70-14,984
BARNES, Steven M., 1936THE REACTIONS OF SELECTED ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
TO THE TRAINING FOR AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPROVEMENT STUDY IN
SELECTED SCHOOLS IN MICHIGAN.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1969
Education, teacher training

U n iv ersity M icrofilm s, Inc., A n n A rb o r, M ic h ig an

TH E RE ACT ION S OF SE LEC T E D E L E M E N T A R Y TEACHERS
TO TH E T R A I N I N G FOR A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I O N OF THE
S C I E N C E C U R R ICU LUM IM PROVEMENT S T U D Y
IN SE LE CTED SCHOOLS IN M I C H I G A N

By
Steven M. Barnes

A THESIS
S u b m i t t e d to
M i c h i g a n St ate U niv er s i t y
in p ar t i a l fulfillment of the requirem ent s
for the degree of
DO CTOR OF P H I L O S O P H Y
College o f Education

1969

AB S T R A C T
THE REA CTIONS OF SEL ECT ED E L E M E N T A R Y TEACHERS
T O T H E T R A I N I N G F O R A N D I M P L E M E N T A T I O N OF THE
S C I E N C E C U R R I C U L U M IMPROV EME NT S T U D Y
IN SE LE C T E D SCHOOLS IN M I C H I G A N
By
Ste ven M. Barnes

Pr o b l e m i n v e s t i g a t e d .

T h e purpose o f this study was to

as cer t a i n teacher re act ion to the Sc ience C u r r i c u l u m I m p r o v e ­
me nt S t u d y

(SCIS)

training a n d imp lem ent ati on pro g r a m as

ca rri ed out at M i c h i g a n Sta te U n i v e r s i t y d uri ng 1968-1969.
A l s o of interest w e r e the rela tio nsh ips w h i c h m a y h a v e
e x i s t e d bet w e e n the teachers'
characteristics,
ing a nd ma ter i a l s
Descriptive

as wel l as,

reactions an d sel ected teacher
the effects of the SCIS t r a i n ­

in the cooper ati ng schools .
features and treatment o f d a t a .

i n v o l v e d t h i r t y-t hre e

T he study

first and second g rad e teachers

from

four m i d - M i c h i g a n school districts.

T h r o u g h an NSF C o o p e r a ­

tive C o l l e g e - S c h o o l Sc ienc e Program,

the teachers a tte nde d

a Summer W o r k s h o p in 19 68 d e s i g n e d to acquaint them w i t h the
science content,

re c o m m e n d e d mod es of teaching,

logical bases for the SCIS program.

and p s y c h o ­

T h e Summer W o r k s h o p was

f ollowed by consultant services throug hou t the 1968-1969
school year as the teachers i mpl eme nte d the SCIS m a t e r i a l s .

Steven M. Barnes

D a t a concern ing t he teachers'

reactions to the SCIS

t r a i n i n g and materia ls were g a t h e r e d via q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
ad m i n i s t e r e d d u r i n g the 1968 Summer W o r k s h o p and the follow­
ing A p r i l and also through feedback forms c o m p l e t e d by the
teachers after each SCIS

lesson t a u g h t .

The t e a c h e r c h a r ­

ac t e r i s t i c da ta involv ed in the s t u d y concerned:
of teaching experience,
personality,

the t e a c h e r - p u p i 1 relationship,

the writer,

years

k n o w l e d g e of the SCIS program,

acade mic b a c k g r o u n d in science,

process s k i l l s .

age,

attitude toward

an d k n o w l e d g e of sc ience

In addition to the i nst rum ent s d e s i g n e d by

the M i n n e s o t a T e a c h e r A t t i t u d e I n v e n t o r y and the

Si x t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y Factor Q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r e u s e d to
collect data.
A n a l y s i s of the data i n v o l v e d tabulation,
m e a s u r e s analysis of variance,
co r r e l a t i o n coefficient.
cf s i g n i fic anc e was set at
Findings.
data,

and the P e a r s o n p r o d u c t - m o m e n t

T h e cri terion of the m i n i m u m level
.05 for all s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s .

A n analysis o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d test

along w i t h the st ati stic al tests,

following data:

repeated

seems to s upport the

(1) the el e m e n t a r y teachers did agree on

the relative m e r i t of t he w o r k s h o p e x p e r ie nce s of the SCIS
in-service tr ain ing program;

(2) t he teachers'

rea cti ons to

the w o r k s h o p experiences w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f er ent in
Au gus t than w e r e their reactio ns t h e fo llo win g April;
(3) th e el e m e n t a r y teachers c o n s i s t e n t l y rated the lectures
on the "Nature of Science" as

low in value as an a id in

Steven M. Barnes

implementing the SCIS program;

(4) the teachers'

reactions

to the w o r k s h o p experiences a ppeared to be r ela ted to the
teacher characteristics considered;

(5)

the w o r k s h o p a c t i v i ­

ties whi ch the teachers con sid e r e d as most v a l u a b l e required
their active participation.
Th e average number of feedback forms r e t u r n e d per
teacher was 22-5.
sixty-one

These feedback

(61) per cent complete.

forms were on the average,
The specific

responses, w hen e xa m i n e d quantitatively,
lated to the teachers'

feedback

ap pe a r e d to be r e ­

attitudes and pe rso nal ity factors.

The findings of this study provide sufficient evidence
to support the need for further res earch in the area inv e s t i ­
gated.

This research could also b e expanded to include the

effects of such in-service experiences on student ach i e v e ­
ment .

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to sincerely thank Professor John
M- Mason, chairman of his doctoral committee, for his
interest in the study, his aid in identifying and d e l i m i t ­
ing the problem, and his assistance and c onsultation in the
completion of the dissertation.
The wr iter also expresses ap preciation to Dr. Glenn D .
Berkheimer, coordinator for the SCIS program, for his
assistance in the development of the instruments, a n d his
advice throughout the duration of the study.
Gratitude is extended to Dr. A n d r e w Porter for his
help in the statistical portion of the study.
His guidance
and advice w e r e important to the analysis of the data.
The writer is appreciative to the other members of his
committee, Dr. Ri chard J. Mc L e o d and Dr. Jane Smith, for
their cooperation throughout the doctoral program.
The writer is also grateful to Dr. Julian R. Brandou,
Director of the Science and Mathematics Teach ing Center,
for the use of the Center's facilities.
In addition, the writer wishes to express his thanks to
the 1968-1969 SCIS teachers, w h o s e cooperation was i n d i s ­
pensable for the completion of the s t u d y „
Finally, sincere appreciation is extended to his wife,
Janice, for her aid, cooperation, a n d encouragement t h r o u g h ­
out the duration of the doctoral program.

TABLE OP CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I.

Page
I N T R O D U C T I O N ..............................

1

Ba ckg r o u n d and design of the study . . . .
N e e d for the s t u d y ...................
8
P u r p o s e of the s t u d y .................
10
10
Hypotheses of the s t u d y ..............
D e f i n i t i o n of t e r m s ...................
12
De lim i t a t i o n s and assumptions o f the study
Or g a n i z a t i o n of the d i s s e r t a t i o n .........
II.

R E V I E W OF REL ATE D L I T E R A T U R E ...............

6

14
14
16

El eme n t a r y school science and teacher
t r a i n i n g ................................. .
In-service edu cation for elementary
24
t e a c h e r s ...............................
Ev alu a t i o n of in-service ed uca tio n . . . .
Te ach er c h a r a cte ris tic s and teacher
reactions to in-ser vic e e duc a t i o n . . .
S u m m a r y ....................................
36
III.

D E S C R I P T I V E FEATURES OF THE S T U D Y .......
Ge neral objectives an d d esign of the co ­
o p er a t i v e in-service p r o g r a m .......
Se lec t i o n and d es c r i p t i o n o f the p a r t i c i ­
pants ......................................
Summer w o r k s h o p ..........................
Im ple men tat ion p r o g r a m .....................
Cl ass r o o m visitat ion s and b i - w e e k l y
m e e t i n g s ...............................
Gull Lake w e e k - e n d c o n f e r e n c e s .......
So urces o f teacher d a t a .................
NS F A ppl i c a n t Info rma tio n Sheet . . . .
M i n n e s o t a Te a c h e r A t t i t u d e Inventory. .
Si xte en P e r s o n a l i t y Factor Q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e ...............................
S c ience Cu r r i c u l u m Improvement Study,
W o r k s h o p Con t e n t A c h i e ve men t E v a l u a ­
tion
.................................

iii

17
27
30

39
39
40
42
47
49
51
52
52
52
53
54

TABLE OF C O N T E N T S — continued
CH APTER

Page
Science Process Test for Elementary
School T e a c h e r s .......................
SCIS Wor ksho p Evaluation, Forms 1 and 2
SCIS W ork shop Evaluation, Form 3.
. . .
Questionnaire on Teacher Rea cti on to
Training, Materials, and Imp lem en­
tation of the SCIS P r o g r a m .........
SCIS Teacher Re a t i o n Sheets ............
Analysis of d a t a ............................
S u m m a r y ........................................

IV.

ANALYSIS OF D ATA A N D R E S U L T S ...................
N S F applicant information sheet data . . .
Results of the M i n n e s o t a teacher attitude
i n v e n t o r y .................................
Results of the sixteen personality factor
questionnaire ............................
Results of the SCIS t e s t ...................
Results of the process t e s t ................
Results of w o r k s h o p evaluation, form 1 . .
Results of w o r k s h o p evaluation, form 2 . .
Results of w o r k s h o p evaluation, form 3 . .
Results of question nai re on teacher r e a c ­
tion to training, materials, and impletation of the SCIS p r o g r a m ..............
SCIS teaching m a t e r i a l s .....................
Results of the SCIS teacher reaction
sheets
.................................
Results of recordings made at the end of
the summer w o r k s h o p .....................
Testing of the h y p o t h e s e s ...................
S u m m a r y ........................................

V.

SU MMA RY A ND C O N C L U S I O N S .......................

54
55
55
57
60
61
63
64
64
65
65
65
70
70
70
72
77
85
90
93
93
107
112

R evi ew of the l i t e r a t u r e ...................
Design of the s t u d y ..........................
Hypotheses t e s t e d ............................
Results and c o n c l u s i o n s .....................
Educational implications ...................
Some areas which seem w or t h y of further
r e s e a r c h ...................................

112
112
114
114
117

B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...............................................

120

117

^ABLE OF CONTENTS— continued
Page
A P P E N D I C E S ..................................................
A.

SCIS Summer W o r k s h o p Sch e d u l e

................

B.

S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m Improvement S t u d y W o r k s h o p
C o ntent A ch i e v e m e n t E val ua t i o n ............

128
128
136

C.

SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation,

Form

1 ...............

156

D.

SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation,

F orm

2 ............

158

E.

SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation,

For m

3 ...............

160

F.

Q ues t i o n n a i r e on T e a c h e r R eac t i o n to Training,
Materials, and I m p l e m ent ati on o f the SCIS
P r o g r a m ........................................

163

G.

SCIS Te acher R e a c t i o n Sheet

17 6

H.

T a b l e o f Pearson p r o d u c t - m o m e n t correlations
b e t w e e n s p e c i f i e d teacher charac ter ist ics
and the r ank ing of w o r k s h o p activities . .

177

T a b l e of Pearson p r o d u c t - m o m e n t correlations
be t w e e n s p e c i fie d teacher c har acteristics
and information der ive d from the teacher
re act ion s h e e t s ...............................

179

Ta b l e o f descri ptio ns o f factors in the 16 PF
t e s t ...........................................

181

C o r r e s p o n d e n c e ...................................

182

I.

J.
K.

v

...................

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE

Page

1. School district and grade level of the SCIS
teachers included in the s t u d y .....................

42

2. Age, science background, and teaching experience
data for the p a r t i c i p a n t s .........................

43

3. Process test item analysis summary data
1968)

56

(summer

4. Tests and questionnaires completed by the SCIS
teachers and analyzed for the s t u d y ..............

59

5. Teacher characteristics d a t a .......................

66

6. Sixteen personality factor questionnaire scores

68

.

7. SCIS test item analysis summary data for the
forty workshop participants .......................

69

8. 1968 workshop participants' mean ratings of the
first w e e k of w orkshop a c t i v i t i e s ................

71

9. 1968 workshop participants' mean ratings of the
second w e e k of workshop a c t i v i t i e s ................

73

10. The SCIS teachers' August and April mean rankings
of wor kshop activity areas. .......................

75

11. Portions of the SCIS training program perceived
as most helpful by the t e a c h e r s ..................

78

12. Portions of the SCIS training program perceived
as least helpful by the t e a c h e r s ..................

78

13. Time used by the teachers to prepare SCIS
l e s s o n s ..............................................

80

14. Time used by the teachers to present SCIS
l e s s o n s ..............................................

80

vi

L I S T OF T A B L E S — continued
TABLE

Page

15. T eac her rating of the helpfulness of consultant
s e r v i c e s ...............................................

85

16. SCIS teachers' ratings of the helpfulness of the
teacher's g u i d e s ..............................

86

17. Teachers'

87

ratings o f kit organization

............

18. Information derived from teacher reactio n sheet
d a t a ...................................................

91

19. A N O V A table for the repeated m easures analysis of
variance model used to test hypotheses 1-3. . . .

94

20. T u k e y post hoc comparisons of m e a n activity r a n k ­
ings in A u g u s t ........................................

97

21. T uk ey post hoc comparisons for mean activity
rankings in A p r i l ...................................

97

22. T u k e y post hoc comparisons between August and
April mean activity r a n k i n g s .......................

98

23. Significant correlations between the ranking of
w o r k s h o p activities in August and specified
teacher characteristics . . . . .

100

24. Significant correlations between the ranking of
w o r k s h o p activities in April and specified
teacher characteristics .........
. . . . . . . .

101

25. Significant correlations associat ed w i t h h y p o t h e ­
sis 5 . . . . . . . .

105

26. Significant correlations associated w i t h h y p o t h e ­
sis 7 . . . ..........................................

105

27. Significant correlations associated w i t h h y p o t h e ­
sis 8 .................................................

106

28. S ummary of hypotheses tested, statistics used,
and decision r e a c h e d .................................

110

29. Pearson product-moment correlations be tween
specified teacher characteristics and the r a n k ­
ing of w o r k s h o p a c t i v i t i e s ..........................

177

vii

LIST OF T A B L E S — c o n t i n u e d
TA B L E

Page

30. Pe a r s o n p r o d u c t - m o m e n t correl ati ons b etw een
s p e c i f i e d te acher cha rac t e r i s t i c s and i n f o r m a ­
tion de r i v e d from the tea che r r eac t i o n s h e e t s . .

17 9

31. B r i e f d esc rip tio ns o f factors in the 16 PF Test.

181

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1.
2.

Page
G rap h i c c omp ar i s o n of the Au g u s t and A p r i l m e a n
rankings o f w o r k s h o p ac ti v i t y a r e a s ..............

76

Teachers' p e r c e p t i o n of student interest in
science d uri ng the s chool y e a r ...................

82

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The need for improvement in science and mathematics
instruction was evidenced during World War II when the test­
ing of young men for the armed services revealed extensive
inadequacies in the science and mathematics backgrounds of
high school graduates.1

However,

little attention was given

to the problem of improving students' backgrounds in these
areas prior to 1957 when the Russians launched Sputnik I.
This event emphasized the need for providing adequate t r a i n ­
ing in science and mathematics,

at all levels of instruction,

in order for the United States to have necessary personnel
which could compete successfully in the search for scientific
and technological advancements.
The past decade,

1958-1967, has seen the development

of several curricular programs in science at both the
secondary and elementary levels.

In general,

these science

programs have been developed through the cooperative efforts
of educators,

scientists,

and psychologists w orking as teams.

1John I. Goodlad, T h e Changing School C u r r i c u l u m ,
(New York:
Th e Georgian Press, Inc., 1966), p. 9.

1

2
Th e pr og r a m s h a v e be en

funded ext ens ive ly b y private f o u n d a ­

tions and/or b y the Na ti o n a l S c i e n c e F o u n d a t i o n
the U n i t e d States Off ice of E d u c a t i o n

(NSF)

(USOE).

As an e x t e n s i o n of th e rev olu t i o n in curriculum,
b e g a n in the late 1950's,
programs,

in the main,

and

which

the new e l e m e n t a r y school science

rep re s e n t a significant de parture

from p r e v i o u s e l e m e n t a r y s ci e n c e programs wh ich str essed the
le arn ing of factual kn owl e d g e

from a textbook.

Each o f the

n e w p r o g r a m s has d e v e l o p e d its own goals and cu rri cul um
materials.

The development of new m a t e r i a l s and the greater

emphasis w h i c h has bee n p l a c e d on fundamental sc ien ce c on­
cepts,

the i nqu iry approach,

and the p roc ess es o f science

have p o i n t e d to the need for p r o v i d i n g ex periences

for ele­

m e n t a r y sc ience teachers w h i c h w o u l d adequate ly p r e p a r e them
to implement the newer p rog ram s effectively.
Hurd,

in 1968,

p o i n t e d to this need w h e n he stated,

"Assuming that e ver y teacher w i l l b e able to us e the new
ap proach w i t h o u t a s s i s t a n c e in un de r s t a n d i n g the rationale,
content,

and essential tea c h i n g proc edu re is,

and u n r e a l i s t i c . " 2
teachers,

..., unfair

T h e r e are several re asons as to w h y

in general,

ne ed to have ade quate science p r e p a r a ­

tion for h and l i n g the n e w pr ograms.

One reason,

as r e v e a l e d

aP aul D e H a r t H u r d and James Joseph Gallagher, N e w
D i r e c t i o n s in E l e m e n t a r y S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g (Belmont, C ali for n i s : W a d s w o r t h P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc., 1968), p. 127.

3
by the literature,

is the teacher's

feeling o f insecurity

in teaching science due to inadequate science background.
Another reason is that

few teachers have been trained in

discovery teaching, whe r e b y the processes of science are
stressed as means of securing w a r r a n t e d knowledge.
teachers,

for varying reasons,

science and,

consequently,

teaching science.

Thus,

Many

indicate little interest in

are not very enthusiastic about

experiences need to be p rov ide d

so that teachers may be stimulated to acquire the knowledge,
skills,

and interest necessary for teaching a mod ern science

program.
One method of preparing teachers for implementing
specific programs has been through in-service training.
Goodlad,

in 1966,

stated that:

The dominant position in current curriculum re­
form is that the teacher is of prime importance.
In
the early years of the movement, project staffs con­
sidered in-service teacher education to be almost as
important as curriculum revision itself.
Accordingly,
they pr ovi ded summer and all-year institutes, answer­
ing services to deal w i t h teachers' questions, shortconferences, and other kinds of teacher help.
Some
groups required in-service teacher education as a
condition for gaining access to the m a t e r i a l s . . . . 3
Hurd also points out that:
Some- of the new programs include pr eliminary plans
for developing self-instructional, in-service materials
for use by teachers.
These materials consist of
science experiences for teachers in terms of reading,
laboratory experiments, and instructional films d e ­
signed to acquaint the teacher with both the substance

3Goodlad,

op., c i t ., pp. 102-103.

4
and the p e d a g ogi cal aspects of the n e w curriculum.
Th e r e are also films sh o w i n g e x p e r i e n c e d teachers
w o r k i n g w i t h children in a style c omp ati ble w i t h
the new p r o g r a m . 4
Th e n e e d for specific t rai n i n g for a given p r o g r a m is
shown by the o b s e r v ati on that too o fte n m a n y o f the c l a s s ­
rooms using the newer c u r r ic ulu m m a t e r i a l s

fail to have

teachers w ho u n d e r s t a n d the u nde rl y i n g p h i l o s o p h y a n d o b j e c ­
tives of the project writers.

Lo ng c o n d i t i o n e d to the

au t h o r ita tiv e approaches w h i c h d o m i n a t e the t rad iti ona l
classroom,

the teachers turn m ate r i a l s d e s i g n e d for student

i n v e s t i g a t i o n and in qui ry into o bjects of rote response.
Su ch has be en the fate of c u r r i cul um innovat ion

for m a n y

decades.
Clearly, cur ric u l u m pla nne rs m u s t not sto p wit h
the p r o d u c t i o n of m a t e r i a l s . If t h e p r o p o s e d changes
are w o r t h i ntr odu cin g at all, t hen t h e y must b e i n t r o ­
d u c e d t hor ou g h l y w i t h careful att en t i o n to e ver y
component o f the change p r o c e s s . T h e intent of the
new c u r r i c u l a is not ad e q u a t e l y c o m p r e h e n d e d b y large
numbers o f teachers n o w using them.
A n d neither the
general nor the p r o f e s s i o n a l c u r r i c u l u m of p r o s p e c t i v e
teachers reflec ts the point of view o f the curricula
for w hic h they soon wi ll b e r e s p o n s i b l e . 5
T h e q u e s t i o n is not,
training?" but rather,
tr ain ing be provided?"
ration of teachers

"Is there a nee d for i n-s er v i c e

"How best can the nee ded in-servi ce
W i l l a r d Jac o b s o n w r o t e of the p r e p a ­

for the ne w e l e m e n t a r y sci enc e p rog ram s

of the future w h e n he said,

4Hurd,

"A great va rie ty o f ed uca tio nal

oja. c i t . , p. 128.

5Goodlad,

loc. cit.

5
procedures and materials will be available for teacher e d u ­
cation,

and a rigorous analysis w ill be made to choose those

that w i l l be most effective to achieve the ends that are
desired."6
Te ach er- tra ini ng institutions often he sitate to provide
courses in how to teach a specific new curriculum.7

The

institutions assume their role is educating teachers for
teaching a variety o f curricula rather than training teachers
to teach one particular curriculum.

School systems employing

teachers educated under this p hilosophy find, w h e n attempting
to implement one of the ne w science curricula such as AAAS
S c i e n c e — A Process A p p r o a c h or Science Cu rri cul um Improvement
Study

(S CIS ), that the teachers need in-service training

specific to these curricula if they are to fulfill the role
intended by the project writers.
One means of p rov idi ng such in-service training is
through the cooperative efforts of schools and colleges.
By this means,

schools can utilize the personnel and resources

of a univer sit y or college for in-service training and also
assist in the development of the leadership potential in the
local system.

This study investigated certain phases of

6Wil l a r d Jacobson, "Teacher Education and Elementary
School S c i e n c e — 1980," Journal o f R esearch in Science T e a c h ­
i n g , Vol. V, Issue 1, 1968, p. 77.
7Hurd,

loc. c i t -

6

such an i n-s erv ice effort b e t w e e n four

(4) M i c h i g a n p u b l i c

schools and the Sc ien ce and M a t h e m a t i c s T e a c h i n g Center at
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y . 8

T h e in- ser vic e p r o g r a m was

sp ec i f i c a l l y con cerned w i t h the S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m I m p r o v e ­
ment Study.
B a c k g r o u n d and design o f the s t u d y .

T h e Sc ien ce

C u r r i c u l u m Improvement S t u d y wa s e s t a b l i s h e d in 1962 under
the d i r e c t i o n of Robert K a r p l u s , p r o f e s s o r of theoreti cal
ph ysics at the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a in Berkeley.
p r o g r a m is b a s e d upon fundame ntal co ncepts

The

and the process

of science w h i c h emphasizes pupil o b s e r v a t i o n and e x p e r i m e n ­
tation.

The pur p o s e of this K — 6 p ro j e c t is to d eve lop

"scientific

l i t e r a c y " 9 in the school population.

In order to pr epa re tea chers to use SCIS ma ter ial s an d
also test the materials,

trial centers w e r e e s t a b lis hed

under the SCIS project.

Fi ve

established.

(5)

such centers have been

Th e S cience and M a t h e m a t i c s T e a c h i n g C enter at

M i c h i g a n State University became,
o f f i c i a l trial c e n t e r s . 10

in 1967,

o n e of these

E a c h of the c enters is s upe rvi sed

aN SF C o o p e r a t i v e C o l l e g e - S c h o o l S c i e n c e P r o g r a m Between
M i c h i g a n S tat e Un i v e r s i t y and East Lansing, G r a n d Ledge,
DeWitt, and Perry, Michigan, 1968.
9R obert Karplus and Her ber t D. Thier, A N e w Lo ok at
El eme n t a r y Sch ool S cie nce (Chicago:
R a n d McNally, 1967),
p . 31.
10The other trial centers w e r e located at the U n i v e r s i t y
of C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeles, the U n i v e r s i t y of Hawaii, the
U n i v e r s i t y o f Oklahoma, and T eac h e r s College, Co lu m b i a
University.

7
b y a locally appointed coordinator w ho is responsi ble for
conducting in-service education programs,
ation activities,

disseminating materials,

c oordinating eva lu­
and securing

fe edb ack .11
With the establishment of the trial center at M ich i g a n
State University,

a three-week w ork s h o p w a s he ld during

the summer of 1967 under the direction of Dr. Glenn D.
Berkheimer,

Trial Center coordinator.

signed to provide ten
Grand Ledge,

(10)

and Perry,

The w o r k s h o p was d e ­

first grade teachers

Michigan, w i t h the science content,

the r eco mm end ed modes o f teheeing,

and the psychological

bases of the newer elementary science programs,
SCIS.

from DeWitt,

This w o r k s h o p was

especially

followed b y consultant service and

periodic meetings w i t h the w o r k s h o p participants during the
1967-1968 school year.

All of these services w e r e designed

to aid in the testing and implementation o f the SCIS program.
Th e experience gained during this
tion was

first year of o p e r a ­

found useful in the r ede sig n and ex pansion of the

following year's activities.

The school districts c o o p e r a t ­

ing in the program the first year we re DeWitt,
and Perry,

Michigan.

T hes e three

G r a n d Ledge,

(3) school districts wer e

selected for their relatively stable student population,
and be cau se none of the n e w elementary science programs had
been used in the systems.

i;LKarplus,

loc. cit.

The following year the East Lansing,

8

Michigan,

Pu b l i c S ch o o l system b e c a m e the

fourth c o o p e rat ing

system w i t h the center.
In setting up the program,

the o r i g i n a l plans called

for exp an d i n g the t r a i n i n g o f te ach ers b y one grade
per year.

Thus,

a Su m m e r W o r k s h o p w a s h e l d in 1968 w h i c h

wa s a t t e n d e d by first and se con d grade teachers
four

(4)

level

co o p e r a t i n g school districts.

a t t e n d e d this wo rkshop.

Forty

from the

(40)

individuals

T h e present stu dy b e g a n w i t h this

w o r k s h o p and e x t e n d e d t hro ugh out the 1968- 196 9 sch ool year.
Th e study was d e s i g n e d to gather b o t h q u a l i t a t i v e and
q u a n t i t a t i v e da ta c o n c e r n i n g the 1968 SCIS teachers'
tions to the Summer Workshop,

reac­

th e i n - s er vic e training, w h i c h

w a s c o n d u c t e d du rin g the school year,

and SCIS i mpl eme nta tio n

pro ce dur es o c c u r r i n g thr oug hou t the s chool year.

Tes t results

and i n f o r m ati on r e l a t i v e to teacher c h a r ac ter ist ics w e r e also
se cured as a part of the study.
N e e d for the s t u d y ,

A r e v i e w o f the litera tur e r e ­

v e a l e d that r e l a t i v e l y little effort has b e e n e x e r t e d to
q u a n t i t a t i v e l y d e t e r m i n e teachers'

re act i o n s to the in-service

t r ai n i n g and s ub seq uen t i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of m o d e r n science c u r ­
ricula.

The literatu re r e g a r d i n g p r e s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g in

this area is also n e a r l y v o i d o f re se a r c h
Stollberg,

findings.

in d i s c u s s i n g the p r e s e r v i c e ed uca t i o n o f e l e m e n ­

ta ry school teachers,

states that

"... a m a j o r

finding in

the literature of the field is that there is an o ve r w h e l m i n g
ne ed for a great deal o f r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n i n g th e e duc ati on

9
of elementary school teachers in science."12
Hone stated,

"Implementation of any new curriculum

material depends upon the extent and quality of in-service
education of teachers in the new m a t e r ial ."13

This thesis

presents the "extent" of in-service education of the
teachers by reporting the training received by the SCIS
teachers.

The "quality" of the in-service activities was

inferred from the teachers'

reactions to the training.

Related to and held concurrently with the SCIS Workshop
in the summer of 1968 was a Leadership Workshop on Elementary
School Science,

at Michigan State University.

was designed to prepare the participants,
and science consultants,

This workshop

college teachers

to help schools implement two

(2)

of the new elementary science curricula, AAAS S c i e n c e — A
Process Approach and the SCI S.14
If these and other workshops are to achieve maximum
effectiveness,

quantitative evidence must be gathered regard­

ing h ow elementary teachers respond to various aspects of

12Robert Stollberg, "The Task Before U s — 1962 The Educa­
tion of Elementary School Teachers in S c i e n c e , " Readings on
Teaching Children Science (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.,
1969), p. 305.
13Elizabeth Hone, "Elements of Successful In-Service
Education for Elementary Science" (A paper presented at
session C-l, NARST 42nd Annual M e e t i n g ) , 1969.
14Dale Gordon Merkle, "A Leadership Workshop on Elemen­
tary School Science;
An In-Depth Evaluation" (Unpublished
Ph. D. Dissertation, College of Education, Michigan State
University, 1969), p. 32.

10
i n - s er vic e tra ini ng and sub seq uen t i m p l e m ent ati on o f the
new curricula.

Inform atio n of this nature sh o u l d be e x t r e m e ­

ly valuab le in further r ed e s i g n i n g SCIS W o r k s h o p s a n d L e a d e r ­
ship W o r k s h o p s of the type d e s c r i b e d above.

T h e s e da ta

s hou ld also aid in d e t e r m inin g the extent to w h i c h the
M i c h i g a n S tat e U n i v e r s i t y Trial Ce nte r fulfills its r ole as
a source o f feedback for the r evi sio n o f c u r r i c u l u m materia ls.
Like the e l e m e n t a r y science program,

the i n - s er vic e teacher

e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m is also experime nta l in na tur e and s h o u l d
also b e r e v i s e d and imp rov ed in light of e x p e r i e n c e . 15
P u r p o s e of the s t u d y .
were:

(1)

The m a j o r p urp ose s of this s t u d y

to as cer tai n teacher r e a c t i o n to the SCIS tr ai n i n g

p r o g r a m as imp lem ent ed at M i c h i g a n Sta te U n i v e r s i t y d u r i n g
1968-1969,

(2) to ascerta in the effects of the SCIS t r a i n i n g

p r o g r a m and m ate ria ls in the coo per ati ng schools d uri ng the
1968-1969 school year,

and

(3) to i nvestigate rel a t i o n s h i p s

wh i c h m a y exist b e t w e e n t he t e a c h e r s 1 reactions and s e l e c t e d
teacher characteristics.
H y p o t h e s e s o f the s t u d y .

In order to i n v e s t i g a t e the

q u a l i t a t i v e and q u a n t i t a t i v e aspects o f teacher rea ctions
and their r e l a t i o n s h i p to teacher characteristics,

the

following hypothe ses w e r e tested:
1. T h e r e is significant agreement among the SCIS
teachers'

15Karplus,

rankings of w o r k s h o p activities

o p o c i t ., p. 129.

11
made at the conclusion of the 1968 Summer
Workshop.
2. There is significant agreement among the SCIS
teachers'

rankings of the 1968 Summer Workshop

activities made the following April.
3. There are significant differences between the
SCIS teachers'

rankings of the 1968 Summer

Workshop activities made at the conclusion of
the wor kshop and the corresponding rankings
made the following April.
4. There are significant correlations between the
SCIS teachers'

rankings of the workshop

activities and specified teacher characteristics.
5. There are significant correlations between the
teachers'

total feedback and specified teacher

ch ara c t e r i s t i c s .
6. There are significant correlations between the
teachers'

feedback indices and specified

teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
7. There are significant correlations between
specified teacher characteristics and the
teachers' mean rankings of:
a) student-materials interaction
b)

student-student interaction

c) student-teacher interaction

12
d)

teacher's guide dir ect ion s

e) materials.
8. T h e r e are signific ant corre lat ion s b et w e e n
s p e c if ied teacher c har act eri sti cs and the total
number o f SCIS T e a c h e r R e a c t i o n Sheet

comments

concerning:
a)

teacher's guide directions

b)

materials

c) the lesson in g e n e r a l — items 5 and 6,
additional ideas and activiti es used,
problems,
Definition of t e r m s .

or suggestions.
T h e SCIS teachers w e r e those

te ach ers w h o p a r t i c i p a t e d in the 1968 SCIS Summer W o r k s h o p
and t au ght the SCIS pr o g r a m thr oug hou t the 1 9 6 8 -1 969 school
year.
The
the SCIS

p e r s o n a l i t y factors w e r e o p e r a t i o n a l l y
teacher 's score on each of the factors

d e f i n e d as
of the

Sixteen P e r s o n a l i t y Fa cto r Q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 10
The

attitude t o w a r d the t e a c h e r - p u p i 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p

de fin ed b y the t eac her 's score on the M i n n e s o t a

was

Tea cher

A t t i t u d e I n v e n t o r y . 17

lsR a y m o n d B. C a t t e l l and Herbert W. Eber, "Sixteen
P e r s o n a l i t y Fa c t o r Question nai re" (Champaign, Illinois:
In sti tut e for P e r s o n a l i t y and A b i l i t y Testing, 1967).
17W a l t e r W. Cook, Carroll H. Leeds, and R obe rt Callis,
"Minnesota T e a c h e r A t t i t u d e Inventory" (New York:
The
P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation, 1950).

