An investigation of affective curricular practice in secondary science education

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content INVESTIGATION OF AFFECTIVE CURRICULAR PRACTICE
IN SECONDARY SCIENCE EDUCATION
by
Ray A. Gatfield
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
December 199 0
Copyright 1990 Ray A. Gatfield
UMI Number: DP25333
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
Dissertation Publ shmg
UMI DP25333
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
This dissertation, written by
........RAY ^ A . J3 AT FIE L D............
under the direction of h .is. Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re
quirements fo r the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H ILO S O P H Y
D ean o f G raduate Studies
D a te....
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
C hairperson
ii
DEDICATION
The completion of this dissertation was made
possible by countless individuals. To a few I owe special
thanks:
First, my parents, Walt and Louise, you have
supported me throughout my entire academic career. I can
never adequately thank you for what you have done for me.
Dad, this effort is in honor of your memory.
To my daughters, Kristin and Lindsey, for years you
watched patiently as I studied and wrote. Thank you for
your understanding even when it meant I was not always
available.
Finally, to my wonderful wife Doris, your under
standing and love have made our dreams come true. You have
been my inspiration and motivation to succeed. I thank you
for the long hours that you put into this endeavor. I
dedicate this dissertation to you with love.
iii
ACKNOWLE DGMENTS
I want to take this opportunity to express my
gratitude to the members of my doctoral committee for their
support and encouragement during the entire dissertation
process. I want to thank Dr. Jerald Jellison, Dr. Allan
Odden, and Dr. Leo Richards, a member of my committee in
the early stages of dissertation development, for their
generous assistance.
A special thanks goes to Dr. Frances Klein who for
several years guided my doctoral studies and facilitated
the dissertation focus. To Dr. Johanna Lemlech who helped
bring me to and across the finish line, I am truly in
debted.
iv
TABLE^ of contents
Page
DEDICATION.................'.............................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES...........................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................ix
«
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE . 1
Affective Domain and Science Education
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Importance of the Study
Assumptions of the Study
Delimitations of the Study
Limitations of the Study
Definitions of Terms
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
II. ^REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE............ . . . . 2 3
Overview of the Affective Domain
Proposed Taxonomies
Affective Domain and Education
Affective Domain and Science Education
Affective Goals— Science Education
Affective Science Objectives
Affective* Teaching Strategies/Learning
Activities
Affective Evaluation Strategies
Affective Curricular Practice and the
Allocation of Time
Barriers to the Operationalization of the
Affective Domain
Review of the Chapter
Chapter
III. METHODOLOGY ................... .............
Selection of the Sample
Survey Instrument
Procedures Used to Develop the
Questionnaire
Establishing Validity of the Questionnaire
Field-Testing the Questionnaire
Questionnaire Reliability
Analysis of the Data
Summary of the Chapter
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA/PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS . .
Summary of Demographic Data
Major Research Questions and Findings
Summary of the Findings
V. SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................
Summary
Selected Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
i
| BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................
APPENDIXES ......................................
A. Permission to Conduct Study and
Follow-Up Letter Sent to Site
Administrators.........................
B. Questionnaire Cover Letter ...........
C. Thank You and Follow-Up Letter to
Site Administrators ...................
D. Questionnaire Follow-Up Letter........
E. Request for Permission to Conduct
Study in Catholic School...............
F. Questionnaire .........................
G. Tables of Data .......................
v
Page
109
1 2 5
I
i
i
168
1 87 I
i
1 9 8 |
1 9 9 i
201 !
I
2 03
2 0 5
2 07
210
2 1 8
I
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Number and Percentage of Respondents by
School Type and Curricular Perspective.......... 116
2. Color Legend for Questionnaires.................. 116
3. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents in
Public School Sample............................. 219
4. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents in
Catholic School Sample........................... 219
5. Level of Education by Groups..................... 220
i
6. Distribution of Sex by Groups................... 221
7. Distribution of Age by Groups................... 222
8. Years of Educational Work Experience by Group . 22 3
9. Credentials Held by Each Group................... 224
10. Undergraduate Degree Emphasis by Groups . . . . 225
11. Primary Teaching Responsibilities by Groups . . 226
12. Number of Professional Affiliations/Activities
by Each Group....................................227
13. Average Affectiveness Score in Percent for
Each Item by All Groups.........................228
14. Average Total Affectiveness Score for Each
Curricular Perspective ....................... 229
15. Level of Importance of Affective Science
Objectives by Groups .......................... 230
16. Weighted Level of Importance for Affective
Objectives by Three Curricular Perspectives . . 2 34
17. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Importance of Affective Objectives
by Each Group................... 235
vii
Table Page
18. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Importance by Demographic Data . . . . 23 6
19. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Importance by Demographic Data . . . . 237
20. Level of Agreement of Affective Teaching
Strategies by Groups...........................239
21. Weighted Level of Agreement for Affective
Teaching Strategies by Three Curricular
Perspectives................................... 24 3
22. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Agreement for Affective Teaching
Strategies by each Group.......................244
23. Level of Agreement of Affective Student
Evaluation Strategies by Groups ............... 245
24. Weighted Level of Agreement for Affective
Student Evaluation Strategies by Three
Curricular Perspectives ....................... 249
25. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Agreement for Affective Evaluation
Strategies by Each Group......................... 250
26. Extent of Use of Affective Teaching Strategies
by Groups........................................251
27. Weighted Extent of Use of Affective Teaching
Strategies by Three Curricular Perspectives . .255
28. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Extent of Use for Affective Teaching
Strategies by Each Group......................... 256
29. Extent of Use of Affective Student Evaluation
Strategies by Groups .......................... 257
30. Weighted Extent of Use of Affective Evaluation
Strategies by Three Curricular Perspectives . .261
31. Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Extent of Use for Affective Evaluation
Strategies by Each Group................. 262
viii
Table
32 .
33.
34.
35.
36.
37 .
38.
39.
40.
41.
42 .
43 .
44.
Page
Percentage of Instructional Time Spent vs.
Should be Spent Operationalizing the
Affective Domain..................................263
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Extent of Use for Teaching Strategies and
Evaluation Strategies by Demographic Data . . .2 64
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Agreement for Teaching Strategies
and Evaluation Strategies by Demographic
D a t a ....................................
Extent to Which Factors Impede
Operationalization of the Affective Domain
by Groups ................................
Weighted Extent to Which Factors Impede
Operationalization of Affective Domain by
Three Curricular Perspectives ................. 272
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Extent Impedes by Each G r o u p ...................273
Level of Agreement that Sources Help Science
Instructors Operationalize the Affective
Domain by All Groups............................ 274
Weighted Level of Agreement of Sources that
Help Operationalize the Affective Domain by
Curricular Perspectives ...................
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Level of Agreement by Each Group ........
Extent to Which Practitioners Use Sources to
Operationalize the Affective Domain in
Science Curriculum ............................ 280
278 |
I
279 ^
*
266 I
268
Weighted Extent of Use of Sources to
Operationalize the Affective Domain by
Curricular Perspective ....................... 284
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted
Extent of Use by All Groups.....................285
Curriculum Elements Obtained From Selected
Sources by Teachers............................. 286
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Martin and Briggs proposed taxonomy
for the affective domain ................. 35
2. A curriculum framework for a study of
schooling........................................11°
1
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS IMPORTANCE
i
For decades scholars and practitioners at various
academic levels have grappled with the age old issue: What !
education is best for all students? What outcomes are
important and what should be taught in schools is clearly a
fundamental curricular issue. Over the years the affective
concerns of the curriculum seem to have taken a peripheral
role in education. In fact, current trends in curricular
i
practice suggest a renewed emphasis on the measured curricu
lum. According to Klein (198 6) the measured curriculum
emphasizing accountability and cognitive development has a !
I
firm hold on educational practice. I
i
Despite the apparent emphasis on the measured ■
i
curriculum, the American public is concerned with value j
l
)
development in such virtues as honesty, integrity, generosi
ty, independence, and fidelity (Bennett, 1988). Clearly,
these virtues are within the realm of educational outcomes
associated with the affective domain. In light of the
apparent dichotomy between an entrenched measured curriculum
2
and the importance of affective outcomes, questions arise
relative to current curricular practice designed to attain
the affective outcomes of education.
The literature is replete with potential terms
associated with the affective domain of learning, yet there
is little agreement among educators as to what precisely
constitutes this domain (Beane, 1985/86; Martin & Briggs,
1986).
i
Although almost 2 6 years old and the most well known
attempt to define and conceptualize the affective domain
remains the Affective Taxonomy by Krathwohl, Bloom, and
Maisa developed in 1964. They defined the affective domain
I as including the development of a learner's "interests,
. . . i
attitudes, appreciations, values, and emotional sets or
biases" (1964, p. 7). Beane (1985/86, p. 26) offered a [
similar definition and suggested that the affective domain ;
I
included, "those aspects of human nature and conduct having j
to do with emotions, feelings, values, attitudes, predispo- j
I sitions, and morals." Still others, according to Krathwohl ,
j et al. (1964), will define the affective domain as every- '
| thing not specifically covered in the cognitive domain, j
! i
Clearly, with such diverse parameters used to delineate the
i
affective domain it is no wonder questions persist concern- |
ing current curricular intent and practice.
The literature is abound with authors who have noted
the importance of the affective domain to educational
3
practice (Briggs, 1984; Johnson, 1974; Kelley, 1965;
Krathwohl et al., 1964; Martin & Briggs, 1986). Gephart and
Ingle (1976, p. 3) posited, "No longer is data on achieve
ment sufficient. Educators are now being asked questions
about attitudes, feelings, interests, values, etc."
Similarly, Payne (197 6) urged educators not to overemphasize
the cognitive domain at the expense of the affective domain.
Recently, Beane (1985/86, p. 27) declared, "In short it is
l
theoretically and practically worthwhile for us to under- |
stand that affective education is a necessary condition for
i
effective education." Finally, Martin and Briggs (1986) |
l
indicated that attainment of affective goals looking at
values, attitudes, morals, ethics and human relations has
once again become an educational priority.
Traditional curriculum works have long since acknowl
edged the importance of considering three domains of
learning, cognitive, affective and psychomotor, for a
I
i
comprehensive curriculum. Since Tyler's (1949) seminal j
i
work, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, j
numerous curriculum texts have alluded to or explicitly '
i
advocated the inclusion of each domain in the curriculum, j
I
For example, Zais (1976) proposed developing goals and
objectives similar to Bloom's Cognitive Taxonomy (1956),
Krathwohl's Affective Taxonomy (1964) and the PsychomotorJ
Taxonomies of Harrow (1972) and Simpson (19 66) . More
recently, Wiles and Bondi (1984, p. 100) noted, "If we are
committed to identifying valued learning outcomes that
reflect the 'holistic' nature of individuals, then we must
insist that goal statements, whether found in state depart
ment publications or classrooms, reflect a balance of
objectives in all three domains of behavior." Similarly,
i
Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis (1981) noted the significant |
I
discrepancy that exists between the goals of education and j
an overemphasis on behavioral learnings for cognitive !
\
development. Saylor and his colleagues further suggested a
need to correct the current imbalance that exists between
affective and cognitive development. j
i
Another critical issue having a direct impact on the
affective domain and practice centers around Krathwohl et
al.'s assertion that, "affective behaviors develop when
appropriate learning experiences are provided for students
much the same as cognitive behaviors develop from appropri- !
ate learning experiences" (1964, p. 20). Reigeluth and j
Curtis (cited in Gagne 1987, pp. 177-178) concurred with
this belief and noted, "On the most general level you must j
I
determine whether your goals and objectives are primarily !
motor, affective, or cognitive (Bloom, 1965; Krathwohl, |
Bloom, & Masia, 1964) because the nature of the instruction j
will be very different for each of these three types of !
I
goals."
Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis (1981) recommended that
1
the intended outcomes of education can be linked with |
— _
specific instructional models. Specifically the authors
suggested that curriculum developers begin looking at
intended affective goals and in turn select learning
activities appropriate for attaining those goals. Zais
(1976) concurred with this premise and noted that curriculum
developers should provide learning activities which involve
students in activities corresponding to each intended goal
and objective.
i
Others contend that attainment of cognitive outcomes |
<
will provide corresponding attainment of affective outcomes
(Krathwohl et al., 1964; Neidt & Hedlund, 1969). Proponents
I
of this notion have suggested that instruction designed to
develop a cognitive objective will automatically develop an ,
affective component. There is no clear evidence to corrobo
rate this claim. In fact, Krathwohl et al. (1964) posited
that the development of some cognitive objectives may
actually have an adverse effect on a student's affective
development. The authors cited for illustrative purposes
the student filled with knowledge concerning some literary 1
I
work yet he/she develops at a lower level of interest in the !
work. Similarly, Bloom, Madaus, and Hastings (1981, p. 298) j
noted, "It is possible for a learner to understand and be I
quite proficient in a subject matter area and still have a
deep aversion or other negative affect toward the disci
pline. "
— — 6 -
It appears that addressing the cognitive domain in ;
some situations has an adverse effect on affective outcomes.
It is no wonder that so much uncertainty remains concerning
the affective domain.
Although the literature seems to recommend instruc-
i
tion to attain affective outcomes, it is unclear whether j
1
' such practice is in fact occurring. Johnson (1974, pp. 102-
I 103) noted, "In the past, affective changes in learners
I 1
have not been specified, planned for, or evaluated in many |
i
I
schools, although lip service is usually paid to the j
importance of affective outcomes." Similarly, Smith and
Reyes (1982, p. 2) noted, "In spite of the importance
attached to affective objectives by most educators, they
have not had an appreciable impact on educational practice."
They further stated, "An examination of the instructional
i
process, however, reveals an erosion of affective objec- |
i
I
tives. They are prominent during the initial stage of
curriculum planning, but few learning experiences are j
i I
! designed to lead to their attainment" (1982, p. 2) . Later,
i . . . 1
i Briggs (1984) indicated that although efforts have been made
i
to identify the affective domain there is little to assist
instructors in teaching for affective outcomes.
In a critical analysis of efforts designed to improve j
i
! affective education, Reigeluth and Curtis (cited in Gagne,
1987) concurred with Briggs (1984) and surmised that
although educators have increased their involvement in
affective development, there is still little help from
curriculum developers to assist in creating programs of
instruction for this elusive domain. The authors emphati
cally concluded, "Obviously our knowledge about effective
instructional strategies for affective objectives is
inadequate; it does not allow us to provide very useful
prescription for designing instruction in this domain"
(1987, p. 179). Similarly, Pratt (1987, p. 153) suggested,
"Conventional curriculum technology can deal with knowledge
and skills, but it cannot provide useful guidance to
teachers seeking to develop in their pupils attitudes,
values, intuition or intrinsically valuable experiences."
It would appear that the literature casts doubt on
whether or not practitioners are actualizing the affective
outcomes in their curriculum. Could it be as Goodlad (1984)
implied, from time to time outside pressures cause educa
tional systems to overcompensate in one area of education
while ignoring others? Has the current emphasis on the
measured curriculum simply pushed the affective domain into j
the background? |
I
Thomson (1975) in his work with Australian sciencej
i
teachers, suggested that since the development of the !
cognitive taxonomy by Bloom and his colleagues (1956) there
has been few sustained shifts from the cognitive emphasis.
Ringness (1975, p. 5) asserted, "Compared to cognitive
learning, relatively little affective learning has been
8_
deliberately introduced into the curriculum.1 1 Ringness
attributed this void in affective development to teachers
simply not planning extensively for affective learning
experiences. Clearly a need exists to determine what
practitioners are doing to operationalize the affective
domain in the curriculum.
I
J
I . ’
Affective Domain and Science Education
i
Soon after the development of the Affective Taxonomy
by Krathwohl and associates (1964) science educators began
I
the formidable task of applying the taxonomy to the field of
science. Taking the lead in this endeavor was the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA). For nearly two years
members of the organization worked on incorporating the
affective taxonomy into a workable format for science j
educators. From this labor was born, Behavioral Objectives j
j
in the Affective Domain (Eiss & Harbeck, 1 9 6 9 ) . The primary j
i
task of this monograph was to develop behaviorally stated
4 I
affective objectives, identify behaviors indicative of |
i
attaining affective objectives, and to create evaluation 1
i
instruments for these affective objectives. Not long after !
j
this effort Klopfer (197 6) attempted to provide even more
structure to the relationship of the affective domain and
science education. Although suggestions for affective
objectives and their evaluation were proposed, specific
9
classroom practices to assist in the attainment of affective
outcomes were not included.
The need for and the overall importance of affective
goals in science education is well documented. However, as
Klopfer (1976, p. 299) implied, "It is easy to assert that j
the affective domain is important in science education.
i
1 It's not so easy to say what that assertion means." Eiss ,
i and Harbeck (1969) cited the existence of numerous affective !
i
goals in science education. In light of this, the authors ;
i I
concluded, "The educational system cannot claim to be
successful until affective goals have taken their rightful
i place in the classroom, as well as in the course of study
i
that provide the basis for instruction" (p. 5). Countless j
i
authors in science education have shared Eiss and Harbeck1s !
I
assessment of the affective domain (Anderson & Koutnik, i
I
Bernie, 1978; Brunkhorst, 1986; Doran, 1980; Geisert, 1977; |
I
Klopfer, 1976; Laforgia, 1988). Ironically, in spite of |
i
such strong sentiment supporting the effective domain in 1
i
science education, questions still remain concerning how
i
j this domain is operationalized in practice. i
I !
' Historically, many authors in science education have i
i
, i
not only pointed out the importance of affective goals but j
I i
have insisted on curricular practices to attain them. Nay
and Crocker (1970, p. 59) noted, "We accept the assumption
that an objective in the affective domain can be fulfilled
in the classroom only to the degree that direct and
10
systematic attention is given and appropriate teaching
methodology is developed in relation to that objective.1 1 j
Baker and Doran (1975) noted that instructional materials
and teaching techniques specifically designed for attaining
affective outcomes in science education were needed. The
authors shared Krathwohl and his colleague's (1964) belief
that affective learning experiences must be provided to
attain affective outcomes.
I
In 1977 Geisert, although not suggesting specific j
affective teaching strategies, also conceded the importance j
of having science students practice attaining affective
i
outcomes. Others such as Anderson and Koutnik (1972), !
Brunkhorst (1986), and Akindehin (1988), have implied
instructional activities for developing affective outcomes
i
is essential in science education. |
i
Although the literature seems to suggest the need for
addressing affective outcomes and developing specific
curricular practices designed to attain these affective '
outcomes, this may not be occurring among science practitio- J
ners. In 1970 Nay and Crocker implied that, although the 1
I
f
affective domain is seen as important in science education,
J
affective development is usually ignored in practice. I
Klopfer (1976, p. 301) concurred with this belief and
stated: "Although the affective domain taxonomy has been
available to science teachers and researchers for quite some
time, it has not had much impact on either practice or
r l —
research in science education." Similarly, Kozlow and Nay*s
(1976) analysis of the literature concluded that teachers
neglect affective objectives when planning classroom
activities. According to Carin and Sund (1985, p. 76),
"Although we know a lot about the affective domain, we have ■
not incorporated this knowledge into our science pro
grams." Finally, in a recent study conducted by Mitman,
I
1
Mergendoller, Marchman, and Packer (1987), teachers were i
I
found to devote limited attention to the attitudinal [
l
development of their students.
Could it be as Martin and Briggs (1986, p. 13)
proposed, "The lack of definition and focus has made
measurement of an research related to the domain difficult;
and it has made translation of affective behaviors into
classroom practices inadequate?" The enema remains: What
are practitioners doing to operationalize and conceptualize
the affective domain in the science curriculum?
Statement of the Problem
As previously stated, scholars in curriculum and
science education alike have implied that in order for
affective outcomes to be realized, some degree of curricular
planning and subsequent instruction must be directed to that
end (Doran, 1980; Doran & Baker, 1975; Eisner, 1979; Eiss &
Harbeck, 1969; Krathwohl, et al. , 1964; Martin & Briggs,
12 "
1986; Reigeluth & Curtis, 1987; Wiles & Bondi, 1984).
Although there is a plethora of literature promoting
affective educational outcomes and their development, there
appears to be little consensus of how science practitioners
conceptualize and operationalize the affective domain in
science education.
Since the inception of the affective taxonomy in 1964
I
j by Krathwohl and his associates, there has been a paucity of
research designed to specifically determine what practitio
ners are doing to conceptualize and operationalize the ,
affective domain in the science curriculum. As Bills (1976,
p. 10) noted, "I have concluded that unless we can achieve
a better concept of affect, we will never be able to deal
with it in our classrooms or in research." Specifically,
this research was designed to analyze current curricular
practice in an effort to gain critical insight into how
practitioners conceptualize and operationalize the affective
domain in science education. '
1
i
i
i
Purpose of the Study j
First, this research investigation sought to ascer- j
i
tain whether selected practitioners agree on the affective
learner objectives and their importance in the formal
science curriculum. Second, this study sought to determine
whether selected practitioners agree on the affective
13
curricular elements (teaching strategies/learning activi
ties, student evaluation strategies, and time) suggested to
operationalize the affective domain in the science curricu
lum. Third, it was the purpose of this study to determine
the extent to which factors identified in the ideal curricu
lum impede the operationalization of the affective domain in
i
the science curriculum. Finally, this study sought to |
I
ascertain which sources identified in the ideal curriculum i
i
and, in practice, promote the implementation of the affec- j
tive domain in the science curriculum.
Research Questions
1. To what extent do practitioners from selected j
curricular perspectives agree that the suggested affective
I
objectives represented in the formal science curriculum j
(Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools, j
1984) are in fact affective in nature? |
Subquestion 1A. To what extent do practitioners !
from selected curricular perspectives agree on the !
level of importance placed on the suggested affec- j
tive objectives represented by the formal science ,
curriculum?
Subquestion IB. What is the relationship between
demographic variables and practitioners' responses
to both the level of affective agreement and the
level of importance attributed to the affective
objectives represented in the formal science curric
ulum?
2. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives agree on the affective curricular elements
(teaching strategies/learning activities and student
evaluation strategies) represented in the ideal curriculum !
j
to operationalize/implement the affective domain in the j
science curriculum? ,
i
I
Subquestion 2A. To what extent do practitioners ,
from selected curricular perspectives believe sci- j
ence teachers use the affective curricular elements
(teaching strategies/learning activities and student
f
I
evaluation strategies) in the ideal curriculum to
operationalize/implement the affective domain in the
science curriculum?
Subquestion 2B. What is the average percentage of
instructional time each week practitioners from
selected curricular perspectives report that science ^
|
teachers actually spend and should spend operation- ;
alizing/implementing the affective domain in the !
i
science curriculum?
Subquestion 2C. What is the relationship between !
i
selected demographic variables and the instructional
curricular perspective as it relates to level of
r5_
agreement and extent of use of the affective curric
ular elements (teaching strategies/learning activi
ties and student evaluation strategies) represented
in the ideal curriculum to operationalize/implement
the affective domain in the science curriculum?
3 . To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives report that factors represented in the ideal
curriculum actually impede science teachers* efforts to ,
j
| operationalize/implement the affective domain in the science
curriculum?
4. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
i
perspectives agree that selected sources promote the I
operationalization/implementation of the affective domain in
the science curriculum?
Subquestion 4A. To what extent do practitioners
from selected curricular perspectives believe that
science teachers use the selected sources to promote
the operationalization/implementation of the affec
tive domain in the science curriculum? ;
Subquestion 4B. Which curricular elements are
obtained by practitioners from the instructional
curricular perspective using the selected sources to
promote the operationaliztion/implementation of the
affective domain in the science curriculum?
Importance of the Study
Scholars and practitioners have advocated the
importance of the affective domain as well as the need to
include affective outcomes into the science curriculum (Eiss
I & Harbeck, 1969; Klopfer, 1976; Koballa, 1988; Kyle, 1984; j
Laforgia, 1988). This issue has remained a focal point of
i
concern for decades. The current California Science
Framework (California State Department of Education, CDE,
i
! 1978), the Science Framework Addendum (CDE, 1984), and a new i
! report, Science For All Americans (American Association for i
I • !
I the Advancement of Science, 1989) continue to reflect .
! . . . i
J affective outcomes in science education. With this inclu-
sion comes an expectation that affective development should
i
j
be addressed in science classrooms. j
This study is of value to scholars and educational
practitioners representing a wide range of curricular ,
; perspectives. First, science educators, curriculum schol
ars, and teacher educators will find the study useful in
i gaining insight into how the affective domain is conceptual
ized and incorporated into secondary science classrooms.
Second, the study provides needed assistance in the area of
affective goals to practitioners responsible for science
curriculum development and formal curriculum guides at the
17
state, county, district, and classroom levels. Third, the
study provides a synthesis of affective instructional
strategies and student evaluation methods. The data thus
provides instructors with several methods to operationalize
the affective outcomes in science education. In addition,
teachers in other subject areas will find the instructional
! strategies and evaluation techniques useful to their
discipline. Similarly, the synthesized curricular elements I
I
provides educators involved in preservice or inservice
programs with pertinent information related to training
teachers to implement the affective goals of science
education. Finally, the study is of value to administrators .
in understanding which factors impede teachers' efforts to I
i
operationalize the affective domain. Furthermore, the data
l
| provides educators with numerous sources used to derive ,
i
affective curricular elements.
Assumptions of the Study
i
The following assumptions are implicit in this study: ,
1. Practitioners at various levels of curricular
practice are aware of the affective domain of learning as it
relates to the science curriculum.
2. The California Science Framework (1978) and
Addendum (1984) are representative of the formal science
curriculum in secondary (9-12) classrooms.
— 18“
3. The traditional curricular elements and the
curricular perspectives defined by the Study of Schooling
adequately reflects curricular practice.
4. Respondents to questionnaires answered in an
honest manner.
I
Delimitations of the Study !
i
j
The study was delimited in the following ways: j
1. The study was delimited to affective outcomes in i
the area of interests, attitudes, and values as conceptual- j
ized by the Krathwohl Taxonomy (1964) as it relates to
science education.
1
2. The study was delimited to the following curricu
lar elements: goals and objectives, teaching strategies/ !
i
learning activities, student evaluation, and the allocation i
i
of instructional time. i
i
3. The study was delimited to the ideal, formal,
institutional, and instructional perspectives of the j
I
curriculum |
4. The study was delimited to volunteers in public
and Catholic school districts located in the counties of
Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino.
5. The study was delimited to science education at
the secondary level (grades 9-12, coeducational institu
tions) .
- r9_
Limitations of the Study
The following limitations are inherent in the study:
1. Since the Study of Schooling Model was used, only
the traditional curriculum design was considered.
2. The affective domain as defined by Krathwohl et
al. (1964) and later translated into a science structure by |
Klopfer (1976) was used.
3. Only volunteers responded to the questionnaire.
For science teachers, return rates were below 50%.
Definitions of Terms
Affective Domain— the domain that deals primarily
with the development of a learner's interests, atti
tudes, appreciations, values, and emotional sets or biases
(Krathwohl et al., 1964).
Barriers— factors which impede the use of curricular
variables/elements (Klein, 1983). I
Curriculum variables/elements— these elements are the
tools used by curriculum developers to design the curricu
lum. They include: goals and objectives, materials,
content, learning activities, teaching strategies, evalua
tion, grouping, time, and space (Klein, 1983).
Curriculum implementation/operationalization— the use
and manipulation of curricular elements to actualize the
curriculum (instruction) (Klein, 1985).
Evaluation strategies— a set of procedures for j
! gathering, organizing, utilizing, and disseminating data
I i
1 about student characteristics and growth in affective j
i behaviors (Klein, 1985). !
i
Facilitators— factors which permit the use of the j
curriculum variables (Klein, 1983). |
i
Formal curriculum perspective— composed of those
expectations held and the decisions made about curriculum
i |
beyond the classroom level by persons other than the j
scholars. It includes how state and federal officials, |
i
I district personnel, textbook publishers, lay groups, and
professional organizations view curriculum (Klein, 1983).
Goals and objectives— the set of intended student !
i
I . !
j outcomes m the affective domain (Goodlad, Klein, & Tye, j
I 1979). !
Institutional curriculum perspective— composed of j
those expectations held and the decisions made about
curriculum and the school level. It includes school site
personnel such as department heads, administrators in charge
of curriculum and principals (Klein, 1983).
21
Instructional curriculum perspectives— reflects what
the teacher hopes, values, believes and expects to offer his
or her students (Klein, 1983).
Learning activities— opportunities or tasks developed
to promote learning (Goodlad et al., 1979).
Teaching strategies— any instructional method or plan
used to assist students in learning (Goodlad et al., 1979).
Time— the allocation and use of time by students and
teachers (Goodlad et al., 1979). j
I
.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
i
In Chapter II a review of pertinent literature is J
presented. Major areas of focus consist of: (a) an
overview of the affective domain, (b) a review of affective
curricular elements, (c) a review of theoretical and |
empirical research related to the affective domain and j
curricular practice, (d) a summary of persistent barriers >
associated with the operationalization of the affective
domain, and (e) the summary.
In Chapter III a discussion of the methodology used
in the study is presented including a description of the
sample, survey instruments used, data collection procedures,
and the data analysis.
f ound.
sions,
In Chapter IV a report of results and analysis is
Chapter V includes a summary of the study, conclu-
and recommendations for future research
The study concludes with a bibliography and appendix
es .
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE !
I
i
)
i i
I i
In Chapter II a review of pertinent literature >
t
related to the affective domain in education is presented.
Major areas of focus consists of: (a) an overview of the
' , I
affective domain, its definition, proposed taxonomies, and
its importance in curriculum and science education, (b) a
review of affective curriculum elements including goals and
objectives, teaching strategies/learning activities, eval
uation of student learning, and time, (c) an analysis of
empirical research related to the affective domain and
curricular practice, (d) a summary of persistent barriers
associated with the implementation/operationalization of the
affective domain in the curriculum, and (e) the summary of
the chapter.
Overview of the Affective Domain
Efforts to define the affective domain of learning
can be identified throughout the literature. Traditionally
24
the affective domain is concerned with the learner's
interests, appreciations, attitudes, or values. In the
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II; Affective
Domain. Krathwohl et al. (1964, p. 7) concluded that the
affective domain comprised, "Objectives which emphasize a
feeling tone, an emotion, or a degree of acceptance or
rejection." The authors' extensive review of the literature
revealed that affective objectives were typically expressed
as, "interests, attitudes, appreciations, values, and
emotional sets or biases" (1964, p. 7).
Since Krathwohl et al.'s (1964) effort to define, as
well as conceptualize, the affective domain, many authors
have contributed similar notions. Johnson's (1974) clarifi
cation of affective outcomes included such components as
feeling and emotional aspects of student learning. Thomson ,
(1975, P. 5) reiterated Krathwohl et al.'s (1964) definition
and stated: "Objectives in the affective area involve such
things as interests, attitudes and values." Similarly,
Birnie (1978, p. 219) posited, "Most commonly the affective
domain is defined in terms of personality characteristics
indicated by terms such as appreciations, interests,
attitudes, beliefs, adjustments, and emotional sets and
biases."
In Teaching Science Through Discovery. Carin and Sund
(1985, p. 62) asserted that the, "affective domain deals
25
with feelings, emotions, interests, attitudes, values, and
appreciations. It deals with how your students are affected
by their learning, as well as how their feelings affect
their learning." Clearly, Car in and Sund have also not
veered far from Krathwohl et al.'s (1964) proposal for the
affective domain. In yet another science text, Sciencef
1
Students and Schools. Simpson and Anderson (1981) advised |
i
| readers to refer to Krathwohl et al.'s (1964) book for a i
I
better understanding of affective objectives and the
affective domain.
A review of general education, curriculum works,
instructional technology, and teacher education manuscripts j
i
reveals similarities in the definition of the affective \
I
domain. Beane (1985/86, p. 26) noted, "Affect refers to j
those aspects of human nature and conduct having to do with '
emotions, feelings, values, attitudes, predispositions, and ]
morals." According to Wulf and Schave (1984, p. 168) the |
affective domain includes "those activities, tasks, and \
i
processes that involve 'feeling' in the form of attending, !
i
j responding, or valuing." Although Saylor, Alexander, and;
I
i
Lewis (1981) refer to the "development of human traits" in
i
i
their textbook on curriculum, the pervasiveness of Krathwohl
et al.'s (1964) work is unmistakable. Saylor and his
colleagues (1981) included such traits as attitudes,
beliefs, values, initiative, compassion, honesty, faith in
others, good workmanship, and appropriate skepticism in
their conceptualization of the affective components of
learning.
Further reliance on Krathwohl's Taxonomy (1964) for
definitional purposes can be documented in teacher education
works by Clark and Starr (1981), Dembo (1981), Lefrancois
(1985), Kourilsky and Quaranta (1987), and Kindsvatler,
Wilen, and Ishler (1988). Similarly, a cursory analysis of
traditional curriculum texts showed Krathwohl's Taxonomy
j (1964) consistently used to set affective parameters
j (Beauchamp, 1981; Eisner, 1979; Schubert, 198 6; Wiles & j
Bondi, 1984; Zais, 1975). Although authors in the field of j
instructional technology tended to be the most critical of
the Affective Taxonomy (Krathwohl et al., 1964) they
typically spent some time defining the affective domain in
i 1
| terms of interests, attitudes, appreciations, and values i
i
(Gagne, 1985 & 1987; Martin & Briggs, 1986; Romiszowski, /
i
1981; Rowntree, 1982). Thus, in the 2 5 years following j
i
Krathwohl and his colleague's (1964) reluctant undertaking
the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Handbook II:
i . . . .
Affective Domain is continuously cited as the launching pad
for many efforts to define and conceptualize the affective
domain of learning.
27
Proposed Taxonomies
How educators and practitioners actually conceptual
ize the affective domain in practice remains unclear. Over
the years there have been numerous attempts to provide an
acceptable and workable framework for the affective domain
of learning. A review of the major taxonomic efforts
revealed supporters and critics in each case. This section
provides an overview of the more widely known affective
frameworks/taxonomies found in the literature.
It is imperative to note that division of learning
into cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains is truly J
i
an artificial separation. Few scholars have argued that 1
cognitive learning is in fact isolated from affective ^
learning. Similarly, few would argue that affective |
development is completely independent of cognitive develop- ,
ment (Bloom, Hastings & Madaus, 1971/ Bloom, Madaus, &
Hastings, 1981; Doran & Backer, 1975; Gagne, 1985; Krathwohl
et al., 1964; Martin & Briggs, 1986). Although authors have i
noted the overlap of both cognitive and affective objec
tives, most would agree that assuming one develops because
the other is emphasized is an untenable premise (Krathwohl
et al., 1964).
28
Authors have traditionally cited the Affective
Taxonomy by Krathwohl and his colleagues (1964) when
referring to affective development in the curriculum.
According to several scholars the Taxonomy was the most
widely cited source for conceptualizing the affective domain
(Baker & Doran, 1975; Darling, 1985; Doran, 1980) . A large
number of articles cited in this study corroborated this
claim (Baker & Doran, 1975; Birnie, 1978; Bloom, Madaus, &
Hastings, 1981; Doran, 1980; Eiss & Harbeck, 1969; Haney,
1964; Haney & Sorenson, 1977; Klopfer, 1976; Kozlow & Nay,
1976; Laforgia, 1988; Nay & Crocker, 1970). The Affective
Taxonomy by Krathwohl et al. (1964) was also the only
affective work receiving some degree of validation (Lewey,
1968).
i
The development of the Taxonomy of Educational j
i Objectives Handbook II: Affective Domain, by the authors' j
own admission, was not an easy endeavor (Krathwohl et al., j
i
1964). Throughout the development of the taxonomy the j
authors were confronted by several persistent problems. !
Ultimately, the taxonomy was conceptualized around the 1
i
concept of internalization. "In the taxonomy internaliza- |
tion is viewed as a process through which there is an |
incomplete and tentative adoption of only the overt manifes
tations of the desired behavior and later a more complete
adaption" (1964, p. 29) . The level of internalization of a
behavior is key to its placement on the affective continuum.
Essentially, the taxonomy contained five primary
categories or levels arranged in a continuum from a mere
awareness of an event— "Receiving," to "Characterization" by
a value complex. According to Krathwohl and his associates
(1964) the categories were arranged as follows:
1.0 Receiving 1.1 Awareness
1.2 Willingness to Receive
1.3 Controlled or Selected
Attention
2.0 Responding 2.1 Acquiescence in Responding
2.2 Willingness to Respond
2.3 Satisfaction in Response
3.0 Valuing 3.1 Acceptance of a Value
3.2 Preference for a Value
3.3 Commitment
4.0 Organization 4.1 Conceptualization of a Value
4.2 Organization of a Value System
5.0 Characterization By A Value Complex
5.1 Generalized Set
5.2 Characterization (p. 37)
i
I
Receiving indicated that a student merely received j
the stimuli and passively attended to it. In the second !
category, responding, students responded to the stimuli on
request. At the third level, valuing, students voluntarily
responded to some stimuli. According to the authors, at the
fourth level, organization, students organized values into
a system. Finally, characterization by a value, implied
30
that a student had accepted value "into their value hierar
chy" and essentially the affective learning had been
completely internalized. (1964, p. 184).
Typical affective terms such as interests, apprecia
tions, attitudes, and values are theoretically found
throughout the proposed continuum. According to the authors I
one would expect to find interests at the lower end of the
end of the taxonomy and going as high as valuing. On the
other hand values and attitudes would be expected to be
found along the continuum between responding and the more
internalized level, organization. Similarly, appreciations
t
would be predicted to be located between receiving at its |
j higher end through valuing. !
J i
Certainly the Affective Taxonomy by Krathwohl et al. j
(19 64) is not without its critics. However, it has provided j
the primary conceptualization of the affective domain across !
the curriculum over the last quarter century. When the
authors completed the taxonomy they were careful to note
i
that much work was still needed in order for acceptance of
I
! the affective domain similar to the cognitive domain of
learning. Since 1964 only a few scholars have attempted to ;
i
reorganize the Affective Taxonomy. No work has been as
comprehensive to date.
In 1967, Nunally (Cited in Payne, 1976) conceptual
ized the affective domain into four categories: sentiments,
31
interests, values, and attitudes. Although different
categories than Krathwohl1s Taxonomy (1964), the same
essential characteristics are readily seen. Sentiments was
a term Nunally used for indicated affect. Interests,
denoted "preference for an activity" (p. 64), while values
i
indicated, "a broader life oriented goal" (p. 64) . Atti- j
i
tudes denoted, "a feeling about particular objects (social, !
i
physical, or abstract)" (p. 64). Clearly, this effort did
not go beyond the original work by Krathwohl and his asso
ciates (1964) . f
i
Payne (197 6) reviewed Hoepfner's 1972 effort to
conceptualize the affective domain. Hoepfner posited six
categories for the affective domain. The categories
| included: personal temperament, social temperament, 1
| i
attitudes, opinions and beliefs, needs, interests, and |
! n i
j values. j
| i
I Gephart and Ingle (1976) presented still another I
i
version of an affective taxonomy to conceptualize the ]
!
i affective domain. The authors focused on what they believed |
i
was a more concrete conceptualization of the domain. They j
i
hypothesized that the domain was comprised of two major,
physiological responses and psycho-social responses. The
physiological responses reflected body responses such as
perspiration, visceral responses, and cardiovascular
32
reactions. The second category, psycho-social responses,
was more pertinent to educational development.
