1 3,3 3.33 33333 33333 M IIIIIleI I3II3I3IIII M33333! __ 3 ufi . .. ,3,, , , . 3,1,, 3, ‘ 33,33 3333,3333 333 , 3 J. IA‘I, , 3, 33 3,, ”3:3. 3 ,- 3:3 3335' I‘ I3 ‘3”th II I III IIIIII 333 W3W ” g 3', 2 3 , ,3,,33'33 .3333 ‘3I3I: 3‘ 3,33 ,333 ,‘3333 3 331 II II,III3'. . ' .I .3" 3:. 3, 3"!II 3,3 3; u' , " '35. 3 I31I4I'3 m 3,.‘I’t, II ..,..3,3, 3 3 333-333 3 3 . . ...e.:,.333f33.3 .33 33333 I II III 3. .. :;I~ I IIIIIIIIIIIIII3I 3 353;" 3; 33I3 #3333113 H 3 33 ,3 ,, 3‘ 3 3, 335,31va 3.33 333WW$MWH 33: 33:33 33.391333}: I 1333‘ 33333333333333” ”3 i 333. 33333 3‘ 333333333I 333,33 3 3333333 : 3,3, .. 3 3, 7"" ‘3' w 3‘33. 33.333“? 3‘3..;33-. 3-3 333: 333-33 3 ., ,, 3,3333,» 3.1333333333333333 33333333 333., ‘33,, 333.3 3331333333 ,,,,,,, ,3, I TIIIII3333333333333’3 3 313‘ 3‘3 II3 ..-, ,_1,3.3,3m3,§ .33. “9333333333 33 33,,3. . .A.’ ._.- ~v—o _. —,.4—_ ,— “7“ n H 3 Imfafin ‘VH‘ ‘3” 3333.3333333 3&33 W3” _ .3. 3.3-. 3 3.3 3 ‘3 33.3 3. .3 3 3333333133 3333333III‘I‘ .33: 3'33 .3. 3 33 3 3 — ..- 13$" , 1—1-3...» —3~".' .32- - 3333 3.3,... 33333‘3' I333* 333 3,3 3 3,33, 333-.»33 3,33 33333 333,33 .3 ,, ,3, 3I, , 333333 33. 33.33 3333,3333, 333 ,33333‘I ,3333333'33,3I333I ,3I,,3,I ,,,,, 3 3 3 333333333 3333 33.3 331333333 "333333.33 3.3 .3333 3 IIIIIIIIII III3 ,33 “,3 33: 3| 333333 333 33333 31 33 3,333 . 3.333,. '373 333,, ,3333, 3,3 3,, 33.33 I3II,3, , ,,,,_, 33313333, ”,3,, 3333 3II I33 333 ”333,33. 333333333333313333333,333.33,” 333133 I 3 ‘I Wu33 3dahhfl3w 33I IIIII3 33,33 33333 33,3333 I333IIIIIIII 33I 3.33" ,,,II . , 333333,, 3,,,3,33 ,, 333 3 3333333 313333,, 33,3,I3I3I3, 3I33I33,II.3 33, 3 II,II,3,33,I . , I3IJ3II33 33. “33.333 3““ 3‘3“ I33IIII333IIII II3II33 3333 I333333II I—v—dv o. W— 3333‘ 33333. 333331333 33 3: 33333333 3333 33333333333 , 3,3 .3333...3, 3333: 33 333I3 3.33 333a 3333.. .33333 33333, ‘ 3331333333 “”3“ 3333., 3,3: IIIIIIII 33 3 I3III 33,,33333333IIII33I3L 3:".I 3333“ 3, 33333. I333 333333 I3 33'. H - — ' -n. .. - ,_-<_ _— .— __’o--——- ”.4 M ..., 3 ~ n k” __ _ -— a__ _ mu. .—» - < ,— w .. - a - ‘ ’_ ‘. 4-- __—— ~..._. . _ , ,-.. .. M--_—. d..— - - -- . _,_—. , 4 2 ,v a--. - - ' . T-_ 4 ' ~ .— p h—MN" _,. I3N33mfl. 3.33 ...__.- +“_.f_. .—._ .. :_. guns? O - ,.. , . m, .-‘ . _ 3 ‘ .3 "‘ .... ”‘C’s .- a. - O ‘ :‘é—zrr — w ‘— 1; , ‘Imtfl :.~ --..-. ;__. . . ‘ .- w.-- _ .—.n—<~.. .. -- . . -Mo , _ O47- -. ’ . . - ‘ 3' . . -‘. -< .- ' .— ._.- .... -...- . _ -..._— Wy-LP .- - — 1...: .r 7' .__... . ..._ . - _ .... :M- “w m'. ,_h-...‘_'._. ~‘_.-O*‘ ’-~—— 3333 33333 333' “1" ,. '4. *- . ~45 o“ < 3363 ;:__.._....£E.~f: #- fig“.- _A ~_.. 3.7;“ 4—. .W———— .-l b.“— - w-c __._‘—‘nr -'-.-M _—." - _...-—-=...O‘ __ ,._,~.——— :.....—-===‘—-— _____ '-_ .- 4.... _J.4 ..._ ”J- .. —_.-3_~—.¢——-w— #E- N J‘ -.‘-=- W'tfifihoflwmarxokl )‘J.t‘.’.-A—'n.n.... ... ~v ..‘...:::::.‘ '. " ;.. , j’ ‘1 ' 3 .... __ ..__ ’ ' ~ - — .H, .__- 4—— ”‘OO 2,_—————— :M——— ”w“— $- W-P W-: ;: r. :—4- ,‘P—p« %-7 PM- a... _v I . __ I .7.“ 3 1293 104242 .. llHI111WlllHllMUlHllllllI}llllll|l|2|||81Hlillullill - ‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled A STUDY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE INQUIRY-SCRIPT TEACHING MODEL TO THE MODIFICATION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE STUDY UNIT presented by John B. Beaver has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Education W2) Major professor Datefl/(a'tr /Z /€Y7/ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. A STUDY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE INQUIRY-SCRIPT TEACHING MODEL TO THE MODIFICATION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE STUDY UNIT By John B. Beaver A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Curriculum 1982 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE INQUIRY-SCRIPT TEACHING MODEL TO THE MODIFICATION OF AN ELEMENTARY SCIENCE STUDY UNIT By John B. Beaver The purposes of this study were to: (l) revise an ESS unit according to the inquiry-script plan; (2) determine the goals and objectives for a single ESS unit, and develop student tests for this unit; and (3) apply the revised unit in an instructional setting and evaluate student and teacher perceptions, behaviors, student achievement, and student- teacher interactions. Methodology An inquiry-script was written for the E88 unit Peas & Particles. Ten unit activities were structured according to three instructional phases, launching, explor- ing and summarizing. A teacher training packet describing the inquiry plan was also developed. The populations in- cluded 12 teachers and their students in one school dist- rict (n=293). Data concerning student and teacher interactions and perceptions were collected using an observation instru- ment (Activity Categories Index), perception forms, teacher logs, and end of the unit evaluation forms. In addition, three teachers were video-taped, interviewed, and their questioning practices were analyzed. John B. Beaver Results 1. Student measures showed significant achievement of unit objectives as a result of exposure to the scripted method of teaching. Students at three mathematics achieve- ment levels demonstrated their ability to orally describe counting methods. These results indicated that student cognitive levels should be considered in developing student tests. 2. Observational data showed that E88 and inquiry- scripted ESS lessons were essentially equivalent in providing for student_laboratory activity and teacher questioning. The inquiry-script model may be one way to structure ESS units without limiting the E83 emphasis on hands-on laboratory activities. 3. The presence of a script did not affect teachers' perceptions of their amount of talk or student perceptions of their activity levels. 4. Teachers needed more guidance from the script in terms of initiating inquiry activities, managing mater- ials, and in allocating time to phases of inquiry lessons. Recommendations l. The inquiry—script model could be used to modify other math and science units and in identifying common elements of inquiry instruction for deveIOping new inter- disciplinary units. John B. Beaver 2. Additional research can and should be conducted to compare: (1) specific teaching units (scripted vs. unscripted); (2) student, teacher and Observer perceptions; and (3) oral interview and pen and pencil evaluation instruments. © Copyright by JOHN B. BEAVER 1982 DEDICATION To the memory of my beloved father, Charles Warren Beaver and father-in-law, Otto B. Candidus. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The footnoting procedure found in the dissertation provides a method for formally acknowledging the aid received from books. It is far more difficult to ade- quately express appreciation to the fulfillment of a dream. I am most grateful to Dr. Bruce D. Cheney, advisor and chairman of my Doctoral Committee, for his support, patience and direction. I am indebted to Drs. Glenn D. Berkheimer and Shirley A. Brehm for serving as members of my Doctoral Committee, for their encouragement, and for sharing their knowledge in the areas of science supervision and environ- mental education. I am especially indebted to Dr. William M. Fitzgerald for serving as a member of my Doctoral Committee and for the introduction to the inquiry teaching model which became the basis for this dissertation. My thanks to Dr. Janet Shroyer who also contributed to the teaching model employed in the study. I am indebted to Dr. Michael G. Jacobson, "New York committee member,’ editor, counselor, "Brother," and friend. Without Mike's constant encouragement, support and time this dissertation would not have materialized. I thank iv Mike's wife Carol and his daughters Beth and Jennifer for sharing their husband and father with me. I thank Dr. Francis Crowley, Fordham University, for his guidance and assistance with the statistical analysis and for editing sections of the dissertation. I wish to thank Mr. Robert Bell, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Irving Carlin, Mrs. Olga Lagano Carlin, Mr. E. Michael Helmintoller, and Mr. Warren Hochberg, all building prin- cipals in the Three Village Schools, whose COOperation made this dissertation possible. I am also grateful to Dr. Pierce Hoban and Mr. Barry McManus, superintendent and assistant superintendent of the Three Village School District, who were instrumental in facilitating the grad- uate work and this study. A very special note of thanks is extended to my colleagues: Mary Lue Boudreau, Edward Carpenter, Adrienne Grant, Beth Heyn, Clara MacDougal, Barbara McCahill, Judith McCready, Henry Pine, Virginia Portanova, Michael Recchio, Mark Robinson and Carolyn Vreeland, who willingly participated in the research, giving unselfishly of their time, and offering numerous words of encouragement along the way. I am most grateful to my colleagues in the elemen- tary science department. To Ben Werner, exemplar, leader, supporter and friend... thank you. To Robert Adams, Ronald Daszenski, Barbara Riley, James Riley, and Charles Triolo, my gratitude for the many hours you gave to this work, your support, encouragement and friendship. I am grateful to Ellen MacCary, friend and typist, who under the pressure of deadlines and a busy personal schedule prepared the final manuscript. To Dr. Robert Mbraghan and Dr. Charles Kephart, for their words of encouragement and advice at critical times in the preparation of the dissertation. To Mr. Kerry Van Name, artist and friend, thank you for contributing your talents to illustrations contained in the teaching unit. And, finally, my feelings of deep appreciation and love go to those closest to me, my family. They have made the greatest sacrifice of all...time. to Marjorie Beaver Park who advised her son to become a teacher and who has also encouraged me in my education and career. To Virginia Sax Candidus who prepared the original typed manuscript, but more importantly contributed significantly to her son-in-law's confidence, through her many words of encouragement and support. To Mary, who shouldered many re3ponsibilities, editor, typist and friend, but most of all model wife and mother. To my daughters Kate and Jeanne, I wish that somneday that I will be able to support them, in love and caring in their career's work, as they have supported me through this dissertation. vi I .~ In; r—4 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES. Chapter I. II. III. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . Introduction Need . Purpose. Statement of Research Questions. Definition of Terms. Assumptions and Limitations. Plan of the Study. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . Inquiry. Historical BackgrOund. Inquiry Terminology. . . Characteristics of the Inquiry Setting . Student Attitude and Involvement Inquiry Plans. Summary. . Elementary Science Study . Teacher Training . . Evaluation and Comparison Research . Comparison . . Summary (ESS). Interaction Analysis Observation Systems for Elementary Science Observation in Elementary Science Inquiry Settings Summary. . METHODOLOGY. Development of Instructional Material. Research Design. vii Page xii Chapter IV. Limitations in the Research Design Selection of the Population and Samples. Instrumentation. Interaction Analysis Instrument. Application of the ACI Student and Teacher Perception Forms The Teacher Background Data Form . The End of the Unit Evaluation Form. Student Tests. . . . . . . Video- -Taped ObservatiOns Training Program . . Teacher Training and Data Collection Procedures Hypotheses and Questions Of the Study. Significance Level . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . Demographic Information. Reliability of the Student Achievement Test . . Interrater Reliability of the Interaction Analysis Instrument. Hypothesis Testing . Comparison of Activity Ratios. Comparison of Laboratory Ratios. Comparison of Questioning Ratios Comparison of Teacher and Observer Perceptions of Teacher Talk. Comparison of Student and Observer Perceptions of Student Activity. Comparison of Student Achievement Pre- and Post-Treatment. Summary. . . Analysis of Research QuestiOns . . Item Analysis and Content Validity Of Unit-Achievement Test. . . . Task- Interview Test. Summary. . . Analysis of Teacher Deviations from. the Script (Video- -Taped Observations). Summary. . Teacher Questioning (Video- -Taped Observations) Summary. . . Analysis of Teacher End of the Unit Evaluations and Teacher Logs Timing- -Teacher Logs. Teacher Comments- Teacher Logs. Attitude Rating- -Teacher Logs viii 129 131 134 139 141 143 145 150 155 157 164 165 172 173 175 180 184 Chapter Summary. V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Summary of the Study . Conclusions. . Implications Recommendations. APPENDICES A. SCRIPT BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR TEACHERS AND THE SCRIPT FOR PEAS & PARTICLES. B. OUTLINE OF THE TIME COMMITMENT REQUIRED OF TEACHERS AND THE PROFESSIONAL IMPROVEMENT GOAL FOR TEACHERS . . . . . . . . C. ACTIVITY CATEGORIES INDEX (ACT) OBSERVER TRAINING . . . . D. STUDENT PERCEPTION FORM. E. TEACHER PERCEPTION FORM. F. TEACHER BACKGROUND DATA FORM . G. END OF THE UNIT EVALUATION FORM AND CLASSROOM LOG. . . . . . . . H. STUDENT UNIT- ACHIEVEMENT TEST FOR THE PEAS & PARTICLES UNIT (FORM A & B). . . . . I. STUDENT TASK-INTERVIEW TEST. J. ITEM ANALYSIS INFORMATION FOR THE UNIT ACHIEVEMENT TEST PRE- AND POST- TEST. . . . . . . . . K. STUDENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTION FORM DATA . End of the Unit Evaluation (EUEF). Comments Teacher Logs and EUEF . BIBLIOGRAPHY . ix Page 185 190 192 194 194 207 210 212 218 279 . 282 294 . 295 297 299 302 318 320 321 325 Table LIST OF TABLES Demographic Characteristics of the Teacher Sample for the Study . Background Information on Teachers' Science Teaching Experience. Background Information: Teachers' Course- work in Science. Demographic and Math Achievement Character- istics of the Student Sample Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the Student Unit-Achievement Test. Interrater Reliability Coefficients for the Interaction Analysis Instrument Activity Categories Index . t- test for Matched Pairs Between Pre-Activity and Post- -Activity Observations . . . t- test for Matched Pairs Between Pre- -Laboratory and Post- -Laboratory Observations . . . t-test for Matched Pairs Between Pre-Questioning Post-Questioning Observations. . . . Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between TPF Questions 1 & 2 and ACI Category 10 for Post -Treatment Data Only . . . . Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between SPF Questions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and ACT Ratios for Activity, Laboratory, and Questioning. t-test for Matched Pairs Between Pre- and Post-Instructional Scores on the Unit Test of Achievement Classification of Items from the Unit Achievement Test by Index of Discrimination. Classification of Items from the Unit Achievement Test by Index of Difficulty. X Page 117 117 118 119 120 122 124 127 129 133 136 139 146 147 Table Page 4.15 The Number and Percent of Student Responses for the Task-Interview Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . 152 4.16 The Number and Percent of Student Responses for the Task-Interview Post-Test . . . . . . . . 152 4.17 Chi—Square as an Index of Association Between Pre- and Post-Test Results, (Complete- ness of Student Response) on the Task Interview Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 4.18 Chi-Square as an Index of Association Between Pre- and Post-Test Results (High, Middle, and Low Student Groups) on the Task-Interview Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 4.19 The Number and Percentage of Total Questions Asked for Each of the Ten Activities for the Scripted Unit from Observations of Three Teachers (Video-Taped) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 4w20 The Number and Percentage of Questions Asked by Category for All Ten Activities for the Scripted Unit from Observations of Three Teachers (Video-Taped) . . . . . . . . . . 168 41.21 The Number and Percentage of Questions Asked by Category for All Ten Activities and Phases of Activities for the Scripted Unit from Observations of Three Teachers (Video—Taped) . . 171 4i.22 Tabulation Completed Logs and End of the Unit Evaluation Forms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 4i. 23 Average Time and the Range of Time (All Teachers) for Each of the Three Phases and The Whole Activity for Each of Ten Activities: The Average Time for Each Phase Over All Activities and The Average Time for All Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 6*- 24 Teacher Log Rating of Student Attitude for Each Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 Q--25 End of the Unit Evaluation of Peas & Particles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 3.1 Unit-Test Specification Grid . . . . . . . . . . . 101 4.1 PrOposed Unit-Achievement Test Specification Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 xii CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The early sixties marked a milestone in elemen- tary science with the development of several innovative curricula. Bredderman (1977) reported that 30% of the elementary school children are influenced by one of three of these programs. They are Science-A Process Approach (SAPA), Elementary Science Study (E88), and Science Curriculum Improvement Studyg(SCIS).1 The programs represent hands-on inquiry approaches which seek to develop and expand critical thinking abilities in several disci- pline areas of the sciences. The materials and guides associated with each of these programs provide for varying amounts of organization and structure regarding the teaching-learning situation. A characteristic of these science programs is the emphasis upon investigation by the student rather than his acquisition of facts. They often lack evaluative tools for measuring student achievement, even though it is recognized that inquiry is experienced through content. Nicodemus 1Ted Bredderman, "Adoption of Science Programs Another Look," The Elementary School Journal, LXXVII (May, 1977), 364. (1970) emphasizes this point in the following passage: Until instruments are developed to provide some reliable measures and description of inquiry, it will remain difficult to communicate its strate- gies. One beginning point in resolving this problem concerns organizing the factualpart of a lesson in science taught as inquiry. In recent years schools have faced financial prob- lems which have placed increased pressure on curriculum budgets including funds allocated for elementary science. Another factor affecting the classroom directly is the curtailment of support programs in the schools including physical education, music and art. This effectively elimi- nates some of the planning time of classroom teachers. Therefore, it has been difficult maintaining science curricula which rely on large quantities of supplies and the necessary preparation time for Operating them. An element in the ad0ption of any curriculum pro- gram.is the implementation plan. Biesenhertz (1972) expressing concern for the classroom teacher's role in the implementation process states: The success of a science program is dependent on the teacher. We must supply teachers with the experience of observing children interacting with the materials and offer viable models. Without classroom experiences that apply theory to practice one cannot expect prospective teachers to inter- nalize and transfer a strategy of instruction to the classroom. 2Robert B. Nicodemus, "Content and Skill Heirarchies in Elementary Science: An Analysis of ESS Small Thinos," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, VII (1970), I73. 3Paul C. Beisenhertz, "Effective Change in Elemen- tary School Science," Science and Children, X (1972), 26-27. ESS is recognized as one of the major inquiry sci- ence programs used in the elementary schools today. The organization and structure of the E83 program emphasizes student investigation. However, ESS materials do not in- clude clearly defined objectives for unit content, or a means for evaluating the inquiry included in the teaching units. The teacher is important to the success of science curriculum implementation. Ease Among the three programs, SAPA, SCIS and E88, the most diverse, in terms of unit offerings, is ESS which offers more than fifty-six units. The guides are written with many important cues and techniques for instruction, and are rich with examples from trial classrooms. They are marked by their infusion of open-ended questions and areas of exploration congruent with David Hawkins' "Messing About" paradigm. According to Hawkins' model, ...children are given materials and equipment things and are allowed to construct, test, probe and experimenz without superimposed questions or 1nstructions. Hawkins' instructional model represents one of the major changes brought about by the "new" science programs of the sixties. That was an attempt to change the way we teach. As noted in the 72nd Yearbook of the National Society 4David Hawkins, "Messing About In Science," The ESS Reader (Newton, Ma.: Educational DeveloPment Center, 1970), pp.37-44. for the Study of Education (NSSE, 1973), It is obvious that the science and mathematics projects had become involved in changes not merely within the system but of the system itself.5 The implications of these changes are that tradi- tional modes of evaluation became inadequate.6 Victor (1970) contends: One of the major criticisms of many of the projects is their failure to provide adequate evaluation. Too much consideration is being .given to testimonials of classroom teachers who are using the exercises and units. The NSSE report goes on to characterize the E88 program as one of the most "Open-ended and freewheeling" curriculums totally lacking in guidelines for the develop- ment of evaluation instruments.8 Maintaining these inquiry programs as a part of the regular classroom instruction may be difficult without a more careful outline for problem-solving activities. This problem is illustrated further by reference to studies 5Wilma S. Longstreet, ed., "The Elementary School in the United States," "The School's Curriculum, Seventnyecond Yearbook of the National SOciety for the Study of Education, Part I7(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 255. 6Longstreet, p. 255. 7Edward Victor, "Present Programs and Major Curriculum Developments in Elementary School Science-- A Critique," Elementary Edpcation in the Seventies: Im- plications for Theory and Practice, EdT William W. Joyce, Robert G. Oana, ande} Robert Houston (New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston, 1970), p. 156. 8Longstreet, p. 255. of curriculum developments which have attempted to alter the traditional relationship between teacher and student. Delamont (1976) outlines this problem in the following Statement : The Nuffield approach to science teaching, which emphasized guided discovery rather than lecturing and demonstrating, was one such initiative. Hailed as revolutionary, Nuffield science was thought to be sweeping the schools. In fact, while the manifest curricula have changed as exam syllabuses incorporate Nuffield ideas, the hidden curriculum of classroom life has changed little. In a large scale, official evaluation of new science teaching, Galto and his co-workers observed over 100 teachers all over England in over 300 lessons. The found little evidence of the new techniques. The need for evaluation methods was noted by Nico- demus (1970) in his analysis of the E88 unit Small Thingg. In this study Nicodemus contrasted the carefully planned and outlined goals of Science--A Process Approach units, according to an heirarchy of component skills and processes, to any represented in the E83 unit Small Things. He noted difficulty, in his examination of the E38 unit, in ascer- taining goals which were presented in a logical sequence according to preplanned skill and process outcomes.10 In a more detailed analysis, Appel and Stolte (1970) 9Sara Delamont, Interaction in the Classroom (London: Metheun and Co. Ltd., 1976) pp. 47948. loNicodemus, p. 173. ranked seven elementary science programs according to a four category rating scale on three criteria: curriculum aSpects, instructional aspects, and practical aspects.11 ESS was found deficient in the following curriculum aspects: Goals of the program are behaviorally oriented. The structure of the materials is conceptually oriented. Concepts and processes are integrated and form a heirarchy. Concepts are organized around constructs which provide the possibility for going beyond the subject matter of science as Opposed to being organized around conceptual schemes. Content from physical and biological sciences are introduced at all levels.1 Most often ESS unit development interpretation is left in the hands of the classroom teacher as an individual. Goals are established, lessons prepared and teacher-made tests are produced. The lack of materials and resources and the lack of time to utilize what materials and resources are available makes the classroom teacher's job difficult if not impossible. It is essential to identify the goals and objectives for a unit of study prior to developing evaluative measures. Educators in California recognized this need in the E83 program and have defined the goals and objectives in an 11Marilyn Appel and Joanne Stolte, Assessment of Existing Elementary Sgience Programs, U. S. Edficational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 062 163, June, 1970. 12Appel and Stolte, p. 4. evaluation guide published by the California Test Bureau, McGraw-Hill (1974).13 The California Test Bureau effort has provided some structure and a means for defining content along with providing baseline information to measure student outcomes for the E88 units. In addition to a need for a more careful articula- tion of goals and objectives for E88 units and the subse- quent evaluation instruments, there is a need for planning of inquiry activities. Victor (1974) outlines this need in the following statement: Learning by inquiry is centered around a series of problem-solving investigations that actively involve the children. This calls for careful planning on the part of the teacher. The teacher must plan problem situations that will ipztiate pup11 cur1os1ty, 1nterest and quest1ons. Planning for inquiry should also take into con- sideration the need for supplies and materials for the activities. It may be necessary to outline these needs carefully because of the problem of funding. Welch (1981) indicates, in a compilation of various surveys comparing the "desired" and "actual" status of inquiry in science classes. He reports that the desired state is for student 13William Aho et al., The McGraw-Hill Evaluation Program for E88 (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,_1974). l4Edward Victor, "The Inquiry Approach to Teaching and Learning: A Primer for Teachers," Science and Children, XII (October, 1974), 23. 15W’ayne W. Welch et al., "The Role of Inquiry in Science Education: Analysis and Recommendations," Science Education, LXV (January-March, 1981), 33-50. exposure to process/inquiry activities in all science courses. Contrary to this expectation, Welch finds that the actual status in the elementary schools includes the following problems limiting inquiry instruction: low priority to science by superintendents, therefore low financing; and process and inquiry exist in the elementary schools but many teachers cannot teach science or do not try.16 Beam and Horvat (1975) identify an additional variable for consideration relative to the curriculum implementation process.17 They outline the nature of this variable, which is concerned with the teacher's vieWpoint in the following statement: In the new science curricula, classroom teachers should implement learning activities in a fashion consistent with the project's philosophy. But the implementing process may be short-circuited if teachers are unaware their classroom behaviors significantly differ from their own ideal behavior.l8 Tyler (1968) is also supportive of research which includes teacher perceptions of their teaching behavior as noted in the following statement: 16Welch et al., p. 48. 17Kathryn J. Beam and Robert E. Horvat, "Differences, Among Teachers' and Students' Perceptions of Science Classroom Behaviors, and Actual Behaviors," Science Education,LIX (July-September, 1975), 333. 18Beam and Horvat, p. 333. Investigations are needed of the conceptions teachers actually have of the objectives they are trying to attain in connection with particular units, what behavior they are trying to get students to carry on, how they try to stimulate and guide the behavior, and how successes are rewarded. In summary, there is a need for student evalua- tion instruments for "new science programs" including the ESS program. In addition there is a need to delineate goals and objectives for ESS units so that the focus of evaluation can be outlined. Researchers have determined that deficiencies in the ESS program involve process, content and conceptual aspects of the curriculum. There is also a need to apply inquiry plans in the revision of ESS science units which will provide a means to achieve the goals and objectives for the units and which take into consideration the vieWpoints of teachers and students. This process should also assist teachers in their planning and in delimiting unit material requirements. 19RalphW. Tyler, "Resources, Models and Theory in the Improvement of Research in Science Education," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V (1967-68), pp. 43-51. 10 Purpose The major purposes of this study include: (1) the selection of an existing inquiry model through which a "script" providing structure to science units can be developed; (2) determination of the goals and objectives for a single ESS unit thereby establishing intended learning outcomes and material requirements for the unit; (3) the application of the revised unit in an instructional setting to evaluate student and teacher perceptions, behaviors, student achievement and student-teacher interaction. It is expected that the revision process will suggest a model for revising other science and mathematics units. Furthermore, it is expected that the model will be of particular benefit to curriculum planners, local school districts, and classroom teachers who desire to foster the development of inquiry science programs in the elementary school. Procedurally, this study will seek to achieve these goals. First, identify, through a review of the literature, common elements of inquiry science teaching methods which can be utilized in modifying ESS unit; second, demonstrate that the inquiry model is a useful means to represent the goals and objectives of an ESS science unit in an instructional setting; third, analyze teaching and learning variables which can be utilized in a unit revision plan. 11 Statement of Research Questions The primary purpose of this study is to revise an Elementary Science Study Unit utilizing an existing inquiry plan, apply the revised unit in an instructional setting, and analyze student and teacher variables in that setting. It is expected that the unit modification process will suggest a model for revising other math and science units. A major concern in any such research is the establishment of reliability and validity of instrumenta- tion. Instrumentation should render consistent results and measure that which it purports to measure. General research questions such as the following should be answered: 1. What effects will the application of a modified ESS unit (inquiry script) have on student's active participation in science lessons? 2. What will be the effect of this unit- modification on the amount of time students spend in laboratory activities? 3. What will be the effect of this unit- modification on the nature and frequency of teacher questioning? 4. What is the relationship between teachers' observed talk and their perceptions of teacher talk during use of the scripted materials? 12 5. What is the relationship between students' observed activity levels and their perceptions of activity levels during use of the scripted materials? 6. Have students demonstrated achievement of the goals and objectives of the modified ESS unit? 7. Is the student achievement test reliable and valid? 8. What deviations from the script were observed and what are the implications of these deviations to the script? 9. Using a classification of questions, how frequently are the various kinds of questions asked? 10. What information from end of the unit evaluations, teacher logs, and interviews with teachers indicates need for further revision of the unit? Definition of Terms The terms employed in this chapter and elsewhere in this study can be defined in a variety of ways. The following definitions have been selected for use in this study. Activity A lesson focusing on a particular science of math concept, skill and/or rule, characterized by launch, exploration, and summary phases. The activities of the 13 unit require children to engage in the manipulation of materials.20 ACI Observations The set of observations utilizing the interaction analysis instrument Activity Categories Index (ACI). The observations conducted in the classrooms of all teachers participating in the study and focusing on student activity, laboratory time and teacher questioning aspects of science activities.21 Activity Ratio A measure of the relative amount of time spent teaching with indirect activities. The amount of time students are actively involved in their learning. The activity ratio is derived from data collected using the ACI.22 (see Appendix C). No. of intervals assigned to categories l,2,3,4,5, & 6 Activity Ratio = No. Of’ifitervaIs assigned to categories 8,9, & 10 20WilliamM. Fitzgerald and Janet Shroyer, "A Study of the Learning and Teaching of Growth Relationships in the Sixth Grade," (unpublished research study, Depart- ment of Mathematics, Michigan State University, 1979), pp. 3-4. 21Harrie E. Caldwell, "Activity Categories: A Mbdel for Planning and Evaluating Science Lessons," School Science and Math, LXXXI (January, 1971), 55. 22Harrie E. Caldwell, Evaluation of In-Service Science Methods Course by Systematic ObServation of C1assroom.Activitie§, Educational Resources InfOrmation Center, ERICIDocument ED 024 615, September, 1967, pp. 10-12. 14 Challenge Problem.focus of a science or math activity intended to motivate and orient the problem-solver (child). The challenges are associated with each activity of the script.23 Deviation Teachers were asked to record their digressions from the script on teacher logs. Deviations in the study are represented by observed or reported departures from the plans or content of the script. ESS'Unit Refers to the "Peas & Particles" unit which was modified for use in this study and is one of the 56 science units produced by the Educational Development Center as part of the Elementary Science Studngrogram. Exploration Phase The time period in each activity when the students in small groups or individually pursue the problem solution throughmanipulation of materials. During this phase the teacher moves about the room.maintaining on-task behavior by assisting, correcting, prodding and offering extra challenges to those students who are ready and interested to further their understanding and knowledge.24 23Fitzgerald and Shroyer, p. 5. 24Fitzgerald and Shroyer, p. 7. 15 Laboratory Ratio This represents the amount of time spent with laboratory activities in an elementary science class. The laboratory ratio is derived from data collected using the ACI.25 (see Appendix C). No. of intervals afsigged to categories 0. of intervals assigned to all ten categories Laboratory Ratio = N LaunchinggPhase The time period in each activity when the whole class meets and the teacher introduces the activity. This time is used to clarify new concepts and review old ones, to ensure that the task, information and directions are understood, and to issue the major challenge.26 Observation-Interview The set of observations focusing on deviations from the script and teacher questioning categories and fre- quency during each of the three activity phases. These observations were video-taped, included three teachers, and covered the entire modified science unit. Observer-Training_ This pertains to training in the use of the ACI observation instrument. Five math-science consultants were 25Caldwell, pp. 10-12. 26Fitderald and Shroyer, p. 7. 16 trained in the use of the ACI prior to the study. (see Appendix C). Questioning_Ratio A measure of the amount of time teachers spend asking questions with respect to the total amount of time they spend talking. The questioning ratio is derived from data collected using the ACI.27 (see Appendix C). No. of intervals asgigned to category Questioning Ratio = No. of intervals assigned to category 7 & 10 Script (Inquiry Script) A written plan outlining specific activities for teaching a set of related rules and concepts in a science or mathematics unit. Fitderald and Shroyer (1979) refer to the script as a "flexible instructional network of activities. A trip-p1an--a marked map with comments from someone familiar with the route."28 Story Problems Six "real world" problems were included with activities in the script. The story problems represent pupil cues to specific counting methods and are related to activity challenges. (see Appendix A). 27Caldwell, pp. 10-12. 28Janet Shro er, "The MOuse and the Elephant: an Application Unit,’ The Oregon Mathematics Teacher, (February, 1979) 10. 17 Student Perceppions Student ideas concerning their level of involve- ment in science lessons and their preference for school subjects. A student perception form was used to collect this information.29 (see Appendix D). SummaryAPhase The time period in each activity when the teacher and the whole class meet to summarize and evaluate data. Patterns are established and rules are discussed and verified with further example.30 Task—Interview Interviews with selected students prior to and subsequent to exposure to the scripted unit. The purpose of the interviews is to evaluate student knowledge of counting methods presented in the unit. Teacher Lpg The daily record of activities recorded by the classroom teachers during use of the script. Teachers were asked to record the length of each activity phase, note their deviations from the script and student discoveries, and rate student enthusiasm and interest. 29Robert M. Baker, "A Study of the Effects of A Selected Set of Science Teaching Materials (Elementary Science Study) on Classroom Instructional Behaviors," (unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Rochester, 1970). 30Fitzgerald and Shroyer, p. 7. 18 Teacher Perceptions Teacher views concerning the level of student involvement in science lessons and their awareness of student subject preference. A teacher perception form was used to collect this information. (see Appendix E). Teacher Training Two workshop meetings conducted with twelve teachers introducing them to both the scripted unit (Peas & Particles) and the process of unit modification. (see Appendix A). Unit Achievement Test The 36 item multiple-choice instrument constructed to evaluate student achievement. A table of Specification grid establishes the validity of the test items relative to unit goals and objectives. (see Appendix H). Assumptions and Limitations It was assumed that the student behaviors described and analyzed in the study are representative of their usual behavior during science instruction and that science lessons conducted by teachers before use of the script are representative of their usual science teaching. In addition, it was assumed that a review of the relevant elementary science literature would reveal common elements of inquiry teaching situation at that level. While inquiry dimensions were manifest in the literature, they certainly do not exhaust all possibilities. Sources unknown to or 19 not utilized by the author might yield additional and valid inquiry models. The study is limited to one school district in New York State. The teachers in this study have been randomly selected from the pOpulation of fourth grade teachers in one suburban school district; therefore, the sample is not representative of all fourth grade teachers. However, the random selection of fourth grade teachers may allow generalizations to fourth grade teachers using similar materials in equivalent school settings. The student population employed in this study represent intact classrooms or units. They are gg£_drawn randomly. The method used in assigning students to class- rooms in the school district in which the study was conducted was, essentially, random. It is, therefore, assumed that the "typical" classroom students in the study were heterogeneous in terms of demographic variables, school achievement, intelligence, and similar to the general community in which they lived. The nonrandom selection process mitigates the generalization of findings. This study will examine only the behavior of teachers and students using Elementary Science Study materials during science instruction. The outcomes should not be compared to science instruction utilizing different materials. The interpretation of results should be extended beyond elementary science instructional settings. Since the study proposes to examine only verbal 20 behavior of teachers and students, and the activity and laboratory levels of fourth grade classroom settings during science instruction, findings cannot be equated to non- verbal behaviors observed during science instruction. Plan of the Study, The design and results of this study are reported in five chapters. Chapter I includes a statement of the problem, a statement of research questions, and the assump- tions and limitations emanating from the research design. Contained in Chapter II is a review of selected aSpects of elementary science inquiry research and research relevant to the Elementary Science Study curriculum. The chapter includes a review of observational instruments used in elementary science instructional settings. Included in Chapter III is a detailed discussion of unit develOpment, student test develOpment and variables used in the study. In addition, the hypotheses of the study are examined, the research population described, and analysis procedures indicated. PreSented in Chapter IV is a detailed analysis and discussion of the data. Included in Chapter V are the summary, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The literature reviewed in this chapter is divided into three major sections. The first concerns inquiry as it relates to elementary science. Emphasis is placed in determining those characteristics of inquiry models which are well suited to modifying Elementary Science Study (ESS) units. The second section deals with the nature and find- ings of research which employs ESS curriculum materials as the primary science instructional content system. Section three reviews the research studies in elementary science which apply interaction analysis instruments to determine the level of student involvement in their own learning. Inquiry The literature concerning inquiry in elementary science is separated into four areas: (1) historical back- ground and related inquiry terminology in elementary science; (2) characteristics of the inquiry setting; (3) studies dealing with student attitudes and involvement; and (4) studies describing several plans for inquiry. Included is a discussion of their relevance to the development of materials for teachers and students in the present study. 