating the dependent variable to each independent variable in turn, "92 In always controlling for the remaining variables. regression analysis the b's can be considered, in a sense, as partial correlation coefficients. Since dif- ferent variables will involve different scales, adjusted slopes which are comparable from one variable to the next are obtained by dividing each variable by its standard deviation. The adjusted partial slopes which are obtained when the standardized variables are com- 93 pared are called beta weights. "The beta weights, . . . 92Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960)} p. 343. 93Ibid., pp. 344-45. 99 indicate how much change in the dependent variable is produced by a standardized change in one of the inde- pendent variables when the others are controlled."94 A measure of the overall correlation (R) between all the independent variables and the dependent variable was calculated and this coefficient squared (R2) was an estimate of the amount of variability in the dependent variable which could be explained by the independent variables. Regression analysis was performed using activity as the dependent variable and seven independent variables: prior workshop experience, scores on the SCIS Perception Questionnaire administered at the beginning of the WOrk- shop, and STEP Test scores from the hypotheses; years of teaching experience, age, and academic degree from the study questions; and sex. The computer was programmed to retain the independent variables in the hypotheses and to delete the other four variables one at a time starting with the variable of least significance. If any of these variables had a significant relationship to activity at the 0.05 level, no more deletions would be made and the print-out would be made of the information at that point. Table 5 indicates the data for the overall regression at the beginning of analysis and shows the progressive changes in correlation as each variable was 94Ibid., p. 345. 100 TABLE 5.--Summary of overall regression analysis Multiple Correlation 2 Independent Variables Coefficient (R) Prior Werkshop Experience SCIS Perception Questionnaire STEP Years of Teaching Experience 0.7414 0.5497 Age Degree Sex After deletion of: Years of Teaching Experience 0.7403 0.5481 Degree 0.7258 0.5268 Sex 0.7130 0.5084 Age 0.6632 0.4398 deleted. Since none of the independent variables outside of those mentioned in the hypotheses were significant at the 0.05 level, the last print-out listed only the three independent variables from the hypotheses. Table 6 summarizes the information from the regression equation using only the independent variables mentioned in the hypotheses. From this information, it can be seen that approximately 43 per cent of the participants' activity was associated with two independent variables, workshOp experience prior to attending the Resource Personnel 101 TABLE 6.--Summary of regression analysis for independent variables from hypotheses . Partial Independent Variables Beta . . . . . Correlation Significance from Hypotheses weights Coefficient Prior WOrkShOp Experience 0.57943 0.609 0.001 SCIS Perception Questionnaire 0.34211 0.400 0.035 STEP 0.07575 0.096 0.625 WOrkshop and scores on the SCIS Perception Questionnaire administered at the beginning of the Workshop. From these data, it might be assumed that the Workshop benefited those who were already active and did little to create or train new resource personnel. The information on which the analysis was made is listed in Table 7. After inspection of this table, it can be seen that the relative order of participants in regard to activity was relatively the same before and after the workshop. This accounted for the significant cor- relation. However, it may also be noted that many of the participants who had little or no activity before attending the WOrkshop did increase in their activity. Clarification needs to be made concerning the sign of the correlation involving the SCIS Perception Questionnaire. Due to the numbering of the responses for this instrument, the higher the participants' scores, 102 TABLE 7.-—Individual activity one year prior and subsequent to the resource personnel workshop Identification Pre-RPW Post-RPW Number Werkshops WorkshOps 001 0 6 002 0 l 003 0 l 004 0 9 005 11+ 22 006 1-2 0 007 3-5 12 008 0 0 009 11+ 8 011 O 8.5 012 0 8.5 021 0 0.33 022 1-2 1.33 023 1-2 0.33 031 0 0.5 032 0 16.5 041 0 16 042 11+ 34 051 052 0 5 061 0 13 062 11+ 21 071 0 5 072 0 l 081 3-5 3 082 1-2 13 091 1-2 0 101 0 1.83 102 0 l 103 0 1.33 103 the more negative their perception of the SCIS program. Since the order of the scores on this instrument is opposite to the order of the participants' perceptions that this instrument was designed to measure, the sign associated with each correlation involving the per- ception instrument is Opposite to that associated with the participants' perceptions. When examining the data matrix, this fact must be kept in mind since the correlations in the matrix express the relationship between the scores on the perception instrument and other variables instead of the participants' perception of the SCIS program and other variables. Throughout this thesis reference is made to the participants' perception of the SCIS program, but the correlations reported in Appendix K are those for the actual scores from the SCIS Perception Questionnaire and other variables. Following the discovery of a significant negative correlation between activity and positive perception of the SCIS program with regression analysis, correlations which.might help explain this were investigated. As might be expected a correlation of 0.40 was found between the participants' positive perception of the SCIS program at the beginning of the WOrkshop and their expressed knowledge of the SCIS program at the beginning of the werkshop. This correlation was significantly different from zero at the 0.025 level, but it is 104 interesting to note that there was only a correlation of -0.00063 between their expressed knowledge of SCIS at the beginning of the Workshop and their workshop activity during the follow-up period. There was also a correlation of 0.29 between the participants' positive perceptions of SCIS at the beginning of the WOrkshop and the number of school systems that the participants knew were using SCIS within a twenty-mile radius of their home. This correlation was only significant at the 0.113 level, but it is interesting to note again there was almost no correlation between their knowledge of schools using SCIS in their home areas and the amount of activity they exhibited during the follow-up period. It is not surprising either that the amount of experience the participants had with the SCIS program prior to the workshop and their academic degree had a correlation of 0.50 which was significant at the 0.005 level. However, there was no significant relationship between either the amount of previous SCIS experience or academic degree and activity during the follow-up period. Nor was there any significant relationship between either previous SCIS experience or academic degree and the participants' perception of SCIS at the beginning of the WOrkshop. Both the participants‘ academic degree and their exper- ience with the SCIS program prior to the werkshop were probably confounded with their occupational 105 assignment. A participant, whose occupational assignment was that of a teacher, would have had limited opportunity for experience in SCIS unless she was using the program in her elementary classroom. This possible confounding of variables makes interpretation of the data difficult. There seems to be little explanation for the fact that a negative perception of the SCIS program was significantly correlated with workshop activity during the follow-up period. Additional information, not used in analysis, may offer a partial explanation for the negative cor- relation. Four of the thirty-one participants were nuns. The three most negative perceptions of the SCIS program at the beginning of the WOrkshop were indicated by nuns. The fourth nun had a more positive perception than the other three nuns, but her score was still in the lower one-third of the range for the questionnaire. The SCIS program is more costly to implement and to maintain than some of the other elementary science programs. Since the Catholic schools, in general, have had financial problems, the nuns may have had a more negative per— ception of the SCIS program than the other participants because they saw less chance for its implementation in their schools. This explanation is supported by the fact that of the twenty-three requests for $50 for workshop presentations during the follow-up period, nine 106 were from the four nuns. In addition, a total of twenty- two of the twenty-three requests, including the nine from the nuns, were from participants whose perceptions of the SCIS program were at the negative end of the range on the questionnaire administered at the beginning of the WOrkshop. However, the requests for money to support workshop activity were not only related to a negative perception of the program but also to the amount of workshop activity. The participants with the greatest amount of workshop activity, in general, submitted the most requests for money to support their resource personnel work. Although the participants' occupations were com- pared with other variables using a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, the scale for this variable was nominal rather than ordinal or interval, and the cor- relations were therefore of limited value. Of the range of scores on the SCIS perception questionnaire admin- istered at the beginning of the WOrkshop, the three principals' scores were at the positive end and nine of the thirteen teachers' scores were at the negative end of the range. Although the principals had poSitive perceptions of the SCIS program, they may have had a limited amount of time for workshop presentations during the school year. The teachers, generally, had a less Positive perception of the SCIS program than did the 107 principals, but this may have been due to a more realistic view of the program. Even though the teachers may not have had more time than the principals for the presentation of workshops, they may have been more active because they felt a greater commitment to elementary science education and its value for their fellow teachers and their students. WOrkshop Procedure Feedback procedures used during the Resource Personnel WOrkshop and the participants' impressions of their conference presentations that occurred during the WOrkshop are examined in this section. Evaluation of the workshop was an on-going part of the summer program and began as a formal written evaluation of the first two days. Feedback forms were distributed and collected at the end of the day, and on the following morning the results of the feedback were shared with the participants. This practice was repeated for the first two days so that participants were fully aware that their comments were not only read, but were shared with the entire group. After two days, the feedback evolved into an informal communication with participants through conver- sation at lunches, during coffee breaks, between activities, and at the conclusion of the daily activities. A specific point was made to have the staff members sit at different tables during lunch so that they could have 108 maximum interaction with the participants. The partici- pants noticed at the beginning of the second day that the revised schedule reflected some of the desires and concerns expressed on the first day's feedback form. After two days, the written feedback had served its function of establishing the norm of staff receptivity to participants' suggestions, and was flexible enough to meet the needs of the participants by changing the WbrkshOp schedule and activity. In addition to changing activities for the second and third day of the WbrkshoP, these two feedback forms assisted in the formation of a social committee and advanced the starting time for the rest of the WOrkshop one hour to make more afternoon recreation time available. On Thursday of the fourth week of the WOrkshop, the participants were given a chance to discuss their experiences in the Wbrkshop presentations on the three previous days. To guide their thinking, a two-page short- answer questionnaire, filled out by each participant, was used to direct small group interaction. The forms were then collected by the staff for later examination. Both orientation and implementation conferences were pre- sented, but there was little difference in the responses of the participants from the two groups except to indi- cate that at the three-day implementation conferences, the participants and staff became better acquainted. 109 The additional length of the implementation workshops also allowed the participants to work on Specific problems rather than general introductions to the pro- gram. In regard to the help given by the MSU staff for designing the presentations and in collection of materials, the comments were extremely favorable. A number of responses did indicate, however, that more input on the needs and experience of participants in the orien- tation and implementation conferences would have been desirable. Most of the participants felt that the amount of time alloted for preparation of the workshops was adequate or in some cases too lengthy. Four of the par- ticipants expressed the feeling that the preparation started too early. The only comments favoring more time were in connection with the growth of plants. The groups conducting the orientation workshOps felt that they were adequately informed concerning the characteristics of their participants with one exception. A professor from a nearby college brought a methods class which had been studying SCIS for four days to the orientation conference. The pe0ple who presented three of the four implementation conferences, however, had not anticipated the charac- teristics of their participants. In East Lansing, more people were expected to attend than actually appeared and many did not stay the full three days or arrived on 110 the second day and third day of the workshop. In Detroit, the background and attitude of the teachers was not anticipated and problems other than those in science education were soon apparent. The team at Benton Harbor did not expect as many experienced teachers. In spite of the detailed plans for these workshops, the various teams were flexible enough to adapt to the unexpected situ- ations and subsequent modifications worked well. In the orientation workshOps, numerous activities were viewed as effective by the teams. Among these, the "freon activity" and "buttons" seemed to have been most successful. In the implementation workshops, the variety of successful activities that were used was much more extensive, primarily because of the increased number of grade levels requiring specific information created numerous special needs. Since the workshops were designed for teachers in the SCIS program, rather than their students, the teachers were allowed to make mistakes just as the students are allowed a certain amount of trial and error. A good example of this was reported by one team when they allowed a participant to put freon into a styrofoam cup, knowing full well that the cup would dissolve leaving a mess. It was an effective way of presenting some of the precautions to consider when working with the activity. Another 111 team required its participants to collect the materials from the kits before each activity and to put them away at the completion of the exercise. Most of the problems with the presentations were encountered by the teams conducting implementation work- shops. Since they were required to present many dif- ferent activities, the greatest number of problems involved the use of specific pieces of equipment. These problems were particularly noticeable when the kits were incomplete or had been converted from trial edition material. The short period of time for the presentations was a critical factor working against the teams. To overcome the shortage of time, both the imple- mentation and the orientation teams Split their groups into several small sections of people with Specific interests. This allowed the teams to cover a greater variety of material and allowed the participants more time for "hands on" activities. All of the teams used some sort of written feed— back to guide the direction of their activity. These forms varied from checklists to short-answer question- naires. All reports indicated that the information collected during the feedback was useful in understanding the needs of the group and in modifying the design of following presentations. 112 In summary, all the teams expressed the feeling that actual workshOp presentations were valuable exper- iences, well worth the time and effort. The instrument used by the MSU staff to follow up the conferences was useful in guiding the direction of discussion and indicated to the participants that the number of different work- shop situations and possible ways of handling them is quite large. By sharing their problems, as well as successes, the participants were prepared to handle a greater variety of eXperiences than they could have encountered on their own in the same amount of time. Resource Personnel WOrkshop EvaluatIOn On Thursday afternoon of the final week of the werkshop, the participants were asked to complete a Resource Personnel WOrkshop Evaluation form. In the first three questions, the participants were asked to respond to five aspects of the Wbrkshop according to: how well it satisfied the needs they had at the begin- ning of the WOrkshop, how useful they felt the infor- mation would be in bringing about changes in their own science education programs, and whether they felt the sections would be of value to future participants of similar workshops. The last four questions asked for short answers to things which the participants liked the most, the least, and what they felt should be included or deleted from subsequent workshOps. 113 The responses from the participants on the first three questions indicated that their perceived value of the WOrkshop activities was extremely positive. Of the five parts of the WOrkshop which were listed in question one, the third week (planning for the orientation and implementation workshops) and the group process sessions were rated lowest in satisfying the participants' needs at the beginning of the WOrkshop. Some of the participants did not plan to use the information for workshops during the follow-up period and others had enough experience prior to the Wbrkshop that they felt the amount of time spent on planning was unwarranted. The group process sessions were aimed at facilitating team activity and cooperation in the presentation of the orientation and implementation workshops. Several participants tried to dominate their respective teams and generated resentment within their teams which was reflected in the feedback. And since the group process activities did not relate directly to the content of SCIS, some participants tended to place a lower priority on them. Questions two and three dealt with the usefulness of each Wbrkshop section in bringing about change in the participants' own science programs and the expected usefulness of these sections to future participants. The responses to questions were similar to those in the first questions. All sections reflected a favorable 114 perception by the participants, but the sections dealing with planning of the group process sessions in the third week were again given the least favorable ratings. The reasons for this are probably the same as those stated in question one. For the last four questions, a summary of the comments are listed along with the frequency of each type of comment. What things did you like most? 16 3 Planning and conducting the orientation and implementation workshops. Staff characteristics (flexibility, organi- zation, enthusiasm, and qualifications) Activities with materials and familiarity with kits Group process activities and the way they were used in the Wbrkshop Orientation to the werkshop and the SCIS program Micro-teaching 1 each Philosophy of SCIS, role of the teacher, change agent discussions, dormitory living. What things did you like least? 8 Too little time for upper-level SCIS content activities 115 5 Too much time planning orientation and implementation workshops 4 Group process activities 2 Not enough time for implementation workshop presentation 2 Too little information on implementation and orientation workshop participants 2 "Know-it-all" WOrkshop participants 2 Feedback and evaluation (too much, upset at resentment toward evaluation) 1 each Lack of emphasis on teaching technique, life science presentations, micro-teaching, and not enough group process. If you were in charge of organizing a workshgp such as the one this summer, what experiences would you delete? 4 Some of the simple SCIS activities at the lower levels 4 Shorten orientation and implementation planning time 3 Some group process 2 Some micro-teaching sessions 1 each Lengthy discussions, and life science activities all in one week. What experiences would you include? 7 Micro-teaching (in grades 4, 5, and 6, a written critique form) 1 each 116 Orientation and implementation workshops (organize teams earlier, more information to the school participants, more preparation time for specific presentations) Group process (with teams, how to control 1 or 2 dominant individuals) More activities at level 4, 5, and 6 More SCIS content activities Questioning technique (videotape for critique) Participants work with materials (cafeteria style pick-up, participant clean-up, Open lab time) Contact with companies supplying SCIS materials, evaluation of SCIS Additional Comments 22 1 each Thanks and praises to the MSU staff Hand-outs were a great help, 5 and 6 grade units gave a better understanding of process and inquiry in SCIS than sorting woods and metals, would like to present a follow-up implementation workshop to check improve- ment, life science presented first would give longer observation of organisms, encourage continuing communications, need better 117 communication with schools in the field, group discussion skills with Dr. Mason Miller need more work than they got, married stu- dents should not be encouraged to bring families . Because of the rapport established between the participants and the staff, it is assumed that the comments and concerns expressed on the evaluation form accurately express the participants' reaction to the Re source Personnel Workshop. Rank Ordering of Wbrkshop Objectives When the participants filled out their original applications to the Resource Personnel Workshop, they Were given a list of the Workshop Objectives and asked to rank-order them in terms of the objectives' relative importance to their needs. At the end of the Workshop the participants were again given the same list of WOlli'kshop Objectives and asked to rank-order them on the basis of how important they felt the objectives WCDuld be to future participants. A summary of the reSponses from the participants is given in Table 8. InSpection of the mean values of the objectives, in Table 8, indicated that their relative importance for the participants as a group remained the same for four of the six objectives.‘ The participants as a group 118 TABLE 8.--Frequency of ranks assigned to workshop objec- tives by participants iii-$232?" 