Gephart and Ingle (197 6) concluded that values,
emotions, and perceptions were part of the psycho-social
response. From values followed beliefs and attitudes.
Emotions were classified as either pleasant or unpleasant.
Perceptions, the third category, included self as well as
others. The authors left room in their conceptualization
for additional, unidentified areas of the affective domain
i
for future development. Gephart and Ingle (197 6) were |
adamant that their affective interpretation was incomplete.
Martin and Briggs (1986) sometime later suggested that the
work of Gephart and Ingle (1976) was more comprehensive in
terms of affective behaviors than even Krathwohl1s Taxonomy.
Another endeavor to help conceptualize the affective
domain can be found in the work of Foshay (197 8) . The
author suggested that there were six domains of learning.
These included intellectual, emotional, social, physical,
i
aesthetic, and spiritual dimensions of learning. Once J
i
again, similar to Gephart and Ingle (1976), the parameters j
i
for the affective domain seemed to have expanded. Clearly, j
four of Foshay's domains of learning involved the affective j
components of education. The emotional aspect included the
development of feelings and emotions. The social domain
included development of social organizations and moral
development. Aesthetics involved the development of
sensuous and expressive responses, while the spiritual
domain included the individual's search for meaning. As one
begins to look at the various conceptualizations of the
affective domain, it becomes clear why some educators put
all learning not in the cognitive domain into the affective
domain.
In 1978 Brandhorst wrote an essay highly critical of
the affective taxonomy proposed by Krathwohl and his
associates (1964). Brandhorst (1978) did not accept the
paradigm's quantification of affective behaviors. In fact
the author decried the notion that all outcomes of schooling
could be quantified and measured. As a result, Brandhorst
(1978) advocated a reconceptualization of the affective
domain. He recommended three additional taxonomies and
elaborated on two of them.
First, Brandhorst (1978) proposed a taxonomy of
educational objectives with an ego-involvement orientation.
The categories proposed for the taxonomy were:
1. Objectivity— A condition of sufficient
psychological distance from ego to permit
play with feelings and ideas. . . ;
2. Empathy— A capability to take the perspec
tive of another and experience in another
approximate imaginary manner the emotions of
the other;
3. Response Delay— A capability or tolerance
for waiting, putting off a final deci-
4. Impulse Suppression— The capability to
control impulses;
5. Transformation— The capability to divert
or transform impulses and channel them into
creative aesthetic expression, (pp. 9-10)
According to Brandhorst (1978), although pen and
paper testing was possible, student direct observation in
social situations was preferred for evaluation.
The second taxonomy proposed by Brandhorst dealt with
a motivational orientation. In this taxonomy the author
included the following:
1. Perceptual Analysis— The ability to sepa
rate item from field; j
I
2. Perceptual Synthesis— The ability to
integrate elements in the perceptual field in
a novel pattern;
3. Risk Taking— Willingness to try something i
new, even at the risk of failure; j
!
4. Concentration— The capability to engage in i
intense, concentrated involvement in an
activity. . . ;
I
5. Playfulness— The ability to engage in and i
enjoy non-purposive activity, (p. 11) !
The final taxonomy looked at a conceptual-relational j
I
orientation. Brandhorst did not specify the categories in :
this orientation. However, the author suggested the j
inclusion of learning associated with the upper levels of
moral reasoning.
Sell-Development
Attributions
Social
Competence
Values
Morals and
Ethics
Continuing
Motivation
Attitudes
About
Self
L_________ t
Attit udes Inte rest
Emotions
Feelings
Solid lines: direct links between components of the affective domain.
Dash lines: indirect links between attitudes and social competence, and
attitudes and continuing motivation.
------------------------------Dash/Dot lines: other potential categories of the affective domain.
Figure 1. Martin and Griggs Proposed Taxonomy for the Affective Domain (1986, p. 448)^
"" in
The next affective taxonomy was developed by Martin
and Briggs (1986) after an exhaustive review of the litera
ture pertaining to the affective domain. At the pinnacle of
i
their conceptualization of the affective domain was self- J
development (see Figure 1) .
i
As demonstrated by Figure 1, many of the common j
affective components such as values, attitudes, interest, J
morals, ethics, and feelings are included within this j
taxonomy. The authors have noted by solid lines where I
!
direct links exist. Dash lines indicated indirect links !
between affective components. Also dash/dot lines indicate
additional areas of the affective domain to be developed.
Martin and Brigg's (1986) effort to conceptualize the|
i
affective domain was extremely comprehensive in nature. The
authors suggested that their taxonomy could easily be used
to identify numerous affective goals in education. The j
question remains whether this effort or any of the previous-j
ly mentioned taxonomies have filtered down to the classroom. 1
In turn, have these taxonomic enterprises assisted practi- '
j tioners in implementing/operationalizing the affective j
! domain in the curriculum?
Finally, in 1989, McCormack and Yager presented a new
taxonomy for science education. According to the authors
there were five domains of science education. They included
37
"knowing and understanding, exploring and discovering,
imagining and creating, feeling and valuing, and using and
applying" (1989, p. 48) . McCormack and Yager noted that the
valuing and feeling domain were synonymous with the attitu- I
dinal domain. Specifically this domain included "developing
positive attitudes toward science in general, science in
i
school, and science teachers developing positive attitudes !
toward oneself, or an 'I can do it' attitude exploring human
emotions developing sensitivity to and respect for, the
feelings of other people" (1989, p. 48).
!
Affective Domain and Education
As previously noted, one does not have to search long
for theoretical acceptance of the affective domain ini
i
education. Some 25 years ago Kelley (1965) advocated the,
I
inclusion of affective outcomes into the curriculum. He,
stated, "how a person feels is more important than what he
i
knows" (p. 455) . Krathwohl and his associates (1964) ;
I
repeatedly suggested they might not complete the famed[
i
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Handbook II: Affective
Domain because it was such a monumental endeavor. But
because interest was so keen and encouragement came from
countless educators, the task was completed. Clearly, the
L
38
importance placed on the affective domain in education is
I
not an infant concept.
In 1973, Johnson stated, "To manage a school and a
classroom productively, it is important to specify affective
objectives and to evaluate the attainment of these objec-
• tives" (p. 307). Johnson (1973, p. 307) further proposed, !
"In most if not all subject-matter areas there are desired [
! affective outcomes that should be evaluated." In a follow-
J
r
up article Johnson (1974) strongly urged educators to !
incorporate affective outcomes in the curriculum. Specifi- |
cally, Johnson asserted, "If the school is to be successful j
in influencing a person's behavior after he has completed ,
his formal education, then the development of positive ■
affective responses toward learning and school related j
i
I i
skills is of major importance" (1974, p. 99).
I Other scholars such as Payne (1976), Beatty (1976), j
and Gephart and Ingle (1976) have also supported the need!
i
I
for affective outcomes in the curriculum. Interestingly,1
Beatty (1976, p. 119) cited his own 1952 work and pro-!
i
claimed, "In recent years increasing attention has beeni
I
given to the importance of feelings of children in thej
i
classroom. The earlier notion of training the intellect has!
given way to the belief that education must deal with the|
whole child." Beatty mused that what he wrote in 1952 was1
I
as true in 197 6 as it was back then. Certainly the penduluml
39
continues to swing toward the importance of affective
j outcomes. Payne (1976, p. 93) succinctly posited, "By now
educators must accept the fact that affective outcomes are
equally important as cognitive ones and therefore deserve
equal treatment and time."
In Bloom et al. (1971) a reoccurring theme was the
importance of affective objectives to the curriculum. The
authors not only promoted the inclusion of affective
development but implied that educators had an obligation to
work toward the attainment of affective objectives. This
notion was reiterated by the same authors some ten years
later. Bloom, Hastings, and Madaus (1981, p. 2 97) noted,
"American education continues to maintain that among its
J most important ideals is the development of such attributes
i
as interests, desires, attitudes, appreciations, values,
commitment and willpower." It is difficult to argue against
affective outcomes with such strong sentiment in its favor.
Although there are no definitive studies looking at
the importance placed on affective outcomes by practitio-
l
1
i ners, there are some interesting findings. In studies
| conducted by Raven (1977), teachers in Britain continually
noted the importance of affective development. Specifical
ly, teachers were asked to rank numerous objectives based on
level of importance. Of the eleven objectives ranked most
| important, five were clearly affective in nature. In
40
another study by Harootunian and Yarger (1981), the authors
indicated that, although practitioners in the classroom
tended to emphasize cognitive development, they most often
attributed success as teachers to affective student con
cerns. Similarly, in a study of elementary school teachers,
Prawat (1985, p. 591) reported, "Nearly half of the
j teachers considered attending to the affective domain as
their most important task." In Prawat and Nickerson's
I
(1985) review of teacher practices, the authors noted that
teachers place a great deal of importance on affective >
1 outcomes. j
i
Affective Domain and Science Education j
I
I
For decades science educators and practitioners have J
i
been concerned with the importance of affective outcomes in
science curriculum. Although the affective emphasis
typically varies between interests, values, and attitudes in
the literature, concern for affect is consistent. Heiss j
(1958) examined the goals of science education over several j
decades prior to the 1950s. He concluded that science
educators continued to suggest the importance of developing
a scientific attitude. Haney's (1964) work expressed
concern for developing affect and suggested that developing
41
cognitive abilities void of affective development toward man
i
and nature had negative impact on science students.
Diedrich (19 69) also emphasized the importance of (
developing appropriate scientific attitudes in science |
1
education. Eiss and Harbeck (1969, p. 3) concluded, "There |
has been general agreement that there are many desirable !
goals in science education in the affective domain." This |
same notion was expressed in an article by Nay and Crocker I
(1970). The authors analyzed the writing of numerous j
science educators, as well as the objectives written for \
science courses. They found consistent evidence of the !
i
affective domain. Specifically, Nay and Crocker (1970)
pointed out the interest among educators to teach about the
attitudes, interests, and appreciations of scientists.
Klopfer (cited in Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971) !
I
j a renown science educator, stated, "Probably every teacher
of science hopes that his students will develop favorable
attitudes toward science and scientists" (p. 577). At about j
I
j
the same time, in a position statement, the National Science j
| Teachers Association (1971, p. 48) proclaimed, "Science, -
l i
because it is a human undertaking, cannot be value-free.
Emphasis on values and on the social aspects of science and
technology must be integral parts of any science curricu
lum." The Association further stated, "The goals of
science education should be to develop scientifically
42
literate citizens with the necessary intellectual resources,
values, attitudes, and inquiry skills to promote the
development of man as a rational human being" (NSTA,1971,
p. 47) . Clearly both statements reflect a strong sentiment
toward affective development in science curriculum.
Throughout the remainder of the 197 0s many authors
I
continued to proclaim the importance of the affective domain J
in science education. Baker and Doran (197 5) suggested that f
concern for the affective domain in science was rising as
the result of so many societal issues related to science.
In fact, the authors stated, "It may be time to 'tune1 our
classrooms into these issues from a perspective of their
factual claims and value perspectives" (p. 539). Again,
Baker and Doran (1975) , like so many others, continued to
emphasize affective outcomes. That same year in Australia,
Thomson (1975), although not so enamored with the affective
domain as others, still found science educators promoted
affective objectives in his country. Billeh and Zakhariades
(1975) also noted that over the last several decades efforts
have been made to develop attitudes in the science curricu
lum.
Klopfer (1976) continued the call for affective
outcomes in science curriculum. He actually developed an
affective framework for science practitioners patterned
after Krathwohl and his colleague's (1964) work. Fraser
43
(1977, p. 317) found, "The majority of contemporary science
curricula places considerable importance on various affec
tive aims." Similarly, Haney and Sorenson (1977) supported
the importance of affective learning in science education.
The authors suggested several sample , objectives to be i
included in science education instructional plans. Birnie
(1978) was emphatic in his concern over teaching toward |
I
aspects found in the affective domain. He stated, "There j
are many difficulties in identifying learning outcomes in j
the affective domain, but affective and self-concept !
i
objectives are among the most important in science, and we |
cannot avoid teaching toward them" (1978, p. 33). |
I
J
Finally, as the 1970s came to a close, the Science ,
I
Framework for California (1978) was published. The authors
included four main science goals, one of which was affective
in nature. Along with the affective goal were 11 terminal
attitudinal objectives and 3 3 examples of affective learner
I
behaviors. Certainly, an analysis of the affective domain j
i
in the 197 0s revealed strong support for its inclusion and ;
importance in science curriculum.
i
As the decade of the 198 0s arrived and increased |
l
l
pressure for cognitive development as well as accountability
increased, science educators continued to promote the
importance of affective outcomes in science education.
i
Doran (1980, p. 71) noted, "interest in the affective i
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------J
44
domain is growing and science education appears to be slowly
accepting responsibility in this area." Doran (1980) wrote,
Basic Measurement and Evaluation of Science Instruction,
which included an entire chapter devoted to "Assessing
Affective Outcomes in Science." In a study conducted by
Kahle and Yager (1981), interest in affective outcomes was
once again noted. Of the 2 8 most commonly occurring
concerns needing attention in the United States today, eight
I
stood out as being most needed. Of those eight needs,one
dealt with values and ethics. Clearly concern for values
and ethics is categorized in the affective domain of
learning. i
l
Schibeci ( 1 9 8 1 , p. 6 9 ) stated, "One of the more j
important changes in science curriculum development projects
in recent years has been the increased emphasis curriculum
writers have given to attitude objectives relative to J
I
cognitive objectives." In this case the author's emphasis
was on attitude development, only one aspect of affective
\
i
outcomes. In a review of biology education, Hurd (1981, p. !
30) noted, "To be consistent with the rise of biosocial |
i
l
issues, the teaching of biology in the desired state must of j
l
necessity deal with values, morals and ethics." The science |
i
literature often discusses the concept of "Scientific 1
i
Literacy" or the "scientifically literate individual." In
Simpson and Anderson's (1981) textbook, they established
! seven components of a scientifically literate person. Two
of the seven components are affective in nature. According
to Simpson and Anderson (1981, p. 6) a scientifically
literate individual: "Possesses attitudes and values that
are in harmony with those of science and a free society."
and "Has developed interests that will lead to a richer more
i
satisfying life that will include science and life-long
learning."
Sonnier (1982) continued the cry to raise affective
objectives in science curriculum to equal importance with j
cognitive outcomes. She applied the notion of "Holistic
i -
j Education" to the realm of science education. Essentially, |
i !
Sonnier advocated science instruction designed to incorpo- ;
rate both affective and cognitive domains. Schibeci (1982,
i p. 565), although not suggesting parity between affective
and cognitive domains, stated, "It is in the high school
that science teachers are in a position to nurture and
sustain an interest in science. Objectives in the affective
]
domain are commonly found in modern science curricula." I
i
Similarly, Gauld (1982, p. 109) analyzed some 60 years of '
i i
| science goals and noted, "Major statements of the goals of |
I !
science education in the USA have consistently stressed the i
importance of developing scientific attitudes in students
and curriculum projects around the world include this among
their aims." Gauld (1982, p. Ill) further stated, "For
46
many science educators the importance of the scientific
attitude is so obvious that no argument is required to
support its inclusion among those things which a school
science course should aim to develop in students.1 1
During the mid-1980s the message among science
educators continued much the same as previous decades.
i
I
Educators were encouraged to bring the affective outcomes to |
the forefront of science curriculum. In 1987 the National j
Science Teachers Association developed criteria for excel- |
lence in science education. One criterion, considered j
I
I
essential for excellence in biology, suggested that science
* practitioners, "Focus on current issues and deal with
morals, values, ethics and aesthetics" (1987, p. 14).
Koballa (1984) and Kyle (1984) promulgated similar recommen
dations. Both writers acknowledged the science concerns of
the 1980s and suggested that science practitioners continue
to explore values, morals, and ethical issues. Brunkhorst
(1986) noted that as more and more appears in the science
literature concerned with science, technology, and society,
a greater concern for ethics and values in science teaching
follows. At the Exeter II Conference science educators and
practitioners gathered to develop goals for science educa
tion. The following goal was culled from the group:
"Science programs should provide skills, attitudes, and
knowledge necessary to solve problems and make decisions
about important science-related local and global issues"
(Brinckerhoff & Yager, 1986, p. 10).
A review of the literature from the late 1980s showed
no sign that science educators had lost interest in the
affective outcomes of comprehensive science curriculum. In
1987, Thelen stated, "The exploration, assessment and
j development of values as an objective of science education
is a goal whose time has come" (p. 218) . Many others !
i
expressed similar beliefs in the importance of the affective |
; domain for science education. This message was expressed by
Laforgia (1988) in the following way:
; !
i This concern for the affective domain needs J
to diffuse through to teachers, who should be
made aware of developments regarding the I
affective domain related to science educa- j
tion. Developments have certainly provided I
suitable guidelines to focus appropriate I
attention on this important domain. (p. 4 09) J
Rutherford and Ahlgren (1988) analyzed Project 2 061, a large
scale effort to reconsider science, mathematics, and
i
technology outcomes in schools. In their analysis the |
authors frequently alluded to the importance of considering |
I
i
attitudes and values in science curriculum.
i !
The 198 0s brought not only a continued concern for j
affective science outcomes but also a renewed emphasis. |
Koballa (1988, p. 115) noted, "Published articles and
papers presented at regional and national meetings suggest
that the study of affective variables, particularly attitude
48
is being given considerable attention by science educators."
Laforgia (1988, p. 407) described the same phenomena and
stated, "The concern for the affective domain related to
science education is also reflected by the plethora of
articles devoted to this area." Koballa (1988) felt
strongly that a new wave among practitioners was growing.
i
This new emphasis placed equal importance on cognitive and
affective variables in science education. A recent article
i
by McCormack and Yager (1989) proposed five domains in !
j
science education. One of these domains dealt exclusively ;
with feelings and values. The authors supported the j
I
i
I importance of developing feelings, values, positive atti- :
I
tudes, exploring emotions, and sensitivity toward others, j
Once again the evidence continues to demonstrate the
prominence of the affective domain in science curriculum.
I
Clearly, the literature over the last three decades j
has been explicit. The affective domain, including inter- j
ests, attitudes, appreciations, and values, has permeated i
the very basis of science education. Not only does a
concern for effective outcomes seem continuous but a renewed |
emphasis is unfolding. There is little doubt that the
affective domain is important to science education and to
the curriculum that serves as a guide to instruction.
49
Affective Goals— Science Education
As noted in previous sections, science educators and
practitioners have consistently discussed the need for and
importance of the affective domain in science curriculum
i
t (Baker & Doran, 1975; Birnie, 1978; Doran, 1980; Eiss & j
i
| Harbeck, 1969; Haney, 1964; Klopfer, 1971, 1976; Koballa, j
I 1988; Kozlow & Nay, 1976; Laforgia, 1988; Sonier, 1982). Of
! critical importance to this investigation was a review of
I affective goals and objectives, proposed in the literature, j
1 . !
to attain affective outcomes m science. I
\
Over the years affective goals have been written in
varied forms with varied emphasis. In 1971, the National ■
I , . 1
Science Teachers Association wrote, "The goals of science
education should be to develop scientifically literate j
citizens with the necessary intellectual resources, values, \
i
attitudes, and inquiry skills to promote the development of |
man as a rational human being" (p. 47) . The California !
I Science Framework (1978) proposed four primary goals for !
; i
science instruction: "achieving scientific attitudes; j
achieving rational and creative thinking processes;
achieving manipulative and communicative skills and achiev
ing scientific knowledge" (California State Department of
Education, 1978, p. 21) . Clearly, the first goal area,
1 T |
achieving scientific attitudes, is affective in nature.
Specifically, the Framework recommended development of the
following attitudinal goal: "To develop values, aspira
tions, and attitudes that promote the individual's personal
involvement with the environment and society" (CSDOE, 1978,
p. 22). Later, in 1984, the California Science Addendum
(CSDOE, 1984) reiterated the exact four goals for science
I
education.
Simpson and Anderson (1981) proposed seven major
goals for science education. The seven goals focused on
making students scientifically literate. The authors' last
i
two goals were indicative of affective outcomes. Specifi
cally, a scientifically literate individual, "possesses
attitudes and values that are in harmony with those of j
science and a free society; has developed interests that
will lead to a richer and more satisfying life and a life |
i
that will include science and life-long learning" (1981, pp. |
6-7) . Carin and Sund (1985) in their text, Teaching Science j
Through Discovery, proposed development of students in four
major areas, personal, societal, academic, and career
education. In each of these broad goal areas, the authors
suggested developing objectives in cognitive, affective, and
psychomotor domains.
A publication by the National Science Teachers
Association (1987) established the criteria of excellence in
science education. An analysis of these criteria revealed
several affective goals. In junior high school teachers
were encouraged, "To emphasize learning how to learn,
including cognitive, affective and psychomotor aspects of
learning;" and "To promote attitudes that result in appro-
j priate decision making" (1987. p. 8). Looking at high
school earth science, teachers were reminded, "To develop an
i
appreciation for an critical attitudes toward science and |
technology as an integral part of society" (1987, p. 10). |
Once again it became evident that affective goals are
I definitely a significant aspect of science education.
I . .
In a recent report, Science For All Americans
(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989)
the primary task of the authors was to establish broad goals
necessary for all Americans to be considered scientifically
literate. As a result of this work several goals were j
: developed. The major affective goal stated: J
Science education should be contributed to |
people*s knowledge of the shared values of j
scientists, mathematicians, and engineers;
reinforcement of general societal values, the
! inculcation in people of informed, balanced
] beliefs about the social value of science,
| mathematics, and technology; and the develop
ment in young people of positive attitudes
toward learning science, mathematics and
technology (p. 133).
i
Finally, although the draft of the new Science
Framework (CSDOE, 1989) did not present a recapitulation of
prior framework goals, it continued to promote references to
52
the development of scientific values in students. In |
t
summary, review of the literature revealed several prominent
areas where effective science goals are proposed and
available to science practitioners. The development of
affective goals in science education has been prevalent for
I many years. How these goals were translated into affective
i
objectives was the concern for the next section. j
i
Typically, affective outcomes represented in the
science literature reflected concern for developing the
scientific attitude in learners. Some affective objectives,
on the other hand, were more generalized and included
efforts to develop interests, values, and appreciations. In
almost all cases the majority of articles either used or
cited Krathwohl et al.'s (1964) work to conceptualize
affective outcomes in science education. This section
reviews the typical content area of affective science
objectives.
Attitude development is of primary concern to science
educators. Some 3 0 years ago, Heiss (1958, p. 371) recom
mended that the following attitudes be developed in science
education: "curiosity, freedom from bias, freedom from
prejudice, freedom from superstitions, open-mindedness,
intellectual honesty, belief in cause and effect, and
willingness to change beliefs when new evidence is found."
Soon after Heiss (1958), Haney (1964) urged science
53
educators to be concerned not only with the acquisition of
knowledge but with basic science attitudes. These attitudes
included: curiosity, rationality, suspended judgment, open-
mindedness, objectivity, honesty and humility.
In Eiss and Harbeck's (1969) monograph, Behavioral
Objectives in the Affective Domain. the authors also
i
| suggested the inclusion of attitudes when developing
objectives in science curriculum. The authors advocated |
such attitudes as open-mindedness, tolerance, curiosity, the j
ability to make value judgments, and the desirability of the !
scientific method. In fact, Eiss and Harbeck (1969) implied i
that incorporation of these attitudes had more universal
I
! acceptance among educators than other possible attitudes. |
The cry for the development of scientific attitudes
continued with Diedrich in 1969. His article defined some i
i
2 0 components of the scientific attitude. These components |
i
I
included: skepticism, faith in the possibility of solving j
problems, desire for experimental verification, precision, '
a liking for new things, willingness to change opinions, !
I humility, loyalty to truth, an objective attitude, aversion
I j
| to superstition, liking for scientific explanations, desire !
I for completeness of knowledge, suspended judgment, distin- !
i 1
guishing between hypothesis and solutions, awareness of
assumptions, judgment of what is fundamental and general
significance, respect for theoretical structures, respect
54
for quantification, acceptance of probabilities, and
acceptance of warranted generalizations.
In 1970, Nay and Crocker developed a comprehensive
framework for dealing with attitudes in science teaching.
The authors proposed looking at the attributes of scientists
to better define the attitudes that educators should develop
in their students. Nay and Crocker (197 0) recommended the
development of such attitudes as objectivity, open-minded
ness, honesty, suspended judgment, respect for evidence,
willingness to change opinions, idea sharing, critical
mindedness, skepticism, questioning attitude, disciplined
I
thinking, anti-authoritarianism, and self-criticism. In a
later work, Nay and Kozlow (197 6) confirmed the recurring
emphasis of attitudes as the content base for affective
i
I .
science objectives. The primary thrust of the authors' 197 6
i
article was to identify specific attitudes and to develop I
i
evaluation strategies for their development. |
I
Consistent concern for the development of attitudes '
in science education was also noted in a study by Thomson |
j (1975). The author reviewed science curriculum in Australia
and cited several instances where scientific attitudes were
recommended as objectives for student development. Such j
i
i common science attitudes as curiosity, rationality, willing
ness to suspend judgment, open-mindedness, objectivity,
honesty in reporting observations, readiness to admit
55
errors, tolerance of the errors of others, receptivity of
the limitations of man and science, persistency, coopera
tiveness, and critical awareness were discussed. The place
for attitudes in science education continued to be a focal
point for affective objectives throughout the 1970s and
beyond.
In Fraser's (1977) review of science literature, some
1,547 objectives were identified and almost half were
related to the development of scientific attitudes. Gauld
(1982) reviewed 60 years of science education and noted that 1
i
over that time science education continued the concern for |
including attitudes in science curriculum. Recent works by
Thelan (1987), Koballa (1988, and Laforgia (1988) showed no [
I
signs that attitude development in science education was j
waning. The authors continued to propose attitudinal j
I
objectives. In the Science Framework Draft (CSDOE, 19898) j
i
attitudes such as curiosity, open-mindedness, objectivity, j
j and skepticism are still recommended. Finally, Science For
i . . . !
j All Americans (AAAS, 1989, p. 134) identified the following
attitudes as essential to science: "integrity, diligence,
fairness, curiosity, openness to new ideas, skepticism, and
imagination."/ The authors further stated, "Therefore, if
science is taught effectively, the result will be to
reinforce such generally desirable human attitudes and
values" (1989, p. 134).
56
Affective Science Objectives
In the previous section on affective goals it was
noted that the science literature reflected continued
concern for the affective development of students. This
section provides a brief overview of the way affective
» objectives appeared in the literature. Oftentimes the
content of affective science objectives was attitudinal in
i
nature but some objectives were found to represent a broader
interpretation of the affective domain.
A search of science literature quickly uncovered
numerous illustrations of affective objectives. Eiss and j
i , |
Harbeck (19 69) presented an abbreviated format for affective
i
objectives. They listed 23 specific outcomes of science j
l
instruction in the affective domain. Specific examples j
i
i
included: "relates personal requisite abilities, interests, j
j and attitudes and appreciates the interaction of science and j
I *
i i
| technology" (p. 27) . In 1970 Nay and Crocker proposed a '
|
1 comprehensive list of the affective attributes of scien- ;
i
I tists. Although the authors did not specifically state j
i !
! objectives, they recommended that these attributes become j
i
objectives of science education.
Baker and Doran (1975) like Eiss and Harbeck (1969)
and Nay and Crocker (1970) utilized the work of Krathwohl et
57
al. (1964) to conceptualize and write affective science
objectives. Two illustrations at the "Receiving" level are
awareness that there are pesticides" and "acceptance of the
importance of pesticide control" (p. 543). At a higher
level, "Responding," Baker and Doran (1975) recommended
objectives such as "willingness to read the assigned
literature on pesticides" and "enjoyment of arguing current
issues of pesticides" (p. 543).
Soon after Baker and Doran's (1975) work, Klopfer
(197 6) proposed an entire structure for the affective domain [
i
in relation to science education. In addition to linking |
i
specific scientific phenomena to each level of the Krathwohl j
i Taxonomy, he presented several examples of affective j
objectives. Examples of Klopfer's (1976) objectives j
i
included: '
1.1 The student is sensitive to singing :
| birds. j
1.2 The student is inclined to stop what he j
or she is doing to listen to singing of I
birds. ,
2.11 The student visits a science museum. !
2.2 The student enjoys his or her work in J
the science laboratory. (p. 3 03)
i
In the illustrations above 1.2 and 1.1 represented affective
objectives in the "Receiving" level of Krathwohl*s Taxonomy, !
!
while 2.11 and 2.22 represented the "Responding" level of |
I
the Taxonomy.
Haney and Sorenson (1977) proposed developing
affective objectives corresponding to the five levels of the
58
Krathwohl Taxonomy. They suggested the following objective
as an example of level one, Receiving. "When presented with
some stimulus such as a demonstration or set of verbal
directions, the student looks at materials presented or
listens to the teacher and stops whatever else he or she may
i
be doing such as talking to a classmate1 1 (1977, p. 59). Two |
more examples linked to level 2.0 "Willingness to Respond"
were also provided. Haney and Sorenson (1977, p. 60)
i
proposed, "The student voluntarily looks for reading
materials on a particular topic; and the student begins a
given activity as a hobby." Further the authors recommended
several more illustrations at the third, fourth, and fifth
I i
i
I levels of Krathwohl*s Affective Taxonomy.
Geisert (1977), while contemplating affective
objectives for preservice science teachers, noted that j
affective objectives could be written as easily as cognitive
objectives. He developed three broad goals and translated
them into affective objectives. Examples expressing three •
i i
1 levels of Krathwohl*s Taxonomy included:
The student will attend class 90% or more of
the time. The student will enjoy doing
science. . . .The student will be enthusias
tic when doing science. . . .The student will
express a positive attitude toward the learn
ing and teaching of science, (p. 254)
Clearly, affective objectives are well represented in the
science literature.
59
Science practitioners can also turn to the California
Science Framework (CSDOE, 1978) as well as the Science
Framework Addendum (CSDOE, 1984) for examples of affective
objectives. The following are examples of attitudinal
objectives found in the Science Framework Addendum:
1. Shows curiosity about objects and
events.
2. Shows an awareness of and responds in a
positive manner to beauty and orderli
ness in the environment
3. Appreciates and respects all living or
ganisms (including self) and their
place in the environment.
4. Takes an active role in solving social
problems related to science and tech
nology. (CDSOE, 1984, p. 6).
In Bernie's (1978), "Identifying Affective Goals in
| Science Education," numerous approaches and sources for j
j developing affective objectives were proposed. He recom- j
I mended five significant areas to consider when formulating |
i
i i
I affective outcomes. Birnie (1978) referred practitioners to i
I
| the values of science, attributes of scientists, scientific {
i |
! attitudes, self-concept, and to the work of Klopfer (1976) . i
t 1
Birnie (1978) advocated developing affective objectives in
exactly the same manner that one develops cognitive objec- |
\ '
tives. An illustration of an affective objective in the !
area of values of science was expressed as, "During or
following the unit on nuclear fission and fusion, the
student presents a paper outlining the consequences:
(a) locally, (b) nationally, and (c) internationally, of
building nuclear power plants as an energy source" (1978,
p. 32). Another example of an affective objective related
to the attributes of scientists was also discussed.
Expressed by Birnie (1978), "Discusses the ethical stan
dards of scientists, maintaining with carefully presented
arguments that scientists must try to interpret the conse
quences of their work" (p. 32). J
As the decade of the 1980s arrived, science education
continued to call for the inclusion of affective objectives
to operationalize the affective domain in science curricu- i
lum. Simpson and Anderson (1981), although not providing |
specific examples of affective objectives, presented j
| countless affective action verbs. In the presentation of J
the action verbs, the authors used Krathwohl's Taxonomy to i
I
conceptualize the affective domain. Simpson also developed I
i p
a three dimensional model that showed the relationship of ■
I
the affective domain to the content of science and scientif- j
ic literacy. |
I In 1982, Smith and Reyes found that although affec-
i
tive objectives were seen as important they were not being j
implemented in practice. The authors suggested that
affective implementation breaks down at the level of
providing specific affective instructional objectives.
Smith and Reyes (1982) recommended taking general affective
61
goals and developing more specific behaviorally stated
objectives* As an example the authors proposed, "The
student will appreciate the dignity and self work of others"
(p. 5). The authors were emphatic that well-stated affec- j
tive objectives would assist in the development of affective
instruction and ultimately attainment of effective science !
outcomes.
i
Finally, Carin and Sund (1985) provided direction for j
developing affective objectives in science education. The
i
authors, like so many others, proposed using Krathwohl1s |
i
Taxonomy as a means to conceptualize the affective domain of |
learning. The authors also recommended using Klopfer's |
i l
(197 6) work to help practitioners in developing affective
objectives. In summary, affective objectives have been
| recommended in the science literature for many years. i
i I
I Illustrations of affective objectives are plentiful and are
I
i typically discussed in relation to Krathwohl's Affective j
i
Taxonomy. 1
)
i
Affective Teaching Strategies/Learning Activities !
Eisner (1979) proposed long ago that one of the most
important activities in curricular practice is to provide
learning opportunities which transform stated goals and
62
■ objectives into attainable outcomes. Smith and Reyes (1982,
p. 10) accepted this idea and stated, "In general, effi
cient attainment of educational objectives required that the
type of educational objectives be matched to the type of
learning appropriate for the attainment of that type of
objective." Zais (1976, p. 356) along with Smith and Reyes
(1982) noted, "if we want students to learn something, then
we ought to engage them in activities likely to lead to it—
is so obvious that it is hardly worth making." In light of
this basic curricular concept, scores of authors have
suggested the need to develop instructional methods aimed at
attaining affective outcomes in the curriculum.
This section identifies those learning opportunities-
/teaching strategies gleaned from the literature that
promoted attainment of affective outcomes. Ultimately,
these teaching strategies became part of the questionnaire. !
! Although a significant body of literature exists concerned I
i . . . ' . ■
with the efficacy of direct instruction and other cognative;
teaching strategies, little empirical evidence exists fori
the efficacy affective instructional strategies. Science,
education is no exception to this dilemma. Hughes (1971, p.
113) stated, "The problem of devising an effective teaching
technique for developing a more positive attitude toward
science, scientists, and scientific endeavors has been with
us since science entered the classrooms."
63 |
What instructional strategies have authors recommend
ed to develop affective outcomes? As previously noted, much
of the literature in this area is not conclusive therefore,
what follows is primarily theoretical in nature. Although
teaching strategies were reviewed as independent strategies,
some were used in conjunction with other teaching methods.
Modeling of Teacher Behavior
Although as Reigeluth and Curtis (1987) cautioned,
modeling of teacher behavior is not a true instructional
strategy, its value in developing student attitude and
values was noted by several authors. Heiss (1958) , Haney
(1964) , as well as Eiss and Harbeck (1969) urged teachers to I
model desired attitudes and values in science education.
The authors noted that students watching instructors exhibit
j such traditional attitudes as open-mindedness, intellectual i
i honesty, and curiosity would have an impact on their |
; development. Harmin (1977), instrumental in the Values
i
j Clarification Movement, concurred with the importance of
I
' modeling in the development of values and attitudes,
i :
Recent work by Gagne (1985) and Martin and Briggs
j (198 6) described the steps associated with modeling for :
attitudinal and value development. Gagne (1985) suggested (
j
the following steps.
1. The model*s appeal and credibility are es
tablished .
2. The learner's recall of the object of the
attitude and the situations to which it is
applicable is stimulated.
3. The model demonstrates or communicates the
desired choice of personal action.
4. A demonstration or communication indicates
a reinforcing state of affairs for the
model, (p. 238)
Martin and Briggs (198 6) also not only recommended
modeling to develop attitudes and values, but added the use
of reinforcement strategies ala Bandura (1969) as well as
role playing. Martin and Briggs (1986, p. 371) suggested
the following steps, "establish the credibility or reputa
tion of the model; show the model exhibiting the desired
behavior and being rewarded for it; have learners role play
the desired behavior of an imagined model."
Small Group Discussion
A second teaching strategy that appeared to have
I # i
j potential for developing affective outcomes in both science i
.
education and other subject areas was the use of small group ;
discussion. Small group discussion was oftentimes associat-j
j ed with other teaching strategies such as responding to ;
i value or attitude related guestions, or a values clarifica- ;
i
tion exercise. Although several authors recommended using |
i
small group discussion to develop affective concerns, few '
i
offered a specific format for operationalizing this tech
nique .
According to Eiss and Harbeck (19 69) small group
discussion was effective in developing values in science
students. This premise was confirmed by Baker and Doran
(1975). The authors supported beginning discussions by
introducing some controversial issue. The small group
!
discussion that ensued would, in the authors opinion, have j
great potential for developing certain predetermined |
attitudes. Similarly, Kulik and Kulik (1979) suggested that
t
small group discussion showed promise as a means to attain
affective outcomes such as interest in the subject, scien- j
tific attitudes, and curiosity.
Simpson and Anderson (1981) devoted an entire j
i
j chapter m their text, Science. Students, and Schools, to j
j i
the development of interests, attitudes, and values in |
science education. The authors recommended using small j
I . . . . . . I
! group discussion combined with value clarifying questions to ,
J develop affective outcomes in science. Still others, such
| as Martin and Briggs (1986), recommended using group
J discussions to develop attitudes and values. The authors ^
added moral and ethical areas of the affective domain to the |
proposed benefits of small group discussions. Finally,
Akindehin (1988), while advocating attitude development in
science, suggested using small group discussions. In
summary, the literature suggested use of small group
discussion to attain affective outcomes. However, this was
from a theoretical rather than empirical base.
Values Clarification
A third widely cited teaching method to develop
affective outcomes in education was a technique known as
values clarification (Harmin, Kirschenbaum, & Simmon, 1973;
Simon, Howe, & Kirschenbaum, 1972). Science educators as
well as other subject area specialists have long advocated
the use of calues clarification to develop interests,
1
attitudes, and values. Baker and Doran (1975) looked
extensively at using instructional techniques designed to
infuse values into science curriculum. The authors used the
values clarification technique and demonstrated its use in
science education.
Specifically, Baker and Doran (1975) devised ten
instructional strategies that dealt with student interests, :
I
I
attitudes, and values related to the pesticide of DDT. The j
first technique was an "Awareness Indicator Inventory." !
This technique is also, arguably, an evaluation strategy.
i
In this strategy an assessment is made of the level of
student awareness to a particular issue. An example might
be awareness of the impact of pesticides on marine life. A
second technique would be "Rank Ordering." In this strate
gy, students rank order a list of activities or proposals
67
i and tell what they most prefer and least prefer to do.
r
Typically, this technique leads to small group discussions.
Baker and Doran (1975) also proposed using "Class
room Polls" as a means of developing affective outcomes.
