THE DEFFERENTIAL ADOPTION AND DEFFUSECN 0F SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRECULUM INNOVATIONS AMONG ELEMENTARY SCHOCL TEACHERS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNTVERSITY KENNETH RAY MECHLTNG 1970 i. E'BRARY wrhjgan Sum University "m“ 3 1293 10330 633W This is to certifg that the thesis entitled THE DIFFERENTIAL ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION OF SELECTED EIEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM INNOVATIONS AMONG EIEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS presented by Kenneth Ray Mechling has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Date January 30, 1970 0-169 9" \. BINDING BY I we ENSUNS‘ E ‘31 an? 6 l Mae/0 2., SEP 1... ?‘ 229% 1 ABSTRACT THE DIFFERENTIAL ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION OF SELECTED EIENENTARY SCIENCE CURRICUDUM.INNOVATIONS AMONG EIENENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS BY Kenneth Ray Mechling Prdblem The purpose of this study was to explore a diffusion strategy for science education which employed selected elementary teachers to adopt science teaching innovations and spread them to other classroom teachers within their schools. Specifically, it sought to determine (1) whether teachers designated by their peers as science opinion leaders adopted and diffused more innovations in science teaching methods and materials than teachers not designated as science opinion leaders; and (2) whether the adoption of the innovations was significantly cor- related with scores achieved by teachers on either the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale or the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Procedure Participants were drawn from a population of 1,205 elementary teachers from 112 schools in western Pennsylvania. On the basis of the classification variable, science opinion leadership, two groups of $.* A“ _. .."-- . .. .. or... ...- ... . 1 .- - ~ p-p ; ~\.~... Q“. .- ‘A - . .. . -r A; -~‘ , ”fl .. \ i~"; .g'.- 1 ‘V'v— ~.\_‘ Kenneth Ray Mechling teachers were randomly selected for participation. One group consisted of twenty science opinion leaders and 13A teachers from the schools which they represented. The other group included twenty-one nonleaders and 119 teachers from the schools which they represented. Each leader and nonleader represented a different elementary school. In January 1969, each teacher in both groups received a pretest questionnaire to establish his level of adoption of ten innovative sci- ence teaching investigations characteristic of those produced by three major elementary science curriculum.development projects: Science-- A Process Approach (SARA); the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS); and the Elementary Science Study CESS). Typical investigations selected from.each project were Mr. O - Relativity (SCIS), Batteries and Bulbs (E33), and Inferring the Characteristics of Packaged Articles (SAPA). A sociometric measure was administered concurrently to identify the science opinion leader and nonleader in each school. During March 1969, the twenty leaders and twenty-one nonleaders participated in three sessions of a science inservice program. After the Rokeach.Dogmatism.Scale and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory had been administered, the participants were instructed in the techniques for using the investiga- tions in their own classrooms. During May 1969, the level of adoption questionnaire was again administered as a posttest to all teachers. Pre- test scores were subtracted, algebraically, from posttest scores to yield change in level of adoption. Statistical treatments included: t-tests for uncorrelated data; single classification, completely randomized analyses of variance; and 2 X 2 contingency tables. ~\h Rm . Q\ .- I‘ q Kenneth Ray Mechling Findings The pertinent findings of this study were: 1. Teachers who were regarded by their peers as science opinion leaders neither adopted nor diffused significantly more science teaching innova- tions than teachers who were not regarded as science opinion leaders. No significant advantage for achieving the adoption and diffusion of the innovations was gained by identifying science opinion leaders and con- centrating inservice efforts upon them. 2. There was a significant correlation between scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and change scores on a measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among inservice program participants. An inverse relationship existed between the scores on the two instruments. Most teachers who scored high on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale scored low on change in level of adoption. Most teachers who scored low on the Rokeach.Dogmatism.Scale scored high on change in level of adoption. 3. There was no significant correlation between scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and change scores on a measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among inservice program parti- cipants. A. There was no significant difference in frequency of adoption of innovations grouped by curriculum project origin between teachers who scored high on the Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale and those who scored low. 5. The three innovative science investigations for which the level of adoption increased most among all participating teachers were Mr. O - Relativity (SCIS), Mealworms (E38), and Drops and Heaping (ESS). THE DIFFERENTIAL ADOPTION AND DIFFUSION OF SELECTED ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM INNOVATIONS AMONG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS By Kenneth Ray Mechling A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 (.6137 7 7~/ ~70 Dedicated to my wife Duss and my children Kenny, Kelly, Amy, and Kristine ii .\‘.-- .11... u...;, >L~p —. l‘ “‘I _ o '—. a , ~ \._ ACKNOWLEDGNENTS Sincere appreciation is herewith expressed to the many persons who contributed their time and effort to this study. The writer is especially grateful to Dr. Julian R. Brandon, the thesis director and chairman of the doctoral committee, for his valuable guidance, constant encouragement, and generous assistance during the development of this study. Grateful acknowledgment is extended to Dr. Charles Blackman, Dr. Henry Kennedy, and Dr. Clarence Schloemer, the members of the writer's doctoral committee, for the stimulus of their advice and encouragement and their counsel throughout the writer's doc- toral studies. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. George Harmon, Dr. Kurt Sandage, and Dr. Andrew Porter for their helpful suggestions during the planning of the study. A special acknowledgment is extended to Dr. William.Kodrich for his guidance in the selection of appropriate statistical analyses. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the many elementary school teachers whose cooperation and participation were essential to the comple- tion of this study and to the U.S. Office of Education and Clarion State College for providing the support that made the study possible. Thanks are also due to Miss Carmen Tyler and Miss Yvonne Thompson for their assistance in typing the draft manuscripts. Finally, appreciation is eXpressed to my friends, my family and my wife for their moral support and understanding patience throughout the doctoral study. iii 3.“. \ ~‘u- OM,— TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Nature of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Nature of the Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lO Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Statistical Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Need for the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Stages in the Adoption of Innovations . . . . . . . . 20 Opinion Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 General Characteristics of Opinion Leaders . . . . . 22 The Measurement of Opinion.Ieadership . . . . . . 2% Opinion Leadership in the Adoption and Diffusion Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Personal Influence Exerted by Opinion Leaders . . . 28 Dogmatism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Classroom Social Atmosphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 III. PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 The Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Selection of the Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA The Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A9 Questionnaire, Part I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SO Sociometric Measure of Science Opinion Leadership, Part II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 iv r rcv’fiT‘ 'uae.-- - Q! . 1v. Chapter Page Rokeach.Dogmatism.Sca1e . . . . . . . . . . 56 Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory . . . . . . . S8 The Science Inservice Program . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Program Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Description of Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . 6A Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Selection of Elementary Schools . . . . . . . 68 Administration of Questionnaire Parts I and II . . 69 Measures Administered During the Inservice Program. 70 Administration of the Level of Adoption Posttest . 70 Methods of Data Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A IV. ANALXSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Comparisons of Pretest Level of Adoption ScoreS . . . . 77 Differential Adoption Between Science Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Differential Adoption Between Teachers in Schools Represented by Science Opinion Leaders and Teachers Represented by Nonleaders . . . . . . . . 79 Correlation Between the ROkeach.Dogmatism Scale and Change in Level of Adoption . . . .. . . . 81 Correlation Between the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and Change in Level of Adoption . . . . . . 83 Teacher Adoption of the Ten Investigations . . . . . . 86 Discussion of the Findings . . . . . . . . 86 Differential Adoption Between Science Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Differential Adoption Between Teachers in Schools Represented by Science Opinion Leaders and Teachers Represented by Nonleaders . . . . . . . . 88 Correlation Between the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and Change in Level of Adoption . . . . . . . . . . . 9O Correlation Between the Minnesota Teacher Attitude wntory and Change in Level of Adoption . . . . . 92 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 V.SUD/MARYANDCONCIUSIONS................. 91+ Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . lOO JBIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 APPENDICES 110 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Number of Elementary Schools and Teachers in Each School System.in the Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Schools Per System.FromfiWhiCh Samples Were Drawn; Number of Elementary Teachers Per System Included in the Sample; Number of Science Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders Selected From Each School; and the Number of Science Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders Included in the S tud-y O O O O O C O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Adoption Scale Scores Converted to Level of Adoption scores 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O I Reliabilities, Means, and Standard Deviations of Dogmatism.Scale, Form.E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percentile Rank Equivalents for Raw Scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, Form A . . . . . Science Inservice Program Investigations Topics . . . . Numbers of Questionnaires Sent and Totals and Percent of Questionnaires Returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Hypotheses and Models Used to Analyze Data . Analysis of'Variance Data for the Change Scores on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations Between Science Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Data for the Change Scores on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations Between Teachers in Schools Represented by Science Opinion Leaders and Teachers in Schools Represented by Nonleaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 X 2 Contingency Table Analysis of the Correlation Between Scores on the Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale and Change in Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 115 1+7 53 58 61 66 71 73 79 8O 82 Table 12. 13. 11+. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 2 X 2 Contingency Table AnaIysis of the Correlation Between Scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and Change in Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Data.Analyses for Each Hypotheses Tested . . . Frequency Distribution of Highest Change Scores by High and LOW'Dogmatic Teadhers on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations from Three Curriculum.Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pretest, Posttest, and Change Scores on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations for Science Opinion Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pretest, Posttest, and Change Scores on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Teaching Innovations for Nonleaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pretest, Posttest, and Change Scores on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Innovations for 13% Teachers in Schools Represented by Science Opinion Leaders . . . Pretest, Posttest, and Change Scores on a Measure of Level of Adoption of Science Innovations for 119 Teachers in Schools Represented by Nonleaders . . . . . . . . . . Scores on the Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale for Science Inservice Program Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory for Science Inservice Program Participants . . . . . . . . . Change in Level of Adoption for Ten Innovative Investigations Among All Participating Teachers . . . . vii Page 8A 85 92 121 122 123 127 131 132 133 Figure l. 2. LIST OF FIGURES The Normal.Diffusion Curve . . . Pennsylvania - Region F Outline Map . viii Page ~-‘ - .ou--- .— l LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Instruments Used to Gather Data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 B. Summary of Data Analyzed for the Science Opinion Leaders and Nonleaders and for the Teachers in Their Respective Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 C. Communications ....l35 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The finest research, the most innovative solutions to practical problems, the best packages of materials, can have no effect on practice if they are not diffused to the level of the practitioner. It is obvious that one cannot hope for any considerable improvement in American education unless one also pays a great deal of attention to the process of diffusion.1 The purpose of this investigation was to explore a diffusion strategy for science education which employed selected elementary teachers to adopt science teaching innovations and spread them to other classroom teachers. The study was designed to determine (1) whether teachers designated as science opinion leaders adopted and diffused more innovations in science teaching methods and materials than teachers not designated as science opinion leaders, and (2) whether the adoption of the innovations was significantly correlated with scores achieved by teachers on measures of dogmatism or classroom social atmosphere. In recent years, American education has witnessed unprecedented activity in the development of innovative instructional materials for school science. The materials offer much promise for improving the way science is taught in the nation's elementary schools. Curriculum LEgon, G. Guba, "Diffusion of Innovations;'Educationa1 Leader- ship, xxv, No. A (January 1968), 292. ‘l. Cu l'_ 0.. v . r: 7.: ‘2... 