THESIS » wwswnwvtwmh Lizufiggfifiy “ WW 5mm ‘7‘: :lrllEIDlVT/v’ii’fififiy ,-_ . L’f‘ufii‘; ‘1 I . "Fa $h’3PZW’V , /——-/‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY EDUCATION CURRICULA IN SELECTED CLASSROOMS (K—8) presented by NANCY MARIE LANDES has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . Administration and degree in _— Curr icul um major: Elementary Education Wflm )fijor professor 10—28— Date 81 Msun,...4m....,.,;.... - - , t , - - 0.12771 MSU LIBRARIES ‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 3 1293 10443 3234 RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY EDUCATION CURRICULA IN SELECTED CLASSROOMS (K-8) By Nancy Marie Landes A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1981 :‘W/ 7/ 7a:— ABSTRACT AN EVALUATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ENERGY EDUCATION CURRICULA IN SELECTED CLASSROOMS (K-8) By Nancy Marie Landes Problem This study investigates the implementation of particular energy education curriculum materials by Michigan teachers in grades K-8 who attended an energy education inservice workshop. The study is designed to describe the inservice workshop project upon which the study is based, assess the relationship between selected workshop factors and teacher characteristics and the amount of time teachers reported teaching about energy following an inservice workshop, and determine factors which may encourage or limit the implementation of energy education in these teachers' classrooms. Methodology Data for the study were collected through written questionnaires both before and after the inservice workshops, and through indepth interviews conducted with a sub—sample of teachers. Data were analyzed statistically using t-tests, Pearson product moment correlations, analyses of variance, and discriminant analyses. Descriptive data were reported separately from the statistical results. a im re' nee tea the whe dec WOT Nancy Marie Landes Results The major findings of the study were: about one-half of the teachers who responded to the 1) questionnaire had included energy education in their curriculum, 2) teachers tended to include energy education if they felt strongly enough that energy was an important topic about which their students needed to learn, 3) teachers found time to be the most limiting factor in including energy education in the curriculum, 4) teachers felt limited support for including energy topics from building principals and districts, 5) teachers tended to View energy education as part of science even when provided with multidisciplinary guides, and only the previous number of energy lessons taught and whether or not a teacher had attended a previous energy workshop showed any statistical relationship to the time spent teaching about energy following the workshop. Implications This research indicates that demographic variables may be of little importance in predicting the level of implementation of a socially relevant issue such as energy education in the classroom. Further study needs to examine the factors that may affect implementation, such as teacher-administrator relationships, community influences, and teacher knowledge and attitudes relating to energy issues and their inclusion in the curriculum. This study provides some background information about what selected teachers reported to have been important in their decisions to or not to teach about energy following an inservice workshop. HI Er he Ga Ce re th an "El ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer would like to thank her dissertation director, Dr. Marty Hetherington, for his unfailing support through the completion of this dissertation and throughout her graduate school experience. Every student should have such a positive role model. Appreciation is extended to Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer, Dr. Shirley Brehm, and Dr. Bruce Cheney, the remaining members of the writer's doctoral committee, for their help and encouragement. A special thanks is also extended to Dr. Richard McLeod who offered his support throughout the Energy Education Workshop Project, and to Karen Longe, Energy Education Coordinator of the Michigan Energy Administration, for her suggestions and encouragement. The writer would also like to express her gratitude to Dr. James Gallagher and the entire staff of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center for making the graduate school experience of the writer so rewarding, and especially to Julie Conrad, who was more than a typist through the production of this manuscript. Very heart-felt gratitude is extended to the writer's parents, Max and Mina Landes, for their constant faith and encouragement through the graduate school years and to the writer's close friends who provided the necessary day to day support and understanding. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ................. 1 Introduction . ..................... 1 Statement of the Problem ................ 2 Need for the Study ................... 3 Description of the 1980-81 Energy Education Inservice Program . . . . ............... 7 Procedures for the Study ................ 8 Objective of the Study ................. 9 Hypotheses of the Study ................ 11 Overview of Procedures and Analysis .......... 15 Assumptions and Limitations .............. 16 Organization of the Study ............... 18 Notes for Chapter I .................. 20 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . .............. 21 Introduction ..................... 21 Energy Education ................... 21 Inservice Education .................. 27 Relationship of Inservice Education to Energy Education ................ 29 Research on Implementation of Innovations ....... 30 Innovations and Innovators . . ............ 34 Factors Influential in the Implementation Process ...................... 38 Summary ........................ 49 Notes for Chapter II . . ............... 50 III. PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY .............. 56 Overview of the Chapter ................ 56 Design of the Study ................. 56 Description of the Energy Education Project for Michigan Teachers in Grades K-8 . . . 59 Selection of the Study Population .......... 62 Evaluation Methodology ................ 65 Data Collection . . . . .............. 65 Description of Data Analysis ............ 69 Testing the Hypotheses ................ 71 Further Methods of Data Analysis ........... 80 Summary of Research Procedures ............ 81 83 Notes for Chapter III ................ m IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS ................... 84 Introduction ..................... 84 Return Rates ............... . ..... 84 Data Analysis ..................... 87 Determining Relationships Between Variables . . . . 87 Tests of Hypotheses ................. 89 Additional Testing for Significance ........ 101 Analyses of Variance ................ 103 Discriminant Analysis ............... 107 Descriptive Data ................... 112 Stages of Concern ................. 122 Teacher Interviews ................. 129 Summary ....................... 137 Notes for Chapter IV ................. 141 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............ 142 Overview of the Chapter ................ 142 Conclusions ...................... 142 Recommendations for Future Energy Education Inservice Programs ................. 159 Implications for Future Research ............ 165 Speculations ..................... 169 Notes for Chapter V ................. 172 BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................... 173 APPENDICES Appendix A. List of Treatment and Control Counties ...... 179 B. Letter of Request, Participation Form, Workshop Advertisement, Follow-up Letters ..... 181 C. Teacher Energy Education Questionnaire, Workshop Evaluation Form ............. 187 D. Follow-up Questionnaire with Accompanying Letters and Follow—up Postcard .......... 193 E. Interview Questions ............... 203 F. Results from T—tests and Pearson Product Moment Correlations ............... 211 G. Chi—Square Analyses ............... 217 H. Analyses of Variance ............... 220 “ex—‘0..— " nullua\/-rI\I-.-/ECJG — LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE Workshop Participants ................ 64 Return Rates ..................... 86 Chi-Square Analyses ................. 88 Summary of Hypothesis Testing ............ 100 Additional Analyses ................. 102 Means of Independent Variables ........... 110 Supporting Factors ................. 117 Reasons for Teaching About Energy .......... 118 Limiting Factors .................. 120 Reasons Given for Not Teaching About Energy ..... 121 Stages of Concern Responses ............ 126 Concerns About Energy Issues ............ 128 i—Ii—u—I NHOKDmVOfiU'l-DWNI—I ............ LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. Cell Sizes for Analyses of Variance vi PAGE 104 cc ed ha to del Seg SUI INT CHAPTER I OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION Changes in our society are occurring at an ever increasing rate due partly to rapid development of science and technology. Because of this, American citizens are bombarded with decisions in the marketplace, in the voting booth, and in the development of a lifestyle that were previously left to the "experts.” Our schools are struggling to prepare future citizens for continued change. Not only are teachers expected to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic, but they are now expected to educate their students about many socially relevant issues, ones which demand attention if students are to become responsible adults able to live comfortably in a highly technological society. Among the topics currently vying for time in the classroom curriculum are career education, environmental education, outdoor education, sex education, sex bias education, energy education, consumer education, economic education, metric education, microcomputer education, global education, and multicultural education. One would be hardpressed to state that any of these are not important topics for today's students. Although some of these issues are integrated within the current science and social science texts at the elementary and middle school levels, many of them remain separate topics presented through specially developed materials provided for teachers at inservice training sessions. Although teachers may recognize a need for the inclusion of ;uch socially relevant topics in their classroom curriculum, questions ‘emain as to the extent to which such topics are actually included. This study examines only one of the topics currently thought to be of importance to teachers and students in today's educational community - energy education. The findings from this study may provide some insight into teachers' use of supplemental curriculum relating to a topic of important social interest. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of this study is to investigate the use and non-use of energy education curriculum materials by a select group of Michigan teachers in grades K—8 who attended an energy education inservice workshop. The study is mostly descriptive in nature and is designed to 1) describe the energy education inservice workshop project upon which this study is based, 2) assess the relationship between selected workshop factors and teacher characteristics and the amount of time teachers report teaching about energy in the classroom following an energy education inservice workshOp, 3) determine factors which may encourage teachers to teach about energy, and 4) determine factors which may limit teachers in their efforts to teach students about energy issues and energy conservation. This study was based on an energy education curriculum development and dissemination project conducted in the state of Michigan during the school year 1980-81. The project was carried out by faculty from the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of Michigan State University and ponsored by the Energy Administration of Michigan. The purpose of this roject was to develop a set of multidisciplinary energy education urriculum materials appropriate for students in grades K-8 and to isseminate these materials to teachers of these grade levels through a re en ")0 exl series of inservice workshops. This energy education project was based on the as5umption that teachers who attended an energy education inservice workshop and received curriculum materials designed for their grade levels would teach their students about energy and related conservation concepts following the inservice workshop. This research project was then designed to test that assumption. Data for this investigation were collected by questionnaire during selected energy education inservice workshops and through mailed questionnaires and personal interviews following these workshops. The study investigates the implementation of energy education in classrooms K-8 following an energy education inservice workshop to identify the extent to which teachers teach about energy education following the workshop, which teachers choose to teach about energy issues, and the factors that may encourage or limit this implementation. NEED FOR THE STUDY After the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, energy issues became more important and more apparent to the American public. As people began to realize the complex nature and widespread impact of our energy problems, energy education for students across the country became increasingly more available. Ernest L. Boyer, Commissioner of Education (1977), expressed the sentiment of the 1970's in stating: Schools must conserve. They must contribute to the training of workers in the new energy and environment fields. And they must do more. They must teach our children and ourselves about the wider nature of our energy dilemma and must equip our society with the understandings necessary to re-make our society in the light of that dilemna. Dl‘ C0 lh my be: Again, in 1978, the need for energy education was emphasized as results from the National Assessment of Energy Awareness Among Young Adults were published which showed that young American adults (aged 26-35), often thought to be the most knowledgeable segment of our society, demonstrated little understanding of the basis for our energy problems. “While sensitized to the realities of the energy problem, young adults show little understanding of the trade-offs, time Tags in energy production, conversion processes and the technologies associated with energy development.”2 This again increased the felt need for energy education in the schools. In the mid 1970's, many states established energy offices to deal with this new "education," while others began curriculum development programs through existing state departments of education. By 1978, 75% of all states had at least one person at the state level whose direct responsibilities included K-12 energy education and 53% of all states reported some type of implementation of an energy education component in 3 At the national level, the National Science Teachers schools. Association (NSTA), in cooperation with the Department of Energy, began a widespread effort to provide energy information to the schools through its Project for an Energy Enriched Curriculum (PEEC). Through that program, free curricula, inservice training, and energy education conferences were made available to teachers all across the country. However, in a recent assessment of the actual implementation of his curriculum, results showed that these "energy education curriculum aterials appear to have limited use in our nation's schools, apparently ecause significant numbers of teachers do not know the materials exist.“4 Yet, dissemination records reported in the same document indicate that over one million curriculum units had been requested and delivered. In Michigan, similar problems exist. Energy education programs have been made available to over 4,000 teachers through various educational programs including those conducted by staff from the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of Michigan State University. The Energy Extension Service Clearinghouse also offers a toll free telephone number for ordering teaching materials (plus free delivery) to any teacher requesting such materials in the state. Even with these quite extensive services, a recent survey of Michigan's elementary schools conducted by the Michigan Science Teachers Association showed that only 13% of those surveyed had added energy education to the curriculum since 1974.5 Because of the nature of the above data, we do not know with any degree of certainty whether teachers gdjl_implement energy education programs once they have become aware that the programs exist and receive the appropriate, available curriculum materials. Thus, this study investigates a known sample of teachers who received energy education curriculum materials and inservice training in the use of these materials and examines the level of implementation following such training. Energy education may be considered an innovation for teachers—~a new feature to be implemented into classroom instruction. In general, esearch on the implementation of innovations in the classroom indicates hat few programs new to schools are actually implemented beyond an initial adoption period.6 Even initially "successful" adoptions have not been continued once outside support in the manner of money and/or consultants ends. As well, additional studies note that innovations developed externally to schools and then transmitted by outside consultants have led to no significant change at the user, in this case, teacher level.7 The assumption upon which the investigated energy education project is based, however, is that teachers will implement energy education in their classrooms following the inservice workshop conducted by outside consultants. In support of this, recent research on energy education in Michigan shows that high school teachers have incorporated energy education into their classroom curriculum following an inservice workshop. Results indicate that the extent of this implementation is not great (an average of 5.2 class sessions were taught about energy by these teachers during the entire first semester), although the results were shown to be significantly different (at the .005 level) from the amount of teaching accomplished by a control group of teachersg. The question of the implementation of energy education programs by elementary and middle school teachers (grades K—8) following an inservice workshop has remained to be investigated. According to Fullan, "The study of implementation enables us to determine (i) if practice did in fact change, and (ii) the factors which inhibited or acilitated change in practice. Thus, concentrating on implementation akes it more likely that the means to intended change become a central ocus, without which we could not expect much change to come about.“9 DESCRIPTION OF THE 1980-81 ENERGY EDUCATION INSERVICE PROGRAM A brief description of the energy education inservice project for Michigan teachers in grades K-8 will be presented in this section. A more detailed description will be provided in Chapter III. In April, 1980, the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center was awarded a contract from the Energy Administration of Michigan to develop multidisciplinary energy education curriculum materials for teachers in grades K-8 and to disseminate these materials to teachers through a series of workshops during the fall of 1980. The contract from the Energy Administration randomly divided the counties of the southern half of Michigan's lower peninsula into treatment and control counties. (See Appendix A.) The inservice workshops could be offered only in the 19 counties designated as "treatment" counties by the contract. The further requirements of the contract stipulated that 24 inservice workshops would be completed for a total audience of 700 teachers in grades K-8, and that each workshop would be a minimum of two hours in length with at least 20 participants. Once the contract was awarded, letters, requesting the articipation of the teachers in their building/district in the energy ducation inservice workshop program, were sent to all school building rincipals and superintendents in the 19 county “treatment" area. (See ppendix B.) The specific objectives of each workshop were, as follows: 1. to provide teachers with background information about energy and energy conservation, 2. to introduce teachers to newly developed energy education curriculum materials, specifically the MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) Teacher Developed Energy Education Materials for Elementary and Middle Schools, 3. to acquaint teachers with a multidisciplinary approach to teaching about energy and energy conservation, and 4. to provide teachers with information about additional available Eggrgy education curriculum materials for classrooms in grades As specified in the inservice education contract, no provision was made for any follow-up contact with teachers by the workshop consultants once the workshop was completed. An evaluation program, consisting of pre- and post—questionnaires was planned by the Energy Administration to be completed by February 1981. This was the only intervention planned following the workshops themselves. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY A random sample of nine of the 24 workshops was chosen to provide the population for this study. A total of 215 teachers comprised the tudy sample from the nine workshops held in the following locations in outhern Michigan: L'Anse Creuse Public Schools, Mt. Clemens; ixom/Walled Lake Public Schools; Romulus Public Schools; Rochester ublic Schools (two separate workshops were conducted for different rade level groups); Chippewa Valley Public Schools, Mt. Clemens; Lapeer ublic Schools; Delton/Kellogg Public Schools; and Mt. Clemens Public hools. At each of the nine workshops, the participants completed the eacher Energy Education Questionnaire" prior to participation in any rkshop activities. At the close of each workshop, participants mpleted a workshop evaluation form. (See Appendix C. for both forms.) Also, a brief explanation of the research study was presented by the researcher to encourage the participants to complete the follow-up questionnaire which would be mailed to them. Three months after each workshOp was held, follow-up questionnaires were mailed to each participant to obtain data about the inclusion of energy education in their classroom curriculum. One reminder letter with an additional questionnaire and a follow-up postcard were mailed to non-respondents. (See Appendix D.) Once questionnaire data were received, the respondents were divided into three groups according to the amount of time they reported having taught about energy on the follow-up questionnaires. (Further detail is presented in Chapter III.) A random sample of ten teachers (seven interviewees and three alternates) from each of these three groups was (selected for a 20 to 30 minute personal interview. The interviews were designed to obtain further information from teachers regarding their use or non-use of energy education curriculum in the classroom. (See ppendix E. for the complete interview format.) BJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The major objective of this study was to examine the relationship etween the amount of time teachers reported teaching about energy in he classroom following an energy education inservice workshop and pecific inservice workshop factors and teacher characteristics. A second objective of the study was to compare the characteristics those teachers who were more active in teaching about energy in the lassroom (based on their reported teaching activity on the follow-up estionnaires) with the characteristics of those teachers who taught 10 very little about energy following the inservice workshop. Determining the characteristics of those teachers likely to implement energy education in their classr00ms might be helpful in future recruitment efforts. A third objective was to determine those factors which may encourage teachers to teach about energy in the classroom while a fourth objective was to assess the factors which may limit teachers in adopting ' energy education programs. Through these objectives, the researcher Ahoped to learn more about teachers' abilities and desires to implement ,energy curriculum in their classrooms (K-8) in order to develop future inservice and curriculum programs more consistent with successful :implementation strategies. The specific variables believed to relate to teachers' implementation of energy education were divided into two major areas: workshop factors and teacher characteristics. 1. Workshop Factors: Even though all of the energy education inservice workshops followed the same basic format, some differences did exist in the details of each workshop. For example, some workshops lasted two hours and some were held for four hours. Some workshops were held during the school day and some in the evening. The factors differing among workshops were the following: time of day, length of workshop, type of workshop (which pertains to the grouping of grade levels within the workshop), number of teachers attending the workshop, attendance of building principal(s), and number of teachers attending from the same school and grade level. These factors were believed to be influential in teachers' subsequent teaching of energy in their classrooms. In’lr'Thr 7 2. Teacher Characteristics: Variability among teachers along particular personal dimensions were thought to influence a teacher's implementation of energy education. Such factors as: grade level, previous teaching about energy, rating of the importance of energy issues, self-reported energy knowledge level, years of teaching experience, attendance at previous energy workshops, and voluntary versus required attendance at this workshop were assessed to determine their relationship with subsequent teaching about energy in the classroom. The reason for examining all of these factors was to determine those that might be influential in a teacher's implementation of energy (curriculum in the classroom. By learning more about teachers and factors that may influence them, future efforts in energy education inservice training may be more fruitful for teachers and sponsoring agencies alike. HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY The factors thought to be most influential in a teacher's decision :0 implement energy education in the classroom were analyzed tatistically. In all cases, two dependent variables were used: 1) the umber of lessons a teacher reported teaching about energy using the EIU_(More: Better Than Usual) Teacher Developed Energy Education Iterials for Elementary and Middle Schools following the inservice rkshop, and 2) the total number of minutes a teacher reported aching about energy using the MBTU curriculum materials following the :ervice workshop. 12 The number of energy lessons taught was reported by teachers directly on the follow-up questionnaire. The total number of minutes a teacher taught about energy was determined by multiplying that particular teacher's reported number of lessons taught by the reported length (in minutes) of the average energy lesson taught by that teacher. (Both the number of energy lessons and the length of the average energy lesson in minutes were reported by teachers directly on the follow-up Thus, the questionnaire. See Appendix D for a sample questionnaire.) total number of minutes is an average figure determined identically for each respondent and is believed to be an accurate representation of how much time teachers reported to have engaged in energy education using the MBTU curriculum materials during a three month period following the inservice workshop. Each research hypothesis that follows is written in two forms taking each dependent variable into account separately. The hypotheses for this study are: Hypothesis 1: Teachers whose building principal attended the energy education A. inservice workshop will teach significantly more lessons about energy following an inservice workshop than teachers whose building principal did not attend the workshop. Teachers whose building principal attended the energy education 8. inservice workshop will spend significantly more time teaching about energy following an inservice workshop than teachers whose principal did not attend the workshop. ypothesis 2: There is a significant correlation between the teacher's years of teaching experience and the number of lessons the teacher teaches about energy following the inservice workshop. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_____________________——T "* fem; ' " 13 B. There is a significant correlation between the teacher's years of teaching experience and the amount of time the teacher spends teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. Hypothesis 3: A. Teachers who attended the inservice workshOp voluntarily will teach significantly more lessons about energy following the inservice workshop than teachers who were required to attend. B. Teachers who attended the inservice workshop voluntarily will spend significantly more time teaching about energy following the inservice workshop than teachers who were required to attend. Hypothesis 4: A. There is a significant correlation between the teacher's rating of the importance of energy issues and the number of lessons the teacher teaches about energy following the inservice workshop. B. There is a significant correlation between the teacher's rating of the importance of energy issues and the amount of time the teacher spends teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. Hypothesis 5: A. There is a significant correlation between the teacher's self—reported energy knowledge level and the number of lessons the teacher teaches about energy following the inservice workshOp. B. There is a significant correlation between the teacher's self-reported energy knowledge level and the amount of time the teacher spends teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. Hypothesis 6: A. Teachers who report having previously taught about energy will teach significantly more lessons about energy following the inservice workshop than teachers who report no previous teaching about energy. B. Teachers who report having previously taught about energy will spend significantly more time teaching about energy following the inservice workshop than teachers who report no previous teaching about energy. l4 Hypothesis 7: A. There is a significant correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshop from the same school and the number of lessons teachers teach about energy following the inservice workshop. B. There is a significant correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshOp from the same school and the amount of time a teacher spends teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. Other questions of interest are: Question 1: Does a teacher's grade level significantly influence the number of lessons or amount of time spent teaching about energy following an inservice workshop? Question 2: Does the length of the inservice workshOp significantly influence the number of lessons or amount of time spent teaching about energy following an inservice workshOp? Question 3: Does the number of teachers attending the workshop significantly influence the number of lessons or amount of time spent teaching about energy following an inservice workshOp? Question 4: 00 teachers who reported spending more time teaching about energy following the inservice workshop differ signficantly on any characteristics from teachers who reported little teaching about energy following the inservice workshop? Question 5: What factors do teachers report to have encouraged them to teach about energy following an inservice workshop? Question 6: What factors do teachers report to have limited them in their ability or opportunity to teach about energy following an inservice workshop? OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURES AND ANALYSIS Hypotheses 1, 3, and 6 were tested using t-tests for differences between means of two sample populations. Hypotheses 2, 4, 5, and 7 and questions 1, 2, and 3 were analyzed using Pearson product moment correlation coefficients to assess the degree and direction of relationships between the specified dependent and independent variables. Following these tests, multiple analyses of variance were completed relating the two dependent variables and four independent variables: time of day of the workshOp, type of workshop, attendance of the building principal, and voluntary versus required attendance, while controlling for the additional independent variables. These analyses were completed to enable the researcher to look at all variables simultaneously to determine the possible significance of variables in combination. To answer question 4, discriminant analyses were performed to attempt to differentiate between those teachers who were considered 'high users" of the energy education curriculum materials and those who ere "low-users.“ (The teachers who reported more than 180 minutes of lass time spent in energy education were considered to be "high users" or the purpose of this study.) All data were analyzed using the computer programs available from he Statistical Packpge for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and the results ported are those obtained from the computer print-outs. The two dependent variables were the number of energy lessons ught as reported by teachers on the follow-up questionnaires and the total number of minutes spent teaching about energy derived from the product of the number of lessons taught and the average number of minutes of each lesson reported by the teachers on the follow-up questionnaires. Both dependent measures were used in all analyses reported. Questions 5 and 6 were answered from descriptive data returned on the follow—up questionnaires and from information gathered during indepth interviews with selected teachers. Other descriptive data, such as teachers' concerns about energy education, are reported with the data for questions 5 and 6. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS This study assumed that energy education was an appropriate subject for inclusion in K-8 curriculum and that the inservice workshop model iused by the consultants was one that encouraged (or properly introduced) (the use of energy education curriculum in the classroom. The study also assumed that the energy education curriculum materials provided for eachers were useable and appropriate for the grade levels specified. It was assumed that all teachers attending the workshops were able 0 include energy education in their classroom curriculum if they chose 0 do so, and were not unduly restricted by school district guidelines r requirements. For the purposes of this study, the researcher assumed hat all teachers were equally capable of understanding and utilizing he information from the workshop and that the basic information was resented uniformly across all nine workshops. Also, it was assumed at teachers gave full and honest information on the questionnaires 17 about their background and use of the energy education curriculum materials in the classroom following the inservice workshop. The gathering of data was limited by the contract between the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center and the Energy Administration of Michigan. The contract stipulated that a particular questionnaire, specifically the Teacher Energy Education Questionnaire, would be administered at all workshops prior to the workshop activities. To minimize the time spent in data gathering at the workshops included in this study, it was necessary to use the questionnaire designed by the evaluation specialist at the Energy Administration of Michigan rather than an instrument designed by the researcher for this study. Thus, the background data collected were limited to the information requested on this questionnaire. The interpretation of data was limited by the nature of the data. All information was self-reported information and the researcher had access to only that information supplied directly by the teachers. Classroom visitations or follow-up discussions with teachers were limited by the workshop locations, since all workshops included in this study were at least 70 miles from Michigan State University. onsequently, the researcher assumed that all information was honestly eported and that questions from the questionnaires were interpreted in he same manner by all respondents. Because the return of the follow-up questionnaires was not 100%, he data anlaysis is limited to those teachers who supplied the quested information. Thus, the data may not be totally representative of the sampled population and the generalizability of the conclusions may be limited. Generalizability to the general population of K-8 teachers is also limited by the voluntary participation of many teachers in this energy education inservice workshop program. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY The outline of the dissertation is, as follows: Chapter II contains a review of the literature relevant to this study. The first section reviews information related to current research and reports in energy education, the second section deals with the importance of inservice education, while the remaining sections relate to the implementation of innovations and factors important in that implementation. Chapter III presents the methodology of this research study. First the study design is discussed, followed by a detailed description of the energy education inservice workshOp project upon which this study was based. The methods used in the selection of the sample, data collection and data analysis are presented followed by the statistical procedures used to analyze each research hypothesis. Additional statistical easures used to analyze the data are also discussed. Chapter IV contains the results of the data analyses described in hapter III. The chapter begins by reporting the response rates to the ollow-up questionnaire and continues by reporting the results of the ypothesis testing, the analyses of variance, and discriminant analyses. he chapter concludes with the information gathered through descriptive rtions of the questionnaire and indepth interviews. 19 In Chapter V, the conclusions, recommendations and implications for future research as a result of this study are presented. 20 CHAPTER I - NOTES Ernest L. Boyer, "Energy: Special Feature on Energy and the Schools," Today's Education 66:56-57, September-October, 1977. Education Commission of the States, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Energngnowledge and Attitudes: A National Assessment of Energy Awareness Among Young Adults, Report No. DD-E-OI (Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1978), p. 27. Energy Information Associates, Inc., Final Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, The Status of State Energy Education Policy. Washington, D.C., 1978. (ED 162890) Battelle Laboratories, Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Review and Evaluation of DOE Energy Education Curriculum Materials (washington, D.C.: Office of’Education, Business and Labor Affairs, 1979), p. 1. Burton Voss, Robert Kimball, and Tony Akinmade, “MSTA Report on Changes in Science Programs K—12, Staff, Enrollments, and Concerns About Science Education 1974-1979," Michi an Science Teachers Association Bulletin, 28:3-7, Summer, 1980. Paul Berman and Milbrey McLaughlin, "Implementation of Educational Innovation," Educational Forum, 402345-370, March, 1976. Michael Fullan, "Overview of the Innovative Process and the User," Interchange 3:1—45, 1972. Martin Kushler, Energy Education and High School Teachers: Research findings of the Michigan Youth Energy Education Project, Technical Report #7, Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Commerce, 1979. Michael Fullan, "Research on the Implementation of Educational Change," paper prepared for Research in Organizational Issues in Education, ed. by R. Corwin (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc., 19805, p. 33. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE iTRODUCTION The purpose of this chapter is to report the literature relevant o the study of the implementation of energy education in classrooms, rades K—8. First of all, the relatively new field of energy education Till be explored and current research reported. Next, the relationship letween inservice education and energy education will be discussed to lend insights into the importance of inservice training for the implementation of new curricular programs. Thirdly, a review of the research on the implementation of classroom innovations is presented to discuss the relationship of this literature to the implementation of programs such as energy education in general and the design of this research study in particular. By reviewing the relevant literature in these areas, much can be earned about the factors important in teachers‘ implementation and on-implementation of classroom innovations. The future of energy ducation programs in schools depends upon our understanding of the actors that encourage or limit the implementation of educational nnovations, especially when dealing with an issue of such social portance as energy education. ERGY EDUCATION If the American people are to make intelligent, informed decisions in the difficult and controversial field of energy, they need to understand a field that until a few years ago was left to the experts. TechnolOgies which are so complex that until a generation ago few scientists understood them, are now subject to public referenda. Lifestyle decisions need to be based on reality, not fantasy. And career decisions should be 21 :14 11151 22 geared to the changing realities of the new era in energy which is upon us, when cheap, plentiful energy in unending supply is a thing of the past. Perhaps no single topic other than energy has ever cut across so many academic disciplines and areas of concern-economics, engineering, foreign policy, ecology, sociology, lifestyle, health, ethics—even religion. This poses a unique challenge to a society which has gravitated toward eger greater educational and vocational specialization. An informed citizenry is essential for our country to deal successfully with the changing energy situation we face...There remains a great need to educate our youth further about the realities of the energy situation our country faces, the alternatives available to us as a nation and--most importantly--wha individual citizens can do about their energy problems. Perhaps our schools and colleges need to realize that the energy challenge will confront us all for the rest of our lives, that our environment is shaped by our patterns of energy consumption and is passed on as a legacy to all of our children, and that our plight in this nation is determined also by Eur active, interdependent engagement with all nations. Such are the comments made about the importance of energy education or today's students and society in general. Energy education appears 0 be necessary for the development of an energy literate citizenry, one hich has a deeper understanding of our energy dilemma, the alternatives vailable, and the consequences of each. Although the schools do not provide the only forum for education, w if any major social problems for which explanations or solutions are quired do not involve the public schools. The schools are a flection of society as well as the principal vehicle by which the ung are socialized and prepared for life as adults.5 Thus, the hools would seem to have an important role to play in the education of udents about present energy realities and future possibilities. In ——7——— 7"” arm?" ' 23 upport of this contention, 95% of young adults (aged 26-35) surveyed in nation-wide assessment of energy knowledge and attitudes in 1977 elieved that topics like basic energy knowledge, energy problems and he future of energy should definitely be an important part of every chool's curriculum.6 Many efforts toward this end have been made at the federal, state, 1nd local school district levels. Curricula have been developed, :onferences have been convened and teachers have been trained in the use of energy education curriculum materials. According to recent reports of energy education activities, 75% of all State Education Agencies have at least one person whose direct responsibilities include energy education for grades K-12; 50% of state energy offices have a staff person in charge of K-12 energy education;7 by 1977, over one-third of the states had energy education curriculum programs developed and many more states were in the development process;8 from 1975 to 1978, almost $2.5 million had been spent in energy education curriculum development at the federal level and an equal amount had been spent for faculty 9 evelopment workshops; over 3 million factsheets and almost two million urriculum packages had been distributed to teachers upon request from he U.S. Department of Energy sponsored Technical Information Center;10 he circulation of an Energy Education Newsletter co—sponsored by the .S. Department of Energy and the National Science Teachers Association NSTA) had grown from 15,000 in 1977 to 35,000 by June of 1980;11 and resident Carter proclaimed the first National Energy Education Day EED) to be observed on March 21, 1980.12 In making the nation-wide mmitment for energy education apparent, former Energy Secretary 24 Charles Duncan stated at the signing ceremony for the first NEED, "The education of youth on energy issues is of fundamental overriding importance. And we at the Department of Energy are trying to give some tangible expression to this need by working with some 9,000 teachers (through summer and in-service training programs). We are distributing more than 1.5 million pieces of course material annually...Nothing is more important than to get energy issues well understood by young people."13 Quite obviously, substantial efforts are being made toward the energy education of America's teachers and students alike. Despite these efforts for nation-wide and state-wide energy education, the few evaluation reports that exist show that these efforts have had minimal impact. According to a study conducted by Batelle Laboratories, "The extent of use of DOE energy education curriculum naterials appears quite limited in our nation's schools...A principal reason for low extent of use is that significant numbers of teachers do not know the materials exist. In addition, for teachers that are aware )f the materials and that have ordered them, significant numbers do not "14 In addition, a study to Ise the materials once they receive them. !easure current curriculum status and curriculum changes over the past ive years in the state of Michigan showed that only 13% of the lementary teachers surveyed had added energy education to their lassroom curriculum since 1974.15 Part of the problem with judging the effectiveness of the efforts 1t forth in energy education is the lack of evaluation that has been inducted. As reported by Battelle Laboratories, “no other research .udies were identified dealing with actual extent of use of the 25 materials in our schools."16 Also, in a recent survey of the literature surrounding the evaluation of energy education programs, Richardson and Johnson report that little or no research is being done to investigate the effectiveness of the inservice energy education programs for teachers,17 and Disinger corroborated this finding in stating that "No extensive surveys on the implementation of Energy Education activities related to teacher education have been published to date."18 So, although many efforts are being made in energy education, little information exists to determine whether these energy education programs are being implemented in the schools to help prepare an energy literate populace. In fact, the few reports that have been conducted show that relatively few teachers are including energy education in their teaching and there appear to be no studies available which differentiate between those teachers who do teach about energy and those who do not. Because little literature is available on the implementation of energy education in the classroom, it becomes necessary to look elsewhere for literature relating to the use and non-use of energy education in the schools. Energy education may be considered an innovation for teachers, something new to be added to or infused within the classroom curriculum. As Rogers and Shoemaker define it, An innovation is an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an individual. It matters little, so far as human behavior is concerned, whether or not an idea is 'objectively' new as measured by the lapse of time since its first use or discovery. It is the perceived or subjective newness of the idea for the individual that determines his reaction to it. If the idea Seems new to the individual, it is an innovation.1 ‘57 7 26 Although the idea of energy education has been discussed in the popular media since the oil embargo of 1973, few teachers have actually incorporated energy education curriculum materials into their classroom curriculum. Thus, energy education may be considered a new idea, an innovation, for most teachers. According to Miles, an innovation is a deliberate, novel, specific change which is thought to be more effective in accomplishing the goals of a system. An innovation is considered to be willed and planned and not a haphazard occurrence.20 Energy education, with its planned classroom curricula can be addressed as an innovation according to this more rigid definition also, since it represents a deliberate, novel and fairly specific change in accomplishing the education of students about a major social and technological issue. The literature on innovation and change is extensive, and substantial research has been conducted on innovations in the schools that may shed some light on the direction for future energy education research and evaluation. This literature must be examined in relation :0 the efforts that have been made to date in energy education and some :ealities as expressed by Richard Brancato, Chairperson, White House ’ask Force on Energy Conservation, "School systems as you are all aware, ave dwindling amounts of resources that are available to carry out the andated reading, writing, and arithmetic. To put on top of that a Equirement to teach an energy curriculum is something that all of the ecision makers are going to have to grapple with."21 27 INSERVICE EDUCATION ___________________ Inservice education is one major theme that courses through both the literature on innovation and change in the schools and the recommendations for the future of energy education. Inservice education (also referred to as staff development, continuing education, and professional development) is defined by Edelfelt as: any professional development activity that a teacher undertakes singly, or with other teachers, after receiving his or her initial teachingzcertificate, and after beginning professional practice. Howey further clarifies this broad definition in these terms: Inservice teacher education is a coat of many colors. It can encompass activities undertaken independently and decided autonomously, or it can reflect mandated activity for all teachers. It can be a simple one-time-only endeavor, or it of participating, or it can have a number of concomitant benefits attached: dollars, credits, released time, or _ desired career change. It can have no direct relationship to schooling, or it can be tggd directly to teacher and/or student desired behavior. However broadly defined, most educators agree with Edelfelt that nservice education of teachers should be a major focus of the decade of he 1980's. As teacher populations continue to stabilize, more effort ust be made to reach teachers with new ideas and programs to keep them pdated and continue to improve professional performance. Inservice education is fundamental to the process of change in the :hools. As J.M. Hansen concludes, "Inservice education becomes a necessity for the follow1ng reasons: 1) Change is a fundamental element of our world today and the schools must be a part of that change. 28 2) New knowledge and new skills are being required of our citizenry. 3) There is a professional responsibility and need that the most valid and relevant skills and subject areas be included in school programs. 4) Renewal is characteristic of a dynamic and improving profession. 5) Inservice education is a means of assisting the professigflal educator to be the best he/she might become." Then the question becomes, what type of inservice education should be provided for teachers so that they may in turn reach their students with necessary information and skills? The literature suggests varied answers to this question. Hansen concludes in his article that "highly regarded inservice programs are voluntary, developmental, relevant, well planned, timely, adequately financed, professionally implemented, evaluated, cooperatively planned, and challenging. Those described as ineffective include characteristics such as coercive, remedial, irrelevant, perfunctory, ill-timed, sterile, indifferently presented, blindly accepted, administrator—dominated, worthless, and boring."25 Another comment is provided by Rubin, as follows: The major solutions for teacher in-service education in the time ahead would seem to embody the following: (1) the need to emphasize, throughout the curriculum, a high degree of social awareness; (2) the need to develop among youth the. skills associated with problem-analysis and problem-solution; (3) the need to inculcate students with a better understanding of participatory democracy, a stronger commitment to lFS. . ideals, and a clearer sense of moral and civic responsibility; (4) the need to strengthen students' values and priorities with respect to personal and public good; (5) the need to instill greater optimism regarding the human capaCity to overcome social crisis and enhance the quality of life; and (5) the need to nurture-in every student-a Egarper perception of how one's personal future can be shaped. 29 His line of reasoning is supported by Howey: There may be a longing for a return to the 'good old days,‘ but such thinking collides head on with reality. Certainly recent legislative and judicial direction suggests that the three R's are not enough. Mainstreaming, desegregation, and greater equality for women call for a broadened, not a lessened, societal role for the schools. Increasingly, pressures f9; us to change will come from beyond our nation's boundaries. In this regard, with our energy future looking rather dim, energy education would seem to be a topic of great importance for a school's broadened societal role. RELATIONSHIP OF INSERVICE EDUCATION TO ENERGY EDUCATION A major priority to come from the 1980 Practitioners' Conference on Energy Eucation was a mandate for the inservice training of teachers in energy education. "Inservice education is viewed as the most expeditious means of bringing about a major change in energy awareness on the part of teachers and students in the shortest possible time."28 Specific recommendations for energy education inservice programs were "eported as: Teachers must be energy-literate if they are to enthusiastically and effectively teach about energy. . Therefore, inservice training in energy education is cruCial and should be instituted for teachers of all grades and disciplines. An ideal teacher inservice model should include awareness, concepts, application, implementation and . evaluation of technical information and energy education materials and methods. Nationwide teacher inservice is a necessity if energy issues are to pervade classrooms. The training should be coordinated at the state level like the model efforts in Florida, Michigan, and Nebraska. Since the current supply of energy materials is large, the next logical step is to increase conSiderably the number of 3O teacher inservice sessions so that teachers may use these materials effectively or adapt the materials to their needs. Teachers contigge to need better access to energy information and materials. The goal expressed seems to indicate the desire to reach as many teachers as possible with energy information as quickly as possible. These guidelines are in agreement with the general statements expressed by the educational community about the importance of inservice education discussed in the previous section. They also point to the importance of teacher awareness and involvement with materials and methods. But, the guidelines remain very broad and do not approach the issue of how the awareness, application, implementation, and evaluation of energy education materials and methods are to take place. RESEARCH ON IMPLEMENTATION OF INNOVATIONS In general, inservice education may be thought of as having two basic goals: 1) to increase a teacher's awareness of new programs and methods and 2) to promote the implementation of these new programs and practices in the classroom. The second objective would appear to be the most important one if the ultimate recipients of educational innovations--the students--are to be served. Implementation, according to Fullan and Pomfret, refers to "the actual use of an innovation or what an innovation consists of in >ractice. This differs from both intended or planned use and from lecision to use, the latter being defined as adoption."3O mplementation is regarded as a complex phenomenon, one that has been reatly misunderstood. It is not simply the decision to use a new rogram, nor can it be judged on the basis of who makes the decision to 31 change. "The particular direction of change may be voluntarily sought or externally imposed. The consequences for implementation may be very different in these two cases, but the phenomenon of implementation can be understood irrespective of who decides."31 According to Fullan, there are two major reasons why implementation should be examined in any innovative effort. First of all, the study of implementation allows one to assess whether practice did in fact change and the factors that either inhibited or facilitated the change. Secondly, one must know about the implementation of an innovation or curriculum program in order to interpret measured outcomes.32 The bridge between a promising idea and its impact on students is implementation, but innovations are seldom implemented as planned. Thus, innovations may result in disappointing outcomes, not because of inadequacies of the innovative idea, but because of the difficult and uncertain process of implementing inggvative efforts in an educational system that resists change. lftentimes, student achievement is measured, and the results (whether ositive or negative) are attributed to the "new program“ without nowledge of the actual degree of the program's implementation or iether the program was implemented as intended at all. Although the study of actual implementation is a relatively new ea for research in education (less than ten years according to llan),34 a number of extensive studies and literature reviews have en conducted to give some indication of the degree to which major cational programs have been implemented. In most cases, these dies have reported the disappointing finding that educational irams have not been implemented in schools as originally intended. conclusion from a thorough analysis of federally funded change agent 32 programs conducted by Berman, McLaughlin and staff in the late 1970's (commonly referred to as the "Rand studies"), points out this disturbing conclusion: These disappointing findings have raised serious questions about the usefulness of federal efforts to promote innovations in the schools, and35more generally, about the prospects for educational reform. Since these studies were completed, many researchers have been wondering why this is the case and what the educational community can do about it. In their extensive literature review and critique of the research in educational implementation, Fullan and Pomfret conclude that: If there is one finding that stands out in our review, it is that effective implementation of social innovations requires time, personal interaction and contacts, in-service training, and other forms of people-based support. Research has shown time and again that there is no substitute for the primacy of personal contact among implementers, and between implementers and planners/consultants, if the difficult process of unlearning old roles and learning new ones is to occur. Equally clear is the absence of such opportunities on a regular basis during the planning and implementation of most innovations. All of this means that new approaches to educational change should include longer time perspectives, more small-scale intensive projects, more resources, time, and mechanisms for contact among would-be implementers at both the initiation or adoption stages, and especially during implementation. Providing these resources may not be politically and financially feasible in many situations, but there is no questiog that effective implementation will not occur without them. 5 Similarly, Berman and McLaughlin determined that particular rategies were related to ineffective vs. effective implementation. outside consultants; : ineffective strategies were determined to be: kaged management approaches; one-shot, ore-implementation training; ’ v.33? for training; formal evaluation; and comprehensive projects, while effective strategies were reported as: concrete, teacher specific 33 and extended training; classroom assistance from project or district staff; teacher observation of similar projects in classrooms, schools, districts; regular project meetings that focused on practical problems; teacher participation in project decisions; local materials development; and the principal's participation in training.37 Taken at face value, these conclusions would be hard to deny. A question remains as to the feasibility of these strategies for all types of innovative efforts. As Mechling points out, "The success or failure of any implementation effort depends on the acceptance and adoption of new ideas by the classroom teacher, but even before this can happen the innovation must reach the teacher."38 In the case of energy education, this issue is of pressing importance. Rubin also raises some issues worth considering in light of the conclusions drawn by Fullan and Pomfret and Berman and McLaughlin. In a time of dwindling resources and rising costs, it is a foregone conclusion that the organized profession will resist virtually everything that stands in the way of salaries. It would be irrational, hence, to design professional development programs without due concern for budgetary constraints. The question, therefore, is not merely what is good but also what is economically feasible. It may be necessary to first conceptualize an ideal arrangement, however elegant and costly, but sooner or later, we will have to generate mechanisms that are serviceable as well as inexpensive. Training can make use of children, video presentations, or didactic tutoring. It can be pursued through modeling or discussion, before or after school, during evenings or summer vacations, for short or long periods of time. In one way or It another, all of these pieces must fit into the puzzle. might be possible, if finances were unlimited, through trial and error, to discover and implement an ideal program of But the era of professional development for every teacher. PTenty is a thing of the past; resources are likely to be The task, increasingly scarce, and compromises must be made. therefore, is to find a sensible basis for working with less than the optimum . 34 The question then remains, will teachers implement an energy education program following an inservice workshop given that a "one-shot" workshop may not be the ideal strategy? Possibly, energy education, as a new curriculum program, has added appeal because of its timeliness. Because school budgets must be responsive to rising energy costs and may face other limitations as a result of these costs, teachers and administrators will see added incentives for including energy education as part of the curriculum without the necessity for expensive, intensive implementation measures. In order to determine if this possibility is true, there is a need to look further into these and other studies to determine the particular characteristics of innovations likely to be implemented, the characteristics of those teachers likely to implement them, and what may ‘ encourage or limit this implementation. INNOVATIONS AND INNOVATORS Because energy education is clearly an innovation for classroom teachers, it seems necessary to relate the relevant literature on the characteristics of innovations and those most likely to use them. If characteristics of innovations and innovators can be found that relate to implementation, this information would be beneficial in assisting the design of new programs and in recruiting those teachers most likely to implement them. Rogers and Shoemaker, who have performed considerable research on innovations and their adoption, discuss the characteristics of innovations that contribute to their different rates of adoption. First 35 of all, an innovation's relative advantage as perceived by the potential innovator is important. Relative advantage can be measured in economic terms, by prestige factors, convenience or satisfaction. The more advantageous the innovation seems in relation to other possibilities, the more rapid its rate of adoption. Secondly, compatibilty, the degree to which an innovation is consistent with the values, experiences and needs of the receivers, is important. Generally, a compatible innovation will be adopted more quickly than an incompatible idea. Thirdly, those ideas that are perceived as less complex and requiring fewer additional learning investments will be adopted more readily. Fourth, an innovation that can be adopted on a limited basis first will have more likelihood of implementation. "New ideas which can be tried on the installment plan will generally be adopted more quickly than ‘innovations which are not divisible."40 And lastly, observability, the degree to which the results of the innovation are visible, contributes Vhighly to the innovation's subsequent use.41 Fullan presents some of the same arguments in discussing the rpotential implementation of innovations. "Change efforts which are more comprehensive, substantial and complex are more difficult to comprehend,"42 and therefore to implement. "Lack of clarity and complexity are negatively related to implementation,"43 but only attempting simple innovations may not be the answer as they may bring about only insignificant changes. An issue that Rogers and Shoemaker do not raise specifically, although it relates directly to the issue of relative advantage, is the issue of relevancy. Lippitt mentions that in order for an innovation to 36 be adopted and implemented, it must be perceived as relevant and helpful to the teacher in achieving his/her classroom goals. Oftentimes, these goals are to increase subject-matter learning. "In the vast majority of cases teachers state that subject-matter learning is of primary concern, and those teachers who perceive the practice as relevant for that classroom goal are much more likely to share and adopt than teachers who do not see it as relevant."44 In addition to recognizing the factors that lead toward the adoption of an innovation, a potential innovator must complete what Rogers and Shoemaker term the innovation-decision process: the mental process through which an individual passes from first knowledge of an innovation to a decision to adopt or reject the idea or program. Rogers defines five steps in this process: 1) awareness, 2) interest, 3) evaluation, 4) small-scale trial, and 5) adoption or rejection.45 (Inservice education programs for teachers would be likely to move individuals more quickly through this decision-making process by making a teacher's evaluation and small scale trial of an innovation possible during a relatively short period of time. In relation to the adoption and subsequent implementation of innovations in a social system such as a school building or school district, the way decisions are made has an effect upon an individual's iecision regarding the innovation. Decisions are said to be optional, iade by an individual regardless of other members of the system; :ollective, made by the consensus of the group; or authoritarian, made y someone in a power position.46 As L. Barrows points out in her ssessment of innovation adoptions, the emphasis on the individual as 37 the adopting unit in the change literature may be a major weakness because most educators are not as free as independent entrepreneurs (i.e., farmers, physicians) to implement significant innovations on their own initiative.47 Generally speaking, those in school settings rely more often on collective and authority decisions because of membership in the school's social system.48 This may then be related to a teacher's willingness or desire to innovate. As important as knowing the characteristics of innovations that contribute to adoption and implementation is knowing the characteristics of those who are most likely to adopt the innovation. As Wiles indicates, The inservice dollar should not be distributed equally throughout the staff. Instead, it should be spent on the ones who want it, the demonstrators, the inquirers, and the influentials. It should be spent on the horses ”50 are on the track, not those who are sleeping in the stable. Hansen paraphrases Etzioni to make a very similar statement about the necessity for locating those individuals who may be most likely to benefit from inservice education: We do not change because something is better, more appropriate, or even life-saving. We behave in comfortable patterns and schemata. Inservice education specifically attempts to change behavior when that process is agonizing and difficult. But that is the real agenda of inservice education. Staff development is a possibility of affecting some individuals, that worthwhile change will occur because of these individuals, and that positive administrative procedurga and programs might be implemented to assist in that process. he problem, then, is finding those individuals who will be affected by he inservice education programs provided. Although Rogers and Shoemaker state,"We know more about novativeness, the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier 38 in adopting new ideas than other members of his social system, than any other concept in diffusion research,“51 this knowledge does not seem to be applied in any systematic way in promoting the adoption of educational innovations. Part of the reason could be the nature of the characteristics shown by Rogers and his associates for differentiating between early and late adopters. Such characteristics as: ability to deal with abstractions, greater rationality, greater intelligence, more favorable attitude toward science, more social participation, more cosmopoliteness, greater exposure to mass media, and greater knowledge of innovations are mentioned as distinguishable characteristics.52 These characteristics seem to not be easily recognizable; consequently, it would be helpful to find easily measureable characteristics to distinguish those likely to implement an innovation from those less likely to do so. FACTORS INFLUENTIAL IN THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Besides examining characteristics of the innovators themselves, one needs to look closely at other factors within the social system of the school itself or the school district to find those that might favorably affect the adoption and subsequent implementation of an innovation. Two factors that have considerable backing in the literature will be reviewed separately. These are the involvement of the building principal in any change effort and the effect of teachers working ogether rather than individually on implementing new programs. Other actors which encourage or limit the implementation process will be iscussed as a group in this review. 39 The Importance of the BuildigggPrincipal It is a unique school indeed in which teachers discuss their classroom problems, techniques, and progress with one another and with their principal. In most schools, teachers pratice their own methods-~rarely hearing, or even caring, if one of their colleagues is experimenting with some new teaching device or technique...We assume that the kinds of interpersonal staff relations in a school will be important factors either encouraging or discouraging the sharing of educational insights and experiments. We also assume that the school principal plays an important role in directly or indirectly influencing this process. By direct influence, we mean the principal's role in encouraging or discouraging individual teachers to try out and report upon their new ideas. By indirect influence, we mean the principal's role in encouraging or discouraging the creation of a staff atmosphere that supports experimentation and sharing. The principal's indirect style may help create precisely those staff relations that help teachers ggel comfortable when talking about their innovative efforts. Many other researchers support these findings. Rogers brought forward the importance of a building principal's support for an innovation by quoting L. Demeter's 1951 doctoral dissertation: Building principals are key figures in the process. Where they are both aware of and sympathetic to an innovation, it tends to prosper. Where they are ignorant of its existence, or apathetic if not hostile54it tends to remain outside the blood stream of the school. imilar statements have been made by Berman and McLaughlin in their eview of the implementation of nationally disseminated educational rograms55 and Fullan and Pomfret in their extensive review of research n curriculum and instruction implementation.56 In a study centering around the principal's role in implementation iforts, Reinhard and colleagues found that some involvement by the ‘incipal is essential in school change projects. While project staff n faciliate quality development and implementation activities, and 4O teacher participation can insure that project activities are carried out, if a project is to succeed, the principal's action is the most crucial factor.57 A principal's visibility is also deemed important in his/her support for an innovation. ...principals must act in ways that demonstrate their support of staff inventiveness. It is not enough that the principal be interested in staff inventiveness; his interest must be obvious to the staff. The principal who publicly supports new classroom practices is morg likely to have innovative teachers than the one who does not. 8 Similar findings were reported by Papagiannis and Richardson in their review of the literature. After studying five evaluation reports of educational dissemination and change projects across the nation, Emrick and Peterson (1978) included as one of their major findings that ‘administrators occupy a crucial role in supporting the utilization process.I Goodlad (1976) expressed his conviction that principals are the key to change in the public schools. This is in agreement with the separate findings of Lieberman and Tye (1973), as well as an earlier study by Hilfiker (1970), who found that the social support provided by the principal was sggnificantly related to school innovativeness. Sarason, however, puts a damper on all the hurrah over a rincipal's importance in a change endeavor. He indicates that the role f the principal is not always viewed as a vehicle for educational hange and innovation by teachers. The principal's influence depends lot upon individual teacher's perceptions of the principal's role and he teacher's experience with the principal. There has been a tendency over—estimate the power of the principal.60 Lippitt brings forward the same point, but draws a different nclusion. 41 Many teachers report that the principal's support for innovation is not an important factor in their willingness and attempts to innovate and diffuse. In fact, teachers who felt the principal had little influence on their teaching style were more likely to innovate. However, informal suggestions and research findings suggest that principal support for innovation is crucial. First of all, it is crucial in influencing a particular teacher for him to see merit and rewards arising from his innovation attempts. Secondly, the principal can set a tone for professional educational discussion as part of staff meetings and daily contacts with teachers. Teachers who preceive a principgi as supporting innovation do in fact innovate more often. Teacher Support Groups Goodlad and Klein in Behind the Classroom Door allude to the aloneness of teaching, the professional aloneness that comes from working "behind the classroom door." In their substantive work in schools, they find that teachers are often very much alone in their work. This is not always just a matter of being alone but also feeling a lack of support from those who know about his or her work and can be sympathetic and helpful. Goodlad and Klein indicate that this is an unhappy consequence of the assumed autonomy of the teacher in the :lassroom.62 As White has found in examining the implementation of the USMES irogram in schools, this isolation of individuals works against the irocess of adoption and subsequent implementation of all forms of :ducational innovations and changes.63 Sikorski also concluded in a ‘tudy of curriculum implementation in U.S. schools that the isolation of single teacher was a definite limitation to successful implementation f the innovative approaches being tried.64 Likewise, PlbUT" F9950"8d 42 that an isolate teacher may lack important resources to act as a catalytic agent for change.65 In dealing with this problem of professional isolation in the schools, Matthew B. Miles advocates the formation of temporary systems to bring about changes in persons, groups, or organizations. In his view, permanent systems, such as schools and school districts, find change difficult. Most of the energy in a permanent system goes toward carying out routine goals and maintaining existing relationships that perpetuate the status quo. These "routines" can be by-passed through temporary systems which could easily be teams of teachers or an administrative/teacher team.66 As Miles reports in his article, group protection may be important in instituting an innovation. He goes on to report studies by Lippitt (1949) and Marsh and Gartner (1962) that agree with the idea of group support. Lippitt found that teams of teachers carried out more changes than even the strongest individual while Marsh and Gartner concluded that "like—minded teachers" were more likely to change than isolated attenders at a PSSC institute.67 Therefore, it seems proper to summize that groups of teachers attending a workshop from the same school and/or grade level would be more likely to find support and form a "temporary system" than those who are the sole representatives from their school building. A study by Mahan recommends joint attendance at workshops. Enroll two or more teachers per each grade level within each innovating school engaged in a curriculum installation effort. The challenge of change is better accepted when shared among teachers...In a 1969-70 survey, 517 pilot and demonstration teachers rated the assistance of fellow teachers almost as 43 valuable as the basic guidance provided by the curriculum syllabus, and nearly equivgéent to the assistance inherent in the preparatory workshops. Speiker also supports this contention in stating that inservice programs in which teachers share and provide mutual assistance to each other are more likey to accomplish goals than are programs in which each teacher works separately.69 Some inconsistency in this regard was found by Lippitt, as he indicates in the following passage: Teachers who perceive a greater number of resources available for help in the school building, i.e., those who see the principal, colleagues, and others as being potentially useful and helpful to them, are more effective in seeking help and sharing their own resources. However, when asked to respond to the question, ”Is it important that your colleagues support your innovation activities?" most teachers replied in the negative. This report is inconsistent with the informal teacher discussions of barriers, and other data which suggest that it is extrem9&y important that there be peer support for adoption efforts. Lippit did find in this same report that those teachers who perceived colleagues' support in terms of joint activity and involvement in adoption efforts were more likely themselves to be adopters of new practices. The inconsistency, Lippitt feels, could be due to teachers' unwillingness to admit the degree to which they feel their colleagues' influence on professional matters.71 The size of the support group or "temporary system" does not seem to be indicated in the literature. Berman and McLaughlin support the idea of a "critical mass“ of project participants needed to support an innovative project, but they are unclear as to the size of the support . 72 group necessary to establish a norm for change in the school. According to a survey conducted by Brimm and Tollett, the entire staff 44 may be too large a group to form an effective system. Only 43% of the teachers they surveyed agreed that "inservice training seems to be more effective when the total school staff is simultaneously engaged in a given activity."73 This factor, then, also warrants further investigation. Additional Factors Related to Implementation Some additional factors likely to encourage implementation were reported in the literature. "Selective exposure" was one reported by Rogers and Shoemaker, as follows: Generally, individuals tend to expose themselves to those ideas which are in accord with their interests, needs, or existing attitudes. We consciously or unconsciously avoid messages which are in conflict with our predispositions. This tendency is called selective exposure. Hassinger (1959) argues that individuals will seldom expose themselves to messages about an innovation unless they first feel a need for the innovation, and that even if such individuals are exposed to such innovation messages, there will be little effect of such exposure unless the individual perceives the innovation as relevant to his "€894 and as consistent with his existing attitudes and beliefs. This relates directly to the support in the literature for a teacher's ; voluntary participation in an inservice program. Brimm and Tollett lifound in a survey of teachers' attitudes toward inservice education that 89% agreed with the statement: "The teacher should have the opportunity to select the kind of inservice activities which he feels will strengthen his professional competence."75 Zigarmi, Betz, and Jensen also concluded that teachers found voluntary participation to be most 76 helpful in all types of inservice education which in turn supports Thurber's conclusion that teachers respond more favorably to a process of program selection.77 45 A list of criteria that support the implementation of the energy ducation programs such as those offered in Michigan, and nation-wide hrough the Project for an Energy Enriched Curriculum, is presented by iles. He concludes that the properties of innovations likely to affect doption and continued use are the following: 1) Innovations that take alot of money, time, and energy by adepting groups are likely to move slowly. 2) The relative ease with which the materials can be designed and altered to fit teaching situations, the ease of reproduction and distribution, and the retention of integrity when used by a wide variety of teachers in different situations are positively related to use. Materials exert considerable influence. 3) Innovations with built-in implementation supports are more likely to be adopted; more "self-teaching" materials are adopted. 4) Innovations which can be added to an exisiting program without seriously disturbing other parts are likely to be ad0pted. 5) Innovations that can be easily institutionalized are more likely to be adopted than those wgich require steady creativity and cannot be routinely managed. These conclusions are corroborated by Mechling in his study of the Option and diffusion of elementary science curriculum. He found that w ideas that can be tried on the installment plan will generally be opted more rapidly than innovations that are not divisible. Also, ose innovations that lack complexity and are relatively easy to use ll be seen as more favorable.79 Berman and McLaughlin, however, found that projects that replaced isting practices were more likely to be continued than those that ely supplemented or added on to the existing curriculum. Our observations suggest that the ancillary materials employed by these projects were likely to fall into disuse without the active encouragement of a special project staff and explicit use by another project. In the case of add-on projects, 46 it seems likely that when special project status and staff go away, these additionag materials and supplementary activities will be discontinued. 0 The literature relating to the importance of demographic variables in predicting the success of an innovation's implementation were mixed. Kelly, in a study of teachers' use of audio-visual materials, found that grade level taught and years of teaching experience were significant factors in the adoption of an innovation.81 Berman and McLaughlin found that while years of experience might be significantly related to adoption of innovations, this was an inverse relationship, with the teachers with more years of experience being those less likely to adopt.82 George and Rutherford reported similar results, "Teachers with the most years of teaching experience had the highest personal concerns (about the innovation), which may indicate, as some have hypothesized, ..83 that making changes is more difficult for more experienced teachers. Lippitt, on the other hand, found that the younger 33g older =teachers tended to do the most innovating. The younger teachers were seen as the innovators while the older teachers were regarded as ,potential adopters being somewhat tired of the "old routine" and ready *for something new.84 Richardson and Johnson, in a study of teachers' attitudes toward energy education found grade level to be an insignificant criteria for prediction. “The grade level taught by participants did not unduly influence any change in attitudes as a result of participating in the workshop,“ although the elementary teachers as a group had the highest attitudinal gain from pre-test to post-test when compared with middle school and high school teachers.85 47 The most definitive statement regarding demographic variables was made by George and Rutherford. They examined the variables of sex, total number of years teaching, number of years teaching in the present school, grade level now teaching, and whether this was a new grade level for this year, in relation to teachers' adoption of two innovations and determined that "the demographic variables investigated in these two studies had little relationship with innovation implementation. We are continuing to study the effects of workshops and other interventions that affect the implementation process, but are convinced that most demographic variables are largely irrelevant for predictive or planning purposes."86 Conversely, Fullan and Pomfret state: On the whole, the range and rationale for the role of significant individual characteristics remain to be develOped, but should be iggluded in any large-scale analysis of program implementation. This, as well as the other discrepant findings reported, would indicate that the analysis of individual characteristics is warranted in small scale studies of innovation implementation also. Factors Inhibiting_Implementation Although there are many factors inhibiting educational change, as entioned in previous sections of this reveiw, some more specific 'nhibitors that may affect teachers directly are mentioned in this ection. Lack of time and energy, teacher overload, and multiple demands are frequently cited by tegghers among the major implementation problems they face. 48 The following were reported in a study by Dalton to be the major limiting factors in teachers' incorporation of the energy concepts from Energy and Man's Environment into their curriculum: 1) too many other requirements and expectations made of me (reported by 103 teachers), 2) lack of necessary materials (reported by 66 teachers), 3) teaching in a discipline that doesn't lend itself to energy education (33 reported), 4) lack of administrative approval and support (15 reported), 5) lack of personal understanding of energy problems and solutions (11 reported), 6) lack of necessary training (10 reported), 7) lack of time to read and plan (8 separate responses),89 n support of this, Goodlad and Klein report that teachers generally iew themselves as having considerable flexibility with respect to urriculum adaptation but they are restricted by the expectations mposed for covering particular materials during the school year.90 Another limitation may be the district's or school's lack of ‘volvement. "Unless the project seems to represent a district and hool priority, teachers may not put in the extra effort and emotional vestment necessary for successful implementation.“91 But, in relation to the energy education programs being supported r implementation in the schools, the following comment by Howey may dicate the most overwhelming limitation for teachers: As pressures upon the school continue to increase, the curriculum expands. We now have multicultural education, moral education, career education (of various shades), environmental education...Given this situation, inservice has too often been approached in a linear and additive fashion. Teachers, especially elementary teachers, are perceived as a “bottomless pit" in what they can assume. Increased emphasis 49 by teachers in one area may very well require a lessening or even termination of efforts in another area. The question of just how much any one teacher can effectively assume across curriculum areas or teaching approaches is never asked very loudly. The answer from this quarter--for starters--is: not as much as they are asked to do now in many cases. We might more seriously explore what many individual teachers might better cease doing! The point for inservice is that if the teachers see the object of the activities planned as making their work more extended or difficult, rather than allowing them to perform more effectively and efficiently then again there is little hope of any genuine involvement.92 SUMMARY As the literature reviewed in this chapter suggests, the implementation of educational innovations is an involved process. Research reports vary in the importance given to particular factors related to inservice workshops, school districts and individual teachers in relation to their influence on the implementation process. The particular factors investigated through this study of energy education implementation, such as the attendance of the building principal, voluntary vs. required attendance, number of teachers attending a workshop from the same school, a teacher's years of teaching experience and a teacher's grade level, are discussed in the literature with inconclusive results. Thus, a study such as this is warranted to try to identify factors which may encourage the use of new programs such as energy education in classrooms. The results from this study will also add relevant information to the few studies on energy education currently available to the research community. CHAPTER II - NOTES Donald D. Duggan, National Assessment of Energy Knowledge and . Attitudes, Statement, December 13, 1978(Washington, D.C.: Capitol Hilton Hotel, 1978), p.3 Dennis R. Gaul and Michael C. Kynell, "The Challenge of Energy Education," National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin, 62:9, September, 1978. Anne Wexler, "Guest Editorial," Energy and Education (Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, February 1980), p. l. Ernest L. Boyer, "Energy: Special Feature on Energy and the Schools," Today's Education, 66:55-58, September—October, 1977. Seymour B. Sarason, The Culture of the School and The Problem of Change. Boston, Mass:Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1971. Education Commission of the States, National Assessment of Educational Progress, Energy Knowledge and Attitudes: A National Assessment of Energy Awareness Among Young Adults, Report No. OB-E-OI (Denver, Colorado: Education Commission of the States, 1978), p. 27. Energy Information Associates, Inc., Final Report to the U.S. . Department of Energy, The Status of State Energy Education Poligy. Washington, D.C., 1978. (ED162890) Robert M. Jones and John E. Steinbrink, A Survey of Precollege Energy Education Curricula at the State Level, Clear Lake City, Texas: Houston University, 1977. (E0155018) Office of Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental and Institutional Relations, Activities of the DOE in Energy Education: A Description of Programs for Schools of the DOE and Its Predecessor Agencies, Washihgton,‘D.C}: Department ofEnergy, 1978. (E0156466) Donald D. Duggan, "Past, Present and Future Energy Education, A Federal Perspective," Contemporary Education, 52:70-72, Winter, 1981. John M. Fowler, "A Lot of Energy at the NSTA," Contemporary Education, 52:73-76, Winter, 1981. Duggan, "A Federal Perspective," loc. cit. Ibid., p. 70. 22. 23. 51 Battelle Laboratories, Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, Review and Evaluation of DOE Energy Education Curriculum Materials, Washington, D.C.: Office of Education, Business and Labor Affairs, 1979. Burton Voss, Robert Kimball, and Tony Akinmade, "MSTA Report on Changes in Science Programs K-12, Staff, Enrollments, and Concerns About Science Education 1974-1979,“ Michigan Science Teachers Association Bulletin, 28:3-7, Summer, 1980. Battelle Laboratories, op. cit., p. 8. W.D. Richardson and Linda Johnson, "Measuring Teachers' Attitudes About Energy and Related Subjects,“ paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston, Mass., 1980. (EDI94367) John F. Disinger, "Model Energy Education Programs," Contemporary Education, 52:82, Winter, 1981. Everett Rogers and F. Shoemaker, Communication of Innovation (New York: The Free Press, 1971), p. 9 Matthew B. Miles, "Educational Innovations: The Nature of the Problem," in Innovation in Education, ed. by Matthew B. Miles, New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1964. Helenmarie Hoffman and Gene Miller, eds., Second Annual Practitioners Conference on EnergygEducation: Proceedings (Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1979), p. 14. (E0187550) Roy A. Edelfelt, "Inservice Education: The State of the Art,“ in Rethinking In-Service Education, Workshop on Reconceptualizing Inservice Education, Atlanta, Georgia (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1975), p. 5. Kenneth R. Howey, “A Framework for Planning Alternative Approaches to Inservice Teacher Education," in Planning Inservice Teacher Education: Promising Alternatives (American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and the ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, May, 1977), p. 30. J. Merrell Hansen, "Why Inservice? An Obligation of Schools to Provide the Best," National Association of SecondapygSchool Principals Bulletin, 64:68, December;TI . Ibid., p. 71. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 52 Louis Rubin, "Continuing Professional Education in Perspective," in The In-Service Education of Teachers: Trends, Processes and Prescri tions, ed. by Louis Rubin (Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978), p. 39. Howey, op. cit., p. 25. Hoffman and Miller, 0 . cit., p. 46. Ibid., pp. 11-12. Michael Fullan and Alan Pomfret, "Research on Curriculum and Instruction Implementation," Review of Educational Research, 47:336, Winter, 1977. Michael Fullan, "Research on the Implementation of Educational Change," paper prepared for Research in Organizational Issues in Education, ed. by R. Corwin (Greenwich, Conn.:JAI Press, Inc., Issoij‘af 33. Ibid. Paul Berman and Milbrey McLaughlin, "Implementation of Educational Innovation," Educational Forum, 40:345-370, March, 1976. Fullan, loc. cit. Berman and McLaughlin, op. cit., p. 347. Fullan and Pomfret, op. cit., pp. 391—392. Paul Berman and Milbrey McLaughlin, Implementing and Sustaining Innovations, Vol. VIII of Federal Programs Supporting Educational Change, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, May, 1978. Kenneth R. Mechling, A Strategy for Stimulating the Adoption and Diffusion of Science Curriculum Innovations Among Elementar School Teachers, (Clarion’State College, Pennsylvania, November, 1969), 3737—(ED041772) Rubin, op. cit., pp. 25—26 and 28. Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit. p. 23. M.- Eggépp,pop. cit., p. 23. Ronald Lippitt, et. al., "The Teacher as Innovator, Seeker, and Sharer of New Practices," in Perspectives on Educational Change, ed. by Richard I. Miller (New York: Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1967), p. 318. 53 Rogers and Shoemaker, loc. cit. Ibid. Linda K. Barrows, et. al., The Adoption of an Innovation in Schools, Technical Report No. 529, Madison, Wis.: Wisconsin University, R and 0 Center for Individualized Schooling, September, 1979. (ED189702) Rogers and Shoemaker, loc. cit. Kimball Wiles, Supervision for Better Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), p. 134. Hansen, op. cit., p. 69. Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 175. Ibid. Mark Chesler, Richard Schmuck, and Ronald Lippitt, "The Principal‘s Role in Facilitating Innovation," Theory Into Practice, 2:269-270, 1963 Everett M. Rogers, "What are Innovators Like?" Theory Into Practice, 2:254, 1963. Berman and McLaughlin, 1976, loc. cit. Fullan and Pomfret, loc. cit. Diane L. Reinhard, et. al., "Great Expectations: The Principal's Role and Inservice Needs in Supporting Change Projects," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Mass., 1980. (E0189724) Chesler, Schmuck, and Lippitt, op. cit., p. 275. 59. 65. 54 Meredith Papagiannis and Gerry Richardson, "Some Conditions That Facilitate Progress Toward the Utilization of New Products or Practices in Local Schools," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA, 1980, p. 3. (EDI93774) Sarason, loc. cit. Lippitt, et. al., op. cit., p. 321. John I. Goodlad and M.F. Klein, Behind the Classroom Door, Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1970. Edwin P. White, "The Relationship Between Selected Characteristics of Regional USMES Resource Teams to Differences in Levels of Implementation and Diffusion of the NSMES Program," Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, University of Virginia, 1976. (EDl80748) Linda A. Sikorski, An Analytical Summary of Knowledge About Curricula Implementation in U.S. Schools, Report of Pre-College Science Curriculum Activities of the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1975. Michael Piburn, "Teacher Training and the Implementation of Time, 5 ace, and Matter," Science Education, 56:197—205, April-June, 1972. Matthew B. Miles, "0n Temporary Systems," In Innovation in Education, ed. by Matthew B. Miles, New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1964. Ibid. James H. Mahan, "Overview of a Systematic Effort to Engineer and Monitor Curriculum Change: Emerging Guidelines and Encouraging Findings for Curriculum Installers," paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Ass0c1ation, (New York, February, 1971), p. 12. Charles A. Speiker, "00 Staff Development Practices Make A Difference?" in The In-Service Education of Teachers: Trends, Processes, and Prescriptions, ed. by LOUlS Rubin, Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 19 . Lippitt, et. al., op. cit,, p. 319. Ibid. Berman and McLaughlin, 1976, loc. cit. Jack L. Brimm and Daniel J. Tollett, "How 00 Teachers Feel About In- Service Education?" Educational Leadership, 31:521-525, March, 1974. 77. 80. 81. 82. 83. 55 Rogers and Shoemaker, op. cit., p. 105. Brimm and Tollett, op. cit., p. 522. Patricia Zigarmi, Loren Betz, and Darrell Jensen, "Teacher's Preferences in and Perspectives of In-Service Education," Educational Leadership, 34:545-551, April, 1977. John C. Thurber, “Practical Observations from the Field," in Ihg In-Service Education of Teachers: Trends, Processes and Prescri tions, ed. by Lodis Rubin, Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978. Matthew B. Miles, "Innovations in Education - Some Generalizations," in Innovation in Education, ed. by Matthew B. Miles, New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1964. Mechling, loc. cit. Berman and McLaughlin, 1976, op. cit., p. 354. 6.8. Kelly, "A Study of Teachers' Attitudes Toward AV Materials,“ Education Screen and AV Guide, 39:119-121, 1960. Berman and McLaughlin, 1978, loc. cit. Archie George and William Rutherford, Changes in Concerns About the Innovation Related to Adopter Characteristics,gTraining Workshops, and the Use of the Innovations (Austin, Texas: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education, April, 1980), p. 12 Lippitt, et. al., loc. cit. Richardson and Johnson, op. cit., p. 9. George and Rutherford, op. cit., p. 17. Fullan and Pomfret, op. cit., pp. 385-386. Ibid., p. 388. Edward Dalton, "Energy and Man's Environment: Its Impact on Educators in Seven Western States," Unpublished Ed.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1979. Goodlad and Klein, loc. cit. Berman and McLaughlin, 1976, op. cit., p. 361. Howey, op. cit., p. 45. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTER Chapter III begins with a description of the energy education inservice workshop project which was the focus of this study. The chapter continues with a description of the methods used to select the study population, collect pertinent data and analyze this data. The methods of analysis used to test the hypotheses under study are also discussed as are the multivariate and discriminant analyses performed to further analyze the data. DESIGN OF THE STUDY The Energy Administration of Michigan has been sponsoring energy education inservice workshops for teachers since 1978, first for high school teachers (grades 9—12) and later for elementary and middle school teachers (grades K-8). The purposes of the workshop projects have been to 1) present teachers with background information about energy, energy dilemmas and decisions, and energy conservation; 2) provide teachers with energy education curriculum materials appropriate for their grade levels; and 3) offer teachers suggestions for incorporating these materials into the classroom curriculum so that they would subsequently teach their students about energy and energy conservation. This study was designed to investigate K-8 teachers' use and Ion-use of such energy education curriculum materials in their lassrooms following an energy education inservice workshop to relate lassroom implementation to selected workshop factors and teacher 56 ,___ .4-.‘-15,__,,, 57 characteristics. This study then supplies information to guide future energy education inservice efforts to encourage the implementation of energy education in classrooms K-8. The energy education inservice workshop project used as the basis for this study was conducted by Dr. Martin Hetherington and Dr. Richard J McLeod of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of Michigan State University and sponsored by the Energy Administration of Michigan. The program began with a contract award in April 1980 and continued through January, 1981, when the last inservice workshop was completed. During that time, the project directors were responsible for 1) developing multidisciplinary energy education curriculum units (titled MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) Teacher Developed Energy Education Materials for Elementarygand Middle Schools) appropriate for teachers and students in grades K-8 and 2) presenting 24 inservice workshops (from two to five hours in length) to a total of 700 teachers from school districts in selected counties of the southern half of Michigan's lower peninsula. Data for this study were collected from participants by means of questionnaires presented at the beginning of each energy education inservice workshop included in the sample for the study and again three months after the workshop was held. Follow-up interviews were conducted iear the close of the school year with a selected sample of teachers who iad participated in the workshop and evaluation program. The dependent variables for this study were the number of lessons eachers reported teaching about energy using the MBIQ curriculum aterials during a three-month period following the energy education 58 inservice workshop, and the total number of minutes teachers reported spending in energy education (using the MBTU curriculum) with their students during this same period. All other data were related to these variables in order to investigate factors or characteristics important in the implementation or non-implementation of energy education in classrooms K-8. Particular independent variables thought to have significant influence on the dependent variables, such as the attendance of the building principal at the inservice workshop, voluntary versus required attendance of the participants, and teacher's years of experience, were examined using two sample t-tests for differences of means and Pearson product moment correlations. Following these statistical tests, the independent and dependent variables were further examined using multiple analysis of variance techniques. Discriminant analysis was also employed to determine whether any significant differences could be found between high users and low users, and users and non-users of the energy education curriculum, or between respondents and non-respondents to the energy questionnaire based on particular workshop factors and teacher characteristics. Other descriptive data collected from teachers following the workshop program included teachers' concerns about energy education and indepth interviews with selected teachers concerning the implementation r non-implementation of energy education in their classrooms. These escriptive data are presented in Chapter IV along with the results from he data analysis. 59 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENERGY EDUCATION PROJECT FOR MICHIGAN TEACHERS IN GRADES K-8 The energy education curriculum development and inservice workshop program began in April, l980, with the awarding of a contract to Dr. Martin Hetherington, Project Director, and Dr. Richard McLeod of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University by the Energy Administration of Michigan. This contract specified that six multidisciplinary energy education curriculum units would be developed by the project staff for teachers in grades K-8 during the summer of 1980. (Eight units were actually developed.) Furthermore, these curricular materials would be distributed to teachers through a series of 24 inservice workshops conducted during the fall of 1980. Each workshop was to be at least two hours long and include at least 20 teachers. A total population of at least 700 teachers from grades K-8 were to participate in this energy education inservice workshop project and receive the newly developed curriculum materials appropriate for ytheir grade levels. The population of K-8 teachers eligible for participation in this inservice program were those from school districts in 19 selected counties from the southern half of Michigan's lower peninsula. The 19 counties were selected randomly by the evaluator from the Energy Administration from the 33 county area designated as Region I by the Energy Administration. (Region I is made up of 33 counties located in the southern half of Michigan's lower peninsula.) The remaining 14 :ounties were designated "control" counties and no teachers from these 60 control counties were eligible for participation in this inservice program. (See Appendix A. for a listing of treatment and control counties.) Once the 19 county "treatment" area was defined, the project directors mailed a letter to each school building principal and to school district superintendents in the treatment counties announcing the program and inviting them to complete a workshoo request form. (See Appendix B for a sample letter and request form.) The letters were mailed in May, 1980, so that plans could be made for the fall inservice workshops before teachers were dismissed for the summer. From the requests received, workshOps were scheduled during the summer of 1980 to meet the contract requirements and to cover as broad a population in the 19 county treatment area as possible. Urban, suburban and rural school districts were included in the program, from Muskegon in the west to Detroit in the east. The majority of requests came from the southeastern counties where the major population centers of Michigan are located. Therefore, a majority of the workshops were held in this area of the state, although much effort was made to encourage school districts from the central and western counties to participate. The teacher participants for the workshOps were recruited by the school district or school building staff themselves (depending upon whether the workshop was requested by one school building or an entire school district) given the stipulation that at least 20 teachers must be enrolled before the workshop was to take place. The recruitment procedures used by each district varied from asking teams of teachers from each building to attend, to sending out announcements and asking 61 for those interested to register, to requiring the entire school building staff to attend. Generally, when requests were made by school district personnel (assistant superintendents, curriculum coordinators, etc.), the workshops were voluntary, meaning that those teachers who were interested were invited to attend. When the requests were made by building principals, however, the entire building staff was usually required to attend. From this mixture of recruitment efforts, a fairly representative sample of Michigan's teachers from grades K-8 participated in the inservice education project. The energy education inservice workshops themselves were quite similar in format beginning with a one-hour presentation of background information for teachers on pertinent energy issues and ending with a one to one and one-half hour presentation of eight newly developed energy education curriculum units, called the MBTU_(Nore: Better Than Usua1)yTeacher Developed Energy Education Materials for Elementarygand Middle Schools. (Any workshops longer than 2 1/2 hours provided for more indepth coverage of particular energy activities. The curriculum units were designed for use with particular grade levels: two units were written for grades K-2, two units for grades 3-4, one unit specifically for grade 5, and three units for grades 6-8.) The (workshops varied in time of day, location, size, length and the actual [make-up of the participants because each district or school building staff independently planned the logistics of its workshop given the minimum requirements for a two-hour inservice workshop with at least 20 participants. WorkshOps were also planned to be one of three types, depending 62 upon the arrangements made with each district. One type of workshop was the total group workshop where all participants (K-8) remained together for the entire presentation; a second and more common type was a "split halves" model where the teachers were divided into two grade level groups, (K-4) and (5-8), for the presentation of the curriculum materials; and the third type provided for a smaller grade level grouping where teachers from only particular grade levels attended the entire workshop. This third type provided for more indepth coverage of the applicable curriculum units. Selection of the Stugy Population Once the inservice workshOp schedule was completed, a random sample of 10 of the 24 workshOps was chosen to provide the p0pulation for this research study. The workshops chosen, using a random numbers table were, as follows: L'Anse Creuse Public Schools, Mt. Clemens; Chippewa Valley Public Schools, Mt. Clemens; Wixom/Walled Lake Public Schools; Delton/Kellogg Public Schools; Lapeer Public Schools; Barth Elementary School, Romulus; Wade Fast Elementary School, Mt. Clemens; River Rouge Public Schools; and two workshOps for Rochester Public Schools, one for teachers in grades K-2 and another for teachers in grades 5-8. All workshops were conducted as scheduled except for the workshOp in River Rouge which was rescheduled and then cancelled. The next workshop on the list of alternate workshops was to be held in Inkster, Michigan; however, it was cancelled as well. Thus, the sample population became those teachers who had attended the nine workshops remaining in the sample. 63 A total of 215 teachers from grades K-8 attended the nine inservice workshops chosen for this study. Table 1 indicates the attendance of teachers from grades K-4 and 5-8, building principals, and other district administrators at each workshoo location. This population itself was not randomly selected but was composed of those teachers who attended the nine randomly selected workshops. The energy education project had no control over the attendance of individual teachers at each workshop since this was each district's responsibility. This sample was thought to be representative of the entire energy education inservice workshop population since the workshOps in this sample were organized similarly to all workshops in the population, and random selection of workshops for this study was used. A smaller sample of teachers was included in the last phase of data collection--the indepth interviews. This sample of participants was randomly chosen, again using a random numbers table, from three sub-groups of those participants who returned the follow-up questionnaires. These groups were chosen once data collection ceased and the dependent variable, number of minutes teachers reported spending in the teaching of energy education using the M819 curriculum guides, was examined. The dependent variable ranged from 0 minutes to 800 minutes as reported on the follow-up questionnaires with most teachers falling within the range of O to 180 minutes. It was decided that those teachers who reported teaching more than 180 minutes about energy over a three-month period might represent a unique population and would be worth interviewing as a separate group. Thus, the three interview groups were chosen as: Group 1--no teaching reported (0 minutes); Group 64 mm AN mm NH 9N NM NM HH «N Ha Ha «N NN «N OH mm OH NH mm AH NH If] I]!!! A mzmmawcu “magma Amixv boo immcoom mHz4 0 (a linear relationship exists) Test: Pearson product moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. Decision Rule: The correlation is significant atofi=0.05 with 1 and 149 degrees of freedom if the F value for the correlation is 3.84 or greater. There is no significant correlation between the teachers' self-reported energy knowledge level and the amount of time teachers spend teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. HO; p =0 (no linear relationship) 1: p 40 (a linear relationship exists) Test: Pearson product moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. Decision Rule: The correlation is significant at o=0.05 with 1 and 132 degrees of freedom if the F value for the correlation is 3.84 or greater. [pphesis 6: Teachers who reported having previously taught about energy will not teach significantly more lessons about energy following an inserVice workshop than those teachers who report no previous teaching about energy. H0! 111 _<_ U2 H1: U1 > U2 let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) 77 111 = mean number of lessons taught by those teachers who reported preViously teaching about energy. 112 = mean number of lessons taught by those teachers who reported no previous teaching about energy. Test: two sample t-test for differences of means df = N1 + N2 - 2 (125 + 27 - 2 = 150) Decision Rule: Reject H if the t-test value (with 150 de rees of freed8m) exceeds 1.645, the critical va ue for a one-tailed test at the .05 level of significance. Teachers who reported having previously taught about energy will not spend significantly more time teaching about energy following an inservice workshOp than those teachers who report no previous teaching about energy. H0: U1 < “2 let a = 0.05 (one-tailed test) “I = mean number of minutes taught by those teachers who reported previous teaching about energy. “2 = mean number of minutes taught by those teachers who reported no previous teaching about energy. Test: two sample t-test for differences of means df = N1 + N2 - 2 (111 + 24 - 2 = 133) 78 Decision Rule: Reject H if the t-test value (with 133 degrees of freedom) exceeds 1.645, the critical value for a one-tailed test at the .05 level of significance. There is no significant correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshop from the same school and the number of lessons teachers teach about energy following the inservice workshop. H : 0 =0 (no linear relationship) H1: 0 to (a linear relationship exists) Test: Pearson product moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. Decision Rule: The correlation is significant at a=0.05 with 1 and 152 degrees of freedom if the F value for the correlation is 3.84 or greater. There is no significant positive correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshop from the same school and the amount of time teachers spend teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. HO: 0 =0 (no linear relationship) H1: 0 +0 (a linear relationship exists) Test: Pearson product moment correlation and the F-test for testing the significance of the correlation. Decision Rule: The correlation is significant atcx=0.05 with 1 and 135 degrees of freedom if the F value for the correlation is 3.84 or greater. 79 OTHER STUDY QUESTIONS Question 1: Does a teacher's grade level significantly influence the number of lessons or amount of time spent teaching about energy following an inservice workshop? uestion 2: Does the length of the inservice worksh0p significantly influence the number of lessons or amount of time spent teaching about energy allowing an inservice workshOp? uestion 3: oes the number of teachers attending the workshOp (the size of the orkshop) significantly influence the number of lessons or amount of ime spent teaching about energy following an inservice workshop? Pearson product moment correlation coefficients were calculated to elp answer these questions. The correlations were tested for significance against F-values and were found to be significant if the i-value for the correlation was 3.84 or greater with 1 and 152 degrees if freedom when the dependent variable is number of lessons taught, and and 135 degrees of freedom when the dependent variable is number of inutes taught. gestion 4: i teachers who reported spending more time teaching about energy illowing the inservice workshop differ significantly on any aracteristics from teachers who reported little teaching about energy llowing the inservice workshOp? Discriminant analysis was chosen to analyze this question because is a procedure designed to statistically distinguish between two or 'e groups based on a collection of "discriminating variables," those researcher chose as characteristics upon which the groups may be acted to differ. In discriminant analysis, the discriminating 80 variables are weighted mathematically and linearly combined so that "the groups are forced to be as statistically distinct as possible.“4 The urpose of the analysis is to maximize the separation of the groups and 0 determine the variables which contribute most to the group ifferentiation.5 In addition to analyzing the differences between high users and low sers, discriminant analysis was used to determine whether differences xisted between those who responded to the follow-up questionnaire and hose who did not. Because teacher characteristics and workshop factors ere measured at each worksh0p, data were available for non—respondents 5 well as respondents. In this way, the researcher could determine tatistically whether the non-respondents were significantly different ‘rom the respondents on particular characteristics. uestion 5: hat factors do teachers report to have encouraged them to teach about iergy following an inservice workshop? Jestion 6: lat factors do teachers report to have limited them in their ability or iportunity to teach about energy following an inservice workshop? These questions are assessed using descriptive data obtained from 9 follow-up questionnaires and indepth interviews. The encouraging i limiting factors are presented in detail in Chapter IV. {THER METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS It was decided that additional procedures to analyze the data would anployed if the t-tests and Pearson product moment correlation ificients showed insignificant or mixed results. The analysis of variance procedure was chosen to enable the researcher to test for relationships between the dependent variables and selected independent variables taken together while controlling for the remainder of the independent variables. For the analyses of variance, four variables, which could be controlled by workshop consultants and were of significant importance to this study, were chosen as the variables of interest. These were: time of day of the workshop, the type of workshop, the attendance of the building principal, and voluntary vs. required attendance of the participants. These variables were analyzed two at a time using both dependent measures separately while controlling for all of the remaining independent variables--years of teaching experience, rating of the importance of the energy issue, self-reported knowledge level, number of teachers attending from the same school, size of the workshOp, length of the workshOp, previous attendance of participants at an energy workshop, and grade level taught by participants. Significant F-ratios for the analyses of variance would indicate :he variable or variables which explain most of the variance between the ‘roups of interest. Insignificant F-ratios would indicate that more ithin group than between group variance exists and the results obtained iuld be those one could expect by chance. [MMARY OF RESEARCH PROCEDURES The purpose of this study was to investigate the use and non-use of ergy education curriculum materials by teachers in grades K-8 who had tended an energy education inservice workshop. The sample population 215 teachers in grades K-8 was obtained through the random selection 82 of nine of a possible 24 energy education inservice workshops presented by Dr. Martin Hetherington and Dr. Richard J McLeod of the Science and Hathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University, during the Fall of school year 1980-81. The workshops were held in local Michigan school districts and were arranged by local district personnel. The study involved the gathering of information from the teacher )articipants both at the workshop and again three months following the vorkshop through written questionnaires. Particular participants were selected for indepth interviews following the return of the follow-up iuestionnaires. ‘ The dependent variables for the study were obtained from the ollow-up questionnaires. These were: 1) the total number of lessons teacher reported teaching using the MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) eacher Developed Energy Education Materials for Elementaryyand Middle ghpgl§ during the three-month period following the inservice workshop, id 2) the total number of minutes spent teaching about energy using the pp curriculum materials during the same period. Independent variables ere obtained from variations between the workshops themselves, such as: me of day, length of workshop, and size of workshop; and teacher aracteristics, such as: grade level taught, years of teaching ierience, and previous teaching about energy in the classroom. Dependent and independent variables were analyzed using t-tests of ns for two samples, Pearson product moment correlations, analyses of iance, and discriminant analyses. Additional descriptive information collected from teachers both through the written questionnaires and indepth interviews conducted with a selected sample of participants. 83 CHAPTER III - NOTES Earl R. Babbie, Survey_Research Methods (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1973), p. 147. William L. Hays, Statistics (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963), p. 674. Ibid., p. 677. Norman H. Nie, C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner, Dale H. Bent, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 2nd edition, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975. Ibid., p. 435. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS INTRODUCTION Chapter IV is divided into three major sections: 1) a report of the return rates on the follow-up questionnaire, 2) statistical analyses of the data, and 3) a report of descriptive data. Section 2, statistical analyses, includes a description of initial chi-square analyses, the results of hypothesis testing, findings from multiple analyses of variance and results from discriminant analyses performed on the data. The section on descriptive data contains information gathered from open-ended responses on the follow-up questionnaire and from indepth interviews conducted with a sub-sample of teachers. RETURN RATES The follow-up questionnaires were mailed in three separate sets to allow teachers a full three month period following their inservice workshops for teaching about energy in their classrooms. For those teachers who attended workshops in October, questionnaires were mailed in January; for those who attended November workshops, questionnaires ere mailed in February; and the December participants received the ollow-up in March. All data collection ceased on April 16. One hundred ifty-six of the 215 teachers in the sample responded to the follow-up easures; thus, 73% of the sample provided data useful in analyzing the ypotheses presented in Chapters 1 and III. Full data were collected rom 109 participants (51%) through the follow-up questionnaire and 47 espondents (22%) returned the postcard only. 84 85 Table 2 displays the return rates for each workshop in this study sample and indicates how many teachers from each workshOp actually used the MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) Teacher Developed Energy Education Materials for Elementary and Middle Schools in their classrooms following the inservice workshop. As one can see from this table, the number of teachers who responded to the follow-up measures varies from workshOp to workshop as does the number (and accompanying percentage) of teachers who actually used the energy education curriculum materials. One interesting trend was noticed as the questionnaires were being returned. Those teachers who attended "required" workshOps, where all staff members were required to attend, returned fewer questionnaires than those teachers who attended the "voluntary" workshops where attendance was by personal choice. The response rate was 69% for those teachers attending the "voluntary" workshops and only 31% from those who were required to attend an energy education inservice workshop. Thus, it appeared to the researcher that data might be biased due to the differences in these return rates. For this reason, an additional discriminant analysis was performed to ascertain whether the respondents could be shown to be significantly different from the non-respondents. If this were the case, then the results from the planned data analyses could not be interpreted correctly as representing the entire study Opulation. s #0 xuhocm p392 Haw—E... ca”: 8. €65. 351303.52. 2. ~33 we .w 1, w n S n m m $35 “:92 % $353 0;: 2R muconcoamom . «.8 a :11) .Ho sew woo woo st 3 iii) NH OH m N o m Hop—EBB. 2: £0.88th 5 ma 2 m 3 ma 35:3: 3 358583350 N em mm mm 3 NN NN muqmnfiufimmm mo $2557. 2958 mm i agree . .oHHoe Hm-mv to u: u xoflm # >536: -mofioz «30:39.9 .523 ”NHmwzwww. mineom onE 35.5 M0383 . 35,. _ A 0:582 mmbE zmamx .N 39: 87 DATA ANALYSIS DeterminingyRelationships Between Variables Before analyzing the hypotheses for the study directly, it was decided to examine the dependent and independent variables using chi- square analyses to determine if one could expect any relationships at all to exist between these variables. According to the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Manual, 2nd edition, we may interpret small values of chi-square to signify the absence of a rela- tionship, or to indicate statistical independence, and large values to indicate that some sort of systematic relationship does exist between the variables. With chi—square analysis alone, howeVer, one may deter- mine only if a relationship exists and not the strength or direction of that relationship.1 1 The results from the chi-square analyses displayed in Table 3. showed the following independent variables to be related to the depen- dent variables: particular workshop attended, workshop size, workshop length, type of workshop, and attendance at a previous energy workshop. Therefore, it appears that the workshop a teacher attended is significantly related to the amount of teaching about energy s/he accomplished following the inservice workshop as well as the type of the orkshop, the workshop size and length, and a teacher's attendance at a revious energy education workshop. It is also interesting to note that one of these variables were hypothesized to have a significant impact n how much a teacher chose to teach about energy. The workshop size nd length were included in the study questions, but not in the original ypotheses. 14:1; ________ 88 TABLE 3. CHI—SQUARE ANALYSES Dependent Independent Chi- Degrees of Level fariable Variable Square Freedom Significance lumber of Which .essons Taught WorkshOp Attended 94.18 72 .039 Workshop Size 83.09 63 .044 workshop Length 75.21 54 .030 Type of Workshop 42.66 18 .0009 ital Number of Which Lnutes Taught Workshop Attended 49.56 24 .0016 Workshop Size 42.63 21 .0035 Workshop Length 38.21 18 .0036 Type of WOrkshOp 25.78 6 .0002 Attendance at a Previous Energy Work- shop 9.18 3 .027 89 Tests of Hypotheses As stated in Chapter III, the hypotheses were tested using t-tests of means for two samples and Pearson product moment correlations. The results were obtained from computer programs designed for the social sciences: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The t-values and correlation coefficients are taken directly from the computer printouts. The F-values used in the tests of significance are taken from the appropriate tables in Statistics by William L. Hays.2 Hypothesis 1: A. Teachers whose building principal attended the energy education inservice workshop will not teach significantly more lessons about energy following an inservice workshop than teachers whose building principal did not attend the workshop. H0: U1: H2 H1: lfl > “2 (Hypothesis of Interest) U1 = teachers whose building principal attended the workshop N=72 “2 = teachers whose building principal did not attend the workshop N=82 Decision Rule: Reject H if the t-test value (with 152 de rees of freed8m) exceeds 1.645, the critical va ue for a one-tailed test at o = 0.05. The t-test value resulting from data analysis was 0.59, which was not large enough to reject the null hypothesis. w 0 Teachers whose building principal attended the energy education inservice workshop will not spend significantly more time teaching about energy following an inservice workshop than teachers whose building principal did not attend the workshop. 90 H1: U 1 > U2 (Hypothesis of Interest) H1 = teachers whose building principal attended the workshop N=64 U2 = teachers whose building principal did not attend the workshop. N=73 Decision Rule: Reject H if the t-test value (with 135 degrees of freed8m) exceeds 1.645, the critical value for a one-tailed test at a = 0.05. Data analysis revealed that the t-test for this hypothesis gave a t-value of 0.36 which also was not large enough to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, based on this data, the null hypothesis cannot be ejected: There is no significant difference in the amount of teaching i energy education in the classroom (in number of lessons or total inutes) between those teachers whose building principal attended the irkshop and those teachers who were not accompanied by their principal. 