For this strategy a classroom poll is taken on a specific
issue in science education. This allows for expression of
student values, attitudes, and beliefs. A fourth instruc
tional strategy is "Force-Field Analysis." Students engaged
in this activity begin to realize the many forces acting
upon people that maintain their behavior. Additionally,
students become aware of the forces requiring change such
►
that behaviors might eventually change. A1 fifth technique, I
"Decision Charting." "involves the listing of wants or J
I
i ,
I values that a person has in regard to an object, or in the i
I
i I
j resolution of a problem" (1975, p. 550). j
! In the "Analytic Approach," Baker and Doran (1975) I
i i
suggested that students list concerns they have relative to |
i
! some research area. Students then respond to these concerns
l
j with positive and negative comments. Ultimately, students
i
I provide reasons for their comments that are based on
j attitudes and values. A seventh technique, "Alternate j
Charting and Selection," utilizes open-ended stories and j
allows students an opportunity to complete the stories. It
is hoped that in completing the stories, students draw upon
and incorporate their own attitudes and values.
The last three instructional strategies devised by
Baker and Doran (1975) were "Autobiographical Question
naires," "Moral Reasoning," and "Law Focus." In "Autobio
graphical Questionnaires" students answer questions about
themselves in an effort to initiate further discussion about
values held. "Moral Reasoning" was a method devised using
Kohlberg's (1976) work on moral development. Students are
presented with hypothetical or factual dilemma and asked to
respond to the main characters. Students respond in terms i
of what should be done and explains why in an effort to
illustrate attitudes and values. Finally, in "Law Focus"
students look at developing evidence around some issue.
j
Ultimately, students consider the rights of the victim and I
respond to what they see as just or fair.
Several authors, although not as specific as Baker
i
j and Doran (1975), have advocated using values clarification j
i I
1 strategies to develop the affective outcomes in science i
l j
education. Simpson and Anderson (1981) posited that j
students could relate feeling about events and other people, :
as well as discover beliefs and values using values clarifi
cation strategies. The authors specifically proposed four i
examples of this technique. First, develop a list of !
questions for students and ask them to respond as if they |
f
I
were being interviewed. Second, the authors recommended
using a series of incomplete statements for example, I
wonder if..., and have students respond. A third example is
i
to have students problem solve in small groups some diffi
cult issue. A final example reported by Simpson and
Anderson (1981) looked at discussing modern conveniences.
Students are asked to consider their values relative to this
discovery.
Carin and Sund (1985) expressed the same general
i
view of values clarification. The authors recommended using |
values clarification in an effort to more fully develop the
^ goals of science education. In Thelan's (1987) review of
i i
science related attitudes, he noted that many science
educators have used values clarification techniques as a j
I
1 means to incorporate values, attitudes, and appreciation in j
I
science.
Finally, Martin and Briggs (1986), in their compre- ]
i i
hensive work on the effective domain, concluded that the use ,
i
of values clarification showed promise in developing
j students' affective outcomes. Similarly, Reigeluth and 1
i !
j Curtis (1987) noted that values clarification encouraged
students to identify, select, act out their values, think
j about and discuss some moral issue, and to ultimately
i
reflect on their position as well as others. In summary,
authors seemed to put emphasis on values clarification as a
means to foster affective outcomes.
70
Role Playing
An instructional method often associated with
attainment of affective outcomes is role playing. The
literature appeared more conclusive in this area even though
it remained largely theoretical in nature. One of the few
empirical studies conducted on role playing was by Hughes
(1971). The author, working with preservice science
teachers, found role playing to be an effective instruction
al method to change attitudes. Interestingly, no signifi
cant difference existed between those involved in the role
play versus those observing the enactment. In an exhaustive
analysis of affective responses, Khan and Weiss (1973) also
suggested the merits of role playing in developing affective
outcomes.
Baker and Doran (1975) expressed the same belief and
recommended role playing as an excellent way to look at real
l
life issues. In this way the authors believed science
students could develop values and attitudes. Simpson and
Anderson (1981) in their science education text advocated
role playing for affective development. The authors
suggested that, as students acted out various roles,
attitudes and values surfaced. Simpson and Anderson (1981)
also suggested using an interview format with the role
players responding to specific dilemmas or current problems.
| The authors further suggested using role reversals as a
I means to incorporate affective development. Although not in
science education, Clark and Starr (1981) also suggested the
value in role playing to develop student attitudes.
The literature reflected several more authors who
i have cited the importance of role playing to attitude or
value development. Saylor, Alexander, and Lewis (1981)
noted the value of role playing in the exploration of
student feelings, attitudes, and values. This notion was
also supported by Gagne (1985) and again by Martin and
Briggs (1986). Gagne (1985) proposed a specific format for
i
role playing to enhance affective outcomes. His teaching
1 method included the following steps:
j
j 1. Present class with a problem.
! 2. The student's discussion leads to the
j presentation of various and sometimes
l conflicting attitudes.
3. Discussion typically leads to the rejec
tion of extreme attitudes that are unac
ceptable to the group as a whole.
4. Some consensus emerges from the discus
sion, which is satisfactory to most or all
! of the members.
! 5. Socially accepted attitudes and changes in
attitudes emerge from events of this
nature, (p. 239)
I Joyce and Weil (1986) in their widely cited, Models
i
of Teaching, noted that role playing as an instructional
j model could be used to develop student feelings, attitudes,
and values. Citing work done by Shaftel and Shaftel (1967),
the authors outlined nine critical steps in the role playing
process; warm up the group, select participants; set the
stage; prepare the observers; enact, discuss, and evaluate;
reenact, discuss, and evaluate; and share experience and
generalize (1986, pp. 256-257). Finally, Akindehin (1988)
reaffirmed the value of role playing and inferred that it
seemed to encourage the development of positive scientific
attitudes. It is important to note that at times role
i
playing or large scale role playing is known as Sociodrama i
(Simpson & Anderson, 1981) .
Simulations and Games
The value of simulations and games as a way to
i
develop affective outcomes was not clearly supported in the
literature. Only two authors in the literature review
implied their worth. Baker and Doran (1975) indicated that
games and simulations had potential for developing attitudes j
i
and values. Khan and Weiss (197 3) suggested that games and I
simulations might cultivate affect in the curriculum. !
Case Studies/Case Histories
Although more emphasis is being placed on case i
I
studies and case histories of famous scientists, no real
i
effort has been made to determine their value in the
development of the affective outcomes in science or other
subject areas. According to Heiss (1958), case studies or
historical materials showed promise in developing affective
science outcomes. In Akindehin's (1988) analysis of science
73
literature, he noted that case studies encouraged the
development of positive scientific attitudes.
Group Decision Making/
Group Problem Solving
Over 3 0 years ago Heiss (1958) asserted that
carrying out group decision making or problem solving
activities with students could in fact develop certain
scientific attitudes. Specifically, Heiss (1958) believed
these activities would develop intellectual honesty and
curiosity. In Baker and Doran1s (197 5) work involving
strategies for affective instruction in science, the authors
frequently alluded to the importance of group problem
solving. Many of the authors' efforts to demonstrate value
i clarification strategies involved some degree of group work.
4
J
j Simpson and Anderson (1981) were more specific in
| their illustrations of the group decision-making process.
Simpson and Anderson (1981) recommended using group deci
sion-making strategies similar to T-groups in vogue during
(
| the 1950s. A familiar sample of this was the trip the moon
i
| activity created by NASA. In this strategy students were
| asked to resolve issues related to being potentially
i
stranded on the moon. Simpson and Anderson (1981) noted a
wealth of potential attitude development with an activity of
this nature. The authors also cited a similar group
problem-solving activity developed by the U.S. Forestry
74
Service. Students must learn to rely and trust each other
in order to complete the required tasks. Once again this
was seen as valuable as a means to develop attitudes in
science.
Persuasive Communication Technique
Another instructional strategy that may have
potential for developing affective science outcomes is
called persuasive communication. Hughes (1971) found that
persuasive commvinication presentations with and without role
playing proved effective in developing attitudes in pre
service elementary science teachers. Some ten years later
Simpson and Anderson (1981) pointed to the possibilities
inherent in this teaching method for developing attitudes.
Martin and Briggs (1986), in their extensive work in
the affective domain, recommended several steps to use
t
persuasive communication to develop values and attitudes, j
The basic steps included: j
1. The source of the communication should
display credibility, expertise, and a
balanced view, presenting some views ,
already held by learners.
2. The message should be discrepant from the
current view of the learners, but not
excessively so.
3. Present the argument preferred to a group
already leaning toward that side, but
present both sides to a group opposed to
the target view.
4. Save the best argument for the end of the
message.
5. Present a problem and proposed solution.
6. Urge explicit and feasible action, and
evoke verbal or action responses.
7. Give reasons and incentives for attitude |
change.
8. Present distant (third person) examples of
action to change opposing attitudes, but
use direct (first person) appeal for
action not opposed by the audience.
9. Provide for mental rehearsal for every
action on the position and arguments
offered, (p. 370)
Establishing Dissonance as a Strategy
Although not found in the science literature,
Martin and Briggs (1986) found significant promise in using !
dissonance as a means to promote affective outcomes,
particularly attitudes and values. The authors described
the dissonance strategy in the following manner:
1. Create dissonance by setting up de
cision making instances.
2. Provide information discrepant with pre
sent beliefs of learners and show why it
is socially acceptable.
3. Induce action that is discrepant with pre
sent views.
4. If excessive dissonance exists, make the i
presented view attractive logically and i
consequentially. |
5. Show high credibility sources acting in
agreement with the target view.
6. For excessive dissonance, use successive
approximations— presenting actions working
gradually toward the target view.
7. Make persuasive communications that are
discrepant from the learner's view as !
possible without encountering outright
rejection, (p. 371) i
Laboratory Experimentation j
The use of laboratory investigations was reported |
useful in developing scientific attitudes by two science !
educators. Heiss (1958) reported using experiments to
76
uncover basic superstitions. Then students were provided
j opportunities to change their belief based on the new fact.
Later Akindehin (1988, p. 74) cited Gruber's (19 62) work and
concluded that supervised laboratory work "has been noted to
produce favorable scientific attitudes in students."
Controversial Issues
A common denominator in may of the teaching
strategies devised to develop attitudes, values, and
interests has to do with the use of controversial issues.
In the effort specifically to develop objectivity, Haney
(1964, p. 2 01) recommended confronting students with
"situations in which the temptation to permit personal
feelings to interfere with the recording of an observation
or the interpretation of data must be successfully resisted
in order to achieve a correct or accurate solution of a
problem." Baker and Doran (1975) confirmed the importance
of presenting controversial information in anticipation of
attitudinal development.
According to Simpson and Anderson (1981) the use
! of current problems or dilemmas in science education has
i
| promise as the launching point for affective development.
Similarly, Carin and Sund (1985) discussed the value of
societal issues and controversies in science courses.
f
Later, Gagne (1985) and Martin and Briggs (1986), writing
outside the field of science education, suggested that using
77
| controversial issues was often a starting point for many
! strategies dealing with the development of attitudes and
j
values.
A few authors in science education promoted the
use of various instructional methods that were highly t
I specific. Haney's (1964) work looked at methods for
I
j developing specific scientific attitudes. In order to i
i i
develop a willingness to suspend judgment, Haney (1964)
recommended confronting students with situations in which
their willingness to suspend judgments "is rewarded or in
some way leads to success while formation of conclusions
without evidence leads to failure" (p. 200) . To develop
open-mindedness, Haney (1964) suggested that experiences be |
provided in which students are "confronted with the need to
revise a belief as the result of having acquired new i
information on the subject" (p. 2 00) . j
Haney (1964) further suggested, in order to ,
1 i
, develop curiosity, students should be presented with |
I problematic situations without providing answers or explana-
i ;
tions. To develop critical mindedness he recommended !
i encouraging students to ask: How do you know? He also
• encouraged students to look for arguments and evidence
j
; supporting important propositions. In addition, Haney j
(1964) proposed that students read about investigations to
learn of the sources from which current knowledge was taken.
78
To develop honesty, Haney (19 64) advocated the use of open-
ended experiences where data obtained and responses made
could be honestly presented. Finally, rationality was
developed by confronting students with "situations in which
careful reasoning proves superior to explanations of a
superstitious nature" (1964, p. 201).
| In Carin and Sund's (1985), Teaching Science
] Through Discovery, the authors discussed two techniques
j devised to develop attitudes, feelings, and values. The
first strategy was adapted from Taba's (1971) work in social
studies. This technique was called, "exploring feelings,"
and included the following steps: A situation is presented,
students are asked about how people felt in the story, they
then are asked about their own similar feelings. Next |
i
i
students are asked how they feel now, and finally, why they |
feel that way.
A second strategy called "analyzing values" was
i
also recommended to develop values and attitudes (Carin & j
i
Sund, 1985). Once a situation depicting some values’
i
orientation was presented to the students, the following1
i
i
questions were asked of all students: J
1. What did they do to improve their com
munity?
2. Why do you think individuals do that?
3. What does this indicate about values or
what they think is important?
4. If you were confronted with similar sit
uations, what would you do and why?
79
5. What does this indicate about what you
value?
6. How do these people differ in their values
compared to you? What difference do you
see in what you and other people value?
(p. 223)
This final section represents what was found in
the 1978 California Science Framework for developing the
attitudinal component in science education. Even though the
following strategies are arguably not true instructional
methods, it is important to note the recommendations of the
state. In order to develop positive scientific attitudes
the following methods were recommended:
1. Provide opportunities for students to in
teract with individuals who derive satis
faction from scientific activities and
modes of thought.
2. Determine the values and interests of each
student so that instruction can be built
upon the student's life base and upon his
or her curiosity about the world.
3. Be continually alert to opportunities that
provide a motivational basis for science
instruction.
4. Design science instruction that provides
successful experiences from the earliest
grade onward.
5. Help each student develop a positive at
titude toward himself or herself— a pre
requisite to developing positive attitudes
toward science.
6. Establish an environment that includes a
variety of interesting experiences and
opportunities to explore, gather data,
examine alternatives, and stimulate curi
osity. (California State Department of
Education, 1978 p. 52)
r 80
As noted in the beginning of this section, there
are many ideas about developing affective outcomes.
Countless authors recommended varying degrees of comprehen
siveness or rather vaguely defined teaching strategies.
Presented was a diverse set of guidelines, few substantiated
with any degree of empirical evidence. As it was, most
methods devised to inculcate attitudes, values, and inter- j
I
ests are theoretical in nature. With such diversity and I
, uncertainty, it is no wonder affective outcomes seemed to |
! !
j disappear at the point of implementation in the literature. !
I |
i 1
1 i
! Affective Evaluation Strategies
This section sought to provide an overview of the j
i
affective curricular practices designed to evaluate affec- ]
I i
i . . . . |
i tive outcomes m education and specifically science educa- |
| f
' tion. The review also served to identify affective student i
i
I evaluation strategies for inclusion in the questionnaire. |
I f
I Much of the literature concerned with affective evaluation !
i !
j is highly theoretical in nature. |
i i
I The critical role of evaluation in curriculum and ;
t I
instruction has been noted by a plethora of scholars (Bloom, j
et al., 1971, 1981; Tyler, 1949). In the 1970s Johnson |
suggested, "in order to manage a school or a classroom
productively, it is important to specify objectives and to
81
evaluate their accomplishments" (1974, p. 100). The
development of affective objectives and determination of
their attainment is no exception to this basic curricular
concept. Several authors reported the undeniable need to
develop and implement evaluative strategies for the affec
tive domain (Baker & Doran, 1975; Birnie, 1978; Bloom et
al., 1971, 1981; Doran, 1980; Eiss & Harbeck, 1969; Fraser,
1977; McCormack & Yager, 1989; Nay & Crocker, 197 0, NSTA, I
1971; Payne, 1976). In 1988, Laforgia stated, "In view of
the evidence it is quite clear that affective outcomes
should be subjected to formal evaluation, especially if the |
affective cannot be confidently linked with achievement and I
I
cognition" (p. 412). j
Although some scholars voiced reservations over ;
I
I
assigning student grades based on affective outcomes, their !
I . . 1
ultimate evaluation was seen as integral to the curriculum i
i
f (Bloom et al., 1971, 1981; Johnson, 1973, Payne, 1976). j
1 I
Bloom and his associates (1971, 1981) implied that, if j
evaluation did not take place, no evidence could be obtained |
to modify the curriculum or instructional practices designed
to attain affective outcomes. Payne (1976) recommended four *
primary reasons for including and evaluating affective
outcomes in schools:
1. Affective variables influence an indi
vidual's ability to participate effec
tively in a democratic society.
82
2. The development of skills and abilities,
related to the acquisition and growth of
attitudes and values is necessary for a
healthy and effective life.
3. Affective outcomes interact with occupa
tional and vocational satisfaction.
4. Affective variables influence learning.
(p. 66)
| Twenty-six years ago Krathwohl et al. (19 64, p. 96)
! stated, "There is almost a complete absence of instruments
I . . .
I to measure affective outcomes of instruction in the various
physical and biological sciences, in mathematics, and in
social studies." More than a decade after this statement
j was made, Payne (1976, p. 96) noted, "Many methods have
j been developed by psychologists and sociologists in their j
! studies of human behavior, but few have been communicated
| to, or translated for use by educators." Since the publica-
J tion of Krathwohl's Taxonomy (1964) several scholars have
contributed to the assimilation of affective evaluation
practices in science education. What follows is a review of j
those practices. <
i
Probably the most widely cited evaluation instrument !
I for affective objectives is the semantic differential scale 1
originally developed by Osgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum
(1957). Countless authors have reported the importance of
this technique for evaluation of affective outcomes in the
attitudinal area (Beatty, 1976; Bloom et al., 1971, 1981;
Doran, 1980; Eiss & Harbeck, 1969; Henerson, Morris &
83
Fitz-Gibbon, 1978; Johnson, 1973; Klopfer, 1971; Robinson,
1979; Schibeci, 1982; Simpson & Anderson, 1981). The
instrument involves the development of sets of bipolar
adjectives or phrases that relate to some subject area or
idea. The adjectives are placed on a list with seven
attitudinal positions between them. Klopfer (1971, p. 621)
proposed an illustration of this method related to doing
science investigations. For example:
Dull ------ Exciting
Bad ------ Good
Unenjoyable ------ Enjoyable
Boring ------ Interesting i
I
Eiss and Harbeck (1969, p. 20) also provided an ;
I
example of the semantic differential for science education. |
i
whee! ------ yetchI ]
theoretical ------ practical I
inconvenient ------ convenient ;
complex ------ simple. . . *
] Doran (198 0, p. 59) presented several examples of bipolar i
1 . . . . . . I
adjectives for examples: "good-bad, optimistic-pessimistic, ,
beneficial-harmful, clean-dirty, valuable-worthless." J
Another attitude scale reported in the literature as ‘
i
i
having potential for evaluating aspects in the affective !
domain is the agreement scale or Likert-Type Scale (Doran,
1980, Eiss & Harbeck, 1969, Henerson, Morris & Fitz-Gibbon,
1978; Klopfer, 1971; Robinson, 1979; Simpson & Anderson,
1981). According to Doran (1980) this technique is easily
constructed and readily adapted for evaluation of attitudes
84
and interests in science education. Typically, the scale
requires development of sentences or statements about some
attitude object (e.g., science) written in positive or
negative formats. For example, reading science magazines is
an interesting endeavor. Respondents select a position on
the scale based on their level of agreement with the
statement. Categories of agreement usually included J
[ strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, and strongly
| disagree.
In science education several Likert-Type scales have
been developed to assess affective outcomes (Airasian, 1967; ;
j Allen, 1959; Fraser, 1978; Kozlow & Nay, 1976; Shoresman,
| I
! 1965). Simpson and Anderson (1981) provided this example: j
| i
[ 1. Much of the talk about pollution is prop- |
aganda that should be ignored. SA, A, U, ;
DA, SDA |
2. The Federal Government should pass strict t
laws that punish those who pollute the I
environment. SA, A, U, DA, SDA j
I 3 . 1 think using insecticides can be very
| dangerous. SA, A, U, DA, SDA i
! 4. The more people our country has the better
j off we will all be. SA, A, U, DA, SDA (p.
i 26)
i
f
| Several other attitude scales or preference i
1 t
j
I ranking also appeared to have potential for affective I
I !
' evaluation purposes in science education. The use of open-
j ended questions/questionnaires were recommended by Johnson
1 (1973). He suggested using statements such as, "My general
opinion about ____________is ..." (p. 311) . Bloom et al.
85
(1971, 1981) recommended using questions from values
clarification. For example, "With a gift of $100, I would
. . ." (1981, p. 315) , or "My best friend can be counted on
to . . (1981, p. 315). Numerous authors expressed
positive results using closed-ended questions/questionnaires
with forced choice responses (Bloom et al., 1971, 1981;
Carin & Sund, 1985; Doran, 1980; Johnson, 1973; Klopfer, |
1971). Johnson (1973) provided the following examples: "Do
you intend to take another course in__________ ?" and "How
i i
interested are you in learning more about______________?"
(p. 312). Klopfer's (1971) illustration included Likert-
Type responses to closed-ended questions. For example, "I j
like reading about a great writer_____________reading about
i
I science discoveries" (p. 621) . Choices for this type of
j question included "(a) a lot more than, (b) a little more
i 1
than, (c) just as much as, (d) a little less than, and (e) I
a lot less then" (p. 621). ;
The literature also supported the use of interest j
inventories as well as activity inventories to evaluate |
!
1 student attitudes and interests (Bloom et al, 1971; Eiss & |
i . i
I Harbeck 1969; Klopfer, 1971; Martin & Briggs, 1986). j
; I
Typically, topics related to social problems or science
related issues such as toxic waste are presented to stu
dents. Students are then asked to rate their level of
interest in these topics. Bloom et al. (1971) suggested
86 t
that the scale could be related to time spent on this
activity or some frequency breakdown such as frequently,
occasionally, and never.
Eiss and Harbeck (1969) proposed listing the desired
behaviors of students in science classes related to affec
tive development. By way of this checklist, through direct
| observation, the frequency with which a student demonstrates
t
desired affective behaviors would be monitored. Examples of
desired behavior included verbal behaviors and nonverbal
I
behaviors (Eiss & Harbeck, 1969). Other scholars supported
Eiss and Harbeck's (1969) assumption (Bloom et al., 1981;
Carin & Sund, 1985; Doran, 1980; Johnson, 197 3; Martin & i
Briggs, 1986; Schibeci, 1982; Simpson & Anderson, 1981). j
i
Simpson and Anderson (1981) proposed the following examples i
l
i
of observed behavior: !
Comes to labs prepared and familiar with
activities; reads directions before asking
for assistance from others or instructor; !
cooperates with other students in group 1
activities; appears serious in the lab and :
carefully puts time to use; can be depended
on to properly care for equipment and clean
up work area; spends extra time in the lab
with follow-up activities. (p. 270)
Interviews were also seen as an effective evalua- i
! ;
tion strategy for the affective components of science
education (Bloom et al., 1971, 1981; Doran, 1980; Eiss &
Harbeck 1969; Martin; & Briggs, 1986). Eiss and Harbeck
(1969) suggested that a personal discussion or interview was
an excellent way to determine student's attitudes and
values. The authors proposed several structured interview
questions:
1. What subjects do you like most?
2. What do you do in your spare time?
3. What hobbies do you have?
4. Do you like to visit museums?
5. Would you like to visit a research lab
oratory?
6. Have you made a career choice? What is
it? (1969, p. 19)
Bloom et al., (1971, 1981) noted that interviews could be I
j structured as well as unstructured. An unstructured
interview question might be related to students' likes or
i
dislikes, or what they think of the science course. In a
more structured format students would be asked to rate
i
certain jobs. For example, a carpenter versus a stock- J
I
broker. Though the ensuing discussion student's attitudes j
i
and values could be noted. j
Subjective test questions were found to be an i
i
i
effective evaluation technique for determining student 1
I
affective attainment (Carin & Sund, 1985; Doran, 1980; Eiss
& Harbeck, 1969). According to Eiss and Harbeck (1969, p. ■
20) subjective test questions "provide the best opportunity j
j
to get students to show their values related to science and 1
f i
to demonstrate their ability to show good judgment in making
decisions concerning important problems." The authors
i
further suggested using questions which presented two J
i
conflicting viewpoints. Students are asked to respond to
the question and provide reasons for choices. Eise and
Harbeck (1969) provided the following illustrations:
The town council has been caught in a budget
squeeze between the need for a new sewage
disposal system for your community and the
need for improved medical services at the
local hospital. You have been invited as a
citizen to visit the council meeting and make
recommendations for action. What would you
recommend and what reason would you give to
support your decision? (p. 21)
Doran (1980) noted that controversial issues within the
school or community are excellent as focal points for
subjective questions.
Eiss and Harbeck (1969) reported that oftentimes
student reports or term papers can be used to ascertain
1 student interest or values. Specifically, the authors
j recommended looking at the content of a paper to determine
r
■ a student's interest. If, for example, a paper contained
^ simple statement of fact, then level of interest toward the
1 subject could be considered minimal. If, on the other hand,
| a student has picked a topic and further advocates a
i
| particular position, one can gain insight into the student's
i
| interests and values (Eiss & Harbeck, 1969). Doran (1980)
i noted that if students write a science paper in another
i
course, this would certainly have implications for student
interest and values.
Unobtrusive measures were cited in the literature as
a way to assist in the evaluation of affective science
89
I
outcomes (Bloom et al. , 1981; Schibeci, 1982; Simpson & I
Anderson, 1981). According to Simpson and Anderson,
"Unobtrusive measures are observations of behavior that
teachers and others can make without being noticed or
without obstructing the student*s activities" (1981, pp.
270-271). Bloom and his associates (1981) recommended
looking at such things as attendance records, tardy records,
use of school library, voluntary seating, and the use of |
i
class and library materials as a means to evaluate student
interests. Schibeci (1982) added enrollment data to the
| list of unobtrusive measures.
j In summary, a review of the literature revealed [
I . . . . . |
; several affective evaluation strategies for determining j
i
affective science outcomes. Although not empirically |
i
verified, many of these strategies were recommended to j
i
] improve both curricular and instructional practice as it ,
relates to affective student development. -
I i
I f
f
I I
Affective Curricular Practice and the Allocation of Time
i
I
i
Although few scholars have specifically looked at the |
amount of instructional time allocated for attainment of
affective science outcomes, some implicit findings were
gleaned from the literature. Authors over the last 2 5 years
90
have voiced considerable skepticism that affective develop
ment in science education has become part of classroom
instructional practices. Haney (1964, p. 33) noted, "Daily
lessons tend to center around some conceptual theme, a major
i
principal, or some other form of cognitive learning outcome
while affective learning at best are considered peripheral
to this central idea."
Other scholars have expressed similar positions.
Eiss and Harbeck (1969) concluded that emphasis on the
affective domain usually ended with a statement about its
i
importance in the course description. Nay and Crocker t
(1970) concurred with this idea. They hypothesized that
there was serious doubt whether teachers developed affective j
objectives, used suitable teaching methods, and used
appropriate evaluation strategies. Nay and Crocker (197 0,
i
p. 59) asserted, " m practice the affective behavior of i
i
scientists usually remains at the level of a broad objec- !
I
I tive. Concomitantly, the affective growth of students in 1
• . . i
the science classroom is virtually ignored." j
Later, Kozlow and Nay (1976, p. 147) reported, j
I
"Lists of objectives for science education often include the
development of interests, attitudes, values and apprecia
tions. However, the literature on this topic indicates that
teachers tend to neglect these objectives when planning
classroom activities." Birnie (1978) expressed the follow
ing concern:
Despite emerging evidence that students,
teacher, and the general public rank goals
relating to self-concept and values (that is,
affective goals) among the most important for
our schools, progress toward the development
of explicit affective objectives has been
pitiably slow (p. 29)
Clearly, the statements by Kozlow and Nay (1976) as well as
Birnie (1978) have alluded to the lack of instructional time
and affective curricular practice designed to operationalize
affective outcomes in science education.
The 1980s revealed little change in science curricu
lar practice. Klopfer's (1980) analysis of science educa
tion suggested little change in instructional strategies or
curricular practice. The textbook continued to receive
heavy use and emphasis was on the acquisition of knowledge.
Koballa (1984) noted the same absence of affective develop-
j
ment and suggested, "science education practices that are j
most evident today reflect goals that were established in j
the late 1950s" (p. 28). These goals were developed after
the Sputnik launch to prepare more scientists.
Gould (1982) also noted the lack of emphasis placed
on affective development in the science classroom. He
surmised that this was due to the lack of teaching methods
and evaluation strategies. As the decade of the 198 0s
closed, the cry among science educators remained the same.
92
The importance of the affective outcomes were discussed, yet
doubts existed as to whether instructional time was allotted
I
for their attainment (Carin & Sund, 1985; Hodson, 1988;
Laforgia, 1988) .
A dearth of studies existed that actually looked at
time as it related to instructional practices and the
affective domain. The findings of three studies were
! j
pertinent to this investigation. Thomson (197 5) used open- I
ended questions to elicit teacher practices relative to the !
i 1
affective domain. His results were wide ranging and '
suggested that little affective instruction of affective
I
i
evaluation took place among Australian science teachers. |
l
Furthermore, cognitive learning was emphasized with little !
time for affective development. j
Schibeci's (1981) study revealed that although j
j teachers agreed student attitudes toward science were
! . . 1
important, they did not formally assess affective objec- i
I
tives. In fact, according to Schibeci, teachers "make no
; systematic attempts to teach towards affective objectives" |
(1981, p. 72). Teachers' primary efforts were directed
I *
j toward development of cognitive outcomes.
! A study by Mitman, Mergendoller, Marchman, and Packer
(198 7) reported similar findings. The authors looked at
whether science teachers actually spent time on anything
other than science content development. In the study the
93
authors recorded each time a teacher made reference to the
positive attitudes in science. Results indicated that
teacher's reference to anything other than content was
practically non-existent. Mitman and associates (1987)
suggested teachers were aware of the general goals of
science but could not allocate time to their development.
In summary, many authors continued to question the
amount of time spent implementing time honored affective j
science outcomes. Consensus appeared to suggest that
limited time or effort is spent in pursuit of affective
growth. The implication of theoretical works as well as
empirical studies seemed to bear this concern out. |
I
i
Barriers to the Operationalization of the Affective Domain
I
i
I
There are several key factors which have an adverse j
effect on whether the affective domain is implemented into i
i
j school curricula.
First, traditional educational programs have long \
! since emphasized the cognitive development of youth, j
Ringness (1975) attributed this emphasis to the launching of j
Sputnik in 1957, while Briggs (1984) has traced the begin- J
ning to as far back as 1898. He suggested that behaviorism
and learning theory somehow allowed the affective domain to
94 I
j
slip in educational importance. Krathwohl and his col- |
leagues (1964), Eiss and Harbeck (1969), Payne (1976), j
Bloom, Madaus, and Hasting (1981), Goodlad (1984) and Klein
(198 6) all supported the notion that cognitive development
is clearly the overriding emphasis in schools. In fact,
Eiss and Harbeck (1969) reported typically seeing "lip
service" in dealing with affect. Expressed by Krathwohl et
i
al. (1964, p. 18), "Gradually education has come to mean an
almost solely cognitive examination of issues."
Science educators too have noted the underlying
emphasis on the cognitive outcomes. In Eiss and Harbeck's
(1969) assessment of science emphasis, they typically saw !
i
1 course descriptions containing cognitive goals and suggested
methods for attaining them. Birnie (1978, p. 29) was even '
I
I more specific when he said, "Traditionally science educa- j
! tion has emphasized the cognitive domain particularly j
j knowledge, comprehension and application." Later, as |
science education moved into the 1980s, little shift in -
t f
j cognitive emphasis could be seen. Doran (1980), Hurd |
i I
| (1985), and Brunkhorst (in Bybee, 1986) noted a continued
I
| cognitive direction.
Certainly, as Payne (1976, p. 94) has expressed, |
"When cognitive and affective objectives are in competition
for time, attention, and resources, the affective tend to be
95
the first to go, thereby contributing to the erosion of
affective development in our students."
The reasons for this apparent emphasis on cognitive
instructional development have been enumerated by several
authors. Krathwohl et al. (1964) was one of the first
groups to note that teachers simply have an easier time
testing and evaluating cognitive objectives. As a result
they tend to ignore the affective areas of instruction. In
1969, Eiss and Harbeck concurred with this notion and
suggested that ease of evaluation for cognitive goals over
affective goals certainly played an impact on the preference
for cognitive development. Eiss and Harbeck (1969) also
j
suggested that teachers emphasize cognitive goals because
they are more traditional and more clearly defined.
| Finally, it has been suggested that teachers feel more
! comfortable with the cognitive realm because they were
i
i taught that way and thus know no other approach.
Bills, (1976) asserted that schools simply did not
j see the value of affect as integral to the whole educational
| process. A recent study by Schibeci (1981) found teachers
i
j did not see the affective objectives as important as
cognitive objectives. The author further stated that
teachers made no systematic attempt to teach toward affec
tive objectives.
Ringness (1975, p. 6) noted, "the belief of many
people in our society that schools should teach reading,
writing and arithmetic, and stay out of such areas as
attitudes and values."
Another critical barrier encountered when attempting
to operationalize the affective domain appears to be the
domain's inadequate framework and inherent definitional
i
problems. Although the Krathwohl Taxonomy (19 64) is the I
i
most widely cited framework for the affective domain, there I
is hardly complete agreement. In 1974, Johnson's review of j
the literature led to his conclusion that affective outcomes
in general were confusing. Later Bills (1976) indicated:
There is little agreement about the nature of
I the concept called affect, and the agreement
which exists relates only tangentially to
; variables such as values, attitudes, self-
j concepts, and others which are of concern to
! educators, (p. 7)
i ,
! Martin and Briggs (198 68) also questioned whether educators j
felt the affective domain was adequately define. In fact '
i their work, "The Affective and Cognitive Domains: Integra- :
i
! tion for Instruction and Research," was an effort to better ■
i
! conceptualize affect in the curriculum. j
i i
! |
| Although science educators quickly responded to
\
\
Krathwohl et al.'s (1964) work with Behavioral Objectives in
the Affective Domain by Eiss and Harbeck (19 69), many
authors continued to note the confusion surrounding the
affective domain. Deiderich (1969) suggested that before
97
instruction could be designed a better definition of the
scientific attitude was necessary. Nay and Crocker (1970)
found the inadequate representation of the affective domain
so compelling they later devised a framework of their own.
Klopfer (197 6) attributed the overall neglect of the
affective domain directly to the confusion over what to
include in the domain. Questions arose as to what atti
tudes and what feeling should be included. In 1980, Doran
included several key sections on the affective domain in his
National Science Teachers* Association publication. Still,
Doran (198 0) as others before him, decried the affective
domain as too ill defined to be used in science education.
Recently, Koballa (1988), though concentrating primarily on
attitudes and the affective domain, asserted the familiar
message— poorly defined concepts are hampering efforts to
attain affective outcomes.
I Critics of the affective domain often cited the fear
i
! of indoctrination, brainwashing, and the private nature as
being instrumental in science practitioners' failure to
operationalize the domain in the curriculum. For many
i
j years, authors have questioned whether affect can be
addressed in the classroom. As early as 1964 when Krathwohl
and his colleagues published the Affective Taxonomy,
questions arose as to the legitimacy of developing a
student's beliefs, attitudes, or values. Typically, the
98
development of affect was seen as the province of family and
church (Ringness, 1975). Attempts to address these areas
created fears in teachers that they would be accused of
brainwashing or indoctrinating their students (Bills, 197 6;
Bloom, Hastings, & Madaus, 1971; Bloom, Madaus, & Hastings, |
I
1981; Martin & Briggs, 1986; Payne, 1976).
j Science educators are also concerned that affective
outcomes are too personal to deal with and in fact are too
controversial for the classroom (Eiss & Harbeck 1969) .
Developing values and attitudes was seen as indoctrination
and brainwashing (Birnie, 1978; Kozlow & Nay, 1976). In
Thomson's (1975) study of affective science practices in
Australian teachers, most were opposed to delving into
I ,
anything other than cognitive learning. Although many j
science sources continue to promote effective outcomes in j
the science curriculum (Carin & Sund, 1985; Doran, 198 0; 1
j Koballa, 1988; Laforgia, 1988; Simpson & Anderson, 1981), ;
! the fear of being accused of indoctrination is still a
critical issue (Brunkhorst, 1986).
i
A fourth persistent barrier to the attainment of
i
j affective outcomes centers on inadequate methods of instruc- ;
! tion specifically designed to attain affective goals and '
objectives. Some 2 0 years ago Nay and Crocker (197 0) wrote 1
of the inadequate instructional strategies used to attain
affective outcomes. At that time the authors suggested that
99
perhaps turning to practitioners would further efforts to
develop more precise teaching methods designed to propagate
affective growth in students. Almost six years later,
Koslow and Nay (1976) decried the condition of affective
instructional strategies designed to develop interests,
attitudes, and values in science students. Birnie (1978)
also cited the ineffectiveness of instructional methods to
attain affective outcomes.
Brunkhorst (198 6, p. 217), writing on the importance
of values and ethics in current science education, stated,
"A major obstacle to infusing values and ethics into the
science curriculum is lack of established methods for doing
I
so." Finally, in one of the few studies designed to look at
science practitioners in the classroom, Mitman,
Mergendoller, Marchman, and Packer (1987, p. 627) concluded,
"A final explanation for the paucity of instruction reflect
ing the contextual components is that teachers were never
i
trained in how to enrich their curriculum in this fashion."
I
i Another commonly cited barrier to the operationaliza-
! tion of the affective domain in the curriculum revolves j
I I
i i
around the lack of adequate materials. Although not in j
agreement as to what materials are best, many authors have I
proposed the need to develop instructional materials
specifically designed to attain affective outcomes. Nay and
Croker (197 0) advocated developing materials that inculcated
100
I
affective growth in science students. Baker and Doran
(1975) , as well as Kozlow and Nay (1976) , concurred with the
need to develop affective instructional materials. The same
notion was expressed by Birnie (1978) in his article
attempting to clarify affect in science education. In
Mitman et al.'s (1987) comprehensive look at science
practice, the authors suggested that one plausible reason
teachers did not teach to all of the goals of science was
because instructional materials, such as textbooks and
commercial sources, made little reference to affect.
Clearly, specific materials used to attain affective |
outcomes are not widely known or understood.
One of the most widely cited barriers to the imple-
i
mentation of affective outcomes in the curriculum has to do
with student evaluation. Scores of authors identified this
barrier as the most crucial impediment to the development of j
J
student affect. As early as 1964 Krathwohl and his associ- |
ates noted, "It was evident that evaluation work for
affective objectives was marginal." (p 15.) Krathwohl et
al. (1964, p. 15) further addressed the plight of affective
student evaluation and stated, "What is missing is a 1
i
systematic effort to collect evidence of growth in affective !
objectives which is in any way parallel to the very great
and systematic efforts to evaluate cognitive achievement."