2 2 and designers, aware of the explosive growth of scientific knowledge disenchanted with contemporary science curricula,3 have grappled with a task spelled out a decade earlier by Conant when he said, "What is needed are methods for imparting knowledge of the tactics and strategy of science to those who are not scientists.")'L The science curriculum reform projects have responded to this challenge and produced innovative mate- rials and teaching techniques which aim to directly involve children in the processes of science. Unfortunately, the production of the innova- tions has seldom been coupled with adequate provision for their diffu- sion and subsequent evaluation by those intended to be the ultimate adopters, namely, the elementary classroom teachers. Federal funds amounting to more than one hundred million dollars5 and enormous quantities of time and effort have been invested in the development of the innovative science curricula and yet, as Montean points out, ”Unfortunately...the implementation, of what is 6 known and available, is not taking place." The success or failure of any implementation efforts depends on the acceptance and adoption of new 2Joseph J. Schwab, "The Teaching of Science as Inquiry," The Teaching of Science (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962), pp. 9-21. 3J. Stanley Marshall, "The Improvement of Science Education and the Administrator," The New School Science (Washington, D. 0.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1963), pp. 2-A. #James B. Conant, On Understanding Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 19A7), p. 26. 5W'ayneW.Welch, "The Impact of National Curriculum Projects: The Need for Accurate Assessment," School Science and Mathematics, LVIII, 3 (March 1968), 225-226. 6John H. Mentean, "Patterns of Implementation," Science Education, LII, A (October 1968), 316. 11‘. r; a I nor- 0... on as» ,. ,A“ wk.‘ 2‘ A. w 3 ideas by the classroom teacher, yet even before this can happen the inno- vation must reach the teacher. The thrust of this investigation is to- wards the discovery of the means by which innovations may be most efficiently diffused to the level of the classroom teacher. The Nature of the Problem The recent science curriculum.revision movement began in 1956 when the National Science Foundation made a grant to the Physical Science Study Committee for the development of materials for a high school physics course.7 The availability of massive federal financial support soon brought proposals for other curriculum improvement projects. The success of the science projects at the secondary school level eventually led to the generation of more than fifteen major projects at the elementary school level.8 Each.of these projects has produced science teaching ac- tivities and materials intended for use in elementary school classrooms. The nature of the instructional process itself has also been profoundly affected by the infusion of manipulative materials and modern psychologi- cal models. With production either completed or well underway in several large scale projects, the task of diffusing the innovations to the teachers expected to use them looms as a formidable one. Its magnitude is revealed in information released by the elementary science curriculum projects themselves. The three major projects have reported their implementation status in terms of numbers of teachers and students using their materials. Science--A Process Approach reported involving an 7Welch, "The Impact of National Curriculum Projects," 225. 8ShirleyA. Brehm, "The Impact of Experimental Programs on Elementary School Science," Science Education, LII, 3 (April 1969), 293. r . . a V ~ .. . .. A y a: u... - \. bug. .. .. T‘ h estimated 25,000 teachers and 750,000 students;9 the Elementary Science Study reported involving 7,500 teachers and 225,000 students;10 and the Science Curriculum.Improvement Study reported involving 600 teachers and 19,000 students.ll Considering that there are more than 31,000,000 elementary pupils enrolled in elementary schools and more than 1,100,000 teachers teaching them,12 it appears that ninety-seven per cent of all elementary teachers are not yet using any of these three sets of new materials and techniques which are, by far, the best diffused to date. Apparently, the impact of the elementary science curriculum development projects has yet to be felt at the local school level. The problem of reaching a vast number of elementary teachers is further complicated by teacher turnover. Teachers needed to fill new positions or replace teachers who retire or leave the profession also require exposure to the innovative science curriculum.methods and materials. The complex diffu- sion problem confronting science educators was recognized by Rowe and Hurd when they wrote that: In comparison with the complexity of the task of diffusing a new curriculum, curriculum development in science is a relatively Simple process. Every summer QJ. David Lockard, ed., Sixth Report of the International Clearinghouse on Science and Mathematics Curricular Developments 1968, A Joint Project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Science Teaching Center, University of Maryland (College Park, Maryland: The International Clearinghouse, May 1968), p. 152. loIbid., p. 230. llIbid., p. 336. 12Luman H. Long, ed., The 1969 world Almanac (New York: Newspaper Enterprise.Association, Inc., 1968), p. 3A9. .._ . \ V I- ..-. o- . .0 . rm. “-3 1“,. -A- tr! ' c u... T‘ 5 curriculum groups write or revise new elementary science courses. Every fall a few schools try out the new pro- grams. MOst schools go on with their usual routines unaware of new developments.13 Even after years of the development and production of innovative science materials and teaching techniques, a significant gap continues to exist between availability and implementation. ijor effort should now be directed toward seeking the best methods for translating the curriculum develOpments into local school action programs. If the cur- riculum reform movements are to contribute to the improvement of science teaching, then strategies must be created to diffuse the innovations to the elementary teachers who will ultimately use them. It was the pur- pose of this study to explore such a strategy. Because of the magnitude of the task of reaching more than one million elementary teachers with the science curriculum innovations, this study determined the feasibility of selecting key teachers who were likely to adopt the innovations and who exhibited potential for influ- encing the adoption decisions of their colleagues. If such teachers could be chosen, a priori, on the basis of reasonable criteria, then change agents might work through these teachers to promote the imple- mentation of educational innovations. Inservice activities could con- centrate on such potential adopters who, in turn, could provide a means to diffuse innovations to other teachers within their schools. Because of its potential for affecting the adoption and diffu- sion of science teaching innovations, the independent variable selected l3MaryBudd Rowe and Paul DeHart Hurd, "The Use of Inservice Programs to Diagnose Sources of Resistance to Innovation," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, IV, 1 (1966), 3. 5‘7 fl.-- [1. (I) '1') 0-.. --\ -P .L o ‘ . Pr. 6 for examination in this study was opinion leadership. Individuals, to whom others look for advice and information are described by Rogers as 1A opinion leaders. Research findings from studies conducted in rural sociology, medical sociology, and marketing indicate that individuals designated as opinion leaders generally adopt and spread more innova- tions than individuals not so designated.l5 If opinion leaders can be identified within elementary school faculties, then it may be possible to use them as sources of innovational input from whom science teaching innovations could Spread. Wiles, in his summaries of strategies for curriculum change, recognized the need to examine such a strategy when H he urged, ...we need to look at our in-service education pattern to see if we should concentrate our money and effort on the innovators and the influentials and let innovation spread from them."16 In addition to the problem of diffusing the innovations to the level of the classroom teacher, there is also the problem of gaining their acceptance once they have arrived. Curriculum innovations in science often reflect changed philosophical orientations and, therefore, may necessitate fundamental changes in the teaching methods used by the teachers who decide to adopt.17 A common objective of the curriculum projects has been to shift the emphasis of science teaching from the lL‘Everett‘M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York, Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), p. 208. 15Ibid., pp. 208—253. l6Kimball Wiles, (ed.), Strategy for Curriculum Change (Washing- ton, D. C.: .Association for Supervision and Curriculum.Development, 1965), p. 73. lTDavid P. Butts, "Widening Vista's-In-Service Education," Science Education, LI, 2 (March 1967), 131. r. ._.. .1 ...c. T... VA r. n}— Own. a» .6. ‘ 71-. n.‘ l ’- ...- . _ . . Sag. 7 teacher-centered methods of lecture, recitation, and textbook reading to pupil-centered experiences designed to increase skills in using the methods of science. Project designers have, in fact, heeded the admo- nition of the Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education which advised: Scientific methods of investigation by which knowledge may be acquired and tested are now very much a part of our culture. The elementary school should help children become acquainted with these methods.18 Elementary classrooms in which the innovations are used are structured so that children and teachers cooperatively study natural phenomena with the approach and spirit of the scientist.19 Children become active participants in investigation, inquiry, and processes of science such as observation, prediction, measurement and experimentation.20 The teacher sets the stage for investigation, then functions as a guide or director of learning rather than a teller or conveyor of information.21 Such statements by the curriculum developers Show how strongly they have discouraged teachers from telling children about science or lis- tening while children read about science. 18Glenn 0. Blough, "Developing Science Programs in the Elemen- tary School," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 113. 19Herbert D. Thier and Robert Karplus, "Science Teaching is Becoming Literate," Education Age, II, 3 (January-February 1966), AO-AS. 2ORobert Gagne, "Elementary Science: A New Scheme of Instruc- tion," Science CLI (January 7, 1960), A9-53. 21John w. Renner and William B. Ragan, Teaching Science in the Elementary School (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers 1968), pp. 255-29h. 8 Since the adoption of a science curriculum innovation might require many teachers to change their methods of teaching science, two social-psychological attributes that may be related to teacher accept- ance of such changes were examined in this study. One such attribute was dogmatism, which Rokeach describes as a personality variable which governs a person's receptivity to new ideas and includes how he per- ceives, evaluates, acts and reacts to such ideas.22 High dogmatic per- sons, because of the structure of their beliefs, tend to view new ideas as threatening; whereas low dogmatic persons are generally more recep- tive to change.23 Therefore, it was expected that high dogmatic teachers would react differently than low dogmatic teachers when con- fronted with new ideas for teaching science. The other social-psychological attribute examined in this study, which could affect teacher acceptance of the new science teaching techniques and materials, was the classroom social atmosphere which prevails during the teaching of science. Teacher utilization of the innovations in the manner intended by the developers would necessitate the establishment of a relatively permissive classroom atmosphere where pupil-to-pupil interaction, freedom of exploration, and pursuit of individual interests would be encouraged. The teacher is expected to guide pupil—centered experiences rather than dominate the pupils with teacher-centered activities. It was anticipated, therefore, that teachers who were predisposed to provide or actually providing a rather 22Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind (New York: Basic Bmms,l%fi),p.73. 23Ibid., pp. 60-6A. a ~(V‘ '0‘.- ,. .- 0 AA- ‘n r " I'). ll' VA. ‘L. 9 permissive classroom social atmosphere would react differently to the innovations than teachers whose classroom style was more dominating and authoritative. One of the purposes of this study was to determine if a relationship existed between the classroom social atmosphere maintained by the teachers and their adoption of the science teaching innovations. If opinion leaders or other teachers possessing certain social- psychological attributes can be selected, a priori, to serve as initial vehicles of change within school systems such a finding may provide important clues for stimulating the diffusion of the science teaching innovations. The identification of key teachers and the concentration of inservice efforts upon them, as proposed in this study, could contrib- ute to the development of strategies for implementing science education innovations more effectively, more economically, and at a more rapid rate. The Nature of the Investigation This study examined the differential adoption of ten science teaching innovations between two groups of elementary teachers, iden- tified by their peers as science opinion leaders or nonleaders, and determined the differential diffusion of the innovations between the teachers in the schools which each group represented. The relationships between the adoption of innovations and the teacher's social- psychological attributes of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere were also examined. On the basis of the classification variable, science opinion leadership, sixty elementary schools in western Pennsylvania were ran- domly selected for division into two groups of thirty schools each: 10 Class 1 schools were schools from which science opinion leaders were drawn; and Class 2 schools were schools from which nonleaders were drawn. Each teacher in all sixty schools received a pretest question- naire to establish his level of adoption of ten innovative science investigations which were selected as characteristic of those produced by the three major elementary science curriculum development projects. A sociometric measure was administered jointly to all teachers to identify the science opinion leader and nonleader in each school. Thirty science opinion leaders (Class 1) and thirty nonleaders (Class 2), all from different elementary schools, were invited to par- ticipate in three consecutive inservice sessions held at Clarion State College. After measures of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere were administered, the participants were instructed in the techniques of using the methods and materials of the ten innovative science investi- gations. Ten weeks after the final inservice session, the questionnaire determining the level of adoption of the ten investigations was again administered as a posttest to all teachers in the sixty schools who had responded to the pretest. Pretest scores were then subtracted from posttest scores to yield change in level of adoption. Assumptions In conducting this study it was assumed that: elementary class- room teachers determine both the science content that they teach and the methods that they use to teach it; elementary teachers desire to teach science more effectively; the adoption of the innovative investi- gations is a desirable change in behavior and would result in more effective learning experiences in elementary school science; and the ll diffusion model on which this study is based, that is the concentration of inservice education efforts on opinion leaders and their subsequent role as change agents who influence the adoption decisions of their colleagues, is a viable model for achieving behavioral change. Hypotheses The hypotheses of this study were formulated following a review of the characteristics of the elementary science curriculum project innovations and the professional literature concerning the adoption and diffusion of innovations. A comparison of the opinion leader and non- leader classifications and their relative influence on the adoption behavior of other persons led to the proposition of hypotheses HCl and H02. The characteristics of the elementary science innovations and selected social-psychological attributes which could affect their adop- tion led to the proposition of hypotheses H03 and Hoh' The following null hypotheses were tested: H61: Science opinion leaders who participated in an inservice program dealing with innovative science teaching techniques and materi- als will adopt no more of the innovations than nonleaders who participated in the same program. H02: Teachers from schools which were represented in a science inservice program by science opinion leaders will adopt no more of the science teaching innovations than teachers from schools which were represented in the same inservice program by nonleaders. H03: Scores on the Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale are not signifi- cantly correlated with change scores on a measure of level of adoption 12 of science teaching innovations among participants in an inservice pro- gram conducted as a part of this study. HoA: Scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory are not significantly correlated with change scores on a measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among participants in an inservice program conducted as a part of this study. Statistical Treatment The first two stated hypotheses were tested statistically via a before and after control-group design (pretest-posttest). Single classi- fication, completely randomized analysis of variance was used to test the Significance of the difference in the change in level of adoption scores between the science opinion leaders and nonleaders and between the teachers in the schools represented by each group. Hypotheses three and four, concerning the correlations between the inservice program participants' change scores on a measure of level of adoption and their scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, were each tested by a 2 X 2 contingency table. Delimitations This study was confined to elementary teachers from twenty-nine school systems included in a five-county area in western Pennsylvania. The population included only those elementary classroom teachers who taught in school buildings in which six or more regular classes were conducted. Findings of this investigation were limited to a sample of forty-one teachers, designated by their peers as science opinion leaders or nonleaders, and to the teachers in the schools which they represented. 