1 2 5 6 n a 12 7 4 2 5 1 31 2.48 b 7 8 6 6 3 1 31 2.77 C 5 6 4 6 1 8 31 3.41 d 3 1 8 4 10 3 29 3.89 e 2 8 6 6 3 31 3.48 f 2 1 4 4 13 31 4.67 End of Workshop a 12 6 2 5 2 3 30 2.60 b 5 8 9 5 2 0 29 2.68 C 4 4 3 3 8 8 30 4.03 d 0 5 6 3 8 7 29 4.20 e 5 6 7 9 3 0 30 2.90 f 2 1 3 5 7 12 30 4.66 119 indicated that prior to the WOrkshop and at the end of the Workshop the number one objective was, "to help each participant to engage in orientation, consulting, and implementation activities after leaving the Michigan State University Campus." At both times the participants as a group indicated that, "to provide the participants with considerable knowledge of teacher education pro- cedures, purposes, history, and recommended modes of instruction, objectives, and materials of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study" was the least important Of the stated objectives. A complete list of Workshop 01Di'iectives are given in Appendix D. SCIS Perception Questionnaire The SCIS Perception Questionnaire was admin- istered at the beginning and end of the Workshop. As an additional indication of the change that took place cluring the Workshop, a test was made of the change in the participants' perception of SCIS. A hypothesis was not stated regarding the change in perception that might occur during the Workshop, but a statement in null form about the change in per- ception is that the participants' perception of SCIS at the end of the Workshop will not be significantly mOre positive than at the beginning. A one-tailed t“test of the null statement was made using the dif- ference of means for two dependent samples. At ‘f; o. : ~32"- :bé - 120 a = 0.001 level and with 29 degrees of freedom a value of 2.756 or greater would reject the null statement. A value of 19.57 was computed for the test variable indicating that the null statement was rejected and that the participants had a more positive perception of the SCIS program at the end of the Workshop than at the beginning. A Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient Of 0.095 was calculated between the participants' change in perception of the SCIS program during the Workshop and the amount of workshop activity they exhibited during the follow-up period. This correlation was not significantly different from zero. A correlation of “0 - 578 was noted between the participants' change in Perception of SCIS during the Workshop and their stated knowledge of SCIS at the beginning of the Workshop. An F“Value of 14.08 was calculated for this correlation and it rejected, at the 0.001 level, the null statement that no significant relationship exists between the Participants' stated knowledge of SCIS and their change in perception. In addition, a correlation of 0.408 was feund between the participants' perception of the SCIS proqram at the beginning of the Workshop and their stated knowledge of SCIS at the time. The calculated F‘value for this correlation was 5.59 which rejected, 121 at the 0.025 level, the null statement that no relation- ship exists between the participants' knowledge and per- ception of SCIS. These last two correlations indicated that the participants with the greatest knowledge of SCIS at the beginning of the workshop also had the most positive perception of the SCIS program and consequently had the least change in perception during the Workshop. 1 Results of Activities and Data Collection During the . Follow—Up Period E Two instruments were used to collect data during the follow-up period. Monthly feedback forms were returned to Michigan State University with the infor- mation of participants' activities on a more or less 1:‘egular basis. At the beginning of May, the last month of the follow-up period, a final inventory of partici— Pant reactions to the Workshop and activities during the fOILlow-up period was mailed to each participant. The reactions of the participants, as recorded on this form, furnished a summary of the participants' impressions of various aspects of the entire Resource Personnel Werkshop. A copy of the instrument and the responses are given in Appendix J. Responses on these forms as well as information collected from telephone calls and letters are presented in this section. 122 On the final inventory the participants were first asked to evaluate the Workshop activities. In response to statements about the micro-teaching sessions and direct contact with students, as well as their under- standing of the role of the change agent in elementary science education, the participants' responses were very positive. In regard to changes or adjustments made by the MSU staff during the Workshop, the participants indi- cated that they were extremely satisfied. However, when aSked to respond to a statement about the time spent on SCIS content, the reactions were mixed. The overall feeling of the group was that too much time was spent on activities in the lower grade levels. The participants' reactions to the statements regarding group process activities in the Workshop were CIllitze interesting. The participants indicated that the group process sessions contributed to the frankness and c>Penness of communications among the participants and MSU staff and also that it was evident to them that group processes were useful in meeting the major objec- tiVes of the Workshop. But in regard to the statement that more time should be spent on these activities, the general feeling seemed to be that just about the right am(Junt of time was spent in this endeavor. Although few people wanted more of these activities, there was not much reaction against them. 123 On the basis of comments from participants in letters and in telephone calls, four statements were con- structed regarding the orientation and implementation conferences during the fourth week of the Workshop. The statements, however, seemed to reflect the opinions of only a few vociferous individuals. As was indicated by the coments of some individuals on the evaluation of the Resource Personnel Workshop, too much time was sPent on planning the orientation and implementation Conferences. However, when this statement was presented to the entire group of participants, their reaction was that of moderate disagreement. Almost the same reaction was given to a similar statement that planning for the Orientation and implementation conferences was started too early in the Workshop. It was expressed by some Participants that the teams for the presentation of these conferences should be formed before the end of the second week, but although the reactions varied, the feeling was that the participants as a group disagreed with this statement. At the completion of the Workshop, th>e participants felt that the orientation and imple- Inentation conferences were second in importance only to the actual chance to work with the SCIS materials. But the negative reaction to the statement that the conferences should last for an entire week instead of tWO or three days indicated that the proper amount of tdime was devoted to these presentations. 124 In section two of the final inventory, the Inerticipants were asked questions regarding their activity. Earlier in this chapter the quantitative aspects of par- ‘ticipant workshop activity were investigated in the hypotheses. Table 7 indicates the amount of workshop (activity that the participants were involved in before and after the Workshop. This information agrees with the responses of the participants as a group when they irniicated that the orientation and implementation work- skuops they presented had increased from the previous year. They also reported as a group that the amount of time spent teaching demonstration lessons in the ele- mentary school classrooms had increased and that they had been more active in consulting with elementary SChool personnel. All sixteen people, who responded ‘tllat they had workshOp experience prior to attending tile Resource Personnel Werkshop, indicated that it iflmProved their workshop skills. When asked what Work- Slnop activities helped them the most, the following re8ponses were given: 7 WOrking with the materials of the SCIS program 6 Team participation in the orientation and implementation conferences 3 Discussions about the philosophy of the SCIS program 125 2 Discussions about the role of the SCIS teacher 2 The group process activities 2 Useful tips 2 Information about SCIS 1 each Kits and manuals, discussion about change agents in schools, the overall Resource Personnel WOrkshop, the Overall view of content and process, working with elementary children, use of feedback, ordering SCIS materials, and caring for the live material. The analysis of data comparing the activity of izeuams and individuals failed to reject the null hypothesis ‘tliat there was no significant difference between teams and individuals. When the participants who were members Of teams were asked to respond to statements regarding tile amount of activity conducted with their team member(s) time reactions supported the results of hypothesis testing. The teamed participants as a group barely agreed that tluey had worked closely with their MSU team member in Planning and conducting elementary science workshops afhi five of them very strongly disagreed with the st’-atement. There was only slightly more agreement that they worked with their MSU team member on consulting aKPtivities and four participants strongly disagreed with ltrnat statement. Two people were in very strong agreement 126 with the statement that they had conducted workshops with team members who were not present at MSU and three indicated by moderate agreement that they had conducted some workshops with team members who did not have MSU training. The nine participants, who responded as indi- Viduals, indicated that as a group they felt the support of a team member with MSU training would have been helpful in consultation activities with elementary school person- nel. Various attempts were made by the MSU staff during the follow-up period to support or stimulate the activity of participants. The participants responded that receiving names of other resource personnel in their state was of little help in expanding their sphere Of influence or their network of contacts. Only thirteen of the thirty-one participants indicated that they received any benefits from this effort. Similarly, Only thirteen participants indicated that sending their name to the local Rand McNally representative was in any Way beneficial in establishing them as a resource person. The overall response was that the effort was ineffective. The names of the participants also were sent to their respective state departments of education, but this activity was met with an extreme lack of enthusiasm by the participants. Only three of the thirty-one par- ticipants indicated that the letters had done any good 11“ establishing them as resource personnel. 127 On the basis of names supplied by the participants, letters were sent to school personnel informing them of the availability of trained consultants in elementary school science. The participants as a group indicated that this was mildly effective in expanding their sphere Of influence, but nine participants disagreed that the letters had helped them. Of the nine participants who indicated that letters to school personnel were not helpful, three never submitted names and addresses of school personnel where letters could be sent. Information on the other six negative responses is lacking except for one participant who indicated that an administrator objected to the form letter notification. Twenty-nine people responded to the statement that meeting with the MSU staff members at conventions was informative. There were no negative reSponses, but Since the majority of the participants did not attend the same meetings as the MSU staff, only thirteen responses were positive. The limited number of people contacted at these meetings was primarily due to wide geographic distribution of the participants. Films and materials were loaned to the partici- Pants during the follow-up period and the general reaction of the participants was that the service was helpful and films were easily obtained. 128 Every participant was contacted at least once (Turing the follow-up period by telephone. In some cases, (zalls were exchanged with Michigan State University ailmost weekly. The reaction of the participants to the t:elephone calls was very favorable and only two people :indicated that they were not useful in maintaining or improving their activity. In general, the participants felt that the fellow-up program was effective in supporting their work as resource personnel. Fifty dollars was available for an average of three workshops per participant during the follow-up period. The purpose of this money was to assist par- ticipants in conducting workshops for schools which could not afford the expense of outside consultant help. In general, the participants responded that at the com— pletion of the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop they had understood the availability of the $50 per day for workshops. In addition to this, the participants were reminded of the $50 in three different newsletters, and it was mentioned to each participant at least once in a telephone conversation. In spite of the initial announcement-and the four reminders, only twenty-three requests were made for payment of $50 and these requests came from only twelve different individuals. The 129 participants were asked to briefly state the reason vvhy they did not request the money and the following (reSponses were given: 7 1 each "Have conducted no workshOps--no need at present." “WorkshOps conducted were paid for by the school districts." "was not really aware of it.“ "Too hard to get--too many preconditions-- such as get money from school system or sales representatives first." "I thought the school had to be depressed." "We expect to request funds later in the summer." "I thought I would be paid by the school requesting the workshop." "Some workshops were on a short notice-- I'd have given them already before I could ask for the money, the Rand McNally repre- sentative paid me." In reaponse to the statement that help from MSU was readily available, the participants as a group strongly agreed, and the only note of dissention was from one person who moderately disagreed with the statement. 130 Although the participants as a group indicated 1Zhat they felt the follow-up program.was effective in supporting their work as resource personnel, they were rust as much in agreement with its effectiveness as they ‘vere with the availability of the help. Newsletters were mailed to the participants five ‘times during the ten-month follow-up period. Included .in these newsletters was information about the partici- zpants, MSU staff, SCIS developments, meetings, and other 15ertinent information. The response to the newsletter ‘vas very favorable. The participants reported that they .strongly agreed that it was enjoyable, informative, and Emitten in a pleasant style. They also responded that nore information regarding participants and their activities should be included in the newsletters. The participants as a group moderately agreed that the newsletter should have been written and distributed more frequently. So that constructive changes could be made in newsletters for subsequent werkshops, partici— pants were asked to give suggestions for changes and their responses are summarized below: 3 "More information about all participants." 1 each "Information about testing and evaluation of SCIS." "Information about final editions of manuals not yet available." 131 "It needs some eye-catching cover." "Share successes--experiments as well as workshops." During the follow-up period, eleven participants were visited by Dr. Berkheimer, the Workshop director. Nine out of the eleven people reported that Dr. Berk- lueimer's visit increased their influence with elementary school personnel. Each of the participants indicated tfliat they wanted Dr. Berkheimer to visit them, and a .nxnmber of other participants invited him to visit even 'ttnough they knew that meetings with each team and indi- vixiual were impossible. However, as a group, the people receiving visits gave only a slight indication that the visit increased their workshOp activity. Receiving feedback of participant activity was art important part of the follow—up. For any given month, approximately 60 per cent of the participants returned information about their activity without reminders or begging on the part of the MSU staff. Section XIII of the final inventory listed nine statements about the feedback to which the participants were to respond. The Participants as a group moderately disagreed with the statements that the feedback form was difficult to fill Chat or time consuming. Six people expressed agree- ment with the statement that the forms were difficult to fill out and it was assumed that the difficulty was 132 encountered when they tried to fit their particular activity into the spaces on the structured feedback form. Twelve people expressed the fact that they felt completing the feedback forms was time consuming. The participants as a group strongly disagreed that return- ing the feedback forms was embarrassing although three individuals did express some agreement with the statement. The individual who was most embarrassed about returning the feedback forms said that when he tried to arrange workshops, his attempts were unsuccessful and he dis- liked having to report no activity. The participants as a group agreed that the feedback forms were an effec- tjnve means of assessing their activity. Since the par- tixcipants were not aware of the follow-up program until after they arrived at the Resource Personnel Workshop, timere was some concern that they might resent the study. However, the participants strongly indicated that they would have applied to the Resource Personnel Workshop even if they had known of the request to provide monthly feedback before the Resource Personnel Workshop started. Only two of the thirty-one individuals indicated that they might not have applied if they had known of the follow-up program before attending the Workshop. When aSkEKi to respond to the statement that "withholding part Of time RPW stipend would be an effective means of assuring participant feedback of information" the 133 reactions were mixed. Seventeen people were in agreement with the statement, but eleven indicated that they felt it would be an ineffective means of insuring feedback. After Christmas vacation, each participant was telephoned and asked, among other things, to verify or correct the record of his or her activity during the follow-up period. The participants disagreed quite strongly that the telephone call was threatening and most of them indicated that it was quite stimulating. The following suggestions were given as possible ways of improving the feedback technique: 4 "Collect the information with more frequent telephone calls." 2 "On the form, make the list of possible activities longer." 1 each "Tying participants to the local Rand McNally representative who collects the feedback information." "Putting more information about the partici- pant activities in the newsletter." So that some of the affects of the WOrkshop and the follow-up could be examined more closely, Section IX of the final inventory asked college teachers and school personnel to respond to separate sets of statements. The college teachers as a group strongly agreed that as a result of the Resource Personnel werkshop, their 134 relationship with the elementary school teachers and school administrators in their area had improved. When asked how the MSU staff might help to improve these relationships still more, the following responses were given: 1 each "Get us to involve teachers with.materials." "Make us more sensitive to teacher needs and wants--Group processes." "Letters to schools stating the training I've had." All eleven of the college teachers agreed strongly that the RPW training was beneficial in planning and teaching their college classes. Following is a list of the ways in which they felt it was particularly helpful: 7 "Wbrking with the materials has given the experience necessary to use materials in classes with students." 6 "The philosophy and content of the SCIS pro- gram was presented in classes and helped with the redesign of courses." 2 "Group process activities have reinforced my thinking in this area and have made me more aware of what is happening in the classroom." 1 each "Availability of resources for curriculum development." 135 "Indication of units best suited for adult education." "Strategy and techniques of implementation useful in class situation." "Making the distinction between implementation and orientation." "Understanding how children learn." The school personnel also agreed quite strongly that, as a result of the Resource Personnel WOrkshop, their relationship with teachers and administrators in their own school systems, as well as those in the sur- rounding areas, had improved. The school personnel listed the following as suggestions of ways Michigan State University might help improve the relationships still further: 1 each "I feel the great thing was your visit to our school." "You.gave me the self-confidence and a method of approaching them." "Disseminate information about our availa- bility to more schools." During the National Convention of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the MSU staff met with twelve of the RPW participants and other interested people to discuss their feelings about the Workshop and follow-up. The formal part of the meeting lasted about 136 seventy-five minutes, but some participants stayed and discussed situations for several hours beyond the formal meeting. The participants were asked to indicate what they felt were the most important elements of last summer's workshop and what they felt were the weaknesses. The only weakness which was mentioned seemed to be the fact that too much time was spent on activities at the lower grade levels. One important element mentioned about the workshOp was the honesty of the comments about the SCIS program. Its weaknesses, as well as the strengths, were mentioned and this seemed to have been an important factor for participants to discuss while they were orienting schools to the new elementary science programs. The bulk of the meeting was Spent in dis- cussion of the $50 available from Michigan State Uni- versity for workshops during the follow-up period and the relationship that exists between schools, RPW par- ticipants, and the Rand McNally sales representatives. The expressed feelings were mixed, but the agreement seemed to be that differences existed on a regional basis and were not representative of company or school policies. The t0pic of the monthly feedback forms was discussed and the only improvement that was suggested was the use of telephone calls so that information in addition to the quantitative aSpectS of workshops could be reported. 