Shortly after the publication of what is now commonly
known as Krathwohl1s Taxonomy (1964), Bloom, Hastings, and
Madaus (1971) echoed a reoccurring concern about evaluation
in the affective domain. The scholars noted that teachers
neglected evaluation of affective outcomes and focused
primarily on cognitive concerns. Bloom and his colleagues
(1971) surmised three reasons for neglect of affective
evaluation. First. teachers avoid evaluation in the
I
affective domain because they believe affective objectives
cannot be attained in a short period of time. A second
reason centered around teachers' belief that evaluation of
affective outcomes, like the domain itself, was a private !
i
matter and thus should not be evaluated. Finally, Bloom and |
associates (1971) indicated that few teachers believed j
| affective objectives should be assigned grades in evalua- ]
i , . ■ '
t tion.
i i
It was Johnson (1973, 1974) who took issue with grade
; assignment for effective evaluation. He noted that teachers
i tended to have too narrow a view of what evaluation in the
affective domain should accomplish. Rather than for grades,
Johnson suggested using evaluation for improving instruction :
I
aimed at developing affective outcomes. Johnson further j
implied that both procedures and methods for measuring
affective development were lacking. Payne (197 6) concurred
102
i with this assessment and found evaluation procedures for
affect lacked reliability. He concluded that evaluation
procedures were simply not adequate for measuring affective
outcome.
During the 1980s evaluation in the affective domain
i
was still an unresolved issue in the literature. Bloom, j
Madaus, and Hastings (1981) cited several problematic areas |
in affective evaluation. First, much of evaluation is !
typically done via standardized test. According to the
authors, affective objectives are simply not included in
these tests. Second, although students may indicate change
in affect, there is no way to differentiate this from
superficial changes. Third, it is difficult to ascertain
whether students are merely trying to please in relation to
interests, attitudes, and values or whether affective j
i behavioral change has taken place. Finally, the authors I
once again reported that some teachers see affect as private i
I
and therefore to assign a grade was inappropriate.
Many others continued to question the status of ;
i 1
j affective evaluation procedures. Beane (1985/86) expressed '
I
I his concerns quite simply and posited that there are
I
inadequate measures for attainment of affective outcomes.
i
Martin and Briggs (1986) concurred with Beane (1985/86) and
suggested that no clear-cut notion of what to measure has
been answered.
103
I
Science educators were quick to decry the state of j
l
evaluation for affective objectives. Eiss and Harbeck
(19 69) noted long ago that it was difficult to determine
whether affective objectives had been attained. In fact,
Eiss and Harbeck (1969, p. 12) stated, "Probably a major
factor in the failure to give adequate emphasis to affec
tive goals is the difficulty of testing for their attain
ment." Later, Nay and Crocker (1970) found little to guide
evaluation in the affective domain. The authors proposed
turning to classroom teachers in an effort to gain insight
into appropriate evaluation methods of the affective domain.
Anderson and Koutnik (197 2) shared similar concerns and t
suggested that evaluation for affective outcomes is fre
quently ignored because it is just too hard.
In 1976 Kozlow and Nay concluded, "Finally, the
dearth of suitable evaluation instruments and techniques
i
i
probably acts as a deterrent to a serious systematic concern |
on the part of teachers with objectives in the affective 1
domain" (p. 147). This statement seemed to typify the
belief held by many science educators. Birnie (1978) '
questioned whether evaluation strategies and instruments
truly measured achievement in affective outcomes. Finally,
Laforgia (1988) noted the consistent refusal of teachers to
evaluate affective objectives. He further implied that some
104
j instructors go as far as to say evaluation of affective
! objectives is impossible.
i
A review of the literature reveals many factors which
appear to hinder the development of affective outcomes in
the curriculum. One such problem is the length of time
educators believe is necessary to develop affective goals
t
i and objectives. Some practitioners believe that affective
i
outcomes are so slowly attained that to do so over a (
I
semester or even a year is unlikely. As a result, concern
for affective development is often ignored (Krathwohl, 1964;
Martin & Briggs, 1986). Bloom and his colleagues (1981)
found that because of the slow attainment of some affective
objectives, teachers oftentimes assumed measurement or
I
evaluation of the affective change was not probable.
In yet another area of concern, two authors criti
cized educators over concentration on behaviorism. Bills
(1976) noted that this over concern has had a detrimental
impact on affective development in students. Birnie (1978) I
I -
concurred with this belief and suggested that educators |
i !
; avoid goals not clearly related to behaviors, thus ignoring '
| affect as a true part of the curriculum. I
< . 1
| Eiss and Harbeck (1969) surmised that some teachers
I may not know how to deal with the affective domain because j
their own training was limited in this area. Payne (1976,
p. 95) indicated, "Most teacher training programs avoid any
105
!
systematic attention to the specification or measurement of
affective outcomes." Further investigation reveals that
lack of time has also been considered a barrier on teachers'
efforts to develop outcomes in education (Bills, 1976;
Brunkhorst, 1986). Another issue worth including was raised
by Isaac and Michael (1981). The authors suggested
"Attitudes and feelings, like the weather, tend to be j
changeable, unpredictable, and sensitive to many factors,
both inside and outside the learning situation. Hence
writing widely applicable and stable affective objectives is
j
correspondingly difficult" (p. 216).
Finally, Martin and Briggs (1986) found several
additional barriers to affective development not already
mentioned. The authors posited that not only are certain
affective behaviors important but sometimes the absence of j
i !
i these behaviors is equally important. This obviously
creates a new set of parameters needed for evaluation.
j Martin and Briggs (1986) further discussed a growing !
. . . .1
inability among practitioners to identify specific affective
i behaviors. The researchers also addressed the concern over
I whether affective behaviors are ends or means to an end. I
| . . . i
As noted in the previous sections, there are several :
areas appearing frequently in the literature which seem to !
have played an adverse effect on the operationalization of
the affective domain in the curriculum. Continued emphasis
106
on cognitive development, inadequate framework for the
affective domain, concern for the private nature of affect,
inadequate methods of instruction, and evaluation appear to
be the most prominent barriers to the incorporation of
affective outcomes in the curriculum.
i
, REVIEW OF THE CHAPTER
!
The affective domain of learning has been an integral
facet of education for decades. A review of the literature
revealed that educators from a diverse cross section
continue to promulgate affective outcomes. In addition,
scholars and practitioners continue to discuss the impor
tance of the affective domain (Beane, 1985/86, 1990; Bloom,
j Hastings, & Madaus, 1981; Briggs & Martin, 1986; Johnson,
1974; Krathwohl et al., 1964).
The literature of the last 3 0 years revealed many
efforts to effectively define and conceptualize the affec
tive domain for educators (Brandhorst, 1978; Foshay, 1978;
Gephart & Ingle, 1976; Krathwohl et al., 1964; Martin &
Briggs, 1986; McCormack & Yager, 1989; Payne, 1976). In
t
each case the authors proposed a paradigm to assist in the
incorporation of affective concerns in curriculum.
Science educators were quick to acknowledge and
accept the importance of the affective domain to science
107
curriculum. Over the last three decades science scholars
repeatedly referred to the importance of affective outcomes
(Bernie, 1978; Brinckerhoff & Yager, 1986; Doran, 1988;
Gauld, 1982; Eiss & Harbeck, 1969; Klopfer, 1976; Laforgia,
1988; Nay & Crocker, 1970; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1988).
Science educators have provided many recommended goals and
objectives reflective of affective components (AAAS, 1989;
California State Department of Education, 1978, 1984, 1989;
Carin & Sund, 1985; Eiss & Harbeck, 1969; National Science
Teachers Association, 1971).
Several teaching strategies were gleaned from the
literature that seem to show promise in developing affective
outcomes. The following teaching strategies were recommend”
ed: modeling of teacher behaviors, small group discussion,
values clarification, role playing, simulations and games,
case studies/case histories, group decision making/group
problem solving, persuasive communication techniques,
establishing dissonance as strategy, laboratory experiments,
and controversial issues.
Similarly, the literature seemed to suggest several
affective student evaluation strategies. Although not
empirically verified, the following evaluation methods were
recommended: semantic differential, Likert-type scales,
preference ranking, open-ended questions/questionnaires,
108
interest inventories, checklists, direct student observa
tion, interviews, subjective test questions, and term
papers/reports.
Although the literature provided examples of affec
tive curricular elements, the extent to which practitioners j
allocate instructional time to operationalize the affective
! domain is unclear. Several scholars in science education j
j i
| have reported concerns that affective instruction is limited j
| if not missing from science classrooms (Carin & Sund, 1985;
i
Gauld, 1982; Klopfer, 1980; Koballa, 1984; LaForgia, 1988; |
Mitman, Mergendoller, Machman & Packer, 1987; Mitman, j
Mergendoller, Marchman & Packer, 1987). |
Finally, this chapter reviewed the many factors which ]
appeared to act as barriers to the implementation/ operatio
nalization of the affective domain in the curriculum. The j
I
literature consistently referred to the following barriers: I
I
overemphasis on cognitive domain, inadequate affective j
i
framework and definition, fear of indoctrinating students,
brainwashing, the private nature of the affective domain, I
l i
i inadequate instructional methods and materials, inadequate '
i
student evaluation methods, and the overconcentration on I
behaviorism in education.
109
i
i
I
I
I
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
i
This chapter describes the methodology and procedures
used in the development of the study. It includes a dis
cussion of the conceptual model which guided the research
design, a description of the sample and sample selection
process, an overview of the survey instrument used, a
discussion of its validity and reliability, data collection
procedures, and a review of the statistical procedures
employed to analyze the data.
i
This descriptive study utilized the curriculum model I
I . ;
designed by Goodlad and Associates (1979) for a Study of ;
i
I
! Schooling (SoS). The conceptual framework was developed to
j collect and categorize data obtained from a landmark study
of American schools (See Figure 2).
i
Essentially the framework was a three dimensional
! 1
paradigm consisting of nine qualitative factors, nine
curriculum variables or elements, and five perspectives on
curriculum (Klein, 1983). The model depicted a graphic
representation of how the three dimensions interacted with
Qualitative Factors
' e ' $ o ^ ° '
1. Goals and
Objectives
•
•
2
2. Materials
a
r
3. Content
< o
>
e
4 . Learning
Activities
W
3
5. Teaching
|
Strategies
3
o
6. Evaluation
7. Grouping
IS
8. Time
9. Space
Figure 2, A Curriculum Framework for a Study of Schooling (Goodlad & Associates, 1979)
[ — i l
—------- H
■ o
Ill
one another. The nine qualitative factors included descrip
tion, decision making, rationale, priorities, attitudes,
appropriateness, comprehensiveness, individualization, and
barriers and facilitators. These qualitative dimensions
impact the curricular variables.
The curriculum variables represented the traditional
conception of curriculum and included goals and objectives,
! materials, content, learning activities, teaching strate
gies, evaluation, grouping, time and space. Curriculum
variables are those elements manipulated by instructors or
other practitioners to develop, implement, or evaluate the
curriculum. j
Selection of the Sample j
I I
The sample was selected from several school dis- j
i tricts, public and Catholic, located in the counties of Los j
I 1
| Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino— all m the southern
| California area. Subjects were chosen from these counties 1
i
i . ,
because their size and vast diversity generally represented
i
a microcosm of educational practice across the state.
i
I
Two curricular perspectives, the formal and instruc-j
tional curriculum, identified in the Study of Schooling
paradigm, served as a basis for the selection of samples in
! 112
this study. A third curricular perspective, the institu
tional curriculum, added by Goodlad (1979) was used
in the sample identification. Specifically, practitioners
representing the institutional curriculum were those
individuals who had some degree of administrative responsi
bility for the science curriculum at the school site. This
sample included assistant principals or vice principals
responsible for the school site curriculum, as well as '
building principals.
District office administrators who had ultimate
curricular responsibilities for district or secondary
i
science curriculum were selected to represent the formal
; curricular perspective. For this study the following ;
i _ i
district administrators were included, directors of second- ]
ary education, curriculum coordinators, assistant or i
i associate superintendent of instruction, and superinten- j
! !
j dents. i
Science department chairpersons, and all science
| instructors currently teaching in at least one of the major
i
i . . . .
science disciplines of biology, physical science/chemistry,
I
! or earth science were selected to represent the instruction-
i
t al curricular perspective. This group of teachers repre- ,
sented the largest group sampled in the study. The major i
disciplines were established based on the breakdown repre- ,
sented in the Science Framework Addendum for Californiaj
Public Schools (CSDOE, 1984). To be eligible for inclusion
in this population, teachers were required to have a primary
teaching assignment in one of the major science disciplines.
In order to obtain a random sample from each of the
selected curricular perspectives, the following procedures
\
were instituted for the selection of public high schools.
First, all public secondary schools were identified using
the 1988 "California Interscholastic Federation Directory of
Secondary Schools." This directory listed all public,
i
i
private, and parochial schools in the southern California
area. From this comprehensive directory, schools were
selected using a table of random numbers. Once the high
schools were identified, appropriate contacts were made.
Because of the difficulty inherent in securing permission
through district office bureaucracy, contacts were initially
made by telephone to the school site. Typically, the !
i
principals or assistant principals served as the contact |
person and liaison for the study. i
Once verbal agreements were secured, follow-up
I
letters were distributed (see Appendix A) . The contact
people were responsible for the distribution of question- |
naires and cover letters (see Appendix B) to district and j
site level administrators, as well as to school site science ,
faculty. After a three-week period, a follow-up letter was
distributed (see Appendix C) . Once again contact people
j — ------------- — ------------------------------------------,
! 114
were asked for their support by telephone. Since responses
were low, an entire second mailing of the questionnaire with
new cover letter was distributed to all schools (see
Appendix D) . All mailings were conducted using self-
addressed stamped envelopes. Additionally, all envelopes j
were stamped in red with the word "important1 1 in two |
locations. A final telephone call was made with contact
people to ensure higher response rates.
Certain obstacles were encountered at two school
sites and two school districts. For example, both school
districts had such elaborate procedures for securing
permission to distribute questionnaires, their time require-
ments did not align with that of the study. In a couple of
situations support was not obtained at the school site
i i
level. As a result additional schools were added via a
table of random numbers as needed to maintain sample sizes.
i
In order to select a comparable sample of Catholic [
high schools, special considerations were made. Only ;
Catholic high schools in Los Angeles and Orange Counties
j with coeducational populations greater than 750 students ;
i :
< were selected for the study. Of the 40 Catholic high
] j
schools located within these geographic boundaries, only 10 j
1
met the proposed criteria. Therefore, all these schools j
i
were included in the sample. The 10 Catholic high schools
were member schools of only two diocesan education offices.
Since the investigator had contacts at both diocesan
district offices, authorization to contact schools was
secured at that level (see Appendix E). Once this permis
sion was granted, a letter with district support and
approval was sent to each school site principal. Similar to
public schools, the principals or assistant principals
became the contact person for the study. Questionnaires
were distributed with cover letters. After three weeks
follow-up letters were sent (see Appendix C) to each school
for distribution by the contact person. Because question
naire returns were low, a second mailing was administered to
each school site. The second mailing was followed by
telephone calls to each school site contact person.
All school districts, school sites and respondents
were guaranteed anonymity. This included both public and
Catholic school personnel from each curricular perspective.
A summary of questionnaire returns for both mailings is
presented in Table 1.
Survey Instrument
A mailed questionnaire instrument was developed and
administered to gather data for the major and minor research
questions of the study. Copies of the questionnaire for
each curricular perspective are found in Appendix F. Color
116
Table 1
Number and Percentage of Respondents bv School Type and
Curricular Perspective
Curricular Per
spective School Tvne Total N Respondents
N %
Formal Public 11 6 54.5
Formal Catholic 4 3 75
Institutional Public 16 11 68 . 7
Institutional Catholic 20 12 60
Instructional Public 76 36 47.3
Instructional Catholic 55 24 43 . 6
coding, necessary to keep questionnaires separated, is j
identified in Table 2. Separation was necessary for the 1
i
i
final analysis of data. j
Table 2
Color Legend for Questionnaires
Curricular
Perspective School Tvoe Questionnaire Color
Formal Public Canary
Formal Catholic White
Institutional Public Pink
Institutional Catholic Gold
Instructional Public Blue
Instructional Catholic Green
117
A questionnaire format was used since it was consid
ered an excellent method for collecting data from a large
sample dispersed over a wide geographic location. Further
more, since respondents were located at both school sites
and district offices, using a mailed instrument proved to be
! more cost-effective in obtaining the necessary sample size.
j
| Also, since district level and school site administrators,
i
as well as teachers, are busy practitioners, an interview
format was considered impractical for this study. Addition
ally, respondents to questionnaires are free to answer
questions in privacy, thus increasing the likelihood of more
accurate responses (Fowler, 1984).
Procedures Used to Develop the Questionnaire
The questionnaire evolved primarily from the litera-
i
ture review. Specifically, section A (see Appendix F) was
considered to be representative of the formal curriculum and
was derived from the attitudinal objectives identified in
the Science Framework Addendum (CSDOE, 1984). Since there
| were only 11 suggested attitudinal objectives in the
j Addendum. all were included in section A of the question-
| naire.
118
I
In section B of the questionnaire (see Appendix F) an ;
extensive review of the literature was conducted to assimi
late the teaching strategies/learning activities and student
evaluation strategies reported to help operationalize the
affective domain. Only affective curricular elements
suggested consistently in the literature were incorporated |
1
into this section. Section B, part 1 (letter g) , the use of |
computers was added to the questionnaire based on the j
investigator's knowledge and experience in the field of
i
science education. Part 3 of section B was included as a
result of continued concern in the literature over the lack
I
of instructional time devoted to attaining affective
outcomes in science education.
The literature once again provided a basis for the
development of section C of the questionnaire (see Appendix
F) . A summary of the inherent barriers encountered in
I
operationalizing the affective domain was gleaned from j
scholars. Barriers consistently reported in the literature
were included in the questionnaire. An a priori decision
was made to include "current teacher evaluation practices"
i
in this section based on the investigator's educational
experience and knowledge. j
i
The final section of the questionnaire, section D j
(see Appendix F), related to sources available to educators
to assist in the operationalization of the affective domain
119
in science education as well as other subject areas. The
categories listed reflected sources typically available to
educators involved in curricular or instructional practices.
Establishing Validity of the Questionnaire
The validity of each item presented in the question
naire was established via a panel of three experts in the
field of education. Two experts were professors in the
education department at the University of Southern Califor
nia. Professorial expertise included such areas as curricu
lum, science education, and teacher education. The third
j panel member also held a doctoral degree and worked as a
science consultant for the Los Angeles County Office of
Education. This expert was instrumental in the development
j
of the California Science Framework (CSDOE, 19978). j
i |
j Specifically, panel members were asked to judge ;
whether items contained in the questionnaire were valid '
representations of the literature and practice. In section
A experts were asked whether the 11 attitudinal objectives
| in the Science Framework Addendum (CSDOE, 1984) reflected a
j sample of the formal science curriculum.
■ For questionnaire sections B through D, a scale was
devised so that experts judged whether each item listed
reflected the literature and/or practice accurately.
120
Ratings used for validity included: (1) yes, the item
accurately reflected the literature and/or practice; (2) no,
the item did not accurately reflect the literature and/or
, practice; and (3) the item as written was too ambiguous. If
t
J
| two experts rated an item as a one, it was included in the j
! final draft of the questionnaire as it appeared. If two I
i ;
' experts rated an item as a two, it was dropped from the 1
I I
] final draft of the questionnaire. Similarly, if two of the t
i j
j experts rated an item as a three, it was rewritten from j
! I
! their input and resubmitted until the item was accepted by 1
!
at least two of the experts. j
Additionally, the experts were asked to include items
j they would add to the questionnaire. If two of the raters
indicated similar recommendations, it was included in the
! final draft of the questionnaire. Finally, members of the
panel were asked to comment directly on the questionnaire as
to its practicality and clarity. j
Field-Testing the Questionnaire
i
I . . . !
The questionnaire was piloted by 14 educational :
practitioners representing each of the curricular perspec- !
i
tives to be sampled for the study. The pilot group included j
i f
one director of curriculum, one site level secondary j
i
i
principal, two assistant principals, two science department <
121
chairpersons, and eight science instructors. Those field-
testing the questionnaire were asked to identify areas of
ambiguity and specific problems with directions. Comments
were written directly on the questionnaire in the margin.
Additionally, respondents were asked about the length of
time required to complete the questionnaire. Results of the
pilot test were utilized for the purposed of revising the ^
i
questionnaire into its final format. !
Questionnaire Reliability
l
The reliability of the questionnaire was established
by calculating its internal consistency. Results of the
pilot test were used for this purpose. Item analysis of
section A showed a high measure of internal consistence with
i
i
a Cronbach value of .94 07. In section B, part 1, some |
questions had to be restated to improve internal reliabili-j
ty. Section B, part 2, had very good reliability with value !
(
at .892 6. Section D, part 2, of the questionnaire did not;
I
I
j require tests of internal consistency.
I i
i I
i Analysis of the Data
i
t
Descriptive statistical methods were used for much of
the data analysis. Cross tabulations providing frequencies
and percentages were calculated for all three curricular j
perspectives, Catholic and public, for each item in section
A of the questionnaire. Overall averages were computed to
determine level of agreement and level of importance for
attitudinal objectives. Chi-squares were calculated to
determine whether relationships between curricular groups j
| existed. One-way Anova was run for each group as well as j
i I
for each demographic variable to determine significance.
Independent t-tests were calculated to determine whether any
differences between Catholic and public school teachers was
significant.
I In section B (part 1 and 2) percentages and frequen-
I
cies were computed for all three curricular groups, Catholic
and public, as it related to level of agreement and the
extent of use for both affective instructional strategies
l
and student evaluation methods. A one-way Anova was
calculated using weighted responses to compare group
responses as well as demographic variables. Finally,
independent t-tests were run to ascertain whether signifi-
i ;
, cant differences existed between Catholic school science
j !
I teachers* and public school science teachers' responses, t- !
tests were also performed on demographic data. Part one 1
essentially compared group responses to the amount of time
teachers allocated to affective science instruction with the
i
123 ,
amount of time teachers should spend developing affective
outcomes.
Data for section C of the questionnaire was analyzed
using cross tabulations to obtain frequencies and percentag
es for all three curricular groups in both Catholic and
public samples. Percentages were used to determine the
extent to which selected factors impeded the operationaliza
tion of the affective domain in science education. Compari
sons were made for each group via one-way Anova. Indepen-
i
dent t-tests were computed for public and Catholic school
teachers to determine whether the means differed signifi
cantly .
The final section, D part 1, required calculating
percentages and frequencies to compare all six groups*
responses. Group responses related to level of agreement,
and sources used to help operationalize the affective domain
were analyzed by computing one-way analysis of variance, t-
tests were calculated to determine significant differences ,
I
between instructional groups. Part 2 of section D required ;
calculation of frequency and percentages for teachers only. |
All statistical analysis for each section of the question
naire utilized .05 level of significance.
124
Summary of the Chapter
This chapter reviewed the methodology and procedures
used in the study. It included a discussion of the concep
tual model which guided the research design, a description
of the sample and sample selection process, an overview of
the survey instrument used, a discussion of its validity and
reliability, data collection procedures, and a review of the
statistical procedures employed to analyze the data.
125
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA/PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
Chapter IV presents the analysis of the data and a
discussion of the major research findings. Specifically, j
!
this chapter includes a summary of the demographic data, a
presentation of each research question and subquestion with
l
appropriate analyses, and a summary of the chapter findings.
i
Summary of Demographic Data j
The public school sample consisted of eight unified j
school districts located in the Counties of Los Angeles,
Orange, and San Bernardino. Of the twelve districts I
originally contacted, eight agreed to participate in the |
i
i
study. The total possible sample included 76 science ;
i
teachers, 16 site level administrators, and 11 district I
i
office administrators. Thirty-six public school science !
teachers responded to the questionnaire for a 47.36% return
rate. Eleven of 16 site administrators responded for a
68.7% return. Six district administrators returned the
questionnaire for a 54.54% return rate. Frequencies and
percentages for public school respondents are summarized in
Table 3.
All tables of data can be found in Appendix G.
I
| The Catholic school sample consisted of two large
i
diocesan school districts located in Los Angeles and Orange
i j
; Counties. Ten schools were contacted and all agreed to
participate in the study. The total possible sample 1
included 55 science teachers, 20 site level administrators,
1 and 4 district office administrators. Twenty-four Catholic \
I
| I
I school science teachers responded to the questionnaire for \
I 1
I a 43.6% return rate. Twelve site administrators replied for j
i *
a 60.0% return, while three district administrators respond- !
I
ed to the questionnaire for a 75.0% return. Frequencies and
i
j percentages for Catholic school respondents are summarized
in Table 4.
Level of Education
All respondents in both public and Catholic schools
had at least a bachelor's degree. Twenty-nine percent of
Catholic teachers reported the bachelor's as their highest
degree. One Catholic site administrator had a terminal
bachelor's degree. The sample of Catholic school teachers
reported that 3 3.0% had bachelor's degrees plus credentials, ;
I i
I 37.5% had master's degrees and no one had attained a [
i !
! doctorate. Public school teachers reported that 30.5% had
127
bachelor's degrees plus credentials, 69.4% had attained f
master's degrees, while no one reported earning the doctor
ate. Approximately 83.3% of Catholic school administrators
had a master's degree with an additional 9 percent holding
doctorates. Public school site administrators reported
81.8% held master's degrees and 18.2% had attained doctor-
I
ates. Thirty-three percent of Catholic district office
administrators held bachelor's plus credentials and 66.6%
had master's degrees. Eighty-three percent of public school
i
district administrators had master's degrees, while 16.7% j
had doctorates. The findings are summarized in Table 5. j
Although the level of education between groups was similar, :
substantially more public school teachers had master's ■
I degrees and a significant number of Catholic teachers did
not possess credentials.
Sex and Age as Demographic Variables
According to the data collected, the majority of the
sample in all six groups were male. Fifty-eight percent of
Catholic science teachers were male and 41.6% were females. j
In contrast 72.2% of public school science teachers were [
l
I male with only 27.7% reported being female. Site level !
,
administrators for both groups were very similar. Seventy- j
five percent of Catholic school administrators were male,
whereas 72.7 of public site administrators were male.
Females comprised only 25.0% of Catholic site administrators
128
and only 18.2% of public site administrators. One person
did not respond in this group. District office administra
tors were identical with 66.7% being male and 33.3% female.
In summary, science teachers, site administrators and
district administrators in the sample were predominantly
male. The findings are summarized in Table 6.
j An analysis of the sample age revealed that the
j majority of Catholic science teachers were under 3 4 years of
j age. The majority of public school teachers were under 44
years old. Site level administrators for both Catholic and
public school personnel tended to be evenly distributed
between 3 5 and 54 years old. District level administrators
! for both Catholic and public school personnel were also
j
i evenly distributed between ages 45 and 64. The summary of
these findings is contained in Table 7. In general,
Catholic school science teachers tended to be substantially
younger than their public school counterparts. Very little
difference existed between sit level and district level
administrators in either Catholic or public school samples.
Years of Educational Work Experience
Based on the data, over 40.0% of Catholic science
teachers had from 0 to 5 years of experience. In contrast
public school teachers reported 27.8% in the 0 to 5 years of
experience category. On the whole teachers reported less
years experience than did administrators. The largest group
129
of Catholic school site administrators had 16 to 2 0 years
i
experience, while the largest group of public school admin
istrators reported 2 6+ years of educational experience.
Half of all public district office personnel had 16 to 20
years experience. The remaining administrators in both
public and Catholic district office positions had at least
j 21 years experience or more. Table 8 provides a summary of
j
j these data. The majority of Catholic school teachers tended
i \
to have less experience than public school teachers. Little j
I
! differences existed between site level or district office
personnel in either Catholic or public schools.
| Credentials Held j
I
j In general, most teachers in both public schools and
! Catholic schools held credentials to teach biology or life |
i
| science. Fewer teachers had credentials in physical science j
\ ^
j or earth science. Interestingly almost 3 0.0% of Catholic j
i |
I school teachers held no credential. Several public school ;
! . . . !
teachers held a combination of different credentials such as j
I
general science, general secondary, drivers education, and \
I ;
j English. Only one public school administrator in the sample j
\
j held a science credential. This pattern was also noted with
Catholic school site administrators. Both public school and
Catholic school district administrators held credentials
outside the field of science. Data on credentials held by |
each group are summarized in Table 9. In general the
130 i
I
overwhelming majority of administrators did not possess i
teaching credentials in science areas. Teachers who were J
credentialed typically had a biology or life science
credential.
Undergraduate Degree Emphasis
The overwhelming majority of both Catholic and public
i i
j school science teachers had an undergraduate degree emphasis
* . . . I
! in the sciences. Approximately 92.0% for public school and ,
» 75.0% for Catholic school teachers. Of the remaining
i
* teachers, most had undergraduate emphasis evenly distributed
!
j
between liberal studies, mathematics, social sciences, i
! i
i . . . 1
English, and physical education. Interestingly, approxi- ■
mately 54.5% of public school site administrators in the
1 I
| sample had an undergraduate degree emphasis in physical ,
! education with the next highest degree being social sciences ]
i ;
(36.4%). Catholic school site administrators were more
J
I evenly distributed across degrees, although science under
graduate degrees accounted for nearly 2 5.0% of the sample.
Public school district administrators were evenly distribut-
I i
; ed across science, liberal studies, social studies, and the
"other" category with no degree emphasis significantly I
larger than others. Catholic school district administrators I
j
had an undergraduate degree emphasis in science and liberal i
I
studies only. Table 10 presents a summary of the data on j
undergraduate degree emphasis. In general, teachers tended
t
1
to be teaching in their primary field of study, while
administrators at site levels and district offices reported
more diversity in degree emphasis.
Primary Teaching Responsibilities
Table 11 summarizes the primary teaching responsibil
ities of science instructors as well as the primary teaching
assignments of site and district administrators while they
i
were in the classroom. Most teachers, both public and
Catholic, taught in the biological sciences area. Chemistry
i
appeared to be the next most common teaching area. Physics,
earth science, and physical sciences followed and were more
I i
I
evenly distributed among the sample. Most site administra-
i
tors and district administrators did not teach science when
they were assigned to the classroom. j
Number of Professional Affiliations/Activities
Table 12 summarizes the involvement of all groups in
professional affiliations and activities related to curricu-
i
lum and/or science education. On the average, public school j
I
teachers were involved in more professional affiliations 1
| than were Catholic school teachers. On the other hand, j
!
I Catholic site and district administrators reported more !
involvement in professional groups than did their public
school counterparts. The data for professional activities
showed similar results for teachers. Public school teachers
were more involved in professional activities than were
132
Catholic school teachers. Public school site and district
administrators were more actively involved in science
curriculum development than were their Catholic school
counterparts.
A review of all demographic data revealed many
similarities between all six groups. Some major differences
! . i
j are noteworthy. First, public school teachers tended to i
i i
| have far more advanced degrees than did Catholic school i
| teachers. Also a significant number of Catholic school J
I teachers, almost 30% did not possess credentials for j
I _ I
i teaching in secondary schools. Second, a substantial !
majority of science teachers, site administrators, as well j
as district administrators in the sample were male. Third, j
i
in general public school science instructors were older and j
had more teaching experience than did their Catholic school
i
counterpart. Fourth, approximately 40.0% of all teachers j
held credentials in and taught in the biological sciences,
whereas most administrators held credentials and taught
outside the field of science. Similarly, the mast majority
of teachers held degrees in science while administrators
i
j studied largely outside the field of science. Finally, an
I analysis of professional affiliations revealed that,
j although some practitioners were very involved in profes
sional organizations, the mast majority were not. The data
for involvement in professional curriculum development
133 ;
activities revealed that public school teachers and site and
district administrators were more active than were Catholic
school personnel.
i
Major Research Questions and Findings
i
t
I . ;
The data collected via the questionnaire instrument j
were used to answer the following research questions and I
subquestions. I
i
1. To what extent do practitioners from selected ;
curricular perspectives agree that the suggested affective j
i
j objectives represented in the formal science curriculum i
I I
; (Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools, I
J I
I 1984) are in fact affective in nature?
i |
I Subquestion 1A. To what extent do practitioners i
i
from selected curricular perspectives agree on the
I
level of importance placed on the suggested affec
tive objectives represented by the formal science i
i
| curriculum?
I
Subquestion IB. What is the relationship between j
I
demographic variables and practitioners' responses '
i
to both the level of affective agreement and the
level of importance attributed to the affective
objectives represented in the formal science curric
ulum?
134
2. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives agree on the affective curricular elements
(teaching strategies/learning activities and student
evaluation strategies) represented in the ideal curriculum
to operationalize/implement the affective domain in the
science curriculum?
i
i
Subquestion 2A. To what extent do practitioners j
I
from selected curricular perspectives believe sci- J
ence teachers use the affective curricular elements !
(teaching strategies/learning activities and student |
i
evaluation strategies) in the ideal curriculum to ;
operationalize/implement the affective domain in the j
i
science curriculum?
I
Subquestion 2B. What is the average percentage of ,
I
instructional time each week practitioners from
selected curricular perspectives report that science
teachers actually spend and should spend operationa- I
lizing/implementing the affective domain in the -
i
science curriculum? 1
Subquestion 2C. What is the relationship between ;
i
selected demographic variables and the instructional 1
curricular perspective as it relates to level of
agreement and extent of use of the affective curric
ular elements (teaching strategies/learning activi
ties and student evaluation strategies) represented
135
in the ideal curriculum to operationalize/implement
the affective domain in the science curriculum?
3. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives report that factors represented in the ideal
curriculum actually impede science teachers' efforts to
operationalize/implement the affective domain in the science
curriculum?
4. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular ;
i
perspectives agree that selected sources promote the |
i
operationalization/implementation of the affective domain in I
I
I the science curriculum?
Subquestion 4A. To what rextent do practitioners j
I
from selected curricular perspectives believe that j
I science teachers use the selected sources to promote
j the operationalization/implementation of the affec
tive domain in the science curriculum?
Subquestion 4B. Which curricular elements are j
obtained by practitioners from the instructional j
curricular perspective using the selected sources to 1
I
promote the operationalization/implementation of the '
affective domain in the science curriculum?
Research Question 1
To what extent do practitioners from selected
curricular perspective agree that the suggested affective
136
objectives represented in the formal science curriculum are
in fact affective in nature?
Data Analysis and Findings
The data for question number one were analyzed by
calculating the average percent of each group who indicated
that each objective (1-11) was affective or not affective in
nature. The yes percent was considered the average affecti
veness score for each item in all six groups. A total
affectiveness score was calculated for teachers, site
administrators, and district administrators for both
! Catholic and public secondary schools. Table 13 summarizes
the average affectiveness scores for each item and all
groups.
An analysis of the data revealed little difference in
agreement between Catholic school teachers and public school
| teachers in terms of average affectiveness scores. Seventy-
i seven percent of Catholic teachers reported all affective
i
objectives to be affective in nature. Public school
, teachers reported 73.0% of the suggested affective objec
tives were in fact affective in nature. Similarly, site
administrators from both Catholic and public schools in the
sample showed little difference in response to affectiveness
of the suggested objectives. Catholic site administrators
reported that 66.7% of the objectives were affective,
whereas public site administrators reported that 65.3% of
137
the objectives were affective in nature. The greatest
difference between groups was reported between Catholic
district administrators (45%) and public school district
administrators (53%) in relation to their average affective
ness scores.
When looking across groups, some interesting findings
were evident. The average affectivness score dropped over
i
| 10 percentage points between science teachers and site level
administrators. Catholic teachers found 77.8% of the
objectives to be affective, while Catholic site administra
tors reported 66.7% of the objectives to be affective.
i
Public school teachers reported 73.3% of the objectives to
be affective, while public site administrators reported |
65.3% of the objectives were affective. Even greater i
differences in agreement were found between teachers in both |
Catholic and public schools and their perspective district ^
office administrator. Catholic district administrators ,
i ;
reported that only 45.0% of the objectives were actually
i
affective in nature. Public district administrators also
i
| differed significantly from public teachers (73.3% average
i i
| affectiveness score) with an average affectiveness score of 1
i
i 53.0%.
Combining Catholic school and public school curricu
lar perspectives revealed similar findings. The average
affectiveness score for all teachers was 75.6%. The average
affectiveness score for site administrators was 66.0%, while
the average score for district administration was 49.0%.
Table 14 summarized these findings.
In general, although level of agreement of affective
*
objectives did not vary appreciably between Catholic school i
and public school respondents, there were substantial j
differences between the average affectiveness scores of j
j
| teachers, site administrators, and district administrators.
I Science teachers reported that 75.6% of the objectives were ;
i |
| affective while site administrators reported that 66.0% of j
! the items were affective in nature. Finally, district .
i administrators reported that 49.0% of the suggested objec- !
i
[
j tives were affective. Clearly, there was substantial
» i
i
j disagreement among curricular perspectives as to whether the |
i
affective objectives represented in the formal curriculum '
j were in fact affective by nature.
■ Subquestion 1A
To what extent do practitioners from selected ,
curricular perspectives agree on the level of importance 1
i
i
placed on the suggested affective objectives represented by
the formal science curriculum?
I
Data Analysis and Findings
The data for subquestion 1A were analyzed by calcu
lating average percentages indicative of the level of
importance that all six groups placed on each of the
139
affective objectives found in section A of the question
naire. Level of importance ranged from very important (1),
important (2) , neutral (3) , not important (4) , to definitely
not important (5). Averages for each group's level of
importance were compared to determine their level of
|
agreement. Table 15 summarizes these data. Analysis of
variance and t-tests were computed to ascertain whether
significant differences between groups existed.
Approximately 89.0% of Catholic teachers rated the
affective science objectives very important or important
compared to 87.4% for public school teachers. Public site j
I
administrators rated the affective objectives as very [
J
I
important and important 88.0% of the time. Approximately j
82.0% of the site administrators in Catholic schools rated j
i
the objectives as very important or important. District i
office administrators at both public and Catholic schools j
rated the affective objectives as very important or impor
tant 84.8% and 81.8%, respectively. The six groups as a ;
whole reported that the affective science objectives stated ,
i
i
m the questionnaire were very important or important 86.8% i
of the time with 13.2% reporting that they were neutral or
not important. In all cases no practitioner marked the
affective objectives as definitely not important. In
summary, practitioners were in general agreement that the
i 140
i
affective objectives were important or very important in the
formal science curriculum.
Analysis .of the weighted percentages associated with
the three curricular perspectives showed similar findings.
Although level of importance went down from teachers at
88.3%, to site administrators at 85.1%, to district adminis-
I
strators at 83.4%, the percentages did not represent
significantly large differences. Table 16 summarizes the
weighted level of importance for the three curricular
perspectives.
One-way analysis of variance was computed to deter
mine whether the average level of importance scores for each
group was significantly different. The mean for Catholic
' teachers was 1.7 2 and public teachers was 1.76. Catholic
I
site administrators and public school site administrators
! was 1.86 and 1.71, respectively. District administrators
| for Catholic schools was 1.82 while public schools was 1.72.
i
j Table 17 summarizes these findings. No significant differ-
I
| ences existed between the means of any of the six groups at
! p = .05 level of significance.
! An individual t-test was calculated for the average
I
j score of public school and Catholic school teachers. No
i statistical significance at p = .05 was reported. Table 17
i
summarizes these data for t-test analysis.