21 22 Historical Background Historically, science inquiry at the elementary level can be traced to the beginning of the twentieth century. A major work of this time, which describes inquiry through the construction of a model or thought, was John Dewey's, How We Think. At the base of Dewey's model are "chains of reflec- tive thought," which consist of a series of consecutively ordered ideas. Dewey maintains that each idea determines the outcome of the next while each outcome leans back on its predecessors for support, building logically toward resolution of a problem.1 Dewey maintains that phases of reflective thinking exist which include: 1. State of doubt, hesitation, perplexity, mental difficulty in which thinking originates. 2. An act of searching, hunting, inquiring to find material to resolve the doubt, settle and dispose of the perplexity.2 In a further analysis of reflective thinking Dewey outlines an interdependent network of inquiry phases which serve to resolve this perplexity. He states: 1. Suggestions, in which the mind leaps forward to a possible solution; 2. an intellectualization of the difficulty or perplexity that has been felt (directly experienced) into a problem to be solved, a question for which the answer must be sought; 3. the use of one suggestion after another as a leading idea, or hypOthesis, to 1John Dewey, How We Think (Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 1910), p. 4. 2Dewey, p. 12. 23 initiate and guide observation and other Operations in collection of factual material; 4. the mental elaboration of the idea or supposition (reasoning, in the sense in which reasoning is a part, not the whole, of inference); 5. testing the hypothesis by overt or imaginative action. The influence of Dewey's problem solving methodoloe gies is noted by Herbert Smith (1963) who states: Dewey's contributions were numerous, but, per- haps the most significant for the develOping field of elementary science was his contention that the methodology of science is at least Of equal-~or perhaps of greater--significance than the knowledge accumulated. The present emphasis on "science as inquiry" would seem to be a reaffirmation of a position Dewey took nearly half a century ago. In 1932 the National Society for the Study of Educa- tion devoted its thirty-first yearbook to the problems of science education emphasizing concern for inquiry in- elementary science education: The schools will prepare children for their responsibilities by providing experiences with a body of subject matter 1. that has been tested for truthfulness, 2. that exercises the methods that have been used in solving problems, and 3. that furnishes practice in the use of these methods..."5 3Dewey, p. 107. 4Herbert A. Smith, "Historical Background Of Ele- mentary Science," Readings in Science Education for the Elementary School, ed. Edward Victor andTMarjorie S. Lerner7(3d. ed.; New York: MacMillan, 1975), pp. 6-7. 5Guy MOntrose Whipple, ed., "What are some of the contributions Of Science to Liberal Education," A Program for TeachingflScience, Thirpy-First Yearbook of the NatiOnal SOciety for the Study_of Educationl Part I, (Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1932), p. 401 24 Reference to inquiry was equally evident in a simi- lar volume published by the National Society for the Study of Education in 1947, as indicated in the following state- ment. '...ample provision should be made for the utilization of the elements Of the scientific method in the solution Of problems."6 More recently, the fifty-ninth yearbook, prepared by the National Society for the Study of Education, in 1960 is devoted to science education. The report, emphasizing "process or inquiry" rather than the accumulation of factual knowledge, is indicative of the change that was occurring in elementary science.7 The report states: One function of the elementary school has always been to help children learn a part of what they need to know from the world's storehouse of knowledge. In recent years this function has embraced more and more science. 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.8 6Nelson B. Henry, ed., "Materials and Methods of Teaching Science in the Elementary School, Science Educa- tion in American Schools, Forty-Sixth Yearbook ofifhe National Society for the’Study Of EducatiOpJIPart If (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947), p. 105. 7Nelson B. Henry, ed., "Developing Science Pro- grams in the Elementary School," Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-Ninth Yearbook Of'Ehe National Sociepy for the Study of EducatiOn, Part I (Chicago: University OfChicagO Press, I960)? pp. ll2-Il3. 8Henry, pp. 112-113. 25 The new emphasis on the inquiry process occurred when teams of scientists and educators began altering the course of elementary science curriculum.9 In a statement about "science as inquiry," William Kessen (1963) writes: "Science is more than a body of facts, a collection of principles, and a set Of machines for measurement; it is a structured and directed way Of asking and answering questions."10 The result Of these efforts is demonstrated by science materials produced during the decade Of the 1960's. Paul DeH. Hurd (1964) refers to some Of the major science curriculum studies in the following statement: At the elementary level, curriculum studies developed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Educational Services Incorporated, the University of California, the University of Illinois, the Maine Math Science Project, the School Mathematics Study Group, and the United States Office Of Education hiye offered new insights into science teaching. 9American Association for the Advancement Of Science, Commentary for Teachers: Science-A Process Approach, (Xerox Corp., 1963), p. 2. 10William Kessen, "Statement Of Purposes and Ob- jectives of Science Education in Schools, "Commentary for Teachers: Science A Process Approach, AmeriEan ASsociation for the Advancement Of Science (Xerox Corp., 1963), p. 2. 11Paul DeH. Hurd, "Toward a Theory of Science Education Consistent with Modern Science, "Readinggin Science Education for the Elementary School, Ed. Edward Victor and Marjorie S. Lerner (3rd ed.; New York: MacMillan, 1975), p. 21. 26 Brehm (1968) suggests that among the reasons for these new programs are the influence of high school revi- sions, the explosion of knowledge, new advances in learning theory, the involvement of elementary educators in a "grass- roots" process of curriculum development, the need to keep in touch with emerging knowledge, and the encouragement from scientists for curricular change.12 Brehm.notes that one Of the common elements shared by all Of these programs: A similarity between these exPerimental programs is the change in emphasis from science as a content subject to science as a "skill" subject as well. The skill in this case has been variously labeled critical thinking, problem-solving, discovery approach, or even creative thinking in science.13 InquiryTerminology The words problem-solving, discovery, guided dis- covery, and inquiry are important terms in the language of elementary science education. An inspection Of the litera- ture indicates that they are Often used interchangeably in elementary science education. Researchers have analyzed meaning and application Of these terms and certain distinc- tions can be made. For example, Kornbau (1977) in an . analysis of the words "discovery" and inquiry" concludes 12Shirley A. Brehm, "The Impact Of Experimental Programs on Elementary School Science, "Readingin Science for the Elementary School, ed. Edward Victor and Marjorie S. Lerner (3d edT; New York: MacMillan, 1975), pp. 181-185. 13Brehm, p. 186. 27 the following: "discovery is differentiated from tradi- tional teaching in placing emphasis on the student as an active agent."14 He continues, "the process evolves into a state of self learning."15 In contrast Kornbau asserts: Inquiry implies the asking Of questions. One form is exemplified by the teacher asking all the questions, as typified in the Socratic method. Another form casts the student in the role of principal interrogator. Suchman (1977) indicates that goal setting repre- sents a major difference between problem-solving and inquiry. In problem-solving the goal is set by an outside agent such as the teacher, whereas in inquiry the learner sets his own goals.17 Robert Glaser (1966) in discussing variables of discovery learning states that, ...learning by discovery is defined usually as teaching an association, concept or rule whiCh involves 'discovery' of the association, concept or rule."18 14Charles Harrison Kornbau, "The Practical Implica- tions of an Informal Conceptual Analysis of the WOrds Inquiry and Discovery as Used in Contemporary Science Education," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVII (1977), 7662A (Tempie University). 15Ibid. 15Ibid. 17J. Richard Suchman, "Heuristic Learning and Science Education," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XIV (May, 1977), 263-272. 18Robert Glaser, "Variables of Discovery Learning," Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal, ed. Lee S. Shulman and Evan Keislar (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966), pp. 15-26. 28 Jerome Bruner (1961) asserts that "Discovery... is in its essence a matter of rearranging or transforming evidence in such a way that one is enabled to go beyond the evidence so reassembled to additional new insights.19 Gagne (1974) draws a distinction between discovery and inquiry in the following statement: Discovery appears to be a very fundamental principle Of good instruction. It applies to all conceptual learning, the learning of principles and generalizations, and may even apply to the learning of a simpler sort such as the memorization of names or facts. But discovery, as a very funda- mental condition Of most learning, should not be equated with enquiry, which is the exercise of all the various activities making up what we have identified as the terminal capability. 0 Gagne refers to the "terminal thinking process" as inquiry with "discovery" representing one of the possible instructional conditions utilized by the learner to attain this goal.21 Robert Gagne (1974) discusses discovery learning in the context Of learning a rule. He outlines that when students are provided with several practical examples, each of which fits a particular rule, that a fair proportion of l9Jerome S. Bruner, "The Act of Discovery," Read— ings in Science Education for the Elementary School, ed. Edward Victor and Marjorie S. Lerner (3d edf; New York: MacMillan, 1975), p. 79. 20Robert M. Gagne, "The Learning Requirements for Enquiry," Readings in Science Education for the Elementary School, ed. Edward Victor andiMarjorie S. Lerner (3d ed.; New York: MacMillan, 1975), p. 96. 21Gagne, p. 97. 29 students would not recognize the rule being emphasized.22 To correct this, Gagne Offers alternatives which include more guidance toward discovery. They include the following: The teacher might proceed with the event by communicating the rule and have students provide examples. She might organize small homogeneous groups, thus facilitating guidance. Students might attain Objectives by spending more time recalling prerequisite skills and perhaps by receiving more detailed learning guidance, such as more hints or fuller prompts.2 Welch (1981), in a study of "the role of inquiry in science education,"24 defines inquiry in the following passage: We consider inquiry to be a general process by which human beings seek information or under- standing. Broadly conceived, inquiry is a way of thought. Scientific inquiry, a subset of general inquiry, is concerned with the natural world an is guided by certain beliefs and assumptions.25 Characteristics of the Inquiry Setting One aspect of the inquiry setting is the amount of teacher guidance evident. Hawkins (1970) indicates that, while a plan for inquiry is necessary, children's discover- ies need not be limited to a pre-set agenda. He refers to this as a "multiply programmed" learning situation, in which 22Robert M. Gagne, Essentials of Learning for Instruction, Principles of Educational PsychologySeries, Ed. William and Carol Rohwer (Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1974), p. 126. 23Gagne, p. 127. 24wayne W. Welch, et al., "The Role of In uiry in Science Education: Analysis and Recommendations,' Science Education, LXV (January-March, 1981), 33-50. 25Welch, et al., p. 33. 30 materials are available which the student will recognize as helping him along in evolving his own way of approaching a subject.26 In contrast to Hawkins, Gagne, a prOponent Of guided discovery, states that "discovery without guidance makes the learning of concepts a terribly slow process."27 Gagne describes situations where guidance may be minimized or non-existent. In Essentials of Learning_for Instruction, he gives the following example: When working with a group of bright students applying newly learned arithmetic rules of verbally stated examples, the teacher may find it desirable to provide a minimal amount of guidance, or none at all, and thus emphasize "discovery learning."28 Similar to Gagne, Ausubel (1963) emphasizes time as an element of guidance in stating that: Autonomous discovery enhances intuitive under- standing, but as a primary method of transmitting subject matter content, this approach is much too time consuming and inefficient simply on a time- cost basis.2 26David Hawkins, "Messing About in Science," The ESS Reader, Educational DevelOpment Center (Newton, Ma.: Educational Development Center, Inc., 1970), pp. 37-44. 27Robert M. Gagne, "Varieties of Learning and the Concept of Discovery," Learning by Discovery: A Critical A raisal, ed. Lee S. Shulman and Evan Keislar (Chicago: Rind McNally, 1966), pp. 135-150. 28Robert M. Gagne, Essentials Of Learning for InstruCtiOn, Principles of EducatiOnal PSychOlogy‘Series, ed. William and Carol Rohwer (Hinsdale, Illinois: The Dryden Press, 1974), p. 113. 29David P. Ausubel, "Some Psychological Considera- tions in the Objectives and Design of an Elementary Science Program," Science Education, XLVII, (April, 1973), 278-284. 31 In all forms Of inquiry there exists a time for guidance, a time for structure. Hawkins refers to the value of summarizing and extending ideas through teacher-student dialogue in, ...the full colloquium Of children and teacher,"30 and the need for guiding questions during the "multiply programmed" phase of the learning environment.31 A second characteristic Of the inquiry learning situation concerns the student's ability to recognize a problem. Hudgins (1966) states that identification of a problem is prerequisite to its solution.32 According to Hudgins the teacher must assist students in recognizing that previously learned behavior may be useful toward solu- tion of new problems, that the demands of a problem suggest the general dimensions Of a solution, and the required properties for solution are available.33 Huff (1977) contends that educators' misconcep- tions or neglect for the role of the problem is one Of the serious errors Of inquiry instruction. The result Of this is incomplete inquiry teaching.34 30Hawkins, pp. 37-44. 31Ibid. 3ZBryce B. Hudgins, Problem Solving in the Class- room, The Psychological Foundations Of Educafion'Series (New York: MacMillan, 1966), p. 2. 33Hudgins, pp. 2-3. 34James W. Huff, "The Concept of a Problem in Inquiry Teaching," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVIII (1978), 2641 (University Of CalifOrnia, Los Angeles, 1978). 32 Freundlich (1978) outlines several factors which assist the student in the recognition of a problem. He encourages educators to present problems in a context stu- dents are familiar with and which utilize conceptual schemes already possessed by the learner. Freundlich asserts, "A clearly formulated problem itself directs us to 'reasonable' methods for its solution."35 Several studies focus on the questioning patterns of both teacher and students as a factor in inquiry settings beside finding out what pupils know. Arthur Carin (1970) lists the following as additional purposes for teachers' questions: 1. to arouse interest or motivate children. 2. to evaluate a pupil's preparation or to see if previous work has been mastered. 3. to review or summarize what has been taught. 4. to develop insights by helping children see new relationships. 5. to stimulate critical thinking and develOpment Of questioning attitude. 6. to stimulate pupils to seek out additional knowledge on their own.35 Carin, in outlining strategies for improving teachers questions, adds that part of the lesson should be devoted to divergent and/or convergent questions. Divergent question- ing should be utilized to broaden the line of exploration 35Yehudah Freundlich, "The Problem in Inquiry," The Science Teacher, XLV, (February, 1978), 19-22. 36Arthur Carin, "Techniques for DevelOping Discovery Questioning Skills," Science and Children, VII, (April, 1970), 13-15. 33 and may be thought of as productive questions. Convergent questioning should be utilized in focusing on the answer to a specific problem and may be thought of as questions leading toward closure.37 Studies dealing with teacher questioning are usually concerned with teachers' use Of higher cognitive questions. Redfield and Rousseau (1981) use the following definition to discern questioning type: Higher cognitive or divergent questions are those requiring that the student mentally manipu- late bits of information previously learned to create or support an answer with logically reasoned evidence. Operations presumed to underlie responses to higher cognitive questions most closely corres- pond tO application analysis, synthesis, and evaluation in Bloom's taxonomy. Lower cognitive or convergent questions are defined as those calling for verbatim recall or recognition of factual information preViously read or presented by a teacher. Those questions correspond most closely to the levels of knowledge and comprehen- sion in Bloom's taxonomy. Researchers, utilizing Observation techniques, have established questioning categories other than those developed by Bloom. Bassett (1971) employs the following question types in a study dealing with the oral questioning 37Carin, pp. 13-15. 33Doris L. Redfield and Elaine W. Rousseau, "A Meta-Analysis of Experimental ReSearch on TeaCher Question- ing Behavior," Review of Educational ReSearch, ed. Laurence Iannaccone and James W. PelIegrinO, LI (Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1981), pp. 237- 245. AL 118 qd‘ ‘ 5 id -5 Ts ~.\U r\ ~.(.~ ”\U ‘15. 5!; v 34 process in elementary science classrooms: 1. Neutral, 2. Rhetorical, 3. Factual, 4. Clarifying, 5. Associative, 6. Critical Thinking, and 7. Value.39 Johnson (1969) develops a model providing feedback for teachers to analyze their questioning levels. Johnson concludes: That certain lesson formats, particularly stu- dent investigations, were more instrumental in setting the conditions for teachers to ask questions above the level of pupil recall. Patterning and purposeful sequencing of questions were germane to the develOpment of effective questioning strategies. Kondo (1968) uses five question types including routine, cognitive-memory, convergent, evaluative, and divergent to analyze the questioning behavior of teachers in discovery vs. invention lessons in elementary science.41 39Jimmy F. Bassett, "An Analysis of the Oral Questioning Process and Certain Causal Relationships in the Elementary School Science Classroom," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXII (1972), 5080A (East Texas State University, 1971). 40Robert Walter Johnson, "A MOdel for Improving Inservice Teacher Questioning Behavior in Elementary School Science Instruction," Dissertation Abstracts International, (1970), 1666A (Wayne State University, I969). 41Allan Kiichi Kondo, "A Study of the Questioning Behavior of Teachers in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study Teaching the Unit Material Objects," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXIX (1969), 2040A (Columbia University,l968). 35 Kondo maintains that, "the way the lesson is approached has a greater influence on the type of questions asked than the type of lesson per se." He suggests that when the teacher is demonstrating or conducting a hands-on investigation along with the children that, "the percentages Of routine questions are relatively low and the percentages of cognitive-memory questions are relatively high.42 Hypothesis formation is another important character- istic of inquiry. Quinn and George (1975) suggest that, "contemporary models for the teaching of science place the formation of hypothesis high among the skills necessary for problem solving."43 Rachelson (1977), views the term hypothesis as, "...an imaginative preconception of what might be true in the form of a declaration with verifiable deductive conse- quences."44 He suggests that "a complete model Of sciene tific inquiry must include descriptions of both hypothesis generation and testing."45 Rachelson identifies five 42Kondo, p. 2040A. 43Mary Ellen Quinn and Kenneth D. George, "Teaching Hypothesis Formation," Science Education, LIX (July- September, 1975), 289-296. 44Stan Rachelson, "A Question of Balance: A Whol— istic View of Scientific Inquiry," Science Education, LXI, (January-March, 1977), 109-117. see also P. B. Medawar, Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought, (Philadel- phia: American PhiIOsOphical Society, 1968). 45Rachelson, p. 109. 36 elements of hypothesis generation: 1. The hypothesis generation component arises from a problematic situation and after fruitless analysis of the problem. 2. Hypothesis generation proceeds via a voluntary abstention from conscious thought on the problem. 3. Hypothesis generation is a diffuse, nonlinear and imaginary process which is not guided by explicit methodological rules. 4. Hypotheses are generated in a variety of for- mats and are not restricted by the element of time. 5. Hypothesis generation is synthetic, wholistic information processing strategy. Atlin (1958) in a study concerning the formulation and testing of hypotheses among elementary school pupils and concludes that children are capable of employing a variety Of sources when hypothesizing, such as authority, Observa- tion, and "original"guess.47 These sources can be utilized by encouraging children to eValuate them, select the best, and improve their problem solving capabilities.48 Student Attitude and Involvement Additional aspects of the inquiry setting noted by many researchers as crucial to the elementary school science 45Rachelson, p. 115. 47J. Myron Atkin, "A Study of Formulating and Suggesting Tests for Hypotheses in Elementary School Science Learning Experiences," Science EduCation, XLII (December, 1958), 414-424. 48Atkin, p. 424. 37 classroom include commitment, cooperation, and attitude. Viewing the learner both as initiator of questions and lines Of inquiry may be important factors if successful problem solving is to occur. Nash (1966) states, "...the most active role in education is not the teacher's but the student's.”+9 The role Of the teacher as leader is to evoke commitment by guiding students' endeavors, through example and demonstration. Most importantly the teacher assists students in seeing that the problems are not only soluble but worth solving.50 Tjosvold and Santamaria (1978) extend the theme Of cooperation into the areas of commitment and decision- making in an inquiry situation. In their study, a COOpera- tive learning structure is reinforced for students by informing them that: (A) Their goal was to learn together. (B) They were to share and help each other learn the material. (C) They should discuss and list their ideas together. (D) They would take a group test in which each person would contribute to the answers. 49Leonard K. Nash, "Teachers Don't Teach," Harvard Alumni Bulletin, (September 30, 1966), 22-23. 50Nash, p. 23. 51Dean Tjosvold and Philip Santamaria, "Effects of Cooperation and Teacher Support on Student Attitudes Toward Decision Making in the Elementary Science Classroom," Journal Of ReSearch in Science Teaching, XV (May, 1978), 381-385. 38 The goal set for the students in the competitive group, in the Tjosvold-Santamaria study, includes learning the material better than the others in their group, working independently, not sharing ideas, and taking a test to see who learned the most.52 Students in the COOperative group are also encouraged to make their own decisions and are told that they are capable of making good decisions. The results Of the study indicate that teachers can facilitate confi- dence and commitment to decision making by directly support- ing student competence and that they can increase children's positive expectations about decision-making by creating COOperative learning environments.53 In another study, dealing with the subject of co- Operation, Johnson (1976) finds that students working in a laboratory-inquiry format perceive themselves in a COOpera- tive venture with other students.54 In this study, Johnson compared three groups all using "newer" science materials. The instructional modes of the three groups included "traditional" or textbook only, text and laboratory, and laboratory inquiry. Johnson also notes that students in all three groups show a preference for cooperation, with 52Tjosvold and Santamaria, p. 382. 53Tjosvold and Stnatmaria, p. 384. 54Roger T. Johnson, "The Relationship Between COOPeration and Inquiry in Science Classrooms," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XIII (January, 1976), 55-63. AU A\U 1 5. :J 39 those in the lab-inquiry group indicating significantly greater enjoyment Of their learning situation.55' The effect of cooperation is highlighted in the following statement by Johnson: Examination of research on the effects Of class- room goal structures indicates that cooperation results in higher achievement than competition in studies involving some type Of problem-solving activity.56 Current inquiry science programs express a need for and the expectation of the development Of favorable atti- tudes toward science.S7 Johnson, Ryan and Schroeder (1974) compare the effects of three different teaching situations on the attitudes of sixth grade students toward science. The three treatments are (a) textbook only, (b) textbook and supporting laboratory activities, and (c) activity centered Open-ended inquiry.58 Their results support the activity centered Open- ended inquiry situation as having the most positive effects on student attitude. They also suggest that there is no significant loss of attitude when textbook reading is mixed with laboratory activity. An additional finding is that the activity group students exhibit more divergent thinking 55Johnson, p. 62. 56Johnson, p. 56. 57Roger T. Johnson, Frank L. Ryan and Helen Schroeder, "Inquiry and the Development of Positive Attitudes," Science Education, LVIII (January-March, 1974), 51-56. S8Johnson, Ryan, and Schroeder, p. 52. 40 in their eXperimenting and comments.59 Inquiry Plans Richard Suchman's Inquiry Development Program represents an oral inquiry plan. Suchman's plan relies on visual or demonstrated discrepant events. These events are used to motivate students by upsetting their concept Of how things should be. This is intended to stimulate their curiosity enough to follow a line Of verbal inquiry toward resolution of the discrepancy. The teacher's role is to guide questioning and assist students by pointing out important aSpects in lines of inquiry.60 Suchman "...Our purpose in Inquiry training has been to states, help children develop a set of skills and broad schema for the investigation Of causal relationships.61 Mark and Salstrom (1972) used the Suchman plan in a comparison study with a gameboard technique stress- ing individual inquiry. In the gameboard method each child is told to select cards from a board which includes groups Of randomly arranged hypothesis-questions. Yes or no responses are recorded on the back Of each card and 59Johnson, Ryan, and Schroeder, p. 52. 60J. Richard Suchman, The Elementary School Training Program in Scientific Inquiry, (Champaign- Urbana, Illinois: 1962), pp. 1-25. 618uchman, p. 125. 41 serve as clues to the direction Of questioning.62 The re- sults of the study provide: evidence that students may require more guidance than can be provided through a Suchman type oral inquiry session. The findings also provide ten- tative support for the possibility of improving individual student conceptualization. Children may select their own route toward learning a concept through the additional cues provided by a set Of written questions.63 Drawbacks Of a verbal-inquiry model are outlined by Ivany (1969). Ivany suggests that verbal-inquiry models suffer from the lack Of a hands-on experience. He cites studies indicating "that from one-quarter to one-third of elementary students are prone to be dependent on kines- thetic rather than visual experiences for interpreting the environment."64 The major weakness, then, is relying too heavily on abstracting from a concrete situation by pre— senting only visual stimulation to the children. Ivany concludes, "a visual problem provides for some students what may be an impossible task at this age, (10-13 years) the demand that he think abstractly about the phenomenon. Provided with a concrete situation which he can actively 628. J. Mark and Davis Salstrom, "Use of a Science Game to Aid Conceptualization During a Sixth-Grade Guided Discovery Lesson,‘ Science Education, LVI (April-June, 1972), 155-161. 63Mark and Salstrom, p. 125. 64GeOrge Ivany, "The Assessment Of Verbal Inquiry in Junior High School Science," Science Education, L II (October, 19 9), 287-293. 42 manipulate allows him to participate in inquiry in a more meaningful manner."65 While there are apparent weaknesses in Suchman's plan, its merits as an oral questioning model include the following: 1. Concrete problems that are immediately intelligible to the learner. Freedom to perform data—gathering Operations. (By the inquirer) A responsive environment. Data is available and may be used by the inquirer at any time. Elimination of extrinsic rewards. The motiva- tion for inquiry should be intrinsic in the search Of itself. In another inquiry plan Atkin (1958) outlines a set of behaviors characteristic of many problem-solving situa- tions. These include: 1. Sensing a problem and deciding to find an answer to it. Defining the problem. Studying the situation for all factors on the problem. Making the best tentative hypothesis as to the solution to the problem. Selecting the most likely hypothesis. Testing the hypothesis. Drawing a conclusion. 65Ivany, p. 293. 66 Suchman, p. 127. 43 8. Making inferences based on this conclusion when facing new situations in which the same factors are Operating.67 Atkin stresses the flexibility of any plan which might including omitting steps from the list, omitting steps already present in the plan, or rearranging the order of these steps.68 Esler (1970) describes a set Of procedures for structuring inquiry for the classroom including presenting a discrepant event, a problem-solving event, an anecdote (with demonstration) or an invitation to inquiry (without demonstration). This last recommendation may take the form Of an anecdote, compilation of data, or pictorial stimulation.69 The teaching techniques he suggests in- clude teacher question-student answer, student question- teacher answer, or experimentation.7o Similarly Armstrong and Heikkinen (1977) call for the use of Open-ended 71 problems as a means for initiating inquiry. Fitzgerald and Shroyer (1979) have identified 67J. Myron Atkin, "A Study of Formulating and Suggesting Tests for Hypothesis in Elementary School Science Learning Experiences," Science Education, XLII (December, 1958), 414. 68Atkin, pp. 414—415. 69William K. Esler, "Structuring Inquiry for Class- room Use," School Science and Math, LXX (May, 1970), 454-458. 70Esler, p. 455. 71Terry Armstrong and Michael Heikkinen, "Initiat- ing Inquiry ThroughOpen-End Problems," Science and Children, XIV (March, 1977), 30—31. 44 three instructional phases for an inquiry plan used in a study concerning a sixth grade mathematics unit. The three phases include: launching, exploring, and summarizing.72 The phases are described as follows: a. Launching. Using whole class instruction, the teacher introduces the activity by clarifying the necessary new concepts and reviewing the Old ones, conducting a mini-challenge modeled after the major challenge to ensure that the task, information and directions are understood, and issuing the major challenge. b. Exploring. While the students are pursuing the solution to the challenge in small groups or in- dividually, the teacher moves about the room maintaining on-task behavior by assisting, correct- ing, prodding and offering extra challenges to those students who are reading and interested to further their understanding and knowledge. c. Summarizing. Returning to whole class in- struction, the teacher elicits and displays results in an organized fashion to encourage searching for patterns and relationships. Rules which are identified can be recorded in mathe- matical symbols and verified with further examples. 3 SUMMARY The review of the literature on inquiry suggests several generalizations regarding its role in elementary science education. Many Of the concerns relevant to in— quiry in elementary science over the past seventy years can 72William M. Fitzgerald and Janet Shroyer, "A Study of the Learning and Teaching of Growth Relationships in the Sixth Grade," (unpublished research study, Depart- ment of Mathematics, Michigan State University, 1979). 73Fitzgerald and Shroyer, pp. 6-7. 45 be traced back to the writings of John Dewey. MOre recent changes were born during the mid-fifties when scientists and educators across the country began develOping new curricula based on inquiry processes. Inquiry has been identified in a variety Of ways and its meaning is often interchanged or used with such terms as problem-solving, discovery and guided discovery. Broadly conceived, inquiry describes the process of seeking information and understanding. In the elementary science classroom setting inquiry implies the asking of questions by either the inquirer, the student, or the leader of inquiry, the teacher. Problem solving has been identified as inquiry with a pre-set goal established by the teacher. Discovery may represent an instructional condition emphasiz- ing the student as an active agent of inquiry. Guided dis- covery is understood to include a greater amount Of teacher control in the learning environment. Characteristics of inquiry include a combination of instructional conditions and learning strategies. Researchers have utilized various degrees Of guid- ance to assist students in the inquiry setting. Many agree that some guidance is necessary if students are to solve problems within a reasonable time and with some success. Another aspect of inquiry is the students' ability to reCognize a problem. Means for assisting students with problem reCognition include: presenting problems in a fam- iliar conteXt, looking for properties of the problem, and 46 making the student aware of the role of previously learned material. The nature of questioning is the distinguishing characteristic of inquiry. Various organizational schemes have been suggested which facilitate the structuring of questions to reflect higher leVels of cognitive under- standing. These models have led researchers to tentative conclusions about improving questioning techniques. Rec- ommendations include careful planning and sequencing of questions by the teacher. Hands-on or investigation type lessons also appear to be instrumental in setting the con- ditions for teachers to ask questions above the level of pupil recall. Hypothesis formation is also considered to be an important skill necessary for successful problem-solving. A hypothesis may be defined as a preconception of what might be true in the form of a declaration which must be verified and tested. Hypotheses may be generated in a variety of situations, not neCessarily according to any pre-set rules and are considered to be elements of an information proceSsing strategy. Apparently, children can improve their hypothesizing by analyzing their sources of hypotheSes with some selectivity. Laboratory-inquiry may be successful when groups Of children work together cooperatively to solve problems. When decision-making, commitment, and cooperation are 47 encouraged by the teacher, students may have positive atti- tudes toward the learning situation. The literature suggests that plans for inquiry share some common elements which include: 1. A challenge, discrepancy Of focus-setting event to motivate students. 2. A period of exploration, hypothesis generation and testing. 3. A time for summarizing, concluding and making inferences about situations similar to those Observed. 48 Elementary Science Study The review of the literature related to Elementary Science Study is conducted for the purpose of determining whether previous studies would reVeal recommendations concerning implementation, teacher training and evaluation Of ESS curriculum materials and methods. This section is separated into three areas: 1. Background information including historical information, and philOSOphical and psychological characteristics of the ESS program; 2. research dealing with teacher training, curriculum implementation, and evaluation; and reSearch comparing Elementary Science Study to other science curricu- lums. Background In 1960 the Elementary Science Study (ESS), spon- sored by the Educational DevelOpment Center, Inc., began to develOp material for science from kindergarten through the eighth grade.74 Unlike other elementary science programs, the mater— ials in ESS are "...not based on a specific theory Of how children learn, or on the logical structure Of science, or any concept of the needs of society."75 ESS has been 74Educational Development Center, The ESS Reader (Newton, Ma.: Educational Development Center, Inc., 1970). 75Robert E. Rogers and Alan M. VOelker, "Programs for Improving Instruction in the Elementary School," Science and Children, VII (January-February, 1970), 35-43. 49 described as the science program Of concrete and intuitive experiences, involving exploration and discovery.76 David Hawkins (1965) describes the program as ...ways Of learning that are concretely involving and esthetically rewarding, that move from play toward apprenticeship in work."77 Proponents Of ESS reject the idea that the program emphasizes any particular set of concepts or is organized around learning specific skills. Randolph R. Brown, Direc- tor Of ESS from 1967 to 1969, voices his concern about the direction of education in the following statement: The general emphasis on the mastery Of concepts, and skills to the almost total exclusion of perso- nal develOpment is one reason for such concern. We are more and more convinced that such mastery of preScribed skills, concepts, and techniques is only a shadow Of education and does not, by itself, encourage the development of drive or whatever else it is that distinguishes a committed person frgm.an indifferent one, a human from a machine. One of the most influential leaders of ESS from a philOSOphical vieWpOint is David Hawkins.79 In his work, "Messing About in Science, Hawkins describes a framework involving three phases for conducting science investigations. 76Rogers and Voelker, pp. 36-37. 77David Hawkins, "The Informed Vision: An Essay on Science Education," The ESS Reader (Newton, Ma.: Educa- tional DevelOpment Center, Inc., 1970) pp. 71-85. 78Randolph R. Brown, "Not Yet a Reform," The ESS Reader (Newton, Ma.: Educational DevelOpment Center, Inc., 1970) pp. 123—124. 79$ylvia Fogelquist Johnson, "A Cognitive Study Of an Elementary Teacher's First Experience Teaching A 'New Science' Unit and its Relevance to the Implementation of Science Programs," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1979) p. 27. 