137 On Section X of the final inventory, the twelve participants attending the RPW meeting at the NSTA con- vention indicated very strongly that the informal, as well as the formal part of the meeting, was both interest- ing and of value to them. They reSponded that some type of meeting for the entire group would be an effective follow-up activity and all twelve participants indicated that if they had the opportunity to attend the 1973 NSTA National Convention, they would like to attend another RPW meeting. Twenty-two of the thirty-one participants indi- cated that they had some contact with their local Rand McNally representative during the follow-up period. But the reactions to statements about the relationships between the representatives and the RPW participants were quite diverse. The participants' names and addresses were sent to the Rand McNally representatives and since only six of the twenty-two participants indi- cated that the company representative made the initial contacts, it may be assumed that the effort had little effect. The participants as a group also reported that the contacts with the representatives in general did not increase during the year. The regional differences in representatives were quite apparent when the participants were asked to respond to the help that was given to them by the company representatives. The participants 138 were nearly equally divided into two groups: one group indicated very strongly that the representative was no help in consulting with school personnel, in supplying equipment for workshop activities, or in furnishing money for their workshop activities; the other group moderately agreed that their representative was helpful in consult- ing work, supplying equipment, and in furnishing them with money. Only five of the twenty-two participants indicated that the Rand McNally representative furnished them with names of people to contact for potential work— shops. The company representatives, in general, did not seem to view their relationship with the RPW participants as something that would benefit them directly since little communication or assistance was offered to the partici- pants. The participants were asked to supply the names and addresses of people attending their workshops. In response to this request, the group, as a whole, strongly indicated that this request was not threatening. The participants as a group moderately agreed that question- naires completed by their participants at the end of each workshop would be a time-saving way to return information to Michigan State University. At the end of the final inventory, the partici- pants were asked to indicate what additional efforts they felt Michigan State University could have made 139 during the follow-up. In response to this question the following statements were received: 9 2 1 each "MSU was helpful at all times." "Connection made with the Rand McNally repre- sentative, if possible." "Let Rand McNally know they do not have a corner on the SCIS market--they seem rather complacent.“ "More available collect telephone contacts with.MSU." "My administration needed organizational help from someone other than a teacher." "Information about current price lists and material changes." "Notification to interested schools of RPW participant availability." "Make sample of information you desire on feedback." The participants were also asked what demands or requests were made of them in relation to orientation and implementation activities for which the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop had not prepared them. 'The responses to this question are given below: 2 "Werking with the fourth, fifth, and Sixth grade levels of SCIS." 140 2 "The amount of time demanded was far in excess of that anticipated." 1 each "Helping school reorder supplies for next year." "Supplies and Sales representatives-~how to get one to come." "Still have trouble relating to administrators-- how to tactfully point out possible problems." "Strategies for overcoming elementary teachers' fears of science." "More children's reactions." During the workshop, several sessions were arranged for interested participants to discuss the writing of National Science Foundation Cooperative College School Science (CCSS) proposals. AS a result of these sessions, two proposals were written and funded. AS part of the follow-up program, Dr. Berkheimer per- sonally consulted with the directors and most of the staff members in each workshop. The workshops associated with these two CCSS proposals involved at least eight of the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop participants. In addition to those already funded, two more CCSS pro- posals are planned and are in the writing stage. RPW WOrkShop Survey During the follow-up period an attempt was made to estimate the effect of the WOrkshops presented by the 141 Resource Personnel WOrkshop participants. The request was made in newsletters and in telephone calls that the Resource Personnel WOrkShop participants send the names and addresses of people who attended their workshops to Michigan State University. If they had not been collect- ing that information, the participants were asked to collect the information in future workshops and return a copy to Michigan State University. Only Six indi— viduals or teams submitted names as a result of this request. Surveys were sent to a randomly selected sample of 360 of the 478 names that were submitted. To reduce the cost of mailing and still contact the majority of the people whose names had been submitted, 75 per cent of the names submitted by each participant group were ran- domly selected and surveyed. The selected sample, how- ever, was not evenly distributed among the Six groups submitting names since 291 of the original 478 names were submitted by one participant. For a summary of the number of surveys sent for each participant group, and the number of forms returned, see Table 9. Since the number of people who submitted names was small and because the distribution of names within the sample was uneven, analysis of the information was performed on the means for each group. 142 TABLE 9.--Survey distribution of people whose names were submitted by the RPW participants Identification Number of Number of Percentage of Partggggzgtngho People Survey Forms Survey Forms Submitted Names surveyed Returned Returned 032 218 90 41.2 042 41 16 39.0 101, 102, 103 46 21 45.6 011, 012 16 6 37.5 005 24 5 20.8 072 15 7 46.7 Total 360 145 40.2 Most of the people attending the workshops were elementary teachers. To be specific, 129 of the par- ticipants were teachers, 10 were administrators, 2 were college students, and the last 4 were either science committee members or teacher's aides. Most of the people were informed of the workshop through the Principal. One hundred nine people were notified of the workshop by the principal, 11 by the science coordinator, 10 by fellow teachers, 2 by friends, and 13 people responded that they heard about the workshop from the school's office, school meetings, teacher corps, college advisors, or the superintendent. Sixty-seven of the 141 participants responded that they were required by their school system to attend the workshop. When asked their reasons for attending, 101 responded that it was to obtain information about the new elementary 143 science programs, 23 stated that they were implementing the program, 14 reported that they were using the work- shop for in-service credit, and 5 reSponded that they were attending to clear up problems or were required to attend. The people completing the survey were asked to respond to ten statements about the workshop on a five- point scale. A response of strongly agree was repre- sented by (l) and a response of strongly disagree was represented by (5). The ten statements are listed below: 1. 2. The workshop met your expectations. The content was covered adequately in the one workshop. The workshop was well organized. The time was efficiently used. The workshop was long enough to meet your needs. You felt that the primary emphasis of the work- shop was to have you adopt the program. You would recommend this workshop to others. Adequate orientation to the new elementary science programs was included in the workshop. During the workshop you worked directly with materials. 144 10. Your role in using the new elementary science programs was discussed during the workshop. Since the number Of people responding from each of the lists Of names varied greatly, the means of the groups on each of the ten items is used for study rather than the total responses. This information is sum- marized in Table 10. The means for item six indicated almost a neutral or no Opinion response from the par- ticipants. This response was interpreted to mean that the workshop presentations were informative and not developed by the participants as a forceful approach to adOpting a program. This was supported by some Of the comments, listed later, indicating that the atmosphere of the presentations was free and unpressured. Items two and five indicated less agreeable reactions from the participants than the other items. Both of these statements referred to the amount Of time for the presentations and the amount of material covered during the workshOpS. In the summary comments, more time was the number one suggestion for improving the workshops. Based on the means for all the groups, it may be assumed that, with the exception Of item Six, the responses indicated agreement with the statements about the work- shop. And this, in turn, indicated that, for the people responding to the survey, the workshop generally was enjoyable and fulfilled their goals and expectations. 145 mo.H 5v.H no.m Hm.a ma.m ov.m N@.H mh.H em.m om.H mammz ecu mo cmmz oa.m om.H mm.m ma.~ om.H hm.m om.H om.H on.N mm.N mod .moa taoa mh.H ov.H mm.m om.H mo.m Hm.N Hm.H Hm.a mm.~ mm.H Nvo mm.H oo.H om.H om.H om.m mm.H om.a mo.a mm.a mm.H NHo .Hao oo.H mN.H vH.H Nv.a Nv.m mm.a mN.H mN.H om.H om.H who oo.H om.H oo.N om.H oo.m om.~ om.H om.N mh.N mN.N moo NH.N vo.H oo.~ om.N mm.m vm.~ vo.N hm.a em.m mv.N Nmo oa m m h m m e m N a Honesz mEOpH Mom memo: SOflHMOAMflucmoH mm>usm mosmxuoz 3mm one How mammzll.oa mqmda 146 It may be noted that the means of the responses for participant 032 showed less agreement with seven of the statements than did the means for any of the other groups. Table 11 lists the frequencies of all responses from people attending the workshops of participant 032. Since a bimodal distribution of reSponses was noted on items two, four, five, six, and eight, Table 11 lists the frequency of each response on the basis of whether the people were required to attend the workshop or not. On items one, two, and six, the distribution of responses was bimodal for people who were required to attend, but not for the people who attended on their own. For items five and eight, a bimodal distribution was noted for the responses of people who were required to attend and also for those who were not required to attend. The dis- tribution may partially be explained through examination into the background of these workshops. In the fall, participant 032 set up a schedule of Workshops throughout her home area for the purpose of orientation to the new elementary science programs. Three peOple presented each workshop and after a general discussion, those attending were allowed to choose one of three activity sessions: one for Science—-A Process Approach, one for Elementary Science Study, and one for Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Invitations were sent to the school principals in the area, asking them 147 TABLE ll.--RPW WOrkshops Survey responses for participant 032 Responses Item Number 3 4 5 No Y N Y N Y N Y N N Answer 1 2 8 26 18 6 7 ll 4 2 2 2 l 4 19 8 2 4 18 18 5 3 7 ll 33 24 3 2 4 2 0 4 14 ll 22 23 3 1 6 4 0 5 4 9 18 14 2 2 16 ll 3 6 6 0 l6 4 4 7 18 18 10 7 4 7 25 20 7 7 7 l 4 l 8 6 3 24 21 3 2 ll 10 3 2 9 l7 18 29 19 l 0 0 2 O 10 5 8 34 25 2 3 4 2 0 1 Y = yes, the school required the workshop attendance. N = no, the school did not require workshop attendance. 148 to attend or to send a science supervisor and one or two interested teachers. The principals viewed this as a means of informing all of their elementary teachers about the new elementary science programs and, in many cases, required all of their teachers to attend these workshOps. The result was that some of the teachers resented the workshop before they ever attended it. Others expected a detailed presentation on one of the programs and were disappointed when only a general overview or orientation to each program was given. The net result Was that two separate groups were formed: those who did not appreciate the workshop or did not obtain the information from it that they expected, and those for whom the presentations were designed and who felt that attending the workshops was worth the time invested. With this background in mind, the distribution of the responses is more easily explained. The dis- tribution on item number six reflected the fact that the peOple who were required to attend the workshops felt more strongly that the objective of the workshop was to have the schools adopt one of the new elementary science programs. Items two, four, five, and eight generally concerned the amount of time and thoroughness Of the workshop presentations. During the summer Workshop, feedback from the participants to the staff was a necessary part of 149 assessing participant needs and directing the course of events. Ninety-three of 138 people responding to the surveys indicated that the instructor asked them to evaluate the workshop. From the people responding, 64 indicated written feedback was used, 13 said that verbal responses were asked for, 11 said that checklists were completed, and 2 others indicated that a general evalu- ation of the workshop was made. Space was provided for the people to describe what they liked about the workshops and what suggestions they had for improving them. The comments were sum- marized and are listed below, along with the frequency for each type of comment. What you liked about the workshop. 48 Participating actively using materials instead of sitting 12 well organized 12 Informal, personal atmosphere, free, and unpressured 9 Able to use worksh0p information in the classroom (home-made materials) 7 . Able to see materials used at other grades and in other programs 3 Meeting and talking with other people 2 Use of films and film-strips (Audio-visual materials) 1 each 150 Presentation was in a language parents could understand, using actual teachers to help present the workshop, leaders knew their material and were interested in it, variety of processes covered. Suggestions for improvement. 47 More time needed (whole day rather than one- half day, for discussion, at specific grade level, group activity) One program should be presented at a time More work at upper grade levels Smaller groups Use of students (observe actual classroom lessons, slides and films of actual class- room presentations) More detail (Guidelines on student discovery) More advanced information concerning the workshop Additional demonstration techniques Techniques for implementing programs Manuals and materials (to take back to the school and study, central center for loan of materials) More materials Textbook used with materials Evaluation given earlier and share the results 151 1 each Have a number of different speakers, stOp movies and discuss, suggestions for improv- ing existing elementary science programs, presentations of life science units, periodic workshops during the year, and better organization. The results in this section cannot be considered a representative sample of the entire Resource Personnel WOrkshop since only a small number of people responded with rosters of their participants. The RPW participants responding included all four of the nuns in the Workshop, two people who received their doctorate degree from Michigan State University, and one of the more active individual participants. Even though the sample is biased, it does represent the quality of the workshops presented by some of the more active participants and hopefully is indicative of the quality of the workshops presented by all the Resource Personnel WOrkshop partici- pants. Participant Description A description of participant activity based on contact hours, although quantitative in nature, has a number of limitations. In order to report some of the characteristics of both the more active and less active participants, a brief sketch of some aSpects of these individuals not reflected in the hypothesis testing 152 will follow. Hopefully, this will help the reader under- stand the quality and, to some extent, the effect of the activity these participants have engaged in. First, some of the less active participants will be described and then some of the more active individuals will be dis- cussed. Participants 091 and 092 were members of a team as their identification numbers indicate. Neither of these participants conducted any workshOps nor displayed any activity which could be counted as contact hours. Participant 092 was on the staff of a regional education laboratory and, due to commitments at his office, was unable to complete all of the measures during the Work- shop. He was primarily concerned with the developmental aspects of science education materials and was working on an urban environmental education program. In the development of the program, SCIS units were used where applicable, but the developmental staff wanted more process than is found in SCIS. Participant 092 claimed that SCIS was popular in the suburban areas, but he did little to help schools with the program. He attempted to get commitments from school systems on a CCSS pro- posal, but the administrators he worked with did not follow through on their agreement to send peOple to an organizational workshop. In his analysis of the benefits of the Resource Personnel workshop, participant 092 153 suggested that more theoretical issues of different leadership styles be incorporated and that models to guide teachers in classroom discussion be presented. The latter was not only presented, but formed the basis for the micro-teaching sessions during the Workshop. He listed field work and work with students as real strengths of the workshop. He very strongly disagreed that his Sphere of influence was increased even though he was supplied with a list of forty names of people with Similar training in his regional area. He also felt that filling out the feedback form was too time consuming although he never returned any. Information was col- lected from him by means of several telephone calls and three letters which he wrote to Michigan State University. Participant 091, the team mate of participant 092, was a sixth-grade teacher. Her school had no SCIS materials before the 1971-1972 school year. In the fall, she was required to teach health education to her students, but in the winter and spring, she taught SCIS from both the Ecosystems and Models: Electric and Mag- netic Interactions kits. Since these students had no prior experience with SCIS, she was to keep records of what she felt was needed to teach the program to sixth- grade students with no previous experience. However, she never sent the copy of her notes to Michigan State University. She reported that the students enjoyed the 154 program very much but did not mention the reactions of other teachers and staff. She conducted no workshops during the follow-up period and made only limited use of her resource personnel training in her own classroom. Participant 008 conducted no workshops, possibly due to the fact that he was a college teacher starting at a new institution. In his local area, the schools he contacted were having financial problems and were not interested in workshops for either orientation or imple- mentation of the new elementary science programs. He had trouble contacting the local sales representative for Rand McNally who might have been able to give him alternative leads for workshops. In spite of the fact that Michigan State University notified the representa- tive that participant 008 was available for help and con- sultation, the representative presented a worksh0p within one and one-half miles of participant 008's home without inviting him or even notifying him of the workshop. Participant 006 also was a college teacher in his first year at an institution and conducted no work- shops. He did, however, use the SCIS materials exclu- sively in his undergraduate methods course. He presented Ecosystems as a model of an elementary program and although he used the published materials from Rand McNally, the activities were conducted with materials purchased locally. His goal was to teach the whole 155 class for less than $50. In addition to the philOSOphy and content of the SCIS program, he hoped to demonstrate that science could be taught with everyday things. But he also reported that taking the time to collect and store all the materials really made him appreciate the commercial kits. Participant 042 was the most active person during the follow-up period. Although she was part of a team formed by the MSU staff both she and her team mate had made separate plans for using their WOrkshop experience. Consequently, none of the thirty-four workshops she pre- sented were the result of a team effort. She was a Roman Catholic nun and, in addition to teaching during the day and acting as science consultant, she conducted night classes at the local college. Many of the work- shops she conducted for both archdiocesan and public school teachers were in the form of in-service workshops for credit. In addition to the demands for training in elementary science, many of the teachers took part in the workshops due to a recent state requirement that teachers take additional hours of course work in order to maintain their teaching certificates. One of the biggest problems that she mentioned was the commitment made by some of the schools to implement SCIS at all grades in one year. She conducted workshOps for these people but could not give them enough training to 156 adequately solve their problem. Since she had con- siderable workshop experience prior to the Resource Personnel workshop, she mentioned that the way partici- pant feedback, both written and verbal, was used to direct the WOrkshop set an excellent example for her to follow. In regard to support during the follow-up period, she mentioned that more frequent telephone calls would have been appreciated and that letters sent from Michigan State University to schools in her area, informing them of her training, would have given her additional contacts. She felt that the monthly feed- back forms were helpful to her since they forced her to keep records of her activity, a task which she had not performed prior to the Resource Personnel WOrkshop. Participant 005 conducted twenty-two workshOps during the follow-up period. Although the SCIS program was not used in her school system, she maintained cultures of live material for the SCIS program. Because of her science activities and interests, her workshop services were used not only by her own school system but by neighboring school systems and colleges. Regard- ing comments about the workshop itself, she felt that the only thing she was not thoroughly prepared for was the reordering of supplies, particularly at the fifth- and sixth-grade levels. She used the materials from the Teachers Training Kit supplied by Rand McNally and 157 suggested that Rand McNally might loan similar kits to each of the participants of the Resource Personnel Work- shop. She felt that this would give them a minimum supply of materials to work with and form at least the first link between the Rand McNally representative and the participants. Participant 062 conducted twenty-one workshops during the follow-up period. He was a doctoral student completing his degree requirements and most of his activities were associated with his university responsi- bilities. He worked with four county school districts, conducting several workshops a week as part of his in- service training program for the teachers. Although none of his activities were with his team mate from Michigan State University, he expected much more teamed activity next year when he would again be located near his team member. During the year, he was instrumental in sending several teachers and administrators from the schools with which he worked to Michigan State University for a four-day leadership training workshop. The major problem that he reported was that of contacting and getting supplies from the local Rand McNally represen- tatives. He suggested that in future workshops news- letters should contain more information about those participants who are active and how they accomplished their objectives. In addition, he mentioned that it 158 would be helpful during the workshop to fill out a sample monthly feedback form so that the type of information required could be indicated. Sixteen and one-half workshops were conducted by participant 032. The half was due to the only workshop conducted jointly with her MSU team member. As a nun, she conducted most of her workshops in the archdiocese. A schedule of workshops at schools throughout the diocese was set up in the fall and these workshops were presented with the aid of two other nuns who were not trained at Michigan State University. She was a full-time teacher and conducted workshop activities on released time in the afternoon or on weekends. Certain other participants deserve brief mention. In Table 7, it can be noted that certain participants' activity changed considerably before and after the work- shop. Participant 004 was a high school teacher and Science consultant. She conducted activities even when she had to pay for her own materials and when her administration failed to give her released time to conduct workshOps, she threatened them with legal pro- ceedings. Participant 041 was a full—time elementary teacher who had previously taken a year's leave of absence for self-study and improvement in elementary science education. Upon returning home, she conducted 159 ten workshops within her own school system and six additional workshops in neighboring school systems. She felt that Michigan State University might have been able to support her activity with letters to schools in her area which were not contacted by the local Rand McNally representative. Participant 082 was an extremely independent half-time teacher and half-time science supervisor. His school system was using a modified version of SCIS in which the program was rewritten, emphasizing behavioral objectives. His Workshops involved a number of schools in his home area and he felt that the most constructive part of the WOrkshop was being able to actually perform the activities in the SCIS program. Using contact hours, or the number of workshops, as a measure of a participant's activity and implied effect on elementary science can be somewhat misleading. Two particular examples of this misrepresentation are participants 003 and 022 who seemed unproductive in terms of workshOps or contact hours. The school system which employed participant 003 was plagued by many of the problems common to schools today. All of the problems seemed to have become active issues at about the same time. The superintendent, who had been with the school system for more than twenty years, retired in 1971. 