141
Subauestion IB
What is the relationship between demographic vari
ables and practitioners' responses to both the level of
affective agreement and the level of importance attributed
to the affective objectives represented in the formal
j science curriculum?
i
| Data Analysis and Findings
j Cross tabulations were computed for all demographic
i variables included in the study. These variables included
i
level of education, sex, age, years of experience in
education, type of credential held, undergraduate degree
emphasis, primary teaching responsibilities, professional
1 affiliations, and professional activities. An item
analysis was calculated for group responses to section A of
the questionnaire. Section A included group responses to
each of 11 affective objectives. Chi-square analysis j
i
I
revealed no significant relationships existed between j
demographic variables and group responses to any item. !
One-way analysis of variance was calculated for age, j
\
years of experience, the number of professional affilia- !
i
tions, the number of professional activities, and primary j
i teaching responsibility using the weighted average ranking !
of the level of importance. All six groups mean responses
I
were calculated to ascertain any significant differences.
Table 18 summarizes the findings. No statistical
142
j significance was found for any demographic variable at p =
.05 level of significance.
Additionally, t-tests were computed for science
teachers from both Catholic and public schools looking at
their educational level, sex, credentials, undergraduate
degree emphasis, and specific professional activities. An
analysis was made to determine whether mean responses
differed significantly. Table 19 summarizes the findings.
Analysis of independent t-tests revealed no statistical
significance existed between the means of any demographic
variable for teachers in both Catholic and public schools.
i
In general the data showed no significant relationship
between demographic variables and respondents' level of
affectiveness score and rating of level of importance.
Research Question 2
To what extent do practitioners from selected
curricular perspectives agree on the affective curricular
elements (teaching strategies/learning activities and
j student evaluation strategies) represented in the ideal
I curriculum to operationalize/implement the affective domain
t
| in the science curriculum?
I
i Data Analysis and Findings
i
A Likert type scale with five categories including
(1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neutral, (4) disagree,
(5) strongly disagree was developed to gather data on
| 143
I
i practitioners' level of agreement. Practitioners' responses
to level of agreement as it related to teaching strategies
and student evaluation strategies were analyzed by computing
the percentage of responses that fell into each category of
the Likert type scale. Averages for each group's level of
agreement were compared. Analysis of variance and t-tests
were computed to determine whether significant differences
i
j between groups existed. |
Approximately 72.0% of Catholic teachers strongly
agreed or agreed that the affective teaching strategies
listed on the questionnaire could be used to operationalize
the affective domain. Twenty-five percent responded |
i
neutrally. Public school teachers strongly agreed or agreed j
|
t approximately 65.0%, while 31.0% responded neutrally. In
! i
each case few disagreed or strongly disagreed. Catholic and j
public school site administrators' responses were very i
i
i similar with approximately 68.0% strongly agreeing or 1
! agreeing and 71.5% strongly agreeing or agreeing, respec- !
i
tively. Site administrators responded 21.4% neutrally for
Catholic schools and 18.2% for public schools. District
\
\
administrators also responded similar to each other with |
>
71.4% strongly agreeing or agreeing for Catholic schools and
69.1% agreeing or strongly agreeing for public school
respondents. In general group responses were quite similar
with the largest discrepancy in agreement between Catholic
school teachers and public school teachers. Analysis of the
totals for all practitioners in the sample revealed 69.1%
agreed or strongly agreed that the affective strategies
listed on the questionnaire could be used to operationalize
the affective domain. Table 2 0 summarizes these findings.
Analysis of the weighted percentages for the three
curricular perspectives revealed similar findings as !
reported in Table 20. Sixty-eight percent of the teachers
in the sample agreed or strongly agreed that the stated
affective teaching strategies could be used to operational
ize the affective domain in the science curriculum. Sixty-
nine percent of the site administrators also agreed or
strongly agreed, while approximately 70% of district level
administrators agreed. The findings showed very little
disagreement between curricular perspectives. Table 21
summarizes these results.
One-way analysis of variance was computed to deter
mine whether the average level of agreement scores for each
group were significantly different. Table 22 summarizes i
these data. No significant differences existed between the j
means of any of the six groups at p = . 05 level of signifi-|
cance. ,
An independent t-test was calculated to compare the
average weighted level of agreement scores for science
teachers in both public and Catholic schools. No
145
J
statistical significance at £ = .05 level of significance
was found. Table 2 2 summarizes these findings.
Catholic school teachers agreed or strongly agreed
64.9% of the time that affective student evaluation strate
gies listed on the guestionnaire could be used to operation
alize the affective domain in the science curriculum.
Public school teachers agreed or strongly agreed signifi
cantly less at 55.4%. Catholic site administrators averaged 1
64.5% while their public school counterparts averaged
i
approximately 76%. This represented a substantial disagree- I
ment between site administrators. District administrators \
also responded guite differently from each other. Catholic
school district administrators agreed or strongly agreed
73.4% of the time, while public school district administra-
i
tors agreed or strongly agreed 59.2% of the time. In I
general, group responses to level of agreement for affective I
student evaluation strategies varied far more than agreement
on teaching strategies. Analysis of the total percentages
for all groups revealed 62.6% agreed or strongly agreed that j
i
, the affective evaluation strategies could be used to
j :
I operationalize the affective domain in science. Table 23 1
j
summarizes the findings for the data.
| Analysis of the weighted percentages for the three
curricular perspectives revealed differences. Teachers
agreed or strongly agreed with the affective evaluation
j strategies only 60.1%. Site administrators agreed or
j strongly agreed 71.4% of the time, while district adminis
trators scored an average of 66.3%. Table 4 summarizes
these findings. |
I
One-way analysis of variance was computed to deter-
i
i
mine whether the average level of agreement scores for each j
group were significantly different. Table 2 5 summarizes !
these findings. No significant differences existed between !
i
the means of any of the six groups at p =.05 level of t
significance. 1
I
An independent t-test was calculated to compare the j
| average weighted level of agreement scores for both public
I and Catholic school teachers. The t-test for level of '
agreement scores by teacher indicated a significant differ-
j ence between public school teachers and Catholic school
teachers t (56) = -2.16, p = .035. t-test revealed that i
j Catholic school teachers had a significantly higher agree- <
I
: ment score than did public school teachers. Table 25 j
summarizes these findings. 1
i i
Subquestion 2A i
To what extent do practitioners from selected I
curricular perspectives believe science teachers use the
affective curricular elements (teaching strategies/learning
activities and student evaluation strategies) in the ideal
147
curriculum to operationalize/implement the affective domain
in the science curriculum?
Data Analysis and Findings
A Likert-type scale with four categories including
(1) frequently, (2) somewhat frequently, (3) seldom, and (4)
never was developed to gather data relative to the extent to
which teachers used affective curricular elements. Practit-
J ioners' responses to extent of use were analyzed by calcu
lating the percentage of responses that fell into each
category of the Likert-type scale. Averages for each
curricular perspective in both Catholic and public school
were compared for all items and for weighted scores. J
i
An analysis of the data pertinent to extent of use of |
i
| affective teaching strategies revealed some interesting
j results. Fifty-two percent of Catholic teachers reported |
| that they used these affective strategies either frequently ;
i
or somewhat frequently. Only 44.7% of public school
I
teachers reported that they used these strategies either ;
frequently or somewhat frequently. Large differences
I
existed between Catholic site administrators and public site I
i
i
administrators with percentages of 34.6 and 52.0, respec- ,
tively. Most noticeable of the groups was that public
school and Catholic school district office administrators
did not believe teachers used affective teaching strategies.
Approximately 77.0% of Catholic district and 83.0% of public
148
district administrators reported that teachers seldom or
never used affective teaching strategies. Totals for all :
practitioners revealed that the majority (55.7%) believed
teachers did not use affective teaching strategies. Table
2 6 summarizes the findings.
Analysis of the weighted percentages for the three
curricular perspectives found that 48.7% of the teachers
reported frequent or somewhat frequent use of the affective
i
teaching strategies listed on the questionnaire. Forty- |
three percent of site level administrators reported that :
teachers used the affective teaching strategies frequently j
or somewhat frequently. Finally, only 2 5.4% of district !
i
administrators reported that teachers used affective j
teaching strategies frequently or somewhat frequently. In
general, substantial differences existed between extent of
; use reported by teachers and that reported by district
i
administration. Table 27 summarizes the data on extent of j
i
use by curricular perspective. ;
I
A one-way analysis of variance was calculated to
i
determine whether the average extent of use scores for each j
j
group were significantly different. Table 28 summarizes !
these data. No significant differences existed between the
means of any of the groups at p = .05 level of significance.
A t-test was calculated to compare the average
weighted extent of use score for science teachers in public
I and Catholic schools. No statistical significance at 2 =
i
1
.05 was found. Table 28 summarizes the data.
Analysis of the data pertinent to the extent of use
of affective evaluation strategies revealed several similar
ities among practitioners* responses. Fifty-five percent of
Catholic school teachers reported they seldom or never used
the affective evaluation strategies. Approximately 61.0% of
I
j
public school respondents reported they seldom or never used
j the affective evaluation strategies. Of the Catholic
schools site administrators and public school site adminis
trators 65.5% and 52.9%, respectively, reported that [
teachers seldom or never used the evaluation strategies
! represented on the questionnaire. Finally, 56.7% of j
Catholic district office personnel and 62.3% of district I
!
office administrators reported that teachers seldom or never
I
; I
| used the affective student evaluation strategies. Results j
)
^ for the totals of all practitioners revealed that the
1
j majority of respondents did not use or believe teachers used
| affective evaluation strategies. Table 29 summarizes these
findings.
Analysis of the weighted extent of use of affective :
evaluation strategies revealed similarities among respon- !
dents. Fifty-eight percent of the teachers reported that |
1
they seldom or never used the suggested evaluation strate-j
gies. Approximately 60.0% of site administrators reported
150
| that teachers seldom or never used the suggested affective
I
evaluation strategies, while 59.6% of district office
administration responded that teachers seldom or never used
these strategies. Table 3 0 summarizes the data.
A one-way analysis of variance was calculated to
ascertain whether the average extent of use scores for each
| group were significantly different. The data are summarized
! in Table 31. No significant differences were found between
! the means of any of the groups at p = .05 level of signifi-
!
; cance.
^ A t-test was computed to compare the average weighted
extent of use score for science teachers only. No statisti-
j cal significance was found between Catholic teachers and
I public school teachers at p = .05 level of significance.
I
; The data are summarized in Table 31.
Subcruestion 2B
What is the average percentage of instructional time
I
i
each week practitioners from selected curricular perspective
report that science teachers actually spend and should spend
operationalizing/implementing the affective domain in the
science curriculum?
j Data Analysis and Findings
i
To answer the research guestion, science teachers in
the sample were asked to check the actual percentage of
instructional time they spent each week and should spend
151
I
I
I
i
each week operationalizing the affective domain. Equal
categories from 0-24%, 25-50%, 51-75%, and 76-100% were
provided. Site level and district administrators were asked
to check the actual percentage of time they believed
teachers spent and should spend operationalizing the
affective domain in the science curriculum. The same equal
categories were provided for each curricular perspective.
The data were analyzed by computing the percentage of
i
respondents who checked each category of instructional time, j
Comparisons of the percentages were made between groups. \
The results of the questionnaire revealed that j
approximately 61.0% of Catholic school teachers and 71.0% of I
! public school teachers spent less than 24.0% of total
| instructional time each week on affective development, j
! Interestingly, 100% of both Catholic and public district !
j i
I administrators responded that teachers actually spent and
i i
should spend less than one-fourth of their time in operatio
nalizing the affective domain.
! i
Looking at teachers as a group showed more diversity ■
in responses to actual time spent and time that should be j
spent developing affective outcomes. Administrators at both |
I
district and site levels responded overwhelmingly that
teachers actually and should spend less than 24.0% of
instructional time per week addressing the affective domain
152
*
in the science curriculum. Table 32 summarizes these
findings.
Subquestion 2C
What is the relationship between selected demographic
variables and the instructional curricular perspective as it
relates to level of agreement and extent of use of the
affective curricular elements (teaching strategies/learning
i
! activities and student evaluation strategies) represented in
the ideal curriculum to operationalize/implement the |
i
affective domain in the science curriculum? I
i
Data Analysis and Findings |
i
j One-way analysis of variance was calculated for j
i i
! teachers to determine whether responses differed signifi- |
i cantly due to demographic data. The following demographic j
i t
variables were analyzed: age, years of experience, number
I
I of professional affiliations, number of professional :
I
I activities, and primary teaching responsibility. Weighted
j
| extent of use scores and weighted level of agreement scores
i
! were used for both teaching strategies and evaluation
i
! methods. Tables 3 3 and 3 4 summarize the findings.
I ;
j Essentially, the data showed no significant relation- j
I i
ship between demographic variables and teachers1 responses j
to extent of use and level of agreement as it related to |
teaching strategies and student evaluation methods.
153 |
Research Question #3
To what extent do practitioners from selected
curricular perspectives report that factors represented in
the ideal curriculum actually impede science teachers'
efforts to operationalize/implement the affective domain in
the science curriculum?
Data Analysis and Findings
Using a Likert-type scale, science teachers were
i
asked to respond to factors identified in the literature
that impede their efforts to operationalize the affective
domain in the science curriculum. Teachers responded that
the factors either frequently, somewhat frequently, seldom, j
or never impeded their effort to implement the affective
domain. Similarly, site and district administrators j
responded to the extent to which they believed these factors !
I
j
impeded the efforts of science teachers. The data were ■
i
analyzed by calculating the percentage of respondents who
checked each category of the Likert-type scale. Further !
i
analysis was carried out by computing analysis of variance j
for the mean scores of all six groups. t-tests were ,
!
calculated for Catholic and public school teachers to
determine whether significant differences existed between j
I
their means extent impedes score.
; 154 j
i
*
r
Analysis of the percentages for each category of the
\ Likert-type scale revealed some interesting results.
Approximately 42.0% of Catholic and public school teachers
responded that the factors frequently or somewhat frequently
1 impeded their efforts to implement the affective domain.
i
Over 57.0% of both Catholic and public school teachers
responded that the factors cited in the literature either
seldom or never impeded their efforts. Rather dramatic j
I
differences were noted for public and Catholic site adminis
trators. A full 84.0% of Catholic school site administra-
i
j tors reported that the factors impeded teachers' efforts j
! i
frequently or somewhat frequently. Sixty-eight percent of j
r
public site administrators reported that the factors impeded
efforts frequently or somewhat frequently. Findings for
j district level administrators showed a consistently higher j
I
1 percentage perceived that the factors represented in the
1 questionnaire impeded teachers' efforts to operationalize
; the affective domain.
I
| Approximately 93.0% of Catholic district administra- ,
i
I tors responded that the factors frequently or somewhat j
f
I |
j frequently impeded teachers' effort, while 78.4% of public ;
l
| district administrators reported that the factors frequently j
j or somewhat frequently impeded science teachers' effort. In
I general, teachers' responses were opposite with respect to j
155 j
j
site and district administrators. The total for all
practitioners revealed that the majority of practitioners
reported that the factors cited in the literature frequently
or somewhat frequently impeded science teachers' efforts to
implement the affective domain. The results are summarized
j
| in Table 35.
i
I Analysis of the weighted percentages for the three
i .1
i curricular perspectives revealed marked differences between j
j i
\ perspectives. Approximately 43.0% of teachers responded I
j
that the factors represented in the ideal curriculum
frequently or somewhat frequently impeded their efforts to
implement the affective domain. On the other hand, 75.0% of
site administrators responded that the factors frequently or
somewhat frequently impeded science instructors' efforts to
operationalize the affective domain. An even higher I
percentage, 85.9% of district administrators, believed that
the factors culled from the literature did in fact impede
I
science teachers' efforts to incorporate the affective 1
domain into the science curriculum. In summary, an over- !
I
whelming majority of administrators at both site and
district levels agreed with the literature, while science I
; I
! teachers did not agree. Table 36 summarized these finding. |
i
Further analysis using one-way analysis of variance J
was conducted to determine whether the average extent
impedes scores were significantly different between groups.
i
156
1
1
The data are summarized in Table 37. The analysis of
variance for extent impedes indicated a significant differ
ence between Catholic school teachers and Catholic site and
district administrators (F(5,82) = 7.83 p = .05). Post-hoc
i
j analysis using the Scheffe method found that Catholic
i
■ teachers (X = 2.64) had significantly higher scores on
1 extent impedes than did Catholic site administrators (X =
i ■
1.71). Caution must be exercised when concluding signifi- I
cance when n = 3 for Catholic district administrators. The
analysis of variance also showed significant differences j
between public school teachers and Catholic site administra
tors (F(5,82) = 7.83, p = .05). Post-hoc analysis revealed
that public school teachers (X = 2.56) had significantly
higher scores on extent impedes than did Catholic site
administrators (X = 1.71).
An independent t-test was calculated to determine I
I
whether a significant difference in mean extent impedes
1
scores existed between Catholic and public school teachers. I
Table 37 summarizes these data for teachers. No statistical j
i
i significance was found between teachers at p = .05 level of j
i 1
I significance. i
j i
| Research Question #4
To what extent do practitioners from selected
curricular perspectives agree that selected sources promote
the operationalization/implementation of the affective
domain in the science curriculum?
Data Analysis and Findings
Once again, using a Likert-type scale, science
instructors were asked to respond to sources listed in the
questionnaire as to whether they agreed that these sources
could be used to help operationalize the affective domain in
i
the science curriculum. Teachers responded either strongly
agree, agree, neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree. Site
i
and district administrators responded to the extent to which
they agreed that the sources listed helped science teachers i
implement the affective domain. The data were analyzed by
calculating the percentage of respondents who checked each
category of the Likert-type scale. Additional analysis was
conducted by computing an analysis of variance for all six !
groups. t-tests were calculated to determine whether
significant differences existed between teachers1 mean level
i
of agreement scores.
Approximately 62.0% of both Catholic school teachers
and public school teachers strongly agreed or agreed that -
the sources listed on the questionnaire did in fact help]
!
science instructors operationalize the affective domain.
Sixty-five percent of Catholic site administrators agreed or
strongly agreed, while 55.5% of public site administrators
agreed or strongly agreed. District administrators'
I 158
> responses varied considerably. Only 39.7% of Catholic !
i
; district administrators agreed or strongly agreed compared
l
to 52.5% of their public school counterparts who agreed or
strongly agreed that the sources listed in the questionnaire
could be used to help implement the affective domain in
science. In all six groups the second largest category was
I the neutral category. When looking at the total percentages I
j I
! i
for all practitioners, the majority, 61.2%, strongly agreed |
i
; or agreed that the sources helped science instructors in the ;
implementation process. Table 3 8 summarizes the findings.
I Analysis of the weighted level of agreement scores
revealed that approximately 62.0% of both teachers and site j
i
administrators strongly agreed or agreed that the sources |
i
identified in the questionnaire could assist science i
I
teachers in their efforts to operationalize the affective j
domain. Only 4 6.1% of district administrators responded)
i
I that they agreed or strongly agreed. Once again the neutralj
i
j category was selected by a substantial number of practitio- |
1 . . . . i
j ners. Few practitioners disagreed or strongly disagreed, i
| Table 3 9 summarizes these findings.
‘ I
( Analysis of variance was calculated to determine j
i <
whether the mean weighted level of agreement scores between
i
groups was statistically significant. Table 4 0 summarizes
these findings. No significance was found at p = .05 level
of significance. Similarly, a t-test was calculated to
159
compare teacher mean level of agreement scores. No statis
tical significance was shown at p = .05 level of signifi
cance. Table 4 0 summarizes these findings.
Subauestion 4A
To what extent do practitioners from selected
curricular perspectives believe that science teachers use
the selected sources to promote the operationalization/impl- [
I
ementation of the affective domain in the science curricu
lum?
Data Analysis and Findings
I I
All practitioners were asked to respond to a Likert-
type scale which included the following categories, fre
quently, somewhat frequently, seldom, or never. Science
teachers were asked to respond to the scale based on the *
i
i
extent to which they used the sources listed in the ques
tionnaire. Administrators were instructed to respond based
on the extent to which they believed science teachers used
these sources to implement the affective domain. Percent
ages were calculated for each group in all categories of the '
L
Likert-type scale. Totals for each group and curricular
perspective were used for comparative purposes. One-way
analysis of variance was computed to determine whether the
weighted extent of use scores for any of the groups was
significant. A t-test was calculated to ascertain whether
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------j
160
Catholic or public school teachers* mean extent of use score
was significant.
Analysis of the average percentages for all six
groups revealed that 56.2% of Catholic school teachers
reported frequent or somewhat frequent use of the sources,
while only 44.6% of public school teachers reported frequent
or somewhat frequent use. Catholic site administrators'
responses and public site administrators showed significant
differences in their responses. Only 37.7% of Catholic site J
I
administrators believed science instructors used the sources
frequently or somewhat frequently compared to 52.9% of
public school site administrators. Very little difference j
i
was noted between responses for district office administra- |
tors. Approximately 55.0% of both Catholic and public
district administrators believed science teachers frequently
| I
or somewhat frequently used the sources to operationalize j
the affective domain. Looking at the totals for all six
groups as a whole revealed that about 50.0% of all practi
tioners reported frequent or somewhat frequent use by I
science teachers, while 50% reported seldom or never used, j
i
Table 41 provides a summary of the extent of use percentages j
t
for all items for all six groups. j
Analysis of the weighted extent of use scores for the
three curricular perspectives showed that approximately
51.0% of the instructional perspective reported frequent or
161
somewhat frequent use of the sources. Only 45.4% of site
administrators reported that science teachers frequently or
somewhat frequently used the sources. The majority of site
administrators, 54.6%, reported that teachers never or
seldom used the sources. On the other hand, 55.0% of
district administrators responded that teachers frequently
i
j or somewhat frequently used the sources indicated on the
! . . . . i
questionnaire to operationalize the affective domain m the !
I
; science curriculum. Table 42 summarizes these findings.
i !
| The data were analyzed further by computing an
analysis of variance for weighted extent of use scores for
f
all groups. Table 43 summarizes the means and standard [
i
| deviations of these samples. j
j No weighted mean scores emerged as statistically
; significant at p = .05 level of significance for any of the !
I i
* groups. A t-test was calculated to determine whether
: science teachers from Catholic or public school responded j
f I
! differently. No statistical significance was found at p = ,
I
I .05 level of significance. Table 43 summarizes these data
i ;
j for Catholic and public school teachers. j
[ !
i - I
Subquestion 4B
j i
I Which curricular elements are obtained by practitio
ners from the instructional curricular perspective using the
selected sources to promote the operationalization/implemen-
; tation of the affective domain in the science curriculum?
-
162
Data Analysis and Findings
This subquestion was answered by asking science
teachers from both Catholic and public school to check off
the curricular elements that they obtained from sources
listed on the questionnaire. The sources were those that
help science teachers operationalize the affective domain.
The percentage of the sample responding that they obtained
! specific curricular elements from the sources listed was
! noted. Percentages for Catholic school and public school
i respondents were compared. Table 44 summarizes the
percentages of both Catholic and public school teachers who
; , i
obtained specific curricular elements from the selected j
sources used to operationalize the affective domain in
i
j . I
j science.
! Catholic school teachers reported that goals and
i . J
1 objectives were primarily obtained from prior educational |
I !
| training (66.7%), prior teacher experience (70.8%), and the |
i
textbook (70.8%). Public school science instructors also |
i
obtained goals and objectives from prior educational i
training (63.9%). They also indicated obtainment of goals!
and objectives via model curriculum standards (66.7%) and
the State Science Framework (52.8%).
Analysis of materials as a curricular element
revealed that Catholic science teachers obtained materials
from prior teaching experience (75.0%), the textbook
163
(66.7%), prior educational training (50.0%), supplementary
materials (50.0%), and professional journals/magazines
(50.0%). Public school science instructors obtained their
materials from four primary sources. Approximately 52.0% of
the respondents indicated that materials were obtained from
j prior educational training, 61.0% from prior teaching
J experience, 52.8% from supplementary materials, and 52.8%
i i
I from textbooks.
j
! Looking at content as a curricular element showed
!
that Catholic school science teachers obtained content
primarily from the textbook (83.3%). They also obtained
i !
i
j content relative to the affective domain from their prior j
; educational training (70.8%), prior educational experience
i J
| (66.7%), and professional journals/magazines (50.0%). |
I 1
! Public school teachers also obtained content largely via the
I |
j textbook (75.0%). Content was also obtained from prior j
i
j" 1
1 educational training (58.3%), prior teaching experience!
i !
(52.8%), literature from professional organizations (50.0%), j
and professional journals/magazines (50.0%). ^
Catholic school science instructors reported that i
i
i
teaching strategies were principally obtained from prior i
i j
educational training (75.0%) and prior teaching experience
(70.8%). Other significant sources for teaching strategies
included supplementary materials (58.3%), literature from
professional organizations (54.2%), and professional
journals/magazines (54.2%). Public school instructors
obtained teaching strategies from five primary sources.
Specifically these sources included prior educational
training (66.7%), prior teaching experience (61.1%),
literature from professional organizations (52.8%), staff
development (52.8%), and workshops/seminars (52.8%)
The data were analyzed to determine which sources
provided evaluation strategies for teachers trying to
implement the affective domain. Approximately 66.7% of
Catholic teachers obtained evaluation strategies from prior
teaching experience. Other significant sources included the
textbook (45.8%) and prior educational training (37.5%). j
Public school science instructors obtained student evalua
tion strategies primarily through prior educational training
(44.4%) and prior teaching experience (41.7%).
Summary of the Findings
i
J
In summary, representatives from all three curricular
perspectives were very much in agreement that the affective
i '
j science objectives found within the California Science
I !
| Framework Addendum (1984) were important. However, science i
t '
| instructors responded that the affective objectives were in
fact affective in nature far more frequently (75.0%) than
did site administrators (66.0%) and district office adminis
trators. Demographic data including age, years of experi
ence, total number of professional affiliations, total
number of professional activities and the types of activi
ties, primary teaching area, educational level, sex, and
degree emphasis had no significant impact on practitioners*
responses to level of importance and agreement that objec
tives were affective in nature. ]
Practitioners representing all three curricular j
i perspectives were in general agreement that the teaching
i
strategies gleaned from the literature could be used to t
operationalize the affective domain in science curriculum.
On the other hand, practitioners' responses to whether these ;
strategies were being used in classrooms varied widely.
Practitioners as a group believed the following instruction
al strategies were more frequently used: group decision
making (59.1%), small group discussion (55.7%), and case j
studies (51.7%). [
i
An analysis of affective evaluation strategies
!
i revealed that practitioners at various curricular levels did
not agree on evaluation methods. In addition, there was ,
j
general agreement that affective evaluation strategies were
. i
not used m science classrooms. Three evaluation strategies I
were reported to be used more frequently that science
classrooms. They included direct observation of student
166
behavior (84.4%), open-ended questions (65.6%), and subjec
tive questions (64.5%).
The majority of all practitioners believed that
science teachers spent less than 24.0% of weekly instruc
tional time devoted to affective development. Similarly,
most practitioners believed that science teachers should
spend less than 24.0% of instructional time developing
I
affective outcomes. However, 47.8% of Catholic school
teachers reported that science instructors should spend 2 5-
? 50% of instructional time to develop affective concerns.
Practitioners in the instructional curricular
perspective did not see the barrier gleaned from the
literature as impediments to the operationalization of the
affective domain in science. However, science instructors
indicated lack of instructional strategies, lack of instruc
tional time, and the importance of the cognitive domain as
the greatest impediments to operationalizing the affective |
i domain. On the other hand, the majority of site and J
< j
district level administrators believed those barriers did in !
I
, fact act as impediments to the implementation of the '
; i
*
affective domain. Catholic school instructors responses !
were significantly different that their site and district
level counterparts. In addition, public school instructors*
responses were found to be significantly different than
Catholic site administrators. I
167
Finally, as a group, most practitioners (61.2%)
agreed that the sources culled from practice could be used
to help operationalize the affective domain. However,
practitioners as a whole reported frequent or somewhat
i
frequent use of these sources, while 50.0e% reported they
were seldom or never used. Science teachers typically
I
i turned to professional organizations, supplementary materi-
| als, and workshops/seminars to facilitate operationalization
of the affective domain in science education.
i
\
I
i
i
I
i
I
168
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, SELECTED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
J
I i
Summary I
i
i
This chapter provides a summary of the problem and j
purpose of the study, a review of the questions to be
answered, and the importance of the study. Additionally,
the chapter summarizes the methods and procedures utilized i
I
in the study including a description of the sample, an :
overview of the survey instrument, data collection, and |
l 1
i procedures used for analysis of the data. Finally, this 1
j chapter summarizes selected findings and presents conclu- ,
| sions and recommendations.
I The Problem
I
Scholars in curriculum and science education alike
i 1
| have impled that, m order for affective outcomes to be j
| realized, some degree of curricular planning and subsequent j
< I
instruction must be directed to that end. Although a
plethora of literature was identified promoting affective
educational outcomes and their development, there appears to
j be little consensus of how science practitioners conceptual
ize and operationalize the affective domain in the science
curriculum.
Since the inception of the affective taxonomy in
1964, there has been a paucity of research designed specifi
cally to determine what practitioners are doing to conceptu-
j alize and operationalize the affective domain in the science
j curriculum. Specifically this research study was designed
| to analyze current affective curricular practice in an
effort to gain critical insight into how practitioners
j conceptualize and implement the affective domain in science
| education.
Purpose of the Study
First, this research investigation sought to ascer-
i
tain whether selected practitioners agreed on the affective
learner objectives and their importance in the formal
science curriculum. Second, this study sought to determine
whether selected practitioners agreed on the affective
curricular elements (teaching strategies/learning activi-
| ties, student evaluation strategies, and allocation of time)
! suggested in the literature to operationalize the affective
domain in the science curriculum. Third, it was the purpose
of this study to determine the extent to which factors
| identified in the ideal curriculum impede the operational
ization of the affective domain in the science curriculum.
170
Finally, this study sought to ascertain which sources
identified in the ideal curriculum, and in practice, promote
the implementation of the affective domain in the science
curriculum.
\
Questions to be Answered
The study was developed to answer the following
questions:
1. To what extent do practitioners from selected
curricular perspectives agree that the suggested affective
objectives represented in the formal science curriculum
(Science Framework Addendum for California Public Schools,
i
1984) are in fact affective in nature?
Subquestion 1A. To what extent do practitioners j
from selected curricular perspectives agree on the j
level of importance placed on the suggested affec
tive objectives represented by the formal science
curriculum?
Subquestion IB. What is the relationship between j
demographic variables and practitioners' responses
I
to both the level of affective agreement and the 1
I
level of importance attributed to the affective i
objectives represented in the formal science curric
ulum?
2. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives agree on the affective curricular elements
(teaching strategies/learning activities and student J
evaluation strategies) represented in the ideal curriculum
to operationalize/implement the affective domain in the
science curriculum?
Subquestion 2A. To what extent do practitioners
from selected curricular perspectives believe sci
ence teachers use the affective curricular elements
I
(teaching strategies/learning activities and student j
evaluation strategies) in the ideal curriculum to
operationalize/implement the affective domain in the
science curriculum?
i
Subquestion 2B. What is the average percentage of
instructional time each week practitioners fromj
selected curricular perspectives report that sciencej
teachers actually spend and should spend operationa-,
lizing/implementing the affective domain in thej
j
science curriculum? I
i
Subquestion 2C. What is the relationship between
selected demographic variables and the instructional
curricular perspective as it relates to level of
agreement and extent of use of the affective curric
ular elements (teaching strategies/learning activi-
|
ties and student evaluation strategies) represented
i
in the ideal curriculum to operationalize/implement
the affective domain in the science curriculum?
! 172
i
i
3. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives report that factors represented in the ideal
curriculum actually impede science teachers' efforts to
operationalize/implement the affective domain in the science
curriculum?
4. To what extent do practitioners from selected curricular
perspectives agree that selected sources promote the
operationalization/implementation of the affective domain in
i the science curriculum?
I
. Subquestion 4A. To what extent do practitioners
I from selected curricular perspectives believe that
i
| science teachers use the selected sources to promote
the operationalization/implementation of the affec-
I
j tive domain in the science curriculum?
; Subquestion 4B. Which curricular elements are
obtained by practitioners from the instructional
curricular perspective using the selected sources to
promote the operationaliztion/implementation of the
• affective domain in the science curriculum?
| Importance of the Study
This study is of value to scholars and educational
practitioners representing a wide range of curricular
perspectives. First, science educators, curriculum schol-
j ars, and teacher educators will find the study useful in
i
173
gaining insight into how the affective domain is conceptual-
| ized and incorporated into secondary science classrooms.
Second, the study provides needed assistance in the area of
affective goals to practitioners responsible for science
curriculum development and formal curriculum guides at the
state, county, district, and classroom levels. Third, the
study provides a synthesis of affective instructional
strategies and student evaluation methods. The data thus
provides instructors with several methods to operationalize
affective outcomes in science education. In addition,
teachers in other subject areas will find the instructional I
> i
i i
i
strategies and evaluation techniques useful to their
|
disciplines. Similarly, the synthesized curricular elements j
provide educators involved in preservice or inservice
, programs with pertinent information related to training
i i
j teachers to implement the affective goals of science j
I education. Finally, the study is of value to administrators ;
I |
; in understanding which factors impede teachers' efforts to j
operationalize the affective domain. Furthermore, the data j
l
provides educators with numerous sources used by practitio- ,
I
ners to derive affective curricular elements.
Methodology
The study of Schooling Model, a traditional curricu
lum view, guided the data collection and categorization in
this study. Three curricular perspectives, the instruction-
j al, institutional, and formal, were considered for this
research endeavor. A representative sample of practitioners
was selected to correspond to each curricular perspective.
Science instructors were representative of the instructional
curricular perspective and site level administrators were
representative of the institutional curricular perspective.
Similarly, district administrators were representative of_j
i
the formal perspective. The samples1 responses to affective |
i
curricular elements including, goals and objectives,
teaching strategies, student evaluation methods, and the
i
allocation of time, were analyzed. j
The sample was selected from eight public high !
i
schools and district offices. The Catholic school sample ,
I
was derived from ten Catholic high schools and two district !
offices. All schools, both Catholic anbd public, were :
I
1 located in the Counties of Orange, Los Angeles, and San
Bernardino in California.
I
\ A mailed questionnaire instrument was developed and
administered to gather data for the major research questions
| and subquestions. The questionnaire evolved primarily as a
! I
result of an extensive review of the literature. Validity i
i
was established via a panel of experts. The instrument was
field tested for improvement purposes and to establish
175
reliability via measures of internal consistency. Question
naires were mailed to school sites with appropriate cover
letters.
Data from the questionnaires were analyzed primarily
through descriptive statistical methods. Frequencies of
respondent choices were calculated and used to report
findings. Chi-squares were calculated to determine rela
tionships for each question. Analysis of variance was
computed for mean weighted scores for all groups in the |
study. t-tests were calculated to compare Catholic and
public school teachers. All statistical analyses for each j
| section used p = .05 level of significance. I
I !
f .
: Selected Findings
!
I
i
I *
I As a result of the analysis of the data, several key j
1 findings were noted. Analysis of the data pertaining to |
i
j affective objectives and level of agreement revealed
differences in reported level of agreement by curricular ;
I perspective. Practitioners removed from the classroom
i
| tended to be less likely to agree that the objectives stated
on the questionnaire were in fact affective in nature. Over ;
75.0% of teachers responded that the objectives were
affective, 66.0% of site administrators, and 49.0% of
district administrators responded that objectives were
affective. In relation to affective objectives and level of |
importance, well over 80.0% of all respondents reported that
the affective objectives listed were very important or
important in the science curriculum (science teachers 88.3%,
site administrators 85.1%, and district administrators
83.4%).
Demographaic data, including age, years of experi
ence, total number of professional affiliations, total |
number of professional activities and the types of activi- j
!
ties, primary teaching area, educational level, sex, and
degree, appeared to have no significant impact on practitio-
I
i
ners' responses to the level of importance or agreement on |
I
affectiveness.
i
Analysis of the data pertinent to level of agreement 1
i
)
and extent of use as related to affective teaching strate- !
gies revealed two important findings: (1) Practitioners at j
l
all three levels, including science teachers, site adminis- ]
trators, and district administrators, were in general
agreement that the affective teaching strategies identified ;
in the literature could be used to operationalize the
l
affective domain in science (science teachers 68.2%, site t
|
administrators 69.0%, and district administrators 7 0.0%), 1
i
(2) Fifty-two percent of Catholic science teachers frequent- ■
i
ly or somewhat frequently used the stated teaching strate
gies compared to 44.7% for public school teachers. Far
177
fewer Catholic site administrators (34.2%) believed science
teachers used the strategies than did public site adminis
trators (52.0%). An overwhelming percentage of district
administrators reported that science teachers seldom or
never used the affective-teaching strategies (Catholic 77.0%
and public 83.0%). Three instructional strategies received
the highest percentage for extent of use: group decision
making (59.1%), small group discussion (55.7%), and case
studies (51.7%).
Data analysis relevant to level of agreement and
extent of use of affective evaluation strategies revealed
far less agreement between practitioners. Sixty-five j
<
1
percent of Catholic teachers agreed or strongly agreed on j
I
affective evaluation strategies, whereas 55.4% of public j
school teachers agreed or strongly agreed. Catholic I
teachers had a significantly higher level of agreement score !
I
I
than did public school teachers at p = .05 level of signifi- ]
i
cance. Approximately 65.0% of Catholic site administrators ;
reported that they agreed or strongly agreed with affective ;
evaluation strategies, compared to 76.0% for public site
i
administrators. Catholic district administrators (73.0%) 1
agreed far more frequently than did public district adminis- j
i
trators (59.0%). Looking at extent of use suggested that
the majority of practitioners from each curricular perspec
tive and from both Catholic and public schools believed that
science teachers seldom or never used affective student j
evaluation strategies. Approximately 84.4% ofall practitio- !
ners reported that direct observation was used for affective
evaluation, 65.6% reported frequent or somewhat frequent use
of open-ended questions, while 64.5% of all practitioners
reported frequent or somwhat frequent use of subjective
questions.
Analysis of practitioners' responses to the alloca- j
i
tion of instructional time also providied some interesting !
i
findings. Approximately 100% of all district level adminis- i
I
trators agreed that science instructors should and did spend j
between 0-24% of the total instructional time per week on |
t
j affective science outcomes. Over 80% of site administrators |
i
j responded that science teachers should and did spend between
; 0-24% of weekly instructional time implementing the affec- !
i
tive domain. Teachers on the other hand responded with more ;
I . !
diversity. The majority of teachers (65.8%) reported
i
j actually spending 0-24% of instructional time on affective
i
! outcomes. On the other hand, 55.0% of public school
teachers reported that they should spend 0-24% of instruc-
| tional time on affective outcomes, whereas the largest
i
percentage of Catholic school teachers (47.8%) reported that
i . i
I they should spend 2 5-50% of their time on affective develop- <
ment.
179
Selected findings for research question three dealt
with the extent to which factors purported in the literature
impeded the implementation of the affective domain in the
science curriculum. The majority of both Catholic and
public school teachers (57.0%) reported that the factors
listed on the questionnaire seldom or never hindered efforts
to operationalize the affective domain. On the other hand,
7 5.0% of site adminstrators and 85.9% of district adminis
trators reported that these factors frequently or somewhat
frequently impeded the efforts of science teachers.