50 He stresses that the order of the three phases may be juxtaposed to reflect both the situation and the group con- ducting the study. The phases include "Messing About... Children are given materials and equipment--things and are allowed to construct, test, probe and experiment without superimposed questions or instructions."80 After a period Of free exploration children select routes for further in- vestigation. Each child or group Of children then proceeds to the next phase, called "multiply programmed." This phase is marked by exploration guided by questions or routes discovered during previous experiences. The third phase is described by Hawkins as a colloquium, where ideas, theories, practical insight founded on experience are shared. In an ecological way the phases are interdependent. The colloquium involves discussion between the teacher and child, child and child, and includes the formulation Of theories and ideas for further "multiply programmed" activities or toward an entirely different tOpic involving new material and more "messing about."81 Understanding the psychological factors affecting a curriculum is important in understanding its goals. Wideen (1975) suggests that ESS is identified with the "cognitive restructuring approach," which is associated with the work of Jerome Bruner. 80David Hawkins, "Messing About in Science," The ESS Reader (Newton, Ma.: Educational Development Center, Inc., 1970) pp. 37-44. 81Hawkins, pp. 38-44. 51 Bruner describes three develOpmental stages of cognitive growth in the child. The child matures to a point where he can internalize information and Operate mentally. An example of Bruner's cognitive restructuring concept is found in his description of an Operation. He states, "an Operation is a means Of getting data about the real world into the mind and there transforming them so that they can be organized and used selectively in the solution of problems."82 The three levels of maturation described by Bruner include: the enactive level, where the child manipulates materials directly; the iconic level, where the child deals with mental images and/or models; and the symbolic level, where the child manipulates symbols rather than mental images Of the Objects.83 Shulman (1968) describes Bruner's method as essen- tially the learning by discovery method whose proponents, "...advocate the teaching of broad principles and problem solving through minimal teacher guidance and maximal Oppor- tunity for exploration and trial and error on the part 82Jerome Bruner, "Readiness for Learning," Read- ings in Science Education for the Elementary School, ed. Edward Victor and Marjorie S. Lerner (3d ed.; New York: MacMillan, 1975) p. 72. 83Jerome S. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, (Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1960) pp. 11:I8. 52 of the student.84 The general learning process represented by Bruner's model begins with the child manipulating concrete Objects. After a period of initial eXploration, the teacher begins asking leading questions, often used Socratically, to elicit discovery patterns. Through further discussion rules are generated and new situations presented where some of the organized regularities may apply.85 Wideen (1975) conducted a study comparing the "cogni- tive restructuring approach," identified with ESS to the "behavioral approach," characteristic of Science--A Process Approach (SAPA). His study compares the patterns of teacher behavior in the classroom, through Observation and inter- view, and teachers' expectations of the ESS and SAPA programs during in-service work by the teachers. The study also serves to compare students within the two curriculum en- vironments with respect to interest, process, and cognitive measures. The interest measure consisted of fifty-three items and was administered as a pretest only. Questions concerned the student's interest in engaging in science activites and other subjects. The process measure consisted Of seven items in a multiple choice format and the cognitive measure consisted of preSenting students with two problem situations designed to assess students' ability 34Lee S. Shulman, "Psychological Controversies in the Teaching of Science and Math," The Science Teacher, XXXV (September, 1968), 34-35. 85Shulman, p. 35. 53 to make Observations and inferences. Six teachers parti- cipated in the study with three teachers using ESS materials and three using SAPA materials. The research population included eighty-four ESS and seventy-nine SAPA subjects.86 Observational and anecdotal evidence suggested that the two environments were perceived differently by teachers and functioned differently in practice. Some Objective evidence is also available that indicates that student learning is also sensitive to the two environments.87 Teacher Training Avdul (1970) surveys one hundred thirty-three instructors of elementary science methods courses represent- ing ninety-four colleges and universities in Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. The survey examines the status of teacher-training in the "new elementary science programs,‘ including Elementary Science Study, Science Curriculum Improvement Study, ElementarnychOOl Science Project, Science--A Process Approach, Intermediate Science Curriculum Study, and Minnesota Mathematics and Science Teaching Project. Avdul concludes that the major obstacles for implementation include lack of teacher training, lack of educational theory for teaching science, lack of desire 86Marvin F. Wideen, The Psychological Underpinnings of Curricula: An Empirical Study, U. S. Educational Re- sources InformatiOn Canter, ERIC Document ED 103 953, March, 1975, p. 2. 87Wideen, p. 5. 54 for changing the established programs and the cost of the new programs.88 Bratt (1973) compares the teaching methodology suggested by the new science curriculum projects to a tradi- tional mode of teaching in an undergraduate methods course. Utilizing an attitude scale developed by the researcher, the study indicates that the "humanistic approach," repre- sented by the newer curricula, fosters more positive attitudes toward teaching elementary science, than the more traditional approach.89 Futrell (1975) utilizes materials from ESS to develOp a home study course for rural elementary teachers. The program requires that teachers eXperience science for themselves by using the materials at home and then apply- ing these experiences in their respective classrooms. Futrell concludes that the course was successful in that knowledge of ESS curriculum materials increased and attitudes toward science teaching improved.90 88Richard N. Avdul, "An Investigation Of the New Elementary Science Programs in Teacher Training Institu- tions Of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXI (1970), 2766A (Ohio University, 1970). 89Herschell M. Bratt, "A Comparative Study to Determine the Effects Of Two Methods of Elementary Science Instruction on the Attitudes Of Prospective Elementary Science Teachers," Dissertation Abstracts International XXXIV (1973), 3174A (PurdueiUniversity, 1972)} 90William M. Futrell, "An Elementary Science Study (ESS) Instructional Program for Geographically Isolated Elementary Teachers," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVI (1975), 4219A (University of Wyoming, 1974). Stepans (1976) compares pre-service and in-service teachers enrolled in methods courses involving ESS activi- ties with respect to their agreement with the philOSOphical approach of the ESS program. Stepans concludes that the pre-service group exhibits a greater change in attitude toward agreement with the philOSOphy of ESS than the in- service group and that intermediate in-service teachers exhibit a greater gain on this measure than in-service primary teachers. The teachers in the two groups were pretested before enrollment in their respective pre-service or in-service courses and posttested at the completion of each course. Twenty-nine pre-service and thirty-two in- service teachers participated in Stepans study.91 Dickson (1976) assesses the attitudes of in-service teachers trained in the use of ESS and SCIS materials with the attitudes of teachers who did not participate in the project. The research focuses on the diffusion Of ideas and materials by teachers participating in a workshOp on their non-participating colleagues. Dickson calls this diffusion of ideas the "multiplier effect." Student achieve- ment and attitudes are also compared. Dickson finds that trained teachers may have a measurable effect on their un- trained counterparts' attitude. There was no significant 91Joseph I. Stepans, "Influence of Instruction Upon Pre-Service and In-Service Teachers Agreement With the Philosophical Approach of the Elementary Science Study (ESS)," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVI (1975), 4386A (Uhiversity of Wyoming, 1974). 56 increase in attitudes or achievement by students in either group with the exception of a more favorable attitude toward science exhibited by third graders taught by workshop- trained teachers.92 Potts (1974) evaluated fifty-three classrooms in thirty-three schools in Indiana to determine if the success- ful implementation of new, activity based elementary science programs, including ESS, had occurred. "Successful and unsuccessful implementations are identified on the basis Of the degree of the critical thought process that was pres- ent . 93 Evaluation is conducted through classroom Observa- tion and personal interviews with teachers and administra-~ tors. Based on the information collected in this manner Potts concludes that successful implementation in schools using ESS materials may be identified as sharing the following commonalities: Presence of a science oriented individual, in-service activities which include teachers in the decision making process, administrative support, and adequate funding. In addition, successful support systems must include periodic workshops during post-implementation years.94 92Earl W. Dickson, "The Impact of the Multiplier Effect on Teachers and Students Involved in an ESS and SCIS Science Program," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVII (1976) 6387A (lilinois State University, 1975). 93Kenneth L. Potts, "The Evaluation Of Implementa- tion and Support Procedures in Selected Indiana Corporations that Adopted Either SCIS, SAPA, or ESS Elementary Science Programs," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXV (1974) 6439A (University of Northern Colorado, 1973)? 94Ibid. 57 Similarly, Craven (1978) examines the implementation and dissemination of science materials, including ESS materials. The study involves a survey of two-hundred eighty-four teachers, twenty-nine of whom had participated in a National Science Foundation in-service project spon- sored by washington State University. A portion of the survey deals with processes within school districts that enhance change efforts. Findings suggest that the support Of administrative staff and adequate funding are particu- larly important in the implementation process.95 waski and Nicodemus (1969) use an interaction analysis Observation instrument to determine the effects Of a science workshop and the use Of ESS materials on fifth grade science classroom practices. Four measures are taken from the data supplied by the Observation instrument, and include student activity, teacher activity, student group activity, and materials used by the activity groups. Ninety- One teachers in twenty-eight schools located in MOntgomery County, Maryland participated. Three groups are compared: (a) teachers having no workshop experience and no ESS materials; (b) teachers with ongoing workshop experience 95Evelyn Monson Craven, "An Evaluation Of an Implementation and Dissemination Model for Elementary School Science," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIX (1978) 661A (Washington State University, 1977). 58 who also have ESS materials; and (c) teachers who had completed a workshOp experience, but had no ESS materials.96 The researchers find that only in circumstances where teachers were receiving training and were using ESS materials are the "new instructional strategies" being used. "The results suggest that the materials are the focus of major change and that the different instructional strategies learned in the workshop and utilized in the classroom with the materials did not persist when the materials were removed."97 Evaluation and Comparison Research Several studies concern the evaluation of Elementary Science Study curriculum materials and student learning as a result of experience with the ESS program. Researchers have also conducted studies comparing ESS to other science programs. Henson (1973) evaluates the cognitive and affective performance of children in the ESS program using three measures: The STEP II Test of Achievement; the AAAS Seman- tic Differential Scale; and a learning environment inventory to measure the social climate of the classroom. Three groups 96John L. wasik and Robert B. Nicodemus, "A Study Of the Effects of a WOrkshop and the Use Of Specially Developed Science Materials on Fifth Grade Science Class- room Practices," Science Education, LIII, (1969), 347-355. 97wasik and Nicodemus, p. 353. 59 Of thirty, nine, ten, and eleven year Old children are evaluated using a pre/post test design. The treatment consists of experiences with ESS materials.98 Henson finds that the nine year olds improved in all areas of achievement, the ten year Old group increased in knowledge and comprehension, and the eleven year olds improved in comprehension only. None Of the groups show significant gains in attitude toward science. NO change is shown in the classroom learning environment in terms of assessments of competitiveness, difficulty, cohesiveness, and satisfaction. Implications Of these findings are that children may gain in achievement in the ESS program and ESS may provide an Opportunity for creativity.99 Huntsberger (1972) uses the Torrence Test of Crea- tive Thinking, figural and verbal forms, to assess students. Huntsberger uses the ESS unit "Attribute Games and Problems" to help children develop "divergent-productive thinking." He defines divergent-productive thinking as "the strategies of instruction involving the manipulation of the blocks in a framework of activities which requires the student to create 98Stanley Henson, A Study Of the Cognitive and Affective Performance Of Children in the Elementary Science Studnyrogram, U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 076 648, September 1973, pp. 1-3. 99Henson, p. 12. 60 new ideas (divergent-production of implications) as well as producing uncommon or clever responses (divergent production of transformations)."100 Although the finding may be mitigated by the rela- tively small research population, the results support the assumption that ESS materials may improve students' diver- gent productive thinking in the areas of vergal originality, figural flexibility, and figural originality.101 In a similar study Piyush Swami (1972) examines the effects of ESS on children's creativity. The Torrence Test Of Creative Thinking is administered in a pre- and post-test design to two third grade experimental classroom groups and two third grade control classroom groups. The treatment consists of eight weeks of instruction with ESS materials. His findings are significant on both the test Of verbal creative thinking and the test Of figural creative thinking. Swami concludes that children exposed to instruction with ESS materials may improve their creative abilities.102 100John P. Huntsberger, "A Study of the Relation- ship Between the Elementary Science Study Unit Attribute Games and Problems and the DevelOpment of Divergent- Productive Thinking in Selected Elementary School Children," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 1972). 101Huntsberger, p. 26- 102Piyush Swami, Creativity and Elementarnycience Study Materials, U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC DOcument ED 089 944, July, 1972. 61 Swami also produced a test of observation and classification. The test is based on the notion that pro— cess oriented science programs enhance creativity and that third graders are able to grasp the concepts of Observation and classification. The instrument consists of two acti- vities. The first activity involves students describing an Object in as many ways as possible. The second activity involves children classifying twenty-one objects in as many ways as possible. The Observation activity is scored for "relevance" and "fluency" according to standards established by the author and the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking with each correct response awarded one point. The children are awarded one point for flexibility for each criterion of classification they have derived.103 Labinowich (1970) attempts to identify learning Objectives for thenESS science unit "Tangrams." After identifying learning outcomes, Labinowich develops the "Test Of Area Concepts, to measure primary children's abilities on tasks involving conservation of area, area measurement, and area subdivision.104 Results indicate no significant gains by students having experience with the ESS "Tangram" unit as measured by this instrument. 103Swami, p. 53. 104Edward P. Labinowich, "A Study in Summative Evaluation of Elementary School Science Curricula," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXI (1970), 1077A (Florida State University, 1969). 62 The production of an evaluation instrument and the process of unit evaluation to identify attainable outcomes and grade level placement are considered important results of this study.105 Wideen (1975) constructs a test for students involv- ing two problem situations. The teacher demonstrates two discrepant events to the children, who are asked to explain each event. A six-category classification system is used to analyze student responses.106 A study dealing with the evaluation of ESS units and the development Of student tests is Nicodemus' (1968) work on analyzing two ESS units using Science--A Process Approach. Fifty-two Objectives are identified for the ESS unit entitled "Small Things" and forty-eight Objectives are identified for the ESS unit "Kitchen Physics". A test based on the content Objectives was developed for the "Small Things" unit as well as a process test unrelated to specific content.107 The tests were administered to fifty-five pupils randomly selected from eleven classrooms in pre- and post- test design. Nicodemus' findings related to the content test do not support significant student improvement in the 105Ibid. 106Wideen, pp. 4-5 and 9. 107Robert B. Nicodemus, An Evaluation of Elementary Science Study as Science--A Process Approach, U. S. Educa- tional Resources Information Center ERIC Document ED 027 217, September, 1968. 63 achievement of Objectives. The results suggest that the content test is not significantly related to any of the skills specified in the fifty-two Objectives written for the "Small Things" unit. The process test indicates improved performance on the part Of students as a result of working with ESS units.108 The value of examining a science unit's content, outlining its Objectives and developing tests is in providing a structure by which the sequential develOpment of content may be examined. This is useful for teachers in planning the teaching of a unit. The heirarchy helps the teacher avoid unnecessary repetition and assure that students possess necessary behaviors for learning more complex tasks.109 Other researchers have identified a need for writing Objectives for ESS units. An analysis of ESS units was conducted by William Aho and others (1974) on behalf of the California Test Bureau. Their efforts produced a guide to all ESS units. The guide includes representation of each unit's goal areas and evaluation Objectives written according to the process skills involved. The guide is written to enable teachers to understand the goals and Objectives of ESS units.110 108Nicodemus, pp. 1-4. 109Nicodemus, pp. 74-76. 110William Aho, et al., The McGraw-Hill Evaluation Program for ESS, (New York: McGraw-HiIl Book Co., 1974). 64 Comparison Studies Vanek and Montean (1977) compare students receiving instruction with the Laidlaw science texts to children experiencing ESS units. Student progress is measured on Piagetian classification tasks, a science attitude scale, and a science achievement test. NO significant difference is found for the treatment, grade level or sex.111 Smith (1971) studies the achievement in science Of over two-thousand students. He compares those utilizing "modern curricula,‘ including ESS, to those receiving instruction through a textbook in science. His findings are supportive of the textbook approach. NO data is presented to support the content validity of the test items, nor was any attempt made to sort out comparisons among sub-groups.112 Two studies are reviewed that compare different methods of instruction with ESS materials. Blomberg (1974) compares the laboratory, reading lecturing and audio-visual methods of instruction in a 111Eugenia P. Vanek and John M. MOntean, "The Effect of Two Science Programs (ESS and Laidlaw) on Student Classification Skills, Science Achievement, and Attitudes," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XIV (January, 1977), 57-62. 112Ben A. Smith, "MOdern Elementary Science Curricula and Student Achievement," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXIII (1972) 4202A (Western Michigan University,vl97l). 65 study of four groups of sixth graders. All three instruc- tional methods are utilized to teach the ESS units "Kitchen Physics," "Pendulums,' and "Eggs and Tadpoles." The sixth graders receive instruction on a rotating basis so that each child is exposed to all three instructional methods.113 While relatively few students are involved in Blomberg's study and considerations for student attitudes and receptiveness toward instructional modes remains uninvestigated, Blomberg finds no significant difference between treatments based on pre- and post-tests for each of the units. She concludes that, at the sixth grade level, the cost Of ESS material support may not be justified.114 Anderson and Butts (1975) also conduct a study comparing methods of teaching sixth graders with ESS materials. The study includes a series Of worksheets developed for students to work independently on activities from the ESS unit "Batteries and Bulbs." Three sixth grade classes use the worksheets method while two other sixth grade classes cover the same material using a lecture- discussion method. NO significant differences are found between the two groups on attitude and achievement measures. 113Karin J. Blomberg, "A Study of the Effectiveness of Three Methods of Teaching Science in the Sixth Grade," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXV (1974) 3290A (University of Minnesota, 1973)i 114Ibid. 66 Most students show a preference for the discussion method. The authors conclude that both methods are legitimate and that neither method should be used exclusively.115 Summary (ESS) The review of the literature concerning Elementary Science Study includes many ideas concerning its philOSOphi- cal and psychological base, teacher training and implementa- tion procedures, evaluation Of ESS units, and comparisons with other elementary science programs. DevelOpers of the ESS program do not claim to sub- scribe to any specific guidelines in developing the units for the program. However, researchers have identified the ESS program with the philosophical viewpoint of David Hawkins and his "messing about" model for learning instruction. The psychological foundation for ESS is identified with the "COgnitive restructuring approach" of Jerome Bruner. This approach is also described as the learning by discovery method. Studies concerning teacher training and implementa- tion yield several important considerations for adOpting the ESS program. Teacher attitudes toward ESS when it is adopted initially are usually positive; pre-service teachers are usually more positive in attitude toward ESS than in- service teachers; and there is some evidence that student 115Charles Anderson and David Butts, A Comparison of Individualized vs. Group Instruction in a Sixth Grade Electriciry Unit, U. 8. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 108 869, March, 1975. 67 attitude is also favorable toward the ESS program. Ob- stacles to adoption may include: lack of teacher training: the teachers' lack of an educational theory for teaching science; and the cost of the ESS program. Schools where ESS has been implemented successfully share the following characteristics: presence of a science oriented individual, the inclusion of the teachers using the materials in the decision making process, administrative support, adequate funding, and additional in-service training sessions in post-adoption years. Another finding is that the presence of the materials in the classroom may be important to the change in instructional practices. Evaluation studies indicate that students may improve in achievement as a result of exposure to the ESS program and that ESS may provide a means for children to improve their creative thinking skills. Researchers have also identified ways of analyzing the content of ESS units and in presenting learning outcomes as process objectives. Several studies have also been concerned with developing test instruments for particular units so that students may be'evaluated. The process Objectives of Science--A Process Approach have been utilized in this analysis procedure. Unit goals and process Objectives have also been written for the ESS units by a group representing the California Test Bureau. Studies comparing the Elementary Science Study pro- gram to other science programs or methods show mixed results. 68 Conclusions cannot be drawn concerning the merit of one program over another at this time. Different methods for instructing with ESS materials have also been analyzed. There does not seem to be any clear support for a particular method of instruction based upon the two studies reviewed. Interaction Analysis This section deals with that research related to methods of observing in elementary science inquiry settings. The literature is separated into two areas: (1) background information including a description of some of the instru- ments available for use in elementary science, and (2) methods and instruments used to Observe in elementary science inquiry settings. An Observational tool used to analyze elementary science teaching is the interaction analysis schedule. Several instruments have been develOped and utilized for this purpose. One of the most widely used systems is the Flander's System of Interaction Analysis (FSIA). The focus of Flander's instrument is on verbal interaction. One use of the data resulting from the use of the FSIA is to char- acterize teaching as either direct or indirect. According to Simon and Boyer, "indirect teaching relates more than direct teaching both to positive pupil attitudes, to pupil 69 cognitive growth as measured by achievement tests, and to I.Q. scores in primary grades."116 Flander's instrument focuses on verbal interaction because the major portion of time spent in classrooms is spent talking, and, according to Flander's rule of two thirds, teachers dominate this verbal interaction. Flanders states: The present, average domination of teachers is best expressed as the rule of two-thirds. About two-thirds of the time spent in a class- room, someone is talking. The chances are two out of three that this person is the teacher. When the teacher talks, two thirds of the time is spent by many expressions of Opinion and fact giving, some direction, and occasionally criticizing the pupils.117 Simon and Boyer (1974) outline several dimensiOns that must be considered when selecting an interaction analysis instrument. Each observation schedule is designed with specific aspects of the teaching-learning situation in mind. For instance, Flander's system is mainly concerned with the affective dimension. In Mirrors for Behavior: An Anthology of Observation Instruments, Simon and Boyer have categorized observation instruments using the following 116Anita Simon and Gil E. Boyer, eds., Mirrors for Behavior III: An Anthology of Observation Instruments, (Philadelphia, Pa.: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1974). P. 283. 117Ned A. Flanders, "Intent, Action and Feedback: A Preparation for Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, XIV, (September, 1963), 252. dimensions: 70 Category Dimensions Affective - Emotional component of communication. Cognitive - Intellectual component of communication. Procedure and Routine - 'Getting ready to work,7 'working on the content,‘ and 'adminis- trative routine.‘ Physical Environment - Physical space along withspecific materials or equipment being used. Psychomotor - Behaviors exhibited during com- munication including non-verbal posture, facial expressions, gestures and position in relation to other students. Sociological Structure - Who is talking to whom, if it designates the role of the person or persons, if it notes the number of people inter- acting, or provides information about those interacting such as gender, race, age, and so forth. Activit - Record of activities people are engaged in such as watching a film, reading, etc. Other considerations important in the selection of an interaction analysis instrument include: the number of coders required, equipment needed, the classroom setting, the number of subjects observed, and the type of coding unit used.119 Observation Systems for Elementary Science Charles Matthews developed the Science Curriculum Assessment System (SCAS) for teachers and students. SCAS 113Simpn and Boyer, pp. 29-31. 119Simon and Boyer, p. 132. 71 is designed to describe the teacher's behavior relative to student behavior. The full use of the system requires an individual interview with each student to record his/her interpretation of the classroom environment.120 This is a lengthy and time consuming procedure. Altman's Science Observation System (SOS) is em-. ployed to research many dimensions of the science classroom. "This instrument contains groupings of categories which reflect the level of abstraction of communication, whether student activities are 'directed' or 'non-directed'; the amount of time spent in 'instructional' as contrasted to 'procedural' activities; and an affective dimension (support or criticism of student behaviors)."121 The use of the system requires coders to learn thirty-three symbols for the various dimensions. Hunter develOped the Revised Verbal Interaction Cate- gory System (Revised VICS) for the evaluation of science training programs in New York Public Schools. The system is based on the VICS develOped by Amidon and Hunter and includes categories from Flander's affective dimensions and Aschner and Gallagher's cognitive dimensions. Hunter's in- strument also includes categories describing a physical environment dimension.122 The system includes fourteen 120Simon and Boyer, pp. 389-400. 121Simon and Boyer, pp. 116-120. 122Simon and Boyer, pp. 309-312. 72 categories and twelve sub-categories. It does not include activity or laboratory dimensions. The Activity Categories Index (ACI) provides a method for classifying and recording the extent in which students are actively involved in science classes and the time teachers spend teaching with various activities, in- cluding laboratory experiences. The system is based on Flander's system and includes non-verbal roles as well as verbal behaviors of teachers and students. Caldwell's ACI includes the following categories: laboratory experiences (Open-ended and structured), group projects, student dem- onstrations, student library research, student speaking, teacher questioning, workbook work, teacher demonstrations, lecture and general havoc.123 Reynolds, Abraham and Nelson (1971) developed the Classroom Observational Record (COR), and interaction analysis instrument specifically designed for analysis of classroom discussion strategies in problem solving situa- tions. The instrument consists of twenty categories called "moves". The researchers define "move ...as any discrete verbal utterance having a single cognitive focus."124 The 123Harrie E. Caldwell, "Activity Categories: A Quantitative MOdel for Planning and Evaluating Science Lessons," School Science and Math, LXXI (January, 1971), 55-63. 124William W. Reynolds, Jr., Eugene C. Abraham, and Miles A. Nelson, The Classroom Observational Record, U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 048 378, February, 1971, pp. 3-4. 73 moves are divided into five major sub-divisions: (I) Struc- turing Moves; (11) Soliciting Moves; (III) Reacting MOves; (IV) Responding Moves; and (V) Non-Moves. Reynolds and his co-workers find that when particu- lar questions dominate, children's problem solving skills are affected positively. They indicate that a shift from the soliciting moves for "recall Of information" and ”collecting data" toward moves calling for "processing data" and "evaluating or verifying principles and/or conclusions" contribute toward improved pupil problem solving skills.125 Observation in Elementary Science Inquiry_Settings Johnson (1979) conducts a case study of an exper- ienced teacher's first teaching of the Elementary Science Study unit "Primary Balancing.‘ Information for the study is collected on video tapes of actual teaching sessions and audio tapes of post-lesson interviews with the teacher. The researcher presents the teacher's eXperiences in an analysis based upon "frame of reference domains." The set of domains include: the teacher's beliefs about teaching and teaching science, as well as her conceptualization of the phenomena associated with balancing.126 Johnson concludes that successful implementation must take into account the teacher's current belief systems 125Reynolds, et al., pp. 9-10. 126Sylvia Fogelquist Johnson, "A Cognitive Study of an Elementary Teacher's First Experience Teaching A 'New Science" Unit and Its Relevance to the Implementation of Science Programs," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, university of Illinois, 1979) 254-255. 74 She also stresses the importance of several phases in the implementation process which include the belief systems of those participating in the curriculum development- implementation process. Johnson writes: "Curriculum implementation is actually thought of by this researcher as a dynamic succession of cumulative communications between curriculum developer, curriculum implementer, teacher, and student.127 Fitzgerald and Shroyer (1979) utilize teacher logs and other observation forms as a way of collecting informa- tion about teachers' perceptions of their own performance. In particular the logs are used to record student responses, expand upon teachers' reactions, and serve to modify the curriculum developer's teaching model, called a "script." The information collected from the teachers is utilized in further revision of the script.128 Baker (1970) conducts a study to determine the effects Of science teaching materials on teachers' verbal behavior during elementary science instruction. Flander's system of Interaction Analysis is used to compare twenty- five sixth grade teachers using textbook materials to 127Johnson, p. 264. 128WilliamM. Fitzgerald and Janet Shroyer, "A Study of the Learning and Teaching of Growth Relationships in the Sixth Grade," (an unpublished research study, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, 1979). 75 twenty-five sixth grade teachers using ESS materials. Baker concludes that teachers using ESS materials are more indirect in their teaching and student initiated talk is greater in classrooms using ESS materials. There is no significant difference in the number of questions asked by teachers and students in either situation.129 Baker also uses student and teacher perception forms to collect information concerning their own observations of the classroom environment. His findings suggest that teachers and students in the ESS group are in agreement in their respective percep- tions of a relatively low amount of teacher talk during science. In contrast, teachers and students in the text- book group are in agreement in their perception of a relatively high amount of teacher talk. Baker also finds that ESS teachers and students perceive a relatively high amount of active involvement by students during science classes. Teachers and students in the textbook group are in agreement as to the passive involvement of students in science classes.130 129Robert M. Baker, ”A Study of the Effects of a Selected Set of Science Teaching Materials (Elementary Science Study) on Classroom Instructional Behaviors," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1970). 130Baker, pp. 88-89. 76 Summary The review of the literature concerning interaction analysis instruments serves to identify several dimensions that may be considered when observing in science classrooms. These include: affective, cognitive, procedural, physical environment, psychomotor, sociological structure, and activity categories. Many instruments focus on verbal interaction be- cause, as Flanders suggests, verbal communication is dominant in most classrooms. Simon and Boyer have produced a collection of over one-hundred observation instruments. They describe and evaluate several interaction analysis systems for use in elementary science inquiry teaching situation. Researchers have identified the need for particular types of planned questions in facilitating children's problem-solving abilities. In particular, questions focus- ing on the processing of data and the evaluation of principles and/or conclusions seem to contribute most to students' gains in this area. Implementation plans should consider the role of the curriculum developer, implementer, teacher, and student. Methods fOr collecting information from these participants in the teaching-learning situation include the use of 77 student and teacher perception forms, teacher logs and interviews with teachers following their teaching with a particular plan and/or set of materials. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section deals with a description of the script representing the instructional treatment. The second section begins with a discussion of the research design and limitations of the study. This is followed by a brief description of the context in which the present research was conducted and includes details of procedures employed in the selection of both teachers and students comprising the research population. The third section presents the instrumentation employed in the study, a description of Observer training procedures and the teacher training plan. The chapter concludes with a presentation of the major research hypotheses and an outline of analysis procedures. Develqpment of Instructional Materials Problems in using ESS materials in the elementary classroom include the lack of established goals and 78 79 objectives for the units and a clearly stated inquiry model.1 The instructional treatment is represented by an inquiry script based on the ESS unit "Peas & Particles." The script represents an attempt by the researcher to, first, identify goals and objectives for the unit "Peas & Particles” and second, structure activities of the unit according to an inquiry plan. The goals of the unit "Peas & Particles" as identi- fied by the California Test Bureau and the investigator are presented as unit goals and activity objectives.2 They include: Unit Goals: Activity NO. Understand and appreciate measurement as a means for standardizing and communi- cating. (Standard = a model and/or rule for measuring.) 1 & lO Understand that there are several ways to estimate quantity and that estima- tion is a valuable skill that can be utilized in practical situations. 1 & 10 Understand that counting can be accomp- lished utilizing a variety of strategies. 10 Understand that there is a relationship between counting and measurement. lO lMarilyn Appel and Joanne Stolte, Assessment of Existing Elementary Science Programs (Philadelphia: Research for Better SchOOIs, Inc., 1970) Educational Resources Infor— mation Center, ERIC Document ED 062 163, June, 1970; see also William Aho, et al., The McGraw-Hill Evaluation Program for ESS (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974). 2William Aho, et al., pp. 148-150. 80 Activity Objectives: Activity No. Will recognize measurement as an esti- mate Or approximation. 1 & 10 Recognize numerals to one-million and verbalize an example of a million "things." 1 & 10 Will recognize the need for several trials as a means of improving accuracy of estimate. 1 & 10 Will understand averaging as it pertains to data collected in a sampling activity in several trials. 1 & 10 Will understand the relative accuracy of the counting methods used. 1 & 10 Will recognize rules for rounding off numbers. 2 Will demonstrate an ability to round off to tens, hundreds, thousands, and ten thousands place. 2 Will demonstrate ability to count in mul- tiples with particles. 2 Will be able to apply a counting strategy of multiples in estimating a quantity of particles. 2 Will be able to describe a quantity as an order of magnitude. 3 Will recognize symbols for orders of mag- nitude as another name for a numeral or number representing a quantity. 3 Will measure using a non-standard sample and apply a counting strategy of sampling in estimating a quantity of particles. 3 Will understand a rule for finding the area of a rectangle in the context of counting with particles. Example: num- ber of particles long times the number of particles wide. 4 Will be able to apply the counting strat- egy of area in estimating a quantity of particles. 4 81 Activity Objectives: Activity No. Will understand a rule for finding the volume of a rectangular solid in the context of counting with particles. Example: Number of particles long times the number of particles wide times the numbers of layers of particles. 5 Will be able to apply the counting strat- egy of volume in estimating a quantity of particles. 5 Will be able to double a quantity of particles at least four times. 6 Will be able to halve a quantity of par- ticles at least four times. 6 Will be able to apply a counting strat- egy of first halving a quantity of particles and then doubling a counted portion to arrive at an estimate. 6 Will understand how to use an equal-arm balance. 