160 He had operated the school system in a traditional manner and had made very few changes. In complete contrast to this, the new superintendent wanted to improve the school system and upgrade its standards of education. The schools in this system were integrated. How- ever, this was not planned and occurred only because a few white families lived in the predominantly black section of town, and a few black families lived in the white section of town which contained the local college. Teachers with enough seniority eventually worked their way out of the black schools and into those located in the predominately white neighborhood. The plan for complete integration of the schools was to place all students in grades one through three in one building, in grades four and five in a second building, and the remainder in grades six through twelve in the third building. Needless to say, the older teachers, who had worked their way into the white schools, were not happy with the prOSpect of once again having to teach black students. In addition to the racial division in the community's population distribution, it was apparent that a racial discord was also present in the faculty which was about 25 per cent black. The new superintendent saw to it that innovations were implemented. A good example of this was the ele- mentary reading program. Tests indicated that, although 161 the students in the predominately white school supposedly were getting a better education, their reading skills were not significantly better than the students in the black school. Consequently, the Peabody reading materials were purchased for the schools and three full-time read— ing consultants were hired to assist the teachers in improving the students' reading skills. The older teachers resented the implication that they were not doing an adequate job and resisted the efforts at change. The administration, however, informed them, in no uncer- tain terms, that they were to either improve their teaching or leave. Because of the changes that were being made not only in reading, but in other areas as well, the teachers were all required to attend meetings after school. Participant 003 never mentioned which school she taught in, but from a picture of the students in her class, it was assumed that she taught in the predomi- nately black portion of town. During the summer WOrkshop she ate hot dogs and hamburgers so that she could save enough money to pur- chase kits for her own classroom. Her class was the only one in the school system which used SCIS, but her fine teaching example and the enthusiasm of her students demonstrated the worth of the program and insured its eventual implementation throughout the school system. 162 Participant 22 was also a full-time teacher. Because of his training at Michigan State University, his school system supplied the SCIS kits for his class. Because of his excellent teaching example, enthusiasm of his students for the program, and a 1:00 A.M. presen- tation to the board of education, $2,500 was alloted for SCIS in the school system for the following year. Summary of the Chapter During the study, it was found that teams of two and three participants were not significantly more active than were participants who attended the Resource Personnel Workshop as individuals. A Pearson product—moment correlation coefficient between activity prior to the Resource Personnel Workshop and subsequent to it was significantly greater than zero. But no significant correlations were found between sub- sequent workshop activity and the participants' per- ception of the SCIS program, knowledge of general science, years of teaching experience, occupational assignment, or academic degree. Although it was not significant, there was a negative correlation between the participants' per- ception of the SCIS program at the beginning of the WOrkshop and their activity during the follow-up period. Numerous other correlations failed to indicate any strong relationships which might support this finding. 163 Multiple regression analysis indicated that approximately 43 per cent of the participants' activity during the follow-up period could be predicted or explained on the basis of their activity prior to attending the Resource Personnel WOrkShOp and their perception of the SCIS program at the beginning of the WOrkshOp. Of the two independent variables, prior activity was most highly correlated with subsequent workshop activity. The participants' reactions to the Workshop were favorable. They reported that the presentation of orien- tation and implementation conferences and working through the activities with the SCIS materials were the most worthwhile activities of the WOrkshop. They praised the staff flexibility, assistance, and organization as major factors contributing to the success of the Wbrkshop. The only assistance from the Michigan State University staff which the participants felt could have been improved were the letters of introduction to local school administrators. The participants reported that the most enjoyable and helpful form of communication with the Michigan State University staff during the follow-up were telephone conversations, which they strongly recommended for future follow-up programs. The survey of people who attended the partici- pants' workshOps indicated that they were satisfied 164 with the presentations. Since their people had very few SUggestions for change or improvement, it was assumed that these workshops and the Resource Personnel WorkshOp were a SUCCESS. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Overview of the Chapter This Chapter is divided into two sections. The first section is a discussion of the results and con- clusions that can be drawn from the analysis and the interpretation of the data collected during the study. In the second section, recommendations are made based on the findings of the study, and implications for future study are made. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to supply infor- mation which could act as a guide for future resource personnel workshops and to aid in the selection of their Participants. Specifically this study reported the workshop activity of thirty-one participants following the 1971 Resource Personnel WCrkshOp on the Science Curriculum Improvement Study at Michigan State Uni- versity. This activity was correlated with the following factors: the comparison of teams and individuals, knowledge of general science, perception of the SCIS 165 166 program, workshop activity prior to the Resource Personnel WOrkshop, years of teaching experience, occupational assignment, and academic degree. Information was col- lected not only during the WOrkshOp but throughout the ten-month period following the WOrkshop. So that information could be gathered regarding the affective as well as the cognitive results of the WOrkshOp, several instruments were devised. These instruments included a questionnaire on participant perception of the SCIS program, a final inventory of participant reactions to the WOrkshOp and the follow-up activities, and a survey form to sample the reactions of the people who attended the workshops presented by the participants during the follow-up period. The purpose of the WOrkshop and the follow-up Period was to train the participants to be consultants in the new elementary science programs and to support their activity as resource personnel during the 1971-1972 academic year. During the WbrkshoP, the SCIS program in particular was used for specific content training. The findings of the study were based on data obtained from thirty-one college teachers and science supervisors who attended the WOrkshop. The study used statistical techniques to test the hypotheses, and used the written reactions of participants to give a measure of their perception of specific Wbrkshop and follow-up efforts. 167 The hypotheses which were tested are given in Chapter I and III. Shortened forms of these hypotheses are included below along with the results of the testing. T-tests and F—tests of Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were used to test the hypotheses, and Multiple Regression Analysis was used to determine the relative importance of each independent variable studied. Hypothesis 1: Teams will have significantly more workshop activity during the follow-up period than will individuals. The analysis of the data failed to indicate that teams were significantly more active than individuals. Apparently, the processes which can act to support the activity of members in a team do not function with teams as small as two and three participants. Since teams were not significantly more active than individuals, all par- ticipants in subsequent testing were analyzed as indi- viduals. During the follow-up period, all of the par- ticipants were supported with money, materials, a net- work of communication, and advice from Michigan State University. This active support by the MSU staff may have furnished assistance that might otherwise have come only from the interaction of members within a team. As was indicated on the final inventory, all the par- ticipants responded that the MSU staff was very helpful. 168 Throughout the WOrkshOp the advantages of teams were stressed and the orientation and implementation conferences were presented as team efforts. However, the participants who came as teams were not encouraged to work closely with their teammates for the majority of the workshop. The MSU staff felt that each participant would have greater interaction with the other participants if his team membership was not stressed. This, however, may have had the effect of weakening the close team relationship which would carry over into the follow-up period. There was some indication that the teams which worked together prior to the Resource Personnel WOrkshop were also the teams which continued to work together after the summer Workshop. Selection of participants may also have been a factor which influenced the amount of team and individual activity. Since teams were given preference over indi- viduals, the participants in teams may not have been as carefully selected as the individuals. The selection criteria were the same for all participants, but the standards for individual acceptance may have been higher than that for team acceptance. Participants who did not plan to work as a team may have applied to the WOrkshop as a team to increase their potential for selection. Other individuals were selected as a team because they lived near each other even though they did not apply as a team. 169 Hypothesis 2: There will be a significant positive correlation between the level of workshop activity of par- ticipants during the follow-up period and their knowledge of general science. No significant correlation was found between activity and knowledge of general science. It appears that there is little relationship between these two factors for the participants in this study. In the new science programs, processes are stressed more than content. The processes are not unique to science but might be a more appropriate variable to study than science knowledge. The participants' knowledge of, and ability to demonstrate, the inquiry approach may have been more closely related to the participants' work- shop activity than their knowledge of general science. In addition, higher scores on a test of general science may indicate that the participants' education was organized around the learning of content and it might be more difficult for them to adapt to presentations based on a process approach. Hypothesis 3: There will be a significant positive correlation between the participants' level of workshop activity during the follow-up period and their perception of the SCIS program. There was no significant positive correlation between the perception of the SCIS program and workshop 170 activity during the follow-up period. However, there was a negative correlation between these two factors. For the participants in the Workshop, a less positive perception of the SCIS program seemed to be related to the greater amount of workshop activity. CorrelatiOns were calculated between the participants' perception of the SCIS program and numerous other variables, but little explanation for the negative correlation between activity and perception of SCIS was found. The variables of occupation and sex were con- founded. Most of the college science educators and school administrators were men and most of the teachers were women. It was noted that sex was correlated with activity and also with the perception of the SCIS pro- gram. Since most of the women were teachers, they may have had a more negative perception because they were in a position to realize the problems as well as the advantages of the new elementary science programs as they were related directly to the classroom. The college teachers and administrators, on the other hand, were predominantly men who may have had a more positive per- ception because their occupations were not as closely associated with elementary classroom teaching. Also mentioned earlier was the finding that most negative perceptions were indicated by the women who were nuns and who may have been influenced by a lack of 171 money for new program implementation within their schools. However, their dedication to improving science education may still have allowed them to be very active where introduction to the new science programs was needed or where they could actively support the efforts of the schools which had made the decision to adopt one of the new elementary science programs. The men who were administrators indicated a positive perception, but their limited activity may have been due to other demands which were placed on their time during the follow-up period. Hypothesis 4: There will be a significant positive correlation between the number of workshops presented by the participants prior to attending the Resource Personnel WOrkshop and their activity during the follow-up period. A significant positive correlation was found between the amount of activity prior to and subsequent to the Resource Personnel WOrkshop. It might be inter- preted that those who were active before attending the WOrkshOp were also active after the WOrkshop, but it was found that most of the participants increased their activity. The positive correlation indicated that their relative positions on a scale of activity remained approximately the same. 172 Several explanations might be given for the find- ing that the activity increased for both participants who had workshop experience prior to the Resource Personnel Wbrkshop and for those who had little or no prior workshop experience. For those who had no prior experience, the WOrkshop probably gave them the skills and knowledge necessary to be more active as resource personnel. For those participants who indi- cated that they had previous workshop experience, the new knowledge and techniques presented to them during the WOrkshop probably had more meaning since these par- ticipants could easily fit this information into their existing frame of reference. The new knowledge gained during the Wbrkshop may also have enabled the experienced participants to present workshops in subjects and at grade levels which were previously beyond their level of competence. Two variables which were confounded with all variables in the study may be related to subsequent, as well as, prior workshop experience. Participants with previous experience might be expected to live in areas where there was a great potential for workshop presen- tations and conversely, those with little activity may have been from areas which presented limited opportunity for this type of activity. Likewise, the participants' prior workshop experiences were probably related to the 173 interest of school personnel in utilizing resource personnel for in-service teacher training. Since there is little reason to expect either the number of workshop Opportunities or the interest of school personnel to change, there is little reason to expect much change in the relative position of the participants on the scale of workshop activity. Study Question 1: Do differences in years of teaching experience indi- cate significantly different levels of activity during the follow—up period? No significant correlation was found between the number of years of teaching experience and the workshop activity of the participants following the WOrkshop. For the participants in this study, years of teaching experience and the number of workshop presentations had very little relationship. Study Question 2: Do differences in age indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? Once again, no significant correlation was found between age and level of workshop activity during the follow-up period. Since years of teaching experience would be quite highly correlated with age, it was not too surprising to find the correlations between these two factors and activity were similar. 174 There may be a number of possible explanations for the findings that little correlation existed between the variables of age or teaching experience and workshop activity. The affect of age and teaching experience may vary greatly from individual to individual. The younger participants may have wanted to advance themselves pro- fessionally, or they may have been willing to take more risks than the older participants and consequently were more active. The older participants may have been more active because they personally have experienced change over a longer period of time; they could avoid mistakes of lesser experienced participants; their age and exper- ience gave them more confidence than the younger par- ticipants, or their efforts were the results of a life- long commitment to education. Conversely, the younger participants may have been less active due to their limited teaching experience and the resulting lack of confidence, or the limited channels of communication through which they could make their resource skills known. Likewise, the older participants may have been less active because of personal feelings regarding the traditional ways; they may not have been as eager to gamble on the unknown or to take risks. In summary, the activity of the participants seemed to depend on individual differences rather than affect of age or teaching experience. 175 Study Question 3: Do differences in academic degrees held by the par- ticipants indicate significantly different levels of activity during the follow-up period? No significant correlation was found between the participants' academic degrees and the amount of workshop activity they presented. The participant's academic degree may have been an important factor in determining his occupation, but unless the occupation was directly related to workshOp eXperience, it probably had little effect on his workshop activity. The participants may have derived a certain sense of security from the higher degree, and the prestige that may accompany the higher academic degree may have helped some participants to initially arrange workshops. However, the higher degrees may also have been associated with jobs which were further removed from the elementary classroom where the need for in-service training exists. The independent variables of prior WOrkshop activity, SCIS Perception Questionnaire scores, STEP scores, years of teaching experience, age, academic degree, and sex were simultaneously correlated with workshop activity during the follow-up period using a Multiple Regression Equation. Only two of the seven partial correlation coefficients were significant. Prior workshop experience was most highly correlated 176 with workshop activity during the follow-up period and negative perceptions of the SCIS program also had a partial correlation coefficient which was significant. With these two independent variables, 43 per cent of the participants' workshop activity could be accounted for. A comparison was made between the participants' perception of SCIS at the beginning and at the end of the WOrkshop, and it was found that the participants' perception of SCIS became significantly more positive during their four-week stay at Michigan State University. Therefore, it is assumed that the four-week summer program had the effect of not only increasing the participants' workshOp activity, but also of improving their perception of the SCIS program and hopefully the other new elementary science programs as well. During the WorkshOp, the participants reported several aspects of the program which they felt were par- ticularly enjoyable and worthwhile. The participants indicated that planning and conducting the orientation and implementation workshops was most valuable. Next, in order of importance, the participants listed: the staff characteristics of flexibility, organization, qualifications, and enthusiasm; activities with materials and familiarity with kits; micro-teaching sessions, and group-process activities as major factors contributing to the success of the summer WOrkshop. 