Calculating a mean score for Catholic school practitioners
from a Likert-type scale (1 = frequently impedes, 2 =
i
I somewhat frequently, 3 = seldom impedes, and 4 = never
!
impedes) revealed that science teachers' (x=2.64), site
| administrators' (x=1.71), and district administrators'
(x=l.33) responses were significantly different at p = .05
I level of significance. In this situation, the curricular
i
perspective appeared to make a difference. Public school
teachers (x=2.56) had significantly higher extent impedes
i
j scores than did Catholic site administrators (x=1.71).
I
| Data analysis for question four dealt with whether
I
practitioners agreed that sources listed on the question
naire assisted in the operationalization of the affective
domain. Approximately 62.0% of all science teachers agreed
or strongly agreed and 65.0% of Catholic site administrators
180
i agreed or strongly agreed, compared with 55.5% of their
public school counterparts that the sources listed in the
questionnaire could be used to help implement the affective
domain. Catholic district administrators scored substan
tially lower at 39.7%, while 52.5% of public school adminis
trators agreed or strongly agreed. Looking at whether the
J
1 sources listed on the questionnaire were ever used showed
| considerable disagreement between groups. Fifty-six percent
I
of Catholic teachers and 44.6% of public school teachers
: frequently or somewhat frequently used the sources listed on
I the questionnaire to implement the affective domain.
Thirty-eight percent of Catholic site administrators and
52.9% of public site administrators reported that teachers
' frequently or somwhat frequently used the sources listed,
i
i
j whereas 51.0% of district administrators reported that
! science teachers used the sources. Overall 50.0% of the
■ practitioners reported frequent or somewhat frequent use,
while 50.0% reported seldom or never used. On the average,
| science teachers (51.0%) reported higher use than did site
administrators (45.4%), while district administrators
i (55.0%) reported higher level of use than did science
teachers.
Finally, data pertaining to the types of curricular
elements obtained by science teachers from the sources
listed provided interesting new results. Catholic school
181
teachers reported obtaining goals and objectives primarily
from prior teaching experience (70.8%), the textbook
(70.8%), and prior educational training (66.7%). Public
school teachers reported obtaining goals and objectives from
prior educational training (63.9%), model curriculum
standards (66.7%), and from the State Science Framework
(52.8) .
Materials for Catholic science teachers were obtained j
primarily through prior teaching experience (75.0%),the j
textbook (66.7%), prior educational training (50.0%),
supplementary materials (50.0%) , and professional magazines-
/journals (50.0%). Public school science teachers reported
obtaining materials from four primary sources: prior
educational training (52.0%), prior teaching experience j
j (61.0%), supplementary materials (52.8%), and the textbook
! (52.8%). i
I
i
Catholic school instructors relied upon the textbook j
! i
for content (83.3%), prior educational training (70.8%), 1
prior educational experience (66.7%), and professsional 1
I t
1 journals/magazines (50.0%). Public school teachers also
I
J used the textbook (75.0%) for affective content. Additional
1 sources providing information on content were prior educa- I
i
tional training (58.3%), literature from professional I
i
organizations (52.8%), and professional journals/magazines
(50.0%).
182
Teaching strategy ideas were obtained by Catholic
teachers from the following sources: prior educational
training (75.0%), prior teaching experience (70.8%),
supplementary materials (58.3%), literature from profes-
i
sional organizations (54.2%), and professional journals/
magazines (54.2%). Public school teachers reported that
they obtained ideas for teaching strategies from prior
educational training (66.7%), prior educational experience
1 (61.1%) , literature from professional organizations (52.8%) ,
I
staff development (52.8%), and workshops/seminars (52.8%).
Catholic school teachers obtained evaluation strate
gies from prior teaching experience (66.7%), the textbook
(45.8%), and prior educational training (37.5%). Public
i
school teachers obtained evaluation techniques from prior j
educational training (44.4%) and prior teaching experience j
(41.7%) |
j
i ;
! Conclusions
i :
t
i
i It was concluded that, in general, practitioners
! agreed that the affective objectives in the formal science
j curriculum were in fact affective in nature and important in '
the science curriculum. Demographic variables reported in |
the study did not appear to influence practitioners* i
1
i
responses. j
183
Although the literature provided a fairly extensive |
assimilation of affective teaching strategies and student I
evaluation strategies, universal agreement that these
strategies, universal agreement that these strategies could
be used to implement the affective domain and universal use
among practitioners was not found. It was concluded that,
although practitioners generally agreed on the affective
teaching strategies, they did not agree on the extent to
which these strategies were being used in science class
rooms .
It was concluded that practitioners differed widely
in their level of agreement that affective evaluation
strategies could be used to implement the affective domain
in science. It was further concluded that these evaluation |
I
strategies were seldom or never used in science classrooms, j
Although the literature continued to suggest the j
importance of the affective domain and affective science j
outcomes, practitioners typically reported that science !
teachers actually and should spend from 0-2 4% of their ;
weekly instructional time on affective development. ;
i
It was concluded that, in general, science teachers I
I
did not believe that barriers represented in the ideal
curriculum actually impeded their efforts to implement the
affective domain. On the other hand, a substantial majority
of administrators reported that the barriers listed on the
i 184
i
j questionnaire did in fact impede teacher's efforts to
operationalize the affective domain.
It was concluded that science teachers, site adminis
trators, and district level administrators generally agreed
that the source represented on the questionnaire did in fact
promote the operationalization of the affective domain in
1 the science curriculum. It was further concluded that no
universal agreement was found among practitioners as it
related to the extent to which these sources were used by
teachers.
Finally, it was concluded that science teachers
selected affective curricular elements from a wide variety
of sources. However, science teachers typically responded
that they relied upon curricular elements from prior
teaching experiences and educational training.
Recommendations
| Based on the findings the following recommendations
\ are made:
1. Since affective science goals continue to be
i
i
considered important by scholars and practitioners, efforts
must be made at the state, district, site, and classroom
level to plan for and incorporate affective outcomes in the
science curriculum.
185
2. Further efforts must be made by curriculum
specialists and science educators to articulate affective
science outcomes in conjunction with the strategies suggest
ed for their attainment.
3. Specific affective teaching strategies, such as
small group discussion, group decision making, and values
clarification, should be used more frequently to develop
affective student outcomes in science education.
4. Specific affective student evaluation strategies
such as direct observation, interviews/discussions, open-
ended questions, and subjective questions need to be more
widely used to evaluate affective growth in students.
5. Further research efforts should focus on whether
specific affective teaching strategies and/or student
evaluation methods are significantly better at developing or
evaluating affective outcomes.
I
j 6. Further research should concentrate on identify-
I
i
f ing specifically what science teachers in the classroom do
to teach to affective outcomes and how they determine
whether satisfactory growth has been attained.
7. Additional instructional time must be allocated
specifically for development of affective science outcomes.
8. Additional research should be conducted to
determine why affective science outcomes are considered
186
i
important by practitioners, yet instructional time allocated ■
to this end is limited.
9. Efforts must be made to articulate concerns or
issues relevant to the affective domain and science educa
tion. Practitioners at all levels must become more aware of
the factors that impede the operationalization of the
affective domain so these barriers might be overcome.
10. Specific sources such as literature from
professional organizations, supplementary materials, and
I
workshops/seminars, which facilitate the implementation of
the affective domain must be more readily available to |
science instructors and administrators. j
11. The study should be replicated using elementary
J
science teachers to determine whether their responses will j
I
be significantly different than practitioners in secondary '
education. I
i
j 12. Research should be conducted using science j
j l
scholars and university professors to determine whether '
I their responses will be significantly different than those 1
, i
j of practitioners.
i
| 13. The affective domain in other disciplines should
I
I be investigated to determine whether similarities exist and |
! whether practices in one field of study might be extrapolat- j
j j
ed to others.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
188
i
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Airasian, P. (1967). Physical science questionnaire
(Unpublished test). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package
on preservice science teachers1 understanding of the
nature of science and acquisition of science-related
attitudes. Science Education. 72.(1), 73-82.
Allen, H. (1959). Attitudes of certain high school seniors
toward science and scientific careers. New York:
Teachers College, Columbia.
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
(1989) . Science for all Americans: A project 2 061
report on literacy goals in science, mathematics and
technology. NW Washington DC: Author.
Anderson, H. O., & Koutnik, P. G. (1972). Toward more
effective science instruction in secondary education.
New York: Macmillan.
Anderson, R. D. (1981). Physical science education. In C.
N. Harms & E. R. Yager (Eds.), What research savs to
the science teacher (Vol. 3, pp. 33-52). Washington
DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Baker, M. R. , & Doran, R. L. (197 5) . From an awareness of
scientific data to concerns of mankind: Strategies for
affective instruction in science. Science Education.
.59 (4) , 539-558 .
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Beane, J. A. (1985, December/1986, January). The
continuing controversy over affective education.
Educational Leadership. 43.(4) , 26-31.
Beane, J. A. (1990) . Affect in the curriculum. New York:
Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
I
Beatty, W. H. (1976). Affective measurement and the self-
concept. In W. J. Gephart & R. B. Ingle (Eds.),
Evaluation in the affective domain (pp. 119-160).
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan.
Beauchamp, G. A. (1981). Curriculum theory (4th ed.).
Illinois: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
■ Bennett, W. J. (1988). American education making it work.
| Washington DC: United States Department of Education.
I Billeh, V. Y., & Zakhariades, G. A. (1975). The
development and application of a scale for measuring
j scientific attitudes. Science Education. 59.(2) , 155-
165.
Bills, R. E. (1976) . Affect and its measurement. In W. J.
Gephart & R. B. Ingle (Eds.), Evaluation in the [
j affective domain (pp. 7-52). Bloomington, IN: Phi ,
I Delta Kappan.
Birnie, H. H. (1978). Identifying affective goals in i
science education. The Science Teacher. 45.(9), 29-33. j
Bloom, B. S., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). I
Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of j
student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. j
I
j Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1981). 1
I Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of |
I student learning (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brandhorst, A. R. (1978). Reconceptua1izinq the affective j
domain. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 153
891). ,
Briggs, L. J. (1984). What happened to motivation and the
affective domain? Educational Technology. 24. (5) , 33-
34 .
i
r
Brinckerhoff, R. F., & Yager, R. E. (1986). Science and |
technology education for tomorrow's world. A report of
the exeter II conference on secondary science
education. NW Washington DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Brown, F. K. , & Butts, D. P. (1983). Science teaching: A
profession speaks. NW Washington DC: National Science
Teachers Association.
Brunkhorst, H. K. (1986). Ethics, values, and
teaching. In R. W. Bybee (Ed.), Science
society (pp. 213-220). NW Washington DC:
Science Teachers Association.
science
technology
National
Bybee, R. W. (Ed.).
NW Washington
Association.
(1986). Science technology society.
DC: National Science Teachers
and grades one through twelve.
Author.
California State Department of Education.
framework addendum. Sacramento, CA:
Sacramento, CA;
(1984) .
Author.
Science
California State Department of Education. (1989). Science
framework draft. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Teaching science Carin, A. A., & Sund, R. B (1985).
through discovery (5th ed.) . London: Charles Merrill.
California State Department of Education. (1978). Science
framework for California public schools kindergarten
J Clark, L. H,
school
& Starr,
teaching
I. S. (1981).
methods (2nd
Secondary and middle
ed.) . New York:
Macmillan.
Dembo, M. H. (1981). Teaching for learning: Applying
educational psychology in the classroom (2nd ed.). IL:
Scott Foresman.
Diederich, P. B. (1969). Components of the Scientific
attitude. In H. O. Anderson (Ed.), Readings in science
education for the secondary schools (pp. 40-43). New
York: Macmillan.
Doran, R. L. (1980). Basic measurement and evaluation of
science instruction. NW Washington DC: National
Science Teachers Association.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination. New '
York: Macmillan.
191
Elss, A. F. , & Harbeck, M. B (1969). Behavioral
objectives in the affective domain. NW Washington DC:
National Science Teachers Association.
Foshay, W. R. (1978). An alternative for task analysis in
the affective domain. Journal of Instructional
Development. 1(2), 22-24.
Fowler, F. J. (1984). Survey research methods. Beverly
Hills CA: Sage.
Fraser, B. J. (1977). Selection and validation of attitude
scales for curriculum evaluation. Science Education.
61(3), 317-329.
Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-
related attitudes. Science Education. 62.(4), 509-515.
Gagne, R. M. (1985) . The conditions of learning and theory
of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gagne, R. M. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional technology:
Foundations. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gauld, C. (1982). The scientific attitude and science
education: A critical reappraisal. Science Education.
66(1), 109-121.
Geisert, P. (1977). The coercive use of affective
objectives. Science Education. .61(2), 253-257.
Gephart, W. J., & Ingle, R. B. (1976). Evaluation in the
affective domain. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan.
Goodlad, J. I. & Associates. (1979). Curriculum inquiry:
The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Haladyna, T., & Shaughnessy, J. (1982). Attitudes toward
science: A qualitative synthesis. Science Education.
j66(4), 547-563.
Haney, R. E. (1964, December). The development of
scientific attitudes. The Science Teacher, pp. 33-35.
Haney, R. E., & Sorenson, J. S. (1977). Individually
guided science. MA: Addison-Wesley.
192 |
i
i
Harmin, M. (1977). What I've learned about values
education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan.
Harmin, M., Kirschenbaum, H., & Simon, S. (1973).
Clarifying values though subject matter. Minneapolis,
MN: Winston Press.
Harootunian, B., & Yarger, G. P. (1981). Teachers1
conception of their own success. (Eric Document
Reproduction Service No. SP 017 372). |
Heiss, E. D. (1958, November). Helping students develop |
a scientific attitude. The Science Teacher, pp. 371- |
373 .
Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T.
(1978). How to measure attitudes. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications.
Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid
science curriculum. Science Education. 72.(1), 19-40.
Hughes, E. F. (1971). Role playing as a technique for
developing a scientific attitude in elementary teacher
trainees. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
8(2), 113-122.
Hurd, P. D. (1981). Biology education. In C. N. Harms &
E. R. Yager (Eds.), What research savs to the science
teacher (Vol. 3, pp. 12-32). Washinton DC: National
Science Teachers Association.
Hurd, P. D. (1985). A changing society: New perspectives
j for science education. Pace-Policy Analysis for j
| California Education. (Policy Forum No. PF85-7-3) ■
j Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1981). Handbook in research i
and evaluation (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: EdiTs. i
I
I
Johnson, D. W. (1973) . The affective side of the schooling
i experience. Elementary School Journal. 73.(6), 306-313.
|
Johnson, D. W. (1974). Affective outcomes. In H. J. |
Walberg (Ed.) Evaluating educational performance a I
sourcebook of methods, instruments and examples (pp. I
99-112). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. !
Joyce, B., & Weil, M. (1986). Models of teaching (3rd
ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kahle, J. B., & Yager, R. E. (1981). Current indicators
for the discipline of science education. Science
Education. 65(1), 25-31.
Kelley, E. C. (1965). The place of affective learning.
Educational Leadership. 22.(7), 455-457.
Kahn, S. B. , & Weiss, J. (1973). The teaching of affective
responses. In R. M. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of
research in teaching (pp. 759-804). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
I
Kindsvatter, R., Wilen, W. , & Ishler, M. (1988). Dynamics |
of effective teaching. New York: Longman. |
Klein, M. F. (1983) . The use of a research model to guide |
curriculum development. Theory Into Practice. 23.(3) , i
198-202. !
I
i
Klein, M. F. (1986). Alternative curriculum conceptions
and designs. Theory Into Practice. 2_5(1), 31-35.
i
Klopfer, L. E. (1971). Science. In B. S. Bloom, J. T. i
Hastings, & G. F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook of formative |
and summative evaluation of student learning (pp. 570-
641). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Klopfer, L. E. (1976). A structure for the affective
domain in relation to science education. Science
Education. .60(3), 299-312.
i
Klopfer, L. E. (1980). Science education in the 1980's, j
Science Education. 64(1), 1-6. j
!
! Knirk, F. G., & Gustafson, K. L. (1986). Instructional I
technology a systematic approach to education. New ’
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
I
! Koballa, T. R. (1984). Goals of science education. In
i D. Holdzkom & P. B. Lutz (Eds.), Research within reach: ,
Science education (pp. 2 5-39) . Washington DC: 1
National Institute of Education. i
I
Koballa, T. R. (1988). Attitude and related concepts in 1
science education. Science Education. 72.(2) , 115-126.
Kohlberg, L. (1976). The cognitive-developmental approach
to moral education. In D. Purpel & K. Ryan (Eds.),
Moral education... it comes with the territory. '
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Kourilsky, M., & Quaranta, L. (1987). Effective teaching 1
principles and practice. IL: Scott Foresman. |
t
Kozlow, M. J., & Nay, M. A. (1976). An approach to
measuring scientific attitudes. Science Education.
60 (2) , 147-172.
Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964).
Taxonomy of educational objectives the classification
of educational goals; Handbook II: Affective domain. ;
New York: David McKay.
Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1979). College teaching. In j
P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on ;
teaching concepts, findings, and implications (pp. 70- :
93) . Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. I
i
1
Kyle, W. C. (1984). Curriculum developments projects of
the 1960's. In D. Holdzkom & P. B. Lutz (Eds.),
Research within reach: Science Education (pp. 3-24) .
NW Washington DC: National Science Teachers i
Association. |
Laforgia, J. (1988). The affective domain related to
science education and its evaluation. Science
Education. 72.(4), 407-421.
Lafrancois, G. R. (1985). Psychology for teaching. j
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lewey, A. (1968). The empirical validity of major
properties of a taxonomy of effective educational ;
objectives. The Journal of Experimental Education. ■
36(3), 70-77.
Martin, B. L., & Briggs, L. J. (1986). The affective and
cognitive domains: Integration for instruction and
research. NJ: Educational Technology. j
McCormack, A. J., & Yager, R. E. (1989). A new taxonomy
of science education. The Science Teacher. 5.6(2), 47- ;
48. i
I
Mitman, A. L., Mergendoller, J. R., Marchman, V. A., & i
Packer, M. J. (1987). Instruction addressing the j
components of scientific literacy and its relation to :
student outcomes. American Educational Research j
Journal. 24(4), 611-633.
I---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
195
! National Science Teachers Association. (1971). School
I science education for the 197 0's. The Science Teacher,
j pp. 47-51.
National Science Teachers Association. (1987). Criteria
for excellence. Washington DC: Author.
Nay, M. A., & Crocker, R. K. (1970). Science teaching and
the affective attributes of scientists. Science
Education. 54(1), 59-67.
!
! Neidt, C. O., & Hedlund, D. E. (1969). Longitudinal
j relationships between cognitive and affective learning
outcomes. The Journal of Experimental Education.
| 37.(3) , 56-60.
* Nunally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York:
I McGraw-Hill.
| Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957).
The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois.
Payne, D. A. (197 6). The assessment of affect:
Nomothetic and idiographic. In W. J. Gephart & R. B.
Ingle (Eds.), Evaluation in the affective domain (pp.
61-115). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan.
| Pratt, D. (1987). Curriculum design as humanistic
| technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies. L9(2), 149-
j 162 .
I
| Prawat, R. S. (1985). Affective versus cognitive goal
orientations in elementary teachers. American
Educational Research Journal. .22(4), 587-604.
Prawat, R. S. , & Nickerson, J. R. (1985) . The relationship
between teacher thought and action and student
j affective outcomes. The Elementary School Journal.
I 85(4), 529-540.
Raven, J. (1977). Education, values and society. London:
Lewis.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Curtis, R. V. (1987). Learning
situations and instructional models. In R. M. Gagne
(Ed.), Instructional technology: Foundations (pp. 178-
2 06). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
196
Ringness, T. (1975). The affective domain in education.
Boston: Little Brown.
Robinson, J. T. (1979). A critical look at grading and
and evaluation practices. In M. B. Rowe (Ed.), What
research savs to the science teacher (Vol. 2, pp. 1-
31) . Washington DC: National Science Teachers
Association.
Romiszowski, A. J. (1981) . Designing instructional
systems. London: Kogan Page.
; Rowntree, D. (1982). Educational technology in curriculum |
deve1opment (2nd ed.). London: Harper and Row. j
S Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1988). Rethinking the
I science curriculum. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Content of
the curriculum (pp. 75-90). VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Saylor, J. G., Alexander, W. M., & Lewis, A. J. (1981).
Curriculum planning for better teaching and learning.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Schibeci, R. A. (1981). Do teachers rate science attitude
objectives as highly as cognitive objectives? Journal j
of Research in Science Teaching. 18(1)1, 69-72.
Schibeci, R. A. (1982). Science education assessment i
instruments. Science Education. 66.(4), 565-570. j
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum perspectives, paradigm. !
and possibility. New York: Macmillan. !
Simon, S. B., Howe, L. W., & Kirschenbaum, H. (1972). 1
Values clarification a handbook of practical strategies
for teachers and students. New York: Dodd Mead. |
Simpson, R. D., & Anderson, N. D. (1981). Science.
students, and schools: A guide for the middle and :
secondary school teacher. New York: Macmillan. |
i
Smith, R. B., & Reyes, D. J. (1982). Implementing j
affective objectives in curriculum and instruction, j
(Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED 22 3 545).
Sonnier, I. L. (1982). Holistic education: Teaching in
the affective domain. Education. .103.(1), 11-14.
Thelen, L. J. (1987). Values clarification: Science or
nonscience. Science Education. 7_1(2) , 201-220.
Thomson, P. (1975). The affective outcomes of science
teaching: Some teacher opinions. The Australian
Science Teachers Journal. 2 1 ( 2 ) , 5-21.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and
instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Wiles, J., & Bondi, J. C. (1984). Curriculum development
a guide to practice (2nd ed.). London: Charles E. |
Merrill. j
t
Williams, F. E. (1969). Models for encouraging creativity
in the classroom by integrating cognitive-affective ■
behaviors. Educational Technology. 9(12), 7-13. j
I
Wulf, K., & Schave, B. (1984). Curriculum design a 1
handbook for educators. IL: Scott Foresman. |
i
Zais, R. S. (1976). Curriculum principles and foundations. \
New York: Harper and Row.
APPENDIXES
199
APPENDIX A
PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY AND FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO
SITE ADMINISTRATORS
200
September 21, 1989
Mr.
Principal
High School
Ave.
CA 90640
Dear
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. You and
your staff are greatly appreciated. The study is primarily (
| concerned with affective curricular practice in the |
i secondary science curriculum. In collaboration with Dr. M. ;
Frances Klein, Professor of Curriculum at the University of j
Southern California, I have developed the enclosed ;
questionnaires. j
As we discussed on the phone, I need to ask you to
distribute my questionnaire to the entire science faculty at
_____________ High School. (Note: Science faculty question- ;
naires are blue.) Each questionnaire should be returned in j
the self-addressed stamped envelope. I also need question- ]
naires distributed to the site level adminis-trators in i
charge of the science curriculum. (Note: This should j
include the principal and the assistant/vice-principal j
responsible for the school*s curricular program— these are
pink.) Finally, I need to have the canary colored question
naire distributed to the district level adminis-trator(s)
responsible for the science curriculum at the secondary j
level.
As an educator myself, I am well aware of the time con
straints placed on our busy schedules. With this in mind,
I have attempted to limit the questionnaire such that it j
will take approximately twenty-five minutes for faculty to !
complete and approximately twenty minutes for administrators ,
to fill out. t
> 1
Please encourage those involved to return their completed
questionnaire no later than OCTOBER 4, 1989. Once again,
thank you for all that you have done for me. If you have
any questions please do not hesitate to call me at (714-858-
3350, EXT. 109).
Sincerely yours,
Ray A. Gatfield
Ph.D. Candidate
University of Southern California
APPENDIX B
QUESTIONNAIRE COVER LETTER
September 19, 1989
Dear Educator:
I am currently at the University of Southern California
pursuing a doctoral degree in the field of education. My
: research is primarily concerned with affective curricular
I practices in the secondary science curriculum. Over the
| years educators have noted the importance of the affective
I domain in education, yet little is known about this facet of
j schooling. Specifically, this research is an effort to tap
the wisdom of the field to obtain a greater understanding of
! both the conceptualization and implementation of the affec
tive domain in the secondary science curriculum.
In collaboration with Dr. Frances Klein, Professor of
Curriculum at USC, I have developed the attached question
naire. I am now seeking the assistance of educational
practitioners to complete this survey. You have been
i chosen, along with a select group of your colleagues, to
j participate in this study.
It is essential to this research effort that I receive as
, many completed questionnaires as possible. Be assured that
I both you and your school as well as your school district
! will remain anonymous. Only those teachers who agree to
j participate in the follow-up telephone interview will ever
have contact the investigator. In any event strict
confidentiality will always be maintained.
I
j Please complete the attached questionnaire as indicated on
j each page and return it in the self-addressed stamped
i envelope by OCTOBER 13, 1989. I look forward to receiving
' your valuable responses. Thank you so much for taking the
time out of your hectic schedule to complete this survey.
Sincerely yours,
Ray A. Gatfield
Ph.D. Candidate
University of Southern California
APPENDIX C
THANK YOU AND FOLLOW-UP LETTER SENT TO SITE ADMINISTRATORS
204
Mr.
Principal
High School
Ave.
CA 90640
Dear
I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to you and your
science faculty for all you have done to make my study a
j successful endeavor. Although the number of returns has
• been encouraging, I have not received survey responses from
: a number of science educators and administrators. In any
i comprehensive research endeavor an effort must be undertaken
to obtain the largest number of returns from the selected
I sample.
I
As you know, there are many reasons why people choose not to
participate in a research study. One very significant
( factor is the lack of adequate time necessary to complete
the survey. With this in mind, I have extended the deadline
for questionnaire returns to November 17, 1989. If you
| could pass this new deadline on to your staff it would
i greatly enhance my chances for a successful research
! project.
! Since questionnaires are oftentimes misplaced, I have
enclosed five science teacher surveys and one additional
| administrator survey in this mailing. If you could
, distribute these to those who have not had to opportunity to
complete one, it would be greatly appreciated.
i
| Please encourage those involved to return their completed
survey by November 17, 1989. Once again, I am indebted to
you for all the time and energy you have spent on my behalf.
If I can ever assist you in any way, please do not hesitate
to call on me at (714)-858-3350, Ext. 109.
Warm regards
Ray A. Gatfield
Assistant Principal
Santa Margarita High School
Ph.D. Candidate
University of Southern California
APPENDIX D
QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW-UP LETTER
206
October 30, 1989
Dear Educator:
As previously noted, I am currently a doctoral student at
the University of Southern California. My research is
primarily concerned with affective curricular practices in
the secondary science curriculum.
Recently you received a questionnaire from an administrator
at your school site. For many reasons you may not have had
ample opportunity to complete this questionnaire. Since
returns have been slow, I have extended the original
deadline of October 4, to NOVEMBER 17, 1989.
In order to successfully conclude my study, it is absolutely
imperative that I receive at least twenty more science
teacher questionnaires. Please take this opportunity to
complete the attached survey and return it in the self-
addressed stamped envelope by NOVEMBER 17, 1989.
I look forward to receiving your valuable response. Without
it the study will not be successful. Thank you so much for
taking the time out of your hectic scheduler to complete
this survey. If you have already returned your
questionnaire, your reply was greatly appreciated.
Warm regards.
Ray A. Gatfield
Assistant Principal
Santa Margarita High School
Ph.D. Cand idate
University of Southern California
I
APPENDIX E
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO CONDUCT STUDY IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL !
208
Santa M argarita
High School
D e a r
I a m i n t h e p r o c e s s o f g a t h e r i n g d a t a f o r m y d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . T h e s t u d y
i s p r i m a r i l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h a f f e c t i v e c u r r i c u l a r p r a c t i c e i n t h e s e c o n d a r y
s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m . I n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h D r . M . P r a n c e s K l e i n , P r o f e s s o r o f
C u r r i c u l u m a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , I h a v e d e v e l o p e d a
q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d n o w s e e k t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f p r a c t i t i o n e r s i n t h e f i e l d o f
e d u c a t i o n .
A t t i m e s e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i s c o n d u c t e d w i t h o u t s e e k i n g t h e k n o w l e d g e o r
e x p e r i e n c e o f p r a c t i c i n g p r o f e s s i o n a l s . T h i s r e s e a r c h i s a n e f f o r t t o t a p
t h e w i s d o m o f t h e f i e l d t o o b t a i n a g r e a t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f b o t h t h e c o n
c e p t u a l i z a t i o n a n d o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e s c i e n c e
c u r r i c u l u m . I t i s m y h o p e , t h r o u g h t h i s r e s e a r c h , t o p r o v i d e m o r e e f f e c t i v e
m e a n s o f d e a l i n g w i t h t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n .
I a m s p e c i f i c a l l y r e q u e s t i n g y o u r p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n t a c t a n d u s e t h e f o l l o w i n g
A r c h d i o c e s a n s c h o o l s a s p a r t o f m y r e s e a r c h s a m p l e .
T h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e s w o u l d b e f o l l o w e d ;
F i r s t , w i t h y o u r a p p r o v a l I w o u l d c o n t a c t t h e p r i n c i p a l a t e a c h s c h o o l t o
r e q u e s t s i t e p e r m i s s i o n f o r t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f m y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I w o u l d
a l s o r e q u e s t t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l r e s p o n d t o a t w e n t y m i n u t e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
S e c o n d , I w o u l d c o n t a c t t h e v i c e - p r i n c i p a l o r a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r t h e s c h o o l ' s c u r r i c u l u m . T h i s i n d i v i d u a l w i l l a l s o b e a s k e d t o r e s p o n d
t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e y w i l l a l s o b e a s k e d t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e i n s t r u m e n t
t o a l l s c i e n c e t e a c h e r s v i a t h e s c h o o l ' s f a c u l t y m a i l b o x e s . I h a v e a t t a c h e d
a s a m p l e o f t h e t e a c h e r ' s c o v e r l e t t e r f o r y o u r p e r u s a l . T h e t e a c h e r s '
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
SANTA MARGARITA CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL
22062 Antonio Parkway
Rancho Santa Margarite, CA 92688
(714) 858-3, 8 58-335 0
209
q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l r e q u i r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t y m i n u t e s t o c o m p l e t e . I n e a c h
c a s e r e s p o n d e n t s w i l l r e c e i v e a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , s t a m p e d e n v e l o p e f o r r e t u r n i n g
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
I n a d d i t i o n t o s c h o o l s i t e p e r s o n n e l , I a m a l s o a s k i n g f o r y o u r a p p r o v a l t o
d i s t r i b u t e m y q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o a l l d i s t r i c t l e v e l a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e s p o n s i b l e
f o r s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l ( 9 - 1 2 ) c u r r i c u l u m i n t h e A r c h d i o c e s e . T h i s f o r m o f t h e
s u r v e y w o u l d r e q u i r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e n t y m i n u t e s t o c o m p l e t e . I r e a l i z e
t h a t e v e r y o n e i n t h e A r c h d i o c e s e , i n c l u d i n g y o u r s e l f , a r e e x t r e m e l y b u s y
a t t h i s t i m e o f t h e y e a r . W i t h t h i s i n m i n d I w i l l m a k e e v e r y e f f o r t t o
m a k e m y i n t r u s i o n a s b r i e f a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l a s p o s s i b l e . I h a v e a l r e a d y
s p o k e n t o A n n e t t e S h a m e y , a f o r m e r c o l l e a g u e w h i l e a t S t . B e r n a r d H i g h
S c h o o l . S h e h a s a g r e e d t o h e l p f a c i l i t a t e a n d c o o r d i n a t e t h i s s t u d y i f
y o u a p p r o v e .
F i n a l l y , I w a n t t o a s s u r e y o u t h a t t h e A r c h d i o c e s e , i t s m e m b e r s c h o o l s , a n d
i l l p e r s o n n e l w h o a g r e e t o r e s p o n d t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i l l r e m a i n a n o n y m o u s .
T h a n k y o u f o r t a k i n g t h e t i m e t o r e a d m y r e q u e s t . I w i l l c o n t a c t y o u i n a
f e w d a y s t o a n s w e r a n y q u e s t i o n s y o u m a y h a v e a n d t o o b t a i n y o u r r e s p o n s e .
T h a n k y o u a g a i n f o r y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
S i n c e r e l y y o u r s ,
R a y A . G a t f i e l d
A s s i s t a n t P r i n c i p a l , S a n t a M a r g a r i t a H i g h S c h o o l
D o c t o r a l C a n d i d a t e
c c :
APPENDIX F
QUESTIONNAIRE
211
A F F E C T I V E S C I E N C E E D U C A T I O N S U R V E Y
E d u c a t i o n ( c h e c k h i g h e s t l e v e l a t t a i n e d )
1 . L e s s t h a n B - A - / B - S .
2 . B . A . / B . S .
3 . B . A . / B . S . + C r e d e n t i a l
4 . M . A . / M . S . & / o r U n i t s a b o v e c r e d e n t i a l
5 . E d . D / P h . D .
S e x ( c h e c k a p p r o p r i a t e )
1 . M a l e _ _ _ 2 . F e m a l e
A g e ( c h e c k a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r y )
1 . u n d e r 2 5
2 . 2 5 - 3 4 .
3 . 3 5 - 4 4
4 . 4 5 - 5 4
5 . 5 5 - 6 4
6 . 6 5 +
Y e a r s o f E d u c a t i o n a l E x p e r i e n c e
( c h e c k a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r y )
C r e d e n t i a l B e l d ( c h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y )
1 . M u l t i p l e S u b j e c t
2 . S i n g l e S u b j e c t - B i o l o g i c a l / L i f e S c i e n c
3 . S i n g l e S u b j e c t - P h y s i c a l S c i e n c e s
4 . S i n g l e S u b j e c t - E a r t h S c i e n c e s
5 . O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
U n d e r g r a d u a t e D e g r e e Q n p h a s i s
( c h e c k a l l t h a t a p p l y )
1 . S c i e n c e
2 . L i b e r a l A r t s / G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n
3 . M a t h e m a t i c s
4 . S o c i a l S c i e n c e s
5 . E n g l i s h
6 . P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n
7 . O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
1 . 0 - 5 y e a r s
2 . 6 - 1 0 y e a r s
3 . 1 1 - 1 5 y e a r s
4 . 1 6 - 2 0 y e a r s
5 . 2 1 - 2 5 y e a r s
6 . 2 6 + y e a r s
P r i m a r y T e a c h i n g R e s p o n s i b i l i t y ( c h e c k o n l y o n e
P r o f e s s i o n a l A f f i l i a t i o n s
1 . B i o l o g y
2 . P h y s i c s
3 . P h y s i c a l S c i e n c e _ _ _
4 . O t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
5 . C h e m i s t r y
6 . E a r t h S c i e n c e
7 . S c i e n c e / T e c h
( c h e c k t h o s e t o w h i c h y o u h a v e m e m b e r s h i p s )
1 . A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e A d v a n c e m e n t o f S c i e n c e
2 . N a t i o n a l S c i e n c e T e a c h e r s A s s o c i a t i o n
3 . N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f B i o l o g y T e a c h e r s
4 . A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f P h y s i c s T e a c h e r s
5 . S c h o o l S c i e n c e a n d M a t h e m a t i c s A s s o c i a t i o n
6 . A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S u p e r v i s i o n a n d C u r r i c u l u m D e v e l o p m e n t
7 . N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r R e s e a r c h i n S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g
8 . N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n f o r G e o l o g y T e a c h e r s
9 . O t h e r s ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
P r o f e s s i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s ( c h e c k t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t y o u h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d i n )
1 . W r o t e d i s t r i c t c u r r i c u l u m g u i d e s i n s o m e a r e a o f s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n
2 . D e v e l o p e d d i s t r i c t - w i d e s c i e n c e m a t e r i a l s
3 . D e v e l o p e d s c h o o l s i t e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m a n d / o r m a t e r i a l s
4 . W r o t e o r a s s i s t e d i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e S t a t e S c i e n c e F r a m e w o r k o r A d d e n d u m
5 . D e v e l o p e d c l a s s r o o m s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m a n d / o r m a t e r i a l s
6 . D e v e l o p e d o r a s s i s t e d i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a C o u n t y C o u r s e o f S t u d y i n s c i e n c e
7 . W r o t e o r a s s i s t e d i n s t a t e o r n a t i o n a l n o r m - r e f e r e n c e d s c i e n c e a s s e s s m e n t t e s t s ( C . A . E
8 . O t h e r c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p m e n t a c t i v i t i e s ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
212
SECTION A
T h e f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s a r e t a k e n f r o m t h e S c i e n c e F r a m e w o r k A d d e n d u m f o r C a l i f o r n i a
P u b l i c S c h o o l s ( 1 9 8 4 ) . I n s e c t i o n A n u m b e r s 1 — 1 1 y o u a r e a s k e d t o m a k e t w o r e s p o n s e s
f o r e a c h s t a t e m e n t .
D I R E C T I O N S :
LEVEL OP IMPORTANCE
I n t h e r i g h t h a n d c o l u n n p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( ✓ ) u n d e r
t h e c o l u m n w h i c h i n d i c a t e s t h e l e v e l o f i m p o r t a n c e y o u
p l a c e o n e a c h o f t h e s t a t e d o b j e c t i v e s . F o r e x a n p l e ,
i f y o u c o n s i d e r t h e f i r s t o b j e c t i v e s t a t e d t o b e n o t
i m p o r t a n t , p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( / ) u n d e r c o l u m n 4 .
X J
§
i
u
§
JJ
£
IS
w
I
c S I n t h e l e f t h a n d c o l u m n p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( -J) u n d e r
j h t h e w o r d " a f f e c t i v e " i f y o u b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e m e n t i s
a f f e c t i v e i n n a t u r e . I f y o u b e l i e v e t h e s t a t e m e n t i s
§ n o t a f f e c t i v e , p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( ✓ ) u n d e r t h e w o r d s
" n o t a f f e c t i v e " -
&
5
t j
. N e u t r a l
. u
£
. D e f i n i t e l y
I m p o r t a n t
* O B J E C T I V E S : T h e l e a r n e r :
i H < N m « T i n
1 . S h o w s c u r i o s i t y a b o u t o b j e c t s a n d e v e n t s
2 . S h o w s a n a w a r e n e s s o f a n d r e s p o n d s i n a p o s i t i v e
m a n n e r t o b e a u t y a n d o r d e r l i n e s s i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t
3 . A p p r e c i a t e s a n d r e s p e c t s a l l l i v i n g o r g a n i s m s
( i n c l u d i n g s e l f ) a n d t h e i r p l a c e i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t
4 . T a k e s a n a c t i v e r o l e i n s o l v i n g s o c i a l p r o b l e m s
r e l a t e d t o s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y
5 . W e i g h s a l t e r n a t i v e s c i e n t i f i c , e c o n o m i c , p s y c h o
l o g i c a l , o r s o c i a l f a c t o r s w h e n c o n s i d e r i n g p o s s i b l e
r e s o l u t i o n s t o s o m e p r o b l e m s
6 . O r g a n i z e s a n d r e p o r t s t h e r e s u l t s o f s c i e n t i f i c
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n a n h o n e s t a n d o b j e c t i v e m a n n e r
7 . S h o w s a w i l l i n g n e s s t o s u b j e c t d a t a a n d i d e a s t o
t h e c r i t i c i s m o f p e e r s
8 . H a s a c r i t i c a l , q u e s t i o n i n g a t t i t u d e t o w a r d
i n f e r e n c e s , h y p o t h e s e s , a n d t h e o r i e s
9 . H a b i t u a l l y a p p l i e s r a t i o n a l a n d c r e a t i v e t h i n k i n g
p r o c e s s e s w h e n t r y i n g t o f i n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g
s e e m i n g l y u n r e l a t e d p h e n o m e n a a n d w h e n s e e k i n g s o l u
t i o n s t o p r o b l e m s
1 0 . G i v e s a t t e n t i o n t o a n d v a l u e s s c i e n c e a s a n
e n d e a v o r o f h u m a n b e i n g s f r o m a l l r a c i a l , e t h n i c , a n d
c u l t u r a l g r o u p s
1 1 . C o n s i d e r s s c i e n c e - r e l a t e d c a r e e r s a n d m a k e s
r e a l i s t i c d e c i s i o n s a b o u t p r e p a r i n g f o r s u c h c a r e e r s ,
t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t t h e a b i l i t i e s , i n t e r e s t s , a n d
p r e p a r a t i o n r e q u i r e d
I n s e c t i o n B y o u , a r e t o c o n s i d e r s e l e c t e d c u r r i c u l a r e l e m e n t s i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n .
