v r r r . 3.1.21; .. A: .3. . ..__ PR NTXL. “,EXPER'IME N. RY SC E , _. .,_,.. .M lESIS This is to certify that the , R. K: ' thesis entitled A STUDY OF AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM EOR THE IN SERVICE SCIENCE EDUCATION QF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS I presented by C Julian Robe rt Brandou has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ‘ Ph. D. degree in Science Education (Curriculum) 5% Ma Major professor Date December 1, 1963 LIBRARY Michigan State University A BSTRACT A STUDY OF AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM FOR THE IN-SERVICE SCIENCE EDUCATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS by Julian Robert Brandou This study investigated certain factors related to sixteen physical science background programs for in-service elementary school teachers. The programs were conducted by secondary school science teachers in their own school systems after participation in the Elementary Science In-service Conference (ESISC) sponsored by Michigan State University and The National Science Foundation. During the four—week summer conference the participants, under the direction of subject matter specialists and educational consultants, prepared eight Topic Guides for use in the in-service activities. The feasibility of using competent secondary school science teachers as in-service instructors was examined along with the conference as a mechanism for preparing them to conduct subsequent in-service programs. Data was obtained from the conference participants, from a sample of elementary teachers in each school system, and from school administrators. Standardized instruments, personal interviews, field surveys and prepared questionnaires were used to gather and record the data, which was treated using rank order correlations and contingency tables. The findings were grouped in five categories; secondary school science teachers, elementary school teachers, school systems and administrators, in—service programs, and the summer conference. Among the reported findings were the following: Julian Robe rt Brandou l. The contributions of the iii-service programs as reported by the elementary teachers were significantly related to the amount of teaching experience and the years in the school system of the secondary science teacher. Also related to the contribution were the secondary teachers7 scores on The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Science, Form la. 2. The acceptance of the secondary science teacher was related to his scores on certain scales from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. The conference group differed signifi- cantly from a teacher stereotype reported in the literature on a. these same scales. 3. Elementary teachers with more experience tended to participate more frequently in the in-service programs, but there was no significant difference in the program evaluation by more experienced teachers . 4. The contributions of the programs to teachers of grades three, four, five and six were reported as significantly greater than the contributions reported by teachers of grades kindergarten, one and two. 5. Elementary teachers who participated in the in-service programs reported significantly greater increases in the use of twelve of twenty—one classroom science teaching activities. The signifi— cant items were closely related to objectives established at the summer conference. Analysis of questionnaire responses, interview records and transcriptions from the summer conference and a summary session revealed the secondary school teachers enthusiastically supported many Julian Robert Brandou aspects of the conference activity. The preparation of the topic guides proved as useful as the guides themselves, and most of the materials developed were useful in in—service programs. Fourteen of the secondary school science teachers and twelve of the school systems planned to continue with an in—service science program through the next school year. It was concluded on the basis of the data obtained, that secondary school science teachers can make a significant contribution to the physical science background knowledge of in-service elementary class- room teachers. The in—service activities developed during the conference were found useful in the cooperating school systems and the conference provided an acceptable learning experience for the secondary teacher participants. Copyright by JULIAN ROBERT BRANDOU 1964 A STUDY OF AN EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM FOR THE IN-SERVICE SCIENCE EDUCATION OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS BY Julian Robert Brandou A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCT OR OF PHILOSOPHY C ollege of Education 1963 G238¥7 ?/>/¢+ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator sincerely appreciates the assistance and . encouragement provided throughout this study by all the members of the doctoral committee. This study could not have been made without the funds provided by the National Science Foundation nor without the cooperation of the Director of the Science and Mathematics Teaching -‘ Center, Dr. F. B. Dutton, and the Director of the Elementary Science Iii-Service Conference, Dr. Wayne Taylor. In addition to their close connection with the program, Dr. Dutton served as chairman and - Dr. Taylor as a member of the doctoral committee. Appreciation is due Dr. Charles Blackman and Dr. Laurence L. Quill, the remaining members of the committee, for their interest and counsel during the course of the study. Dr. John M. Mason is also to be thanked for his penetrating analysis and honest appraisal of many proposals made during the time the study was being written. The sixteen secondary school science teachers; their school administrators; and the elementary teachers involved in the in-service programs and the study are recognized for their contributions to the ESISC program and for their cooperation in the evaluative phases of the activity. If these teachers and administrators had not given generously of their own time, the data necessary for the study could not have been obtained. Finally, my wife and children are acknowl- edged for their contributions of patience and understanding. >l<>i<>i<*>€<>:<***>:<*>i<* ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION 0 O Q I O O O U . . O C 0 O I O I O O C 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 NeedfortheStudy................. 8 Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 RelatedStudies................... 18 Sources of Data. 0 U C O D U . O C I O O 0 0 C C O O 24 Treatment of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 II. THE ESISC CONFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 HistoryoftheProgram .............. Z9 Participant Evaluation of the Program, Summer 1962. 35 The Re—Evaluation of the Summer Conference, Springl963................... 41 Summary...................... 47 III. THE CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS . . . . . . . . . 48 Selection Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Testing the Background of the Secondary School ScienceTeachers................ 49 Other Information on the Secondary School ScienceTeachers................ 52 Personality Measures for the Secondary School ScienceTeachers................ 54 Interviews and Observations of the Secondary School Science Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Summary...................... 65 IV. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN ELEMENTARY TEACHER REACTION AND CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECONDARY'SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS . . . 66 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued ' CHAPTER Page Introduction..................... 66 The Relative Effectiveness of the In-Service Programs.................... 66 Program Effectiveness and Secondary School Science Teacher Characteristics . . . . . . . 68 The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and Elementary Teacher Ratings . . . . . . . . . . 70 The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and . Elementary Teacher Ratings . . . . . . . . . . 73 School Administrator and Elementary Teacher Ratings...................... 74 Summary...................... 76 V, THE COOPERATING SCHOOL SYSTEMS . . . . . . . 78 Introduction..................... 78 The Number of Elementary Teachers in the Cooperating School Systems. . . . . . . . . . . 79 The ESISC In-Service Program and Concurrent TeacherActivities................ 82 The Provisions Made by the Cooperating School Systems for the ESISC In-Service Program. . . 85 Summary...................... 88 VI. THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS . . . . 90 Introduction..................... 90 Participating and Non-Participating Elementary Teachers.................... 92 Elementary Teachers From Different Grade Levels...................... 95 The Years of Teaching Experience of Elementary Teachers..................... 99 Relationships Among Measures of Effectiveness of the In- Service Programs . . . . . . The Most Important Contribution and the Most Serious Shortcoming of the Program as Noted by the Elementary Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . 103 Summary........... 108 .. 101 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued ' CHAPTER VII. THE IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE AS OPERATED BY THE SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS AND CERTAIN CHANGES REPORTED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING PRACTICES. . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . A Description of the Sixteen Programs . . . . . . The Relationship Between the Ratings of the Over- all Program By Administrators, Elementary Classroom Teachers, and Secondary School ScienceTeachers . ............. An Extended Analysis of the Additional Science Teaching Practices Reported . . . . . . . . Summary............. VIII. ESISC PROGRAM: DATA PROCESSING e e e o e 0 Introduction................... Levels of Measurement. . . . . . . . . . . . . The Statistics Applied in This Study . . . A. Testing Hypothesis Which Involved Para- metric Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Testing Hypothesis With Non- Parametric Statistics . . . . A Final Statement Regarding Statistical Methods. IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY . Findings and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications and Recommendations for Further Study......... BIBLIOGRAPHY.............. o e O o o o a n o APPENDICES . I I O . O O O O C O I O I O Page 110 110 111 117 119 121 125 125 125 127 127 129 131 133 133 146 TABLE III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TA BLES . Consultants and Topics Presented at the 1962 ESISC Conference. 0 o o O c 0 o I I I a v I o O o O o 0 I o O A Comparison of the Evaluations of Certain Confer- ence Activities by ESISC Participants, August 1962 and June 1963 O 0 O O O C O O O I O O 0 0 0 O O . 0 O 0 Mean Scores for the ESISC Participants on Five Instruments and Comparison Mean Scores Achieved by Two Other Groups on These Same Instruments . . Rank Order of Scores Achieved by ESISC Partici- pants on Various Measures by School System Code Number. C Q C O I O D O D O 0 O O O O 0 U 0 O I U I O O The Experience, Time Employed in Present School Systems and Credit Hours Earned in College Physi- cal Science Courses for the Sixteen ESISC Partici- pants......................... . Prior NSF Sponsored Institute Activities of the ESISC Conference Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Scores Obtained for ESISC Participants on Each Scale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and Norm Group Means. . . . . . . . . . . Rank Order of Scores Achieved by ESISC Participants on Scales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule by School System Code Number. . . . . . . Spearman Correlation Coefficients Derived From Comparisons of Ranked Scores on Certain Measures of the ESISC Participants with Ranked Measures of Program Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi Page 32 42 51 53 55 56 60 60 69 .LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE X XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. Page Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients for Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Median Ranks and Ranked Elementary Teacher Ratings on Various Questionnaire Items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients for Ranked Data From the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Scores of ESISC Participants and Five QuestionnaireltemS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Administrator Ratings in Categories of Agreement with Elementary Teacher Ratings on VariousItems...................... Data from the ESISC School Administrator Question- naire on the Expected, Potential, and Actual Partici— pation in the In-Service Programs Ranked by School System.......................... School Mean Contribution Scores and Assigned Ranks by SCh001 SyStem I I O I I I O I I I I I I O I I I O I I Summary of Responses to Section 1B of ESISC School Administrator Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . . . In—Service Experiences of Elementary Classroom Teachers in the Cooperating School Systems During the 1962—63 Academic Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four—Fold Table of Systems Providing and Not Provid- ing Released Time for the Secondary School Science Teachers and the Relationship Between the School Mean Contribution Score and a Grand Mean Contribu— tionScore........................ Summary of Administrator‘s Responses to Certain Items Related to ESISC Expenses Ranked by School System. 0 I O O 0 O 0 O I I I O O O O O O I I O I I I I I 72 74 75 80 81 84 84: 86 87 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE ‘XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. Page Means and Variances of the Years of. Experience Reported by Participating and Non-Participating Elementary TeaCherS. . o o o e o o e o o O o o e o o o 92 Four-Fold Table of Frequencies and Proportions for Participation and Median Overall Evaluation Score . . 93 Four-Fold Table of Proportions for Participation and Median Number of Additional Science Teaching PracticesReported................... 94 Analysis of Variance of Contribution Scores for Ele- mentary Teachers of Various Grade Levels . . . . . . 96 Ranked Grade Level Mean Contribution Scores and Number of Participating Teachers. . . . . . . . . . . 96 Contingency Table of the Response Frequencies on the Overall Evaluation Item for K-6 Participating Elemen- taryTeachers...................... 97 Contingency Table of the Number of Teachers K-6 at or Below and Above the Median Number of Additional Teaching Practices Reported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Frequency of Teachers in Four Categories of Teaching Experience and Their Responses on the Overall Evalu- ation Item ..... I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 99 Frequency of Teachers in Four Categories of Teach- ing Experience and Their Contribution Scores. . . . . 100 Frequency of Teachers in Four Categories of Teach— ing Experience and the Number of Additional Teach- ing Practices Reported. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Frequency of Contribution Scores in Three Categories and the Number of Additional Teaching Practices Reported. I I I I I I I I I I I I O O I I I I I I I I I I 101 viii LIST 'OF TABLES - Continued TABLE Page XXX.- Frequency of Contribution. Scores in Three Categor- ies and the Overall Evaluation Scale Responses. . . . 102 XXXI. Frequency of Overall Evaluation Scale Responses and the Number of Additional Teaching Practices ReportedI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 102 XXXII. Elementary Classroom Teacher Response to Ques- tionnaire Item Regarding the Most Important Contri- bution of ESISC by School System . . . . . . . . . . . 104 XXXIII.. Elementary Classroom Teacher Response to Questionnaire Item Regarding the Most Serious Short- coming of ESISC by School System. . . . . . . . . . . 106 XXXIV. In-Service Activities Provided and Ratings Given by ESISC PartiCipantSo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 112 XXXV. Number of ESISC Participants Who Report Various Grade Levels Participating in the In-Service Pro- gram and Responding Favorably to the Material Pre- sented.......................... 113 XXXVI. The Eight Physical Science Topic Guides and Frequency of Use Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 XXXVII. Overall Evaluation Scores for Administrators, Elementary Teachers, and ESISC Participants by SCI-1001 SyStemI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 118 XXXVIII. Frequencies of Certain Responses to an Overall Rating Scale by Administrators, Elementary Teachers, and ESISC Participants. . . . . . . . . . . 118 XXXIX. Number of Elementary Classroom Teachers Report- ing Certain Teaching Practices "Last Year" and "This YearI " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 122 ix LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE, XL. XLI. Page Teaching Practices Reported in ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire, Chi Square Values, and ‘ Levels of Significance for the Test of Participating versus Non-Participating Elementary Classroom TeaCherSI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 123 Four-fold Table of. Frequencies of the Responses to Item 28 of the Elementary Teacher Questionnaire for Participating and Non-Participating Teachers . . . . 130 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. FORMSUSEDINTHESTUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 Application for Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 School System Application for Participation ..... 165 School Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 BiweeklyReport...................170 Conference Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Conference Evaluation, Form II . . . . . . . . . . . 175 ‘Elementary Teacher Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 177 Program Administrator Questionnaire. . . . . . . . 181 Participant Questionnaire . . . . . . ..... . . . 187 InterviewScheduIe..................193 Summary Conference - Interview Schedule . . . . . 194 B. SUMMER CONFERENCE PROGRAM. . . . . . . . . . 195 weekI.........................196 WeekII.........................ZOO WeekIII.......................202 WeekIV.......................204 xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The continuous need to strengthen and update the science edu- cation programs in American schools has been clearly stated by a number of authors. Schwab pointedly says, "The need . . . is to maintain and support a mode of scientific enquiry which has never .be- fore been so urgently required, so visible to‘the naked, public eye, and understood so little by so few. "1 Probably the single most influ— ential factor in all school curricular programs is the classroom teacher, and thus it is likely that attention could profitably be given to ways of improving his instructional activities. The National Science Foundation has made a significant contri- bution to the improvement of teacher preparation in subject matter competence since 1954, through its sponsorship of over 3300 institutes. . Some 156, 000 teachers have been provided an opportunity for further study in science, mathematics, and engineering. The Foundation reports that, ". . . approximately 35 per cent of the teachers currently teaching (science and mathematics at the secondary school level) have attended at least one NSF institute. " z The impact of this effort, though already important and far reaching in its effects, might be extended to a still larger problem in science education, namely, the great need 1Joseph J. Schwab and Paul F. Brandwein, The Teaching of Science,(Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University PreSs, 1962), 4. zNational Science Foundation, Twelfth Annual Report, (Washington, 1962),98. for classroom teachers with adequate science backgrounds at the elementary school level. i The National Science Foundation has sponsoreda few institutes directed toward elementary school personnel. These institutes, as many. past in-service programs in elementary school science, have been directed. toward a few 'ke-y' teachers and supervisors of ele- mentary science and mathematics, rather than toward the larger group of elementary classroom teachers. . During the fiscal year 1962 twenty- one summer elementary institutes involving approximately 700 people were held, but the problem is larger than this by three orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the problem of providing institute experiences for over 900, 000 elementary teachers is considerably different thanthe problem at the secondary level. Cost alone becomes extreme, and sufficient institutional facilities and staff would be almost impossible to obtain. This study was based on one experimental approach to the employ- ment of the moderate sized pool of experienced, capable secondary school science teachers, with recent NSF institute experience, as in- service instructors fOr the larger groupof elementary school class- room teachers. Statement of the Problem The problem was to investigate the factors contributing to the effectiveness of a pilot summer conference of secondary school science teachers as a mechanism for providing certain in-service science education activities for elementary teachers. The in-service programs were conducted by sixteen Michigan secondary school science teachers in their own school systems following the 1962 Elementary Scienceln- Service Conference (ESISC) at Michigan State University. This conferencevwas jointly sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of Michigan State University. The study includes the following major areas: 1. 'Bhe characteristics of thgarticipating secondary school , science teachers as revealedby scores on THE EDWARDS PERSONAL PERFERENCE SCHEDULE, THE MILLER ANALOCIES TEST, THE SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDU- CATIONAL PROGRESS, SCIENCE, FORM. IA, THE SEQUENTIAL TEST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS, MATHE- MATICS TEST, FORM 1A, THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION FOR COLLECEFRESHMEN, THE MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY, experience and preparation data as contained in the ESISC CONFERENCE APPLICATION and transcript records and information, recorded during. two structured interviews as well as Observation of the teachers in their home school enVironment. 2. The experience and teaching grade level of the elementary classroom teachers in the cooperating school systems as Obtained from a selected sample of teachers completing the ESISC ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE. 3. Descriptive data on the summer conference program as revealed by the records of the Director of the Elementary Science 'In-Service Confer ence. 4. An Over-all evaluation of the Conference by the secondary science teacher participants as revealed in the ESISC ‘ CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORM 1, in CONFERENCE EVALUATION FORM-’11,. in records Of the CONFERENCE, and from records of the SUMMARY CONFERENCE held at the end of the first year Of in-service activity. 5.~ The contribution. of the physical science backggoundin- _ service-activities to the elementary teacher as obtained from the ESISC ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE. 6. r The record of changes in» science ~teachingpractices reported ‘ bythe elementary teachers in the ESISC ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE. 7. An over-all evaluation of the in-service activities carried on by the secondary science teachers as reported in the ESISC ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE, the ESISC ADMINISTRATOR QUESTIONNAIRE, the ESISC PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE, as recorded during two visits to. the school systems and as reported by the secondary school participants at the SUMMARY CONFERENCE. 8. Data on the amount of financial support given the in-service proggam, the amount Of released time provided for the pro- gr_am, the school size, the number of elementarLclassroom teachers involved, and an estimate ofpresent elementary science teaching practices as Obtained from the ESISC ADMINISTRATORS QUESTIONNAIRE, the ESISC SCHOOL SYSTEM APPLICATION, and through. informal interviews during two, visits to each school system. The data were arrangedand processed to provide answers to questions covering five categories: (A) The ESISC Conference participants (secondary school science teachers); (B) The elementary classroom teachers of the cooperating school systems; (C) The school systems cooperating in the program, (D) the ESISC Conference activity; and (E) The in-service programs in physical science backgroundinformation. A more detailed discussion of the data processing procedures is included in Chapter VIII,"ESISC Program: Data Processing. " Under area "A" The ESISC Conference participants, " the follow- ing questions were raised: 1. Is there a significant relationship between the relative effectiveness of the in -service program and any Of the following characteristics of the secondary school science teacher: a. rank on any test administered; b. number Of years of teaching experience; c. number of credit hours in college physical science courses? 2. Is there a significant relationship between the ratings given the secondary school science teacher by the elementary teachers participating in the in -service program and any of the following characteristics of the secondary school science teachers: a. rank on any personality sub— score as mEasured by the Edwards Personality Schedule; b. rank on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. 3. Are there differences between the ratings given the secondary school science teacher by the elementary teachers partici- pating in the in-service program and those given by the school administrator of the program? 4. Are there differences between the test scores of this group of ESISC secondary school science teachers and '~ certain NSF summer institute participants? The questions included in area "B. The elementary classroom teachers of the cooperating school systems, " are as follows: 1. Are there significant differences between the elementary teachers who participated in the in «service program and those who did not on any of the following: a. number of years of teaching experience reported; b. Over-all evaluation of the in-service program; c. number Of reported additional science teaching practices ? Are there significant differences between the grade levels at which elementary teachers are teaching and any of the following: a. over-all evaluation of the in-service program; b. number of reported additional science teaching practices; c. contribution score for the program (derived from the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire)? Is there, a significant relationship between the number Of years Of teaching experience reported by the participating elementary classroom teacher and any of the following: a. Over—all evaluation of the in ~service program; b. number of reported additional science teaching practices; C. contribution score for the program? Is there a significant relationship between the contribution score of a given elementary teacher and either; a. the number of additional science teaching practices reported; or b. the Over-all evaluation Of the in-service program? I Is there a significant relationship between the number of additional science teaching practices reported and the Over- all evaluation scores for the elementary teachers ? Is there any indication that the elementary classroom teachers were involved in other in-service activities during the experimental school year ? The questions related to factors contributed by the third category ' "C. The school systems COOperating in the program," are as follows: 1. Is there a significant relationship between a school mean contribution score and any of the following: a. the number of elementary teachers in the school system; b. the relative amount Of funds provided for the in-service program; c. the relative amount Of released time provided for the in- service program ? "D. The ESISC Conference activity, " was an important part of the total program, and the following questions were asked about this factor in addition to the compilation Of descriptive data reported in Chapter V,- "The ESISC Conference. " I. Is there a significant relationship between the evaluation of the conference by the participating secondary school science teacher and either the evaluation of the program made by the elementary school classroom teachers or by the school system administrator for the in «service program? Is there a significant difference in the evaluation of the conference made at the beginning and end of the experimental in-service program by the conference participants? The questions asked in regard to area "E. The in-service pro- grams in physical science background information, " are as follows: 1. 2. Is there a significant difference in the over-all evaluation of the program as made by elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, and school administrators? Is there an indication that certain topics contributed more to the elementary teachers of a given school than to teachers in other schools ? 3. Are there indications that certain changes in science teach- ing practices are more frequently reported by elementary classroom‘ teacher 5 ? 4. Are there discernible characteristics that distinguish in- service programs with higher evaluation scores from those with» lower scores ? 5. Are there consistent replies to The Elementary Teacher Questionnaire items regarding a most serious shortcoming and a most significant contribution of the program? Need for the Study Dr. J. Darrell Barnard recently pointed out to a group Of prominent science educators that: The great national interest in science and the improvement of our scientific effort has two primary implications for us: to get on with the job of building K-lZ science curriculums with scientifically rational sequences that are developmental in terms of concepts and process goals and are based on the needs, interests, and abilities of all students at each grade level; and to prepare teachers to do the job demanded by the new curricu- lums. Cook, in reporting the efforts of a committee formed at DePauw University, concludes: "The Committee believes that it is the class- room teacher who will ultimately decide how much and how well science "2 will be taught in the elementary grades. The classroom teachers of IJ. Darrell Barnard, "Improving Science Education, " School Life (October, 1962), 40:7. ,ZDonald J. Cook, Director, The Improvement Of the Teaching of Science and Mathematics in the Elementary Schools (Green Castle, Indiana, DePauw University, 1958). the elementary schools, grades K-6, in the United States are approxi- mately 876,000 in total number, I and apparently many of this group are in. need of an increase in their knowledge of the sciences. This need is the result of a number of interrelated events and, circumstances. First the normal growth of the body of scientific knowledge itself creates a never-ending deficiency in the education of a teacher. What makes this fact more striking is that this normal growth is by no means linear, but more nearly exponential in form. A conference Of scientists under the auspices of the American Association for the Advancement of SCience has pointed out that Science is, however, more than subject matter or stored information. * It is a two dimensional subject with ". . . the dimension of knowledge or content and the dimension of per- formance or process. " z The report then goes on to say of these two aspects, process and product: 1 "Neither can Operate to the exclusion Of the other. Infact, to be effective one dimension must become the vehicle for the develop- ment of the other. ."3 A group under the direction of Robert Stollberg also pointed out that science is not merely the subject matter or the storedknowledge but that science . . . is a human enterprise including the ongoing process of seeking explanations and understanding of the natural world, and also including that which the process produces--man‘s storehouse of knowledge.4 1National Education Association, Research Bulletin NO. 1 (February, 1962), 40:12. ZFrederic B. -Dutton, Chairman, Committee on Objectives, 1962 AAAS ‘Wiscfonsin Conference, 1,. "Report of Group 1, ,Objectives, -" Reports from a Conference on Science Instruction in Elementary and Junior High Schools, AAAS Washington 1962. ' 3Loc. g_it_. 4National Science Teachers Association, Planningcfor Excellence in High School Science (Washington, 1961). 10 This interpretation or perception Of science places a second continu— ous need in the life Of the teacher. , He should become actively engaged in the process if he is to teach science with effectiveness. A third dimension to the problem is supplied by the somewhat unusual expansion of the student population in the elementary schools. The National Education Association 1 estimates that by 1969 25. 1 million youngsters will be enrolled in grades kindergarten-sixth. Compared to the 1949 enrollment of 15. 8 million, this represents a considerable increase. Teachers for the elementary grades are in Short supply at the moment and they have been for some time. Furthermore, the supply and demand outlook for the immediate future is not particularly encouraging; thus the efficiency Of every teacher needs to be brought to the highest level possible. The studies made in recent years Of the status of the science training of our corps of elementary classroom teachers present a fairly consistent picture. Mallinson and Sturmz reported a basic lack of understanding on the part of elementary teachers. Tyndall,3 studying recent graduates Of of Atlantic Christian College, noted general deficiencies and Williams“ found that the teachers in his sample com- pared favorably with 6th grade pupils in their knowledge of science, / 1National Education Association NEA Research Bulletin Vol. 40, NO. 4 (December, 1962), 100. ZGeorge C. Mallinson and Harold E. Sturm, "The Science Back- ground and Competence of Students Preparing to Teach in the Elementary Schools, " Science Education 39, No. 5 (December, 1955), 398-405. 3Jesse'Parker Tyndall, "The Teaching of Science in Elementary Schools by Recent Graduates of Atlantic Christian College as Related to Their Science Preparation, " Science Education 44, NO. 2 (1960), 119. 4Clarence Earl Williams, Sr. , "A Study of the Science Knowledge and Background of Selected Elementary Teachers and College Students, " Dissertation Abstracts 21, NO. 9, (1961), 2541. 11 exceeding them in knowledge of living things and life processes. Challand1 found that the areas of zoology, physiology, and astronomy were stressed by most teachers in her study in Illinois and that many of the teachers had no more than eight semester hours credit in science. Cook states: During the progress Of this study it became very apparent that the greatest deficiency in the science training of elementary teachers was in the physical sciences--physics, chemistry, geology, and astronomy-—while, in general, there was better understanding Of plant and animal life.2 Applegate’ in a survey of practices in Minnesota found the elementary teacher cognizant of her weak areas in science and willing to work on them. A similar indication was found by Wood4 among Oregon teachers. Eccles"5 investigation Of elementary teachers' weaknesses in science led her to conclude that the adequate elementary teacher should have a broad background in science, an under standing Of the nature of science, knowledge Of materials for teaching, and experience in using 1Helen J. Challand, Abstract, "An Appraisal of Elementary School Science Instruction in the State of Illinois, " Research in the Teachigg Of Science, July 1957-July 1959 (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1962), 29. zCOOk, pp. 9.11" 10. 3Irvamae Vincent Applegate, "A Survey of Selected Practices in Minnesota Public Schools with Implications for the Organization of In-service Education Activities, " Dissertation Abstracts 17, No. 9, (1957), 1955. 4Hugh B. Wood, ”In-Service Education of Teachers-~An Evalu- ation, " (University of Arizona, 1950). Cited in the Encyclopedia of Educational Research (3rd ed. , New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960), 702. 5Priscilla Jacobs Eccles, "An Evaluation of a Course in Teaching Science in the Elementary School, " Dissertation Abstracts 19, No 11 (1959), 2862. 12 simple apparatus among other attributes. Berrysmal attempted to determine some factors contributing to the competency of teachers in. science, and two groups were identified as competent and mediocre by. use of an evaluation scale. The groups did not differ on most Of the factors selected but did vary as to their interest in science and their self- study and reading Of scientific materials. Berrysmaz also noted that certain facilities, free work space, and the amount of storage available in the classrooms significantly affected the kinds of science programs offered. The evidence seems to support, for elementary teachers at least, the statement made in a 1960 Report of the Joint Commission on the Education of Teachers of Science and Mathematics, as follows: Many studies support the view that, with a few notable exceptions, teachers of both elementary--and secondary--science in the United States are inadequately prepared, particularly in the Physical Sciences.3 Several attempts to delineate more clearly the needs Of these "inadequately prepared" teachers have been made. Lammers4 went directly to the elementary classroom teacher with an interview pro- gram. She found, from a sample of 100, sixteen with no interest in the study Of science and a preference for astronomy among the remaining 84. When asked what they disliked in the science field, 34 cited no 4 1Max Joseph Berrysma, "Factors Contributing to the Competency of Elementary Teachers in Teaching Science, " Dissertation Abstracts 20,. No. 2 (1959), 558. ZBerrysma, loc. cit. 3American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Improving Science and Mathematics Programs in American Schools (Washington, 1960), 21. 4Theresa J. Lammers, "One Hundred Interviews With Elementary School Teachers Concerning Science Education, " Science Education) 33, (October, 1949), 292-5. 13 special area, but of the 66 other teachers, 43 selected physics. Though almost all said they needed additional equipment, only 23 said they would- buy experimental gear if extra money was available; of this group, only nine could enumerate any items needed. Lammers concludes the needs are as follows, . . . the need for deeper insight; the need for skill; the need for a body Of interesting, non-technical, factual information; the need for reduction of emotional tension and conflicts relative to science. 