13 Only elementary teachers who completed the pretest and posttest level of adoption questionnaire were included in the analyses. Any inferences derived from this study are limited by the similarity of the partici- pants to the general population of elementary school teachers. Data for this investigation consisted of responses to mailed questionnaires administered during January and May of 1969 and of scores on measures of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere administered during an early March inservice program" Data collected were limited to responses from.teachers relevant to level of adoption of selected science curriculum innovations, opinion leadership, dogmatism, and classroom social atmosphere. The study included no assessment of school norms (i.e., traditional vs. modern) concerning predisposition toward change or acceptance of innovations which may have existed prior to the investi- gation. The innovations selected for study were limited to ten science investigations from the three major elementary science curriculum pro- jects. Each.was selected because it was judged by the writer to exemplify the objectives, techniques, and materials advocated by the developing program. The assumption was that the teacher could, if he desired, implement any of the ten innovative science investigations as a part of his classroom activity without having to consider adminis- trative approval, cost, or class schedule changes. Need for the Study Education is not noted for its swiftness in adapting to change. The time lag between the emergence of an innovation and its implementa- tion is a matter for continual concern. Ross reported that it normally it takes fifteen years for an innovative practice to diffuse through the first three per cent of the schools.21+ Mert came to the dismal con- clusion that the average school lags twenty-five years behind the best practice. Mbreover, it was not unusual for fifty years to elapse between the emergence of an innovation and its complete diffusion.25 Allen found that eighteen years were required for schools to adopt driver training.26 Most recently, Carlson reported that in Pittsburgh area schools only five years elapsed from.the time modern mathematics was introduced until it had reached almost complete adoption in the schools studied.27 The time gap between the emergence of an innovation and its implementation is a luxury American education cannot afford. In the past when cultural change and progress in science were slow, instruction in science could lag fifty years or more with little consequence for the individual or nation;28 however, rapid changes in science and an expo- nential growth in scientific information demand the constant adaptation of curriculum practices in science education. Elementary school educators are now confronted with a flood of science curriculum innovations possessing the potential for improving 2"Donald Ross, Administration for Adaptability, A Sourcebook (New York: Metropolitan School Study Council, 1958), p. 16. 25Paul R. Mert, Principles of School Administration (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1916), pp. 199-200. 26HarleyIEarl Allen, "The Diffusion of Educational Practices in the School Systems of the Metropolitan School Study Council: (unpublished D. Ed. Thesis N. Y., Teachers College, Columbia University, 1956): Pp- 56‘83- 27Richard O. Carlson, Adoption of Educational Innovations (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1965), p. 67. 28PaulDeHart Hurd, "Toward a Theory of Science Education Consistent with Modern Science," Theory Into Action (Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 196A), p. 7. 15 science education. Unfortunately, their potential has not yet been realized. As Lippitt points out: Our research is now rich with examples of opportu- nities provided but nothing gained; with new curricula developed, but lack of meaningful utilization; with new teaching practices invented, but nothing spread; with new richer sdhool environments, but no improvement in the learning experiences of the child.29 The task of diffusing the innovations to large numbers of elementary teachers and educating them to make proper and effective use of the new science project materials and techniques will require major commit- ments of money, time, and effort. The task must be undertaken, however, because as Hblt points out, "No important changes in education can be made that classroom.teachers do not understand and support."30 Action plans are needed to bring the innovations to the attention of the practitioners so that those innovations which Should be preserved and those which should not can at least be sorted out.31 It was the purpose of this study to explore such a plan. Much attention has been devoted to producing innovative science curricula. Attention must now be devoted to their spread and adoption. There is a need to know how best to accomplish such diffusion. As Smith has insightfully noted concerning the need for diffusion strategies: If a fraction of the money that is currently being spent to change educational practices were spent to find 29Ronald Lippitt, "Roles and Processes in Curriculum Development and Change," in Strategy for Curriculum.Change, ed. by Kimball Wiles (washington, D. C.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment, 1965), p. 11. 3OJohn Helt, "A Little Learning," The New Yerk Review (April 1A, 1966). 31Lippitt, "Roles and Processes," p. 17. 16 out how to succeed in making such changes, a great deal would thereby be saved...Until then, it is likely that we Shall continue to waste many man hours in an abortive effort to modify educational practices. Definition of Terms Terms and phrases which were of prime importance to the pro- blem examined in this investigation are defined as follows: Adoption is a decision to continue full use of the innovation in the future. Adoption_process is the mental process through which an indivi- dual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final adoption. The adoption process is conceptualized in five stages or levels: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Change agent is a professional person who attempts to influence adoption decisions in a direction that he believes is desirable. Classroom social atmopphere is the teacher-pupil interpersonal relationship which prevails in a classroom, i.e., teachers establish cooperative and mutual relationships with their students or they are dominating and authoritarian in their behavior. Diffusion is the process by which an innovation spreads. Diffusion process is the spread of a new idea from its source of invention or creation to its ultimate users or adopters. Dogpatism is a personality variable which governs the person's receptivity to new beliefs about ideas, people, and places, and includes 32B. Othanel Smith, "The Anatomy of Change," Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, XXXXVII (May 1963), 9-100 s -.-r;\ *~.-\.A - . . l‘ r'f ..r :. l.“ A. v- 04 g...» wr~~Ccr -~-\ I v.4 \ Cu. .1. L‘f'; ~52-.. 'l‘ Ac. -- c.,._~ ".X L-.. 0' R’s-c- ‘ . . Ax i..._ .t- ‘s. n, _ . 17 the person's ability to evaluate information pertaining to each of these areas on its own merit. Elementary science curriculum innovation is a newly developed method or material for teaching science in the elementary school produced by an elementary science curriculum development project such as Science-- A Process Approach, Elementary Science Study, or Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Innovation is an idea perceived as new by an individual. Level of adoption is the particular stage in the adoption process at which an individual is located at a given point in time. The level of adoption is indicated by one of the five stages: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Nonleader is a teacher in an individual elementary school from whom other teachers do not seek advice and information about newly developed methods and materials for teaching science. Science opinion leader is a teacher in an individual elementary school from.whom other teachers seek advice and information about newly developed methods and materials for teaching science. Overview In Chapter Two, the literature pertaining to this investigation has been reviewed. Prominent studies concerning the adoption process, opinion leadership, dogmatism, and classroom social atmosphere have been described. Chapter Three describes the procedures used in the conduct of the investigation. The population and method of selecting samples, the 18 instruments, and the procedures for collecting and analyzing data are delineated. The analysis of data and the findings are presented in Chapter Four. Chapter Five includes the summary, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction The American educational system.must adapt continuously to keep from falling too far behind the needs and demands of a rapidly evolving society. The success of the schools' adaptability may be measured by their effectiveness in diffusing innovations to the potential users. Educational programs are not likely to improve unless strategies are developed to diffuse promising new practices to the classroom teacher-- the key individual in any successful implementation of new curricula. The idea of diffusion of innovations in education must carry with it the implicit assumption that teachers will learn about and have the oppor- tunity to appraise innovations in an endeavor to create more effective learning experiences for the children they teach. Until strategies are developed to ensure that teachers learn about new ideas and practices and have the opportunity to evaluate their potential, educational change will be too slow to meet the emerging needs of society. Since it was the purpose of this investigation to examine a diffu- sion strategy, the literature review focuses on studies most relevant to the adoption and spread of innovations. Most studies have necessarily been cited from fields other than education because little evidence is available concerning how innovations spread within schools. The review 19 ‘r. - Iv- - ; A“ . A 2 -s 20 which follows summarizes the pertinent literature concerning the diffusion strategy explored in this study. Sections are devoted to the following topics; stages in the adoption of innovations, opinion leadership, dog- matism, and classroom social atmosphere. Stages in the Adoption of Innovations The adoption of innovations is conceptualized as a mental process through which an individual passes from first hearing about an innovation to final adoption.1 The concept appears frequently in diffusion litera- ture and is central to this study, particularly in the development of the questionnaire designed to measure an individual's stage or level of adop- tion for each of ten innovative science investigations. The thesis that acceptance of change is a product of a sequence of events Operating through time, rather than something that happens all at once, has been recognized by a number of investigators. Ryan and Gross first reported the adoption of a new idea as a multistaged process. In their classic study of hybrid seed corn, they used four stages to describe its acceptance: (1) awareness or first learning about the corn (2) con- viction of its usefulness (3) trial acceptance or first use and (A) adop- tion or 100 per cent use.2 Pederson's conclusion that adoption occurs as h a sequence of events3 and Lippitt's seven phases of change in education lRogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 17. 2Bryce Ryan and Neal Gross, "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities," Rural Sociology,'VIII (19A3), 15-2A. 3Harold A. Pederson, "Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Recommended Practices," Rural Sociology, XVI (1951), 37-A9. liRonald Lippitt, Jeanne watson, and Bruce Westley, The Dynamics of Planned Change (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1958), p. 123. LT‘C .H _~ a-“ '-\C ~_~': ' O ~r— ‘Tr ‘~_ T . 2’5“- ~4L 21 gave further credence to the concept. It was Wilkening, however, who first reported that stages could be applied to an individual's decision to adopt an innovation. He described individual adoption as: ...a process composed of learning, deciding, and acting over a period of time. The adoption of a specific practice is not the result of a single decision to act but of a sequence of actions and thought decisions.5 The four stages Wilkening listed were: awareness, obtaining information, conviction and trial, and adoption. These stages, with slightly different titles, were highly publicized by a committee of rural sociologists in their bulletin, How Farm People Accept New Ideas.6 Their five stages of adoption are essentially the same as those described by Rogers and are the ones which were selected for use in this investigation. Rogers conceptualizes the adoption process in five stages: aware- ness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. At the awareness stage the individual is exposed to the innovation but lacks complete information about it. He then becomes interested in the innovation and seeks infor- mation about it at the interest stage. At the evaluation stage the indi- vidual mentally applies the innovation to his present and anticipated future situation, and then decides whether or not to try it. The indi- vidual uses the innovation on a small scale in order to determine the utility in his own situation at the 25121 stage. At the adoption stage the individual decides to continue the full use of the innovation.7 5Eugene A. Wilkening, Adoption of Improved Farm Practices as Related to Family Factors, Research Bulletin No. 184, (Madison, Wisconsin: Experimental Station, 1953). 6North Central Rural Sociology subcommittee for the Study of Diffusion of Farm Practices, H0w Farm People Accept New Ideas (Ames, Iowa, Agriculture Extension Service Special Report No. 15, 1955). 7Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 119. ~v“ ...- h 1 . «. 22 Evidence from research studies by Copp8 and Beal9 indicates the probable validity of the concept of adoption stages. Opinion Leadership Opinion leaders are individuals who exert considerable personal influence because other people seek information from them and because they influence the decisions of others. Rogers describes opinion leaders as those individuals in a social system from whom others seek advice and information.10 General Characteristics of Opinion Leaders Many research studies in fields other than education have focused on opinion leadership. Public opinion and communication researchers have used terms synonymous with opinion leader to designate individuals who are influential in approving or disapproving new ideas. Such persons have been referred to as gatekeepers, local influentials, key communicators, and adoption leaders.ll Comprehensive descriptions of the literature 8James H. Copp, "The Function of Information Sources in the Farm.Practices Adoption Process," Rural Sociology, XXIII (1957), lA6-157. 