C u r r i c u l a r e l e m e n t s a r e t h o s e v a r i a b l e s u s e d b y s c i e n c e t e a c h e r s t o p l a n a n d
o p e r a t i o n a l i z e / i m p l e m e n t t h e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m . F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s u r v e y
i t w i l l i n c l u d e ( I ) t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s / l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s , ( 2 ) s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n
a n d , ( 3 ) t i m e .
E X T E N T O F O S E D I R B C T I C N S : „ L E V E L O F A C H E E M E 2 7 T
1 . P l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( S ) i n t h e c o l i x a n t o
1-1 F r e q u e n t l y
S o m e w h a t
w F r e q u e n t l y
^ S e l d o m
1
4
t h e r i q h t t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s y o u r l e v e l o f
a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e s t a t e d t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s /
l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s ( a - h ) c o u l d b e u s e d t o
o p e r a t i o n a l i z e / i n c l e m e n t t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n
i n t h e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m . I n t h e c o l u a n t o
t h e l e f t p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( y') u n d e r t h e
c h o i c e t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h
y o u u s e t h e t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s / l e a r n i n g
a c t i v i t i e s l i s t e d b e l o w . t - S t r o n g l y A g r e e
l 1
2 u i N e u t r a l
a* D i s a g r e e
w . S t r o n g l y
D i s a g r e e
a ) T h e u s e o f s m a l l g r o u p d i s c u s s i o n s
b ) T h e u s e o f v a l u e s c l a r i f i c a t i o n e x e r c i s e s
c ) T h e u s e o f r o l e p l a y i n g
d ) T h e u s e o f g a m e s o r s i m u l a t i o n s
e ) T h e u s e o f c a s e s t u d i e s o r c a s e h i s t o r i e s
o f s c i e n t i s t s
f )
T h e u s e o f g r o u p d e c i s i o n m a k i n g
g)
T h e u s e o f c o m p u t e r s
h) O t h e r s ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
2
2 . P l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( t / ) i n t h e c o l i x n t o
t h e r i g h t t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s y o u r l e v e l o f
a g r e e m e n t t h a t t h e s t a t e d s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n
s t r a t e g i e s ( a — k ) c o u l d b e u s e d t o d o c u n e n t
s t u d e n t g r o w t h i n t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e
F
1
£ J l ;
2
S
3
N
4
s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m . I n t h e c o l u m t o t h e
l e f t p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( ) u n d e r t h e c h o i c e
t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h y o u
u s e t h e e v a l u a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s l i s t e d b e l o w .
SA
1
A
2
N
3
D
4
SD
5
a ) T h e u s e o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
b ) T h e u s e o f i n t e r v i e w / p e r s o n a l d i s c u s s i o n s
c ) T h e u s e o f s e l f - r e p o r t i n g s t r a t e g i e s
d ) T h e u s e o f d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n o f b e h a v i o r
e ) T h e u s e o f p r e p a c k a g e d e v a l u a t i o n i n s t r u m e n t s
e . g . T e s t o f S c i e n c e R e l a t e d A t t i t u d e s
f ) T h e u s e o f r a t i n g s c a l e s o r i n v e n t o r i e s
g)
T h e u s e o f s u b j e c t i v e q u e s t i o n s
h ) T h e u s e o f o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s
i)
T h e u s e o f p r e f e r e n c e r a n k i n g s c a l e s
3)
T h e u s e o f s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l o r L i k e r t
t y p e s c a l e s
k ) O t h e r s ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
21
3 . P l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( / ) n e x t t o t h e p e r c e n t b e l o w t h a t b e s t r e p r e s e n t s t h e
a v e r a g e a m o u n t o f i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e y o u a c t u a l l y s p e n d / s h o u l d s p e n d e a c h
w e e k o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g / i i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e s c i e n c e
c u r r i c u l u m .
A c t u a l l y S p e n d _ _ _ 0 - 2 4 % _ _ _ _ 2 5 - 5 0 % _ _ _ 5 1 - 7 5 % 7 6 % - 1 0 0 %
S h o u l d S p e n d _ _ 0 - 2 4 % _ _ _ 2 5 - 5 0 % 5 1 - 7 5 % 7 6 % - 1 0 0 %
S E C T I O N C E X T E N T T O W H I C H I M P E D E S
D I R E C T I O N S : s
I n s e c t i o n C p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( S ) i n t h e c o l u m n t o t h e r i g h t
u n d e r t h e c h o i c e t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h t h e
f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s ( a — k ) i x q p e d e y o u r e f f o r t s t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e /
i m p l e m e n t t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m .
c
a >
3
O ’
0 )
L i
El i
1
! S o m e w h a t
I V
F r e q u e n t ]
e
o
' O
0 )
V)
3
N e v e r
a ) T h e l a c k o f l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s / t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s f o r
a t t a i n i n g t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n .
b ) T h e l a c k o f p r e s e r v i c e e d u c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g i n t h e a f f e c t i v e
d o m a i n .
c ) T h e l a c k o f s t u d e n t e v a l u a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e a f f e c t i v e
d o m a i n .
d ) T h e l a c k o f a g r e e m e n t o v e r a f f e c t i v e g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s .
e ) T h e l a c k o f s u f f i c i e n t i n s t r u c t i o n a l t i m e t o a d d r e s s t h e
a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n b e c a u s e o f t h e n e e d t o c o v e r t h e t e x t b o o k .
f ) T h e l a c k o f i m p o r t a n c e p l a c e d o n t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n .
g ) T h e f e a r o f c e n s o r s h i p a n d t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n .
h ) T h e p r i v a t e n a t u r e o f t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n .
i ) T h e i m p o r t a n c e p l a c e d o n t h e c o g n i t i v e d o m a i n o f l e a r n i n g
i n a c c o u n t a b i l i t y a n d t e s t i n g .
j ) C u r r e n t t e a c h e r e v a l u a t i o n p r a c t i c e s .
k ) O t h e r s ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
216
S E C T I O N D
I n p a r t 1 o f s e c t i o n D y o u a r e a s k e d t o m a k e t w o r e s p o n s e s f o r e a c h s t a t e m e n t ( a — j ) -
I n t h e c o l u m n t o t h e r i g h t p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k ( ✓ ) u n d e r t h e c h o i c e t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s
t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h y o u a g r e e t h a t t h e s o u r c e s t a t e d h e l p s s c i e n c e t e a c h e r s t o
o p e r a t i o n a l i z e / i n p l e m e n t t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m . I n t h e l e f t
c o l u m n p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k { / ) u n d e r t h e c h o i c e t h a t b e s t r e f l e c t s t h e e x t e n t t o
u s e t h e s e s o u r c e s t o h e l p o p e r a t i o n a l i z e / i m p l e m e n t t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n .
h * F r e q u e n t l y
1 1
to S o m e w h a t
F r e q u e n t l y
^ ■ 4
< 8
3 ^ N e v e r
P A R T 1
L E V E I
> •
fl
J J O '
( 4 <
1
. O i
a s
u
S '
2
g X P J q n o N r >
&j .
ZSKQ 1
1
Q
4
a
in s t r o n g l y !
D i s a g r e e
a ) L i t e r a t u r e r e c e i v e d f r o m p r o f e s s i o n a l
o r g a n i z a t i o n s ( e . g . s p e c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n s ,
p a m p h l e t s o r b o o k s e l e c t i o n s ) ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
b ) P r i o r e d u c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g i n a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n
c ) F o r m a l c u r r i c u l u m d o c u m e n t s
1 . S t a t e F r a m e w o r k i n S c i e n c e
2 . M o d e l C u r r i c u l u m S t a n d a r d s ( g r a d e s 9 - 1 2 )
3 . S c i e n c e F r a m e w o r k A d d e n d u m
4 . C o u n c y S c i e n c e C o u r s e o f S t u d y
5 . L o c a l D i s t r i c t S c i e n c e G u i d e s
d ) P r i o r t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e
e ) T e x r b o o k ( s ) ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
f ) S u p p l e m e n t a r y l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s ( p l e a s e
s p e c i f y )
g ) P r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s / m a g a z i n e s ( p l e a s e
s p e c i f y )
h ) D i s t r i c t l e v e l o r s c h o o l s i t e s t a f f d e v e l o p
i ) W o r k s h o p s / s e m i n a r s f r o m p r o f e s s i o n a l
o r g a n i z a t i o n s o r e d u c a t i o n a l a g e n c i e s ( e . g .
C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f E d u c a t i o n )
( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
j ) W h i c h s o u r c e s n o t l i s t e d a b o v e h a v e y o u u s e d
t o o b t a i n h e l p i n o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g t h e
a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m ?
( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
217
P A R T 2
I n p a r t 2 o f s e c t i o n D y o u a r e o n c e a g a i n a s k e d t o c o n s i d e r C U R R I C U L A R E L E M B T T S
t h e s o u r c e s t h a t m a y h e l p s c i e n c e t e a c h e r s o p e r a t i o n a l i z e /
i m p l e m e n t t h e a f f e c t i v e d o m a i n i n t h e s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m . 2 < 2
I n t h e c o l u m n t o t h e r i g h t y o u a r e t o p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k
{ y) u n d e r t h e c u r r i c u l a r e l e m e n t ( s ) y o u o b t a i n f r o m t h e
s o u r c e s ( a — n ) y o u i n d i c a t e d u s i n g i n p a r t 1 o f s e c t i o n D .
F o r e x a m p l e , i f y o u u s e p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e a n d o b t a i n
b o t h g o a l s / o b j e c t i v e s a n d t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s f r o m t h i s
s o u r c e p l a c e a c h e c k m a r k (•/) u n d e r b o t h c u r r i c u l a r
e l e m e n t s . R e m e m b e r , y o u m a y c h e c k o f f m o r e t h a n o n e
c u r r i c u l a r e l e m e n t i f a p p r o p r i a t e .
S O U R C E S T O H E L P O P E R A T I O N A L I Z E T H E A F F E C T I V E D O M A I N
n
%
• M
s
• m
e n
3
1
n
• H
L l
C l
J J
£
2
jj
s
. u
3 ^ T e a c h i n g S t r a t e g i <
L e a r n i n g A c t i v i t i i
Ln E v a l u a t i o n
o \ O t h e r I n f o r m a t i o n
a L i t e r a t u r e f r o m p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s
b P r i o r e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e
c S t a t e F r a m e w o r k i n S c i e n c e
d M o d e l C u r r i c u l u m S t a n d a r d s
e S c i e n c e F r a m e w o r k A d d e n d u m
f C o u n t y S c i e n c e C o u r s e o f S t u d i e s
g
L o c a l D i s t r i c t S c i e n c e G u i d e s
h P r i o r t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e
i T e x t b o o k
j
S u p p l e m e n t a r y l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s
k P r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s / m a g a z i n e s
1 D i s t r i c t o r s c h o o l s i t e s t a f f d e v e l o p m e n t
m W o r k s h o p s / s e m i n a r s f r o m p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s
n O t h e r s ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )
1
APPENDIX G
TABLES OF DATA
Table 3
Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents in Public School
Sample
Total
Respondents
N N %
Public Science Teachers 76 36 47.36
Public Site Administrators 16 11 68.70
Public District Administrators 11 6 54.54
| Table 4
. Frequencies and Percentages of Respondents in Catholic
i School Sample
Total Respondents
N N %
Catholic Science Teachers 55 24 43 . 6
Catholic Site Administrators 20 12 60. 0
Catholic District Administrators 4 3 75. 0
Table 5
Level of Education by Groups
BA/BS BA/BS BA/BS+Cred MA/MS+ PhD/EdD
N % N % N % N % N %
Teachers
Catholic N=24 0 0 7 29.2 8 33.3 9 37.5 0 0
Public N=36 0 0 0 0 11 30.5 25 69.4 0 0
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 0 0 1 9.0 0 0 10 83.3 1 9
Public N=ll 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 81.8 2 18.2
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 0 0 0 0 1 33.3 2 66.6 0 0
Public N=6 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 83.3 1 16.7
220
Table 6
Distribution of Sex by Groups
Male Female No Response
N % N % N %
Teachers
Catholic N=24 14 58.3 10 41.6 0 0
Public N=36 26 72.2 10 27.7 0 0
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 9 75.0 3 25.0 0 0
Public N=ll 8 72.7 2 18.2 1 9
District
Administrators
Catholic N=3 2 66.6 1 33.3 0 0
Public N=6 4 66.6 2 33.3 0 0
221
Table 7
Distribution of Age by Groups
25 25-34 35--44 45-54 55-64 65+
N % N %
N % N % N % N %
Teachers
Catholic 2 8.3 14 58.3 3 12.5 3 12.5 2 8.3 0 0
Public 0 0 10 27.8 17 47.2 8 22.2 1 2.7 0 0
Site
Administrators
Catholic 0 0 0 0 6 50.0 6 50.0 0 0 0 0
Public 0 0 1 9 4 36.4 4 36.4 2 18.2 0 0
District
Administrators
Catholic 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66.6 1 33.3 0 0
Public 0 0 0 0 2 33.3 2 33.3 2 33.3 0 0 .
222
Table 8
Years of Educational Work Experience by Group
0 - 5 6 - 1 11 - * 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 +
No
Response
N %
N
% N % N % N % N
%
N
%
Teachers
Catholic 10 41.6 4 16.7 3 12.5 1 4.2 2 8.3 2 8.3 2 8.3
Public 10 27.8 5 13.9 7 19.4 5 13.9 4 11.1 4 11.1 1 2.7
Site
Administrators
Catholic 0 0 0 0 2 16.7 5 41.7 3 25.0 2 16.7 0 0
Public 0 0 0 0 3 27.3 0 0 3 27.3 4 36.4 1 9
District
Administrators
Catholic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0
Public 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 50 2 33.3 1 16.7 0 0
Table 9
Credentials Held by Each Group
Multiple
Subject
Biology
Life
Science
Physical
Science
Earth
Science Other
No
Response
N % N % N %
N
% M % N %
Teachers
Catholic N=24 4 16.7 9 37.5 3 12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public N=36 10 27.8 15 41.7 9 25.0 1 2.8 6 16.7 0 0
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 5 41.7 2 16.7 0 0 0 0 3 25.0 2 16.7
Public N=ll 4 36.4 1 9.0 0 0 0 0 5 45.5 1 9.0
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 66.6 0 0
Public N=6 2 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 66.6 0 0
I
i
}
to
Table 10
Undergraduate Degree Emphasis bv Groups
Science
Liberal
Studies Math
Social
Science English
Physical
Educ. Other
N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
Teachers
Catholic N=24 18 75.0 2 8.3 3 12.5 0 0 0 0 3 12.5 0 0
Public N=36 33 91.7 1 2.8 0 0 2 5.5 1 2.8 4 11.1 0 0
Site
Administrators
Catholic N=12 3 25.0 2 16.7 2 16.7 2 16.7 1 8.3 0 0 2 16.7
Public N=ll 2 18.2 1 9.0 0 0 4 36.4 1 9.0 6 54.5 0 0
District
Administrators
Catholic N=3 1 33.3 2 66.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public N=6 2 33.3 2 33.3 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 0 0 2 33.3
Note. Frequencies and percentages reflected multiple degree emphasis in teachers (Catholic
and public), public site administrators, and public district administrators.
i
t o 1
ro '
in i
Table 11
Primary Teaching Responsibilities by Groups
Biology Physics
Physical
Science Chemistry
Earth
Science Others
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Teachers
Catholic N=24 11 46.0 3 12.5 2 8.3 4 17.0 2 8.3 2 8.3
Public N=36 15 42.0 4 11.0 4 11.0 5 13.8 5 13.8 3 8.3
Site
Administrators
Catholic N=12 2 16.7 0 0 0 0 1 8.3 0 0 9 75.0
Public N=ll 2 18.0 0 0 1 9.0 0 0 1 9 7 63.6
District
Administrators
Catholic N=3 0 0 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 2 66.7
Public N=6 2 33.3 0 0 1 16.7 0 0 0 0 3 50.0
226
Table 12
Number of Professional Affiliations/Activities bv Each Group
Professional Affiliations Professional Activities
Total Reported Averaqe/Person Total Reported Averaqe/Person
Teachers
Catholic N=24 13 .54 34 1.42
Public N=36 27 .75 88 2.44
Site
Administrators
Catholic N=12 13 1.08 14 1.20
Public N=ll 5 .45 18 1.60
District
Administrators
Catholic N=3 6 2.00 3 1.00
Public N=6 3 .50 14 2.30
227
Table 13
Average Affectiveness Score in Percent for Each Item bv All Groups
Affective
Objective
#' s
Teachers Site Administrators District Administrators
Catholic
ves % no
Public
ves % no
Catholic
ves % no
Public
ves % no
Catholic
ves % no
Public
ves % no
1 90.5 9.5 87.5 12.5 91.7 8.3 90.9 9.1 66.7 33.3 50.0 50.0
2 76.2 23.8 81.3 18.8 83.3 16.7 90.9 9.1 100.0 0 83.3 16.7
3 85.7 14.3 75.0 25.0 100.0 0 100.0 0 66.7 33.3 100.0 0
4 66.7 33.3 62.5 37.5 58.3 41.7 63.6 36.4 66.7 33.3 66,7 33.3
5 59.1 40.9 69.7 30.3 66.7 33.3 45.5 54.5 0 100.0 33.3 66.7
6 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 33.3 66.7 45.5 54.5 0 100.0 0 100.0
7 80.0 20.0 68.8 31.3 58.3 41.7 63.6 36.4 33.3 66.7 66.7 33.3
8 90.0 10.0 84.8 15.2 66.7 33.3 54.5 45.5 0 100.0 33.3 66.7
9 85.7 14.3 78.1 21.9 41.7 58.3 36.4 63.6 33.3 66.7 33.3 66.7
10 81.0 19.0 69.7 30.3 100.0 0 90.9 9.1 100.0 0 66.7 33.3
11 75.0 25.0 62.5 37.5 33.3 66.7 36.4 63.6 33.3 66.7 50.0 50.0
Total % 856.6 244.2 806.3 293.7 733.7 366.3 718.3 381.7 495.0 605.0 583.0 517.0
Average % 77.8 22.2 73.3 26.7 66.7 33.3 65.3 34.7 45.0 55.0 53.0 47.0
l
228
229
Table 14
Average Total Affectiveness Score for Each Curricular
Perspective
% Affective % Not Affective
Teachers
Catholic N=24 77.8 22.2
Public N=3 6 73 . 3 26.7
Total N=60 151.1 48 . 9
Average N=60 75.6 24.5
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 66. 7 33 . 3
Public N=ll 65. 3 34.7
Total N=2 3 132 . 0 68.0
Average N=2 3 66.0 34 . 0
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 45.0 55.0
Public N=6 53 . 0 47 . 0
Total N=9 98 . 0 102.0
Average N=9 49.0 51.0
Table 15
Level of Importance of Affective Science Objectives bv Groups
Teachers
Affective
Objective
Catholic (%) Public (%)
#rs
VI I M NI VI I M NI
1 52.0 43.5 4.3 0 63.9 33.3 2.8 0
2 21.7 60.9 17.4 0 27.8 55.6 16.7 0
3 60.9 34.8 4.3 0 66.7 19.4 13.9 0
4 17.4 73.9 4.3 4.3 16.7 61.1 19.4 2.8
5 26.1 60.9 13.0 0 30.6 52.8 13.9 2.8
6 56.5 30.4 13.0 0 52.8 44.4 2.8 0
7 50.0 36.4 13.6 0 22.2 66.7 5.6 5.6
8 56.5 39.1 4.3 0 52.8 44.4 2.8 0
9 43.5 47.8 8.7 0 36.1 55.6 8.3 0
10 27.3 63.6 9.1 0 27.8 55.6 11.1 5.6
11 18.2 59.1 22.7 0 27.8 47.2 19.4 5.6
Total 430.1 550.0 114.4 4.3 425.7 535.7 116.6 22.4
Average 39.1 50.0 10.4 .4 38.7 48.7 10.6 2.03
Note. VI - Very Important, I - Important, N - Neutral, NI - Not Important
230
Table 15 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Affective
Objective
Catholic (%) Public (%)
#'s
VI I N NI VI I N NI
1 40 50 10 0 50.0 41.7 8.3 0
2 30 60 10 0 25.0 58.3 16.7 0
3 60 40 0 0 41.7 50.0 8.3 0
4 50 40 10 0 8.3 50.0 33.3 8.3
5 40 50 10 0 41.7 41.7 16.7 0
6 30 60 10 0 58.3 41.7 0 0
7 30 30 40 0 33.3 41.7 25.0 0
8 40 60 0 0 58.3 33.3 8.3 0
9 60 30 10 0 41.7 41.7 8.3 8.3
10 50 40 10 0 16.7 75.0 0 8.3
11 20 60 20 0 8.3 41.7 50.0 0
Total 449.9 520.3 129.8 0 382.8 517.0 174.5 24.5
Average 40.9 47.3 11.8 0 34.8 47.0 15.9 2.3
Note. VI - Very Important, I - Important, N - Neutral, NI - Not Important
231
Table 15 (Continued)
Affective
Objective
District Administrators
Catholic (%) Public (%)
#' s
VI I N NI VI I N NI
1 66.7 33.3 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 0
2 16.7 66.7 16.7 0 0 100.0 0 0
3 60.0 40.0 0 0 100.0 0 0 0
4 16.7 66.7 16.7 0 66.7 33.3 0 0
5 66.7 16.7 16.7 0 66.7 0 33.3 0
6 50.0* 16.7 33.3 0 33.3 66.7 0 0
7 16.7 66.7 16.7 0 0 66.7 33.3 0
8 83.3 0 16.7 0 66.7 33.3 0 0
9 66.7 33.3 0 0 33.3 66.7 0 0
10 16.7 83.3 0 0 0 33.3 33.3 33.3
11 16.7 33.3 50.0 0 0 33.3 66.7 0
Total 476.3 456.5 167.2 0 433.4 466.4 165.0 33.3
Average 43.3 41.5 15.2 0 39.4 42.4 15.0 3.02
Note. VI - Very Important, I - Important, N - Neutral, NI - Not Important
t o
u>
Table 15 (Continued)
Affective
Objective
#'s
Totals
VI I N NI
1 56.7 38.9 4.4 0
2 24.4 60.0 15.6 0
3 61.8 30.3 7.9 0
4 21.1 60.0 15.6 3.3
5 35.6 48.9 14.4 1.1
6 51.1 41.1 7.8 0
7 30.3 51.7 15.7 2.2
8 55.6 40.0 4.4 0
9 43.3 47.8 7.8 1.1
10 27.0 59.6 9.0 4.5
11 20.2 49.4 28.1 2.2
Total 426.8 528.0 130.9 14.4
Average 38.8 48.0 11.9 1.3
Note. VI - Very Important, I - Important,
N - Neutral, NI - Not Important
234
Table 16
Weighted Level of Importance for Affective Objectives bv
Three Curricular Perspectives
VI
%
I
%
N
%
NI
%
Teachers
Catholic N=2 4 39 . 1 50. 0 10.4 . 4
Public N=3 6 38.7 48 . 7 10.6 2 . 03
Total N=60 77 . 8 98.7 21.0 2.43
Average N=60 38.9 49.4 10. 5 1.22
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 34.8 47.0 15.9 2 . 30
Public N=ll 40.9 47 . 3 11. 8 0
Total N=2 3 75.7 94 . 3 27.7 2 .30
Average N=2 3 37 . 9 47.2 13.9 1. 15
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 39.4 42.4 15.0 3 . 02
Public N=6 43 . 3 41.5 15.2 0
Total N=9 82.7 83.9 30.2 3.02
Average N=9 41.4 42.0 15. 1 1.50
Note. VI - Very Important, I - Important, N - Neutral,
NI - Not Important
235
Table 17
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of
Importance of Affective Objectives bv Each Group
N X SD
Teachers
Catholic 23 1.72 .31
Public 36 1.76 . 38
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 1.86 . 44
Public 10 1.71 .46
District Administrators
Catholic 3 1.82 .48
Public 6 1.72 . 38
236
Table 18
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of
Importance bv Demographic Data
ALL GROUPS
N X SD
Aqe
Under 3 4 years 27 1.75 .36
35-44 years 31 1.84 . 34
45-54 years 31 1. 68 .42
Years Experience
Under 10 years 29 1.76 . 32
11-15 years 15 1.92 .26
16-20 years 14 1.87 .46
21-25 years 15 1.68 .41
Total # Affiliations
None 32 1.78 . 41
One 40 1.77 . 29
Two or More 18 1.71 .48
Total # Activities
None 14 1.94 .40
One 33 1.76 .41
Two 11 1.59 . 29
Three 14 1.74 . 32
Four or More 18 1.73 . 35
Primary Teachina Area
Biology 32 1.71 . 38
Physics 5 1.82 .24
Physical Science 11 1.91 .40
Other 22 1. 78 .43
Chemistry 10 1.78 . 18
Earth Science 6 1.67 .41
r
Table 19
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of Importance bv Demographic Data
Science Teachers
Demographic Variables N X SD
Education Level
BA/BS + Credential 26 1.66 .34
MA/MS/PhD 33 1.82 .35
Sex
Male 29 1.77 .38
Female 20 1.69 .27
N (no) N(yes) X(no) X(yes) SD(no) SD(yes)
Credential Type
Multiple 46 13 1.77 1.67 .32 .45
Bio/Life Science 35 24 1.73 1.77 .35 .35
Physical Science 43 16 1.72 1.81 .37 .29
Earth Science 54 5 1.73 1.95 .35 .28
Others 44 15 1.74 1.75 .36 .34
237
Table 19 (Continued)
N (no) N(yes) X(no) X(yes) SD(no) SD(yes)
Decrree Emphasis
Science 9 50 1.71 1.75 .36 .35
Liberal Arts 54 5 1.78 1.35 .33 .24
Mathematics 54 5 1.74 1.85 .35 .39
Social Studies 55 4 1.77 1.50 .34 .44
English 56 3 1.75 1.73 .35 .48
Physical Education 48 11 1.76 1.70 .34 .40
Others 57 2 1.74 1.95 .34 .58
Professional Activities
District Curriculum 38 21 1.76 1.70 .35 .36
District Science 45 14 1.74 1.75 .33 .40
School Site Curriculum 29 30 1.81 1.70 .33 .36
State Science Framework 56 3 1.74 1.79 .35 .38
Classroom Science Curriculum 17 42 1.69 1.77 .41 .32
County Course of Study 59 0 1.74 0 .35 0
Norm-Referenced Science 56 3 1.74 1.85 .35 .23
Other 49 10 1.77 1.65 .35 .35
238
Table 20
Level of Agreement of Affective Teaching Strategies bv Groups
Teachers
Affective Teaching
Strategies
Catholic (%’s) Public (%'s)
SA A N D SD SA A N D SD
Small Group Disc. 1 13.0 56.5 26.1 4.3
-
38.2 44.1 14.7 2.9
-
Values Clarifica. 2 27.3 59.1 13.6 0 0 32.4 29.4 37.4 2.9 2.9
Role Playing 3 8.7 65.2 26.1 0 - 14.3 20.0 60.0 5.7 -
Games/Simulations 4 17.4 56.5 26.1 0 - 11.8 52.9 35.3 0 -
Case Stud/History 5 22.7 50.0 22.7 4.5 - 25.7 42.9 28.6 2.9 -
Group Decision 6 26.1 47.8 21.7 4.3 - 28.6 51.4 14.3 5.7 -
Computers 7 21.7 30.4 39.1 8.7 0 17.1 42.9 31.4 8.6 0
Others 8 50.0 50.0 0 - -
0 100.0 0 - -
Total (1-7) 136.9 365.5 175.4 21.8 0 168.1 283.6 216.7 28.7 2.9
Average % 19.6 52.2 25.1 3.1 0 24.0 40.5 31 4.1 .4
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
t
\
239
Table 20 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
SA A
N
D SD SA A N
D SD
Small Group Disc. 1 33.3 41.7 16.7 8.3
-
72.7 27.3 0 0
-
Values Clarifica. 2 33.3 50.0 16.7 0 0 36.4 18.2 36.4 9.1 0
Role Playing 3 0 33.3 50.0 16.7 - 27.3 36.4 36.4 0 -
Game s/S imu1at ions 4 0 66.7 25.0 8.3 - 18.2 63.6 18.2 0
-
Case Stud/History 5 16.7 58.3 16.7 8.3 - 45.5 27.3 27.3 0 -
Group Decision 6 25.0 41.7 16.7 16.7
- 54.5 27.3 9.1 9.1 -
Computers 7 58.3 16.7 8.3 16.7 0 54.5 45.5 0 0 0
Others 8 - - - - -
50.0 0 50.0
- -
Total (1-7) 166.6 308.4 150.1 75.0 0 254.7 245.6 127.4 18.2 0
Average % 23.8 44.1 12.4 10.7 0 36.4 35.1 18.2 2.6 0
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
ObZ
Table 20 (Continued)
District Administrators
Catholic (%’s) Public (%’s)
SA A N D SD SA A N D SD
Small Group Disc. 1 33.3 66.7 0 0
-
83.3 16.7 0 0
-
Values Clarifica. 2 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 33.3 66.7 0 0 0
Role Playing 3 0 0 100.0 0 -
33.3 33.3 33.3 0 -
Games/Simulations 4 0 66.7 33.3 0 - 50.0 16.7 33.3 0 -
Case Stud/History 5 0 100.0 0 0 - 0 16.7 83.3 0 -
Group Decision 6 0 33.3 66.7 0 -
66.7 33.3 0 0 -
Computers 7 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 16.7 16.7 16.7 33.3 16.7
Others 8
- - - - - 100.0 0 0
- -
Total (1-7) 166.7 333.3 200.0 0 0 283.3 200.1 166.6 33.3 16.7
Average % 23.8 47.6 28.6 0 0 40.5 28.6 23.8 4.8 2.4
Note, SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
241
Table 20 (Continued)
Affective Teachina Strateaies Totals For All Practitioners
SA A N D SD
Small Group Discission 1 38.2 43.8 14.6 3.4
-
Values Clarification 2 33.0 40.9 22.7 2.3 1.1
Role Playing 3 13.3 35.6 46.7 4.4 -
Game s/S imu1at ions 4 14.6 55.1 29.2 1.1 -
Case Studies/History 5 23.9 44.3 28.4 3.4
-
Group Decision 6 32.2 44.4 16.7 6.7
-
Computers 7 30.0 34.4 24.4 10.0 1.1
Others 8 50.0 33.3 16.7
- -
Total (1-7) 185.2 298.5 182.7 31.3 2.2
Average % 26.5 42.6 26.1 4.5 .31
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree,
SD - Strongly disagree
242
Table 21
Weighted Level of Agreement for Affective Teaching
Strategies bv Three Curricular Perspectives
SA
%
A
%
N
%
D
%
SD
%
Teachers
Catholic N=24 19.6 52 . 2 25. 10 3 . 1 0
Public N=3 6 24.0 4 0.5 31. 00 4 . 1 .41
Total N=60 43 . 6 92.7 56. 10 7.2 .41
Average N=60 21.8 46.4 28 . 05 3 . 6 .20
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 23.8 44 . 1 21.4 10. 7 0
Public N=11 36.4 35.1 18.2 2 . 6 0
Total N=2 3 60. 2 79.2 39.6 13 . 3 0
Average N=2 3 30.1 39 . 6 19.8 6.7 0
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 23.8 47.6 28.6 0 0
Public N=6 40. 5 28.6 23.8 4.8 2.4
Total N=9 64 . 3 76.2 52.4 4.8 2.4
Average N=9 32.2 38.1 26.2 2.4 1.2
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral,
D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
Table 2 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of
Agreement: for Affective Teaching Strategies by Each Group
N X SD
Teachers
Catholic 23 2 . 12 .35
Public 35 2 .17 .43
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 2 .19 .40
Public H 1.79 .52
District Administrators
Catholic 3 2.05 .08
Public 6 2.00 .39
j
i
i
J
Table 23
Level of Agreement of Affective Student Evaluation Strategies bv Groups
Teachers
Affective Student
Evaluation Strategies
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
SA A N D SD SA A N D SD
Questionnaires 1 9.1 59.1 31.8 0 0 8.6 34.3 42.9 8.6 5.7
Interview/Discuss 2 26.1 60.9 13.0 0 - 31.4 54.3 11.4 2.9 -
Self-reporting 3 22.7 50.0 22.7 4.5 0 5.9 55.9 32.4 2.9 2.9
Direct Observa. 4 39.1 47.8 13.0 0 - 45.7 48.6 5.7 0 -
Prepackaged Eval 5 4.3 34.8 60.9 0 0 5.7 25.7 57.1 8.6 2.9
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 4.5 40.9 54.5 0 0 5.7 25.7 57.1 5.7 5.7
Subjective Quest. 7 26.1 39.1 34.8 0 - 17.1 57.1 25.7 0 -
Open-ended Quest. 8 30.4 43.5 21.7 0 4.3 31.4 54.3 14.3 0 0
Preference Rank 9 9.5 42.9 42.9 4.8 0 6.1 30.3 51.5 9.1 3.0
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 5.3 52.6 42.1 0 0 0 9.7 83.9 3.2 3.2
Others 11
- - - - - - - - - -
Total (1-10) 177.1 471.6 337.4 9.3 4.3 157.6 395.9 439.1 41.0 26.3
Average % (1-10) 17.7 47.2 33.7 .93 .43 15.8 39.6 43.9 4.1 2.6
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
245
Table 23 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
SA A N D SD SA A N D SD
Questionnaires 1 16.7 50.0 33.3 0 0 18.2 45.5 27.3 9.1 0
Interview/Discuss 2 0 66.7 16.7 16.7 - 45.5 45.5 9.1 0 -
Self-reporting 3 16.7 41.7 33.3 8.3 0 18.2 63.6 9.1 9.1 0
Direct Observa. 4 25.0 50.0 16.7 8.3 - 63.6 27.3 9.1 0 -
Prepackaged Eval 5 8.3 91.7 0 0 0 0 54.5 45.5 0 0
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 16.7 50.0 33.3 0 0 0 63.6 36.4 0 0
Subjective Quest. 7 25.0 41.7 25.0 8.3 - 45.5 36.4 18.2 0 -
Open-ended Quest. 8 25.0 50.0 16.7 8.3 - 63.6 18.2 18.2 0 0
Preference Rank 9 0 50.0 41.7 8.3 0 9.1 72.7 18.2 0 0
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 0 40.0 50.0 10.0 0 10.0 60.0 30.0 0 0
Others 11
- - - - -
50.0
-
50.0
- -
Total (1-10) 133.4 531.8 266.7 68.0 0 273.7 487.3 221.1 18.2 0
Average % (1-10) 13.4 53.2 26.7 6.8 0 27.4 48.7 22.1 1.8 0
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
2 4 6
Table 23 (Continued)
District Administrators
Catholic (%’
s)
Public (%'s)
SA A
N
D SD SA A N D SD
Questionnaires 1 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 0 50.0 16.7 33.3 0
Interview/Discuss 2 66.7 33.3 0 0 -
50.0 33.3 16.7 0
-
Self-reporting 3 33.3 66.7 0 0 0 33.3 50.0 16.7 0 0
Direct Observa. 4 33.3 66.7 0 0 -
50.0 33.3 0 16.7 -
Prepackaged Eval 5 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 0 33.3 50.0 16.7 0
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0
Subjective Quest. 7 0 100.0 0 0
-
16.7 50.0 0 33.3
-
Open-ended Quest. 8 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 50.0 16.7 33.3 0 0
Preference Rank 9 0 0 100.0 0 0 16.7 50.0 16.7 16.7 0
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 0 -
66.7 0 0 0 25.0 75.0 0 0