1 Bryant (and Alford looked to the pupils for insight into the needs of the elementary teachers. Alfordz reported that among 4th,. 5th, and 6th grade boys 30 per cent are interested in jets, airplanes, motors,- and electronics, while fewer show interest in space flight, animals,“ or astronomy. Thirty per cent Of the girls indicated interest in astronomy and animal and plant life; slightly fewer showed interest in television, radio, space flight, or other areas. Alford adds that teachers lacked equipment, materials, and a necessary background and that they needed a training program in elementary science. Bryant's3 study is based On an analysis of the understandings considered important for children, and he recommended that those he found most important be made a part of the pre-service experiences of teachers. Bixler4 found that m I . Lammers, Op. Cit. zGenevieve Garretson Alford, "An Analysis of Science‘lnterests of Selected Children and an Identification Of Problems Encounterediby the‘ Teachers Of These Children in Science Instruction, " Dissertation Abstracts 20, NO. 8 (1960), 2704. ,3Paul Payne Bryant, Abstract, "Science Understandings Con- sidered'Important for Children and the Science Required of Elementary Teachers, " Research in the Teaching of Science, I July 1957-July 1959, (Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1962), 29. 4James Edward Bixler, "The Effect of Teacher Attitude on Ele- mentary Children's Science Information and Science Attitude, " Research 31. the Teachipg Of Science, July 1957-July 1959, (Washington: U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1962), 28. 14 the attitudes of teachers toward science are also important insofar as the improvement Of pupil achievement is concerned. Teacher education institutions have offered programs designed to satisfy the needs Of in-service teachers. MeadI studied the Nevada elementary schools and reported that fewer than 40 per cent of the teachers had participated in such activities. The teachers reported that their experiences had been poor to date and that they were often handicapped by the limitations of time in pursuing further course work. Dent found a similar situation in COnnecticut and said, In the same sense that teachers have been challenged to find new ways of meeting the interests, needs, and abilities of their pupils, teacher-education institutions are being challenged to find new ways Of promoting professional growth among teachers in science. It appears that there are specific and general needs for the in-service education Of elementary teachers in science. Further, imaginative programs may be needed to stir teachers to participate in and profit from the activities planned. McFeaters' 3 analysis of research led her to conclude that there were at least 25 types Of in—service education, the most popular being the college-credit course. The most likely to be successful, however, were found to be those tailored to local situ— ations and designed to improve the teachers in order to provide the best possible learning situation for children. , The use Of the college-credit course, or even the college sponsored non-credit workshop or institute to satisfy these needs has IClyde F. Mead, Jr. , "A Study of In-Service Education Facilities and Needs of Educators in Selected Elementary Schools in the State of Nevada, "* Dissertation Abstracts 15, No. 1 (1954), 376. zCharles Herger Dent, "Connecticut Teachers' Needs for In- Service Education, " Educational Leadership 9 (October, 1951), 22. 3Mary M. Marshall McFeaters, "A Critical Analysis of Selected Research Literature on In-Service Teacher Education, " Dissertation Abstracts 14, No. 8 (1954), 1340. 15 some inherent drawbacks. Primarily the difficulty is that, though Classes are readily filled with elementary teachers, the supply of suitable instructors is limited. It is perhaps even more severely limited‘in this area than in any other areas of the undergraduate and graduate levels in our colleges. Though not directly solving the problem of staff supply, the National Science Foundation has attempted to provide funds for a variety of programs for science teacher im- provement. In a recent report of the Foundation, the following state- 5" ment is made, The inaservice institute is probably the most effective mechanism for the training or retraining of a large number of teachers at a low unit cost. It has the advantage of taking place at a time when the teacher is engaged in teaching and can, in many instances, put the training to immediate use. A study of one in—service institute program has been reported by Selser.z Selser administered tests of science knowledge to groups of teachers and to the students of these teachers. One group of teachers served as controls, while the second group consisted of the in-service institute participants. His findings indicate that the teachers who participated improved significantly more in their knowl— edge of science and that their students showed similar differences over the students of non-«participating teachers. The success of this program seems indicative of the possibilities at other school grade levels. There appears to be evidence to support the following, (1) there is a need on the part of elementary teachers for further 1National Science Foundation, 2p. C_i_t., 103-4. ZWill Lindsey Selser, "An Evaluation of an In—Service Institute for Improving Science and Mathematics Instruction in the Hillsborough County Junior High Schools, " Dissertation Abstracts 23, No. 10 (1963), 3804. 16 science education and that (2) this need might be satisfied by an appropriate in-service program. This study examines one technique forproviding a program framework and tests the use of a potential source of instructional staff. 1. Delimitations of the Study The study was limited to the secondary school science teachers who were in attendance at the 1962 Elementary Science In-Service Conference at Michigan State University and the in-service programs subsequently operated by these teachers. The elementary schools for which in-service activities were conducted are located in the lower peninsula of the state of Michigan and are included in the school systems employing the secondary science teachers who attended the ESISC Conference. The study did not attempt to assess the effectiveness Of the in-service experience by measuring changes in the character- istic s of pupils . The study did not attempt to assess the physical science content acquired by the elementary classroom teacher. The study is confined to teachers' subjective reports Of contributions made by the in-service activities. .. The study does not attempt to present inferential statistical treatment but is limited to identifying levels of significance for the associational relationships shown to exist. Differences in the amount Of administrative assistance, direct supervision of the in-service program, or consultative services provided for the secondary school science teacher and the elementary school classroom teacher were not con- sidered. The restrictions imposed on the study by items 3 and 4 above were considered by the investigator and those involved in the over-all ESISC program. Available research gave no indication of the effect on a subsequent in-service program of pre-testing the elementary classroom teacher or her pupils. The possibility that such testing might jeopardize the activity or reduce the number of elementary teachers willing to participate necessitated the delimitations. This problem remains unresolved and thus in need of further careful exami— nation. Definition of Terms In this study the term contribution score is applied to a summation of the responses on the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire, Section II, where a response of "Considerable" was weighted two (2), "Moderate" was weighted one (1), and "None" was weighted zero (0). These scores, tabulated for 262 questionnaires, show a distribution approximating the normal curve over the possible range from zero to forty-eight. Participating elementary classroom teachers are those teachers of grades K—6 inclusive from the cooperating school systems who report they have participated in the in—service program. The Participating secondary school science teachers are the six— teen individuals who attended the summer conference and conducted the subsequent in—service activities. Selection criteria were outlined in the original proposal to the National Science Foundation and are dis— cussed along with a more complete description Of the sixteen teachers in Chapter III "The ESISC Conference Participants. " Ratings of the secondary school science teachers were made at the end of the year by the elementary classroom teachers on the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire. The five items constituting the ratings are treated individually in all cases. The over-all evaluation score consists of the responses to a single scale posed to all persons connected with the in-service program near the end of the school year. The five choices were placed on an equal interval scale but were dealt with as ordinal data in all cases. The reported additional science teaching practices were self- rated by each elementary classroom teacher in the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire, Section III. A sample of twenty-one (21) activities were arranged so a "last year" and a "this year" response could be made for each item. Instructions were given to the respondent to mark both if the activity was characteristic of both years and to mark neither if it was not Characteristic Of his science teaching practice. The difference between the "last year" and the "this year“ columns was reported for each teacher as the score. The in—service programs in physical science background infor— mation were defined as those activities attempted and observed, or reported, which were conducted by the secondary school science teachers for the participating elementary classroom teachers. No attempt was made to further qualify the nature or the course of the separate activities except to note the topics discussed at various sessions. R elated Studi e s In reviewing the extensive available literature related to the in-service science education of elementary teachers, the investigator selected only a few representative studies on each of the various problems. The specific attack described by the ESISC program has 19 no doubt been previously employed by individual school systems. Any secondary science teacher frequently has the opportunity to assist elementary teachers directly or indirectly particularly in the sciences. However, the development of a program designed to prepare the Secondary teacher for this task was not noted in the literature. It is interesting to note that the following ideas were presented in a communication to all the active members of the National Society for the Scientific Study of Education, prior to the fir st meeting in February 1902. The secretary, Charles A. McMurray, prepared a "Proposed Plan of Work" and appended to it a list Of "leading topics deserving discussion. " Third among the themes for discussion on elementary school problems appeared this statement: "The principles and plan of a general course in elementary science throughout the grades of the common school. "1 Lowry in the 7th yearbook Of the Society, reporting on the work of specialist teachers in the schools, notes that: These teachers either conduct the work in their respective departments themselves or supervise the work Of the regular teacher. Where the latter course is pursued, the special teacher gives model lessons in each Of the classrooms, criticizes the work that has been done since the last visit, gives directions for future work, and holds classes or institutes for the instruction Of teachers in these branches. 2 Lowry also cites LeFevre's report stressing the great need for professional reading on the part of the classroom teacher and describes the Baltimore in-service sessions and the St. Louis "Saturday Normal 1Charles A. McMurray, Secretary, The First Yearbook, National Society for the Scientific Study Of Education,(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1902), 62. zCharles D. Lowry, "The Relation of Superintendents and Principals to the ProfeSsional Improvement Of Their Teachers, " The Seventh Year— book Part 1, National Society for the Study of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1908), 17. 20 School" as useful in-service activities. Lowry then concludes: "The training of teachers after they enter the work is deserving of much greater consideration than it has heretofore received. " 1 It would appear that the in-service education of classroom teachers is not a new problem in education by any means. Evaluating the effectiveness of a given in—service activity or program of activities occupies much of the available literature as it probably should. Richardsonz developed an instrument for assess- ing teacher characteristics for use in a pre- and post—Observation. Sims' 3 study is widely mentioned and is closely related to another study by Mork.4 Both of these studies use a special paper and pencil test developed by Mork for student use. The in-service activity is planned and conducted for teachers; students of the participating teachers are pre- and post-tested; and groups of matched control students are similarly tested. Both studies noted gains at reasonably significant levels as a result of the in-service programs. Boyer,5 though interested in the science achievement of ele— mentary school pupils, found that schools with good science programs ILOWTY: 22- CE- ZEvan C. Richardson, "The Development of an Instrument for Evaluation of Elementary School Science, " Science Education 44, No. 2 (February, 1960), 112-118, 3Ward L. Sims, "The Development and Evaluation of an In-Service Education Program in Elementary School Science, " Science Education 42 (December, 1958), 391-398. 4Gordon A. Mork, "Effects of an In—Service Teacher Training Program on Pupil Outcomes in Fifth and Sixth Grade Science, " Minnesota 1953, Cited in the Encyclopedia. Of Educational Research, (3rd ed. , The Macmillan Company, 1960), 707. 5Donald Allen Boyer, "A Comparative Study of the Science Achieve- ment in Elementary Schools," Research in The Teaching Of Science July 1957—July 1959 (Washington: U. S. Department Of Health, Education and Welfare, 1962), 28. 21 carried on in—service programs and Often had a consultant in science. >Nelsonl reported that pupil gains in principle-understanding and concept-gain were significant for those schools in her sample having teacher workshops on the material. SmithZ reports identical results in another study of the same type, even though the pupils were tested on much more general instruments. Self3 attempted to establish criteria for the criticism of in-service programs and applied the re- sults to Louisiana schools with limited success. Four studies related to the factors contributing to the success of in-service programs were noted. Hempel4 analyzed 1191 question— naires and found that teachers' attitudes toward in-service work were rather well defined. The preference for graduate study leading to a degree exceeded the preferences for other types of activity; however,- some indication of interest in local workshops and other activities was Observed. Boyd5 compared face to face and televised presentations and found no significant difference between methods but that significant 1Pearl Astrid Nelson, "The Aquisition of Concepts of Light and Sound in the Intermediate Grades, " Science Education 29 (February, 1955), 3-12. zSusanna J. Smith, "An Evaluation of a Workshop Program for In-Service Teacher Education, " Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations, Pennsylvania State University (1946), 8:80. 3Elbert Lee Self, "Criteria for a Program of In-Service Education in the Elementary and Secondary School, " Dissertation Abstracts 20, N0. 3 (1959), 962. 4Carl Hempel, "Attitudes of a Selected Group of Elementary School Teachers Toward In—Service Education, " Dissertation Abstracts 21, NO. 13 (1961), 3684. 5Claude Collins Boyd, "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Selected Methods Of In-Service Education for Elementary School Teachers, " Dissertation Abstracts 22, NO. 10 (1962), 3531=2. 22 gains were made by both methods. HarvilleI in his study of Knoxville city schools found that programs closely integrated with the teacher's work,“ well planned and reasonably flexible, were most successful. Among the outcomes of these programs he Observed: revision of classroom technique, selection of new texts, attendance at other classes, and growth in awareness of new methods and materials. Bingham's 2. report of a workshop for science teachers indicated that, given the opportunity to work on their own problems, teachers can make considerable progress in a relatively short period. The problems of interest in planning a conference for the purpose of leadership training have been reported by Michaels3 and by Jaffa4 and these studies were useful in describing the ESISC conference. Holmlunds emphasized the need for cooperative planning, informal sessions, and good staff in insuring the successful outcome of an in- service planning session. Ginther6 reported a study conducted in a Chicago area school which involved science consultative assistance to the classroom 1Lacy Edward Harville, "A Study of the In-Service Education Program in Knoxville City Schools, " Dissertation Abstracts 21, NO. 8 (1961), 2175. zNelson E. Bingham, "Workshop for Science Teachers, " Science Education 35 (February, 1950), 177—184. 3Bernard Earl Micheals, "The Preparation of Teachers to Teach Elementary Science, " Dissertation Abstracts 19, No. 4 (1958), 737. 4Nathan Neubert Jaffa, "An Evaluation of the Planning Aspect of the In—Service Education Program of the Elementary Division of the Baltimore City Department of Education, " Dissertation Abstracts 17, NO. 11 (1957), 2526. 5Walter S. Holmlund, "Design and Evaluation Of an In~Service Training Program for Teachers in Child Growth and Development, " Journal of Teacher Education 3 (March, 1952), 50. 6John R. Ginther, "Achievement in Sixth Grade Science Associated with Two Instructional Roles of Science Consultants, " The Journal of Educational Research 57 (September, 1963), 28. 23 teachers and the use of the same consultants as special classroom teachers for science. His experimental effort indicates that consul— tative assistance to classroom teachers produces significantly greater achievement among the pupils than does the use of these consultants as teachers in an elementary classroom. Two additional studies, not as yet published, are also worthy of mention. Fowlerl carried out an initial training phase for a group of in-service instructors selected from secondary school general science teachers. He Observed significant change in their science knowledge as a result of the training but was unable to pursue the z worked closely study of the subsequent inwservice programs. Moser with an extensive in-service program in science and mathematics sponsored by the New York State Department of Education. The instructors were selected from secondary schools and junior colleges and conducted workshops and in «service programs in science and mathematics. Moser stated in a private communication to the investi- gator that "It was concluded that there had been a significant gain in the ability of the teachers to under stand the concepts presented in the evaluation instrument. " The literature reviewed, when taken as a whole, seems to r eveal the following . 1. Elementary classroom teachers can and do benefit from a v") variety of in—service programs in science and in other aspects Of the curriculum. These inaservice activities include: workshops, college classes both on and off the IH. Seymour Fowler, "Evaluation of an Institute for the Training of Elementary School Science Resource Teachers, " The Journal of Educational Research 53 (May, 1960), 359. zEugene W. Moser, private communication, August 7, 1963, 2. 24 campus, summer sessions, institutes, conventions, and other professional meetings and locally provided in— service activities . 1 2. The pupils of elementary teachers who have participated in in-service programs in science are favorably affected in their accomplishments in elementary school science.2 3. The planning conference for an in-service program should be conducted in an informal and relaxed atmosphere.3 4. ln—service programs likely to be most effective are those directly concerned with the classroom problems of the teachers involved} Sourc es of Data The investigation of the factors related to the characteristics of the conference participants was conducted for the most part during the summer conference period, July 19-August 17, 1962. Each participant was interviewed by the investigator and a tape record made. Group administration of the Sequential Test of Educational Progress Science Test 1a, the Sequential Test of Educational Progress Mathematics Test 1a, the American Council on Education Psychological Examination for College Freshmen, and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory was conducted by the Director of the ESISC Program. The counseling and Testing Center of Michigan State University administered IMcFeaters, E. c_it.; Selser, lo__g. c_it.; Boyd, 125:. c_it. 2Sims, loc. SEW Mork, 1&2. 93.; Boyer, lo_c. (£4 Nelson, l_o_<_:. egg Smith, 11C. C_i_t.; Ginther, lo_g. c_it_. 3MieheaIs, 133. cit.- Jaffa, lo_g. Cid Holmlund, I33. fl. ‘HempeI, lo___c_:. <_:_i_§.; Harville, 13c. _c_i_t.; Bingham, lo__c. c_it. .11 25 individually the Miller Analogies Test and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. Before the close-of the conference the group completed a Conference Evaluation, Form 1 and received instructions regarding the reporting procedures planned for the school year. A Biweekly Report Form enabled the investigator to follow the progress Of the in-service programs as the year developed. Considerable encourage- ment seemed necessary to maintain a flow of information from the field, and first-round school visits were planned to stimulate the secondary school science teachers as well as to gather data. The ESISC School Survey Questionnaire was mailed in mid— winter. These were in a building-unit form to facilitate their com- pletion during a single conference. The intention that these be completed by the secondary school science person was met in most instances; a few were submitted by building principals or teacher representatives. Since this form involved some judgment on the part of the reporters, a set of criteria were attached permitting some uniformity of response. The ESISC Administrator Questionrlairg was prepared and mailed early in the spring of 1963 after all the first-round visits had been completed. During the first—round school visit classroom teachers were interviewed, schools surveyed, and conferences held with administrators and the secondary school science teachers regarding the progress of their in-service activities. Also at this time, notice of the second planned visit and the coming survey of elementary class- room teacher reaction was given to the school system. Scheduling of second—round school visits and the Summary Conference was completed by mail and telephone during the first week of May 1963. The major activity during the second-round school visit was the administration of the Elementary Teacher Questionnaire. 26 While at each school the investigator conferred with the secondary school science teacher to gather final data for the school survey and a biweekly report summary. The Elementary Teacher Questionnaire was tried on a group of twenty-six Lansing, Michigan, elementary school teachers through the cooperation of the Science Curriculum Coordinator of that system. The investigator requested each school system cooperating in the program to arrange one or more meetings involving all the K—6 classroom teachers in the system. Where an administrator felt unable to meet this request, he was encouraged to bring together at least all those elementary classroom teachers who had participated in the program as well as a group of non-participants. The non-participants were to approximate in number the participants and Were to be selected from the entire school system. This resulted in 32 samples of teachers in two groups, participating and non- participating, representing the sixteen cooperating school systems. The Summary Conference for secondary school science teachers Was held May 31 and June 1, 1963, and at this time a second interview was scheduled for each participant. All interviews were conducted by the investigator and tape recorded. A questionnaire very similar in form to that given the elementary classroom teachers was administered at the last session. At that same time a Conference Evaluation, Form 11, Was Completed by each participant. Transcribed notes of the Summary Conference discussions were obtained for each session from the con— ferenc e director . Treatment of the Problem A number Of measures related to each of the five categories of the Problem were selected from the data available. The majority of these 1”neasures were based on classifications less than interval in 27 nature, thus the use of standard parametric statistical techniques-was limited. In most determinations, therefore, an extensive use was made of the chi—square and Spearman rank—order correlation methods. Raw scores on all tests administered to the secondary science teachers and sub-scores Of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were arranged in descending order and a rank assigned to each. From information provided on the ESISC Participant Application the number of years of teaching experience, the number of years in the present school system, and the number of college credits in physical scienc e were determined for each secondary teacher. These items were grouped for all the secondary teachers, arranged in descending order, and ranks assigned. All courses, graduate and undergraduate, were considered as eligible, and for ranking purposes the semester hour was used as a base unit. Application information in regard to courses completed was verified by the use of transcript records. Contribution scores for the participating elementary teachers were grouped by grade levels and by school systems. Mean contribu— tion scores were computed for each grade and school system. The number of additional teaching practices was tabulated for both partici- pating and non-participating elementary teachers and grouped by grade levels and by school systems. Medians were determined in each Classification by grade level and school system. The mean contribution Scores and the median number of additional teaching practices for SChOOl systems were then arranged in descending order and a rank aSSigned to each. The over-all evaluation scores were similarly treated, grouped first by grade level and then by school system, and the medians were found. Subsequently the medians were ranked by school System. The total number Of elementary teachers; the amount of the funds expended for the program; the amount of released time provided for 28 the program; were arranged in desCending order and a rank assigned on each to a school system. The questionnaire responses of participating elementary teachers in Section IV of the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire were tabulated by school system and a median score determined for each. These median scores Were then arranged in descending order and ranked for every school system. Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients were calculated between various pairs of ranked factors and significance levels determined. Chi-square tests of the independence of certain median, mean, and raw scores were made and if rejected, contingency co- efficients were determined. An analysis of variance of the relationship between contribution scores and various grade levels was made and followed by comparisons of individual mean scores. Mean score dif— ferenc es were tested using standard "t" tests adjusted for best estimates of variance when necessary. A more complete discussion of the specific statistical and non— statistical treatments selected for each of the five categories will be found in the chapters on the respective categories. A general dis- cussion of certain statistical procedures followed in this study is included in Chapter VIII, "ESISC Program: Data Processing. " CHAPTER II THE ESISC CONFERENCES History of the Program Providing assistance to secondary school science teachers and students through the use of specially trained consultants has been a continuing interest of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of Michigan State University for several years. The sug- gestion for the use of National Science Foundation "alumni" in the consultant role was first made by Dr. John M. Mason when director of the Michigan State University Academic Year Institute Program. Subsequent discussion led to the consideration of an extension of the consultant role to the meet needs of the elementary classroom teacher and the submission of such a proposal to the National Science Foundation. The proposal made in November 1961 was for a program involving "The Use of Physical Science Subject Matter Specialists Trained on NSF Programs to Serve In-Service Elementary Teachers. "1 The proposal included the ESISC con- ferences and provided for an evaluation of the program. The recruitment of candidates began in the spring of 1962 and Was hampered to some extent by the previous commitments of many deSII'able secondary school science teachers for the summer. K 1Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State Uni- versity, East Lansing, Michigan, "A Proposal to Special Projects in SCienCe Education Section National Science Foundation For a Program In"OlVing" The Use of Physical Science Subject Matter Specialists aim On NSF Programs to Serve In-Service Elementary Teachers. November 1961. 29 30 Dual recruiting was necessary since not only the candidate's credentials but the school system's approval were needed before acceptance could be completed. The criteria for the selection of candidates given in the proposal represented an ideal level, and in some cases the actual persons recruited did not meet the ideal described. Candidates were to possess extensive background competence in the physical sciences; have appro- priate personal qualities to increase the probability of a successful in-service program; and give clear indication of the support of the administrators and teachers in the cooperating school district. The candidates recruited had demonstrated competence in teaching science at the secondary level; they did commit themselves to engage in in- service work for a minimum of 45 contact hours during the academic year; and they were willing to cooperate fully in the evaluative aspects of the ESISC program. A request to proceed with the program for the sixteen participants available as of July 1, 1962, along with a plan to make a comparative study of qualifications was forwarded to the National Science Foundation and accepted. The school systems were asked to give their assurance that the teacher would be used in in-service activities for elementary school teachers. This assurance included the scheduling of some time during each Week for preparation and for the conducting of the in-service Program. Five of the sixteen systems were unable to carry out this part of their commitment, while the remaining eleven varied in the amount of time they provided. Some school systems made very little time aVailable to the secondary teacher and others provided half day blocks for both elementary and secondary teachers. A copy of the applicatiOn forms and all other forms used throughout the ESISC project is included as Appendix A. 31 The planning for the summer conference began simultaneously with the recruitment procedure so as to be ready for the July 19,. 1962, opening session. To encompass both a consideration of the selected areas in physical science and certain aspects of elementary school practice, a double team of consultants was formed. Scientists interested in discussing the elementary aspects of their specialities with the group of secondary school science teachers were located and informed of the nature of the program. Though a number of these men were involved in research, teaching, or other institute work at the time at Michigan State University, they were notably enthusiastic in their acceptance of the assignment. The selection of personnel capable of conveying the problems of elementary school education to experienced secondary school teachers was also carried on. Specialists in elementary education accustomed to working with in-service and pre-service classroom teachers were sought to provide an understanding of the elementary school and its OPeration. That such an understanding would be necessary for the effective construction of an in-service program was apparent to the conference planners, and thus the original proposal to the NSF included Provision for work in this area. With the cooperation of the staff member s of the College of Education at Michigan State University, Several key topics were proposed and individuals who could successfully Present them identified. A complete list of the consultants and the topic each presented is included in Table I. The development of a plan of work for the Conference group was Carried Out by the Conference Director, Dr. Wayne Taylor, and the SCience and Mathematics Teaching Center staff. Eight topics for the in‘serViCe programs were selected in advance and assigned to the Physical Science consultants. The Conference itself was divided into 32 Table 1. Consultants and Topics Presented at the 1962 ESISC Conference W Speaker and Position - Topic Presented Miss" Shirley Brehm Instructor in Elementary Education Dr. Jerry A. Cowen Associate Professor of Physics Dr. Beryl H. Dickinson Associate Professor of Physics Dr. William Durr Associate Professor of Education Dr. Harvey Edwards Associate Professor of Physics Dr. Carl Gross Professor of Education Dr. Clarence D. Hause Professor of Physics Dr. Jack B. Kinsinger Associate Professor of Chemistry Mr. Clifford Little Lecturer in Physics Dr. John M. Mason Professor of Biological Science and Education Dr. Donald Montgomery Professor of Physics Dr. James Stokley Associate. Professor of Astronomy and Journalism Dr. WaYne Taylor Associate Professor of Education Dr. William Walsh ASSOCiate Professor of Education Dr. David Wells Oakland County Mathematics Consultant "Working With the Elementary Teacher" "Electricity and Magnetism" "Heat and Sources of Heat Energy" "The Elementary School Pupils" "Sound and Mechanical Waves" "The Place of the Elementary School in American Society" "Light and Electromagnetic Radiation "Matter and Chemical EnergY" "Experiment and Measur ement" "The Critical Thinking Approach" "Motion and Machine 5 " "Astronomy and Space Science" "Introduction to the Scope and Sequence of Elementary Science" "Sources and Resources for Elementary Science" "The Secondary School Mathematics Teacher as an Elementary School Mathematics Consultant" 33 two blocks of time. Four of the topics were each treated by a physical scientist during each block. The participants were divided into four committees during each block, and each group was asked to examine and collect materials pertinent to one of the four topics. » The com- mittee memberships and appointed chairmen were changed for the second block. Thus, half the group served as chairmen, and each member served on two committees with different memberships. The responsibilities of these committees appeared to be carried out very well. The participants heard the basic talk on a particular topic as a group and questioned the speaker on certain points. The committee, then, surveyed available materials at the elementary level and at other levels and prepared a fir st draft Topic Guide. This guide included an outline of content along with suggested laboratory and demonstration activities for elementary teachers in the in—service setting. Some suggestions for further application to the classroom were made in many cases, and each guide carried a bibliography of additional materials on the topic. This bibliography was prepared for teacher s and pupils and included written materials and suggested activities. During the preparation of these topic guides an editorial adviser, Mr. Louis Panush, the investigator, and the conference Director provided assistance to the conference participants. A sequential arrangement of the topics selected from the field of education was provided in an attempt to bring the secondary school SCience teachers to a fuller view of the elementary school. Discussions 0f the elementary classroom teacher, elementary classroom teaching, the elementary school pupil, and the elementary school itself were presented during the early part of the conference. The resources available for elementary school science and existing patterns of science instruction were examined. Two presentations were specifically geared to the rOle of a secondary school science teacher in the in-service 34 program. ~One discussion with elementary classroom teachers was provided as part of the Conference, and several participants made additional contacts with administrators and teachers in their home school during this period. The Science and Mathematics Teaching Center served as the location of the Conference, and a work area was made available in a connecting conference room. Through the cooperation of book pub- lishers, industrial concerns, and equipment suppliers, over 150 pieces of educational literature were distributed to each participant. Many other sources of information such as single copies of publications received, sample elementary texts, sample demonstrations, and selected apparatus were placed in the work area. The Science and Mathematics Teaching Center library of several hundred volumes and a vertical file of over 1500 teaching aids was available throughout the conference. Also within the same building was the Instructional Materials Center of Michigan State University and its up-to-date collection of children's books, programed materials, curriculum guides,- and other items. In addition to these immediate resources, the individual Consultants brought many useful items from their respective departments. Once each committee had completed a first draft of the proposed guide an invitation was extended to the subject matter specialist to review and comment on the material. The entire conference group then read the draft and discussed the various parts of the proposal. At these sessions the C0mmittee members displayed the teaching aids included and pre- Sented many of the suggested demonstrations and teacher activities. At the Close of each session the copies of the draft, with the notes and additiOTIS of all participants, were given to the committee chairmen. The committee prepared a revised topic guide to a standard format and demonStI‘ation directions were written on 5 x 8 cards to accompany the finiShed guide. 