177 Some of the same characteristics were reported by other participants as activities which should be deleted from future Resource Personnel Workshops. The most cri- ticized aSpect of the Workshop was that too much time was spent on the activities of the lower levels and not enough time was left for the adequate coverage of the upper-level activities. Some participants felt that too much time was spent planning the orientation and imple- mentation conferences, and several peOple felt that too many group-process sessions were included in the WOrkshop schedule. The ten-month follow-up period was designed not only to gather information about the activity of the participants but also to actively support them in their efforts as resource personnel. The major correspondence from Michigan State University which the participants indicated as being helpful in supporting their efforts were letters of introduction to schools near their homes. Telephone calls seemed to be the most stimulating and effective means of communication with the participants and many of them indicated that they would have appre- ciated the chance to call Michigan State University collect when the need arose. They also mentioned that the telephone calls could be used to supply more complete information about their activity than could be collected on written forms. The availability of money from 178 Michigan State University for workshops during the follow-up period did not seem to be a generally effec- tive stimulus to their activity. It seemed that if schools were interested in hosting workshop presen— tations, they also were willing to reimburse the con- sultants. The college teachers reported that the experience of working with materials, as well as the philosophy and content of the SCIS program, was beneficial to them in teaching their in-service and pre-service education classes. Several of them also reported that their group-process training was useful in the classroom. The only suggestion, made more than once, for the improvement of the follow—up program was to help the participants establish contact and develop a working relationship with the Rand McNally sales representative in their area. The survey of people who attended workshops during the follow-up period indicated that they were satisfied with the presentations. Since only slight criticism was expressed and since there were only a few suggestions for improvement, it is assumed that the quality of these workshOps was quite high. It should again be noted, however, that the survey sample which gave these findings was extremely biased and may not be represen— tative to the feelings of the population of people who 179 attended workshops during the follow-up period. It appears that the training which nine participants received was more than adequate to give them the background necessary to be successful resource personnel and it is hoped that this finding would apply to the other Resource Personnel Workshop participants as well. David May reported the results of a study of a Resource Personnel WOrkshop on the Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS) which was parallel to the work- shop described in this thesis. He reported that no significant difference existed between the level of activity for teams and individuals during the follow-up period. Similarly, he found no significant correlation between the participants' academic degrees and activity, occupations and activity, or knowledge of general science and activity. He also reported that no significant cor- relation was found between the participants' perception of the ISCS program and their activity during the follow- up period, but there was a positive correlation instead of the negative correlation reported in this study. He did indicate that there was a significant correlation between the participants' change toward a more positive perception of the ISCS program during the Resource Personnel Workshop and their subsequent workshop activity. Except for the sign of the nonsignificant correlation between the participants' perception of the program and 180 their activity and the significant correlation between the participants' change in perception and their subsequent workshop activity, the results of Dr. May's study agree with the findings of this study.95 Recommendations The results of this study indicate that the par- ticipants who conducted the greatest number of workshops before attending the Resource Personnel Workshop also presented the most workshops during the follow-up period. In addition, a strong, but negative, correlation was found between the participants' perception of the SCIS program and their subsequent workshop activity. Using the beta weights reported for these two measures in Chapter IV, an attempt should be made to predict the activity of participants in Resource Personnel Work— shops where information on these two factors has been collected. It is recommended that the SCIS Perception Questionnaire be redesigned and that the items be separated into categories which would refer to categories of resource personnel activity with the SCIS program, Statements in regard to the behavior of students and 95David H. May, "A Descriptive Study of Selected Workshop Factors Affecting the Training and Support of Resource Personnel in a Science Curriculum" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972), p. 157. 181 teachers in the SCIS program, and the interaction of SCIS with the general school setting. Questions might be added to each of these categories to increase the relia- bility of the entire instrument. If the length of each section were sufficiently increased, a correlation might be made between the participants' workshop activity and each section of the questionnaire in order to determine which questionnaire categories are significantly related to workshop activity. Several participants objected to the negative wording of certain statements in the question- naire. If revisions are made concerning this aspect of the wording, it is recommended that changes be made in the instruction explaining the negative wording rather than changing the statements. Negative statements force the participants to consider each statement carefully before making a response. The final suggestion for change in this instrument is to reverse the numbering of the responses so that "strongly disagree" is indicated by (l) and "strongly agree" is indicated by (5). Several of the participants in the Workshop who fulfilled the role of the science supervisor in their school system were full-time classroom teachers as well. They reported difficulty in finding time for resource personnel activities, and when workshops were presented after school, it was hard for them to be spontaneous and enthusiastic. Full-time teachers seem to do as fine a 182 job of workshop presentation as any of the other partici- pants, but because of their limited time for these activities, it is recommended that full-time teachers be given a lower priority for selection than science supervisors and consultants who teach only part-time. The presentation of orientation and implementation conferences during the fourth week of the summer Workshop Was included in the schedule to provide a minimum amount of experience in the presentation of workshops for all participants before returning home. To encourage the participants to use their resource personnel skills, it is suggested that participants in future workshops be required to schedule a one-week in-service workshop for school personnel in their home area. Detailed plans for this workshop could be made during the Resource Personnel Workshop and a promise could be obtained from the partici- pants that they would present this workshop to school personnel before the opening of school in September. Information feedback was a valuable part of Workshop organization. In addition to its usefulness for research analysis, feedback built the foundation for assessing the needs of the participants and estab- lishing whether these needs were being met. In the follow-up study, information requested on the feedback forms was not explicit enough and the forms were probably of little value to the Resource Personnel WOrkshop 183 participants who filled them out. For this reason, it is suggested that the evaluation form in future workshops be designed by the participants during their workshop training. A feedback form designed by the participants and the workshop staff could have numerous advantages. It would be developed by those who would use it and should, therefore, be more completely and accurately used. Its design would not be that of one person, but would take advantage of the experiences of many people. This form could be used to collect the information from each person who attended a workshop during the follow-up period. The information collected on these forms could be useful to the participant in structuring and redesign- ing his workshops. These forms could then be forwarded to Michigan State University as an easy method of reporting complete information on workshop activity. Still another advantage is that greater emphasis would be placed on the use of feedback information in each and every workshop. If the participants do not elect to develop a standard feedback form, it is strongly suggested that they be encouraged to furnish a roster of names, addresses, and telephone numbers for each participant in their work- shops. With this information a sample of the people attending workshops during the follow-up period could 184 be surveyed to determine the quality of workshop presen- tations. This additional input could be used for modifying the training of resource personnel. Or, they might be surveyed at a later time to determine what behavioral changes had resulted from their workshop attendance. The instrument used to evaluate the summer Work- shop should be modified if it is to be used in the future. Instead of asking the same series of questions three different ways only one set of general questions should be designed to gather reactions of the participants to Specific key activities. The use of short-answer open- ended questions is suggested at the end of the instrument since it allows the participants a chance to make comments and express concerns in their own terms. During the follow-up period some participants expressed slight concern regarding the problems of establishing themselves as a resource person. Letters of introduction were partially successful, but other communication networks need to be utilized. A supplement to the brochure which lists the upcoming National Science Foundation workshops and institutes might be helpful in publicizing the availability of resource personnel. Since the Foundation had invested much money in the training of these people and since brochures are mailed annually to school personnel, the information added to 185 these brochures might furnish a greater return on the money already invested. Recommendations for the people listed in this supplement are not suggested since it would be impossible to determine the qualifications of each person who attended a summer workshop, but some assistance needs to be given to these people so that knowledge of their training can be dissiminated. Several suggestions could be made to improve the support given by the WOrkshop staff during the follow-up period. The newsletter should include a question-and- answer section so that information can be efficiently shared with all participants, and personal information about the participants should be included. A contest might be established around a "question of the month" to encourage participants to write more often. Personal information about the participants should help to main- tain some of the rapport established during the summer WOrkshop. Within the budget of the WOrkshop, telephone calls with participants should be used as much as possible. This means of communication enables the participants to discuss problems and get immediate solutions as well as making it possible for them to report activity infor- mation which.might be difficult to indicate on a structured form. 186 Many commercial companies who publish and supply materials for the science programs derive benefit from the resource personnel, and it would be advisable to encourage them to support the resource personnel in the field with money and supplies. If the participants do not need or desire this contact, that is their choice, but it should be the responsibility of the workshop directors to assist their participants in establishing contact with the various company sales representatives. If a good working relationship is established between the resource personnel and the sales representatives, it could exist long after the support from a resource personnel workshop ceases to exist. Teams, as they were defined in this study, did not display a significantly greater amount of activity than did individuals. Based on this information it is strongly suggested that the team concept not be empha- sized on future Wbrkshop applications and brochures. If two or more pe0ple indicate that they have worked closely together in the past, there is little reason to select against them. But, neither is there reason to encourage people to apply as teams to increase their Chances of being accepted. A major change in elementary science has occurred in the role of the classroom teacher. The teacher should be able to teach the processes of science and use the 187 inquiry approach to education spontaneously, in any Situation which may arise in the classroom. The changes a teacher must make in order to accept this new role can be assisted by a resource person who has been trained in this area. In their ranking of workshop objectives, the participants indicated that their greatest need was to develop skills to be used with orientation, implementation, and consulting activi- ties, and they reported that knowledge about the specific features of the SCIS program were least important to them. Training to meet this general educational need could be accomplished by a new type of resource personnel workshop. The focus of this new concept in resource personnel work— Shops would be shifted away from the support of commercial programs and toward methods of educational processes and the inquiry-style of teaching. With this orientation, the resource person might be flexible enough to meet a greater variety of requests and needs of teachers in the field. These resource personnel could: help teachers implement a particular new program, assist school person- nel in the use of existing science materials with a new program, or help teachers develop a style of teaching which could be used with available materials. If a network of communication was maintained between the resource personnel workshop staff and the participants through a follow-up program after the summer 188 workshop, successful ideas concerning the use of materials could be collected and published. These innovative ideas and techniques could then be used by anyone interested in science education. Implications for Further Research Teams as reported in this study, were not signifi- cantly more active than individuals, but in other situ- ations there might be advantages to team selection and training. If change in a local school system was the purpose of a workshop, a team of resource personnel might be more effective than an individual. This idea and the ones presented in the following questions need to be studied before the overall elimination of team training is recommended for resource personnel workshops. Could the follow-up support from Michigan State University have given individuals the same reinforcement that normally would have been derived only from the effect of a team? If teams are trained, what is the minimum number of members a team needs in order to successfully support its members and increase their activity? Will a team be as effective when its activity is spread over a wide geographic area as it would be in a concentrated system such as a single community? These are some of the questions which could form the foundation of further investigation into team training. 189 A number of questions need to be answered regard- ing the focus of supportive efforts by the workshop staff during the follow-up period. Efforts such as the letters of recommendation, the telephone calls, and the newsletters which the participants indicated were particularly suppor- tive could be offered to all participants. Concentrated attempts to change participants' behavior, such as personal visits by the workshop director can only realistically be given to selected participants due to the number of participants and limited time and money. would it be more efficient for the director to visit participants who are already moderately active or would it be better for him to try to stimulate the activity of participants who reported relatively little or no activity? Investigation of this question would not be easy since many factors contribute to the amount of activity reported by each participant. Are different types of support needed for participants who are active and for those who are inactive? If the objective of the follow-up period is to try to encourage the less active participants, would it be more effective to try and assist them in workshop presentations or spend the time in setting up workshops and arranging a schedule of future presentations? These questions should not be interpreted as either/or situations, for, in many cases, there may be an optimum mixture of the alternatives and it might 190 be the objective of research to try and determine under what conditions each type of follow-up effort is most efficient. Efforts to assist participants during the follow-up period may become complicated if they are widely dis- tributed. For meetings during the follow-up period, it might be advantageous to select participants living near the site of the summer workshop. If the participants are widely scattered and if follow-up meetings with all par- ticipants are desirable, regional meetings might be E established more easily if the distribution of participants is clustered. A meeting during the follow-up period at the National Science Teachers Association Convention for all participants is strongly suggested. Some of the con- siderations for participant distribution have been men- tioned and it is suggested that further consideration be made of this topic before participants in future workshops are selected. A number of suggestions for additional study might also be made. Group process seemed to be a controversial topic in the WOrkshop. A study should be made to deter- mine how much help these activities have been to the par- ticipants in workshOp presentations, consulting, or analysis of problems. Beside knowing what activities were helpful and how they were used, suggestions could be made concerning areas where additional group-process training is needed. 191 It is not difficult to establish a feeling of whether a workshop has been successful or not, but it is difficult to determine what the causes of success are. A study might be made to determine the relative importance of the content of the workshop, that is the science pro- gram which it is designed around, and the amount of affect due to such factors as time management and staff flexibility. If a uniform method or set of criteria for participant selection could be established, all the par- ticipants in Resource Personnel workshops on a given program could be surveyed for this information. If comparative studies were considered to be important by all the workshop directors, it might be possible for applicants to Resource Personnel WOrkShOpS on SCIS to apply at one location. From the complete list of qualified applicants, participants could be randomly assigned to each of the Resource Personnel WOrkshops. A longitudinal study of Resource Personnel work- shop participants is suggested. Information is needed on the length of time participants are active following the resource personnel workshop. If this information could be collected, the interests of resource personnel in presenting workshOps might periodically be stimulated with two- and three-day refresher workshops. Regional differences are another topic which needs to be studied. Investigation should be made to 192 determine what, if any, are the differences in demand for resource personnel in the major geographic regions of the United States. In addition, it would be helpful for Resource Personnel WOrkshop directors to know how the implementation of new science programs and the needs for in-service education are related to factors such as population density, size of school systems, and the rural, urban, and suburban distribution of schools. Since many of the resource personnel are teachers in elementary classes or in collegepre-service and in- service courses, more study needs to be made of the use of Resource Personnel WOrkshop training in these classes. What are the specific benefits that are derived? Which skills and what content seem to be directly applicable? How much of the psychology of learning and philosophy which underlies these science programs should be pre- sented to the class or incorporated into the teaching presentation. What specific changes in course content and method of presentation can be directly attributed to Resource Personnel WOrkshop training? Along a similar line of reasoning questions of transfer might be asked. For example, are the skills used in workshop presentation generally applicable to college classroom teaching? Are skills designed for one PrOgram and set of materials easily transferred to other 193 programs at the same level, or at different grade levels? These are some of the questions and areas which need to be investigated more fully. Since the college teachers often have the responsibility for pre-service teacher training as well as in-service education, their needs and consequently their training should be different than those of science supervisors and consultants within the schools. If the college teachers present the new and innovative curricula, as well as the philosophy and psychology of learning which underlies the modern science programs, to their pre-service classes there may be reduction in the need for in-service training later on. There will always be the need to know and understand the current educational programs but if teachers initially have a strong psy- chological and philosophical base to their understanding of elementary science instruction, the amount of in- service education required may be significantly reduced. Since there seems to be a difference in the need of both the college teachers and the science supervisors, it is suggested that workshops designed specifically for the training of each of these groups be investigated more fully. The participants' philosophy of life and the role that science has in their personal philosophy may be significant factors in the participants' activity and 194 effectiveness during the follow-up period. It is suggested that a study be made of the relationship of a person's understanding of science or its relationship to their lives and the amount of activity which might be associ- ated with these feelings. It might also be profitable to know if there is a correlation between the partici- pants' intellectual development and their ability to effectively carry out their roles as resource personnel. 12ft: - ' BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Armore, Sidney J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis and Inference for PsychOIOQy and Education. New York? John Wiley and’SOns, Inc.,"1966. Barrows, Thomas S. "In-Service Education Programs." Curpigulum Innovations and Evaluation. Edited by Anna Dragositz. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1969. Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc.,II960. Bush, Robert N. "Curriculum-Proof Teachers: Who Does What to Whom." Impgovinngn-Service Education: Proposalsland Procedures for Change. Editedby Louis J. Rubifil Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Carlson, Richard O. "Barriers to Change in Public Schools." Chapge Prggesses in Public Schools. Edited by Richard O. Carlson, et a1. Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965. Crosby, Muriel. "The New Supervisor: Caring, Coping, Becoming." Changing Supervision for Changing Times. Editedfiby Rogert R. Leeper. Wa§hington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969. Frymier, Jack R. Fostering Educatipnal Changg. Columbus, Ohio: Chafles M. Merrill Publishing Co., 1969. Goodlad, John I. "The Curriculum." The Changing American School. Sixty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Edited by John I. Goodlad. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966. 195 Hoyt, CTN: of or; Me] MC Lehman . C Lippitt , 1 Yc Mackenzie, O. ROUrk€ 196 Hoyt, Cyril J. "Test Reliability Estimated by Analysis of Variance." Principles of Educational and Psy- chological Measurement. Edited by William A. Mehrens and Robert L. Ebel. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1967. Lehman. Cited by Gordon J. Klopf. "Helping Adults Change." The Supervisor: New Demands, New Dimensions. Edited By William H. Lucio. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1969. Lippitt, Ronald. Training in Community Relations. New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1949. Mackenzie, Gordon N. "Curricular Change: Participants, Power, and Process." Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Teachers College Press, 1964. Mallison, George G. The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. Edited by Oscar K. Buros. Highland Park, N.J.: The Gryphon Press, 1965. Miel, Alice. "New Patterns of In-Service Education of Elementary School Teachers." The Elementary School. Edited by Alexander Frazier. Washington, D.C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1972. Miles, Matthew B. "Innovations in Education: Some Gen- eralizations." Innovation in Education. Edited by Matthew B. Miles. New York: Teachers Col- lege Press, 1964. "Planned Change and Organizational Health: Figure and Ground." Chapge Processes in Public Schools. Edited by Richard O. Carlson. Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965. O'Rourke, Mary A., and Burton, William H. Workshops for Teachers. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., I957. Rogers, Everett M. "What Are Innovators Like?" Change Processes in the Public Schools. Edited by Richard O. Carlson, et a1} Eugene, Oregon: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon, 1965. 197 Rogers, Everett M., and Svenning, Lynne. Managing Chapge. San Mateo, Calif.: San Mateo County Board of Education, 1969. Rubin, Louis J. "The Self-Evolving Teacher." Improving In-Service Education: Prpposals and Procedures for Change. Editedgby Lofiis J. Rubin. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Ryans, David G. Characteristics of Teachers. Menasha, Wis.: George Banta Co., 1960. . "Predication of Teacher Effectiveness." Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: Macmillihn Co., 1960. Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Gropp_Achieve- ment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1959} Stotler, Donald W. "The Supervision of the Science Pro- gram." RethinkingpScience Education. Fifty- Ninth Yearbook of Ehe National Society for the Study of Education. Edited by Donald W. Statler. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960. Tyler, Ralph W. "In-Service Education of Teachers: A Look at the Past and Future." Improving In- Service Education: Proposals and Procedures for Change. Editedfihy Louis J. Rubin. Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Articles Barnes, Kenneth; Cruickshank, Raymond; and Foster, James. "Selected Educational and Experience Factors and Arithmetic Teaching." The Arithmetic Teacher, VII (December, 1960), 418-20. Berkheimer, Glenn D., chairman. "NSTA Position Statement on School Science Education for the 705." The Science Teacher, XXXIIX (November, 1971), 46-51. Brehm, Shirley A. "The Impact of Experimental Programs on Elementary School Science." Science Edu- cation, LII (April, 1968), 293-98. Burnett, R. Will. "New Concept in the Education of Science Teachers." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I (March, 1963), 64-72. 198 Butts, David P., and Raun, Chester E. "A Study of Teacher Change." Science Education, LII (February, 1969), 3-11. Cartwright, Dorwin. "Achieving Change in People: Some Applications of Group Dynamics Theory." Human Relations, IV (1951), 386-88. Fontaine, Thomas D. "Federal Programs for the Improvement of School Science and Mathematics." Science Edu- cation, LIV (July-September, 1970), 209-11. Fowler, H. Seymour. "Evaluation of an Institute for the Training of Elementary-School Science Resource Teachers." Journal of Educational Research, LIII (May, 1960), 358-59. Fox, Raymond B. "Innovations in Education." Illinois Education, LVIII (March, 1969), 293-96. Gatewood, Claude W., and Ellsworth, Osburn S. "Improving Science Education in the United States." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I (December, 1963), 355-99. Hilgert, Raymond L. "Teacher Reaction to Summer WOrk- shops." School and Community, LIV (January, 1968), 14-15. Jacobson, Willard J. "Teacher Education and Elementary School Science--l980." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V (March, 1968), 73-80. Kleinman, Gladys S. "Needed: Elementary School Science Consultants." Schoolggience and Mathematics, LXV (November, 1965), 738-46. Maertens, Norbert, and Schminke, Clarence. "Developing Local Leadership." Today's Education, LVIII (February, 1969), 73:74. Mahan, James H. "Notes from a Consultant's Diary: Con- cerns for Elementary School Innovations." The Elementary School Journal, LXXI (April, 197I), 368-75. Merkle, Dale G. "A Leadership Workshop on Elementary School Science: An In-Depth Evaluation." Journal pf Research in Science Teaching, VII TJune, 1970), 121-33. 199 Nussel, Edward J., and Johnson, Mildred. "Who Obstructs Innovation?" Journal of Secondary Education, XLIV (January, 1969), 3-11. Piltz, Albert. "An Investigation of Teacher-Recognized Difficulties Encountered in the Teaching of Science in the Elementary Schools of Florida." Science Education, XLII (December, 1958), 440-43. Reynard, Harold E. "Pre-Service and In-Service Education of Teachers." Review of Educational Research, XXXIII (October, 1963), 369-80. Shinpoch, John R. "Improving Instruction of Elementary School Science." School and Communipy, LV (May, 1969), 35. Tanner, Laurel N. "Curriculum Change in Science: Power and Process." Educational Leadership, XXVI (March, 1969), 571-75. Vannan, Donald A. "How to Obtain an Elementary Science Consultant for Your School." Science Education, LIV (April-June, 1970), 141-45. Walberg, Herbert J. "Generalized Regression Models in Educational Research." American Educational Research Journal, VIII (January, 1971)] 71-91. Wasik, John L., and Nicodemus, Robert B. "A Study of the Effects of a WOrkshop and Use of Specially Developed Science Materials on Fifth Grade Science Classroom Practices." Science Edu- cation, LIII (October, 1969), 347-55. Waynant, Louise F. "Teachers' Strengths: Basis for Successful In-Service Experiences." Educational Leadership, XXVII (April, 1971), 710-13. Welch, wayne W. "Curricular Decisions--How Can Evaluation Assist Science Teachers?" The Science Teacher, XXXV (November, 1968), 22-25. White, Marjorie A.; Raun, Chester E.; and Butts, David P. "A Study of Contrasting Patterns of In-Service Education." Science Education, LIII (February, l9-9), 13-19. 200 Unpublished Sources Mahan, James H. "Overview of a Systematic Effort to Engineer and Monitor Curriculum Change: Emerg- ing Guidelines and Encouraging Findings for Curriculum Installers." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, February 6, 1971. (Mimeographed.) May, David H. "A Descriptive Study of Selected WorkshOp Factors Affecting the Training and Support of Resource Personnel in a Science Curriculum." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Taylor, T. Wayne. "Relationship Between Achievements of High School Science Students and Their Science Teacher." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, North Texas State College, 1957. Winter, Stephen S. "Science Curriculum Reform in the United States and Abroad." Paper presented at the NARST-AETS Joint General Sessions for the National Science Teachers Association 19th Annual Convention, March 26-30, 1971. (Mimeographed.) APPENDICES APPENDIX A WORKSHOP SCHEDULE Monday, July 5 9:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 10:45 APPENDIX A SCIS NSF Resource Personnel Workshop Michigan State University July 5 through July 30, 1971 l l—‘ H .b Ul 0.) S p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. Opening Session--Holmes Hall, Room 101 Welcome--Dr. Julian Brandou, Director Science and Mathematics Teaching Center Introduction to Staff Members Orientation-—Overview and Goals of the Workshop--Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer Distribution of SCIS Materials Break SCIS Laboratory--Material Objects-- Chapter 3, Grandma's Button Box--3 kinds of lessons--Maxwell Material Objects, Chapter 5, Objects Grab- Bag Game Lunch NASA Activity Material Objects Overview--Berkheimer Break Material Objects, Chapter 8, Sorting WOOdS and Metals--Berkheimer Questions and Answers; Feedback 201 Tuesday, 10:45 11:00 11:45 1:00 July 6 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 1:00 2:00 p.m. 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. 7:00 - 9:30 p.m. wednesday, July 7 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. 9:00 9:45 10:00 10:30 11:15 12:00 1:00 1:30 9:45 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 11:15 a.m. 12:00 1:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 202 Material Objects, Chapter 21, Experi- menting with Air and Water Demonstration Lesson with Children-- Mrs. Roberta Gardner The Role of the SCIS Teacher--Berk- heimer Break SCIS Perception Questionnaire-—Cooper Lunch Interaction and Systems, Chapter 6 "Inventing" the Interaction Concept Chapter 8, "Inventing" the Systems Concept Chapter 9, Air and Breath Chapter 12, Exploring Pulleys Evening Session at McDonal Kiva (Group Process) with Dr. Mason Miller Introduction to micro-teaching-— questioning Chapters 14 and 15, Making Copper Chloride Solution Aluminum and Copper Chloride Solution Interaction Documentary Piaget Stages Piaget--Demonstration with Children Psychological Basis of SCIS--Dis- cussion Lunch Piaget Developmental Film—-conservation Preparation for micro-teaching ‘61- .513)” 1.. ' 81.1%" . 203 Thursday, July 8 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Group Process--Micro-teaching Environ- ment--Miller 9:00 - 10:45 a.m. Subsystems and Variables Chapter 2, Interaction and Systems Concepts--small group Chapter 3, Separating a Powdered Mixture-—sma11 group Chapter 4, Inventing the Subsystem Concept--Maxwell 10:45 - 11:00 a.m. Break 11:00 - 12:00 Optiona1--Details of Piaget Psychology Evaluation Movies of Overview of Material Objects and Interaction 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Micro-teaching 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Analysis of Micro-teaching recordings and preparation for next micro-teach- ing Friday, July 9 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Chapter 5, Electric Circuit Puzzles-- small group Chapter 6, Colored Liquids--sma11 group 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. Subsystems and Variables Chapters 11 and 12, PrOperties of Freon and Water; Liquid and Gaseous Freon Chapters 13 and 14, Temperatures of water and Ice Systems; "Inventing" Histograms 10:00 - 10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 10:45 a.m. Jack Fishleader--SCIS Headquarters 10:45 - 11:15 a.m. Discussion of Implementation Model and the Role of this WOrkshOp in the Model 204 Friday, July 9 11:15 - 12:00 Chapters 16, 17, and 18. The Whirly Bird 12:00 - 1:00 p.m. Lunch 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Micro-teaching 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. Analysis of Micro-teaching Tapes 2:30 - 3:00 p.m. Discuss Micro-teaching Monday, July 12 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Subsystems and Variables Chapter 13, Temperature of Water and Ice Systems Chapter 14, "Inventing" Histograms 9:00 - 10:00 a.m. Receiving and Maintaining Organism Shipment from AS&E Dr. Bob Knott 10:00 - 10:15 a.m. Break 10:15 - 11:15 a.m. Organism Activities 11:15 - 11:45 a.m. Three Discussion Groups 11 :45 - 12:45 Lunch I 12:45 - 1:30 p.m. Organism Activities a. Seeds: as material objects b. Seeds: Planting, growth and development including con- ditions for growth 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. Organism Activity, the Food Web Con- cept 2:00 - 2:15 p.m. Break 2:15 - 3:00 p.m. Life Science Conceptual Framework Tuesday, July 13 8:00 - 8:45 a.m. Subsystems and Variables Chapters 11 and 12, Properties of Freon and Water, Liquid and Gaseous Freon Tuesday, 8:45 9:45 10:00 11:00 July 13 9:45 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 12:45 1:45 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, July 14 8:00 8:45 10:00 10:15 11:15 8:45 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 11:15 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 205 Life Cycles Activities, Fruit Flies, and Where Seeds Come From and Growth Break Life Cycles Activities, Mealworms, and the "Blind Adaptations" for Organisms and Life Cycles Organisms and Life Cycles, Grade Placement Suggestions, and Doubling Up on Units for Maximum Utilization Lunch Teaching Children-~Knott Discussion of Lesson Populations a. A Habitat for Organisms b. Daphnia and Aphids including Graphing Evening Session--Group Process, Inference; Giving and Receiving Feedback Subsystems and Variables, Chapters 16, 17, and 18, The Whirley Bird Pepulations a. Crickets and Chameleons in the Terrarium b. Food Chains and Webs Break Populations, What is the Food Web in the Aquaria? Maintaining the populations in this unit, and the Conceptual Scheme of Populations Life Science Lessons and Micro- teaching--Knott ...V .71. on: 3' J- t- . h Wednesday, July 14 11:45 - 12:45 12:45 - 1:30 p.m. 1:30 - 2:30 p.m. 2:30 - 3:00 p.m. Thursday, July 15 8:00 10:00 10:15 10:45 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 10:45 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 12:45 2:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m. 9:30 p.m. Friday, July 16 8:00 - 8:45 a.m. 8:45 - 9:45 a.m. 206 LunCh Environments, Plants in Light and Dark, and Helping Teachers Help Children Design Experiments Preparation for Micro-teaching Life Science Design of Orientation and Implemen- tation WOrkshops Assignment of Teams Environments, Engineering the Class- room Situation (Snails and Things), and Snails and Light Environments, The Environments of Isopods and Beetles (Multi- variate problem) Break Environments, Activities Applicable to Workshops Optional--Bingman, Keegan, Berkheimer on Proposals, or Maxwell on Circuit Puzzles Lunch Micro-teaching Analysis of Micro-teaching Lessons Communities, A Conceptual Scheme and Sequencing Activities Evening Session, Team-Building Activity Strategies of Working with Ele- mentary School Personnel Ecosystems, Water Cycle and Gas Cycle '.a-a-—.- . Erna-n.1- .‘ f‘“ A!" 4 ._.- . r Friday, July 16 9:45 - 10:00 - 11:00 - 11:45 - 12:45 - 1:45 - 2:00 - 2:30 - 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 11:45 a.m. 12:45 1:45 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Monday, July 19 8:00 - 9:00 - 10:00 10:15 - 12:00 1:00 - 2:00 - Tuesday, 8:00 - 9:00 - 10:00 - 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 12:00 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. July 20 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 10:15 a.m. 207 Break Ecosystems, Invention of Ecosystems, and Pollution Activity Relativity, Chapters 1, and 2, Invention of Relative Position, and Discovery of Relative Position Lunch WOrkshops with Teachers using Life Science--Knott Quickies, Two or More Days Break Conceptual Scheme of Life Sciences Plans for Next Week, WOrkshop Design Elements of Orientation and Implemen- tation WOrkshops--Berkheimer and Maxwell Relativity, Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 9 Break Team Work: Design of Orientation and Implementation WOrkshops Lunch Group Process--Mi11er Presentation of Models of WorkshOps-- Ditto or Newsprint (5 min. each) Diffusion of Innovations, What is your Role? Position and Motion, Chapters 2, 4, and 5 Break Tuesday, July 20 10:15 12:00 1:00 2:00 12:00 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Wednesday, July 21 8:00 9:00 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 1:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:00 p.m. Thursday, July 22 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 1:00 p.m. 2:00 208 Group Process--Miller Lunch Energy Sources, Chapters 3 and 3 Revise Designs of Orientation and Implementation Workshops Dick C00per--STEP Science WOrkshop Design from a Teacher's Point of View--Opal WOng, Roberta Gardner, Shirley Mann Team WOrk--Try to predict teacher reactions to each workshop element Energy Sources, Chapters 4 and 5, Rotoplane System Lunch Group Process--Mason Miller Models, Electric and Magnetic Inter- action, Chapters 6 and 7 Scope and Sequence of SCIS--Berkheimer Energy Sources, Chapters 11 and 12, Stopper Popper Orientation Sessions of Other Elementary Science Programs: ESS, AAAS, COPES, etc. (Far West Regional Laboratory Materials) Models, Electric and Magnetic Inter- action Lunch Group Process--Mason Miller x1 01 O2 Presenter Good Bad 209 2:00 - 2:30 p.m. Discussion of Entire Group 2:30 - 3:00 p.m. Final workshop Design Friday, July 23 Preparation for Orientation and Implementation Workshops -- Collection of Materials -- Practice Presentations Monday, July 26 Presentation of Orientation and Implementation WorkshOps Tuesday, July 27 Presentation of Second Day of Implementation Workshop Evaluation of First Day of Orientation Workshop and Preparation of Second Orientation WOrkshop Wednesday, July 28 Presentation of Orientation and Implementation Workshops Thursday, July 29 8:00 - 8:15 a.m. Plans for Next Two Days 8:15 - 8:30 a.m. Evaluation Form 8:30 - 9:45 a.m. Small Group--Workshop Analysis-- Scramble Teams 9:45 - 10:45 a.m. Clean up--Put Materials Back Into Kits 10:45 - 11:45 a.m. Dick Cooper--Perception Questionnaire 11:45 - 12:45 p.m. Lunch 12:45 - 1:00 p.m. Large Group Discussion 1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Resource Personnel Follow-up Program 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Dick C00per--FIRO-B Team Compatibility Measurement J - . “J 4 Friday, July 30 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. 10:00 - 11:00 a.m. 11:00 - 12:00 210 Sharing Plans for the 1971-1972 Academic Year Feedback and Evaluation Discussion, Questions, Decisions concerning the Follow-up Program, and Distribution of SCIS Goodies APPENDIX B INFORMATION FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES INFORMATION FOR TESTING STUDY QUESTIONS APPENDIX B--INFORMATION FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES w- _. ,——_.-o 7.4-4... k..— '— _ _.._.____.:_—z.; Identification STEP SCIS Perception Questionaire Prior Workshop Number Test Beginning of Workshop Activity “g 00] 56 95 0 002 47 72 0 003 35 85 o 004 Si 92 0 005 59 80 11+ 006 60 80 1—2 007 62 83 3-5 008 32 75 0 009 42 88 il+ Oil 29 108 0 012 59 109 0 02] 42 94 0 022 50 74 1-2 023 66 74 l-2 03] 35 76 0 032 62 93 0 04] 54 90 0 042 56 107 11+ 05] 66 97 0 052 59 82 0 06] 28 72 0 062 42 8i 11+ 071 45 914 o 072 35 92 0 081 39 81 3-5 082 29 7| i-Z 091 38 76 1-2 10] 50 93 0 102 40 96 o 103 64 92 0 Total 1460 2602 Mean 48.67 86.73 Standard Deviation 12.l4 l0.93 211 212 APPENDIX B--INFORMATION FOR TESTING STUDY QUESTIONS - ---..——_.‘ ‘J ———- ’-- "a; Identification Years of Age Degree Individual Number Teachipgfi Contact Hours 001 I 23 Bachelors 164 002 20 48 Masters 36 003 11 44 Masters I68 004 29 51 Masters 1398 005 I6 49 Masters 1362 006 8 35 Doctorate O 007 I6 42 Doctorate I998 008 4 3O Doctorate 0 009 8 33 Masters 592 011 12 34 Bachelors 810 012 39 54 Doctorate 810 021 3 27 Bachelors 29 022 43 Bachelors 4| 023 22 46 Masters 29 031 31 56 Masters 120 032 13 38 Masters 1152 041 12 50 Masters 1335 042 I7 36 Masters 3089 051 29 SO Doctorate 641 052 12 37 Doctorate 641 061 27 56 Masters 348 062 12 32 Masters 1230 071 12 36 Masters 92 072 8 35 Doctorate 70 081 6 33 Masters 467 082 7 29 Masters 1212 091 I6 40 Bachelors 0 101 4 25 Masters 98 102 I 23 Bachelors 38 103 10 37 Doctorate 75 Total 406 1172 18045 Mean 13.57 39 07 601.50 Standard Deviation 9.73 9.66 731.28 APPENDIX C SCIS PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE '14 r____" " APPENDIX C SCIS PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE Indicate your perception of the SCIS program and its effects on your activities by filling in the space on the answer sheet that corresponds to your response to each item. Choose the reSponse for items 1-35 according to the scale at the top of each page. Check only one response per item. (1) I strongly agree with the statement. (2) I agree with the statement. (3) My feelings are neutral or I have no response for the statement. (4) I disagree with the statement. (5) I strongly disagree with the statement. feel that I possess the skills necessary to plan: 1. 2. an orientation conference on SCIS. an implementation conference on SCIS. feel that I possess the skills necessary to conduct: 3. 4. an orientation conference on SCIS. an implementation conference on SCIS. To be able to relate well to elementary teachers I feel that I should have experience in teaching SCIS to elementary school children. To be effective in SCIS implementation I feel that I should be able to teach an elementary teacher's science class while working as a resource person. At this time, I would not urge the adoption of SCIS in my local school district. I feel that there is a good balance between science content and process in the SCIS program. 213 ' row- '- l 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 214 (1) I strongly agree with the statement. (2) I agree with the statement. (3) My feelings are neutral or I have no response for the statement. (4) I disagree with the statement. (5) I strongly disagree with the statement. I do not feel that the various science disciplines are well represented in the SCIS program. I do not feel that the SCIS approach has a balance of cohEEnt from the various areas of science that is compatible with the interests of the elementary students. I do p93 feel that the SCIS approach has a balance of content from the various areas of science that is compatible with the learning needs of elementary students. I feel that the sequencing of units and the develop- ment of concepts in SCIS facilitates the learning of science concepts better than other existing ele- mentary science programs. I feel that the SCIS program can be used by the teacher as part of an integrated program in a self-contained classroom. I feel that obtaining the equipment and materials for the SCIS program on time is not a great problem for the elementary teacher. I feel that the using of the equipment and materials of the SCIS program is not a great problem for the elementary teacher. I feel that the degree to which teaching strategies are prescribed by the SCIS program reduces the quality of social interaction between the teacher and the children. I feel that the laboratory or inquiry method is the best way to teach science in the elementary school. I feel that the laboratory or inquiry method is the most efficient way to teach science in the ele- mentary school. IF * "f“ o ' _ ' _‘ ‘. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 215 (1) I strongly agree with the statement. (2) I agree with the statement. (3) My feelings are neutral or I have no response for the statement. (4) I disagree with the statement. (5) I strongly disagree with the statement. I do not feel that in-service training for teachers is necessary for the successful implementation of the SCIS program. “‘1' I do not feel that the SCIS teacher needs specialized training in science. I do not feel that the teacher in the SCIS program f;' needs Special training in instructional stragegies. ” I feel that the SCIS program could be taught by an experienced teacher or an inexperienced teacher with nearly the same effectiveness. I feel that for the best results the teacher should be non-directive rather than directive while teaching SCIS classes. I do not feel that the experienced teacher could easily change her teaching style to incorporate the methods suggested by SCIS. I feel that the reading level of the SCIS program is consistent with the reading skills of the students for which the program is designed. I feel that the students who transfer into the pro- gram from a school that does not use SCIS would have little trouble adjusting to the approach used by SCIS. I feel that teacher observation and rating of children during laboratory sessions should be the means of evaluating a student's progress in SCIS. I feel that SCIS prepares students adequately for entry into the junior high science programs that are presently available. I feel that the cost of implementing SCIS is nearly the same as the cost of implementing comparable ele- mentary science programs. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 216 (l) I strongly agree with the statement. (2) I agree with the statement. (3) My feelings are neutral or I have no response for the statement. (4) I disagree with the statement. (5) I strongly disagree with the statement. I feel that the cost of student manuals and materials for SCIS is consistent with the quality of these materials. I feel that the replacement costs for the continu- ation of the SCIS program from year to year is too great. I feel that my local school system has the funds available to enable them to adopt SCIS. I feel that the equipment and activities in the SCIS program require more classroom facilities than are normally available in elementary schools. I feel that the student behavior in an active SCIS classroom would be much like that in any other ele- mentary science classroom. I do not feel that my local school system is recep- tive to the new and innovative curricula. Information Questions Added to the Questionnaire Given at the Beginning of the Workshop Choose the response for items 36-42 according to the scale that follows each item. Check as many responses as apply. 36. My experience with the SCIS program is (l) I have heard about it. (2) I have read about it. (3) I have observed SCIS being taught in the class- room. (4) I have taught SCIS. (5) I have trained SCIS teachers. IFR ’ ‘14:..- 1“,. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 217 My knowledge about the aims and philosophy of SCIS is (1) minimal (2) minimal to moderate (3) moderate (4) moderate to extensive (5) extensive During the previous year I was actively involved with the presentation of workshops. (1) zero (2) one or two (3) three to five (4) six to ten (5) more than ten The number of school systems within a twenty-mile radius of my home that I know are implementing SCIS this coming fall is (1) zero (2) one or two (3) three or four (4) five or six (5) more than six My professional experiences include teaching in ele- mentary school for (1) zero years (2) one to three years (3) four to six years (4) seven to ten years (5) more than ten years My professional experiences include teaching in secondary school for (1) zero years (2) one to three years (3) four to Six years (4) seven to ten years (5) more than ten years My professional experiences include teaching in a college or university for (1) zero years (2) one to three years (3) four to six years (4) seven to ten years (5) more than ten years APPENDIX D RANK ORDERING OF WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES ‘3'"— APPENDIX D RANK ORDERING OF WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES Rank Ordering of Objectives Name Please place your name at the top of this page. Following are the stated objectives of the workshop. On the basis of your experiences during the Resource Personnel WOrkshOp and the presentation of orientation and implimentation workshops, rank order each objective in terms of the relative importance you feel that they would have for future participants. Number one should indicate the objective that you feel will be most impor- tant to future participants. If you have objectives that are not stated, add them to the list and include them in your ranking. Objective Rank a. to provide the participants with considerable knowledge of the teacher education procedures, purposes, history, recommended modes of instruction, objectives and materials of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study. b. to assist the participants as a group and as individuals to plan and to prepare appropriate materials and activities for orientation sessions, and in-service and pre-service teacher education programs. c. to provide opportunities for the participants to teach children science using the new cur- riculum materials and to provide him with feedback on his teaching. d. to familiarize the participant with the school setting, administrative aspects, teacher edu- cation needs, and various strategies for implementation of a curricular innovation. e. to provide direct experience in organizing and presenting orientation sessions on the SCIS program to groups of school teachers and administrators. f. to help each participant to engage in orien- tation, consulting, and implementation activities after leaving the Michigan State University Campus. 218 APPENDIX E DAILY FEEDBACK ‘ .33 “‘1"— I; '_"._'-5 ' '2 y APPENDIX E DAILY FEEDBACK Name Following is a list of the activities for today. Using the scale to the right of the activity, circle the number that best expresses your feelings. Useful Neutral Useless Start-up or orientation 5 4 3 2 1 Grandma's Button Box 5 4 3 2 1 NASA Activity 5 4 3 2 1 Transportation during lunch 5 4 3 2 l Sorting Woods and Metals 5 4 3 2 1 Overview of Material Objects (Slides and gas) 5 4 3 2 l Underline the time that you would prefer to have the work- shop. 8:00-3:00 8:30-3:30 9:00-4:00 Write your name if you are interested in being a member of the social committee. List two adjectives that describe how you feel about the workshop at this time. 219 220 Following is a list of the activities for today. Using the scale to the right of the activity, circle the number that best expresses your feelings. Useful Neutral Useless Experimenting with Air and water 5 4 3 2 1 Demonstration Lesson with Children 5 4 3 2 1 Role of the SCIS Teacher 5 4 3 2 1 SCIS Perception Question- naire 5 4 3 2 l "Inventing" the Interaction Concept "Inventing" the Systems Concept 5 4 3 2 1 Air and Breath 5 4 3 2 1 Exploring Pulleys 5 4 3 2 1 Evening Session 5 4 3 2 1 What specific goals did you come to the workshop with that have not been met or mentioned in the upcoming schedule? What questions do you have that have not been answered in the workshop? List two adjectives that describe how you feel about the workshOp at this time. 221 Second Day Feedback Summary Experimenting with Air and Water 5-14 4-13 3-2 Demonstration Lesson with Children 5-14 4-10 3—5 Role of the SCIS Teacher 5-16 4-11 3-2 2-1 SCIS Perception Question- naire 5-5 4-7 3-14 2-2 "Inventing" the Interaction Concept "Inventing" the Systems Concept 5-12 4-15 3-2 Air and Breath 5-14 4-13 3-1 2-1 Exploring Pulleys 5-7 4-15 3-4 2-1 1-1 Evening Session 6-1 5-21 4-7 List of adjectives for feelings Enthusiastic 9 Anxious to learn more Interested 5 Looking forward to tomorrow Informed 5 Pleasant Great 1 Good to improved Eager 1 Very instructive Rewarding l Satisfactory Enjoyable 1 Helpful Good 1 "Cold" Involved 1 Really neat--evening session Tired l Explorative Very Stimulating Session Inventive Excellent Positive Enjoyed the splash party Curious Practical Uneven “L.- ‘- APPENDIX F ORIENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX F ORIENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION AREAS FOR JULY 26, 27, AND 28, SCIS ORIENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION WORKSHOPS Would you please make comments regarding the various aspects of the workshops that you presented earlier this week. To help in identifying the areas that you might wish to consider use the following list of categories. Please check the type of workshop you conducted. Orientation Implementation Help given: a. Designing the presentations b. Collecting the materials Time alloted for the preparation of the workshops. Characteristics of the audience that were not anticipated. a. How were they handled? b. How successfully? SCIS lessons that were: a. Effective b. Ineffective Ideas on sequences of lessons that were: a. Effective b. Ineffective 222 10. 11. 223 What workshop innovations did you make concerning the SCIS lessons? How did they work? What problems did you have with process, materials, or the mechanics of the presentations? What seemed to help or hinder: a. Learning b. Acceptance 1. Personal 2. SCIS What feedback procedure was used? Was it effective? Was follow-up requested? If so, please give us the name and address. Additional comments APPENDIX G RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP EVALUATION SUMMARY OF DATA FROM TOTAL WORKSHOP EVALUATION .. H‘J 3" a . 1F: 5-! . 3'1 .' ' Tr APPENDIX G EVALUATION A RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP FOR SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT STUDY MATERIALS DIRECTIONS: We are interested in a total workshop evalu- ation. We have arbitrarily divided the four-week Resource Personnel Workshop into five parts. They are: Orientation and the SCIS Physical Science Program. This includes the first week of work with Berkheimer and Maxwell, in which we stressed the SCIS physical science units, demonstration lessons, kit exploration, discussions concerning the role of the teacher, and micro-teaching. The second week of the program with Dr. Bob Knott. Bob stressed the SCIS life science units, laboratory experiences, the role of the teacher, and care of organisms. This week was aimed at giving a better understanding of the scope and sequence of the life science pro- gram, and in particular, activities appropriate for teacher workshops and the design of teacher work- shops. The third week. This included interaction with local SCIS teachers, time to design orientation and imple- mentation workshOps, and preparation of workshOps for the fourth week. The fourth week. The primary elements of the fourth week were the actual workshop experiences and the group interaction on the successes and failures of the workshops. Group process skills sessions with Dr. Mason Miller. These sessions formed a continuous thread throughout the four weeks and were aimed at maximizing the team efforts. We are interested in your opinions on the following statements as they pertain to each of the above outlined divisions of the workshop. Below each statement, the five divisions are listed; each is followed by seven blanks that correspond to various shades of agreement and disagreement. Check the blank that most closely corresponds to your own feeling about each division. 224 225 1. EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP SATISFIED NEEDS THAT I HAD WHEN THE INSTITUTE BEGAN. A. Orientation to Programs (First week) very strongly strongly moderately no moderately strongly very disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree szggggly B. Second Week (Bob Knott) szihhgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly stZShgly disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree agree C. Third Week (Planning) stzghgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly stgdhgly disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree D. Fourth Week (WOrkshops) stxghgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly stzdhgly disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree E. Group Process Sessions schhgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly st¥dhgly disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree 2. THE KNOWLEDGE GAINED IN EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP WILL BE HELPFUL TO ME IN BRINGING ABOUT CHANGES IN SCIENCE PRO- GRAMS IN MY SCHOOL AND/OR AREA. A. Orientation tO Programs (First week) stzghgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly sZiOHgly disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree B. Second week (Bob Knott) stzghgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly stghgly disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree C. Third week (Planning) stzdhyl strongly moderately no moderately strongly SZSOH 1 d' g Y disagree disagree Opinion agree agree 9 y isagree agree I trim - 172.- 226 D. Fourth Week (WOrkshOps) stzdhgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly Ziigngly disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree agree E. Group Process Sessions Ziggngly strongly moderately no moderately strongly 2::anly disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree 3. EACH DIVISION OF THE WORKSHOP HAD GREAT VALUE AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN SUBSEQUENT INSTITUTES OF THIS KIND. A. Orientation to programs (First Week) stzghgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly very disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree strongly agree B. Second Week (Bob Knott) stzhhgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly Siigngly disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree agree C. Third week (Planning) stzdhgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly Siigngly disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree agree D. Fourth Week (Workshops) stgghgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly Ziigngly disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree agree B. Group Process Sessions stZdhgly strongly moderately no moderately strongly Shigngly disagree disagree disagree Opinion agree agree agree Ira—m the—:4- 227 WHAT TWO THINGS DID YOU LIKE MOST? WHY? A. WHAT TWO THINGS DID YOU LIKE LEAST? WHY? A. g: Stu:- .. 1. IF YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF ORGANIZING A WORKSHOP SUCH AS THE ONE THIS SUMMER, WHAT EXPERIENCES WOULD YOU DELETE, AND WHAT EXPERIENCES WOULD YOU INCLUDE THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED? DELETE INCLUDE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: monm> MCDOW) .0... 0.... month) .0... 228 SUMMARY OF DATA FROM TOTAL WORKSHOP EVALUATION -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- -0- \ONU‘IJTJ.‘ 14 20 15 13 14 12 12 ll 10 12 13 20 13 II 19 \nChU'IO‘O‘ WO‘WO‘O‘ oxoxmoxm .27 .07 .57 .30 .97 .53 .10 .97 .40 .80 .70 .33 .97 .83 .17 APPENDIX H MONTHLY FEEDBACK FORM 1'77 .. '. ., (Lay‘s: I v. APPENDIX H MONTHLY FEEDBACK FORM MONTHLY FEEDBACK FORM for the month of Name School System Address Phone School Location Date Check appropriate space: WOrkshop Classroom visit Orientation Implementation You visited them They visited you For: Teachers Topic Of Workshop Number of participants Time length hours Distance you traveled Administrators miles Others School System School Location Date Check appropriate Space: WOrkshop Topic Of Workshop Classroom visit Orientation Implementation . . —————-You visited them Number Of partiCipants They visited you Time length hours For: Teachers Distance you traveled miles Administrators Others 229 “.1.- ..JA .. . APPENDIX I RPW WORKSHOP SURVEY .151- o— 3'2} ' . [1! MICHIGAN STATE UNIVE RSITY FAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823 SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING CENTER . McDONIiL HALL May 5, 1972 Dear SCIS WOrkshop Participant: During this school year you attended a workshop pre- sented by . They spent last summer at Michigan State University studying the new elementary science programs and methods Of implementing them. we would like your reaction to the presentation so that we might make improvements in our training program here at MSU . Because Of your experience in the workshop you can make a unique contribution by sharing your experiences with us. It would help us very much, therefore, if you would complete the form and return it to us. WOuld you please complete the next page by checking the correct response or responses, circling the appropriate number, or responding with written comments where called for. After completing the page separate it from this sheet and return it in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you for your cooperation. A prompt response would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Richard Cooper RC:bj 230 “has... 231 RPW WORKSHOP SURVEY Your role in attending the workshop was that of a: Teacher , Administrator , College Student , Other ‘hMJ found out about the workshop through a: Friend , Principal , Science Coordinator , Fellow Teacher , Company Representative , Other (Specify) Did your school system require you to attend this workshop? Yes , No Your reason(s) for attending the workshop: Obtain information about the new elementary science programs. You are implementing the program. You are using the workshop for in-service credit. Other (Specify) I. Respond to the following statements by circling the number to the right Of each statement which best represents your agreement with the statement. Use the scale below to determine the meaning Of the numbers. I 2 3 4 5 Agree Strongly Agree NO Opinion Disagree Disagree Strongly I. The workshOp met your expectations. I 2 3 4 5 2. The content was covered adequately in the one workshop. 1 2 3 4 S 3. The workshOp was well organized. I 2 3 4 5 4. The time was efficiently used. I 2 3 4 5 5. The workshOp was long enough to meet your needs. I 2 3 4 5 6. You felt that the primary emphasis Of the workshOp was I 2 3 4 5 to have you adopt the program 7. You would recommend this workshOp to Others. I 2 3 4 5 8. Adequate orientation to the new elementary science I 2 3 4 programs was included in the workshop. 9. During the workshop you worked directly with materials. I 2 3 4 10. Your role in using the new elementary science programs I 2 3 4 was discussed during the workshop. 11. Did the instructor ask you to evaluate the workshop? Yes _____, No If yes, check the method(s) Of feedback that was/were used. Written, Verbal, Checklist, Other (Specify) II. Briefly describe what you liked about the workshOp. (Use the back Of this page if more space is needed.) III. What suggestions would you have for improving the workshop? (Use the back Of this page if more Space if needed.) ‘Quu- Final Inventory of the M.S.U. Resource Personnel Workshop on SCIS Name Nine months have passed since you have left the MSU Campus. Since then you have had many valuable experiences relating to SCIS and the Resource Personnel Workshop (RPW) and the way it prepared you to meet a variety Of situations. In the attempt to make a final evaluation of our workshOp and the activities we attempted during the follow-up period, we would sincerely appreciate your com- pletion of the following questionnaire. Please respond to each of the following statements using the scale which is repeated at the top of each page. Indicate your reaction by circling the number to the right of each statement which most accurately expresses your feelings about the statement. Where short answers are required make them as brief and yet as complete as possible. The statements will be responded to on a seven point scale. I 2 3 4 g 6 7 Very Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Very strongly disagree disagree no agree agree strongly disagree Opinion agree I. WORKSHOP A. Miscellaneous 1. The staff responded to feedback from the participants with I 2 3 4 5 6 7 reasonable changes or adjustments. 2. There should be more sessions like micro-teaching for l 2 3 4 5 6 7 direct contact with students during the RPW. 3. 0f the total time spent on SCIS content, too much was I 2 3 4 5 6 7 spent on the activities in the lower grade levels. 4. After discussing change agent skills and strategies, your 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 role in changing elementary science education was clear. 8. Group Process 5. The group process sessions contributed to the frankness ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 and the Openness Of the communications among the RPW participants and staff. 6. More time should have been spent on group processes with I 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mason Miller. 7. The usefulness of group processes in meeting the major I 2 3 4 5 6 7 objectives of the RPW was evident to you. 2232 233 ___'-__-____2_-_-___3-_______4__-__5____._-_6___.___7__- Very Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Very strongly disagree disagree no agree agree strongly disagree Opinion agree C. Fourth Week Conferences 8. Teams for orientation conferences should be formed before I 2 3 4 5 6 7 the end of the second week. 9. The planning for the orientation and implementation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 conferences was started tOO early in the workshop. 10. TOO much time was spent on planning for the orientation I 2 3 4 S 6 7 and implementation conferences. II. The orientation and implementation conferences should last I 2 3 4 5 6 7 for an entire week instead Of two or three days. 11. ACTIVITY 12. You have been more active in consulting with elementary I 2 3 4 S 6 7 school personnel this year than you were last year. 13. As a result of the RPW the amount of time spent teaching I 2 3 4 S 6 7 demonstration lessons in elementary school classrooms has increased. 14. As a result Of the RPW the number Of orientation workshOps I 2 3 4 S 6 7 you presented on the new elementary science programs has increased from the previous year. 15. As a result of the RPW the number of implementation workshOps I 2 3 4 S 6 7 you conducted on the new elementary science programs has increased. IF YOU HAD N0 EXPERIENCE CONDUCTING WORKSHOPS PRIOR TO ATTENDING THE RPW AT MSU SKIP NUMBER 16. 16. The RPW helped to improve your workshop skills. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 If the answer to question 16 was positive, what activities helped you the most7 2234 ____J___. .-_JL_-_- .-___£L____ __-fl-__. _-__2_____ .-£L___. -_-Z____ Very Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Very strongly disagree disagree no agree agree strongly disagree Opinion agree III. TEAMS DURING THE FOLLOW-UP PERIOD (If you attended the RPW as an individual, please skip Numbers I7 through 20.) 17. You worked closely with your MSU team member in planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 elementary science workshOps. 18. You worked closely with your MSU team member in conducting l 2 3 4 5 6 7 elementary science workshOps. 19. You worked closely with your MSU team member on consulting I 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities. 20. You conducted activities as part of a team, but your team I 2 3 4 5.6 7 members were not present at MSU. IV. INDIVIDUALS (If you attended the RPW as part of a team, please skip numbers 21 and 22. 21. The support Of a team member with MSU training would have I 2 3 4 S 6 " been helpful in consulting activities with elementary school personnel. \ 22. You conducted activities as part of a team, but your team I 2 3 4 S 6 7 members were not trained at MSU. V. RPW FOLLOW-UP 23. By receiving the names of other resource personnel in your I 2 3 4 5 6 7 state, your sphere Of influence or network Of contacts was increased. 24. By sending your name to the local Rand McNally representative I 2 3 4 5 6 7 we helped to establish you as a resource person. 25. The letters which we sent to school personnel named by you I 2 3 4 5 6 7 at the end of the workshop were helpful in expanding your Sphere of influence. 26. The letter from MSU to your state department of education I 2 3 4 S 6 7 helped to establish you as a resource person. 27. Meetings with MSU staff members at conventions were I 2 3 4 S 6 7 informative. 28. The availability of films from MSU was a helpful service. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 29. The films were easily obtained. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. Telephone contacts with MSU during the follow-up period were I 2 3 4 5 6 7 useful in maintaining or improving your activity. 