13
The k now ledge of science process skills was d e f i n e d by
the SCIS teacher's score on the Science Process Test for
Element ary T e a c h e r s — 3rd Edition.
Knowledge of the SCIS pro gram was def ine d by the score
on the Science Cu rri c u l u m Improvement Study W o r k s h o p Content
Ac hievement Evaluation.
Te acher reaction was de fin ed as the wri t t e n responses
to t he questionnaires and SCIS Teacher Rea c t i o n Sheets com­
p leted b y the SCIS teachers during the Summer Wo rk s h o p and
wh ile teaching the SCIS program.
Lesson feedback was d efi ned as the wri t t e n responses
on the SCIS Teacher Reaction Sheets r etu rne d b y the t e a c h e r s .
Feedback index was defined as the total

lesson feedback

divided b y seventeen times the number o f Teacher Re ac t i o n
Sheets r etu rne d by the teacher.
_________ T O T A L L ESS ON F E E D B A C K_________
17 x T E A C H E R REAC T I O N SHEETS RETURNED
The tea cher characteristics r efe rre d to in this study
were defined as age,

in years;

teaching experience,

in

years; kno wle dge of the SCIS program; pe rsonality factors;
science background,

in quarter hours;

t e acher-pupil relationship;

attitude to war d the

and knowle dge of science process

skills .
As used in this study,
as any instruction,

in-service training w a s defined

including summer workshops,

r e c e i v e d by

a teacher wh ile under contract w i t h a school district.

14
De li m i t a t i o n s and assu mpt ion s o f t h e s t u d y .

A l l phases

o f the s tud y w e r e c a r r i e d out in connect ion w i t h the t e a c h ­
ers from the four
ly discussed.

(4) T r i a l C e n t e r s chool distric ts p r e v i o u s ­

T h e s tudy did not attempt to:

1. assess the e f f e c t ive nes s o f the SCIS p r o g r a m or the
SCIS teachers;
2. assess the k n o w l e d g e a c q u i r e d b y the students of
the SCIS teachers?
3. an alyze SCIS T e a c h e r R e a c t i o n S heet data from
units other than M a t e r i a l Ob jec ts and I n t e r a c t i o n ;
4. assess the SCIS r e a c h e r s 1 s ci e n c e content k n o w l ­
edge ; or
5. m a k e a judgment as to the q u a l i t y of lesson feed­
b a c k r e t u r n e d to the T r i a l Center.
It was as su m e d that the in str ume nts us ed in c o n j u n cti on
w i t h the study w e r e v a l i d for the pu rpo ses

intended,

and

the t eachers o f the p o p u l a t i o n w e r e i n t e lle ctu all y hon est in
their res pon ses to the i n s t r u m e n t s .
O r g a n i z a t i o n of the d i s s e r t a t i o n .

The general o r g a n i ­

zational plan of the thesis is as follows:

in this chapter

is p r e s e n t e d a st atement o f th e p r o b l e m area, w h i c h includes
the p u r p o s e o f the study,

along w i t h a r a t i o n a l e for the

in ves tig ati on of such a study.
hypothe ses to be tested,

In addition,

delimitations,

the objectives,

assumptions,

and

d efi nit ion of terms are presente d.
A r e v i e w of the p erti n e n t

li ter atu re r e l a t e d to the

study is r e p o r t e d in C hapt er I I .

Ch a p t e r III contains a

15
description o f the study,

sources of data,

description of the population,
in-service training,
analysis.
ses,

selection and

specific instruments used,

statistical tools used,

The results of data collected,

and m eth od of

tests of hy pot he­

and analysis of data are reported in Chapter IV.

Chapter V presents a general summary o f the study and the
conclusions drawn from the findings o f the study.

Also

included in Chapter V are the educational implications of
the study and some suggestions with respect to needed areas
of related research.

CHAPTER II
R E V I E W OF R ELA TED L I T E R A T U R E

Re vie ws o f t h e literatu re by the w r i t e r a n d others
re v e a l the r e l a t i v e s car cit y o f r e s e a r c h on the p r e p a r a t i o n
of e l e m ent ary school teachers for sci ence tea ching as c o m ­
p a r e d to that d i r e c t e d to w a r d se condary level.

"This s i t u ­

ation per sis ts despite the c ont inu ing criticisms that m a n y
el e m e n t a r y t eachers do an inadequate job of tea ching
science...."1

T h e studies p r e s e n t e d in this chapter have

b e e n d i v i d e d into four
gory,

(4)

categories.

In the first c a t e ­

studies dea l i n g w i t h the status o f science te ach ing

in the e l e m e n t a r y school and the p r e s e r v i c e p r e p a r a t i o n o f
el eme nta ry tea che rs in science are reviewed-

The second

c a t e g o r y deals w i t h t he in-ser vic e p r e p a r a t i o n o f e l e m e n t a r y
teachers.

T h o s e studies c o n c e r n e d w i t h the ev alu ati on of

in -se rvi ce e d u c a tio n for elementary school teachers are
p r e s e n t e d in the third category.

T e a c h e r characte ris tic s

and teacher re act ion to in-service education are the subjects
of the

final gr o u p of studies.

■^Patricia E. Blo sse r and Robert W. Howe, "An A n a l y s i s
o f R e s e a r c h on E l e m e n t a r y T eac her Ed uca t i o n R e l a t e d to the
T e a c h i n g of Scien ce, " Sci e n c e and C h i l d r e n , Vol. 6, no. 5,
(January/February, 1969), pp. 50-60.

16

17
Elementary school science and teacher t r a i n i n g .

The

upper elementary science teachers in one hundred fourteen
(114)

elementary schools in C lev ela nd w e r e the subjects of

a 1949 study by M a d d u x . 2
teachers,

As a result of visits wi th these

M add ux felt the outstanding pr oblem s eemed to be

insecurity in the teachers'

k now ledge of subject matter.

Another pr obl em was a lack of interest

in science.

The feeling of insecurity m a y be due to the types of
preservice science courses taken by elementary t e a c h e r s .
In 1956, M a l l i n s o n 3 r ep orte d that one of the reasons for
elementary t e a c h e r s ' inadequate science backgrounds was
"the courses in science offered them are not of the general,
survey-type they need."

Al so re po r t e d as a factor was the

minimal amount of science often req uired for graduation and
certification.
Three hu ndred

(300)

were studied by B r o w n . 4

elementary teachers in Illinois
The problems encountered in teaching

science expressed by these teachers were:

(!'

lack of space,

2Grace Curry Maddux, "Helping the Elementary Science
Teachers," School S cience and M a t h e m a t i c s , Vol. 49, no. 432
(October, 1949), pp. 534-537.
3Jacqueline Mallinson, "What Have Been the M ajor E m p h a ­
ses in Research in Ele men tar y Science Du ring the Past Five
Years?"
Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 40 (April, 1956), pp.
206-208.
4Clyde M. Brown, "A W o r k s h o p in Teaching Elementary
Science:
A n In-Service Tra ini ng Pr ogr am for Teachers,"
Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 42 (December, 1958), pp. 401-405.

18
(2)

lack of time,

(3)

adequate background.

lack o f materials,

(335)

(4)

lack o f an

T h e findings o f H i n e s 5 are somewhat

co ntr a d i c t o r y to Brown.
t h i r t y -fi ve

and

In Hines's study,

three hundred

el eme n t a r y teachers r e s p o n d e d to a q u e s t i o n ­

n a i r e d e s i g n e d to provide insight into their r e p o r t e d r e l u c ­
tance to teach science.
di ff e r e d

A m o n g Hines's conclusions,

which

from Brown's was:

(1) The av ail abi lit y and the use o f science
m a t e r i a l s and equipment are not i n d i c a t e d as factors
in flu enc ing the te aching of science at the e l e m ent ary
school level.
However,

Hines also con cl u d e d that:

(1) T he teachers are p r o v i d i n g m ore time to
sc ience tea chi ng and to science d e m o n s t r a t i o n and
e x per i m e n t a t i o n than one w o u l d expect from the r e v i e w
o f t he research.
(2) A n inadequate science b a c k g r o u n d is a d e f i n ­
ite factor inf lue nci ng science tea chi ng at the
e l e m e n t a r y school l e v e l . . . . 0
A c omp ara tiv e analysis,

c o n d uct ed b y Hines,

that the number of years of teaching experience,
level taught,

indicated
grade

and wh e t h e r t hey h ad taken a sc ien ce methods

c o urs e w e r e not rel a t e d to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e p a t ­
terns.

However,

her study i n d i c a t e d that the number of

hours of sci enc e course w o r k m a y hav e be en r e l a t e d to the
re sp o n s e p a t t e r n s .

5S a l l y l e e H. Hines, "A Stu dy of C e r t a i n Factors W h i c h
A f f e c t the O p i n i o n s of El eme n t a r y Sch ool Te achers in the
T e a c h i n g o f Science," D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 27:12 (June,
1967), 4 1 5 3 - A .
6I b i d .

19
Bryant7 s tudied the science courses r equ ire d o f e l e ­
me nta ry education majors in two hun dre d twenty-five

(225)

institutions b elo ngi ng to the American Associa tio n of Colleges
for Teacher Education.

Analysis o f the data collected sho wed

a mean of 17.7 quarter-hours of science was required,

bio­

logical and physical science survey courses and elementary
school sciences methods courses were most frequently s p e c i ­
fied,

and over three-fourths o f the instructors o f the above

me nti o n e d courses had no experience in teaching children.
An observation checklist,

an interview checklist,

and

a questionnaire w e r e used by Tyndall to evaluate the science
teaching of forty
College.

(40) graduates of Atlanti c Christian

Tyn dal l concluded that:

There was a high degree of relation shi p b etween
grades m a d e in science courses and performance as e l e ­
me nt a r y teachers of science.
There was no significant
r e lationship between courses taken and the quality of
science teaching, nor any between teachers w i t h or
w ithout in-service experiences and the quality of their
science teaching.®

7 Paul Payne Bryant, (Abstract), "Science Understandings
Considered Important for Children and the Science R equ i r e d
of Elementary Teachers," Research in the Tea ching of S c i e n c e ,
Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and We lfa re (July, 1957-July, 1959), 1962, p. 29.
®Jesse Parker Tyndall, "The Teaching of Science in
Elementary Schools by Recent Graduates of At lantic Christian
College as Rel ate d to Their Science Preparation," Science
E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 44, no. 2 (1960), p. 119.

20
H i s t o r i c a l da ta g a t h e r e d from theses,
courses o f study,

me t h o d s books,

and ye arb o o k s w e r e use d b y V e r r i l l 9 to

s t u d y the p r e p a r a t i o n of e l e m e n t a r y school tea chers in r e l a ­
tion to sci enc e s ubject matter,
courses,

methods and m a t e ria ls

and i n - s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n o p p o r t uni tie s

to 1959.

from 1870

A q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s also sent to te acher tr ai n i n g

i nstitutions

in six

(6)

states t o d e t e r m i n e the th en p res ent

pr act ice s in the same areas.

T h e d a t a s h o w e d that e l e m e n ­

tary teachers h ad be en p o o r l y p r e p a r e d to teach s c i e n c e over
the e nti re p e r i o d un der study.

V er r i l l also

found that the

types of p rog ram s n e e d e d to p r e p a r e the teachers to tea ch
science

lacked clarity,

direction,

and a de fin ite g o a l . 10

One of the mos t e x t e n s i v e surveys on science t e a c h i n g
in the e l e m e n t a r y school w a s m a d e by B l a c k w o o d 11 d uring
1961-1962.

B l a c k w o o d ' s st udy w a s conducted under the auspices

of the U. S. O f f i c e o f Education,

and q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses

w e r e r e c e i v e d from 1,47 6 o f t he 1,680 schools in the sample.
The schools w e r e a s k e d to r a n k t hir tee n

(13)

as eff ect ive b a r r i e r s to sci enc e teaching.

items c ons ide red
The m o s t

frequent

9J. E. Verrill, "The P r e p a r a t i o n of Ge ner al E lem en t a r y
T e ach ers to T e a c h Science:
1870 to the P r e s e n t , " R e s e a r c h in
the T e a c h i n g of S c i e n c e . Washington, D. C.:
U. S. De par tme nt
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965, pp. 126-127.
1QI b i d .
1;LP a u l E. Blackwood, "Science T e a c h i n g in the E l e m ent ary
School:
A S u r v e y of P r a c t i c e s , " Journal o f R ese a r c h in
S c ien ce T e a c h i n g , Vol. 3 (September, 1965), pp. 177-197.

21
responses,

listed in rank order were:

1. lack of adequate consultant service;
2. lack of supplies and equipment;
3. inadequate room facilities;
4. insufficient funds for purchasi ng needed supplies,
equipment,

and appropriate science reading

materials;
5. teachers do not have sufficient science k n o w l e d g e . 12
As a result of his findings,

Bla ckwood r e c o m m end ed that

schools de vel op or participate in effective in-service p r o ­
grams that enable teachers to update their knowledge of
sc ience subject matter and methods of teaching.
V i c t o r 13 also used a q ues tionnaire tec hnique to inv est i­
gate elementa ry school teachers'
teach science.
teen

(117)

One h un d r e d six

repo rte d re luc tan ce to
(106) of one hu nd r e d s e v e n ­

elementary teachers in an Illinois city of 25,000

re spo nde d to the questionnaire.
for their reluctance were:

(1)

A mon g the rep o r t e d responses
lack of familiarity w i t h the

subject matter and science materials,

and

(2) embarrassment

and dislike for repeatedly b eing a ske d questions

for w h i c h

they had no a n s w e r s .

12Blosser,

op,, c i t . , p.

51.

13Edward Victor, "Why Are Our Element ary School
Teacher s Reluctant to Teach Science?"
U. S. O ffice of Eduation, 1965, pp. 16-17.

22
Teacher e d u c a t i o n prog r a m s w e r e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n
in a q u e s t i o n n a i r e st udy by M o o r e h e a d 1 4 in 1 9 6 5 in w h i c h
re turns w e r e r e c e i v e d from one h u n d r e d t w e n t y - f i v e
colleges and universi tie s.
(30)

(125)

M o o r e h e a d also sur v e y e d th i r t y

s ele c t e d e l e m e n t a r y schools in Oklahoma.

The respons es

to th ese surveys s how ed that the d i s c o v e r y m e t h o d w a s u s e d
s p a r i n g l y in sci enc e courses,
sc ien ce m e t h o d s

courses.

but hea v i l y e m p h a s i z e d in

Moo.tehead d r e w the fol lowing c o n ­

clusions :
1. The teacher e d u c a t i o n p r o g r a m should
e m pha siz e the d i s c o v e r y me thod.

...

2. The tw e n t y - e i g h t (28) schools using the c o n v e n ­
ti ona l m a t e r i a l s in e l e m e n t a r y school sc ien ce
sh o w e d a def inite nee d for in- ser vic e programs,
co nsu lta nts ....
3. The two schools u sin g the newer de v e l o p m e n t s in
e l e m e n t a r y school science d e m o n s t r a t e d that
t e achers can learn to use th e s e m a t e r i a l s t h r o u g h
i n - s e r v i c e programs, qu ali f i e d consultants, and
s e m i n a r s .15
In a s tudy r e p o r t e d by B e r r y e s s a 16 in 1959,
te ac h i n g supervis ors

student

from B righam Young U n i v e r s i t y and the

U n i v e r s i t y of U t a h w e r e as ked to id entify o u t s t a n d i n g
c o o p e rat ing tea chers w i t h w h o m they worked.

female

Out of the one

14W i l l i a m Dou gla s Moorehead, "The Status of E l e m e n t a r y
Sc hool iScience and H o w it is Taught," D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s ,
Vol. 26, no. 4 (1965), p. 2070.
1 5I b i d .
ieM a x J o s e p h Berryessa, "Factors C o n t r i b u t i n g to the
C o m p e t e n c y o f E l e m e n t a r y T eac her s in T e a c h i n g S c i e n c e , "
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 20, no. 2 (1959), p. 558.

23
hundred

(100)

so identified,

and lowest were chosen.
were:

the twenty-five

(25) highest

Among the findings of this study

(1) the total number of credit hours in science

accumulated by the teachers seemed to be a factor in the
kind of program developed by the teachers in each group;
(2)

the teachers whose science programs- were considered most

effective seemed not to differ in teacher attitudes,

as

me asured by the Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory,
those whose science programs were less effective;
quate room space,

facilities,

from

(3) ade­

and storage space seemed to

be a factor in the development of effective science programs
in the elementary school.
Although there is some difference of opinion, most of
the studies reviewed in this section indicate that the
elementary teacher is inadequately prepared to teach science
and is, therefore,

reluctant to do so.

Other studies also

supporting these views have been written by Buck and
M a l l i n s o n ,17 K lei nma n, lt# S i m s , 18 and Lammers.20

17Buck and Mallinson, "Some Implications of Recent R e ­
search in the Teaching of Science at the Elementary School
Level," Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 38, no. 1 (February, 1954),
pp. 81-101.
18G. S. Kleinman, "Needed:
Elementary School Science
Consultants," School Science and M a t h e m a t i c s , Vol. 65
(November, 1965), pp. 738-7 46.
19Ward L. Sims, "The Development and Evaluation of an
In-Service Education Program in Elementary School Science,"
Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 4 Z (December, 1958), pp. 391-398.
2°Theresa J. Lammers, "One Hundred Interviews W ith E l e ­
mentary School Teachers Concerning Science E d u c a t i o n , "
Science E d u c a t i o n . Vol. 33, no. 4 (October, 1949), pp. 292-295.

24
Mo st w rit ers concern themselv es w i t h either the r e c i p ­
ients o f in-servi ce train ing or the stu dents of the r e c i p ­
ients without r e g a r d to the qua li f i c a t i o n s of those
r esponsible for d i s p e n s i n g the training.

B lou gh spoke to

this point w h e n he said:
The teacher o f courses that w i l l b e re all y useful
for e l e m e n tar y-s cho ol teachers must:
(a) be ac q u a i n t e d
w i t h the e l e m e n t a r y school, its p h i l o s o p h y a n d o b j e c ­
tives; (2) be s ymp ath eti c to the needs an d capacit ies
of the teachers; (3) be gen era l in his o u t l o o k of the
science field and not so s p e c i a l i z e d in one field as
to ride his own interest to the e xcl u s i o n o f other
eq ual ly important o n e s . 21
In-servi ce education for el eme n t a r y t e a c h e r s .

T h e types

of in-service education available to ele men t a r y teachers
vary considerably.

To w h a t extent the services are ut il i z e d

is u nique to local s y s t e m s .
An analysis of the re sea rch on in-serv ice education
conducted b etw een 1919 and 1951 was a t t e m p t e d by M c P e a t e r s . 22
Two hu nd r e d fifty-three

(253)

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e studies w ere

selected for inclu sio n in the study.

T h e results of the

study ind ica ted that in-service t eac her e duc a t i o n has b e c o m e
a p l a n n e d investment w h i c h must be b a s e d upon the objecti ves
of the particu lar school s yst em for w h i c h it is used,

...

21Gl e n n O. Blough, "Preparing Te ach ers for Sc ie n c e
T e a c h i n g in the E l e m e n t a r y School," S chool S c i e n c e and
M a t h e m a t i c s , Vol. 58 (October, 1958), p. 525.
22M a r y M. Mar sh a l l McPeaters, "A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s of
Se le c t e d R ese arc h Lit era t u r e on In- Ser vic e Tea c h e r E d u c a t i o n , "
Di s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 14, no. 8 (1954), p. 1340.

25
and a constantly eva luated p r o g r a m . 23

Alt hou gh the college

or university credit course has been the most popular form
o f in-service training according to this study,
ing interest in wor kshops was also indicated.

the increas­
T h e trend

toward w ork shops as a means of in-service education was also
noted by Lammers in 1 9 5 5 . 24
A n N E A Re se arc h D ivi sio n survey conducted in the spring
of 1968 attempted to determine the in-service education
needs of public school classroom teachers.

The responses

of the elementary teachers closely paralleled those of the
secondary teachers.

"Teaching methods" was ranked third,

out of thirteen areas,
and

in importance when the "much need"

"moderate need" categories were com bi n e d . 25
E i s s 26 r epo r t e d o n a series o f conferences sponsored

by the Commiss ion on the Education of Teachers o f Science of
the National Science Teachers Association.

One area of

agreement was that in-service education in science should be
a p lanned part of each t e a c h e r ’s assigned teaching r e s p o n s i ­
bility and not an additional burden beyond the regular

23I b i d .
24T her esa J. Lammers, "The Thirty-First Y e a r b o o k and
Twenty Years of Elementary Science," Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol.
39 (February, 1955), pp. 39-41.
2 5 "Teachers' Needs for In-Service Training," N E A
Research B u l l e t i n , Vol. 46, no. 3 (October, 1968), pp. 80-81.
2sAlbert F. Eiss, "Science Preparation for Elementary
Science Teachers," S cie nce and C h i l d r e n . Vol. 2, no. 8 (May,
1965), pp. 17-18.

26
te ach i n g d u t i e s .
C o s t a 27

listed the m e a n s b y w h i c h tea chers k e e p up to

date in science as m a g a z i n e s and journals,
p r o f e s s i o n a l sc ience te ache r organizations,
programs,

institutes,
local in- ser v i c e

services of colleges and universities,

and the

learning o c c u r r i n g dur ing the cl ass r o o m situation.

L e r n e r 28

g r o u p e d the se b a s i c sources of i n - s er vic e e d u c ati on into
three

(3)

categories:

(1) Pr ograms that op e r a t e w i t h i n the

local system;

(2) Op po r t u n i t i e s

universities;

and

a ffo r d e d b y colleges and

(3) S e l f - i n i t i a t e d and s e l f - s u s t a i n e d

e d uca t i o n by th e teacher herself.

Lerner also e m p h a s i z e d

the imp ort a n c e o f the a d m i n i s t r a t o r in p lan n i n g for in- ser vic e
o p por tun iti es.

V e r r i l l 29 found the two

(2) most p r e v a l e n t

i n -se rvi ce op po r t u n i t i e s o f f e r e d to e x p e r i e n c e d teachers
for i mpr oving science in str uct ion w e r e summer classes and
c u r r ic ulu m libraries.

C h a m b e r l a i n 30 agreed that summer school

w a s the mos t common type o f i n-s erv ice training.
A two - s e m e s t e r in stit ute in ph ys i c a l and b i o l o g i c a l
science d e s i g n e d to im pro ve e lem ent ary teachers'

subject

27A r t h u r L. Costa, “H o w E l e m e n t a r y S c i e n c e Tea c h e r s
K e ep U p - t o - D a t e in S cie n c e , " S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 50,
no. 2 (1966), pp. 126-127.
2sM a r j o r i e S. Lerner,
Sc ie n c e and C h i l d r e n , Vol.
21-23.
29Verrill,

"In-Service Sc i e n c e A c t i v i t i e s , "
4, no. 3 (November, 1966), pp.

op,, c i t . , p. 127.

3°W. D. Chamberlain, "Development and S tatus of T e a c h ­
ers E d u c a t i o n in the F i e l d o f Sci e n c e for E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l , "
Sc ience E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 42, no. 5 (December, 1958), pp. 406409.

27
m a t t e r competence a nd also their kn owledge of science p r o ­
cesses was rep o r t e d on by K l e i n m a n 31 in 1966.

Concerni ng

the teachers' willi ngn ess to take in-service courses of
this nature,

Kleinman

found that they are eager to take

these courses pr ov i d e d the courses are relevant to their
needs.

Also,

she learned that the teachers can benefit from

courses requiring limited skill,

and they are w i l l i n g to put

in long hours in class and do homework,

the reb y improving

their competence in science.
Evaluation of in-service e d u c a t i o n .

Investigators have

tried to determine h o w the science needs o f elementary
teachers can best be remedied.

This section deals w ith a t ­

tempts at analyzing those types of in-service programs wh i c h
seem to be most successful.
Ma i l e d questionnaires w e r e re turned by 1,191 of 1,551
Connecticut teachers in a study b y H e m p e l . 32

T h e s e teachers

reported the following types of in-service training as
valuable.

In order of preference,

they w e r e as follows:

1. graduate study leading to a degree;
2. worksho ps under the d i r e ct ion of uni ver s i t y staff;

31Gladys S. Kleinman, "Progress R epo rt of an E x p e r i ­
mental In-Service Institute in S cience for Elementary School
Teachers of Grades K - 6 , " Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 50, no. 2
(1966), pp. 136-140.
32Carl Hempel, "Attitudes o f a S ele cte d G r o u p of E l e ­
me n t a r y School Teachers Toward In-Service E d u c a t i o n , "
Di ssertation A b s t r a c t s . Vol. 21, no. 13 (1961), p. 3684.

28
3. in di vid ual study not connected w i t h co llege or
university;
4. e x t e n s i o n courses not leading to a degree;
5.

local in -se rvi ce a cti vit ies other t h a n workshops;

6. w o r k s h o p s under

local l e a d e r s h i p . 33

A consensus of p r a c t i c i n g supervisors concerni ng inse rv i c e e d u c a t i o n w a s re po r t e d in 1960 b y T a n n e n b a u m . 34
He st ate d that the e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f an in- ser vic e p ro g r a m
is d i r e c t l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to its duration,
ha v i n g

little effect.

listed as important,
(25)

o n e - d a y programs

The size o f the g rou p has been
w i t h p rograms

limited to tw ent y-f ive

st ude nts m o r e effective than w i t h

larger groups.

P r o g r a m s w h i c h a c t i v e l y in vol ve te ach ers in m a n i p u l a t i n g
sc ience m a t e r i a l s ha ve b e e n m o r e eff ective than t hos e h a v ­
ing an

"expert" demonstrate.

T a n n e n b a u m st ate d that:

P r o g r a m s w h i c h c o m b i n e th eor eti cal s cience and
actual experiences w i t h m a t e r i a l s and o ppo r t u n i t i e s
to discuss e ffe c t i v e techniq ues for t eac hin g science
co nce pts to ele men t a r y school children have been the
mo st e f f e c t i v e b y f a r . 35
Thirty-nine

(39)

e l e m e n t a r y teachers a t t e n d i n g a w o r k ­

shop d uri ng a summer se ssi on at the U n i v e r s i t y of S outhern

33I b i d .
34H a r o l d E. Tannenbaum, "Supervision o f E l e m en tar y
Sc hoo l Science:
In-Serv ice Courses," Sc ie n c e T e a c h e r , Vol.
27 (April, 1960), pp. 50-51.
35I b i d .

29
California were the subjects of a study by Bingham.36
He found that the activities most valued in a workshop were:
participating in experiments,

demonstrations by the faculty,

workshop d emo nst rat ion-discussi ons, work with various kinds
of teaching materials,
workshop m e m b e r s . 37
thirty-nine

and sharing of wor kable ideas by

According to the responses of the

(39) teachers surveyed by Bingham,

be about thirty
staff of two

there should

(30) members in an ideal workshop with a

(2).

Also,

the works hop should take the full

time of the students for a period of six w e e k s .
In 1958, E c c l e s 36 evaluated a methods course at the
University of Illinois.

She called attention to the lack

of precise information as to the effect o f the teachers'
knowledge,

skills,

and attitudes on the quality of their work

in the field of science and the lack of suitable objective
instruments to mea s w c e jsorae of the traits considered impor­
tant.

She concluded that very little student change results

from a one-semester course in teaching science in the elemen­
tary school.

36N. Eldred Bingham, "What Elementary Teachers Want in
Workshops in Elementary Science," Science E d u c a t i o n , Vol.
39, no. 1 (February, 1955), pp. 59-64.
37I b i d .
38Priscilla Jacobs Eccles, "An Evaluation of a Course
in Teaching Science in the Elementary S c h o o l , " Dissertation
A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 19, no. 11 (1959), p. 2862.

30
Te acher c h a r act eri sti cs and teacher r e a c t i o n s to i n se rvice e d u c a t i o n .

"One m e a s u r e o f the success o f in -se r v i c e

ed ucation is the r eac t i o n of teachers to various aspects of
the p r o g r a m . " 39

This se ction deals m a i n l y w i t h teacher

c h ara cte ri sti cs and h o w they m a y be r e l a t e d to t he teachers'
re act ion s to various types of in- ser v i c e pro grams.
instances,

In some

success has b e e n m e a s u r e d in terms of student

achievement.

This aspect is also reported.

Te acher rea ction to consultant services as a form of
in -se r v i c e ed ucation w as r e p o r t e d in a study b y DeVault,
Houston,

and B o y d . 40

Forty-three

(43)

teachers of the D allas

Independent Sch ool Dis tr i c t w e r e the subjects o f this study.
Th e teachers'
items,

reactions w e r e o b t a i n e d t hro ugh q u e s t i o n n a i r e

a nd these rea cti ons were cor rel a t e d w i t h consultant

variables.

T he results rev e a l e d that the to tal time that

the consultants spent w i t h the teachers was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
related,

w i t h a co rre lat ion of

.59, to their ge n e r a l r eac tio n

to the in-ser vic e e duc ati on p rog ram an d also related, w i t h a
correlation of
gram.

.48, to the p e r c e i v e d u sef uln ess o f the p r o ­

Th e number of s mall group discus sio ns was related,

w i t h a co rrelation of
program,

.33,

to their general r e a c t i o n to the

and w i t h a co rre lat ion of

.30,

to their r e a c t i o n to

39M. Vere DeVault, Robert W. Houston, and C l a u d C. Boyd,
"Do C onsultant Services M a k e a Difference?"
Sc hoo l S cie n c e
an d M a t h e m a t i c s , Vol. 63 (April, 1963), pp. 285-290.
4° I b i d .

31
the usefulness of the program.
to make a difference,

but

"the specific nature of desired

changes must be identified;
tant services provided,

Consultant services do seem

and appropriate selected consul­

if maximal effectiveness is to be

a c h i e v e d ."41
Studies by Ashley and Kleinman support the conclusions
of DeVault et_ al..

On the basis of a literature review,

K l ein man 42 stated a need for science consultants in the
elementary school,

and Ashley 43 found that elementary science

consultants and elementary classroom teachers can s uccess­
fully develop a science program that is an integral part of
the total classroom program.
Consultant services were used in a study by B o y d 44
which involved ninety-six
four

(4),

(96)

elementary teachers of grades

five (5), and six (6).

This study,

compare methods of in-service education,

designed to

revealed no di ffe r­

ence in the change in mathematics achievement and achievement

41DeVault et. al.., o p . c i t ., p. 290.
42Kleinman, G. S., “Needed:
Elementary School Science
Consultants," op., c i t . . pp. 738-746.
43Tracy Hollis Ashley, "The Development of a Science
Program in the Elementary S c h o o l , " Research in the Teaching
of S c i e n c e , Washington, D. C.s
U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, July, 1957-July, 1959 / 1 9 6 2 ) , p. 28.
44Claud Collins Boyd, "A Study of the Relative E f f e c ­
tiveness of Selected Methods of In-Service Education for
Elementary School Teachers," Dissertation A b s t r a c t s , Vol. 22,
no. 10 (1961), pp. 3531-2.

32

in selected aspects of m a t h ema tic s teachi ng me thods bet w e e n
two

(2) groups of teachers.

similar in-service programs,

B o t h groups p a r t i c i p a t e d in
but on ly one gro up wa s g i v e n

consultant help.
C u r r i c u l u m change and i nno vat ion often int rod uce n ew
me thods or styles of teaching as w e l l as n e w materials.
C e rta in teachers m a y find it m o r e difficult th an o thers to
adapt to the changes evoked b y the i nnovation.

M y e r s and

T o r r e n c e 45 s t u d i e d the pe r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t e a c h ­
ers w h o w e r e r esi sta nt to change.

A m o n g the ch ara ct e r i s t i c s

w h i c h they i d e n t i f i e d w e r e authoritarianism,
i n s e n s i t i v i t y to pupil needs,
m a t i o n - g i v i n g functions,
in p rom o t i n g

defensiveness,

pre-occupation with infor­

i ntellectual inertness,

initia tiv e in pupils,

disinterest

and p r e - o c c u p a t i o n w i t h

discipline.
A similar attempt at i d e n t i fyi ng p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r ­
istics r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of teachers r esi sta nt to cha nge was
re po r t e d by U r i c k and F r y m i e r . 46

T h e stud y was co ndu c t e d by

a gra dua te class at O h i o S t a t e University.

Mailed question­

naires w e r e r e t u r n e d b y one h u n d r e d t h i r t y - s e v e n
two h un d r e d si xte en

(216)

(137)

of

teachers who h a d b e e n i d e n t i f i e d

45R. E. Myers and E. Paul Torrence, "Can Te ach ers
En cou r a g e C r e a t i v e Thinking?" E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , Vol.
19 (December, 1961), pp. 156-159.
46R o n a l d U r i c k and Jack R. Frymier, "Personalities,
Te ac h e r s and C u r r i c u l u m C h a n g e , " E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p ,
Vol. 21, no. 2 (November, 1963), pp. 107-111.

33
by their principals as either most or least willing on the
faculty to consider curriculum change.

The study was u n ­

successful in its attempt to identify differences in these
two groups of teachers.
An explanation for the lack of extensive research on
in-service education may have been indicated b y Flanders
when he said,

"Proper evaluation would more than double the

costs o f in-service activities."*7

In discussing an in-

service project in human relations training,

Flanders stated,

... the results showed that not all teachers can b e n e ­
fit from this kind of training, while other can.
In
general, teachers whose personality measures initially
we re correlated with more effective classroom p r a c ­
tices, in turn, gained most from the tra ining.48
His study showed that consistency between t e a c h e r s 1 own
styles of teaching and methods used during in-service training
will influence the progress of the teacher.

During this study

the teachers were classified according to personality and
attitude data collected by administering the Minnes ota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
Inventory,

the Minnesota Teacher Attitude

and the Bowers Teachers Opinion Inventory.

"What

little research has been done so far suggests the tests that
can be used for selecting teachers, who can benefit more

47Ned A. Flanders, "Teacher Behavior and In-Service
Programs," Educational L e a d e r s h i p . Vol. 21 (October, 1963),
p . 25.
4aI b i d . , p. 27.

34
from in- ser v i c e t r a i n i n g . 1,49
B e t w e e n 1953 and 1958 W a s h t o n 50 s t u d i e d one h u n d r e d
(100)

e l e m e n t a r y sc ience teachers e n r o l l e d in a g r a d u a t e

course at Queens College.

He found that r i g i d t e a c h e r s have

greater d i f f i c u l t y t eac h i n g others to d e v e l o p s c i e n t i f i c
attitudes,
teachers'

but that age is not a factor a f f e c t i n g the
abilities to learn science.