35 This intensive review of certain concepts within the physical science areas selected served at least two purposes for the conference partic ipantsr For the more knowledgeable, it provided an opportunity to carefully examine a variety of approaches and to weigh the relative merits of particular activities. For the less sophisticated, it proved to be an excellent introduction to specific teaching problems from both the standpoint of the selection of appropriate content and the provision of adequate experiences. The effectiveness of the conference as a learning situation can probably be attributed to this two—fold contribution. In addition to this activity, time was devoted to the preparation of selected demonstration apparatus, and a few special sessions were arranged during the four weeks. For example, 1, The investigator presided at a short session to discuss methods of introducing new programs to an established institution. 2. A workshop of elementary Classroom teachers met in small group sessions with the ESISC participants to discuss needed in-service activities. A complete schedule of the conference activities appears in Appendix B. Participant Evaluation of the Program, Summer 1962 The general reaction of the participants was one of enthusiastic resli’Onse to the suggestions and plans for the ESISC Conference. The preparation of the guides consumed considerable time but gave each 1'nernber a focus and an opportunity to consider the dimensions of the job ahead. » Few of the members of the group had previous experience in Conducting in-service activities and likewise few had much previous direct contact with teaching or teachers at the elementary school level. The testing and evaluation phases of the conference and subsequent 1.- . . . . . n SeI'v1ce act1v1t1es were well accepted. A conference evaluation form 36 c0vering each aspect of the Conference was completed by the group on the last day of the Conference. The presentations in physical science and elementary education were judged by the conference participants on a five-point scale. Five was given to those presentations that con— tributed most toward their in-service program planning. Few scores of one or two were given by any participant and the medians for all areas were above three. The presentations receiving the highest ratings were on "Matter and Chemical Energy" and "The Elementary School Pupils. " In rating the remaining major conference activities the responses given by the participants were again high. In descending order the ratings were as follows: the packet service (free materials); the Committee memberships, the group discussions of tentative topic guides; the writing activity; the laboratory experiences; the shop activities and the production of shop-made items. .All of the group agreed that the four-man committee was of satisfactory size for the job at hand, and thirteen felt the Conference as a Whole should include from sixteen to twenty members. Though the rna.lC'I'ity (thirteen) felt the number of topics handled was satisfactory, When asked if other topics should be included six mentioned various areas in the earth sciences. In answer to an over-all evaluation question, thirteen judged the Conference “very worthwhile" and three indicated it Was "worthwhile. " The remaining choices, "satisfactory, " " of little Value." and "a waste of time" received no responses. The apportionment of time was also investigated, and though the majority responded that "the time allowed was satisfactory, " several expressed a desire for more time with elementary classroom teachers or teaching situations during the conference. A section of the questionnaire was left for free response and open- ended questions. The first section asked‘if the Conference seemed 37 consistent with pre—conference perceptions. Fifteen participants indicated that the conference met or exceeded their expectations. Eight stated that the usefulness of the Conference was the result of the applicable material provided and the opportunities available to develop plans for their in-service programs. One felt a more explicit program for use in the elementary schools was to be the outcome. The group was asked if they could perceive any specific local problems ahead of them during the school year. "How and when to meet with the elementary classroom teacher" was the most common problem mentioned, with some showing a concern for mandatory attend— ance policies and incentive plans generally. Seven of the secondary teachers reported no problems they could perceive in advance. Open-ended questions regarding the strong points and weaknesses in the four-week session were carefully answered by all members of the conference. The weak points mentioned were grouped as follows: 1. In relation to the time spent in shop activities: six people felt that more precise directions were needed and requested copies of construction notes. Two of this group went further to indicate perhaps too much emphasis was placed on the "gadgetry" of demonstrations. 2. In relation to the lectures: seven participants mentioned that some of the talks were unprofitable; two singled out the educational talks and three others stressed the philosophical aspects of one physical science presentation. U) In relation to the group: four people objected to the hetero- geniety of the conference group, and three others felt that the absence of elementary classroom teachers was unfortunate. The strong points cited were grouped as follows: 1. 38 Eight members felt that the pre-planning and organization of the conference was its strongest point. . Specific items cited were: the location. the committee system, the selection of staff and visiting lecturers, thecollection of pertinent material, the working atmosphere, and the avail- ability of the staff. ‘ Nine of the group stressed the fact that the enthusiasm and group spiritin evidence throughout the Conference among the participants, staff, and visiting lecturers was a strong point of the conference. Four secondary teachers said that the need for in-service science education was so great that it was this objective that represented the best of the program. The idea of using a secondary school science teacher in the in-service role and the topic guide framework for in-service programs were each . mentioned by one participant. Specific suggestions for the improvement of future programs Were solicited near the end of the questionnaire, and the responses were as follows: 1. More time for the entire conference but not more t0pics was mentioned by seven participants- Specifically, the time spent inthe shop and laboratory seemed too short for two individuals . The-inclusion of elementary classroom teachers as members (or some other contact method with this group) was suggested by four people. This necessity of considering the needs of the elementary program in specific terms was mentioned throughout the conference as well. 39 3 . Though the purposes of this conference were clearly aimed at the physical sciences, three participants felt strongly that future programs should include biological science materials . 4. Seven individuals responded that the program was satisfactory as it stood and indicated no areas for improvement. The remaining item attempted to provide opportunity for a personal reaction by the group. The responses have been grouped as follows: 1. Five secondary science teachers indicated increased respect for the problems of other teachers, particularly elementary clas sroom teacher 5 . 2. Five felt that the conference would have a pronounced positive effect on their own teaching during the coming years, 3. The reinforcement of previously held ideas concerning teach— ing methods in science education was reported by four members. Three others went on to say that the importance of a firm basic educational philosophy was re—emphasized for them. 4. Two mentioned each of two categories as being the most significant to the K-12 science program: increased prestige for the subsequent in-service work and practice in reporting carefully described units of work. In summary the judgment of the participants as evidenced by the questionnaire responses was that: the Conference as a whole was well planned and exceeded the pre— conference expectations of the group. The Visiting lecturers and other activities were judged helpful in most cases, and the preparation of the Topic Guides did not seem unduly burdensome. Insufficient contact with elementary classroom teachers 40 throughout the Conference seemed the most apparent weakness and some concern expected about the pace of activities and the selection of topics. A second opportunity for the participants to evaluate the various aspects of the summer conference was given during the interview sessions. The first round interviews were conducted early in the summer conference and were designed to elicit information about the conferees‘ school situations. An item was also provided, however, to encourage the participant to discuss the Conference as he saw it at that time. The secondary science teachers were interviewed by the investigator and a tape recording was made of their responses. Fifteen of the tapes were usable; one was lost due to a recorder malfunction. A few stressed their enjoyment of the mental stimulation by fellow teachers and the "refresher" course aspect of the review of selected topics. The majority responded much as they did on the questionnaire two weeks later. The point most frequently stressed was the value of this attack of a pressing problem. Two were con- Cerned about reducing the level of presentations to that of in-service Programs, and one made an excellent point in regard to the topical aPPrOach. His question, slightly reframed, was, "Why aren't we taking a more unified approach to elementary science?" At this point the Conference seemed to have completed success- fully several important tasks. 1. Each of the sixteen secondary school science teachers was returning to his school system with enthusiasm to begin an in-service science education program for elementary teachers. 2. In addition to the obligation of carrying out the in-service activities, the secondary teachers had been provided with a supply of prepared materials. 41 3 . Stimulated by the lectures, the group had examined in detail some fundamental concepts in physical science and selected those which appeared appropriate for the in- service application. 4. The committee work and group discussions had provided many opportunities for all group members to exercise leadership and to experience the results of group action. The R-e-evaluation of the Summer Conference, Spring 1963 The summary conference, scheduled for May 31 and June 1, 1963 , brought the group together at the Kellogg Center for Continuing Education on the Michigan State University campus. At this time Conference Evaluation, Form II, was completed by the group present; the one absent member completed the form and returned it by mail to the investigator. The second questionnaire closely paralleled the first in con- Stru-<:tion and items. The visiting lecturers were grouped rather than treated individually and rated on the same one to five scale. The PhYSiCal science presentations received almost the same rating by each participant, but the value of the educational area talks decreased about one rating division. Changes were also noted in the ratings of some activities, the packet service in particular moved from first to last place between evaluations. The ratings in descending order, were as follows: the group discussion of tentative topic guides; the com— mittee memberships held; the writing activities associated with the Topic Guides; the laboratory and shop experiences; and the packet service. A suItrimary appears in Table II, a score of 5 indicates the highest ratings. 42 Table II. A Comparison of the Evaluations of Certain Conference Activities by the ESISC Participants August 1962 and June 1963 Median Median Conference Activities Evaluation Evaluation August 1962 June 1963 Physical Science Presentations 3. 87 3. 29 Elementary Education Presentations 3. 83 Z. 82 Group Discussions of Teacher Guides 4.61 4.61 Committee Membership 4. 30 3. 83 Writing of the Topic Guides 4. 27 4. 50 Laboratory Activities 3 . 77 Z. 93 Shop Experience 3 . 77 2. 93 Packet Service 4.77 2.83 The topics selected and the prepared Topic Guides were still found useful by the majority of respondents; however, four added COmm ents to the effect that too many were prepared and that they were prepared above the level needed by the elementary classroom teacher. The over—all evaluation remained very high with only two partici- pants changing their comments to a lower value response. A single question during the final interview repeated the inquiry of the first interview into their general reactions to the Conference. Ten of the group made quite similar replies involving one or more of the following ideas: 1. The conference was very beneficial to me as a teacher. 2. The preparation of the topic guides was most useful as a 43 process, but the product was not necessarily employed in the' in— s ervice program . 3. A great deal more emphasis should have been placed, during the conference, on establishing and operating a productive in-service program for elementary classroom teachers. 4. The responsibility and influence of the agency conducting the conference should extend into the school year and into the local in— service activities . The summary conference also brought the total program to a Close, and discussions centered around various aspects of in-service education. In addition to the interview sessions and the time spent in completing the conference and program evaluation questionnaires, the group met as a whole and discussed a series of prepared questions. The first session was directed at the problems created by the reactions of the elementary classroom teachers to the program presented. PI‘Obably the most typical comment was the following: "I was appalled at the lack of knowledge. I expected to be able to work at about the junior high level, at least. " Other participants voiced comments on the difficulties 0f communicating the "background knowledge" idea to teaChers at lower grade levels. Most of the elementary teachers, it appeared, wanted more actual assistance in day—to—day classroom inStJfi‘uction. These reactions, though not completely unexpected, did icauSe some participants to make changes in their presentations. The methods found useful were those most closely related to an inchIVidual conference. Likewise, the best incentives were those which tended to provide the individual classroom teacher with items for use in her immediate teaching environment. However, the provision of equipment alone did not seem to be as effective as other methods. The secondary teachers reported that laboratory situations where 44 elementary teachers could use apparatus, try demonstrations, and practice manipulations, followed by the provision of identical apparatus for classroom use, proved most satisfactory. The difficulties of relying on the elementary teacher 3' judgment of what to include in an in—service program precipitated a most fruitful discussion. The discussion led ultimately to a proposal that "packages" of materials in science, including the necessary equipment, demon- stration instructions, content, and evaluative items might be prepared and brought to the elementary classroom via an in-service program. Just how such "packages" might be assembled or who should decide on their ingredients remained unanswered. The American Association for the Advancement of Science was mentioned, as well as other groups known to have an interest in this problem, as possible sources for "package" contents. After a discussion of the presentations made at the summer con- ference, the group generally agreed on the following statements: 1. All eight of the physical science topics had proved useful and stimulating to the elementary classroom teachers in selected situations. 2. The follow-up sessions with the physical science consultants had not been too productive. (It is possible that the lack of liaison during the writing period between the consultant and the committee contributed to this lack of productivity. It might be better to arrange several working sessions through- out the writing period when the consultant and the committee could formulate and discuss the parts of a topic guide.) The conference activities in general were also discussed, and the participants indicated that: 45 l. The committee activities and reports were very important aspects of the program. The contributions of the reporting sessions were beneficial to both the working members of a committee and to the other conference participants. 2. There was a need during the conference period for joint dis- cussions of elementary teaching problems by the secondary school science teachers and experienced elementary class— room teacher 5 . 3. There was a need for the opportunity to present tentative versions of the prepared in—service materials to groups of experienced elementary classroom teachers. The participants further felt that a critique should be conducted by a competent staff member after each presentation. During this session, the secondary school science teacher and the elementary classroom teacher group would discuss the methods used in the presentation and the suitability of the content selected. The topic guides were commented on individually, and though "Measurement" was not the most popular with elementary teachers, it was rated the most important by the secondary teachers. The highest teacher interest was evidenced in the units on "Astronomy and Space Science" and "Heat and Sources of Heat Energy. " Highest student interest in the topics "Electricity and Magnetism" and "Matter and Chemical Energy” was reported by the elementary teachers during in— service sessions, but in spite of this the elementary teachers were reluctant to gain background information in these areas. The group discussed in one session the problems of establishing and operating an in—service program. Two things seemed most important: 1) the fullest COOperation between administration and staff was essential; and 2) adequate communication throughout the school 46 system was necessary for a successful program. The administration,- it was felt,‘ should give its attention and support to the project, includ- ing released time for the preparation of materials and for conducting the in—service sessions. Though this was the intended goal of the present program, it appeared that local school systems did not meet fully their responsibilities in this regard. There was some feeling,- as previously noted, that the program might operate more smoothly 'g, with more direct guidance and participation by the University. If such were the case, a contractual arrangement might assure the needed provision of time and funds for the operation of the local programs. The question of state or national assistance to the schools for in— service education purposes was explored, and the majority of the group agreed that direct payments to the schools might be less effective than funds used to provide University consultant services or programs. The gains made in each school were felt to be reasonable for the time and effort invested. Several of the participants gave indications that they had used more than one method during this first year and were continuing to seek more effective procedures. Perhaps most significant is the fact that, at the time of this Summary Conference, fourteen of the sixteen participants and thirteen of the cooperating school systems were planning to continue with an in-service science program. That is, the inaservice programs had made sufficient progress to encourage the school systems to continue providing the service for elementary classroom teachers. Furthermore, the participating secondary school science teachers were willing to devote the necessary time and effort to start new, and hopefully improved, programs for the 1963-1964 school year. 47 Summary The four-week conference conducted during July and August 1962 was attended by sixteen secondary school science teachers from as many school systems. The group prepared materials and Topic Guides as outlines for subsequent in—service science education pro- grams for elementary teachers in their home school systems. The conference procedures were evaluated by the participants at the close of the conference and again at the end of the school year. Little change was noted, and most of the group reported the conference a useful and worthwhile activity. The organization of the conference and the plan of attack using committees and specialists to select and prepare materials received the highest ratings. A summary conference concluded the total program and provided suggestions for improving future in-service experiences of similar design. The importance of good internal communications within school systems and the need for elementary classroom teachers to assist in planning in-service programs were points stressed by the group. The usefulness of the conference as a learning experience for the partici- pants was noted and the need for more liason between the committees and consultants indicated. A future conference should possibly provide more opportunity for trial presentations, more direct contact with elementary teachers and be oriented to continued consultative help from the sponsoring institution. CHAPTER III THE CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS Selection Procedure The qualifications for participation in the conference were defined a by a set of criteria established in the proposal to the National Science Foundation. They were as follows, 1. Possess subject—matter competence in the area of physical science, preferably gained through participation in extensive institute activity. 2. Possess personal characteristics which would indicate probable acceptance by the effectiveness in working with elementary teachers. 3. Provide evidence on the part of their administrators to use them on a released-time basis for in-service activities with elementary teachers in their respective school systems. 4. Preference will be given to applicants who can present evidence that the local school system is interested in sponsor— ing in—service programs for elementary teachers and would support such programs with the necessary facilities, supplies, equipment, and similar resources. Within such a set of criteria a certain amount of heterogenity is expected; for example, the number of possible combinations of institute experi— ences alone is very large. Seventeen applications were filed and sixteen accepted appoint— ments. It would be inaccurate to assume from this that anyone who made an application was accepted. It should rather be pointed out that only the most likely school systems and teachers were invited to apply; and due to the very short recruitment period, only those who could give immediate indication of high interest were sent applications. 48 49 Notification of the possibility of such a program was given considerable publicity, but the actual notice was largely transmitted person to person. Even if a much larger pool of invited secondary teachers had been available for selection, it is likely that some of the final group would have been present. There is little doubt, however, that the final group would have been much more homogeneous in regard to the selection criteria. There are advantages as well as disadvantages in the heterogenity of the selected secondary school science teachers. The importance of a given set of personal qualifications in determining the outcome of the subsequent in—service program may be more sharply defined if greater contrasts exist. On the other hand, direct comparisons of the activities of individuals with quite different characteristics may be inappropriate. In this study several instruments were used in an attempt to determine c ontributing factor 5 . Testing the Background of the Secondary School Science Teachers Records of previous National Science Foundation institutes at Michigan State University were available and provided mean scores on the following tests: 1. Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Science la. 2. Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Mathematics la. 3. American Council on Education, Psychological Examination 1952 Edition. 4. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. Norms were also available for each of these instruments, and these norms provided a basis for comparison in each instance. For both the Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Science la 1 and lCooperative Test Division, Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Manual For Interpreting Scores: Science, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1957. 50‘ Mathematics la, 1 publishers' norms based on college freshmen and sophomores tested in the fall were used. The manual for the American Council on Education, Psychological Examination, 1952 Edition was revised in 1952‘2 and published containing tentative norms based on education professional school groups. Norms for the Miller Analogies rl‘_est were obtained from a supplement to the 1952. manual dated November 1962.3 The norm group was described as first-year graduate education majors at a midwestern university. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory norms4 for academic teachers with five years training were used for comparisons based on that instrument. Table III contains the secondary school science teachers‘ mean raw scores on the Sequential Test of Educational Progress Science 1a, the Sequential Test of Educational Progress Mathematics 1a, the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory, and the Miller Analogies Test, along with other comparison scores on these instruments. The groups of teachers in institutes at Michigan State University obtained higher scores, on the average, than did the norm groups. The ESISC participants likewise gained higher mean scores than the selected norm groups. To examine the relationship of the selected ESISC participants to the larger group of teachers with institute experi- ences "t” tests were carried out on the mean differences. lCopperative Test Division, Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Manual For Interpreting Scores: Mathematics, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1957. 2American Council on Education, Psychological Examination for College Freshmen, Manual, Revision 1952: Education Professional School Groups, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1952. 3W. S. Miller, Supplement to the Manual For the Miller Analogies Test (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1962). 4Walter W. Cook and others, Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Manual (New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1951). T_—_————:——‘ 51 Table III. Mean Scores for the ESISC Participants on'Five Instruments and Comparison Mean Scores Achieved by Other Groups on These Same Instruments Mean Scores MSU Summer Instrument ESISC Group Institutes1 and Publishers' N = 16 Other Norms Norms STEP Science 47.50 44.95 31.0.2 STEP Math 35.69 37.90 23.02 ACEQ 49.37 53.21 42.23 ACE L 87. 31 85.22 68.93 ACE Total 136.69 138.45 111.13 MTAI 43.9 33.09 40.84 Miller Analogies 59. 1 50.46 40.95 1Pooled data for participants in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Biology summer institutes, 1960, 1961, and 1962, N = 288. zDetermined from publisher‘s median score of college freshmen and sophomores (fall testing). 3Publisher's 1952 bulletin on Education professional school groups. 4Publisher's Academic Teachers with five year 3' training. 5Publisher's November 1962 bulletin on education graduate students. 6Based on MSU Doctoral candidates in Education (N = 478). 52 No differences significant at the 5 per cent level were found for any of the pairs of means tested. The small number of cases in the ESISC group and the rather large variability may account, in part," for this observation on certain tests. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude - Inventory in particular shows a rather large actual mean difference,- but the variances in this case both exceed 800. Since the best estimate of the population variance must be based on these sample variances and the value of t is determined as in equation 1, the possibility of accept— ing a null hypothesis increases with the variance. Equation 1 student's t for unequal sample sizes: X —i t ___ 1 2 S Inns P N1 N2 NSZ+NSZ z _ 1 1 2 z where sp — —_—N1 + N2 _ 2 There may in fact be differences in the means of the populations from which it is assumed these samples were drawn. The other measures, however, show comparatively smaller variances, and it seems reason- able to believe that there are no real differences between these groups on the basis of the measurements made. Ranks were assigned to the secondary school science teachers on each of the measures which were coded by the school system each represented. The array of ranks is presented in Table IV. Other Information on the Secondary School Science Teachers The participants were all experienced school teachers. There were fifteen males ranging in age from twenty-four to sixty and one 53 Table IV. Rank Order of Scores Achieved by ESISC Participants on Various Measures by School System Code Number School STEP STEP ACE ACE ACE MTAI Miller System Math. Sci. Q L T Analogies 1 6 11.5 10.5 11 11 10 5 8.5 2 10 15 3.5 4 3 7 5 4 3 1 2.5 3.5 l l 5 2 4 8.5 14 6.5 13 12 13 12 5 3 6 1 8.5 5.5 1 6 6 16 9.5 5 10 10 4 11 7 4.5 2.5 8.5 6 8 2 3 8 7 4.5 13 2.5 5 5 10.5 6 9 13.5 9.5 10.5 5 7 14 6 10 12 4.5 14 5 16 16 9 14 11 2 1 2 7 4 6 8.5 12 13 5 8 14.5 12 13 16 13 13 15 13 12 8 5 9 3 10 14 11 ll 5 16 14 15 7.5 16 15 8.5 16 8.5 15 14 15 15 16 4.5 7 6.5 2 5 2 12 l 54 female, aged forty. Fourteen, including the female, were married before the program began, and one additional member married during the school year. The years of teaching experience varied from one to thirty—six years, and this factor was also ranked by school systems. The knowledge of a given school operation might affect the program, and a second ranking of the number of years taught in the present school system was also obtained. These ranks are given in columns 3 and 5 of Table V. The previous training of the group consisted of at least the com- pl etion of the baccalaureate degree. In the seven cases where this was the highest degree attained, the Bachelor of Science was the degree held- Two held the Master of Arts for Teachers, five held the Master 0111- Arts, one the Masters of Science, and one the Master of Education degr ee. Three out of the sixteen had not had previous NSF training, and among those who had participated the training was not uniform. T abl e VI presents this information in summary form. Fifteen of the gr Oup had undergraduate course work in the physical sciences, and e1€>\Ien had some graduate work in this area. The hours as given in the various transcripts were converted to semester hours using as an eQUivalence relation the following statement: one semester hour = 3/2 quarter hours The total hours of physical science course work were then tabu— 1att-L‘d for each secondary school science teacher. The semester hours ranged from zero to fifty-two and again these were ranked by school System. This ranking appears in Table V, column 7. Personality Measures for the Secondary School Science Teachers The importance of personal relationships seemed apparent in the projected in—service programs. As Goodlad notes: 55 Table V. The Experience, Time Employed‘in Present School Systems and Credit Hours Earned in College Physical Science Courses for the Sixteen ESISC Participants School Years Years in Phys. Sci. System Experience Rank Location Rank Credit Hrs. Rank 1 6 10.5 1 4 22 5 2 6 10.5 6 12.5 44 12 3 3 2.5 3 6 28 6 4 10 15 10 15 55 15 5 3 2.5 0 1.5 32 7 6 4 5.5 4 8.5 01 1 7 4 5.5 4 8.5 39 10 8 4 5.5 0 1.5 32 8 9 9 13.5 9 14 12 2 10 9 13.5 1 4 41 11 11 6 10.5 6 12 5 44 13 12 36 16 36 16 39 9 l3 5 8 5 11 19 4 14 4 5.5 4 8.5 19 3 15 l 1 1 4 52 14 16 6 10.5 4 8 5 96 16 56 Table VI. Prior NSF Sponsored Institute Activities of the ESISC Conference Participants Type of Institute Participant Academic Year Summer In—Service l O O O 2 O 3 0 3 1 1 1 4 0 3 0 5 1 2 O 6 0 l 1 7 O l 1 8 1 0 0 9 0 2 O 10 l 1 0 ll 1 3 1 12 O 2 0 l3 0 0 O 14 O 0 0 15 0 1 0 16 l 3 0 57 The consultant's usefulness depends in large measure upon his possession of certain personal qualities and abilities directly related to the demands of the group and the setting. Research to date has not been too helpful in identifying those personal characteristics deemed essential to successful performance of an educational worker. The selection of an instrument or instruments to make some assessment of this area of the secondary school science teacher's relationship to his in-service program was somewhat difficult. In a study of the need structure of secondary school teachers, Jackson and GubaZ selected the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. This need-based instrument stems from the earlier work of Murray and has been found useful in several studies of teachers. McGuire3 describes the test in the third edition of The Encyclopedia of Educational Research as follows: . . . the Personal Preference Schedule developed by Edwards consists of 225 paired—choice items referring to 15 needs, each pair of alternaitves being matched for social desirability. Available data from limited populations indicate that internal consistency within need scales range from .60 to . 87 and retest reliabilities from . 74 to . 88, and that intercorrelations between scales are low. In the test manual Edwards explains, "The low values of the inter- correlations indicate that the variables being measured by the PPS are relatively independent . " 5 1John I. Goodlad, "The Consultant and In=Service Teacher Edu» cation, " in In-Service Education (The 56th Yearbook, NSSE, Henry B. Nelson Editor, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), 185. 2Phillip W. Jackson and Egon G. Cuba, "The Need Structure of In-Service Teachers — An Occupational Analysis, " The School Review, LXV: 176-192 (Summer), 1957. 3Allen L. Edwards, Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (New York, The Psychological Corporation, 1954). 4Car son McGuire, "Personality, " Encyclopedia of Education Research (3rd ed., Chester W. Harris, Editor, New York: Macmillan Company, 1960), 954. 5Edwards, 9p: 02:, Manual Revised, 1957. 58 The Edwards PPS has been reviewed in the 5th Mental Measure— ments Yearbookl by three different critic‘s: Barron of the University of California, Bjerstedt of Lund, Sweden, and Fiske of Chicago. These authors tend to agree that the instrument is a good experimental test that avoids value orientation, though Bjerstedt comments on the limited length of subtests necessitated by the large number of variables. Schaffner 2 called it a "good, intriguing instrument" though Gustad3 criticized the construct validity, pointing out that the results did not agree with those obtained from other tests based on Murray's manifest needs. Taking into account the inherent problems, the Edwards was selected as the instrument most likely to give some indications of the desirable personal characteristics for in-service program instructors. The results obtained by Jackson and Guba4‘ were subdivided into various classes of secondary teachers. The class most similar in general description to the ESISC participants consisted of mature, experienced, male academic teachers. The scores of this sub population were used for comparison with the ESISC group along with the publisher's norms.5 A study by Merrill6 involving a group of 53 science teachers 1Oscar K. Buros, The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook, (Rutgers University Press, 1959), 113-120. ZLaurance F. Schnaffner, Journal of Consulting Psychology 19 (April, 1955), 156. 3John W. Gustad, Journal of Consulting Psychology 20 (August, 1956), 322. 4Jackson and Guba, op. gig. 5Edwards, CE 911., 1957. 6Reed M. Merrill, "Comparison of Education Students, Successful Science Teachers, and Educational Administrators on the Edwards PPS, " Journal of Educational Research 54 (September, 1960), 38. 59 in an Academic Year Institute program served as a third interesting comparison for the ESISC group. The scores from these studies appear in Table VII. Table VIII gives the rank order of the sixteen ESISC participants on each of the fifteen variables from the Edwards PPS. A brief description of the meaning of each score is given in the test manual. The mean scores for the ESISC group were computed for each scale and were compared with the means from other groups. These means are given in Table VII along with the results of the "t" tests conducted between the ESISC and publisher's norm group means. In the previously noted study by Jackson and Cuba 1 at Chicago, a group of 336 teachers from suburban Chicago and outlying schools were tested with the Edwards PPS. For the sub—sample of ninety-one male high school teachers most similar to the ESISC group, Jackson and Cuba report Deference, Order, and Endurance scores significantly (1 per cent level) higher than for the male norm group. Significantly lower (1 per cent level) scores were made on the Intraception and Heterosexuality sub-tests and lower (significant at 5 per cent level) scores were also made on Exhibition and Succorance scales by the high school teachers. The investigators point out that the scores for the teachers seem strikingly similar to the norm group on three scales: Nurturance, Intraception, and Affiliation. They also comment: Differences on nurturance, affiliation, and intraception (for all groups in the study) are conspicuous by their absence. Since the teaching task is frequently couched in terms of aiding and assisting others, of participating in friendly groups, and of analyzing behavior of others, one might expect teachers as a group would reflect the demands of their task by being highly nurturant, affiliative, and intraceptive.z 1Jackson and Guba, _o_p. cl_t. zIbid., 178. 60 Table VII. Mean Scores Obtained for ESISC Participants on Each Scale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and Norm Group Means Edwards ESISC Publisher's Merrill4 Jackson and PPS Group Norms Study ' Guba Study Scale =16 n = 760 n = 53 n = 91 ach 16.375 15.66 16.77 15.63 def 12.9372 11.21 14.17 14.21 0rd 11.000 10.23 12.41 12.89 exh 12.9373 14.40 13.23 13.46 aut 13.625 14 34 13.24 13.86 aff 12.7501 15.00 15.62 15.04 int 16.375 16.12 15.00 14.81 suc 10.313 10.74 9.92 9.45 doni 17.25 17.44 16.68 16.81 aba 12.0625 12.24 13.94 12.33 nur 14.250 14.04 13.83 13.85 chg 15.250 15.51 16.04 14.76 end 13.188 12.66 16.24 15.46 het 18.063 17.65 10.89 14.66 agg 11.6883 12.79 12.00 12.73 1Significantly different than publisher's norm group at 2. 