Others 11 -
33.3
- - - - - - - -
Total (1-10) 266.7 466.2 233.3 33.3 0 216.7 374.9 258.4 150 0
Average % (1-10) 26.7 46.7 23.3 3.3 0 21.7 37.5 25.8 15.0 0
Note, SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
247
Table 23 (Continued)
Affective Student
Evaluation Strateaies
Totals For All Practitioners
SA A N D SD
Questionnaires 1 12.4 44.9 33.7 6.7 2.2
Interview/Discuss 2 30.0 54.4 12.2 3.3
-
Self-reporting 3 15.9 53.4 25.0 4.5 1.1
Direct Observa. 4 43.3 45.6 8.9 2.2 0
Prepackaged Eval 5 4.4 41.1 47.8 5.6 1.1
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 5.6 39.3 48.3 4.5 2.2
Subjective Quest. 7 23.3 48.9 24.4 3.3
-
Open-ended Quest. 8 36.7 43.3 17.8 1.1 1.1
Preference Rank 9 7.0 41.9 43.0 7.0 1.2
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 2.6 32.5 61.0 2.6 1.3
Others 11 50.0 -
50.0
- -
Total (1-10) 181.2 445.3 322.1 40.8 10.2
Average % (1-10) 18.1 44.5 32.2 4.1 1.02
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
248
Table 24
Weighted Level of Agreement for Affective Student: Evaluation
Strategies bv Three Curricular Perspectives
SA
%
A
%
N
%
D
%
SD
%
Teachers
/ Catholic N=24 17 .70 47.2 33.7 .93 .43
Public N=3 6 15.80 39.6 43.9 4 . 10 2. 60
Total N=60 33.50 86.8 77.6 5. 03 3. 03
Average N=60 16.75 43 . 4 38.8 .50 1.52
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 13 .34 53.2 26.7 6.8 0
Public N=ll 27 .40 48.7 22. 1 1.8 0
Total N=2 3 40.74 101.9 48 .8 8.6 0
Average N=2 3 20.40 51. 0 24.4 4.3 0
Dist. Administrators
Catholic N=3 26.7 46.7 23 . 3 3 . 3 0
Public N=6 21.7 37.5 25.8 15.0 0
Total N=9 48.4 84.2 49.1 18.3 0
Average N=9 24.2 42 . 1 24.6 9.2 0
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral,
D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
250
Table 2 5
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of
Agreement for Affective Evaluation Strategies bv Each Group
N X SD
Teachers
Catholic 23 2 . 18 .29
Public 35 2 . 37 .33
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 2 .27 .30
Public 11 1.98 . 40
District Administrators
Catholic 3 2 . 03 . 06
Public 6 2.33 . 52
Table 26
Extent of Use of Affective Teaching Strategies bv Groups
Teachers
Affective Teaching
Strateaies
Catholic (%'s) Public (%’s)
F SF S N F SF S M
Small Group Disc. 1 13.0 43.5 43.5 0 17.6 41.2 32.4 8.8
Values Clarifica. 2 18.2 36.4 40.9 4.5 14.7 17.6 52.9 14.7
Role Playing 3 13.0 26.1 43.5 17.4 5.9 8.8 55.9 29.4
Games/Simulations 4 4.3 52.2 30.4 13.0 2.9 51.4 31.4 14.3
Case Stud/History 5 17.4 43.5 21.7 17.4 25.7 28.6 40.0 5.7
Group Decision 6 21.7 56.5 21.7 0 17.6 44.1 35.3 2.9
Computers 7 4.3 17.4 39.1 39.1 14.3 22.9 20.0 42.9
Others 8 50.0 50.0
- -
0 0 100.0
-
Total (1-10) 91.9 275.6 240.8 91.4 98.7 214.6 267.9 118.7
Average % (1-10) 13.1 39.4 34.4 13.1 14.1 30.7 38.3 17.0
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
l
l
251
Table 26 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
H
SF S N F SF S N
Small Group Disc. 1 8.3 41.7 41.7 8.3 27.3 45.5 27.3 0
Values Clarifica. 2 0 33.3 58.3 8.3 9.1 18.2 63.6 9.1
Role Playing 3 0 0 83.3 16.7 0 27.3 45.5 27.3
Games/Simulations 4 0 25.0 58.3 16.7 0 63.6 18.2 18.2
Case Stud/History 5 0 50.0 41.7 8.3 18.2 9.1 63.6 9.1
Group Decision 6 8.3 16.7 41.7 33.3 36.4 36.4 18.2 9.1
Computers 7 16.7 41.7 33.3 8.3 27.3 45.5 27.3 0
Others 8
-
- - - - - - -
Total (1-10) 33.3 208.4 358.3 99.9 118.3 245.6 263.7 72.8
Average % (1-10) 4.8 29.8 51.2 14.3 16.9 35.1 37.7 10.4
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
252
Table 26 (Continued)
District Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
F SF S N F SF S N
Small Group Disc. 1 0 0 100.0 0 0 40.0 60.0 0
Values Clarifica. 2 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 100.0 0
Role Playing 3 0 0 0 100.0 0 0 40.0 60.0
Games/Simulations 4 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 100.0 0
Case Stud/History 5 0 100.0 0 0 0 20.0 60.0 20.0
Group Decision 6 33.3 0 33.3 33.3 20.0 0 80.0 0
Computers 7 0 100.0 0 0 0 40.0 60.0 0
Others 8
-
0
- - - - - -
Total (1-10) 33.3 200.0 300.0 166.6 20.0 100.0 500.0 80.0
Average % (1-10) 4.8 28.6 42.9 23.8 2.9 14.3 71.4 11.4
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
253
Table 26 (Continued)
Affective Teaching
Catholic (%'s)
Strateaies
F SF S N
Small Group Disc. 1 14.8 40.9 39.8 4.5
Values Clarifica. 2 11.5 23.0 55.2 10.3
Role Playing 3 5.7 13.6 52.3 28.4
Games/S imu1at ions 4 2.2 44.9 39.3 13.5
Case Stud/History 5 16.9 34.8 38.2 10.1
Group Decision 6 20.5 38.6 33.0 8.0
Computers 7 12.4 30.3 29.2 28.1
Others 8 33.3 33.3 33.3
-
Total (1-10) 84.0 226.1 287.0 102.9
Average % (1-10) 12.0 32.3 41.0 14.7
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
254
255
Table 27
Weighted Extent of Use of Affective Teaching Strategies bv
Three Curricular Perspectives
F
%
SF
%
S
%
N
%
Teachers
Catholic N=24 13.1 39.4 34.4 13 . 1
Public N=3 6 14 .1 30.7 38.7 17 . 0
Total N=60 27.2 70.0 72 . 7 30.1
Average N=6 0 13 . 6 35.1 36.4 15.1
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 16.9 35.1 37.7 10. 4
Public N=ll 4 . 8 29.8 51. 2 14. 3
Total N=2 3 21.7 64.9 88 .9 24.7
Average N=2 3 10.9 32.5 44.5 12.4
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 2.9 14.3 71.4 11.4
Public N=6 4.8 28.6 42 .9 23.8
Total N=9 7.7 42.9 114 . 3 35.2
Average N=9 3.9 21.5 57.2 17.6
i Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom
! N - Never
256
Table 2 8
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Extent of Use for
Affective Teaching Strategies by Each Group
N X SD
Teachers
Catholic 23 2.47 .48
Public 35 2.59 .48
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 2 .75 .43
Public 11 2.42 . 63
District Administrators
Catholic 3 2.86 . 14
Public 5 2.91 .22
i
Table 29
Extent of Use of Affective Student Evaluation Strategies bv Groups
Teachers
Affective Student
Evaluation Strateaies
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
F SF S N F SF S N
Questionnaires 1 0 31.8 50.0 18.2 2.9 17.1 37.1 42.9
Interview/Discuss 2 13.0 34.8 47.8 4.3 14.3 45.7 34.3 5.7
Self-reporting 3 27.3 27.3 40.9 4.5 2.9 23.5 50.0 23.5
Direct Observa. 4 21.7 60.9 13.0 4.3 51.4 42.9 5.7 0
Prepackaged Eval 5 4.3 21.7 34.8 39.1 2.9 22.9 28.6 45.7
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 4.5 18.2 40.9 36.4 5.7 14.3 25.7 54.3
Subjective Quest. 7 21.7 39.1 30.4 8.7 20.0 48.6 22.9 8.6
Open-ended Quest. 8 17.4 56.5 21.7 4.3 20.0 51.4 25.7 2.9
Preference Rank 9 4.8 14.3 47.6 33.3 2.9 2.9 48.6 45.7
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 0 26.3 31.6 42.1 0 0 35.5 64.5
Others 11 100.0 - 0 0 - - - -
Total (1-10) 114.7 330.9 358.7 195.2 123.0 269.3 314.1 293.8
Average % (1-10) 11,5 33.1 35.9 19.5 12.3 26.9 31.4 29.4
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
257
Table 29 (Continued)
District Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%’S)
F SF S N
£
SF S N
Questionnaires 1 0 0 100.0 0 16.7 33.3 50.0 0
Interview/Discuss 2 0 33.3 66.7 0 0 0 66.7 33.3
Self-reporting 3 33.3 0 66.7 0 0 33.3 66.7 0
Direct Observa. 4 33.3 66.7 0 0 16.7 33.3 50.0 0
Prepackaged Eval 5 66.7 33.3 0 0 20.0 40.0 40.0 0
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 0 33.3 66.7 0 16.7 33.3 50.0 0
Subjective Quest. 7 33.3 0 66.7 0 16.7 50.0 33.3 0
Open-ended Quest. 8 33.3 0 66.7 0 0 33.3 66.7 0
Preference Rank 9 0 0 100.0 0 0 33.3 66.7 0
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 50.0 50.0
Others 11
- - - -
0
-
100.0 0
Total (1-10) 200.3 233.3 566.8 0 86.8 289.0 540.0 83.3
Average % (1-10) 20.03 23.3 56.7 0 9.7 29.0 54.01 8.3
I
Note, F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
258
Table 29 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%’s)
I
SF S N F SF S N
Quest ionnaires 1 8.3 16.7 66.7 8.3 9.1 0 72.7 18.2
Interview/Discuss 2 0 33.3 50.0 16.7 0 36.4 54.5 9.1
Self-reporting 3 0 25.0 75.0 0 0 50.0 40.0 10.0
Direct Observa. 4 25.0 50.0 16.7 8.3 27.3 54.5 9.1 9.1
Prepackaged Eval 5 8.3 16.7 66.7 8.3 0 36.4 36.4 27.3
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 0 25.0 66.7 8.3 0 36.4 45.5 18.2
Subjective Quest. 7 16.7 33.3 50.0 0 9.1 72.7 9.1 9.1
Open-ended Quest. 8 8.3 33.3 58.3 0 27.3 54.5 0 18.2
Preference Rank 9 0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0 27.3 54.5 18.2
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 0 10.0 50.0 40.0 10.0 20.0 50.0 20.0
Others 11
- - - -
50.0
-
0 50.0
Total (1-10) 66.6 268.3 550.1 114.9 82.8 388.2 371.8 157.4
Average % (1-10) 6.7 26.8 55.01 11.5 8.3 38.8 37.2 15.7
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
i
L
259
Table 29 (Continued)
Affective Student
Evaluation Strategies
Totals for All Practitioners (%'s)
£
SF S N
Questionnaires 1 4.5 19.1 51.7 24.7
Interview/Discuss 2 8.9 36.7 45.6 8.9
Self-reporting 3 9.2 27.6 51.7 11.5
Direct Observa. 4 34.4 50.0 12.2 3.3
Prepackaged Eval 5 6.7 24.7 36.0 32.6
Rating/Inven. Scale 6 4.5 21.3 40.4 33.7
Subjective Quest. 7 18.9 45.6 28.9 6.7
Open-ended Quest. 8 17.8 47.8 30.0 4.4
Preference Rank 9 2.3 13.6 52.3 31.8
Sem. Diff/Likert 10 1.3 13.0 39.0 46.8
Others 11 50.0
_
-
0
Total (1-10) 108.5 299.4 287.8 204.4
Average % (1-10) 10.9 29.9 38.8 20.4
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
260
261
Table 3 0
Weighted Extent of Use of Affective Evaluation Strategies bv
Three Curricular Perspectives
F
%
SF
%
S
%
N
%
Teachers
Catholic N=2 4 11. 5 33 . 1 35.9 19 . 5
Public N=3 6 12.3 26.9 31.4 29.4
Total N=60 23 . 8 60 . 0 67 . 3 48.9
Averaqe N=60 11.9 30.0 33 . 7 24.5
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 6.7 26.8 55. 0 11. 5
Public N=ll 8.3 38.8 37 . 2 15.7
Total N=2 3 15.0 65.6 92.2 27.2
Averaqe N=23 7.5 32.8 46.1 13 . 6
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 20.0 23 . 3 56.7 0
Public N=6 8.7 29. 0 54 . 0 8.3
Total N=9 28.7 52 . 3 110.7 8 . 3
Averaqe N=9 14.4 26.2 55. 4 4 . 2
| Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom |
N - Never
i
262
Table 31
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Extent of Use for
Affective Evaluation Strategies by Each Group
N X SD
Teachers
Catholic 23 2 . 63 .42
Public 35 2 . 77 . 41
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 2.71 . 37
Public 11 2.60 . 63
District Administrators
Catholic 3 2.37 . 40
Public 6 2.59 . 54
Table 32
Percentage of Instructional Time Spent vs. Should Be Spent Operationalizing the Affective Domain
0 -
Actual
24%
Should
25 -
Actual
- 50%
Should
51 -
Actual
75%
Should
76
Actual
- 100%
Should
Teachers
Catholic N=24 60.9 26.1 8.7 47.8 30.4 26.1 0 0
Public N=36 70.6 54.5 14.7 27.3 14.7 18.2 0 0
Total N=60 131.5 80.6 23.4 75.1 45.1 44.3 0 0
Average N=60 65.8 40.3 11.7 37.6 22.6 22.2 0 0
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 100.0 83.3 0 16.7 0 0 0 0
Public N=ll 81.8 80.0 18.2 20.0 0 0 0 0
Total N=23 181.8 163.3 18.2 36.7 0 0 0 0
Average N=60 90.9 81.7 9.1 18.4 0 0 0 0
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Public N=6 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total N=9 200.0 200.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average N=9 100.0 100.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
263
Table 33
| Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Extent of Use for Teaching Strategies and
Evaluation Strategies bv Demographic Data
Demographic Variables
Science Teachers
Teaching Strategies Evaluation Strategies
N X SD N X SD
Age
Under 34 years 26 2.54 .47 26 2.74 .38
35-44 years 19 2.44 .53 19 2.67 .42
45-54 years 13 2.70 .39 13 2.72 .52
Years Experience
Under 10 years 28 2.60 .45 28 2.80 .35
11-15 years 10 2.32 . 66 10 2.57 .29
16-20 years 6 2.52 .41 6 2.52 .55
21-25 years 6 2.55 .38 6 2.83 .56
Table 3 3 (Continued)
N X SD N X SD
Total # Affiliations
None 23 2.56 . 44 23 2.70 .36
One 26 2.54 .53 26 2.80 .47
Two or more 9 2.50 .44 9 2.46 .33
Total # Activities
None 9 2.59 .40 9 2.66 .37
One 19 2.60 .56 19 2.71 .41
Two 6 2.45 .36 6 2.81 .30
Three 10 2.58 .32 10 2.68 .61
Four or more 14 2.45 .57 14 2.71 .39
Primarv Teachincr Area
Biology 27 2.47 .51 27 2.71 .42
Physics 5 2.48 .64 5 2.56 .54
Physical Science 9 2.78 .32 9 2.72 .37
Other 8 2.51 .38 8 2.73 .44
Chemistry 5 2.77 .28 5 2.88 .31
Earth Science 2 2.28 .61 2 2.90 .14
Note. No statistical significance was found for any demographic variable at p = .05 level
of signicance
265
Table 34
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of Agreement for Teaching Strategies and
Evaluation Strategies bv Demographic Data
Demographic Variables
Science Teachers
Teaching Strategies Evaluation Strategies
N X SD N X SD
Age
Under 34 years 26 2.11 .40 26 2.22 .26
35-44 years 19 2.07 .43 19 2.29 .32
45-54 years 13 2.34 .29 13 2.46 .40
Years Experience
Under 10 years 28 2.13 .38 28 2.24 .24
11-15 years 10 2.08 .47 10 2.36 .33
16-20 years 6 2.31 .57 6 2.17 .50
21-25 years 6 2.17 .40 6 2.40 .41
Table 34 (Continued)
N X SD N X SD
Total # Affiliations
None 23 2.14 .36 23 2.25 .25
One 26 2.12 .44 26 2.32 .32
Two or more 9 2.27 .39 9 2.31 .48
Total # Activities
None 9 1.98 .38 9 2.17 .33
One 19 2.17 .40 19 2.26 .32
Two
6 2.12 .25 6 2.32 .19
Three 10 2.24 .41 10 2.38 .36
Four or more 14 2.18 .47 14 2.36 .35
Primarv Teaching Area
Biology 27 2.13 .40 27 2.30 .31
Physics 5 2.10 .52 5 2.26 .32
Physical Science 9 2.38 .36 9 2.37 .27
Other 8 2.21 .39 8 2.36 .33
Chemistry 5 2.05 .33 5 2.38 .28
Earth Science 2 1.71 .40 2 2.15 .21
Note. No statistical significance was found for any demographic variable at p = .05 level
of significance
267
Table 35
Extent to Which Factors Impede Operationalization of the Affective Domain bv Groups
Teachers
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
Factors that Impede
F SF S N F SF S N
Lack of Teaching Strat 1 8.7 52.2 21.7 17.4 9.7 41.9 29.0 19.4
Lack of Preserv Tran 2 21.7 30.4 21.7 26.1 19.4 25.8 45.2 9.7
Lack of Evalu strat 3 21.7 26.1 39.1 13.0 18.8 28.1 40.6 12.5
Lack of Agreement 4 8.7 30.4 39.1 21.7 12.9 22.6 61.3 3.2
Goals/Objectives
Lack of Instruc. Tm 5 41.7 20.8 20.8 16.7 28.1 34.4 31.3 6.3
Lack of Importance 6 17.4 21.7 30.4 30.4 18.8 34.4 40.6 6.3
Fear of Censorship 7 4.3 13.0 34.8 47.8 0 9.7 48.4 41.9
Private Nature 8 4.3 21.7 21.7 52.2 12.9 12.9 51.6 22.6
Import of Cognitive 9 27.3 22.7 27.3 22.7 37.5 37.5 21.9 3.1
Current Teacher Eval 10 4.3 26.1 21.7 47.8 9.4 9.4 53.1 28.1
Others 11
- - - -
0 100.0 - -
Total (1-10) 160.1 265.2 278.3 295.8 167.5 256.5 423.0 153.1
Average % (1-10) 16.1 26.5 27.8 29.6 16.8 25.7 42.3 15.3
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
i
268
Table 35 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%’s)
£
SF S N £ SF S N
Lack of Teaching Strat 1 41.7 41.7 16.7 0 27.3 54.5 18.2 0
Lack of Preserv Tran 2 66.7 16.7 16.7 0 45.5 36.4 18.2 0
Lack of Evalu Strat 3 33.3 58.3 8.3 0 36.4 36.4 27.3 0
Lack of Agreement 4 50.0 41.7 8.3 0 45.5 27.3 27.3 0
Goals/Objectives
Lack of Instruc. Tm 5 75.0 25.0 0 0 27.3 36.4 36.4 0
Lack of Importance 6 58.3 41.7 0 0 36.4 54.5 9.1 0
Fear of Censorship 7 16.7 33.3 41.7 8.3 10.0 10.0 70.0 10.0
Private Nature 8 8.3 58.3 33.3 0 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1
Import of Cognitive 9 75.0 25.0 0 0 54.5 27.3 18.2 0
Current Teacher Eval 10 33.3 41.7 25.0 0 54.5 27.3 18.2 0
Others 11 100.0 0
- - - - - -
Total (1-10) 458.3 383.4 150.0 8.3 346.5 337.4 297.4 19.1
Average % (1-10) 45.8 38.3 15.0 .83 34.7 33.7 29.7 1.9
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
Table 35 (Continued)
District Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%’s)
F SF S N F SF S N
Lack of Teaching Strat 1 100.0 0 0 0 83.3 0 0 16.7
Lack of Preserv Tran 2 100.0 0 0 0 83.3 16.7 0 0
Lack of Evalu Strat 3 100.0 0 0 0 16.7 83.3 0 0
Lack of Agreement 4 66.7 33.3 0 0 33.3 66.7 0 0
Goals/Objectives
Lack of Instruc. Tm 5 66.7 33.3 0 0 50.0 50.0 0 0
Lack of Importance 6 66.7 33.3 0 0 83.3 16.7 0 0
Fear of Censorship 7 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 33.3 16.7 50.0 0
Private Nature 8 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 16.7 0 66.7 16.7
Import of Cognitive 9 100.0 0 0 0 66.7 16.7 16.7 0
Current Teacher Eval 10 66.7 33.3 0 0 33.3 16.7 50.0 0
Others 11 - - - - - - - -
Total (1-10) 733.4 199.8 66.6 0 499.9 283.5 183.4 33.4
Average % (1-10) 73.3 20 6.7 50.0 28.4 18.3 3.34
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
270
Table 35 (Continued
Totals for All Practitioners (%'s)
F SF S N
Lack of Teaching Strategies 1 24.4 41.9 20.9 12.8
Lack of Preservice Training 2 37.2 25.6 26.7 10.5
Lack of Evaluation Strategies 3 26.4 35.6 29.9 8.0
Lack of Agreement Goals/Obj 4 24.4 31.4 37.2 7.0
Lack of Instructional Time 5 40.9 30.7 21.6 6.8
Lack of Importance 6 32.2 33.3 24.1 10.3
Fear of Censorship 7 8.2 15.3 45.9 30.6
Private Nature 8 10.5 23.3 41.9 24.4
Importance of Cognitive 9 46.5 27.9 18.6 7.0
Current Teacher Evaluation 10 20.7 21.8 34.5 23.0
Others 11
- - - -
Total (1-10) 271.4 286.8 301.3 140.4
Average % (1-10) 27.1 28.7 30.1 14.0
Note. F - Frequently/ SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
271
272
Table 36
Weighted Extent to Which Factors Impede Operationalization
of Affective Domain bv Three Curricular Perspectives
F
%
SF
%
S
%
N
%
Teachers
Catholic N=2 4 16.1 26.5 27.8 29.6
Public N=36 16.8 25.7 42.3 15. 3
Total N=60 32.9 52 . 2 70. 1 44 . 9
Average N=60 16.5 26.1 35.0 22 . 5
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 45.8 38.3 15. 00 . 83
Public N^ll 34.7 31.0 29 . 70 1. 90
Total N=2 3 80. 5 69.3 44.70 2 . 73
Average N=2 3 40. 3 34.7 22 .35 1.40
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 73 . 3 20.0 6.7 0
Public N=6 50. 0 28.4 18 . 3 3 . 34
Total N=9 123 . 3 48.4 25.0 3 . 34
Average N=9 61.7 24 . 2 12 . 5 1. 70
I Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom
' n - Never
273
Table 37
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Extent Impedes bv
Each Group
N X SD
Teachers
Catholic 24 2 . 64* . 86
Public 32 2 . 56* .54
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 1.71* .42
Public 11 1.97 . 50
District Administrators
Catholic 3 1.33* .25
Public 6 1.75 . 37
* Significant differences at £ = .05 for analysis of
j variance
Table 38
Level of Agreement that Sources Help Science Instructors Operationalize
the Affective Domain by All Groups
Teachers
Sources to Assist
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
SA A
N D SD SA A
N
D SD
Literature (Pro Org) 1 34.8 52.2 13.0 0
-
22.9 51.4 25.7 0
_
Prior Training 2 39.1 43.5 13.0 0 4.3 33.3 54.5 9.1 3.0
-
State Science Framework 3 9.5 23.8 66.7 0
-
11.4 40.0 48.6 0
-
Model Curriculum 4 14.3 38.1 38.1 9.5
-
11.8 38.2 47.1 2.9
-
Science Addendum 5 11.1 16.7 66.7 5.6
-
6.1 42.4 51.5 0
-
County Course Study 6 10.5 21.1 57.9 10.5
-
3.4 24.1 69.0 3.4
-
Local District Guide 7 16.7 27.8 55.6 0 0 18.8 21.9 56.3 3.1 0
Prior Teaching Exp 8 54.2 33.3 8.3 0 4.2 42.9 42.9 11.4 2.9 0
Textbook 9 40.0 50.0 10.0 0 0 25.0 46.9 18.8 9.4 0
Supplementary Material 10 52.6 36.8 10.5 0
-
37.9 24.1 34.5 3.4
-
Professional Jour/Mags 11 27.8 44.4 22.2 0 5.6 23.3 40.0 33.3 3.3 0
Staff Development 12 21.1 26.3 52.6 0 -
18.8 43.8 34.4 3.1 0
Workshops/Seminars 13 30.0 40.0 30.0 0 -
17.6 55.9 20.6 5.9 -
Other 14 60.0 40.0 0 0 - 54.5 18.2 18.2 9.1
-
Total (1-13) 361.7 454.1 444.6 25.6 14.1 273.2 526.1 460.3 40.4 0
Average % (1-13) 27.8 34.9 34.2 1.97 1.1 21.0 40.5 35.4 3.1 0
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree ro |
Table 38 (Continued
Site Administrators
Sources to Assist
Catholic (%•s) Public (%'s)
SA A N D SD SA A N D SD
Literature (Pro Org) 1 0 0 100.0 0
-
0 16.7 50.0 33.3
-
Prior Training 2 33.3 66.7 0 0 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 0
State Science Framework 3 0 0 66.7 33.3 - 0 66.7 0 33.3 -
Model Curriculum 4 0 33.3 66.7 0 - 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0
-
Science Addendum 5 0 33.3 66.7 0 -
0 50.0 16.7 33.3
-
County Course Study 6 0 0 100.0 0 - 0 40.0 20.0 40.0 -
Local District Guide 7 0 0 100.0 0 0 33.3 33.3 0 16.7 16.7
Prior Teaching Exp 8 33.3 66.7 0 0 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0 0
Textbook 9 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 75.0 0 25.0
Supplementary Material 10 0 50.0 50.0 0 - 50.0 25.0 25.0 0 -
Professional Jour/Mags 11 0 50.0 50.0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0 0
Staff Development 12 0 100.0 0 0 - 20.0 60.0 20.0 0
-
Workshops/Seminars 13 0 50.0 50.0 0 - 40.0 40.0 20.0 0 -
Other 14 - - - - -
0 0 100.0 0
-
Total (1-13) 66.6 450.0 750.0 33.3 0 263.3 418.3 400.0 176.6 41.7
Average % (1-13) 5.1 34.6 57.7 2.6 0 20.3 32.2 30.8 13.6 3.2
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
i
to
-j
L n
Table 38 (Continued
District Administrators
Sources to Assist
Catholic (% ■s) Public (%'s)
SA A N D SD SA A N
D SD
Literature (Pro Org) 1 8.3 75.0 8.3 8.3
-
0 55.6 44.4 0
_
Prior Training 2 25.0 41.7 25.0 8.3 0 33.3 55.6 0 11.1 0
State Science Framework 3 8.3 66.7 16.7 8.3 - 22.2 44.4 22.2 11.1
-
Model Curriculum 4 16.7 58.3 16.7 8.3
-
22.2 55.6 11.1 11.1 -
Science Addendum 5 18.2 45.5 27.3 9.1 - 0 44.4 44.4 11.1
-
County Course Study 6 9.1 36.4 36.4 18.2 - 0 22.2 55.6 22.2
-
Local District Guide 7 20.0 20.0 40.0 20.0 0 22.2 22.2 33.3 22.2 0
Prior Teaching Exp 8 25.0 50.0 16.7 8.3 0 44.4 33.3 22.2 0 0
Textbook 9 0 28.6 42.9 28.6 0 28.6 28.6 28.6 14.3 0
Supplementary Material 10 0 75.0 25.0 0 - 28.6 28.6 42.9 0
-
Professional Jour/Mags 11 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 14.3 14.3 71.4 0
-
Staff Development 12 30.0 60.0 0 10.0 -
12.5 75.0 0 12.5 0
Workshops/Seminars 13 22.2 44.4 22.2 11.1
-
22.2 44.4 22.2 11.1
-
Other 14 - -
-
- -
50.0 0 50.0 0
-
Total (1-13) 182.8 668.3 310.5 138.5 0 250.5 524.2 398.3 126.7 0
Average % (1-13) 14.1 51.4 23.9 10.7 0 19.3 40.3 30.6 9.7 0
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
Table 38 (Continued)
Sources to Assist Totals For All Practitioners
SA A N D SD
Literature (Pro Org) 1 19.3 51.1 26.1 3.4
-
Prior Training 2 36.0 48.8 10.5 3.5 1.2
State Science Framework 3 10.5 40.7 43.0 5.8
-
Model Curriculum 4 14.3 41.7 36.9 7.1 -
Science Addendum 5 7.5 37.5 48.8 6.3 -
County Course Study 6 5.3 25.0 57.9 11.8
-
Local District Guide 7 19.2 23.1 48.7 7.7 1.3
Prior Teaching Exp 8 42.7 40.4 13.5 2.2 1.1
Textbook 9 25.0 40.3 25.0 8.3 1.4
Supplementary Material 10 38.5 32.3 27.7 1.5
-
Professional Jour/Mags 11 20.6 38.1 38.1 1.6 1.6
Staff Development 12 19.7 47.4 28.9 3.9 -
Workshops/Seminars 13 22.8 48.1 24.1 5.1
Other 14 52.6 21.1 21.1 5.3
-
Total (1-13) 281.4 514.5 429.6 68.2 6.6
Average % (1-13) 21.6 39.6 33.0 5.2 .5
Note. SA - Strongly agree, A - Agree, N - Neutral, D - Disagree, SD - Strongly disagree
277
Table 3 9
Weighted Level of Agreement of Sources that Help
Operationalize the Affective Domain bv Curricular
Perspectives
SA
%
A
%
N
%
D
%
SD
%
Teachers
Catholic N=24 27.8 34.9 34.2 1.97 1.1
Public N=3 6 21. 0 40.5 35.4 3 . 10 0
Total N=60 48.8 75.4 69.6 5. 07 1.1
Average N=60 24.4 37 .7 34.8 2.50 . 6
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 14 .1 51.4 23.9 10.7 0
Public N=ll 19. 3 40.3 30.6 9.7 0
Total N=2 3 33 . 4 91.7 54 . 5 20.4 0
Average N=2 3 16. 7 45.9 27 . 3 10.2 0
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 5.1 34.6 57.7 2.6 0
Public N=6 20. 3 32.2 30.8 13 . 6 3 . 2
Total N=9 25.4 66.8 88.5 16.2 3 . 2
Average N=9 12.7 33.4 44 . 3 8.1 1.6
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom :
N - Never 1
279
Table 4 0
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Level of
Agreement bv Each Group
M X SD
Teachers
Catholic 24 1.34 .43
Public 36 1.34 . 35
Site Administrators
Catholic 12 1. 64 .50
Public 9 1. 44 . 30
District Administrators
Catholic 3 1.81 .27
Public 6 1.72 .74
Table 41
Extent to Which Practitioners Use Sources to Operationalize the
Affective Domain in Science Curriculum
Teachers
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'S)
Sources to Assist
I
SF S
N
F SF S
N
Literature (Pro Org) 1 13.0 52.2 30.4 4.3 8.6 22.9 54.3 14.3
Prior Training 2 69.6 21.7 4.3 4.3 15.2 48.5 18.2 18.2
State Science Framework 3 9.1 18.2 40.1 31.8 8.6 40.0 37.1 14.3
Model Curriculum 4 14.3 28.6 23.8 33.3 8.8 32.4 41.2 17.6
Science Addendum 5 10.0 20.0 25.0 45.0 6.3 25.0 50.0 18.8
County Course Study 6 15.0 10.0 35.0 40.0 3.3 13.3 46.7 36.7
Local District Guide 7 20.0 25.0 20.0 35.0 15.2 15.2 51.5 18.2
Prior Teaching Exp 8 62.5 25.0 8.3 4.2 54.5 30.3 6.1 9.1
Textbook 9 60.0 30.0 5.0 5.0 27.3 21.2 36.4 15.2
Supplementary Material 10 42.1 42.1 10.5 5.3 32.1 28.6 21.4 17.9
Professional Jour/Mags 11 16.7 50.0 27.8 5.6 17.2 34.5 27.6 20.7
Staff Development 12 0 35.3 29.4 35.3 6.3 31.3 31.3 31.3
Workshops/Seminars 13 10.0 30.0 35.0 25.0 9.1 30.3 33.3 27.3
Other 14 40.0 40.0 20.0 0 50.0 10.0 20.0 20.0
Total (1-13) 342.3 388.1 295.4 274.1 212.5 373.5 455.1 259.6
Average % (1-13) 26.3 29.9 22.7 21.1 16.3 28.7 35.0 20.0
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
i __
280
Table 41 (Continued)
Site Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
Sources to Assist F SF S N F SF S
N
Literature (Pro Org) 1 0 33.3 66.7 0 0 33.3 66.7 0
Prior Training 2 0 33.3 66.7 0 11.1 55.6 22.2 11.1
State Science Framework 3 0 25.0 58.3 16.7 11.1 44.4 44.4 0
Model Curriculum 4 8.3 8.3 58.3 25.0 11.1 66.7 22.2 0
Science Addendum 5 9.1 9.1 63.6 18.2 14.3 28.6 57.1 0
County Course Study 6 18.2 9.1 54.5 27.3 11.1 22.2 66.7 0
Local District Guide 7 27.3 9.1 54.5 18.2 11.1 55.6 22.2 11.1
Prior Teaching Exp 8 14.3 63.6 9.1 0 33.3 33.3 33.3 0
Textbook 9 25.0 57.1 14.3 14.3 14.3 28.6 57.1 0
Supplementary Material 10 0 25.0 50.0 0 0 57.1 42.9 0
Professional Jour/Mags 11 0 40.0 40.0 20.0 0 14.3 85.7 0
Staff Development 12 0 40.0 30.0 30.0 0 75.0 25.0 0
Workshops/Seminars 13 0 25.0 25.0 0 11.1 44.4 44.4 0
Other 14 0 0 100.0 0 50.0 0 0 50.0
Total (1-13) 111.3 377.9 640.7 169.7 128.5 559.1 590.1 22.2
Average % (1-13) 8.6 29.1 49.3 13.1 9.9 43.0 45.4 1.7
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never 281
Table 41 (Continued)
District Administrators
Catholic (%'s) Public (%'s)
Sources to Assist F SF S N F SF S N
Literature (Pro Org) 1 0 66.7 33.3 0 0 66.7 33.3 0
Prior Training 2 66.7 33.3 0 0 0 100.0 0 0
State Science Framework 3 0 50.0 0 50.0 0 60.0 20.0 20.0
Model Curriculum 4 50.0 0 0 50.0 25.0 25.0 50.0 0
Science Addendum 5 50.0 0 0 50.0 0 40.0 60.0 0
County Course Study 6 0 0 50.0 50.0 0 50.0 50.0 0
Local District Guide 7 0 0 50.0 50.0 0 60.0 20.0 20.0
Prior Teaching Exp 8 0 100.0 0 0 40.0 20.0 20.0 20.0
Textbook 9 0 0 100.0 0 0 0 66.7 33.3
Supplementary Material 10 0 0 100.0 0 25.0 50.0 25.0 0
Professional Jour/Mags 11 0 100.0 0 0 0 0 100.0 0
Staff Development 12 0 100.0 0 0 0 75.0 25.0 0
Workshops/Seminars 13 0 100.0 0 0 0 75.0 25.0 0
Other 14 - - - - 0 0 100.0 0
Total (1-13) 166.7 550.0 333.3 250.0 90 621.7 475.0 93.3
Average % (1-13) 12.8 42.8 25.6 19.2 6.9 47.8 36.5 7.2
j Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never 282
Table 41 (Continued)
Sources to Assist Totals For All Practitioners
£ SF S N
Literature (Pro Org) 1 6.8 37.5 48.9 6.8
Prior Training 2 28.2 42.4 20.0 9.4
State Science Framework 3 7.1 34.1 40.0 18.8
Model Curriculum 4 12.2 30.5 36.6 20.7
Science Addendum 5 9.1 22.1 45.5 23.4
County Course Study 6 7.9 14.5 47.4 30.3
Local District Guide 7 15.0 23.8 38.8 22.5
Prior Teaching Exp 8 48.8 34.5 10.7 6.0
Textbook 9 32.4 26.8 29.6 11.3
Supplementary Material 10 30.2 36.5 23.8 9.5
Professional Jour/Mags 11 12.5 37.5 37.5 12.5
Staff Development 12 2.7 42.5 28.8 26.0
Workshops/Seminars 13 7.9 38.2 32.9 21.1
Other 14 42.1 15.8 26.3 15.8
Total (1-13) 220.8 421.0 440.5 217.1
Average % (1-13) 17 32.4 33.9 16.7
Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom, N - Never
283
284
i
I
Table 42
Weighted Extent of Use of Sources to Operationalize the
Affective Domain bv Curricular Perspective
F
%
SF
%
S
%
N
%
Teachers
Catholic N=24 26.3 29.9 22.7 21.1
Public N=3 6 16.3 28.7 35.0 20.0
Total N=60 42.6 58. 6 57.7 41.1
Average N=60 21.3 29.3 28.9 20.6
Site Administrators
Catholic N=12 8.6 29. 1 49. 3 13.1
Public N=ll 9.9 43 . 0 45. 4 1.7
Total N=2 3 18.5 72 . 1 94.7 14.8
Average N=2 3 9.3 36.1 47.4 19.2
District Administrators
Catholic N=3 12.8 42 . 3 2 5.6 19.2
Public N=6 6.9 47.8 36.5 7.2
Total N=9 19.7 90.1 62 . 1 26.4
Average N=9 9.9 45. 1 31.1 13.2
i i
; I
■ I
' Note. F - Frequently, SF - Somewhat frequently, S - Seldom j
I N - Never !
Table 43
Means and Standard Deviations for Weighted Extent of Use bv
All Groups
M X SD
Teachers
Catholic 24 1.34 . 43
Public 36 1.34 . 35
Site Administrators 12 1. 64 . 50
Catholic 9 1.44 .30
Public
District Administrators
Catholic 3 1.81 .27
Public 6 1.72 .74
Table 44
Curriculum Elements Obtained From Selected Sources by Teachers
Curricular Elements
Goals
Obiectives
%
Materials
%
Content
%
Teaching
Strateaies
%
Evaluation
%
Other
%
Sources to
Operationalize
Affective Domain C P C P C P C P C P C P
Lit Prof Org 1 29.2 13.9 45.8 38.9 45.8 50.0 54.2 52.8 0 19.4 8.3 13.9
Prior Educ Exp 2 66.7 63.9 50.0 52.8 66.7 58.3 75.0 66.7 37.5 44.4 25.0 11.1
St Frmwk Sci 3 29.2 52.8 4.2 16.7 29.2 27.8 4.2 0 4.2 2.8 0 5.6
Model Cur Stnd 4 29.2 66.7 8.3 8.3 33.3 22.0 4.2 2.7 0 2.7 0 5.6
Sci Frmwk Adde 5 29.2 38.9 16.7 11.1 25.0 19.4 8.3 2.7 4.2 2.7 0 8.3
County Cs Stdy 6 20.8 22.2 8.3 11.1 16.7 16.7 0 2.7 0 2.7 4.2 8.3
Loc Dist Guide 7 29.2 38.9 12.5 13.9 29.2 27.8 12.5 5.6 8.3 5.6 4.2 11.1
Prior Tchng Ex 8 70.8 41.2 75.0 61.1 70.8 52.8 70.8 61.1 66.7 41.7 25.0 5.6
Textbook 9 70.8 36.1 66.7 52.8 83.3 75.0 33.3 36.1 45.8 30.6 8.3 5.6
Suppl Material 10 25.0 11.1 50.0 61.1 45.8 47.2 58.3 36.1 25.0 16.7 8.3 8.3
Prof Jour/Mag 11 37.5 13.9 50.0 41.7 50.0 50.0 54.2 38.9 12.5 2.8 12.5 8.3
Staff Develop 12 29.2 27.8 29.2 27.8 25.0 22.2 33.3 52.8 12.5 16.7 8.3 11.1
Wrkshop/Sem 13 20.8 19.4 20.8 41.7 33.3 38.9 37.5 52.7 12.5 16.7 16.7 8.3
Others 14 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Note. C = Catholic Teachers n = 24
P = Public Teachers n = 36
N)
o o
C T i

Asset Metadata

Creator Gatfield, Ray A. (author)

Core Title An investigation of affective curricular practice in secondary science education

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, sciences,oai:digitallibrary.usc.edu:usctheses,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c26-534798

Unique identifier UC11246917

Identifier usctheses-c26-534798 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP25333.pdf

Dmrecord 534798

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Gatfield, Ray A.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA