THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PUBLICATION NUMBER 6720 OCTOBER 15, 1967 RESEARCH AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE~ EDUCATION 1. THE NEW PROGRA~IS IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY EDITED BY PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND BIOLOGY DIRECTOR, SCIE CE EDUCATION CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN RESEARCH AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PUBLICATION NUMBER 6720 OCTOBER 15, 1967 RESEARCH AND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN SCIENCE EDUCATION 1. THE NEW PROGRAMS IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY EDITED BY Copyright© 1968 by the Science Education Center THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN Copies of this publication may be procured for $2.50 from the SCIENCE EDUCATION CENTER, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78712. PUBLISHED BY THE UNIVERSITY TWICE A MONTH AND ENTERED AS SECOND-CLASS MATTER AT THE POST OFFICE AT AUSTIN, TEXAS UNDER THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912 FOREWORD Many of the new curriculum studies have now reached a stage of maturity where they are "on their own." The materials developed are being accepted and used now by many teachers not involved in their initial development, tryout, or evaluation. Although the materials have been described in detail in numerous publications and some analyses and evaluations of them reported, a great deal more needs to be done in terms of the current use of these materials by teachers and students. It has often been stated that one anticipated function of new curriculum mate­rials would be to serve as models or stimulants for the development of still other materials. It is pertinent, therefore, to analyze the situation and to determine if this impact has occurred. In developing its program for graduate students, the faculty of the Science Edu­cation Center at The University of Texas at Austin has focused on a number of problems relating to the situation described above, and has planned a series of monographs to report the investigations carried out. This monograph is the first in the series and reports studies involving new programs in high school biology and, in particular, studies involving the use of materials developed in the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. With the obvious exception of Chapters I and XVI, the chapters included in this monograph report work done by a number of gradu­ate students in partial fulfillment of the requirements leading to the Ph.D. degree at The University of Texas at Austin. A number of people associated with the Science Education Center have assisted in bringing this monograph to completion. Those who should have special mention are Dr. Earl J. Montague, who read several of the manuscripts and offered criti­cisms and suggestions; Miss Dale Ballard, graduate student, who assisted with editorial functions; Mrs. Mary Anne Hunter, who, with the help of Mrs. Evelyn Waugh, Miss Cheryl Harvey, and Mrs. Bonnie Worley, was responsible for most of the typing and preparation of the manuscripts for the press; and Mrs. Margaret Webb, who coordinated the project. ADDISON E. LEE Austin, Texas October, i967 The benefits of education and of useful knowledge, generally diffused through a community, are essential to the preservation of a free government. SAM HOUSTON Cultivated mind is the guardian genius of Democracy, and while guided and controlled by virtue, the noblest attribute of man. It is the only dictator that freemen acknowledge, and the only security which freemen desire. MIRABEAU B. LAMAR CONTENTS I. New Curriculum Developments as 'Working Papers" for Research --Addison E. Lee 9 II. Mathematics and the New Science Curricula 12 --Ralph W. Cain III. The Development of an Attitude Inventory Designed to Deter­mine Reactions of Biology Teachers to BSCS Biology --Jacob W. Blankenship 21 IV. An Analysis of Certain Characteristics of Biology Teachers in Re­lation to Their Reactions to the BSCS Biology Program --Jacob W. Blankenship 29 v. An Analysis of Certain Aspects of the Verbal Behavior of Student Teachers of Eighth-Grade Students Participating in a BSCS Lab­oratory Block --William S. La Shier, Jr. 37 VI. Library Resource Books for High School Biology --Betty Ann Bradley 46 VII. The Development of Some Supplementary Teaching Materials and Evaluation of Their Use in the High School Biology Program --Reese Duke 52 VIII. The Development of a Student Checklist to Determine Classroom Teaching Practices in High School Biology --Leonard H. Kochendorfer 71 IX. Classroom Practices of High School Biology Teachers Using Dif­ferent Curriculum Materials 79 --Leonard H. Kochendorfer x. Use