S e v e r a l studies h ave a tte m p t e d to e v a l u a t e t e a c h e r
tr ain ing in terms of student achievement.
twenty-seven

(27)

U s i n g a sample of

e lem ent ary teachers in Calgary,

E c c l e s 51 o b t a i n e d a co rre lat ion o f

(-.04)

Alberta,

b e t w e e n t eac her

k n owledge o f science subject m a t t e r and student ac hievement.
Eccles cites a study by Hei l et a l . 52 in w h i c h it w a s

con­

cluded that p e r s o n a l i t y traits of the tea c h e r h ave a s i g n i f i ­
cant r e l a t i o n s h i p to student achievement,

w h i l e traits such

as k n o w l e d g e of subject m a t t e r do not.

40I b i d . , p. 29.
5°N a t h o n S. Washton, “I mpr ovi ng E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r E d u ­
cation in Sc ience," Sc i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , Vol. 45 (February,
1961), p. 34.
51P. J. Eccles, "The R e l a t i o n s h i p B e t w e e n S ub j e c t
Ma tte r C o m p e t e n c e of Tea che rs and t h e Q u a l i t y o f S c i e n c e
I n str uct ion in the El e m e n t a r y School," A l b e r t a Jou rna l of
Ed u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h , Vol. 8, no. 4 (December, 1962), pp.
238-245.
52Louis M. Heil, M a r i o n Powell, and Irwin Feifer,
" C har acteristics of Te ache r B ehavior R e l a t e d to the A c h i e v e ­
m e n t of C h i l d r e n in Sev era l E l e m e n t a r y G rad es" (Brooklyn
C o lle ge O f f i c e of T e s t i n g and Research, 1960).

35
McCall and K r a u s e 53 obtained similar results wh en w o r k ­
ing with seventy-three
Carolina.

(73)

sixth grade teachers in North

Using student growth as a criterion for teacher

efficiency,

they found that teachers'

knowledge of subject

matter showed no correlation (-.06) wit h efficiency.
the measures used,

Of all

the one which gave the highest correlation

was the McCall-Herring Personality Measure.

The five

parts of this measure correlated from

.39 with

.22 to

(5)

teacher m e r i t .
Teacher attitude and personality data were used by
B i x l e r 54 to investigate the relationship between teacher
traits and student achievement in science.
Attitude Inventory scores from sixty-two

Minnesota Teacher

(62)

intermediate

grade teachers showed no significant relationship to student
achievement.
teachers'

Similar results were obtained regarding the

authoritarianism.

H e m p e l 55 concluded that knowledge of learning theory
may be one factor affecting teachers'
service education.

attitudes towards in-

A tendency for those wh o kn ow more about

53W. A. McCall, and Gertrude R. Krause, "Measurement
of Teacher Merit for Salary Purposes," Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 53, no. 2 (October, 1959), pp. 73—75.
54J, E. Bixler, Abstract, "The Effect of Teacher A t t i ­
tude on Elementary Children's Science Information and Science
A t t i t u d e , " Research in the Teaching of S c i e n c e , Washington,
D. C.s
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
(1962), pp. 28-29.
55Hempel,

loc. cit.

36
learning theory to hold more desirable attitudes toward inservice education was discovered.
Summary.

The r eview of literature relevant to p r e ­

service and in-service training of elementary school teachers
in the area of science revealed some divergence of opinion
although a more generalized note of agreement.

Conclusions

may be drawn in each of the areas reviewed.
1.

Studies relevant to the status of science in the

elementary school and the preservice preparation of elemen­
tary teachers revealed a definite inadequacy in background.
This

feeling of insecurity and inadequacy was noted in

studies by Maddux
(9), Brown

(4),

(2)*, Mallinson

and Hines

(5).

(3), Victor

Tyndall

(13), Verrill

(8) reported a high

degree of relationship between grades made in science courses
and performance as elementary science teachers.
(16)

Berryessa

also found the total credit hours in science to be a

factor in the kind of science program developed by t e a c h e r s .
Blackwood

(11)

found lack of consultant services as a major

barrier to science teaching.

Moorehead's

(14) study reveals

the discovery m e t h o d to be used sparingly in science courses
but heavily emphasized in science methods courses.
The findings listed above are,
and Mallinson

(17), Kleinman

in part,

(18), Sims

(19),

supported by Buck
and Lammers

-*

The number in parentheses refers to previously cited
references.

(20).

37
The study by Blough

(21) was the only research reviewed

dealing wi th those responsible for the training of t e a c h e r s .
2. In-service education has become a planned investment
according to an analysis of research conducted by McFeaters
(22).

Summer school and college credit courses were reported

to be an important source of in-service training b y Verrill
(29), Lammers

(24), and Chamberlain

keep up to date through journals,

(30).

Teachers also

institutes,

organizations according to Costa (27)

and professional

and Lerner

(28).

3. Research designed to evaluate in-service training
programs was conducted by Hempel

(32).

He found graduate

study leading to a degree to b e preferred by teachers.
Tannenbaum (34) reported the duration of an in-service p r o ­
gram to be proportional to its e f f e c t i v e n e s s .

Activities

wh ich actively involved the teachers were favored by the
teachers attending a workshop in a study by Bingham
Eccles

(36).

(38) pointed out a lack of knowledge concerning the

relationship between teacher characteristics and the quality
of their work.

Eccles also noted the lack of suitable o b ­

jective instruments to measure traits considered important
and concluded that little student change takes place in a
one-semester methods course.
4. Flanders

(47) offered as an explanation for the lack

of extensive evaluation of in-service education,
which are involved.

the costs

Teacher reaction to consultant services

was reported by DeVault et. al.. (40) .

A significant positive

correlation between the total time consultants spent with

38
teachers and their gen era l re act i o n to the i n - s e rvi ce p r o ­
gram w a s

found in Boyd's study.

and A s h l e y

(43)

St udies b y Kle in m a n

(42)

s u p p o r t e d the o p i n i o n that consultant

services can m a k e an important con t r i b u t i o n to the s u c c e s s ­
ful d e v e l op men t of a science program.
M yer s and T o r r e n c e

(45)

and U r i c k and Fry m i e r

(46)

at tem pte d to s tud y per s o n a l i t y ch ara cte ris tic s o f teachers
resistant to change.
successful,

Mye rs

A l t h o u g h U ric k a nd Fry mier w e r e u n ­

and T o r r e n c e i d e n t i f i e d a u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m

and d efe n s i v e n e s s as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c traits.
Fr ymier w e r e u n s u c c e s s f u l in their attempts.

U r i c k and
Washton

(50)

found ri g i d te achers ha ve gre ate r d i f f i c u l t y dev elo pin g
sc ien t i f i c attitudes.
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n teacher at tit ude and p e r s o n ­
ality,

and student achievem ent has b een i nv e s t i g a t e d b y

se ver al authors.

Bixler

(54)

found no si gni fic ant r e l a t i o n ­

ship b e t w e e n M T A I scores and student achievement.
ob tai n e d a c o r r e l ati on of

(-.04)

Eccles

b e t w e e n te ach er knowledge

of science subject m a t t e r and student achievement, w h i l e
Heil,

Powell,

and Fe ife r

(52)

c o n c l u d e d that p e r s ona lit y

traits ha ve a si gni fic ant r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h student a c h i e v e ­
ment.

He il et. al.., also co nclu ded that subject m att er

not s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to student achievement.
and K rau se

(53)

o b t a i n e d similar results.

is

McCall

CHAPTER III
D E SC RIP TIV E FEATURES OF THE S T U D Y

Pr ese nte d in this chapter are:

(1) the ge neral o b ­

jectives and design of the coopera tiv e in-service pro gram
under wh i c h the study was c arried out,

(2) a description

of the participants and the methods use d to select them,
(3)

a description of the Summer Workshop,

implementation program,

(4) the SCIS

(5) the scheduling of classroom

visitations and bi -we e k l y meetings w i t h the SCIS teachers,
(6) the Gull Lake w e e k - e n d conferences,
teacher data collected,
we re treated,

(7) the sources of

(8) the m a n n e r in w h i c h the data

and (9) a summary.

General objectives and design of the cooperative i n service p r o g r a m .

The study was d esigned to investigate

teacher reactions to traini ng for,

and implementation of,

the SCIS program as carried out under the terms of the NSF
Cooperative College-School Sc ience Pro g r a m be tween M ich i g a n
State Univer sit y and the pub lic school systems of East
Lansing,

Grand Ledge,

DeWitt,

and Perry, Michigan.

This p r o ­

gram began in the summer of 1968 and ext ended through the
1968-1969 school year.

The specific objectives for the

39

40
co ope rat ive program,

as p r e s e n t e d in t he o rig ina l proposal,

included:
1. To p rov id e a three (3) w e e k summer w o r k s h o p
sp e c i f i c a l l y de si g n e d to h e l p teachers learn
the science content, the r e c o m m e n d e d mod es of
teaching, and the p syc h o l o g i c a l basis of the
ne wer el eme n t a r y school s ci e n c e programs,
es pec i a l l y the Sci enc e C u r r i c u l u m Im pro vem ent
S t u d y (SCIS) .
2. To pr ov i d e frequent cl assroom v i s i t ati ons b y
u n i v e r s i t y s cience consultants d u r i n g the 19681969 school year to he lp individual t eachers
an d small groups of teachers to a t t a c k p roblems
as the y arise and to in cre a s e their e f f e c t i v e ­
ness in tea chi ng the SCIS program.
3. To pro vid e teachers w i t h s pec ifi c e col og i c a l
e xperiences at the Kel log g Gull Lake Bio log i c a l
St a t i o n at H i c k o r y Corners, Michigan, w h i c h
w i l l co ntr i b u t e to their ca pa c i t y to deal w i t h
the life science po rtion o f the SCIS c u r r i c u l u m . 1
In str ume nts w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d a n d a dmi n i s t e r e d to collect
i n f o r m a t i o n concerni ng the t e a c h e r s 1 re act ion s to b o t h the
tr ain i n g and i mp lem ent atio n phases of the c o o p e rat ive p rog ram .
S e l e c t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n o f the p a r t i c i p a n t s .

The

teachers i nvo lv ed in this study w e r e those w ho a t t e n d e d the
Summer W o r k s h o p in 1968.

Du r i n g the spring of 1968,

t he

pr inc i p a l s and teachers of the schools in clu ded under the
c o o p e r a t i v e pr opo sal w e r e c o n t act ed in p e r s o n b y the p r o g r a m
director.

Dr. Gle nn D. B e r k h e i m e r .

The terms of the p rop o s a l

and the general features of the SCIS p r o g r a m w e r e ex pla i n e d
at that time.

T he first and second grade teachers,

as w e l l

1G l e n n D. Berkheimer, P r o p o s a l f o r — "NSF C oo p e r a t i v e
C o l l e g e - S c h o o l S cie nce P r o g r a m B etw een M i c h i g a n St ate U n i v e r ­
s i t y and East Lansing, G r a n d Ledge, DeWitt, and Perry, M i c h i ­
gan" (Science and Ma t h e m a t i c s T e a c h i n g Center), 1968.

41
as the pri nci pal s o f the r e s p e c t i v e schools,

w e r e in vited to

attend the Summer W o r k s h o p and to p a r t i c i p a t e in the i m p l e ­
m e n t a t i o n during the following s chool year.

Prior ap pro val

of the pr opo sal had been o b t a i n e d in w r i t i n g from each of
the school boards.
ne ede d SCIS kits,
service,

a c o m m itm ent to p u r c h a s e the

to pro vide any n e c e s s a r y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e

and to en courage the t each ers to p a r t i c i p a t e was

secured.
forty

Also,

A t the time the w o r k s h o p b e g a n o n A u g u s t 5, 1968,

(40)

individuals h a d b e e n a c c e p t e d as participants.

Of the forty
Summer Workshop,

(40) p a r t i c i p a n t s a t t e n d i n g the 1968
t h i r t y -fo ur

(34)

taught the SCIS pr o g r a m

for the entire 1 968 — 1969 school year.

O f t h o s e not tea chi ng

the SCIS p r o g r a m for the entire year? one
district science supervisor,
cipals,

two

two

(1) w a s a s chool

(2) w e r e e l e m ent ary p r i n ­

(2) did not rem ain in teaching,

and one

(1)

wa s t r a n s f e r r e d to a gra de level not using the SCIS program.
O f the th irty-four

(34)

te achers u s i n g the SCIS

ma ter ial s th rou gho ut the school year,

one t e a c h e r d id not

complete all the i nstruments n e e d e d for the study.
a total of thi rty -th ree

(33)

Thus,

t eac her s c o n s t i t u t e d the p a r t i ­

cipants in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Fi fte en

(15) o f the teachers in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n w e r e

em plo yed in East Lansing,
DeWitt and Perry,
Michigan.
teachers,

Michigan,

Michigan,

a nd four

seven
(4)

(7)

each from

from Gr a n d Ledge,

Ta ble 1 indicates the n umb er of p a r t i c i p a t i n g
b y grade

level,

from each s chool district.

42
T a b l e 1.

Sc h o o l di strict and grade level of the SCIS
te ach ers i ncl u d e d in the study.

Grade
Level

East Lansing

1

7

4

2

2

2

8

3

2

5

The thirty-three

Sc hoo l D i s t r i c t
De W i t t
G r a n d Led ge

(33)

in age from t w e n t y - o n e

te achers w e r e

(21)

m e a n age of 33.2 years.

females and r a n g e d

years to si xty

T h e subjects'

Perry

(60)

years w i t h a

records of academic

b a c k g r o u n d r e v e a l e d that they h a d a c q u i r e d from three
to

fifty-four

credits.

(54)

in s c i e n c e w i t h a m e a n 14.8

T h e ran ge in tea c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e for the teachers

was from zero

(0) years to forty-three

m e a n of 5.3 years.
age,

term credits

(43)

years w i t h a

T h e i n f o r m ati on p e r t a i n i n g to t eacher

p r e p a r a t i o n in science,

and t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e is

listed b y teacher and grade level in T a b l e 2.
teachers had ear ned a B.A.,
tion,

(3)

four

or A. B. degree.

In a d d i ­

(4) t eachers h a d also a c q u i r e d an M. A. degree.

Summer w o r k s h o p .
he ld Au g u s t

B.S.,

All of the

The 1968 SCIS Sum mer W o r k s h o p w as

5 through A u g u s t 23,

1968,

the M i c h i g a n State U niv er s i t y Campus.

at Ho lme s Hall on
T h e facilities o f

the Sc ie n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s T e a c h i n g Center in M c D o n e l H all
w e r e also used.

The activities of the w o r k s h o p ce nt e r e d

ar oun d the following seven
"Nature o f S c i e n c e , " (2)

(7)

areas:

(1)

lectures on the

films and lectures on

"Modes o f

43
Ta ble 2.

Age, science background, and teaching experience
data for the p a r t i c i p a n t s .

Teacher Age Science Teaching
Teacher Age Sc ience Te aching
Credits Experience
Credits Experience
1*

25

21

4

20**

26

12

5

2

24

15

2

21

23

15

1

3

26

15

5

22

53

8

4

48

10

16

23

23

21

10
2

5

49

6

8

24

41

11

4

6

28

12

7

25

26

18

4

7

32

16

5

26

22

8

1

8

21

21

0

27

35

13

10

9

24

14

0

28

23

11

2

10

24

7

1

29

53

7

17

11

29

6

6

30

55

9

8

12

23

13

0

31

57

13

1

13

32

24

0

32

60

3

43

14

46

32

2

33

22

20

0

15

24

7

3

34

41

6

6

35

26

54

1

36

22

20

0

37

34

13

1

35. 6

14.6

6.4

Means

30. 3

14.6

3.9

Means

Numbers 1 through 15 represent

first grade teachers.

**

Numbers 20 through 37 represent second grade t e a c h e r s .

44
T e a c h i n g S C I S , ” (3)
laboratories,

"Psychology o f Jean P iag e t , "

(5) micro-teaching,

o f specific SCIS

lessons,

and

(4) i nqu iry

(6) d e m o n s t r a t i o n t eac h i n g

(7) pl ann i n g for the 19 68-1969

school year.
Lectures on the nature o f science w e r e p r e s e n t e d by
Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer and Dr. S h e r w o o d Haynes,
and Head,
These

P rof e s s o r

D e p a r t m e n t of Physics at M i c h i g a n S t a t e University.

lectures w e r e s c h e d u l e d during the first w e e k o f the

w o r k s h o p and w e r e u sed to emphasize the SCIS app roa ch to
teaching science.
Films d e v e l o p e d b y the SCIS pro jec t
ing w e r e u s e d during the workshop.
trate

"Modes o f T e a c h i n g SCIS" were:

for teacher t r a i n ­

The films u s e d to i l l u s ­
"Grandma's B utton Box,"

"E xperimenting w i t h Air," "Karplus w i t h Chi ldr en, "

"Inventing

the Co m p a r i s o n of Objects Using Signs,"

"Observing Liquids,"

"Invention o f the C onc ept of M ate ria l,"

"Relativity

mentary) ," a n d "Interaction

(Docu­

( D o c u m e n t a r y ) ."

A c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to the d eve l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y of

Pi a g e t w e r e introduc ed w i t h a

"Demonstration of Piaget's

D e v e l o p m e n t a l Stages" b y Dr. D o n a l d Neuman,

w h o s e r ece n t l y

co mpleted do cto ra l study dealt w i t h Pi aget's d e v e l o p m e n t a l
stages.

Dr. Neuman illustr ate d the different me n t a l c a p a ­

cities of children b y asking children to p e r f o r m various
tasks.

The c hil dr en ranged in age from five

(8) years.

(5)

to eight

T h e tasks c e n t e r e d m a i n l y a rou nd conservation.

This de mo n s t r a t i o n was
Berkheimer entitled,

followed w i t h a lecture b y Dr.

"The Ps y c h o l o g y of Jean Piaget."

45
The teachers w e r e later shown the films,
mental Theory:
Theory:

"Piaget's D e v e l o p ­

Classification" and "Piaget's D e v e l op men tal

Conservation."

The inquiry laboratories used during the w o r k s h o p were
adapted from a Laborato ry Guide b y T h i e r . 2

T he inquiry

laboratories were held on six (6) occasions at both the
first and second grade levels w i t h the activities,
and Acid,"

"Classification,"

"Systems and Sub-systems,"

"Whirly Birds,"

"Marble

"Mealworms,"

"Pendulums," and "Relativity."

During one of the inquiry laboratories,

"Marble and Acid,"

the combined grade levels of SCIS teachers w e r e ob ser ved by
the m embers of the Leadership Wo r k s h o p on Elementary School
Science w h i c h was held concurrently w i t h the SCIS W o r k s h o p
on the Michigan State University Campus.

The participants

of the SCIS Wor k s h o p and the Leadership Wo rks hop w o r k e d c o ­
operatively on several occasions including the one inquiry
laboratory session and one m i c r o -tea chi ng situation.
The teachers w e r e involved in a m i c r o- tea chi ng situation
on three

(3) occasions during the workshop.

The children

wh o w e r e used for the mi cro -te ach ing sessions,

wer e obt a i n e d

from the m arr i e d housing units on the Mic h i g a n State U n i v e r ­
sity campus.
a SCIS

For the micro-teaching,

the teachers prepared

lesson w h i c h was to be p res ent ed to two (2) children

2Herbert D. Thier, "Teaching Elementa ry Science A L a b ­
oratory Approach" (Laboratory G u i d e — Revised.
Boston:
D. C. Heath and Company, May, 1968).

46
during a period o f not more than fifteen minutes.
teachers at each grade level,
pairs-

The

first and second, w o r k e d in

While one teacher presented the lesson to the

children the other teacher was an observer.
sion of the lesson and after a short break,
changed roles.

At the con clu ­
the teachers

The second teacher then presented a dif fer ­

ent lesson to the same two
teacher observed.

(2)

children, while the first

All of the lessons we re recorded by the

teachers or staff members with either video or audio equip­
ment or both.

These recordings were used as feedback to be

analyzed b y the t e a c h e r s .

The SCIS teachers and Leadership

Workshop participants w o r k e d as pairs during one m i c r o ­
teaching session.

The participants of the Leadership W o r k ­

shop presented either a SCIS lesson or a lesson from the
AAAS Sci e n c e — A Process Approach.

The SCIS teachers p r e ­

sented only SCIS lessons.
The demonstration teaching consisted of SCIS lesson
presentation by grade level groups of four
teachers.

(4) or five

(5)

The unit chapters or activities w e r e divided among

the members of the groups.

Each member was then responsible

for gathering the necessary kit materials and presenting
the lesson before other members of her group who played
the role of pupils.

In this manner,

each teacher either p r e ­

sented or was involved with all the lessons in the units
she wo uld be teaching at her grade level during the 19681969 school year.

No record was kept of which lessons or

how man y lessons each teacher presented.

47
D u e to the m a n y and varied responsibilities of e l e m e n ­
tary school teachers near the b egi nning of the school year,
the latter po rtion o f the w o r k s h o p was scheduled to provide
time for d e t a i l e d p lanning of the SCIS lessons to be taught
the first

few weeks o f school.

This planning time was

de signed to relieve the teachers o f some o f the added p l a n ­
ning necessitated w h e n implementing a new curriculum project.
The number of lessons p lanned by the individual teachers
varied considerably.
The last day o f the Summer Workshop,

the teachers w ere

given feedback forms, SCIS Teacher Reaction Sheets, w h i c h
we re to b e completed after each SCIS
the 1968-1969 school year,
Center.

lesson taught during

and then returned to the Trial

At the same time the teachers w e r e given group i n ­

struction concerning how to complete the feedback f o r m s .
Upon the completion o f the Summer Workshop,

each of the

participants was p aid a sum of $180.00 and received three
(3) graduate term credits.

A complete listing of the SCIS

Summer W o r k s h o p Schedule is p res ented in A ppe ndi x A, page
128.
Implementation p r o g r a m .
gram in the four

The teaching of the SCIS p r o ­

(4) cooperating school systems began during

the first few weeks of the 1968-1969 school year.

Each

teacher decided wh en to begin the program in her classroom.
The only stipulation was that a lesson should be taught,
possible,

on the day the M i c h i g a n State U niversity SCIS

if

48
consultant v i s i t e d her school.

T h e teachers w e r e usu a l l y

v i s i t e d on a T u e s d a y or Thursday,

every two we e k s .

While

the frequency v a r i e d across schools and classrooms,
usual p rac ti ce was
or three

the

for the SCIS lessons to b e taught tw o

(3) times per wee k.

Fif t e e n to fo rty -fi ve min ute s

was the u sual amount of time d e v o t e d to a lesson.

F eed b a c k

relative to the lessons was s e c u r e d by me a n s o f forms,
Te ach er R e a c t i o n Sheets,

(2)

SCIS

w h i c h the i ndi vid ual teachers c o m ­

p l e t e d and r e t u r n e d to the T r i a l Ce nte r O f f i c e at M i c h i g a n
State Universi ty.
Th e i nve s t i g a t o r o f this st udy and two

(2) other d o c ­

toral candidates in science ed uca tio n at M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y w e r e e m p l o y e d as consultants.

The duties o f

the c onsultants in clu ded v isi t i n g the SCIS teachers'
rooms du rin g sc ien ce
m a t e l y once e v e r y t wo

class­

lessons and conduct ing m e e t i n g s a p p r o x i ­
(2) w e e k s w i t h the p a r t i c i p a t i n g

teachers in a gi ven school or schools.

Th e con sul tan ts also

aided the SCIS teachers in lesson p l a n n i n g and p r e p a r a t i o n
of m a t e r i a l s w h e n requested.
school year,

At var iou s times d u r i n g the

t e a c h i n g m a t e r i a l s w e r e d e l i v e r e d to the schools

b y the consultants.

Occasionally,

as s i s t a n c e was given to

a teacher in the p r e s e n t a t i o n of a SCIS

lesson to the pupils.

Th ese experiences w e r e u s e d b y the c onsultants to des cri be
and e valuate the me t h o d s and m a t e r i a l s of the SCIS pr o g r a m
as t h e y w e r e b e i n g i m p l e m e n t e d in the c l a s s r o o m situation.
Each consultant was assigned,

du rin g the Summer Workshop,

to

49
a group of teachers w i t h w h o m he w o r k e d throughout the
school year.

Each o f these groups included approximately

one-thi rd of the teachers.

Ge ogr aph ic location o f the

school buildings was a major co nsideration in making the
assignments.
W e e k l y meetings w e r e hel d at the S cie nce and Mathem ati cs
Teaching Center b y the SCIS Trial Center Staff,
Dr. Glenn D. Berkheimer,
consultants.

coordinator,

composed of

and the three

(3)

The pur p o s e of the m eetings was to coordinate

the staff efforts and to provide

feedback on t he SCIS i mpl e­

m ent ation as it was taking place in the c ooperating schools.
Since each of the consultants w as conducting independent
r e s e a r c h 3 '4 relative to the SCIS teachers,

close c o m m u n i c a ­

tion and cooperation w e r e m a i n t a i n e d b y the consultants.
Each consultant was

familiar w i t h his colleagues'

investiga­

tions and aided in the collection of data.
Classro om visitations and b i - w e e k l y m e e t i n g s .
teacher was v isi ted app roximately once every two
wh ile a SCIS

lesson was being taught.

Each

(2) weeks

Du r i n g these classroom

visitations the consultants w e r e able to observe the teachers'

3Thomas Charles Moon, "A Study of Verbal Behavior P a t ­
terns in Primary Grade Classrooms D uri ng Science Activities"
(unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Co lle ge o f Education,
Mi chigan State University, 1969) .
4Larry R. Bruce, "A Det er m i n a t i o n of the Relationships
Among SCIS Teachers' Pe rso nal ity Traits, A t t i t u d e Toward
Te acher-Pupil Relationship, U n d e r sta ndi ng o f Sci enc e Process
Skills and Question Types" (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
College of Education, M i c h i g a n State University, 1969).

50
p r o g r e s s in te ac h i n g th e SCIS p r o g r a m and also ob serve s t u ­
dent r e a c t i o n to the l e s s o n s .
D u r i n g m o s t of the cla ssr oom v isitations

from Septe mbe r

t h r o u g h A p r i l the c onsultants car r i e d portabl e audio-tape
re cor d e r s w i t h w h i c h the SCIS

lessons w e r e recorded.

r e c o rd ing s w e r e a n a l y z e d by the other two
as part of their r e s e a r c h . 5'6
r e c o r d i n g w a s to capture the

(2)

consultants

Sin ce the p u r p o s e of the
"normal"

classroom situation,

o n those o c c a s i o n s w h e n the lessons w e r e recorded,
o f the consult ant was

These

the role

limited to that of an observer.

C o i n c i d i n g w i t h the c las s r o o m visitat ion s w e r e grade
level m e e t i n g s b e t w e e n the con sul tan ts and SCIS teachers.
T h e m e e t i n g s w e r e u s u a l l y h e l d after school dis mi s s a l the
same day t he consultant ha d v i s i t e d c l a s s e s .

T h e p urposes

o f the m e e t i n g s w e r e to pro v i d e o ppo r t u n i t i e s for:
(1)

as ses sin g pro gra ms on the SCIS p r o g r a m implementation,

(2) e x c h a n g e o f t e a c h i n g ideas or methods among the teachers
and b e t w e e n the teachers and consultants,
lessons

for the next

The meetings

and

(5) pla nni ng

few w e e k s .

c oul d be c o n s i d e r e d

formal in that they

w e r e c o n d u c t e d b y a consult ant and followed a struct ure d
format d e s i g n e d to ac com p l i s h the t h r e e purpose s des cribed
above.

In January,

however,

the teachers h a d be com e a c c u s ­

t o m e d to the format of the SCIS

5Moon,
®Bruce,

op o c i t .
op. c i t .

lessons and familiar w ith

51
the SCIS program in general.

At this time,

the teachers and

SCIS Staff agreed that the formal group meetings w e r e no
longer necessary.

The SCIS Staff d ec i d e d it w o u l d b e better

to meet wit h the teachers on an individual basis to discuss
any problems w hic h might have developed.

Group meetings

were held only w h e n the consultant or the teachers d eemed it
necessary.
Gull Lake w e e k - e n d c o n f e r e n c e s .

Two

(2)

in-service c o n ­

ferences wer e held at the Kellogg Gull Lake Biological
Station at H i c k o r y Corners, Michigan,
and M a y 17-18, 1969.

September 28-29,

1968,

The two day w e e k - e n d conferences wer e

de signed to aid the teachers in understanding ecological
systems and also help them interrelate their immediate s u r ­
roundings w i t h the SCIS program.

Dr. T. W ayn e Porter,

fessor of Zoology at M ich i g a n State University,
conferences.

conducted the

Aiding Dr. Porter w e r e Dr. Berkheimer,

Center Coordinator and the three

Pro­

Trial

(3) SCIS consultants.

A day at the Kellogg Gull Lake Biological Station i n­
cluded;
8 : 0 0 — 9;00 a.m.

Lecture related to field work.

9 : 0 0 — 12:00 p.m.

Field W o r k — study ecosystems, take
measurements, and collect specimens.

1 * 0 0 — 2:00 p.m.

Discussion of m or n i n g

2 : 0 0 — 4:30 p.m.

Laboratory examination of specimens
w h i c h h ad been collected.

4 : 3 0 — 5:30 p.m.

Summation of field and laboratory
experiences.

7 : 0 0 — 8:00 p.m.

Slides, lecture,
ecosystems.

field experiences.

and discussion on

52
Seventeen

(17) of the SCIS teachers attended the fall

conference; six (6) from the first grade level and eleven
(11)

from the second grade level.

was attended b y five (5)
eight

The spring conference

first grade level teachers and

(8) second grade level teachers.

Two

(2) other first

grade level teachers attending the spring conference had
attended the 1967 SCIS Summer W ork sho p and had taught the
SCIS program since the beginning of the 1967-1968 school
year.
Sources of teacher d a t a .
tests,

questionnaires,

forms,

audio-tape recordings,

Data we re secured by means o f

application forms,

lesson feedback

and personal observation.

Each of these means is discussed in the following paragraphs.
The NSF Applicant Information Sheet was completed by
each of the SCIS teachers attending the Summer Workshop.
This sheet was used as the source o f information concerning
the teachers'
experience,

ages,

academic degrees held,

years of teaching

and academic background in science.

The Minnesota Teacher Attitude Inventory

(MTAI) was ad­

ministered near the beginning of the Summer Workshop in
August and again at the April 19,

1969,

testing session w hen

the teachers returned to the Michigan State University Campus.
The MTAI purports to measure those attitudes which predict
how well a teacher will get along with pupils in inter­
personal relationships and indirectly,

how well satisfied

the teacher will be in teaching as a vocation.

Norms have

53
b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d for v arious types of hi gh school and
co llege students,

for te acher trainees,

and for e x p e r i e n c e d

e lem en t a r y and s e c o n d a r y school t e a c h e r s . 7
range o f scores

for the MT AI

T h e pos sib le

is -150 to +150.

sample o f 247 e l e m e n t a r y teachers w i t h four
tr ain ing and from systems of t w e n t y - o n e

A r and om

(4) years o f

(21)

or m o r e teachers

h a d a m e a n score o f 55.9 and a st and ard d e v i a t i o n o f 37.2.®
T h e S ix t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y Factor Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(16 PF)

was a d m i n i s t e r e d on T h u r s d a y of the second w e e k of the
Su mmer W ork sho p.

The instrument w as not ad m i n i s t e r e d again

as it w a s a ss u m e d that no significant

changes in p e r s o n a l i t y

w o u l d occ ur during the du ra t i o n o f the study.

One o f the

specifi c advanta ges o f this instrument is that by pr ovi d i n g
scores on factors that are not pur ely eva lua tiv e
psychologically

"good" or

(i.e.,

" b a d " ) , the test encourages the

use of h y p o t h e s e s that are m o r e s o p h i s t i c a t e d than those
linking

"adjustment m a l a d j u s t m e n t " or some such dicotomous

variable to the com pl ex p h e n o m e n a o f te ac h i n g and of t e a c h ­
ing e f f e c t i v e n e s s . 9

The personality

factors covered in this

instrument are c ite d in A p p e n d i x J, page 181.

7

J. S. G etzels and P. W. Jackson, "The Teache r's P e r ­
s o n a l i t y and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , " H a n d b o o k o f Re search on T e a c h ­
ing , ed. N. L. G a g e (Chicago:
R a n d McNally, 1963), p. 508.
®Walter W. Cook, Car r o l l H. Leeds, and Rob ert Callis,
T h e M i n n e s o t a Tea c h e r A t t i t u d e Inv en t o r y M a n u a l (New York:
T h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corporation, 1950), p. 9.
®Getzels and Jackson,

o p . cit.., pp.

553-554.

54
The Science Curriculum Improvement Study, Workshop
Content Achievement Evaluation

(SCIS Test) was constructed

by the investigator to measure the participants' knowledge
of the academic and process information covered in the S u m ­
mer Workshop.

The test was administered on August 22, 1968,

one day before the end of the Summer Workshop.

The items

on the SCIS Test w e r e submitted to the Summer Workshop Staff
to determine if the items adequately represented the exp eri ­
ences provided the teacher through their w orkshop activities.
The items were also checked for clarity.
were either re-written or omitted.
(50) multiple-choice items.

Questionable items

The test contained fifty

Items 1-41 were common to w o r k ­

shop activities at both the first and second grade level.
The last nine

(9)

and, therefore,
from three

items were specific to each grade level

scored separately.

(3) to five (5) options.

Each item was composed of
The test is included

in Ap pendix B, page 136.
The Science Process Test for Elementary School Teachers
(Process Test) was administered near the beginning of the
Summer Wor kshop on August 6, 1968,
1969.

and again on April 19,

This unpublished test was a forty

(40)

item multiple-

choice test designed to measure process skills such as those
emphasized in SCIS and S cie nce — A Process Approach.

Item

analysis summary data provided by the author10 of the test

10Evan A. Sweetser, Science Process Test for Elementary
School T e a c h e r s , 3rd Edition (East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, 1968).