'pothesis 2: There is no significant correlation between the teachers' years of teaching experience and the number of lessons teachers taught about energy following the inservice workshop. HO: O = 0 H1: 0 + 0 (Hypothesis of Interest) 91 N=154 for this correlation Decision Rule: Reject H if the correlation co-efficient is significgntly different from zero to result in an F-value (with 1 and 144 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater at o = 0.05. The results of the hypothesis testing showed a correlation coefficient of -0.0041 which resulted in an F-value of 0.002. Thus, the iull hypothesis was not rejected. (The formula used for calculating the i-value was F(1,N-2) = (1_r2) 2 (Ak'2)as explained by Blalock in Social apatistics, revised second edition.)3 ) i. There is no significant correlation between the teachers' years of teaching experience and the amount of time teachers spend teaching about energy following an inservice workshop. (Hypothesis of Interest) N=137 for this correlation Decision Rule: Reject H if the correlation coefficient is significgntly different from zero, such that an F-value (with l and 128 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater results at a = 0.05. Hypothesis testing revealed a correlation coefficient of 0.0086 and a resulting F-value of 0.009, not large enough to reject H0. The data analyses for these hypotheses give the researcher no basis ir concluding that a teachers' years of teaching experience are gnificantly related to the amount s/he teaches about energy following inservice workshop. 92 jypothesis 3: \. Teachers who voluntarily attended the energy education inservice workshOp Will not teach significantly more lessons about energy fplloging an inservice worksh0p than teachers who were required to a en . H1: MI > U2 (Hypothesis of Interest) U1 = teachers who voluntarily attended the workshop N=101 “2 = teachers who were required to attend the workshop N=53 Decision Rule: R€J€Ct H if the t-test value (with 152 de rees of freed8m) exceeds 1.645, the critical va ue for a one-tailed test at a = 0.05. The resultant t-value from this test was 1.05, which was not large enough to reject the null hypothesis. Teachers who voluntarily attended the energy education inservice workshOp will not spend signficantly more time teaching about energy following an inservice workshop than teachers who were required to attend. H1: U1 i> U2 (Hypothesis of Interest) “1 = teachers who voluntarily attended the workshop N=9O 93 H2 = teachers who were required to attend the workshop N=47 Decision Rule: Reject H if the t-test value (with 135 de rees of freed8m) exceeds 1.645, the critical va ue for a one-tailed test at u = 0.05. The t-test revealed a t-value of 0.91; thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. These results indicate that allowing teachers to choose voluntarily to attend an energy education inservice workshop vs. requiring their attendance may not make a difference in the amount they will subsequently choose to teach about energy in the classroom. This hypothesis, especially, may be colored by the difference in response rates from those teachers required to attend vs. those teachers who chose to attend the energy workshOp. Hypothesis 4: A. There is no significant correlation between the teachers' rating of the importance of the energy issue and the number of lessons teachers taught about energy following the inserVice workshop. H: 0:0 H1: P i O (Hypothesis of Interest) N=148 for this correlation Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero, such that an F-value (with 1 and 146 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater results at a = 0.05. 94 The correlation coefficient for this test was -0.1070 which resulted in an F—value of 1.69 which was not great enough to warrant the rejection of Ho' 3. There is no significant correlation between the teachers' rating of the importance of the energy issue and the amount of time teachers spend teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. H1 P i‘ O (Hypothesis of Interest) N=131 for this correlation DECISIOH RUIE: Reject H if the correlation coefficient is significgntly different from zero to result in an F-value (with 1 and 129 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater at a, = 0.05. -O.1012 was the resulting correlation coefficient from this test and the F-value was calculated to be 1.33, again not large enough to allow for the null hypothesis to be rejected. Based on this data, the researcher cannot reject the null ypothesis that there is no significant correlation between a teacher's ating of the importance of the energy issue and subsequent teaching )out energy in the classroom. The negative correlations indicate that ie direction of correlation is as would be expected: Teachers who rate ie energy issue as one of the t0p issues that the U.S. faces today will a likely to teach more than those who do not view the issue to be gnificantly important. (The scale for ranking ran from 1 for energy ring the most important issue in the U.S. today to 6 -- I'Not in the Top ve Issues.") 95 Hypothesis 5: A. There is no significant correlation between the teachers' self-reported energy knowledge level and the number of lessons teachers taught about energy following the inservice workshop. H1: I) i O (Hypothesis of Interest) N=151 for this correlation DEClSIOD Rule: Reject H if the correlation coefficient is significgntly different from zero to result in an F-value (with l and 149 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater at a = 0.05. The resultant correlation coefficient was -0.1027 with an F-value of 1.59, too small to reject the null hypothesis. There is no significant correlation between the teachers' self-reported energy knowledge level and the amount of time teachers spend teaching about energy following the inservice workshOp. H1: (3 i 0 (Hypothesis of Interest) N=134 for this correlation Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero to result in an F-value (with 1 and 132 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater at a = 0.05 The correlation coefficient computed was -0.0744 which gave an F-value of 0.735, again not large enough to warrant the rejection of H0, The results from these Pearson product moment correlations indicate lat the null hypotheses cannot be rejected. In addition, the direction 96 of the coefficients is opposite to what was expected by the researcher. The negative correlation coefficients indicate that the teachers who rated themselves "very well informed" about energy issues and energy conservation actually taught less than those who perceived themselves "not very knowledgeable" about energy issues. Hypothesis 6: A. Teachers who reported having previously taught about energy will not teach Significantly more lessons about energy following an inservice workshop than those teachers who report no previous teaching about energy. H1: pl > p2 (Hypothesis of Interest) “1 = teachers who previously taught about energy N=125 teachers who had not previously taught about energy N=27 Decision Rule: Reject H if the t-value (with 150 degrees of freedom) exceeds 1.645, the critical value for a one-tailed test of significance at a = 0.05. The t-test revealed a t-value of 1.01. Thus, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Teachers who reported having previously taught about energy will not spend significantly more time teaching about energy following an. energy inservice workshop than those teachers who report no preVious teaching about energy. 97 H1: H 1 > L? (Hypothesis of Interest) H1= teachers who previously taught about energy N=111 H2 = teachers who had not previously taught about energy N=24 Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis if the t—value (with 133 degrees of freedom) exceeds 1. 645, the critical value for a one- -tailed test of significance at a = 0.05. The t-value was shown to be 1.23, which was not large enough to reject the null hypothesis. The data indicate that no conclusions can be drawn about the relationship between a teacher's previous and subsequent teaching about energy in the classroom since the null hypotheses could not be rejected. An additional statistical test was performed on related data, however, that revealed an interesting finding. Besides asking if they had taught about energy in their classrooms before, the questionnaire asked teachers to indicate hp! mpgy lessons they had taught about energy previously. A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was calculated using this data: number of lessons previously taught about energy correlated with both number of energy lessons taught and number of minutes spent teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. Although the correlation coefficients (.2419 for number of lessons taught (N=141) and .3226 for total minutes spent teaching about energy (N=125)) do not appear to explain more than 4% and 9% of the variance 98 between teachers, they were shown to be significant with F-values of 8.64 and 14.29, respectively. (The decision rule was F = 3.84.) Thus, although the fact that a teacher has taught about energy in the past may not be an indication that s/he will teach about energy again, teachers who have taught more about energy in the past may tend to teach more about energy following an energy education inservice workshop. Hypothesis 7: A. There is no significant correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshop from the same school and the number of lessons teachers teach about energy following the inservice workshop. H1: P i O (Hypothesis of Interest) N=154 for this correlation Decision Rule: Reject H if the correlation coefficient is significgntly different from zero to result in an F-value (with 1 and 152 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater at a = 5. The F—value was calculated to be 1.88 from a correlation coefficient of -O.1104. The null hypothesis was not rejected. There is no significant positive correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshop from the same school and the amount of time teachers spend teaching about energy following the inservice workshop. H1: P i O (Hypothesis of Interest) N=137 for this correlation 99 Decision Rule: Reject H0 if the correlation coefficient is significantly different from zero to result in an F-value (with 1 and 135 degrees of freedom) of 3.84 or greater at Cl = 0.05. The correlation coefficient from this test was -O.1541 which resulted in an F-value of 3.28, not large enough to reject the null hypothesis. Again, this null hypothesis cannot be rejected: There is no significant correlation between the number of teachers attending the inservice workshop from the same school and the number of lessons or minutes taught about energy following an inservice workshOp. In fact, the negative correlation coefficients would tend to suggest that as the number of teachers from the same school becomes larger at a given workshOp, the number of lessons or amount of time these teachers teach about energy may be less following that workshop. The results of the significance tests for study questions 1, 2, and 3 were also such that the null hypotheses could not be rejected. These ~esults will be shown in Table 4. along with a summation of the results ’rom the hypothesis testing discussed in this section. Question A. ‘efers to the number of lessons taught as the dependent variable. iuestion B. refers to the total number of minutes spent teaching abopp {pergy as the dependent variable. (See Appendix F. for the complete 'esults of these analyses.) lOO z uomhmu uo: on an.~ qw.m .uuoo :omummm .m.n 0: acumen uo: on ma.m cw.m .upou comummm mocmxuo3 mo mufim .<.m 0: uuwmmu uo: on Ho~.o ¢w.m .unou comummm .m.N 0: uomfimu uo: on omo.o ww.m .uuou :omumwm aozmxuoz mo :uwcmq .<.N 0: uuwflwh uoc 00 Nwa.o «w.m .HHOU :Omumwm .m.H 0: uuwfimu go: on aco.o qw.m .upoo :omumwm Hm>oq wcmuo .<.H :ofiummso mvsum ME uumfimu uoc 0Q wN.m cw.m .uuoo :omummm .m.m = uuofiou uo: on mm.H qw.m .uuou comumwm Hoosum meow Eoum muwzumoe mo nonsnz .<.m o o: ooamao Joe on MN.H mqo.H Ammauwev should .m.o : ooafieo so: on Ho.H meo.d Acmsuuev ammo-“ waszeame xwumcm msofi>mpm .<.o N: uoommu uo: on mm~.o em.m .uuou comumwm .m.m = uowflwu uo: on mm.H em.m .uuou :omuwmm wwvaBOCx xwuwcm .<.m m: uomnwu uo: on mm.H qw.m .uuou :ompmmm .m.¢ : uowmwu uo: on mo.H qm.m .uuou comummm msmmw xwuocm mo mcfiumm .<.q O o: became oo: oo Hm.o mso.H Ammauuuv shoals .m.m = oumflum so: as mo.H mec.H Ammfiuuev ummouo emouseam .m> somucsao> .<.m o o: “comma ooz on moo.o sw.m .uooo coached m.~ z avowed ucz on Nco.c qw.m .upoo ccmumwm mocmauwaxm Lo mono» .<.~ o : uuomom ooz on om.o mqo.H Ammfiumuv amouiu .n c , fl~mfiuuev uoemcemoue : George uoz on om.o mso.u ummuuu m.~maooefloa .m.~ :ofimwumo mzam> ozam> twanmb com: umwe mwmozuoazz cwum~:camu ozHHmmH mHmmIHoa>I do >m<222m .w MAm UmumHDUHMU mDHm> fimHQQH UmmD ummH wHQmHHm> nun»JIzI JiZDa_«:3E .3 JJDE. 103 Analyses of Variance Because the initial hypothesis testing showed that few variables, taken one at a time, were significantly related to the dependent variables, it was decided that analyses of variance might be more appropriate procedures by which to examine a number of independent variables simultaneously while controlling for certain teacher and workshop characteristics. The analyses were run separately for each dependent variable; however, because the results were very similar for both dependent measures, only those analyses of variance using number of lessons taught as the dependent variable will be reported in order to save time and space in this report. The independent variables chosen for the analyses were: time of day of the workshOp, type of workshop, whether the building principal had attended or not, and whether the teachers' attendance at the workshOp was voluntary or required. These variables were chosen for two reasons: 1) they were thought to be important considerations in planning inservice workshops, and 2) they were all variables measured at two or three levels which would reduce the possibility of encountering empty cells in the analyses. (Figure 1. displays the nUmber of respondents in each cell of the analyses of variance.) lO4 Daytime After School or Evening Total Split Grade Total Split Grade Row Group Group Level Group Group Level Totals F4 , 8.3 0 o 0 0 0 5 5 5H ovu 0:2 C o o -H'U u u.a u '8 :m¢:‘< a: TU'FU : o.o O 41 O l O O 42 c: ~H'U o o a 04 Cid) ~a u H u $3.14! T's .S~3_U 7 O O 4 26 36 73 ozz c a o -H'U u >. uoa u s FLTQ‘< u .4 5 8'8 r4 -H'U l 2 O 8 9 O 20 o o c > a o -H u H u 94 IO) 188 In general, how would you characterize the knowledge of the students in your class about: " a) The need for energy conservation l 2 3 4 Very Mostly Somewhat Very unaware unaware aware aware b) The ways in which they and their families might conserve. l 2 3 4 Very Mostly Somewhat Very unaware unaware aware aware In general, how would you characterize the attitudes of the students in your class toward energy conservation. l 2 3 4 5 Primarily Slightly Basically Slightly Very Negative Negative neutral or Positive Positive unconcerned In terms of being able to include energy conservation topics, how free do you feel to improvise or choose your own lesson content at your school? l 2 3 4 5 Not at all A little A fair amount Quite a bit Totally free How many years have you taught? Have you attended an energy-related workshop or seminar in the past four years? (Check one) ( ) l. Yes ( ) 2. No If you were able to make a request for services or information concerning energy conservation education, what would you ask for? 189 Energy Extension Service TEACHER TRAINING PROGRAM EVALUATION FORM Please review the questions listed on the following three pages and fill-in the boxes to indicate your assessment of the value and quality of this Teacher Training Program. Thank you. Date Do you currently teach? (Check one) [::] [Z] If yes, please list the grade levels you teach and subjects 190 As an overall experience I would rate this training program as: (Circle one) 7=Extremely valuable 6=Very valuable 5=Valuable 4=Somewhat valuable 3=Not very valuable 2=Somewhat counterproductive l=Counterproductive In general, I thought this workshop was: 7=Much more valuable than what I expected 6=More valuable than what I expected 5=A little more valuable than what I expected 4=About as valuable as what I expected 3=A little less valuable than what I expected 2=Less valuable than what I expected l=Much less valuable than what I expected In general, the organization of this workshop was: 5=Excellent 4=Good 3=Fair 2=Poor l=Very poor Do you feel you received enough materials to use in teaching your students? 5=Too much 4=A little too much 3=About right 2=Not quite enough l=Not enough The pace of this workshop was: 5=Too fast 4=A little too fast 3=About right 2=A little too slow l=Too slow -\\ 191 6. How much has this workshop contributed to your understanding of: The need for America to conserve energy: 5=A great deal 4=Quite a bit 3=Some 2=A little l=Not at all The ways in which energy conservation can be taught to students: 5=A great deal 4=Quite a bit 3=Some 2=A little l=Not at all The ways in which students and their families can save energy in their home and transportation: 5=A great deal 4=Quite a bit 3=Some 2=A little l=Not at all 7. Was your attendance at this session optional or required? l. Optional 2. Required 8. Is your principal attending this workshop? l. Yes 2. No 192 VALUE OF DIFFERENT SECTIONS sing the code below please rate the value of each of the workshop topics listed below: Extremely valuable Very valuable Valuable Somewhat valuable Not very valuable Somewhat counterproductive Counterproductive detpU'TO‘N II II II II II II II Value To Your Value As An Aid Workshop Session Personal Understanding To Provide Of Energy Instruction To Students .0. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS l ii IEu ... . . . . . l l i i ‘lll‘ l‘ll‘i“l APPENDIX D FOLLOW—UP QUESTIONNAIRE with ACCOMPANYING LETTERS and FOLLOW—UP POSTCARD ENERGY EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION 1. Since the fall energy education workshop, have you taught about energy conservation using the MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) curriculum materials you received at the fall workshop? yes() n0( )————1 If yes, please turn to page 2_and continue with the evaluation. If no, please continue with the evaluation on this page. _L 2. If no, have you used any other curriculum materials to teach about energy issues? yes ( )j no ( )—.____.. If yes, please list them by title or program: I v 3. Please list the two major reasons why you have not used V the MBTU energy education materials: PLEASE GO ON (1) TO PAGE 2 (2) PLEASE GO ON TO PAGE 5 I93 PAGE 2 194 2. If yes, approximately how many lessons have you taught using these materials? ( ( ) ) one two three - five six - ten more than ten. (please indicateapproximately how many: e.g. ll, 15, 20 etc.) 3. How many minutes was the average lesson of those counted above? ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4. Have less than 20 minutes about 20 minutes 25-30 minutes 35-45 minutes 50-60 minutes over 60 minutes you used any other curriculum materials to teach about energy issues? yeS( )-—-—1 n0() If yes, please list them by title or program: J, v PLEASE GO ON TO PAGE 3] PAGE 3 195 5. Please indicate which MBTU units you used in your teaching: ( ) Energy and YOU ( ) Rise and Fall of Energy Sources ( ) Conservation Counts at ( ) Energy Decisions Affect Regional Home and School Resources ( ) America the Energized ( ) Media Influences on Energy Users ( ) Regional Influences on ( ) Food Chains, Food Webs, and Energy Energy Decisions Transfer 6. In using the MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) energy education materials, did you teach most lessons: ( ( ) ) as separate within your within your within your energy lessons: science curriculum? social studies curriculum? language arts curriculum? as a combination of science, social studies, and language arts lessons? as a combination of separate lessons about energy, andscience, social studies, and language arts lessons? 7. In your teaching about energy in the classroom, have you received particular support from any of the following people? your building principal yes ( ) no ( ) fellow teachers who also attended the workshop yes ( ) no ( ) fellow teachers who did not yes ( ) no ( ) attend the workshop parents yes ( ) no ( ) other district administrators yes ( ) no ( ) other, please specify: 4 PLEASE GO ON TO PAGE 4 PAGE 4 196 8. Please list the two major reasons why you chose to teach about energy and energy conservation in your classroom: (1) (2) 9. Please indicate the extent to which the following factors limited your teaching about energy in the classroom: not enough time in the curriculum quite limiting somewhat limiting ( ) not limiting AA inappropriate curriculum materials ( ) quite limiting for my students ( ) somewhat limiting ( ) not limiting not enough curriculum materials ( ) quite limiting ( ) somewhat limiting ( ) not limiting lack of administrative support ( ) quite limiting ( ) somewhat limiting ( ) not limiting lack of personal knowledge about energy and energy issues quite limiting somewhat limiting ) not limiting AAA vv other limiting factors, please specify: 10. Please comment about your use of the MBTU curriculum materials with your students: PLEASE GO ON TO PAGE 5 THE LAST PAGEII 197 PAGE 5 There is one last question I would like you to answer. This question is an open—ended question used to determine what teachers are concerned about when adopting an innovation such as energy education. Please answer in terms of your present concerns or how you feel about your involvement with energy education. Thank you for taking the time to answer this question. QUESTION: WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT ENERGY EDUCATION, WHAT ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT? (Do not say what you think others are concerned about, but only what concerns you now.) Please write in complete sentences and be frank. Remember that all of your answers will be kept strictly confidential. (l) (2) (3) Please place a check by the statement that concerns you most. You have now completed this evaluation. Thank you very much for your time and effort. Please enclose this form in the envelope provided. ( ) Please check here if you would like to receive a copy of this evaluation report. l——— 198 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING CENTER EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN . 48824 MCDONEL HALL March 9, 1981 Dear Workshop Participant, Over three months have elapsed since the energy education workshop you attended last fall. As I mentioned at the close of the workshop, we at the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center are interested in learning about your use of the energy education curriculum materials in your classroom during these past months. Enclosed you will find a short questionnaire asking for this information. The information requested here is for use in my doctoral dissertation research and is not the same as that requested by the Energy Administration of Michigan. Both evaluations are important for the improvement of energy education inservice programs in Michigan and I ask that you take a few moments to complete this questionnaire and return it in the envelope provided. I hope that you will also take some time to complete the questionnaire you received from the Energy Administration and enclose the material evaluation forms found on the last two pages of each MBTU teaching unit with the Energy Administration's evaluation. I feel that your evaluation is extremely valuable for the improvement of the energy education inservice program and hOpe that you choose to participate. Even if you have not had a chance to use the curriculum materials, I welcome your comments. The results from this study will be used to revise both the energy education curriculum materials and the inservice program for Michigan teachers. Please feel free to add any comments about the materials or inservice program to the evaluation form. Also, keep in mind that your participation in this evaluation is voluntary and that all information received will be kept strictly confidential. No names will be attached to any reports or communication about this study. If you would like a report of the findings from this evaluation, please indicate this on the questionnaire (see the last item of page 5) and a report will be mailed to you as soon as it is available (probably in May or June). Thank you very much for your time and assistance in this evaluation. Please enclose your questionnaire in the pre—paid envelope provided. If you have any questions, please write or telephone me at: Science and Mathematics Teaching Center E-37 McDonel Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355-1725 /Eprdially, . / m ’“j/é/ILXZ/J/ \ Na 'andes Program Associate in Energy Education 199 Please sign this consent form and return it with your questionnaire. The questionnaire and consent form will be separated before the questionnaire data are recorded. You do not need to sign the questionnaire itself. Thank you for your participation in this evaluation. I agree to participate in this energy education evaluation project. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that all my responses will be held in strictest confidence. Signature ZOO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS TEACHING CENTER EAST LANSING ’ MICHIGAN ' 48824 MCDONEL HALL March 30,.1981 Dear WorkshOp Participant, Two to three weeks ago, you should have received a letter and questionnaire from me asking for a report of your use of the MBTU Energy Education materials. I am very interested in your particular use of these materials and about your concerns for energy education. Even if you have not used the materials, I welcome your comments. I am using this information to complete my doctoral thesis and would very much appreciate your response. As I mentioned at the workshop last fall, if the energy education inservice work from the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center is to continue, we need to know teachers' reactions to these materials and program in order to improve our services. In case you have misplaced your original questionnaire, I am enclosing a second one for your use. The questionnaire should take only 15-20 minutes to complete. Please return it in the pre-paid envelope provided. If you have already sent your evaluation, thank you. If not, I hope to hear from you soon. Please write or call me at the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, E-37 McDonel Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, (517) 355—1725 if you should have any questions or additional comments. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Sincerely, ch ‘4” Program Associate in Energy Education HAPPINESS IS RECEIVING m) EA/EKG? QaESTIOAJ'JAME Ffom MU Dean Coiteague, I hnow you ane yggy_buay at thii time 05 yeah and you may not have had a chance to comptete the energy education queationnaiae I tent to you taat month. Becauae I need ingoamation 6aom gggh_wonhah0p panticipant in onden to compiete the aeaeanch 60a my theAiA, I am aahing once again 60a youn heip. 16 you have time to compiete the queationnaine at thin time, pieaae do to and aetuan it to me in the paepaid enveiope that accompanied the queationnaine. The deadiine 60a queationnaiae netunna in Monday, Apnii 20. I5 you do not have time to compiete the queationnaiae on have miaptaced it, pieaae check the appnopniate apaceia) on the encioaed poatcand and dnop it in the wait to me. I wouid iihe to heat 5hom you even i6 you have not had time to one the mateniaia in youa ciaaanoom. Voun neoponae.wiii be moat appneciatedl! Thank you!! I hOpe you have a happy, heatthy.5pningtime. Condiaiiy, fiery/W” ...- :5__._ .. 202 FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD Have you used the MBTU (More: Better Than Usual) Energy Education curriculum materials with your students since the fall energy education workshop? ( ) yes ( ) no If yes, approximately how many lessons have you taught using these materials? ( ) one, ( ) two, ( ) three - five, ( ) six - ten, ( ) more than ten APPENDIX E INTERVIEW QUESTIONS APPENDIX E -— INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Interview Questions for Those Who Taught Using the MBTU Curriculum Materials IO. ll. Why did you attend the energy education workshop last fall? Before the workshop, did you have any experience with energy education through workshops, courses, or your own teaching? Please explain. Do you think you would have taught about energy if you had not attended the fall workshop? Do you think any of these factors about the workshop would have had any effect on your decision to teach about energy? (see page entitled Workshop Factors) How qualified do you feel to teach energy education? If you were to describe energy education to someone else, how would you describe it? Have you been looking for any other information about energy education? How important do you think energy education is for your students? How important in relation to reading, math, language arts, science, and social studies? Are you beginning any other programs this year? (pilot programs or other significant changes in curriculum or school procedures) Are you teaching about energy at the present time? How often do (did) you teach about energy? Was this on a regular basis? When in your daily schedule did you include energy? Was this within a certain subject area? Were you able to integrate energy into your regular program in this area or did you use energy lessons as part of a separate unit on energy? 203 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 204 Did you feel you had to leave something out of your curriculum to teach about energy? How did you make this "trade-off"? I am interested in knowing what has encouraged you to teach about energy. Please rank these factors from most encouraging to least encouraging in your teaching about energy. (See page entitled Encouraging Factors) Are there any other factors you would include? In what ways has the principal supported your efforts? Has this support or lack of support influenced your decision to teach about energy? In what ways has the district supported your efforts? Has this support or lack of support influenced your decision to teach about energy? Do you communicate with other teachers about energy education? Please explain. Do you think you would have taught about energy had you not received the MBTU curriculum materials? Have you used any other materials? How did you find out about these materials? Which of these factors have limited your teaching about energy? Are there other limiting factors? (See page entitled Limiting Factors) Are other things taking priority right now? What are these? Is energy education time consuming to plan and teach? What do you think can be done to overcome some of these limiting factors? What support would be necessary for you to teach more about energy? What changes in yours or the district program would be necessary? 26. 27. 28. 205 Are you making any changes in how you teach about energy? What are your plans for next year regarding energy education? Do you have any additional comments? 206 APPENDIX E —— INTERVIEW QUESTIONS Interview Questions for Those Who Did Not Teach Using the MBTU Curriculum Materials 10. 11. Why did you attend the energy education workshop last fall? Before the workshop, did you have any experience with energy education through workshops, courses or your own teaching? Do you think any of these factors about the workshop would have had any effect on your decision to teach about energy? (See page entitled Workshop Factors) How qualified do you feel to teach energy education? If you were to describe energy education to someone else, how would you describe it? Have you been looking for any other information about energy education? Have you made a decision to use any energy education materials with your students in the future? If yes, when? What materials do you plan to use? If no, have you thought about how energy education might fit into your curriculum? If you were to teach about energy, where would you see it fitting into your curriculum? How important do your think energy education is for your students? How important in relation to reading, math, language arts, science, or social studies? Are you beginning any other programs this year? (pilot programs or other significant changes in curriculum or school procedures) l2. 13. 1A. 15. l6. l7. l8. I9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 207 Which of these factors have limited your teaching about energy? Rank these factors from most to least limiting. (See page entitled Limiting Factors) What do you think can be done to overcome some of these barriers? (If time is one factor mentioned): Are there other classroom areas that have priority right now? Do you feel you would have to leave something out to teach about energy? What do you feel you would have to leave out to teach about energy? Do you perceive these to be time consuming activities to plan and teach? Do you communicate with other teachers about energy education? Please explain. How would you describe your principal's involvement in energy education? How would you describe your district's involvement in energy education? Has this support (or lack of support) influenced your decision to teach about energy? In what way(s)? What factors listed here would be most likely to encourage you to teach about energy? (See page entitled Encouraging Factors.) How would these factors encourage you to teach? What changes in your program or in the district would be necessary for you to teach about energy? What support would be needed from your principal, district or consultants to enable teachers to teach about energy? Where do you see yourself right now in relation to the use of energy education in your curriculum? Do you have any additional comments? 208 WORKSHOP FACTORS A Longer Workshop More Than One Workshop The Grouping of Teachers Within the Workshop Attendance of Other Teachers From Your Building Attendance of Other Teachers From Your Grade Level Attendance of Your Building Principal Attendance of District Administrators 209 ENCOURAGING FACTORS Support From Your Building Principal Support From Your District Your Personal Interest in Energy Issues Prior Experience With Energy Education Curriculum Materials The Fall Workshop Fellow Teachers Community Support (Parents or Others) Students' Interest Other: 210 LIMITING FACTORS Personal Knowledge Lack of District Support Time Lack of Parental Support Interest of Students Readiness of Students Curriculum Materials District or Building Curriculum Requirements Lack of Support from Fellow Teachers Lack of Support from Your Principal Other: APPENDIX F RESULTS FROM T-TESTS AND PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS Ilnfljntxnuh‘ ‘IL‘ APPENDIX F RESULTS FROM T-TESTS T-Tests HYPOTHESIS 1. Attendance of the Building Principal: Group 1=yes Group 2=no Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 72 2.82 4.585 .540 .59 152 .555 2 82 2.43 3.645 .403 Dependent Variable: Total Time Taught About Energy in Minutes Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 64 80.08 152.25 19.03 .36 135 .720 2 73 71.58 124.54 14.58 HYPOTHESIS 3. Voluntary/Required Attendance: Group 1=voluntary Group 2=required Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Number Standard Standard . . . Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 101 2.86 4.29 .427 1.05 152 .296 2 53 2.13 3.70 .508 211 212 Dependent Variable: Total Time Taught About Energy in Minutes Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 90 83.28 137.50 14.944 .91 135 .365 2 47 60.74 138.42 20.190 HYPOTHESIS 6. Previous Teaching About Energy Group 1=yes Group 2=no Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 125 2.78 4.33 .387 1.01 150 .312 2 27 1.89 2.97 .571 Dependent Variable: Total Time Taught About Energy in Minutes Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 111 82.88 147.60 14.010 1.23 133 .221 2 24 44.58 80.32 16.396 ADDITIONAL T-TESTS PERFORMED 1. Time of Day of the WorkshOp Group 1=daytime Group 2=after school or evening Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Number Standard Standard . . . Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 58 2.81 4.98 .653 .47 152 .640 2 96 2.49 3.49 .357 213 Dependent Variable: Total Time Taught About Energy in Minutes Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 50 76.10 154.29 21.820 .04 135 .972 2 87 75.23 128.19 13.743 2. Type of WorkshOp Group 1=total group (K-8) Group 2=split group (K-4) and (5-8) Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 24 4.63 5.56 1.134 2.40 108 .018 2 86 2.29 3.76 .406 Dependent Variable: Total Time Taught About Energy in Minutes Number Standard Standard Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 20 159.00 175.53 39.249 ‘ 2.95 96 .004 2 78 59.94 121.66 13.775 3. Attendance at Previous Energy WorkshOp Group 1=yes Group 2=no Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Number Standard Standard . . . Group of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 28 4.57 6.50 1.227 2.76 145 .006 2 119 2.22 3.25 .298 214 Dependent Variable: Total Time Taught About Energy in Minutes Number Standard Standard .§£gup of Cases Mean Deviation Error T-Value D.F. Significance 1 25 140.40 204.99 40.998 2.50 129 .014 2 106 63.96 116.41 11.307 215 APPENDIX F RESULTS FROM PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS Dependent Variable: Number of Lessons Taught Degrees of Significance Variable Coefficient Freedom (p value) F-Value* Years of Experience -.0041 146 .481 .002 Rating of Energy Issue -.1070 148 .098 1.69 Energy Knowledge -.1027 151 .105 1.59 Number from Same School —.1104 154 .086 1.88 Number from Same School & Grade Level —.1335 154 .049 2.76 Grade Level -.O796 154 .163 .969 Length of Workshop -.0181 154 .412 .050 Size of Workshop —.1430 154 .038 3.17 Number of Lessons Taught .2419 141 .002 8.64** *Significance: F = 3.84 or above ** Significance at 0‘ = .05 216 PEARSON PRODUCT MOMENT CORRELATIONS Dependent Variable: Number of Minutes Taught Degrees of Significance Variable Coefficient Freedom (p value) F—Value* Years of Experience .0086 130 .461 .009 Rating of Energy Issue -.1012 131 .125 1.33 Energy Knowledge -.0744 134 .197 .735 Number from Same School -.1541 137 .036 3.28 Number from Same School & Grade Level —.1458 137 .045 2.93 Grade Level —.0367 137 .335 .182 Length of Workshop -.O386 137 .327 .201 Size of Workshop —.ll43 137 .092 1.79 Number of Lessons Taught .3226 125 .001 14.29** *Significance F = 3.84 or above a“Significance at °(= .05 APPENDIX G CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES A. TIME BY TYPE APPENDIX G CHI-SQUARE ANALYSES Grade Level Total Group Split Group Group Total Daytime 10 84 0 94 4.7% 39.l% 0% 43.7% After School/ Evening 23 44 54 121 10.7% 20.5% 25.l% 56.3% Total 33 128 54 215 15.3% 59.5% 25.1% 100% Raw Chi Square = 69.32380 with 2 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000 B. TIME BY ATTENDANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL YES NO Total Daytime 83 11 94 38.6% 5.1% 43.7% After School/ Evening 32 89 121 14.9% 41.4% 56.3% Total 115 100 215 53.5% 46.5% 100.0% 218 Raw Chi Square = 81.34963 with 1 degree of Significance = .0000 C. TIME BY VOLUNTARY/REQUIRED ATTENDANCE OPTIONAL REQUIRED Total Daytime 14 80 94 6.5% 37.4% 43.9% After School/ , Evening 114 6 120 53.3% 2.8% 56.1% Total 128 86 214 59.8% 40.2% 100.0% Raw Chi Square = 140.71769 with 1 degree of freedom. Significance = .0000 0. TYPE BY ATTENDANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL YES NO Total TOTAL GROUP 18 15 33 8.4% 7.0% 15.3% SPLIT GROUP 97 31 128 45.1% 14.4% 59.5% GRADE LEVEL GROUP 0 54 54 0% 25.1% 25.1% TOTAL 115 100 215 53.5% 46.5% 100% 219 Raw Chi Square = 87.68427 with 2 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000 E. TYPE BY VOLUNTARY/REQUIRED ATTENDANCE YES NO Total TOTAL GROUP 31 1 32 14.5% .5% 15.0% SPLIT GROUP 48 80 128 22.4% 37.4% 59.8% GRADE LEVEL GROUP 49 5 54 22.9% 2.3% 25.2% TOTAL 128 86 214 59.8% 40.2% 100% Raw Chi Square = 66.28715 with 2 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0000 F. ATTENDANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL BY VOLUNTARY/REQUIRED ATTENDANCE OPTIONAL REQUIRED Total YES 33 81 114 15.4% 37.9% 53.3% N0 95 5 100 44.4% 2.3% 46.7% Total 128 86 214 59.8% 40.2% 100.0% Raw Chi Square = 96.69198 with 1 degree of freedom. Significance = .0000 APPENDIX H COMPLETE RESULTS FOR ANALYSES OF VARIANCE COMPLETE RESULTS FOR ANALYSES OF VARIANCE These are the results from multiple analyses of variance completed using number of lessons taught as the dependent variable and the following independent variables: time of day of the workshOp, type of workshOp, attendance of the principal and voluntary/required attendance. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TIME AND TYPE Standard Mean Deviation N Daytime Total Group 5.37500 8.38259 8 Split Group 2.39535 3.92270, 43 After School/Evening Total Group 3.61538 2.66266 13 Split Group 2.57143 3.82934 35 Grade Level Group 2.07317 3.55240 41 For Entire Sample 2.62857 4.08074 140 RESULTS SourCe of Sum of Mean Significance Variation Squares DF Square F of F Within Cells 1972.07463 125 15.77660 Regression 254.50828 10 25.45083 1.61320 .11011 Type (1) 22.62894 1 22.62894 1.43434 .23332 Type (2) 8.18553 1 8.18553 .51884 .47268 Time 1.42164 1 1.42164 .09011 .76454 ‘ Type by Time 16.65458 1 16.65458 1.05565 .30619 220 221 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR ATTENDANCE OF PRINCIPAL AND TYPE OF WORKSHOP Standard Mean Deviation N Principal attended Total Group 5.90000 7.32500 10 Split Group 2.57692 4.05040 52 Principal Did Not Attend Total Group 2.81818 2.44206 11 Split Group 2.26923 3.50494 26 Grade Level Group 2.07317 3.55240 41 For Entire Sample 2.62857 4.08074 140 RESULTS Source of Sum of Mean Significance Variation Squares DF Square F of F Within Cells 1957.65166 125 15.66121 Regression 233.47288 10 23.34729 1.49077 .15030 AttPrin 5.70779 1 5.70779 .36445 .54714 Type 24.19937 2 12.09969 .77259 .46401 AttPrin By Type 31.07755 1 31.07755 1.98436 .16141 Type by Time 16.65458 1 16.65458 1.05565 .30619 222 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR VOLUNTARY/REQUIRED ATTENDANCE AND TYPE OF WORKSHOP Standard Mean Deviation N Voluntary Attendance Total Group 4.30000 5.58287 20 Split Group 2.64865 3.85297 43 Grade Level Group 2.02778 3.59751 36 Required Attendance Total Group 4.00000 0 1 Split Group 2.31707 3.90153 41 Grade Level Group 2.40000 3.57771 5 For Entire Sample 2.62857 4.08074 140 RESULTS Source of Sum of Mean Significance Variation Squares DF Square F of F Within Cells 1974.53690 124 15.92368 Regression 265.14580 10 26.51458 1.66510 .09628 Attndce 13.20583 1 13.20583 .82932 .36424 Type 22.03500 2 11.01750 .69189 .50255 Attndce by Type 14.19231 2 7.09615 .44564 .64144 223 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TIME AND ATTENDANCE OF THE PRINCIPAL Standard Mean Deviation N Daytime Princ. Attended 2.90909 5.16166 44 Princ. Did Not Attend 2.57143 2.93582 7 After School/Evening Princ. Attended 3.61111 3.91286 18 Princ. Did Not Attend 2.21127 3.43060 71 For Entire Sample 2.62857 4.08074 140 RESULTS Source of Sum of Mean Significance Variation Squares DF Square F of F Within Cells 1965.40018 127 15.47559 Regression 316.05923 9 35.11769 2.26923 .02163 Time 56.17433 1 56.17433 3.62987 .05901 ATT PRIN 68.98439 1 68.98439 4.45763 .03670 Time by ATT PRIN 40.18391 1 40.18391 2.59660 .10958 224 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR TIME AND VOLUNTARY/REQUIRED ATTENDANCE Standard Mean Deviation N Daytime Voluntary 5.10000 7.65143 10 Required 2.31707 3.90153 41 After School/Evening Voluntary 2.48193 3.59322 83 Required 2.66667 3.26599 6 For Entire Sample 2.62857 4.08074 140 RESULTS Source of Sum of Mean Significance Variation Squares DF Square F of F Within Cells 1978.56840 127 15.57928 Regression 269.26587 9 29.91843 1.92040 .05461 Time 2.35036 1 2.35036 .15086 .69836 Attendance 12.60281 1 12.60281 .80895 .37013 Time by Attendance 27.01559 1 27.01569 1.73408 .19026 225 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR PRINCIPAL'S ATTENDANCE AND VOLUNTARY/REQUIRED ATTENDANCE Standard Mean Deviation N Principal Attended Voluntary 4.70000 6.18232 20 . ReqUired 2.35714 3.86240 42 Principal Did Not Attend Voluntary 2.23288 3.38510 73 ReqUired 2.40000 3.57771 5 For Entire Sample 2.62857 4.08074 140 RESULTS Source of Sum of Mean Significance Variation Squares DF Square F of F Within Cells 1988.63541 127 15.65855 Regression 225.44854 9 25.04984 1.59975 .12203 Attn Prin .56786 1 .56786 .03627 .84927 Attendance 8.88190 1 8.88190 .56722 .45276 Attn Prin by Attnd 16.94868 1 16.94868 1.08239 .30014 lllIll/llllllllllllllllllllWill/lllllllllllll _lIIIIII_I_I_I_ IIIIE'I'II ‘ lllIll/Hillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!