9GeorgeM. Beal, "Validity of the Concept of Stages in the Adoption Process," Rural Sociology, XXII (1957), 166-168. loRogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 208. llKurt Lewin, "Group Decision and Social Change," in Reading in Social Psychology, ed. by Gus E. Swanson and others (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1952), p. A59; Herbert F. Lionberger, "Some Characteristics of Farm Operators Sought as Sources of Farm Information in a Missouri Community," Rural Sociology, XVIII (December, 1953), 327; Herbert F. Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and Practices: A Summary of the Research.Dealing with the Acceptance of Technological Change in Agriculture, with Implications for Action in Facilitating Social Change (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1960), p. 55; Everett M. Rogers and Constantina Safilias, "Communication of Agriculture Tech- nology: HOW People Accept New Ideas," in Social Change in Rural Society: A Textbook in Rural Sociology by Everett M; Rogers (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1960), pp. Al5-Al8. 23 concerning the characteristics of opinion leaders have been compiled by Lionberger,l2 Rogers,13 and Rogers and Cartano.l" Several generalizations concerning opinion leaders have been synthesized from research evidence. Rogers described opinion leadership as a "fairly widespread trait even though it may be concentrated in a few individuals."15 Others have found opinion leaders and those they influ- enced to be very much alike. As Katz puts it, "Opinion leaders exemplify the values of their followers."16 Moreover, opinion leaders in one area are not likely to overlap with those in another. For example, in a Single, nonspecialized elementary school one teacher may be an opinion leader con- cerning methods for teaching reading; another one may be an opinion leader in modern mathematics; and still another in the teaching of music. Merton refers to opinion leaders who exert influence only in one rather narrowly defined area as "monomorphic." Those who exert interpersonal influence in a variety of areas, he terms, "polymorphic."l7 Several studies reviewed by Rogers and Cartano support the generalization that opinion leaders are 18 usually monomorphic. l2Lionberger, Adoption of New Ideas and Practices, 55-56. l3Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 208-251. l"Everett M. Rogers and David G. Cartano, "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership," The Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (Fall, 1962), A35—A38. 15Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 226. l6Elihu Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communications: An Up-to- Date Report on a Hypothesis," The Public Opinion Quarterly, XXI, No. 1 (Spring, 1957): 77- 17Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, Revised Edition (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957), p. AlA. l8 Rogers and Cartano, "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership," A37. 2A The Measurement of Opinion Leadership Rogers and Cartano describe the three main techniques for meas- uring opinion leadership as the key informants technique, the self- designating technique, and the sociometric technique.19 Opinion leaders may be designated by key informants or judges. In this technique, the informants are selected subjectively from the social systems as persons likely to know the identity of opinion leaders. For example, a school principal may serve as a key informant in naming a teacher in his school as an opinion leader. The self-designating technique requires a respondent to answer a series of questions which determine the degree to which he perceives him- self to be an opinion leader. The advantage of this technique, according to Rogers and Cartano, is that it measures the individual's perception of the opinion leadership situation, which in turn affects his behavior. The sociometric technique consists of asking group members whom they go to for advice and information about an idea. This is the research method most often used in measuring opinion leadership. Rogers and Cartano cite more than a dozen typical studies that have used this method. Because this technique is most applicable to a research design in which all the members of a social system are contacted, it was the technique selected for use in this study. The sociometric technique served as the basis of design for the questionnaire used to determine science opinion leadership among the elementary teachers in each school contacted in this investigation. 19Ibid., pp. A38-u39. 25 Opinion Leadership in the Adoption and.Diffusion Processes The importance of opinion leadership in the adoption and diffu- sion processes has been demonstrated in many empirical investigations. Findings from studies conducted in rural sociology, medical sociology, and marketing, although not entirely consistent, indicate that individuals designated as opinion leaders adopt innovations earlier than those not so designated. In a relatively early study of opinion leadership, Lionberger surveyed 279 farmers residing in a northeast Missouri community and found that opinion leaders adopted more innovations than nonleaders.20 Rogers and Havens found a positive relationship between adoption and opinion leaders among a random sample of Ohio truck farmers.21 Similar findings in medical sociology suggested that physicians who were opinion leaders typically introduced new drugs into their prac- tices much earlier than other doctors. Katz found that doctors who were influential in convincing their colleagues to adopt a new drug were, them- selves, relatively earlier adopters of the innovation.22 Coleman and others studied the diffusion of a new drug among 125 physicians in four midwestern cities. They found that doctors, who maintained a variety of interpersonal contacts with their colleagues and had been designated as 2OLionberger, "Some Characteristics of Farm Operators," 327-338. 2lZEverett M. Rogers and A, Eugene Havens,"Predicting Innovativeness," Sociological Inquipy, XXXII (1962), 3A-A2. 2 2Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communication," 61-78. 26 opinion leaders from sociometric responses, typically introduced the new drug into their practices months before their colleagues.23 Several marketing studies also indicated that earlier adopters frequently behave as opinion leaders and inform others about their new products. Bell found that among individuals who purchased innovative products, sixty-five per cent were asked for opinions about their pro- ducts. Almost half were asked by friends and neighbors to demonstrate the product. Many of the innovators who gave their opinions or demon- strated their product asserted that their questioning friends then pur- 2A chased the innovation. Likewise, Mueller found that more than fifty per cent of the purchasers of new household appliances consulted with others who had previously purchased them.25 It must be pointed out, however, that a number of findings con— tradict those just reported. For example, Wilkening found that farmers in a North Carolina community, who had been named as leaders by their peers had not adopted a much higher number of improved farm.practices 26 than other farmers. In a sample of Ohio farmers, Havens detected no significant relationship between the time of adoption of bulk milk tanks 23James Coleman and others, "Social Processes in Physicians' Adoption of a NeW'Drug," in Social Change, ed. by Amatai and Eva Etzioni, (New York: Basic Books, 196A), p. ASA. 2"William‘E. Bell, "Consumer Innovators: A Unique Market for Newness," in Toward Scientific Marketing, Proceedings of the Winter Conference of the American Marketing Association, ed. by Stephen A. Greyser, (Boston, Mass., December 27-28, 1962), p. 93. 2SEvaMueller, "The Desire for Innovation in Household Goods," in Consumer Behavior, ed. by Lincoln H. Clark, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1958), pp. 13-37. 26Eugene A. Wilkening, "Informal Leaders and Innovators in Farm Practices," Rural Sociology, XVII (1952), 272. v to”. v" ‘ h‘Aol' n.4- _ L ,- A—- 1 . rn-, bet. *7. v... 27 and opinion leadership.27 In still another study, Winick reported that physicians, who were designated as opinion leaders, did not adopt new drugs before those not nominated.28 Explanations of these apparent contradictory findings have been advanced by several investigators. Chaparro examined new farm.practices among Costa Rican farmers and found that conservative leaders tended to lead conservative informal groups, while progressive leaders tended to lead progressive informal groups.29 Marsh and Coleman investigated adop- tion of new agricultural practices and found that farmers, in areas favor- able to the adoption of new techniques and from whom other farmers obtained information, showed higher rates of adoption than farmers in general; but in areas less favorable to innovations, the adoption rates of leaders were similar to adoption rates of farmers in general.30 A generalization concerning the adoption of innovations by opinion leaders has been made by Rogers. Based on evidence gleaned from thirteen research studies in the fields of rural and medical sociology, he reported that "opinion leaders are more innovative than their followers."31 He was 27A, Eugene Havens, "Increasing the Effectiveness of Predicting Innovations," Rural Sociology, XXX (1965), 156. 28Charles Winick, "The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians in a Large City," Sociometry, XXIV (1961), 38A—396. 29Alvaro Chaparro, "Role Expectation and Adoption of New Farm Practices," (unpublished PhnD. thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1955), P- 185- 30C. Paul Marsh and A. Lee Coleman, "Group Influence and Agri- cultural Innovations: Some Tentative Findings and Hypotheses," American Journal of Sociology, LXI (1956), 588-59A. 31Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 2A2-2A3. 28 careful to point out, however, that mediating variables such as norms in a given social system may influence the degree to which the generalization holds. Personal Influence Exerted by Opinion Leaders "communi- Personal influence is defined by Rogers and Beal as a cation involving a direct face to face exchange between the communicator and the receiver, which results in changed behavior or attitudes on the part of the receiver."32 Research interest in the dynamics of personal influence began with the classic 19AO presidential election voting study conducted by Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet. On the basis of an gx_post facto analysis of interpersonal influence, they found that ideas often flow from radio and print to certain opinion leaders or influentials and then to the less active sections of the population. They discovered that friends, co-workers, and relatives were the most important sources affecting voting decisions. Influence exerted by these individuals was designated "personal influence" and the individuals who influenced others were named "opinion leaders."33 Since the 19AO election study, other researchers have examined the significance of opinion leaders in diffusing or spreading innovations. Research in the adoption of new farm.practices has generally reflected the important role of personal communication in farmers' adoption deci- sions. Lionberger found personal influence much more important in the 32Ibid., pp. 217-218. 33Paul'F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 19AA), p. 151. 29 adoption of agricultural innovations than any other communication chan- nel.3" Similarly, Rahudkar, in his study of India's villages, found that neighbor to neighbor communication was of greater importance in the diffu- sion of innovations than any other communication channel.35 Katz and Lazarsfeld found interpersonal communication involved more frequently and had a greater impact than any of the mass media in the switching of brands in small food products, cleansers, and household goods.36 Menzel, Katz, and Coleman and Menzel and Katz studied the adoption of new drugs by physi- cians and found interpersonal communication channels to be important sources of information for new drugs, particularly in situations of uncer- tainty.37 Whyte studied the ownership of airconditioners in Philadelphia row houses. Although the white collar neighborhoods were very homogeneous in terms of age and socioeconomic status, ownership was strongly clustered within neighborhoods rather than evenly distributed throughout the blocks. Whyte attributed the clustering of air-conditioner purchasers to the effect of interpersonal communication.38 In an educational research study dealing with the advice and information-seeking activities of adopters of 3"Herbert F. Lionberger, Sources and Uses of Farm and Heme Information by Low Income Farmers in Missouri, Research Bulletin A72 (Columbia, Missouri: Agricultural Experiment Station, 1951). 35W. B. Rahudkar, "Impact of Fertilizer Extension Program on the Minds of the Farmers and Their Reactions to Different Extension Methods," Indian Journal of Agronomy, III (1958), 119-136. 36Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld, Personal Influence (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1955). 37Herbert Menzel and Elihu Katz, "Social Relations and Innovations in the Medical Profession: The Epidemiology of a.New Drug," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIX (1955), 337-352; James Coleman, Herbert Menzel, and Elihu Katz, "The Diffusion of an Innovation," Sociometry, XX (1957) 253-270- 38William H. Whyte, Jr., "The Web of word of Mouth," Fortune, L (November, 195A), lAO-lAA. ""“ ' n... V. :. r; U- as 30 educational innovations, Carlson found that school superintendents relied heavily on other local superintendents for advice and information con- cerning modern mathematics.39 The evidence cited suggests that advice and information sought from peers, or other persons in the same occupation in the same locality, play a major role in the decision to adopt innovations, the apparent rea- son being that such advice involves personal influence."O An individual who is more innovative than his peers is certainly in a position to influ- ence their adoption decisions because of his prior experience with the innovation. Rogers calls this the "interaction effect" and describes it as "a process through which individuals in a social system who have adop- ted an innovation influence those who have not yet adopted.""l Ryan and Gross, in what has become the classic study of diffusion in rural soci- ology, analyzed the diffusion of hybrid seed corn among 259 Iowa farmers and first described this "snowball" or "chain reaction" effect: There is no doubt but that the behavior of one indi- vidual in an interacting population affects the behavior of his fellows. Thus, the demonstration success of hybrid seed on a few farms offers a changed situation to those who have not been so experimental. The very fact of acceptance by onfigor more farmers offered new stimulus to the remalnlng ones. Researchers have also noted that the growth in the number of users of an innovation can be approximated by an S-shaped curve. ‘When the cumulative percentage of adopters of innovations is graphed from the time 39Richard O. Carlson, Adoption of Educational Innovations (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1965), pp. 31-38. "OIbid., p. 39. "lRogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 215. "2Ryan and Gross, "The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn," 23. 31 of its first acceptance until it is completely diffused, the curve pro- duced has a shape similar to that shown in Figure 1.1+3 100 c 0 IS 8‘ 80 R (H O 60 .p m (D C.) t p, A0 (1) :> -H '5 20 'i‘ C3 0 l 2 3 H 5 6 7 Time Figure 1. The Normal Diffusion Curve If, as the diffusion curve suggests, there is intercommunication among adopters and the act of adoption by some acceptors is itself a means of influencing others to adopt a practice, then it might be expected that the adoption of science curriculum innovations by science opinion leaders may, indeed, be a mechanism for diffusing the innovations within a school. Research related to the role of school opinion leaders in the adoption of innovations has been neglected. Carlson, in describing needed research on the diffusion of educationl innovations, suggested that "the extent to which local opinion leaders have uniform influence on all poten- tial adopters in a given locality is a matter of prime concern for those "3Carlson, Adoption of Educational Innovations, pp. 5-10. 