55
are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e 3.
T h e SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation,

Forms 1 a n d 2 w e r e d e ­

s i gne d b y the investig ator to sample the teachers'
to specific Sum mer W o r k s h o p activities.
the a c t i vi tie s on a five
comments.

r eac tions

T h e tea chers r ate d

(5) point scale/

1 to 5, and m a d e

T h e s e instruments w e r e a d m i n i s t e r e d at the c o n ­

cl usion of the first and se c o n d w e e k s o f the Workshop,
respectively.
F o r m 1 c o n t a i n e d the activities o f the first w e e k of
the S u m m e r W o r k s h o p and F o r m 2,
week.

the a cti vi t i e s o f the s econd

T h e act ivi tie s inc lud ed films,

teaching,

and in qui ry laboratories.

lectures,
Th e two

micro-

(2)

naires are found in A p p e n d i c e s C and D, pa g e s

question­

1 5 6 a n d 158,

respectively.
SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation.

Form 5 w a s c o n s t r u c t e d b y the

w r i t e r d uri ng the third w e e k o f the w o r k s h o p .
F o r m 3,

In p r e p a r i n g

the k n o w l e d g e g a i n e d from t h e teachers'

to Forms 1 and 2 was helpful.

re spo nse s

An e x a m i n a t i o n of the teachers'

r e s p o n s e s on F o r m 1 and F o r m 2 r e v e a l e d h i g h ratings,
5, on most items.
in value.

4 or

M a n y t eac hers r a t e d all a cti vit ies as 5

The inv e s t i g a t o r d e c i d e d to c a t e g o r i z e by

a c t i v i t y area all of the w o r k s h o p a cti vit ies w h e n c o n s t r u c t ­
ing F o r m 3.

T he seven

(7)

activity areas,

as listed

p r e v i o u s l y in this chapter under the section entitled,
"Summer W o r k s h o p , " were:
Sc ien ce, "

(2)

Cl)

lectures o n the

films and lectures on

"Nature of

"Modes of T e a c h i n g SCIS,"

56

Table 3.

Process test item analysis summary data (summer
1968)

Michigan-Maryland
Teachers

AAAS Workshop
Teachers

N=103

N=49

21.34

20.57

5.60

4.58

Variance

31.38

20.96

Mean Item Difficulty

48.00

49.00

Mean Item Discrimination

34.00

28.00

Mean Point Biserial
Correlation

32.00

26.00

Mean
S. D.

Kuder Richardson
Reliability
#20

0.7601

0.6481

Standard Error of
Measurement

2.7 429

2.7169

57
(3)

"Psychology o f Jean P i a g e t , " (4)

(5) micro-teaching,
SCIS

lessons,

year.

and

(6)

in qui ry laboratories,

d e m o n st rat ion te ach i n g of sp ecific

(7) pl ann ing for t he 1 9 6 8 - 1 9 6 9 school

In F o r m 3 the teachers w e r e a s k e d to ran k the above

ac tiv ity areas ac cording to the d egr ee the y p e r c e i v e d each
w o u l d contri but e to their teaching of the SCIS p r o g r a m d u r ­
ing the 1968-1969 school year.

T he c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of a c t i v ­

ities g r e a t l y red u c e d the number of items,

a nd t he ra nki ng

forced the teachers to d i s c r imi nat e the r e l a t i v e values o f
the activities.

On F o r m 3, quest ion s w e r e also a sked c o n ­

cerning w o r k s h o p scheduling,
strong and w e a k points,

number and s e l e c t i o n o f topics,

and g eneral

feelings about changes

in t hin k i n g concern ing science or sci e n c e t eac h i n g w h i c h m a y
ha ve b e e n eli c i t e d by the w o r k s h o p experiences.

A copy of

F o rm 3 is found in A p p e n d i x E, pa ge 160.
In w r i t i n g items

for the e v a l u a t i o n questionnaires,

the investigator tried to provide a b a l a n c e b e t w e e n s t r u c ­
tured items,

w h i c h p r o v i d e d specific,

d e s i r e d i nfo rma tio n

and o p e n - e n d e d items, w h i c h p r o v i d e d m o r e
on the part of the teachers.

freedom o f r esp ons e

T h e items w e r e d i s t r i b u t e d to

the w o r k s h o p staff for examinat ion and w h e n items w e r e
that a p p e a r e d to be vag ue or misleading,

found

these items w e r e

rewritten.
T h e Q u e s t ion nai re on Teacher R e a c t i o n to T r a i n i n g ,
Materials,

and Im ple men tat ion o f the SCIS P r o g r a m w as a d m i n ­

is tered on April 19,

1969.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e , p r e p a r e d by

58
the investigator,

c o n s is ted o f sixty-nine

re qui rin g mor e than one response.

(69)

items,

some

Mo st of the items w e r e

of th e m u l t i p l e - c h o i c e type w i t h the remainder o pen -en ded .
As the t i t l e indicates,

the three sections o f the q u e s t i o n ­

na ire dealt w i t h t h e teachers'

training d uring the Su m m e r

W o r k s h o p a nd througho ut the 196 8-1 969 school year,
materials,

the SCIS

and teacher and student re ac t i o n to the ge n e r a l

i m p l e men tat ion of the SCIS program.

All items w e r e s u b m i t t e d

to the SCIS staff m e m b e r s as a check for cla rit y and
accuracy.
All bu t two of the SCIS te achers in the study r e t u r n e d
to the S c i e n c e and M at h e m a t i c s Te ach ing Center on A p r i l 19,
1969,
Test

to ret a k e as a p o s t -te st the MTAI,
for E l e m e n t a r y School Teachers,

naire,

and a final q u e s t i o n ­

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e on Te acher Rea cti on to Training,

Materials,
(2)

S cie n c e P ro c e s s

and I mpl e m e n t a t i o n of the SCIS Program.

teachers w ho

could not re t u r n on A p r i l 19,

T h e two

1969, w e r e

given packets c o n t a i n i n g the tests and que sti onn air e.

The y

co mpleted the instruments and r etu r n e d th em to the Tr ial
Center w i t h i n ten days.
session,

D u r i n g the Apr il 19th t est ing

e very effort was m a d e to rep lic ate the g r o u p te sting

conditions of the S umm er Workshop.

The sc hed ule

Ap ril 19th is found in A p p e n d i x K, page 182.
the tests and questionnaires,
administered,

a

followed on
listing of

along w i t h w h e n they w e r e

is found in T a b l e 4.

59

Table 4.

Tests and questionnaires completed by the SCIS
teachers and analyzed for the study.

Instruments

Time Administered
August 1968*
April 1969
4

Tests:
1. Minnesota Teacher Attitude
Inventory (MTAI)

X

2. 16 Personality Factor
Questionnaire (16 PF)

X

3. Science Process Test for
Elementary School Teachers
(3rd revised edition)
(Process Test)

X

4. Science Curriculum Im prove­
ment Study, Workshop Content
Achievement Evaluation
(SCIS Test)

X

X

X

Qu e s t i onn air es:
1. SCIS Workshop Evaluation,
Form 1

X

2. SCIS Workshop Evaluation,
Form 2

X

3. SCIS Workshop Evaluation,
Form 3

X

4. Questionnaire on Teacher
Reaction to Training,
Materials, and Implementa­
tion of the SCIS Program
(Final Questionnaire)

During the workshop.

X

60
The SCIS Teacher Reaction Sheets were a major source
of data for the study.

The Reaction Sheets were a revision

of those used during the previous year.

During the school

year the teachers were supplied with Reaction Sheets by the
consultants.

The sheets could be returned to the Trial

Center either by the stamped,

addressed envelopes provided,

or b y giving the forms to a consultant.
two main purposes:
of the teachers'

The feedback served

(1) to keep the consultants informed

progress,

and (2) as a source of informa­

tion to be used in revision and improvement of the SCIS pr o­
gram .
Seventeen

(17) of the items on the Reaction Sheet were

considered important as feedback information and,

therefore,

used in the computation of the total feedback and feedback
index for each teacher.

These seventeen

brief description were:

(1) Unit,

or Interaction;
unit;

(3) Lesson Number within Activity,

required several lessons to complete;

lesson in minutes;

clarity;

some activities

(4) Preparation Time,
for each

(6) Student-Materials Interaction;
(8) Teacher-Student Inter­

(9) Teacher's Guide Directions,
(10) Comments, on item #9;

they taught the lesson;
ateness,

depending upon the

(5) Class Time Used,

(7) Student-SLtudent Interaction;
action;

items plus a

either Material Objects

(2) Chapter or Activity,

for each lesson in minutes;

(17)

construction,

(11) Lesson Type, how

(12) Materials,
etc.;

rated according to

rated on appropri­

(13) Comments,

on item #12;

61
(14 and 15) A d d i t i o n a l Ideas or A c t i v i t i e s Used,
of two

(2);

(16 a n d 17)

anything not

Pr obl ems or Suggestions,

co vered in items #1-15.

The seventeen
ly.

Comments,

a maximum

(17)

items w e r e c o n s i d e r e d q u a n t i t a t i v e ­

The o n l y c o n s i d e r a t i o n was w h e t h e r the teacher did or

did not r es p o n d to a p a r t i cul ar

item.

The o n l y attempt ma de

to pl ace a value on a r e s p o n s e w a s w h e t h e r that r esp o n s e h a d
been listed under the a p p r o p r i a t e category on the R e a c t i o n
Sheet.

For example,

a c omment about m a t e r i a l s w o u l d b e l o n g

under item # 1 3 rather than item #17.

A co py of the SCIS

Te ach er R eac t i o n Sheet is found in A p p e n d i x G, p a g e 17 6.
On the last d ay of the Su mme r W o r k s h o p each consultant
talked w i t h the gro up o f teachers w i t h w h o m he w a s to w o r k
d uring the s chool year.
the Workshop,
improved.

T h e subject of t he discu ssi ons w a s

its goo d and b a d points,

and h o w it could be

T h e s e conver sat ion s w e r e r e c o r d e d via p o r t a b l e

a u dio -ta pe r e c o r d e r s .

The tapes w e r e a n a l y z e d b y the w r i t e r

to d ete r m i n e if t h e y c ont ain ed any relevant in f o r m a t i o n not
co nta ine d in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses.
Analysis of d a t a .

A l l d a t a w e r e co d e d and p l a c e d on

d a ta coding forms b y the w riter.

T he cod ing tr a n s f o r m e d

all responses to numerical form.

R esp ons es

questions w e r e first categorized.

to o p e n - e n d e d

T r a i n e d p e r s o n n e l at the

M i c h i g a n St ate U n i v e r s i t y C o m p u t e r L a b o r a t o r y w e r e e m p l o y e d
to transfer the c ode d data to key p u n c h cards and v erify
t h e results.

P e r s o n n e l o f A p p l i c a t i o n s P r o g r a m m i n g of the

62
Michigan State University Computer Center wer e utilized to
adapt existing programs to the needs of the researcher and
submitted the data to the Control Data Corporation 3600
and 6500 Computers for tabulation and a n a l y s i s .
The SCIS Test administered at the conclusion of the
Summer Wor kshop was scored and item analyzed for difficulty
and discrimination at the Mic hig an State University Scoring
Service.

The results of the item analysis can be found in

Table 7 in Chapter IV.

The MTAI,

PF were scored and double
Hypotheses one
the teachers'

Process Test,

and the 16

checked by hand.

(1) through four

rankings of the seven

(4) we re concerned with
(7) categories of w o r k ­

shop activities which were listed earlier in this chapter.
These rankings were in response to item #1 on the SCIS W o r k ­
shop Evaluation,

Form 3, and item #69 on the Questionnaire

on Teacher Reaction to Training, Materials,

and Implementa­

tion of the SCIS Program.

These hypotheses were analyzed

using a repeated measures

four-way analysis of

model.

variance

The significance of the results was tested by the

F-test.
Hypotheses

five

(5) through eight

(Q) were concerned

with the relationships between teacher characteristics and
variables associated with lesson feedback.
these variables,

The values for

defined in Chapter I, were computed by the

CDC 3600 Computer a nd analyzed w i t h the Pearson productmoment correlation statistic.

The

.05 level of significance

63
was chosen in this and all other cases as the minimum level
at which to reject the null hypotheses.

Other data from

the questionnaires were of a descriptive nature and are
treated as such in Chapter IV.
Summary.

Data relevant to teacher reaction to the

training for the implementation of the SCIS elementary
science program in four

(4) mid- Michigan communities were

collected via application forms,
feedback forms,

tests, questionnaires,

and audio recordings.

The study of the

thirty-three (33) teachers began with the SCIS Summer W o r k ­
shop in August 1968 and continued throughout the 1968-1969
school year.
All data were coded by the writer,

transferred to key

punch cards by trained key punch operators,

and tabulated

and analyzed by the Control Data Corporation 3600 and 6500
Computers.

Hypotheses concerning teacher ranking of w o r k ­

shop activities were analyzed with a four-way analysis of
variance model and tested for significance by use of the
F~test.

Relationships existing between teacher characteris­

tics and teacher feedback variables and between teacher
characteristics and teacher ranking of workshop activities
were determined by the Pearson product-moment correlation
statistic.

A minimum of the .05 level of significance was

employed in all c a s e s .

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF D A T A AN D RESULTS

The p urp ose o f this chapter is to p resent the results
obtained from the instruments used to collect teacher data
as described in Chapter III,
testing of the eight

as well as,

(8) hypotheses.

the results of the

T h e results of the

four (4) tests, M T A I , 16 PF Questionnaire,
Process Test,

are pre sen ted first.

SCIS Test,

and

T h e s e findings are

followed by t he results of the questionnaires administered
during the Summer Workshop,
naire adminis ter ed in April.

as well as,

the final qu est ion ­

Next are pr esented the feed­

back data ob tained from the Teacher Reaction Sheets and the
recordings

from the Summer Workshop.

T h e hypotheses tested

are grouped according to w h e t h e r they dealt w i t h the ranking
of wor k s h o p activities,

hypotheses 1-4,

the Teacher Rea c t i o n Sheets,

hypotheses

or the feedback from
5-8.

NS F applicant information sheet d a t a .

The data obtained

from the NSF A ppl icant Information Sheets concerned the
teachers'

ages,

years of teaching experience,

credit hours of science.
listed in Chapter III,

These data,

and total

although previously

are pr ese n t e d along w i t h other teacher

characteristic data in Table 564

65
Results o f the M i n n e s o t a teacher att i t u d e i n v e n t o r y .
Th e scores o f the MTAI

a d m i n i s t e r e d d uring the S um m e r W o r k ­

shop and again the f oll owing A p r i l r e v e a l e d little change
in group attitude.

A m e a n o f 61.0 r e s u l t e d

testing, w h i l e a m e a n of

60.0 o c c u r r e d in April.

standard d e v i a tio n w as sl igh tly h i g h e r
ing;

from the summer

31.3 as c omp are d to 26.9.

The

for the A p r i l t e s t ­

T h e s e results are similar

to the m e a n of 55.9 and st an d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f 37.2

for the

ra n d o m sample of 247 e lem en t a r y teachers as r e p o r t e d in
Ch apter III.

T he scores o f the individ ual teachers and the

m e a n averages for the

first and s e c o n d g rad e teachers are

pr esented in T a b l e 5.
Results of the sixteen p e r s o n a l i t y factor q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
This test w a s a d m i n i s t e r e d on ly dur i n g the Su mme r Workshop.
T h e res ul t i n g scores,

alo ng w i t h the data in T a b l e 5, w e r e

used in the te sti ng of the hy p o t h e s e s 4-8,
teacher charact eri sti cs.

r e l a t e d to

T he scores o f the 16 P F Q u e s t i o n ­

naire for each tea cher are p r e s e n t e d in T a b l e
R esults of the SCIS t e s t .

6.

A l t h o u g h the scores

from the

grade levels can not b e c o m p a r e d due to differences in the
last nine

(9) questions,

the first g r a d e teachers had a mea n

sc ore of 35.4 and st an dard de via t i o n of 4.6.
and sta nda rd d ev ia t i o n

Th e me an score

for the second grade teachers on the

SCIS test w e r e 32.4 and 4.6 respec tiv ely .

T he nee ded a t t e n ­

tion wh ich was given a few of t h e s e answer sheets to m ake
certain they w e r e p r o p e r l y sco r e d b y the m a c h i n e i ndi cated

Table 5.

Teacher
Number

1*
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Means

Teacher characteristics data.

Age

Process Test
April
August

25
24
26
48
49
28
32
21
24
24
29
23
32
46
24

25
16
23
26
24
21
20
22
14
26
26
17
24
17
15

30.3

21.1

26
19
24
24
18
24
16
28
12
24
17
18
19
20
.21
20.7

SCIS
Test

MTAI
August April

36
37
38
41
32
40
34
40
29
37
38
41
30
28
30

81
76
46
89
77
84
78
78
93
69
38
48
76
57

35.4

Total
Science
Hours

44

94
86
72
87
70
76
56
83
47
58
15
56
80
36
39

21
15
15
10
06
12
16
21
14
07
06
13
24
32
07

68.9

63.7

14.6

Teaching
Experience

04
02
05
16
08
07
05
00
00
01
06
00
00
02

03
3

20**
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Means

26
23
53
23
41
26
22
35
23
53
55
57
60
22
41
26
22
34

25
23
19
23
24
21
22
29
25
18
05
16
22
27
21
20
23
12

21
25
16
30
21
21
21
25
25
14
06
21
18
25
14
17
20
20

35
33
27
41
32
32
30
33
34
25
23
34
29
33
39
31
39
33

35.6

20.8

20.0

32.4

83
04
73
66
69
90
58
80
60
29
-32
67
64
85
43
32
79
30
54.4

81
-06
76
49
90
67
32
87
99
33
-49
79
79
56
52
66
93
41
56.9

* Numbers 1 through 15 represent first grade teachers.
** Numbers 20 through 37 represent second grade teachers.

12
15
08
21
11
18
08
13
11
07
09
13
03
20
06
54
20
13
14.6

05
01
10
02
04
04
01
10
02
17
08
-1
43
00
06
01
00
01
6

68
Table 6.

Teacher
Number

Sixteen personality factor questionnaire scores.

A

B

C

E

F

G

Factor***
H I L M

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

10
04
04
11
12
16
12
18
13
13
16
14
18
11
08

08
07
08
11
10
09
09
10
08
08
09
09
11
09
05

22
07
14
18
19
14
13
16
16
13
14
14
19
12
14

20
15
16
05
06
20
18
11
10
10
10
08
10
06
06

16
10
12
12
11
12
14
13
16
08
15
17
09
04
07

07
04
08
17
16
12
08
20
15
10
12
15
15
15
14

20
05
12
04
08
19
15
19
19
07
10
12
19
06
08

08
14
12
16
13
12
13
12
08
13
10
11
12
11
09

04
06
10
06
03
10
08
06
06
07
10
02
06
05
06

20**
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

10
12
12
18
08
11
11
12
11
16
10
16
12
12
08
10
10
15

11
10
09
10
07
10
09
10
08
07
06
07
06
09
10
10
07
12

21
12
15
16
15
12
12
15
16
10
18
12
19
13
10
13
24
13

14
16
03
06
13
07
10
08
12
09
13
07
07
11
05
06
13
16

17
20
13
17
14
09
13
19
20
17
13
13
11
13
09
09
19
08

11
11
13
18
14
13
17
07
07
15
16
05
14
07
06
15
14
10

12
08
13
12
07
09
04
14
16
09
11
07
11
11
11
13
18
13

13
10
16
14
14
08
14
17
08
10
12
16
15
12
14
10
08
09

06
11
12
08
02
05
05
08
09
09
12
06
06
04
09
09
05
12

1*
2
3

4

N

0

Qi Qa Qa Q*

12
14
16
10
16
12
19
10
13
11
12
10
10
20
12

12
06
18
10
06
11
06
10
11
08
06
09
13
09
08

04
10
18
13
10
12
08
05
11
13
07
07
04
17
15

12
10
12
09
08
12
10
10
11
10
10
11
07
10
06

09 13 16
10 10 17
15 12 06
08 07 23
11 13 08
11 09 11
08 07 16
07 16 10
11 14 15
08 05 19
12 10 13
10 10 07
08 12 06
10 09 20
13 12 17

16
10
16
10
14
11
07
17
09
09
08
11
11
16
13
10
10
14

15
07
08
12
14
08
10
07
12
10
14
06
10
08
11
11
13
14

06
20
13
11
10
11
10
13
07
17
13
11
07
10
06
15
05
06

08
10
10
12
12
07
04
13
10
09
10
08
15
12
07
05
12
12

14
11
08
11
11
14
05
10
11
08
09
11
14
11
09
15
11
16

15
09
10
09
09
11
09
10
06
07
17
12
11
10
13
14
14
13

09
23
20
12
16
15
21
11
09
21
15
19
10
12
13
18

08
18

* Numbers 1 through 15 represent first grade teachers.
** Numbers 20 through 37 represent second grade teachers
*** Brief descriptions of the factors are listed in
Appendix J, page 181.

69
that some of the teachers w e r e unfamiliar w i t h the answer
sheets,
results.

but the author feels this d i d not invalidate the
The tests,

along w i t h the scoring keys,

are

p r e s e n t e d in A p p e n d i x B, p a g e 136.
T h e item analysis summary data for the forty

(40)

w o r k s h o p p a r t i cipants w h o took the SCIS Test are p r e s e n t e d
in T a b l e 7.

T h e s e data indi c a t e the item d i f f i c u l t y for

items 42-50 on the second grade test exceeded the item d i f ­
f i c ulty for items 42-50 on the first grade test.
a c count

for the d i f f e r e n c e in mean scores

This m a y

for the two grade

levels on t h e total test.
T a b l e 7.

SCIS test item analysis summ a r y data for the forty
w o r k s h o p participants.

Items
1-41
Grades 1&2

42-50
Grade 1

42-50
Gra d e 2

M e a n Item D i f f i c u l t y

30.0

34.0

48.0

M e a n Item D i s c r i m i n a t i o n

24.0

36.0

53.0

M e a n Point Biserial
Correlation

24.0

40.0

47 .0

K uder R i c h a r d s o n
Reliability

0.5654

0.117 3*

0.6127

S t a n d a r d Error of
Measurement

2.5449

1.2495

1.2135

* It is r e c o g n i z e d that this is a very
coefficient.

low r e l i a b i l i t y

70
Results of the process t e s t .
and April testings

The means for the August

for the Process Test were 21.0 and 20.3

respectively out of a possible 40.

The standard deviations

were b o t h 4.9 when rounded to one decimal place.

These

results indicate the knowledge of process skills for the
thirty-three
two testings.

(33) SCIS teachers was nearly the same at the
Also,

the mean score of the SCIS teachers was

similar to the mean scores of the one hundred three
Michigan-Maryland teachers and the forty-nine

(103)

(49) AAAS

Workshop teachers taking the Process Test in the summer of
1968.

The means were 21.34 and 20.57 respectively.

data w e r e previously presented in Table 3.

These

The individual

scores of the SCIS teachers are listed in Table 5.
Results of workshop evaluation,

form 1 .

Form 1 was

administered at the conclusion of the first w e e k of the
1968 Summer Workshop.

The form was designed to sample

teacher reactions to specific activities during the first
week.

Each activity was rated on a five-point scale accord­

ing to how much the teacher felt it would contribute to her
teaching of the SCIS program.

Five was the highest rating.

The mean rating for each activity is presented in Table 8.
Although all activities w e r e rated rather high,

those a c t i v i ­

ties which were of the lecture type received the lower
ratings.
Results of workshop evaluation,

form 2 .

The results

of Form 2, administered at the end of the second week, were
similar to Form 1.

Lectures were again rated lower than

71

T a b l e 8.

1 9 6 8 w o r k s h o p participants' m e a n ratings o f the
first w e e k of w o r k s h o p activities.

Workshop Activity

M e a n Rati n g *

D e m o n s t r a t i o n SCIS lesson

4.77

"The R o l e o f the Teacher in Teac h i n g
SCIS" a nd "Reactions and Experiences
of the SCIS Teacher"

4.91

"What A r e the Purposes o f the E l e m e n ­
t a r y School?"

3.55

Inquiry Laboratory

4.09

(marble in acid)

SCIS S c ope and S e q u e n c e

(35 m m slides)

3.70

"The N a t u r e of Science"

3.16

Micro-Teaching

4.46

"Objectives of Scie n c e E d u c a t i o n and
SCIS"

3.78

*

N = 33

(working w i t h the kits)

CO
•

L a b o r a t ories

72
activities w i t h w h i c h the teachers could get more physic a l l y
involved.

The results of Form 2 are summarized in Ta b l e 9.

Results of workshop evaluation,
Evaluation,
week.

form 5 .

Work s h o p

Form 3 was administered on Thur s d a y of the third

By this time,

all of the different w o r k s h o p activity

areas had been presented to the teachers.

The weat h e r had

been extremely hot and humid during all but one day o f the
three-week Workshop.

This fact was repeatedly mentioned by

the teachers in questionnaire responses and,

therefore,

influenced the author's decision not to administer the q u e s ­
tionnaire on Friday afternoon,

August 23.

The responses to Form 3 revealed the teachers thought
the time during the summer at w h i c h the workshop h a d been
scheduled, August

5th through August 23rd, was most valuable.

As a second choice the teachers said either a w e e k earlier
or in June w o u l d also be valuable.
A l though fifty-six (56) per cent of the teachers thought
the facilities of the Science and Mathematics Teaching Center
w o u l d be of moderate value during the following school year,
personal observation by the SCIS staff indicated that very
little use was made of the facilities by the SCIS teachers.
The number of topics covered during the workshop was c o n ­
sidered satisfactory by seventy
The selection o f topics was
(7 6 h per cent.

Others

(70) per cent of the teachers.

felt adequate by seventy-six

felt that

(1)

been spent on the nature of science,

less time should have
(2) more time should be

73

T a b l e 9.

1968 w o r k s h o p participants' mean ratings o f the
s e c o n d w e e k of w o r k s h o p a c t i v i t i e s .

Workshop Activity

M e a n R a ting*

"Overview o f the SCIS Program"

4.90

"The SCIS Life S c i e n c e P r o g r a m , " and
"The R o l e o f the Tea c h e r in SCIS Life Science"

4.03

"Principles of Learning"

4.12

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teach i n g L a b o r a t o r y

4.51

D e m o n s t r a t i o n o f Piaget's D e v e l o p m e n t a l
Stages

4.94

Micro- Teaching:

4.43

T^,
(classification)

4.22

P i a g e t 's D e v e l o p m e n t a l T h e o r y Films
a.
Class i f i c a t i o n
b.
Conservation

4.16
4.19

Inquiry Laboratory

D i s c u s s i o n before and after Piaget

*

N = 33

films

3.91

74
d e v o t e d to the study of Piaget's D e v e l o p m e n t a l Theory,
(3) t h ere w e r e too m a n y general lectures.
thought to b e a m o r e appropriate
w i t h t hree weeks

the most

Ninety-seven

(97)

and

Two w e e k s was

length for the W o r k s h o p

frequent second choice.

per cent of the teachers i n d i c a t e d

the W o r k s h o p had brought about changes in their ideas c o n ­
cerning science and the teaching of science in the e l e m e n ­
tary school.

Most

frequently listed as changes were:

(1) the importance of objects in children's
(2) the i m p o r t a n c e of the

"discovery approach."

T h e length of the W o r k s h o p w a s
a w e a k point.
too long.

lear n i n g and

M o s t of the teachers

listed m o s t o f t e n as
felt the W o r k s h o p w a s

The teachers felt the strong points o f the

W o r k s h o p included:
al organization,

and

(1)

inquiry laboratories,

(3) the o p p o r t u n i t y to b e c o m e

with the SCIS program materials.
on l y one teacher

(2)

the g e n e r ­
familiar

At the end of the W o r k s h o p

felt her p r e p a r a t i o n to teach the SCIS

p r o g r a m h a d not been adequate.
T h e change in role m o s t often r e p o r t e d as ha v i n g b e e n
ca u s e d by the W o r k s h o p was a lessening of the
role to a l l o w for m o r e

"freedom to learn."

"autho r i t a t i v e

M a n y tea chers

i n d i c a ted they h a d always agreed w i t h the role of the SCIS
teacher,

and the W o r k s h o p had o n l y r e i n f o r c e d p r e v i o u s ideas.

All of the teachers r e s p o n d e d that
r e c o m m e n d the W o r k s h o p to others,
staff h a d b e e n used,

and

(2)

(1)

they w o u l d

an a d e q u a t e number of

(3) sufficient o p p o r t u n i t y was p r o ­

v i d e d for comments and d i s c u s s i o n o f s p e c i f i c problems.

"

75
T h e t e a c h e r s m e n t i o n e d the heat
naires,

frequently on the q u e s t i o n ­

indica t i n g that it should b e c o n s i d e r e d w h e n p l a n ­

ning a workshop.
O n e o f the questions on F o r m 3 a s k e d the teachers to
r a n k the seven

(7)

categories of w o r k s h o p activities a c c o r d ­

ing to h o w they might contri b u t e to the teaching of the
SCIS p r ogram.

T h e same q u e s t i o n was r e p e a t e d on the q u e s ­

t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d in April.

A mean ranking was c o m ­

p u t e d for each acti v i t y for each o f the questionnaires.
T h e r e s ults appear in T a b l e 10.
p r e s e n t e d in graphic

T a b l e 10.

The same information is

form in Figure 1.

T h e SCIS teachers' August and April m e a n rankings
of w o r k s h o p acti v i t y areas.

M e a n Rankings
Au g u s t
April

Activity Area
a. L e c tures on the

"Nature of Science"

b. Films and lectures on
T e a c h i n g SCIS"
c.

T h e lectures on the

5.93

5.69

"Modes of

"Psychology of Jean Piaget"
activities

2.62

3.28

2.83

4.59

d.

I n q u i r y laboratories

4.07

3.86

e.

Micro-teaching

3.76

3.45

f. D e m o n s t r a t i o n teac h i n g of specific
lessons

3.28

2.41

g. P l a n n i n g for the 1968-1969 school
year

5.45

4.66

Mean

Rankings

high

76

7

-

-------- 1--------- 1--------- 1--------- 1_________ I_________ I_________ L
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

Acti v i t y
Figure 1.

Graphic comparison of the A u g u s t and April m e a n
rankings of w o r k s h o p activity areas.

77
"Nature of Science" w e r e ran k e d last on tooth questi o n n a i r e s .
In A u g u s t at the end o f the Workshop,
on

the films and lectures

"Modes of T e a c h i n g SCIS" w e r e r a n k e d highest w i t h t h e

P i a g e t - r e l a t e d activities second.

In A p r i l the d e m o n s t r a ­

tion t e a c h i n g was ra n k e d highest w i t h
SCIS" second.

"Modes o f T e a c h i n g

The data d e r i v e d from the ran k i n g o f w o r k s h o p

a c t i v i t y areas w e r e u s e d in t e s t i n g hypotheses o n e t h r o u g h
four later in this c h a p t e r .
R esults o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e on teacher reaction to t r a i n ­
ing, materials,

and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the SCIS p r o g r a m .

This q u e s t i o n n a i r e wa s a d m i n i s t e r e d on A p r i l 19,

1969.

The

q u e s t i ons cov e r e d all ph a s e s of the training for th e i m p l e ­
m e n t a t i o n of the SCIS program.
One q u e s t i o n asked the teachers w h i c h portions of the
SCIS t r a i n i n g program; workshop,
tant services,
to them.

b i - w e e k l y meetings,

consul­

or w e e k - e n d conferences, w e r e m o s t h e l p f u l

In s e v e n ty- eight

(78)

per cent of the responses,

a w o r k s h o p r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y was indicated as m o s t helpful.
A s i milar q u e s t i o n asked the teachers to list the least h e l p ­
ful p o r t i o n o f the trai n i n g program.

Forty-nine

(49)

per

cent o f the responses to this q u e s t i o n w e r e also w o r k s h o p
a c t i v i t y related.

T h e s e responses w o u l d seem to in d i c a t e

that the w o r k s h o p activities w e r e dominant and r e c a l l e d most
o f t e n as either most or least helpful in the training.

The

frequencies o f the re sponses to the two questions are s u m ­
m a r i z e d in Tables 11 and 12.

78

Table 11.

Portions of the SCIS training program perceived
as most helpful by the teachers.

Response

Frequency

1.

Workshop related activities

47

2.

Consultant services

7

3.

Bi-weekly meetings

3

4 . Week-end conferences

2

5.

1

Teaching the SCIS program.

Table 12.

Portions of the SCIS training program perceived
as least helpful by the teachers.

Response

Frequency

1.

Workshop related activities

26

2.

Bi-weekly meetings

12

3.

Week-end

4.

Research related activities

3

5.

Feedback forms

3

conferences

8

79
D u r i n g the 1968-1969 school year,

the SCIS teachers

f r e q u e ntly c o m m u n i c a t e d w i t h each other concerning t h e SCIS
lessons.

Sixty- f o u r

(64) per cent of the teachers r e p o r t e d

that t h e y often d i s c u s s e d the SCIS

lessons w i t h each other

at times ot h e r than during feedback m e e t i n g s .
E ig h t y - e i g h t

(88)

per cent of the teachers r e p o r t e d

that t hey regul a r l y used certain p r o c e d u r e s

for dist r i b u t i n g

and c o l l e c t i n g SCIS materials be f o r e and after t e a c h i n g a
science

lesson.

"cafeteria style"
p e r cent,
students
three

T h e m e t h o d most frequently listed was
for both distribution,

and collection,

sixty

sixty-eight

(60) per cent.

(68)

The use o f

for d i s t r ibuting m a t e r i a l s was repo r t e d by t w enty-

(23) per cent o f the teachers and thirty-two

(32)

per

cent r e p o r t e d students aided in the collection of materi a l s .
Eighty
19,

1969,

(80) per cent of the teachers r e p o r t e d on A p r i l

they had taught ten

(10)

or fewer science

w h i c h w e r e not a part o f the SCIS units.
per cent,
four

(4)

sixteen

(16)

lessons

O f the eighty

(80)

per cent repo r t e d teaching less than

lessons.

T o d e t e r m i n e if the SCIS training h a d t r a n s f e r r e d to
other areas,

the teachers w e r e asked if they h a d n o t e d any

changes in teaching methods

in other subject areas w h i c h

m a y h a ve b e e n caused by the SCIS training.