of the Biology Classroom Activity Checklist in Identifying Specific Classroom Practices of Individual Teachers and Students --Leonard H. Kochendorfer 85 XI. The Development of a Student Checklist to Determine Laboratory Practices in High School Biology --Lehman W. Barnes, Jr. 90 XII. Laboratory Instruction in High School Biology Classes Using Dif­ferent Curriculum Materials 97 --Lehman W. Barnes, Jr. XIII. An Investigation of the Relationship of Selected Variables to Labora­tory Activity in High School Biology --Lehman W. Barnes, Jr. 104 XIV. The Development and Evaluation of Grouped High School Biology Classes --Marjorie P. Behringer Curricula For Ability­ 110 XV. The Nature of Biology Teachers' Manuals and an Analysis of Their Use by High School Biology Teachers --Dianne E. Stanko 123 XVI. Additional Studies Involving New High School Biology Programs --Addison E. Lee and David L. Lehman 130 I. NEW CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENTS AS "WORKING PAPERS" FOR RESEARCH Addison E. Lee SCIENCE EDUCATION CENTER THE UNIVERSI1Y OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN It is commonly recognized that new knowledge obtained as a result of efforts of research scientists and mathematicians is important in our society. Not so well recognized but also important are recent efforts that deal not only with discovering new knowledge in science and mathematics but with discovering new ways of transmitting both old and new knowledge to students and to the public at large. These efforts involve initially identification of some of the most important informa­tion and ideals of science and mathematics and then the development of ways to communicate such information and ideas. Likewise, they involve, or should involve, the use and development of techniques for accurate surveying of actual teaching practices and the actual use of new curriculum materials and, perhaps more im­portantly, appropriate evaluations of these new techniques and materials. It should be noted that much work is being done in the field of educational psychology on the one had while on the other hand many new curriculum mate­rials are being prepared, with little communication between workers in the two areas. Conceivably, research in science and mathematics education ought to bridge the gap between the two efforts. Research in science and mathematics education could involve the implications of educational psychology research for curriculum development and, likewise, new curriculum developments should be considered as "working papers" from which to identify and characterize materials and techniques that could be used to structure teaching programs for optimum effectiveness. Yet, in spite of recognition that much work is being done in the field of educa­tional psychology, it turns out that few instruments have been developed that will enable the curriculum maker to identify accurately the needs in a particular area or to provide the necessary basis for proper selection of curriculum materials. Further­more, few instruments exist which provide for proper evaluation of actual classroom practices or teaching techniques in relation to the use of particular materials. In the development of its graduate program the Science Education Center at The University of Texas at Austin undertook to design a program of graduate studies in research that included the use of existing curriculum materials and in­struments for research as well as the development of new materials and instru­ments. The program has included the following areas: 1. Analysis of the nature and content of modem research in specific science and mathematics areas and the implications of this information for curricula at different levels. 2. Creation or development of new materials and approaches with promise of improvement for science and mathematics programs at various levels. 3. Analysis and evaluation of the use of new experimental materials developed for science and mathematics instruction. 4. Development of techniques distinct from current evaluation and examination practices for exploring the effectiveness of specific science or mathematics teaching at various levels. 