5 per cent level. 2Significantly different than publisher's norm group at 5 per cent level. 3Significantly different than publisher's norm group at 10 per cent level. 4Merrill: "Successful Science Teacher" group. 5Jackson and Guba: ”Experienc ed Academic Males. " 61 an m HVH m.H o m.o N m.NH MH HVH m.N o Hy NH m 0H m m.oH m.mH Ha MH m m.m N. m OH m.mH o mH m.w va mH mH m.o m m.o oH H m.o m m.¢H m.mH m.m mH m mH m.mH wH mH m.m m m.w H m.HH mH m.NH H0 m.m m.mH o N N 0H NH 0H 0H m.H mic m.m m.o 0H m m.HH m.m HuH HH H. mJu M NH w NH m mH N m.N m.mH o m.w m.H m.NH o oH m m.mH HH w mH m m.oH m.wH «H HH m.NH m.w oH v m.m N H m.¢ 0H m m.m NH m.w m.HH Ha m.mH w m.HH OH m. H m m.Hu m.oH o. w m.@ m.oH 0H m mtm m.o H o NH m.oH m.mH 5 NH > w v m.H m.w m.oH m.H~H mH m.m OH N. mH H m N. CH w N. m.mH m.H mH m.mH oH m.o m.n oH m.~ m.o m.o N, mH m.w m.oH o m.MH m.OH N w. m.m w m.m mH H miw m.oH MH mH 0H m.oH m m.HH vH m.w v m.m mH m.> m.NH m.N m.H m.o mH oH m.o mH v m.H m.m m.H m.mH m.HH 0H m.m o. m.vH m w m.mH mH NH H m w mH m.mH m.H h m.o H m 9H m.mH m m.m oH m.o o N m.HH m.w m.oH NH m.m m.HH NH m CH w m.NH N OH «NH m.OH H wmo no: paw mflo sac and snow 05m “CH Hwo and mxo who Hop Hum m2 3 2 2 3. S o w s 6 m 4 m N a 3.60 .260 .30 .260 .30 .30 .30 .260. goo .260 .30 .260 .260 .30 .30 .30 Hoofim moHoom so chmm Hon—552 opoU Eoumxwm Hoonom an oHdpodHom oodosomohnm HMfiOmHonH mpHmsZuMm 02.3 Ho moHoom so mucmmHofismm UmHmH >9. oo>oH£o< mohoom Ho HoohO Mcmm .HHH> oHan 62 MerrillI used as a sample of "successful mature teachers" fifty-three participants in a science Academic Year Institute sponsored by NSF. Compared to the norm group this sample exhibited a signifi- cantly (1 per cent level) higher Abasement score and a significantly (1 per cent level) lower Exhibition score. At a still more significant level (.01 per cent level) the group under study scored higher on Deference, Order, and Endurance and lower on Heterosexuality. He comments: The evidence seems to indicate that teachers are not highly moti— vated by a strong interest in social service, by powerful nurturant needs, or even by a deep interest in children. Descriptively, the successful teacher groups appear obsequious, eternally patient, painstakingly demanding and with less achievement and individual drive than other professional groups. The secondary school science teachers selected for participation in the ESISC program were compared to the norm groups, and the results are not quite the same. Using a "t" test and adjusting where nece ssary for unequal variances discovered by an Fmax test only the fOIlowing differences were observed. The Deference score was signifi.= cantly higher (5 per cent level) and the Affiliation score significantly lOWer (2 1/2 per cent level). The Endurance, Order, and Exhibition mean scores obtained by the ESISC group are in the same direction from the norms as the other tea”filler groups though not significantly different. The Intraception, SuCCZorance, and Abasement scores are rather closely clustered for all the groups but two unusual differences are noted. The Heterosexuality Scor e of the ESISC group is higher than the norm group, and the Affiliation Scor e is significantly lower as previously mentioned. The Heterosexuality Scor e is in fact significantly higher when compared to both other teacher grOups \ IMerrill, loc. _c_i_t. 21bid., 39. k 7‘“ 63 The ESISC participants then seemed to be more like the college student norms and less like the stereotype teacher on the basis of their Edwards PPS sub-scores. How this difference may affect the subsequent in—service programs is examined in Chapter IV in con— junction with the evaluations made by the elementary teachers. Interviews and Observations of the Secondary School Science Teachers The opportunities afforded the investigator for qualitative appraisal of the secondary school science teachers were many and varied in con- text. The Conference itself afforded very close contact and was supple— mented by the first-round interviews. Correspondence and frequent telephone conversations were carried on throughout the school year. The school visits provided a chance to visit the teachers' classrooms and often to observe an in-service session or an informal gathering of their peers. Impressions were obtained through supervisors, principals, and school superintendents, and finally through observations made at the summary conference and during final interview. The teachers were exceptionally well—liked and respected both by Students and faculty at their home school. As classroom teachers the ESISC participants were reported by their administrators to be doing an outstanding job. They had good relationships with their administrators and Were cognizant of the problems involved in financing the school pro- gran-1 including their own in-service efforts. During the Conference no One Could have been considered less than fully involved in the program, and 1'Iiany spent extra hours in typing drafts and researching teaching idea 8 . The fir st-round interviews asked for their expectations for the C01liil’ig in-service activity. Most of the statements were expressed as ho De 8 and these in turn appeared quite realistic though not ultraconservative. k 64 The undercurrent was one of concern over their ability to arouse ele- mentary teacher interest in science and in motivating teachers to gain further knowledge about certain concepts in science and science teaching. The need to bolster confidence, to help elementary teachers regain their shattered self—esteem after an exposure to college course work in science, and to help teachers see the need for their partici- pation appeared in several of the reports. The remainder of the group stressed the improvement of the elementary group in knowledge of science, in their skill in handling teaching materials, or in their interest in the part science should play in the total curriculum. The complete support of administrators was felt rather strongly by four of the group, and they hoped for increased staff communication as a result of the in-service program. The final interview inquired of the participants: "As an in—service teacher, what did you feel you really accomplished this year 7" The responses were, in general, quite conservative with six saying they had made only spotty contributions in starting a few elementary teachers on the road to self-improvement. Four mentioned that increased interest in the teaching of science was evident and that this seemed a useful out~= come . Two each cited the establishment of a precedent for in—service Work through high school staff members and the breakdown of the "barrier" between elementary and secondary school staff members. Two felt they had made their most significant contribution by getting equipment into actual use in the elementary classrooms. They reported that much of the material purchased under NDEA needed explanation a . . . . nd demonstration to permit its employment for instructional purposes. 65 Summar y The sixteen selected secondary school science teachers were tested using a number of instruments. Within the limitations of each measure they appeared to: 1. have considerable knowledge of science and mathematics but not necessarily more than other NSF institute participants; 2. have established good working relationships in their teaching positions with students, administrators, and fellow teachers; and 3. have personality characteristics unlike some teacher stereotypes and more like college liberal arts students. The rank order of the participants was obtained on each of the following measures: 1. Sequential Tests of Educational Progress Science, Form 1a. 2. Sequential Tests of Educational Progress Mathematics, Form la. 3. The American Council on Education, Psychological Examination 1952 Edition. . The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. . The Miller Analogies Test. . The number of years of teaching experience. 4 5 6 7. The number of years taught in present location. 8. The number of credit hours of college physical science courses. 9 . The fifteen subscales of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. This information is applied to comparisons of the in—service r . . . . p ograms conducted in the Sixteen school systems and is treated in c hapters IV and VI. C HAPT ER IV AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IN-SERVICE PROGRAMS AND CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS Introduction The importance of the background and experience of the person selected for the trainer role in an in-service program is stressed by Miles and Passow who say, "The trainer must be perceived as some- one who is potentially and actually able to provide training assistance to the group. "1 Miles and Passowz go on to point out that the trainer needs to facilitate group development; to share his training responsi- bility with the group; and to maintain liaison with the surrounding organization. In this study the rank order of the secondary school science teachers was determined for a number of characteristics as noted in the previous chapter. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients were computed between these ranks and ranked measures of the e“Si-QCtiveness of the in-service programs. The Relative Effectiveness of the In-Service Programs The determination of the relative effectiveness of an in-service program has been dealt with by Herrick, who points out that, \ N 1Matthew B. Miles and A. Harry Passow, "Training in Skills Tieded for In-Service Education Programs" in ln-Service Education, melfifty—Sixth Yearbook, Part I, the National Society for the Study of uC ation, Henry B. .Nelson, Editor, Chicago, 1957, 347. Zlbid” 348-9. 66 5 .1. ,2... 67 Most programs of in-service education in schools exist for the dual purpose of helping the members of the staff become more competent to deal with their professional roles as teachers and administrators and of improving the quality of the educational program of the school system. It follows, therefore, that the evaluation of change in programs of in—service education should consider the nature and quality of changes in people as individuals and as professional persons and the nature and quality of the changes made in the educational program itself.1 The Elementary Teacher Questionnaire prepared for the ESISC program attempted to provide for the assessment of this dual purpose. The changes in the behavior of the elementary teachers were investigated through a list of science teaching practices involving the teachers' own classroom activities. As noted earlier, the number of additional science teaching practices was recorded as a score for this measure, an ex- tended analysis by individual practice was also made. Coffey and Golden, Z in dealing with the psychology of change in individuals in the NSSE Yearbook In-Service Education, indicate four areas of change for in-service teachers. These four areas represent Changes in knowledge and in skills, in attitudes and values, in the rela— tiOns of individuals to the group, and those changes internalized by the individual such as feelings, motives, and aspirations. The contribution score, derived from responses to Section II of the Elementarl Teacher Questionnaire, represents a measure of the Contl‘ibution made by an in-service program based on these four areas. Of the sixteen items in this section five dealt with knowledge, four with Skills, four with attitudes and the internalized feelings and aspirations of the teachers, and three with individual-group relationships. \ Se 1Virgil E. Herrick, "The Evaluation of Change in Programs of In- I"’ice Education, " In—Service Education, the Fifty—Sixth Yearbook, $3 the National Society for the Study of Education, Henry B. Nelson, 1tOr, Chicago, 1957, 311. Ch zHubert S. Coffey and William P. Golden, Jr. , "Psychology of Y eange Within an Institution, ” In-Service Education, The Fifty-Sixth \Hear book, Part I, the National Society for the Study of Education, nI‘y B. Nelson, Editor, Chicago, 1957, 67—102. M 68 A single scale item, called the overall evaluation score in this study,‘ was also used to gain additional insight into the reactions of elementary teachers to the program. Questions were raised in regard to the relationships between these measures of the relative effectiveness of an in-service program and the elementary teachers' ratings of the secondary science teacher on selected measures. The questions given in Chapter I were used to generate hypotheses and these hypotheses were subsequently tested1 by the use of various statistical methods. Program Effectiveness and Secondary School Science Teacher Characteristics "Is there a significant relationship between the relative effective- ness of the in-service program and any of the following characteristics of the secondary school science teacher: (a) rank on any test adminis- ter ed; (b) nuInber of years of teaching experience; (c) number of credit hour 5 in college physical science courses?" An examination of the data revealed the answers to these questions and a summary appears in Table IX. 1Since there were a number of tied ranks, corrections following Siégel [Sidney Siegel, Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral .Scle\hces_(New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), 206-210], were made for all computations. The statistic selected for testing was the? Spearman coefficient rs, sometimes called rho. This statistic, when N 13 10 or larger, may be tested for significance according to Kendall . G. Kendall, Rank Correlation Methods (London: Charles Griffin and Company, Ltd. , 1948), 47-48], by means of the following relation: t _r N—Z N—z‘ S 1—rsz the permit rapid determination of approximate levels of significance for e Computed statistics, values of t at several levels of significance w , . ere substituted and the corresponding rS values determined. I“ 69 Table IX. Spearman Correlation Coefficients Derived from Comparisons of Ranked Scores on Certain Measures of the ESISC Participants With Ranked Measures of In-Service Program Effectiveness Mea sure of Effectivenes s Mean Median Number Additional Test or Contribution Overall Teaching Other Measure Score Evaluation Practices STEP Math. -.2811 .3384 —.O918 STEP Science -.4377I -. 0075 .0414 ACEQ .2888 .2282 .2218 ACEL .3363 .1965 .2411 ACET .1917 .2974 .2373 Miller .0906 =.0861 .6833 MTAI =.7o4o3 -. 1896 .1779 Years Teaching -.53062 -.2753 .0720 Years in Location -.7o403 -. 3137 .0061 Hours of Science .0489 .2125 -.3529 1 . . . Slgnificant at 5 per cent level; r > .4259 not at 2. 5 per cent level 1' < .4888. 2 . Slgnificant at 2. 5 per cent level r > .4888 not at 1 per cent level 1‘ > .5742. 3 . Slgllificant beyond 0.05 per cent level, r > . 7428. 70 Those measures significantly related to the Contribution Score (above the 5 per cent level) are the Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Science Test 1a, the years of teaching experience, the years in the location, and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. As might be expected, the intercorrelation between the years of teaching experience and the number of years in location is quite high. To restate the associations found: for the secondary school science teacher operating the in-service program who had many years of teaching experience in location, a high Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory score and a high Sequential Test of Educational Progress Science score, the contribution of the program to the elementary teachers tended to be highly rated. None of the measures showed a significant relationship with the overall evaluation score. Only the number of hours of college level physical science Courses completed by the secondary school science teacher appeared Significantly related to the number of additional science teaching practices reported. The relationship indicates that the more science Course work the in-service trainer had completed, the more he seemed to bring about changes in teaching practices among the in-service teachers. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and Elementary Teacher Ratings The elementary classroom teachers who participated in the in— SeI‘vice program were asked to rate the secondary school science teachers on their performances as in-service instructors. Five items, Section IV, of the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire, were used. These scale items permitted responses from 1 to 5, not assumed to be nteI‘val diViSions. The questionnaire 1tems attempted to assess the k 71 elementary teachers‘ reactions to the following characteristics of the secondary science teachers: 1. His presentation of in-service background material. 2. His effectiveness during activities with the in-service teachers. 3. His ability to establish rapport with the in-service teachers. 4. His apparent recognition of the teaching problems in elemen— tary science instruction. 5. His rank among previous in-service instructors of the elementary teacher. For all five of the items a rank correlation coefficient significant at the 5 per cent level was obtained when compared to the abasement score. Significant relationships are also noted for some items when compared to the nurturance, heterosexuality, agression, achievement, autonomy, and introspection score ranks. A complete summary of the items significant at selected levels is given along with Table X. As noted in a previous chapter, studies by Jackson and Gubal and by Merrill2 lead to a teacher profile that includes high deference, order and endurance and low intraception, heterosexuality, exhibition, and Succorance. Compared to norm groups, the ESISC parrticipants were higher on deference and lower on affiliation. Neither of these scales correlated Sigl’lificantly with the five rating scales of the Elementary Teacher \Que S tionnaire. \ 1 1Philip W. Jackson and Egon G. Guba, "The Need Structure of $‘_Service Teachers -— An Occupational Analysis, " The School Review, LXV r11"’ersity of Chicago (Summer 1957), 176-192. S . 2Reed M. Merrill, "Comparison of Education Students, Successful Cler1<:e Teachers and Educational Administrators on the Edwards PPS, " J %1 of Educational Research, Vol. 54, No. 1 (September 1960), 38. 72 Table X. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients for Edwards Personal Preference Schedule Median Ranks and Ranked Elementary Teacher Ratings on Various Questionnaire Items Que sti onnair e Item PPS Scale 1 2 3 4 5 ach .1496 .3172 .3394 .45581 .4710x def .0490 .0643 .0074 .0215 .1162 0rd .2368 .0742 .1172 .0490 .0178 exh .2900 .0882 .0400 .3620 .3642 aut .54522 .54612 .3233 .2912 .3296 afi .1498 .1051 .0814 .1948 .3811 int .42711 .2208 .3776 .1204 .3249 suc .2353 .1793 .0015 .3549 .0015 doni .0526 .2963 .0221 .2439 .2173 aba .44781 .63734 .47051 .66694 .47711 nur .51892 .52362 .3112 .47051 .59163 Chg .1790 .0463 .3968 .0667 .1297 end .1369 .0430 .3521 .1674 .2830 het .43521 .3695 .6417‘ .3806 .59353 agg .2594 .54702 .43221 .3359 .52902 \ 1 - significant at 5 per cent level; r = .4259, not at 2. 5 per cent level; r u r .4888. 2 . Slgnificant at 2. 5 per cent level; r = .4888, not at 1 per cent level; 1' ‘ ‘ .5742. Significant at the l per cent level; r = . 5742, not at 0. 5 per cent level; 1‘ ‘ ‘ .6254. 4 . Slgl’lificant at 0. 5 per cent level; r = .6254, not at 0. 05 per cent level; r \ ‘ .7428. 73 Descriptively the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule scales that do correlate significantly give the following impressions of the teachers: 1. His presentation is acceptable if he is somewhat unconventional, feels inferior in some respects, is able to analyze the problems of others and is anxious to help, especially to help those of the opposite sex. 2. He appears effective in activities for essentially the same reasons with the addition of needing some ability to defend his own point of View. 3. The establishment of good rapport with elementary teachers seems related to some willingness to accept blame and superiority from others, an interest in the opposite sex, and the ability to attack contrary points of view. 4. His ability to recognize the problems of elementary science teaching appears related to his desire to do his best; he should still be able to accept the superiority of others and maintain a desire to give them help. 5. His rank among other in-service instructors seems to depend on a composite of the characteristics previously mentioned: the desire to do his best, to remain inferior to others, to want to give help, to have interest in the opposite sex, and to support an argument against attack. The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and Elementary Teacher Ratings The most significant relationship noted in the previous chapter was 13 . . etVVeen the score on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and the c . . . . Ontl‘lbution score from the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire. 74 There is interest in the relationship between this attitude scale and the five ratings just discussed. The results of the computation of Spearman rS values for these ranked data appear in Table XI. None of the values are significant at the 10 per cent level. Table XI. Spearman Rank Order Correlation Coefficients for Ranked Data from the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Scores of ESISC Participants and Five Questionnaire Items Questionnaire Item rs l .1413 2 . 0074 3 . 2150 4 .1615 5 . 0428 School Administrator and Elementary Teacher Ratings The school administrator, next to the participating classroom tea-Cher, probably worked most closely with the secondary science teacher. The planning and operation of an in-service program requires Considerable scheduling and some budgetary considerations that come Witl'lin the administrator’s responsibility. Five rating items, identical to those in the questionnaire for eleI'hentary teachers, were included in the ESISC Administrator \Questionnaire. The relationship between the responses of administrators and the responses of teachers in regard to the same secondary science 75 teacher was sought. For the five items the elementary teacher responses grouped by school were examined along with the administrator question- naires. The most common response of the teachers, or the mode value, was entered into a table with the administrator's response. The adminis— trator's value could be higher, lower, or the same as the value selected by the largest number of elementary teachers. A summary of these comparisons appears in Table XII. The ratings of the administrators on the effectiveness of the secondary science teacher during activities with the teachers and his ability to establish rapport agree quite well with those of the elementary teachers themselves. The participants' appreciation of the problems of teaching elementary science and his rank among other in-service instructors are not apparently viewed the same by teachers and administrators. Number of Administrator Ratings in the Categories of Agree- Table XII. ment with Elementary Teacher Ratings on Various Items Questionnair e Item R elationship Noted 1 2 3 4 5 \ Administrator and teacher mode common 8 Administrator higher than teacher mode Administrator lower tl'lan teacher mode 4 6 6 \ 76 Summary A framework for the evaluation of the relative effectiveness of the in-service programs in physical science was established and an Elementary Teacher Questionnaire developed. Spearman rank order correlations were derived for pairs of ranked data covering the selected characteristics of the secondary school science teachers and the measures of in-service program effectiveness. Significant correlation coefficients were obtained be- tWe en the contribution scores and the Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Science form la; the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory; the amount of teaching experience of the secondary school science teacher, and the number of years he had taught in the cooperating school System. A significant relationship was noted between the number of additional science teaching practices reported by the elementary teachers and the number of semester hours of physical science course work com- Pleted by the secondary school science teacher. The scores on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule scales Were ranked and compared with ratings made by the elementary teachers. Certain of the scales yielded significant correlation co— efficfients with the various ratings. The significant scales seem to indi(:ate that a secondary school science teacher with high Abasement, l\rurturance, and Heterosexuality scores is highly regarded as an in— Ser\’ice instructor by elementary classroom teachers participating in an iIII—service program. The relationship between the ratings made by participating elerloientary teachers and similar ratings made by the school adminis- tratOrs was noted and the agreement between these two groups observed. In half of the schools there was agreement on three of five rating scales. 77 Little agreement was observed on the other two scales. Elementary teachers and administrators agreed most often on the level of pre- sentation of the in-service program; least often on the participant's ability to recognize the problems of elementary classroom teaching. CHAPTER V THE COOPERATING SCHOOL SYSTEMS Introduction The impact of the ESISC program in a given school system is likely to be augmented or tempered by certain aspects of that school system. School districts and even individual buildings often exhibit marked differences in staff, curricula, facilities, and administration. Thus, some part of the total contribution made by the secondary school science teachers' in—service programs is expected to be a function of factors relating to the cooperating school systems. This chapter presents data collected on certain gross features 0f the sixteen cooperating school systems and the relationship between these features and the school mean contribution score. -Much of the information was provided by a School Survey Form developed for the ESISC evaluation and completed in most cases by the secondary school ScZience'teachers in the cooperating systems. - Items related to budgets and the level of elementary teachers' participation in in—service activities were included with the Administrator and Elementary @her Questionnaire. Specifically, the areas investigated were as follows: the number of elementary teachers; the concurrent in-service activities of the elementary teachers; the provisions made in time and r“money for the in-service science program; and the extent of the partici— pation in the ESISC activity and certain other activities by the elemen- tar y teacher s . 78 79 The Number of Elementary Teachers in the Cooperating School Systems The total number of teachers of grades K-6 in the sixteen cooperating systems was 2127, as reported by the school administra- tors. The administrators also reported that 990 elementary class— room teachers were served by the ESISC activities; this represents approximately 46 per cent of the total group. The total is somewhat misleading, however, since in two of the largest systems a procedure different from that in the remaining schools was followed. In one large district the secondary school science teacher worked with a small group of building level science-resource teachers throughout the year and occasionally presented one—day workshops for larger groups of teachers. The other large district employed building representatives, on a standing committee for science, as assistant in— service teachers. This group met regularly with the ESISC partici— Pant and subsequently conducted meetings for the entire elementary staff. Table XIII gives the data on participation by cooperating school Systems. It would appear that if adjustments are made for the two large systems, a secondary science teacher works with fifteen to tIlil‘ty teachers during the first year. The school mean contribution scores were determined from the E\leinentary Teacher Questionnaire responses and ranked by school System. This ranking was then compared with the rank order of school systems by total number of K-6 teachers reported. The school mean Contribution scores, ranks assigned, and other data appear in Table XIV. The Spearman rank order correlation coefficient derived for this com— pari son is .4412 which is significant between the five per cent and two and one-half per cent level. Apparently in the larger systems the ESISC program is able to make a greater contribution, on the average, 80 Table XIII. Data from the ESISC School Administrator Questionnaire on the Expected, Potential, and Actual Participation in the In-Service Programs Ranked by School System Number Total Ranked Total School Expected to Number of by Total Reported Participate K-6 Teachers Number Participating 1 3O 31 I3 31 2 20 311 2 311* 3 81 87 6 O 4 14 110 5 l7 5 35 40 9 13 6 58 303 3 250* 7 18 62 8 16 8 30 134 4 15 9 26 38 10 38 10 24 24 15 24 ll 12 28 18 I4 12 ? 800 1 130 13 62 68 7 60 14 10 22 16 22 15 43 36 ll 22 16 25 33 12 23 Totals 488 2127 XXX 990 * . . . These school systems employed the in—serv1ce education program in ways different from the common pattern. 81 Table XIV. School Mean Contribution Scores and Assigned Ranks by School System School Code School Mean Contribution Rank onScore \OCDKIOU'IhPWNi—t \ 7? 12.480 16.190 14.375 7.666 12.333 10.285 17.090 13.166 5.888 12.000 17.333 13.100 12.833 12.636 14.400 10 3 16 5 14 11 13 2 6 15 12 1 theme] “School 3 will rank 16 since 32 contribution is reported. 82 to the elementary classroom teachers it serves. In smaller systems where the program serves a greater proportion of the elementary school staff, the contribution score is, on the average, lower. Perhaps the administrator of the smaller school system can more easily contact the elementary teachers and directly urge them to attend an in-service program. If a fair proportion of the staff were involved in the program, any non-participants would be more readily recognized in the smaller systems. Large school voluntary programs might allow the elementary teachers more freedom to select an in-service activity on the basis of personal interest. The ESISC In-Service Program and Concurrent Teacher Activities Teachers at- all levels are subjectedto demands for improve— ment in a variety of areas. The elementary teacher, because of the nature of the assignment, needs such broad preparation that almost any field could be profitably pursued. Professional obligations also require a share of the teachers' time, and the institutional demands of the school itself must be met. The addition of an in-service pro- gram for elementary teachers to any school schedule is likely to produce some conflicts with existing activities. To ascertain the effects of this factor on the secondary school science teachers' attempts to schedule a program, the following investigations were made. During the summer conference interview the sixteen partici- pants indicated that in-service programs were very common in six of the COOperating school systems; rare in three systems; and limited essentially to curriculum studies in the remaining seven. At the end of the school year, seven indicated practically no interference 83 with other programs and the rest reported various difficulties in dealing with the problem of direct competition for an elementary teacher's time. The school administrators reported that teachers' meetings, workshops, curriculum revisions, committees, and professional activities all require a part of the classroom teachers' time. In response to a questionnaire item they reported the information shown in Table XV. The elementary classroom teachers were also asked to com- plete a questionnaire item concerning their in-service activities during the current school year. Table XVI summarizes the responses in two categories; those who participated in the ESISC program and those who did not. A comparison of the two groups shows that they are quite similar in most respects. Approximately half of the group active in the physical science program indicated no other in—service work during the year. Of the remainder, nearly a third were participating in two or more other activities. For the group not participating in ESISC programs, about one—half report no in-service work, and again about one-third of the remaining group are quite active. Nearly one teacher in every five who responded was taking or had completed a college credit course during the school year. Approximately one in ten was serving on a curriculum study com— mittee of some kind. It would appear that some attention might be given to the elementary teachers' problem of selecting the most appropriate in-service activity. School administrators are probably the group to accept responsibility for this function, but the secondary school science teacher might well be prepared to assist through his in- service contacts. As Kinnick has stated, 84 Table XV. Summary of Responses to Section 1B of the ESISC School Administrator Questionnaire Number of Administrators Checking Each Category Activities Other Than Number of Teachers Participating ESISC Most About 1/2 Very Few No Response Fall pre—school 8 1 2 5 Teachers' meetings 15 0 1 0 Curriculum Study 5 4 4 3 In-Service Training 8 1 3 4 Extension Classes 2 3 4 7 Workshops 3 3 3 7 Table XVI. In-Service Experiences of Elementary Classroom Teachers in the Cooperating School Systems During the 1962—63 Academic Year In—Service Experiences in Participating Non—Participating Addition to the ESISC Program Elementary Elementary During the 1962—63 School Year Teachers Teachers 11 =’ 264 n =’ 147 No. % No. ‘70 On-Campus Course 20 7.58 16 10.88 Extension Course 28 10.61 15 10.20 Local In—Service Program 43 16. 29 31 21. O9 Televised Course 10 3.79 3 2.04 Curriculum Study Group 35 13. 26 10 6. 80 Professional Committee 27 10.23 17 11.56 Other Experiences 26 9.85 21 14.29 Reporting 2 or More of the Above 44>:< 16. 66 25>:< 17. 01 Reporting None 140 53.03 72 48.98 Totals 264>l< 147 :filncluded in total by appearance in individual items. 85 An interested, sympathetic administrator is necessary to the success of all programs of in-service education. Without such an administrator, the most elaborately planned in-service experiences produce little growth in individual teachers. The particular administrators in the ESISC cooperating school seem,- in general, to have provided just such leadership. More than half were perceived by the secondary school science teachers as being very cooperative, interested, and willing to support most projects initiated by teachers. Three ESISC participants went beyond this to say that past relations had led them to expect projects for instructional improve— ments to be instigated by their administration. The Provisions Made by the Cooperating School Systems for the ESISC In=Service Program The school systems were asked to make application for the pro— gram simultaneously with the secondary school science teacher. This application included a commitment to use the secondary science teacher in an in—service program for elementary classroom teachers and to provide him with the equivalent of one free period per day for prepara— tion and work in such a program. Ten systems fulfilled this commitment, five did not, and one paid a small extra stipend to the secondary school science teacher. An attempt was made to determine the effect of these outcomes on the in-service programs. The school mean contribution scores were examined and placed in two categories; those at or above the grand mean contribution score and those below. A 2 x 2 contingency table shown in Table XVI was constructed and using Yates correction the value of‘)(2 determined. With such a rough measure there was no reason to reject IB. Jo Kinnick, ”The Teachers and the In—Service Education Pro— gram, " In-Service Education, the Fifty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 1, Nelson B. Henry, Editor, Chicago, 1957, 132. 86 Table XVII. Four-Fold Table of Systems Providing and Not Providing Released Time for the Secondary School Science Teacher and the Relationship Between the School Mean Contribution Score and a Grand Mean Contribution Score Schools Classified School Mean School Mean On Provision of A_1_)ove Grénd Mean BeEw Gréand Mean Released Time X X X X Totals Schools Providing Released 3 7 10 Time for the Secondary Teacher Schools Not Providing 2 4 6 Released Time Totals 5 11 16 12:1.7 Xf95=3.4 H: of independence not rejected at the 5% level. the hypothesis of independence. In other words, the absence of released time for the secondary school teachers made no difference in the position of the school mean contribution score relative to the grand mean. It may be that the secondary school teachers prepared for the inwservice programs by spending hours outside the school day. Though budgeting procedures vary in the sixteen cooperating sys— tems, an attempt to assess the cost of the inwservice program in a local school district was made. The Administrators Questionnaire, Section II, requested the amounts spent on released time, special equipment, supplies, library materials, and other expenses. Table XVII summarizes the responses made in that section. A Spearman rank order correlation coefficient derived from the ranked school contribution scores and the total amount spent was not significant at the 5 per cent level. The expense reported for released Table XVIII. 