E i g h t y-f o u r

(84)

per cent o f the teachers repor t e d that changes had occurred.
O f t h o s e reporting changes,

forty-six

(46)

per cent r e p o r t e d

they h ad a s k e d diffe r e n t types of questions,

forty-two

(42)

80
per cent used more o f an inquiry approach,
twelve

and the remaining

(12) per cent reported less teacher talk but m o r e

use of key words such as

"evidence."

W h e n asked about the average amount of class time per
w e e k u sed for science during the current year,

seventy

(70)

per cent of the teachers indicated between one and two hours.
In r e s p onse to the same question for the 1967-1968 school
year,

eighty-eight

per week.

(88) per cent reported less than one hour

Information

from the Teacher Reaction Sheets was

used to determine the m e a n time reported as required to
prepare a SCIS

lesson and the m e a n class time reported as

used for a lesson.

The results are summarized in Tables 13

and 14.

Table 13.

Time used by the teachers to pre p a r e SCIS

Number of
Lessons
Reported

Unit

lessons.

Total Time

Mean
Time p e r
Lesson

Mater i a l Objects

320

4596 min.

14.4 min.

Interaction

366

7433 min.

20.3 min.

Table 14.

Time used by the teachers to present SCIS

Unit

Number of
Lessons
Reported

Total
Class
Time

lessons.

Mean
Tim e per
Lesson

Material Objects

328

9,340

min.

28.5 m i n .

Interaction

356

11,572

min.

30.6 min.

81
T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses o f the first grade teachers
i n d i c a t e d that the p r e p a r a t i o n time r e q u i r e d for an O r g a n ­
isms

lesson was slightly m o r e than for a M a t e r i a l Ob jects

lesson.

The second grade teachers'

that the Life Cycles

responses indicated

lessons r e q u i r e d less p r e p a r a t i o n time

than I n t e r a c t i o n lessons.
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e responses o f the first grade teachers
i n d i c a t e d that the SCIS p r o g r a m r e q u i r e d less p r e p a r a t i o n
time than they w o u l d norm a l l y expect to spend for science.
T he s e c o n d grade teachers
m o r e p r e p a r a t i o n time.
time for SCIS

W h e n asked to compare p r e p a r a t i o n

lessons w i t h other subject areas,

grade teachers felt SCIS

the first

lessons r e q u i r e d less time,

the s e c o n d grade teachers
time.

felt the SCIS p r o g r a m requi r e d

while

felt SCIS lessons r e q u i r e d m o r e

T h e teachers at b o t h grade

levels w e r e in agreement

c oncerning the amount of time they w o u l d d e v o t e to the SCIS
p r o g r a m if they taught it again d u r i n g the following year.
The t e a chers indic a t e d they w o u l d not change the amount o f
time u s e d for science.

A l l o f the teachers said they

w o u l d use the SCIS m a t e rials again the next year if given
a choice.
T h e first grade teachers r e p o r t e d that student i n t e r ­
est in the M a t e r i a l Objects unit was higher than for O r g a n ­
isms.

Ni n e t y - f o u r

interest,
interest.

(94) per cent indic a t e d equal or h i g h e r

sixty- n i n e

(69)

per cent i n d i c a t e d m u c h higher

T h e responses o f the sec o n d grade teachers

indi­

cated little d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e I n t e r a c t i o n and L i f e

82
Cycles units concerning student interest.

Eighty-eight

(88)

per cent of the teachers felt the units were equally appro­
priate to all ability level students.

Generally,

student

interest in science was rated as higher than the previous
year by the teachers at both grade l e v e l s .
Throughout the year the student interest did not remain
constant.

Factors such as the shipments of living organisms

which arrived in poor condition,
in student,

contributed to a decline

as well as, teacher interest.

Figure 2 shows

how the teachers at both grade levels perceived the change
in student interest throughout the school year.

■p
CO
0)
M
<D
-P
C
H
-P'v
C i—1
<U (a
CJ
P (0
-P
p
03 G
m
o o
Q,
CO
tJILO
G
•H
-P
rcJ

grade 1
X

OS

G
nj
0)
S

H

grade 2

±
September

Figure 2.

January

April

Teachers' perception of student interest in
science during the school year.

83
The teachers at b o t h grade levels i n d i c a t e d that it
was m u c h easier to get student p a r t i c i p a t i o n du r i n g SCIS
lessons than du r i n g lessons in other subject areas.

Also,

there was m u c h greater student p a r t i c i p a t i o n in science
this year than last year,
participation,

and, w i t h the greater student

the teachers p e r c e i v e d a s l i g h t l y greater

d i s c i p l i n e problem.
The amount of outside interest in the SCIS p r o g r a m is
r e f l e c t e d in numbers of teachers w i s h i n g information about
the SCIS program.

Sixty-six

(66)

teachers r e p o r t e d talking to four

per cent of the SCIS
(4)

s p e c i f i c a l l y about the SCIS program.

or m o r e teachers
M o s t of the que s t i o n s

asked w e r e o f the general interest nature w i t h m a n y w i s h i n g
to k n o w about student reac t i o n to the SCIS program.
but

four

(4) o f the SCIS teachers h a d visitors,

not c o n n e c t e d w i t h the SCIS program,
d uring science lessons.

All

who were

in their classro o m s

O f these teachers,

eighty-six

(86)

per cent r e p o r t e d the visitors h a d not d e t r a c t e d from the
lessons.
Only two

(2)

teachers had not h a d co n f e r e n c e s w i t h

parents co n c e r n i n g the SCIS program.
teachers h a d talked w i t h over t w e n t y

Three
(20)

(3)

of the

parents each.

The p a rents usually asked general interest questions or
expre s s ed positive reactions to the SCIS program.
the t e a chers e x p r e s s e d any negative comment
F o r t y — five

None of

from any source.

(45) per cent of the teachers r e p o r t e d their

princi p als h a d not v i s i t e d their classrooms d u r i n g SCIS

84
lessons,

although only eighteen

(18) per cent said they

h a d not talked with the principal concerning the program.
Again,

the comments expressed general interest or positive

reactions to the program.
The consultants visited each of the teachers with
w h o m they worked approximately once every two w e e k s .
Occasionally it was necessary for a teacher to contact a
consultant

for additional help or advice.

On the average

each teacher contacted her consultant about twice during
the school year.

An indication of the availability o f the

consultants was the response of seventy-five

(75) per cent

of the SCIS teachers that they had never tried and failed
to contact a c o n s u l t a n t .

The teachers were asked to rate

four (4) areas of consultant services on a five-point scale
from "very helpful" to "not helpful at all."
areas o f consultant services,

(4)

along with the mean ratings

of the teachers, b y grade level,
15.

The four

are presented in Table

The scale has been reversed so that

corresponds to a rating of five.

"very helpful"

This was done to aid in

interpretation and make the scale consistent with others
used in the questionnaire.
The presence o f the consultant in the classroom was
felt to have an aversive effect on the teaching by eighteen
(18) per cent of the teachers.
the teachers

(48) per cent of

felt the presence of the consultant had no

effect and thirty-three
effect.

Forty-eight

(33) per cent reported a positive

85
T able 15.

Teacher rating of the helpfulness of consultant
services.

Teachers 1 M e a n Ratings
Grade 1
Grade 2

A r e a o f Consultant Service
1. U s e of materials and equipment

4.89

4.80

2. D e l i v e r y o f materials

4.83

4.86

3. Scientific

4.59

4.60

4.18

4.27

The teacher's guides

for the

factual information

4. T e a c h i n g methods

SCIS teaching m a t e r i a l s .

SCIS units w e r e designed to aid the teacher w h e n preparing
and teaching a SCIS
the

lesson.

The teachers w e r e asked to rate

"science content information" and "teaching suggestions"

w i t h respect to their helpfulness in preparing to teach a
SCIS lesson.

On a five-point scale,

A summary of the results
16.

five was the top rating.

from this rating is found in Table

For each unit the teachers rated the guides higher for

"science content information" than for
Most of the teachers,

eighty-one

"teaching suggestions."
(81) per cent,

that the number of concepts developed per unit was

felt

"about

right," although five teachers indicated that more concepts
should be developed.

The general feeling of the teachers

was that the total amount of mate r i a l per unit was also
"about right."
During the Summer Workshop,

considerable time was d e ­

voted to reading and discussion of information found in the

86
T a b l e 16.

SCIS teachers' ratings of the hel p f u l n e s s o f the
teacher's guides.

M e a n R a t i n g of
Unit

S c i e n c e Content
I n f o rmation

Teaching
Suggestion

Grade 1
M a t e r i a l Objects

4.27

4.00

Organisms

4.27

3.67

Interaction

4.22

3.89

Life Cycles

4.33

3.83

Grade 2

SCIS E l e m e n t a r y Sci e n c e S o u r c e b o o k .1

Ques t i o n n a i r e r e s p onses

in A p r i l indicated the teachers seldom used the S o u r c e b o o k
du r i n g the school year.

Four

(4) teachers stated they d i d

not u s e the S o u r c e b o o k at all during the school year.
T h e time r e q u i r e d for
an important
time

locating materials

in the k i t s is

factor d e t e r mining the amount of p r e p a r a t i o n

for the SCIS

lessons.

The teachers w e r e a s k e d to rate

the kits according to ease of locating materials.
of the ratings

T h e means

for each kit are summar i z e d in T a b l e 17.

A five-point scale c o r r e s p o n d i n g to a range

from poor to

excellent was employed.

1W i l l a r d Jaco b s o n and A l l a n Kondo, SCIS E l e m e n t a r y
S c i e n c e S o u r c e b o o k . Tri al Edi t i o n (Berkeley, California:
U n i v e r s i t y o f California, 1968).

87
T a b l e 17.

Teachers'

ratings of kit organization.

T e a c h e r s ' M e a n Ratincrs
Grade 1
Grade 2

Kit
M a t e r i a l Objects

4.33

—

Organisms

4.33

—

Interaction

—

3.82

Life Cycles

—

4.35

Eighty-five
stressing

(85) per cent of the teachers reporte d

"processes" more this year than last year, w h i l e

seventy-three
information"

(73) per cent indicated stressing
less than the previous year.

responses also indicated the teachers

"factual

Questionnaire

felt they asked fewer

convergent type questions than the previous year,

but the

total number of questions asked was greater.
Seventy-five

(7 5) per cent of the teachers

felt that

Piaget's Developmental Psychology had been of m o d e r a t e or
greater value in planning and teaching a SCIS
Specific examples of their pupils'

lesson.

classroom behavior, which

were related to the developmental psychology, w e r e
fifty-five

listed by

(55) per cent o f the teachers.

S t a rting in September and continuing through the middle
of April,

audio-tape recordings of the SCIS

lessons were

made by the consultants during classroom v i s i t a t i o n s .
q u e stionnaire administered in April included four

(4)

The

88
questions designed to sample the teachers'
the possible effects of the recording.

feelings as to

The responses to

the questions indicated that the sixty-four

(64) per cent

of the teachers who thought their teaching had been either
positively or negatively affected,- were evenly divided.
Only one teacher responded that her teaching was negatively
affected "a great deal."

The most frequently mentioned

ways in which the teaching had been affected were listed
as:
and

(1)

less discipline,

(3) self-conscious.

(2)

"more careful of what I said,"

The recording equipment was reported

to have affected the students' behavior by fifty-five
per cent of the teachers.

Of the fifty-five

half of these reported a positive effect.
conveniences which may have occurred,
cent of the teachers

(55)

(55) per cent,

Despite the in­

eighty-eight

(88) per

felt research was important enough to

tolerate the d i s t r a c t i o n s .
The greatest problem reported in filling out the SCXS
Teacher Reaction Sheets was

finding the time to do it.

The

other responses indicated the teachers felt some of the
information required was irrelevant to the lesson.

Det e r m i n ­

ing the lesson type and remembering what had happened during
the lesson were also indicated as p r o b l e m s .

The general

feeling of the teachers was that they did not benefit a
great deal from completing the feedback forms.

Those who

did report a benefit indicated that completing the forms
brought the lesson into focus and forced the teachers to
evaluate what had occurred during the lesson.

89
Forty-two

(42) per cent of the teachers r e p o r t e d c o m ­

p l e t i n g the R e a c t i o n Sheets w i t h i n a day after teac h i n g a
SCIS

lesson.

Most of the r e m a ining teachers i n d i c a t e d the

sheets w e r e c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n a w e e k of w h e n the lesson w a s
taught.

Fifty-three

(53)

per cent o f the time,

the sheets

w e r e r e t u r n e d by the teachers to the M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r ­
s i t y T r i a l Ce n t e r via a consultant.

T h e rest of the time

the sheets w e r e r e t u r n e d b y m a i l in the stamped,

self-

a d d r e s s e d envelopes w h i c h w e r e s u p p l i e d to the teachers.
T h e t e a chers also indic a t e d that sixty-four

(64)

per cent

of the time they had c o n v e r s e d w i t h a consultant about f e e d ­
b a c k on the SCIS p r o g r a m rather than w r i t i n g it o n the
R e a c t i o n Sheets.
teachers

Perhaps this is one reason w h y two

(2)

felt the b i - w e e k l y m e e t i n g s w e r e very valuable,

and e i g hty-four

(84)

per cent of the teachers r a t e d the m e e t ­

ings as m o r e m o d e r a t e in value.

Only three

(3) SCIS teachers

felt the b i - w e e k l y m e e t i n g s w e r e of no value as an ex c h a n g e
o f t e a c h i n g ideas.
T h e m a j o r i t y of the SCIS teachers attending the fall
w e e k - e n d c o n f e r e n c e i n d i c a t e d that it w a s of m o d e r a t e value
as an a i d to t e a c h i n g science.

One tea c h e r

ence w a s not helpful at all, w h i l e

five

felt the c o n f e r ­

(5) teachers r e p o r t e d

that it had h e l p e d a great deal.
T h e rating of the w e e k - e n d confer e n c e activities b y the
t e a chers reveal the field w o r k to be m o s t valuable,
labora t ory w o r k w a s jud g e d next in value.

and

T h e slides and

90
lectures w e r e thought to be of least value.
scale the field work,

laboratory work,

m e a n ratings of 4.06,

3.82,

On a five-point

and lectures had

and 3.65 respectively.

The

s pecific conference information, w h i c h the teachers reported
as u sing in the classroom, was:
field trip,

and

(1)

ideas on conducting a

(2) h o w to set up a terrarium.

R e sults of the SCIS teacher reaction s h e e t s .
o f 7 21 sheets w e r e returned b y the teachers.
retur n e d no sheets,

One teacher

while the most returned was

(55) b y one of the first grade teachers.
sheets retur n e d by the teachers was 22.5.
first grade teachers completed sixty

(60)

A total

fifty-five

T h e mean number of
On the sheets the
per cent of the

blanks and the second grade teachers responded to sixtythree

(63) per cent of the items.

Few comments w e r e made

concerning the Teacher's Guide directions.

The second grade

teachers had a mean of 4.1 comments per teacher compared to
2.9 for the first grade teachers.

The second grade teachers

also r a ted the Teacher's Guide directions higher.

The mean

rating w a s 3.99 for the Interaction Teacher's Guide compared
w i t h 2.96 for the Material Objects Teacher's G u i d e .

The

mean number of comments concerning materials was also greater
for the second grade teachers,

3.8 compared to 2.5,

even

though the first grade teachers rated the materials slightly
higher,

4.39 compared to 4.35.

The information derived from

the SCIS Teacher Reaction Sheets,
sented in Table 18.

for each teacher,

is p r e ­

91
Table 18.

Teacher

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Means
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
OX

32
33
34
35
36
37
Means

Information derived from teacher reaction sheet
data.

Total
Sheets

Total
Feedback

Feedback
Intex

M e a n Interaction
StudentStudentMaterials Student

30
6
7
55
32
22
12
18
18
31
33
30
33
8
8

361
63
73
514
370
247
108
230
171
337
298
286
280
77
79

.70
.62
.61
.55
.68
.66
.52
.75
.55
.63
.53
.56
.49
.56
.58

4.59
5.00
4.60
4.33
4.91
4.47
4.57
4.78
4.33
4.17
5.00
5.00
4.38
4.67
3.71

4.31
5.00
4.67
3.75
4.22
3.55
4.63
4.06
3.94
3.77
4.96
4.12
4.46
4.67
3.50

22.8

232.9

.60

4.52

4.20

27
2
30
24
26
18
18
14
35
17
22

319
19
245
265
292
190
192
143
418
195
243

.69
.55
.48
.64
.66
.62
.62
.60
.70
.67
.64

3 .23
5.00
4.67
4.72
4.95
4.40
4.79
4.69
4.74
4.69
4.84

3.63
4.00
4.00
4.48
4.45
4.20
4.33
4.29
4.14
4.73
4.67

25
28
21
27
26
18

306
2 67
213
294
291
204

.72
.56
.59
.64
.65
.66

4.54
4.25
4.21
4.58
3.58
4.39

4.13
4.00
3.79
4.57
3.85
4 .28

22.2

240.9

.63

4.42

4.15

\j

92

Ratings
Teacher—
Student

M e a n Ratings
Teacher 1s
Materials
Guide
Directions

T e a c h e r 's
Guide
Directions

Comments
M aterials

General

4.28
4.80
4.83
3.95
4.13
3.45
3.88
4.12
3.83
3.62
4.92
2.95
4.46
4.67
2.88

4.50
0.00
0.00
4.09
4.64
3.94
3.67
4.44
2.88
3.00
4.67
4.89
4.29
0.00
0.00

4.33
3.75
3.60
4.76
4.75
4.58
4.80
3.72
4.67
3.74
4.54
4.65
5.00
5.00
4.67

8
0
0
4
8
7
1
6
1
4
1
1
1
0
1___

9
1
1
1
3
4
2
9
1
4
2
0
0
1
0___

40
8
8
40
26
23
5
22
4
28
18
13
24
3
13

4.00

2.96

4.39

2.9

2.5

18.3

3.52
5.00
4.54
4.63
4.67
4.33
4.38
4.30
3.51
4.44
4.72

4.64
0.00
4.67
4.11
4.30
4.82
3.82
4.40
4.04
4.25
4.83

4.16
4.00
4.50
4.44
4.50
4.67
4.50
4.57
4.79
4.60
4.70

7
0
1
6
4
3
2
2
6
6
0

16
2
34
20
18
6
17
12
43
27
25

3.77
4.24
3.94
4.44
2.56
4.59

4.14
5.00
4.19
3.89
3.60
4.00

4.40
4.75
4.00
4.42
4.50
3.14

4
4
1
1
7
8__

3
6
2
1
7
8

42
26
8
26
33
26

4.16

3.99

4.35

4.1

3.8

22.4

4
1
3
3
12
4
8
0
8
0
1

93
R e s u l t s o f record i n g s m a d e at the end o f t h e summer
workshop.

After

listening to the tape r e c o rdings o f the

co n v ersations b e t w e e n the SCIS teachers and consultants and
co m p a r i n g the comments w i t h the i n f o r mation d e r i v e d from
the questionnaires,

the wr i t e r concl u d e d the i n f o r mat i o n

was n e a r l y identical.

A separate p r e s e n t a t i o n w o u l d o n l y be

r e d u ndant as almost all o f the comments h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y
w r i t t e n on the questionnaires.
T e s t i n g o f the h y p o t h e s e s .
re l a t e d to two

The hypoth e s e s tes t e d w e r e

(2) of the ma j o r purposes of the study.

The

first w a s to ascertain teacher r e a c t i o n to the SCIS t r a i n ­
ing p r o g r a m or, m o r e specifically,
rankings o f w o r k s h o p activities.

to examine the teachers'
T h e second m a j o r pu r p o s e

was to i n v e s tigate the quan t i t a t i v e aspect of the teachers'
reactions,

in the form o f feedback on the SCIS T e a c h e r R e ­

action Sheets,

in r e l a t i o n to selected teacher c h a r a c t e r i s ­

tics .
Th e first
Workshop.

four hypoth e s e s were r e l a t e d to the Summer

Hypotheses 1-3 w e r e te s t e d w i t h a r e p e a t e d m e a s u r e s

analysis of variance model.

A table of random numbers was

used to omit one second grade teacher and,

thereby,

provide

the equal number of observations per cell n e c e s s a r y under
this m o del.

The A N O V A Table,

T a b l e 19, was der i v e d w i t h the

M i l l m a n - G l a s s Rules o f T h u m b for W r i t i n g the A N O V A Table.
T h e m a i n effect sources o f v a r i a n c e listed in the A N O V A T a b l e
are:

(1) grade level

(G), (2)

time of ran k i n g

(T), and

Table 19.

ANOVA table for the repeated measures analysis of variance model used to
test hypotheses 1-3.

Source*

df

SS

MS

F

G

1

0.01

0.01

1

T

1

0.01

0.01

1

A

6

385.99

64.33

26

0.26

0.01

GT

1

0.01

0.01

1

GA

6

37.20

6.20

1.29

TA

6

73.13

12.19

6.22

TS:G

26

0.26

0.01

--------

AS :G

156

751.52

4.82

--------

6

6.49

1.08

TSA:G

156

305.09

1.96

Total

391

1559.99

3.99

S:G

ATG

13.41
—

—

0.55
--------

* derived with the Millman-Glass Rules of Thumb for Writing the ANOVA Table.
1 significant at the .01 level

(conservative test)

2 significant at the .05 level

(conservative test)

F .99

7

F .95 = 4

.72

[1,26]

df.

.22

[1,26]

df.

95
(3)

activity

(A).

T h e S stands for subjects or t e a c h e r s .

Each o f the hypotheses is stated in the null form.
Kq

There is no significant a g r e e m e n t among the
SCIS teachers'

rankings o f w o r k s h o p activities

m a d e at the conclu s i o n o f the 1968 Summer
Workshop.
Hq

T h e r e is no s i g n i ficant agreement among the
SCIS teachers'

rankings o f the 1968 Summ e r

W o r k s h o p activities m a d e the following April.
The F value of 13.4 for the m a i n effect of activi t i e s
(A)

is significant at the

test.2

.01 level us i n g the c o n s e r v a t i v e

This significant m a i n effect m e a n s either HQ ^ or

Hq 2 or both, m u s t b e rejected.
the t i m e - a c t i v i t y

(TA)

The F value o f 6.2 for

i n t e r action is s i g n i ficant at the

level using the c o n s e rvative t e s t .

.05

T h e s i g n i ficant T A

i n teraction means the a c t i v i t y m a i n effect is signif i c a n t
for b o t h the rankings in August and also th o s e in April.
There was significant agreement among the teachers'
at b o t h times.

HQ 1 and HQ 2 are,

therefore,

rankings

b o t h rejected.

A l l p a i r - w i s e comparisons o f m e a n a c t i v i t y rankings
we r e made

for Au g u s t and for A p r i l to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h a c t i v i ­

ties h ad m e a n rankings s i g n i f i c a n t l y different
activity m e a n rankings at each time.

from other

T h e m e t h o d of T u k e y 3

2S . W. G r e e n h o u s e and S. Geiser, "On M e t h o d s in the
A n a l y s i s o f Profile Data," P s y c h o m e t r i k a , Vol. 24, 1959, pp.
95-112.
3W i l l i a m C. Guenther, A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e (Englewood
Cliffs, N e w Jersey:
P ren t i c e Hall, 1964), p. 107.

96
was used and tested at the .05 level of significance.
Tables 20 and 21 show which pairs of activities had mean
rankings which were significantly different.
Hq 2 :

There are no significant differences between
the SCIS teachers'

rankings of the 1968 Summer

Workshop activities made at the conclusion of
the workshop and the corresponding rankings
made the following April.
In addition to indicating a significant activity main
effect in August and April,
(TA)

the significant time-activity

interaction reveals that the teachers ranked the a c t i v ­

ities differently in April than in August.

To determine

which activities w e r e ranked significantly different at the
two times, pair-wise comparisons were again made using the
Tukey method.

The pairs consisted of one activity for two

different times, August and April.
difference,

at the

The only significant

.05 level, was for activity c (Piaget).

The findings for all of the pair-wise comparisons across
times are summarized in Table 22.
Hq

There are no significant correlations between
the teachers'

rankings of the workshop activi­

ties and specified teacher characteristics.
H_

U/

. must be rejected, because a number of significant

correlations were found.

All of the Pearson product-moment

correlations between teacher characteristics and activity
rankings are listed in Table 29, Appendix H, page 177.

Table 20.

Tukey post hoc comparisons of mean activity rankings in August.

Activity**
a

Activity**
d
e

b

c

3.31*

3.10*

1.86*

2.17*

2.65*

0.48

0.21

1.45

1.14

0.66

2.83*

1.24

0.93

0.45

2.62*

0.31

0.79

1.38

0.48

1.69*

b
c
d
e

f

f

q

2.17*

Table values greater than 1.47 are significant at the .05 level.
* significant at the .05 level.
** refer to Table 10, page 7 5 for a listing of activities.

Table 21.

Tukey post hoc comparisons for mean activity rankings in April.

Activity**
b
a
b
c
d
e

2.41*

c

Activity**
d
e

f

q

1.10

1.83*

2.24*

3.28*

1.03

1.31

0.58

0.17

0.86

1.38

0.73

1.14

2.18*

0.07

0.41

1.45

0.80

1.04

1.21

f
Table values greater than 1.47 are significant at the .05 level.
* significant at the .05 level.
** refer to Table 10, page 75 for a listing of activities.

2.25*

98
Table 22.

Tukey post hoc comparisons between August and
A pril mean activity rankings.

Activity**-April
A c t i v i t y**-April
a

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

0.24

b

0.66

c

1.76*

d

0.21

e

0.31

f

0.87
0.79

g

T a b l e values greater than 1.47 are significant at the .05
level.
* significant at the .05 level.
** refer to Table 10, page 75 for a listing of activities.
Age was

found to correlate significantly w i t h the August r a n k ­

ing of w o r k s h o p activities c (Piaget),
e (micro-teaching).

d

(inquiry labs.),

and

The negative correlations between age

and activities c and d indicate the older teachers ranked
these activities higher than the younger teachers.
posite was true for activity e

The o p ­

(micro-teaching).

In August the knowledge of science process skills had a
significant negative correlation with activity d (inquiry
laboratories)

and a significant positive correlation w i t h

the ranking of activity g
year).

(planning for the 1968-69 school

The teachers w i t h the greatest knowledge of processes

ranked a ctivity d high and activity g low.

99
E x a m i n a t i o n of T a b l e 23 reveals that significant c o r r e ­
lations seem to be paired.

For example,

p e r s o n a l i t y factor

Q 3 (see A p p e n d i x J, p a g e 181)

is n e g a t i v e l y correlated,

the

(modes of teach i n g SCIS)

.01 level w i t h ac ti v i t y b

p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d at the
(inquiry l a b o r a t o r i e s ) .

at
and

.01 level w i t h a c t i v i t y d

If it is true that the ipsative

nature of the data forces p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e correlations
to b e somewhat paired,

the actual number o f significa n t

correlations m a y be less than h a d first appeared.

This

in­

t e r p r e t ation m a y cast some doubt as to w h e t h e r there is an
overall significant r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n s p e c ified teacher
characteristics and r a n k i n g of w o r k s h o p activities.
(16)

Sixteen

c o rrelations w o u l d b e expected to b e significant b y

chance a l o n e .
The p o s s i b l e relationships b e t w e e n the feedback i n f o r m a ­
tion d e rived from the SCIS T e a c h e r R e a c t i o n Sheets and the
s p e c ified
hypotheses

teacher
5— 8.

charac t e r i s t i c s w e r e i n v e s t i g a t e d through

Table 30 of A p p e n d i x I, page 173,

contains

all the correlations run in connection w i t h hypotheses
T he P e a rson product-moment

5-8.

c o r r elation statistic w a s u s e d in

all c a s e s .
Hq

There are no significant correlations bet w e e n
the teachers'

total feedback and s p e c i f i e d

teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
T h e total amount of feedback r e t u r n e d b y the teachers
on the Teacher R e a c t i o n Sheets was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated

Table 23.

Significant correlations between the ranking of workshop activities in
August and specified teacher characteristics.

Teacher Characteristics

b

a

Workshop Activities
c
d
e

.3623*

Process Test— August

-.3599*

Personality factor E

.3411*

.3572*

Personality factor I

.3528*

.4567**
-.3862*

Personality factor M
-

.6276**

.4328*
.3910*

-.4054*

Personality factor Q*

* .05 level.
** .01 level.

.3486*

-

.4593**

.4493**

100

Personality factor A

Personality factor Q3

g

-.3910* ■-.4765** .4566**

Age

Personality factor N

f

Table 24.

Significant correlations between the ranking of workshop activities in
April and specified teacher characteristics.

Teacher Characteristics
a

Process Test— April

Personality factor Q3

* .05 level.
** .01 level.

f

g
.4144*

-.3597*

101

Personality factor Qi

Workshop Activities
c
d
e

-.3717* -.3826*

Process Test— August

Personality factor L

b

-.3844*
-.4675**

.3477*
.4021*

102
w i t h four

(4) teacher characteristic factors.

The MTAI

scores from the A p r i l testing and the Proc e s s Test scores
from the Au g u s t testing w e r e p o s i t i v e l y correl a t e d at the
.05 level w i t h total feedback.
(see A p p e n d i x J, page 181)
w i t h total
were

feedback at the

Sixteen PF factors C and O

w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y correl a t e d
.01 level.

T h e teachers w h o

"mature" and "confident" accor d i n g to the S i x t e e n PF

scores,

retur n e d a greater q u a n t i t y of feedback data.

u ,o

T h e r e are no significant correlations b e t w e e n
the t e a c h e r s ' feedback indices and the s p e c i ­
fied teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

One significant c o r r e lation at the

.05 level w a s

found

to exist between the feedback indices and the s p e c i f i e d
t e acher characteristics.
p e r s o n a l i t y factor N,

The teachers w i t h high scores on

"shrewd" and " p o l i s h e d , " r e t u r n e d m o r e

i n f o r m a t i o n on each R e a c t i o n Sheet.
Hq ji

There are no significant correlations b e t w e e n
s p e c ified teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the
teachers'

m e a n ratings of:

a) s t u d e nt-materials

interaction

b)

s t u d e nt-student i n t e r action

c)

student-teacher i n t e r action

d) teacher's guide directions
e) m a t e r i a l s .
The teachers'

m e a n ratings of s t u d ent-materials

inter­

action and per s o n a l i t y factor C c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y at

103
the

.05 level of significance.

The student-materials inter­

action was rated lower by the teachers whose Sixteen P F
score on factor C would classify them as "calm" and "mature."
No significant correlations were found at the

.05 level

between the specified teacher characteristics and the mean
rating of student-student interaction.
correlations at the

Three

(3) significant

.05 level existed between the teacher

characteristics and the mean ratings of student-teacher
interaction.

The MTAI scores from the April testing and Six­

teen PF factor C were negatively correlated, while Sixteen
PF factor L correlated positively.
Mean ratings for teacher's guide directions and teacher
characteristics correlated significantly at the
for Sixteen PF factor A and factor O.

Also,

.01 level

the correlation

between teacher's guide directions and Sixteen PF factor C
was significant at the
indicated they were

.05 level.

"warm,"

Teachers whose scores

"mature," and "confident" rated

the teacher's guide directions higher.
The two

(2) significant correlations between the mean

ratings of the materials and teacher characteristics revealed
that

"submissive" and "trustful" teachers rated the materials

higher.
H_ Q :
O /o

There are no significant correlations between
specified teacher characteristics and the total
number of SCIS Teacher Reaction Sheet comments
concerning:

104
a) teacher's guide directions
b) mater i a l s
c)

the lesson in g e n e r a l — items 5 and 6,
a d d i t i o n a l ideas a n d activities used,
p r o b l e m s , or s u g g e s t i o n s .

T h e number of comments c o n c e r n i n g teacher's guide
direct i ons was p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d at the

.05 level w i t h

the A p r i l MTAI scores and p e r s o n a l i t y factor C.
correlation,

s i g n ificant at the

p e r s o n a l i t y factor 0.

.05 level, was

Teachers who were

A negative
found w i t h

"mature,"

"confident,"

and s c o r e d h i g h on the M T A I comment m o r e on teacher's guide
directions.

T h o s e teachers w i t h gre a t e r k n o w l e d g e o f

p r o c e s s es in A p r i l h a d also c o m m e n t e d m o r e on the teacher's
guide directions.
T h e greatest numbers of comments c o n c e r n i n g the SCIS
ma t e r i a ls w e r e m a d e b y teachers w h o scored high on the M T A I
and P r ocess Test in April,
factors E and H,

h a d high scores on p e r s o n a l i t y

and low scores

for p e r s o n a l i t y factor o.

The greatest numbers of g e n e r a l comments on the SCIS
T e a c h e r Reac t i o n Sheets w e r e m a d e b y teachers,
high on t h e MTAI in April,

h a d the most t e a c h i n g experience,

had high scores on p e r s o n a l i t y factor C,
p e r s o n a l i t y factor M.

w h o scored

and s c o r e d low on

A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the factors

in the Six t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y Factor Q u e s t i o n n a i r e is p r e s e n t e d
in A p p e n d i x J, page 181.

Table 25.

Significant correlations associated with hypothesis 5.

Teacher Characteristics

Total Feedback

MTAI— April

.3750*

Process Test— August

.3703*

Personality Factor C

.5709**

Personality Factor 0

-.4618**

* .05 level.
** .01 level.

Significant correlations associated with hypothesis 7.

Teacher Characteristics

Mean Ratings of:
Interactions
Teacher's
StudentStudent- StudentGuide
Materials Student
Teacher
Directions

MTAI— April

.4826**
-.3889*

-.3741*

.3745*

Personality factor E
Personality factor L
Personality factor 0
* .05 level.
** .01 level.

Materials

-.3541*

Personality factor A
Personality factor C

105

Table 26.

-.3512*
.3580*

-.3446*
-.5684**

Table 27.

Significant correlations associated with hypothesis 8.

Comments

Teacher Characteristics
Teacher's
Guide
Directions

MTAI— April

.3877*

Materials

.3633*

.4030*

Process Test— April

.3419*

Personality factor C

.3842*

.4474*
.5396**

Personality factor E

.3418*

Personality factor H

.3816*

Personality factor M
Personality factor 0

* .05 level
** .01 level

.3408*

-.3735*
-.4297*

-.4817**

106

Teaching Experience

General

107
Summary.

The results of the MTAI from the August and

April testing, means of 61.0 and 60.0 respectively,
little,

if any,

change in attitude.

indicate

Process Test scores

from the two testings revealed similar findings.