32 who wish to engineer change.""2+ In a later paper concerning adoption and diffusion of educational innovations delivered at the 1968 National Con- ference on the Diffusion of Educational Innovations, Carlson noted that the problem of diffusion of innovations within a school system has been ignored and that a large gap in knowledge concerning educational inno- vations will continue to exist"...until attention is given to who plays what part within a school system")+5 Research attention should be directed to individuals from.whom others seek advice and information about school matters. Evidence cited previously indicates that some persons have more influence than others, adopt innovations earlier than others, and that their knowledge and advice are likely to be sought by and shared with others. If such persons can be identified and utilized as targets for the innovational input of practices such as those developed by the science curriculum development projects, then herein lies the multiplying potential for diffusing information which may facilitate the adoption of educational innovations. The importance of possessing information relevant to the point of introduction of innovations is a matter of vital interest for persons whose purpose is to influence or effect change. As Rogers points out, "the existence of opinion leaders in a social system offers change agents a handle "whereby they can prime ""Richard O. Carlson, "Strategies for Educational Change: Some Needed Research on the Diffusion of Innovations: (paper presented at the Conference on Strategies for Educational Change, U. S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1965), p. 8. "SRichard 0. Carlson, "Summary and Critique of Educational Diffusion Research; (paper presented at the National Conference on the Diffusion of Educational Ideas, East Lansing, Michigan, March 26—28, 1968), p. 10. 33 the pump from which new ideas flow through an audience via the 'trickle "A6 down' process. Dogmatism Rokeach defines dogmatism as a personality variable which governs a person's receptivity to new beliefs about ideas, people and places, and includes the person's ability to evaluate information pertaining to each of these topics on its own merit.)+7 The more highly dogmatic a person is, the more resistance he will put up in forming new belief systems. The highly dogmatic or closed-minded individual might be expected to cling to old ideas and, hence, display a greater resistance to change while the low dogmatic or open-minded person would be open to change. The basic assumptions in Rokeach's theory suggest that since low dogmatics use more sources for obtaining information and are more likely to be among the first to be aware of innovations, they are, therefore, more likely to be among the first to adopt innovations. In addition to being more prone to change, the low dogmatic is less dependent upon authority decisions to use or not to use innovations, and therefore, may be more inclined to act on his own initiative in decisions concerning the adoption of innovations."8 An analysis of past diffusion research revealed only a few studies which concerned the relationship between dogmatism and the adoption of innovations. In a study which examined the process of innovation by teachers in three Michigan high schools, Lin found that the more generally "6Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 281-282. "7Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, p. 73. l‘L81bid., pp. 60-6A. 3A predisposed teachers were to accepting change and innovation in the school, the more likely they were to be low dogmatics."9 Conversely, in a study of sixteen elementary teachers, Raack found a significant posi- tive correlation between high dogmatism and desire or ability on the part of the more dogmatic teachers to increase their use of a new teaching technique.50 Childs investigated the relationship between the belief sys- tems of administrators and teachers in innovative and noninnovative school districts. Correlating dogmatism and innovativeness, he found a negative relationship between innovation and the number of individuals exhibiting dogmatism.51 In rural sociology, Rogers analyzed the personality character- istics of 23 Iowa farm operators and found that the early adopters scored lower on the dogmatism scale than the less innovative farmers.52 Jamias, studying the adoptive behavior of 1A7 Michigan dairy farmers, found that highly dogmatic farmers had a lower adoption rate than less dogmatic farmers.53 "9Nan Lin and others, The Diffusion of an Innovation in Three Michigan High Schools: Institution Building Through Change (Project on the Diffusion of Educational Practices in Thailand, Research Report Number 1, Department of Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, December, 1966), p. 2. 50Marilyn L. Raack, "The Effect of an In-service Education Program on Teacher Verbal Behavior" (unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1967). 51John w. Childs, "A Study of the Belief Systems of Administrators and Teachers in Innovative and Non-Innovative School Districts" (unpub- lised PhJD. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965): P- 50- 52Everett M. Rogers, "Personality Correlates of the Adoption of Technological Practices," Rural Sociolpgy, XXII (September, 1957), 268. 53Juan F. Jamias, "The Effects of Belief System Styles on the Communication and Adoption of Farm Practices" (unpublished PhLD. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 196A), p. 78. r— .—. -\ ~ H~u V .- _ l 35 The evidence cited supports the proposition that dogmatism.may affect the adoption of science curriculum.innovations by elementary teachers. If a relationship exists between the degree of dogmatism.and change in the level of adoption of innovations, then a measure of dogma- tism.may be used to identify individual teachers upon whom change agents could concentrate their efforts with a better than even chance for suc- cessful reception. Classroom Social Atmosphere The elementary science curriculum development projects have shifted the emphasis of science teaching from.the textbook memorization of science content in teacher-dominated classrooms to student-centered experi- ences stressing the processes of science. Teacher adoption of the innovative techniques and materials necessitates a reasonably permissive classroom.atmosphere in which children have the freedom.to explore, to cooperate, to converse, to try and to fail. The teacher's role in an innovative program is described most cogently by Kageyama, who served the Science Curriculum Improvement Study as a demonstration teacher. Pupils are allowed to discover rather than cover science. The teacher is no longer the dominant figure, and the only source of information. Her role is to create an environment that invites and supports curiosity, investigation, and inquiry. In this program, teaching is listening to the children as they talk to one another and not to the teacher. The teacher guides but does not dominate. The strategy 1E to promote learning by promoting interaction among children.5 All of the projects emphasize pupil experiences such as inde- pendent study, laboratory investigation, discussion groups, and experi- mentation with materials interesting to the children. The Elementary 5"Christina Kageyama, "From Foreground to Background: The Changing Role of the Teacher," Newsletter, Science Curriculum.Improve- ment Study, No. 9 (Winter, 1967), pp. 2-A. 36 Science Study describes its program as "one in which all children have access to the materials for open-ended rather than teacher or textbook- directed investigations."55 Similarly, in the Science Curriculum Improve- ment Study program, "children learn science in an intellectually free atmosphere where their own ideas are respected, where they learn to test their ideas, not on the basis of some authority, but on the basis of their "56 own observations. Livermore, describing the intentions of the writers of Science-A Process Approach, said that the primary aim of the program ‘was: ...to develop the child’s skills in using science processes. Skills cannot be developed by reading about science. For this reason, the exercises were written as instructions for teachers, not as reading material for children. Each activity described a variety of activities which the children would do, either individually or in small groups. Demonstrations by the teacher were avoided as much as possible.57 Although little empirical evidence is available regarding the methods and techniques actually used by elementary teachers to teach science, several widely recognized viewpoints are that elementary science is taught primarily by textbook reading, lecturing, recitation or demon- stration; that classes are teacher-centered; and that textbook subject- matter is covered with little regard for children‘s needs. In a survey of elementary science in 21A school systems in western Pennsylvania, Sloppy collected evidence which generally supports these viewpoints. He found that the method of teaching elementary science which received the 55Lockard, Sixth Report of the International Clearinghouse, p. 220. 56Ibid., p. 332. 57Arthur H. Livermore, "The Process Approach of the AAAS Commission on Science Education," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, II, A (196A), 272. 37 highest response was textbook reading, discussion and demonstration (80.8 per cent) while inquiry and student-centered techniques ranked fifth and sixth (AA.A and 37.A per cent, respectively) of eight choices. In a question asking how the schools would classify the majority of pupil experiences, teacher demonstration received 55.6 per cent of the total responses, whereas inquiry-type investigations received 33.6 per cent of the total responses and child-oriented experiments received 32.2 per cent.58 Goodlad, in a recent visit to more than 250 elementary schools across the nation, logged the characteristic classroom practices he saw. Instruction was characterized by much talking by the teacher, much drill on specific facts, and dominated by the textbook. As he put it, "It would seem that a substantial part of whatever thrust there has been in recent efforts to change schools have been blunted on the classroom door."59 The adoption of new science curriculum techniques and materials would, for many teachers, necessitate a change in the type of social atmosphere maintained during the teaching of science. Adoption would require a shift from teacher-dominated techniques to student-centered techniques, from.teacher lecture and demonstration to student investi- gation, and from.subject-matter chosen.by the textbook to subject-matter selected cooperatively by pupils and teachers. As Brandwein asserted, 58Harold Littell Sloppy, "A Survey of Elementary Science in Western Pennsylvania" (unpublished MLEd. Research Project, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pennsylvania, 1968), pp. 39-A2. 59John I. Goodlad, "Educational Change: A Strategy for Study and Action," The National Elementary Principal, XLVIII, 3 (January, 1969), 8. or- I 5.. h; u: L. . . 5. C e. V HY o\. 38 the teacher must be freed "...from the need to cover a text or a syllabus by telling, telling, and more telling."6O It can be argued that the adoption of new science curriculum practices is dependent upon the type of social atmosphere established by teachers. Teachers who are predisposed to provide or who are now pro- viding eXperiences in which pupils have the freedom to explore, to cooper- ate, and to enjoy science are operating within a social atmosphere compati— ble with that proposed by the science curriculum projects; and therefore, might readily adopt science project innovations. On the other hand, teachers who are predisposed to maintain or who are now maintaining class- rooms which are dominated by the teacher and lack opportunities for pupils to discover and exchange ideas are operating within a social atmosphere incompatible with that proposed by the science curriculum projects; and therefore, would be less likely to adopt the science curriculum.innova— tions. Rogers defines compatibility as the "degree to which an innovation is consistent with existing values and past experiences of the adopters."61 An innovation that is not compatible with the classroom social atmosphere maintained by a teacher may not be adopted so readily as an innovation that is compatible. One facet of this investigation was designed to determine if teacher performance on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory(MTAI) was significantly related to his adoption of selected science teaching 60Paul F. Brandwein, "Elements in a Strategy for Teaching Science in the Elementary School," The Teaching of Science (Cambridge, Massa- chusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 119. 6J-Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 127. ov- ...a- A- L- fl) n‘, 'v y .- _ - 39 innovations and techniques. The MEAT was developed as a predictor of the type of social atmosphere a teacher will maintain in the classroom or of "...those attitudes of a teacher which predict how well she will get along with pupils in interpersonal relationships."62 Validation studies by Cook, Leeds, and Callis; Stein and Hardy; and Leeds attest to the value of the MEAT for this type of prediction with experienced teachers.63 Those teachers who rank high on the NEAT are eXpected to be capa- ble of establishing cooperative and mutual relationships with their students; those who rank low are likely to be more dominating and authori- tative in their behavior. These low-scoring teachers would also be more concerned with the pupils themselves and their participation in classroom experiences. If it can be demonstrated that the MEAT is not only an index of classroom social atmosphere but also an index of adoption of new science teaching practices, then the predictive uses of the instrument can be extended. Summary An individual's decision to adopt an innovation is a process con- ceptualized as occurring in five sequential stages: awareness, interest, evaluation, trial, and adoption. Diffusion is the process by which an innovation spreads from the inventors to the ultimate adopters. A review 62w. w. Cook, C. H. Leeds, and R. Callis, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 195I). 63Cook, Leeds, and Callis, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory: H. L. Stein and J. Hardy, "A Validation Study of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory in Manitoba," Journal onEducational Research, L (January, 1957), 321-338; C. H. Leeds, "Predictive Validity of the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory," The Journal of Teacher Education, XX (Spring, 1969), 51-56. he of the literature concerning the adoption and diffusion of innovations indicated that opinion leaders, or individuals from whom others seek advice and information, may be relatively earlier adopters of innovations and that they may use their personal influence to spread the innovations to their colleagues. Pertinent studies concerning the possible relationships between the teachers' social-psychological attributes of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere and the adoption and diffusion of science teaching inno- vations were also examined. Dogmatism, a personality variable that governs a person's receptivity to new beliefs, may affect one's adoption decisions. The more highly dogmatic a person is, the fewer innovations he will probably adopt. Conversely, a low dogmatic person is likely to adopt more innovations. The classroom social atmosphere or the teacher- pupil interpersonal relationship which prevails in a classroom may also affect a teacher's decisions regarding the adoption of innovations. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was developed as a predictor of the type of social atmosphere a teacher maintains in his classroom. Since the science teaching innovations were designed with the intent of encouraging cooperative teacher-pupil and pupil—pupil relationships, teachers who are capable of maintaining a cooperative and mutual relation- ship with and among their pupils may be more likely to adopt the inno- vations then teachers whose classroom behavior is dominating and authori- tative. The attributes of dogmatism.and classroom social atmosphere, to the extent they are related to adoption and diffusion, may serve as guide- posts for selecting teachers as points of innovational input. The chapter which follows describes the procedures used in this study to examine the role of selected elementary teachers in the adoption Al and diffusion of innovative methods and materials for teaching science. An analysis of collected data may provide a rationale for future studies concerned with the implementation of educational innovations. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to describe the procedures employed in the diffusion strategy examined in this study. The following sections are included: the population, selection of the sample, the in- struments, the Science Inservice Program, collection of data and methods of data analysis. The Population Subjects from which data were collected for this investigation came from a population comprised of elementary classroom teachers from 112 elementary schools in western Pennsylvania. The schools are located in an area officially designated by the Pennsylvania.Department of Educa- tion as Region F. Clarion State College serves Region F as the coordi- nating center for regional planning and curriculum improvement. The five counties included in the region are: Clarion, Forest, Jefferson, Mercer, and Venango. The location of these counties in Pennsylvania is shown in Figure 2, the Pennsylvania-Region F Outline Map. The region is sparsely populated, predominately rural, and non- farm. It is an economically depressed part of Appalachia, in a long range decline since World War II. It included twenty-nine school systems 1+2 ”3 gas mafiapso m moamom a wflcd>ahmmdmm .m mhdmfim .mmmb MA and approximately 75,000 elementary and secondary students.1 The population in this study was limited to the 1,205 elementary classroom teachers in the twenty-nine school systems in Region F who taught in school buildings in which six or more regular elementary classes were conducted. Included were classroom teachers of kindergarten through grade six. Excluded were teachers in such specialized areas as special education, reading, and speech pathology. Table one lists the school systems, addresses, and numbers of elementary schools and teachers included in the population. Selection of the Samples All elementary classroom teachers in elementary schools having six or more regular classes, identified from information provided by school administrators in Region F, constituted the population. A total of 112 schools met the defined criteria and were assigned numbers ranging from.001 to ll2. The schools from which the samples were drawn were selected from a table of random numbers compiled by Clark.2 In accordance with proce- dures for assigning classification variables as outlined by Ferguson,3 sixty schools were selected on the basis of the classification variable, science opinion leadership. The first thirty schools chosen from the table of random.numbers were designated Class 1 schools. Class 1 schools lPennsylvaniaDepartment of Public Instruction, Calculator, V (Bureau of Statistics, Harrisburg, Pa., 1965). 2Charles E. Clark, Random Numbers in Uniform and Normal Distri- bution (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1966), pp. 7-6h. 3George A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education (New York: NbGraw-Hill Company, 1966), pp. 278-280. 1+5 TABLE 1 NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS IN EACH SCHOOL SYSTEM IN THE POPULATION Number of Number of Elementary Elementary Schools in the Teachers Included School System. Address Population in the Population Allegheny-Clarion Valley Foxburg A 3A Brockway Area Brockway 2 26 Brookville Area Brookville A 36 Clarion Area Clarion 2 27 Clarion-Limestone Strattanville 2 20 Commodore—Perry Hadley 1 l2 Cranberry Area Seneca 6 MA Dubois Area Dubois 12 109 Farrell Area Farrell 5 51 Forest Area Tionesta 3 23 Franklin Area Franklin 6 76 Greenville Area Greenville 3 M2 Grove City Grove City 6 58 Hickory Township Sharon 3 52 Jamestown Area Jamestown l 9 Keystone Knox 3 27 Lakeview Stoneboro 3 29 Mercer Mercer 2 MO North Clarion County Tylersburg 1 12 Oil City Area Oil City 9 8h Pleasantville Joint Pleasantville 1 l2 Punxsutawney Area Punxsutawney 10 82 Redbank Valley New Bethlehem 5 1+1 Reynolds Greenville 3 37 Sharon Sharon 6 86 Sharpsville Area Sharpsville 3 #0 Union Rimersburg 2 26 Valley Grove Franklin 3 36 west Middlesex Area west Middlesex 1 3h Total 112 M6 were schools from which elementary teachers, identified by their peers as science opinion leaders, were drawn for participation in the Science Inservice Program. The next thirty schools chosen from the table of random numbers were designated Class 2 schools. Class 2 schools were schools from which elementary teachers, identified by their peers as non- leaders, were drawn for participation in the Science Inservice Program. In summary, 112 elementary schools constituted the population from which.two groups of thirty schools each were randomly selected on the basis of the classification variable, science opinion leadership. Class 1 was composed of thirty elementary schools from.which teachers identified as science opinion leaders were drawn. The teacher population in the Class 1 schools equaled 312. Class 2 was composed of thirty schools from.which nonleaders were drawn. The teacher population in the Class 2 schools equaled 306. Table two shows the number of schools per system from Which samples were drawn, the number of elementary teachers per system.included in the sample, the numbers of science opinion leaders and nonleaders selected from each school, and the numbers of science opinion leaders and nonleaders included in the study. All 618 teachers in the sixty schools (Class 1 and Class 2) received the pretest level of adoption questionnaire, Part I, and the school specific, sociometric measure of science opinion leadership, Part II. Only the science opinion leaders and nonleaders who partici- pated in the Science Inservice Program completed measures of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere. All teachers who completed the pretest level of adoption questionnaire, Part I received the posttest level of adoption questionnaire, Part I. Each.of these instruments is described in detail in the next section. 1+7 0 m o H m: m oop< oHHH>oooHo m m o H mm s does sHHxsoaa m m H H mm m woa< pmopom o H H H MH m wmp< HHoHHom H H H : mm m moa< mHopsm H H H H mH m mma< hphonqoao H H o O H H a: omdaoooaaoo o o H H :H H oQOHmosHHucoHHoHo o o H H w H mmh< sOHHmHo H H H H :H m oop< oHHH>xooam H H o H Sm m ooa< thXoonm H H H H Hm m aoHHo> soHaoHoAcosmoHHa heapm opp popooHom hcdpm map .wopooHom onEdm ozp nzwpn whoa. Eopmhm Hoonom 2H ©o©SHoQH myopooHcoz CH UoUSHocH meowdoH CH onSHomH moHaadm noan mHoUsoHcoz go Hogasz maooooH QOHcHQo maogoooa gosh mHoozom mo Honasz QOHQHQO mocoHom wo Honasz mo Hogadz ooaoHom mo Honadz mo mooadz wmbam Ema 2H QmQDHUZH mmmnoao bmHHo> COHQD wos< oHHH>maho£m aoawnm mUHochom knoHHEH xqupom oom< honStpdmesm oHHH>poommon no.3. 38 H3 hpqsoo GOHhoHo mphoz Hoonoz 3oH>owa oGOpmhoM omn< Esopmoedb mHgmcsoH hhoonm tho m>omw 1+9 The Instruments The instruments utilized in this investigation consisted of a two-part questionnaire developed by the investigator and measures of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere. The pretest level of adop- tion questionnaire, Part I, and the sociometric measure of opinion leader- ship, Part II were administered to all 618 teachers in both Class 1 and Class 2 schools prior to inviting thirty science opinion leaders and thirty nonleaders to participate in the Science Inservice Program. Part I of the questionnaire was again administered as a posttest to all teachers in the Class 1 and Class 2 schools ten weeks after the final Science Inservice Program session. The data concerning change in level of adop— tion, which was derived by subtracting pretest scores from posttest scores, were used to test hypotheses Hbl and H02. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory were administered to the participating science opinion leaders and nonleaders during the first two hours of the Science Inservice Program. The data from the measures were used to test hypotheses H63 and Hon. The following subsections describe: Part I of the questionnaire which measured teacher level of adoption of ten innovative science investigations; Part II of the questionnaire which identified science opinion leaders and nonleaders in each of the sixty schools; the Rokeach Dogmatism.Scale which.measured dogmatism.and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory which measured classroom.social atmosphere. 5O Questionnaire, Part I A measure of teacher level of adoption of selected innovative elementary science investigations was obtained by Part I of a question- naire developed by the investigator. Adoption-process theory was the basis for the design of the instrument. Investigators contend that adoption of any practice is a process with identifiable stages conceptually classified as (1) aware- ness, (2) interest, (3) evaluation, (A) trial, and (5) adoption. At the awareness stage the individual is exposed to the innovation but lacks complete information about it. He then becomes interested in the inno- vation and seeks information about it at the interest stage. At the evaluation stage the individual mentally applies the innovation to his present and anticipated future situation, and then decides whether or not to try it. The individual uses the innovation on a small scale in order to determine its utility in his own situation at the trial stage. At the adoption stage the individual decides to continue the full use of the innovation. Rogers cites considerable evidence from research studies which indicates the conceptions of adoption stages or levels of adoption is probably valid.LL The five adoption levels were incorporated into the following seven-point scale which was used to identify the level of adoption that uRogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 95-120. 51 teachers had reached for each of ten innovative elementary science investigations. The following scale was revised and adapted from an earlier scale by Miller.5 Adoption Scale Score No. 1 This investigation is new to me; I hadn't heard of it before. Score No. 2 I've heard or read of this investigation, but I haven't given it much thought. Score No. 3 I am considering using this investigation in my classroom, but haven't reached any conclusion on its value. Score No. A I doubt that this investigation would be of much value to me in my teaching situation. Score No. 5 This investigation looks promising for my teaching situation, but I haven't tried it yet. Score No. 6 I have used or am using this investigation in my classroom, but I haven't yet decided if I'll use it again in the future. Score No. 7 I have used or am using this investigation in my classroom and I intend to use it again in the future. The scores on the adoption scale corresponded to the stages or levels of adoption. Scores of "one" and "two" related to the awareness of the investigation. Two scores were included for this stage to com- pensate for the awareness of the investigation created by its description on the pretest. A score of "three" was equivalent to the interest stage. Since the investigations may be evaluated unfavorably or favorably, the 5Texton R, Miller, Teacher Adoption of a New Concept of Supervised Practice in Agriculture, Educational Research Series, No. A (Pepartment of Agricultural Education, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1965), p. 5. 52 scores "four" or "five" were used to indicate that either unfavorable or favorable evaluation had occurred. Score "six" indicated a teacher in the trial stage of adoption and score "seven" indicated complete teacher adoption of the investigation. The level of adoption questionnaire, Part I deScribed each inves- tigation, A throuth.6 Following each description, the respondent was requested to circle the number corresponding to one of the seven state- ments of the adoption scale which best described his present feeling about and/or use of the investigation. The following description of investigation A, synthesized from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study book Relativity,7 is presented as an example. Description of Investigation A This investigation concerns relativity or the positions and motions of objects relative to other objects. It involves the use of an artificial Observer, Mr. 0, who is made of paper and is shaped like this . For the children mr. 0 becomes a central reference object. The position of any object either at rest or in motion is described relative to Mr. 0. Chil- dren are involved in individual or group activities such as discussing Mr. 0's relative position, cutting out Mr. 0 figures, and manipulating Mr. 0's position relative to other objects. Directions: Please circle the pp§_number at the left which corresponds with the statement at the top of the page which best describes your present feeling about and/or use of l 2 3 h 5 6 7 Investigation A. 6For a specific description of each of the ten science investiga- tions A through J, the reader is referred to Part I of the questionnaire located in the appendices. 7Science Curriculum Improvement Study, Relativity (Lexington, Massachusetts: D. C. Heath and Company, 1968). 8For the respondent's reference, the seven statements included in the adoption scale were located at the top of each page of the ques- tionnaire. 53 Scores on the adoption scale were converted to level of adoption scores by the conversion scale shown in Table three. TABLE 3 ADOPTION SCALE SCORES CONVERTED TO LEVEL OF ADOPTION SCORES Adoption Scale Score Number Level of Adoption Score 1,2 = Awareness = l 3 = Interest = 2 h,5 2 Evaluation 2 3 6 = Trial = A 7 = Adoption = 5 A level of adoption score was tabulated for each respondent by summing the scores for each of the ten investigations. The possible range in individual level of adoption scores is from ten to fifty. Part I, the level of adoption questionnaire, was administered as a pretest-posttest. To determine the questionnaire's reliability it was administered to a sample of ninety-four teachers in thirteen schools in Region F. The teachers included in this sample were not represented in the inservice program. .After a delay of four months, the same questionnaire was again administered to the same sample. The product- moment r was computed and used as an estimate of reliability. The coefficient of correlation was established at r equals .65. Part I of the questionnaire was administered by mail during January 1969 to all elementary teachers in the sixty schools designated as Class 1 and Class 2. The first administration, the pretest, deter- mined the level of adoption of the ten investigations for all responding teachers. The posttest was administered during May 1969, ten weeks after 51+ the completion of the Science Inservice Program. Change in level of adoption was determined by subtracting, algebraically, pretest scores from posttest scores. Computation of the change scores provided the data necessary to test the null hypothesis H01: science opinion leaders who participated in an inservice program dealing with innovative science teaching techniques and materials will adopt no more of the innovations than non- leaders who participated in the same program. Calculating the change in level of adOption scores for all teachers in the sampled schools, excluding science opinion leaders and nonleaders who participated in the inservice program, provided the data necessary to test the null hypothesis H02: teachers in schools which were represented in a science inservice program by science opinion lead- ers will adopt no more of the science teaching innovations than teachers from schools which were represented in the same inservice program.by nonleaders. The differential change in level of adoption between teachers in Class 1 schools and teachers in Class 2 schools provided an index of diffusion or a measure of the extent to which the innovations spread within the schools represented by science opinion leaders and those represented by nonleaders. Calculation of the change scores also provided the data necessary for testing the correlation between change in level of adoption and the Science Inservice Program.participants' scores on measures of dogmatism and classroom social atmosphere. 