Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Pupil Attitudes And Pupil Achievement Resulting From Certain Biological Sciences Curriculum Materials
(USC Thesis Other)
Pupil Attitudes And Pupil Achievement Resulting From Certain Biological Sciences Curriculum Materials
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 6 8 -1 2 ,0 6 4 WILSON, George Franklin, 1920- PUPIL ATTITUDES AND PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT RESULTING FROM CERTAIN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CURRICULUM MATERIALS. University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1968 Education, theory and practice University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, M ichigan PUPIL ATTITUDES AND PUPIL ACHIEVEMENT RESULTING PROM CERTAIN BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES CURRICULUM MATERIALS hy George Franklin Wilson A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION (Education) June 1968 This dissertation, written under the direction of the Chairman of the candidate’s Guidance Committee and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. Dean Guidance Committee Chairman /l/ j/j TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES............................................iv LIST OF FIGURES..........................................vi Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 Statement of the Problem The Problem II. A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . .............. 13 Inquiry and Discovery Science and the Educationally Disadvantaged Research Related to BSCS Biology III. PROCEDURES........................................40 IV. PRESENTATION OF DATA BEARING ON STUDENT ATTITUDES......................................48 Results of Questionnaire Concerning Students' Interests in Biology Results of Analysis of the Reports of Critical Incidents Why Students Accepted or Rejected Elements of the Semi-System Sixty Selected Reports of Students Giving Reasons for Selections of Critical Incidents End of the Year Reactions V. PRESENTATION OF DATA BEARING ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT................................... 86 Student Attainment of Objectives of Semi-system Student Achievement as Measured by the Processes of Science Test ii Chapter Page j VI. INTERPRETATION OF DATA......................... 96 VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 114 APPENDICES............................................ 121 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Tabulation of Elements Composing Semi-System................................... 9 2. A Description of Los Angeles Catholic Archdiocese Teachers....................- . - 41 3. Schedule for Evaluation of Biological Science; Patterns and Processes ........... 46 4. Form Used for Attitude Inventory................ 50 5. Total Scores for Two Administrations of the Attitude Questionnaire ...................... 54 6. Differences in Responses of 218 Boys September, 1966 to May, 1967 58 7. Difference Between Scores, September-May, Girls............................................ 60 8. Description of Twenty-Seven Activities Reported as Critical Incidents ............. 65 9. Worthwhile and Not Worthwhile Activities as Indicated by Reports of Critical Incidents . 67 10. Reasons Given for Listing Elements as Worthwhile, B o y s ............................... 71 11. Reasons Given for Listing Elements as Worthwhile, Girls ............................ 72 12. Responses to Directions, "Describe One Activity from this Biology Course That Made You Feel Most Like a Scientist." .... 83 13. Examples of Student Responses in Two Groups . . 88 14. Activities Listed by Students as Worthwhile Distributed as to Ability to Verbalize Idea Involved....................................91 iv Table Page 15- Activities Listed by Students as Not Worthwhile Distributed as to Ability to Verbalize idea Involved.......................92 16. Report of Scores Post Test....................... 95 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Representation of Guilford's Model of the Intellect.................................... 20 2. Sequence for Element S-15........................ 102 3. Sequence for Element S-21........................ 104 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Por if we do nothing else, we should somehow give to children a respect for their own powers of thinking, for their power to generate good questions, to come up with interesting informed guesses.^ The year 1957 marked the beginning of a revolution in science education in the United States. The period before this date had been marked by a declining interest in the preparation of instructional materials suitable for students in secondary schools on the part of those researchers at the forefronts of the search for knowledge o within the traditional disciplines. The result had been an ever increasing gap between what was known or what was becoming known in each discipline and the information that was being passed on to high school students. In the sciences, the widening of the knowledge gap was aggravated ^-Jerome Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction Harvard: Belknap Press, 1966), p. 96. ^Paul DeHart Hurd, Biological Education in American Secondary Schools 1890-1960, Bulletin No. 1 of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (Boulder, Colorado: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1961). 2 by the greatly accelerated rate at which science information was being developed. As early as 1951, some I scientists had shown concern for the problem of closing | | this knowledge gap. The advent of Sputnik and the i ! subsequent entry of the National Science Foundation into programs of curriculum development may be marked as the turning point in science curriculum activities in the : United States.3 Urged to new endeavors by the funding activities of j the National Science Foundation, researchers in the biological sciences began, in 1958, to renew their interest in the production of instructional materials for ; secondary students, an interest that had lain dormant : since the early part of this century. The period since ; 1958 has been marked by the updating of science texts, by provision for continuous revision of these instructional materials, and by a growing recognition of the futility of attempting to continue to teach science as a collection of factual information in a time when the tempo of scientific inquiry produces new information at a greater rate than the schools were prepared to make use of it. This pressure within the disciplines tended to turn the attention of curriculum makers toward concern for the Paul DeHart Hurd, "The New Curriculum Movement m Science: An Interpretive Summary," The Science Teacher, XXIX, No. 1 (February 1962), 6. structure of knowledge and toward an emphasis on more „ , meaningful presentations of the current status of these disciplines. Coupled with recently developed theory related to the structure of the intellect and the i relationship of that structure to the processes of learning the new emphasis led curriculum workers to lay less I 'emphasis on theories of adolescents and the needs and interests of youth, and to lay greater stress on creative 'elements in learning and on the interaction of these 'elements with the structure of knowledge itself, j This new direction was defined at a conference of !scientists and educators gathered at Woods Hole in 1959. /Jerome Bruner, a leader at this conference and in the new movement in science education, reported the work of the conference in his The Process of E d u c a t i o n .4 The keynote message in this work was an invitation to experiment in the development of a theory of instruction beginning with the premise that any student can be taught any concept in some intellectually honest manner. The notion was that successful learning must be based on the discovery of a framework in each discipline into which additional knowledge could later be integrated with extraordinary efficiency. ^Jerome Bruner, The Process of Education (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), p. 14. 4 Some feel that the search for this structure of knowledge has tended to divert attention dangerously from the needs and problems of the learner. David L. Lehman has stated what might be the central problem for science educators in the next years: It is the thesis of this paper that modern-day science educators have by and large forgotten the adolescent, or at least placed him in a decidedly secondary role; and that as science educators we should be looking seriously at the findings of contemporary adolescent psychology and sociology, and considering their implications for the teaching of ; science in our high s c h o o l s . ^ At least one major curriculum group, the Biological I Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS), has undertaken the task of more closely aligning the present information concerning I the structure of knowledge and of the intellect with an 'awareness of the needs and interests of adolescents. ; Beginning in 1958, this group has been engaged in defining the structure of biology. Nine themes have been seen to form the basis for this structure: evolution, diversity of type and unity of pattern, complementarity of organism and environment, complementarity of structure and function, biological roots of heredity, regulation and homeostasis, the genetic continuity of life, the spirit and techniques in inquiry, and the history of biological ^David L. Lehman, "Current Thinking in Adolescent Psychology," The Science Teacher, XXXIV, No. 2 (February, 1967), 15. concepts.6 Following these themes, the BSCS has developed | a wide range of instructional materials for secondary schools. The initial efforts of the organization were directed toward the development of updated texts and i laboratory manuals. In order to adjust to the wide variety ; of interests of students and teachers, a multi-text ap- | proach was initially undertaken. Three separate approaches i to biology were incorporated into three sets of texts and i laboratory exercises."^ A significant feature in the work | of the BSCS has been its insistence on provisions for periodic revisions of these and subsequent instructional material developments. The first texts were completed in i 1962. Revision of these texts began in 1966. Such a i schedule of revision is planned for other BSCS curriculum ! developments, and requires research on the part of BSCS and independent, interested researchers for direction.® It is in the spirit of this on-going research that the current study was undertaken. ®Joseph Schwab (ed.), The Biology Teachers Handbook (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 16. ^Newsletter No. 12, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1961, p. 6. ^william V. Mayer, "Evaluation for Curriculum Assessment and Improvement," Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter 30 (1967), p. 1. 6 Studies of the effectiveness of the three initial texts that were prepared for the needs of the average high school population indicated that while the texts were highly effective in the hands of some of the secondary students, they were not suitable instructional aids for a large portion of the secondary school population, particularly those students described as "educationally d i s a d v a n t a g e d . ”^ For the most part, the students in this group appeared to have long histories of failure in and dissatisfaction with school subjects. These were the students for whom school was best described in the lines of Rilke: The time of school drags by with waiting and dread, with nothing but dreary things. 0 loneliness, 0 leaden waiting out of time.10 Xn 1963, the BSCS organized a sub-committee for the purpose of identifying the students who were "unable to handle" the biology texts then in use, and to prepare materials that might assist these students in the learning of modern biological concepts. The task of identification proved to be extremely difficult. Harold Liebherr, chairman of the sub-committee, summarized the findings: ^Lorenzo Lizonbee, "Working Paper for BSCS Special Materials Sub-committee (unpublished paper), 1964. lORainer Maria Rilke, "Childhood," in Poems from the Book of Hours, translated by Babette Deutsch (Norfolk, Conneticut: Columbia University Press, 1941), p. 5. The special student of the Special Materials Sub committee is not the special student as defined by educational psychology- He is neither an exceptional or a typical child. He is not counted among the mentally retarded or among the gifted. He is not blind or partially seeing, deaf or hard of hearing, orthopedically handicapped or speech handicapped. He is a youngster who, for one or more of several reasons, finds himself in the lowest 20-25% of his class in a typical high school. . . . Among our special students are the disadvantaged, the homeless, the discouraged, the hopeless, the disinterested, some who have academic potential to be at least average students and many who do not have this potential. . . IQ alone is not considered a satisfactory criterion for identifying this group. . . . Our special student may possess any level of ability and be from almost any backgr ound. ^ One characteristic seemed to be common to the group of special students under study by the committee: most of these students had a long record of failure in school work. It seemed probable that such a pattern of failure might be self-perpetuating, with the students' images of themselves as learners destroyed, and a lack of interest in school resulting. The development of a program designed to restore the students' self-images became a primary concern of the BSCS group. At the high school level, it might be more appropriate to concentrate on programs that would develop and maintain student interest in school and on demonstrating to students their own abilities to learn than to be solely concerned with the ■^Harold Liebherr, "Who Is the Unsuccessful Learner?" (unpublished working paper of the BSCS Special Materials Committee), 1965. 8 ! subject matter at hand. A few teachers spread throughout ! i the country had achieved enough success with such students i to suggest that, in many cases, the students were capable | of greater learning, and to suggest that the key to I successful science teaching might be found in laboratory investigations and in a genuine interaction between I students and between students and teachers, an inter- I action based on the laboratory investigations. j The result of three years of research and develop- | raent was the production of a teacher's manual and a body ! of student materials that together composed a semi-system of readings, laboratory activities, discussion patterns, suggested films, and programed sequences. A tabulation of the elements in the sequence is shown in Table 1. The I entire package was designed to be bound into a unified sequence through teacher-led discussions with the students. A suggested script for the teachers to follow, based on the authors' predictions of student responses, was included in the package. As part of the new curriculum developments of BSCS, the goals for this semi-system may be assumed to be related to those expressed by Paul Hurd; The goals for science teaching are described as an understanding of the nature of science, its modes of inquiry and conceptual inventions. Equally important TABLE 1 TABULATION OF ELEMENTS COMPOSING SEMI-SYSTEM* Topic Readings Reviews Programs Laboratory Activities Discussion Patterns Ecological Relationships 9 6 2 10 2 Cell Energy Processes 13 5 2 17 4 Reproduction and Development 5 1 1 11 2 Genetic Continuity 9 11 1 11 2 Organic Evolution 6 1 0 5 0 Total Grand Total— 136 42 24 .6 l 54 10 *BiologicaI Science: Patterns and Processes 10 is a knowledge of natural phenomena and the place of science in the activity of m a n . 12 These goals suggest at least three dimensions against which the success of the new biological science curricula |may be measured: 1. Student interest in science and in the study of I science. | 2. Student understanding of the structure of science as reflected in the recognition and application of / ; major concepts. For the semi-system. Biological Science: :Patterns and Processes, this understanding is related to |the concepts stated as introductory statements to sections ; of the teachers' handbook. 3. Understanding of the nature of scientific | investigation as it relates to the subject areas studied. While these goals form the general area of desired outcomes, it remains for the teacher to determine specific, operational objectives upon which a system for evaluation may be constructed. For those students for whom the BSCS Special Materials Committee was organized to work, these objectives must be formed with careful attention to the problem of developing for each pupil a positive self- image . l ^ P a u l De Hart Hurd, "The New Curriculum Movement in Science,” The Science Teacher, XXIX, No. 1 (February, 1962), 6. The problem 11 This study concerned reactions of some students to a new program for high school biology. The purpose was to discover those elements in a biology program which icontributed positively or negatively to changes in the 'students' concepts of themselves as science students, and ;to assess the effectiveness of the program as a tool for instruction. The study was limited to the semi-system, i Biological Science; Patterns and P r o c e s s e s ,13 as it was interpreted in six high schools of the Los Angeles ;Catholic Archdiocese. There were 518 students and seven teachers involved in the first year of the program during ;the school year 1966-1967. These students were selected I by the school administrators as those who seemed to lack i I the academic skills needed for a reasonable probability of success in the biology programs traditionally offered in the schools. In addition, 90 per cent of the students were placed in that category defined as economically disad vantaged by the federal government. These students came from homes each having an average annual income of less than $3,000. The study sought answers to these questions: ^Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biological Science: Patterns and Processes (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), xxiii. 12 1. What effect does this science instruction system have on the students' interests in science, particularly in biological science? 2. Which elements of the system contribute to changes in student interest? 3. In terms of student interest, are there discontinuities in the system? 4. What do the students see as the conceptual framework of the system? 5. What is the effect of the program on students1 abilities to employ methods of scientific inquiry? 6. How does the program affect students' views of their own abilities to use methods of scientific inquiry? This study was a field study designed to measure the effectiveness of Biological Science; Patterns and Processes as a tool of instruction in the hands of typical teachers for whom it was prepared— that is, teachers to whom students of somewhat less than average school achievement would normally be assigned. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Politically it has been demonstrated that a house divided against itself cannot stand. I affirm that it must also be true that a nation of a micro scopically few scientists molding and altering people's lives, and a populace uncomprehending, superstitious, and resistant to the novel idea of the scientists while blandly accepting the technological fruits of those very ideas, likewise cannot endure. Somehow, and soon, mankind must become truly scientific in spirit and endeavor. Otherwise we face oligarchy, and eventual collapse of our form of civilization, our way of life.l With these words, Bentley Glass has emphasized the sense of urgency with which the BSCS has approached the problems of science education and the determination of the common needs of all students in terms of scientific understandings. In an age of rapid change, there has been a concerted effort by many groups such as the BSCS to develop better scientific educations through new curricula and to provide the continual revision of the curricula in order to keep apace of scientific innovations. Hulda Grobman has echoed this urgency with this comment, "Our national survival may be dependent on •^Bentley Glass, Foreword to Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter No. 12 (1961), p. 5. 13 14 9 our ability to make rapid changes in American education." Dr. Grobraan has pointed to "seventy years of committees making studies and disbanding.” As early as 1910 these committees were recommending that science teachers should place more emphasis on "reasoning out" than on memorizing, give more attention to techniques of problem solving, provide less compulsory coverage of subject matter, and develop an awareness of the incomplete nature of the processes of science. Yet science teaching common in 1961 was characterized by Bentley Glass^ as picturing science as "an authoritative body of facts," and by Joseph Schwab as a "rhetoric of conclusions. Hulda Grobman has illustrated the new direction in science education in her definition of the central goal: . . . An understanding of science and scientific processes that will enable them to become intelligent citizens in a society where science has a major influence on everyday life.5 Any attempt to determine the effectiveness of learning tools must be preceded by a definition of an "understanding" of science in terms of the students for ^Hulda Grobman, "A Study in Educational Improve ment,” The Clearing House, XXXVI, No. 3 (November, 1961), 163-164. ■^Glass, loc. cit. 4Joseph Schwab, The Teaching of Science as Inquiry (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962). ^Hulda Grobman, "A New Curriculum in Biological Science," Educational Leadership, XVIII, No. 6 (March, 1961), 360. 15 whom the tools are intended. Understanding science has been defined in many ways. The scientific enterprise has a human element, demands free communication among scien tists, is aided by interchange through societies of i scientists, is related to the development of investigative ! instruments, requires money, is international in scope, j , and has an effect on and is affected by the society.^ It i is characterized by "austere morality, accuracy, I scrupulous respect for what occurs." It is based on I observation, making inferences and deductions on the i ! basis of these observations, and reporting findings in ■ such a way as to allow for repetition. It is, therefore, ; a social undertaking.7 To understand science one must: . . . See a problem unfold from its beginnings. See progress impeded by traditional ways of thought, learn that scientists make mistakes as well as achieve successes, and observe what experiments brought illumination and why.8 Science must be understood to be an integral part of modern life. BSCS writers have felt that biology could be understood to be such a part of modern life if: (1) modern knowledge and concepts were presented; (2) the ®W. W. Cooley and L. E. Klopfer, "The Evaluation of Specific Educational Innovations," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I, No. 1 (1964), 73-80. ^Bentley Glass, "The Most Critical Aspect of Science Teaching,” The Science Teacher, XXXIV, No. 5 (May, 1967), 19. ®Glass, Newsletter No. 12, loccit. 16 i focus of the course was placed on the nature of scientific ! inquiry; and (3) students were provided with a coherent picture of contemporary biology. As has been suggested by ' the National Science Teachers Association Curriculum Committee,^ this understanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise can best be achieved through direct student involvement in the processes of scientific inquiry. Such involvement might serve to develop objectives of science of a more humanistic nature; the awakening of curiosity, and a continuing interest in education. It would seem that a reasonable measure of the success of a science learning tool might be two-fold: the ability of students to use the learning tools to carry out a scientific investigation and to form for themselves the concepts that might evolve from the investigation, and the effectiveness of the teaching- learning tools to promote interest in continued study as evidenced by sustained and growing interest during a science program and interest in further science study. This second objective, interest in continued study, is of particular importance in terms of the students for whom Biological Science: Patterns and Processes was intended, ^National Science Teachers Association, "The National Science Teachers Association Position on Curriculum Development in Science, 1 1 The Science Teacher, XXXII, No. 10 (December, 1962), 128. for it was intended that this semi-system advance interest in study and scientific competency in those students for whom traditional schooling had been a generally unsatis factory experience. An understanding of the manner in iwhich the BSCS has proposed to accomplish these objectives |is dependent on definition of the concepts of inquiry and (discovery as well as an understanding of the nature of the jstudent. Inquiry and Discovery The development of abilities to inquire has been (the subject of considerable research in recent years. |Studies have ranged from considerations of how students I !perceive scientific concepts at differing levels of 1 maturation, to efforts to discover the nature of the human intellect, and to studies of the relationships between how one inquires and what one inquires about. Following successes in teaching young children attained by Maria Montessori early in the century,Piaget has studied the relationships of abilities to form concepts and to generalize, to the way in which students perceive their surroundings, and to levels of maturation in very young l^Maria Montessori, Dr. Montessori's Own Handbook, edited by R. C. Orem (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1965). 18 children.His discoveries have led to the formulation of three levels of intellectual operations. Following a pre-school level of very restricted observational abilities which has been termed "pre-operational,” Piaget | has defined a level of "concrete operations" in which I students are able to make observations in a variety of ; ways and to organize and interpret data gathered through these observations of physical phenomena. This period normally gives way about the age of eleven or twelve to i a level of "formal operations,” at which time students become capable of reasoning in a hypothetical-deductive manner. Such studies have at once focused attention on ; problems of perception and suggested that many concepts ; can be taught to students in a manner conforming to the ! students’ levels of maturation. The review of the i studies of Piaget has led Bruner to suggest that American educators experiment with the notion that any scientific concept can be taught to any student in some intellec tually honest manner. 11Jean Piaget, Judgment and Reasoning in the Child (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1928)7 Barbel Inhelder, The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (New York: Basic Books, 1958) 7 Celia B. Stendler, "Elementary Teaching and the Piagetian Theory," The Science Teacher, XXIX, No. 5 (September, 1962), 34-42. The idea that students can and should toe taught in such a way as to develop inquiry skills has led to investigations designed to formulate statements of the nature of these skills that might toe useful for educa- 19 1 o tional developers. Bloom, ^ Krathwohl, and others have directed efforts toward defining the levels at which the human cognitive and affective processes operate. The result has toeen a set of taxonomies outlining areas of intellectual endeavor without defining rigid heirarchies. These taxonomies have toeen widely employed to assist in the development of educational objectives in all disciplines. Another effort to define facets of human intel lectual activity that can become the bases of practice in formal education is the work of J. P. Guilford.^ The structure of the intellect discovered through the studies of this researcher has toeen defined in a model that can toe represented in a three dimensional block relating intel lectual operations to the nature of the objects perceived. l^Benjamin Bloom, et al.. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; The Cognitive Domain (New York: David Mckay Co., 1956); - * - 3David Krathwohl, et al., Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; The Affective Domain (New York: David Mckay Co., 1960). p. Guilford, ’ ’Three Faces of Intellect," The American Psychologist, XIV (August, 1959), 5; J. P. Guilford, The Nature of Human Intelligence (New York: McGraw Hill Co., 1967) . ti ons> Figural Symbolic Semantic Behavioral Units Classes Relations Systems Transformations Implications Evaluation Convergent Thinking Divergent Thinking Memory Cognition Fig. 1.— Representation of Guilford's Model of the Intellect This model of human intellectual activity has been used to design educational exercises based on the premise that each facet of the intellect so identified can be isolated for the purpose of providing practice and consequent development of intellectual powers. While it appears unlikely that human intellectual activities can be so clearly isolated in normal usage, such efforts have contributed much to recent efforts to develop educational methods calculated to improve students1 abilities to inquire. Such efforts as those of Guilford have, at least, lent strength to the suggestion that intellectual development can be carried beyond what has heretofore been considered possible. 15 Perhaps the efforts of J. Richard Suchman and his co-workers have been more clearly directed toward develop ment of methodologies for the teaching of inquiry. These researchers have developed questioning techniques intended to advance students through certain levels of operation in scientific inquiry. These levels have been identified and defined in a rather specific hierarchy; for example, a level of "episode analysis” in which the student engages in identifying and measuring parameters is followed, in the view of Suchman, by a level of "determination of • L^J. Richard Suchman, The Elementary School Training Program in Scientific Inquiry (Urbana: University of Illinois, 1962). relevance" in which the student is primarily concerned i i !with identification of necessary and sufficient conditions, which in turn gives way to a level related to forming and testing theoretical constructs.^ The methods devised by !Suchman seem to be directed primarily toward teaching students to direct appropriate questions. This emphasis on appropriate questioning as of greatest importance follows the conclusions made much earlier by Wendell |Johnson,^ who suggested in 1947 that the asking of : inappropriate questions was a major cause of mental illness. Appropriate questioning in science leads to experiment, to hypothesizing, to more directed research, and to appropriate evaluation. To develop the art of | questioning would seem to attack the ability to inquire most directly. The process in formal education may frequently take the student through the three stages suggested by Whitehead**-8 and repeated by Hawkins,19 beginning with a romatic stage in which students "mess about in science." Hawkins has seen this as a very long Richard Suchman, "Inquiry Training in the Elementary School," The Science Teacher, XXVII, No. 2 (November, 1960), 42-45. ^Wendell Johnson, People in Quandaries (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946). ^Alfred North Whitehead, The Aims of Education (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1929). i^David Hawkins, "Messing About in Science," Science and Children, II, No. 5 (February, 1965), 5-7. 23 period in the students' programs that may be followed by more formal individual studies and culminated in teacher- pupil formal discussions. The major curriculum studies in science in recent years (a brief summary of some of these studies is included in Teaching Science by Inquiry in the Secondary 2 n School ) have attempted to contribute still another dimension to the efforts to direct the learning of inquiry techniques. This has been an attempt to define the relationship between how humans inquire and what it is that humans inquire about. Such efforts have led to the definition by working scientists of those major concepts forming the framework of the scientific enterprise. The NSTA Curriculum Committee has attempted to formulate a statement of accomplishments in this area. This group has emphasized three aspects of science that should command attention in a well developed science program: natural science as a basis for all science, technology, and science proper. The teaching of science proper, including an understanding of science as a process, was described as an area that has been long neglected but which is vital to a genuine knowledge of science. Ability in this area was defined as ability to use scientific processes within 20Robert B. Sund and Leslie W. Trowbridge, Teaching Science by Inquiry in the Secondary School (Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967), p. 108. 24 the conceptual framework of science. Theory Into Action.21 a statement prepared by the NSTA under the guidance of Paul deHart Hurd, was an outline of seven such Conceptual schemes” for the content of science and five "Major items in the process of science." There has been some reaction |to this paper among biologists who have viewed the conceptual framework so defined as too limiting to provide ja sound base for the biological sciences. Consequently - BSCS has outlined the nine themes forming the conceptual j framework for the biological sciences. These' themes were i [presented in Chapter I. The methods with which scientists test this conceptual framework have not been so clearly defined. In fact, many scholars have repeated the notion stated by P. W. Bridgeman that "the scientists have no other method than doing their damnedest."^ Indeed, Abraham Kaplan has warned that preoccupation with methodology is "congenitally self-defeating."^3 Still, attempts have been md.e to define methods of inquiry or, at least, to identify well accepted techniques of inquiry. One such attempt has been 23-Paul deHart Hurd, Theory Into Action, national Science Teachers Association, 1964. 22P. W. Bridgeman, The Logic of Modern Phvsics (New Xork: The Macmillan Company, 1928)• S^Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct _bf Inquiry (New Xork: Chandler Publishing Co., 1964), p. 23. 25 that previously discussed in relation to the work of Suchman. Bloom and Smith have suggested aspects of the process of science that should be included in instruc- t i ona1 pr pgr ams: observing questioning exploring exper imenting measuring concluding predicting communicating24 Joseph Schwab and others who aided in the develop ment of the BSCS Biology Teacher1s Handbook have developed forty-four "Invitations to Enquiry,” incorporating those experiences within the process of science appropriate for high school students.^5 These invitations take the form of problem situations dealing with specific inquiry skills to be dealt with in conversation among students or between student and teacher. The invitations so developed were intended to illustrate certain aspects of inquiry and may serve to illustrate inquiry training as it is perceived by BSCS. The experiences are grouped under these general titles: 24gamuel Bloom and Paul E. Smith, "Science Curriculum Today and Tomorrow," Science and Children, III, No. 3 (November, 1965), 16. ^Joseph Schwab (ed.), The Biology Teachers' Handbook (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963), p. 8. 26 1. The role and nature of general knowledge. 2. Interpreting data. 3. Exper imenting. | 4. Use of controls. i ' 5. The role of hypotheses. i 6. The concept of casual lines. i 7. Quantitative relationships. 8. The concept of function. I 9. The concept of the self regulatory organism. j !The process of inquiry as reflected in these invitations j suggests training in specific skills of observing and interpreting data, while developing an understanding of the conceptual framework, the underlying historical background land consequent assumptions, within which the observation i I and interpretation is to be done. Through this form of inquiry training it is hoped that students can discover, . . . That science is something more than merely lear ning from others what others already know. He finds that science is also an activity of the mind, a challenge to the imagination, and a place where thought and invention are rewarded.26 The teaching of science as inquiry seems to be justifiable in terms of the educational objective of helping students to learn to learn. Students caught up in the interaction between facts and theories, between observations and ideas, hopefully become caught up in a 26Ibid., p. 47. 27 never ending circle of learning- This would seem to be a more certain occurrence if the inquiry is given meaning through what has become known as the discovery method. The two notions— inquiry and discovery— are so closely related as to be considered often as synonyms- The discovery method usually identifies a teaching technique in which students are guided in study and questioning to the point at which they can form tentative conclusions for themselves. The method may find roots in the gestalt concept of closure. Coupled with the development of inquiry techniques, a student’s progress may be seen to be led through learnings of selected facts, association of the facts into a conceptual framework which may then be closed into an idea which the student sees as his own. This closure on the major ideas may supply intellectual motivation for further studies. It is this hope that prompted emphasis on inquiry and discovery and the semi system that has been the subject of this investigation. Biological Science; Patterns and Processes. Science and the Educationally Disadvantaged A certain percentage of the students in any high school attend their classes but seldom meet with success in their academic work. They are sometimes accused of being inherently dull, not interested in school, slow to learn, 28 j too lazy, and day dreamers. Featherstone^ has provided such a list of qualities and has suggested methods for dealing with slow learners in school. Evaluation of the success of students using the first three biology programs i ! devised by the BSCS88 indicated that a rather large group | j of students, sometimes estimated as between 25 and 33 per cent of the tenth grade students, could be classed as slow j | based on failure to succeed with these versions. In 1962, j prodded by this information, the BSCS joined the ranks of i I educators everywhere who had for many years been concerned i about the question, "Who are the students who are not profiting from school, and how shall the schools provide for them?" Reports of the works of such men as Riessman, ! Pearl,Kavaraceus,88 and Conant8^ - have contributed recently to a better understanding of the students who do not succeed in school. The studies have been especially fruitful in that they have caused educators to be aware of 8^William Bland Featherstone, Teaching the Slow Learner (New York: Teacher's College Columbia, 1951), p. 47. 88Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, The Teacher and BSCS Special Materials, BSCS Special Publication No. 4, 1966. 29Arthur Pearl, and Frank Riessman, New Careers for for the Poor (New York: The Free Press, 1965). 30william Kavaraceus, "Alienated Youth Here and Abroad," Phi Delta Kappan, XLV, No. 2 (November, 1963), 87-90. 81James Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1961). 29 the many different reasons for a student to find himself in a particular educational setting. The results of some teachers with educationally disadvantaged students, such teachers as Sylvia Ashton-Warner, * Pearl, and William J o h n t z 3 3 have cast more doubts on traditionally held notions about slow learners. These teachers have had great success in teaching students reading, mathematics, and other school subjects through methods largely dependent on the stimulus of intellectual accomplishment and the involvement of the students deeply in every phase of their own education. The most obvious questions have been those leading to current investigations of the meaning of intelligence. These investigations have led away from the traditionally held concept of intelligence as raw material that provided possibilities but imposed limits, to an increasing awareness of the possibility suggested by Bruner and Piaget for continual development of the intellect. A review of such studies and of the unsteady bases often used to pregroup students for study led to BSCS Special Materials Committee to reject most restrictive notions of slow learners and to base its work on the assumption that everyone can learn if the learning 32sylvia Ashton-Warner, Teacher (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), p. 65. 33william P. Johntz, Some Myths About Disadvantaged Students (a paper prepared for participants in Project SEED), December, 1966. . “... 30 1 ! atmosphere is such as to develop confidence and self- i respect through academic success. It was the hope of the BSCS committee to avoid a possible serious error that might arise from preparation j of materials based on descriptions of students in terms of their limited cultural or psychological preparations. This was to be a radical departure from current studies in | education. Most studies seem to aim at identification of j causal factors which can be used to account for the student's educational difficulties. These causal factors i have been found to be numerous and include inherent intellectual ability, cultural differences, lack of ! appropriate adult models, poor health, neurological | impairment, emotional problems, the way the student had | been previously taught, language difficulties because ; English is not a native language, and use of a non standard English outside of school. As has been pointed out by David Goslin3^ and by Thomas Mahan,3^ educational programs based on student background and supposed causal factors tend to specialize education in an undesirable way, resulting in the categorizing and stereotyping of 34i)avid Goslin, The Search for Ability: Standard ized Testing in Social Perspective (New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, 1961). 35Thomas Mahan, "The Slow Learner, Fact or Excuse," School Review, LXXIII, No. 2 (Summer, 1965), 77-88. 31 students and thus limiting the opportunities open to them both within and outside of the school. A more effective phrasing of the questions concerning the nature of the slow learner might be, "What do we know about the student who has not and is not profiting from the conventional school program that is relevant to helping him gain from his school experience?” The studies of the BSCS committee revealed these characteristics, one or more of which are often repre sentative of the academically unsuccessful student as he is seen in school: 1. He has difficulty dealing with symbols, particu larly written verbal and mathematical symbols. 2. He has not learned basic skills necessary for dealing with written language and quantitative relationships. 3. He has difficulty concentrating on school tasks. 4. He has difficulty in expressing in oral and/or written language what he does know and think. 5. He has difficulty realizing the significance of what he is asked to do. 6. He is unwilling to carry school activities beyond campus. 7. He has difficulty in taking tests. 8. He is antagonistic to school and school authority. 9. He is convinced he can't learn, but at the same time seems to refuse to acknowledge his academic problem. 10. He is a behavioral problem. . 32 j 11. He has a poor attendance record. j 12. He is apathetic and indifferent. But the student who possesses one or more of the above characteristics may have demonstrated his potential I in some of the following ways: I 1. He is able to cope with a very difficult environment. 1 2. He is very inventive in the use of non-standard oral language. 3. He is able to progress and to be successful when | dealing with things in which he is interested. 4. He is able to concentrate for long periods of time when dealing with things of interest to him. 5. In some optimum academic situations, he has been successful. 6. He shows considerable insight into human behavior.; 7. He imaginatively attempts to frustrate the school system. 8. He is creative, that is, approaches and deals with various situations in unusual or unconven tional, but appropriate ways.36 These characteristics.and reports of teachers who seemed to have success with the academically unsuccessful students suggested a possible approach to the BSCS committee. Teachers had reported that one of the strong points of such students was their ability to work satisfactorily in laboratory activities. The committee 36;eiological Sciences Curriculum Study, The Teacher and BSCS Special Materials, BSCS Special Publication No. 4, 1966. 33 wished to capitalize on this in developing student's interest in biology. This student interest in the study of biology through successes as a science student was a primary objective of the new program. A second objective was the development of the ability to make generalizations ■and to form new concepts. The committee position was that I !students had difficulty with generalizing because he had |not had enough practice in this skill. A suggested I approach could be the construction of materials so that |they would lead from laboratory activities, in small steps, I from one fact to another and eventually to a generalization ■ and then to a new concept. These two objectives, student i interest and ability to generalize, suggest the factors to i | be considered in evaluating the program. The students' ; failure with standardized testing procedures suggest that any evaluation must be done in some other manner and in such a way as to contribute to the overall attempt to personalize the program. It would seem appropriate to attempt an evaluation suggested by the Educational Policies Commission of the NEA in its list of attitudes needed by teachers of the disadvantaged: "Has the ability and the willingness to see things from the eyes of the students."37 ^Educational Policies Commission, Education and the Disadvantaged American (Washington: National Education Association, 1962). Research Related to BSCS Biology The work of the BSCS has been the object of a great many evaluative studies. The BSCS has itself been active in various approaches— from the use of student tests to the collection of teacher reactions and the compilation of biologists' comments. The BSCS has encouraged and sometimes supported independent studies. Four such studies will illustrate the wide range of investigations under taken in support of the ongoing BSCS program. Using the Cornell "Test of Critical Thinking" and the ETS "Test on Op Understanding Science,” LaVar Sorensen studied the value of laboratory oriented biology programs over the lecture- demonstration centered program. His conclusion supports the decision of the BSCS Special Materials Committee to prepare a laboratory oriented semi-system. Since it is a conviction of the BSCS that the teacher is the most important single element in implementing any program, several attempts have been made to study teaching 38LaVar L. Sorensen, "Change in Critical Thinking Between Students in Laboratory-Centered and Lecture- Demonstration-Centered Patterns of Instruction in High School Biology” (unpublished study involving the Salt Lake City Schools, 1965). attitudes and teaching strategies. Jacob Blankenship^ developed a teachers attitude inventory with which he studied BSCS teachers and found them most effective if they I S jranked high in independent thought and if they had taught Ibiology for three years or less. James Gallagher‘ S® made i |an intensive study of teaching styles using tape recordings iof actual classroom procedures and found considerable |difference in styles of teachers using the same materials. I The BSCS materials themselves have been examined for |content against their own stated objectives. George i Turner^l prepared a check list of elements of scientific inquiry and analyzed BSCS laboratory activities in terms of these elements. The BSCS has been responsible for the | development of some evaluative instruments. Most widely known of these instruments are the "Comprehensive Final Examination in First Year Biology" and the "Processes of Science Test." The Comprehensive Final Examination has been found to be very highly correlated with the three 3®Jacob W. Blankenship, "An Analysis of Certain Characteristics of Biology Teachers in Relation to their Reactions to the BSCS Program (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas, May, 1964). 4°James J. Gallagher, "Teacher Variation in Concept Presentation in BSCS Curriculum Program, " Biological Sciences Curriculum Newsletter No. 30 (1967), pp. 8-19. 4 1 - G e o r g e Cleveland Turner, "An Analysis of Scientific Inquiry as Used in a BSCS Laboratory Program" (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1965). 36 original versions, particularly with Blue Version, and with measures of academic ability. It is the opinion of this author that it would serve no useful purpose and might even be detrimental to the achievement of objectives :of the course to be investigated in this study. i j The present study was undertaken in spirit of i jongoing study of the BSCS program and was an attempt to |view the semi-system, Biological Science: Patterns and Processes from the vantage point of the student in terms of its effect on interest and ability to form generaliza- ;tions as a result of student activities. The study was ,patterned after the method of critical incidents as 'outlined by Flanagan^ and used by him in the study of a j wide range of vocational applications for purposes of I defining job specifications. The method has been applied to educational problems in several incidences. One of these was reported by Ryans,43 who studied some qualities of 1500 Los Angeles teachers in an effort to define qualities of good teaching. The study of attitudes and interests is a difficult undertaking. The problems of such studies have been well ^2John Clemens Flanagan, The Aviation Psychology Program in the Army Air Forces (Washingtons U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948). 43David Ryans, Characteristics of Teachers, Their Description, Comparison, and Appraisal (Washington: American Council on Education, 1962). 37 defined by Shaw and Wright.^ They have raised questions of the meanings of the terms attitude and interest, and distinction of these terms from opinion. Questions of abilities to alter attitudes have also been raised. | Nevertheless, many studies have been undertaken in this j area. Tools used have attempted in many ways to uncover | underlying feelings that might for one reason or another be masked. Thurstone,45 Likert,^ and Guttman^ have | pioneered the development of scales requiring reactions to | statements related to a wide range of attitudes. Their scales have ranged from simple problems of agreement or disagreement to scales designed to measure five to seven degrees of intensity. Such scales lend themselves to easy I | tabulation of responses, and to some internal validation ; or construct validation, but leave serious questions as to other validity measures and to problems of equality of units within the scale. Except for reactions from known groups, such as a panel of judges expert in the area in question, validating techniques are difficult to achieve. 4^Marvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1967). L. Thurston, The Measurement of Values (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959). 46r . a . Likert, ”A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes,” Archives of Psychology, No. 140 (1932), pp. 1-55. 47l . A. Guttman, "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data," American Sociological Review, IX (1944), 139-150. 38 ~! ! Other techniques have been used to assess attitudes. j i Osgood and Suci4^5 have developed techniques of semantic ! differential employing statistical techniques of factor | analysis. A technique employing factor analysis known as | the Q-sort49 has been developed in some areas to assess I ; changes in attitudes. This system requires a tedious process for validation that is very time consuming and ; so appears unrealistic for use in such an action research j as the one undertaken here. Other systems have been | attempted. Hammond^® developed a system using rating scales into which known errors had been built in the choices, thus providing opportunity to detect false expressions of attitudes. Kerr^-*- has attempted to develop i attitude measures based on sentence completion. Each method of assessing attitudinal changes seems I to be fraught with difficulty. It would seem wise for one interested in the study of such changes to base 48C . E. Osgood and G. J. Suci, "Factor Analysis of Meaning," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XXXVI (August, 1946), 67. 49George Perry Huff, "Evaluation of Affective Behavior in Student Teachers by Application of Q- Methodology (Ph.D. dissertation, University of South California, 1964). R. Hammond, "Measuring Attitudes by Error- choice: An Indirect Method," Journal of Abnormal Sociology and Psychology, XLIII (1948), 38. 51 W. A. Kerr, Tulane Factors of Liberalxsm- Conservatism (Chicago: Psychological Affiliates, 1946). 39 conclusions on evidence drawn through a variety of independent measures and this is the method undertaken j here. Attitudes have been measured through a scale validated by judgment of the teachers involved. This has ! j been checked by responses gathered from a sample of the students using the method of critical incidents. Further I evidence has been gathered through administration of a test to check whether apparent differences in attitudes ; might be reflected in performance. A final check might | be student response to an invitation to undertake an additional year of study in science. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES Teachers who are normally assigned to teach students of low achievement represent a wide range of experience, age, scientific background, and interest in the assignment. They tend to be selected from among those teachers with limited experience in teaching and/or limited background in the sub^ett. A few teachers 'work with such students by choice. The teachers in this test group represented "a sample of the wide range of abilities among teachers of low achievers. Teacning experience ranged from zero to seventeen years in the field of biology, with three teachers at the zero year level. Academic background was equally varied, from no academic background in the biological sciences to a near completion of the work for a masters degree in biology. The teachers also varied in the number of classes, from one to four. Size of classes ranged from twenty to forty-three. This group was prepared for teaching with the new science program in a two week briefing session in August, 1966. This briefing consisted of becoming familiar with the format of the semi-system, understanding 40 TABLE 2 A DESCRIPTION OF LOS ANGELES CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE TEACHERS* Teacher Academic Degree and Major Holds California Credential Years Taught Biology Classes of Low Achievers Average Class Size A AB, PE no 0 3 43 B AB, Zool. no 0 2 26 C AB, Zool. no 0 2 21 D AB, Latin no 0 1 23 E AB, Geol. yes 0 (20, chem) 2 21 F AB, Zool. no 8 3 33 G MA (8-67) Biol. yes 17 4 31 *Biological Science: Patterns and Processes, 1966-1967 H the conceptual scheme, employing the laboratory techniques used, and understanding the philosophical position of BSCS. The final two days of the briefing session were devoted to evaluation of the program. The group of teachers to be involved, acting as a panel of experts, established those criteria acceptable for estimating student progress. Suggestions found in the teacher's handbook that a wide range of evaluative techniques including "opinions and attitudes of the students" and evaluation by "someone other than myself"^ provided the impetus for developing an evaluative package. An outline of the hypotheses forming the bases for the evaluative package may be stated as follows I 1. Students interests in science and changes in those interests may be indicated by their responses to statements on a questionnaire relating to: (a) selection of science as a possible career field, (b) desire to undertake further study in biology, (c) desire to under take more reading in science materials, and (d) recognition of science and scientific procedures as of personal applicability. ^"Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biological Science Patterns and Processes, Teachers Handbook (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966), p. xxiii. 43 2. Analysis of student records of activities deemed to be most worthwhile will reveal the activities contri buting to changes in student interst and may reveal discontinuities in the semi-system in terms of student i interest. ; 3. A system of student reporting can be established I iin such a way as to reveal the extent to which students |were able to use the semi-system to aid in the development I of the concepts forming the bases of the subject studied. I(The basis for this premise is the instruction to teachers ;in the teachers' handbook:) Each topic identifies a series of ideas which provide a framework for the topic. Each idea is stated before that part of the sequence that develops the idea. These are intended solely as a guide to the teacher. The ideas should not be presented to the students. Rather, the students should develop and discover the ideas through the activities of the sequence. They should be able to state the ideas in their own words.2 4. Students' abilities to use scientific methods of inquiry may be evaluated by examination of their scores on a standardized test. A time schedule for administering the evaluative instruments was established to include responses to a questionnaire and to a standardized test on a pre and post basis, and to include a system for continuous reporting from a sample of the students involved. A questionnaire 2ibid., p. xxv. 44 | following the teacher suggestions and approved by them in I | its final form was devised and completed by the students in! September, 1966 and again in May, 1967. In its final form, j this questionnaire sampled student feelings as related to 'ten statements relating to student interest in science, S ^preference for biology as a school subject, vocational jinterest, and perception of biology as having relevance in ieveryday life. Students were asked to indicate their ! feelings on a five point scale; exactly how I feel, most 'time I feel this way, I am not sure about this, most times :I don't feel this way, I feel exactly the opposite. Responses to these questionnaire items were taken to be indicators of student interest in biology, and changes in ithe responses on readministration were taken to be indicators of student changes in interest in biology. A sample of this questionnaire is included in the appendix. The BSCS developed test, "Processes of Science Test"^ was selected as a suitable test of students' abilities to employ scientific procedures. This test was administered to the students in December, 1966, and a retest was completed in June, 1967. Because of the necessity for involving all the students in the schools in the new biology program, and because these students would not otherwise be offered biology in the schools, no control ^Processes of Science Test, Psychological Corp., 1966. 45 group was possible. Measures of ability and of growth in ability were compared with the norms established by the Psychological Corporation, current publishers of the test. ] A third method of evaluation of the semi—system I was patterned after the method of "critical incidents" as I developed by Flanagan.4 One hundred students were selected from the total student group. These students were interviewed in small groups (four to six students) | in September and October, 1966, and were invited to | participate in this portion of the evaluation. These | students were to report those activities which appeared ! to them to be either most worthwhile or of least value to ; them in the biology class. In order to check on the usage j j of the semi-system in each classroom, the students were to ! ; | report their roll in each activity found to be worthwhile or not worthwhile. In addition, they were asked to report why they felt they should have learned from participation in the activity. As with the questionnaire, provision was made for students to return their reports directly to an independent observer without teacher intervention. In the case of these reports, forms were developed for easy reporting that requested students to record the type of activity, their participation in the activity, why they 4John Clemens Flanagan, "Experimental Evaluation of Selection Procedure," Education and Psychology Manual, XVI, No. 4 (April, 1947), 445-466. TABLE 3 SCHEDULE FOR EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE: PATTERNS AND PROCESSES Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May June Interest questionnaire X X Reporting of critical incidents xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Processes of Science Test X X cri 47 felt it was worthwhile or not worthwhile, and what they felt they were supposed to learn from the activity (see appendix). Reporting was to be done at the student’s discretion. To insure adequate supply without betraying anonymity, reports were returned unsigned and new forms i were delivered to all of the one hundred students each I | month from November, 1966 to May, 1967. These responses were analyzed to determine the activities deemed of most and least worth to the students, to determine the I i efficiency of the elements of the semi-system m enabling students to develop the concepts posed as desired outcomes were clearly stated in the teachers' handbook. Student responses were compared with these statements of desired outcomes as a measure of effectiveness of the program. CHAPTER IV ! PRESENTATION OP DATA BEARING ON i STUDENT ATTITUDES i Results of Questionnaire Concerning Students' Interests in Biology A ten item questionnaire was devised before the I |start of the school year. This questionnaire was submitted to the teachers involved in the program for approval and revision, and was then presented to the students in :September, 1966. The same questionnaire was presented to |the students at the end of the school year in May, 1967. { I Items on the questionnaire were drawn from indicators that i :have been widely used as measures of student attitudes toward science. The statements used in this questionnaire may be grouped into four categories: 1. Statements related to science and biology as a school subject. a. I like to study science. b. Biology is my favorite subject. c. When I finish this course, I would like to take another course in science. 2. Statements related to science as a vocational interest. 48 49 a. I think I might like to find a job in some science field when I graduate. 3. Statements related to general interest in the science field. a. I like to read about science and scientists. b. Scientists work on many kinds of problems that might concern me. 4. Statements related to more personal involvement by the students in the scientific enterprise. a. Science is definitely not for me. b. I don't think I could ever learn to think and work like a scientist. c. Thinking scientifically can help me to learn and understand many new ideas. d. I don't really see how learning to think and act like a scientist will help me. Two hundred ninety-six girls and 218 boys completed the questionnaire both of the times it was presented to the students. These 514 students were directed to mark the questionnaire in such a way as to indicate their feelings about each statement in a five point scale: exactly how I feel, most times I feel this way, I am not sure about this, most times I don’t feel this way, I feel exactly the opposite. A copy of the questionnaire thus prepared is included here. Results were recorded by counting each response for each of the ten statements. TABLE 4 FORM USED FOR ATTITUDE INVENTORY Name__ School Age Grade Sex M F Have you taken a science course before this one? If so, in what grade did you study science? ___ 7 What science did you study? yes ~ T no 10 11 general earth biology chemistry physics science science MARK THE ONE SQUARE FOR EACH SENTENCE Exactly BELOW THAT BEST how I TELLS HOW YOU FEEL feel Most times I feel this way I am not sure about this Most times I don't feel this way_______ I feel exactly the opposite 1. I like to study science 2. Biology is my favorite subject. 3. When I finish this course, I would like to take another science course. u 1 c TABLE 4 (continued) MARK THE ONE SQUARE I am not Most times I feel FOR EACH SENTENCE Exactly Most times sure I don't exactly BELOW THAT BEST how I I feel about feel this the TELLS HOW YOU FEEL______feel_______this way______this________way___________ opposite 4. Science is definitely not for me. 5. I like to read about science and scientists. 6. I think I mifcfht like to find a job in some science field when I graduate. 7. I don't think I could ever learn to think and work like a scientist. 8. Thinking scientifical ly can help me to learn and understand many new ideas. 9. Scientists work on many kinds of problems that might concern me. TABLE 4 (continued) MARK THE ONE SQUARE I am not Most times I feel FOR EACH SENTENCE Exactly Most times sure I don't exactly BELOW THAT BEST how I I feel about feel this the TELLS HOW YOU FEEL feel this way this way opposite 10. I don't really see how learning to think and act like a scientist will help me. ! ! ! 01 to 53 Column totals were achieved by reversing the scores for the three statements that were worded negatively in the questionnaire and then adding all scores in each column. Scores obtained in this manner, when compared to a hypothesized equal distribution of scores in the five j columns, indicated a generally favorable attitude toward j science by both boys and girls at the beginning of the 1 school year. Comparison of these total scores with the totals by each school indicated no difference between schools at the beginning of the year. | Scores on the questionnaire as completed at the end of the school year indicated the same generally favorable orientation toward science. A chi square I measure of the tenability of a null hypothesis that there would be no change in the responses upon retest indicated that the null hypothesis was tenable for boys, but must be rejected for the girls. Comparison of scores on the two administrations of the questionnaire indicated a significant decrease in the scores counted in the center column (I am not sure about this) for the girls. Table 5 indicates the total scores for each column for each administration of the questionnaire. Examination of the responses to the items on the questionnaire suggested that the negative attitude of the boys as indicated by the questionnaire as a whole was largely due to disenchantment with biology as a school TABLE 5 TOTAL SCORES FOR TWO ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE very favorable moderately favorable undecided moderately unfavorable very unfavorable Boys 9/66 725* 504 520 229 202 5/67 705 533 472 238 232 difference -20 29 -48 9 30 Girls 9/66 748* 727 735 353 397 5/67 867 805 596 343 383 difference 119* 78 -139* -10 -14 *p < .01 ui 55 subject. This negative reaction, a reaction of question able significance, seemed to be the result of a shift of these boys who were uncommitted at the beginning of the year to a position of rejection of science subjects. Responses to statements two and three indicated this trend most clearly. Twenty-one fewer boys were "not sure" about their position in relation to science as their favorite subject at the end of the year, while twenty more boys indicated at the end of the year that they were certain or moderately certain that science was not their favorite subject. Twenty-three fewer boys indicated an interest in further study of science at the end of the year than had indicated such an interest at the beginning. Eighteen more boys than at the start of the year indicated that they were not interested in further study of science when questioned at the year's end. The negative shift in attitude was most pronounced in responses to the direct statement of interest in studying science "I like to study science”) and of complete rejection of science ("Science is definitely not for me"). By the end of the year thirty-seven boys had shifted from a positive attitude toward science study to a position of indif ference or of negative reaction, and twenty-one boys reported experiences that persuaded them that science was not for them. A contrast to the generally negative shift in attitudes of the boys was found in responses to a statement (statement nine) that was designed to bear on the boys' awarenesses of the significance of science. In responding to the statement, "Scientists work on many kinds of problems that might concern me," eighty-four boys indicated a moderately favorable orientation at the end of the year as compared with fifty boys who took this position at the start of the year. In the same time twenty-six boys had changed in attitudes toward this statement from positions of indifference or negative orientation. This trend was not apparent in responses to statements concer ning the students own involvement in science or sciencing ("I think I might like to find a job in the science field." "I don't think I could ever learn to think and work like a scientist.” "Thinking scientifically can help me to learn and understand many new ideas.") Such examination of responses to the elements of the question naire suggested that the exposure to this semi-system of instruction in biology served to discourage further science study while helping boys to see that science can and does make some contributions to their lives. At the same time, there seems to be no indication of the boys' personal involvement in the process of science, nor has there been indication that the boys are led to strengthen 57 their image of their own abilities in the science field. Examination of the responses of the girls to the elements of the questionnaire indicated that the very positive change in attitudes of the girls could he ! | attributed to a reaction to the statement, "When X finish ! this course, I would like to take another science course." j Fifty girls shifted from negative reactions or positions of indifference to a positive response to the statement. | Forty-four of these fifty girls indicated a strongly | positive position in responses to the statement. During I the year forty-eight girls changed from positions of ! indifference and nine girls changed from a strongly nega- ■ tive position to positions of more favorable orientation. The positive changes in positions of the girls was i , I continued throughout the ten statements comprising the questionnaire, including an indication of growth in the girls' beliefs in their own abilities to learn science. Responses of the girls to items of the question naire seemed to indicate a growth in interest in studying science, but an interest directed chiefly toward study of science in courses such as this one. At the same time, the girls seemed to grow in their convictions that they were capable of successful science study. Participation in the semi-system appeared to strengthen the girls' awarenesses of science as a significant field of work and 1 TABLE 6 DIFFERENCES IN RESPONSES OF 218 BOYS SEPTEMBER, 1966 TO MAY, 1967 MARK THE ONE SQUARE FOR EACH SENTENCE BELOW THAT BEST TELLS HOW YOU FEEL Exactly how I feel Most times I feel this way I am not sure about this Most times I don't feel this way I feel exactly the opposite 1. I like to study science. -13 -24 26 6 5 1 2. Biology is my favorite subject. 3 -2 -21 15 i 5 3. When I finish this course, I would like to take another science course. 8 -3 -23 2 16 4. Science is definitely not for me. 7 14 -4 -5 -13 5. I like to read about science and scientists. -7 7 4 -2 -1 6. I think I might like to find a job in some science field when I graduate. -8 9 -1 -1 1 7. I don't think I could ever learn to think and work like a scientist. -1 -9 -4 8 5 ui oo TABLE 6 (continued) MARK THE ONE SQUARE FOR EACH SENTENCE BELOW THAT BEST TELLS HOW YOU FEEL Exactly how I feel Most times I feel this way I am not sure about this Most times I don't feel this way I feel | exactly the | opposite ! 8. Thinking scientifically can help me to learn and under stand many new ideas. 3 12 -9 -9 i | I 3 1 1 9. Scientists work on many kinds of problems that might concern me. -9 34 -14 -8 -4 10. I don’t really see how learning to think and act like a scientist will help me. -1 0 -3 -8 12 U1 TABLE 7 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCORES, SEPTEMBER-MAY, GIRLS MARK THE ONE SQUARE FOR EACH SENTENCE BELOW THAT BEST TELLS HOW YOU FEEL Exactly how I feel Most times I feel this way I am not sure about this Most times I don't feel this way I feel exactly the opposite 1. I like to study science. -3 -3 -13 14 5 2. Biology is my favorite subject. 14 10 -30 -1 7 3. When I finish this course, I would like to take another science course. 44 6 -48 7 -9 4. Science is definitely not for me. 13 -10 0 4 -7 5. I like to read about science and scientists. -24 28 15 -18 -1 6. I think I might like to find a job in some science field when I graduate. 0 10 12 -3 -19 7. I don't think I could ever learn to think and work like a scientist. -14 -2 -5 8 13 O TABLE 7 (continued) MARK THE ONE SQUARE FOR EACH SENTENCE BELOW THAT BEST TELLS HOW YOU FEEL Exactly how I feel Most times I feel thi s way . I am not Most times I feel sure I don't exactly j about feel this the ! this______ way_________opposite j 8. Thinking scientifically can help me to learn and understand many new ideas. 31 9. Scientists work on many kinds of problems that might concern me. 26 10. I don't really see how learning to think and act like a scientist will help me. -12 -15 -5 -6 -16 -4 -6 -6 -9 -22 8 35 62 to lead the girls to entertain the possibility of finding vocational choices in the field of science. Results of Analysis of the Reports of Critical Incidents One hundred students who had been invited to submit reports of critical incidents returned 434 such reports. These reports were submitted by mail on a form requesting information bearing on five questions: (1) How long was this activity? (2) What were you doing while this activity was going on? (3) What happened? (4) Why do you feel the activity was worthwhile (or not worth while) ? (5) What do you think you were supposed to learn from this activity? Separate forms for reporting those activities considered not worthwhile and worthwhile were provided to the students. Copies of these forms are included in Appendix A. Seventy-seven of the reports so received were statements from students that they were unable to find any class activities that they felt particularly worthwhile or not worthwhile. Three hundred fifty-seven of the reports cataloged classroom activities the students felt to be significant. Of these reports, 329 were identified as pertaining to activities included in the semi-system under investigation. The remaining twenty-eight responses reported classroom activities not specifically included 63 in the semi-system. These included two reports of viewing films, one report of a special program arranged in one | school by the Southern California Gas Company, three reports of teacher lectures on matters of classroom i discipline, nine reports of animal dissections, and thirteen reports of a teacher designed laboratory activity involving the growing of seedlings. Eighteen of the twenty-eight reports of unrelated activities indicated that the students felt these activities to be worthwhile; one report of a film, one report of the Southern California; Gas Company program, seven reports of the animal dissec tions, and nine reports of the laboratory activity related to growing seedlings, one report of a film viewing, two reports of animal dissections, three reports of teacher lectures on behavior, and four reports of the laboratory activity indicated that the students felt these activities to be not worthwhile. The 329 reports of activities that were elements in the semi-system were distributed over twenty-seven of the 136 activities included in the teachers' handbook. Five reports referred to teacher demonstrations, one to a film recommended as an alternate activity, twenty-four to programed sequences, and 299 to laboratory activities. A description of the twenty-seven activities reported as worthwhile or not worthwhile by the students and the 64 frequency with which they were reported is included in Table 8. Of the 329 responses that referred to activities listed as parts of the semi-system, 214 reported that the i I jactivity noted had been felt to be worthwhile while 115 ; reported the activity to be not worthwhile. A statistical i check on the significance of these figures by the chi- i square method indicated that the trend toward a favorable ! attitude toward the elements reported was significant | (P C.01). A further examination of the total number of j favorable and unfavorable responses indicated that the : elements of this semi-system were more attractive to girls i than to boys. Boys reported seventy-five activities felt I to be worthwhile and sixty-six that were felt to be not | worthwhile, a statistically insignificant (.70 >P >.50) tendency toward a favorable response. Girls reported 139 examples of activities felt to be worthwhile as opposed to fifty-one examples of activities that were not worthwhile. The chi-square test of significance showed this to be significant trend toward a favorable attitude toward the elements of the semi-system (PC-01). Table 9 indicates the number of reports for each activity listed as worthwhile and not worthwhile by the students reporting. Thirteen activities were reported by more than ten students. These activities could be analyzed statistically by the method of chi-square and TABLE 8 DESCRIPTION OF TWENTY-SEVEN ACTIVITIES REPORTED AS CRITICAL INCIDENTS Teachers 1 Handbook Identification Type of Activity as Indicated in Teachers1 Handbook Frequency of Reports as Critical Incidents Ecology Topic S-l Optional Laboratory Activity 2 S-4 Laboratory Activity 5 S-6 Programed Sequence 9 S-10 Laboratory Activity 12 S-ll Laboratory Activity (Field Study) 10 S-15 Laboratory Activity 70 S-17 Programed Sequence 12 S-19 Laboratory Activity 4 S-21 Laboratory Activity 41 Alternate, p. 57 Field Study 11 S-27 Laboratory Activity 7 S-28 Laboratory Activity 15 Cell Energy Topics S-30 Laboratory Activity 15 2-b, p. 72 Demonstration 3 S-35 Laboratory Activity 11 S-37 Laboratory Activity 16 2-d, p. 83 Demonstration 4 S-42 Laboratory Activity 16 2-f, p. 95 Demonstration 1 p. 106-7 Student Designed Laboratory Activity 10 ui TABLE 8 (continued) Teachers' Handbook Identification Type of Activity as Indicated in Teachers' Handbook Frequency of Reports as Critical Incidents S-54 Laboratory Activity 9 S-56 Laboratory Activity 2 Reproduction Topic S-76 Laboratory Activity' 7 S-83 Laboratory Activity 26 S-88 Programed Sequence 3 Genetics Topic p. 204 Family History Chart 6 Film, p. 249 "DNA, Molecule of Heredity 1 329 I C T > TABLE 9 WORTHWHILE AND NOT WORTHWHILE ACTIVITIES AS OF CRITICAL INCIDENTS INDICATED BY REPORTS Element of Semi-system Reported Worthwhile Boys Girls Total Reported Not Worthwhile Boys Girls Total S-l 1 0 1 1 0 1 S-4 0 0 0 4 1 5 S-6 7 0 7 0 2 2 S-10 1 1 2 4 6 10*** S-ll 1 0 1 5 4 9 S-15 20 29 49* 18 3 21 S-17 3 1 4 2 6 8 S-19 0 1 1 2 1 3 S-21 11 19 30* 7 4 11 Alternate, p. 57 0 9 9 1 1 2 S-27 1 5 6 1 0 1 S-28 0 13 13** 0 2 2 S-30 3 5 8 3 4 7 2-b, p. 72 0 0 0 2 1 3 S-35 1 8 9 1 1 2 S-37 1 9 10 2 4 6 2-d, p. 83 1 3 4 0 0 0 S-42 5 8 13*** 1 2 3 TABLE 9 (continued) Element of Semi-system Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total 2-f, p. 95 0 0 0 0 1 1 p. 106-7 4 4 8 2 0 2 S-54 2 3 5 2 2 4 S-56 0 0 0 2 0 2 S-76 1 3 4 1 2 3 S-83 10 13 23* 3 0 3 S-88 1 0 1 1 1 2 p. 204 0 3 3 1 2 3 Film, p. 209 0 1 1 0 0 0 74 139 213 66 50 116 * P ** p * * * p .05 .10 .15 C O using the Yates correction for small numbers. An addi tional four elements were reported seven or more times. The method of chi-square using the Yates correction was also applied to these four elements, but for this small a sample the method has somewhat less validity. Why Students Accepted or Rejected Elements of the Semi-System Along with responses to the question of the value of various elements of the semi-system, the selected students were asked to give reasons for their evaluation of the element as worthwhile or not worthwhile. Two hundred seventy responses offered such reasons. As these responses were analyzed, it was found possible to group the responses according to a few common factors responsible for the students' reactions. Nine categories served to classify all of the responses in which the students expressed dissatisfaction with the element, another nine categories formed as system for grouping the responses expressing the view that elements were worthwhile. Students reported elements to be not worthwhile because of: 1. Failure— lack of success with the element. 2. Purposelessness— students failed to see clearly the purpose of the element. 3. Repetition— the element was unnecessary; repetition of work already done. 4. Distastefulness— odor, appearance of materials, et cetera were offensive. | 5. Ease— the material was too easy. 6. Difficulty— the material was beyond the I capability of the student. 7. Disorder— unruly class contributed to poor ! learning. 8. Inadequate teaching— poor teacher preparation for the element. 9. Involvement— students felt no personal involvement in the activity. Reasons for considering elements worthwhile fell | into these groups: 1. Interesting subject. 2. Interesting use of scientific equipment. 3. Successful completion of work. 4. . Information gained was applicable to future learning. 5. The element offered a new kind of experience. 6. Students had opportunity to correct errors. 7. Students related this element to other elements of the semi-system. 8. Students felt personal involvement with the element. 9. The experience offered intellectual challenge. V P OJ (T H <T to H 1 / 1 to cn co i i CO 00 oo oj cn co co i i i Cn 4s cn its -J to to C O Hi Pi I ' * OJ •O b VO 00 ( J 1 U) C O C O C O I I I U > U) to cn O 00 C O > C O I H I to r t to -O . | - > * 0 1 cn 4S to OJ H H H to OJ I - 1 00 cn CO (Til H 00 H O H to t£ > O O OJ O OJ O 0 0 0 3 C O C O C O I I I H H H O V Jl H i t s 4s to OJ H H to to 4s to to to 00 C O H 0T- cn co co I i cn h H OJ H M H H H Interesting Subject Good use of Science equip. Experiment Successful Application to future Learning New Experience Opportunity to Correct errors Related to other elements Personal Involvement Intellectual Challenge » S3 i-3 £3 3 ■* > 2 ° W B 50 f H w F F M h H - CO O W H Q 6S K| Q CO H F 1 t-3 CO - j H H H coco cococo to NJ CO II III Hi Oj I 03 00 ' ' 0o 00 00 On 4s> *0 vj tt *0 * * t£ > 00 in 00 CO CO CO CO " [> 'CO CO CO CO III I H I III ooooto to rt to t —■ i —■ [ —* O n O O O *vl • H " v i o n n 13 on • v j to tO H H H on to H H on 4 s . €0 O J 00 I — 1 M to to cn o j o j ' j h 00 to to to H H 00 tfi. to to H t O H on H o on H O 00 o j to oo H on to H H O On H H H H cn to oo H H on Interesting Subject Good use of Science equip. Experiment Successful Application to future learning New Experience Opportunity to correct errors Related to other elements Personal involvement Intellectual Challenge H I> cn o S3 cn > cn Q H S < o M ! 2 ! •3 s o f f iw H E t* H H * cn 1 - 3 o H H 2 s O r1 CO td td S3 ►3 cn t3 M •o to 73 Of the girls, 51.4 per cent reported that oppor tunity to participate in a new experience was the major i reason for considering an activity worthwhile. This was j i | the reason most often given for a positive reaction to the ' j three elements most commonly listed as worthwhile, the I elements S-15, S-21, and S-83. Second to novelty as a ; reason for their choice, the girls indicated that aware- i ness of a relationship between the elements selected and i [ \ the learning of future elements was a major reason for considering the element to be worthwhile. While girls did not consider interest in the subject matter to be a major criterion for determining the worth of an activity, boys reported this to be their ; reason in 19.1 per cent of the cases. This was second onlyl i to novelty (23.5 per cent) as a reason for selection of a "worthwhile" activity by the boys. While boys included a wide variety of reasons (including eight of the nine categories) for their selection of the element, S-15, the interesting subject matter was the most frequently given reason. Reasons for selecting an element to be "not worthwhile" seemed to fall predominately into two groups— lack of success, and failure to see a real purpose in the activity. The same element most frequently listed as worthwhile, S-15, was selected more often than any other element as not worthwhile by the boys because they felt a 74 lack of success with the laboratory manipulations. Ten boys listed this reason for dislike of the activity. Failure was reported as the reason for the boys rejecting j | an activity in 33 per cent of the cases, second only to purposelessness (36.8 per cent). The same two reasons were given by the girls for rejection— lack of success and purposelessness. However, only 25 per cent of the girls suggested failure as a reason as compared with the 33.3 per cent of the boys. And only one girl reported this to be a reason for rejecting the element S-15, a laboratory study of a yeast population. Girls more often listed failure as a reason ; for rejecting S-10, an exercise in estimating density of a i population. This analysis of student responses to the questions, "Why did you feel that this activity was worthwhile?” or "Why did you feel that this activity was not worthwhile?", seemed to indicate that, while they may have been somewhat retarded in school achievement, the students in this pro gram were concerned with learning and with learning ideas that were clearly significant in terms of novelty and in terms of future usefulness. These students seemed to have a low tolerance for failure, but the boys differed from the girls in the expressed criteria for failure. All the boys who suggested that failure was a reason for rejecting the activity expressed this failure in terms of difficulty 75 in completing laboratory investigations as directed, that is in terms of failures in manipulations. "We messed it up." "We broke eight microscopes." "Who wants to pick up bugs and digging your hands into the flowers." "I for lone got infected." "When it was half way over we added the acid— started eating away everything because that is when it got hot." "We never hardly finished the experi ment, something always goes wrong." This failure in 'manipulations was indicated by 50 per cent of the girls |who gave failure as a reason for rejecting an activity. jHowever, the girls were more inclined than were the boys to indicate failure in terms of their own failure to draw satisfactory conclusions and understandings from the |activity. In one case, failure related to grades. Examination of student responses gathered after the pattern of a "critical incidents" technique suggest three elements of the system to have been most successful in eliciting responses from students, both boys and girls, and in eliciting positive reactions. The nature of these elements will be the subject of a later section of this writing. Sixty Selected Reports of Students Giving Reasons for Selections of Critical Incidents 1. We learned and really found out for our own selves the interaction of communities. .... ..’ ... ” * 76 2. It was worthwhile because it covered a subject that none of the students had ever covered and it showed a good example of the human embryos develop-j ment. 3. It was almost like a human being . . . for one I week we examined different stages of chick embryos. 4. We had to do it all ourselves and we got a lot out of it. 5. I never saw before the development of a chick embryo, everything seemed very fascinating. 6. If there were more things offered to any biology class I feel they could accelerate even more taking in new thoughts and ideas. Also they could bring up discussion without the need of a book and ! do different experiments that are not offered. 7. It showed the growth of the yeast culture. Like that of the population of the world, and to me this was quite interesting. 8. I think this activity was worthwhile because it was very interesting, and you learn how things will populate, and how they will die without food, so no one cannot live without any food. 9. I learned from it all of the above and I found out that the more exercise we did, the more CC>2 showed up. 10. I could feel my hand getting warmer in a matter of seconds. I felt the changes and its good to experiment on different things. 11. It was fun doing the exercises and seeing why when we did exercise we had to add more drops of NaOH than in the control. 12. Because we all found out how we really do use all of our energy. That's why it's important to eat good, get sunshine. 13. I think it was interesting to see the temperature go up when our hand was in motion. 77 14. Because from that I learned that breathing is a 1:1 basis of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Also that your breathing increased as your action did. 15. Prom it I was to learn that the CC>2 I gave off was produced more when I did the vigorous exercise. 16. Because I learned that the more exercise you did the more carbon dioxide you give off and it goes into the air, since it is a gas, and the plants live from it. 17. Exactly how much more CC>2 you give off when you exercise vigorously than mildly. 18. 1 couldn't see where you would be able to use the information from this activity in any other lab. 19. I feel that it was worthwhile because I learned something that X didn't know before. We made mistakes but we learned by them. 20. Well I think it was worthwhile because if we are going to do any work when we get out of school we would probably have to do this. I know I would. 21. Well, first, it helps me in learning how to graph in science and in math. It gives me a foundation. 22. It was not worthwhile because I know it would not help me in the future. 23. I think I supposed to learn that by doing a project such as this one. One must do it on his own in order to understand it more thoroughly. And I also learned that these cells can reproduce and even decrease in the change from day to day. And I think it was a worthwhile project and I certainly enjoyed doing this project. 24. First we made some slides on the cell, took notes and drew different kinds. It was worthwhile because I learned something. 25. I think I will learn the real true nature of different developing experiments. You just don't have to believe what the book say or what the teacher say. You can experiment and find out for yourself. It's very exciting to do the experiment 78 and see what the results are. If the experiment doesn't come out right, you can think of a lot of reason why it do what it was supposed to. It is just like creating your own ideas and experiment. It makes me feel like I am a scientist who study for years. 26. We saw how this one animal reacted to things and we did it ourselves. Doing things in teams is more fun, interesting and we learn more. 27. Because we could actually observe all the changes of our animal or insect. We can make our own hypothesis. We can experiment with them because we would know what results or changes would be made. 28. Because it gave us the experience of using our own minds and trying to do things for ourselves. 29. I feel the activity was worthwhile because it helped me how to measure things, put in just the right amount and also to know what a little piece of yeast could do. And what it looks like in case I see it again. And because I did most of the experiment. 30. We are studying biology and we must always be involved in experiments either with sister or on our own. This experiment was on our own and therefore we enjoyed it more. We also learned more. 31. I feel this activity was worthwhile because you learn to experiment and find out why things hap pened the way they did. It was interesting finding ways of doing this and sharing your ideas with everyone. This is the way we learned to experiment and invent ideas of our own. 32. You felt as though you were a real scientist and doing an experiment completely on your own and observing your animal through a period of a month. It makes you feel completely responsible for the life or death of your little being. 33. How to disect and make my brain work more efficiently with acadental thinking and exploring more into science and scientific activity. 79 34. Yes, because it taight us to keep accurate count and it let us take part in the experiments. 35. The purpose of the experiment and the steps you take in doing the experiment. So that if you or myself was to do the experiment we could know every step. 36. You do it yourself. 37. We put these objects into two groups, living and non-living groups. It was to easy. It was more like for a child in the sixth grade. 38. We found the grouping of figures at the beginning of the book lasted about a week and a half. It just didn't interest me. I really don't see the full purpose of it. It was in my opinion a waste of time. 39. I feel this was not worthwhile because, what are we going to learn from this? How is this going to help us later in life? It was just a waste of time for me. 40. I thought this activity was not worthwhile because I didn't see that was helping us or going to help us in the future. 41. It shows us that even the smallest organizames react and function, the same as the human body. 42. First we made a mixture of meat, grass and some other things. Everyone knew that life be formed and two the water gave an awfull smell to the lab. 43. Because all we really did was go outside, square off a few yards and count the like weeds and unlike weeds, that was really senseless to me, but in a way it was alright because we learned two techniques which was good. 44. I didn't get any message across and it was boring. 45. It was worthwhile in a way that we had to carry out a experiment, so it made us think intel ligently. This activity sort of like developed our minds for the coming activities. 80 46. I don't think it really matters as long as X learned something, and I did. 47. It show a corn seed could germinated from agar and how in a dark place with the right environ ment a person could produce a some mold and later have several colonies of mold. Also that agar is a good nutrient for some types of corn and also for some types of mold. 48. I never before saw the development of a chick embryo everything seemed very fascinating. Sometimes our little chick stood alive for a while. Sister told us to compare this to an abortion and this gave me an deeper view of what reproduction is and how everything happens. I learned a lot. 49. Because it was almost like a human being. 50. We were to take a count on how many canopy, sub canopy, shrubs, grasses, and floor covering of the plant population there are on our school property along with animal population. We learned and really found for our own selves the interactions of these communities. 51. Well the way I feel is that I'm not being taught with the fullest of knowledge in other words my biology teacher does not prepare or give me the proper background for these experiments. 52. Because it did not relate to anything. 53. Once you know how to do a graph and what goes into it, its not necessary to do so many. I know graphs are important but its not necessary to do so many. 54. Because we never heardly finish any of the experiment something always goes wrong. 55. Because the experiment was a failure, and was a waste of time. 56. To me, it was like for a seventh grader. Everything I saw I already knew about. 57. I feel the activity was worthwhile because, even though, the first experiment was a failure, we observed and what we did wrong, and began to experiment over, and was a success. 58. We messed it up. 59. The activity was worthwhile because from doing it twice we were able to correct our error. Thus in counting our yeast cells the second time an accurate count was made and we were able to find out where the error or errors were made. 60. It made me responsible for counting the yeast cell each day and by this I learned why they increased and decreased. End of the Year Reactions Some check on the data gathered by the method of critical incidents was accomplished through a variation of the method attempted at the end of the year. All students involved in the program were asked at the end of the year to describe the one science activity in the years program that "made you feel most like a scientist.” Three hundred fifty-five responses gathered in this manner referred to elements of the semi-system. Forty-seven gave as the experience that made them feel most like a scientist an activity involving animal dissection. Such activities, while potentially related to the program, were not specifically included in the system. Forty-six students failed to respond to this request for information. Distribution of the 355 responses over the elements of the semi-system and by schools is shown in Table 12. This information supported the data gathered by the "critical incidents" method on I that fifty-one students listed the activity, S-15, as the activity in which they felt most like a scientist. S-83 jwas listed by 151 students. S-21 was somewhat less [successful as measured against this criterion, being listed by only three students as the activity that made jthem feel most like a scientist. This end of the year analysis provided some data i ibearing on the question of the teacher variable. While, las test data presented later will reveal, this variable Iwas considerable; a semi-system of such detail should j provide a reasonable tool for a wide variety of teaching- jlearning situations. While an element may be more effec tive when used by one teacher rather than another, it may be said that an element of the system has been effective if it can be demonstrated to be effective in a wide variety of situations. The element S-15 demonstrated value when measured against this criterion. About 10 per cent of the students of each teacher involved reported that this activity made them feel most like a scientist. S-83 was so listed by more than 30 per cent of the students in each of four schools. An interrogation of the other two schools revealed that one teacher had been ill at the time this element was to have been presented. In this school the element was omitted, while in the second school from which TABLE 12 RESPONSES TO DIRECTIONS, "DESCRIBE ONE ACTIVITY FROM THIS BIOLOGY COURSE THAT MADE YOU FEEL MOST LIKE A SCIENTIST." Total Responses from Boys Responses from Girls Responses Verb. D. Cath. Total Lor. Queen Conaty S.H. Total General reac tion to experiments 66 12 10 22 7 18 6 13 44 Reports of out of program dissections 47 39 7 46 0 1 0 0 1 No response to instruction 46 2 32 34 7 4 0 1 12 Elements of semi-system S-4 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 S-15 51 9 13 22 4 6 7 12 29 S-21 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 Alt. p. 57 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 S-30 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 S-35 10 0 7 7 0 3 0 0 3 S-37 9 1 2 3 2 0 2 2 6 2-d. p. 83 5 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 5 S-42 12 0 3 3 0 8 1 0 9 00! W j TABLE 12 (continued) Total Responses Responses from Boys Responses from Grils Verb. D. Cath. Total Lor. Queen Conaty S.H. Total S-47 16 3 0 3 1 3 9 0 13 S-54 17 1 11 12 2 1 2 0 5 S-62 12 0 2 2 2 2 0 6 10 S-77 26 0 3 3 20 1 2 0 23 S-83 151 48 0 48 0 14 70 19 103 S-88 14 1 9 10 3 1 0 0 4 S-91 21 0 0 0 19 2 0 0 21 S-117 4 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 514 118 100 218 71 70 101 54 296 I 0 0 it was not listed among the responses, the teacher performed the element in a manner not prescribed by the authors of the program— as a demonstration rather than as ! | a laboratory activity. It may be noted that 189 students responded by reporting elements bearing on the topic of reproduction and an additional twenty-one students selected an experiment involving matings of Drosophila. It may also ; be significant that forty-seven students reported ! dissections of frogs, worms, crayfish and stingrays— a | dissection not suggested in the program. One hundred fifty-one students choose a study of chick embryology ! involving dissection of chick eggs. Twenty-six others j listed dissection of flowers as the activity in which they felt most like a scientist. Boys reacted most positively to the animal dissections while girls reacted positively to plant dissections. Such reports suggest a student conception of the work of a biological scientist to be laboratory centered and to be directed toward activities involving dissection and consequent destruction of life. CHAPTER V PRESENTATION OF DATA BEARING ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Student Attainment of Objectives of Semi-system A suggestion for evaluation of student progress toward the objectives of the program may be found in Idea VIII, of the introduction to the teachers' handbook: Each topic identifies a series of ideas which provide a framework for the topic. Each idea is stated before that part of the sequence that develops the idea. These are intended solely as a guide to the teacher. The idea should not be presented to the student. Rather, the students should develop and discover the idea through the activities of the sequence. They should be able to state the ideas in their own words. This statement constitutes a statement of objectives of the semi-system that can serve operationally. It suggests a means of evaluation— the comparison of student responses as to what they were expected to learn with the desired outcomes in terms of written responses as indicated by the "ideas" outlined in the teachers' handbook. Students who were participating in the evaluation by responding with reports of critical incidents were asked to respond to the question, "What do you think you 86 87 were supposed to learn from this activity?" These responses were compared with the "ideas" as stated in the semi-system. Two groups of responses were formed— those indicating a recognition of the objective of the activity, iand those that did not indicate such progress toward the objective. The method of sorting may be illustrated by ; some examples of student responses and their arrangement into two groups. Three hundred twenty-one of the 329 responses bear- ! ing on the semi-system carried reactions to the question, i "What do you think you were supposed to learn from this ;activity?" One hundred sixty-three of these responses were : judged to indicate progress toward the objective as | expressed in the semi-system that students should be able I to state in their own words the ideas forming titles for the sections of the teacher's handbook. One hundred fifty-eight responses, 49.2 per cent failed to present evidence of student growth toward the objectives. A further analysis indicated that the boys were somewhat less successful than girls in developing the concepts prescribed by the program. Fifty-eight responses from boys, 42.3 per cent were rated positively as compared with 105 positive responses from girls, 57.3 per cent. Understanding of the objectives of the program as indicated by students' statements of what they were supposed to learn appeared to support the students' TABLE 13 EXAMPLES OP STUDENT RESPONSES IN TWO GROUPS Idea as Listed in Teachers' Handbook Example of Student Response Illustrating Progress Toward Idea Example of Student Response Illustrating No Progress Toward Idea The number of individuals in a population changes. (Ecology Idea VIII) I didn1t come out very clear to me so my opinion on what I think we are supposed to learn is to see how fast yeast cells reproduce and compare the population of yeast cells **** We were supposed to learn how yeast cells product, develope, and populate in a short time with food and without food. How to make a sample count within an area. **** I didn't see anything that was helping us or going to help us in the future. Energy is the ability to do work. There are many forms of energy. Energy is measurable. Living things use energy. Energy can change from one form to another. (Cell topic, introductory Ideas) We were supposed to learn about energy, where it comes from, where it goes, how we use it, how we get it, and what kinds of energy there are. I really don't know. o o 00 TABLE 13 (continued) Idea as Listed in Teachers' Handbook Example of Student Response Illustrating Progress Toward Idea Example of Student Response Illustrating No Progress Toward Idea There is a definite observable pattern of growth after fertilization. The stages of development of the sea urchin. I guess nothing. Similar patterns of development may be observed in other multicellular organisms. That nearly all embryos develope in the same manner. **** How the chick is developed and how the relationship between the chick and human embryos are alike. **** We saw how the egg develops into a chick and how they should be treated when they break out of the egg. This is a good example of other things that come out of eggs also. I don't know. **** All about chic's. I I I 00 V O 90 reactions as to the value of the program. Respondents indicating that they felt the activity was worthwhile were able to prepare statements bearing on the objectives in 127 of 207 cases, while those students who felt the I I activity to be not worthwhile gave evidence that this was ! indeed the case by failure to make statements bearing on i the desired objectives in seventy-eight of 114 responses. Of the three elements of the semi-system reported to | be worthwhile in a significant number of responses, only i those responses to the element bearing the identifying number S-15 indicated that the students responded had developed some ability to express the "idea" in their own words. Forty—four students responding to this element were able to form statements indicating an understanding of the significance of the element. These forty-four students included twenty boys and twenty-six girls of which fourteen boys and twenty-three girls had indicated that they thought the activity to be worthwhile. Nineteen boys and eight girls were unable to describe the objective for the element, including seven boys and six girls who had stated that they felt the activity to be worthwhile. The element identified as S-21 was reported forty-one times as "critical," thirty times by students who felt it was worthwhile and eleven who felt the activity was not worthwhile. Of these forty-one students, twenty were able to write a statement bearing on the idea of the ' “ 91 1 ! TABLE 14 | 1 ACTIVITIES LISTED BY STUDENTS AS WORTHWHILE DISTRIBUTED AS TO ABILITY TO VERBALIZE IDEA INVOLVED _______ Boys_____________________Girls________ Idea Idea not Idea Idea not Described Described Described Described iS-1 1 0 0 0 I S-4 0 0 0 0 S-6 7 0 0 0 ; S-10 0 1 1 0 S-ll 1 0 0 0 1 S-15 14 7 23 6 ! S —17 2 0 1 0 S-19 0 0 1 0 ; s-2 i 4 7 12 7 Alt 57 0 0 3 4 S-27 1 0 4 1 S-28 0 0 0 13 S-30 1 2 5 0 !26-p. 72 0 0 0 0 1 S-35 0 1 6 2 i S-37 1 0 3 5 Sd-p. 83 0 1 3 0 S-42 3 2 5 3 2f p. 95 0 0 0 - 0 p. 106-7 1 2 4 0 S-54 1 1 2 1 S-56 0 0 0 0 S-76 0 1 3 0 S-83 5 5 6 7 S—88 1 0 0 0 p. 204 0 0 1 1 Film 0 0 1 0 43 30 84 50 92 TABLE 15 ACTIVITIES LISTED BY STUDENTS AS NOT WORTHWHILE DISTRIBUTED AS TO ABILITY TO VERBALIZE IDEA ! INVOLVED I Bovs Girls Idea Described Idea not Described Idea Described Idea not i Described! S-l 1 0 0 0 S-4 0 3 0 1 S-6 0 0 0 2 S-10 0 4 2 4 S-ll 0 5 3 1 S-15 6 12 1 2 S-17 0 2 0 6 S-19 1 1 0 1 S-21 2 5 2 2 Alt 57 0 1 0 1 S-27 0 1 0 0 S-28 0 0 2 0 S-30 0 3 4 0 26 p. 72 0 2 0 1 S-35 0 1 0 1 S-37 1 1 1 3 Sd p. 83 0 0 0 0 S-42 1 0 1 1 2f p. 95 0 0 1 0 p. 106-7 1 1 0 0 S-54 0 2 0 2 S-56 0 2 0 2 S-76 1 0 2 0 S-83 0 3 0 0 S-88 0 1 0 1 p. 204 1 0 2 0 p. 209 0 0 0 0 15 49 21 29 93 element while twenty-one were not able to write such a statement. Girls able to write such a statement for element S-21 outnumbered the boys fourteen to six. For the element, S-83, fifteen students failed to relate the activity to its objective in the manner suggested in the teachers' handbook while eleven were successful in verbalizing the central idea. Student Achievement as Measured by the Processes of Science Test The Processes of Science Test is a test prepared by the BSCS and Psychological Corporation for assessing students' abilities to apply scientific principles and skills of inquiry. This test was administered to the students in the biology classes of the six archdiocean schools December, 1966. A repeated testing of the same group was carried out in May, 1967. The results of the two tests and statistical measures of the significance of the gains made on retesting have been the subject of a detailed investigation by the Department of Evaluation and Research of the Los Angeles City Schools as part of their evaluation of the program funded by the federal government through the public schools. Scores of the students on both testings and the statistical findings of the Los Angeles department are included in Appendix C. A brief summary is provided here. Mean gains on the two testings using the POST showed a wide range among schools and among students within schools. The following table indicates the average gain per student at each school as well as the maximum and minimum gains. Such scores seem to be inconclusive as to the effectiveness of involvement in this biology program. Gains in the abilities of students to apply techniques of inquiry may be as readily attributed to individual differences among teachers or to maturation factors as to participation in this program. In only one school was the gain clearly statistically significant. Two other schools indicated a gain that approximated the gains of 4.0 reported for the 15,000 students using the materials in the developmental stages of the program. 95 TABLE 16 REPORT OF SCORES POST TEST Average Gain Per Maximum Minimum I School Student Per Student Gain N I II III i XV I i v : VI 7.7 20 -2 107 2.0 15 -6 100 1.9 9 -10 53 1.5 12 -10 91 1.2 17 -8 95 1.0 8 -9 58 CHAPTER VI INTERPRETATION OF DATA J This study has been an attempt to evaluate the effects of exposure to a semi-system for instruction in biology on the attitudes of students toward biology, particularly, and of science. The semi-system was directed' toward providing instruction in biological science for those students who had gained a record of failure in school subjects, particularly science subjects. In its formative stages the semi-system was tested with a group of students marked by scores below the fortieth percential on certain portions of the Differential Aptitude Test. This was an arbitrary arrangement for the more effective management of a testing program. Few school districts group students on such clear cut bases and on the results of single tests. To attempt such a restriction for this study has seemed to tend to remove it from relevance for the more usual school setting. Thus no attempt was made to define the body of students involved beyond the schools1 own arrangements for selecting students for the program. The BSCS Special Materials Committee responsible for the preparation of the materials for the semi-system 97 was meeting the challenge outlined by Bruner to experiment with the notion that all students can learn any scientific concepts in some intellectually honest form. In the course of preparing for this particular curriculum development, the committee came to distrust standardized tests as possihly irrelevant for those students who are failure prone, and as serving potentially as negative reinforcement for a great many of the students— marking them for failure. Different methods for evaluating the effectiveness of the program seemed in order. A direct approach to the students for their reactions to the system of instruction might offer such methods. Under such conditions it seemed reasonable to focus on the effectiveness of the materials used for instruction rather than on the qualities of the learner. The ability of the student to learn was to be assumed. It remained to make a detailed examination of the materials to which the students were exposed, with the view that such examination would reveal factors that might serve as models for future curriculum development. The questions asked centered around the efficiency with which the semi-system directed students toward the learnings of which they were assumed capable. For the students who have been the subjects of failing experi ences in school, it was felt to be most important that the experiences included in this new curriculum development be such as to lead to renewed interest in studying and in a desire for further study. This study, then, has been I I directed toward discovery of those factors in a semi system for instruction in biology that would encourage such positive attitudes toward learning. Conclusions J might now be drawn as to the overall effectiveness of the program, as to the effectiveness of particular elements, : and as to the reasons students have expressed for values | they have found in the system. | That the program has been successful in stimulating ; interest in science in the schools of the Los Angeles Archdiocese has been demonstrated by the reactions of ; students to statements on a questionnaire and by the i proportion of reactions to elements of the semi-system that were favorable. Analysis of these data suggests that the experiences in this program have been more effective for the girls than for the boys. No reasons for this difference can be ascribed conclusively. However, inspection of the reasons given by students for disinterest in some elements of the program leads to the suggestion that this difference between boys and girls might be the result of differences in laboratory skills. Manipulative failures seemed to be a frequently given reason for considering an activity not worthwhile among boys, while girls were more inclined to discard those elements which, in their view, failed to present new materials— to help them learn something. Variations in frequency of these two prime reasons for rejection seem to be the major explanation for the lesser effectiveness of the program for boys. While it seems reasonably clear that students did enjoy the experiences offered by the semi-system, the effectiveness of the program as a learning tool is not so clearly defined. Students in the program were able, in 52 per cent of the cases, to form a statement related to the aoncept to be learned through each group of activities. But lack of objective statements against which to compare student verbalizations in other biology programs makes comparison virtually impossible. It seems certain that the degree of conceptualization indicated by this study falls short of the effectiveness one might anticipate from full realization of the goal of maximum student learning. Nor did the students' scores on the Processes of Science Test present convincing evidence of effective ness of the system for learning science. While students in all schools did make gains on pre- and post-test using this instrument, the gains made seemed to be acceptable gains in only two of the schools when compared with gains made by students tested in the experimental groups involved in development of the program. Variations in scores among schools have been such as to suggest that 100 learning measured by this test may be more attributable to teacher skills than to the effectiveness of this serai- j system. In only one school did the scores on pre- and post-tests indicate a growth in excess of that of the test groups in the developmental stages of the semi-system, or of students exposed to other biology programs. That ;students of this school, a boys school, did not report | the greatest interest in the program, and did submit the I only negative reports of teacher behavior suggest a further study of the relationship between teacher personality, 'teacher knowledge, interest in activities, and the actual student learning. Three elements of the semi-system, those elements i jidentified as S-15, S-21, and S-83, appeared to provide positive experiences to the students in terms of student interest as well as student ability to form the desired verbal summaries of the major ideas. Examination of these elements might provide information of value for further developments of biology curricula. S-15 in the semi system, Biological Science: Patterns and Processes, is a study of changes in a yeast population over a period of twelve days. The central activity is a laboratory investigation to be carried out by laboratory teams. Students are led to this activity through a series of preparatory activities; an exercise in census taking (S-ll and S-12), optional activities designed to help with problems of weighing, instruction in the use of the microscope, and practice in sampling using a microscope. Concurrent with the laboratory work, activities are included in the package that were designed to help students over hurdles in the laboratory (making dilutions) and in interpreting data (a programed sequence in making graphs). A summary exercise in the sequence relates the findings from the laboratory activity to similar data concerning human population growth. That the students viewed this entire sequence as bearing on the yeast population study may be seen from references to other elements in the reports of the exercise, S-15. The entire sequence might be diagramed as shown below. Favorable reactions to S-15 were offered for reasons of interest in the use of scientific equipment, opportunity to make and correct mistakes, enjoyment found in working in small groups, opportunity to learn something that was "a foundation,'* and interest in seeing a population change and then relating the knowledge gained to changes in human populations. S-21 is a laboratory activity beginning with a study of the sensitivity of a single animal to a single environmental factor— light. A related activity, and one which the students seemed to view as a continuation of S-21, was a discussion pattern relating to hypothesis formation and terminating in an open-ended study of the Day | Day j Day | Day I Day I Day I Day | Day I Day I Day I Day I Day | Day | Day j Day 1 * 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 * 6 * 7 1 8 ' 9 * 10 • 11 * 12 * 13 * 14 • 15 Central theme--populations change Preliminary^ activities Yeast population laboratory S-15 -)»4 Terminating activities Supporting activities Census ■ taking S-ll Option, microscopic sampling :echnique | jpechiji Graphing program S-17 Option, making dilutions Graphing human population changes S-19 Fig. 2.— Sequence for Element S-15 102 103 ! I relationship of other organisms to a variety of environ mental factors. Selection of the animal to be tested was j I left to the teacher. Student laboratory teams devised the j experimental setting and carried out the experiment as I ithey had developed it. Open-endedness resulted in an [indefinite time block. The maximum time reported by the istudents seemed to be "about a month." Again, the i 'activity might be diagramed to illustrate a central theme with several activities bearing on this theme. j The reasons for student interest in this activity Imay best be illustrated by this reaction from one studenti In this class we must always be experimenting either with Sister or on our own. This time the ! experiment was on our own. Therefore we enjoyed it I more. We also learned more. I The activity, S-83, was a nine day activity in i : I which students examined chick eggs at various stages of development. The activity was conducted intermittently with activities related to both animal and plant reproduction intermingled in the complex schedule. The sequence of events can be best seen by reviewing the time schedule as outlined in the Teacher's Handbook and followed by the teachers in this group. Again, a central theme can be identified— the similarity of patterns of develop ment in multicellular organisms. <----- Theme- -Living things interact with their environment . . . . — > Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ........ 20 < ---- S-21 — > • 4 — Discussion— ^ 4--- Continuation of S-21 with other— ---} Light pattern, organisms and other sensitivity hypothesis environmental factors laboratory formation Fig. 3.— Sequence for Element S-21 104 105 Day 1— Frog observation. Finish graphing and discuss. Assign S-83, Part I, as homework. Day 2— S-83, first half, 0-33 hour chick. Day 3— S-83, discussion; second half as homework. Film: | Amphibian Embryo. :Day 4— S-83, observe three and five day chick. Day 5— S-83, discuss three and five day chick. S-82, observe ten or eleven day seedling. |Day 6— S-83, observe seven and ten day chick. Introduce | Drosophila techniques and begin stock cultures. See S-91. | Day 7— S-83, discuss seven and ten day chick observations. Assign S-83 as homework, observations fourteen and I nineteen day chick. Day 8— S-83, observe fourteen and nineteen day chick. Day 9— S-83, final discussion of observation. Film: "Chick Embryo: Primitive Streak to Hatching"^ Students indicated interest in this activity because it was a new experience ("We learned to ask questions we never even would have thought of before.”), and because they felt it helped them understand human development ("Humans and all animals that come from eggs might develop like this."). •^•Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, The Teacher and BSCS Special Materials, BSCS Special Publication No. 4, 1966. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study has dealt with the effectiveness of a semi-system prepared by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. For the purposes of this study, objectives of the program were defined as: (1) increased interest in science as a school subject, (2) ability to form in written statements those concepts forming the framework of. the system, and (3) increased ability to apply those aspects of inquiry defined by BSCS as measured by performances on a Processes of Science Test. ! Changes in attitudes toward science were examined ithrough responses to a questionnaire prepared with the ^cooperation of seven teachers of the Los Angeles Archdiocese and administered to the 514 students in the program in September, 1966, and again in May, 1967. Examination of the responses to the ten items on the questionnaire indicated that the students began the year lat a high level of interest. This interest was maintained throughout the year by the boys in the program and was increased on the part of the girls. One hundred students randomly selected from the total population of 514 were 106 interviewed in September and October, 1966 and invited to participate in a form of evaluation of the semi-system patterned after the method of critical incidents described ;by Flanagan. These students were provided each month with stamped, addressed envelopes, together with forms upon i which they were invited to report activities within the program that were felt to be worthwhile or not worthwhile. Reasons for these responses were also solicited. In order to provide for as much freedom as possible in the responses, no attempt was made to enforce return of the forms. Three hundred and ninety-six responses were returned during the year. Upon analysis, the responses iindicated three activities considered rather generally to be worthwhile. These responses indicate laboratory activities of some duration (9-20 days) to be of most !interest to the students. Small group work in which there :was a high degree of success and which provided freedom for ;students to explore on their own using scientific equipment seemed to be of greatest interest. The responses suggested ia wide spread student interest in those biological problems ^bearing on human anatomy and physiology. Findings from 'these reports of "critical incidents" were confirmed at the I end of the year by responses of all 514 students to a jrequest to list the activity from the entire program that i they felt most worthwhile. The Processes of Science Test was administered to all students in the program in December, 1966 and again in May, 1967. Comparisons of scores on the two testings were j inconclusive except as they suggested a wide variation among schools and teachers. Based on data from students responses to a questionnaire concerning their attitudes toward science, from student statements relating to critical incidents occurring in the biology program, and from the results of tests, some conclusions may be drawn as to the effective ness of the semi-system, Biological Science: Patterns and Processes, currently used as a teaching-learning tool in the six schools of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. |Most of the students who were included in this group: 1. Enjoyed the program as a school experience. 2. Expanded their view of science as being relevant to their daily lives, as they progressed through the program. 3. Viewed this science program as offering a setting for a successful learning experience. (This conclusion has since been reinforced by the 440 students who elected to study science for a second year, "If it is going to be like this year.") ; 4. Gained in understanding of the concepts under lying the program. i _ _ 109 5. Increased their belief in their individual i i lability to learn science concepts. j j ! 6. Pound greatest satisfaction in laboratory ■ ' j iactivities that: i ; a. Extended for a considerable length of time— time beyond a single laboratory period, b. were part of a sequence of activities relating to a common theme which was clearly defined and continuously brought into focus, and c. provided the student with an opportunity to relate the learning to his own life, or to human life generally. To the extent that these results may be defended as valid ;course objectives, the effectiveness of the semi-system has been demonstrated in this study. There were, to be sure, some variations in student performances and student interests. Some of this variation! may be a reflection of the teachers' interests, skills, knowledge, and prior experience in teaching. Inability to establish clear limits as to the extent of such influences imay limit the conclusions to be drawn from such a study. However, the pupil interest and achievement levels attained and sustained in the three activities described in Chapter VI and in certain animal dissections described by fifty-six students suggest some possible directions for new experiments in science curriculum development: 110 1. The interest developed in science through this course, and the inconclusive evidence of growth in the lability to inquire, suggest that a second year of science :might be offered these students. This course could |continue the format of Biological Science; Patterns and Processes, provide additional experiences in scientific 1 iinquiry, and build on the interests of the students. The :often repeated expression of interest in the human organism suggests that one such channel of interest might be effectively followed through development of a course that begins with human physiology. An outline for such a program as conceived by the teachers of the Archdiocese may be found in Appendix D. I 2. The wide variety of interests among both teachers and students, along with obvious student interest in independent study and small group work, suggests the I development of a variety of single topic sequences from which teachers and students might assemble their own second-year course. Such sequences should clearly define a central theme, should be laboratory centered, and should :offer the maximum opportunity for semi-independent study. ;Such sequences have been undertaken by the BSCS in the ; series of Laboratory Blocks.^9 Those blocks which reflect ;the expressed interests of particular students might be i i included, and some could be so developed as to be Ill especially designed for use by students with some limita- i tions as to reading ability. ! | Little evidence has been produced in this study that i | jstudents in the program have been sufficiently challenged. jIndeed, no reaction has been voiced that the materials were; written at a level too difficult for any student. On the other hand, reactions suggest that some of the activities were too "easy." These "easy" passages appear to have formed discontinuities in the program, chiefly at the start of each topic. Another discontinuity occasionally occurred when students were asked to perform tasks that seemed unrelated to the sequence. Such a discontinuity appeared when students were asked to learn to take samples I i I of populations on a macro scale (weeds in a lawn), and |then were asked to transfer this knowledge to taking sample counts using a microscope. Correction of these dis continuities might be another avenue for curriculum improvement. A serious question arises as to the place of inquiry in the curriculum as developed in the semi-system studied. The semi-system, Biological Science; Patterns and i Processes, has demonstrated value for students in the Los Angeles Archdiocese in that it generated interest among |students who had shown prior evidence of disinterest or i I jlack of success in school. Further, participation in this j j j |program apparently helped these students develop some i ;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i confidence in their own ability as students. That this confidence has been accompanied by corresponding increase i i !in investigative skills has not been demonstrated. Whether i |experience in the program improves the basic skills of !reading and mathematical computations might be a question jfor further study. If performance on the test prepared by :the BSCS, the Processes of Science Test, is a valid measure of the ability of the students to apply scientific techniques of inquiry, then the erratic performance of these students on this test would raise a serious question as to the program's curricular validity. It might appear that, without further emphasis on skills of inquiry within the framework of the structure of the discipline of |biology, such programs as the one developed by the BSCS ; and studied here may tend to develop that self-confidence without accompanying real abilities about which Bruner cautioned. It seems clear that the development of student interest and confidence generated by the curriculum materials used in this study must be fused with, or followed by programs to enhance pupil competence in the i processes of inquiry. The questions raised for developers I of such new programs may well include the following: j 1. Are there more appropriate subject materials in j terms of student interest and in terms of the needs of | | society? 2. Can. curriculum materials be developed that are more precisely focused on the development of inquiry skills? That is, can such skills be systematically taught ;and developed within the framework for a course of study? j What is the relationship between techniques of inquiry and the conceptual framework of the body of knowledge? 3. What is the most favorable balance between !emphasis upon how students think about biology and the biological topics students are asked to think about? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Ashton-Warner, Sylvia. Teacher. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960. Biological Science: Patterns and Processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. I |Biological Science Patterns and Processes, Teachers Handbook. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Bloom, Benjamin, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay Co., 1956. Bridgman, P. W. The Logic of Modern Physics. New York: Macmillan, 1928. Bruner, Jerome. The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960. I !________ . Toward a Theory of Instruction. Harvard: Belknap Press, 1966. Conant, James. Slums and Suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1961. Educational Policies Commission. Education and the Disadvantaged American. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1962. Featherstone, William Bland. Teaching the Slow Learner. New York: Teachers' College Columbia, 1951. Flanagan, John Clemens. The Aviation Psychology Program in the Army Air Forces. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1948. |Goslin, David. The Search for Ability. Standardized Testing in Social Perspective. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, 1961. | |Guilford, J. P. The Nature of Human Intelligence. New i York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1967. . . . . 115. . .............. 116 Hurd, Paul DeHart. Biological Education in American Secondary Schools, 1890-1960. Bulletin No. 1 of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. Boulder, Colorado: 1961. I_________. Theory Into Action, National Science. Teachers ! Association, 1964. j . ' 1Inhelder, Barbel. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. New York: Basic Books, 1958. Johnson, Wendell. People in Quandaries. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inguiry. New York: Chandler Publishing Co., 19641 Kerr, W. A. Tulane Factors of Liberalism-conservatism. Chicago: Psychological Affiliates, 1946. Krathwohl, David, et al. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Affective Domain. New York: David McKay Co., 1960. iMontessori, Maria. Dr. Montessori1s Own Handbook. Edited by R. C. Orem. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1965. I Pearl, Arthur and Riessman, Prank. New Careers for the Poor. New York: The Free Press, 1965. Piaget, Jean. Judgment and Reasoning in the Child. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1928. Rilke, Rainer Maria. "Childhood," in Poems from the Book of Hours. Translated by Babette Doutsch. Norfolk, Conn.: Columbia University Press, 1941. Ryans, David. Characteristics of Teachers, Their Description, Comparison, and Appraisal. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1962. Schwab, Joseph. The Teaching of Science as Inquiry. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. I I_________ (ed.). The Biology Teachers' Handbook. New York: j John Wiley and Sons, 1963. i : ! ; i_________ (ed.). The Biology Teachers Handbook. New York: I John Wiley and Sons, 1964. 117 Shaw, Marvin E. and Wright, Jack M. Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1967. |Suchman, J. Richard. The Elementary School Training Program in Scientific Inquiry. Illinois: University of Illinois, 1962. iSund, Robert B. and Trowbridge, Leslie W. Teaching Science by Inquiry in the Secondary School. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1967. Thurston, L. L. The Measurement of Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Whitehead, Alfred North. The Aims of Education. New York: The Macmillan Co., 192 9. Periodicals Bloom, Samuel and Smith, Paul E. "Science Curriculum Today and Tomorrow," Science and Children, III, No. 3 (November, 1965), 16. ! Cooley, W. W. and Klopfer, L. E. "The Evaluation of ; Specific Educational Innovations," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, I, No. 1 (1964), 73-80. i iFlanagan, John Clemens. "Experimental Evaluation of Selection Procedure," Education and Psychology, XVI, No. 4 (April, 1947), 445-466. Glass, Bentley. "The Most Critical Aspect of Science Teaching," The Science Teacher, XXXIV, No. 5 (May, 1967),19. Grobman, Hulda. "A New Curriculum in Biological Science," Educational Leadership, XVIII, No. 6 (March, 1961), 3W0Z------------------- _________. "A Study in Educational Improvement," The Clearing House, XXXVI, No. 3 (November, 1961), 163-164. i jGuilford, J. P. "Three Faces of Intellect," The American Psychologist, XIV (August, 1959), 5. 118 Guttman, L. A. "A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data," American Sociological Review, IX (1944), 139-150. Hammond, K. R. "Measuring Attitudes by Error-choice. An Indirect Method," Journal of Abnormal Sociology and Psychology. XLIII (1943), 38. I Hawkins, David. "Messing About in Science," Science and ; Children, II, No. 5 (February, 1965), 5-7. iHurd, Paul DeHart. "The New Curriculum Movement in Science," The Science Teacher, XXIX, No. 1 (February, 1962) , 6. I Lehman, David L. "Current Thinking in Adolescent Psychology," The Science Teacher, XXXIV, No. 2 (February, 1967), 15. Likert, R. A. "A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes," Archives of Psychology, No. 140 (1932), 1-55. Mahan, Thomas. "The Slow Learner, Fact or Excuse," School Review, LXXIII, No. 2 (Summer, 1965), 77-88. National Science Teachers Association. "The National s Science Teachers Association Position on Curriculum Development in Science," The Science Teacher, XXXII, No. 10 (December, 1962), 128. 1 !Osgood, C. E. and Suci, G. J. "Factor Analysis of Meaning," Journal of Experimental Psychology, XXXVI (August, 1946), 67. iStendler, Celia B. "Elementary Teaching and the Piagetian Theory," The Science Teacher, XXIX, No. 5 (September, 1962), 34-42. Suchman, J. Richard. "Inquiry Training in the Elementary School," The Science Teacher, XXVII, No. 2 (November, 1960), 42-45. Unpublished Material IBlankenship, Jacob W. "An Analysis of Certain Characteris- | tics of Biology Teachers in Relation to their Reactions j | to the BSCS Program." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, I University of Texas, 1964. 119 Gallagher, James J. "Teacher Variation in Concept Presentation in BSCS Curriculum Program." Biological Sciences Curriculum Newsletter No. 30, 1967, pp. 8-19. Huff, George Perry. "Evaluation of Affective Behavior in Student Teachers by Application of Q-Methodology.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964. Johntz, William F. "Some Myths About Disadvantaged Students." A paper prepared for participants in Project SEED, December, 1966. j Liebherr, Harold. "Who Is the Unsuccessful Learner?" Unpublished working paper of the BSCS Special Materials Committee, 1965. Lizonbee, Lorenzo. "Working Paper for BSCS Special Materials Sub-committee. 1964. Sorensen, LaVar L. "Change in Critical Thinking Between Students in Laboratory-centered and Lecture- demonstration-centered Patterns of Instruction in High School Biology." Unpublished study involving the Salt Lake City Schools, 1965. !Turner, George Cleveland. "An Analysis of Scientific Inquiry as Used in a BSCS Laboratory Program." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 1965. Other Sources Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The Teacher and BSCS Special Materials. BSCS Special Publication No. 4, 1966. Glass, Bentley. Foreword to Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter No. 12, 1961, p. 5. Kavaraceus, William. "Alienated Youth Here and Abroad," Phi Delta Kappan, XLV, No. 2 (November, 1963), 87-90. Mayer, William V. "Evaluation for Curriculum Assessment and Improvement." Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter 30, 1967, p. 1. Newsletter No. 12. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1961, p. 6. 120 i Processes of Science Test. Psychological Corporation, j 1966. | i i APPENDICES APPENDIX A Forms Used for Recording Critical Incidents and for Attitude Questionnaire Another month has passed, and again we need your I reaction to the biology class in the past month. So far it seems that only the laboratory activities and the programed materials are interesting or dull. Does this mean that the reading assignments, talks with your teachers, films, discussion patterns, and demonstrations do not make any impression? WORTHWHILE |1. How long did this activity last? I |2. What were you doing while the activity was going on? 3. What happened? 4. Why do you feel the activity was worthwhile? 15. What do you think you were supposed to learn from this activity? Reading, discussion, listening, watching demonstrations, watching films, experi menting activities. NOT WORTHWHILE How long was this activity? What were you doing while the activity was going on? What happened? Why do you feel the activity was not worthwhile? What do you think you were supposed to learn from this activity? NOT WORTHWHILE 1. How long was this activity? j 12. What were you doing while the activity was going on? : 3. What happened? 4. Why do you feel the activity was NOT worthwhile? 5. What do you think you were supposed to learn from this activity? Did we hear from you last time? Sixty-two people sent in their feelings about the science course last time. Thirty-eight did not. If you were one of these thirty-eight, someone spoke for you. We really need your reactions. George Wilson APPENDIX B Responses on Attitude Questionnaire Responses to opinionnaire concerning student attitudes toward science on two administrations of the opinionnaire. (The material included in this section will denote the statement to which students reacted by number as shown below, and the level of response by appropriate letter.) Responses were solicited to these statements: 1. I like to study science. 2. Science is my favorite subject. 3. When I finish this course I would like to take another science course. 4. Science is definitely not for me. 5. I like to read about science and scientists. 6. I think I might like to find a job in some science field when I graduate. 7. I don't think I could ever learn to think and work like a scientist. 8. Thinking scientifically can help me to understand learn and understand many new ideas. 9. Scientists work on many kinds of problems that might concern me. 10. I don't really see how learning to think and act like a scientist will help me. Levels of reaction to these statements will be indicated by letter: a) exactly how I feel, b) most times I feel this way, c) I am not sure about this, d) most times I don't feel this way, e) I feel exactly the opposite. 125 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE GIRLS September, 1966 May, 1967 a b c d e a b c d e 1. 80 140 48 20 8 1. 77 137 35 34 13 2. 42 71 121 37 25 2. 56 81 91 36 32 3. 75 33 102 25 55 3. 119 45 54 32 46 4. 22 47 65 68 94 4. 35 37 65 72 87 5. 59 76 40 73 48 5. 35 104 55 55 47 6. 32 21 84 41 118 6. 32 31 96 38 99 7. 76 53 80 50 37 7. 62 51 75 58 50 8. 100 112 56 15 13 8. 131 97 50 11 7 9. 112 95 54 23 12 9. 138 90 38 17 13 10. 31 33 69 57 106 10. 19 24 47 65 141 126 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE CONATY HIGH SCHOOL September, 1966 a b c d e 1. 30 46 21 4 0 2. 11 25 40 16 9 3. 27 10 35 11 18 4. 8 13 24 26 30 5. 30 15 16 25 16 6. 14 5 28 16 38 7. 22 20 27 15 17 8. 33 41 18 5 4 9. 36 36 19 8 2 • o I —1 12 9 21 19 40 May, 1967 a b c d e 1. 38 47 6 5 5 2. 27 30 36 4 4 3. 64 10 8 9 10 4. 7 11 23 23 37 5. 12 35 24 19 11 6. 10 13 37 11 30 7. 13 15 31 25 17 8. 54 35 9 2 1 9. 55 32 7 6 1 10. 1 4 9 19 68 127 ! RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE OUR LADY QUEEN OF ANGELS HIGH SCHOOL September, 1966 a b c d e 1. 18 33 10 6 3 2. 4 11 35 10 10 3. 9 9 29 5 18 4. 7 14 13 17 19 5. 7 20 10 19 14 6. 5 8 17 8 34 7. 22 12 17 10 8 8. 23 23 15 4 5 9. 24 21 16 5 4 10. 10 12 17 8 23 May, 1967 a b c d e 1. 19 36 8 8 1 2. 8 17 25 13 7 3. 20 13 18 6 13 4. 10 5 15 18 22 5. 14 19 9 14 14 6. 8 10 21 9 22 7. 12 13 13 15 17 8. 33 23 10 4 0 9. 36 22 4 4 4 10. 1 7 11 18 33 128 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE OUR LADY OF LORETTO HIGH SCHOOL September, 1966 a b c d e 1. 18 31 12 8 2 2. 11 20 29 8 3 3. 15 10 25 7 14 4. 4 11 18 17 21 5. 16 15 8 19 13 6. 6 2 23 8 32 7. 21 11 18 14 7 8. 29 21 16 3 2 9. 30 19 11 7 4 10. 4 6 17 21 22 May, 1967 a b c d e 1. 8 26 17 17 3 2. 8 17 15 16 15 3. 11 10 18 16 16 4. 12 15 18 13 13 5. 7 24 11 14 15 6. 6 6 19 8 32 7. 20 13 19 6 13 8. 22 22 21 1 5 9. 26 17 16 6 6 10. 9 7 19 17 19 129 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL September, 1966 a b c d e 1, 14 30j 5 2 3 2. 16 15 17 3 3 3. 24 10 13 2 5 4. 4 8 10 8 24 5. 6 26 7 10 5 6. 7 8 9 14 7. 11 9 18 11 5 8. 15 27 7 3 2 9. 22 19 8 3 2 10. 4 6 14 9 21 May, 1967 a b c d e 1. 12 28 6 4 4 2. 13 17 15 3 6 3. 24 12 10 1 7 4. 6 6 9 18 15 5. 2 26 11 8 7 6. 8 2 19 10 15 7. 17 10 12 12 3 8. 22 17 10 4 1 9. 21 19 11 1 2 • o 1 —f 8 6 8 11 21 130 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE BOYS September, 1966 a b c d e 1. 80 105 16 13 4 2. 32 62 77 23 24 3. 73 33 76 14 22 4. 13 20 50 50 85 5. 54 69 36 33 25 6. 42 16 81 26 53 7. 26 44 64 25 59 8. 107 57 36 13 5 9. 99 50 42 19 8 10. 22 24 42 37 93 May, 1967 a b c d e 1. 67 81 42 19 9 2. 35 60 56 38 29 3. 81 30 53 16 38 4. 20 34 46 45 72 5. 47 76 40 31 24 6. 34 25 80 25 54 7. 25 35 60 33 64 8. 110 69 27 4 8 9. 90 84 28 11 4 * o 1 —1 21 24 39 29 105 131 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE CATHEDRAL HIGH SCHOOL September, 1966__________. ___________ May, 1967 a b c d e a b c d e 1. 36 39 13 9 3 1. 23 34 22 14 7 2. 14 23 32 16 15 2. 9 21 28 26 16 3. 24 15 37 10 14 3. 29 15 24 9 23 4. 9 13 29 19 30 4. 13 23 21 21 22 5. 26 26 17 16 15 5. 12 41 17 19 11 6. 13 9 40 13 25 6. 8 11 36 17 28 7. 15 28 29 11 17 7. 14 18 30 18 20 8. 48 27 18 5 2 8. 42 36 16 2 4 9. 44 28 16 7 5 9. 38 44 9 7 2 10. 10 12 16 17 45 10. 10 14 24 12 40 132 RESPONSES TO OPINIONAIRE September, 1966 a b c d e 1. 47 60 3 6 2 2. 18 39 45 6 8 3. 49 18 39 4 8 4. 4 7 21 31 55 5. 29 43 19 17 10 6. 29 7 41 13 28 7. 11 16 35 14 42 8. 59 30 18 8 3 9. 45 22 26 12 3 10. 12 12 26 20 46 VERBUM DEI HIGH SCHOOL May, 1967 a b c d e 1. 35 48 21 6 8 2. 26 38 29 12 13 3. 52 15 29 7 15 4. 7 11 25 24 51 5. 35 35 23 12 13 6. 26 14 44 8 26 7. 11 17 30 15 45 8. 68 33 11 2 4 9. 58 40 19 4 2 10. 11 10 15 17 65 I 133 APPENDIX C Outline of Suggested Second Year Course in Biology A proposed second course in biological science for students currently in the BSCS-Special Materials Course Evaluation of the biology program now in progress :has suggested some successful patterns that might be continued in an additional year in science: ..There seems to have been an increasing awareness of the students' own potentials as learners as a result of science activities that are laboratory and teacher-student discussion guided. ..There has been some evidence of increasing interest in reading and of increasing verbal skills— particularly as these skills relate to the students' own laboratory experiences. ..Students in this group have indicated a common interest in understanding themselves and their place in the living world. It is believed that a second year course directed toward the students' expressed needs for better self- ;understanding might: i i ..Further the understanding of the themes now i i I I 134 135 conceived to be the structural framework of . biological sciences. ..Increase students' self-images through awareness of their own physical and mental capabilities, | and understanding of ways to develop these capabilities. ..Help students to understand conditions contribu ting to good physical and mental health. ..Further develop reading skills. ..Recognize the value of mathematical tools for thinking, and increase skill in mathematics. ..Continue the development of interest and skill in the use of scientific methods of inquiry. ; Elements of advanced biology and of traditional !physiology might be blended so as to incorporate the !themes of biology as conceived by the BSCS and satisfy the needs of the students for understanding of their own physical and mental functions. The dominant theme of the course might be the theme of INQUIRY. Two other themes could be carried throughout the course: personal and jcommunity health, and the relationship of man to man. Such a second course might have three major idivisions: ..The human body, its structure and function. ..Human behavior. ..Man and his environment. Major Ideas 1. In order to live effectively in our ecosystem we must understand ourselves. a. The human hody is composed of cells. These cells contain common elements but vary in structure according to their function. b. Groups of cells involved in similar tasks may form tissues. c. Cells are formed into organs and organ systems that effec tively carry out life functions: 1) digestion Possible Laboratory Investigations_____ Tissue examination. Chemical analysis of some tissues, e.g., bone. Design of a system to carry out necessary functions of digestion and comparison with structure of digestive system in frogs and man. Conceptual Scheme Emphasized_______ Unity and diver sity. Relationship of structure to function. History of biolo gical ideas. Relation of structure to function. Homeostasis. Relation of structure to function. Examination of cells as a test of the concept of relation of structure to function. Inquiry Technique Emphasized_______ Observation. Use of models based on known functions. Laboratory technique Usej of models 136 Maj cjr : Ideas________ |2) respiration and circulation Possible Laboratory Investigations_______ Measurement of brea thing rate and of heart beat under varying conditions of exercise. Blood typing. Examination of tissues involved. 3) support and movement Model building to determine effective muscle arrangement. Tests for strength of materials in varying forms. Analysis of bone composition. II. Our behavior is a result of interactions with components of the environment. Conceptual Scheme Emphasized________ Structure-function Homeostasis. Relationship of organism to his environment. Relation of struc ture to function. Homeostasis. Inquiry Technique Emphasized_________ Use of mathematics in biology: organizing numeri data graphing normative tech niques . Use of models. Mathematical appli cations to biology. Laboratory tech niques . Major Ideas Possible Laboratory Investigations_____ Conceptual Scheme Emphasized Inquiry Technique Emphasized_______ a. The senses are pathways for some interactions. b. The study of reactions to some sensations suggest how messages travel in the body. c. Man is capable of controlling his environment because he is capable of learning from his experiences. d. Our relationships with others may determine our ability to guide our own evolution. Eye tests; determina tion of structure of eye through; dissec tion; relation of structure of nerves to function of eye; tests of hearing, smell, taste; reac tions to touch and temperature. Measurement of dis tances between nerve endings as a test of "all or nothing" principle. Reaction time. Tests of learning under Relation of varying conditions, and organism to his History of biolo gical concepts. Evolution. Homeostasis. Relationship of structure to function. History. in different styles. Individual search for best learning style. Studies of behavior patterns in groups. environment. Laboratory tech niques . Hypothesis formation.; Design of experi ments. Experimental design. Relation of organ ism to environment History. Experimental design. | Interpretation of ! data. Interpretation of complex data. Experimental design. H < j 0 co Major Ideas____________ III. Mans interactions with his environment may determine his survival. a. Man is the chief consumer of the world's resources. b. As human popu lations increase, we need increa sing supplies of food and water. c. As populations increase, increa sing safeguards are needed against contamination. d. In satisfying his needs as a consumer man is often disruptive in nature. Possible Laboratory Investigations_____ Analysis of efficiency of -various foods with respect to energy and mineral content. Tests of variation in bacterial counts in food and water from different sources. Effectiveness of methods for control of bacteria and mold. Growth of plants under varying conditions. Conceptual Scheme Inquiry Technique Emphasized__________Emphasized_____ _ Evolution. Laboratory tech niques . Relationship of Laboratory tech- organism to en- niques. vironment. Experimental design. j Interpretation of numerical data. i i Relationship of Experimental design, j organism to his environment. Major Ideas Possible Laboratory Investigations_____ e. In order to live best we must understand that ,we are one com ponent of an ecosystem— living in balance with other components. Bacterial relation ships to man. Study of an ecosystem. Conceptual Scheme Emphasized_______ Relationship of organism to his environment. Evolution. Inquiry Technique Emphasized_______ Model making. Laboratory tech niques. Interpretation of data. APPENDIX D i | Some Findings of Los Angeles City Schools, Office of Research and Development Related to this Study i The program in biology that was the subject of ;this study was funded under ESEA, Title 1 and was, i therefore, reviewed by the Office of Research and Development of the Los Angeles City Schools. The findings of this office were reported in ESEA Title 1 Evaluation Reports, September, 1966 through August, 1967, Volume one, :Los Angeles City Schools, September 30, 1967, pp. 380-389. jThis section is a report of some of these findings. Some Iquestion may be raised as to the factors resulting in jsignificant gains in learning in the subject field. While ^overall test results as analyzed by the public schools do J |indicate a significant gain in scores on the POST, a study of test results by schools suggest that this significant gain may well be a function of the teacher rather than the BSCS program. Scores of the students on pre- and post testing using the POST are, therefore, included here by schools. Page 382 of the Los Angeles report reports this lanalysis of the test results: ! The Processes of Science Test was administered pre and post t0 ESEA pupils in grades nine through twelve i 141 142 in January and May, 1967. The pre mean was 18.17 and the post mean was 19.97 with a difference of 2.80 which is significant at the .01 level. Pretest 16 21 13 19 30 25 14 15 19 21 25 27 16 14 18 18 15 13 23 27 15 23 12 16 SCORES ON POST FOR STUDENTS AT BISHOP CONATY HIGH SCHOOL | t Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest I Difference: 17 1 19 24 5 20 -1 21 27 6 19 6 26 26 0 18 -1 18 19 1 | 28 -2 20 18 -2 23 -2 16 15 -1 15 1 10 14 4 17 2 10 20 10 23 4 21 31 10 26 5 10 14 4 26 1 20 18 -2 32 5 16 15 -1 16 0 10 14 4 19 5 10 20 10 21 3 21 31 10 20 2 10 14 4 ' 19 4 20 18 -2 17 4 26 25 -1 23 0 9 14 5 27 0 18 22 4 I j 20 5 19 17 i -2 S 23 0 16 26 i o ! 13 1 23 23 0 ! 13 -3 23 22 -l H U ) CONATY HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Pretest 22 24 17 25 21 20 15 26 17 24 21 31 17 23 9 9 14 21 24 8 25 22 14 15 Posttest 27 22 28 21 Difference 5 -2 9 -4 Pretest 21 18 16 19 Posttest 26 24 17 19 Difference 1 5 ! 6 ! 1 0 26 18 22 28 17 25 21 28 15 26 10 24 12 26 27 15 5 -2 7 2 0 1 0 -3 -2 1 1 15 -2 5 3 7 13 19 32 26 11 24 11 17 16 12 19 24 19 19 13 21 14 24 28 23 14 18 11 20 19 18 21 28 17 26 25 1 5 -4 -3 3 -6 0 -6 4 7 -1 -3 9 -2 13 4 22 27 20 19 -3 5 6 4 20 13 29 19 24 17 26 22 4 4 ■3 3 4* CONATY HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Pretest 16 21 25 27 21 Posttest 20 22 22 28 26 Difference 4 1 -3 1 5 Pretest 18 17 28 21 19 Posttest 22 18 24 19 22 Difference! 4 1 -4 -2 3 Losers 29 Gainers 62 Sum of differences 201 Average difference 2.03 N 100 H Ul SCORES ON POST FOR STUDENTS AT OUR LADY OF LORETTO HIGH SCHOOL Pretest 11 17 18 14 Posttest 9 18 12 15 Difference -2 1 ’ -6 1 Pretest 11 25 23 17 Posttest 12 32 28 23 Difference 1 7 5 6 20 9 21 16 21 14 29 24 1 5 8 8 17 18 7 15 19 10 18 26 2 -8 11 11 14 25 20 11 19 19 18 14 5 -6 -2 3 16 10 21 15 19 16 21 16 3 6 0 1 7 16 23 26 12 19 16 24 5 3 -7 -2 17 14 12 23 24 18 17 19 7 4 5 -4 19 19 8 18 12 17 25 14 -7 -2 17 -4 15 17 14 21 20 19 19 22 5 2 5 1 28 19 18 19 29 22 14 25 1 3 -4 6 9 22 16 10 20 14 19 14 11 -8 3 4 H i I LADY OF LORETTO HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Pretest Posttest Difference 16 25 9 19 23 4 9 14 5 17 12 -5 25 21 -4 19 16 -3 12 10 -2 21 27 6 10 18 8 27 21 -6 22 19 -3 23 22 -1 Pretest Posttest Differencej 24 25 1 ' 18 18 0 14 16 2 18 13 -5 16 17 1 16 19 3 11 19 8 23 20 -3 10 9 -1 ' 16 12 -4 16 20 4 10 1 , 1 1 19 20 1 15 17 2 19 15 -4 15 18 3 15 11 -4 15 13 -2 21 ' 26 5 22 28 6 8 13 5 22 26 4 18 21 3 22 17 -5 23 28 5 22 22 0 11 20 9 23 15 -8 H '-J Pretest 17 17 10 LADY OF LORETTO HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference 20 3 21 13 -8 10 -7 . 1 4 18 4 21 11 18 28 10 N 94 Losers 31 Gainers 61 Sum of differences 104 Average difference 1.09 H oo SCORES ON POST FOR STUDENTS AT QUEEN OF ANGELS HIGH SCHOOL Pretest Posttest Difference 17 13 -4 15 18 3 16 19 3 18 24 6 15 13 -2 12 17 5 19 15 -4 14 19 5 26 20 -6 13 12 -1 11 6 -5 17 13 -4 22 27 5 15 18 3 12 17 5 14 13 -1 14 16 2 17 19 2 19 24 5 19 14 -5 17 21 4 12 10 -2 21 20 -1 19 25 6 Pretest Posttest Difference 21 19 -2 11 19 8 12 19 7 18 18 0 15 17 2 18 20 2 11 17 6 11 8 -3 15 17 2 20 26 6 10 8 -2 11 13 2 21 12 -9 13 13 0 13 20 7 18 14 -4 19 23 4 19 18 -1 28 31 3 9 18 9 15 22 7 19 18 -1 21 22 1 20 12 -8 QUEEN OF ANGELS HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Pretest Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference! 14 20 6 13 15 2 | 22 18 -4 19 25 6 16 13 -3 25 19 -6 13 13 0 19 19 0 11 15 4 N 57 Losers 22 Gainers 31 Sum of differences 60 Average difference 1.05 SCORES ON POST FOR STUDENTS AT SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL ! Pretest Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference I 20 22 2 9 18 9 I 9 12 3 21 13 -8 18 20 2 26 25 -1 20 29 9 18 18 0 13 17 4 19 15 -4 24 28 4 21 26 5 20 22 2 14 16 2 21 21 0 16 23 7 18 19 1 17 16 -1 14 15 1 18 26 ' 8 18 18 0 23 25 2 15 13 -2 20 25 5 13 8 -5 20 18 -2 18 20 2 21 25 5 28 29 1 22 12 -10 17 18 1 17 21 4 15 18 3 10 11 1 14 9 -5 19 25 6 10 18 8 19 25 6 21 24 3 19 26 7 j 15 17 2 21 19 -2 16 13 -3 11 13 2 6 11 5 15 18 3 9 11 2 17 22 5 H Ul H Pretest 19 15 21 SACRED HEART HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest 26 7 16 17 13 -2 17 19 26 5 N Losers 12 Gainers 38 Sum of differences 100 Average difference 1.88 Difference j 1 2 53 ! 152 SCORES ON POST FOR STUDENTS AT CATHEDRAL HIGH SCHOOL Pretest Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference 18 12 -6 17 21 4 11 12 1 19 23 4 10 15 5 18 16 -2 11 15 4 23 13 -10 20 19 -1 14 12 -2 18 26 8 20 18 -2 26 26 0 9 13 4 17 15 -2 8 20 12 22 19 -3 18 17 -1 11 13 2 12 19 7 9 11 2 9 11 2 17 23 6 17 23 6 21 15 -6 27 24 -3 18 12 -6 14 15 1 21 30 9 21 26 5 18 20 2 11 10 -1 19 21 2 7 10 3 19 17 -2 24 24 0 10 13 3 18 13 -6 20 21 1 14 22 8 16 14 -2 18 25 7 11 12 1 16 15 -1 14 21 7 10 11 1 17 18 1 10 17 7 H U l u> CATHEDRAL HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Pretest Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference 15 14 -1 22 25 3 11 12 1 25 20 -5 11 18 7 9 12 3 12 8 -4 16 10 -6 17 20 3 13 18 5 15 17 2 17 20 3 13 14 1 23 17 -6 12 18 6 19 11 -8 17 13 -4 8 19 11 9 16 7 14 14 0 15 26 11 15 23 8 9 10 1 16 19 3 18 11 -7 11 12 1 18 24 6 9 17 8 10 4 -6 18 15 ~ -3 11 12 1 11 -4 21 22 1 11 17 6 19 30 11 9 20 11 23 21 -2 15 13 -2 14 17 3 17 18 1 15 17 2 21 21 0 N 91 Losers 30 Gainers 56 Sum of differences 157 Average difference 1.72 H Ul SCORES ON POST FOR STUDENTS AT VERBUM DEI HIGH SCHOOL Pretest Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference 16 25 9 13 21 8 13 19 6 16 24 8 30 35 5 15 22 7 18 24 6 16 20 4 19 23 4 12 22 10 10 19 9 16 26 10 10 21 11 15 21 6 12 25 13 16 23 7 15 21 6 11 23 12 13 22 9 8 19 11 12 10 -2 17 25 8 9 18 9 16 24 8 12 22 10 11 18 7 9 22 13 10 26 16 4 15 11 19 19 0 17 27 10 9 20 11 13 23 10 21 25 4 19 21 2 21 30 9 24 31 7 15 24 9 18 . 28 10 13 20 7 14 22 8 24 23 -1 14 23 9 24 30 6 26 34 8 15 20 5 15 19 4 15 19 4 H Ul VERBUM DEI HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Pretest Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference 17 24 7 23 29 6 17 21 4 8 26 18 25 39 14 13 28 15 14 25 11 15. 15 0 13 25 12 8 19 11 11 20 9 15 23 8 15 20 5 19 28 9 15 20 5 16 31 15 19 22 3 19 28 9 14 22 8 16 25 9 15 22 7 23 28 5 14 20 6 21 20 -1 22 27 5 20 27 7 22 26 4 17 24 7 22 29 7 22 25 3 16 27 11 15 30 15 25 34 9 18 25 7 11 19 8 19 25 6 13 23 10 18 25 7 9 20 11 16 20 4 19 25 6 12 28 16 23 28 5 15 23 8 9 20 11 3 15 12 19 34 15 16 19 3 Pretest 18 18 25 20 17 27 VERBUM DEI HIGH SCHOOL (continued) Posttest Difference Pretest Posttest Difference j 19 1 27 33 6 | 25 7 12 16 4 29 4 14 20 6 i 26 6 11 20 9 25 8 10 30 20 35 8 N 107 Losers 3 Gainers 103 Sxim of differences 818 Average difference 7.65 H UI LOS ANGELES CITY REPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE RATINGS 158 Frequency Administrator N Not Effective Very Effective Mean Principal 7 0 0 3 4 3.6 Vice-Principal 5 0 0 4 1 3.2 Coordinator 3 0 0 0 3 4.0 LOS ANGELES CITY REPORT OF TEACHER RATINGS Item N Not Effective Very Effective Mean j Classroom | performance in reading 4 0 Classroom performance in other subject areas 5 1 Study skills 8 0 Attitudes toward school and education 8 0 1 3 3 4 0 0 1 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.6
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Business Education Curriculum Practices In Saudi Arabia Public Secondary Schools And Certain Recommendations For Change
PDF
Time And Man-Nature Value-Orientations As Related To Sex Identity, Ethnicidentity, And Socioeconomic Status And As Predictors Of Academic Success
PDF
Majority And Minority Americans: An Analysis Of Best Selling American Fiction From 1926-1966
PDF
Interrelationships Between Executive Secretaries Of Taxpayer'S Associations And School District Superintendents
PDF
Student Involvement In Governance And Curriculum Development In Selected California High Schools
PDF
Legal Legislative Effects On Public School District Organization In California - A Case Study
PDF
A Philosophical Analysis Of The Sports Experience And The Role Of Athletics In The Schools
PDF
Attitudes Of Student Ethnic Groups On Issues Related To Education
PDF
The Relationship Between The Self Image And The Report Card Achievement Of Eleventh Year English Students
PDF
Differences In Expectations And Perceptions In Curriculum Improvement Between Teachers And Administrators In Selected California Union High School Districts
PDF
Power Struggle And Organizational Goals: A Case Study Of An Industrial Firm
PDF
Cognitive Level Achievement Relationship With Intelligence, Achievement, And Grade Point Average
PDF
The Organizing Principle In The Curriculum Of Christian Education: Protestant Trends
PDF
Institutional Change, Attitudes And Personality Characteristics Of Medical Students
PDF
An Evaluation Of Nonpromotion As A Method Of Improving Academic Performance
PDF
Criteria For Evaluating Foreign Language Program Articulation Between Elementary And Secondary Levels
PDF
Some Personality And Temperament Characteristics Of Selected School Musicteachers
PDF
Contemporary Affairs Instruction In Selected High School Social Science Classes
PDF
Testing Attitudes Toward Physical Handicap: Stereotyping And Objectivityin A Partially Integrated Elementary Program
PDF
Preparation And Experience Of The Music Teacher In Higher Education
Asset Metadata
Creator
Wilson, George Franklin
(author)
Core Title
Pupil Attitudes And Pupil Achievement Resulting From Certain Biological Sciences Curriculum Materials
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Education, general,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Cannon, Wendell E. (
committee chair
), Hickerson, Nathaniel (
committee member
), Wilson, Donald E. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-621739
Unique identifier
UC11359983
Identifier
6812064.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-621739 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6812064.pdf
Dmrecord
621739
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Wilson, George Franklin
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