The mean

scores of 21.0 and 20.3 on the Process Test show little
change in knowledge of science process skills had occurred.
The Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire and the SCIS
Test w ere administered during August only.
these two

The scores on

(2) tests were utilized as teacher characteristic

data for the correlations run to test the hypotheses.
Questionnaire results from the first two weeks o f the
Summer Workshop indicated a decided preference for activities
which elicited teacher involvement rather than the passive
attendance at lectures.
during the workshop,

The final questionnaire,

administered

revealed a preference for a two-week

rather than three-week workshop,

although all of the teachers

felt the Workshop was very beneficial.
categories of workshop activities,

Of the seven

(7)

those related to the d e m o n ­

stration teaching of specific SCIS lessons were ranked h i g h ­
est at the Workshop's conclusion.

Lectures on the "Nature

of Science" were ranked lowest.
The results of the final questionnaire,
April,

administered in

indicated that Summer Workshop activities dominated

the thinking of the teachers when they were asked to list
the most and least beneficial portions of the SCIS teacher
training experiences.

The first grade teachers rated

108
i n s t r u ction in the use o f m a t e rials and equipment as the m o s t
h e l p f u l o f the services p r o v i d e d b y the consultants.
s econd grade teachers

The

felt that d e l i v e r y of mater i a l s was the

most h e l p f u l service.
For all o f the units taught,
teachers r a t e d
s u g g estions,"

at b o t h grade levels,

"science content information"

above

the

"teaching

for usef ul n e s s of the Teach e r ' s Guides.

The

SCIS E l e m e n t a r y Sci e n c e S o u r c e b o o k w a s seldom u s e d b y any
of the teachers.
Forty-two

(42) per cent of the teachers r e p o r t e d c o m p l e t ­

ing the SCIS T e a c h e r R e a c t i o n Sheets,
day after teaching a SCIS

lesson.

most often, wi t h i n a

Finding the time r e q u i r e d

to c o m plete the sheets w a s the most often r e p o r t e d p r o b l e m
e n c o u n t e r e d w i t h them.
T h e G u l l L a k e W e e k - e n d C o n f e r e n c e h e l d in the fall was
r ated as m o d e r a t e in value b y most of those attending.

Rated

as m o s t valuable w e r e the field w o r k a c t i v i t i e s .
A total o f 721 SCIS Teacher R e a c t i o n Sheets w e r e c o m ­
p l e t e d and retu r n e d b y the teachers at b o t h grade l e v e l s .
This r e presents an average o f 22.5 sheets per teacher.
the 7 21 sheets,

For

61.4 per cent of the bl a n k s contained i n f o r m a ­

tion from the t e a c h e r s .

Items c o n c erning classroom i n t e r ­

actions and lesson type w e r e c o m p l e t e d most often, wh i l e
ratings and comments concerning Teacher's Guide directions
and m a t e r i a l s w e r e

less often completed.

The hypotheses tested involved two
study:

(1) the ranking of the seven

shop activities,

(2) areas of the

(7) categories of w o r k ­

and (2) the quantity of selected lesson

feedback and its relation to specified teacher character­
istics.
analysis,

The hypotheses,

along with the statistics used for

and the decision to reject or fail to reject,

summarized in Table 28.

are

Table 28.

Summary of hypotheses tested, statistics used, and decision reached.

Hypotheses

Statistic used for
analyzing data

Decision based
upon a = .05

There is no significant agreement
among the SCIS teachers' rankings
of workshop activities made at the
conclusion of the 1968 Summer
Workshop.

Analysis of variance

Reject

H,
0,2

There is no significant agreement
among the SCIS teachers' rankings
of the 1968 Summer Workshop activi­
ties made the following April.

Analysis of variance

Reject

H

There are no significant differences
between the SCIS teachers' rankings
of the 1968 Summer Workshop activi­
ties made at the conclusion of the
workshop and the corresponding rank­
ings made the following April.

Analysis of variance

Reject

There are no significant correlations
between the SCIS teachers' rankings
of the workshop activities and
specified teacher characteristics.

Pearson productmoment correlation

Reject

0,1

0,3

H,

0,4

110

H,

Pearson productmoment correlation

Reject

There are no significant correlations
between the teachers’ information
indices and specified teacher char­
acteristics .

Pearson productmoment correlation

Reject

H_ 7
'

There are no significant correlations
between specified teacher character­
istics and the teachers’ mean rank­
ings of:
a) student-materials interaction
b) student-student interaction
c) student-teacher interaction
d) teacher's guide directions
e) materials .

Pearson productmoment correlation

Reject

H

There are no significant correlations
between specified teacher character­
istics and the total number of SCIS
Teacher Reaction Sheet comments con­
cerning:
a) teacher's guide directions
b) materials
c) the lesson in general— items
5 and 6.

Pearson productmoment correlation

Reject

'

Hn
'

q

111

There are no significant correlations
between the teachers' total feedback
and specified teacher character­
istics .

H

CHAPTER V
S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C LUSIONS

T h e p u r p o s e of this s t u d y was to gather quantitat i v e
and q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a c o n c e r n i n g s e l e c t e d elemen t a r y teachers'
react i o n s to the trai n i n g for and i m p l e mentation o f the SCIS
p r o g r a m into

four

(4) m i d - M i c h i g a n school districts.

Also,

under i n v e s t i g a t i o n w e r e the p o s s i b l e r e l a tionships w h i c h
m a y exist b e t w e e n tea c h e r react i o n s and s p e c i f i e d teacher
characteristics.
R e v i e w of the l i t e r a t u r e .

A sele c t e d r e v i e w o f the

literature r e v e a l e d a lack of r e s e a r c h in the area under i n ­
v e s t i g a t i o n and es t a b l i s h e d a n e e d for such research.
studies w e r e

No

found w h i c h a t t e m p t e d to investigate the s p e c i ­

fic a r e a o f this s t u d y ,
D e s i g n of the s t u d y .
(33)

The study involved thi r t y - t h r e e

first and second grade teachers s e l e c t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e

in an NSF C o o p e r a t i v e C o l l e g e - S c h o o l Sci e n c e Program b e t w e e n
Mi c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and t h e East Lansing,

G r a n d Ledge,

DeWitt,

Teacher data

and Perry,

Michigan,

School Districts.

w e r e c o l l e c t e d b e g i n n i n g w i t h a 1968 Summer Workshop.
teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

The

c o n s i d e r e d important to the study

112

113
were:

(1) age,

(2) years o f teaching experience,

edge of the SCIS program,
backg r o u nd in science,
relationship,

and

(4) personality,

(3) k n o w l ­

(5) academic

(6) attitude toward the teacher-pupil

(7) knowledge of science process skills.

The instruments which were util i z e d to collect data were:
(l) NSF Applicant Information Sheet;
Attitude Inventory;
naire;

(3) Sixteen Personality Factor Q u e s t i o n ­

(4) Science Curric u l u m Improvement Study, Works h o p

Content Achievement Evaluation;
Elementary School Teachers;
Forms 1, 2, and 3;

(5) Science Process Test for

(6) SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation,

(7) Questionnaire on Teacher Reaction to

Training, Materials,
and

(2) M i n n e s o t a Teacher

and Implementation of the SCIS program;

(8) SCIS Teacher Reaction Sheets.
The 1968 Summer W o r k s h o p was designed to acquaint the

participants with newer elementary science programs,
ly the SCIS.

Following the Workshop,

especial

the participants taught

the SCIS lessons in their classrooms during the 1968-1969
school year.

Each teacher was visited by a SCIS consultant

approximately once every two weeks during the school year.
The teachers returned lesson feedback to the SCIS Trial
Center throughout the year.

Finally,

all the feedback was

coded by the writer and transferred to key punch cards.
A nalysis of the data involved tabulation,
measures analysis of variance,
correlation coefficient.

repeated

and the Pearson product-moment

All computation was carried out on

the Control Data Corporation 3600 and 6500 computers.

114
H ypotheses t e s t e d .
(1) the teachers'

The hypotheses t e s t e d w e r e that:

rankings o f w o r k s h o p activities during

A u g u s t and Ap r i l w o u l d b e ran d o m and no differences w o u l d
exist b e tween the rankings o f the two dates;

(2) there are

no s ignificant correlations b e t w e e n teacher charac t e r i s t i c s
a n d the ranking of w o r k s h o p activities,
i nform a t ion indices,

total

feedback,

or other specific data r e l a t e d to feed­

back.
D a t a for each hypothesis te s t e d w e r e r e q u i r e d to show
s i gnificance at the
sis.

In addition to

.05 level for r e j e c t i o n of the h y p o t h e ­
.05 as the m i n i m u m criterion,

the

.01

level w a s also repo r t e d on several occasions.
R e s ults and c o n c l u s i o n s .

Hy p o t h e s i s HQ ^ te s t e d the

agreement among the SCIS teachers'

rankings o f w o r k s h o p

activities w h i c h w e r e m a d e at the end o f the workshop.

This

hypothesis was r e j e c t e d indicating the teachers w e r e in
agreement as to the relative value of the w o r k s h o p activities.
Hypothesis H q g t e s t e d the agreement among the SCIS
teachers'

rankings o f the same w o r k s h o p activities m a d e the

following April.

This hypoth e s i s w a s also rejected.

The

teachers w e r e still in agreement concerning the relat i v e value
o f the w o r k s h o p activities.
Hypothesis H_
t e s t e d the agreement between the SCIS
U /o
teachers'

rankings in A u g u s t and those of April.

tion of this hypothesis

The r e j e c ­

indicates a change in rela t i v e value

p l a c e d upon the activities

from August to April.

115
T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n teacher ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
r a n k i n g o f w o r k s h o p activities was i n v e s t i g a t e d b y h y p o t h e ­
sis H q

Some doubt exists as to the inter p r e t a t i o n of

the results,

a l t h o u g h t he w r i t e r beli e v e s sufficient s i g ­

nificant correlations w e r e r e v e a l e d to reject the hypothesis.
H y p oth e s i s H
w

f

_ t e s t e d the strength o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p
O

b e t w e e n speci f i e d teacher characteristics and the tota l amount
of feedback r e t u r n e d to the T r i a l Center b y the SCIS t e a c h e r s .
T h e d a t a indicated the r e j e c t i o n of the hypothesis.
n i f icant r e l a t i o n s h i p does exist.

The M T A I scores

A p r i l t e sting and the Pro c e s s Test scores
p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d at the

from the

in Aug u s t w e r e

.05 level, w h i l e 16 PF factors

C and O w e r e p o s i t i v e l y a n d negatively,
lated at the

A sig­

respectively,

corre­

.01 level.

T h e amount o f feedback information,

per SCIS Teac h e r

R e a c t i o n Sheet returned, was t e s t e d b y hypothesis H q
A signif icant posi t i v e c o r r elation was
ality factor N and the teachers'
teachers w h o w e r e scored as

g.

found b e t w e e n p e r s o n ­

feedback indices.

Th o s e

"shrewd" and "polished" h a d h i g h ­

er feedback i n d i c e s .
Hy p o t h e s i s H_ 7 i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e l a tionships be t w e e n
\J t f

teacher c h a r acteristics and the teachers'
the lesson interactions,
materials.

mean ratings of

teacher's guide directions,

Sufficient significant

correlations w e r e

a n d the
found

to r eject the hypothesis.
T h e numbers of comments c o n c erning teacher's guide
directions,

materials,

and the lesson in general, w h i c h the

116
te a chers r e t u r n e d on the SCIS Tea c h e r R e a c t i o n Sheets, w e r e
e x a m i n e d in hypothesis H Q g.

S i g n i f i c a n t correlations w e r e

found b e t w e e n the numbers of comments and the A p r i l MTAI
scores,

pe r s o n a l i t y factor C, a n d p e r s o n a l i t y factor O.

The

h y p o t h e s is was thus rejected.
The t e a c h e r s ' respo n s e s to q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a d m i n i s t e r e d
after each o f the first two w e e k s of the Summer W o r k s h o p
i n d i c a t e d a dec i d e d p r e f e r e n c e for w o r k s h o p activities w i t h
w h i c h t h ey could b e c o m e p h y s i c a l l y involved.
r a t e d low on both q u e s t ionnaires.
a d m i n i s t e r e d during the workshop,

Lectures w e r e

On the final q u e s t i o n n a i r e
all of the teachers e x ­

p r e s s e d the b e l i e f that the W o r k s h o p h a d been very b e n e f i c i a l
but could have been c o n d e n s e d into a t w o - w e e k period.
the seven

(7) w o r k s h o p a c t i v i t y areas,

"Psychology o f Jean Piaget"
r a n k e d highest.

and

Of

the deve l o p m e n t a l

"Modes of T e a c h i n g SCIS"

Lectures on "Nature o f Science" ra n k e d lowest

b o t h in Au g u s t and again in April.
T h e Summer W o r k s h o p was o n l y a por t i o n of the teachers*
p r e p a r a t i o n to teach the SCIS materials.

However,

the W o r k ­

shop w a s most often listed as b o t h most and least b e n e f i c i a l
of the t raining experiences,

thus indica t i n g the import a n c e

a t t a c h e d to the W o r k s h o p b y the t e a c h e r s .

The consultant

services w e r e highly rated by the teachers w i t h instru c t i o n
in the u se of m a t e r i a l s and equipment,

and d e l i v e r y of

m a t e r i a l s v a l u e d most highly.
The average number of SCIS T e a c h e r R e a c t i o n Sheets r e ­
tu r n e d per teacher w a s 22.5 for a total o f 721.

Of the SCIS

117
Te a c h e r Reaction Sheet blanks of interest in this study,
sixty - o n e

(61) per cent had been completed.

Educational i m p l i c a t i o n s .

In v i e w o f the findings,

the

following educational implications seem justified.
1. Elementary teachers do agree on the relative merit
of educational experiences and could,

therefore,

be

utilized in such matters as w o r k s h o p planning.
2. Immediate reactions are not always identical to those
elicited at a later time.

Both should be taken into

consideration wh en planning a workshop.
3. Elementary teachers may not be taught most e f f e c t i v e ­
ly by the

"lecture" method.

Methods utilizing the

active participation of the teachers are p e r c e i v e d
as m o r e effective.
4. Teacher reaction to educational experiences m a y be,
in part,

related to the specified teacher c h a r a c ­

teristics investigated in this study.

These c h a r ­

acteristics may b e wo r t h y of consideration w h e n p l a n ­
ning in-service educational e x p e r i e n c e s .
5. More extensive use could be made of methods and
techniques such as micro-teaching,

which may more

directly transfer to the classroom situation.
Some areas which seem wor t h y of further r e s e a r c h .

The

r eview o f the literature indicated the lack of research in
the area of in-service education of elementary teachers in
science.

Especially noticeable was the absence of rese a r c h

118
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the newer science progr a m s d e v e l o p e d w i t h i n
the last ten years.

This study c o n s idered some teacher r e ­

actions to such an in - s e r v i c e p r o g r a m and the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f
the r e a c tions to teacher characteristics.
A d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h in this area w o u l d add con s i d e r a b l y
to the k n o w l e d g e n e c e s s a r y if in-service educa t i o n in s c ience
is to increase in efficiency.

Some questions r a i s e d are:

1. What results w o u l d b e p r o d u c e d if the same teachers
w e r e s t u d i e d during their second year of teach i n g
the SCIS p r o g r a m ?
2. W h a t w o u l d be the results of a q u a l i t a t i v e analysis
of lesson feedback in r e l a t i o n to teacher c h a r a c t e r ­
istics ?
3. H o w w o u l d e l e m e n t a r y teachers r e s p o n d to t e a c h i n g
a newer science pro g r a m w i t h o u t the b e n e f i t of a
pr e c e d i n g w o r k s h o p e x p e r i e n c e ?
4.

What is the m i n i m u m length of

time n e e d e d to a c c o m p l i s h

the object i v e s o f a w o r k s h o p such as the one under
consi d e r a t i o n in this s t u d y ?
5. What is the extent to w h i c h the m e t h o d s employed,
rather than the subject m a t t e r content,
teachers'

influe n c e

reactions to in-service e d u c a t i o n e x p e r i ­

ence ?
6.

D i d the teachers ben e f i t

from

T eacher R e a c t i o n Sheets after

completing the SCIS
each les s o n ?

119
7. Was the elapsed time between the completion of a
lesson and the filling out of a SCIS Teacher R e a c ­
tion Sheet related to the elicited responses ?
8. How w o u l d the teachers have reacted to the Summer
Workshop had it not been followed b y consultant
services throughout the school year?
9. Does the accessibility of kit materials rather than
the psychological and scientific bases of the SCIS
program influence teacher reaction to the progra m ?
10- Do the students benefit from their teachers'

pa r t i c i ­

pation in an in-service experience such as the SCIS
Summer W o r k s h o p ?

BI B L I O G R A P H Y

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
Getzels, J. S., and Jackson, P. W.
"The Teacher's Perso n ­
ality and Characteristics," Handbook of Research on
T e a c h i n g . Ed. N. L. Gage.
Chicago:
Rand McNally,
1963.
Goodlad, John I.
The Georgian

The Changing School C u r r i c u l u m .
Press, Inc., 1966.

Guenther, William
N e w Jersey:

C.
Analysis of V a r i a n c e .Englewood
Prentice Hall, 1964.

Hurd,

New York:
Cliffs,

Paul DeHart, and Gallagher, James Joseph.
New Direc­
tions in Elementary Science T e a c h i n g , Bellmont, Ca l i ­
fornia:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1968.

Jacobson, Willard, and Kondo, Allan.
SCIS Elementary Science
Sourcebook (Trial E d i t i o n ) . Berkeley, California:
University of California, 1968.
K a r p l u s , Robert, and Thier, Herbert D.
mentary School S c i e n c e . Chicago:

A N e w Look at El e ­
Rand McNally, 1967.

Stollberg, Robert.
"The Task Before U s — 1962 The Education
of Elementary School Teachers in S c i e n c e , " Readings on
Teaching Children S c i e n c e . Belmont, California:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1969.

PERIODICALS AND BULLETINS
Ashley, Tracy Hollis.
"The Development of a Science Program
in the Elementary School," Research in the Teaching of
S c i e n c e . Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Dept, of Health,
Education, and Welfare (July, 1957-July, 1959), 1962,
p. 28.

120

121
Bingham, N. Eldred.
"What E l e m e n t a r y Teach e r s W a n t in W o r k ­
shops in E l e m e n t a r y Science," S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n . Vol.
39, no. 1 (February, 1955), 59-64.
Bixler, J. E, Abstract.
"The Effect of Tea c h e r A t t i t u d e on
E l e m e n t a r y Children's Sci e n c e Information and S c i e n c e
A t t i t u d e , " R e s e a r c h in the T e a c h i n g of S c i e n c e .
Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Dept, o f Health, Education,
a n d Welfare, 1962, 28-29.
Blackwood, Paul E.
"Science Teach i n g in the E l e m e n t a r y
School:
A S u r v e y o f Practices," Journal o f R e s e a r c h in
S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g , III (September, 1965), 177-197.
Blosser, P a t r i c i a E., and Howe, Robert W.
"An Anal y s i s o f
R e s e a r c h on E l e m e n t a r y Teacher E d u c a t i o n R e l a t e d to
the T e a c h i n g of Science," Scie n c e and C h i l d r e n , Vol. 6,
no. 5 (J a n u a r y / F e b r u a r y , 1969).
Blough, G l e n n O.
"Preparing Teac h e r s for S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g
in the E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l , " School Sci e n c e and M a t h e m a ­
tics , LVIII (October, 1958), 525.
Brown, C lyde M.
"A W o r k s h o p in T e a c h i n g E l e m e n t a r y Science:
A n In-Service T r a i n i n g P r o g r a m for Teachers," Sci e n c e
E d u c a t i o n , XLII (December, 1958), 401-405.
Bryant, P a u l Payne, Abstract.
"Science U n d e rstandings C o n ­
s i d e r e d Important for C h i l d r e n and the S c i e n c e Re q u i r e d
o f E l e m e n t a r y Teachers," R e s e a r c h in the T e a c h i n g o f
S c i e n c e . Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Dept, o f Health,
Education, and W e l f a r e (July, 1 9 5 7 -July, 1959), 1962,
29.
Buck and Ma l l i n s o n .
“Some implications of R e c e n t R e s e a r c h
in the T e a c h i n g of S c i e n c e at the E l e m e n t a r y School
L e vel," Sci e n c e E d u c a t i o n , XXXVIII, no. 1 (February,
1954), 81-101.
Chamberlain, W. D.
"Development and Status of Tea c h e r E d u c a ­
tion in the F i e l d of Science for El e m e n t a r y S c h o o l , "
S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , XLII, no. 5 (December, 1958), 405-409.
Costa, A r t h u r L.
"How E l e m e n t a r y Sci e n c e Teach e r s Keep
U p - t o - D a t e in Science," Science E d u c a t i o n , L, no. 2
(1966), 126-127.
DeVault, M. Vere, Houston, Robert W., a n d Boyd, C l a u d C.
"Do C o n s u l t a n t Services M a k e a Difference?"
School
S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s , LXIII (April, 1962), 285-290.

122
Eccles, P. J.
"The Relationship Between Subject Matter
Competence of Teachers a nd the Quality o f Science
Instruction in the Elementar y S c h o o l , " A lb e r t a Journal
of Educational R e s e a r c h , VIII, no. 4 (December, 1962),
238-245.
Eiss, Albert P.
"Science P repa rat ion for El eme nta ry Science
Teachers," Science and C h i l d r e n , II, no. 8 (May, 1965),
17-18.
Flanders, Ned A.
"Teacher Behavior and In-Service Programs,"
Educational L e a d e r s h i p , XXI (October, 1963), 25-29.
Greenhouse, S. W . , and Geiser, S.
"On Methods in the A n a l y ­
sis o f Profile D a t a , " P s y c h o m e t r i k a , X X I V (1959),
95-112.
Heil,

Louis M., Powell, Marion, and Feifer, Irwin.
"Charac­
teristics of Teacher Behavior Rel a t e d to the A c h i e v e ­
ment of Children in Several Element ary Grades,"
Brooklyn C ollege Office o f Tes t i n g and Research, 1960.

Jacobson, Wi l l a r d J.
"Teacher Education and E lementary School
Sc i e n c e — 1980," Journal of Research in Science T e a c h i n g .
V, Issue 1 (1968), 73-80.
Kleinman, Gladys S.
"Progress Report of the Experim ent al
In-Service Institute in S cience for Elementary School
Teachers of Grades K - 6 ," Science E d u c a t i o n , L, no. 2
(1966), 136-140.
Kleinman, G. S.
"Needed:
E lem ent ary School Sc ience C o n s u l ­
tants," School S cie nce and M a t h e m a t i c s , LXV (November,
1965), 738-746.
Lammers, The r e s a J.
"One H und red Interviews With Elementary
School Teachers Concern ing Science E d u c a t i o n , " Science
E d u c a t i o n , XXXIII, no. 4 (October, 1949), 292-295.
Lammers, The r e s a J.
"The Thirty-First Yearbook and Twenty
Years of Ele men tar y Science," Sc ien ce E d u c a t i o n , Vol.
39 (February, 1955), 39-41.
Lerner, M arjorie S.
"In-Service Science Activities," Science
a n d . C h i l d r e n . IV, no. 3 (November, 1966), 21-23.
McCall, W. A., and Krause, Gertrude R.
"Measurement of
Teacher Merit for Sa lar y Purposes," Journal of E d u c a ­
tional R e s e a r c h , LIII, no. 2 (October, 1959), 73-75.
Maddux, Grace Curry.
"Helping the E lementary Sc ience Teachers,"
School Science and M a t h e m a t i c s . XLIX, no. 432 (October,
1949), 534-537.

123
Mallinson, Jacqueline.
"What H a v e Been the M a j o r Em pha ses
in R e s e a r c h in E l e m e n t a r y S c i e n c e D u r i n g the Past
F i v e Y e a r s ?11 S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , X L (April, 1956),
206-208.
Myers, R. E., and Torrence, E. Paul.
"Can T e a c h e r s E n c o u r a g e
Cr e a t i v e Thinking?"
Ed uca tio nal L e a d e r s h i p , X I X
(December, 1961), 156-159.
Sims, W a r d L.
"The D e v e l opm ent a n d E v a l u a t i o n of an InS e r v i c e E d u c a t i o n P r o g r a m in E l e m e n t a r y S cho ol S c i e n c e , "
Sc i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , XLII (December, 1958), 391-398.
Tannenbaum, H a r o l d E.
"Supervision of E l e m e n t a r y Sch ool
Science:
I n - S e r v i c e Courses," Sc i e n c e T e a c h e r , X XVI I
(April, 1960), 50-51.
"Teachers' Needs for In-S er v i c e Tra ini ng, " N E A R e s e a r c h
B u l l e t i n . X L V I , no. 3 (October, 1968), 80-81.
Tyndall, Jesse Parker.
"The T e a c h i n g o f S c i e n c e in E l e m e n ­
t a r y Schools b y R ecent G r a d u a t e s of A t l a n t i c C h r i s t i a n
C o l l e g e as R e l a t e d to Their S c i e n c e P r e p a r a t i o n , "
S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , LXIV, no. 2 (1960), 119.
Urick, Ronald, and Frymier, Jack R.
"Personalities,
an d Cur ric u l u m Change," E d u c a t i o n a l Leadership,
no. 2 (November, 1963), 107-111.

Teachers,
XXI,

Verrill, J. E.
"The P r e p a r a t i o n o f General E l e m e n t a r y
Te ach e r s to T e a c h Science:
18 70 to the Prese nt, "
R e s e a r c h in t he T e a c h i n g of S c i e n c e , W ashington, D. C.:
U. S. Dept, o f Health, Education, and W e l f a r e (1965),
126-127.
Victor, Edward.
"Why A r e Our E l e m e n t a r y Sc hoo l Te achers
R e l u c t a n t to T e a c h Science?"
U. S. O f f i c e o f E d u c a t i o n
(1965), 16-17.
Washton, Na t h o n S . "Improving E l e m e n t a r y T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n
in S c i e n c e , " S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , X L I V (February, 1961),
34.
D I S S E R T A T I O N AB STR ACT S
Berryessa, M a x Joseph.
"Factors C o n t r i b u t i n g to the C o m p e ­
te ncy o f E l e m e n t a r y Teach ers in T e a c h i n g S c i e n c e , "
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 20: no. 2, 1959, 558.

124
Boyd,

Claud Collins.
"A Study of the Relative Effectiveness
of Selected Methods of In-Service Education for El eme n­
tary School Teachers," Dissertation A b s t r a c t s , 22: no.
10, 1961, 3531-2.

Eccles, Priscilla Jacobs.
"An Evaluation of a Course in
Teaching Science in the Elementary School,"
Disserta­
tion A b s t r a c t s , 19: no. 11, 1959, 2862.
Hempel, Carl.
"Attitudes of a Selected Group of Elementary
School Teachers Toward In-Service Education,"
Dissertation A b s t r a c t s , 21: no. 13, 1961, 3864.
Hines, Sallylee H.
"A Study of Certain Factors Which Affect
the Opinions of Elementary School Teachers in the
Teaching of Science," Dissertation A b s t r a c t s , 27:
12 June, 1967, 4153-A.
Karbal, Harold T.
"The Effectiveness of a Workshop as a
Means of In-Service Education of Teachers," Dissertation
A b s t r a c t s , 25: no. 3, 1964, 1771-1772.
McFeaters, Mary M. Marshall.
"A Critical Analysis of
Selected Research Literature on In-Service Teacher
Education," Dissertation A b s t r a c t s , 14: no. 8 (1954),
1340.
Moorehead, William Douglas.
"The Status of Elementary School
Science and H o w it is Taught," Dissertation A b s t r a c t s ,
26: no. 4 (1965), 2070.
OTHER RESOURCES
Berkheimer, Glenn D. (Proposal for) "NSF Cooperative CollegeSchool Science Program Between Michigan State University
and East Lansing, Grand Ledge, DeWitt, and Perry,
Michigan" (Science and Mathematics Teaching C e n t e r ) ,
1968.
Bruce, Larry R.
"A Determination of the Relationships Among
SCIS Teachers; Personality Traits, Attitudes Toward
T e a c h e r - P u p i 1 Relationship, Understanding of Science
Process Skills and Question Types" (unpublished Ph. D.
di sse r t a t i o n ) , College o f Education, Michigan State U n i ­
versity, 1969.
Cattell, Raymond B., and Eber, Herbert W.
Sixteen P e r s o n ­
ality Factor Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , Champaign, Illinois:
Ins ti­
tute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1967.

125
Cook, W alter W., Leeds, Carroll H., an d Callis, Robert.
T h e M i n n e s o t a Teacher At ti t u d e Inv entory M anual
(New York:
The Psy chological C o r p o r a t i o n ) , 1950.
Hone,

Elizabeth.
"Elements of Successful In-Service E d u c a ­
tion for Elementary Science" (A paper p r e s e n t e d at
session C-l, NARST 42nd Annual Meeting), 1969.

Merkle, Dale Gordon.
"A Leadership W o r k s h o p on Elementary
Sc hool Science:
A n In-Depth Evaluation" (unpublished
Ph. D. dissertation), C oll ege of Education, M i c h i g a n
State University, 1969.
Moon,

Thomas Charles.
"A Study o f Verbal Behavior Patterns
in Primary Grade Classrooms D u r i n g S cie n c e Activities"
(unpublished Ph. D. dissertation), Col leg e of Education,
M i c h i g a n State University, 1969.

Sweetser, Evan A.
Science Process Test for Elementa ry
School Teachers, 3rd Edition, East Lansing, Michigan:
M i c h i g a n State University, 1968.
Thier, Herbert D.
"Teaching Elementary Science:
A Labora­
tory Approach" (Laboratory G u i d e — R e v i s e d ) , Boston:
D. C. Heath and Company (May, 1968).
S U PPL EME NTA L RESOURCES NOT CITED
BOOKS
Downie, N. M.,
N e w York:

and Heath, R. W.
Basic S tatistical M e t h o d s .
Harper and Row, 19G5.

Eiss, Alb ert F.
"Tactics for Curriculum Change," A S o u r c e ­
b o o k for Science S u p e r v i s o r s , E d . M a r y B . H a r b e c k .
Washington, D. C.:
National Science Teachers A s s o c i ­
ation, 1967.
In-Service Education for Teachers. Supervisors, and A d m i n ­
istrators , Yearbook L V I , part 1, Ed. Nelson B. Henry.
N a tional Society for the Study o f Education.
Chicago:
Univers ity of Chicago Press, 1957.
Kelley, Earl C.
The Wor ks h o p W a v of L e a r n i n g .
Harper and Brothers, 1951.

N e w York:

Kinnick, B. Jo.
"The Teachers and the In-Service Education
P r o g r a m , " In-Service Education for Teachers, S u p e r v i s o r s ,
and A d m i n i s t r a t o r s , Y earbook LVI, part 1, Ed. N els on B.

126
Henry.
National Society for the Study of Education.
Chicago:
The University o f Chicago:
The University
of Chicago Press, 1957.
Kuslan, L. I., and Stone, A. H„
Teaching Children S c i e n c e :
An Inquiry A p p r o a c h . Belmont, California:
Wadsworth
Publishing Company, Inc., 1968.
Miles, Ma t t h e w B., Ed.
Innovation in E d u c a t i o n . New York:
Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia
University, 1964.
O'Rourke, Ma ry A., and Burton, William H.
Workshops for
T e a c h e r s . New York:
A ppleton-Century-Craft s, Inc.,
1957 .
Rogers, E. M.
Diffusion o f Inn o v a t i o n s . Galt, Ontario:
Free Press of Glencoe, Division of Macmillan Co., 1962.
Siegel, Sidney.
Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral
S c i e n c e s . New York:
Mc Graw Hill Book Company, 1956.
Winer, B. J.
Statistical Principles in Experimental D e s i g n .
Ne w York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962.
PERIODICALS A ND BULLETINS
Barnard, J. Darrell.
"Improving Science Education," School
L i f e , XL (October, 1962), 7.
Bartlett, C. J., and Edgerton, H. A.
"Dimensions of Summer
Science Training Programs as Reflected by Their P a r t i c i ­
pants," Psychological R e p o r t s , XVIII (1966), 67-73.
Bingham, Nelson E.
"Workshop for Science Teachers," Science
E d u c a t i o n . XX XV (February, 1950), 177-184.
Curtis, Wi lliam C.
"The Improvement of Instruction in E l e ­
mentary Science," Science E d u c a t i o n , XXXIV, no. 4
(October, 1950), 234-247.
Fischler, Abraham S. and Anastasiow, Nicholas J.
"In-Service
Education in Science (a Pilot) The School Within a
S c h o o l , " Journal of Research in Science T e a c h i n g , III
(1965), 280-285.
Hilgert, R. L.
"Teacher Reaction to Summer Workshops,"
School and Community, LIV (1968), 15-16.

127
Holmlund, Wa l t e r S.
"Design a n d E v a l u a t i o n o f an In-Serv ice
T r a i n i n g Pro g r a m for Te ac h e r s in C h i l d Gr o w t h and
D eve lop men t," Journal o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n , III (March,
1952), 50.
Mallinson, Ge o r g e G., and Sturm, H a r o l d E.
"The Science
Ba ckg r o u n d a n d C o m p e t e n c e o f Students P r e p a r i n g to
T e a c h in the E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l , " Sc ien ce E d u c a t i o n ,
XXXIX, no. 5 (December, 1955), 398-405.
Montean, John J.
"Patterns of I m p l e m e n t a t i o n , " S c i e n c e
E d u c a t i o n . LII, no. 4 (October, 1968), 316.
Richardson, Evan C.
"The D e v e l o p m e n t of an Instrument
Ev a l u a t i o n o f E l e m e n t a r y Sch ool S c i e n c e , " Sc ien ce
E d u c a t i o n , XLIV, no. 2 (February, 1960), 112-118.

for

Tuckman, Jacob, and Etkin, Wi lliam.
"The R e l a t i o n s h i p
Be twe en Sc ience P r o f i c i e n c y and Tr ai n i n g A m o n g Liberal
Ar ts Graduates," R e s e a r c h in the T e a c h i n g of S c i e n c e ,
U. S. Dept, of Health, Education, and W e l f a r e (1965),
126.
D I S S E R T A T I O N AB STR ACT S
McLeod, Jeanne Annette.
"In-Service T r a i n i n g o f E l e m e n t a r y
School T eac her s in C o n t e m p o r a r y C oncepts in A r i t h m e t i c , "
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 26s no. 4 (1965), 2069-70.
Micheals, B e r n a r d Earl.
"The P r e p a r a t i o n o f T e a c h e r s to T e a c h
El eme n t a r y Science," D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 19: no. 4
(1958), 737.
Self,

Elbert Lee.
"Criteria for a Pro g r a m o f In- Ser v i c e
E d u c a t i o n in the E l e m e n t a r y and S e c o n d a r y School,"
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 20s no. 3 (1959), 962.