55 Sociometric Measure of Science Opinion Leadership, Part II Part II of the questionnaire is a sociometric technique used to measure science opinion leadership. A school-specific roster of teachers was prepared for each of the sixty individual schools in Class 1 and 2. Each teacher was presented with a roster for his respective school only. He was requested to indicate by numbers 1, 2, and 3 the teachers from whom he would seek advice and information about newly developed science teaching methods and materials. The questionnaire was structured as follows: Assume that you are interested in obtaining advice or information about newly developed methods and materials for teaching science in your elementary school. From.the list of names below, select the individuals to whom you would go for such science teaching advice or information. Directions: Place a l_beside the name of the individual to whom.you would go first. Place a 2 beside the name of the individual -'to whom you would go second. Place a 3_beside the name of the individual to whom you would go third. .____;Mr. William.Chamberlain Mrs. Mary K. Hobaugh Mrs. Emily Bower Mrs. Henrietta Kodrich Mrs . James Donachy Mrs. George Harmon Mr. Gil Twiest This technique for measuring opinion leadership was chosen because it is most applicable to a research design in which all members of a particular group are surveyed. Rogers describes this sociometric 56 method as the one most often used in past research and cites more than fifteen studies which have utilized it.9 Part II of the questionnaire was administered by mail jointly with Part I during January 1969 to all elementary teachers in the sixty schools designated as Class 1 and Class 2. A responding teacher indi- cated his relative choices for science opinion leader by marking scores 1, 2, and 3 beside selected names on his school roster. ‘All other teachers on the roster for whom he did not mark a score were assigned a score of A. The individual teacher in each elementary school in Class 1 who received the lowest score determined by summing the scores for each individual teacher was designated science opinion leader for that school. In each elementary school in Class 2 the individual who received the highest score was designated nonleader. In cases where two or more individuals in any school attained the same score for either science opinion leader or nonleader, the individual who was invited to partici- pate in the Science Inservice Program was chosen randomly. A sample cOpy of the questionnaire, Parts I and II, appears in the appendices. Rokeach Dogmatism Scale The Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale, Form.E, was used to measure dogma- tismt It was administered to the science opinion leaders from the Class 1 schools and the nonleaders from the Class 2 schools during the first hours of the Science Inservice Program session. A sample of the Dogmatism Scale, Form E, is included in the appendices. 9Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, pp. 228-229. 57 The elementary teachers indicated disagreement or agreement with each of the forty items on a scale ranging from minus three to plus three with the zero point excluded in order to force responses toward disa- greement or agreement. After reading each statement the respondent was requested to mark it in accordance with the following scale: +1 : I AGREE A LITTLE -l : I DISAGREE A LITTLE +2 : I AGREE ON THE WHOLE -2 : I DISAGREE ON THE WHOLE +3 : I AGREE VERY MUCH -3 : I DISAGREE VERY MUCH This scale was converted, for scoring purposes, to a l-to-7 scale by adding a constant of four to each item score. The total is the sum.of scores obtained on all items in the test. Scores may range from.h0 to 280. Rokeach reports that the reliabilities of the Dogmatism Scale, Form E, range from .68 to .93.l0 Table four shows the groups to which the Scale was administered, the numbers of cases, the reliabilities, the means, and the standard deviations. Dogmatism scores were obtained for each Science Inservice Pro- gram.participant. The data Obtained were used to test the null hypo- thesis Hb3: scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism.Scale are not significantly correlated with change scores on a measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among participants in an inservice program conducted as a part of this study. loRokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, pp. 89-91. 58 TABLE A RELIABILITIES, IVEANS, AND STANDARD DEVLATIONSCF DOGMATISM SCAIE, FORM Ell Number of Number of Standard Items Group Cases Reliability Mean Deviation A0 English Colleges 80 .81 152.8 26.2 English Workers 60 .78 175.8 26.0 Ohio State U. I 22 .85 1A2.6 27.6 Ohio State U. II 28 .7A lh3.8 22.1 Ohio State U. III 21 .74 lh2.6 23.3 Ohio State U. IV 29 .68 lhl.5 27.8 Ohio State U. V 58 .71 lh1.3 28.2 Mich. State U. IV 89 .78 - - VA domiciliary 80 - 183.2 26.6 2H .93 - - 17 .8h - - Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy The Nflnnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy (MTAI) was used to determine the type of social atmosphere or teacher-pupil relations a teacher maintained in the classroom. Its value for this type of pre- diction has been validated by several authors including Cook, Leeds, and Callisl2 and Stein and Hardy.13 Cook, Leeds, and Callis, the authors of the Inventory, describe the characteristics of desirable and undesirable teacher-pupil relations. llIbid. 12CoOk, Leeds, and Callis, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, pp. 13-lh. 13Stein and Hardy, A Validation Study of the MTAI, 321-338. 59 A desirable social relationship is described as follows: It is assumed that a teacher ranking at the high end of the scale should be able to maintain a state of harmonious rela— tions with his pupils characterized by mutual affection and sympathetic understanding. The pupils should like the teach- er and enjoy school work. The teacher should like the chil- dren and enjoy teaching. Situations requiring disciplinary action should rarely occur. The teacher and pupils should work together in a social atmosphere of cooperative endea- vor, of intense interest in the work of the day, and with a feeling of security growing from a permissive atmosphere of freedom.to think, act and speak one's mind with mutual respect for the feelings, rights and abilities of others. Inadequacies and Shortcomings in both teacher and pupils should be admitted frankly as something to overcome, not ridicule. Abilities and strengths should be recognized and used to the utmost for the benefit of the group. A sense of proportion involving humor, justice and honesty is essential. Group solidarity resulting from common goals, common understanding, common efforts, common difficulties, and common achievements should characterize the class. An undesirable social relationship is described as follows: At the other extreme of the scale is the teacher who attempts to dominate the classroom. He may be successful and rule with an iron hand, creating an atmosphere of ten- sion, fear and submission; or he may be unsuccessful and become nervous, fearful and distraught in a classroom characterized by frustration, restlessness, inattention, lack of respect, and numerous disciplinary prOblems. In either case both teacher and pupils dislike school work; there is a feeling of mutual distrust and hostility. Both teacher and pupils attempt to hide their inadequacies from each other. Ridicule, sarcasm.and sharp-tempered remarks are common. The teacher tends to think in terms of his status, the correctness of the position he takes on class- room matters, and the subject matter to be covered rather than in terms of what the pupil needs, feels, knows, and can do.1 The MTAI consists of 150 items. There are five possible answers for each item. These are: strongly agree (SA), agree (A), undecided (U), disagree (D), and strongly disagree (SD). The possible range of lL‘CoOk, Leeds, and Callis, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, 60 scores on the MTA£_is from plus 150 to minus 150. According to criteria established by the authors, each response in accordance with a positive attitude statement has a value of plus one and each response in accord- ance with a negative attitude statement has a value of minus one. For purposes of scoring, this scale was converted to a zero to 300 scale by adding a constant of 150 to each final score. The MTA;_may be obtained from The Psychological Corporation, 301+ East ASth Street, New York, N. Y. 10017. Two predictive validity coefficients have been computed for Form.A, MTAE. 0n the basis of three criteria: rating of teachers by their peers, rating of teachers by their principals, and rating of teachers by a specialist in the area of teaching effectiveness, the coef- ficients were established at r equals .59 and R equals .63.15 Norms have been established for experienced teachers. Those for elementary teachers may be seen in Table five. Scores on the MTA£_were obtained for each Science Inservice Pro- gram participant. The data Obtained were used to test the null hypo- thesis th: scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventopy are not significantly correlated with change scores on a measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among participants in an inser- vice program conducted as a part of this study. The MTA; and the Rokeach.Dogmatism.Scale were both administered to participants in the Science Inservice Program which is described in the next section. 15Ibid., p. 1h. 61 TABLE 5 PERCENTILE RANK EQUIVALENTS FOR RAw SCORES ON TEE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY, FORM A.1 Experienced.Elementary Teachers Systems with fewer Systems with 21 than 21 teachers or more teachers Percentile Rural 2 years A years 2 years A years Rank Teachers training training training training 99 112 110 107 108 11A 95 91 88 98 98 103 90 76 76 9O 87 100 80 62 6A 72 7A 88 75 57 56 67 69 82 70 51 5A 62 63 79 60 A2 AA 51 52 70 50 32 3A A1 A3 60 A0 23 19 29 33 A9 30 ll 7 17 22 A2 25 7 -3 12 16 36 20 -2 —7 A 7 22 10 -23 -21 -26 -9 7 5 -38 -35 -3o -27 -18 1 -6A -67 -39 -A8 -50 N 332 118 102 2A9 2A7 Mean 29.7 29.2 37.0 AO.l 55.1 SD 38.1 38.6 39.A 37.2 36.7 Ibid., p. 9. 62 The Science Inservice Program Sixty elementary teachers, thirty science opinion leaders from the Class 1 schools and thirty nonleaders from.the Class 2 schools, were invited to a Science Inservice Program jointly sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education and Clarion State College. The invitations were accepted by forty-five teachers; twenty-three science opinion leaders and twenty-two nonleaders. The program sessions were conducted on three consecutive Saturdays in March 1969 from 9.A.M. to l P.M. in Peirce Science Center at Clarion State College. The purpose of the program was to involve the participants in experiences using the science teaching techniques and materials of ten innovative investigations characteristic of those produced by the three major elementary science curriculum devel- opment projects. The following subsections describe the program and the ten innovative investigations. ProgramIDescription The Science Inservice Program consisted of three sessions con- ducted and instructed by the investigator at Clarion State College on March 8, March 15, and March 22, 1969. During each session the forty- five participants were involved in several of ten innovative investi- gations. Each investigation was presented using the teaching techniques and materials recommended by the developing program. Participants, working individually and in small groups, had experiences with the pro- ject materials and the methods of science. The sessions stressed scientific inquiry, were relaxed and informal and were characterized by much interaction and enthusiasm among the participants. Using the 63 project materials and equipment, the participants were encouraged to explore, to discuss, and to ask questions. The investigator, acting as program instructor, assumed the teaching role suggested for each investigation by the developing project. Participants were encouraged to evaluate the investigations in terms of potential for use in their own classrooms. Upon completion of all three sessions, the forty-five partici- pants had been involved in each of the ten selected elementary science curriculum.innovations in the manner suggested by the developing project. Attention had also been devoted to preparing the participants to use the teachings methods and materials in their own classrooms. Following is an outline of the program sessions as conducted. Science Inservice Program March 8, Session 1 - a. Welcome; Program Overview b. Administration of Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale and Minnesota Teacher Atti- tude Inventopy c. Participant Involvement in Inves- tigations A, B, C March 15, Session 2 - Participant Involvement in Inves- tigations D, E, F, G March 22, Session 3 - a. Participant Involvement in Inves- tigations H, I, J b. Program Summary Although forty-five teachers participated in the inservice pro- gram, only forty-one are actually included in the analyses. The data from four participants, three science opinion leaders and one nonleader, had to be cast out. Two of the science opinion leaders heeded the advice of their principals and were accompanied to the inservice program by 6A several fellow teachers from their schools. Since additional partici- pants from the science opinion leaders' schools could affect both adop- tion and diffusion within the schools, it was necessary to disregard the data from these schools. One science opinion leader and one nonleader who participated in the inservice program failed to return the level of adoption posttest thereby making it impossible to compute their level of adOption change scores. Description of Innovations The ten innovative investigations included in this study were selected from the three major elementary science curriculum development projects: Science--A Process Approach (SAPA); the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS); and the Elementary Science Study (ESS). Although the projects have similar goals for improving elementary school science instruction, some differences do exist in the methods advocated by each for achieving the goals. The SAPA program is the most highly structured of the three programs. SAPA is highly organized around a hierarchy scheme for proper sequencing of lessons. Detailed lesson plans and procedures are provided for teachers to follow. Conversely, the ESS program is the least structured of the three projects. The ESS program is developed around the unit concept with adequate flexibility within the units to make them useable as supplements to existing programs. The teaching procedures outlined by ESS encourage classroom flexibility and freedom to explore science phenomena on the basis of interest. Since the recommended teaching procedures are not so structured the teacher has the freedom to adapt the ESS science experiences to the needs of his own v. A"! 65 classroom. The SCIS has attributes of both of the other programs. It encourages the flexibility characteristic of ESS but holds to the prin- ciple of sequencing advocated by SAPA.l7 Each of the ten investigations selected for inclusion in this study was chosen because it exemplified the Objectives, techniques, and materials advocated by the developing program” Each was included as a part of one of the Science Inservice Program sessions. Selected from.Science-—A Process Approach (SARA) were Investiga- tions C, E, F, and J. Selected from the Elementary Science Study (ESS) were Investigations B, I, and G. Selected from the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) were Investigations A, D, and H. Table six lists the investigation topics and their project origins. A more com- plete description of each may be found in Part I of the questionnaire located in the appendices. The ten innovations exhibit a number of specific characteristics. Their adoption would require a voluntary individual decision by the elementary teacher. Rogers terms such a decision as optional and des— cribes it as a type of decision made when an individual is free to make a final adoption-rejection choice but may be influenced by the norms of the social system.in reaching a decision.18 The decision, by an indivi- dual teacher, to use a class science investigation as a teaching method is an example of an optional decision. 