7 Will uSe a balance to halve a quantity, successively, reducing it to an easily counted amount and then doubling the counted amount to arrive at an estimate. 7 Will be able to measure a sample using a Spring scale. 8 Will be able to count the quantity in a weighted sample and use the information to estimate a larger quantity of known weight. 8 Will be able to rank order a set of iden- tically sized jars according to the quantity of particles in each, from the jar containing the greatest quantity to the jar containing the least. The parti- culate matter in each jar would differ. 9 Recognize and apply the concept of ratio as it applies to the relationship between particles of different size. Example: 1 lima bean 3 navy heans =lz3=§' 9 82 Activity Objectives: Activity NO. Will be able to use the counting strategy of ratio to estimate an un- known from a known quantity by recognizing the ratio of the particles to each other. Example: 1 lima bean 3 navy beans A jar contains 100 limas, hence the estimate of navy beans in a similar jar is 300. 9 It is intended that all Objectives be introduced through concrete experiences;it is recognized that some of the objectives may be difficult to master by nine and ten year Old children. The researcher refers to these Objec-L tives as intended learning outcomes at the exposure level, or as the introduction of concepts as opposed to expected mastery of concepts. Children are eXpected to demonstrate abilities to manipulate real Objects,not only symbols for the Objects. These intended learning outcomes served as the basis for the unit achievement test and the task- interview test. (see appendix A for Script Background Information for Teachers and The Script.) The script takes the place of the ESS guide "Peas & Particles." Script has been defined by Fitzgerald and Shroyer (1979) as "A trip plan, a marked road map with comments from someone familiar with the route."3 The 3Janet Shroyer and William M. Fitzgerald, "The Mouse and The Elephant: An Application Unitfl'The Oregon Mathematics Teacher (February, 1979) pp. 10-13. 83 script represents a skeleton for instruction as Opposed to a verbatim plan. The skeleton includes an overall challenge (problem) and activity challenges, each focusing on a Specific rule, skill, or concept. Story challenges are also used with some activities to introduce an acti- vity. The story challenges also represent practical applications of particular strategies introduced in the activity. During the presentation of the challenge the whole class reviews the previous day's activity, discusses the story challenge and is guided toward an understanding of the challenge and various strategies to be used in solving the problem. A second phase of the script is the exploration period. During this time materials and data recording sheets are distributed and children work in small groups, collecting data,inventing new strategies and dis- covering new techniques for working with the particles. The teacher circulates among the groups asking the ques- tions, as suggested by the script, which require students to predict, act, observe, look for relationships, explain, and express their feelings. In turn she reSponds to student questions with cues and suggestions for further exploration SO that they may answer their own questions. Before the final phase the materials are collected and the children meet again as a whole class. During this final, summary phase, the data collected by children is analyzed. Children share their new techniques, discoveries and the direction for the next activity is outlined. 84 Research Design The one-group pretest-posttest design detailed by Campbell and Stanley (1963) was adapted in evaluating data yielded by observations of teachers with the Activity Categories Index and unit achievement test results of students participating in the study. Campbell and Stanley refer to the design as quasi-eXperimental and slightly better than the one-shot case study.4 Borg and Call (1976) outline two problems encoun- tered when collecting Observational data. They are: "The degree to which the presence of the observer changes the Situation being observed," and they state that "to provide reasonably sound data and to permit reliability estimates, observational studies usually require that at least two independent observers evaluate the situation being ob- served."5 They point out, as a solution to the first problem, that frequent visits by the Observer serve to relax the class and generally students become accustomed to the Observer's presence. In the present research, observers are in continuous contact with teachers and students in the district in the normal performance of their duties 4Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Ex eri- mental and Quasi-Enperimental Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963) p. 7. 5walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York: David McKay Co., 1976) pp. 224-225. 85 as math-science consultants. With regard to the second problem, at least fifty percent of the observations made in the present research were conducted by two independent observers. The use of two observers in half of the observa- tions is also important in controlling for possible Observer bias. Borg and Call also discuss the possibility of "leniency" as a rating error associated with Observers who work with those being observed.6 This may be a limitation in the present study. However, observers were Observing descriptive variables Of elementary science teaching Situations as Opposed to inferential or evaluative variables which alleviates this problem to some extent. The major threats to internal validity in this design are the rival hypotheses associated with history and maturation. This is particularly true of student learning situations. An attempt was made to minimize the length of time between pre- and post-testing with students (six - eight weeks) to mitigate the effects of these confounding variables. A variable affecting Observational data is concerned with instrumentation. Campbell and Stanley state: If c1assroOm.participation is being observed, then the observers may be more skillful, or more blase, on the second occasion. The number of observations of each teacher (four) were included to minimize the effects of this rival hypothesis. 6Borg and’Gall, pp. 235-237. 7Campbell and Stanley, p. 9. 86 Threats to external validity are discussed by Camp- bell and Stanley (1963) and Borg and Gall (1976) under the headings of reactive effects of testing, and selection.8 The possibility exists that the pre-test with stu- dents sensitized subjects to the treatment. Teachers may also have been affected by observations made before exposure to the scripted materials. Certainly, generalizability of findings are confined to students in the same grade level and who reside in a similar suburban residential setting. At no time were students told of their participation in a quasi-experimental program. The fact that the science program is ongoing and utilizes similar laboratory materials was important in main- taining a natural Setting. Teachers, while knowing of their participation in a research Study, were encouraged tO' participate as contributors to a curriculum improvement study. They were assured that their teaching was not being evaluated. Limitations in the Research Design The quasi-experimental approach discussed in the preceding section is an attempt to achieve the best design possible given the constraints present in observing and testing, and in the instructional situation. The limita- tions on the researcher's time, along with the time required 8Campbell and Stanley, pp. 16-22, and Borg and Call, pp. 368-370. 87 by other math-science consultants as full-time employees of the district to make additional observations, precluded the possibility for establishing a separate control group. Certainly, the failure to establish a control group is the principal confounding factor separating quasi- experimental approaches from the true experiment. Generalizability of the results reflects the experi- menter's ability to control internal and external sources of invalidity. The differing interval between pre- and post-testing (six to eight weeks) and the fact that seven of the classes received treatment in the latter part of the first semester and five classes participated in the second semester represents additional confounding factors. Scheduling, material limitations, and personnel considera- tions dictated this situation. The role of the researcher as a math-science con- sultant within the district and in one of the elementary schools in which treatment took place was a "mixed blessing)‘ On the one hand, being "one of the boys" reduced the access-to-subjects difficulty Often encountered by re- searchers, facilitated working relationships with colleagues, and minimized logistical problems. On the other hand, the researcher recognizes the introduction of experimenter bias. The researcher trained observers, conducted work- shops with classroom teachers, distributed materials, and conducted observations of subjects. The researcher did not 88 work directly with subjects during the treatment program. Copies of all relevant instrumentation were never distri-' buted to teachers for their consideration. The Assistant Superintendent for Operations, the Science Department Chair- man, and the building principals of the six elementary schools received instrumentation and agreed to its use. The response mode on the student tests and approp- riate responses were established well in advance of administration to subjects. Scoring on the unit achieve- ment test was objective, as was the coding of teacher behavior with the observation instrument. A t-test for matched pairs was used to analyze Observation ratios of teachers obtained before work with the scripted material and during instruction with these materials. Student results from the pre- and post-test unit achievement test were also analyzed using a t-test for matched pairs. Student and teacher perceptions are compared to Observational information utilizing Pearson Correlation Coefficients. Results are presented in Chapter IV. Selection of the Population and Samples The study is limited to one selected school dist- rict in New York State, the Three Village School District, Setauket, New York. The Three Village District is located on the North Shore of Long Island, approximately sixty miles east of New York City. It is mainly a middle to upper middle class area surrounding the State University of 89 New York at Stony Brook. The Three Village District has an elementary science department consisting of one full-time director and six full-time math-science consultants. One consultant is as- signed to each of the Six elementary schools. The schools are Arrowhead, Minnesauke, William Sidney MOunt, Nassakeag, North Country, and Setauket Elementary School. Responsi- bilities, in science, of each of the math-science consultants include Operation of science laboratories, supplying and enriching classroom programs, and curriculum development. The commercial programs currently used in the district include Elementary Science Study and Science Curriculum Improvement Study materials. The research population is limited to fourth grade teachers in the district and students assigned to that grade. Six elementary schools were involved, with a total population of thirty fourth grade teachers and seven- hundred fifty fourth grade students. Students are assigned to classes in a generally random manner.9 Twelve teachers were randomly selected in the following manner. All teachers in the population were assigned a random number. The first twelve teachers selected were contacted and four declined to participate. The next four randomly selected were then contacted to complete the sample. Before the teacher selection process began the Assistant 9The term generally connotes a usual practice subject to vary in light of individual cases in which cer- tain students (e.g., emotional, familial, difficulties, etc.) warrant special placement consideration. 90 Superintendent for Operations, the science department chair- man, and the building principals were contacted and the researcher met with each individual separately. The assistant superintendent also encouraged principals to participate in an administrative meeting. A written outline was presented to each individual contacted and the nature of the study, its purpose, and need was discussed at these meetings. (see Appendix B.) Permission to conduct the study was granted by all of the administrators contacted. A request to meet with teachers was also made at the meetings with individual building principals. Initial meetings with the teachers selected was on a personal basis. After reviewing and discussing the nature and purpose of the study, the teacher was asked to participate. A brief, written description of requirements on the teacher's time and talents was given to them as well. (see Appendix B.) The teachers, children, and schools were assured complete anonymity through utilization of a coding system on all research instruments. All were precoded for the teacher and her students to insure anonymity and accuracy on handling the data collected throughout the investigation. In addition, the investigator kept a log of research activities describing when the data was collected. Instrumentation The question posed for the study necessitated a choice of instruments which would enable the investigator to analyze objectively the verbal interaction and activities 91 occurring in the science classroom during science instruc- tion. Student and teacher perception forms were used to ascertain perceptions of each, relative to a unit activity. These perceptions were compared to each other as well as to equivalent categories of the ACI. A questionnaire on teacher background was also utilized in the description of the teachers to provide background data relative to the study. The data yielded by the ACI and perception forms were used to analyze questions concerning the effect of the unit on teaching behavior. Teachers kept a log of their teaching with the scripted unit for each activity, and three selected teachers were observed and interviewed concerning their deviations from the script, reasons for these deviations, and the types of questions used with students. This information along with unit evaluation was used to analyze scripting and to contribute toward further refinement of the unit. As part of the unit modification two forms of a unit achievement test and a task-interview were also developed. An item analysis, and validity and reliability data were collected for the unit test. The task-interview was examined with regards to its content validity and its practicality for inclusion as part of a model for unit modification as well. Interaction Analysis Instrument General observation systems have been developed to analyze many aspects of learning environments. Many 92 instruments were considered in a search for one appropriate for the proposed investigation. In selecting an interaction analysis instrument, several sources were consulted. Mirrors for Behavior III: An Anthology of Observation Instruments describes several of these instruments.10 Instruments considered for the study included: Matthew's "Science Curriculum Assessment System,” Altman's "Science Observation System" and Hunter's "Revised Verbal Interaction Category System."ll These ob- servation systems were written specifically for use in elementary science classroom settings. Matthew's system was rejected because requirements for the full use of the schedule require individual interviews with students. This was considered too time consuming and therefore impractical in a local school district situation. Similarly, Altman's system requires coders learn thirty-three symbols for the various categories. This was also considered inappropriate for the model of curriculum modification. Hunter's system includes affective, cognitive, and physical-material dimensions; however, the system does not include an activity dimension considered basic to the research study. Important in the selection process was the choice of an instrument 10Anita Simon and Gil E. Boyer, Mirrors for Be- havior III: An Anthology of Observation Instruments (Phila- delphia: Research for Better SchOOls, Inc., 1974) 11Simon and Boyer, pp. 389-395, pp. 116-119, and pp. 309-312. 93 that teachers would view as nonthreatening in terms of the evaluation of their teaching, and one that would provide a basis for evaluation of science units. Other Observation instruments considered included those used to evaluate the Unified Science and Math in the Elementary School (USMES) program as reported in the USMES Evaluation Report on Classroom Structure and Interaction Patterns.12 In the study two observations forms were used, one appropriate for large group instruction and one for small group instruction. It was reported that the instru- ments were especially designed for the study. Shapiro and Aiello (1974) failed to report reliability information. This constraint and the fact that only two activity cate- gories were included led the researcher to reject the instrument for this study. In selecting an instrument, an attempt was made to identify one that would be acceptable to teachers from both the standpoint of providing feedback relative to activities and the overall instructional setting, rather than focusing on only one aspect of instruction. It was hoped that teach- ers would accept such an instrument as a tool to assist in planning science activities and that this instrument could become a part Of a unit modification model. 12Bernard Shapiro and Thomas Aiello, USMES Evalua- tion Report on Classroom Structure and InteractiOn Patterns: 1972-73. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document, ED 116 918, June, 1974. 94 The Activity Categories Index (ACI) was chosen be- cause it considers the activity dimension of elementary science teaching and should be viewed by teachers as non- threatening. It is an instrument intended to evaluate the unit, not the teacher. As Caldwell points out, the ACI yields data "...regarding the extent students are actively involved in science classes and measures the time teachers of science spend teaching with various types of activities."13 It is a measure intended to determine how much time a teacher serves as coordinator of student learning versus the time Spent imparting information directly. Caldwell states: ACI was originally developed for a research project and has been used in observations of over three-hundred elementary school science classes to provide measures of time teachers spend with certain types of activities. ACI also provides a quantitative model to guide planning, analyzing and evaluating of science programs or units of study. The instrument has een used for this purpose in several methods courses both at West Virginia University and at Syracuse University.14 The format and use of the ACI was based on the work of Flanders. The ACI consists of eleven categories, in- cluding: laboratory experiences (Open ended and structured) group projects, student demonstrations, student library research, student talk, teacher questioning, workbook work, 13Harrie E. Caldwell, "Activity Categories: A Mbdel for Planning and Evaluating Science Lessons," School Science and Math, LXXI (January, 1971), 55. 14Ibid. 95 teacher demonstrations, lecture, and general havoc. (see Appendix C.) The ACI yields three ratios, the activity ratio, the laboratory ratio, and the questioning ratio.15 The activity ratio is the comparison of the amount of time spent teaching with indirect activities (laboratory, group projects, demonstrations, library research and Student talk) to direct activities (workbook work, teacher demon- stration and lecture). Category (7), teacher questioning, is not included in the comparison but influences the ratio. As the teacher spends more time questioning and less time lecturing, the activity ratio is larger. This is true since the student talk category increases as they respond to the questions. The denominator shrinks as the teacher asks more questions,and the numerator grows as the questions elicit more student talk. No. of intervals assigned to categories l,2,3,4y5, & 6 of intervals asSigned to categories 8,9, & lO Activity Ratio = NO. If the value of the activity ratio is greater than 1.0, the implication is that the teacher is acting as a coordinator of activities rather than imparting knowledge. If the ratio is less than 1.0, the reverse may be true. 15Harrie E. Caldwell, Evaluation of In-Service Science Methods Course by Systematic Ohservation of Class- ROOM Activities. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document, ED 024 615, September, 1967, pp. 10-12. 96 The laboratory ratio measures the percent of time spent with laboratory activities. It is the ratio of the time spent with laboratory activities to the total time spent teaching science. No. of intervals aisigned to categories of intervaIs asSigned to all ten categories Laboratory Ratio = No. A laboratory ratio of 0.25 indicates that the teacher spent one-fourth of the time (excepting category 11, general havoc) on laboratory experiences. The questioning ratio measures the amount of time teachers Spent asking questions to the total time teacher talking was recorded. No. of intervals agsigned to category of intervals assigned to category 7 & 10 Quest1on1ng Rat1o = No. Application of the ACI In the classroom the observer uses a notebook which has the categories and ground rules on the inside cover. On the Opposite page is placed the recording grid. A stop- watch is used to measure the five-second intervals that he will use to reCord one of the eleven categories. The recording grid has twelve cells in each row, representing the number of categories recorded in one minute. As the lesson begins, the stopwatch is Started and a numeral representing one of the eleven categories is recorded every five seconds until the lesson is completed. At the end of 97 the lesson a series of numbers is Obtained. They represent the types of activities occurring as well as the order in which they occurred and the amount of time each activity occupied in the lesson. The observer notes at the end of the lesson the science tOpic taught during the period of observation. On the reverse side of the recording grid the ob- server subjectively notes the following: In general, the type of questions asked. For example, were they recall or knowledge type questions, or were they thought-provoking explanation type questions? Additional questions addressed by the Observer are: was the focus of the lesson clear?; was the subject matter clearly defined in the lesson?; Was the class structured or unstructured?; Did students have an opportunity to inquire?; or were their questions overlooked? Student and Teacher Perception Forms The Student Perception Form was develOped by the Science Curriculum Improvement Study, University of Cali- fornia for use as a feedback instrument in soliciting students' perceptions of elementary science lessons. The use of the instrument is intended to gain information about the students' view of a lesson that will include the views of both the teacher and an observer as well. Inferences may be drawn from student perceptions relative to those of the observer. Baker (1970), in a study comparing ESS to the "textbook" approach, uses student and teacher perceptions 98 compared to information collected by an Observer using Flander's Interaction Analysis Categories.16 Baker finds that "the ESS teachers perceptions of their amount of talking has a higher degree of relationship to the Flander's analysis of this teaching behavior than did the textbook teachers."17 Students' perceptions in both groups, related to teacher talk, had a high degree of relationship to the analysis of that behavior from the interaction analysis results. In the present research the form is used to answer questions about student perceptions relative to observed teacher talk and student activity during instruc- tion with the modified unit. (see Appendix D.) The Teacher Perception Form is identical to the student form and will be utilized to (1) describe the relationship between the Observed behavior of teachers and teacher perceptions of that behavior, and (2) the relation- ship between student and teachers' perceptions of the same activity. Teacher talk and student activity are the areas of comparison. (see Appendix E.) 16Robert M. Baker, "A Study of the Effects of a Selected Set of Science Teaching Materials (ESS) on Class- room Instructional Behaviors," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1970). 17Baker, pp. 88-89. 99 The Teacher Background Data Form The Teacher Background Data Form was used in the description of the teachers participating in the study. It was administered during the workshop for teachers. It in- cludes information about number of years teaching, number of years in a given school, number of credits completed, de- grees held, whether or not the teacher taught the E88 unit "Peas & Particles" before, the number of times the unit was taught, the amount of science taught per week, number of college credits in science, and any Special workshop or training sessions teachers have attended related to elementary science. (see Appendix F.) The End Of the Unit Evaluation Form The End of the Unit Evaluation Form was intended to allow teachers to express an overall evaluation of the unit. Teachers were asked to rate concepts, process skills, content, the general attitude of students, activities, grade level, time, and availability of unit supplies. Information from this form would be used in any background information for the analysis of teaching behavior. (see Appendix G.) Student Tests A student unit achievement test composed of thirty- Six items in a multiple-choice format was produced according to procedures outlined by Ebel (1979).l8 9I8R6bert L. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measure- ment, 3d ed., (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HalIT’Inc., (I979). 100 The following steps were taken in developing the unit achievement test: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Identification of the intended learning outcomes of the "Peas & Particles" unit. Stating the intended learning outcomes as be- havioral or activity objectives. Construction of a grid with process Objectives on the vertical axis and activity objectives on the horizontal axis. writing the test items within the confines of the grid to measure the identified processes within the prescribed subject-matter area. Pilot testing the items on a small group of students to detect extreme reading and mechanical problems with the items. Correction and arrangement of the items in two tests Forms A and B, each with thirty-five items. Administration of both forms as a pre- and post- test to students in the study. Subjection of the results of the test to an item analysis, indexes of discrimination and difficulty. Elimination and revision of the test items and review of feasibility for using the unit test with the Peas & Particles unit in the future. (see Appendix H), (unit specification grid, page 101)- The task-interview called for the student to verbal- ize his solutions to the questions and problems posed by the interviewer. Student answers were recorded and compared to a set of "expected" responses. The interview was expected to take five minutes per child and was administered by the teachers working with the "Peas & Particles" unit. The pur- pose of the task-interview was to determine the feasibility of using this type of measurement tool with selected children 101 Figure 3.1: Unit test specification grid.* '2’: 2 ea c> H H H Z Z <11 [—1 m 0 g D <11 0 H H U) U z E a E E: '2 52 H D m m :2 h: D a: a: C) E k. Ed <3 +4 m L) (a o 34a,21b Activity One 35a,22b 6a,15b handfuls 36a,23b 25a,9b Activity Two l9a,7b multiples 8a,36b 13a,30b 12a rounding Off 10a,8b 25b 9a.35b la,1b Activity Three 2a,2b sample 3a,3b 33a order of Aa,4b 29b magnitude 5a,5b Activity Four l7a,28b 7a,33b area 31a,6b Activity Five 16a 28a volume 17b 27b Activity Six halving and 18a,3lb ”doubling 32a,32b Activity Seven 26a,26b balances Activity Eight 29a weight 24b 20a,llb Activity Nine 21a,12b lla,34b ratio 22a,13b 30a,10b 23a,14b Activity Ten 27a 15a unit challenge 18b 20b * Pre- and post-test item numbers are used in the unit-test specification grid. 102 as opposed to a unit achievement test. Children administered the task-interview were se- lected randomly from high, middle, and low achievement groupings as determined by their previous year's results on the California Achievement Test. The total math national percentile was used to place students into one of the three categories. Ten students were randomly selected from each of the three groupings. The "low" group was composed of those students whose national percentile composite mathe- matics score was between 0 and 58; the middle group, whose scores were between 59 and 85; and the high group who scored between 86 and 100. Thirty children were adminis- tered the task-interview before exposure to the unit and thirty children after exposure to the unit. The questions posed in conjunction with a response form of expected responses were included in the task-interview test. (see Appendix I.) Video-Taped Observations The investigator Observed three teachers four times each during the course of the entire unit. A design for these observations was chosen, which allowed the Observer to follow one class in four consecutive activities. This afforded the Opportunity to observe the transition from summary to challenge in succeeding lessons. This design also allows the Observer to view the same activity twice at two points in the observation schedule, Specifically 103 at activities four and seven. It was hOped that the re- sulting comparison with two teachers would serve to point out any Obvious differences in teacher interpretation of the script. The procedure also allowed for a comparison of questioning types for the same activity. Observation Model teacher A teacher C ' l 2 3 ’4H'5 6r‘7 8 9 IO‘ Activity Number = T T T T r: J T .1. T T 1 teacher B The focus of these observations was twofold: (l) to Observe and record deviations from the script, and (2) to classify the types of questions used by teachers. The puspose is to use this information in the revision of the script. All observations in this phase of the study were video-taped. Using video-tapes, the observer noted teacher deviations from the script and used a separate observation form to classify teacher questions. The notes focused on the three parts of each activity, launching, exploring, and summarizing. Observed deviations included any digres- sion from the script. An interview following the series of "Observations was used to explain these digressions. The video-tapes of the activities served to clarify points made by the Observer and the teacher. A second focus of these observations was the teach- er's questioning behavior. The Observer used the section of 104 the "Classroom Observation Record" (COR) dealing with teacher "soliciting moves" as an Observational tool.19 The following are the teacher soliciting moves from COR: Soliciting Moves: Any question which (a) initiates a new transaCEiOn by establishing a new center of focus and/or (b) maintains an existing center of focus is defined as a Soliciting Move. There are four categories of Soliciting MOves. Recalling (3): Calling for specific information about a previous cognitive focus from reading or class eXperience. Collecting_Data (4): Calling for specific information from direct OEServation of a book, chart, map, etc. Processing Data (5): Calling for comparisons, grouping, categorizing, labeling, differentiating prOperties, inferring, developing and using relationships or hypotheses, etc. Evaluating or Verifying Principles and/or Conclusions (6): Callingfor application andtesting hypotheses, conclusions, or principles. The interview with teachers focused on these questions and how the script affects the kinds of questions asked toward revision of the script. Training Program Before observations of teachers, and prior to the study, observer training took place. The training occurred over a two-week period and involved all six math-science 19William W. Reynolds, Eugene C. Abraham, and Miles A. Nelson, The Classroom Observational Record, Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC ED 048 378, February, 1971. 20Reynolds, et al., p. 4. 105 consultants, including the investigator. This pertains to training in the use of the Activity Categories Index (ACI). Each of the Observers made approximately one-sixth of the total number of observations. Training occurred in the following manner: Step 1: At the first meeting the associate Obser- vers were given folders containing copies of the categories, ground rules, and a set of recording Sheets. They were instructed in how they would be used in Observing science classes. They were informed that in order to use the Acti- vity Categories Index they must memorize the categories and rules. A suggested procedure was to practice rating a set of pre-recorded audio tapes of science lessons provided by the researcher. Step 2: At a second meeting the associate Obser- vers and the investigator discussed problems that had occurred in coding the audio tapes. They then coded an additional audio tape together, stopping the tape occasion- ally to discuss any problems in coding. Step 3: During the final meeting for training ob- servers the six observers viewed a video tape of a science lesson and independently coded the lesson. Interrater reliability was established at this time. (Appendix C includes training materials.) The researcher also made one-half of all observa- tions with associate Observers. Each observer was separated in the classroom and made independent observations. All 106 observations made by associate observers were also recorded on audio tape. Interrater reliability estimates were made using Scott's method.21The formula for establishing interrater reliability is: P - P oe ’"’=r—-—r Po is the proportion of agreement between two ob- servers, and P8 is the proportion of agreement expected by chance. Pe is found by squaring the proportion of tallies in each category and summing these over all the categories. k P.2 l Pe i=1 k=number of categories P,=pr0portion of tallies falling into each 1 category. _amount two observers exceeded chance agreement _amount that perfect agreement exceeds chance Caldwell used the Scott Coefficient to estimate observer reliability in the study used to develop the ACI.22 Flanders called for bi-monthly checks and cites "...a Scott coefficient of 0.85 or higher a reasonable level of performance.23 21Ned A. Flanders, "The Problems of Observer Training and Reliability," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Edmund J. AmidOn and John B. Hough. (Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1967) pp. 161-162. 22Harrie E. Caldwell, pp. 12-13. 23Flanders, p. 166. 107 Teacher Training_and Data Collection Procedures Subsequent to meetings with principals, selection of the sample and meetings with teachers participating in the study, the task of observing each teacher twice while teaching science was completed with the ACI. This also occurred before the teacher workshop and teaching of the unit Peas & Particles. Two workshop meetings introducing teachers to the scripted materials and intentions of both the unit and the process of unit modification were presented in each elementary building. Instructions for use of a packet of materials were presented. The packet consists of back- ground information on unit intentions, the unit, instruc- tions for administering the pre- and post-tests, the teacher logs, and the end of the unit evaluation form. A set of unit materials was assembled and distributed to each school. Finally, during one of the work-shop sessions a teacher background data form was completed. The pre-tests were administered to children (unit- test with all students, and task interview with selected students) prior to the teaching of the unit. Teachers then taught the unit. The third and fourth observation of each teacher (ACI) was conducted during this phase. At the end of the second ACI Observation the Observer reminded the teacher to administer the student perception form. They were instructed to read the questions to the class to avoid any problem children might encounter with reading. Teachers 108 also completed the Teacher Perception Form at this time. Teacher logs were completed after each lesson and completed at the end of the unit. The teacher log forms were inserted at the end of each activity as a reminder to teachers to complete the forms. At the completion of the unit the post-tests were administered and teachers completed the End of the Unit Evaluation Form. Teachers were given feed- back on all unit tests at the conclusion of the study. Three teachers were observed and video-recorded four times each, spanning the entire unit. At the end of this series of observations they were interviewed by the researcher. The video-tapes and observer notes served as the basis for the interviews. Hypothesis and Questions of the Study The major purposes of this study are: (l) to modify a unit of science material according to an inquiry plan in which each activity is characterized by a challenge, a period of student exploration, and a period of group dis- cussion and summary; (2) identify goals and objectives for the science unit and construct student tests: (3) to investigate teacher behavior, along with student and teacher perceptions of the learning situation; and (4) identify elements of theprocess that may be used to modify other science and math units. The nature of the study suggests the hypotheses and questions to follow. The hypotheses are accepted or 109 rejected at the .05 level of significance. H1: ACI activity ratios will be significantly greater for teachers after introduction of the script method of teaching than before its introduction. Rationale: The higher the value of the activity ratio the more the teacher is acting as coordinator of activities and the more the children are partici- pating in their learning. It was hypothesized that the model for inquiry with its emphasis on student activity would be responsible for greater student involvement in activities. Instrumentation: The Activity Categories Index (ACI) observation schedule. Analysis: t-test for matched pairs. ACI laboratory ratios will be significantly greater for teachers after introduction of the script method of teaching than before its introduction. Rationale: The greater the value of the laboratory ratio the more time spent in laboratory activity. It was hypothesized that the model for inquiry emphasis on student exploration with the materials would be responsible for a greater proportion of laboratory activity. Instrumentation: The Activity Categories Index (ACI) Observation schedule. Analysis: t-test for matched pairs. 110 ACI questioning ratios will be Significantly greater for teachers after introduction of the script method of teaching than before its introduction. Rationale: The higher value of the questioning ratio the more time teachers' talk is dominated by teacher questioning. It was hypothesized that the model for inquiry emphasis on challenge and summary phases in science lessons would be responsible for a greater prOportion of teacher questioning. Instrumentation:_ The Activity Categories Index (ACI) observation schedule. Analysis: t-test for matched pairs. Teachers' perceptions of their amount of talk as perceived by students will be positively correlated with the observed teacher talk (ACI). Rationale: It is assumed that teachers will recog- nize the amount of time they spend talking. They will perceive their students as recognizing the amount of talking they do as well. Instrumentation: Comparison of ACI data on teacher talk with Teacher Perception Form data. Analysis: Pearson Correlation Coefficients. Student perceptions of their activity level will be positively correlated with their Observed activity level (ACI). 111 Rationale: Literature review indicates that child- ren correctly perceive their role in the science classroom. Instrumentation: Comparison of ACI data on student activity with Student Perception Form data. Analysis: Pearson Correlation Coefficients. Gain scores on the unit achievement test for stu- dents participating in the scripted "Peas & Particles" unit will be significant. Rationale: It is expected that children will learn as a result of exposure to unit material and will demonstrate knowledge of goals and Objectives of the unit. Instrumentation: Pre- and post-test achievement test written for the "Peas & Particles" unit. Analysis: t-test for matched pairs. What is the usefulness of the items on the test of achievement? Rationale: "The construction of solid and reliable tests requires consideration of quantitative infor- mation regarding the difficulty and discriminating power of each test exercise, or item, that is proposed for use. Such information is provided by item-analysis data."24 24Ebe1, p. 258. 112 Instrumentation: Student unit-test, two forms. Analysis: Index of Difficulty and Index of Discri- mination.25 What deviations from the script were observed and what is the relationship of these deviations to the script? Rationale: Review of the literature indicates that in implementation the teacher's interpretation of the curriculum developer's intentions are important to the implementation process. Instrumentation: Video tapes of three teachers, twelve lessons, covering the entire unit. Observer notes. Analysis: Descriptive text of observer-teacher interview. What is the classification and frequency of ques- tions asked during instruction using the script? Rationale: Review of the literature indicates that questioning techniques are important to the inquiry teaching situation. Instrumentation: Video tapes of three teachers, twelve lessons, covering the entire unit. Observer notes. Analysis: Classroom Observational Record, schedule of teacher "soliciting moves". 