Selser, Will Lindsey.
"An E v a l u a t i o n o f A n In-Serv ice I n s t i ­
t u te for Im proving Sc i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s Instruc tio n
in the H i l l s b o r o u g h C o u n t y Ju nio r H i g h Schools,"
D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 23: no. 10 (1963), 3804.
Smith, Sus a n n a J.
"An E v a l u a t i o n of a W o r k s h o p P r o g r a m for
In-Service Teacher Educat ion ," A b s t r a c t s o f D o c t o r a l
D i s s e r t a t i o n s , P e n n s y l v a n i a S tat e University, 8 s (1946)
80.
Williams, C lar e n c e Earl, Sr.
"A S t u d y of the Sc i e n c e K n o w l ­
edge and B a c k g r o u n d o f S e l e c t e d E l e m e n t a r y T eac h e r s and
C o lle ge Students," D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s , 21: no. 9
(1961), 2541.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

128
SCIS SUMMER WORKSHOP SCHEDULE
Week I
Monday. August 5
9:00 - 10:00 a m.

10:00 - 10:45

i.m.

"Demonstration Lesson"
Christina Kageyama
Discussion
McDonel Hall Kiva
"Orientation to the 1968 SCIS
Summer Workshop"
Berkheimer
Break

11:00 - 11:45 .L

. m .

"Overview of Interaction and
Material Objects Kits"
Berkheimer
Lunch

12:45 - 2:00 p m.

"The Role of the Teacher in T e a c h ­
ing SCIS"
"Reactions and Experiences of the
SCIS Teacher"
Christina Kageyama
Break

2:00 - 4:00 p.: i.

Introduction to the SCIS Kits
Grade 1 t e a c h e r s , Organisms
Grade 2 teachers, Interaction

Tuesday, August 6
9:00 - 10:15 a m.

"What are the Purposes of the
Elementary School?"
Berkheimer, Bruce, Moo n
Break

10:30 - 11:45

..m.

Laboratory:
Grade 1 t e a c h e r s , Material Objects
Grade 2 t e a c h e r s , Life Cycles
Lunch

129
12 :45 - 1:4 5 p.m.

The S c i e n c e Pr oce ss Test
Moon
Break

2: 00 - 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday,

Inquiry L a b o r a t o r y
(Observed by C o l l e g e S c i e n c e
Educators)

August 7

9:00 - 10 : 0 0 a.m.

"SCIS S c o p e and S e q u e n c e , " Slides
Berkheim er
B r eak

10 : 1 5 - 1 1 : 1 5 a.m.

"Role of the SCIS Te ach er"
Berkhei mer

11 :15 - 11 : 4 5 a.m.

"Operating P r o c e d u r e s for the
1968-69 Sch ool Year"
Berkhei mer
Lu nch

1 2 : 4 5 - 1:30 p.m.

M i n n e s o t a Tea che r A t t i t u d e Invent ory
Bruce
Break

1 : 4 5 - 2 :30 p.m.

"Introduction to M i c r o - T e a c h i n g "
Berkheim er

2:30 - 4:00 p.m.

Laboratory:
Grade 1, Orqan ism s
Grade 2, I n t e ra cti on

Thursday,

Au g u s t 8

9: 00 - 1 0 : 1 5 a.m.

"The Nat ure o f Science"
D r . S h e r w o o d Haynes
Break

10:30 - 10: 45 a.m.

Study SCIS Sourcebook,
Discussion
Berkheim er

1 0 : 4 5 - 11 :45 a.m.

P r e p a r a t i o n for M i c r o - T e a c h i n g
Lessons
Lunch

pp. 18-24

130
12:45 - 2:45 p.m

Micro-Teaching by SCIS Teachers
Break

3:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Laboratory:
Grade 1, Material Objects
Grade 2, Life Cycles

Friday. August 9
9:00 - S|:45 a.m.

"Objectives of Science Education
and SCIS"
Berkheimer
Break

10:00 - 10:45 a. m.

Study SCIS Sourcebook,

pp. 25-33

10:45 - 11:45 a. m.

Preparation for Micro-Teaching
Lessons
Lunch
i

12:45 - 2:45 p.m

Micro-Teaching by SCIS Teachers
Break

3:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Laboratory:
Grade 1, Organisms
Grade 2, Interaction
SCIS Workshop Reaction.
Barnes

Form 1

Week II
Monday. August 12
9:00 - 9:45 a.m.

"The SCIS Life Science Program"
Dr. Chester A. Lawson

9:45 - 10:15 a.m

"The Role of the Teacher in SCIS
Life Science"
Dr. Chester A. Lawson
Break

10:30 - 11:00 a.i

"The Organisms Unit"
Dr. Chester A. Lawson

11:00 - 11:45 a.]

"The Life Cycles Unit"
Dr. Chester A. Lawson

131
Lunch
1 2 : 4 5 - 2:15 p.m.

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teaching:
Grade 1, M a t e r i a l Ob jects
film, A c t i v i t y 6 ,
"Grandma's Bu t t o n Box"
Grade 2, Li fe Cycles
Break

2:30 - 4:00 p.m.

Tuesday,

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teaching:
Grade 1, O rga n i s m s
Grade 2, I n t e r ac tio n

Au g u s t 15

9:00 - 10:30 a.m.

"Principles of Learning"
Berkheimer
Break

11 :00 - 11: 45 a.m.

Study:
SCIS Sourcebook, pp. 34-39
(Grade 2 teschers)
Micro-Teaching Preparation
(Grade 1 teachers)
Lu n c h

1 2:4 5 - 2:45 p.m.

Micro-Te ach ing :
T 3 , Ti
(T 3 - Co lle ge Educator, Ti - SCIS
Teachers)
Break

3:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday,

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teaching:
Grade 1, Organis ms
Grade 2, In t e r a c t i o n

Au gus t 14

9:00 - 10:30 a.m.

"Demonstration o f Pi age t's D e v e l o p ­
m e n t a l Stages"
D o n a l d Neuman
"The P s y c h o l o g y o f Jean Piaget"
Berkheimer
Break

132
1 0:45 — 11:45 a.m.

M i c r o - T e a c h i n g P r e p a ra tio n
(grade 2 teachers)
S t u d y SCIS Sourcebook, pp. 34-39
(grade 1 teachers)
"Science in the C l a s s r o o m , " film
Lunch

12:45 - 2:45 p.m.

Mi c r o - T e a c h i n g :

T 3 , Ti

Break
3:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Thursday,

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teaching:
Grade 1, M a t e r i a l O b j e c t s ,
film, A c t i v i t y 8 ,
"Grouping Col lec tio ns of
Objects"
Grade 2, Life Cycles

Au g u s t 15

9:00 - 9:45 a.m.

"Modes of T e a c h i n g SCIS"
Berkheim er
"Material O bjects O v e r v i e w , " film

9:45 - 1 0:3 0 a.m.

"Piaget's D e v e l o p m e n t a l Theory:
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , " film
Break

10 :45 - 11: 45 a.m.

S t udy Sourcebook,

pp. 40-51

Lunch
12:45 - 1:45 p.m.

16 P F Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
test)
Bruce

(personality

Break
2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Friday,

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teaching:
Grade 1, Org anisms
Grade 2, Interact ion

Aug ust 16

9:00 - 10: 30 a.m.

"Piaget's D e v e l o p m e n t a l Theory:
C o n s e r v a t i o n , " film
"Psychological F o u n d ati ons of SCIS"
Berkheim er
D i s c u s s i o n and film "Interaction
Document ary "

133
Break
10:45 - 11:45 a.m.

Inquiry Laboratory, "Classification"
(Grade 1 teachers)
Demonstration Teaching
(Grade 2 teachers)
Lunch

12:45 - 2:15 p.m.

Inquiry Laboratory, "Classification"
(Grade 2 teachers)
Demonstration Teaching
(Grade 1 teachers)

2:15 - 2:30 p.m.

SCIS Workshop Reaction,
Barnes

2:30 - 3:00 p.m.

"Relativity D o c u m e n t a r y , " film

Form 2

Break
3:15 - 4:00 p.m.

Demonstration Teaching
Week III

Monday, August 19
9:00 - 9:45 a.m.

"Classroom Management, Modes of
Teaching and Inquiry Laboratories"
Berkheimer

9:45 - 10:30 a.m.

Film, Activity 9, "Invention o f the
Concept of Material"
Modes of Teaching SCIS:
An Analysis
of Teaching Episodes on Film"
Berkheimer
Break

10:45 - 11:45 a.m.

Material O b j e c t s : for children
who h a v e n ’t had first grade
(Grade 2 teachers)
Material Objects
(Grade 1 teachers)
Lunch

12:45 - 2:15 p.m.

Inquiry Laboratory:
Grade 1 t e a c h e r s , Whirly birds
Grade 2 teachers, Mealworms
Break

2:30 - 4:00 p.m.

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Teaching;
Gra de 1 teachers, Mat e r i a l
Objects
Wo od l o t F i e l d t r i p a n d Discussion,
G r ade 2 tea chers

Tuesday.

A u g u s t 20

9:00 - 10 :15 a.m.

"Operating P r o c e d u r e s for the
19 68-69 Sc hoo l Y e a r — -Consultants,
B i - w e e k l y Seminar, etc."
Berkhei mer
"Guiding S tud ent s to D e s i g n E x p e r i ­
m e n t s — T h e C o n t r o l l e d Experime nt"
B e rkh eim er
Break

10:30 - 11 : 4 5 a.m.

Film, A c t i v i t y 18, "Observing
Liquids," G r a d e 1 teachers
I n qui ry Laboratory, Systems and
S u b s y s t e m s , Grade 2 teachers
Lunch

12 : 4 5 — 2:00 p.m.

W o o d l o t F i e l d t r i p a n d Discussion,
Gr a d e 1 teachers
I n t e r a c t i o n . G r a d e 2 teachers

2: 15 - 4:00 p.m.

In quiry Laboratory,
Grade 2 teachers

Pendulums,

M a t e r i a l O b j e c t s , G r a d e 1 teachers
Wednesday,

A u g u s t 21

9:00 - 9:30 a.m.

"SCIS Te ac h e r s and P u b l i c Relations"
Berkheim er

9:30 - 9:45 a.m.

Te ach ers from each el eme n t a r y school
wi ll ou t l i n e plans for a P T A m e e t i n g

9:45 - 10:00 a.m.

Film, A c t i v i t y 20, "Inventing the
Co m p a r i s o n of Ob jec ts U sing Signs"
Break

135
10:15 - 11:45 a.m.

Inquiry Laboratory:
P e n d u l u m s , Grade 1 teachers
R e l a t i v i t y , Grade 2 teachers
Lunch

12:45 - 1:15 p .m .

A tour of facilities of the SMTC

1:30 - 2:30 p.m.

Detailed planning for 1968-69
school year
Break

2:45 - 4:00 p.m.

Planning

(con't.)

Thursday, August 22
9:00 - 10:00 a.m.

"An Experienced SCIS T e a c h e r 's
Reaction to the SCIS Program"
Dianne Westfall
Break

10:15 - 11:45 a.m.

Reports from each school district
Continuation of Planning
Dianne Westfall
Lunch

12:45 - 1:45 p.m.

SCIS Wor ksh op Content Achievement
Evaluation
Barnes
Break

2:00 - 4:00 p.m.

Inquiry Laboratory
Films:
"Experimenting wi th Air"
"Karplus with Children"

Friday, August 25
9:00 - 10:45 a.m.

Detailed Planning for 1968-69
School Year
■»

i*

Break
11:00 - 11:45 a.m.

Planning for Bi-weekly Seminars
Lunch

12:45 - 1:00 p.m.

Feedback

1:00 - 1:30 p.m.

Tapes of wo rkshop reactions

APPENDIX B

136
S C I E N C E C U R R I C U L U M I MP R O V E M E N T S T U D Y
WORKSHOP CONTENT ACHIEVEMENT EVALUATION
Grades 1 and 2
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Trial Center
Directions:

The following q ues t i o n s are m u l t i p l e choice.
On the answer sheet, darken in the space co rre s­
po n d i n g to the best answer for each question.

1. The units w h i c h h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d for grade 1 of the
SCIS p ro g r a m are:
a. M a t e r i a l Objects and O r g a nis ms
b. I n t e ra cti on a n d O r g a n i s m s
c. Interact ion and Lif e Cycles
d. M a t e r i a l O bje cts a n d Life Cycles
e. None of t he above
2. The units w h i c h h a v e be en d e v e l o p e d for grade 2 o f the
SCIS p r o g r a m are:
a. M a t e r i a l O b j e c t s an d O rga n i s m s
b.

I nteraction and Org ani sms

c. I n t e r a c t i o n and Life Cycles
d. M a t e r i a l Objects and Li fe Cycles
e. None of the above
3. T he p r i m a r y e val uat ion emphasis of SCIS has been:
a. C o m p a r i n g students w h o ha ve ha d SCIS w i t h those w ho
.have n o t .
b. A d e f i n i t i v e m e a s u r e of t he sci ent ifi c literacy o f
the pupils e merging from SCIS.
c. E v a l u a t i n g the p r o g r a m b y col lec tin g feedback i nfo r m a ­
tion from tea chers and trial center c o - o r d i n a t o r s .

137
d. Through the use of teacher-made tests.
e. None of the above.
4. The major psychological influence on the SCIS program is:
a . Bruner
b. Gagne
c. Piaget
d. Skinner
e. Karplus
5. The primary purpose of the SCIS curriculum is:
a. the development of competent scientists
b. to develop more meaningful science materials
children

for

c. the development of specified process skills
d. the development of scientific literacy
e. none of the above

6 . In the "discovery" lesson in SCIS:
a. experiences are provided that present further examples
of a previously described concept.
b. materials are provided whereby children can arrive at
a scientific principle without teacher prompting.
c. students study the history of famous scientific
discoveries.
d. none of the above is correct.
7. The average amount of time required to teach one of the
SCIS units (e.g., Organisms) is about:
a. 11-12 months
b. 8-10 months

138
c. 6-7 months
d. 3-5 months
e. none of the above

8 . The title of the first unit commonly used in SCIS is:
a. Interaction
b. Material Objects
c. Organisms
d. Subsystems
e. None o f the above
9. By "invention" lesson in SCIS, w e mean:
a. the children recognize a scientific principle when
presented wi th various examples of a c o n c e p t .
b. the children create new solutions to problems.
c. the teacher introduces the science concept that
describes what the children have observed.
d. none of the above is correct.
10. The main purpose of using Mr. O in SCIS is:
a. to aid in identifying similarities and differences
among animals outside the classroom.
b. to enable students to describe properties of an
entire organism.
c. to experiment with; to find the origin of detritus.
d. to act as a reference

frame.

11. In studying magnetism a child used an electromagnet to
attract some paper clips.
Which of the following w oul d
best describe the "system" under study?
a. child,

electromagnet,

and paper clips.

b. child and electromagnet.

139
c . electromagnet.
d. e lec tromagnet a nd pap er clips
12. In S C I S , the p urp o s e o f t h e act ivi ty in w h i c h th e children
compare sim ila rly s haped pieces o f aluminum, brass, pine,
walnut, and p o l y s t yre ne is:
a. to lead to the i dent ifi cat ion o f the concept of
material.
b.

for id ent ifi cat ion and naming of two or m o r e c h a r a c ­
teristics of an o bject (such as color and t e x t u r e ) .

c. for the con str uct ion and d emo n s t r a t i o n o f the u s e o f
a s ing le- sta ge sys tem for c l a s s ify ing m ate ria ls.
d. to gain a b etter u n d e rst and ing of the c oncept of
inequalities.
13. The best ope rat ion al d e f i n i t i o n of the term

"mass" is:

a. qua nti ty of matter.
b. the size of an object wh eth er
earth.

it is in space or on

c . that p r o p e r t y of an object w h i c h det erm i n e s the
acceler ati on i mpa rted to it b y a given force.
d. that qu ant ity of matter that, w h e n act ed upon b y a
force, w i l l not c h a n g e its velocity.
14. The m o d e r n v i e w o f s cience is:
a. th er e is an int erac tio n b e t w e e n the s cie ntist a n d
his w ork
b. science is an o r g a n i z e d b o d y o f k n o w l e d g e
c. facts exist and are only to be dis cov e r e d
d. none of the above
15. Of the following,

w h i c h is not a sci ent ifi c m o d e of i n q u i r y ?

a. b asi c a ssumptions are ma de

140
b. terms are defined
c. evidence is collected
d. hypotheses are formed
e. theories are verified
16. Which of the following is not an implication of the modern
view of science education?
a. Children need direct experiences with phenomena.
b. Children should engage in investigations.
c. Scientific statements are considered as tentative in
nature.
d. The child develops his own conceptual structure of
science.
e. None of the above.
17. The concepts included in the SCIS program are arranged in
a hierarchy so t h a t :
a. the children encounter a higher level abstraction
only after they have had considerable direct and
concrete experience with it at a lower level of
abstracti o n .
b. a branching process is used to develop new concepts.
c. the inverted concept skills are presented in the
proper sequence.
d. the chaining technique of Piaget is maximized.
e. none of the above is correct.
18. The SCIS program attempts to present the concepts to the
children in pace with their developing comprehension.
Accordingly, it relies most heavily upon:
a. the judgment of the teacher
b. the prescription of fixed procedures for every lesson
c. those lessons which contain the major concept chain
links

141
d. none of the above.
19. T h e highest d eve l o p m e n t a l stage at w h i c h the child is
un a b l e to c ons erv e is:
a. s ens o r y - m o t o r
b. p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l
c . c onc ret e operat ion s
d.

formal operatio ns

20. W h i c h o f the following is not c ons ide red i m p o rt ant for
the t r a n s i t i o n from one d eve l o p m e n t a l level to the n e x t ?
a. m a t u r a t i o n
b. e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the ph ys i c a l w o r l d
c. social e x p e r i e n c e
d. sy nap tic nerve d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n
21. T h e b a s i c intent o f the

"invention"

lesson is to provide:

a. o pe r a t i o n a l d efi nit ions
b. v erb al d efi nit ion s
c. the

"right" answers to questions

d. a m e t h o d o f d e t e r m i n i n g w h a t types of qu est ion s
sh oul d b e as ked
e. n one o f the ab ove
22. The goal of

"discovery"

lessons is to:

a. te ach t he ch ild ren to dis c r i m i n a t e so as to r edu ce
d i v e r s i t y of r esp onses
b. to get the

"right" answers to q ues tions

c. to find out w h a t the children think and what pr ogr ess
t h e y are m a k i n g in u n d e r s t a n d i n g
d. none of the ab ove

142
23. Diver gen t questions tend to:
a. na rrow the scope o f the materials being studied
b. increase the po ssible answers to a question
c. w e a k e n the interest in the topic under study
d. none of the above
24. Wh ich o f the following is not an example of a divergent
question?
a.

"How can w e find out?"

b.

"What do some other peo p l e think?"

c. "Is this in the system?"
d.

"What other k i n d o f experiment

could we try?"

25. Which of the following is not true concerning the effective
ways of storing and di str ibu tin g SCIS m ate ri a l s ?
a. Chi ldren are inefficient in handl ing ma terials and
should, therefore, be used infrequently.
b. Plastic bags a nd shoe boxes m a y be useful for
storing m a t e r i a l s .
c. Kits w h i c h are shared should be stored in one area
agreeable to b o t h teachers.
d. Mat eri als can be d ist rib ute d du rin g recess while
children are out of the room.
26. The central concept in the SCIS
a. ecosystem
b. b i o t i c potential
c. habitat
d. organisms

life science program is:

143
27. Interactions
m a y be:

lead to changes in s y s t e m s .

T h e s e systems

a. ph ysi cal
b. chemical
c. b i o l o g i c a l
d. all of the above
e. none of the above
28. M i c r o - t e a c h i n g can b e an e ffe cti ve tea chi ng te chn i q u e
for i t :
a. emphasizes some of the s ubtle but importa nt details
in the teaching process
b. allows the teacher to focus on specific aspects of
t eaching
c. m a y be done in teams w i t h the teachers t a k i n g turns
in o b s e r v i n g and c omm ent ing upo n the others'
te ach ing
d. all of the above
29. One o f the most p r o n o u n c e d c h a r a cte ris tic s o f a c h i l d in
the p r e - o per ati ona l stage is:
a. M u l t i p l i c a t i o n of relations
b. C e n t r a t i o n
c. R e v e r s i b i l i t y
d. A d d i t i o n and S u b t r a c t i o n
30. Chi l d r e n m a k e the tra nsit ion from s e n s o ry- mot or to preop era tio nal at the age of approximately:
a. 6 months
b. 18 months
c . 3 years
d.

6-7 years

e. 14-16 years

144
31. It is at times advantageous to use a particular part of
the room for discussions during:
a. exploration lessons
b. invention lessons
d. d isc overy lessons
32. By having the children w o r k in small groups,
m a y want to encourage:

the teachers

a. student-materials interaction
b. teacher-student interaction
c. student-student interaction
33. W hic h o f the following is an example of a divergent
question ?
a.

"How m any sides does it have?"

b.

"What other p ossibilities are there?"

c.

"Do the guppies eat the daphnia?"

d.

"How m a n y k n o w the answer to that question?"

34. T he basis of science is:
a . theory
b. deduction
c. observa tio n
d. predic tio n
35. Th e type of reasoning used in theory formation is:
a. inductive
b. deductive
c. cyclic
d. empirical

145
36. W h e n a chi ld is inc l i n e d to look at o bje cts a n d events
as th o u g h they can b e v i e w e d o n l y from his pa rti cul ar
perspective, he is likely to be in w h i c h intell ect ual
stage o f d e v e l o p m e n t ?
a . sen sory-motor
b. p r e - o per ati ona l
c. co ncrete operat ion s
d.

formal operations

37. W h e n a child has acq u i r e d the a bil ity to ha n d l e incoming
in for mat ion c o n c e p t u a l l y r ather tha n to r e l y m o r e on his
perceptions, he is likely to b e in w h i c h i n t e l lec tua l
stage of d e v e l o p m e n t ?
a . sen sory-motor
b. p r e - op era tio nal
c. co ncrete ope rat ion al
d.

formal operati ons

38. W h e n a chi ld can m a k e a f o u r - f o l d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n among
two dimensions, and u n d e r s t a n d that a class of hard
objects can include objects that are ro ugh an d th ose that
are smooth, he has t r u l y r e a c h e d the ____________level o f
thinking.
a. sen sory-motor
b. p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l
c. con crete operations
d.

formal op era t i o n s

39. _________________ thought

is c l a r a c t e r i z e d b y irreversibility,

a. sen sory-motor
b. pr e- op e r a t i o n a l
c. concrete operati ons
d.

formal operations

146
40. In the SCIS program, the interaction considered mos t v a l u ­
able in the classroom is:
a. children-materials interaction
b. children-children interaction
c. teacher-materials interaction
d. teacher-children interaction
41. The ranking of objects according to the degree to w h i c h
they possess a certain property is called:
a. classification
b. serial ordering
c. property orientation
d. biserial correlation

147

ITEMS 42-50 F O R G R A D E 1

148
42. Another w a y to state that object A is greater than object
B but less than object C w i t h respect to some property is:
a. A>B>C
b. B<A<C
c. B>C>A
d. A<B>C
e. C<B>A
43. Which of the following is not an example of algae?
a. Clamydomonas
b. V o 1vox
c. Eudorina
d. Daphnia
e . Seaweed
44. Guppies

Daphnia

Algae

s*

Goldfish
Above is an example of:
a . habitat
b. food w e b
c. life cycle
d. biotic potential
e. diversity of organisms
45. The reason for using "aged tap water" is:
a.

The pH of "fresh" water is too high.

b.

The chlorine must be allowed to diffuse into

the air.

c. Fish prefer mature water for reproduction.
d.

Letting the water stand helps to distill it.

e.

Calcium,

magnesium,

and

other minerals will dissolve.

149
46. W h e n caring for fresh w a t e r aquaria,
a. add sufficient
evaporat i on

it is best to:

"fresh" w a t e r every w e e k to offset

b. clean the aquaria w h e n t h e y b e c o m e cloudy or green
c. not p l a c e any o f them in direct sunlight
d. place a 100 -watt b u l b w i t h i n the aquaria if the
t e m p e r a t u r e drops very low at night.
47. D a p h n i a are small animals w h i c h
a. are r e l a t e d to lobsters
b.

can r e p r o d u c e w i t h o u t

fertilization

c. eat b y a m e t h o d called "filter feeding"
d. all o f the above
e.

none o f t h e above

48. T h e guppy

is a small fish

a.

lays small clear

b.

eats a l g a e and o t h e r

c. has females

which

jelly-like eggs
small plants

larger than the males

d. all of the above
e. none o f t h e above
49. W h e n teac h i n g the O r g a n i s m s unit you w i l l find that the
activities follow a pattern, although not the following:

1. Chil d r e n e x p e riment to answer questions stimu l a t e d
b y their o b s e r v a t i o n s .
2. The chil d r e n reinforce, refine, and develop the c o n ­
cept b y a p p l y i n g it in n e w situations.
3. C h i l d r e n o b s e r v e natural events w i t h i n an ecosystem.
4. You introduce a concept b a s e d on the children's
observations.

150
The proper order of these activities is:
a . 2, 1 , 4 , 3
b. 4, 2, 1, 3
c . 3, 4, 1, 2
d. 3, 1, 4, 2
50. In the Organisms unit, w h a t activities are carried out
on a given day depend upon:
a. what happens in the aquaria
b. the children's responses to these events
c. the number of aquaria with green water
d. two of the above
e. all of the above

151

ITEMS 42-50 FOR GRADE 2

152
42. The suggested length of time to be u s e d to teach the
Life Cycles unit is:
a . 8 weeks
b. 10 weeks
c . 12 weeks
d . 14 weeks
43. Which of the following concepts is introduced during
the Life Cycles unit ?
a. birth and death
b. habitat
c. germination
d . food w e b
e. soil fertility
44. Which o f the following is not an objective in teaching
biotic po t e n t i a l ?
a. to infer the biotic potential o f organisms
b. to identify the three major stages of biotic
potential
c. to recognize that early death prevents the r e a l i z a ­
tion of biotic potential
d. to relate biotic potential to the food w e b
45. W h e n inventing the systems concept,
that it refers to:

tell the children

a. any set of objects w h i c h have a common c h a r a c t e r ­
istic or property
b. objects w h i c h are made of the same or similar
materials
c. any set of objects in w h i c h you are interested
d. any set o f objects w h i c h are related

153
46. In the Interaction unit,
to show:

the plastic coat hanger is used

a. evidence of interaction
b. interaction-at-a-distance
c. systems
d. interaction
47. In the Interaction unit, the ozalid paper and photographic
paper are used to show:
a. evidence of interaction
b. interaction-at-a-distance
c . systems
d. interaction
48.

"Seed

-- >■

plant

-- ►*

seed"

is an example of:

a. sexual life cycle of a flowering plant
b. vegetative life cycle of a flowering plant
c. the germination cycle
d. all of the above
49. Among m a n y insects which pass through complete m e t a m o r ­
phosis (4 stages) are:
a . moths
b. beetles
c. grasshoppers
d. two of the above
e. all of the above

154
50. T h e stages of incomplete metamorphosis are:
a. egg, pupa,
b.

adult

larva, pupa,

adult

c. egg,

nymph,

adult

d. egg,

larva,

pupa,

adult

155
S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m Improvement Study, W o r k s h o p Conte n t
A c h i e v e m e n t Ev a l u a t i o n Scoring Key
Item
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17 .
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27 .
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37 .
38.
39.
40.
41.

Ke y e d A n s w e r
a
c
c
c
d
a
d
b
c
d
d
a
c
a
e
e
a
a
b
d
a
c
b
c
a
a
d
d
b
b
b
c
b
c
a
b
c
c
b
a
b

Item

Keyed Answer
Grade 1

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47 .
48.
49.
50.

b
d
b
b
c
d
c
d
d
G rade 2

42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47 .
48.
49.
50.

c
c
b
d
b
a
a
d
c

APPENDIX C

156
NAME
SCIS Workshop Evaluation,

Form 1

Please rate the following workshop activities using
a five (5) point scale.
Give a rating of 5 to those activi­
ties which you feel will contribute most to your teaching of
SCIS .
Rating
1. Demonstration lesson b y Christina Kageyama
Comments:
2. "The Role of the Teacher in Teaching SCIS" and
"Reactions and Experiences of the SCIS Teacher"
by Christina Kageyama
Comments:
3. "What Are the Purposes of the Elementary School?"
by Berkheimer, Bruce, Moon
Comments:
4. Inquiry Laboratory
Comments s

(marble in acid)

5. SCIS Scope and Sequence
Comments:

(35 mm slides)

Berkheimer

6 . "The Nature o f Science" by Dr. Sherwood Haynes
Comments:
7. Micro-Teaching
Comments:
8. "Objectives o f Science Education and SCIS"
Berkheimer
Comments:
9. Laboratories
Comments:

(working with the kits)

_______

157
At the present time how w o u l d you describe your a t t i ­
tude toward the SCIS p r o g r a m ?
negative

neutral

positive

List b e l o w any additional comments concerning the w o r k ­
shop organization, content, or staff, w h i c h you w i s h to
express at this time.

APPENDIX D

158
Name
SCIS W o r k s h o p Evaluation,

Form 2

P l e a s e rate the following w o r k s h o p activities u s i n g a
five (5) point scale.
Give a rating o f 5 to those activ i t i e s
w h i c h you feel w i l l contribute m o s t to your t e a c h i n g o f S C I S .
Rating
1. "Overview of the SCIS Program," C a r l Be r g e r
Comments:

2. "The SCIS L i f e Sci e n c e P r o g r a m , " and "The R o l e of
t h e Teacher in SCIS Life S c i e n c e , " Chester Lawson
Comments:

3. "Principles of Learning," Berkheimer
Comments:

4. D e m o n s t r a t i o n T e a c h i n g L a b o r a t o r y
Comments:

5. D e m o n s t r a t i o n of D e v e l o p m e n t a l Stages
D o n a l d Neuman
Comments:

6 . M i c r o -Teaching:

T 3 , Ti

Comments:

7. Inquiry L a b o r a t o r y
Comments:

(classification)

(Piaget),

_______

159
Rating

8 . Piaget's Developmental Theory Films
a. Classification____________________________________ _______
b. Conservation

_______

Comments:

9. Discussion before and after Piaget
Berkheimer
Comments:

films,

At the present time how w o u l d you describe your attitude
toward the SCIS program?
(check one)
negative

neutral

positive

Use the space b e l o w for any additional comments co n c e r n ­
ing the workshop organization, content or staff.

APPENDIX E

SCIS Workshop Evaluation,

Form 3

Please rank the following activities or categories o f
activities according to the degree to w h i c h they may
contribute to your teaching of the SCIS program for the
1968-69 school year.
Place a 1_ after the one w h i c h you
feel will be most valuable; a 2 after the next highest
choice and so forth, until all are ranked.
RA N K
a. Lectures on the "Nature of Science"

____

b. Films and lectures on "Modes o f Teaching SCIS"

____

c.

____

"Psychology of Jean Piaget" activities

d. Inquiry Laboratories

____

e. Micro-teaching_______________________________________ ____
f. Demonstration teaching of specific lessons___________
g. Planning for the 1968-69 school year

____

If the workshop could be held at any time during the
summer, when w o u l d it be most valuable?
first choice second choice For the 1968-69 school year, the facilities of the Science
and Mathematics Teaching Center will be
a. of little value
b. of great value
c. of moderate value
The number of topics handled during the workshop was
a. too many for the time available
b. too few for the time available
c. satisfactory

161
5. The selection of topics was
a. adequate
b. should be rev i s e d to include—
c. should be revi s e d to o m i t —

6 . If the w o r k s h o p could be o f any duration up to a full
summer,

h o w long should it be?

first choice s econd choice 7. Were the actual w o r k s h o p activities and outcomes conr
sistent with your preconceptions of them?
Comment:

8 . Do you perceive any particular problems that m a y arise
that w e r e not brought out during the w o r k s h o p ?
Comment:

9. Has the w o r k s h o p brought about any changes in your own
ideas concerning science and the teaching of science in
the elementary school?
Comment:

10. What, if any, w o u l d you consider to be the w e a k points
of the w o r k s h o p ?

11. What, if any, w o u l d you consider to be the strong points
of the w o r k s h o p ?

12. H o w do you feel concerning your ability to adequately
teach the SCIS p r o g r a m ?

13. Has the w o r k s h o p caused you to change your perceived role
in the classroom?
Comment:

162
14. W o u l d you r e c o m m e n d this w o r k s h o p to o t h e r s ?

15. Do you feel an adequate number of st a f f m e m b e r s w e r e u s e d ?

16. W e r e you given sufficient o p p o r t u n i t y to voice any
specific problems or comments du r i n g the w o r k s h o p ?

17. If you w o u l d care to do so, please m a k e specific s u g g e s ­
tions for the improvement of the w o r k s h o p w h i c h could be
of b enefit in p l a n n i n g next summer's w o r k s h o p .