87 Summary of Administrators‘ Responses to Certain Items Related to ESISC Expenses Ranked by School System Released Equip— School Time ment Supplies Library Other Totals Rank 1 $ 600 $ 25 $ $150 $ $ 775 7 2 1220 15 1235 5 3 600 600 10 4 100 100 12.5 5 500 100 25 1565 3 6 1440 100 25 1565 3 7 80 80 14 8 100 100 12.5 9 700 100 150 950 6 10 -0— 16 11 900 100 100 100 100 1300 4 12 4000 200 30 4230 l 13 20 20 40 15 14 550 550 14 15 660 660 9 16 3383 129 30 3542 2 88 time is obviously the largest single item, but most schools also pro- vided some equipment and supplies for the in-service activity. An unsuccessful attempt was made, as a part of the school survey, to classify the cooperating school systems on the basis of the equip- ment and facilities available for elementary science instruction. A twelve item checklist, derived from published lists of suggested elementary school science equipment was prepared and completed by the secondary school science teachers. Data was reported on over five hundred classrooms in fifty buildings from twelve of the sixteen cooperat- ing school systems. Twenty-one descriptive statements about school science facilities in seven categories were also prepared and included with the school survey form. The participants were asked to indicate which statements most accurately described the available facilities in each building surveyed. Neither of the measures produced data which could be further analyzed. The checklist took much too small a sample of the possible equipment to enable differences between schools to be observed. The data collected using the twelve item checklist indicated that very little equipment was available in any of the cooperating school systems. The reports on facilities involved the direct judgment of the secondary school science teacher and the variations between these judgments could not be determined. Further study of possible ways to compare school systems, buildings, or classrooms on the basis of available instructional materials is apparently needed. Summary The school administrators reported that of the 2100 elementary classroom teachers in the sixteen systems approximately 45 per cent Were served by ESISC innservice activities. The relationship between 89 the school mean contribution score and the number of elementary class- room teachers was found significant above the five per cent level. Smaller systems, though frequently involving a higher proportion of the elementary staff, did not make, on the average, as great a cone tribution to the classroom teachers. In the schools studied a wide variety of competing programs exist, and elementary teachers appear to be involved in extensive inoservice acthdty. bdostteachers who reportedcmher experiencesindicatedthat they were college credfi:courses or other localin-service progranis. Not all of the school systems provided released time for the secondary schoolscienceteachersto conductthein—servnxaprogranh The relationship between the provision of released time and the schoolrnean contrflnnion score was notsignfiicanh 'The sixteen schocfl adrninistrators reported costs of operation for individual in—service programs which varied from a negligible amount to several thousand dollars. No significant relationship was noted be- tween the amount spent and the school mean contribution score. Since the largest single expenditures were for the released time of secondary science teachers and elenaentary'classrooniteachers, perhaps this factoris notas hnportanttothe success ofa_progranias arecnher factors. CHAPTER VI THE ELEMENTARY CLASSROOM TEACHERS Introduction The classroom teachers who attended in—service sessions in the sixteen participating school systems were the most directly affected by the in—service efforts planned and conducted during the ESISC program. It was for the improvement of their background knowledge that the program was designed, and the contributions of the program were made largely to these teachers. Though other members of a given elementary staff might note changes in the instructional activities of these teachers, it was the reactions of the participating elementary teachers which seemed most cogent to the problem. A questionnaire was prepared and administered in a group meeting of the elementary teachers at each cooperating school system. The investigator gave verbal directions for each section of the form from a standard set of notes at every meeting and encouraged non- participating teachers to answer as many items as seemed applicable to them. The response of the teachers to this approach appeared to be one of sincere willingness to cooperate in the evaluation of the ESISC program. The gross number of questionnaires completed and returned by the elementary teachers was 469. Of this number 263 were partici- pating teachers and 147 were non-participating teachers. The re— mainder were non—teachers or did not indicate participation status. 90 91 The elementary classroom teachers varied in experience from those with over thirty years experience to first year teachers. They taught at grade levels ranging from kindergarten to sixth grade. The in—service program in physical science was planned to up-grade the elementary teachers' background knowledge in this area of the curriculum and fifteen of the sixteen separate in—service programs appear to have made some positive contribution to this objective. The sixteenth school system did not continue the program for the entire school year following the summer conference. The first parts of this chapter deal with the reactions of various segments of the elementary school teacher sample to their in—service programs. Comparisons are made between the participating and non- participating elementary classroom teachers on their years of teaching experience, their reported overall evaluation of the ESISC program, and the number of additional teaching practices they indicated on the questionnaire. The responses of the participating teachers who repre— sent the various grade levels are compared on overall evaluation, contribution score, and the number of additional teaching practices reported. Four categories of teaching experience are used to compare the reactions of all participating classroom teachers to the program and the relationships between the measures of effectiveness developed are investigated. The last section of the chapter deals with information gathered on the participation of the elementary classroom teacher in other types of in-service activity and the responses obtained on a set of free response items at the end of the ESISC Elementag Teacher Question— naire. 92 Participating and Non-Participating Elementary Teachers Not all of the elementary classroom teachers were active in the in-service program in all of the school systems studied. Most of the programs were operated on a voluntary basis with meetings held after regular school hours. A comparison of the participating and non-participating teachers on three measures was made to as- certain what differences might exist between the two groups. A summary of the tests appears in Tables XIX, XX, and XXI. Table XIX. Means and Variances of the Years of Experience Reported by Participating and Non-Participating Elementary Teachers Source of Data Mean Experience Variance Participating Elementary Teachers 12. 136 years 83. 015 Now-Participating Elementary Teachers 7. 75 years 63. 306 t: 2.99 t.995= 2.57 Ratio of Variances = 1. 3113 F.95(30,400) 1.49 H: 111 — 112 = 0, rejected at the 0.05 per cent level>i< >«The following null hypothesis was tested using. a standard"-'t"-test on the means: there is no significant difference between the mean years of experience reported by participating and non-participating elemen- tary classroom teachers. 93 Table XX. Four-Fold Table of Frequencies and Proportions for Participation and Median Overall Evaluation Score At X.50 or Above X.5o below Totals Participating Elementary . 794 . 206 Teachers f = 197 f = 51 248 Non- Participating . 607 . 393 Elementary Teachers f = 17 f = 11 28 Overall f = 214 f = 62 276 70’- = 5.062 X3975 = 5.0 H: Independence, rejected at 2. 5 per cent leve1>i< >“The hypothesis tested is one of the independence of the two groups and the two positions relative to the grand median score. A 2 x 2 contingency table is developed and independence tested with the chi- square statistic. It would appear from these results that, (1) The number of added science teaching practices was not related to participation in the in-service program. (2) The over-all evaluation of the program by non-participants tended to be higher than that of the actual partici— pating elementary teachers, based on the very small number of respondents, and (3) Participation by more experienced teachers tends to be greater than that of less experienced classroom teachers. The method used to arrive at the number of additional teaching practices reported consisted of summing the responses "last year" and subtracting this total from the sum of the responses "this year. " Each item described a teaching practice selected for its possible 94 Table XXI. Four-Fold Table of Proportions for Participation and Median Number of Additional Science Teaching Practices Reported At X.50 or below Above X, so Participating Elementary Teachers .561 .439 Non— Participating Elementary Teachers . 649 . 351 Overall . 591 .409 7B — 2.752 7&2 95 = 3. 8 H: Independence, not rejected at 5 per cent level * “‘The hypothesis tested is that the median score for additional teaching practices is independent of participation. Though a larger proportion of participating teachers are above the grand median, the chi square test revealed no significant difference at the 5 per cent level. contribution to the elementary science curriculum and the elementary teachers were asked to check either "last year, " ”this year, " or both. A response indicated that the practice described by the.item was employed in the classroom. The masking of individual items is an apparent fault of the score. In addition, teachers who responded to very few of the items and teachers who gave both responses to many items are not distinguish— able. A redesign of the method for treating this data was needed so that the individual responses could be studied. An extended analysis was conducted and the results are described in Chapter VII. 95 Elementary Teachers fromi Different Grade Levels A. The Contribution Scores The contribution scores for all teachers participating in the in— service programs were arranged in a frequency distribution and a X2 test of normality applied. The value derived from below 7(7‘ 95 and thus. the distribution can be said to approximate the normal curve. A mean score Can therefore be derived from these scores and for sample means obtained for parts of the larger group. A useful technique for examining a hypothesis concerning more than one mean is the analysis of variance. This method requires, in addition to the assumption of normality, that the unknown population variances not differ except by chance variation. Grade level means and variances were computed and an Fmax test applied .to the variances. The results of this test give no reason to rejectthehypothesis: f1: = 07% = 0);. = (i. . . = 0’2. The analysis of variance is given in Table XXII. To identify the grade level or levels contributing to this significant difference of means, the best available test, according to McNemar, is one developed by Scheffé. 1 Examination of the data leads to the testing of the lower elementary grade levels, K, 1, and 2 against the upper grade levels, 3, 4, 5,. and 6. The derived difference in these two groups exceeds the product from the Scheffé method at the 5 per cent level of significance. Table XXIII gives the means of the contribution scores by grade level. 1Taking a level of significance equal to . 05, the 5 per cent level, it was found that means or groups of means should differ by at least [(7 - 1)F6, 2421453) or 6(2. 141) = 3.58452 to be significant where s2 is the sampling error variance for the difference of interest. Quoted £90m Quinn McNemar, Third Edition Psychological Statistics (New York: Johnwney and Sons,'.1nc'.‘, 1962), 286. T 96 Table XXII. Analysis of Variances of ContributionScores for Elementary. Teachers of Various Grade Levels Sum of Degrees of Mean Source of Variation Squares Freedom Square F . F.95 Between Means 316.66 6 52.78 18. 79 4.38 Within Groups 679. 61 242 2. 8 1 Total 996. 27 248 RejectH: Hk=H1=HZ=° . . =u6 at the 5 per cent level Table XXIII. Ranked Grade Level Mean Contribution Scores and Number of Participating Teachers Grade Level Mean Contribution Score Number of Teachers 1 11.62 34 K 12.15 1 20 2 12.61 38 4 13. 50 50 6 14. 06 V 34 3 14.18 38 5 14. 20 35 1Bracketed group significantly different from remaining levels at 5 per cent level. 97 B. The Overall Evaluation-Score Since there are five possible scale value’sfor the overall evaluation score and six grade levels, it might seem that a 5 x 6 contingency should be used. The distribution of responses, however, was such that very few "five" scores were noted. The "five" and" "four" scores were there- fore'merged to assure expected values of at least 5 in each cell. The 4 x 6contingency table thus developed yielded a chi-square of 11. 811. There seems no reason to reject the hypothesis of independence for the two factors since 12.95 = 32. 9 with 21 degrees of freedom. The summary appears in Table XXIV. Table XXIV. Contingency Table of the Response Frequencies on the Overall Evaluation Item for K-6 Participating Elementary Teacher-s Overall Evaluation Response _~ Grade Level 1 2 3 4 and 5 Total K 8 3 4 6 21 1 7 10 10 11 38 2 8 9 16 13 46 3 12 ll 14 7 44 4 14 12 18 10 54 5 10 12 9 8 39 6 11 6 9 8 34 Total 70 6 3 80 63 276 The elementary teachers from a given grade level did not appear to rate the program higher or lower thanthe teachers from other grade levels. 98 C. The'Number of Additional Teaching. Practices Reported A 2 x 6 Contingency Table, Table XXV, was constructed to determine the dependence of the frequencies of teachers above and below the median number of additional teaching practices at different grade levels. The chi—square value derived for this table was 11. 106. This is not significant at the 5 per cent level but is significant at the 10 per cent level. The converse, then, is that with a probability between 90 and 95 per cent, the number of additional teaching practices and the grade levels are not independent. Table XXV. Contingency Table of the Number of Teachers K-6 at or Below and Above the Median Number of Additional Teach- ing Practices Reported Position of Median K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Totals Above X.50 12 23 22 26 26 ‘21 26 156 At orBelow 30,0 23 27 45 38 42 35 16 226 Totals 35 50 67 64 68 56 42 382 76,5 (6): 12.6 76:11.11 -2 __ 7690 (6) _ 10.6 H1: No reason to reject hypothesis of inde- pendence at the 5 per cent level H2: Reject independence at the 10 per cent level 99 The Years of Teaching Experience of Elementary Teachers The relationship between the amount of teaching experience and the reaction to the 1111E service program was examined for the partici- pating elementary teachers. Using IBM card- sorting techniques the responses of teachers on given items were sorted by response into a two-way frequency table. All possible combinations were thus available prior to collapse of the data by an appropriate grouping of responses. This method is somewhat more time consuming but represents the most efficient use of the data. After the frequencies had been determined, the frequency tables were reduced to insure maximum cell populations. Chi-square values were derived for each table and the significance of these values determined. Tables XXVI, XXVII, and XXVIII, show the frequencies of responses on the overall evaluation, the contribution score, and number of additional teaching practices for elementary teachers with different amounts of experience. In no case did the derived chi-square exceed the value necessary for rejection of the hypothesis of independence. Teaching experience does not, therefore, appear to affect the reactions of elementary classroom teachers to the in-service programs. Table XXVI. Frequency of Teachers in Four Categories of Teaching Experience and Their Responses on the Overall Evalu— ation Item Years of Teaching 4 Response to Overall Evaluation Item Experience 1 2 3 4 and 5 O - 5 25 18 18 21 82 6 -13 15 20 26 16 77 14 -21 10 7 12 6 35 22 and over 19 9 18 8 54 Totals 69 54 74 51 248 X395 (9) = 16. 9 X‘?’ = 9.165 H: No reason to reject null hypothesis at the 5 per cent level 100 Table XXVII. Frequency of Teachers in Four Categories of Teaching Experience and Their Contribution Scores Teaching Experience Contribution Score 0-5 6-11 12-17 18-23 24 and over 0 - 5 16 16 24 21 8 85 6 -13 13 20 28 16 3 80 14 -21 5 7 9 7 3 31 22 and over 4 16 24 11 6 55 Totals 38 53 85 55 20 251 .’-—----—--—----------------——---—--—--‘---------—--------—------. 71095 (131': 21.03 7(_'.2 = 10.011 H: No reason to reject null hypothesis at the 5 per cent level Table XXVIII. Frequency of Teachers in Four Categories of Teaching Experience and the Number of Additional Teaching Practices They Reported Teaching Experience Number of Additional Teachi_ng Practices Below 0 0-2 3-6 7-10 Above 10 O - 5 years i 5 14 35 73 9 86 6 - 13 6 25 26 19 9 85 14 - 21 1 14 10 9 0 34 22 and over 4 8 23 15 7 57 Totals 16 61 94 66 25 262 7B,, (12) = 21.03 7(2 = 16.963 H: No reason to reject null hypothesis at the 5 per cent level 101 Relationships AmongiMeasures of Effectiveness of the In-SerVice‘Programs Following the basic technique described inthe preceding section,- two-way frequency distributions were developed for three relationships among the selected measures of effectiveness. The contribution score was compared with the number of additional teaching practices and the overall evaluation score, and these two measures were subsequently compared with each other. Tables XXIX, XXX, and- XXXI summarize this procedure. A significant (5 per cent level) chi—square, indicating that the two items are not independent, was found for the comparison of the contribu- tion score and the number of additional science teaching practices. A very significant (beyond the 0.5 per cent level) relationship was noted between the overall evaluation and the contribution score. Contingency coefficients were then determined for these relationships, the first gave a value for C = . 247 and the second. gave C = .498. The remaining relationship between the number of additional teaching practices and the overall evaluation score was not significant at the 5 per cent level. The three measures, then, tend to measure similar factors or are eliciting similar response patterns from the elementary classroom teachers. Table XXIX. Frequency of Contribution Scores in Three Categories and the Number of Additional Teaching Practices Reported Additional Teaching Contribution Scores Practices Reported 0-8 9—17 18 and over Below 0 7 8 5 20 0 - 2 18 47 15 54 3 - 6 25 47 18 9O 7 - 10 6 39 18 63 Above 10 6 12 12 3O Totals 62 127 68 257 102 Table XXX. Frequency of Contribution Scores in Three Categories and the Overall Evaluation Scale Responses Overall Evaluation Contribution Scores Scores 0-8 9- 17 18 and. over 1 6 21 39 66 2 2 31 23 56 3 20 46 9 75 4 and 5 25 19 3 47 Totals 53 117 74 244 Table XXXI. Frequency of Overall Evaluation Scale Responses and the Number of Additional Teaching Practices Reported Additional Teaching Overall Evaluation Score Practices Reported l 2 3 4 and 5 Below 0 2 5 5 5 17 O - 2 7 13 21 14 55 3 - 6 25 17 31 16 89 7 - 10 24 16 13 11 64 Above 10 8 7 5 4 24 Totals 66 5‘8 75 50 249 103 The Most Important Contribution andthe Most Serious Shortcoming of the PrOgram as‘Noted by the Elementary Teachers Three free response items were provided at the end of the teacher questionnaire for comments by the elementary. teachers. Two specified the types of response and one was open to "other comments. " A majority of the participating elementary. teacher sample completed one or both of the directed questions, but very few gave any open statements. The non-participating teachers, with very few exceptions, gave no response to any of these items. The responses were individually read and recorded and. then grouped into categories of similar content. This procedure revealed nine "most important contributions" and ten "most serious short- comings. " These categories were arranged according to the frequency of a given response by school system andthe tabulated data is shown in Tables XXXII and XXXIII. The most frequent contribution cited was the gathering of new information in the physical sciences, and the most frequently mentioned shortcoming recognized the demands on the time of all persons involved in the program. Some of the "shortcomings" noted by elementary teachers-would require an. entirely different program. Sixteen teachers from three school systems, responded that the program should have been provided for the elementary pupils rather thanfor classroom teachers. This response was also noted during many school visits and is probably not an idea held exclusively by the teachers sampled in this study. Though it may be convenient for the elementary classroom teacher to delegate the teaching of science to a specialist, Ginther1 reported that pupil 1John R. Ginther, "Achievement in Sixth Grade Science Associated With Two Instructional Roles of Science Consultants, " Journal of Edu— cational Research 57 (September, 1963), 28. 104 Table XXXII. Elementary Classroom Teacher Response to Questionnaire Item Regarding the Most Important Contribution of ESISC By School System SCHOOL _ Comment ,, l 2 3 4 5 1. New information about 3 6 0 10 0 science, stimulation of interest 2. The information on 7 O O 0 0 local and other resources for teaching science 3. The equipment and O O O O 2 materials obtained through in-service program 4. The help received in 5 O 0 O O preparing for class presentations in science 5. Specific sessions (the 2 1 1 0 O atom, space and astronomy and chemistry mentioned) 6. Provision of an able 0 0 0 O 7 consultant to help the teacher 7. The precedent for other 2 ' 0 O 0 6 in-service programs 8. Meeting with other 0 3 1 O 0 elementary teachers to discuss common problems 9. The direct contributions 2 0 0 O 0 made to the students Totals 21 10 2 10 15 .4 105 SCHiCKIL 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Tkfials 2 0 3 6 2 11 10 2 12 75 O 15 2 O 4 A 10 0 0 4 42 8 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 4 25 O O 1 5 3 5 2 3 0 24 O O O O 3 2 2! 3 2 19 0 3 0 l 1 0 3 0 2 19 0 0 O O O 3 0 O O 11 O O O O 0 2 2 O 0 9 O O 0 O 3 O O O 0 5 10 21 6 14 16 36 19 8 24 229 106 Table XXXIII. Elementary Classroom Teacher Response to Questionnaire Item Regarding the Most Serious Shortcoming of ESISC By School System SCHOOL Comment 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Not enough in-service 5 1 4 2 16 0 meetings or poorly scheduled 2. Material not directly 3 12 0 l 1 2 applicable in my class- room 3. Material unsuited to K-6 2 4 3 1 0 0 science program 4. System has too poor supply 2 4 0 l l 8 of science equipment to use ideas presented 5. Program should have 3 0 0 0 12 0 contacted elementary pupils directly 6. May own background too 1 0 0 0 0 0 weak to use program 7. In-service activities 0 O 0 6 0 0 needed more laboratory 8. Participant did not 3 0 0 O 0 0 understand elementary problems 9. Information covering 0 0 0 0 O 0 program not communicated 10. Biological Science 0 0 0 O 1 0 neglected Totals 19 21 7 11 31 10 SCHOOL 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Totals 7 2 8 8 15 3 7 0 87 5 7 3 3 21 14 1 5 82 3 2 1 0 2 2 0 9 32 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 26 0 O 0 0 O 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 2 8 2 O O O 0 0 O 0 5 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 O 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 19 13 16 14 41 19 10 22 272 108 achievement in science is significantly higher when the specialist only assists the classroom teacher in preparing himself for the task. Summary A total of 262 completed questionnaires were obtained from the participating elementary classroom teachers, and 147 questionnaires were answered by non-participating teachers. A comparisonof these two groups revealed no significant difference in teaching experience. The number of additional teaching practices were uniformly distributed above and below a median value for both groups. The overall evalu- ation scores for the responding teachers who did not participate in the in-service programs were higher than those for participating teachers. Teachers at different grade levels responded independently of grade level on the overall evaluation item and the number of additional teaching practices reported. The contribution scores, however, were significantly higher for teachers of grades four, five, and six. The amount of teaching experience did not seem to affect the reactions of classroom teachers to the program. The four categories of experience were found to be independent of overall evaluation scores, contribution scores, and number of additional teaching practices reported. The measures of effectiveness were found tobe significantly related in two comparisons and not related in the remaining test. Contingency coefficients for overall evaluation vs number of teaching practices and overall evaluation vs contribution score were found to be 0. 247 and 0.498 respectively. The overall evaluation was inde'; pendent of the number of additional teaching practices reported. The elementary classroom teachers in the participating school systems are moderately active in other in-service activities, many taking college credit courses in addition to local in-service work. 109 ' The teachers report the most important contributions of the ESISC in—service programs in the areas of new knowledge about science and science teaching. The most serious shortcomings noted) were scheduling conflicts, time for meetings, and the problems of adopting the information gained to their present elementary science curriculum. CHAPTER. VII THEIN-SERVICE PROGRAMS IN PHYSICAL ~SCIENCE As OPERATED BY .THE SECONDARY SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS AND CERTAIN CHANGES REPORTED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHING PRACTICES Introduction The ESISC conference provided the secondary school science teachers with-materials and suggestions for the subsequent in-service programs. The group did not develop, nor did the conference specify,» a detailed procedure for conducting the work with the elementary class- room teachers. A part of the conference was devoted to discussing possible patterns for in-service work. Each of the sixteen school sys- tems employed their program in a slightly different manner, though in each instance elementary classroom teachers were served and the ESISC participant expended considerable time and effort in providing this service. This chapter attempts to differentiate between local in- service programs on a number of observable characteristics as re- ported by participants, administrators, elementary classroom teachers, and as observed by the investigator throughout the 1962—1963 school year. Additional sources of information not cited in previous chapters included Bi-weekly Report sheets mailed to the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center of Michigan State'University by the ESISC participants and the ESISC Participant Questionnaire completed during the Summary Conference. 110 111 The first part of this chapter describes the kinds of services offered in the in-service programs. The reported use of specific prepared materials is included, and the outcomes as viewed by the. secondary school science teacher and his administration are given. The second section deals with the observed changes in teaching prac- tices as noted by the elementary classroom teachers, the administrators, the secondary school science teachers, and the investigator during the course of the local in-service activity. A Description of the Sixteen Programs The most common services performed by the secondary school science teachers were listed on the Participant Questionnaire, and the responses to these items are summarized in Table XXXVII. Many of the-secondary school science teachers conducted regular classes for the elementary teachers and, though» this method did contact one Of the largest numbers of people, it was not the most highly rated by the participants. Laboratory activities were highly regarded by the ele— mentary classroom teachers although such activities were conducted in relatively few in-service programs. In addition to the six categories in Table XXXIV, a number of other activities were reported by the secondary school science teachers. Included were the following: participation in curriculum meetings; presentations during regular teacher's meetings; conferences with the library staff; the obtaining, loaning, and ordering of equipment for elementary classrooms; the‘planning and judging of science fairs for elementary pupils; and theconduction of community resources surveys related to the local elementary science programs. From the Bi- weekly Reports submitted during the program and the results in Table XXXVII, it is possible to form a picture of the typical 112 Table XXXIV. In-Service Activities Provided and Ratings Given by ESISC Participants Number of ESISC Partici- Median Contact Activity Total pants Using Rating Individual consultations with . 283 13 4. 50 elementary classroom teachers Visits toelementary classrooms 171 8 4. 00 during school sessions Regular classes for elementary 93 12 3.71 classroom teachers Small group meetings with elemen- 80 6 4. 00 tary teachers Laboratory sessions for the 43 7 3. 75 elementary teachers Workshop .meetings involving 33 8 4. 00 large numbers of teachers activities of an ESISC participant during the 1962-1963 school year. The total number of contact hours spent with elementary classroom teachers was approximately 50, and nearly 80 hours were spent in pre- paring for these contacts. Between 6 and 10 classes were held for teachers and two or three worksh0ps were organized as part of the in- service program. As a part of two or three classes special laboratory sessions were devised for the elementary classroom teachers, and the ESISC participant visited 8 or 10 classrooms during the school day. The remaining contact time, some 25 to30 hours, was spent working with small groups and individual teachers discussing materials, back- ground information, and equipment for science teaching. 113 At least eleven of the group worked with all the grades from kindergarten through sixth, but only a fraction of the participant group felt that teachers in grades K, 1, 2, and 3 were particularly responsive to their efforts. Table XXXV shows the number of participants-includ- ing each. grade level in an in-service program along with an estimate of elementary teacher responsiveness by grade level. Table XXXV. Number of ESISC Participants Who Report Various Grade Levels Participating in the In-Service1Program and Responding Favorably to the Material Presented Number of ESISC Participants Who Report Including Who Report Grade Level Grade Level Grade Level 1 Responsive to Program K 1 l 1 1 12 1 2 12 2 3 l3 4 4 15 l 1 5 15 15 6 15 15 The participants reported, during the year and at the summary conference, that in order to provide for the expressed interests of the elementary classroom teachers it was necessary to add special activities to the basic topic guides. Approximately one-half of all presentations were based on the eight topic guides prepared during the summer con- ference. The eight physical science areas covered by the topic guides are listed in Table XXXVI along with the number of times each was presented. 114 The most popular activity not covered by the topic guide was a demonstration of locally owned science equipment. Nearly half of the participants gave such a program one or more times in their respective school systems. Thepresence of apparatus seemed an important stimulus here, but in at least one instance the ESISC participant first brought the equipment to the attention of the elementary classroom teachers and then helped them‘ learn to use it. Table XXXVI. The Eight Physical Science Topic Guides and Frequency of Use Reported Reported Number of Topic Times Used Astronomy and Space Science 15 Matter and Chemical Energy 14 Electricity and Magnetism 12 Experimentation and Measurement 11 Motion and Mechanics 5 Heat and Sources of Heat Energy 5 Sound and Mechanical Waves 2 Light and Electromagnetic Radiation 1 The other presentations given by the ESISC participants during various in-service activities were frequently extensions of these same topics. Electricity and Magnetism, for example, . was extended by several groups to include a study of communications equipment and the construction of an electric motor. Lectures, demonstrations, and consultations were reported cover- ing nearly every phase of science common to the elementary school 115 curriculum. Current events sparked'inquiries and requests for special - assistance and where possible most of the secondary school science teachers made an attempt to, respond. ~ The participants and the administrators noted that, if the pro- gram were to continue a second year in their school system, certain changes appeared desirable. In response to~a questionnaire item the participants gave the following suggestions for modification. Four asked for more specific scheduling of the program activities. Two said that the elementary teachers should have released time for the sessions, and one mentioned that he would need some free time to operate effectively. The remaining items, each mentioned by only one secondary school science teacher, were as follows: the program should have been started earlier in the fall; been conducted at each grade level separately; covered fewer topics in. more detail; developed a, curriculmn for elementary science; and included more administrative support. Six of the administrators did not comment on their plans for changes, and eight others indicated that the program deserved a greater allotment of teacher time. Of those planning more time, five said it should include released time for the elementary classroom teachers and two- mentioned preparation time for the secondary school science teacher. One adminis- trator hoped to change the program‘ direction toinclude direct presenta- tions to the elementary school pupils by the secondary teacher and one planned to shift to a grade level scheduling arrangement. - The changes proposed were related to, the plans of the school systemsfor continuing the program another year without further assist- ance from the National Science Foundation or direct help from Michigan State‘University. Thepossibility of the continuance of the in-service programs in. the schools studied was investigated by two questionnaires which were administered at different times. Administrators‘in early May 1963 responded as follows: nine definitely planned to continue with 116 the program through. the 1963-1964 school year; two were undecided; one planned a partial program for two or three elementary buildings; and four reported that they were not planning to Operate a second year of the in-service science program. Of the four not planning to. continue, one said that the program would undergo major revision in their case and one reported that the ESISC participant was leaving the system and they were actively recruiting a replacement. Thirteen of the ESISC participants, one month later at the summary conference, definitely planned tocontinue with in-service programs for elementary teachers and two of these secondary school science teachers planned to transfer the program to their new school system. Of the three remaining ESISC participants two were changing positions and one was involved in the major revision of local in-service activity noted above. The secondary school science teachers and administrators, as well as the elementary teachers, were asked to give their views regarding the most important contribution of the program and the most serious shortcoming. Dealing first with the ESISC participants, the responses as to the most important contribution of the program were as follows: eight said that the program brought a new awareness among the elemen- tary teachers of the possibilities of teaching science in grades K-6. Three noted a breakdown of the communication barriers previously noted between secondary and elementary school personnel and indicated that this might‘make possible better articulation of science programs. Others mentioned these points: the start made in the system in in- service activity; the gains in demonstration skills made by the elemen- tary classroom teachers; and the exposure to study of a rather inadequate K-6 science curriculum. The shortcomings noted by the secondary school science teachers included: six problems with local scheduling and communications; three with preparation time; and two conflicts with regular teaching duties. 117 ' Other points mentioned‘were the general lack of teaching materials in the entire school system; an unrealistic expectation for the program; and the lack of elementary teacher carryover from sessionito session. Administrators pointed out contributions much like those indicated by the ESISC participants. Included were six that cited the gains in knowledge of science and science teaching resources made by elementary classroom teachers and four emphasized the increased awareness of the needs for science in grades K-6. Two thought that the articulation of science activities had been improved and two others said that they could see a number of instructional improvements. The shortcomings of the ESISC program as seen by administrators were almost all individual comments. Several felt the time given the program was too short, but shortages in the amount of funds, equipment, teacher interest, follow-up, and present program were all given. some notice. Only one administrator placed any emphasis on the particular ESISC participant selected or the nature of the in-service activities. The Relationship Between the Ratings of the Overall Program By Administrators, Elementary Classroom Teachers, and Secondary School Science Teachers The three separate questionnaires for elementary classroom teachers, secondary school science teachers, and administrators con- tained one identical rating scale for the overall program. The responses of the three groups, using median scores for the classroom teachers, are given in Table XXXVII and a frequency distribution is given in Table XXXVIII. A chi-square test of the significance of the observed differences was made and yielded the information that the classifications were not independent. It appears from an examination of the data that elementary teachers and administrators tend to rate the program more highly than Table XXXVII. 118 Overall Evaluation Scores for Administrators, A Elementary Teachers, and ESISC Participants by School System Median Score ESISC School Administrator Elementary Teachers Participant 1 l 2. 54 2 2 1 2.45 4 3 5 5. 00 4 4 2 1. l7 3 5 2 1. 83 1 6 4 3. 50 4 7 3 2. 80 3 8 2 1.19 3 9 1 2.61 3 10 4 3. 20 3 11 1 1.18 2 12 2 2. 08 3 l3 1 2. 36 l 14 2 2.13 3 15 2 2. 75 3 l6 1 2. 