5. Development of new programs and procedures for the preparation of pro­spective science or mathematics teachers. The program cited above involves both a creative and an experimental approach. It is really development and research and involves a triangle of people-the re­search scientist, the professional educator, and the teacher. During the past several years, faculty and graduate students in the Science Education Center at The University of Texas at Austin have had the opportunity of participating in a number of the national curriculum studies. One result of this participation has been the availability of new and experimental materials that could be used in various research projects. One of the important developments has been the organization of a Research and Development Laboratory for the teaching of biology under the administration of and with support from the Bio­logical Sciences Curriculum Study ( BSCS). This laboratory is unique in a number of respects. The staff (project associates) for the laboratory is made up primarily of experienced high school teachers who contribute to the development of the program not only in their general knowledge of biology but also in their actual experience in teaching biology to high school students. The primary assignment of the project associates has been to work with the members of the BSCS Com­mittee on Innovation in Laboratory Instruction and individual authors of the BSCS Laboratory Blocks. It has turned out that members of the laboratory staff have not only been able to provide practical answers to the basic questions involved in their work with the committee and Laboratory Block authors but also have been able to provide many supplementary suggestions concerning the materials with which they worked. The staff has, in fact, conducted research in the identification and use of the most appropriate organisms to illustrate particular concepts and in the development of particular kinds of equipment and techniques best suited to carry out particular investigations. In actual practice then, this laboratory has turned out to be one of the most unusual, if not a unique one, in the history of biology teaching. One out­growth of efforts in this laboratory has been a book, Innovations in Equipment and Techniques for the Biology Teaching Laboratory, by Richard E. Barthelemy, James R. Dawson, Jr., and Addison E. Lee (1), published in 1964 as a resource book for biology teachers. It includes various contributions of the laboratory staff, including reports of the development and descriptions of new techniques, the identification of different and perhaps better organisms for use in laboratory teach­ing, and the development of new or modified equipment for teaching specific techniques or concepts. One example of the use of a different organism for the development of a laboratory investigation of mineral nutrition in plants is the use of Sorghum 610 rather than sunflower, com, or beans, which are commonly used. Sorghum 610 is well known to agriculture researchers and is highly sensitive to iron or nitrogen deficiencies, but apparently has not been used to any appreciable extent in teach­ing elementary biology. Use of this plant in lieu of those commonly used reduces the time of the investigation from approximately a six-to-nine-week period to a three-week period, and the results are very striking. In addition, the amount of culture medium, equipment, and storage space required for laboratory teaching is greatly reduced. As previously indicated, the primary focus of the Research and Development Laboratory has been the development of the series of BSCS Laboratory Blocks. The objectives, history, and potential of this program have been described in BSCS Special Publication No. 5, "Laboratory Blocks in Teaching Biology" (2). This book also gives a complete listing of all BSCS publications, including course materials, Laboratory Blocks, pamphlets, bulletins, special publications, teachers' handbook, student investigations, tests, films, and newsletters. This list can serve as a useful reference source not only for biology teachers looking for teaching materials, but also for science educators looking for materials with research po­tential and models for curriculum development. As indicated above, reports of the work of the BSCS Research and Development Laboratory have been disseminated through the publications of the BSCS program. However, parallel to this effort, a great deal of independent research has been carried out by staff and graduate students in the Science Education Center at The University of Texas at Austin and has involved use of these and similar new cur­riculum developments produced in the major national-level curriculum programs. In addition, attention has been paid to some programs which have been developed at a more local level. Insofar as possible, these studies have been based on the re­search and development rationale presented earlier in this chapter and represent examples of some of the areas listed. While some articles involving part of these studies have already been published in appropriate journals, it seems desirable to gather together a group of them with more complete details in one monograph to illustrate the continuity of this research at The University of Texas at Austin and to make available the results to other workers in the emerging field of Science Education. LITERATURE CITED I. Barthelemy, Richard E., Dawson, James R., Jr., and Lee, Addison E. Innovations in Equipment and Techniques for the Biology Teaching Laboratory. D. C. Heath and Co., Boston. 