25Ebel, pp. 258-273. 113 Q4: What information from the end of the unit evalua- tions, teacher logs, and interviews with teachers indicates need for further revision of the unit? Rationale: A review Of the input of teachers and students should suggest ways of improving the unit. Instrumentation: End of the Unit Evaluation, Teacher Logs and Teacher Interviews. Analysis: Descriptive text of the collected infor- mation. Significance Level The .05 level of significance will be employed to reject or not reject hypothesis testing in the present study. Setting the .05 level results in some danger of Type I error, the rejection of the null hypothesis when it is not correct. It is felt that this danger is outweighed by the insight to be gained which might provide future researchers in this area with significant differences that might other- wise be overlooked if more stringent levels of Significance were employed. In using the t-test for matched pairs it is noted by Borg and Call (1976) that "the t-test for correlated means is less likely than the t-test for inde- pendent means to lead to a Type II error (accepting the null hypothesis when it is false)."26 26Borg and Gall, p. 305. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the modification of an Elementary Science Study Unit, using an inquiry—script, on Teaching and the classroom environment. Observations utilizing the Activity Category Index (ACI) interaction analysis instru- ment were conducted in a one-group pre-test - post-test design. Data from the ACI are represented in three ratios related to the amount of time Spent in elementary science classes on student activity, laboratory work and teacher questioning. The unit was also examined as a possible model for modifying other math and science units. Information from participating teachers was collected through the use of Teacher Perception Forms (TPF), teacher logs of each activity, and an End of the Unit Evaluation Form. A unit test for students was developed and examined for content validity and reliability. Analysis of the unit test items was conducted to determine each item's difficulty and discrimination. The unit test was administered to students in a one-group pre-test - post-test design. Information about student achievement and perceptions of the learning environment were also collectgd4using a task-interview 115 with randomly selected students (N=30)and a student/percep- tion form (SPF) completed by all students. SPF and TPF information was compared to data from the ACI to determine the correlation between student and/or teacher perceptions of the learning environment and observer perceptions. The analysis of the data is divided into three sections. The first section deals with teacher and student demographic data and teacher science teaching experience. In addition reliability information for the student unit- achievement test and interrater reliability for observers is presented.. Six hypotheses are then analyzed. They are related to Observations of student activity and laboratory time as well as teacher questioning behavior. In addition two hypotheses are presented which compare teacher and observer perceptions of teacher talk and student and observer per- ceptions of student activity. Finally, analysis of an hypothesis dealing with the student unit-achievement test results is presented. The final section deals with analyses of four research questions. The information in this section is presented in descriptive form. The questions deal with item analyses for the unit-achievement test, a description of teacher deviation from the script (three teachers), the classification and frequency of teacher questioning be- havior (three teachers), and a presentation of information from teacher logs and End of the Unit Evaluation Forms 116 (twelve teachers). The purpose of this section is to review student and teacher input for improving the script and to identify elements of the process that may be used to modify other science and math units. .Demographic Information A Teacher Background Data Form (Appendix F) was used to collect information about the teacher sample in the Study. Twelve fourth grade teachers were randomly selected from the total district teacher pOpulation, at that grade level (N=30). The demographic characteristics of the teacher sample are presented in table 4.1. Although not all the demographic data are employed in the study, they contribute to a better understanding of the research pop- ulation. Information not represented in the table, but collected from teachers, include the population size of the elementary schools participating and the science pro- gram currently used. Three schools have a population of 500 - 750 pupils and three reported populations in excess of 750 pupils. A11 twelve teachers indicated that no science textbooks were being used in their classrooms. The Three Village School District uses Elementary Science Spudy_and Science Curriculum Improvement StudyAmaterials for their science program. A second table (Table 4.2) is used to describe teacher science teaching experience characteristics. The information is presented to establish the frequency and length of science lessons conducted by the twelve teachers 117 Table 4.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Teacher Sample for the Study Sample Sample Variables N Z Variables N Z Sex . 2. A e Female 8 67 3i-40 8 67 Male 4 33 41-50 3 25 51 + l 8 Years Teaching 4. Years in Building 7-10 4 33 7-10 7 58 11-15 5 42 ll-15 5 42 16 + 3 25 16 + 0 0 Academic 6. School ac ground Arrowhead 2 l7 M.S l 8 Minnesauke 2 l7 M.S.+15 2 l7 MOunt 2 l7 M.S 5 42 Nassakeag 2 17 M.S 2 17 North Country 3 25 M.S.+6O 2 17 Setauket l 8 Table 4.2 Background Information on Teachers Science Teaching Experience Variables N Z Variables N % Number of 2. Length of Science Periods Science Per Week Lessons one 4 33 21-30 minutes 2 17 two 6 50 31-45 minutes 8 67 three 2 17 46-60 minutes 2 17 four 0 0 five 0 0 Ex erience 4. Number of Times With ESS Unit Peas & Particles Peas & Particles Unit Taught In Past Yes 8 67 once 4 33 No 4 33 twice 2 17 three times 1 8 four times 0 0 five times 1 8 118 each week. In addition, their experience with the ESS unit Peas & Particles is presented. Table 4.3 presents teacher science background rela- tive to the number of undergraduate and graduate hours they have accumulated in four science areas and science teaching methods courses. Numbers in the table represent a tally for the number of teachers responding for each area. In addi- tion to the coursework represented in the table, four teachers reported attendance in Specialized science workshOpS dealing with ESS materials. Two teachers attended a week long training program at the Educational Development Center in Newton, Massachusetts, and two teachers attended a week long National Science Foundation workshop at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Table 4.4 Background Information: Teachers'_ Coursework in Science Number of Graduate and Undergraduate Credit Hours Area N 0 3-6 7-12 15+ N.R.* Biology 12 0 9 0 l 2 Physics 12 1 7 2 0 2 Chemistry 12 3 6 0 1 2 Geology 12 2 7 1 0 2 Science Methods 12 2 7 1 0 2 *N.R. = No Response Table 4.4 presents demographic and achievement test data for the student sample in the study. The total student sample is sub-divided into groups reflecting the different 119 schools participating in the study. Other categories in- clude sex and the diviSion of the student group into three sub-groups. The sub-groups are derived from student California Achievement Test national percentile scores in mathematics. The ”low" group represents those students scoring between zero and the fifty-eighth percentile; the "middle" group represents those students scoring between the fifty-ninth and the eighty-fifth percentile; the "high" group are composed of those students scoring between the eighty-sixth and the ninety-ninth percentile. Table 4.4 Demographic and Matthchievement Characteristics of the Student Sample Variables N Z Variables N 1 1. School 3. National Percentile Arrowhead 46 16.5 In Math: Minnesauke 46 16.5 California MOunt 46 16.5 Achievement Test Nassakeag 46 16.5 North Country 72 25.8 Low (0-58) 81 29.0 Setauket 23 8.2 Middle (59-85) 118 42.2 High (86-99) 59 21.2 Total 279 100.0 Not available 20 7.2 lie Female 140 50.2 Male 139 49.8 Reliabiliry of the Student Achievement Test Reliability estimates for the student unit achieve- ment test (Appendix J) were calculated for the pre-test and post-test as suggested by Anastasi (1976) and Thorndike 120 (l955)1. Cronbach's (1951) Coefficient Alpha represents the method used to determine internal consistency. Alpha is equivalent to the average of all Split-half coefficients for a test and is generally considered the lower bound of true reliability.2 Table 4.5 presents the Alpha reliability coefficients for the pre- and post-tests. Table 4.5 Alpha Reliability Coefficients “for the Student Unit-Achievement Tests Standard N Mean Variance Deviation Alpha. 1. Pre-test 279 13.08 17.54 4.19 .58 2. Post-test 240 17.88 23.54 4.85 .67 Appendix J presents complete item by item test values for the pre- and post-tests. Test values are the ratio of each item's variance to the sum of the covariances of all other items and is a measure of how closely individual items agree with all other items.3 lAnne Anastasi, Psychological Testing (4th ed., New York: MacMillan, 1976), pp. 1255127; see also Robert L. Thorndike, "Reliability," Educational Measurement, ed. E. F. Lindquist (Washington, D{C.: American Council on Education, 1955), pp. 606-607. 2Lee J. Cronbach, "Coefficient Alpha and The Internal Structure of Tests," Psychometrika, XVI (December, 1951), pp. 297-334. 3Personal communication and consultation with Dr. Francis J. Crowley, FOrdham University. 121 Items showing large coefficients (negative or positive) do not relate well with other items on the test. Internally consistent items are represented by low values. Test values for items ranged between -2.51 to 2.09 for the pre-test and .21 to 2.83 for the post-test. Interrater Reliability of the Interaction Analysis Instrument Observations of science lessons were conducted prior to use Of the scripted ESS unit Peas & Particles and during its instruction in fourth grade classrooms. Interrater reliability was calculated during the training of raters, before treatment and during use of the scripted unit. The researcher conducted all observations in the North Country School where Observations were also video-taped. The researcher conducted one-half of the observations in all other schools with the science consultant in each building doing the other half. These observations were conducted with raters seated separately in the classrooms. Interrater reliabilities were then calculated. During the observation conducted by the science consultants, independent of the researcher, audio-tape recordings were made of verbal inter- action. This was done to resolve any questions the researcher might have had about observer ratings. Table 4.6 presents interrater reliabilities for the following observers: A, the researcher; B, the science consultant at Arrowhead School; C, the science consultant at Minnesauke School; D, the science consultant at MOunt School; E, the science consultant at Nassakeag School; and 122 F, the science consultant at Setauket School. Scott's coefficient "pi" was used to calculate interrater reliability. Flanders (1967) recommends Scott's method for the following reasons: It is unaffected by low frequencies, can be adapted to percent figures, can‘be estimated more rapidly in the field, and is more sensitive at higher levels of reliability. Table 4.6 Interrater Reliability Coefficients for the Interaction Analysis Instrument Activity Categories Index Observation Observer Pairs and Periods Pi Coefficients A-B A-C A-D A-E A-F Training .87 .89 .81 .87 .89 Pre-Treatment .86 .95 .96 .91 .90 Treatment .83 .82 .97 .94 * *Researcher made final two Observations. Caldwell (1970) reported estimated reliability be- tween Observers in a study of elementary science classrooms of between .89 and .94 before, during, and at the end of 5 his study. Estimated Observer reliabilities in the present study range from a low of .81 to a high of .97. 4Ned A. Flanders "The Problems of Observer Training and Reliability," Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application, Edmund J. AmidOn and John B. Hough (Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1967), pp. 158-164. 5Harrie E. Caldwell, Evaluation of An In-Service Science Methods Course by Systematic Observation of Class- room Activities. Educational Resources Information Center ERIC'Document, ED 024 615, September, 1967, pp. 13-14. 123 Flanders (1967) implies that coefficients of .85 and higher represent desirable interrater reliability standards.6 The number of observers (six) utilized in this study may be one factor accounting for the wide range of reliability coefficients. Caldwell, who also used the ACI, utilized three Observers in his study. All of the science consul- tants were employed as raters because any prOposal modifying the science curriculum would naturally involve them. One source for error, upon closer inspection, appears to be discrepancies in coding related to interpretation of talk immediately following a teacher question. In a few in- stances one coder interpreted this as part of the teacher question, and the other coder classified it as teacher talk. Considering the number of coders utilized in this study and the variety of errors that may occur, the coefficients represented in the table above are accepted as being within a satisfactory range. Hypothesis Testing As discussed in Chapter III, hypotheses are accepted or rejected at the .05 level of significance. Hypotheses are stated in the null form to facilitate the statistical analysis. 6Flanders, p. 165. 124 H1: Activity Categories Index (ACI) activity ratios be- fore and after introduction of the script method Of teadhing. HO: There will be no significant difference in ACI activity ratios for teachers after introduc- tion of the script method of teaching than before its introduction. Hypothesis 1 (Chapter III) anticipated an increase in the amount of time children spend actively involved in science lessons as a result of exposure to a scripted science unit. The activity ratio includes the following categories from the ACI: laboratory experience, group projects, student demonstrations, student library research and student talk. Table 4.7 reports the actual comparison of means for the amount of time students spend actively involved in science lessons before and after introduction of the script method of teaching. Table 4.7 t-test for Matched Pairs Between Pre-Activity and Post-Activity Observations Observed _ Variable N X S.D. t d.f. p (2-tail) Pre-Activity 12 3.84 1.72 , -l.90 11 0.08* Post-Activity 12 6.72 5.86 * Not Significant at .05. The difference between the pre-treatment mean and the post-treatment mean for activity, while indicating a greater level of student involvement after introduction of 125 the script, was not significant at the .05 level. There- fore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. The hypothesis that activity levels of students would be greater as a result of exposure to the script method of teaching was not supported. Discussion Activity levels were high in pre-treatment observa- tions. All teachers observed were either teaching the ESS unit Mealworms or Colored Solutions during these early visits. These ESS units normally involve greater student activity. The Observations made of the teachers during their work with the scripted Peas & Particles unit resulted in higher levels of activity, although the magnitude of the difference was not statistically significant. The fact that increased pre-planning and teacher direction as represented by the scripted materials did not detract from student in- volvement in science lessons may be considered a positive finding. The large variance, (represented by the standard deviation) in the post-treatment Observations may be re- sponsible for non-significance of the findings for activity. Raw data indicate that observers were present in three cases, for launch and exploration phases only, which re- sulted in extremely large activity ratios. Those activity ratios were responsible for the large variance. Baker (1970) compared the ESS program to textbook programs during ESS's adOption in the Monroe County, N. Y. 126 Schools.7 In his analysis, utilizing Flander's Interaction Analysis Categories, ESS classrooms fostered a more in- direct teaching pattern than textbook classrooms. Indirect teaching is associated with greater student involvement in learning and corresponds to the Activity Ratio of the ACI. The results in both ESS and scripted ESS classrooms in the present study are consistent with Baker's findings in ESS classrooms. The larger proportion of class time is Spent in student activity or indirect teaching. Caldwell (1968) utilizing the AC1 to observe elementary science programs employing either a textbook or activity approach, was also able to discern greater differ- 8 Evidence of ences between the two types of programs. larger prOportion of student activity time are consistent for Caldwell's activity approach and both treatments in the present study. Baker and Caldwell were probably able to discern greater differences between groups in their studies due to the fact that they were comparing textbook and activity programs. The findings in the present study, while not Significant, may be viewed as supporting the script-method as an activity approach. The findings related to indirect teaching and activity are consistent with those of Baker 7Harrie E. Caldwell, "Evaluation of An In-Service Science Methods Course b S stematic Observation of Class- room Activities," (un uh is ed Doctoral dissertation, Syra- cuse University, 1968). 8Robert M. Baker, "A Stud of the Effects of a Selected Set of Science Teachin aterials (ESS) on Class- room Instructional Behaviors," unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1970). 127 and Caldwell. H2: ACI laboratory ratios before and after introduction of the script method ofiteaching. HO: There will be no significant difference in ACI laboratory ratios before and after in- troduction of the script method of teaching. Hypothesis 2 (Chapter III) anticipated an increase in the amount of time children spend in laboratory ex- periences during science classes. Laboratory experiences are defined in the following statement: Students are presented a problem to be solved by manipulation and experimentation with materials. The procedure may or may not be given. They are required to make observations and analyze or interpret their findings. Table 4.8 reports the actual comparison of means for amount of time students Spend in laboratory experiences during science lessons. Table 4.8 t-test for Matched Pairs Between Pre-Laboratory and Post-Laboratory Observations Observed' _ Variable N X S.D. t d.f. p (2-tail) Pre-Laboratory 12 1.56 0.15 1.15 11 0.88* Post-Laboratory 12 0.55 0.14 *Not sigfiificant at .05. The difference between the pre-treatment mean and 9Harrie E. Caldwell, Evaluation of An In-Service Science Methods Course by Systematic Observation of Class- room Aetivities. EducatiOnal Resources InfOrmainn Center ERIC Document, ED 024 615, September, 1967, pp. 10-12. 128 the post-treatment mean for laboratory activity indicates a lower level of laboratory activity after introduction of the script. The difference was not significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis is not rejected. The hypothesis that laboratory levels of students would be greater as a result of exposure to the script method of teaching was not supported. Discussion Laboratory levels were high on the pre-treatment observations. Teachers were working with ESS units during which children openly explore with materials in a labora- tory setting. The observations of teachers during their use of the scripted unit resulted in lower laboratory ratios, although not significantly lower. The fact that the script includes increased teacher direction for teacher talk and planning did not significantly limit the amount of time children have to explore with materials in laboratory phases of science lessons may be considered a positive finding. Caldwell (1968) utilizing the ACI was able to distinguish between a textbook approach and an activity approach when comparing laboratory ratios for the two programs.10 By comparison, the present study attempted to distinguish a significant difference between two activity approaches, ESS and scripted ESS. lOCaldwell, p. 61. 129 H3: ACI teacher questioning ratios before and after introduction of the script method of teaching. H : There will be no significant difference in ACI questioning ratios before and after introduction of the script method of teaching. Hypothesis 3 (Chapter III) anticipated an increase in the amount of time teachers spend asking questions as compared to the total amount of teacher talk during elementary science lessons. The ratio includes the amount of time teachers spend asking questions compared to teacher questioning plus all other teacher talk. Table 4.9 reports the actual comparison of means for the amount of time teachers spend questioning students. Table 4.9 t-test for Matched Pairs Between Pre-Questioning and Post-Questioning Observations (Observed _ Variable N, X S.D. E d.f. p.(2-tail) Pre-Questioning I2 0.32 0.22 -l.75 11 0.11* Post-Questioning 12 0.43 0.24 *Not significant at .05. The difference between the pre-treatment mean for questioning and the post-treatment mean for questioning, while indicating a greater frequency of teacher questions after introduction of the script, was not significant at the .05 level. The null hypothesis, therefore, was not rejected. The hypothesis that questioning levels of teachers would be greater as a result of using the script method of teaching was not supported. 130 Discussion Questioning ratios in the pre-treatment setting display a mean of .3148 indicating that average teacher talk included approximately 32% questioning. Post- treatment observations indicated that nearly 43% of teacher talk, on the average, was in the form of teacher question- ing. While an increase in questioning was evident during the use of the scripted materials, the increase was not Significant. The ACI observation schedule is not sensitive to teacher talk or questioning during the laboratory (explora- tion) phase of pre- and post-treatment observations. The means for laboratory observations were 0.56 and 0.55 reSpectively indicating that more than half of science lesson time was Spent in laboratory activities. The script emphasizes teacher questioning during the exploration phase of the lesson with the teacher circulating through the class as students work toward solution of the lesson challenge. The analysis of video-tapes (Question 3), discussed later in this chapter, presents information about teacher questioning during all phases of the activi- ties for three teachers. The data suggest that teachers asked a large portion of their questions during the explora- tion phase. This information suggests that a more sensitive observation instrument might indicate a Significantly greater amount of questioning in a post— treatment setting. However, it is noted that the ACI was 131 sensitive to teacher questioning during pre-treatment laboratory observation either. Caldwell (1968) was able to observe a Significant difference in questioning time in favor of the activity approach as compared to a textbook approach in teaching elementary science.11 The present study compared two activity programs and found no Significant difference. Baker (1970) reports no difference in the questioning behavior of textbook teachers compared to ESS teachers. He reports that the textbook group asked more questions, though the difference with the ESS group was not signifi- cant.12 The findings reported by Baker may reflect the difference in observation instruments. Baker used Flander's Interaction Analysis System which is dominated by verbal categories. Baker's findings are not supported by the results in the present research. Results of the present research may indicate the need for an observation instrument more sensitive to teacher questioning during the laboratory phase of in- struction in future studies. H4: Teacher perceptions of their amount of talk (Teacher Perception Form, TPF) compared to the Ohserved amount of talk ACI. HO: There will be no Significant correlation between teachers' perceptions of their amount of talk as compared to the Observed amount of talking they do. 11Caldwell, pp. 62-63. 12Baker, p. 60. 132 Hypothesis 4 (Chapter III) anticipated that teachers would recognize the amount Of time they spend talking during science lessons. The TPF data was collected during the treatment period only. There is no attempt to compare teacher perceptions to their pre-treatment observations. In addition, teachers were asked to respond to the questions as they felt their students, as a total group, would respond. Therefore, we have represented teachers' judgment of student perceptions of teacher talk. Questions one and two of the TPF were compared to observational information (ACI) related to teacher talk. The questions from the TPF are: 1. During the science period, the class a. mostly listened to the teacher. b. mostly watched the teacher or a boy or girl do experiments. c. mostly worked with equipment. 2. Most of the talking was done a. by the teacher. b. by a few boys and girls. c. by many boys and girls. The data from the twelve teachers' responses to these two questions was compared to ACI, category 10 information from the post-treatment observations. Category 10 is represented as follows: The teacher reads aloud, expresses his views, gives directions, makes an assignment or asks a rhetorical question. Students are expected to listen. They may interrupt only when they don't understand. Student reading in the text is also included in this category. 133 Table 4.9 reports the actual correlation between the TPF and ACI means for questions one and two and category ten, post-treatment, respectively. Table 4.10 Pearson Product MOment Correlations Between TPF Questions 1 & 2 and ACI Category 10 for Post-Treatment Data Only Category N X S.D. r p TPF 1 & 2 12 2.17 0.72 ' -0.54 .03* ACI 10 24 72.19 29.72 *Significant at .05 The correlation between teachers' perceptions of their amount of talk as compared to the Observed amount of talk was significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. The hypothesis that teachers' perceptions of their amount of talk would be correlated with their Observed talk is supported. Discussion The negative correlation coefficient occurred as a result of the nature of different coding methods for teacher talk on the ACI and TPF. On the ACI a large "score" indi- cated more teacher talk, whereas on the TPF a large "score" indicated less teacher talk. The scattergram for the correlational data indicates that as Observed talk decreases the perception of the amount of teacher talk decreases as well. 134 The comparison of observed and perceived teacher talk was conducted to determine whether the science teaching situation as represented by the script would affect teachers' perceptions of this behavior. Results from the analysis of hypothesis 3 indicate that pre- and post-treatment ratios for questioning reflect similar proportions of teacher talk. Results of hypothesis 4 indicate that teachers probably perceive this behavior accurately. The number of cases included (n=12) and the number of observations (n=24) qualify the results. Therefore, a weak relationship exists suggesting that observers and teachers may agree on their perceptions of the amount of teacher talk. Considering the increased direction for teacher talk and structuring of the teaching situation, this may be considered a positive finding. Baker (1970) found that teachers using ESS materials perceive their amount of talk.consistently with an observer's rating of this behavior. The results are com- parable to the findings in the present study; however, teachers in Baker's study were not using the script method of teaching for ESS units.13 H5: Student perceptions of their level of active participatiOn in science lessons (Student Perceprion Form, SPF) compared to observed activityylevels Of students (ACI). Ho: There will be no significant correlations between the SPF student activity levels and the ACI observations of student activity levels. l3Baker, pp. 65-66. 135 Hypothesis 5 (Chapter III) anticipated that students would perceive the amount of time they spend actively in- volved in science lessons and that their perceptions would correlate with observed activity levels. Five questions related to activity from the SPF were each compared to the three post-treatment observational ratios. The Student Perception Forms were administered to students in twelve classes during the post-treatment period (n=268). The SPF forms were completed immediately follow- ing an Observed lesson. The five questions for which correlation coeffi- cients were calculated included: 1. During the science period, the class a. mostly listened to the teacher. b. mostly watched the teacher or a boy or girl do experiments. *c. mostly worked with equipment. 3. MOst of the experiments were done a by the teacher. b. by a few boys and girls. *c. by many boys and girls. 5. I got to work with the science equipment hardly at all. about half the time. most of the time. 00“” 7k 6. When I worked with the science equipment, I mostly did experiments *a. planned by the teacher. b. planned by the book. c planned by my group. d planned by the class. 136 7. It is all right to help other students in sc1ence a. not at all *b. sometimes *The response most c. most of the time. frequently chosen. Each of the five questions were correlated with each of the three post-treatment ratios derived from use of the ACI. They are the Activity Ratio, the Laboratory Ratio, and the Questioning Ratio. Table 4.11 reports the actual correlations between the SPF questions l,3,5,6 and 7 and the ACI ratios, acti- vity, laboratory and questioning. The number N in the table represents the number of teachers observed. The number of students completing Student Perception Forms was N-268. Table 4.11 Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between SPF Questions 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and ACI Ratios for Activity, Laboratory and Questioning. ACI Student Perception Form Questions Ratios 1 3 5 6 7 ‘ r 0.41 0.08 0.19 0.07 -0.53 Activity N 12 12 12 12 12 p .10 .41 .28 .42 .04* r 0.60 0.47 0.04 -0.57 —0.05 Laboratory N 12 12 12 12 12 p .02* .06 .46 .03* .44 r -0.59 -0.38 0.03 0.83 -0.31 Questioning N 12 12 12 12 12 p .02* .11 .06 . .00* .17 *Significant at the .05 leveIi The correlation between student perceptions SPF Question 1 and the ACI ratios was significant at the .05 137 level relative to the lab and questioning ratios but not with the activity ratio. There were no significant correlations between SPF Question 3 and the three ACI ratios. There were no significant correlations between SPF Question 5 and the three ACI ratios. The correlation between student perceptions SPF Question 6 and the ACI ratios was Significant at the .05 level relative to the lab and questioning ratios but not the activity ratio. SPF Question 7 correlated significantly at the .05 level with the ACI activity ratio but not the lab or questioning ratios. Five of the fifteen cells represented in Table 4.11 Show significant correlations. There is no consistent pattern of significance, therefore the null hypothesis is not rejected. The hypothesis (overall) that student perceptions of their level of active participation in science lessons would correlate significantly with Observed activity levels is not supported. Discussion The ACI ratios combining information from several categories, may not correlate well with specific questions, as posed by the SPF. A closer examination of student responses to the five questions of the SPF may yield more accurate information. 138 Students most frequently chose the following re- sponses to items: (n equals the number selecting a given response). 1. c (n=l70) 3. c (n=229) 5. c (n=l75) 6. a (n=135) 7. b (n=203) The majority of students indicate the most active role for students in their responses to items 1, 3, and 5. Most students perceived that planning for activities was carried out by the teacher. This represents the choice of least active role for students (item 6 SPF). Item 7 (SPF) is related to cooperation during science activities. MOst students indicated that "It is all right to help other students in science, b- sometimes." This would indicate a somewhat active role for students. This information suggests that students perceived themselves as having a fairly active role during science activities with the scripted material. The use of a more sensitive statis- tical instrument or comparison of other observational and perceptual data may have yielded significant reSultS. Baker (1970) compared student and teacher percep- tions on each item for the SPF and TPF. No statistical test was performed. His findings indicate that the reac- tions of both ESS teachers and their students are Similarly high(active role of pupils) and proportional on items related to student activity.14 His findings, for equivalent 14Baker, pp. 70-79. 139 items (l,3,5,6, & 7 SPF), are supportive of findings in the present study. While the present study did not compare teacher and student perceptions, there may be some support for the view that students perceive scripted ESS lessons as fostering an active role for them. H6: Student achievement test results before and after exposure to the scripted science unit Peas & Particles. H : There will be no Significant difference in student achievement before and after exposure to the scripted science unit Peas & Particles. Hypothesis 6 (Chapter III) anticipated an increase in achievement for students on objectives established for the Peas & Particles unit as represented by items on the unit test. Students were tested prior to exposure to the unit and immediately following its completion. A t-test for dependent means was calculated for pairs of student scores (N-227). Table 4.12 reports the actual comparison of means for the student unit achievement test scores pre- and post- instruction. Table 4.12 t-test for Matched Pairs Between Pre- and Post-Instructional Scores on The Unit-Test of Achievement Diff. Standard Test N X X S.D. Error t p (2-tail) Pre 227 12.94 -4.76 4.11 0.27 -l7.45 >0.001 Post 227 17.70 d.f. = 226 4 140 The difference in students' gain scores from the unit-achievement test, pre- and post-instructional, were significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the null hypo- thesis is rejected. The hypothesis that student gain scores on the unit-achievement test would be significant is supported. Discussion The low pre- and post-test means indicate that the test was difficult for this sample of students. The relia- bility coefficients for the unit achievement tests were relatively low. These two factors are probably related and are limiting factors to the claims of significance. Ebel (1979) points out that tests composed of very difficult or very easy items will reSult in lower reliability co- efficients.15 Item analysis (research question 1) will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. The value of results on the achievement test may be in providing the researcher with information related to the difficulty of some concepts presented in the script. Nicodemus (1970) analyzed results on a test related to the order of complexity in ESS "Attribute Blocks". He suggests that results from student evaluation experiences are im- portant in developing an heirarchy of behavior for teaching 15Robert L. Ebel, Essentials of Educational Measurement, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979). P. 267. 141 with the materials.16 The importance of student evaluation instruments in curriculum planning is also supported by Labinowich (1970). His study dealt with summative evaluation with students who experienced the ESS unit Tangrams.l7 He concluded that evaluation of results from student tests were important in identifying unit objectives, grade level placement and the development of student evaluation instruments as well. Summary In general, the findings in this section can be summarized as follows: 1. Reliability for the student Unit-Achievement Test was Obtained by measures of internal consistency. (Coefficient Alpha). The coefficients were .58 (pre-test) and .67 (post-test). 2. Interrater reliability coefficients were calculated using Scott's coefficient (Pi). The range Of coefficients for paired Observers was .81 to .97. Co- efficients were calculated for the training, pre-treatment and post-treatment periods. Considering the number of 16Robert B. Nicodemus, "Order of Complexity in Attribute Blocks,” School Science and Math, LXX (October, 1970), 649-654. 17Edward P. Labinowich, "A Study in Summative Evaluation of Elementary School Science Curricula," Disser tatiOn Abstracts International, XXXI (1970) 1077A (Florida State University,(1969). 142 observers (six) employed in the study, coefficients indi- cate the ACI to be satisfactory for use in observing science activities. 3. There is no difference in student activity, student laboratory, or teacher questioning levels before and after introduction of the script method of teaching. 4. Teacher perception of their amount of talk as measured on the teacher perception form correlates posi- tively with the observed amount of teacher talk (ACI). The correlation was significant for the total teacher sample. 5. There was no consistent pattern established by the correlations of student/perceptions of their activity levels (responses to questions 1,3,5,6, and 7 on the Student Perception Form) with observed activity, laboratory, or questioning levels (ACI). The lack of a pattern may be related to incongruities existing between definitions of activity for the observation instrument and the student perception instrument. 6. Students demonstrated significant achievement of the goals and objectives related to the scripted "Peas & Particles" unit as a result of their participation in the unit. 143 Analysis of Research Questions In this section four research questions will be analyzed. The data is represented in the form of field notes, anecdotal records, video-tapes of classroom acti— vities, and interviews with teachers. The analysis of questions is preceded by a description of the teaching model used to modify the ESS unit Peas & Particles. The revision is based on the script inquiry model proposed by Fitzgerald and Shroyer (1979).18 The script represents a carefully planned unit of instruction.. Each activity in the unit includes teacher background informa- tion related to specific strategies, concepts or rules represented by that activity. A second portion of the script includes "teacher talk" related to introducing a problem and demonstration of a mini-challenge with students. This is followed by a few guidelines for a student exploration period and finally an outline of ex— pected student responses is included. The unit script presents an interesting problem or challenge and includes a sequence of carefully planned activities organized to develop necessary concepts, strat- egies, and rules to solve the problem. Each activity is characterized by three instructional phases: launching, exploring and summarizing. Launching includes whole class 18WilliamM. Fitzgerald and Janet Shroyer, "A Study of the Learning and Teaching of Growth Relation- ships in the Sixth Grade," (unpublished research study, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, 1979) pp. 2-7. 144 introduction to an activity and the issuing of a challenge. A demonstration of a mini-challenge is usually conducted during this phase along with a review of previous concepts or rules. During the exploration phase students focus, in small group work, on the challenge through manipulation of materials. During this phase the teacher circulates through the room helping students focus on the problem or maintain on-task behavior. Summarizing includes organizing and displaying data in an organized fashion, discussing re- sults and strategies used to solve the problem and assist students in the recognition of related patterns and rules. The summary is conducted with the whole class. The script used in the present study represents an interpretation of a science unit (Peas & Particles) related to counting methods, measurement, and estimation. The unit was revised to include a major unit challenge or problem focus. Each activity within the unit represents a measure- ment or counting method which may be used to solve a mini- challenge related to that activity or provide a strategy that may be used to solve the unit challenge. The research questions are presented in the follow- ing order. Question 1 deals with item-analysis for the unit achievement test and a description of the task- interview test. Questions 2 and 3 are concerned with infor- mation collected on video-tape of three teachers' work with the script. These analyses will deal with teacher deviation from the script and teacher questioning categories. 