17Bureau of General and Academic Education, Division of Science and Mathematics, "Science for the Seventies," (working draft prepared by the Pennsylvania.Department of Education, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, JULY 3, 1969). pp. 37-39. l8Everett M; Rogers, "Toward a New Mbdel for Educational Change" (paper presented at the Conference on Strategies for Educational Change, Washington, D. C.,NOvember 8-9, 1965), p. 10. 66 TABLE 6 SCIENCE INSERVICE PROGRAM INVESTIGATIONS TOPICS Project Reference Session Investigation Topic Origin Source Presented A Mr. 0 - Rela- SCIS Relativity, Teachers' 1 tivity Guide B Electricity ESS Batteries and Bulbs 1 and Magne- tism C Inferring the SAPA Science-~A Process 1 Characteris- Approach,iPart tics of Pack- Three aged Articles D Life Cycles SCIS Life Cycles, Teachers' 2 Guide E Identifying SAPA Science--A Process 2 Materials Approach, Part Five F Controlling SAPA Science-~A Process 2 Variable 3 Approach 4 Part S ix G Mealworms ESS Behavior of Meal- 2 worms,fiTeachers' Guide H Classifica- SCIS SCIS Elementary Sci- 3 tion ence Sourcebook I Drops and ESS Kitchen Physics, 3 Heapings Teachers' Guide J Describing the SAPA Science--A Process 3 Mbtion of a Bouncing Ball Approach, Part Four 67 The innovative investigations have divisibility or may be tried on a limited basis. It is not necessary to adopt them as a complete package. As Rogers points out, "new ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more rapidly than innovations that are not divisible."19 Marsh found that teachers adopted Physical Science Study Committee (PSSC) physics more rapidly because they could 20 The selected inno- incorporate it into their program a bit at a time. vations also lack complexity and exhibit high communicability. They are relatively easy to understand and use and the results may be easily ob- served and communicated to other teachers. To encourage the evaluation and trial of the ten investigations in the participants' classrooms, each participant was supplied with a take-home package of materials for each of the ten investigations. For example, for investigation B concerning electricity and magnetism.each participant was provided with a take-home packet containing a dozen flashlight cells, a dozen bulbs, bare and insulated copper wire, fahne- stock clips, and steel spikes. After each program session the partici- pants received materials related to the investigations conducted during that particular session. Each packet contained materials in sufficient quantities for implementing the investigations in the participant's own classroom. Additional materials and replacement items could be obtained inexpensively from.supermarkets, hardwares, five-and-ten stores, and pet shops or could be brought from home. l9Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, p. 131. 20Paul E. Marsh, "Wellsprings of Strategy: Considerations Affecting Innovations by the PSSC? in Innovations in Education, ed. by Matthew B. Miles (Teachers College, Columbia University, 196A), p. 265. 68 After having been provided with investigative experiences and materials for the ten investigations, each participant was then in a position to evaluate the potential of the innovations and make a decision concerning a trial in his own classroom. Collection of Data Data collected in this investigation consisted of responses to the following measures: a pretest-posttest level of adoption question- naire, a sociometric measure of science opinion leadership, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. The fol- lowing subsections describe the procedures by which the measures were administered. Selection of Elementary Schools On December 2, 1968, the superintendent of schools in each county in Region F was requested to provide information pertaining to the elementary schools in his county. The information requested included names and addresses of school systems and individual elementary schools, of administrative personnel, and of teachers in each individual elemen- tary school, including grade level taught. Two of the five superintend- ents had compiled a directory including the information requested. The three others supplied only the names and addresses of the school systems located within their respective counties. In these counties a letter was sent to each chief school administrator requesting the necessary information. Sample letters to the county superintendents and chief school administrators are included in the appendices. 69 From.the information supplied.by the administrators, all elemen- tary schools in Region F having six or more regular classrooms were identified and constituted the population of 112 schools from.which thirty Class 1 and thirty Class 2 schools were drawn. The chief school administrators and the elementary principals of the school districts in which the sixty schools were located were contacted to Obtain their cooperation in the investigation. On January 9, 1969, each administrator received a letter which described the investigation and requested approval to proceed with the study in his district. The letter description was very general to preclude the possibility of participants making biased responses due to prior awareness of the exact nature of the study. A sample copy of the letter to administrators appears in the appendices. Administration of Questionnaire Parts I and II After receiving administrative approval on January 2A, 1969 all 618 teachers in the sixty Class 1 and Class 2 schools were sent a letter of transmittal and a two-part questionnaire consisting of Part I, a pre- test measuring teacher level of adoption of ten selected innovative sci- ence investigations, and Part II, a sociometric measure of science opinion leadership based on a school-specific roster. Sample copies of the letter of transmittal and questionnaire appear in the appendices. Each of the 618 teachers was requested to complete the question- naire and return it to the investigator. On February 10, 1969 a follow- up letter was sent to all teachers who had not responded to the first letter. A total of 528 teachers or 85.A percent returned the question- naire. Of those returned, A92 or 79.6 percent were fully completed and usable in the study. Thirty-six of the responses could not be used, the 70 major stated reason being that the respondent did not teach science. Upon receipt of the useable questionnaires the scores were tabulated. Part I of the questionnaire yielded data relative to the level of adoption of ten selected elementary science curriculum.innovations among teachers in the sixty schools prior to the Science Inservice Program. Part II, the school-specific sociometric measure, revealed the identity of the science opinion leaders and nonleaders in each of the sixty schools. Measures Administered During the Inservice Program Thirty elementary teachers from.the Class 1 schools, identified as science opinion leaders by responses on Part II, the sociometric measure of science opinion leadership, were invited to participate in the Science Inservice Program. Thirty nonleaders from.the Class 2 schools,similarly identified by sociometric responses, were also invited to participate in the inservice program. A total of forty-five teachers, twenty-three science opinion leaders and twenty-two nonleaders, partici— pated in the program. The Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory were administered to the forty-five partici- pants during the first ninety minutes of the first Science Inservice Program session on March 8, 1969. Scores on both of these measures were correlated with the participants' change scores on the measure of level of adoption of the ten science innovations. Administration of the Level of Adoption Posttest On May 31, 1969 ten weeks after the completion of the Science Inservice Program, Part I of the level of adoption questionnaire, 71 administered now as a posttest, and a letter of transmittal were mailed to all A92 elementary teachers in the sixty Class 1 and Class 2 schools who had completed the pretest. The posttest was returned by A32 teachers or 87.8 percent of the teachers to whom it was sent. Useable returns numbered A29. Table seven summarizes the numbers of questionnaires sent and the totals and percent of questionnaires returned. TABLE 7 NUMBERS OF QUESTIONNAIRES SENT AND TOTALS AND PERCENT OF QUESTIONNAIRES RETURNED Total Percent Total Total Percent Useable Useable Questionnaire Sent Returned Returned Returns Returns Questionnaire, Part I Level of Adoption Pretest 618 528 85.A A92 79.6 Questionnaire, Part II Sociometric Measure of Science Opinion Leadership 618 523 8A.6 A76 77.0 Questionnaire, Part I Level of Adoption Posttest A92 A32 87.8 A29 87.A After the respondents' posttest scores were tabulated, the pre- test level of adoption scores were subtracted, algebraically, from the posttest level of adoption scores to yield change scores for the science opinion leaders and nonleaders and for the teachers in their respective schools. Change scores were computed for 20 science opinion leaders and 13A teachers in the schools which they represented. Similar scores were computed for 21 nonleaders and 119 teachers in the schools which they represented. The change scores thus derived provided data necessary to test the hypotheses set forth in this study. 72 Methods of Data Analyses The first two hypotheses concerning the differential levels of adoption of science teaching innovations between the science opinion leaders and nonleaders and the differential levels of adoption between the teachers in the schools which each group represented were tested statistically by a Medel I single classification, completely randomized analysis of variance (anova) for unequal sample sizes.21 Prior to testing hypotheses one and two a Student's t-test for uncorrelated data had been applied to test the equality of the means of the pretest level of adoption measure between the science opinion leaders and nonleaders and between the teachers in the schools represented by each group. Hypo- theses three and four, concerning the correlations between the inservice program.participants' change scores on a measure of level of adoption and their scores on the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale and on the Nfinnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, were each tested by a 2 X 2 contingency 22 table. The unadjusted values of X2 were calculated for each test. The level of significance at which all hypotheses were tested was .05. Table eight summarizes the hypotheses tested and the models used for data analyses. Parametric statistical methods were selected as appropriate for the population included in this study. Although in recent years, non- parametric analysis of variance has become quite popular because it is 21C. C. Li, Introduction to Experimental Statistics (New York: McGraw Book Company, 196A), pp. 161-172. 22George W} Snedecor, Statistical Methods (Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1956), pp. 217-222. 73 8."! OHpmH houoonwnoo m N m mo. u .o OHpmH hoaoqupcoo m x m mo.n¥ ooomHHm> Ho mHmszo< mo. u x. ooemHam> Ho mHmsznd .hpdpm mHflp Ho Hang a mo oopospeoo amsmoam OOH>HomQH em eH mpsmmHOHpaom meosm m:OHpm>oncH wanooop mocOHom Ho OOHpmooa Ho Ho>OH Ho Cashews a so mOHOom omcdno ana oopmHoaaoo thcmOHHHanm pom mam wwopno>cH moSHpr< Honomos mpomonst opp no moaoom .hofipm mHSH Ho pang m we GOHOSbuoo adamoam OOH>Hoqu so 2H mpcmm IHOHHHOQ wcoam mQOHHm>occH qunomop wouOHom mo GOHpmoom Ho Ho>OH Ho ondmmoa o no moaoom owqdno QHHa umpmHoanoo thewo :HHquHm #0: was OHoom amemamom_£oooxom 039 no monoom .maoooOqun an adamoam OOanoqu meow map OH oopqomoaaoa whoa SOHQS mHoonom_Soam maonomop swap m20Hpm>oodH mcHnomop mocOHom map 90 whoa o: Hmooo HHH3 whoomOH OOHcho mooOHom he.adswoam OOH>MomoH oonHom m QH oopqomoamoa mama SOan mHoozom aosm whosomoe .adamoam meow map cH oopmaHOHpamm osz msoomOHsoc comp mQOHHo>oeqH map Ho whoa on Hmoom HHH3 mHmHHopdS can mood qunoop ongomop mooOHom o>Hpm>ondH SHHB mnHHmoo enamoam OOH>HomsH em nH pmHmQHOHpamQ 033 manomOH GOHGHQO ooGOHom mom mom mom How spam mGHNaHoe< mom comb mHoooz I" ¢HP>0.025 The resulting chi-square value demonstrated significance at the 0.05 level; therefore, one may conclude that scores on the Rokeach IDogmatism.Scale are significantly correlated with change scores on a "J. E. Grizzle, "Continuity Correction in the X2-Test for 2 X 2 Tables," American Statistician, (October, 1967), pp. 28-32. 5sokol and Rohlf, Biometpy, p. 590. 83 measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among parti- cipants in an inservice program conducted as a part of this study. Correlation Between the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and Change in Level of Adoption The use of new science curriculum.techniques and materials requires a classroom.social atmosphere characterized by interaction and cooperation between pupils and between pupils and teacher. A teacher committed to the innovations must create a climate of permissiveness necessary to support free inquiry. Pupils must be encouraged, guided, and questioned in open-ended investigations which involve them in the utilization of science processes. Teacher adoption of science curriculum innovations, therefore, may be dependent upon the type of social atmos- phere maintained in their classrooms. Teachers who do not view pupil inquiry and freedom as a threat might adopt the innovations more readily than teachers who are more dominating and restrictive. Since the .Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory has long been used as a predictor of the type of social atmosphere a teacher maintains, it was speculated that teachers who scored high on the E152 (indicating their capability in establishing cooperative and mutual relationships with their pupils) would change more on the measure of level of adoption than teachers who scored low on the HEAT (indicating a more dominating and authoritative classroom'behavior). The mean score on the MEA; and the mean change in level of adop- tion were used as mid-points to dichotomize the forty-one inservice program participants into high and low groups on each measure. The results were cast on a 2 X 2 contingency table. The table was used to 8A test null hypothesis HoA‘ scores on the EA; are not significantly correlated with change scores on a measure of level of adoption of sci- ence teaching innovations among participants in an inservice program conducted as a part of this study. The unadjusted chi-square value was calculated. Table twelve summarizes the results of the analysis. TABLE 12 2 X 2 CONTDICnENCY TABIE ANALYSIS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN SCORES ON THE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY AND CHANGE IN LEVEL OF ADOPTION OF SCIENCE TEACHING INNOVATIONS l a: Change in level of Adoption Scores on High Low MI‘AI High 9 l2 , 21 Low 10 10 2O 19 22 Al X2 = 0.21 df = l O.9>P>O.5 Since the chi-square value failed to reach the assigned level of significance, it may be concluded that scores on the EA; are not signi- ficantly correlated with change scores on a measure of level of adoption of science teaching innovations among participants in an inservice pro- gram conducted as a part of this study. Table thirteen summarizes the data analyses for the four hypo- theses tested in this study. 85 oocoaoHHHo HQoOHHHanm on oosoaomHHp pndoHHHsmHm m ooeoaommHo pedOHHHsmHm on monoaomHHo #:50HmHsmHm on OHQmH hoqomancoo m x m oHnmp hoqomnHquo m x m ooquHmP Ho mHmszmo ooquHm> Ho mHthmqs .aoSHm mHQH Ho pang a ma oopoqu o adamonm OOH>HomaH so qH mHsomHOthmm macaw mQOHpo>oan wanowop oquHom mo GOHHmooo Ho Ho>OH Ho madmmoa o no moaoom owgnao HpHa oode noaaoo szomOHHHsmHm pom was Nmopnm>qH ooSHpr< noaosoa spomonnHz map so monoom .hOSHm man Mo puma a mo copodomoo amawoam OOthomnH an nH mpqsmHOHuhom macaw mGOHpm>onnH wanoooH mocOHom HO QOHpmooo Ho Hw>oH Ho oasmoma o no moaoom owsdso HpHa oopmHonhoo themOHHHanm #0: one OHoom_amHHdam Q nomoxom 639 no mosoom .maopaOHnon an.awamoam OOHshoqu mash map GH oopnomohmoa mam: SOHsa mHoonom_SOHH mammooop can» mGOHpo>oqu wQHnodop mocOHom map Ho whoa on pmoom HHH3 whoooOH GOHGHQO oquHom kn adamoam OOthomnH ooQOHom d 2H HOHnOmoamoa mama SOHga mHoosom_aonH maonoooa .ade song mash map 2H oopomHOthmm osz maoomOHcoq camp mQOHps>oan 03» mo whoa on Hmooo HHH3 moaqusoop manooop was mHoHnopna mosOHom o>HHm>oacH apHa mnHHooo.amnmoam OOH>homQH :6 :0m mom mom nH OopomHOthdm 033 whooooH QOHquo ooQOHom Hom mo. n smog: oomom mpHH-mom .AAI‘ .Al‘A‘il-‘l'-|l||‘l|"||lill I I :In :1 I1- .6me deNaHsEH. Mom comb mHoooz mHmonpomhm mmammfi mHmmmaomwm mo