1964. 2. Lee, Addison E., Lehman, David L., and Peterson, Glen E. (Editors). "Laboratory Blocks in Teaching Biology." Special Publication No. 5. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. University of Colorado, Boulder. 1967. II. MATHEMATICS AND THE NEW SCIENCE CURRICULA Ralph W. Cain SCIENCE EDUCATION CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY An important phase of the development of new curriculum programs is their interaction with existing programs and among themselves. One problem en­countered in curriculum developments in secondary school science and mathe­matics has been that of coordinating the mathematics program with the mathe­matical content of the science programs. This problem has become more important due to the nature of certain curriculum developments. Two trends in the development of new high school science programs have been the updating of science content and increased emphasis upon understanding the content and processes of science. Each of these trends would seem to suggest that mathematical concepts and processes would become more and more involved in the science courses. The first, assuming that science is becoming more mathe­matical, implies a rather obvious need for the science courses to become more mathematical. The second implies further need for the science courses to become mathematical, if it is agreed that mathematics can aid the development of under­standing through systematizing and symbolizing many scientific concepts. The purpose of this paper is to consider certain evidence of the possible increase in the utilization of mathematics in secondary school science courses, especially in biol­ogy, and to consider implications for the development of mathematics programs and the further development of high school science courses. MATHEMATICS IN HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE MATERIALS One index of the degree of utilization of mathematics in high school science courses is the frequency of the appearance of mathematical concepts and proc­esses in the textboks, laboratory manuals, and other written materials used in the courses. By examining sets of materials one would be able to ascertain any marked diHerences in their mathematical content. Further, if one would examine materials for a traditional science course and materials for a modem science course in the same area, he might determine trends on the increase or decrease in the use of mathematics as a result of a transition from the traditional to the modem course. A study by Cain in 1962 included an analysis of selected high school science materials in physics, chemistry, and biology for their utilization of certain mathe­matical concepts and processes and the degree of such utilization ( 1). Table 1 is the tabulation of the analysis. The column headings in Table 1 are to be interpreted as noted following the table. TABLE lab THE RELATIVE DEGREE OF UTILIZATION OF SELECTED MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS AND PROCESSES IN SELECTED COURSES IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY, CHEMISTRY, AND PHYSICS Biology Chemistry Physics Mathematical concepts and processes Trad BSCS-Y Trad CBA CHEM Trad PSSC Linear equations 0 2 4 4 4 4 4 Quadratic equations 0 2 3 2 3 4 4 Ratio, proportion, & variation 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 Conversion factors 0 2 3 3 4 4 2 Graphs 0 4 0 4 4 3 4 Probability 2 4 0 0 0 0 3 Tables 1 4 4 2 2 4 2 Statistics 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 Formulas 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 Trigonometric functions 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Vectors 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 Intuitive plane geometry 0 0 0 2 3 4 4 Logarithms 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 Powers of ten 0 3 4 4 4 3 4 Nuclear or chemical equations 2 4 4 4 4 2 0 Intuitive solid geometry 0 1 2 4 4 3 3 Intuitive calculus 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 Measurement 0 4 3 4 4 3 4 a Number symbols in this table are to be interpreted as follows: 0-not included at all !-used very few times; not important to development 2-used few times; of small importance to development 3-used several times; important to development 4-used numerous times; very important to development b Quoted from Cain, Ralph W. and Lee, Eugene C. "An Analysis of the Relationship between Science and Mathematics at the Secondary School Level." Sclwol Science and Mathematics, LXIII (December 1963). P. 711. Trad-traditional biology-Moon, Truman J., Mann, Paul B., and Otto, James H. Modem Biology. Henry Holt and Co., New York. 1951. chemistry-Dull, Charles E., Brooks, William 0., and Metcalfe, H. Clark. Modern Chemistry. Henry Holt and Co., New York. 1954. physics-Dull, Charles. Modern Physics. Henry Holt and Co., New York.1955. BSCS-Y-Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. High School Biology (Yel­ low Version) Experimental edition. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, 1960. CBA-Chemical Bond Approach Committee. Chemistry 2d ed. The Reed Institute, Portland, Ore. 1961. CHEM-Chemical Education Material Study. Chemistry: an Experimental Science. 2d trial ed. The Regents of the University of California, 1960, 1961. PSSC-Physical Science Study Committee. Physics. D. C. Heath and Co., Boston. 1960. The mathematical concepts and processes listed were selected, with some modi­fication, from a list developed by Lockwood ( 2). A comparison of the utilization of mathematics in the traditional and new science course materials, as shown in Table 1, reveals that there was only a slight increase in the chemistry and physics materials but a rather marked increase in the biology materials. This marked increase is indicated by the fact that the BSCS program uses fourteen of the eighteen concepts and processes listed, compared to only six for the traditional course, and by the fact that the BSCS program has nine of them rated important-as indicated by a rating of 4 or 3-while the traditional course has none rated so highly. Following the revelation of the apparent increase in the utilization of mathe­matics in high school biology with the advent of BSCS materials, further investi­gation was undertaken to determine if the increase in mathematical content of the new biology materials would be reflected in the performance of students in biology classes in which the new materials were used. The purpose of this study was to investigate relationships between the achievement of students in selected high school biology programs, new and traditional, and their mathematical aptitude and achievement. DESIGN OF THE STUDY From its beginning the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ( BSCS) has en­gaged in evaluation of developed curriculum materials for high school biology. Beginning with the 1960-62 and 1962-63 Evaluation Programs, BSCS has collected and analyzed increasing quantities of data on students enrolled in their programs and in traditional biology programs ( 3). Among the data collected were scores on achievement tests in biology and on tests of mathematical aptitude. Since large numbers of subjects were included in the evaluation studies, these seemed a pos­sible source of data for this study. Through the cooperation of BSCS and the Psychological Corporation, certain data were made available to the investigator. Populations studies. All students included in this study were elements of samples used in the 1962-63 BSCS Evaluation Program. One group consisted of 517 students enrolled in a BSCS Yellow Version tenth-grade biology program in a large Texas city; the other consisted of 563 students enrolled in a traditional tenth-grade biology program in another large Texas city. Members of the BSCS group were selected from classes taught by six teachers in three high schools. Members of the traditional group represented the classes of nine teachers in two high schools. Each group contained all students in the corresponding BSCS Evalu­ation Program center who met the following additional criteria: ( 1) enrollment in tenth grade; ( 2) enrollment in high school biology for the first time; ( 3) com­pletion of first-year algebra prior to enrollment in biology, and no enrollment in second-year algebra concurrent with enrollment in biology; ( 4) availability of all desired data. Data collected. The following data were collected for all students in each group: ( 1) Measures of achievement in biology (a) Teacher-assigned grades, collected from school and teacher records (b) Scores on the BSCS Comprehensive Test (Revised) 0 (2) Measure of mathematical achievement-teacher-assigned grades in first­year algebra, collected from school records (3) Measure of mathematical aptitude-score on the Differential Aptitude Test of Numerical Ability (Form A) 0 (4) Measure of verbal reasoning ability-scores on the Differential Aptitude Test of Verbal Reasoning (Form A) 0 In addition to the above data, the following were collected for all students in the BSCS Group: (5) Measures of achievement in portions of the BSCS Yellow Version program­scores on BSCS Achievement Tests, 1, 2, 3, and 4, collected from teacher records Method af data analysis. Since relationships between pairs of variables were the focus of interest in this study, some form of correlation analysis was suggested. Preliminary investigation of the data collected showed that all assumptions under­lying the use of Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation were satisfied. Further consideration of the problem led to the conclusion that, due to interrela­tionships among certain of the variables, partial correlation techniques would be used to minimize their effects. This decision to use partial correlation was based upon the nature of the variables involved and the information sought; such deci­sions must be made whenever correlation methods of data analysis are used ( 4, p. 343). Coefficients of partial correlation were computed on a desk calculator from Pearson product-moment coefficients of correlation which were computed on a Control Data Corporation 1604 digital computer. In addition to the necessity of satisfying the assumptions underlying the use of the Pearson r, it was necessary that all coefficients of correlation utilized in computing others be significantly dif­ferent from zero. All such requirements were checked at each step as computing progressed. For each of the two groups the following coefficients of partial correlation were computed: ° Furnished to the investigator from the Psychological Corporation through the co­operation of BSCS from data collected for the 1962-63 BSCS Evaluation Program. ( 1) between achievement in biology and mathematical achievement, with mathematical aptitude and verbal reasoning ability held constant; ( 2) between achievement in biology and mathematical aptitude, with verbal reasoning ability held constant. For the BSCS group the following additional coefficients of partial correlation were computed: ( 3) between achievement in each of four portions of the BSCS biology program and mathematical achievement, with verbal reasoning ability held constant; ( 4) between achievement in each of four portions of the BSCS biology program and mathematical achievement, with mathematical aptitude held constant; ( 5) between achievement in each of four portions of the BSCS biology program and mathematical aptitude, with verbal reasoning ability held constant. Differences between corresponding pairs of coefficients of correlations were com­puted, and the significance of each of the differences was determined by standard statistical techniques. The following null hypotheses were tested: ( 1) The coefficient of partial correlation between each of the measures of the achievement in biology and the measure of mathematical achievement, with verbal reasoning ability and mathematical aptitude held constant, for stu­dents in one biology program is not significantly different from the corre­sponding coefficient of partial correlation for students in the other program. ( 2) The coefficient of partial correlation between each of the measures of achievement in biology and the measure of mathematical aptitude, with verbal reasoning ability held constant, for students in one biology program is not significantly different from the corresponding coefficient of partial correlation for students in the other program. ( 3) The coefficient of partial correlation between the measure of achievement in any of the four portions of the BSCS biology program and the measure of mathematical achievement, with either verbal reasoning ability or mathe­matical aptitude held constant, is not significantly different from the coeffi­cient of partial correlation between the measure of achievement in any other portion of the BSCS program and the measure of mathematical achieve­ment, with the same variable held constant. ( 4) The coefficient of partial correlation between the measure of achievement in any of the four portions of the BSCS biology program and the measure of mathematical aptitude, with verbal reasoning ability held constant, is not significantly different from the coefficient of partial correlation between the measure of achievement in any other portion of the BSCS program and the measure of mathematical aptitude, with the same variable held constant. RESULTS OF THE STUDY The results of the study are summarized in Tables 2-6. The z-transformation values and the z-values in Tables 2 and 3 were computed according to standard statistical tables and techniques, and the significance of the z-values determined by use of a table for the unit normal curve ( 4, pp. 2.55-256). The differences be­tween coefficients of correlation in Tables 4, 5, and 6 include all possible pairs of coefficients taken such that the difference is positive in each case; the t-values were computed using a standard statistical formula, and the significance determined by referral to a standard t-table using N-4 degrees of freedom ( N = 517 for the BSCS