145 Research question 4 presents data from the teacher logs and end of the unit evaluation forms for twelve teachers. This information deals with teacher deviation from the script, student discoveries, timing as it relates to the length of the three phases of each activity, and student interest and enthusiasm for the activities. Q1: What is the usefulness of the items on the test of achievement andvthe validity informationfifor that test? Question 1 (Chapter III) deals with the item analy- sis of unit test questions as well as presentation of the table of specification related to content validity. In this section item analysis information will be presented concerning indices of discrimination, and diffi- culty. A discussion of this data will follow including a table of specification grid representing a possible revised unit-achievement test. Table 4.13 presents the discrimination values for items on the pre- and post-unit-achievement tests. Ebel defines the index of discrimination as "...the difference in a proportion of correct responses between the group of those scoring in the top 27 percent on the total test and the group scoring in the bottom 27 percent on the same test."19 In evaluating items Ebel recommends the following guidelines for item selection: 19Robert L. Ebel, p. 376. 146 Index of Discrimination 0.40 and up 0.30 to 0.39 0.20 to 0.29 Below 0.19 Item Evaluation Very good items Reasonably good items Marginal items Poor items Table 4.135C1assification of Items from the Unit Achiement Test by Index of Discrimination Item Index of Evaluation Discrimination Item Number* Very Good 0.40 and up 6, 7, 10, ll, 12, 16, 20 21, 22, 23, 26, 28. Reasonably 0.30 to 0.39 4, 8, 14, 19, 24, 25, 27, Good 32, 33, 35, 36. Marginal 0.20 to 0.29 9, 13, 15, 17, 29, 30. Poor Below 0.19 1, 2, 3, 5, 18, 31, 34. *The item numbers are from the post-test (Appendix H) The sample size used was N-227. Ebel indicates that sample size and the kind of instruction are two factors contributing to sampling error.21 Therefore, con- sidering this sample and under the instructional condi— tions represented by this unit, the following may be stated. Twenty-three items are considered reasonably good to very good based on the index of discrimination. Thirteen items are considered marginal or poor based on the index of discrimination. on the pre- and post-unit-achievement test. Table 4.14 presents the difficulty values for items 20Robert L. Ebel, p. 267. 21 Robert L. Ebel, p. 375. Ebel defines 147 the index of difficulty as, ..the proportion of examinees in a grOUp who do not answer the test item correctly."22 Ebel goes on to state that, .such indices are primarily used to analyze low discrimination items in terms of their 23 extreme ease or difficulty." Ebel recommends items of middle difficulty and notes ..the somewhat higher re- liability of the scores from those tests composed of items more nearly in the mid-range of difficulty."24 The middle value of difficulty for this test was an index of 27 percent. An index of 54 percent indicates that all students in the group examined answered incOrrectly on a given item. The table establishes the following ranges of difficulty: Index of Difficulty_ Item Evaluation 0 to 21 percent Relatively easy 22 to 32 percent Moderately difficult 33 to 54 percent Too difficult Table 4.14 Classification of Items from the Unit Achievement Test by Index of Difficulty Item Index of Evaluation Difficulty Item.Number* Relatively 0 to 21 percent 4, 7, 8, 11,12,15, 17, Easy 19, 22, 28, 30. Moderately 22 to 32 percent 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 14, Difficult 16, 20, 21, 23, 26, 27, 33, 35, 36. T00 33 to 54 percent 2, 9, 18, 24, 25, 29, BL Difficult 32, 34. *The item numbers are from the post-test (Appendix H). 22Ebe1, p. 375. 23Ebel, p. 264. 24Ebel, p. 267. 148 Discussion Seven items poorly discriminated for students in this sample. Five additional items were considered too difficult for the sample. Combined they represent one-third of the total test. The results may indicate one reason for the relatively low reliability coefficients (.58 and .67 for the pre- and post-tests). Items with low indices of discrimination may repre- sent difficult thinking skills for this sample. Two items, possibly in this category, required students to evaluate estimation strategies and situations in which estimation of quantity was inapprOpriate (items 9 & l8, post-test). Four items with low discrimination indices involved the estima- tion of quantity as viewed in photos (slides) of objects. Teachers noted that the slides were too dark when viewed in rooms not equipped with room darkening shades. Several teachers expressed displeasure with using a test that re- quired projection equipment to administer. (Items 1, 2, 3, & 5, post-test). Item 34 dealt with the concept of ratio. The question required students to apply the concept to a situation not covered in the unit. One proposal for improving the test would be to eliminate items that discriminated poorly and revise mar- ginal items. Figure 4.1 presents the table of specification grid for the prOposed test. Item numbers represented in the table from the post-test. The table shows that activity objectives are maintained. 149 Figure 4.1 Proposed Unit Achievement Test Specification Grid INFERENCE PREDICTION MEASUREMENT CLASSIFICATION CONCEPTS COMMUNICATION Activity One Counting by Ones 21 22 23 H 0‘ 1‘" U1 Activity Two Counting in Multiples & Rounding 36 30 35 25 Activity Three Counting a Sample, Orders of Magnitude 29 Activity Four Area 19 33 Activity Five Volume 17 27 Activity Six Halving & Doubling 32 Activity Seven Balancing 26 Activity Eight Weight 24 Activity Nine Ratio 11 12 13 10 Activity Ten Unit Challenge 20 150 Post-test item numbers are used in the Specification grid, Figure 4.1, to represent items to be included in the prOposed test. In addition items (numbers from the post- test) to be dr0pped: l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 14, 18, 31, and 34. The table of specification shows that all activities are represented in the proposed test. Task—Interview Test A second student test was used in this study. A randomly selected sample (N-36), including twelve students from each of three groups (high, middle and low), identi— fied by scores on the California Achievement Test, were interviewed pre- and post-test. The actual number inter- viewed was N=27 on the pre-test and N233 on the post-test. The two groups were independent. There are four questions on the task—interview. Students were presented questions orally and expected to respond in the same manner. The questions and directions for administration are included with the scripted unit for teachers (Appendix A). The response sheet for task- interview is included in Appendix I. Teachers were asked to record student responses as either complete, partial, or as no response. In addition they recorded a description of the counting method (3) given by students and include explanatory comments where necessary. The task-interview represents a possible alternative 151 evaluation instrument to the unit-achievement test. The analysis includes teacher reaction to its inclusion as an evaluation instrument as well as a presentation of pre- and post-test results. This analysis was not conducted to determine significance of the comparison; however, a chi- square was calculated to determine the relationship between the pre- and post-test results for three response cate- gories. A second chi-square was calculated for high, middle and low student group categories, comparing pre— and post—test results. The pre- and post-test groups were independent. The responses to three of the four questions on the task-interview were included in the analysis. Question two results were not included since it did not meet the requirement for score independence. Data from all questions are presented in tabular form including per- cents for each group. Limitations of this type of testing include the degree to which teachers explain questions to students and the subjectivity involved in rating student responses. The sample sizes and possible discrepancies in the equivalence of the pre- and post-test samples are also limiting factors. Table 4.15 presents results of the four questions, pre-test, from the task-interview with students. Three columns for four questions present the numbers of students responding whose answers were rated as complete, partial, or as no response. The rows present data for high, middle and low groups and the total group. 152 Table 4.15 The Number and Percent of Student Responses for the Task-Interview Pre-test Student Response Rating Group Complete Partial No Response ‘Total Né27 N Z N Z N Z N ’Z High 18 16.7 14 13 76 70.4 108 100.1 Middle 10 9.3 14 13 84 77.8 108 100.1 Low 5 4.6 16 14.8 87 80.6 108 100.0 Total 33 10.2 44. 13.6 247 76.2 324 100.0 Table 4.16 presents results of the four questions post-test, from the task-interview with students. Table 4.16 The Number and Percent of Student Responses.for the Task Interview Post-test Student, Group Complete Partial No Response Total N=33 N Z N Z N Z N Z High 34 25.8 24 18.2 74 56.1 132 100.1 Middle 25 18.9 28 21.2 79 59.8 132 99.9 Low 15 11.4 36 27.3 81 61.4 132 100.1 Total 74 18.7 88 22.2 234 59.1 396 100.0 153 Table 4.17 presents chi-square results for the following response categories: complete response, partial response and no response. Table 4.17 Chi-Square as an Index of Association Between Pre- and Post-test Results, (Completeness of Student Response) on the Task-Interview Test 2 Category N Z: d.f. p Pre-test 27 12.26 2* .001** Post—test 33 *d.f. = the product of the row and column degrees of freedom. **significant at the .05 level. The relationship between pre- and post-test results for categories of responses is significant at the .05 level. If a null hypothesis had been prOposed it would have been rejected and the alternative hypothesis would have been accepted. Therefore, students were more successful on the post-test than the pre-test. The data show that more "complete responses" were recorded for the post-test and more "no responses" were recorded for the pre-test students. 154 Table 4.18 presents chi-square results for high, middle and low groups for the total of partial and complete responses between pre- and post-test results. Table 4.18 Chi-Square as an Index of Association Between Pre- and Post-test Results, (High, Middle and Low Student Groups) on the Task-Interview Test Category N z? d.f. p Pre—test 27 0.60 2* .75** Post-test 33 *d.f.¢ the product of the row and column degrees of freedOm. **significant at the .05 level. The relationship between pre— and post-test results for categories of achievement was not significant at the .05 level. If a null hypothesis had been proposed it would not have been rejected. These data show that all groups im- proved in their ability to respond successfully to questions on the task-interview test. This may be considered a positive finding, indicating that unit materials may be responsive to several ability levels. Discussion The student responses were categorized in many ways until a system was found for representing the data that was clear and reasonable. Because of the exploratory nature of the task-interview test instrument, hypotheses were not generated. Several teachers eXpressed satisfaction with the 155 task—interview as an evaluation tool. A disadvantage is that it would be impractical to interview all students; therefore, it may not be useful as an evaluation tool for individual students. It may be useful as a monitor of unit content and instruction. A similar interview test was deVe10ped by Wideen (1975).25 Wideen compared ESS and SAPA (Science—-A ProCess Approach) teaching methods and as a part of the study presented students with a problem situation and asked them to answer orally. Wideen represented responses in a six— category table related to "reasons and causes" for the observed events. He was unable to discern any difference between groups and no statistical teSt was applied to the results. While the present study did not compare teaching methods and no statistical significance is claimed, results demonstrate a positive difference from pre-test to post- test. The findings may be viewed as encouraging with respect to further development of the task-interview test. Summary Index of discrimination indices for the unit- achievement test indicate that twenty-three items were rated as reasonably good or very good. One-third of the items on the unit-achievement test either discriminated poorly or were rated as being too 25Marvin F. Wideen, The Psychological Underpinnings of Curricula: An Empirical Stdd , U. S. Educationali ReSources Infdrmation Center, ERIC Document ED 103 933, March, 1975. 156 difficult for students and may have been responsible for the low reliability coefficients for pre- and post-tests. A revised unit-achievement test is prOposed that would include twenty-six of the thirty-six items from the original test. The items to be included in the proposed test are presented in a table of specification showing that all activities are covered in the new instrument. Results from the task-interview test for students indicate that students may improve in their ability to ex- plain counting methods and estimation strategies as a result of exposure to the unit materials. In addition, there is some evidence to suggest that student ability to orally describe counting methods may improve as a result of participation in the Peas & Particles unit. Teachers viewed the task-interview as an acceptable evaluation instrument; however, it may be impractical to interview all students. Therefore, its use may be limited to monitoring unit effeCtiveness. Results are encouraging and may suggest that further development of the task- interview is warranted. Research questions concerning teaching with the script are presented next. Questions 2 and 3 deal with data collected on video-tape of three teacher's work with the script. These analyses will deal with teacher deviation from the script and teacher questioning categories. Re- search question 4 presents data from (twelve teachers) teacher logs and end of the unit evaluation forms. This 157 information deals with teacher deviation from the script, student discoveries, timing as it relates to the length of the three phases of each activity, and student interest and enthusiasm for activities. Q2: What deviations from the script were observed and what is the relationship of these deviations to the script? Question 2 (Chapter III) anticipated that teachers would not necessarily follow the script as written and that these deviations could be related to their interpretation of the script or deficiencies in the script. This question is addressed from information col— lected on video-tapes of three teachers. Teachers 542, 543, and 544, all of the North Country Elementary School, were observed four times each during the course of the entire unit according to the following observation model. Teacher 543 Teacher 542 Activity number: r15'2 37,4f‘5 6 r7 J8 *9' 10 ‘ Teacher 544 The observer (researcher) interviewed each teacher following each observation of his/her teaching. Video tapes were used to stimulate teacher and observer recall of teach- ing events including deviations from the script. During the interview both researcher and teacher became observers of recorded classroom events. Teachers were able to explain deviations and make suggestions for improving the script. The following discussion will follow the course of the unit and include a description of teacher digression and 158 its relationship to the script. The script is found in Appendix A. Teacher 543 introduced the challenges to each of the first three activities verbally with no teacher demonstra- tions. In activity four she used the overhead projector to introduce the area counting method. As a result of the short challenges she spent a great deal of time during the exploration phase cueing and leading the children toward use of the counting strategy called for in the challenge. Children did reach the goal of applying the correct count- ing strategy in each lesson, but much of the time was spent in getting underway. During the interview the teacher indicated that she felt that the intentions of the script were to have children discover the counting strategy. Teacher 543 spent some time at the beginning of each lesson demonstrating techniques for managing the particles. Children did have some difficulty with funnels and egg cartons when it came time to pour the material back into jars. During the presentation of the challenge in activity four the teacher alluded to ceiling tiles and floor tiles to assist children with the area method of counting and as an analogy to the peas on the overhead. During the interview she expressed the need for small inch-square tiles for this purpose and as part of the mini-challenge. Teacher 543 posted extra challenges on the bulletin board and referred students to them during the activities. 159 Story challenges were generally covered at the end of each activity. Teacher 544 very deliberately developed the mini- challenges for each of the four lessons observed. Story challenges were covered at the beginning of activities and a demonstration of the counting method was conducted. She also attempted to make real connections between the story challenge and her demonstrations. For example, she referred to the peas on the overhead display as being similar to the heads in the story challenge (peOple standing on a dock). As a result of the careful introductions children in this class spent more time developing the counting strategies in their own way. Several children used class time in activity four to work on extra challenges. Multiplication of two- place numbers became a problem as children worked with larger quantities. The teacher indicated that the material covered in the unit was part of the fourth grade curriculum, but that many ideas were not covered until the second semes- ter. It is noted that, while teacher 544 spent a greater portion of time than either of the other two teachers observed presenting the challenge, she did express the belief that the students would be expected to discover more on their own. Teacher 544 indicated that a clear rectangular box would be useful in activity five for demonstrating the concept of "layering" as a counting strategy. Students had the use of small identical plastic trays. The intention 160 was to have them fill a number of trays, exhausting the supply of peas in one jar. They then would stack them up, use the area method to find an estimate for one tray and multiply by the number of layers (trays). Two strategies develOped by children for the volume method included using a ruler as a "dipstick" in a jar of peas to determine the number of layers and filling the lid of a wide-mouthed mayonnaise jar with one layer of peas, dumping theSe into the jar, and then repeating the process until the jar was filled. A tally of the number of times the process was repeated served as their estimate for the number of layers in the jar. During the development of the halving and doubling mini-challenge children in teacher 544's class discovered that the number of times the pile of rice displayed on the overhead was halved was one less than the number of piles of rice created. Children had to be reminded to keep a tally of the number of times a pile of particles was halved during the exploration period. This teacher expressed the Opinion that the transition to activity seven, where large pan balances were used to halve quantities was important to the children in the following ways: It reinforced concepts learned in activity six and allowed students an Opportunity to compare the two methods for halving and doubling. The third teacher observed was teacher 542 (acti- vities seven through ten). Children in her class had difficulty using the large pan balances required in activity 161 seven. The teacher expressed the need to instruct children in the use of these balances and the spring scales used in activity eight as a pre-requisite to conducting the acti- vities. Teacher 542 stated that children had difficulty seeing the continuity between activity six and seven because it requires some abstract thinking on their part. Other problems brought up by teacher 542 during the inter- view included: - management of materials. - use of spring scales, reading a scale and the problem of using spring scales calibrated in both the metric and English systems. - too many children in too small a classroom environment. - record keeping and the need for data recording sheets for each activity. Deviation from the script for teacher 542 mainly related to problems with material management. She offered two alternative instructional settings as a means to manage materials better. The first alternative suggested involved setting up a science corner in the room for small groups to explore separately from the rest of the class, and the second included use of shoebox lessons intended for indi- vidual exploration. A further suggestion offered by this teacher involved giving each child a copy of the story challenges a day in advance of the planned activity. She then would explain to them that it was related to what they would be doing the next day and ask them to write down ideas for discussion during;the mini-challenge. The suggestion 162 was intended to reduce the amount of time spent on the challenge and provide an Opportunity for children to think more on their own. Teacher 542 stated that the sampling concept was one Of the key strategies that children needed to learn and was, in fact, develOped by this unit. In activity ten children were encouraged to think of their class as the sample for solving the "popcorn problem" for the school population of children. During the summary phase of activities none Of the teachers were observed stressing record keeping or saving data collection sheets, although it seemed implicit in teacher 544's class. Children in this group were observed using folders for their records and notes. Teacher 543 stated that the number line was more useful in the summary for activity two than activity one for comparing guesses and estimates. She noted that use of the number line in activity one served to point out wide dis- parities in guesses and estimates. During the discussion for activity one she pursued the variables involved in handful estimates including size of the hand, the way beans were grasped, definition of a handful, and counting broken particles. In activity two the number line served to high- light the consistency of estimating as compared to the wide range of guesses. Generally, it was Observed that, due mainly to the constraints of time, summaries were cut off before many 163 ideas were discussed. Discussion The concern of teachers 543 and 544 for students' discovering more on their Own may reflect their training and years of experience with the ESS program. This concern may be evidence of Hawkin's "Messing About" plan for instruction.26 Teacher 543 did not develop mini-challenges as thoroughly as the other two teachers observed and subse- quently spent greater portions of exploration time cueing students as to the counting method to be used and its relationship to previously learned material. Observations related to this situation may support Hudgins, Huff and Freundlich who outline several factors related to assisting students in the recognition of a problem and the importance of a clear definition Of a problem before exploration work on its solution can begin.27 There is some evidence to support the work of Rachel- son (1977) concerning hypothesis generation.28 While this 26Davithawkins, "Messing About in Science," The ESS Reader, Educational Development Center (Newton, Ma.: Edficational Development Center, Inc., 1970), pp. 37-44. 27Bryce B. Hud ins, Problem Solving in the Classroom, The Ps cholo ical Foun ations of Education series (New York: MacMil an 1 66) p. 2; see also James W. Huff, "The Concept Of a Problem in Inquiry Teaching," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXXVIII (1978), 2641 (University OdeaIi- fornia,'Los Angeles, 1978 : see also Yehudah Freundlich, "The Problem in Inquiry," The Science Teacher, XLV, February, 1978), 19-22. 28Stan Rachelson, "A Question of Balance: A Wholistic View of Scientific Inquiry," Science Education, LXI (January—March, 1977), 109-117. 164 inquiry unit did not emphasize hypothesis generation, it is clear that in several cases, in which children develOped strategies for solving mini—challenges, this occurred. Johnson (1979) in a study concerned with a teacher's first experience with a science unit concluded that curricu- lum implementation ...is a dynamic succession of cumulative communications between curriculum developer, curriculum implementer, teacher and student.29 There was evidence to support Johnson's findings relative to communication. The three teachers' in the present study, interpretations concerning the purpose of the launching phase and intro- duction of the counting methods may be an example Of a failure of the training or script to communicate the curriculum developer-implementer's intention. Summary Teachers eXpressed need for more direction from the script in dealing with mini-challenge demonstrations, mater- ials management, pre-requisite information for working with the measurement tools, and record keeping and data collec- tion procedures for students. There was evidence to support the script as allowing for individual student discovery and use of extra challenges with students. 29Sylvia Fogelquist Johnson, "A Cognitive Study of an Elementary Teacher's First Experience Teaching A 'New Science' Unit and Its Relevance to the Implementation of Science Programs," (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1979) pp. 254-255. 165 Pacing of activity phases may be a problem, since the summary phase was shortened on several occasions due to the constraints of time. Teachers expressed the need for additional materials for use in teaching area and volume concepts with students. It appears that the unit may be better suited to the second semester Of the fourth grade because of the number and difficulty of math concepts contained in the unit. Q3: What is the classification and frequency of ques- tions askedfduring_instruction using the script? Question 3 (Chapter III) anticipated that teachers would ask students greater number of questions during exploration and summary phases of the scripted unit as com- pared to the launching phase. Questions were classified according to four categories of "Soliciting MOves" from the Classroom Observational Record (COR) interaction analysis instrument. The categories are: recall, collecting data, processing data, and evaluation level questions. It was anticipated that the greater proportion of questions would be above the recall level during use of the script. The question is addressed from information collected on video-tape of three teachers: teachers 542, 543 and 544, all of the North Country Elementary School. Each teacher was Observed four times, covering all ten activities which comprised the scripted unit. Table 4.19 presents a tally of the number of ques- tions asked for each phase, and the total number of questions 166 for each activity. A total for each of the three phases and for all activities is also presented in this table. Finally the table presents the percentage of questions asked for each activity as compared to the total and the percent- age Of questions asked during each phase for all activities. Note that question frequency as presented in this table represents a one—teacher sample for each acti- vity and may not be representative of all teachers using the script. Table 4119 The Number afithercentage Of Total Questions Asked for Each of the Ten Activities For the Scripted Unit from Observations of Three Teachers Teacher Activity Number of Questions Asked Percentage of Observed Name No. Launch Explore Summary Total Total Unit 543 Handful l 3 15 64 82 11.0 543 Multiple 2 5 10 45 60 8.0 543 Sample 3 0 55 14 69 9.2 543 Area 4 36 39 n.r. 75 10.0 544 Area 4 3 29 37 69 9.2 544 VOlume 5 22 44 9 75 10.0 544 Halve 6 21 13 12 46 6.0 544 Balance 7 7 22 n.r. 29 3.8 542 Balance 7 9 35 15 59 7.9 542 Weight 8 0 50 32 82 11.0 542 Ratio 9 10 39 12 61 8.1 542 Popcorn 10 22 20 0 42 5.6 TOTALS 138 371 240 749 99.9 Z Of Grand Total 18.4 49.5 32.0 99.9 n.r.=No record. If questioning were distributed evenly, each acti- vity would include ten percent of the total number of ques- tions asked. This did not occur. The percentage of 167 questions for each activity ranges from 3.8Z for activity seven to llZ Of the total number of questions asked for activities one and eight. The low percentage reported for activity seven partially reflects the fact that no record Of the summary was made. The class ran out of time and the summary was conducted at a later time when the observer was not available. The second lowest percentage Of questions occurred during the final activity (5.6Z). There was no summary conducted during this activity by teacher 542. Perhaps the children were too busy eating popcorn. There is no explanation for the third lowest proportion Of questioning, recorded for activity six (6.0Z). The remain- ing seven activities range between 7.9 and 11.0 percent. Reasons for the difference in frequency of questioning from activity to activity may be related to teacher back- ground and eXperience relative to teaching specific counting methods, the degree of difficulty of concepts for specific activities and teacher interpretation of the intentions of the script for each activity. It is not intended that the script provide all questions for teachers beyond en- couraging Open questioning during the exploration phase and inclusion of several questions for the summary phase based upon expected results. Table 4.19 shows that, for the three teachers Ob- served and for the twelve observations Of activities, nearly fifty percent of all questions were asked during the eXploration phase. The summary phase showed the second 168 highest total; however, these figures may be depressed as the result of the loss Of two observations of summary phases. Table 4.20 presents a tally of the number of ques- tions asked from each of four categories of "soliciting moves" for each of the three activity phases. The per- centage of questions asked from each category for each phase is also presented. The numbers represent totals for all ten activities presented in Table 4.19. Table 4.20 The Number and Percentage of Questions Asked by Category for All Ten Activities for the Scripted Unit from Observations Of Three Teachers Category Activity Phase Number of Percentage for Questions Phase Recall Launch 51 37.0 Collecting Data Launch 25 18.1 Processing Data Launch 49 35.5 Evaluation Launch 13 9.4 Total 138 100.6%— Recall Exploration 79 21.3 Collecting Data Exploration 187 50.4 Processing Data Exploration 96 25.9 Evaluation Exploration 9 2.4 Total 37I lOOCOZA Recall Summary 48 20.0 Collecting Data Summary 110 45.8 Processing Data Summary 69 28.8 Evaluation Summary 13 5.4 Total 240 100.0Z' The launching phase had the fewest total questions asked of the three phases. During the launching phase a greater proportion of questions occurred at the recall level 169 as might be expected, since a large portion of the launch involves reviewing the focus of the previous activity. It is noted that a nearly equivalent number of questions were asked during this phase dealing with the "processing of data". Questions arose in this phase as the result of presenting a mini-challenge to pupils involving a counting rule or method. It is further noted that an equal number of "evaluation" questions occurred in the launching and summary phases. While the tally for this category is small at thirteen, it is important to note that higher level questioning did occur during the initiating phase as well as during the summary. The exploration phase included the greatest number and proportion of questions concerned with "collecting data." This was expected, since data collection represents one of the major tasks of students during this phase. The second greatest number of questions occurring for the exploration phase was concerned with "processing data," with "recall" questions being asked ranking third in frequency. Nearly fifty percent Of all questions occurred during the explora- tion phase. Teachers were observed circulating throughout the room, meeting with groups and assisting students in focusing on the challenge. The second greatest number of total questions asked occurred during the summary phase (32Z). As in the explora- tion phase, questioning during the summary phase was concentrated on "colleCting data", with "processing data" 170 questions appearing second in frequency. It was expected that the summary phase would include a greater prOportion of "evaluation" questions. This did not occur, as only 13 or 5.4Z Of the questions asked during the summary phase fit this category. This may be related to the fact that two observations have no record of questioning for this phase, and during the observation of activity ten no summary was conducted. A second reason relates to time. It appears that when time runs short, summarizing is the phase that is curtailed. Table 4.21 presents the tally for the total number of questions for all activities and phases for each of the four categories of questions. This table is included to demonstrate that for the three teachers observed "data collection" questions were posed most frequently, with ”processing data" questions and recall" questions ranking second and third, respectively. "Evaluation" questions appear with the least frequency suggesting a need that more scripted questions be drawn from this category. 171 Table 4.21 The Number andPercentage of Questions Asked by Category for All Activities and Phases Of Activities for the Scripted Unit from Observations of Three Teachers Category Number Of Percentage Questions of Total Recall 178 23.8 Collecting Data 322 43.0 Processing Data 214 28.6 Evaluation 35 4.7 Total 749 100.1 Discussion Johnson (1969) and Kondo (1968) found that student investigations with hand-on activities were instrumental in setting conditions for teachers to ask questions above the pupil recall level.30 The findings in the present study, at least in the case of three teachers, may support this finding to a limited degree. It is noted that processing data and evaluation questions display limited frequency which may indicate the need for more careful planning of questioning agendas. 30Robert Walter Johnson, "A MOdel for Improving Inservice Teacher Questioning Behavior in Elementary School Science Instruction," Dissertation Abstracts International, XXX (1970) 1666A, (Wayne State University, 1969); see also Allan Kiichi Kondo, "A Study of the Questioning Behavior of Teachers in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study Teach— ing the Unit Material Objects," Dissertation Abstracts InternatiOnal, XXIX (1969) 2040A, (Columbia University, 1968). 172 There was little evidence to support Reynolds', et a1. (1971) contention that the shift from recall and data collecting questions toward data processing and evalua- tion questions improved pupil problem solving ability.31 No shift was observed since a comparison between groups was not made for the questioning categories. However, it is encouraging to note that processing data questions occurred more frequently, for this limited sample, than recall questions. These findings may support the need for teacher planning with regard to pacing each activity so as not to limit the period of time devoted to the summary phase. Summary The frequency of questioning varied greatly from activity to activity. This may be related to teacher back- ground and experience related to teaching specific concepts, the degree of difficulty of concepts for students and teacher interpretation of the script. More questions were asked during the exploration phase than the other two phases. The summary phase con+ tained the second greatest number of questions, although there was no record of observations for two activities. during this phase. There is evidence to support the need 31WilliamW. Reynolds, Jr., Eugene C. Abraham, and Miles A. Nelson, The Classroom Observational Record, U. 8. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 048 378, February, 1971, pp. 9-10. 173 for more careful planning of time so that summary phases are not curtailed. The script may contribute to a greater frequency of teacher questions occurring above the recall level. This is very tentative considering sample size and the lack of a comparative sample in the study. However, it may represent a possible hypothesis for future study. The limited frequency of evaluation questions may support the need for more careful planning agendas in future scripts. Q4: What information from the end Of the unit eValua- tions, teacher logs and—interviews with teachers indicates neéd’for further revision Ofithe unit? Question 4 (Chapter III) anticipated that, as a result of working with the scripted unit, teachers would have suggestions to make concerning revision of the unit. These suggestions could be represented by explicit remarks made by teachers or by implicit trends found in informa- tion collected from all teachers. The question is addressed from that information collected: ‘(1) through logs of daily activities completed by all teachers during the course of the unit, and (2) those responses found in the "End of the Unit Evaluation Form" completed by each teacher. The teacher log is composed of three sections. The first deals with the amount of time teachers spend on the launch, exploration and summary phases of an activity. The second section deals with student discoveries and teacher 174 deviations from the script. The third section calls for teacher's ratings of student attitude toward each activity on a five-category scale. Information emanating from teacher logs is dis- cussed first followed by an analysis of the reSults of the End of the Unit Evaluation Form. Table 4.22 presents infor- mation concerning the number of logs and End of the Unit Evaluation Forms (EUEF) completed and returned to the researcher. Logs were inserted at the end of each activity as a reminder to teachers and for their convenience. Dur- ing training teachers were asked to complete the logs as soon as possible following the instructional period. The EUEF was inserted at the end of the unit with a reminder to complete them. Those forms not completed were returned to teachers with a second reminder attached. One teacher (341) did not return any materials to the researcher. Four teachers failed to return the EUEF despite the second reminder. 175 Table 4}22 Tabulation of Completed Teacher Logs and End of the Unit Evaluation FOrms Teacher Completed Logs Completed Number' 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 8 9 10 EUEF' 143 x x x x x x x x x x x 145 x x x x x x x x x x x 241 x x x x x x x x x x no 244 x no x x x x x x x x x 341 no no no no no no no no no no no 344 x x x x x x x x x x x 442 x x x x x x x x x x x 443 x x x x x x x no x x x 542 x x x x x x x x x x x 543 x x x x x x x x x x no 544 x x x x x x x x x x x 645 x x x x x no x x x x no Timing - Teacher Logs Timing in this discussion is related to the amount of time spent in each phase of an activity and the total length Of each activity. A record of the time Spent on each activity and its different phases was collected to determine variations exhibited by teachers in working with the mater— ials. The expenditure of time may shed some light regarding problems with the script and difficulties teachers and children encountered in the presentation and comprehension of certain concepts. Such information also serves to 176 illustrate the pace of each activity, the amount of time students have working with materials, and the amount of time spent in groups or whole class discussions. Table 4.23 presents the average amount of time teachers Spent in each of three phases and the average length of each total activity. The range, from lowest to highest amount of time, is also presented for each phase and total activity following the average figures. At the bottom of each column in the table the average for all ten activities is presented for launch, exploration, summary and total activity. It was expected that the time needed to complete activities would vary somewhat from teacher to teacher. The extreme exception to each range and average for given teachers is discussed to determine reasons for these extremes. Teacher 145 reported extremely long activities. Activity length for this teacher ranged from 90 to 150 minutes. Phases of each activity, for this teacher, have the following ranges: Launch, 15-45; EXploration, 40-60; and Summary, 15-60 minutes. The average activity ran over two hours for teacher 145. It appears that this teacher allowed a great deal of time for exploration. While he seems to have used the script, it appears that students were allowed great freedom to pursue many avenues of exploration. As an example, on his log from activity two, he indicates, "I spent a great 177 .mouscHB OH mouuoaou Ohm mowamu pom mowmuo>m HH<¥ manic/Huge mouscHB No.nm mousaHB nm.mH mmchHB mo.a~ mouscHa oH.mH HH< Mom ommuo>< mOHuom m.Hm omnm o.¢H HH ooaoH o.mN HH omum m.oH HH OH onHumm m.qo mqum o.mH 0H oonom o.mm OH mqum m.qH 01 m mHHnom m.om omum m.MH o oquom «.mm o mqnm o.mH a m omuom m.¢m omum n.0H OH m¢u0H m.mm 0H omum m.qH ofi m mOHuom 0.00 OMnm m.NH 0H ooumH o.mm 0H omum m.wH 0H m omHumm ¢.mm omum o.qH HH mqumH m.m~ HH mqum H.NH HH m omHuoq o.mo ooIOH m.mH OH ooumH m.m~ 0H omum o.mH oH q omHuoq o.¢o ooIOH o.om oH counH m.om OH omum m.mH 0H m omHumm o.¢m oouoH o.NH 0H menOH m.qm 0H mmum m.NH CA N OHHuom m.mm mqum m.mH m manH mm m omnm «.mH m H owamm owmuo>< ownmm meum>< _m mwamm owmho>< m owamm owmuo>¢ m Honafiz muH>Huow Hmuow, ommmm humaanm ommmm,aomumHOdem ow¢£®.£oasmH. >um>Huo< smmsue>suo< HH< Hos mass Aue>suo< mwmnm>¢ was ec< mOHuH>Huo¢ HH< Hm>o mmmsm zoom How OEHH ommuo>< mfiH “mOHuH>Huo< OOH mo zoom no muH>Huo< OHOHB men paw mommsm OOHHH mo somm pom AmuosommH HH< mm.q OHQMH 178 deal of time on order of magnitude"; and in response to reasons for the deviation, he writes, "the children were never exposed to this before." Activity length was 130 minutes. Students in this class were expected to discover the variety of counting methods. He indicated in an inter- view that much Of the launch time was Spent in handing out and managing materials. This teacher also spent a great portion of time during activity three on orders of magnitude and scientific notation. The reason given was that children had never been exposed to the idea before. At the other extreme several teachers indicated that they were uncomfortable when children were handling the particles. On several occasions exploration was limited. Teacher 543 instructed students to either count by twos, threes, fives or tens, then had them deposit their multiples in sections of egg cartons and compute the quantity. The activity was structured carefully and limited to a total time of thirty minutes. Teacher 344 limited the amount of particulate material to be balanced in activity seven to one cupful thereby effectively shortening the activity to a half-hour. With the extremes removed average activity length ranged from 45 to 55 minutes. Activity six had the longest average launch time (18.5) with activity ten, the unit challenge, the shortest. Teachers wrote in their logs that halving and doubling (activity six) was a difficult one for children. Teacher 179 442 stated that the concepts should be taught over two days. The mini-challenge had the potential for several components as some teachers used extra challenges during the launch. The launch for activity ten was Short, perhaps because children were familiar with the unit-challenge and had already discussed it in activity one. Activity six and nine were the longest for explora- tion. Activity six was the first time children had to work with large quantities of particles (gallon jars full) and the procedure was lengthy. Teachers wrote that children Often forgot to tally the number Of times a quantity was halved; therefore, they had to repeat steps in the explora- tion. Activity nine (ratio) was difficult for children. The script, again called for working with gallon jars of materials. Several teachers indicated that smaller quanti- ties of particles would have been sufficient, since children had already worked with large quantities of particles in preceding activities. In addition, large quantities were not necessary for developing the concept of ratio which is related to comparative particulate size. The shortest exploration periods occurred for activities one and ten, which was expected since activity one dealt with small quantities and a simple challenge and activity ten was handled more as a total group exploration to solve the unit challenge. Activity seven had the Shortest average summary 180 time. This activity utilized the halving and doubling method introduced in activity six. This may be one reason for the shorter summary period. As discussed previously, another reason which apparently affected summaries in all activities was time. Several teachers cut summaries short when pressed for time in the classroom. The averages for all activities emphasize that the exploration phase dominated, with launching and summarizing taking a nearly equal amount of time overall. Teacher Comments - Teacher Logs Teachers were asked to comment on student discover- ies and their own deviations from the script. The informa- tion is discussed with respect to further revision of the script. In this section each activity will be identified by the counting method emphasized in that activity. Infor- mation relative to teacher's suggestions for improvement of the activity will be included. Activity One: Handful estimates, counting by ones. Several teachers discussed the variables involved in handful estimates. Included were the size of the lima beans, the size of the hand, and the method of SCOOping up hand- fuls. In addition teacher 543 wrote that children in her class decided that a handful was not a standard measure. She explored the idea Of finding the average handful and establishing a standard, but gave up because she felt students had difficulty understanding the concept of average. 181 Activity Two: Counting in Multiples. Teacher 645 indicates that she directed students to count in multiples. She wrote that pupils were so dis- turbed by the varying "counted" amounts reported for the six quart jars of lima beans that the class decided to recount all the particles. In addition they graphed student guesses and estimates. It is noted that estimates were listed in amounts carried out to the one's place, whereas estimates were reported rounded to the nearest ten. Activity Three: Counting a Sample. The story challenge for this activity may be too abstract for students in the fourth grade. Perhaps a story challenge more directly related to the activity would be more apprOpriate. The script should also encourage round- ing off to the hundredTBand thousands place. Activity Four: The area counting method. Teachers' comments relative to activity four focused on improving the lesson mini-challenge. The mini- challenge involved displaying peas on an overhead projector in a rectangular pattern. In addition a story challenge asked pupils to estimate the size of a crowd standing on a rectangular fishing dock. The consensus of teacher comments indicated that additional cues were necessary to educe the area counting method from students. Teacher suggestions included: "Compare the peas to peOple's heads;" "Introduce 182 a rectangular pattern of ceramic tiles on the overhead first, discuss area, then introduce the peas," and "Start with one row of peas on the overhead and add one row at a time while encouraging pupils to count the total number of rows and then have them multiply that figure times the number of peas in the first row." Activity Five: The volume counting method. The use Of a hands-on mini-challenge may be neces- sary in activity five. Perhaps use of the "peas picture" included with the unit would be useful for this purpose. Pupils could use the area method for finding the quantity of peas in one picture (layer), stack several pictures and multiply by the number of layers. Teacher 145 used graph paper in activity four to encourage pupils to use the area method, he then produced a three-dimensional model for the volume counting method by folding the graph paper length- wise. Several teachers stressed rounding off of length, width and height "counts" to simplify the multiplication. Activity Six: The halving and doubling counting method. In activity six, careful development of the mini- challenge is necessary. Teachers noted that many children failed to keep a tally of the number of times they had halved a quantity prior to the dOubling procedure. Demon- stration of the strategy on the overhead projector with a pile of rice along with having the entire class go through the process by folding the "peas picture,‘ seemed critical 183 to student success with the gallon jars of particles. Activity Seven: The halving and doubling method of counting with a large pan balance. Activity seven may represent two lessons. First, the halving and doubling of quantity using the pan balance and then comparison of a quantity of particles to a standard mass on the balance pans. Activity Eight: The weight method of counting. In activity eight the challenge may have been too difficult for students. They were asked to measure, using a spring scale, the weight of a small quantity of particles and then use this information to estimate the quantity of particles in a fifty pound sack. Teachers also indicate that Students need more guidance and practice using the Spring scales. Activitnyine: The ratio method of counting. The concept of ratio may be too difficult for pupils from this age group. The mini-challenge should include a demonstration of ratio as it is used in the activity. Example: fill each of five medicine cups with different particles, count the quantity in each, represent them on the chalkboard, and develOp ratios by comparing the par- ticle size as represented in the displayed counts. 184 Activity Ten: The unit challenge. Comments for this activity included.recommendations for review of the previously used counting methods, and student evaluation of those methods to determine the most apprOpriate strategy for solving the unit challenge. Two teachers suggested emphasis on the sampling method for acti- vity ten. Attitude Rating - Teacher Logs Table 4.24 presents teacher ratings of student enthusiasm and interest for each activity. The teacher log is found in Appendix G. According to the teachers included in this study children exhibited above average enthusiasm for most activities. Students were rated as being most enthusiastic. toward activities one and ten. A moderate enthusiasm characterized student attitude toward most of the other activities. Exceptions were activity five (volume) and nine (ratio) in which children's enthusiasm is rated ”average." The lower overall rating of student attitude for activities five and nine may be related to the difficult concepts involved in those activities. Teachers eXpressed difficulty in teaching the concept of ratio in activity nine. This suggests the need for script revision for these activities. 185 Table 4.24 Teacher Log Rating of Student Attitude for Each Activity Activity Enthusiasm and Interest Number N High MOderate Average Low Very Low 1 ll 7 l 3 0 0 2 9 3 3 3 0 0 3 9 2 4 3 0 0 4 9 2 5 2 0 0 5 10 l 3 7 0 0 6 9 3 4 2 0 0 7 9 2 4 3 O 0 8 10 l 5 3 1 0 9 10 2 3 4 0 l 10 8 5 O l 2 O End of The Unit Evaluation Table 4.25 presents teacher unit evaluation informa- tion. The form serves as a table of teacher responses. The number of teachers responding N is listed under the form heading. Numbers on the form represent a tally of teacher responses to each item. The End of The Unit Evaluation (EUEF) is a nineteen- question survey and was completed by eight teachers. Ques— tions on the survey relate to the scripted unit and deal with its difficulty for children, laboratory time, student attitude, the unit's success, grade level placement, attitudes toward specific activities, and sufficiency of materials and teaching time. Questions one and two on the survey dealt with the difficulty levels of concepts and process skills presented 186 in the unit. Six of the eight respondents rated the unit as being difficult for fourth grade pupils on these criteria. The content (question three) was rated by four teachers as being difficult and by four teachers as being satisfactory. Students spent from foznqy to seventy percent of their time in the exploration phase. Three teachers indicated that sixty percent of their class time was devoted to this phase (question four). Six out of eight teachers noted that there was a sufficient amount Of time devoted to exploration (question five). Student enthusiasm and interest was rated as being average by four teachers, moderate by three and high by one respondent (question six). Six teachers rated the scripted unit as being more successful with children than the ESS unit Peas & Particles. Two teachers did not respond to this question (question seven). In response to question eight, six teachers indicated that the unit be- longed at the fourth grade level. Two teachers responded negatively and recommended in question nine that the unit belonged in the fifth grade. All teachers completing the form covered all ten activities (question ten). Teachers selected activity nine, dealing with ratio, as the one activity they would eliminate, if necessary. Question thirteen and sixteen referred to the pOpularity of specific activities for both teachers and students. No Single activity dominated as being the favorite. All were listed with the exception of activities 187 three, seven, eight and nine. The majority of teachers reSponding on behalf of themselves and their students listed activity nine as the least popular. Activities five, eight, and ten were also listed as being unpopular with students. Teachers also regarded activities three, seven and eight as unpopular. The majority of responding teachers indicated sufficient materials and time was available for completing each activity (questions seventeen and eighteen). Five teachers signified that there was sufficient time to com- plete all unit activities while three wrote that the unit was too rushed (question 19). 10. ll. 12. 188 Table 4.25 End of the Unit Evaluation of Peas & Particles E=8 How would you rate concepts presented in the unit? too difficult 6 difficult 2 satisfactory easy too easy. How would you rate process Skills presented in the unit? too difficult 6 difficult '2' satisfactory easy too easy. How would you rate the content presented in the unit? too difficult 4 difficult 4 satisfactory easy too easy. What percent of the time was usually devoted to exploration or lab work in each lesson? 0 20 30 2 40 2 50 3 60 70 8O __90 DO you think more time Should be devoted to lab time in the future? 2 yes 6 no Rate student attitude for the entire unit. 1 very enthusiastic 3 moderate enthusiasm average enthusiasm and interest somewhat uninterested very uninterested Generally speaking do you think that the children experienced more success with the scripted unit than the same unit as it was taught? 6 yes no. If no, please comment. 2 (no response) 1 noted that she hadn't taught the ESS unit. Do you think that this unit belongs at the fourth grade level? 6 yes 2 no. If no, what grade level would you recommend? ___ ___3 _2_5 ___6 Did you cover all the activities? 8 yes no If no, please check the activities you did cover. ‘___ .___2 .___3 ___4 ___5 ___6 ___7 ___8 ___9 10 ‘ 11 If you had to eliminate one activity, which one would it be? Activity NO. nine (5), eight (2), seVen (1), three (1) l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 189 Which activity did children enjoy most? Activity No. two (1), four (2), six (2), one (1), ten (2). Which activity did you enjoy most? Activity No. two (1), four (1), five (1), Six (2), one (1), ten Which activity did the children enjoy the least? Activity No. nine (5), five (1), eight (1), ten (1). Which activity did you enjoy the least? Activity No. nine (5), three (1), eight (1), seven (1). Did you generally have enough materials to assist you in teaching? 7 yes 1 no. Did you generally have sufficient time to complete an activity? 7 yes 1 no. Did you have enough time to complete the unit? 5 yes 3 no. 190 Comments Teachers Logs and EUEF Several unit recommendations were made by teachers on comment sections of teacher logs and End of the Unit Evaluation Forms. Teacher suggestions related to improving "teacher background" sections of the script included the need for more specific information outlining necessary student mathe- matics skills for each activity. For example, students will need to be able to multiply two-place numbers in activity four. A second suggestion called for the inclusion of activity Objectives (intended learning outcomes) in teacher background information. Teachers asked for more guidance in the launch phase including more cues for pupils in the form of photos and drawings. They also asked for more guidance so that they could conduct more careful demonstra- tions during the mini-challenge and explanations of the story challenges. Needs expressed concerning the exploration phase included more guidance in the script for helping pupils manage materials and a better system to insure record keep- ing on the part Of pupils. Possibly data sheets specific for each activity. Teachers suggested that summary notes include a greater stress on the use of number lines to represent data, and the use of orders of magnitude and rounded numbers. 191 Discussion Teacher rating of the unit as including difficult concepts and process skills may be refleCted in the results of the student achievement test for the unit. In particu- lar, results on items dealing with concepts teachers indicate as being most difficult for pupils and support to teachers' perceptions. The reported lengthfor lab time from logs and EUEF coincides with estimates from observational data (ACI). This may support the view that the script does not limit student exploration time. Teacher rating of student atti- tude was fairly consistent on teacher logs and End of the Unit Evaluation Forms indicating average to above-average interest and enthusiasm for the scripted unit. Information on the logs and the End of the Unit Evaluation Form are specific for this unit and its instruc- tion at the fourth grade level. 'The expressed need by teachers for more guidance from the script and more back- ground information is supported by the findings of Fitzgerald and Shroyer (1979).31 The cooperative nature of small group work and whole group discussion to solve the problems may have 31WilliamM. Fitzgerald and Janet Shroyer, "A Study of the Learning and Teaching of Growth Relationships in Sixth.Grade," (unpublished research study, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, 1979), p. 87. 192 contributed to the positive attitudes of students and supports the findings of Johnson (1976) related to COOpera- tion and attitude, along with those of Tjosvold and Santamaria (1978).32 Summary Data about time from the teacher logs Show wide ranges of time for the length of activities. Reasons for lengthy lessons included allowance for Open exploration and the need to repeat counting methods during the eXplora- tion phase. The shortened activities may relate to teacher misunderstanding of goals and objectives for those activities. Summary phases were curtailed in many instances due to the constraints of time. Information about timing may suggest the need for more thorough teacher training and more direction from the script relative to pacing the unit. Teacher comments from the teacher logs included several suggestions for improving the script. Teachers' comments were mainly concerned with improving the launch phase. There was an indication that story problems and mini-challenges need to be more congruent with one another and that some of the story problems may be too abstract. 32Roger T. Johnson, "The Relationship Between COOperation and Inquiry in Science Classrooms," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XIII (January, 1976), 55-63; see also Dean Tjosvold and Philip Santamaria, "Effects of Cooperation and Teacher Support on Student Attitudes Toward Decision Making in the Elementary Science Classroom," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XV (May, 1978), 381L385. Teacher rating of student attitude implies that pupils Showed above-average enthusiasm and interest in the activities. Students were not asked to rate their own enthusiasm or interest. Information from the teacher End of the Unit Evaluation Form supports data from student achievement tests suggesting that concepts, process skills and content for the scripted unit may have been difficult for fourth graders. Several teachers suggested that the unit be taught at the fifth grade level, while the majority indicate that the fourth grade was appropriate. There was some evidence from the EUEF that supports a need to revise the script. This is based on teacher Opinion concerning particularly difficult activities and the concepts presented in those activities. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The first four chapters of this study dealt with the nature of the problem and the purpose of the research, a review of the relevant literature, a presentation of the methodology, and the analysis of the data. The present chapter is divided into three sections: (1) a summary of the study and its limitations; (2) conclusions and implications; (3) recommendations for further research. Summary of the Study The early sixties saw the development of several innovative curricula in elementary science. Nearly one- third of the elementary school children are exposed to science programs which emphasize a laboratory approach. The three most predominant inquiry programs include Science- A Process Approach (SAPA), Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS), and Elementary_Science Study (ESS). These curricula represent a hands-on inquiry methodology. The materials and guides associated with each of these programs provide for varying amounts of organization and structure of content, process skills, and instructional methodology. Characteristics of science programs stressing 194 195 student investigation are requirements for large quantities of supplies and additional teacher planning time to conduct science activities. In recent years schools have been faced with financial problems which have placed increased pressure on curriculum budgets including funds allocated for elem- entary science. Another factor affecting the classroom directly is the curtailment of support programs in schools. This has had the effect of limiting the planning time of classroom teachers. Among the three programs, SAPA, SCIS, and ESS, the most diverse in terms of tOpic offerings is ESS with over fifty-six units. ESS has been characterized as an open ended freewheeling curriculum with few guidelines for the development of evaluation instruments. Needs associated with ESS unit development and interpretation include: the identification of goals and Objectives for the units, a more careful outline of inquiry methodology for teachers, Specific student evaluation instruments for the units, and careful outlining of the material needs because of the problem of funding. In addition, science curriculum develOpment implementation plans must consider the vieWpoints of the teachers and students working with the activities. The primary purposes of this study include: (1) the selection of an existing inquiry model through which a "script" providing structure to science units can be developed; (2) determination of the goals and objectives 196 for a single ESS unit which will facilitate establishment of intended learning outcomes and material requirements for the unit; and (3) the application of the revised unit in an instructional setting, allowing the evaluation of Student and teacher perceptions and behaviors as well as student achievement and student-teacher interactions. It is eXpected that this process will suggest a model for revising other science and mathematics units. Furthermore, it is expected that the model will be of par- ticular benefit to curriculum planners, local school districts, and classroom teachers who desire to foster the development of inquiry science programs in the elementary school. Procedurally, this study will seek to achieve these goals; (1) identify, through a review of the literature, common elements of inquiry science teaching methods which can be utilized in modifying ESS units; (2) demonstrate that the inquiry model selected is a useful means to repre- sent the goals and objectives of an ESS science unit in an instructional setting; (3) analyze teaching and learning variables which can be utilized in a unit revision plan. Related Research The review of the literature is divided into three areas: (1) inquiry in elementary science; (2) the Elemen— tary Science Study Curriculum; and (3) specific techniques 197 for elementary school science teaching. 1. Historically, many of the concerns relevant to inquiry over the past seventy years can be traced to the work of John Dewey. Recent changes were made during the mid-fifties when scientists and educators developed new curricula emphasizing student use of inquiry processes. The definition of inquiry is often interchanged with such terms as problem solving, discovery, and guided discovery. The terms have been used to imply various degrees of teacher guidance, control, questioning.patterns, student involvement, and goal acquisition. Elementary science inquiry instruc- tion emphasizes a number of learning conditions including: various problem focuses, teacher questioning agendas, manipulative materials, and various plans for hypotheses generation. In addition, attitudes toward inquiry learning situations in science may be enhanced when student decision making, cooperation and commitment are encouraged by the teacher. Finally, the literature suggests that plans for inquiry share the following common elements: a challenge or focus setting event, a period of exploration including hypothesis generation and testing, and a time for summariz- ing. 2. The review of the research literature relative to the Elementary Science Study curriculum was directed primarily at examining the historical, psychological, and philosophical background of the ESS program; teacher training 198 and implementation procedures; evaluation of ESS instruc- tional units; and those studies comparing the ESS program with other elementary science instructional programs. 3. A review of interaction analysis classroom observation instruments was conducted. These instruments may be used to focus Observations on one or several of the following classroom dimensions: affective,.cognitive, procedural, physical environment, psychomotor, sociological structure, and activity categories. Many Observation instruments are aimed at verbal interaction Since, as Flanders suggests, verbal communication is dominant in most classrooms. Researchers suggest that teacher questioning may be particularly important in facilitating children's problem solving abilities. The literature also suggests that curriculum implementation plans Should consider the roles of curriculum develOper, implementer, teacher, and student. A number of methods are suggestedfor collecting information from participants in the teaching-learning situation. Methodology An inquiry script was developed for the ESS unit Peas & Particles. Unit goals and objectives were outlined. A teacher training packet describing the inquiry plan and the purpose for the unit revision was written for teachers. This material was included with the ten activities script 199 for Peas & Particles and presented to teachers during a training session conducted with them by the investigator. Two student tests were develOped for the Peas & Particles unit as well. One is a thirty—six item unit-achievement test. The second test consists of four questions intended for use as an orally administered task-interview test for students. A one-group pre-test - post-test research design was adapted for evaluating data gathered by observations of teachers using the Activity Categories Index (ACI) inter- action analysis instrument and unit achievement test results of students participating in the study. Problems of observational research including "observer presence,’ observer reliability, and rating error were discussed. It was noted, with regard to "observer presence," that observers in this study were in contact with teachers and students as a normal course of their work. Furthermore one—half of all observations were made by two independent observers and rating error may have been minimized to a certain extent because Observations focused on descriptive variables as opposed to inferential or evaluative variables. Aspects of the design threatening internal validity were also discussed. In particular the effects of history, maturation, and instrumentation were considered as possible cofounding variables. Minimizing the length of time between pre- and post-testing (six - eight weeks) and limiting the 200 number of observations of teachers (four) may have served to mitigate the effects of these rival hypotheses. Threats to external validity were discussed relative to the effects of pre-testing students and the pre-treatment observations of teachers. The populations involved in the study included 12 fourth grade teachers and 273 students assigned to their classrooms. Characteristics of each population were described. The study was conducted in Six elementary schools in the Three Village School District of Stony Brook, New York. Several instruments were utilized to analyze verbal interaction and activities occurring in elementary classrooms during science instruction. Perception forms were used to compare student and teacher perceptions to those of independent Observers, who used the Activity Categories Index (ACI), of one scripted unit activity. In addition the ACI was used to observe pre-treatment and treatment science lessons focusing on the following dimen- sions: student activity, laboratory time, and teacher questioning. Teachers kept logs of their teaching with scripted activities and three teachers were video-taped and inter- viewed concerning deviations from the script. In addition the video-tapes were analyzed to categorize teacher question- ing according to the Classroom Observational Record section relating to teacher "soliciting moves." 201 This information along with end of the unit evaluation information was used to analyze the merits of scripting and to contribute toward further refinement of the unit. Observer and Teacher Training_and Data Collection Procedures Observer training occurred prior to conducting the study. This was followed by ACI observations of ESS science teaching.(pre-treatment). Following completion of these Observations teacher training was conducted to acquaint teachers with the inquiry model and the scripted ESS unit. Student pre-tests were then administered including the unit-achievement test for all students and the task-intenfiew with randomly selected pupils. ACI observations of all teachers during instruction with the scripted materials then occurred along with the video-tape observations of three teachers covering the entire unit. At the end of the second ACI observation the student and teacher perception forms were administered to all pupils. At the completion of the unit, student post-tests were administered and teacher End of the Unit Evaluation Forms were collected. Teacher logs were gathered and teacher interviews conducted to complete the data collection procedure. The data Obtained were analyzed by computer at Fordham University, New York City. Two tailed t-tests and Pearson product moment correlations were employed in the analysis. The .05 level of significance was the standard 202 applied in the rejection of the null hypothesis despite the danger of a Type I error. Findings A summary of the results of the testing of each hypothesis follows: H1: ACI activity ratios will be significantly greater for teachers after introduction of the script method of teaching than before its introduction. Hypothesis 1 was not supported by the data. There was a trend observed in post-treatment means toward greater student activity during exposure to the scripted materials; however, the difference was not significant. H2: ACI laboratory ratios will be significantlyy greater for teachers after introduction of the script method of teaching than before its introduction. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the data. Laboratory levels were nearly the same in pre- and post-treatment science classes. There- fore, there was not support for the hypothesis that student laboratory time would be greater during use of the scripted materials. H3: ACI questioning_ratios will be significantly greater for teachers after introduction of the script method Of teaching than before its introduction. Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the data. There was a trend observed in post-treatment means toward greater teacher questioning during exposure to the scripted materials; however, the 203 difference was not Significant. H4: Teachers' perception of their amount of talk as perceived hy_students will be positively correlated with the observed teacher talk (ACI). Hypothesis 4 was supported by the data. Pearson produce moment correlation coefficients were significant thereby supporting the con- tention that teachers' perceptions of their amount of talk is related to an observer's rating of that behavior. H5: Student perceptions of their activity level will be positively correlated with their observed activity igygl.(ACl). Hypothesis 5 was not supported by the data. While there was an observed trend indicating that students perceived their activity levels similar to an observer's rating, the magnitude of that correlation was not statis- tically significant. H6: Gain scores on the unit achievement test for students participating in the scripted "Peas & Particles" unit will be significant. Hypothesis 6 was supported by the data. The t-test results suggest that student achieve- ment on goals and objectives related to the scripted "Peas & Particles" unit improved as a result of their participation in the unit. A summary of the results of four research questions follows: Q1: What is the usefulness of the items on the unit-test of achievement? Discrimination and difficulty indices for the unit achievement test showed that 26 Of the 204 original 36 items should be useful in a revised student evaluation instrument. The representation of the proposed test items in a table of specification indicates that validity, with regard to unit goals and Objectives, is maintained. There was some evidence from the task-interview test results to indicate that this instrument may be useful as a measure of student knowledge of counting methods for all ability levels. The task-interview functioned well as a measure of unit effectiveness with students. Q2: What deviations from the script were observed and what is the relationship_of these deviations to the script? Teachers' deviations from the script were related to their expressed need for more direction from the script in the following areas: more detail for dealing with mini- challenge demonstrations, materials management, pre- requisite information for working with measurement tools, and record keeping and data collection procedures for students. There was some evidence to indicate that the script allowed for individual student discovery and use of extra challenges with students. Pacing of activity phases may be a problem, since the summary phase was Shortened on several occasions due to time constraints. Teacher difficulty in launching the activities dealing with area and volume suggests the need for alternate or additional materials for this purpose. 205 The unit may be better suited to the second semester of fourth grade because of the difficulty of concepts contained in the unit. Q3: What is the classification and frequency of questions asked during instruction using the script? Questioning frequency varied greatly from activity to activity. MOst questions were asked during the exploration phase with the second greatest number of questions emanating during the summary phase. It is suggested that the script contributes to a greater frequency of teacher questioning above the recall level. The limited frequency of evaluation level questions also suggests a need for more carefully planned questioning agendas in scripts. Q4: What information from the end of the unit evaluations, teacher logs, and interviews with teachers indicates need for further revision of the script? Information about the timing of activity phases from teacher logs suggests the need for more thorough teacher training and more direction for teachers from the script relative to the allocation of time to activity phases. Teacher comments show that there is a need for more direction from the script for the launching phase. In addition challenges and story problems should be more closely related to one another. The story problems in their present form may be too abstract for children at this grade level. 206 Teacher rating of student attitude indicates that pupils showed above-average enthusiasm and interest in the unit activities. Information from the teacher End of the Unit Evaluation Form supports the analysis of student achieve- ment tests suggesting that concepts, process skills, and content for the scripted unit may have been difficult for this fourth grade sample. The second semester of fourth grade or fifth grade may be a more appropriate placement for the unit. Additional teacher input was noted suggesting a need for revision of certain activities which contained particularly difficult concepts. Limitations The teachers in this study were randomly selected from the population of fourth grade teachers in one suburban New York State school district; therefore, the sample is not representative of all fourth grade teachers. The student population employed in this study represent intact classrooms or units.. They were not drawn randomly. The method used in assigning students to class- rooms in the school district in which the study was conducted was, essentially, random. The study examined only the behavior of teachers and students using Elementary Science Study materials during science instruction. Furthermore, only teacher and student verbal behavior and activity and laboratory levels 207 in fourth grade classroom settings were examined. Conclusions l. The content validity of the student unit- achievement test has been demonstrated in the present study. Reliability for the instrument was moderate. Therefore, further revision is necessary to improve inter-item consistency. Support for content validity indicates that the unit-test measures student achievement of the goals and objectives of the unit. 2. The fourth grade population of students in this study demonstrated substantial and Significant improvement in learning those concepts and skills found in the scripted ESS unit "Peas & Particles." Scripting is effective in teaching the majority of the concepts and skills prescribed for this ESS unit. The comments of teachers working with the unit suggest that some of the concepts were too difficult for this population of students. No comparison group was established to determine if the scripted unit functioned more effectively than a non-scripted unit with regard to student achievement. 3. Findings from the task-interview test, administered to individual students in an oral testing situation, Show that students demonstrated their ability to verbally describe counting rules related to concepts presented in the scripted science activities. This ability to describe counting rules was demonstrated by students 208 from low, middle and high mathematics achievement groups. This finding is contrary to students' inability to recog- nize counting rules as presented on the student unit- achievement test. This contradiction may be related to individual pupil and age-related cognitive ability. Implied in these findings is that pen and pencil measures of achievement may represent concepts in a format too abstract for students, whereas oral interviews may offer a more appropriate and valid means of assessing student achievement. 4. Observations conducted using the ACI inter- action analysis instrument demonstrate that student activity levels, student laboratory time, and teacher questioning frequency are essentially equivalent in ESS science teaching situations with and without the presence of the inquiry- script. The maintenance of student activity, laboratory time, and teacher questioning is important in view of the increased organization Of the unit and direction for teacher talk as required by the inquiry-script. Additional observational evidence demonstrates that the frequency of teacher questioning may be greater in scripted science lessons than in non—scripted science lessons. Support for this is based on video-tape Observations of three teachers, where it was found that most questions were posed during the exploring phase of scripted activities. The ACI was not sensitive to teacher questioning during the exploring phase. 209 5. Fourth grade teachers working with a scripted ESS unit have an accurate perception of their amount of talk during science activities. Comparison Of ACI data on teacher talk and teacher recognition of this behavior were related. Therefore, the presence of the script did not affect teachers' view of this behavior. A comparison was not made to determine if teachers accurately assess their talk during ESS lessons without a script. 6. The presence of a script does not affect pupil perceptions of their activity levels. Students perceive themselves as actively involved in scripted science activities. Similarly, independent observers' findings indicate that students are actively involved in inquiry science lessons. 7. Teachers exhibited a need for more guidance from the Script in terms of launching activities adequately, managing materials, and the amount of time they allocate for each activity phase. In addition, there is a need for guidance from the script to encourage teachers to pose more questions above the recall level. During the training of teachers it was assumed that they understood the intentions of the inquiry-script model and unit content. Apparently, the teachers included in this study, despite over ten years' experience using ESS units, require more in-depth training in inquiry. 8. Elementary Science Study is an inquiry science program which emphasizes a student "hands-on" laboratory 210 methodology. It has been demonstrated in this and prior studies that the Activity Categories Index (ACI) observa- tion instrument is a reliable observation tool for determining the degree of active student involvement in elementary science classrooms. ACI findings in this study suggest that science teaching using an inquiry-script is comparable to ESS teaching situations without the script in terms of promoting student activity. This comparability is further supported by the data derived from student and teacher perceptions, teacher interviews, logs, and end of the unit evaluations of the inquiry-script science teaching method. Based upon the observations of twelve randomly selected teachers, the students assigned to their classes, and independent observers, the inquiry-script method, at least for the students involved in this study, does not alter the ESS emphasis on student "hands-on" laboratory activities. Implications The implications reached in the study will be discussed in terms of their methodological and curriculum impact. Methodology l. The difficulty students encountered with con- cepts on student measures suggest that several test items were too abstract. This implies that student cognitive development is an important consideration in formulating 211 student evaluation instruments. The transition from concrete-manipulative laboratory activities to paper and pencil tests must recognize and provide for levels of student cognition. 2. The scripting of an ESS unit and subsequent observational comparisons to unscripted ESS teaching indicates that added structure and organization does not detract from student activity, laboratory time and teacher questioning. This implies that scripted units can function at a level outlined in the related literature as character- izing "desired" inquiry science teaching situations. 3. Information contributed by teachers and observational evidence suggesting teacher misinterpretation of the intentions of the script suggests a need for additional training for teachers and revision of the script to include more explicit directions for the inquiry model. Curriculum 1. An ESS unit was first modified utilizing an inquiry—script model, then applied in a teaching—learning situation with"typical" fourth grade pupils in a predom- inantly white, middle-class community. There is reason to believe that the unit-scripting process can be applied to other ESS units. There is reason to believe that the scripted unit "Peas & Particles" can be employed with a larger proportion of elementary school children with Similar demographic characteristics. 212 2. There is reason to believe that where an inquiry methodology is desirable in other curriculum content areas, an inquiry-script model can be utilized successfully. 3. Other plans to modify ESS units, which outline goals and objectives for units, provide a definite plan of instruction, and a means for measuring student achieve- ment have not been employed in the Three Village School District. In addition projects that delimit material re- quirements and facilitate teacher planning have not been applied to the science curriculum. Considering the limita— tions that have been placed on teacher planning time, and the restrictions on science budget allocations, the need for ESS unit revision is apparent. The inquiry-script model and elements of the modification process may be helpful in future elementary science curriculum revision plans in the Three Village School District. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the process may prove useful in other districts with similar staffing, geographic, and demographic characteristics. Recommendations The conclusions of the study and the implications therefrom lead to several recommendations regarding methodology and curriculum. Methodology l. The ACI observation instrument used in the study could be revised to reflect the behavioral dimensions 213 of inquiry science teaching situations including Specific aspects of the script model. Perhaps a separate rating schedule for each phase could be develOped. The launching phase might include categories for teacher coverage of new concepts and the review of previously taught concepts, aspects of the mini-challenge presentation, and the posing of the activity challenge. The exploring phase might in- clude categories related to the extent to which the teacher maintains student focus on a problem, structures student exploration, clarifies student problems, presents clues, and accepts student ideas. The summary phase might include the following categories for teacher questioning: data collection; data processing; probes for specificity, operations or rules; and evaluation questions. 2. A future study would involve the use of a re- fined script in a comparison study. The teaching of the ESS unit "Peas & Particles" with and without the script. 3. The use of the perception forms might extend to the observer(s) as well as the students and teachers. Additional questions could be included reflecting student and teacher roles during each of the phases of inquiry— script activities. 4. It is recommended that additional research be conducted comparing various student evaluation models. For example, a comparison of paper and pencil unit-achievement tests with task-interview or lab-practicum test models. In addition student achievement Should be compared for scripted 214 and non-scripted ESS teaching. 5. In using video-taping for observing teachers the following recommendations are made: 1) The teacher should have a micrOphone on his/her person; 2) two cameras would be desirable (long shot), and close-up for teacher- student interaction; 3) an independent observer, other than the camera operators, should be making Observational notes and; 4) several video-taping sessions should be conducted with students prior to the study to acquaint them with the procedure as well as eliminate any bias created by the novelty of having video-taping equipment present in the classroom. 6. Teacher logs could be more specific for each activity phase. The portion of the log concerning the launching phase could include questions for teachers about the nature of additional explanations, analogies, demonstra- tions or examples they used to help students with their understanding of the mini-challenge. For the portion of the log concerning the exploring phase, teachers could be asked to explain actions they took to assist students with problem-focus, materials management or with extra challenges. In addition teachers could be asked to comment on student Operations performed to collect data, the nature of student data and record keeping, and additional instructions required. 7. It is recommended that the task-interview test include more careful direction for teachers to eliminate 215 the possibility of teacher prompting. An outline, for teachers, Of expected student responses to minimize sub- jective interpretation of student answers is advised. 8. Additional work on the unit-achievement test would include refinement of items to reflect the concrete level at which children are working with the materials of the unit. 9. Recommendations for further unit revision include the need to present story problems that are related to student experience and to outline mini-challenges for each activity. The unit activities should include, in teacher background: 1. a list of goals and objectives for that activity. 2. an explanation of the counting method. 3. materials management tips. 4. an outline of specific math skill require- ments for the activity. 5. possible distribution of story problems to students a day in advance. The launching phase should include: 1. a more thorough description of mini- challenge presentations for teachers. 2. additional pupil clues such a photos or drawings of counting method techniques. 3. explicit student directions for materials management. 216 4. estimated launching phase length (timing). The exploring phase should include: I 1. data collection forms or directions for record keeping. 2. notes on expected student problems with counting method. 3. an agenda of recommended teacher questions. 4. estimated exploring phase length (timing). The summary phase should include: 1. sample data organization procedures, in- cluding number lines, order of magnitude number lines, tables, and graphs. 2. expected student responses. 3. teacher questioning agenda. 4. estimated summary length (timing). Curriculum l. The inquiry-script model could be used in the modification of other Elementary Science Study units in an overall plan to restructure the elementary science curricu- lum in the Three Village School District. The modification of other units could result in a clearer representation of each unit's intended learning outcomes, an inquiry teaching plan for each unit, and student evaluation procedures. The plan could facilitate teacher planning and delimit unit materials requirements. 2. The inquiry-script could be utilized to restruc— ture other mathematics and science units, as well, in the 217 process of developing new units. It could become useful in identifying common elements of inquiry instruction necessary in the development of interdisciplinary units in mathematics and science, and social studies and science. 3. The difficulty level of concepts presented in the ESS unit ”Peas & Particles" suggests that the unit is apprOpriate to either the second semester of fourth grade or a higher grade level. APPENDIX A SCRIPT BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR TEACHERS AND THE SCRIPT FOR PEAS & PARTICLES 218 A MODIFICATION OF THE ELEMENTARY SCIENCE STUDY UNIT PEAS & PARTICLES USING AN INQUIRY-SCRIPT BY JOHN B. BEAVER FOR THE THREE VILLAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SETAUKET, L.I., N.Y. 219 DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIT This section will include, 1) a description of the unit, 2) the teaching model (inquiry), 3) the intended learning outcomes and 4) a basic list of materials. "Peas and Particles introduces the process of estimating through activities which emphasize mathematical sciences, quantitative relationships, large numbers and the scientific processes of observing and measuring."1 The unit also deals with the concepts of "about" and "approximate." Various counting and measuring techniques are explored relative to estimating large quantities of material. It is intended that a recognition of measurement as a Skill in labeling and standardizing :quantities is variable depending on the method and w0w>HOWH mwaWszomm" owszmZUmU QWOCZU Wdfimm b>wow>aow< mxmeHszmm" mawcnadwmc mHZCfiH>zmocm 0300mm EDEN” >OHHHfiw omoomm 02m Hm 20H OOOCwWHZQ H>NHZO Z>QOW wommefim >0HHWHZD Hz bmnadwm WMOOWU 20. Ho mHGUMZH UNZOZme>HHOZm Hafifim >WHNW OCMmHHOZ wmoowb 20. H deUMZfi fiwa>wN mem>wom. wmwowHHzo. WHO. Hw HZHNW<>F O>Z.H mm OOUMU. fim>zx >26 mxwfi>Hz Hz ZFwQHz >m mooz >m wommefim. > Hmma Hm OOUNU :Hz. mHCUMZH www>NHZO Hw UHmHHZOHHOZ meZNMZ H >ZU N O>Z.H mm Z>Um. wmoowb :fi: CZHHH &OC o>z umnHUm. em>ommw ocmmeHoszn 8mmz O>Hmooww m Hm >wwfiHn>wfim. ommow 3>HMWH>fim. Hw HmOGQmHIwWOWme >wm 20H wmnOWUmc. SWHHM Gamma mwm>NWWm >owomm Ham HZHNW<>hm. Hm>nmmw UWZOZMHW>HHOZM Ho. fimOHdWm HH. szmw>b m> 7) Which of the following is the rule for finding the area of a rectangle? Add length and width ' Sum the four sides Multiply length times width Multiply the four sides together unw> 8) Pencils are sold to the school store by the dozen. If the store needed 137 pencils, how many dozen would they have to buy? A - 12 dozen B - 13 dozen C - l4 dozen D - 15 dozen 9) To estimate the sum 356 and 503 to the nearest hundred, you can add A - 300 and 500 B - 350 and 500 C - 400 and 500 D - 400 and 600 10) Which of the following numerals shows 13,628 rounded to the nearest ten? A - 13,600 B - 13,610 C 13,620 D — 13,630 304 Page 3 11) Which is the best way to show the ratio of triangles to squares in the drawing below? A-3:2 3'3 3 C-2:2 2 12) In which situation would using an estimate or rounded- off quantity be all right? A - people at a school assembly B - cupcakes needed for a class party C - desks needed in a classroom D - seats on an airline 13) Which of the following shows 19,231 rounded to the nearest ten? A - 19,200 B - 19,220 C 19,230 D — 19,300 14) There are about twenty-five students in each of five classes in the fourth grade of the Red River School. Which of the following is the best estimate of the number of students in the fourth grade at this school? A — 100 B - 200 C - 300 D - 400 15) You are using the sampling method to estimate the number of acorns in a jar. Which of the following is a variable? A - Number of trials completed B - Number of buttons in each handful C - The size of the jar D - Number of buttons in the jar 305 Page 4 16) Look at the drawing of tiles. How many tiles are stacked up here? A — 16 - 32 D: so ggafl 17) Some of the marbles in the drawing below have been covered? Assume the tray is full, how many marbles are there in all? A — 18 B - 70 C - 77 D — 88 18) If you rip a piece of paper in half, and then rip these pieces in half again, and finally rip these pieces in half a third time, how many pieces do you end up with? A - 6 B - 8 C - 12 D - 16 19) Which of the following numerals shows 11,843 rounded to the nearest hundred? A — 11,000 B — 11,800 C — 11,840 D - 11,850 306 Page 5 DIRECTIONS: The next four questions will be about the drawing below. Read each item carefully, look at the drawing, and circle the letter next to the answer you think l 1 l 1 gallon gallon gallon gallon lima beans rice corn peas 20) Which jar contains the least number of particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D - peas 21) Which jar contains the second greatest number of particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D — peas 22) Which jar contains the most particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D - peas 23) Which jar contains the third greatest number of particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D - peas 307 Page 6 24) A new tile floor is being put in a room. The drawing A-25 B-50 E c-150 I D_3OO _LIIIJIJIIIIH shows that fifteen tiles fit along one wall. Ten tiles fit along another wall. How many tiles were needed to cover the whole floor? 25) In which situation below would an exact quantity be necessary? A - bricks needed to build a school B - light bulbs needed for a school C - pencils ordered for a school store D - textbooks needed for a class 26) Look at the balance below. One washer balanced 45 navy beans. How many navy beans would balance 12 washers? A-480 I " B — 500 C - 540 ea 27) Which of the following estimation techniques is the most accurate? A - counting by area B - counting by fives C - guessing the quantity D - counting by volume 28) What is the rule for counting by volume? A - add the number of particles along each side together B - add the number along the side to the number along the width C - multiply the number along the side times the width D - multiply the number along the side times the width times the number of layers 308 29) Look at the drawing of the spring scale. Five peas weigh l g. About how many peas are in the cup now? A - 100 B - 150 C - 200 D - 250 30) The ratio of lima beans to corn is l : 6. A jar holds 2500 lima beans. How much corn would a jar the same size hold? A - 2500 B 5000 C - 10,000 D - 15,000 31) Look at the drawing of the geoboard below. Count the objects in the uncovered part and estimate the total number of objects on the board. The board is totally covered one layer deep. B — 35 c - 48 \\\\ E;() D - 49 \\ 32) Chris halved a pile of rice several times. He ended up with 32 piles of rice. How many times did he halve the original pile of rice? Unw> I I I I mbwm 33) Which of the following shows another name for 2000? A - 2 (10)1 B - 2 (10)2 c - 2 (10)3 D - 2 (10)4 309 Page 8 DIRECTIONS: Use the information below to answer the next three questions. INFORMATION: Hidden Valley School District 6 school buildings 30 classrooms in each building 25 children in each classroom 34) About how many children attend the Hidden Valley Schools? A - 750 B 1,500 C - 3,000 D 4,500 35) About how many children are there in each building? A - 150 B — 180 C - 750 D.- 1000 36) About one-half of the children in the district buy milk each day. About how many cartons of milk are sold each day? A - 2,250 B - 4,500 C - 9,000 D - 9,500 310 FORM B DIRECTIONS: The teacher is going to show you some pictures of objects. You will have five seconds to look at the objects and estimate how many there are in the picture. Circle the letter next to the best estimate. EXAMPLE: Jars A - 8 B - 10 C - 12 D - 14 1) Bologna A - 25 B — 30 C - 35 2) Paint A 30 B 35 C - 40 D - 45 3) Bricks A - 60 B - 70 C - 80 D - 90 4) Soda P0p A — 50 B - 100 C — 150 5) Can Tops A - 60 B 80 C - 100 D - 120 311 Page 2 Date PEAS & PARTICLES EVALUATION B DORE TION : ' in - TEM N“ F'_ Y. " ‘_ TH ' TER NEXT TO THE ANSWER YOU THINK IS CORRECT. 6) Look at the drawing of the geoboard below. Count the objects in the uncovered part and estimate the total number of objects on the board. The board is totally covered one layer deep. :: :2 \\\\ C - 48 D - .. \\\ 3§§g 7) Which of the following numerals shows 11,843 rounded to the nearest hundred? A - 11,000 B - 11,800 C - 11,840 D - 11,850 8) Which of the following numerals shows 13,628 rounded to the nearest ten? A - 13,600 B - 13,610 C - 13,620 D - 13,630 9) In which situation below would an exact quantity be necessary? A - bricks needed to build a school B - light bulbs needed for a school C - pencils ordered for a school store D - textbooks needed for a class 10) The ratio of lima beans to corn is 1 : 6. A jar holds 2500 lima beans. How much corn would a jar the same size hold? A - 2500 B - 5000 C - 10,000 D - 15,000 312 Page 3 DIRECTIONS: The next four questions will be about the drawing below. Read each item carefully, look at the drawing and circle the letter next to the answer you think is best. gallon lima beans 11) Which jar contains the most particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D - peas 12) Which jar contains the least number of particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D - peas 13) Which jar contains the second greatest number of particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D - peas 14) Which jar contains the third greatest number of particles? A - lima beans B - rice C - corn D — peas 15) Find the numeral that shows one million. - 1,000 1,000,000 1,000,000,000 l,000,000,000,000 unw> l 313 Page 4 16) There are about twenty-five students in each of five classes in the fourth grade of the Red River School. Which of the following is the best estimate of the number of students in the fourth grade at this school? A - 100 B - 200 C - 300 D - 400 17) Look at the drawing of tiles. ow many tiles are stacked up here? I’ll) " .1 A- A_16 I’ll, / _ AI'UIVquggr l’jé’ C - 48 AI'CAV‘I'EQV D-50 =:::/ _ .. .. .../ 18) Which of the following estimation techniques is the most accurate? A - counting by area B - counting by fives C - guessing the quantity D - counting by volume 19) A new tile floor is being put in a room. The drawing shows that fifteen tiles fit along one wall. Ten tiles fit along another wall. How many tiles are needed to cover the whole floor? A-25 —-J B - 50 :: c-150 : E D'3OO llllllllllllj 20) You are using the sampling method to estimate the number of buttons in a jar. Which of the following is a variable? Number of trials completed Number of buttons in each handful The size of the jar Number of buttons in the jar DOC”? 314 Page 5 DIRECTIONS: Use the information below to answer the next three questions. INFORMATION: Hidden Valley School District 6 Schools 30 Classrooms in each building 25 Children in each classroom 21) About how many children attend the Hidden Valley Schools? A - 750 B 1,500 C - 3,000 D — 4,500 22) About one-half of the children in the district buy milk dach day. About how many cartons of milk are sold each day? A - 2,250 B - 4,500 C — 9,000 D - 9,500 23) About how many children are there in each building? A — 150 B - 180 C - 750 D - 1000 24) Look at the drawing of the spring scale. Five peas weigh l g. About how many peas are in the cup now? - 100 - 150 200 250 UOUUI> 25) 315 Page 6 In which situation would using an estimate or rounded- off quantity be all right? A - people at a school assembly B - cupcakes needed for a class party C desks needed in a classroom D - seats on an airline 26) Look at the balance below. One washer balanced 45 navy beans. How many navy beans would balance 12 washers? A - 480 ——— L) . B - 500 1‘1 C - 540 D — 600 itiil’ ‘II/ 27) What is the rule for counting by volume? A - add the number of particles along each side together B - add the number along the side to the number along the width C - multiply the number along the side times the width D - multiply the number along the side times the width times the number of layers 28) Some of the marbles in the drawing below have been covered. Assume the tray is full; how many marbles are there in all? A - 18 o 3 B - 70 o o c-77 § D - 88 29) Which of the following shows another name for 2000? A- 2 (10)1 B - 2 (10)2 c - 2 (10)3 D - 2 (10)4 316 Page 7 30) Which of the following shows 19,231 to the nearest ten? A - 19,200 B - 19,220 C - 19,230 D - 19,300 31) If you rip a piece of paper in half, and then rip these pieces in half again, and finally rip these pieces in half a third time, how many pieces do you end up with? A 6 B - 8 C - 12 D - l6 32) Chris halved a pile of rice several times. He ended up with thirty-two piles of rice. How many times did he halve the original pile of rice? cow> ubwm 33) Which of the following is the rule for finding the area of a rectangle? - add length and width - sum the four sides — multiply length times width - multiply the four sides together Dow> 34) Which is the best way to show the ratio of triangles to squares in the drawing below? 2:“ Dpl C) I rqo: r0 Cmv R: 317 Page 8 35) To estimate the sum 356 and 503 to the nearest hundred, you can add A - 300 and 500 B - 350 and 500 C - 400 and 500 D - 400 and 600 36) Pencils are sold to the school store by the dozen. If the store needed 137 pencils, how many dozen would they have to buy? A - 12 dozen B - 13 dozen C - l4 dozen D - 15 dozen APPENDIX 1 STUDENT TASK-INTERVIEW TEST 318 TASK-INTERVIEW TEST The following questions will be posed to children. You will record their responses on a response sheet. Give children adequate time to answer each question. Do not give them clues. Just read the questions as printed. You will need a pencil for yourself and the child should have one available to him. The only other materials will be the set of questions, a response sheet, and a jar of buttons. "Before you begin, tell the child to take his time in answering the questions. Tell him that you are going to keep a record of his answers and that there are several answers to some of the questions. He may use pencil and paper if he needs to help explain. He will not have to make any arithmetic calculations, but he will be asked to explain how he might solve a problem. The interview should only be five to ten minutes long." The Questions: (1) "What is the difference between an estimation and a guess?" (2) "Explain how you would estimate the number of buttons in this jar?" ”Canyou tell me about another method?" ”Are there any other methods that can be used to estimate the number of buttons in the jar?" To Teacher: Have the child describe as many methods as possible. When he says he can't think of any more, go on. (3) "Which of the methods you just described would probably be the easiest and fastest for solving the problem?" "Why?" (4) "How could you estimate the number of blades of grass on a lawn?" 319 TASK-INTERVIEW RESPONSE SHEET (1) complete answer partial answer no answer Comments: (2) partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: partial explanation complete explanation counting method: Comments: (3) complete answer partial answer no answer counting method: Comments: APPENDIX J ITEM ANALYSIS INFORMATION FOR THE UNIT-ACHIEVEMENT TEST PRE- AND POST-TEST 320 Pre- and Post-Test Item Analysis Information For The Unit-Achievement Test Including Discrimination, Difficulty, and Test Values For Each Item Item Number Discrimination Difficulty Test Values Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post 1 1 .05 .18 27% 25% 1.32 .74 2 5 .29 .15 34% 31% .45 .58 3 4 .25 .35 25% 18% .57 .37 4 3 .25 .15 30% 28% .57 .84 5 2 .27 .05 38% 40% .49 2.83 6 15 .33 .27 15% 12% .42 .29 7 33 .09 .34 41% 32% .76 .38 8 36 .27 .31 37% 29% .37 .33 9 35 .24 .39 35% 32% .48 .29 10 8 .37 .33 29% 17% .37 .31 11 34 -.05 .17 37% 37% -2.51 .79 12 25 .31 .32 36% 34% .35 .35 13 30 .49 .26 13% 10% .37 .25 14 16 .49 .43 25% 23% .31 .26 15 20 .04 .66 48% 27% 2.09 .32 16 17 .44 .29 16% 12% .33 .35 17 28 .51 .43 24% 20% .31 .35 18 31 .29 .17 37% 33% .35 .61 19 7 .51 .47 26% 19% .28 .24 20 12 .52 .44 37% 14% .22 .23 21 13 .35 .24 34% 26% .34 .50 22 11 .45 .44 36% 14% .26 .23 23 14 .37 .32 39% 29% .30 .44 24 19 .44 .32 26% 15% .36 .32 25 9 .21 .26 40% 39% .52 .34 26 26 .21 .46 40% 31% .37 .28 27 18 .20 .12 36% 38% .94 .77 28 27 .05 .35 46% 32% .73 .33 29 24 .11 .35 42% 34% .33 .26 30 10 .11 .55 48% 30% .28 .21 31 6 .41 .49 36% 28% .36 .27 32 32 .27 .34 37% 34% .42 .33 33 29 -.04 .27 49% 37% -l.93 .34 34 21 .40 .60 42% 31% .20 .20 35 23 .21 .51 40% 27% .54 .25 36 22 .28 .40 24% 14% .52 .23 APPENDIX K STUDENT AND TEACHER PERCEPTION FORM DATA 321 N = 272 Class Code # Science Activities - Student's Perceptions Think about the science lesson. Read each question below and check the answer you think best for each question. There are no right or wrong answers. 1. During the science period, 6. When I worked with the the class science equipment, I mostly did experiments a. mostly listened to the teacher _52 a. planned by the 135 b. mostly watched the teacher teacher or a boy or b. planned by the book _21 girl do experiments __3 c. planned by my group 95 c. mostly worked with d. planned by the class:Z: equipment 110 7. It is all right to help 2. Most of the talking was other students with science done a. not at all 4 a. by the teacher 133 b. sometimes 203 b. by a few boys or c. most of the time :5: girls _50 c. by many boys or 8. When my teacher told me or girls _82 asked me something, it was 3. Most of the experiments a. usually about my 188 were done work b. usually about the way a. by the teacher _11 I acted _24 b. by a few boys and c. usually about other girls _26 things _60 c. by many boys and girls 229 9. During the science periods I understood 4. I got to talk about science a. most of the time 183 a. not at all _59 b. about half the time _78 b. not as much as I c. hardly at all :1: wanted to _99 c. as much as I wanted to 114 5. I got to work with the science equipment a. hardly at all b. about half the time c. most of the time Hails 322 lO.What is your favorite subject? Write a number 1 in front of your first choice, a number 2 in front of your second choice, a number 3 in front of your third choice, a number 4 in front of your fourth choice, and a number 5 in front of your fifth choice. lglArithmetic _llLanguage Arts _ZlReading _58Science _2580cia1 Studies (Student's Perception Form developed by the Science Curriculum Improvement Study, University of California, Berkeley) 323 N = 12 Code # Science Activities — Teacher's Perceptions Think about the science lesson you have just concluded. Would you please respond to each item in terms of how you feel the children, as a total group, will reSpond. There are no right or wrong answers for either the children or the teacher; it merely represents one sample of one lesson. 1. During the science period, 6. When I worked with the the class science equipment, I mostly did experiments a. mostly listened to __2 the teacher a. planned by the __8 b. mostly watched the teacher teacher or a boy or b. planned by the book 2 girl do experiments __1 c. planned by the group—_2 c. mostly worked with d. planned by the class::§: equipment __9 7. It is all right to help 2. Most of the talking was other students in science done a. not at all 0 a. by the teacher __6' b. sometimes ::E b. by a few boys and c. most of the time 6 girls __3 __— c. by many boys and 8. When my teacher told me or girls __3 asked me something, it was 3. Most of the experiments a. usually about my _11 were done work b. usually about the a. by the teacher __0 way I acted l b. by a few boys and c. usually about other ___ girls __1 things 0 c. by many boys and —“— girls _ll_ 9. During the science periods, I understood 4. I got to talk about science a. most of the time 5 b. about half the time 7' c. hardly at all ::£ a. not at all b. about half the time c. most of the time Nola 5. I got to work with the science equipment a. hardly at all b. about half the time c. most of the time IOJJ... 324 10)What is your favorite subject? Write a number 1 in front of your first choice, a number 2 in front of your second choice, a number 3 in front of your third choice, a number 4 in front of your fourth choice, and a number 5 in front of your fifth choice. __§__Arithmetic __Q__Language Arts __3__Reading __Q__Science 3 Social Studies (Student's Perception Form developed by the Science Curricu- lum Improvement Study, University of California, Berkeley) B IBLIOGRAPHY 325 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Aho, William, et al. The McGraw-Hill Evaluation Program for ESS. New York: IMcGraw-Hill, I974. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Commentapy for Teachers: Science-~A Process Approach. AAAS/Xerox Corp., 1963: Amidon, Edmund J., and John B. Hough. Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research and Application. Reading, Ma.: Addison-Wesley,1967. Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. 4th ed. New York: MacMillan, 1976. Borg, Walter R., and Meredity D. Gall. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay, 1976. Brown, William R., and Edwin P. White. Delta Project Cards: Peas & Particles. Nashua, N.H.: Delta, 1978. Bruner, Jerome S. Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard University Press, 1960. Campbell, Donald T., and Julian C. Stanley. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1963. Delamont, Sara. Interaction in the Classroom. London: Methuen, 1976i Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: D. C. Heath, 1910. Ebel, Robert L. Essentials of Educational Measurement. 3d ed. Englewood Cliffs,’N. J.: PrenticeJHaIIT 1979. Educational Development Center. The ESS Reader. Newton, Ma.: Educational Development Center, 1970. Elementary Science Study. Teacher's Guide for Peas and Particles: Large Numbers and Estimations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Gagne, Robert M. Essentials of Learning for Instruction. Hinsdale, Ill.: The Dryden Press, 1974} 326 Henry, Nelson B., ed. "Developing Science Programs in the Elementary School." Rethinking Science Education, 59th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: University ofChicago Press, I960. Henry, Nelson B., ed. "Materials and Methods of Teaching Science in the Elementary School." Science Education in American Schools, 46th Yearbook ofithe National SOciety for the Study of Education, Part 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. Hudgins, Bryce B. Problem Solving in the Classroom. New York: MacMillan, 1966. Longstreet, Wilma 8., ed. "The Elementary School in the United States." The School's Curriculum, 72nd Year- book of the National Society for the Study of Educa- tion, Part 11. Chicago: University ofCHicago Press, 1973. Medawar, P. B. Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1968. Shulman, Lee S. and Evan Keislar, eds. Learning hwy Discovery A Critical Appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNaIIy, 1966. Simon, Anita and Gil E. Boyer. Mirrors for Behavior III: An Anthology of Observation Instruments. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, Inc., 1974. Suchman, J. Richard. The Elementapy School Training Program in Scientific Inquiry. Champaign-Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962. Victor, Edward and Marjorie S. Lerner, eds. Readings in Science Education for the Elementary School. 3d ed. New York: MacMillan, 1975. Whipple, Guy Mbntrose, ed. "What Are Some of the Contri- butions of Science to Liberal Education." A Program for Teaching Science, 3lst Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Williams, Elizabeth and Hilary Shuard, Elementary Mathe- matics Today: A Resource for Teachers Grades—I-B. Menlo Park, Ca.: Addison WeSIEy, 19701 327 Journals Anderson, Charles and David Butts. "A Comparison of Individualized and Group Instruction In A Sixth-Grade Electricity Unit," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XVII (1980), 1394145. Armstrong, Terry and Michael Heikkinen. "Initiating Inquiry Through Open-Ended Problems,” Science and Children, XIV (March, 1977), 30-31. Atkin, J. Myron. "A Study of Formulating and Suggesting Tests for Hypotheses in Elementary School Science Learning EXperiences," Science Education, XLII (December, 1958), 414-424. Ausubel, David P. "Some Psychological Considerations in the Objectives and Design of an Elementary Science Program," Science Education, XLVII (April, 1963), 278-284. Beam, Kathryn J. and Robert E. Horvat. "Differences Among Teachers' and Students' Perceptions of Science Class- room Behaviors, and Actual Classroom Behaviors," Science Education, LIX (July-September, 1975), 333-344. Beisenhertz, P.C. "Effecting Change In Elementary School Science," Science and Children, X (November, 1972), 26—28. Bredderman, Ted. "AdOption of Science Programs--Another Look," The Elementapy School Journal, LXXVII (May, 1977), 364-383. Caldwell, Harrie E. "Activity Categories: A Quantitative Model for Planning and Evaluating Science Lessons,” School Science and Math, LXXI (January, 1971), 55-63. Carin, Arthur. "Techniques for Developing Discovery Questioning Skills," Science and Children, VII (April, 1970), 13-15. Cronbach, Lee J. "Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests," Psychometrika, XVI (December, 1951), 297-334. Esler, William K. "Structuring Inquiry for Classroom Use," School Science and Math, LXX (May, 1970), 454-458. Flanders, Ned A. "Intent, Action and Feedback: A Prepara- tion for Teaching," Journal of Teacher Education, XIV (September, 1963), 251-260. 328 Freundlich, Yehudah. "The Problem In Inquiry," The Science Teacher, XLV (February, 1978), 19—22. Iannaccone, Laurence and James W. Pellegrino, eds. "A Meta-Analysis of Experimental Research on Teacher Questioning Behavior," Review of Educational Research, LI (Summer, 1981), 237-245. Ivany, George. "The Assessment of Verbal Inquiry in Junior High School Science," Science Education, LIII (October, 1969), 287—293. Johnson, Roger T., "The Relationship Between COOperation and Inquiry in Science Classrooms," Journal of Research in Science Teachipg, XIII (January, 1976), 55-63. , Frank L. Ryan, and Helen Schroeder. "Inquiry and the Development of Positive Attitudes," Science Education, LVIII (January-March, 1974), 51-56. Mark, S. J. and David Salstrom. "Use of a Science Game to Aid Conceptualization During a Sixth-Grade Guided Discovery Lesson," Science Education, LVI (April/June 1972), 155-161. Nash, Leonard K. "Teachers Don't Teach," Harvard Alumni Bulletin, (September 30, 1966), 22-23. Nicodemus, Robert B. "Content and Skills Hierarchies in Elementary Science: An Analysis of ESS Small Things," Journal of Research in Science Teachipg, VII, (January, 1970), I735177. . "Order of Complexity in Attribute Blocks," School Science and Math, LXX (October, 1970), 649-654. Quinn, Mary Ellen and Kenneth D. George. "Teaching Hypothesis Formation," Science Education, LIX (July/ September, 1975), 289—296. . "Individualization In Inquiry Skills," Science and Children, XII (November/December, 1974), 11-12. Rachelson, Stan. "A Question of Balance: A Wholistic View of Scientific Inquiry," Science Education, LXI (January-March, 1977), 109-117. Rogers, Robert E. and Alan M. Voelker. "Programs for Improving Instruction in the Elementary School," Science and Children, VII (January/February, 1970) 35-43. 329 Shroyer, Janet and William M. Fitzgerald. "The Mouse and the Elephant: An Application Unit," The Oregon Mathematics Teacher, (February, 1979), 10—13. Shulman, Lee S. "Psychological Controversies in the Teaching of Science and Math," The Science Teacher, XXXV (September, 1968) 34-38 and 89-90. Suchman, J. Richard. "Heuristic Learning and Science Education," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XIV (May, 1977), 263-272. Tyler, Ralph W. "Resources, Models and Theory in the Improvement of Research in Science Education," Journal of Research in Science Education, V (1967-68), 43-51. Tjosvold, Dean and Philip Santamaria. "Effects of Coopera- tion and Teacher Support on Student Attitudes Toward Decision Making in the Elementary Science Classroom," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, XV (May, 1978) 3813385. Vanek, Eugenia P. and John J. Montean. "The Effect of Two Science Programs (ESS and Laidlaw) on Student Classi- fication Skills, Science Achievement, and Attitudes," Journal of Research in Science Teachipg, XIV (January, 1977), 57-62. Victor, Edward, "The Inquiry Approach to Teaching and Learning: A Primer for Teachers," Science and Child- ren, XII (October, 1974), 23-26. Wasik, John L. and Robert B. Nicodemus. "A Study of the Effects of a workshop and the Use of Specially Developed Science Materials on Fifth-Grade Science Classroom Practices," Science Education, LIII (1969), 347-355. Welch, wayne W., et al. "The Role of Inquiry in Science Education: Analysis and Recommendations," Science Education, LXV (January-March, 1981), 33-50. Dissertations Avdul, Richard N. "An Investigation of the New Elementary Science Programs in Teacher Training Institutions of Ohio, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University, 1970. Baker, Robert M. "A Study of the Effects of a Selected Set of Materials (ESS) on Classroom Instructional Behaviors." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1970. 330 Bassett, Jimmy F. ”An Analysis of the Oral Questioning Process and Certain Causal Relationships in the Elementary School Science Classroom." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1971. Blomberg, Karin J. "A Study of the Effectiveness of Three Methods of Teaching Science in the Sixth Grade." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1973. Bratt, Marvin M. "A Comparative Study to Determine the Effects of Two Methods of Elementary Science In- struction on the Attitudes of Prospective Elementary Science Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1972. Caldwell, Harrie E. "Evaluation of an In-Service Course by Systematic Observation of Classroom Activities." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1968. Craven, Evelyn Monson. "An Evaluation of an Implementation Dissemination Mbdel for Elementary School Science." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, washington State University, 1977. Dickson, Earl W. "The Impact of the Multiplier Effect on Teachers and Students Involved in an ESS and SCIS Science Program." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1975. Fitzgerald, William M. and Janet Shroyer. "A Study of the Learning and Teaching of Growth Relationships in the Sixth Grade." Unpublished research study, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, 1979. Futrell, William M. "An Elementary Science Study (ESS) Instructional Program for Geographically Isolated Elementary Teachers." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, 1974. Huff, James W. "The Concept of a Problem in Inquiry Teaching." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Uni— versity of California at Los Angeles, 1978. Huntsberger, John P. "A Study of the Relationship Between the Elementary Science Study Unit Attribute Games and Problems and the Development of Divergent—Productive Thinking in Selected Elementary School Children." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 1972. 331 Johnson, Robert Walter. "A Model for Improving Inservice Teacher Questioning Behavior in Elementary School Science Instruction." Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, Wayne State University, 1969. Johnson, Sylvia Fogelquist. "A Cognitive Study of an Elementary Teacher's First Experience Teaching a 'New Science' Unit and its Relevance to the Implementation of Science Programs." Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Illinois, 1979. Kondo, Allan Kiichi. "A Study of the Questioning Behavior of Teachers in the Science Curriculum Improvement Study Teaching the Unit Material Objects." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1968. Kornbau, Charles Harrison. "The Practical Implications of an Informal Conceptual Analysis of the Words Inquiry and Discovery as Used in Contemporary Science Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1976. Labinowich, Edward P. "A Study in Summative Evaluation of Elementary School Science Curricula." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1969. Pattison, Sylvia Jean. "Evaluation as a Fundamental Part of Curriculum Development: A Study of Teaching Concepts of Estimation and Measurement to First-Grade Children." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, university of Illinois, 1972. Potts, Kenneth L. "The Evaluation of Implementation and Support Procedures in Selected Indiana Corporations that Adopted Either SCIS, SAPA, or ESS Elementary Science Programs." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1973. Smith, Ben A. "Modern Elementary Science Curricula and Student Achievement." Unpublished Doctoral disserta- tion, Western Michigan University, 1971. Stepahs, Joseph 1. "Influence of Instruction Upon Pre- Service and In-Service Teachers Agreement with the Philosophical Approach of the Elementary Science Study (ESS)." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, 1974. Swigart, Harold Allen. "An Instrument Designed for Observa- tions of Inquiry in Elementary Science Education." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1974. 332 ERIC Documents Anderson, Charles and David Butts. A Comparison of Indi- vidualized vs. Group Instruction in a Sixth Grade Electridity Unit. U. S. Educational Resourses Infor- mation Center, ERIC Document ED 108 869, March, 1975. Appel, Marilyn and Joanne Stolte. Assessment of Existing Elementary Science Programs. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 062 163, June, 1970. Caldwell, Harrie E. Evaluation of In-Service Science Methods Course By Systematic Observation of Classroom Activities. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 024 615, September, 1967. Henson, Stanley. A Study of the Cognitive and Affective Performance of Childien in the Elementary Science Study Program. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 076 648, September, 1973. Nicodemus, Robert B. An Evaluation of Elementary Science Study as Science A Process Approach. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 027 217, September, 1968. Reynolds, William W., Eugene C. Abraham, and Miles A. Nelson. The Classroom Observational Record. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 048 378, February, 1971. Shapiro, Bernard and Thomas Aiello. USMES Evaluation Report on Classroom Structure and Interaction Patterns: I972-73. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 116 918, June, 1974. Swami, Piyush. Creativity and Elementary Science Study Materials. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document 089 944, July, 1972. Wideen, Marvin F. The Psychological Underpinnings of Curricula: An Empirical Study. U. S. Educational Resources Information Center, ERIC Document ED 103 953, March, 1975.