86 1 Table XXXVIII. Frequencies of Certain Responses to anOverall Rating Scale by Administrators, Elementary Teachers, and ESISC Participants Response Waste of - Disappoint- Aver- Better Very Group Time ing age Than Worth- Average while Administrators 1 l 6 6 Elementary Teachers 1 7 5 3 ESISC Participant 0 8 2 3 119 the ESISC participant. Likewise the administrator rates it higher than the median elementary teacher. However, no significance level should be attached to this observation. An Extended Analysis of the Additional Science Teaching Practices Reported Section III of the Elementary Teacher questionnaire consisted of 21 statements each of which. described a teacher activity and also in- cluded one free response item (see Table XL). The elementary class- room teachers were instructed to ". . . consider each item carefully and check the columns as they apply to your own teaching practice. " The items each had response boxes corresponding to a "this year" - "last year" indication for every teaching practice. The difference between the number of items checked "this year" and "last year" has been previously noted in Chapters IV and VI. The prevalence of the selected teaching practices among the elementary classroom teachers and the practices most affected by the ESISC program are discussed in the following section. A comparison of the participating and non- participating elementary classroom teachers on the basis of their "last year" responses revealed no significant differences. Data is included in Table XXXIX. The test of the preportions in each category was based on a chi square value obtained from a fourfold table. This test is described by Walker and Lev, who point out that "If the logic of the problem seems to relate to the difference of two per cents, the outcome 1 In this instance, may be discussed as a test of the hypothesis P1 = P2. " then, the significance levels represent the probability of obtaining, by chance, a difference in the proportions as large as that observed. 1Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Statistical Inference (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953), 102. 120 The teaching practices on which the most significant gains were made by participating elementary teachers reflect the nature of the planned in-service program. As mentioned previously in Chapter II, "The ESISC Conferences," the topic guides included activities, demonstrations, and suggestions for laboratory experiences in physical science. The four most significant of the twelve items (. 05 per cent to 2. 5 per cent level) were related to. classroom demonstrations and experiences provided for the elementary pupils; the one other item closely related to this“ area was not significant at the 10 per cent level. Two items significant at the 2. 5 per cent level and four significant at the 5 per cent level seem closely related to the objective of improved articulation in school science programs. These six items appear to be related to the sharing of teaching ideas with other teachers and the acceptance of new ideas from other teachers. The contribution of the educational consultants during the ESISC conference may have carried through to this outcome. The remaining significant item (at the 10 per cent level) involved the addition of published science materials to the classroom. This item and four others that were not significant touch on an area not specifically emphasized during the conference or during the subsequent in-service programs. Science field trips; professional science teachers' conferences; science curriculum planning activities; and ways of accommodating individual differences in science were not emphasized during the conference and did not show significant gains. Two successive tests were applied to the data in an attempt to determine the level of change in teaching practices. The first step consisted of comparisons by item of the "this year" responses. Twelve of the teaching practices were reported by participating teachers "this year" with significantly higher frequency at the 5 per cent level or higher than the frequencies for non-participating teachers. One additional item 121 was significant at the 10 per cent level. The complete list °£7G values appears in Table XL. A second comparison followed for the items found significant in the first test. Each of the "last year" and "this year" proportions for the significant items were examined in 2 x 2 tables for participating and non-participating teachers. These tests were found significant at or beyond the 5 per cent level. The elementary teachers sampled, both participating and non— participating, evidently report an increase in many of the selected teach- ing practices "this year. " The elementary classroom teachers who participated in the ESISC in-service activities, however, report a sig— nificantly greater increase on at least twelve of the twenty—one practices included in the questionnaire. The extended analysis, then, gives a more detailed and useful result than the gross comparison in Chapter VI. Summary The sixteen selected secondary teachers conducted a variety of in—service activities for elementary classroom teachers. The most frequently mentioned type of contact was the individual consultation, but classes, laboratory sessions, class visits, workshops, and other activities were employed. The in-service programs involved for the most part all elementary grades from kindergarten through sixth, and the most receptive groups seemed to be those representing the upper three grades. The topic guides, prepared during the summer Conference, served as the foundation material for many in-service activities and were re- ported to be most helpful by the secondary school science teachers. The shortcomings most commonly mentioned by secondary school science teachers, administrators, and elementary classroom teachers concerned 122 Table XXXIX. lNumber of Elementary Classroom Teachers Reporting ~ Certain Teaching. Practices "Last Year" and” "This Year" "Last Year" "This Year" Pa rticipating Non- Pa rticipating Pa rticipating Non- Pa rticipating Item N = 269 N = 147 N = 269 N = 147 28 77 32 100 39 29 125 37 162 74 30 125 68 245 110 31 78 37 187 84 32 8O 34 163 64 33 79 39 163 82 34 41 32 125 60 35 53 27 132 53 36 58 29 139 61 37 81 30 133 70 38 15 3 25 4 39 18 3 ., 28 11 4O 46 22 166 70 41 67 29 97 62 42 36 16 58 29 43 30 20 129 55 44 28 7 61 21 45 85 40 136 69 46 66 29 119 65 47 54 30 143 63 48 48 23 122 49 123 Table XL. Teaching Practices Reported in ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire, Chi Square Values and Levels of Significance for the Test of Participating Versus Non—Participating Elementary Clas sroom Teachers 2 % Level of No . Item Value Signific anc e 28 ‘ Presented a science display at an open house or 7. 57 1 science fair. 29 Added material to the resource file in science. 3. 78 10 30‘ Read an article or articles on science teaching. 0. 77 >10 31 Introduced a science topic not previously taught 6. 40 2. 5 32 Requested some specific item of science 11. 15 0.1 equipment. 33 Arranged a laboratory exercise for the class. 0. 91 >10 34 Revised the presentation of a science topic. 1. 23 >10 35 Attended a talk on a scientific subject. 6. 53 2. 5 36 'Met with other teachers to discuss science 3. 94 5 programs. 37 Selected trade or reading books for students on 0. 59 >10 science subjects. 38 Joined a professional science teachers group. 6. 33 2. 5 39 Attended a conference of science teachers. 0. 96 >10- 40 Used a science demonstration not previously 13. 34 <. 05 used. 41 Arranged a field trip as part of science 1. 51 >10 instruction 42 Invited a science resource person to the 4.11 5 classroom. 43 Increased the time spent on science. 4. 28 5 44 Encouraged a fellow teacher in science teaching. 4. 36 5 45 Examined a variety of science textbooks. 0.49 >10 46 Utilized science activities as a method of O. 00 >10 accommodating student differences. 47 Evaluated present science programs in terms of 4. O4 5 student interests. 48 Evaluated present science program in terms of 5. 67 2. 5 oppo rtunitie s for c r eativity. 124 the difficulties of scheduling time towork with elementary-teachers. The important contributions of the in-service program to these three groups seemed to be the increased awareness of the need for science in‘the elementary school and the breakdown of barriers betweenxthe elementary and secondary school faculties. Administrators tended to rate the program more highlythan elementary classroom teachers or the secondary school science teachers, and a majority in each group rated it average or better as an in—service experience. , The second part of the chapter examined the responses of the elementary teachers to a set of items on their teaching practices. For twelve of the twenty—one items, the ESISC participating elementary classroom teachers indicated significantly greater gain from "last year" to "this year" when compared to a sample of non-participating teachers. The analysis indicated that those areas specifically emphasized during the ESISC conference produced the most significant changes. The non= significant items did not appear to be those outcomes expected as a part of a physical science in-service program. CHAPTER VIII THE ESISC PROGRAM: DATA PROCESSING Introduction The statistical treatment of the data collected in this study has been tailored to. that data within the limits of available techniques. The difficulty of fitting certain models to the data has- resulted in a searchfor methods applicable to. judgments, Opinions, and non-interval scales. Such approaches are classed as nonparametric, and a variety of procedures have been developed in this area. Maxwell1 in anzim- portant volume recently published in-England says that "Ranking methods are sometimes thought to be a sine qua non of statistical techniques for psychologists and social scientists. " Ranking, however, is fairly simple for a small number of items or characters but becomes rapidly more complex as the sample size increases. For this study the number of cases was, in most instances, no greater than sixteen and thus rank methods were often satisfactorily employed. Though not intended as a complete coverage of statistical methods for nonparametric data, this chapter sets forth the rationale behind the statistical techniques used in the study. Levels of Measurement Four distinct levels of measurement have been pointed out quite clearly by Siegel,2 namely: the nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio scales. 1A. E. Maxwell, Analyzirg Qualitative Data (London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., 1961), 114. .ZSidney Siegel, Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), 21-30. 125 126 The first and lowest level is the nominal or classificatory scale. Here the use of numbers or labels merely identifies a given object as a member of a group or set. For example, elementary teachers in this study were assigned the name "participating" if they were in the group indicating activities within the in-service science program. Data obtained using nominal scales generally is limited to frequencies or to the total number of members in a given set. Hypotheses concerning the relative distribution of these frequencies in a number of sets may be tested using the 7G statistic. The ordinal scale gives an indication of the relationships between classes. Ordinal scaling or rank ordering may be produced when one class or set can be said to exceed another on some measure. For example, the years of experience for the secondary school science teachers could be arranged in an order with each teacher in a particular position. As a measure of central tendency for an ordered set, the median is used. Tests have been developed for a wide variety of conditions where com- parisons are required from ranked data. In this study the most frequent questions were directed toward the existence of a relationship between two sets of ranked information. Suitable correlation coefficients include the Spearman r the Kendall 1’ and the coefficient of concordance W 5, also developed by Kendall. Interval data is in some respects much simpler to handle than either nominal or ordinal. The significant feature of such a scale lies in the relative value of positions on the scale. Though there need not be a true zero, the quantity represented between two adjacent scale divisions at one position on the scale is exactly the same as that repre— sented between two adjacent divisions anywhere else on the scale; in short, the intervals are all equal. The common parametric statistics may be applied to data gathered from an interval scale. The mean and variance measure the central tendency and dispersion respectively, and 127 there are methods for handling certain deviate distributions represented by data that do not conform to, the normal curve. The ratio scale has, in addition to the characteristics described for interval data, a true zero point. With such a scale geometric means and coefficients of variation may be added to the list of useful statistics. The Statistics Applied in This Study A. Testing Hypotheses Which Involved Parametric Statistics The development of most standardized tests includes considerable effort directed toward an interval scaling of the resultant scores. Item analysis techniques are based on parametric methods and items are rejected when they contribute to non-normal score distributions. The final form of the test is usually given to selected groups of moderate size, and the results are published as the norms for that group. Comparisons of the scores achieved by other groups may then be made using para- metric statistics. ’One hypothesis used in this study involved the comparison of the mean scores obtained by the secondary school science teachers with-the mean scores of a norm group. The statistic selected was Students' t which'is a number computed from the ratio of the differences between means and a pooled variance. - It has a known distribution, and tables are available giving the probability of obtaining a given value of t for samples of various sizes. The Dixon and Massey1 tables were used for all calculations which involved. this distribution. Before the variances of two samples may be pooled for use in the t test, they must be accepted as representing the variances of two. samples l— 1Wilfrid J. Dixon and Frank J. Massey, Introduction to Statistical Analysis (Second Edition, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1957). 128 from the same population. The ratio of two variances is again a number, in this case designated by F, and this number can be computed for all the possible ratios of variances obtained from a population. The distribu- tion of these F values is known, and tables are available giving the probability of obtaining a given value of F under specified conditions. A particularly useful employment of these tables in testing the hypothesis of equal variances is given in Walker and Lev1 as the Fmax test. Prior to using a t test with pooled variances in this study the Fmax test was applied to the ratio of the variances. The t test is well suited to a comparison of two means; however it is frequently necessary to examine several means simultaneously. For a test involving seven means, as in the case of grade level compari- sons, the Analysis of Variance was employed. This analysis measures the variation between the means of the samples and the variations within the samples themselves. In actual computation the total variation among all the members of all samples is derived and within the samples variance obtained by subtraction. Since the two measures of variation obtained are true variances, they are compared using an F table. Just as in the t test there is a pooling of individual sample variances in the analysis of variance. The total variation is the result of pooling all possible sample variances. In addition to an assumption of normality, it is again necessary to assume equality of sample variances. The Fmax test can be used, but another technique known as Bartletts' test was employed in the single analysis used in this study. McNemarZ discusses this procedure in his Psychological Statistics. 1Helen M. Walker and Joseph Lev, Statistical Inference (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953), 192. 2Quinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics (Third Edition; New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), 249—50. 129 Parametric methods require that the data represent samples drawn from normally distributed populations. This assumption cannot always be made without incurring large risk. In those cases where the assumption can not be made, a test of normality is possible. In this study the contribution scores derived from the Elementary Teacher Questionnaire were examined and seemed to warrant such a test. The procedure was to determine the frequency expected in each tenth of a normally distributed sample of the same size and then to compare this number with the observed frequency. The Chi Square, “Ll, test was used (this statistic is discussed in the following section) and in the case at hand resulted in the acceptance of the hypothesis of normality for the scores. B. Testing Hypothesis With Non~Parametric Statistics The most important distribution free statistic in this study was the Chi Square, 71}, A number of measures are distributed as the chi square or approximate its distribution. One of the most easily understood is the application to contingency tables of frequencies or proportions. The relationships between the measures of effectiveness for inuservice programs were investigated using such tables. In the simplest case a 2 x 2 or fourfold table is developed from the data. This 2 x 2 contingency table divides the population under study into two classifications and two categories simultaneously. For example, for a single reported teaching practice it was possible to note the teachers' response to a "last year" — "this year" dichotomy. A second classifi— cation for the responding teachers could be obtained on the basis of their participation in the in—service program. The resultant fourfold table is shown in Table XL using data from this study. 130 Table XLI. Fourfold Table of Frequencies of the Responses to Item 28 of the Elementary Teacher Questionnaire for Participating and Non—Participating Teachers Last Year This Year Totals Participating 77 100 177 Non-Participating 32 39 71 Totals 109 139 248 The hypothesis to be tested is the independence of the frequency of response category and the frequency of participation. The marginal totals from the table are used to derive a chance expected value for each cell. If the observed frequencies are different than those expected, the likelihood of independence is decreased. The probability of given amounts of variation may be obtained from tables of the chi square statistic. For the purposes of this study if the probability of obtaining a 17‘ as large as that observed for a contingency table by chance exceed 0. 95, the hypothe— sis of independence was rejected. This means that even though a relation- ship has been denoted as significant at the 5 per cent level, there is one possibility in twenty that the observation was due to chance factors alone. One variation of contingency used in this study was a median test. The categories for a 2 x 2 table are set up using the frequency of scores above and below the median score for each of two independent classifi— cations. The median score, X.5o» is usually included in the total and thus one category includes it with other scores. This test is necessarily a very rough indication of dependence but is useful under certain circum- stances. 131 A second variation of contingency tables involves the determination of a contingency coefficient. If the X2 is significant and the hypothesis of independence is rejected, there is usually some desire to express the degree of the existent relationship. The coefficient then is interpreted somewhat as a correlation coefficient, and the larger its value the greater the relationship between classes. Contingency coefficients are useful for rather small tables, but as the number of classes or categories increase they become less important. For a large number of categories, correlation methods are used. Kendall and Spearman have developed measures similar to the Pearson r for interval data.1 Of the two the Spearman rank order correlation co- efficient was selected for ease in computation. Walker and Lev2 present a clear method for determining this statistic and testing its significance which was followed throughout this study. Two rankings of the same subjects may be quickly compared and the coefficient is easily interpreted. The coefficient rS is a number between —1 and +1 and would approach these values as one of the two rankings became more nearly predictable from the other. A negative coefficient indicates that the relationship is one in which a high rank on one measure corresponds to a low rank on the other. Specific references to the bibliography of statistical methods have been included in Chapter II—VII along with the treatment of the data. A Final Statement Regarding Statistical Methods The nature of the data gathered in this experimental approach to the problem of in-service science education for elementary teachers was largely ordinal. Some interval data was obtained and wherever possible 1Siegel, op. c_it” 223. zWalker and Lev, 32. c_i_t., 277. parametric techniques were employed. Non-parametric methods are less precise, but they can yield useful indications of the degree of association between certain variables. Further investigations concern- ing such variables can then be more adequately designed with this statistical information available. CHAPTER IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Findings and Conclusions This study investigated certain factors affecting the outcomes of an experimental program for the in—service science education of elementary school teachers. The program consisted of preparing selected secondary school science teachers through the mechanism of a four-week summer conference to conduct subsequent in—service activities in their own school systems. The teachers attending the conference Were from sixteen Michigan school districts, and the study is based on data obtained from the secondary school science teachers; a sample of elementary teachers representing each cooperating school system; the administrators in the respective school systems; and from visits by the investigator to each school system. Treatment of the data collected has provided answers to the questions raised in Chapter I. Questions were developed to examine factors recognized as potentially significant in each of five major cate— gories. The five areas were as follows: the conference participants, the elementary classroom teachers, the cooperating school systems, the ESISC Conference activities, and the in—service programs in physical science background. Chapters III through VII have each dealt with one of the five areas. Treatment of the data collected has provided the following answers for the questions raised and stated on pages five through nine of Chapter I. 133 134 The ESISC Conference Participants 1. Is there a significant relationship between the relative effectiveness of the in-service program and any of the following characteristics of the secondary school science teacher? a. Rank on any test administered; b. Number of years of teaching experience; c. Number of credit hours in college physical science courses. Three measures of the relative effectiveness of an in-service program were used. These were the mean contribution score; the median overall evaluation score; and the median number of additional teaching practices reported. Thus, for each of five tests administered and three measures of experience and preparation, three comparisons were possible. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were computed for the twenty—four separate pairs of ranks and for the quantitative (Q) and linguistic (L) scores from the American Council on Education Psychological Examination, 1952 Edition. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule scores were not used in this group of tests since no composite score is provided. The only one of the three measures of effectiveness that yielded any significant correlations was the school mean contribution score. Findings for question "1.a. " were as follows: The school mean contribution score was significantly related to (1) The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory beyond the O. 05 per cent level and (2) The Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Science, Form 1a between the 5 per cent and 2. 5 per cent levels. No relationship significant at the 5 per cent level was found between the school mean contribution score rank and the rank of the participant on the Miller Analogies Test; 135 The Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Mathematics, Form 1a; or the American Council on Education Psycholgical Examinations, 1952 Edition (Q, L, T scores). It may be concluded from the findings that scores on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory and the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Science, Form 1a are measures signifi- cantly related to the school mean contribution score. One interpretation of this conclusion would be that, recognizing the limitations of the instru— ments, secondary teachers who are well prepared in science and who have desirable teaching attitudes should be selected for participation. The finding for question "1.b. " was as follows: The number of years of teaching experience prior to the summer conference was found to be significantly related to the school mean contribution score at the 2. 5 per cent level. The conclusion drawn from this finding is that the experienced secondary school science teacher may be a more effective in-service instructor than one with less experience. The data also revealed that 75 per cent of the group had six or fewer years of experience, and thus the interpretation is not that a great number of years of experience are required but that more than one or two years may be helpful. A separate question was also raised in regard to experience as follows: What relationship is there between the number of years the secondary school science teacher has taught in the school system and the measures of effectiveness of the in—service program? It was found that a relationship significant beyond the . 05 per cent level existed between this factor and the school mean contribution score. One can conclude from this that there is an important relationship between the time the secondary school science teacher has been in the school system where the in- service program was conducted and the effectiveness of his program. The interpretation given is that the effectiveness of the program may be in part due to the knowledge the 136 secondary teacher has of the particular school system and his estab- lished position in the system. From the findings and the results of other observations it may be said that secondary school science teachers with the requisite characteristics are more likely to be found in the group of experienced science teachers with extensive NSF institute experience than in the general secondary school science teacher popu- lation. 2. Is there a significant relationship between the ratings given the secondary school science teacher by the elementary teachers participating in the in-service program and any of the following characteristics of the secondary school science teachers ? a. Rank on any sub—score as measured by the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule; b. Rank on the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. The elementary teacher ratings were expressed in five question- naire items concerned with the participant and his presentation of the science topics and activities; his ability to establish rapport; his grasp of the elementary teacher's situation; and his ability to conduct an acceptable in-service program. Each of the fifteen Edwards Personal Preference Schedule sub—scores and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory score was compared with all five ratings. The comparisons of Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and the findings from the elementary teacher ratings were as follows: 1) The rank correlation of the ratings and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule sub—scores were found significant at the 5 per cent level for the abasement and nurturance scales; 2) the heterosexuality and aggression scales were significantly correlated (at the 5 per cent level) with three of the five ratings; 3) the autonomy and achievement scales were significantly correlated at the 5 per cent level with two of the five ratings;'4) the 137 introspection scale was significantly correlated (at the 5 per cent level) with one rating. These findings may be interpreted using the descrip— tions of the scales given by Edwards. From such an interpretation a model in—service trainer as reflected in the elementary teacher ratings can be described as is done in Chapter IV pp. 83-84. The findings for question "2.b. " regarding the relationship between the five ratings and the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory indicate that there is no corre- lation significant at the 5 per cent level. These findings show that certain personality traits as measured by sub- scores from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and teacher ratings of in-service trainer performance are significantly related. High abasement and nurturance scores are not very common among academic secondary school teachers as shown in other studies; however, these characteristics do seem important for persons in an in— service trainer role. 3. Are there differences between the ratings given the secondary school science teacher by the elementary teachers participat- ing in the in—service program and those given by the school administrator of the program? A summary of the comparison is given in Table XII, Chapter IV. The responses to five scale items on the administrator questionnaire were compared with the responses of participating elementary class— room teachers on identical items. The acceptability of the material presented by the ESISC participant; his effectiveness during the in» service activities; and his ability to establish rapport with the elementary classroom teachers produced similar ratings by the administrator and teachers. Items related to the ability of the secondary school science teacher to recognize the problems inherent in teaching elementary school science and to his rating overall as an in-service instructor did not indicate agreement between teachers and administrators; approximately 138 one-third of the administrators rated the participant higher than the elementary teachers and one-third lower. 4. Are there differences between the test scores of the group of ESISC secondary school science teachers and certain National Science Foundation sponsored summer institute participants ? Mean scores of the ESISC group were compared with means from three groups of summer science institute participants at Michigan State University. No differences significant at the 5 per cent level were found for any of the standard science content and intelligence instruments used. The ESISC participant group was, on the average, no better or no worse than the summer institute groups. This conclusion leads the investigator to believe that the pool of all institute participants should clearly contain many samples of teachers that could effectively participate in programs similar to the ESISC conference. The participants furthermore were not necessarily out— standing among NSF alumni on the basis of the instruments used. 1. Are there significant differences between the elementary teachers who participated in the in-service program and those who did not on any of the following? a. Number of years of teaching experience reported; b. Overall evaluation of the in—service program; c. Number of reported additional science teaching practices. It was found that participation in the in-service programs was significantly related to the teaching experience of the elementary class- room teachers. The elementary teachers with more teaching experience were more likely to participate than the less experienced teachers. This may be interpreted as evidence that the program offered more to the experienced teachers or that they were more interested in further 5 cienc e education. 139 Participation in the program would appear as a necessary pre- requisite to rendering an overall evaluation of the in—service program; however, a few non—participating teachers responded to the question- naire item concerned with this measure. Of the non-participating teachers that responded, a greater proportion gave the program a high overall rating than the proportion of participating teachers that gave the 1 same response. The relationship between participation and the number of additional science teaching practices was not found to be significant on the basis of the difference scores derived from the questionnaire responses. A further analysis was made using the twenty-one individual items in this section of the questionnaire. This analysis, conducted to answer a question pertinent to "The In-Service Programs" revealed that there were significant differences between participating and non-participating classroom teachers on twelve of the individual items. A discussion of these findings is included with question three under "The In-Service Programs" later in this chapter. 2. Are there significant differences between the grade levels at which elementary teachers report teaching and any of the following? a. Overall evaluation of the in—service program; b. Number of reported additional science teaching practices; c. Contribution score for the program (derived from the ESISC Elementary Teacher Questionnaire). The findings for the questions indicated in- "a" and "b" above were based on contingency tables and do not show a relationship significant at the 5 per cent level. The number of science teaching practices was significant, however, at the 10 per cent level. Teachers of higher grade levels reported more changes than teachers of lower grade levels. The question of the relationship between grade level and contribu— tion score was tested by analysis of variance and the measures were 140 found to be significantly related beyond the 5 per cent level. A subse- quent test revealed that the contribution score reported by teachers of grades 3, 4, 5, and 6 was significantly higher than that reported by teachers of grades kindergarten, 1, and 2. The conclusions draWn from these findings are 1) that the pro- gram is well received by teachers at all grade levels as indicated by the overall evaluation; 2) that some difference in the effectiveness of the in-service programs for different grade levels may be noted by the changes in teaching practices; and 3) that the program contributes more to teachers at grades three through six than it does to teachers of kindergarten and grades one and two. It is possible that the programs offered by the secondary teachers were not as well suited to the teachers at lower grade levels. The topic guides prepared during the conference might also have seemed to be more nearly a part of the elementary science curriculum only in the upper grades. 3. Is there a significant relationship between the number of years teaching experience reported by the participating elementary classroom teacher and any of the following: a. over-all evaluation of the in—service program; b. number of reported additional science teaching practices? It was found that neither the evaluation of the program nor the re— ported changes in teaching practice were related to experience. Teachers with many years of classroom work seemed to gain from the program as much as new teachers. It must be noted that more experienced teachers participated; however, the effectiveness of the program was found independent of this factor. Questions 4 and 5 were concerned with the interrelationships between the measures of relative effectiveness employed in the study. The contribution scores were found to be significantly related to both the overall evaluation scores and the number of additional teaching 141 practices reported. Contingency coefficients determined for these relationships Were C = .498 and C = . 247. The relationships between the overall evaluation score and the number of additional teaching practices was not significant at the 5 per cent level. These findings indicate that the measures of effectiveness developed tended in part to measure the same thing or at least elicited similar responses for the elementary teacher sample. 6. Is there any indication that the elementary classroom teachers were involved in other in-service activities during the experimental school year? Both participating and non-participating elementary classroom teachers indicated a variety of in—service activities during the 1962—1963 academic year. A summary of the activities is given in Table XXXIII, Chapter VI. The nature and extent of the activities revealed that the elementary teacher has considerable opportunity to choose the activities he may wish to pursue. If an in-service science education program is to be a voluntary activity, it should be able to withstand competition from other programs by offering the elementary teacher a worth-while experience . The Cooperating School Systems 1. Is there a significant relationship between a school mean contribution score and any of the following? a The number of elementary teachers in the school system; b. The relative amount of funds provided for the in-service program; c. The relative amount of released time provided for the in-service program. The findings indicate the following: a) A significant relationship, at the five per cent level, was found between the school mean contribution 142 score and the number of elementary teachers; b) There was no signifi- cant relationship between the ranked amount of funds provided and the school mean contribution scores; c) The relative amount of released time could not be determined with precision from the data. A test of those schools providing and not providing released time for the secondary teachers revealed no significant difference. The significant relationship between the number of teachers in the system and the mean contribution score leads to the conclusion that the teachers who participate in a large system may be those who expect to benefit most from the activity. The smaller schools do show a higher proportion of participating teachers, and this proportion could have in- cluded a number of elementary teachers who attended for reasons other than a desire to improve their science teaching. The ESISC Summer Conference Two specific questions were raised in regard to the conference activity. They are as follows: 1. Is there a relationship between the evaluation of the conference by the participating secondary school science teacher and either the evaluation of the program made by the elementary school classroom teachers or by the school system adminis- trator for the in—service program? 