APPENDIX F

163
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E O N T E A C H E R R E A C T I O N TO TRAINING, MATERIALS,
AND
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N OF T H E SCIS P R O G R A M
By
Steven M. Barnes

This q u e s t i o n n a i r e is d e s i g n e d to sa m p l e your reactions
to the training, materials, and c l a s s r o o m i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of
the SCIS program.
Some questions m a y not a p p l y to you or
the units you teach.
Ci r c l e the numbers o f those items to
indicate that they do not apply to your situation.
Section 1

Train i n g

This section deals the various aspects o f the SCIS t r a i n ­
ing p r o g r a m and includes the workshop, Gull L a k e w e e k - e n d
conferences, b i - w e e k l y meetings, and the w o r k o f the c o n s u l ­
tants .
1. What portions of the SCIS training p r o g r a m w e r e m o s t h e l p ­
ful to y o u ?
List two.
1.

2.
2. W h a t portions of the SCIS training p r o g r a m w e r e least
helpful to y o u ?
List two.

.
2.
1

3. To w hat extent do y o u feel the feedback m e e t i n g s have
been of value as an exchange of t e a c h i n g ideas?
no value
1

2

3

4

very valua b l e
5

4. To w h a t extent do you feel the feedback meeti n g s have
b e e n o f value in p l a n n i n g for future less o n s ?
no value

1

2

3

4

v e r y valua b l e
5

164
5. D o you normally discuss the SCIS lessons w i t h fellow
SCIS teachers other than during feedback m e e t i n g s ?
never
1

2

sometimes
3

often
5

4

6 . D i d you attend the session at Gull Lake in S e p t e m b e r ?
Y e s ______

No______

7. T o what extent do you feel the activities you p a r t i c i ­
p a t e d in at Gull Lake have aided you in teaching s c i ence?
None
1

2

3

A great deal
5

4

8 . Rate the following Gull Lake activities as to their educational value and usefulness to y o u .
No Value

extremely
valuable
5

Field work

1

2

3

4

Laboratory work

1

2

3

4

5

Slides and lectures

1

2

3

4

5

What specific ideas did you gain at Gull Lake w h i c h you
have used in implementing the SCIS p r o g r a m ?

10. H o w m a n y times during the year have you contacted an
SCIS consultant?
______ none
1

______ 2-4
______ 5-10
______ m o r e than 10
11. H o w m a n y times have you tried and failed to contact an
SCIS c o n s ultant?
1

______ 2-4
______ 5-10
more than 10

165
12. Has the SCIS consultant been helpful when asked in the
areas of:
A. teaching methods
very helpful

1

neutral
3

not helpful
at all
5

B. scientific factual information
very helpful

neutral
*ar%

1

not helpful
at all
5

C. use of materials and equipment
very helpful
1
2

neutral
3

not helpful
at all
5

D. delivery of materials
very helpful

1

2

neutral

2

not helpful
at all
5

13. Did you receive adequate aid from SCIS staff when you
requested assistance?
Yes

No

If not, please list specific examples:
14. Have any problems arisen during this school year (1968-69)
w hich were not anticipated by the SCIS staff, and the
problems should be considered when planning the next w o r k ­
shop ?
Yes

No

If yes, please list.

15. Reflecting back on the summer workshop, do you now feel
that three weeks was an appropriate length?
Yes

____

No______

If no, what length would you suggest?

166
16. If asked, wo u l d you be wil l i n g to share your SCIS e xperi­
ences w i t h this summer's (1969) workshop participants?
No

Yes

If yes, to which workshop activities do you feel you
could contribute most?
17. When preparing to teach a SCIS lesson, h o w helpful were
the following portions of the Teacher's Guides.
Answer
only those questions w h i c h apply to the units you teach.
a . Material Objects
SCIENCE CONTENT INFORMATION
not helpful

1

2

3

4

very helpful
5

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
very helpful
5

not helpful

1
b . Organisms

SCIENCE CONTENT INFORMATION
not helpful

1

2

3

4

very helpful
5

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
very helpful
5

not helpful

1
c. Interaction

SCIENCE CONTENT INFORMATION
not helpful

1

2

3

4

very helpful
5

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
not helpful

1

very helpful
5

167
d . Life Cycles
SCIENCE CONTENT INFORMATION
not helpful
1

2

3

4

very helpful
5

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
not helpful

1

2

3

4

very helpful
5

18. The number of concepts developed per unit appears to be
too few

1

2

about right
3

4

too man y
5

19. The total amount of material to be covered per unit
appears to be
too

little

1

2

about right
3

4

too muc h
5

20. Student interest in Material Objects as compared to
Organisms was (is)
much lower
1

2

about the same
3

4

m u c h higher
5

21. Student interest in Interaction as compared to Life Cycles
was
much lower

1

2

Section II

about the same
3

4

much higher
5

Materials

22. To what extent have you used the SCIS Elementary Science
Sourcebook during the school year ?
never

1

2

3

4

very often
5

23. Would you recommend that living materials be shipped in
next year or purchased locally?
_____

shipped

_____

local supply

168
24. The SCIS lessons appear to b e roost appropriate
_________ abi l i t y student.

for the

low
average
high
equ a l l y a p p r o pria t e to all
1
2
3
4
25. Rate the kit o r g a n i z a t i o n a c c o r d i n g to ease of locating
m a t e r i a l s w h e n p r e p a r i n g to teach a lesson.
a . M a t e r i a l Objects
excellent
5

poor

1

2

b . O rgan i s m s
excellent
5

poor

1
c. Interactions

excellent
5

poor

1
d . L i f e Cycles

excellent
5

poor

1
S e c t i o n III

Implementation

26. Have you found a m e t h o d for d i s t r ibuting and collecting
student m a t e r i a l s w h i c h works well for you and is used
most o f t e n ?
Yes ______
If yes,

N o _______

pl e a s e describe.

distribution

collection
27. H o w w o u l d you d e s c r i b e your students' interest in the
SCIS lessons throughout the y e a r ?
Indicate by circling
one from each m o n t h .
September
J a n u ary
Ap r i l

Lo w
1
1
1

2
2
2

3
3
3

4
4
4

High
5
5
5

169
28. A p p r o x i m a t e l y h o w m a n y science lessons h a v e you taught
this year (1960-69) w h i c h w e r e not part o f the SCIS
p r o g r a m ? ______________
29.

H a v e you noticed any change(s) in your t e a c h i n g m e t h o d s
u s e d in areas other than science w h i c h m a y have r e s u l t e d
from the SCIS t r a i n i n g ? Yes
No______ ___
If yes,

30.

pl e a s e state the change(s).

E s t i m a t e the average class time per w e e k u s e d for science.
this year (1968-69)
(chefck one)
less than 1/2 hour

_______

1/2 - 1 hour

_______

______ 1 - 2
.

last year (1967-68)
(check one if applicable)

2 - 3

hours

_______

hours

_______

over 3 hours
31.

______

Indicate student interest in science last year
as c o m p a r e d to this year (1968-69) .
m u c h lower
(last year)
1

2

3

4

(1967-68)

m u c h h i gher
(last year)
5

32. H o w m a n y fellow non-SCIS teachers h a v e t a l k e d to you
s p e c i fically concerning the SCIS p r o g r a m ?
0

_________

1-3

_________

4-7

_________ 8-15
_________

16 or over

W h a t has b e e n the nature of their c o m m e n t s ?
33.

Have you h a d visitors other than the SCIS staff in your
c l a s s r o o m during a SCIS lesson?
Yes ______ No_______

170
If yes,

has their presence detracted from the lesson?

none
1

2

3

a great deal
5

4

34. H o w m a n y parents have commented to you concerning the
SCIS p r o g r a m ? Check one.
0

_________ 1-5

6-10
11-20
21 or over
What has been

the nature o f

these comments ?

35. H o w many times has your principal
during a SCIS lesson?

visited your classroom

0
1

_________ 2-3
_________ 4-6
_________ more

than 6

36. Has he (she) made comments concerning the SCIS pro g r a m ?
Yes ____
No_______
If yes, what has been their general nature?
very positive
1

2

3

4

very negative
5

37. H o w many parents have visited your classroom during a
SCIS lesson?
0

_____

1

_________ 2-3
_________ 4-6
more than 6

171
38. C o m p a r e d to the amount of p r e p a r a t i o n time r e q u i r e d for
M a t e r i a l Objects lessons X found the time r e q u i r e d for an
O r g a n i s m s lesson to be
m u c h less
about equal
much more
1
2
3
4
5
39. C o m p a r e d to the amount of p r e p a r a t i o n time r e q u i r e d for
an I n t e r a c t i o n lesson, I found the time r e q u i r e d for
Life Cycles lessons to be
m u c h less
1

2

about equal
3

much more
5

4

40. What are the two major problems you have e n c o u n t e r e d w h e n
filling out the feedback forms?

1.
2.
To w h a t ex t e n d do you feel you have b e n e f i t t e d as a r e s u l t
of c omple t i n g the forms ?
none
1

2

If you answ e r e d 2-5,

3

4

a great deal
5

in what w a y did you b e n e f i t ?

41. H o w soon after t e a c h i n g a SCIS
out the feedback form?

lesson do you u s u a l l y fill

_________ the same day
_________

the next day

_________ w i t h i n a w e e k
_________ w i t h i n 2 weeks
42. H o w do you usu a l l y return the forms to the Sci e n c e and
M a t h e m a t i c s Teac h i n g C e n t e r ?
_________ by m a i 1
_________ give to a consultant
43. What means do you use most often to transmit
the T r i a l C e n t e r ?
_________ Teacher Reaction Sheet
_________

tell a consultant
tell Dr. Berkheimer

feedback to

172
44. In comparison to the amount of time I would normally
expect to spend in preparing to teach science, the SCIS
program requires:
much less time
1

2

same time
3

4

much more time
5

45. In comparison to the amount of time I spend in preparing
to teach other subjects, the SCIS program requires:
much less time
1

2

same
3

time
4

much more time
5

46. I have found the discipline problem during SCIS lessons,
as compared to other subject area lessons, to be
much less
1

2

the same
3

4

much greater
5

47. To get student participation during the SCIS lessons,
compared to other subject area lessons, is
much harder
1

2

about the same
3

4

much easier
5

48. Given the choice, w o u l d you use the SCIS materials next
year ?
definitely no
1

2

no opinion
3

4

definitely yes
5

49. Assuming that you will teach SCIS again next year, rela­
tive to this year, how much time would you devote to it?
m uc h less
1

2

same
3

4

much more
5

50. I consider the ability of m y students to be
below average
1

2

average
3

4

above average
5

51.

What feature of the SCIS program do you like

best?

52.

What feature of the SCIS program do you like

least?

53.

To what extent have the problems with shipment of materials
caused a disruption as far as your classroom is concerned?
none
1

2

3

4

a great deal
5

173
54. T e s ts should b e d e v e l o p e d for each unit to b e u s e d for
student evaluation.
strongly disagree
1

2

no o p i n i o n
3

4

S t r o n g l y a gree
5

55. H o w important has k n o w l e d g e of P i a g e t ' s D e v e l o p m e n t a l
P s y c h o l o g y b e e n to you in p l a n n i n g a n d t e a c h i n g a SCIS
l e sson?
no importance
1

2

3

4

v e r y i m p o rtant
5

56. List
spec i f i c examples o f class r o o m b e h a v i o r o f your
students w h i c h w e r e r e l a t e d the d e v e l o p m e n t a l psycho l o g y .
1

.

2.
57. To w hat extent have you s t r e s s e d the proce s s e s o f science
this year (1968-69) as o p p o s e d to last year C l 9 6 7 - 6 8 ) ?
m u c h less
1

2

3

4

much more
5

58. To w hat extent have you stre s s e d factual informati o n
s c i ence class this year as o p p o s e d to last y e a r ?
Ci r c l e one
m u c h less
1

2

about the same
3

4

in

much more
5

59. To w hat extent h a v e your students p a r t i c i p a t e d in science
discussions this year as opp o s e d to last y e a r ?
C i r c l e one
m u c h less
1

2

about the same
3

4

m u c h more
5

60. To what extent do you feel you h a v e asked converge n t or
factual type questions this year as o p p o s e d to last y e a r ?
Th e proportion of convergent questions this year has
b e e n ____________ than the p r o p o r t i o n asked last year.
(Circle one to complete the blank)
m u c h less
1

2

about the same
3

4

much greater
5

174
61. T o w hat extent do you feel adequate as an elementary
science teacher this year as opposed to last year?
m u c h less
1

2

about the same
3

4

m u c h more
5

62. I feel the total number of questions I ask during a
science lesson this year as opposed to last year is:
m u c h less
1

2

about the same
3

4

much greater
5

63. To what extent has the presence of sound recording e q u i p ­
m e n t in your classroom during SCIS lessons affected vour
teaching ?
none
1

2

moderately
3

4

a great deal
5

64. In what ways did the recording effect your teaching?

65. To w h at extent do you feel that the recording equipment
has directly or indirectly affected your students'
behavior ? ___________
none
1

2

moderately
3

4

a great deal
5

6 6 . Was this a positive ______ or negative ______ effect?
(Check one)
67. Do you feel that the presence of the consultants has either
p o s i t ively or negatively affected your teaching?
p o s i t ively ______
n egatively ______
neither _________
If either positively or negatively,
very little
1

2

3

to what extent?
4

a great deal
5

6 8 . Research is such an important aspect of curriculum d e v e l o p ­
ment, small distractions must be tolerated.
strongly disagree
1

2

neutral
3

4

strongly agree
5

175

69. Please rank the following workshop activities or categories
of activities according to the degree to which they c o n ­
tributed to your teaching of the SCIS program for the 196~69 school year. Place a 1 aftter the one which you feel was
most valuable; a 2 after the next highest choice and so
forth until the numerals 1-7 have been used.
a. Lectures on the "Nature of Science?
b. Films and lectures on "Modes of Teaching SCIS"
c.

"Psychology of Jean Piaget" activities

d. Inquiry Laboratories
e. Micro-teaching
f. Demonstration teaching of specific lessons
g. Planning for the 1968-69 school year

Rank
_________

APPENDIX G

176
SCIS
TEACHER REACTION SHEET
P l e a s e comp l e t e one sheet for each s c i e n c e session.
U n i t ______________

Chapter

or A c t i v i t y _______________________

D a t e ______________

Le s s o n

number w i t h i n A c t i v i t y __________

Teacher
P r e p a r a t i o n time __________

School ____________
Class time u s e d __________(minutes)

C o m p l e t e only those items a p p r o p r i a t e to this science session.
1.

S uccess R a t i n g of the Lesson

(circle the number)

S t u d e n t - M a t e r i a l s Interaction
S t u d e n t - S t u d e n t I n t e raction
T e a c h e r - S t u d e n t Interaction
S tudent A c t i v i t v P a g e #

High
5
5
5
5

4
4
4
4

3
3
3
3

2
2
2
2

High
2.

Teacher's Manual Directions

5

Low
1
1
1
1
Low

4

3

Improvement ne e d e d on p a g e _____ p a r a g r a p h

2

1

________

Comment:
3.

(Check the a p p r o priate b l a n k or b l a n k s ) .
This lesson w a s taught as a(n) e x p l o r a t o r y lesson ___
invention lesson _____
d i s c o v e r y lesson _____
High

4.

Materials

5

Low
4

3

2

1

Comment on improvement needed:
5. P lease describe additi o n a l ideas and activities you
used.
(Use other side if needed)

6 . Other comments,
side if needed)

problems,

or suggestions.

(Use other

APPENDIX H

177
Table 29.

Teacher
Character­
istics
SCIS Test
MTAI Aug.
MTAI April
Age
Total S c i .
Tch. Exp.
Process 1
Process 2
A
16 PF
B
16 PF
C
16 PF
E
16 PF
F
16 PF
16 PF
G
H
16 PF
I
16 PF
L
16 PF
M
16 PF
N
16 PF
16 PF
0
16 PF
Qi
16 PF
Q2
16 PF
Qs
16 PF

Pearson product-moment correlations between speci
fied teacher characteristics and the ranking of
workshop activities.

a
.0780
-.2287
.1594
-.0210
.1175
-.0673
-.1941
.0289
-.3599*
-.0913
-.0576
.3411*
-.2117
-.0865
-.0816
-.0209
-.1839
-.0386
.2192
-.0209
-.1761
-.0151
.1324
-.0321

b

Mean Activity Rank
August
c
d
e

-.1329
.1136
.0436
.0436
-.2041 -.0074
.0843 -.3910*
.1522
-.3263
.1254 -.2734
.1639 -.1977
.0303
-.1127
-.0330
-.0085
.0197
-.1513
-.2149 -.1617
.0844 -.0489
.0708
.0263
-.1647
.1456
-.2994 -.1289
.0010 -.3358
.0113 -.2988
.1635 -.3862*
-.6276* -.1493
.0537
.0085
-.0245 -.4054*
.0022
-.1890
-.4593** .0345
.1934 -.0491

* significant at the .05 level.
** significant at the .01 level.

f

g

.1888 -.2626
.1249 -.1788
-.1836
.0605
.2194
.0152
-.1067
.0134
.1607 -.0532
-.4765** .4566* * .3187
.0658
.1234
.0229 -.1596
.0316
-.2876
.0250
.3225
.2095
-.3623*
.1542
.0972
.3486*
.2385 -.2072 -.0602
.0325
.3572*
-.1841
-.1173
.3528*
-.1786
.2041
.0469
.0921
-.0374
.3403
.0727
.0250
.2261 -.3259 -.1893 -.0480
.0573 -.1236 -.1208
.2762
.0412
.2612 -.1601 -.0334
.2399
.1461
.2113 -.1432
-.3188
.1281
.4567** .0473.
.0566
.2214 -.0070
.1858
-.2167
.2409
.4328* -.1912
.3910* -.0432 -.0373
.0975
-.0610 -.0274
.0544 -.0038
.0953
.0660
.1168
.2580
.3130
.1616 -.1550 -.1410
.4493** .1745 -.1450 -.2565
-.1731 -.1252
.0801
.1234

178

a

b

.0645
-.2009
-.2233
.1789
.1383
-.1776
.0080
.2539
-.1262
-.1547
-.1445
-.1248
-.3717*
-.1539
.1802
-.2249
-.1797
.0666
-.0946
.0155
-.0997
.0120
.2522
-.2083
.0833
.1564
-.1028
-.0090
-.1137
-.1564
.1527
-.1283
-.3844* - .0046
-.2983
.0245
.0093
.0615
-.0206
.0891
.1576
-.1907
-.2472
-.0651
.1587
-.0970
.0852
-.0286

M e a n A c t i v i t y Rank
April
c
d
e
-.2336
.2499
-.1542
.0916
-.1527
.097 6
.2047
-.1796
-.0244
.0172
-.1165
-.0103
-.3826*
.2650
-.3597*
.3106
.1572
-.3050
.2882
-.0922
-.2587
-.0006
- .2348
-.1803
-.1252
-.07 65
.3005
-.1143
-.1382
-.1680
.2292
-. 1020
.1128
-.0034
.1362
-.2281
-.0597
- .0584
-.0268
.0187
-.4675* *-.1081
-.1411
.0485
.1703
-.0574
•2469
-.0973

-.0404
-.0984
.0563
-.0380
.3044
.1449
-.0165
-.0664
.0506
-.2787
.3353
.0118
-.2271
.2740
.2788
-.3091
-.1001
-.1641
.1317
-.2834
.0436
.1711
.4021*
-. 1 3 5 5

f

g

.3090
-.0469
-.0247
.1908
- .0960
.0979
-.0293
-.2227
-.2710
.1741
.1298
-.0556
.0673
.4144*
-.0549
.2075
-.0158
.1293
.0311
.1137
-.1008
.0561
.0986
.2618
-.0624
.2364
-.2333
-.1080
-.0928
.2677
.1268
.0240
.1617
.1144
.2421
.2386
-.1851
.07 69
.0833
.1349
.3474*
.1630
-.0181
.1131
-.2878
-.2346
-.0078
-.0377

APPENDIX I

179
Table 30.

Pearson product-moment correlations between specified
teacher characteristics and information der i v e d from
the teacher reaction sheets.

Teacher
Character­
istics

Total
Feedback

Feedback
Index

M e a n Interaction Ratines
StudentStudent- T e a c h e r Materials
Student
Student

SCIS Test
MTAI A u g .
MTAI April
Age
Total S c i .
Tch. Exp.
Process 1
Process 2
A
16 PF
B
16 PF
C
16 PF
E
16 PF
F
16 PF
G
16 PF
H
16 PF
I
16 PF
L
16 PF
M
16 PF
N
16 PF
O
16 PF
16 PF
Qi
16 PF
q2
16 PF
q3
16 PF
q 4

.2439
.2672
.3750*
.1684
-.0856
.2092
.3703*
.1086
.2451
.1756
.5709**
-.1840
.1535
.2188
.1230
.0830
-.2379
-.3281
.1736
-.4618**
.0352
-.0955
-.0568
-.1962

.1052
-.0032
.2434
-.0291
-.0226
.1948
.0434
.2545
-.0105
-.1664
.2661
.2520
.1325
.0847
.1547
-.1582
-.1374
-.2646
.3469*
-.2413
.1802
.2116
.2611
-.2416

-.0668
-.3068
-.2507
.1864
-.0275
.0519
-.1121
-.0549
.1229
-.0267
-.3889*
-.0074
.1143
.0721
-.2053
.1683
.0871
-.1030
-.3234
.1956
.1425
-.2495
-.2534
.1470

* significant at the
** significant at the

.05 level.
.01 level.

-.2533
-.3119
-.2374
.1570
.2358
-.0050
-.1972
-.2520
-.0697
-.1172
-.3030
.1147
-.0198
-.07 50
-.1742
.0021
.1072
.1000
-.0705
.1038
.0446
-.0378
-.0660
.0746

-.2802
-.3346
-.3541*
.2217
.1629
-.0196
-.0614
-.0380
.0034
.2419
-.3741*
.0410
-.1179
-.0469
-.2799
.1927
.3580*
.1256
-.0108
.3386
-.0119
-.0115
-.0213
.3374

180

M e a n Ratinqs
T e a c h e r 1s
Guide
Directions
Materials
.0246
.1830
.1520
.1998
-.1144
.1740
.1892
-.1192
=4826**
.2938
.3745*
-.1408
.2627
.2018
.3144
.1330
-.1001
-.2261
.0650
-.5684**
.0475
-.1648
.1289
n r> i O

-.3246
.1860
-.0223
.2249
.1117
.0740
.0959
-.2117
.1786
-.1324
.2366
-.3512*
.0999
.3164
.0256
-.0147
-.3446
-.0051
-.2548
.0293
-.1951
-.2934
-.1825
-.0469

Comments
T e a c h e r 's
Guide
D irect i o n s
.1567
.3005
.3877*
-.0728
-.1576
-.0511
.2530
.3419*
.0629
.0544
.3842*
.2 612
.1135
.1192
.1059
-.0769
-.3185
-.1600
.2513
-.4297*
.1267
-.0134
-.0102
-.0798

Materials
.2728
.2853
.3633*
-.2187
.0182
-.0630
.2 663
.4474**
.2825
.1342
.3316
.3418*
.2686
-.0641
.3816*
-.2450
-.1167
-.0558
.2809
-.4817**
.3119
.0643
.1113
-.1815

General
-.0033
.0961
.3408*
.2890
-.0996
.4030*
.2178
.1302
.1989
-.1077
.5396**
-.0650
.1320
.1272
.2053
.0411
.0188
-.3735*
.1956
-.3303
.2059
-.0815
-.0626
-.0748

APPENDIX J

181
T a b l e 31.

B r i e f descriptions o f factors in t h e 16 P F T e s t *

Low Score Description

High Score Description

A

Aloof,

Warm,

B

Dull,

C

Emotional, Unstable,
L o w Ego S t r e n g t h

Mature, Calm,
Strength

E

Submissive, M i l d

Dominant,

F

Sober,

G

Expedient, Casual,
Supe r e g o Strength

H

Shy, Timid, A u t o n o m i c a l l y
Over-reactive

A d v a n t u r o u s , "Thick
Skinned"

I

Tough-minded,

Tender-minded,
protected

L

Trustful,

14

Conventional,

N

Forthright,

O

Confident,

Qi

Conservative,

Qz

Group-dependent,
Imita t i v e

Self-sufficient,
Resourceful

Qa

Lax, L o w Self-concept
Integration

Controlled, Integr a t e d
Self- s e n t i m e n t

cu

Relaxed,

S u p p r e s s e d Ergic T e n s i o n

Fa c t o r

Cool,

Reserved

Bright,

L o w Capa c i t y

Prudent,

Depressed
Low

Realistic

Adaptable
Practical

Artless
Placid
Cautious

Expressed

Easy-going
Intelligent
High Ego

Aggressive

Enthusiastic, H a p p y - g o lucky, E l a t e d
Conscientious, Higher
Superego Strength

Jealous,

Paranoid

Imaginative,
Shrewd,

Over­

Artistic

Polished

Insecure,

Guilt-prone

Experimenting,
Rad i c a l

Critical

*

R a y m o n d B. Cattell a n d Herbert W. Eber, Six t e e n P e r s o n a l i t y
F a c t o r H a n d b o o k , Champaign, Illinois:
Insti t u t e for P e r s o n ­
a lity and A b i l i t y Testing, 1967, pp. 11-19.

APPEN D I X K

182
S e p t e m b e r 20,

1968

To:

SC1S Teachers A t t e n d i n g The K e l l o g g Gull Lake C o n f e r ­
ence, Sept. 28-29.

From:

G l e n n D. Berkheimer,

SCIS Trial Ce n t e r Coordin a t o r .

W e l c o m e to a busy, but r e w a r d i n g week e n d .
for field t r i p s — bring boots, w e a r o l d clothes
s h o r t s ) , and be ready to hike.

Be p r e p a r e d
(slacks not

Most teachers will go to Gull L a k e Friday, Septe m b e r
27, and the Gull Lake officials w o u l d like you to b e there
b y 7:30 p.m.
If this is inconvenient, p l e a s e phone one of
t he consultants and inform him o f your arrival time.
We
w i l l a r range your registration.
T h e schedule for S a t u r d a y a n d Sunday:
8:00 - 9:00 a.m.

Lec t u r e on e c o l o g y r e l a t e d to field
work.

9:00 -12:00

F i e l d W o r k — S t u d y ecosystems, take
m easurements, and collect specimens.

1 : 00 -

a.m.

2:00 p.m.

D i s c u s s i o n o f the
experiences.

m o r n i n g field

2:00 - 4:30 p.m.

A study o f s e l e c t e d s p e c i m e n s — i d e ntify
plants a n d animals and study r e l a t i o n ­
ships w i t h i n the e n v i r o n m e n t .

4:30 -

S u m m a t i o n of field a n d laborat o r y
experiences.

5:30 p.m.

S a t u r d a y evening Dr. Porter w i l l s h o w slides and discuss
other e c o s y s t e m s .
Phone numbers:
S ci e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s T e a c h i n g C enter
3 55- 1 7 2 5
Dr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.

Be r k h e i m e r
Barnes
Bruce
Moon

337-2382
355-9954
355-3150
67 6-2979

183
M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y

e a s t l a n s i n g . M ic h ig a n 48823

SO H N CB A N D M ATHEM ATICS TB A CH IN O CEN TER • M cD O N EL HALL

M a r c h 7, 1969

Dear
Part o f our responsibility as an SCIS trial center is
to conduct research rel a t e d to the SCIS program.
Research
can p r o vide information upon w h i c h science education d e c i ­
sions can be based, but research is usually hard work for
the researcher and inconvenient for the p a r t i c i p a n t s .
Realizing this w e want to sincerely thank you for your c o n ­
tributions to the research studies thus far.
While teaching the process o f observation m a n y of you
have taught the children that you must observe before and
after the event to collect evidence of interaction for com­
parisons.
This is a fundamental notion in science wh i c h
applies also to the research that Larry, Tom, and Steve are
conducting.
The observations that they have made so far are o f no
value unless they can m a k e the final o b s e r v a t i o n s . I urge
you, therefore, to cooperate w i t h them in collecting the
last p o rtion o f data that is essential to their research
and to the completion of their doctoral dissertations.
I assure you that all the information collected is held
in the strictest confidence.
Only Larry, Tom, and Steve
will ever k n o w your scores.
T h an k i n g you for your continued cooperation in building
better science experiences for children, I remain
Cordially yours,

Glenn D . Berkheimer
SCIS Trial Center Coordinator

184
M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y

e a s t l a n s i n g . M ic h ig a n 48823

SCIENCE A N D MATHEMATICS TEA CH IN G CENTER . M cDONHL HALL

March 7, 1969

Dear
We hope your vacation will be a pleasant one and k n o w
that you are looking forward to the remainder of the year.
As you are aware, the three of us are attempting to finish
our degrees and your continued help is most urgently needed.
Your patience and understanding is appreciated.
Without
your cooperation, the attainment of our degrees is virtually
impossible.
We must now appeal to you for another favor.
On Saturday, April 19, we would like to invite you to
a luncheon.
Prior to the luncheon w e would like to adminis­
ter the last instruments of our studies.
We will have coffee
and rolls served at 9:00 a.m. after which we plan to ad m i n ­
ister the two instruments and final questionnaire at intervals
throughout the remainder of the morning.
We will then go to
the "63" Room of McDonel Hall for lunch and visiting.
Since
the instruments are not overly demanding and time consuming,
this should be an enjoyable as well as profitable morning.
If anyone anticipates transportation problems, one of
us w i l l be happy to pick you up and return you to your home.
T he importance of your attendance on Saturday, April 19,
cannot be overemphasized.
We realize that the luncheon is a
small thing, but it is a token of our sincere appreciation
for your continued s u p p o r t . We say continued because without
these final measures all of our research would have been to
no avail and our degrees cannot be completed.
Again, thank you and may the remainder o f the year be
both rewarding and successful.
Sincerely,

185

SCHEDULE
Saturday, April 19, 1969

9:00 a.m.
9:30 a.m.

Coffee and rolls at Science & Mathematics
Teaching Center, McDonel Hall.
First instrument administered.

1 0:15 a.m.

(or as you finish)

Coffee.

10:30 a.m.

Final questionnaire administered.

11:15 a.m.

(or as you finish)

1 1:30 a.m.

Second instrument administered.

12:15 p.m.

Lunch.

Coffee.

186

We will need the following for reservations:
I will attend Saturday morning, April 19, 1969.
I will need transportation to and from McDonel Hall.

Signed__________________________

Steve, Larry or Tom will personally pick up the above
reservation slip.
Thank y o u .

Phone N u m b e r s :
Steve Barnes
Larry B r uc e
Tom Moon

355-9954
355-3150
67 6-2797

(Mason)

187

A p r i l 11,

1969

Dear SCIS Teachers:
T h is short note is a reminder o f the Sci e n c e C u r r i c u ­
lum Improvement Study's
A p r i l 19.
a.m.

conference scheduled

for Saturday,

Pl e a s e meet in R o o m 101C, M c D o n e l Hall,

at 9:00

C o f f e e a n d donuts w i l l b e s e r v e d in a d d i t i o n to the

noon luncheon.

W e g r e a t l y ap p r e c i a t e your attendance and

look f o rward to seeing you again.

Ple a s e t e l e p h o n e us at

the b e l o w number if you n e e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n for that day.
Sincerely,
S teve Barnes
L a r r y Bruce
Tom Moon

E —37 M c D o n e l Hall
MSU
Phone:
355-1725

188
May 5, 1969
TO:

SCIS Teachers

FROM:

Glenn D. Berkheimer, SCIS Trial Center Coordinator

SUBJECT:

The Kellogg Gull Lake Conference, May 17 & 18, 1969

Welcome to a busy, but rewarding weekend.
Be prepared
for field trips— bring boots, wear old clothes (slacks not
s h o r t s ) , and be ready to hike.
Bring plastic bags or contain­
ers for specimen collection and insect repellent.
Most teachers will go to Gull Lake Friday, May 16, and the
Gull Lake officials would like you to be there by 8:30 p.m.
If it is necessary for you to arrive later than 8:30 p.m.
please phone one of the consultants and inform him of your
arrival time.
We will arrange your registration.
Meals furnished will be:
breakfast, lunch, and dinner
on Saturday; breakfast and lunch on Sunday.
We will plan to
leave b y 4:00 p.m. Sunday, M a y 18, 1969.
The schedule for Saturday:
8:00 - 9:00 a.m.

Lecture on ecology related to field
work.

9:00 -12:00 a.m.

Field W o r k — Study ecosystems, take
measurements, and collect specimens.

1:00 - 2:00 p.m.

Discussion of the morning field
e x p e r iences.

2:00 - 4:30 p.m.

A study of selected specimens— identify
plants and animals and study relation­
ships within the environment.

4:30 - 5:30 p.m.

Summation of field and laboratory
e x p e r iences.

Saturday evening Dr. Porter will show slides and discuss
other e c o s y s t e m s .
The schedule for Sunday will be similar except we will
leave b y 4:00 p.m.
Phone numbers:

Science and Mathematics Teaching Center
355-1725
Dr. Berkheimer
337-2383
M r . Barnes
355-9954
Mr. Bruce
355-3150
Mr. Moon
676-27 97

Please bring:
Life Science Teacher's Guide
_________________ SCIS Elementary Science Sourcebook

189
SCIS G U L L LAKE CONFERENCE
M a y 17 - 18, 1969
1.

T h e Kellogg Gull Lake Biological Station is located on
the Northeast shore of Gull Lake and has a Hickory
Corners telephone exchange.

2.

Phone 616-671-5116.

M-43 through Grand Ledge is probably the simplest route
to get to Gull Lake.

3.

By car it w i l l prob a b l y take approximately 1& hours
from M i c h i g a n State University to Gull Lake.

4.

P a r ticipants should be registered by 9:00 p.m. on
Friday,

M a y 16,

1969,

at the station.

Field studies

w i l l begin at 8:00 a.m. on Saturday, M a y 17,
We w i l l leave b y 4:00 p.m. M a y 18,
5.

If convenient,

1969.

please form car pools to save expenses.

6 . If you have any questions,
Steve Barnes,

1969.

please call Dr. Berkheimer,

Larry Bruce, or Tom M o o n at 355-1725.

I I | wi 11
j— | .^

t

At t e n d the SCIS Kellogg Gull Lake
Conference, M a y 17-18, 1969

(signed)