2235 I 2 3 4 5 6 Very Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly strongly disagree disagree no agree agree disagree opinion 3l. The availability of the $50 per day for workshops was fully understood by you at the completion of the RPW. 7 Very strongly agree I 2 3 4 S 6 7 If you did not request the money, briefly state the reason why. 32. The follow-up program of the RPM was effective in supporting l 2 3 4 S 6 7 your work as a resource peison. 33. Help from MSU was readily available. VI. THE NEWSLETTER 34. You enjoyed reading the MSU Newsletter 35. The MSU Newsletter was informative. 36. The style of writing in the MSU Newsletter was pleasant. 37. More personal information regarding participants and their activities should be included in the Newsletter. 38. The Newsletter should be written and distributed more frequently. 4 S NV 4 5 4 S N wwww O‘C‘O‘m \J 4 5 Please list any suggestions for changes in the style, frequency, or information covered in the Newsletter. Vll. VISITS BY DIRECTOR (If you did not receive a visit skip numbers 39 - 4i.) 39. The visit by the director increased your influence as a resource person with the elementary school personnel. 40. The visit by the director increased your workshOp activity 4i. You wanted the director to visit you. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very strongly disagree VIII. 236 ____2.___ __._.3___.__ __‘+__ _.___5__ ___§____ Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly disagree disagree no agree agree opinion THE FEEDBACK 42. 43. 44. 45. 47. 48. 49. 50. The feedback form was difficult to fill out. Filling out the feedback form was time consuming. Sending in the feedback form was embarassing. The feedback form was an effective means of assessing your activity. Had you known about the request to provide monthly feed- back on your activity you would not have applied to the R H" 0 Assessing participant activity is an important part of the RPM follow-up. Withholding part of the RPW stipend would be an effective means of insuring participant feedback of information. The telephone call to verify the record of your activity was threatening. The telephone call to verify the record of your activity was stimulating. List any suggestions you have for improving feedback technique. IX. AFFECTS 0F RPW AND FOLLOW-UP A. College Teachers Only SI. 52. As a result of the RPM, the relationship has improved between you and the elementary school administration In your area. As a result of the RPM, the relationship has improved between you and the elementary school teachers in your area. How could the staff at MSU help to improve these relationships? 7__ Very strongly agree N w #3??? Vimmu'i '234567 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 O‘O‘thd‘ \I N _ WEE—LT: . x. 2237 l 2 _"__ 3 4 5 6 Very Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly strongly disagree disagree no agree agree disagree Opinion 53. The RPW training was beneficial to you in planning l and teaching your college classes. How was it helpful? B. School Personnel Only As a result of the RPM, the relationship has improved between you and the: 54. school personnel in your school system. I 55. teachers and administration within your own building I 56. the elementary school administration in other school systems. 57. the elementary school teachers in other school systems. I How could the MSU staff help to improve these relationships? NSTA MEETING (If you did not attend the SCIS meeting at NSTP skip numbers 58 through 6|.) 58. The informal part of the meeting was interesting and of I value to you. 59. The formal part of the meeting was interesting and of I value to you. 60. Some type of meeting for the entire group would be an I effective follow-up activity ‘0 an RPW. 6l. If you had the opportunity to attend the ‘73 NSTA convention I you would like to attend another RPW group meeting. 7 Very strongly agree 2 3 4 S 6 7 fl 2 3 4 S 6 7 Ly 2 3 4 5 6 7 I 2 3 4 S 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 N w 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 S 6 7 234567 2138 Very Strongly Moderately Neutral Moderately Strongly Very strongly disagree disagree no agree agree strongly disagree opinion agree XI. RAND McNALLY REPRESENTATIVES (If you had no contact with your local Rand XII. XIII. XIII. McNaIly representative skip numbers 62 through 67.) 62. You initiated the contact with the representative. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 63. Your contacts with the representative increased during l 2 3 4 S 6 7 the year. 64. The representative has been a help to you in consultant I 2 3 4 5 6 7 work with the school personnel. 65. The representative supplied equipment for workshOp l 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities. 66. The representative furnished money for your workshop I 2 3 4 5 6 7 activities. 67. The representative furnished you with names of peOple l 2 3 4 S 6 7 to contact for potential workshops. FOLLOW-UP OF YOUR PARTICIPFNTS 68. The request for names and addresses of participants in l 2 3 4 5 6 7 your workshops was threatening. 69. Questionnaires filled out by your participants at the end of l 2 3 4 S 6 7 each workshop would be a time saving way to return your workshop information to MSU. COMMENTS (Use the back if more space is needed to answer these questions.) What efforts could have been made from MSU during the follow-up period that would have aided you in your elementary science orientation or implementation activities? What demands or requests were made of you in relation to implementation or orientation activities for which the RPW training did not prepare you7 This form is too long. I 2 3 4 S 6 7 APPENDIX J FINAL INVENTORY OF THE MSU RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP ON SCIS RESPONSES TO THE FINAL INVENTORY ‘\ 1:. Responses to Final Inventory 239 Frequence of ReSponse Item I 2w 7"; " -....l'....-._ 5 “‘6_W 7 N v i Mean V I 0 0 0 I 0 I6 I3 30 6.36 2 0 l 2 3 I0 I0 5 3I 5.32 3 4 3 2 l 7 9 5 31 4.64 4 0 0 4 2 5 I2 8 31 5.70 5 0 0 2 I 5 I2 II 31 5.94 6 I 3 7 7 6 4 3 31 4.22 7 0 I I I 8 IS 5 3| 5.6I 8 4 7 4 S 4 5 2 3| 3.67 9 5 9 9 I 2 3 . 2 3I 3.09 I0' 6 9 9 I 2 2 2 3I 2.93 II 3 8 6 I 3 4 5 30 3.83 I2 0 I 3 2 2 9 I4 3I 5.83 I3 I I 3 3 7 6 IO 3I 5.32 I4 I 0 2 I 3 II I3 3I 5.90 I5 3 I 2 3 I I2 3I 5.35 I6 0 0 0 0 2 7 16 6.31 I7 5 0 2 0 4 5 3 I9 4.32 I8 5 0 2 I 3 4 4 I9 4.3I I9 4 0 I I 4 6 3 I9 4.63 20 8 I 0 2 3 0 2 I6 2.93 2I 0 I 0 2 2 5.1] 22 I 2 I 0 I 3.44 23 4 7 5 2 6 3 4 31 3.77 24 7 6 2 3 5 4 4 3I 3.67 25 4 2 3 4 9 5 4 Bi 4.38 26 9 4 3 I2 I I I 3I 2.96 27 0 0 0 I6 3 7 3 29 4.89 28 I 0 0 I5 2 5 7 30 5.00 240 Frequence of Response Item I 2 ' 3 4 5 6 ‘Z_ - II - Mean fi_ 29 2 0 I I6 0 5 30 4.66 30 O O 2 6 7 IO 6 3| 5.39 3| 4 O 4 I I 6 l5 3| 5.35 32 0 2 2 3 9 8 3| 5.32 33 O 0 I 2 3 I2 I3 3i 6.09 34 O 0 O 0 2 I0 I8 30 6.53 35 O O O O 3 I2 I6 3| 6.64 36 0 0 O 2 2 I4 I3 3I 6.22 37 0 0 2 5 8 7 9 3| 5.5] 38 ' 0 0 6 6 7 5 7 3I 5.03 39 I 0 I 0 2 3 4 II 5.45 40 2 O 2 2 O I 3 IO 4.30 4| 0 O I 3 6 IO 6.50 42 4 ° 10 8 3 3 2 1 3| 3.03 43 6 8 I 7 4 I 3| 3.54 In. 12 9 2 5 2 0 I 3I 2.35 45 l 2 2 6 8 4 8 3| 5.00 46 20 4 3 2 0 I I 3I I.87 47 0 0 0 I 3 I0 I7 3I 6.38 48 6 4 I 3 7 2 8 3| 4.25 49 I9 8 2 I l O 0 3| I.6I 50 I 0 2 2 6 8 I2 3| 5.70 5| 2 3 3 3 II 5.63 52 0 0 0 2 4 3 2 II 5.45 53 l 6 4 II 6.27 54 D O O 2 7 5 5 I9 5.68 55 0 O O 2 4 9 4 l9 5.78 56 O 0 O 3 8 6 2 l9 5.36 57 0 O I I 6 7 4 I9 5.63 241 Frequence of Response Item I 2 3 4 5 <6 7_ N Mean 58 0 0 O O 3 8 I I2 5.83 59 0 0 0 O 5 4 3 I2 5.83 60 O O I I 4 3 3 I2 5.50 6| 0 O O 0 I 5 6 I2 6.4I 62 4 I I 2 I 3 IO 22 5.00 63 5 2 2 0 8 I 4 22 4.04 64 6 5 I 2 5 2 I 22 3.22 65 7 2 O I 8 I 3 22 3.72 66 . 9 I I 2 4 3 2 22 3.36 67 II 4 O 2 3 I I 2| 2.50 68 I4 6 3 3 2 O I 29 2.20 69 O I 4 5 6 7 6 29 5.IO 70 4 ' 4 I 4 3 2 3 2| APPENDIX K DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES AND CORRELATION MATRIX Number 10 11 APPENDIX K DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES AND CORRELATION MATRIX Identifi- Descri tion cation p SEX 1- male 2-female JOB l- administration and research, 2- teacher, 3- science consultant or science coordinator, 4- college science educator. YR EXP Total years of teaching experience. EL EXP Years of teaching at the elementary school level. SEC XP Years of teaching experience at the secondary school level COL XP Years of eXperience at the college level. SCI HR The number of semester hours of science courses taken during undergraduate and graduate training (Variables 5, 6, and 7 are subdivisions of variable 4). STEP Participant scores on the Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Series II, Form 1A. PRI XP The participants number of workshops presented during the previous year given in categories of (l) 0, (2) 1—2, (3) 3-5, (4) 6-10, and (5) 11+. AGE The participants' age as of August 1, 1971. SCIS XP Participants' stated experience with the SCIS program at the beginning of the workshop in categories of (l) have heard about it, (2) have read about it, (3) have observed SCIS being taught in the classroom, (4) have taught SCIS, and (5) have trained SCIS teachers. 242 Number 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Identifi- cation SCIS KN SCIS SCH DEG PR PER PST PER CHG PER ACTIVITY 243 Description Participants' stated knowledge of the aims and philosophies of SCIS at the beginning of the workshop in categories of (1) minimal, (2) minimal to moderate, (3) moderate, (4) moderate to extensive, and (5) extensive. The stated number of school systems with- in a twenty-five mile radius of the par- ticipants' home that they were aware were implementing SCIS in the coming fall. The responses were in categories of (l) 0, (2) 1-2, (3) 3-4, (4) 5-6, and (5) more than six. The participants' academic degree at the completion of the workshop. 1 - bachelor's degree, 2 - master's degree, 3 - doctorate. Scores on the SCIS perception question- naire administered at the beginning of the workshop. Scores on the SCIS perception question- naire administered at the completion of the workshop. (The arrangement of responses to the questionnaire were (1) I strongly agree with the statement, (2) I a ree with the statement, (3) My feelings are neutral or I have no response for the statement, (4) I disagree with the statement, and (5) I strongly disagree with the statement. The participants' change toward a more positive perception of SCIS during the WOrkshop. The number of contact hours partici- pants reported during the follow-up period in workshOps. 244 ooooo.~ hmmoo.o vom~n.0 samen.o hm~m~.o woaoa.o noooo.OI ha~d~.o Nhov~.o mHAmm.o n~ho~.o amvo~.o manH~.o nvmo~.o Nva~.o vvov~.o ovom~.o oovvn.o ma rhuVHPU4 ooooo.d nmumn.OI wwwmo.o nhmmo.OI nohwm.OI avmhm.OI nnma~.°l Nmooo.o Noono.OI o~om~.o owom~.o hamm~.o ”mmo~.o onmho.OI enhmw.o 1n400.o mmnnm.o h awn and ooooo.a oouwv.o amamo.OI nomno.o homwa.o hmo~o.o ocuo~.0I ommwo.0I mummo.o menm0.0I owmoo.o c-~o.0I «mmNA.OI vno~«.0I mnavo.OI nmama.o ma mum Hmm oooco.~ mvomo.OI ohmm~.OI oAQOv.OI ohme.OI vauma.0I momm0.0I mooh~.o owmm~.o owvmu.o mmnnn.o Nw~n~.0I mmomo.o m¢mm~.o HOan.° ma mum mm ooooo.~ omNoO.OI munn~.o vomom.o owno~.o owm~0.0I chwwq.o av~mm.o QNowm.o wahmn.o mhvow.nI mmwnm.o m-~h.o ~N00~.OI we umu ooooo.~ hamao.o mm~n~.o vmmoH.o NVANA.O nh~v~.OI uuao~.0I ov~mo.0l Omvm~.0I mmwmn.o m~ooo.o m¢m-.0l omNmo.OI ma mum wuum ooooo.~ huo-.o nmmmo.o mmmwo.OI Ncaau.OI ovaoo.OI nh-~.o Naooo.OI mvmwo.o ooooa.o mmvmo.o NavnN.OI «a A! muum Ooooo.~ H0m0a.0i m~oo~.o mo~m~.o owh~m.o nmnmo.° anemo.o nmomo.OI mamoo.o omwmm.o hwmua.OI AH AX Mmum ooooo.~ mnwmo.OI mv~m~.o nhmho.o hm~0m.o momam.o nanom.n Hwnvw.o nmmvo.OI nnmmo.o ea MU< ooooo.~ ommvo.o amvmo.o oaooo.o ouma~.OI maumo.o anvno.0I avvoa.o nnmvo.o a mu “an ooooo.~ oncom.o hmnvm.o aaoov.o munvw.oi owaoH.o owmom.o OmNNo.o u aukm ooooo.a mmomv.o «ommm.o unmmm.ui vaow.o ao~m0.0 mnuga.0i r K: mum ooooo.~ muomv.o mmmnn.OI ammow.o omuow.o mmo-.OI o my 400 ooooo.u cvahn.OI ONwmm.o nv~c¢.° wh004.0 m an new cocoo.u Hummv.o om~n¢.0l ooumA.o V him an ooooo.H amnmo.o NOmmo.o n mxm Eh ooooo.n GmHo~.OI N n06 coooo.~ A xwm ma ha ca ma vH ma NA ad ed a a h o m v n N A .02 rh~>hhu4 man 020 GHQ Pun «Mm “A 0ND Hum mum ll mum AX mum not fix Him Adam K: mum AN 400 an Dam mHN AN QHN u> non Nun K4> IGOADIAONHOO OABIdeI.N~ udldh APPENDIX L RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP BROCHURE AND APPLICATION APPENDIX L A RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP on SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT STUDY MATERIALS for College Teachers, School Science Supervisors and Science Consultants July 5, 1971 through July 30, 1971 SPONSORED BY MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION A four-week workshop in elementary science education will be conducted at Michigan State University from July 5, 1971 to July 30, 1971. WOrkshop participants will be: (1) college or university professors currently teaching education science and/or science courses to pre- service elementary school teachers, (2) elementary science supervisors, and (3) elementary science consultants. The primary purpose of the workshop is to prepare participants to assist local school personnel to implement the new elementary school science curriculum programs-- in particular, the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). As a result of the workshop and follow-up activi- ties, it is expected that participants will actively serve as resource persons and consultants to local school sys- tems. Specific objectives of the workshop include: 1. to provide the participants with considerable knowledge of the teacher education procedures, purposes, history, recommended modes of instruc- tion, objectives and materials of the Science Cur- riculum Improvement Study (SCIS). 245 246 2. to assist the participants as a group and as individuals to plan and to prepare appropriate materials and activities for orientation sessions, and in-service and pre-service teacher education programs. 3. to provide opportunities for the participants to teach children science using the new curriculum materials and to provide him with feedback on his teaching. 4. to familiarize the participant with the school setting administrative aspects, teacher education needs, and various strategies for implementation of a curriculum innovation. ‘ 5. to provide direct experience in organizing and presenting orientation sessions on the SCIS pro~ gram to groups of school teachers and adminis- trators. 6. to help each participant to engage in orientation, consulting, and implementation activities after leaving the Michigan State University campus. WORKSHOP AND FOLLOW-UP PROGRAM To prepare the participants to assist schools con- sidering implementation of the new curricula, the activi- ties of the workshop have been divided into six phases: Phase One -- Introduction to the Science Curriculum Improvement Study including working with kits and materials. Leadership training including work with group process skills. Introduction to micro- teaching. Phase Two -- Participants will micro-teach science to children with the new materials, and give and receive feedback concern- ing their teaching. Intensive train- ing in the Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study life science units. Phase Three -- Intensive training in the Science Cur- riculum Improvement Study combined with independent development in in- service strategies. 247 Phase Four -- Participation in the preparation and presentation of an orientation program to a small group of interested school teachers and administrators. Phase Five -- Feedback sessions and workshop evalu- ation. Phase Six -- A follow-up program to assist partici- pants in implementation efforts in their home area. Assistance will be provided as needed throughout the following academic year. PARTICIPANT INVITATIONS AND SELECTION Participants will be invited from the population of college or university professors currently teaching science and/or science education courses for pre-service ele- mentary school teachers and from elementary science con- sultants and science supervisors. Since it is expected that participants will receive requests for consultation services from local schools, participants selected will be expected to provide evidence that their administration will permit Ehem to gggage in consulting and impIemen- tation activities. In seIecting individuals for stipends and otfierwiseLIn the administration of the workshop, the grantee will not discriminate because of race, creed, color, national origin, or teaching locality, of any applicant or participant. Preference will be given to: l. applicant teams of college science educators and school science supervisors from the same geo- graphic area who have agreed to develop a coopera- tive relationship to implement the SCIS program upon their return home. 2. college teachers who indicate that they will include, where possible, an introduction to the SCIS program in their contact with pre-service teachers. 3. school leadership personnel who provide evidence that the SCIS materials will be tried in at least one classroom within their system in the 1971-72 academic year. 248 STIPENDS Stipends will be awarded to participants at the rate of $75.00 per week. No dependency allowances will be added to the stipend. A travel allowance equal to one round trip at the rate of $.08 per mile from his home to the institute (maximum $80) will be paid to each partici- pant. In addition, non-commuting participants will receive a lodging and meal allowance of $77.50 per week. The Foundation grant will cover fees and materials used in the workshop. HOUSING All participants requesting residence hall housing will be assigned to McDonel Hall where they will be housed as a group with lounge and snack bar facilities. A la carte meals will be available in the Owen Graduate Center immediately adjacent to McDonel. With the exception of the school orientation program, all conference sessions will be in McDonel and Holmes Halls. The school orien- tation program will be conducted at twelve different geo- graphic sites in Michigan with transportation provided. The cost of housing will be $18.00 per week for one-half of a double room and $27.00 per week for single occupancy. Married couples without children can be accommodated in McDonel Hall. Housing for families with children in University apartments is limited and difficult to obtain for a four-week period. INVITATIONS Applications should be received by March 15, 1971. Invitations will be mailed prior to April 5, 1971 and responses to the invitations will be expected by April 16, 1971. Participants may be suggested to the Director at any time prior to March 15, 1971. Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer, Director A Resource Personnel WOrkshop for Science Curriculum Improvement Study Materials E 37 McDonel Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 48823 249 APPLICATION for A RESOURCE PERSONNEL WORKSHOP on the SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT STUDY July 5, 1971 - July 30, 1971 All applicants should complete items 1 — 20. 1. Your name: Mr. Mrs. Miss Last First Middle Social Security No. 3. Date of Birth Years of Teaching Experience Name of School in which you teach School Address: No. and Street City, State, ZIP Code Sch. Ph. No. area code Residential address: No. and Street City, State, ZIP code Phone: area code No. Check mailing address you wish used: School address or Residential address Your Position: College Teacher Science Super- visor Science Consultant Courses taught involving pre-service or in-service teachers: Minimum one-way distance from home to institute: miles 250 SCIS-CTW71 10. U.S. Citizen ___ Yes ___ No 11. Marital status: ___ single ___ married widow(er) ___ divorced or separated 12. Highest Degree Obtained: 13. With whom must you obtain approval in order to be able to attend this Institute? Name and title Name and tiEIe Name and title 14. The following are the stated objectives of the work- shOp. Please rank order each in terms of their relative importance to you. Number one should indi- cate the objective that you feel is most important. You may have some objectives that are not stated. Add them to the list and include them in your ranking. opjective Rank a. to provide the participants with considerable knowledge of the teacher education pro- cedures, purposes, history, recommended modes of instruction, objectives and materials of the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). b. to assist the participants as a group and as individuals to plan and to prepare appro- priate materials and activities for orien- tation sessions, and in-service and pre- service teacher education programs. c. to provide opportunities for the participants to teach children science using the new cur- riculum materials and to provide him with feedback on his teaching. d. to familiarize the participant with the school setting, administrative aspects, teacher education needs, and various strate- gies for implementation of a curriculum innovation. g. h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 251 Objective Rank to provide direct experience in organizing and presenting orientation sessions on the SCIS program to groups of school teachers and administrators. to help each participant to engage in orien- tation, consulting, and implementation activities after leaving the Michigan State University Campus. Have you any experience with video-tape? Yes No If you did not attend this workshop, what would you most likely be doing during the workshop period? What do you see as the greatest difficulty in helping teachers implement these programs? Have you been involved in any activities directly focusing on up-grading science instruction in the elementary or intermediate schools that have not been covered in the previous questions? Yes ___ No If yes, describe briefly. If any of the preference categories listed under Selection of Participants are applicable to your EituaEion please eprth. Have you included a letter from your administrator to provide evidence that you will be permitted to engage in consulting and implementation activities during this 1971-72 academic year? Yes ___ No To be Completed by Science Supervisors or Science Con- sultants Oily. 21. 22. Have you had any involvement with the new NSF sponsored programs? Yes No Describe briefly the kinds of in-service activities you have conducted during the present academic year. 252 23. List any local college personnel that have been working with you to help improve science instruction in your school system. Name InstitutiEn Name Institution 24. List any other science supervisors or consultants with whom you work to improve science instruction. Name Institution 25. Approximately how many hours per week did you spend in the classroom this last year working directly with students? 26. How do you perceive the working relationship between your school system or systems and the near-by colleges or universities? non-existent poor occasional good excellent To Be Completed bnyollege Teachers only 27. List courses you will teach next year involving pre- service or in-service teachers: If a science course, Indicate level is it designed for (Fresh., Soph, science majors or etc.) of the non-majors? majority of the Name Of Course students in each course How frequently will the courses be offered next year 253 28. How do you perceive the working relationships between your institution and the local school system or systems? (check one) non-existent poor occasional good excellent 29. List the names of any school personnel with whom you are presently working. Name Title Schbol System Name Titie Schooi System 30. Have you used any of the NSF sponsored elementary school programs materials in: Science Classes -___ Yes ____ Methods of Teaching Elementary School Science ___ Yes ____ In-service classes ___ Yes ___. Consulting with public schools Yes ___ If yes, indicate the materials used and to what extent. NO NO NO NO