2. Is there a difference in the evaluation of the conference by the participating secondary school teacher made at the beginning and end of the experimental inwservice program? It was found, upon analysis of the questionnaires administered to the secondary school science teachers, that no differences could be noted between individual response sets. The homogeneity of evaluation prevented comparisons by school system except to note that the schools varied whereas the conference evaluations did not. No differences were found between the participant reaction at the end of the summer con- ference and at the summary conference. The ratings of the conference were uniformly high, rather than uniformly low or randomly distributed. It may be concluded that the plan of the conference was suited to the perceived needs of the participants prior to their operation of the in—service programs and after the year‘s activity. The In- Servic e Programs 1. Is there a significant difference in the overall evaluation of the program by elementary school teachers, secondary school » teachers, and school administrators? The treatment of data from administrators', ESISC participants', 1 and elementary classroom teachers' responses to the overall evaluation scale revealed significant dependence at the five per cent level. The administrators tended to rate the program more highly than did either the elementary or the secondary school teachers. It would seem reasonable that the participants might underrate their own efforts out of modesty. Administrators may tend to rate the program higher than elementary teachers since they are better able to recognize the broader accomplishments of an in—service activity than the individual classroom teachers and may tend to rate new programs optimistically. 2. Is there an indication that certain topics contributed more to i the elementary teachers of a given school than to teachers in other schools? No indication of a pronounced contribution by a given topic in a particular school system could be noted. The selection of topics from the topic guides for presentation was made largely on the basis of local decisions, and though "Astronomy and Space Science" was frequently selected, it cannot be said that it made a greater contribution in one 144 school than in another. The variety of possible combinations of topics, activities, and order of presentation effectively masked the individual topics. It may be concluded that the controls imposed were not sufficiently stringent to allow for comparisons of individual subjects by school system. 3. Are there indications that certain reported changes in science teaching practices are more frequently cited by elementary classroom teachers than are other changes? In the analysis of this question two sub-questions were developed as follows: a. Are there significant differences between the elementary teachers who participated and those who did not on the teaching practices reported "last year" or "this year"? b. Are there significant differences between "last year" and "this year" responses on a given item by either the participating or the non-participating elementary teachers? The data revealed: 1) That both groups report a significantly greater number of teaching practices "this year" than they did "last year" at the 5 per cent level; 2) That there are no differences between groups, significant at the 5 per cent level, for any of the items reported "last year"; 3) For twelve of the twenty—one items the participating group reported a significantly greater number "this year" than were reported by the non—participating teachers. One conclusion that may be drawn from these findings is that participation in the in-service program was related to the addition of certain teaching practices to the curriculum by the elementary class— room teachers. The twelve items that are significantly higher appear closely related to objectives discussed at the ESISC conference. One of the objectives was the stimulation of science activities in the classrooms; for example: teacher demonstrations, exhibits, and opportunities for pupil experimentation. Four of the twelve significant items seem clearly 145 to show increased activity of the kind related to this objective. A second area, emphasized throughout the conference, was the encouragement of cooperative teacher effort toward the articulation of science programs in the schools. Six of the twelve significant items reflect changes related to this area. The majority of practices showing no significant change were not among the outcomes specifically planned for in the conference. 4. Are there discernible characteristics that distinguish in— service programs with higher evaluation scores from those with lower scores ? An analysis of the information available describing actual in- service activities indicates that certain characteristics are common to the highly rated programs. The in—service programs that afforded opportunities for the elementary classroom teachers to come in contact with science teaching materials useful at their own curriculum level were most frequently highly rated. This contact included actual labora- tory practice with teaching demonstrations; direct supply of materials; assistance in locating needed supplies; or a combination of these three. 5. Are there consistent replies to the Elementary Teacher Questionnaire items regarding a most significant contribution and a most serious shortcoming of the program? A summary was made of all the responses to these two items by the elementary classroom teachers sampled. The responses were then categorized and arranged in Tables XXXI and XXXII. The replies were quite consistent with the most frequent responses to both items as follows: 1) The most important contribution noted by the elementary teacher who participated in the in—service activities was the gain of information about science and science teaching and the stimulation of interest in the physical sciences; 2) The most serious shortcoming reported was the difficulty of scheduling meetings of adequate length with sufficient frequency in view of the other demands on teacher time. The conclusion reached, based on the elementary teachers' reports, was that the major objective of the ESISC conference was met in the in—service programs. Secondary school science teachers can conduct in-service programs which do contribute to the science back- ground knowledge of elementary classroom teachers. Implications and Recommendations for Further Study This study indicates that the operation of in-service science education programs for elementary classroom teachers is entirely possible through the use of secondary school science teachers. There were significant changes in the teaching practices reported by the ; participating group in this study, and the elementary teachers indicated that the in—service programs had provided them with considerable new information and a renewed interest in the physical sciences. The study shows further that in the selection of candidates for this purpose one should consider the following characteristics: knowledge of science; attitude toward teaching; teaching experience; the number of years the candidate has taught in the system; and certain personality traits. The knowledge in science may be demonstrated through standardized test scores and the teaching attitude estimated with an instrument such as the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory. A first approximation of the personality model is given in this study based on selected scales from the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule; further study with individual tests would be necessary before selection procedures might include a personality instrument. One ready source of candidates is the group of NSF institute "alumni"; the participants in this experimental program came from a similar population, and this group does possess the necessary teaching experience and demonstrated competence in science. 147 The study also points out that in-service programs conducted by candidates selected on the above criteria can make an important contri- bution to the participating elementary classroom teachers. The contri- butions made in this particular program were greater to elementary teachers at grade levels 4, 5, 6 than to teachers at lower grade levels. The topics selected for preparation may be an important factor here; however, further study of the relationship between grade level and in- service activity seems to be needed. Among the possible areas of investigation within this relationship, the role of the in-service instructor as he works with early elementary grade teachers could be compared to his role with later elementary grade teachers. The fact that the most productive sessions with elementary teachers appeared to stem from individual contacts indicates, in addition, that the methods used in train- ing programs might emphasize this aspect of in-service work. The content selected as the basis for the Topic Guides prepared during the summer conference afforded a useful approach to in-service physical science education. It was the intent of the program that the transfer of much of the information in these guides could be made by the secondary school science teachers to the elementary classroom teachers. The format was to be flexible and yet present the essential features of a given topic in physical science. One of the most important outcomes of the preparation of these guides was the influence of the preparatory activity on the secondary school science teacher. The process of deriv- ing certain fundamental concepts in physical science; preparing a capsule outline for the in-service application; and selecting or developing a few appropriate activities for the teachers, proved to be a most challenging experience for the conference group. This close contact with a fundamental problem of curriculum preparation was one of the most notable achieve- ments of the conference. Further study of this aspect could be made by providing prepared topic guides at the outset of a conference program 148 and comparing the results of this treatment with the present study. No attempt was made in this study, other than the interview situ- ations, to determine the effects of the operation of an in-service pro- gram on the secondary school science teacher. It appears that such information could be a useful result of further investigations. The effect on his own classroom teaching; his relationship with his peer group; and his change in attitude toward teaching might be noted. Several questions raised in this study regarding the secondary teachers were not fully answered due to the small sample size. In particular, the relationship between the backgrounds of the teachers and the kinds of activities they might successfully employ in the in-service situation needs further study. An experimental study could possibly be designed to examine the effect of pre-testing the science knowledge of teachers or students on the outcomes of in-service activity. Such a study could determine the extent to which teachers‘ participation would be affected by the "threat" represented in the testing and the detrimental effects, if any exist, on the accomplishments of the purposes of the in—service program. Though there are few acceptable instruments for this purpose, the development of tests could be incorporated in a larger study. The Sequential Tests of Educational Progress might serve in an initial study. The unsuccessful attempt made in this study to classify the cooperating school systems on the basis of facilities and equipment emphasizes the need for further study of the problem. Adequate inven- tories of science equipment and certain basic facilities seem required by any successful science program, whether it be for elementary school pupils or in-service elementary teachers. A study of what items might constitute an adequate inventory and what effect may be produced by an absence of these items appears to be needed. A grant to establish a 149 group of "well—equipped" elementary schools for study might be needed to ensure the provision of the necessary sample. Some studies have been made which are related to the adminis- tration and organization of a school's in-service program. Most of these do not clearly indicate the objectives of the program in question with sufficient clarity to permit fruitful synthesis. It might be useful to carefully plan for the inclusion of a specified set of in-service activities; prepare selected secondary school teachers to present these "packages" in the same manner; and then to study the interaction of administrative variables with this essentially fixed inuservice program. This program has pointed out to the investigator several impli- cations for further action in the in—service field. Part of the problem faced in planning for curriculum revision in the K-12 science program is the inability of secondary and elementary teachers to understand each others’ positions. The secondary teacher directly engaged in helping an elementary classroom teacher has the opportunity to gain cognizance of a classroom situation quite different from his own. The elementary teacher who received the assistance, on the other hand, can gain a recognition of the wealth of human resources which are available in the secondary school and in other parts of the school system. If a proper educational program is to be provided now and in the future, faculty groups must soon begin to utilize all the available talent in producing that program. In-service activities employing local personnel and with local perspective seem to be the most useful mechanism to achieve this end. The in—service instructor must be prepared to deal with the teacher of a self—contained elementary classroom. This teacher is responsible for the daily activities of a group of thirty or forty youngsters and must be prepared to help this group grow not only upward educationally, but upward at several rates and in several directions. This study supports 150 what has long been known about helping such a teacher. The content with which he deals has greater importance to him than content at a higher or lower level. The usefulness of a given exercise, demonstra- tion, book, film, or any other educational activity is likely to be judged in relationship to its direct applicability "in my room, at this time. " These two observations lead to the suggestion that an in-service program be planned for teachers at specific grade levels and employed in close conjunction with specific classroom activities. This implies that someone must work toward the development of an acceptable core of scientific knowledge, skills, and attitudes for each grade level. This core of subject matter, activities, and methods could be specific for each grade level and still not represent all the possibilities available at a given grade level. Every elementary class- room teacher ought to be prepared to deal with very basic concepts in many branches of science and the level of competence required across such a broad base need not be very high. However, each teacher ought to be able to pursue with students some aspects of the field in greater depth. These areas of deeper teacher understanding should be closely aligned with the core materials for which the teacher is responsible at her particular grade level. With teachers thus prepared and a basic content area in science indicated for each grade, an effective science program could be developed. The contribution of the secondary school science teacher is needed at several points in this scheme: First, in helping to determine, along with other teachers, administrators, citizens, and researchers, the core requirements; second, in providing assistance to the elementary classroom teachers with special techniques, projects, and supplies as they work with students in science; and third, in presenting additional background knowledge from his own area of competence to the elementary clas 5 room teachers . 151 A discussion of contributions to the background knowledge of teachers seems to raise an inevitable inquiry into the pre-service preparation of teachers. A logical question, no doubt, if one assumes that education is, after all, a static phenomena and truth a finite quantity. Finite truth, or at least man's knowledge of it, is constantly eluding us and education is a very dynamic process. It is the opinion of the investigator that the kind of in—service interaction made possible through the ESISC program is desperately needed by all teachers at any time in their careers. Four or five years of college, if devoted to learning for the most part, seem likely to produce a person ready to begin teaching but not a person ready to stop learning. The pre-service training program should include provision for the broad base of edu— cation in science, just as it provides for the general liberal education of the teaching candidate. The in-service program can provide oppor- tunities to examine the new and to re-evaluate the old in the light of actual teaching experience. The in-service program should also provide the added depth of science understanding required by the demands of the particular teaching situation. If teachers are to be models for their pupils, it seems desirable to encourage classroom teachers to grow continuously, and in-service activities can provide for teacher growth along useful avenues. The ESISC program or one based on similar activities is inexpensive if consideration is given to the contributions that can be made by such a program. This type of program is feasible since NSF institute "alumni" and other qualified secondary school science teachers are available in school systems throughout the country. In view of the apparent gains from the ESISC conference in the sixteen participating school systems where secondary teachers began to work directly with elementary teachers and for the improved science education of all children, the use of this conference idea should be given most careful consideration. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Buros, Oscar K. The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook. Rutgers University Press, 1959. Dixon, Wilfred J. , and Massey, Frank J. Introduction to Statistical , Analysis. Second Edition. New York: McGraw Hill Book ‘ Company, 1957. Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods. London: Charles Griffin and Company, Ltd., 1948. Maxwell, A. E. Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: Methuen and i Company, Ltd., 1961. " McMurray, Charles A. , Secretary. The First Yearbook, National Society for the Scientific Study of Education. University of Chicago Press, 1902. McNemar, Quinn. Third Edition Psychological Statistics. New York: John-Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1962. Schwab, Joseph J. , and Brandwein, Paul F. The Teaching of Science. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962. Siegel, Sidney. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1956. Walker, Helen M., and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1953. Articles Barnard, J. Darrell. "Improving Science Education, " School Life, No. 40 (October, 1962), 7. Bingham, Nelson E. "WOrkshop for Science Teachers, " Science Education, Vol. 35 (February, 1950), 177—184. 152 153 Coffey, Hubert S. , and Golden, William P. , Jr. "Psychology of Change Within an Institution, " In-Service Education, The Fifty- Sixth Yearbook, Part I, the National Society for the Study of Education, Nelson B. Henry, Editor, Chicago (1957), 67-102. Dent, Charles Herger. "Connecticut Teachers' Needs for In-Service / Education, " Educational Leadership, Vol. 9 (October, 1951), 22. Fowler, H. Seymour. "Evaluation of an Institute for the Training of , Elementary School Science Resource Teachers, " The Journal of / Educational Research, Vol. 53 (May, 1960), 359. Ginther, John R. "Achievement in Sixth Grade Science Associated With Two Instructional Roles of Science Consultants, " Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 57 (September, 1963), 28. Goodlad, John I. "The Consultant and In-Service Teacher Education, " In—Service Education, The Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, Part I, the National Society for the Study of Education, Nelson B. Henry, Editor, Chicago (1957), 185. Gustad, John W. Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 20 (August, 1956), 322. Herrick, Virgil E. "The Evaluation of Change in Programs of In- Service Education, " In—Service Education, The Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, Part I, the National Society for the Study of Education, Nelson B. Henry, Editor, Chicago (1957), 311. Holmlund, Walter S. "Design and Evaluation of an ln—Service Training /’ Program for Teachers in Child Growth and Development, " Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 3 (March, 1952), 50. Jackson, Philip W. , and Guba, Egon G. ''The Need Structure of In- Service Teachers—-An Occupational Analysis, " The School Review, LXV, University of Chicago (Summer, 1957), 176—192. Kinnick, B. Jo. "The Teachers and the In-Service Education Program, " In-Service Education, Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, Part I, the National Society for the Study of Education, Nelson B. Henry, Editor, Chicago (1957), 132. Lammers, Theresa J. "One Hundred Interviews With Elementary School Teachers Concerning Science Education, " Science Education, Vol. 33 (October, 1949), 292-295. Lowry, Charles D. "The Relation of Superintendents and Principals to the Professional Improvement of Their Teachers, " The Seventh Yearbook, Part I, National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press (1908), 17. Mallinson, George G., and Sturm, Harold E. "The Science Background and Competence of Students Preparing to Teach in the Elementary Schools, " Science Education, Vol.39, No. 5 (December, 1955), 398-405. McGuire, Carson. "Personality, " Encyclopedia of Education Research, Third Edition, Chester W. Harris, Editor. New York: Macmillan Company (1960), 954. Merrill, Reed M. "Comparison of Education Students, Successful Science Teachers and Educational Administrators on the Edwards PPS, '7 Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 54, No. 1 (September, 1960), 38. Miles, Matthew B. , and Passow, A. Harry. "Training in Skills Needed for In-Service Education Programs, " In-Service Education, The Fifty-Sixth Yearbook, Part I, the National Society for the Study of Education, Nelson B. Henry, Editor, Chicago (1957), 347. Mork, Gordon A. "Effects of an In-Service Teacher Training Program on Pupil Outcomes in Fifth and Sixth Grade Science, " Minnesota 1953, The Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Third Edition, New York: The Macmillan Company (1960), 707. National Education Association. NBA Research Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 4 (December, 1962), 100. Nelson, Pearl Astrid. "The Acquisition of Concepts of Light and Sound in the Intermediate Grades, " Science Education, Vol. 29 (February, 1955), 3-12. Richardson, Evan C. "The Development of an Instrument for Evaluation of Elementary School Science, " Science Education, Vol. 44, No. 2 (February, 1960), 112-118. Schnaffner, Laurance F. Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 19 (April, 1955), 156. Sims, Ward L. "The Development and Evaluation of an In-Service X Education Program in Elementary School Science, " Science Education, Vol. 42 (December, 1958), 391—398. 155 Tyndall, Jesse Parker. "The Teaching of Science in Elementary Schools by Recent Graduates of Atlantic Christian College as Related to Their Science Preparation, " Science Education, Vol. 44, No. 2 (1960), 119. Wood, Hugh B. "In-Service Education of Teachers--An Evaluation, " University of Arizona, 1950, Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Third Edition, New York: The Macmillan Company (1960), 702. Report 5 American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Improving Science and Mathematics Programs in American Schools. Washington, 1960, 21. Cook, Donald J. , Director. The Improvement of the Teaching of Science and Mathematics in the Elementary Schools. Green Castle, Indiana: DePauw University, 1958. Dutton, Frederic B. , Chairman, Committee on Objectives, 1962 AAAS Wisconsin Conference, 1. Report of Group 1, Objectives. Reports From A Conference on Science Instruction in Elementary and Junior High Schools, AAAS Washington, 1962. National Education Association, Research Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 1 (February, 1962), 12. National Science Foundation, Twelfth Annual Report, Washington, 1962, 98. National Science Teachers Association, Planning for Excellence in High School Science, Washington, 1961. Test Manuals American Council on Education, Psychological Examination for College Freshmen, Manual, Revision 1952: Education Professional School_ Groups. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1952. Cook, Walter W. , and others. Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory Manual. The Psychological Corporation, New York, 1951. 156 Cooperative Test Division, Sequential Test of Educational Progress, Manual For InterpretingScores: Mathematics, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1957. Cooperative Test Division, Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, Manual For Interpreting Scores: Science, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1957. ' Edwards, Allen L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, The Psychological Corporation, New York, 1954. Edwards, Allen L. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Manual, Revised 1957, The Psychological Corporation, New York, 1957. Miller, W. S. Supplement to the Manual For the Miller Analogies Test, The Psychological Corporation, New York, 1962. Dissertation Abstracts Alford, Genevieve Garretson. "An Analysis of Science Interests of Selected Children and an Identification of Problems Encountered by the Teachers of These Children in Science Instruction, " Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 2704, No. 8, 1960. Applegate, Irvamae Vincent. "A Survey of Selected Practices in Minnesota Public Schools with Implications for the Organization of In—service Education Activities, ” Dissertation Abstracts, 17: 1955, No. 9, 1957. Berrysma, Max Joseph, "Factors Contributing to the Competency of Elementary Teachers in Teaching Science, " Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 558, No. 2, 1959. Bixler, James Edward. "The Effect of Teacher Attitude on Elementary Children's Science Information and Science Attitude, " Research in the Teaching of Science, July 1957-July 1959, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, 1962, 28. Boyd, Claude Collins. "A Study of the Relative Effectiveness of Selected Methods of In~Service Education for Elementary School Teachers, " Dissertation Abstracts, 22: 3531—2, No. 10, 1962. Boyer, Donald Allen. "A Comparative Study of the Science Achievement in Elementary Schools, " Research in the Teaching of Science, July 1957-July 1959, U. S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Washington, 1962, 28. 157 Bryant, Paul Payne. Abstract. "Science Understandings Considered Important for Children and the Science Required of Elementary Teachers, " Research in the Teaching of Science, July 1957- July 1959, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, 1962, 29. Challand, Helen J. Abstract. "An Appraisal of Elementary School Science Instruction in the State of Illinois, " Research in the Teaching of Science, July 1957-July 1959, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, 1962, 29. Eccles, Priscilla Jacobs. "An Evaluation of a Course in Teaching Science in the Elementary School, " Dissertation Abstracts, 19: 2862, No. 11, 1959. Harville, LaCy Edward, "A Study of the In-Service Education Program in Knoxville City Schools, " Dissertation Abstracts, 21: 2175, No. 8, 1961. Hempel, Carl. "Attitudes of a Selected Group of Elementary School Teachers Toward In-Service Education, " Dissertation Abstracts, 21: 3684, No. 13, 1961. Jaffa, Nathan Neubert. “An Evaluation of the Planning Aspect of the In-Service Education Program of the Elementary Division of the Baltimore City Department of Education, " Dissertation Abstracts, 17: 2526, No. 11, 1957. McFeaters, Mary M. Marshall. "A Critical Analysis of Selected Research Literature on In-Service Teacher Education, " Dissertation Abstracts, 14: 1340, No. 8, 1954. Mead, Clyde F. Jr. "A Study of In-Service Education Facilities and Needs of Educators in Selected Elementary Schools in the State of Nevada, " Dissertation Abstracts, 15: 376, No. 1, 1954. Micheals, Bernard Earl. ”The Preparation of Teachers to Teach Elementary Science, " Dissertation Abstracts, 19: 737, No. 4, 1958. Self, Elbert Lee. "Criteria for a Program of In-Service Education in 4, the Elementary and Secondary School, " Dissertation Abstracts, 20: 962, No. 3, 1959. 158 Selser, Will Lindsey. "An Evaluation of An'In-Service Institute for Improving Science and Mathematics Instruction in the Hillsborough County Junior High Schools, " Dissertation Abstracts, 23: 3804, No. 10, 1963. Smith, Susanna J. "An Evaluation of a Workshop Program for In-Service Teacher Education, " Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations, Pennsylvania State University, 8: 80, 1946. Williams, Clarence Earl Sr. "A Study of the Science Knowledge and Background of Selected Elementary Teachers and College Students, " Dissertation Abstracts, 21: 2541, No. 9, 1961. C ommunications Moser, Eugene W. Private communication to the investigator, August 7, 1963, 2. Science and Mathematics Teaching Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. "A Proposal to Special Projects in Science Education Section National Science Foundation For a Program Involving The Use of Physical Science Subject Matter Specialists Trained On NSF Programs to Serve In-Service Elementary Teachers. " Nov. 1961. APPENDIX A FORMS USED IN THE STUDY .‘ 1 160 SUMMER CONFERENCE - 1962 APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONFERENCE being supported by THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY A complete application must include: (1) This form with every item filled in, (2) the School System Application Form, (3) a complete set of college transcripts. (Items 2 and 3 may be sent directly to the Director of the Conference.) This form should be returned before July 6, 1962. 1. Name 2. Social Security No. Mr. Mrs. Miss (encircle one) (last) (first) (middle) 3. Name of school in which you teach School Address Your position 4. Residential address Home Phone No. School Phone No. 5. Minimum one—way distance (highway and/or rail) from home to conference: miles 6. E] Single :1 Married :1 Widow(er) I: Divorced or separated 7. U. S. Citizen [3 Yes I: No. 8. Date of birth 9. If you have a spouse, what is his or her occupation? 10. Employment Record. -— List professional and work experience of the past 4 years. (List in reverse chronological order giving present position first.) (Add separate sheet if necessary.) Dates Nature of Acti 11. Years of teaching experience by June, 1962, in: (a) high school (including junior high): years, from to (b) college (including junior college): years, from to (c) other (specify: ): years, from to 161 12. List your own complete weekly schedule: For 1961-1962 ent Tentative for 1962-63 (include anticipated in-service activities) Name of Course or Other Assignment Grade or Periods Per Level Week Each period is minutes long. 13. Science and mathematics teaching experience. Subject No. of Years Subject No. of Years Experience Experience Biology Mathematics Chemistry Physics Earth Science General Science 162 14. College or university education: or Years Degree Major Minor ent From- To— 15. List all programs specifically for science or mathematics teachers that you have attended. Include ALL Summer Institutes, In—Service and Academic Year Institutes, Fellowships, and all Research Participation programs, in which you have participated, whether NSF-supported or not. Write "NONE" if you have participated in no previous programs of this nature. Type Summer In-ser AYI Res. Partic 16. What professional journals and scientific publications do you read regularly? 17. List the technical and professional science, chemistry, mathematics, physics, biological science, and education organizations (local, state, and national) of which you are a member. Include curriculum committees, planning groups, and similar activities. 18. List any publications you have had, in professional journals. 19, Academic Preparation: In this section show for every course studied in college in the fields listed below, including courses in Institutes, (a) the course number as recorded on your transcript, (b) the descriptive title of the course, (c) the year it was taken, (CI) number of semester-hours credit re- ceived (record amount in column U if the credit was undergraduate credit, in column G if it was graduate credit; if it was quarter-hours, multiply by 2/3 to convert to semester hours), (e) grade received. Mark with an asterisk (>l<) ALL courses taken in Summer Institutes, In—Service and Academic Year Institutes. These courses should be listed even if no grades were given. se se Year e Year este Title T A Title Taken Hours number Total r of hours Science Earth Sci. (Astr. , Geol. , Meteor. , etc. 164 20. Discuss briefly your plans for the coming in-service program in your school. Sketch briefly the benefits you hope to derive from participation in the conference and your special reasons for wishing to attend. 21. Recheck this entire form to be sure that you have completed every item in accordance with the direction given at the beginning and the directions 2 associated with individual items. Be sure that you have given full and ’ 1 correct information concerning Institutes you have attended (items 17 and 3 19). When this has been done, sign the following statement: "I certify that the information given in this application is accurate and complete. " "I can be available on the Michigan State University campus July 23 through | August 17, 1962. Arrangements have been made with my school system , for a minimum of 45 contact hours with elementary teachers in inaservice ‘ activities during the 1962—1963 school year. If accepted, I will cooperate in the necessary evaluative activities and attend the summary conference at Michigan State University in June, 1962. " , Signature Date of Application . Name of School System 165 SCHOOL SYSTEM APPLICATION FOR._PAR'LICIPATION SUMMER CONFERENCE 1962 sponsored by THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY School Addres s School Phone . Principal of Participant's Building Name of Superintendent of Schools Office Phone Home Phone School Office Phone i Administrator for the ln-Service Program Address Phone Name of Participant . Enrollment information: Total High School Enrollment grades to Total Jr. High Enrollment grades to Total Elementary Enrollment grades to total Number of elementary teachers 1 Number expected to participate in program . Grade levels expected to participate in the program The signed copy of this form should be sent to Dr. Wayne Taylor, Con- ference Director, 513 Education Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. (We would appreciate receiving it as soon as possible and preferably not later than July 6, 1962. This will permit the prompt completion of the initial Conference records.) The School System agrees: 1. To provide for the released time of the participant during the school year 1962-1963, for the purpose of carrying on the in-service program. 2. To permit the participant to attend the summary conference in East Lansing in June, 1963. Superintendent of Schools or duly designated official Date 166 ESISC PROJECT SCHOOL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE Building Unit Form Date of Survey Participant Part I Name of Building Administrator Is there a library in this unit? D Yes I: No ‘ Is there a professional library in this unit? D Yes a No Is there a librarian in this unit? [:[1/2 Time DFull time [1N0 What special teachers serve this building? 1: Music CIArt CI Speech U Science B Phy. Ed. U Other Part II Please check the following items, providing numerical information for items as requested. 1. Number of classrooms per grade. 2. Minutes per week devoted to science in grade. 3. Grades giving a mark in science. 4. Grades participating in a science fair last year. 5. Grades using a system—wide guide for science curriculum. 6. Grades using a science textbook. 7. Grades using a science workbook. 8. Grades having a teacher other than classroom teacher for science. 9. Grades participating in Educational TV for Science. 10. Grades where standardized tests are regularly given. What tests are given? Pa rt III 167 Please indicate the number of each item to be found in this building unit. Number Item mNO‘mbP-LMNr—I 16 mm sound movie projector Classroom with 110 volt convenience outlets Classroom with sink and running water Classroom with laboratory heat sources Classroom with permanent demonstration table . Portable demonstrations table ‘ j . Mercury thermometer . Magnetic compass . Meter stick Aneroid barometer . Low voltage electric lamp and socket ! Source of low voltage D. C. . Glass or lucite prism . Reading glass or large lens . Ring stand, metal support . St. Louis or other simple motor . Tuning fork Pa rt IV . Number full time teachers in this building . Number part time teachers in this building Please make the following judgments about this building and express them in percentages of classrooms in each category. Per Cent of Classrooms Inadequate Reasonably Adequate Good 1. Demonstration space for teachers 2. Storage space for science equipment 3. Workspace for student science activities 4. Storage space for student projects in progress 5. Light control for projection 6. Glassware and laboratory hardware 7. Hand tools and building materials Science and Mathematics Teaching Center 513 Education Building, Michigan State University 168 ESISC PROJECT INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE SCHOOL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Please fill out one survey form for each elementary building or unit. The tabulation of these will be done by the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center at Michigan State University. If some elementary classrooms are located in junior or senior high school buildings please treat them as a separate unit. Instructions for the individual items: N Part I Special teachers may only be part time in this building. Part 11 Sec. 2. This should be an average figure for all classroom of a grade. Sec. 3. Any progress report to parents and/or recorded is considered a mark. Sec. 6. Please indicate if multiple text approach is used by placing an M in the appropriate grade box. Sec. 10. Follow-up may be possible if some achievement scores are available. Pa rt III This is a very small sample of some items that might be used in an Elementary Science Program. Note that the quantities are given for the building as a whole. Part IV These need 333 be computed percentages; estimate to the nearest 10% interval. In order to maintain some uniformity in these judgments of the adequacy of facilities and equipment for an elementary science program we have provided some rough standards for each category. The sample standards are intended to serve merely as a guide in classification and do not represent criteria by which a school might be judged. Presence or absence of individual items is not critical; these items are mentioned merely as examples. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Inadequate No clear working surface, space not visible to entire class Window ledges, coat closet, no shelves, some equipment under desks. Students' slant top desks or window ledges. Little space except inside each student desk or locker; not many inuprogress No shades on win~ dows, skylights, or doors capable of blocking sun- light. A few fruit jars or household con- tainers; no test tubes, flasks or beakers. No tools stored in the classroom except scissors. 169 Reasonably Adequate Desk top or table, without water or drain, visible to most of the class. Most equipment in low cupboards or drawers some large items out in the room Student-height table for group of 3-5 at a time with wate r nearby. Cupboards and tops of lockers used, open shelves; some projects visible. Opaque shades on windows only, permits color movies except on a very bright day. Several sizes of containers, plastic and glass; a few test tubes, beakers, and flasks. Pliers, screw driver, hammer, knife and scissors. Science and Mathematics Teaching Center 513 Education Building, Michigan State University Good Protected surface, water, drain, electricity clearly visible to class. Glass front cases at student eye level, drawers, peg-board or racks for large items. Protected surface with water and drain avail- able to large groups or several small groups. Separate room with tables and shelves; many projects here, perhaps some in room. Opaque shades with good ventilation when room is darkened; will permit use of opaque projector. Several beakers, test tubes and flasks per work station for small groups; stored near work area. Vise, wire cutter, hacksaw, coping saw plus tools in preceding columns. 170 ESISC PROJECT BIWEEKLY REPORT Name of Participant Two~week period School System 1. 2. 3. 7. 8. from to Number of contact hours with elementary teachers Number of teachers contacted (see attached roster) Contact with elementary teachers was made: A. During released time for the elementary teachers B. After the school day C. At other times ’ Please indicate when (early morning, evening, etc.) What share of the activities during contact time were spent: No. of Hours D. As part of scheduled periodic meetings E. In individual consultation F. In informal small group sessions G. With principals or other administrators H. In classroom visitation I . Please indicate other activities Materials presented to elementary teachers were: Check List A. Based on topic guide (title) B. Based on other material; please indicate topic C. Given in lecture presentation D. Given as demonstrations E F . Involved teacher activities . Utilized other methods (please indicate: TV, panel, etc.) Other time devoted primarily to this program. No.. of Hours A. Preparation of printed materials B. Preparation of demonstrations C. Securing supplies and equipment D. Public relations activities (please specify) E. Explaining program to outside groups. Please indicate group (PTA, Kiwanis, etc.) F. Other activities. Please indicate very briefly. Special events and new developments: Other comments: Science and Mathematics Teaching Center 513 Education Building, Michigan State University 171 CONFERENCE EVALUATION Please rate the following activities of the conference using a 5 point scale. Give a rating of 5 to those that seemed to contribute most to your in-service program planning. 1. The eight presentations made by representatives from various areas of physical science, overall score. Individual presentations: 1. 1 "Experimentation and Measurement" 1. 2 "Astronomy and Space Science" 1. 3 "Motion and Machines“ "Heat and Sources of Energy" "Electricity and Magnetism" 1. 4 l. 5 1. 6 "Matter and Chemical Energy" 1. 7 "Sound and Mechanical Waves" 1. 8 1 ”Light and Electromagnetic Radiation" 2. The presentations made by representatives from various areas of education, overall score. Individual presentations: 2. 1 "The Criteria for the Selection of Materials" 2. 2 ”The Elementary School Pupils" 2. 3 "The Secondary School Mathematics Teacher as an Elementary School Mathematics Consultant" 2.4 "The Critical Thinking Approach'I 2. 01 "The Place of the Elementary School in American Society" 2.6 "Comments on Conference Progress — with 35 mm color slides" 2.7 "Sources and Resources for Elementary Science" 2.8 "Working with the Elementary Teacher" 2. 9 "Successful Patterns of In—Service and Consultative Activity" 3. The committee memberships you held during the conference. 4. The writing activities in the production of the topic guides. 172 5. The group discussions on the tentative drafts of the topic 6. The laboratory experiences provided in the science guides. teaching laboratory (Room 107). 7. The shop activities and the production of shop made items. 8. The packet service of free and inexpensive materials. Please select the appropriate choice by letter for the following items: 9. I found the facilities of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center to be a. of little value to me b. of great value to me c. of moderate value to me 10. I found the facilities of the Teaching Materials Center to be 11. 12, a. of little value to me b. of great value to me ' c. of moderate value to me I feel the number of topics handled was a. too many for the time available b. too few for the time available c . satisfactory. The selection of topics was a. adequate for elementary physical science b. should be revised to include c. should be revised to omit 13. I feel the committees that perpared topic guide materials were a. too small for effective work b. of satisfactory size for the job c. a handicap to my individual work 14. The overall size of a conference group for a program similar to this should probably be a. between 10 and 15 b. between 16 and 20 c. between 21 and 30 d. larger than 30 15. If Such a conference could be held any time during the summer, When would it be most valuable? (first choic e) (second choice) .2—...;.. ma-.. . 16. If such a conference could be of any duration up to a full summer, how long should it be? (first choice) (second choice) Though the overall conference program should probably be judged on its apparent contribution to an in-service program, it seems to me now that it was a. very worthwhile b. worthwhile c. satisfactory d. of little value e. a waste of time In view of the time limitations of any conference and the varied backgrounds of the participants, some consideration of the relative time allotments to the various conference activities should be made. In your opinion please check the appropriate time that should have been allowed for the following: 3 e i 3 ii Hogan's QB QOBHHO>H B 0:»?me EC 3‘6 as as “'7‘; Tu'fl-sgroo q.) v—4 Hm®_2 (,1de Omfi“mm°“’ .Hdo 43‘” 83 4401.43 "1.13 Visit to State Surplus Property Var Visit to Teaching Materials Center Visit to Engineering facility Other visits and field trips Suggested: Preparation of topic guides A. Presentations B. Committee work C. Group discussions D. Review by lecturer 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 174 U) (\3 i 3 s up8>~cc 08 ”OBI-{“0 >44 gBogoggf: add-Havoc de‘gufiigg H . m oggflmgOo E ”4‘60 "do BuWHBmFQ Other topics or expansions that would assist you Education area discussions Other topics or expansions Library and other research Shop activities Laboratory ses sions After hours sessions at Owen Other Activities needed in Conference Suggested: Were the actual activities and outcomes of the conference consistent With your pre-conference perceptions? Please comment. Do you perceive any specific local problems that may arise in your in-service program that were not brought out during the conference? Please cite. We would sincerely be interested in knowing what the Conference has meant to you personally and to your own ideas about science and science teaching. If you would care to do so, we would appreciate it if you would cite what you consider were the weak points of the conference. If you would care to do so, we would appreciate it if you would cite what you consider were the strong points of the conference. We would appreciate your specific suggestions for the improvement of the conference program. 175 ESISC PROGRAM Conference Evaluation Form 11 Please rate the following activities of the conference using a five point scale. Give a rating of five to those that made the greatest contribution to your in-service program. 1. The eight physical science presentations. 2. The presentations made by representatives from various areas of education. 3. Committee memberships you held during the conference. 4. The writing activities in the production of the Topic Guides. 5. The discussions held as a working group. 7. The preparation of trial items in shop and lab. , 8. The packet service. Please select the appropriate choice by letter for the following items: 9. The number of topics handled in the conference was a. too many for the time available. b. too few for the time available. c. satisfactory. 10. The preparation of the Topic Guides was a. too detailed for use in the field. b. inadequate for use in the field. c. satisfactory. 11. The selection of topics a. was adequate for elementary physical science. b. should be revised to include c. should be revised to omit 12. If such a conference could be held any time during the summer, when would it be best? (first choice) (second choice) l3. 17. 176 If such a conference could be of any duration, up to a full summer, how long should it be? (first choice) (second choice) As you now view the conference and its contribution to an in—service program, please select one of the following as characterizing your feelings. [:1 a. very worthwhile Db. worthwhile [:IC. satisfactory :1 d. of little value 1:16: a waste of time. If you would care to do so, we would appreciate it if you would cite what you consider were the weak points of the conference. If you would care to do so, we would appreciate it if you would cite what you consider were the strong points of the conference. We would appreciate your specific suggestions for the improvement of the conference program. ESISC Program ELEMENTARY TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Section I A. Have you been active in the in-service program in elementary science in your school during the 1962-1963 school year? D Yes (if Yes is checked, proceed to item B) D No (if No is checked, please complete the following and proceed directly to Part C) 1. Were you aware of the program in your system? '3 Yes El No 2. Were you invited to a session by the local ‘ participant? D Yes D No 3 . Do you know personally anyone who did participate in any of the sessions? D Yes D No B. To what extent have you participated in the activities in your local program? Please indicate the number of activities you have attended in the appropriate space and indicate approximately how many were available. “2:22:13... mama. Regular classes Workshops Class visitations Small group consultations Individual consultations Other activities (please specify) C. What grade level do you currently teach? K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other How many years at this level? __ How many years total? What was your most recent enrollment in a science or science methods course? Coulse title Level Date In addition to the ESISC program, what in-service experiences have you had during this past school year? Course ml: or area covered On-campus course Extension course Local in-service program Television course Curriculum study group Professional committee Othe r expe riences 178 Section II Please consider the contributions of the overall elementary science in-service pro- gram in rating the following items. Please check, for each item. the approximate extent of the contribution made by the program. . A Has the program contributed to: Contribution Considerable Modorote None 1. Your own store of physical science information in the area of astronomy and space science? 2. Your own store of physical science information in the area of physics (heat, light, sound, electricity)? 3. Your own store of physical information in the area of chemistry (matter, chemical change, chemical energy)? 4. Your own store of information in the area of physical science measurements (dimensions, mass, tempera- ture. etc. )? 5. Your own store of information in the area of the teaching of science? Your skill in conducting a demonstration in science? Your skill in locating appropriate library reSources? Your skill in utilizing improvised equipment? Your skill in organizing experimental activities? OCOCOK‘IO) An increase in the importance you attach toscience in your classroom. 11. An increase in the importance you attach to science in the school curriculum? 12. Your desire for further course work in content science? 13. Your desire for further informal investigation in content science ? 14. An increase in the interaction between teachers at your grade level? 15. An increase in the interactions with teachers in other buildings ? 16. An increase in the interactions with teachers in other schools ? 179 Section III The following items represent a sample of some teacher activities in elementary science. Please consider each item carefully and check the columns as they apply to your own teaching practice. H 20. 21. OCOCDQCDCfln-hC/JNH . Joined a professional science teachers group. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. . Other activities (please specify) This Lost Your Your Presented a science display at an open house or science fair. Added material to the resource file in science. Read an article or articles on science teaching. Introduced a science topic not previously taught. Requested some specific item of science equipment. Arranged a laboratory exercise for the class. Revised the presentation of a science t0pic. Attended a talk on a scientific subject. Met with other teachers to discuss science programs. Selected trade or reading books for students on science subjects. Attended a conference of science teachers. Used a science demonstration not‘ previously used. Arranged a field trip as part of science instruction. Invited a science resource person to the classroom. Increased the time spent on science. Encouraged a fellow teacher in science teaching. Examined a variety of science textbooks. Utilized science activities as a method of accommodating student differences. Evaluated present science programs in terms of student interests. Evaluated present science program in terms of opportunities for creativity. 180 Section IV This section is intended to record an evaluation of the local participant in the ESISC program who has conducted the in—service activities in your school. Encircle one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 for each item. How does the participant present the in-service material? 1 2 3 4 s most of it is too difficult at on appropriate level and and uninteresting in an interesting way How effective is the participant during activity or laboratory sessions? 1 2 3 4 5 he is dull and does. not his approach is stimulat- stimulate the teacher ing and facilitates learn- ing Does the participant establish rapport with elementary teachers? 1 2 3 4 5 he is oloofand makes few he is very friendly and friends in K-6 most helpful Does the participant recognize the problems in teaching elementary science? 1 2 3 4 5 he has no real idea of the he is aware of the prob- elementary school lems and seeks solutions How does the participant rank with other in-service instructors you have had? 1 2 3 4 5 one of the best one of the poorest Section V A. The ESISC program as offered in our system during the 1962-1963 school year is best categorized by the following: (Check one number.) D1. very D2. better than [33. average D4. disappoint- D5. a waste worthwhile average ing of time B. The most important contribution of the program to me was C. The most serious shortcoming of the program to me was D. General comments: (Please feel free to give any additional comments on the back of this page.) 181 ESISC PROGRAM Program Administrator Questionnaire Section I A. How many teachers of grades K-6 are there in the system? Approximately how many elementary teachers have participated in the in-service program in elementary science this year? B. In addition to the ESISC science program, what in-service activities for the elementary teachers were carried out during this school year? Please respond by placing a check indicating the number of elementary teachers who participated in each type of activity. Leave a blank if the activity was not scheduled for elementary teachers this year. Approximate Number of Teachers Most About 1 V Few 1. Fall pre—school workshop 2. Teachers' meetings 3. Curriculum study groups 4. In—service training 5. Extension courses (offered locally) 6 . Workshop 5 es sions 7. Other types of activity (please describe) Section II Approximately what contribution has been made by the local school 1 system to the ESISC program in terms of the following: 1. Released time for the participant $ 2. Released time for elementary teachers 33 3. Purchase of special equipment for the in-service program $ 4. Additional supplies and materials needed for the in-service activities $ 5. Purchase of additional library materials and books needed for the program A. Student materials B. Teacher-professional materials 6 . Othe r expenses 7. Approximate total cost to the school system Section III 4799mm Please consider the contributions of the overall elementary science in— service program to teachers in rating the following items. for each item the approximate extent of the contribution made by the pro— gram as you perceive it. Has the program contributed to: lo 6. 7. 8. 9. Please check Contribution Consid- e rable Moderate None The elementary teachers' store of physical science information in the area of astronomy and space science? The elementary teachers' store of physical science information in the area of physics (heat, light, sound, electricity)? The elementary teachers' store of physical information in the area of chemistry (matter, chemical change, chemical energy)? The elementary teachers' store of informa— tion in the area of physical science measure— ments (dimensions, mass, temperature, etc.)? The elementary teachers' store of informa— tion in the area of the teaching of science? The skill of the elementary teacher in conducting a demonstration in science? The skill of the elementary teacher in locating appropriate library resources? The skill of the elementary teacher in utilizing improvised equipment? The skill of the elementary teacher in organizing experimental activities ? 183 An increase in the importance teachers attach to science in their classroom? An increase in the importance teachers attach to science in the school curriculum? A desire on the part of the elementary teachers for further course work in content science? A desire on the part of the elementary teachers for further informal investigation in science? An increase in teacher interaction between teachers at a given grade level? An increase in teacher interaction between teachers in various buildings ? An increase in teacher interaction between teachers in other schools? Section IV Contribution Consid- erable Moderate None The following items represent a sample of some teacher activities in elementary science. Please consider each activity carefully and rate the item as it applies to the teaching practices of the elementary teachers. >-‘ e N e eachers This Year Most 1 2 Presented a science display or fair. Added material to the verti- cal file in science. Read an article or articles on science teaching. Introduced a science topic not previously taught. Requested some specific item of equipment. ery Few eachers Most ear ery Few 0‘ e 10. ll. 12. l7. l8. 19. 20. Arranged a laboratory exer— cise for the class. Revised the presentation of a science topic. Increased the time spent on science. Attended a talk on a scientific subject. Met with other teachers to discuss science programs. Selected books for students on science subjects. Joined a professional science teachers group. Attended a conference of science teachers. Used a science demonstration not previously used. Arranged a field trip as a part of science instruction. . Invited a science resource person to the classroom. Encouraged a fellow teacher in science teaching. Examined a variety of science textbooks. Evaluated present science programs in terms of student interests. Evaluated present science program in terms of oppor— tunities for creativity. Section IV 185 This section is intended to record your evaluation of the local partici- pant in the ESISC program. or 5 for each item. Encircle one of the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, How does the participant present the in—service material? 1 2 at an appro- priate level 4 5 most of it is to difficult How effective is the participant during activity or laboratory sessions? 1 2 his approach is stimulating and facilitates learning 4 5 he is dull and does not stimu- late teachers Does the participant establish rapport with elementary teachers ? l 2 he is very friendly and most helpful 4 5 he is aloof and makes few friends in K-6 l 2 4 5 Does the participant he is aware he has no real recognize the problems of their problems idea of the in teaching elementary and seeks solu- elementary science ? tions school 1 2 4 5 How does the participant one of the one of the rank with other in-service best poorest instructors you have had? Section V A. The ESISC program as offered in our system during the 1962-63 school year is best categorized by the following: (check one) :1 very worth— :1 better than [3 average [3 disappointing D a waste ! while average of time i B. Are you planning to continue this program through 1963-64? D Yes DNO C. If you plan to continue in 1963-64, what changes seem most needed? 186 \ED. What do you consider the most important contribution of the program to your school? E. What do you consider the most serious shortcoming of the program in your school? F. Comments. Please feel free to give any additional comments on the back of this page. 187 * ESISC PROGRAM Participant Questionnaire Section I A. What activities did you provide for teachers in your program? Please indicate the approximate number of each activity that was arranged and how each appeared to succeed. (Use a five point scale, with five the most successful.) Regular classes Laboratory sessions Workshops Class visitations Small group consultations Individual consultations Other activities (Please specify) B. What grade levels did you attempt to reach with the program? Circle those where contact was made. K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other Comments: C. Which grade levels seemed to be most responsive to your program? K 1 Z 3 4 5 6 Other Comments: Section 11 Approximately what amount of time, funds, and materials went into your in-service program this past year? Released time for you Hours per week Released time for elementary staff Hours per session Number of sessions Budget for the program: I i Special equipment $ Supplies used $ Library additions $ Other expenses $ Section 111 Please consider the contributions of the overall elementary science in- service program to teachers in rating the following items. Please check for each item the approximate extent of the contribution made by the , program as you perceive it. I Contribution Consid- Has the program contributed to: erable Moderate None l. The elementary teachers' store of i physical science information in the area of astronomy and space science? 2. The elementary teachers' store of physi- i cal science information in the area of physics (heat, light, sound, electricity)? 3. The elementary teachers' store of physi— cal information in the area of chemistry (matter, chemical change, chemical energy)? ( 4. The elementary teachers' store of information in the area of physical science measurements (dimensions, mass, temperature, etc.) ? 5. The elementary teachers' store of infor- mation in the area of the teaching of science ? 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 14. 15. 189 The skill of the elementary teacher in conducting a demonstration in science? The skill of the elementary teacher in locating appropriate library resources? The skill of the elementary teacher in utilizing improvised equipment? The skill of the elementary teacher in organizing experimental activities? An increase in the importance teachers attach to science in their classroom. An increase in the importance teachers attach to science in the school curricu- lum? A desire on the part of the elementary teachers for further course work in content science? A desire on the part of the elementary teachers for further informal investi- gation? in science ? An increase in teacher interaction between teachers at a given grade level? An increase in teacher interaction between teachers in various buildings ? An increase in teacher interaction between teachers in other schools? Contributio n Consid- erable Moderate None 190 Section IV The following items represent a sample of some teacher activities in elementary science. Please consider each activity carefully and rate the item as it applies to the teaching practices of the elementary teachers. rs s ear rs ery Few Most 1. Presented a science display or fair. 2. Added material to the verti— cal file in science. 3. Read an article or articles on science teaching. 4. Introduced a science topic not previously taught. U1 e Requested some specific item of equipment. 6. Arranged a laboratory exercise for the class. 7. Revised the presentation of a science topic. 8. Increased the time spent on science. 9. Attended a talk on a scien— tific subject. 10. Met with other teachers to discuss science programs. 11. Selected books for students on science subjects. 12. Joined a professional scienc teachers group. 13. Attended a conference of science teachers. 14. Used a science demonstra— tion not previously used. 20. 191 Arranged a field trip as a part of science instruction. Invited a science resource person to the classroom. Encouraged a fellow teacher in science teaching. Examined a variety of science textbooks. Evaluated present science programs in terms of interests. Evaluated present science program in terms of oppor- tunities for creativity. Section V Mahy factors can contribute to the operation of an in—service program, some of these are positive and some are negative. Please evaluate the following factors by encircling one of the numbers, —2, -1, 0, l, 2. For example, a -2 would indicate that this factor in your school did much to hold up the program. 1. Administrative attitude -2 -l 0 l 2 2. ESISC Topic Guides -2 -l O l 2 3. Availability of funds —2 -l 0 l 2 4. Presentation method -2 «I 0 l 2 5. Planning time -2 -l 0 1 Z l 6. Meeting arrangements -2 —l 0 l 2 7. Teacher response -2 -1 0 l 2 8. ESISC Demonstration Cards -2 -l 0 1 2 9. Presentation level -2 «l 0 l 2 10. Participant/teacher ratio -2 -l 0 l 2 192 Section VI A .0 The ESISC program as offered in our system during the 1962-63 school year is best categorized by the following: (check one) [:1 very worth- [:Ibetter than :1 average E] disappoint- [:1 a waste while average ing of time Are you planning to continue this program through 1962—64? Yes [:1 No C] If you plan to continue in 1963—64, what changes seem most needed? . What do you consider the most important contribution of the program to your school? What do you consider the most serious shortcoming of the program in your school? Comments. Please feel free to give any additional comments on the back of this page. 193 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE NAME 1. Does your school have a stated or implied Philosophy? Can you tell what it proposes ? Are there clear objectives for the total program? How does elementary science contribute to this program? 2. How do you feel about the present elementary program in general? In science? Are pro'visions made for exceptional children? 3. What do you think of the preparation of students in science? How do they seem to you as they enter your classes? 4. What provisions are currently made for the teaching science generally? In the elementary schools? Facilities, equipment, storage, petty cash? 5. How does your administration feel about the special problems of science education? What do they do? What kinds of leadership are in evidence? 6. What kinds of in—service programs have been going on in your system? Can you note any teacher reaction to this program? How much time I do teachers now spend in such activities ? i 7. How adequate are the system libraries? For staff and students? Are they being utilized effectively? What do they have in addition to books ? 8. If you could make any change you would like in the elementary or K-lZ 1 science program, what would you do? 9. As you see yourself in the role of in-service teacher in your own school what do you think you will be able to accomplish? 10, Are there any ideas you have about the program, the conference or science education you might wish to add, at this time? pb 194 ESISC PROGRAM Summary Conference - Interview Schedule How do you feel about the present elementary program in your school system? How about the science program K-6? What pro- visions are made for exceptional children, particularly in science? How did the provisions made for elementary teaching science seem when you got into the schools? Were there competitive in-service programs going on this year in your system? What were they like? How did the teacher view your activities, in comparison? Did you personally make any contacts with the library services for the elementary? For the staff? As an in~ service teacher, what did you feel you really accomplished this year? Are you going to continue this kind of activity in the future? Any general comments on the conference plans, or the program? APPENDIX B SUMMER CONFERENCE PROGRAM 195 ESISC SUMMER CONFERENCE SCHEDULE Monday - July 23 8:30 - 9:00 a.m. 9:00 - 9:45 a.m. 10:00 - 11:00 a.m. 11:15 - 12:00 n. 12:45 - 1:15 p.m. 1:30 - 2:00 p.m. 2:00 - 2:45 p.m. 196 WEEK 1 Opening Ses sion Distribution of initial materials and introduction of staff Dr. F. B. Dutton Dr. John Mason Dr. William Walsh Mr. Julian R. Brandou Miss Shirley Brehm MrL Jerrold W. Maben Mr. Louis Panush Dr. Wayne Taylor, Conference Director "A Philosophy of Science Education" Dr. F. B. Dutton, Director, Science and Mathematics Teaching Center Coffee The Summer Elementary Science Conference Outline of Approach to Problem Discussion of Block and Weekly Schedules Committee Role and Function, Progress Reporting Selection of First Block Committees Interviews and Other Evaluative Measures "The Criteria for Selection of Materials" Dr. John M. Mason, Director, Academic Year Institute program , Individual and group pictures Michigan State University Information Services Tour of facilities at the Science and Mathe- matics Teaching Center The Committee Plan of Action for the Conference Conference Director 197 COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS FOR TOPICS I—IV I. "Experiment and Measurement” 11. "Astronomy and Space Science" Mr. Clifford Little Dr. James Stokely Earl Zetterholm, Chairman Jim Wisman, Chairman Ardith Hanna Paul Chamberlain Ed Marantette Don Maxwell Frank Maiuri Graham Miles 111. ”Motion and Machines" IV. "Heat and Sources of Heat Energy" Dr. Donald Montgomery Dr. Beryl H. Dickinson Fred Meppelink, Chairman Tom Drummond, Chairman Del Munro Dick Moore Bill Parker Stub Ritchey Dick Thrall John Schaff _.;._. ‘4. A-i. Tuesday - July 24 8:30 - 10.00 a.m. 10:30 - 12:00 p.m. 2:30 - 4:00 p.m. evening Wednesday - July 25 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. 3:30 p.m. evening Thursday - July 26 8:30 -10:30 a.m. 1:00 — 4:00 p.m. evening "Astronomy and Space Science" Dr. James Stokely Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic Visit to the Instructional Materials Center First floor College of Education building Dr. Burt Thorn, Director Introduction followed by tour of the Center "Motion and Machines" Dr. Donald Montgomery Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic See Interview Schedule for appointments "Heat and Sources of Heat Energy" Dr. Beryl H. Dickinson Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic "The Elementary School Pupils" Dr. William Durr Discussion "The Secondary School Mathematics Teacher as an Elementary School Mathematics Consultant" Dr. David Wells — Room 120 P—M Building See Interview Schedule for appointments Initial Committee meetings on topics I - IV followed by individual preparation and planning Convene at industrial Arts Shop, south wing, College of Education building Introduction to the facility Mr. Tsuji Group projects, procurement, and requests Dr. Taylor and Mr. (Brandou . See Interview Schedule for appointments Friday - July 27 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. "Introduction to the Scope and Sequence of Elementary Science" Dr. Wayne Taylor 1:30 - 3:00 p.m. "The Place of the Elementary School in American Society" Dr. Carl Gross Discussion Followed by comments on Conference progress Dr. Wayne Taylor, Conference Director INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Room 513 Erickson Hall (Please meet at 7:00 p.m. in front of Erickson Hall) July 23 - 7:00 - Wisman, James 1 July 23 - 8:00 - Zetterholm, Earl ' July 24 - 7:00 - Schaff, John July 24 - 8:00 - Thrall, Richard . July 25 - 7:00 - Parker, William : July 25 — 8:00 — Ritchey, Gerald ; July 26 - 7:00 - Moore, Richard 1 July 26 - 8:00 - Munro, Del 9 July 30 — 7:00 — Meppelink, Fred July 30 — 8:00 - Miles, Graham July 31 - 7:00 - Marantette, Edward July 31 - 8:00 - Maxwell, Donald E. Aug. 1 - 7:00 - Hanna, Ardith (Mrs.) E Aug. 1 - 8:00 — Maiuri, Frank Aug. 2 — 7:00 - Chamberlain, Paul Aug. 2 - 8:00 - Drummond, Thomas 200 WEEK II Monday, July 30 8:30 - 12:00 p.m. Committee Sessions on Topics I-IV Work on draft of Topic Guide 2:30 - 4:30 p.m. Testing Session 1 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Conclusion of STEP Math Tests 8:00 - 9:00 p.m. Interview for Mr. Meppelink Tuesday, July 31 8:30 — 10:00 a.m. "Sources and Resources for Elementary Science" Dr. William Walsh 10:30 - 12:00 p. m. Committee sessions 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. Room 107 Erickson Hall will be available for those interested in working on special projects. ‘ ‘ See Mr. Brandou. v . 3:00 - 5:00 p. m. Industrial Arts Shop 7:00 — 9:00 p. m. Industrial Arts Shop will be available. Interviews for Mr. Marantette and Mr. Maxwell Wednesday, August 1 1 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Group session on topic 1, committee may I serve as panel to lead discussion 1 i 10:30 - 12:00 p.m. Group session on topic 11, committee may serve as panel to lead discussion 1:30 - 3:00 p. m. Group discussion of topic III with committee as panel leaders 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Interviews for Mrs. Hanna and Mr. Maiuri Thursday, Aggust 2 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. 10:30 - 12:00 1:00 - 2:30 3:00 — 5:00 p.m. 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Friday, August 3 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. 1:00 p.m. 201 Group discussion on topic IV with committee as panel leaders. Conference with groups of elementary teachers. Open forum on topics I to IV Industrial Arts Shop Interviews for Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Drummond Final committee sessions on first four t0pic areas. Preparation of auxiliary materials, bibliographic notes, etc. for the Topic Guide with visiting lecturers. Testing Session 11. ACE Examination Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory COMMIT TEE MEMBE RSHIPS T OPICS V-VIII V. "Electricity and Magnetism" VI. "Matter and Chemical Energy" Dr. Cowen William Parker, Chairman Gerald Ritchey, Chairman Dick Moore F rank Maiuri Del Munro Ed Marantette Graham Miles Fred Meppelink VII. "Sound and Mechanical Waves" VIII. "Light and Electromagnetic Radi ati on" Ed Chamberlain, Chairman John Schaff, Chairman Ardith Hanna Jim Wi sman Dick Thrall Tom Drummond - Earl Zetterholm Don Maxwell Monday, August 6 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. 10:30 -11:30 a.m. 1:30 — 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, August 7 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. Wednesday, August 8 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. 1:00 - 2:30 p.m. 3:00 - 4:15 p.m. Thursday, August 9 8:30 — 12:00 p.m. 3:00 - 5:00 p.m. 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. 202 WEEK III Conclusion of work on Topics I-IV, proofread- ing and correction of Topic Guide Examination of introductory materials on topics V—VIII "Electricity and Magnetism" Dr. Jerry A. Cowen - 120 P-M Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic. Laboratory Session — Room 107 Dr. Wayne Taylor "Matter and Chemical Energy" Dr. Jack B. Kinsinger Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic. Industrial Arts Shop Industrial Arts Shop "Sound and Mechanical Waves" Dr. Harvey Edwards — 120 P—M Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic. "Light and Electromagnetic Radiation" Dr. Clarence B. Hause - 120 P-M Presentation followed by group discussion of the topic. "Working with the Elementary Teacher" Shirley Brehm Initial committee meetings on topics V-VIII followed by committee preparation activities. Industrial Arts Shop Industrial Arts Shop 203 Friday, Augiist 10 8:30 — 11:00 a.m. Counseling Center examinations administered at the Center, Room 207, Student Services _, ‘Building 1:00 - 3:30 p.m. "Successful Patterns of In-Service and ‘ Consultative Activity" and film review of Conference to date. Dr. Wayne Taylor, Conference Director Monday, August 13 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. 2:00 - 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, AuLust 14 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. 10:30 — 12:00 p.m. 1:00 - 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, August 15 8:30 - 10:00 a.m. 10:30 - 12:00 p.m. 1:30 - 4:00 p.m. Thursday, Aflust 16 8:30 - 11:30 a.m. 1:00 — 4:30 p.m. Friday, August 17 10:00 a. m. 1:30 p.m. 204 WEEK IV Committee ses sions Room 107 available for individual project activities. Group discussion of Topic V with committee as panelleaders Group discussion of Topic VI with committee as panel leaders Industrial Arts ShOp Group discussion of Topic VII with committee as panel leaders Group discussion of Topic VIII with committee as panel leaders Committee groups meet for revision of materials and final editing Final committee sessions on the last four topic areas. Preparation of auxiliary materials, bibliographic notes, etc. for the T0pic Guide. Final shOpsession, clean up, and finish projects. Distribution and collection of materials for remaining Topic Guides. Closing session and In-Service Program Evaluation Discussion RGOivl USE ilé'él'Y RGBil USE UiiLY '7}? JHWQK RESEARCH W “Ii1111111111ES