group) ( 4, pp. 2.56-257). It should be noted that no differences are significant except for the coefficients of partial correlation between achievement in biology and mathematical aptitude, with verbal reasoning ability held constant (Table 3). The minimum value of t significant at the .05 level of confidence with 513 degrees of freedom is 1.965. CONCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Based upon the results of this study, only the second of the null hypotheses set forth can be rejected. That is, there is a significant difference in the degree of rela­tionship between achievement in biology and mathematical aptitude for students in the two different biology programs. The degree of relationship is greater for the BSCS group than for the traditional group, indicating that mathematical aptitude may be a more important factor to success in the BSCS biology program than it is in a traditional biology program. The lack of any significant differences of relationship between achievement in biology and mathematical achievement when the two groups were compared TABLE 2a SECOND-ORDER COEFFICIENTS OF PARTIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENT AND ACHIEVEMENT IN BIOLOGY, Z-TRANSFORMATION VALUES, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Z-TRANSFORMATION VALUES Correlation BSCS Traditional Signif- Coefficient Group Group ZBscs ZTRAD ZB-ZT Z-Value icance r1s.2a .45 .49 .49 .54 -.05 -0.78 N.S. r19.2a .22 .14 .22 .15 .08 1.28 N.S. BSCS Group: N = 517 Vi-Grade in alg. I V8-Grade in biology Traditional Group: N = 563 V2-DAT Verb. Reasoning V9-BSCS Comp. Final V3-DAT Num. Ability a All values have been rounded to two decimal places from computations carried to four decimal places. could have been influenced by two limitations of the study: (a) the use of only teacher-assigned grades as measures of mathematical achievement introduced many uncontrollable variables into the measure whose effects could well have hidden relationships; ( b) no controls were used on possible differences between TABLE 3a FIRST-ORDER COEFFICIENTS OF PARTIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE AND BIOLOGY ACHIEVEMENT, Z-TRANSFORMATION VALUES, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Z-TRANSFORMATION VALUES Correlation BSCS Traditional Signif- Coefficient Group Group ZBSCS ZTRAD ZB-~ Z-Value icance r3s.2 .34 .16 .36 .16 .20 3.28 p .01 r39.2 .32 .05 .33 .05 .28 4.52 p .01 BSCSGroup: N = 517 V2-DAT Verb. Reasoning V8-Grade in biology Traditional Group: N = 563 V3-DAT Num. Ability Vg-BSCS Comp. Final a All values have been rounded to two decimal places from computations carried to four decimal places. TABLE 4a FIRST-ORDER COEFFICIENTS OF PARTIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENT AND BSCS ACHIEVEMENT TESTS, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELECTED PAIRS OF THE COEFFICIENTS ( BSCS GROUP) rl4.2 = .32 rl6.2 = .37 N=517 rl5.2= .31 rl7.2= .31 Correlation Coefficients Difference t-Value Significance ris.2 -r11.2 .06 1.39 N.S. ria.2-r1s.2 . 06 1.37 N.S. ris.2 -r14.2 .05 1.14 N.S. r11.2-r11.2 .01 0.27 N.S. r11. 2-r15.2 .01 0.21 N.S. ris.2-r11.2 .00 0.08 N.S. V1-Grade in alg. 1 V.-BSCS Ach. Test 1 V6-BSCS Ach. Test 3 V2-DAT Verb. Reasoning V5-BSCS Ach. Test 2 V1-BSCS Ach. Test 4 a All values have been rounded to two decimal places from computations carried to four decimal places. mathematics programs of the two groups or within either group. In any case, the results of this study do not warrant any conclusions related to differences in re­lationships between achievement in biology and mathematical achievement for the two groups. RALPH W. CAIN TABLE 5a FIRST-ORDER COEFFICIENTS OF PARTIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN MATHEMATICAL ACHIEVEMENT AND BSCS ACHIEVEMENT TESTS, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELECTED PAIRS OF THE COEFFICIENTS (BSCS GROUP) rl4.3 = .24 rl6.3 = .31 N=517 rl5.3=.26 rl7.3 = .24 Correlation COefficients Difference t-Value Significance r 1s.a -r14.a . 07 1.89 N.S . r1s_a-r11.a .07 1.78 N.S. r 1s.a ­r 1s.a .05 1.38 N.S. r1s_a-r14.a .02 0.51 N.S. f1s.a-r11.a .02 0.51 N.S. r11.a-rl4.a . 00 0.02 N.S . V1-Grade in alg. 1 V4-BSCS Ach. Test 1 V6-BSCS Ach. Test 3 Va-DAT Num. Ability V5-BSCS Ach. Test 2 V1-BSCS Ach. Test 4 a All values have been rounded to two decimal places from computations carried to four decimal places. TABLE 6a FIRST-ORDER COEFFICIENTS OF PARTIAL CORRELATION BETWEEN MATHEMATICAL APTITUDE AND BSCS ACHIEVEMENT TESTS, AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELECTED PAIRS OF THE COEFFICIENTS ( BSCS GROUP) r34.2= .31 r36.2= .27 N=517 r35.2= .25 r37.2 = .28 Correlation Coefficients Difference t-Value Significance ra4.2 -ras.2 .06 1.31 N.S. f34_2-ras.2 .04 1.03 N.S. fa4_2 -ra1.2 .03 0.67 N.S. Ta1 .2 -ras.2 .03 0.62 N.S. ras.2 -r3s.2 .01 0.33 N.S. Ta1.2 -ras.2 .01 0.28 N.S. V2-DAT Verb. Reasoning V4-BSCS Ach. Test 1 V6-BSCS Ach. Test 3 V3-DAT Num. Ability V5-BSCS Ach. Test 2 V1-BSCS Ach. Test 4 a All values have been rounded to two decimal places from computations carried to four decimal places. That no significant differences were found between achievement in the different portions of the BSCS program and either mathematical aptitude or mathematical achievement was not surprising in light of the fact that each of the tests used as measures was designed to cover a full quarter of the course. One might conjecture that tests designed to measure achievement in smaller segments of the course might uncover significant differences among them. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The primary implication of this study is that possible effects of high or low mathematical aptitude of students should be considered when they are consider­ing enrolling in high school biology. It has long been accepted that students in physics and chemistry courses should have some facility in mathematics, but results of this study indicate that perhaps there should be concern for the mathe­matical ability of biology students. Curriculum developers might consider the possibility of maintaining a more traditional biology course for students whose mathematical aptitude is low, or special remedial classes for students of low mathematical aptitude might be made a prerequisite to enrollment in a biology course of the BSCS type. Further study of relationships between achievement in biology and mathemati­cal achievement, using better measures of achievement and having better controls over concomitant variables, would perhaps reveal more clearly the true nature of such relationships. Likewise, further analysis of portions of the BSCS courses might be undertaken to determine if certain portions of the program are, in fact, more mathematical than others. LITERATURE CITED 1. Cain, Ralph W. "An Analysis of Mathematical Concepts and Processes Utilized in Tra­ditional and New Secondary Science Curricula in Relation to the Content and Sequence of Traditional and New Secondary Mathematics Curricula." Unpublished M. Ed. thesis, The University of Texas. 1962. See also Cain, Ralph W. and Lee, Eugene C. "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Science and Mathematics at the Secondary School Level." School Science and Mathe­matics, LXIII. Dec., 1963. Pp. 705-713. 2. Lockwood, J. Bryce. "The Mathematical Processes Needed in Leaming High School Chemistry and High School Physics." Science Education, XLIII. Feb., 1959. Pp. 56--60. 3. BSCS. Newsletter #10 (Nov. 1961), Newsletter #19 (Sept. 1963), Newsletter #20 (Feb. 1964). Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. University of Colorado, Boulder. 4. Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Inc., New York. 1953. III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ATTITUDE INVENTORY DESIGNED TO DETERMINE REACTIONS OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS TO BSCS BIOLOGY Jacob W. Blankenship DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA INTRODUCTION With the advent of new and up-to-date science curriculum materials has come an increasing realization that it is not enough to develop materials only, but that programs designed to provide the student with an understanding of the processes of science are also needed. In this connection the role of the teacher and the char­acteristics of the teacher become more important. The Biological Sciences Cur­riculum Study ( BSCS) has recognized that the teacher is the key to the successful implementation of its Program ( 1). It follows that those involved in the design and development of curriculum materials should attempt to ascertain teachers' reac­tions to the materials developed. This is not to imply that quality in curriculum materials must be sacrificed in order to win favor with the teacher. The implioation is that the teacher's attitudes concerning curricular materials must be considered if successful implementation of the materials is to be achieved. Since the teaching techniques suggested in the BSCS biology program are in some instances quite different from the traditional approach to science teaching, and since the BSCS biology program is so devised that the newer techniques are essential to the success of the program, it seemed to the author that an attempt to assess biology teachers' reaction toward the program was needed. In order to accurately identify the teachers' attitudes toward the BSCS biology program. the author designed and developed an Attitude Inventory. The purpose of this paper is to describe the design, development, and evaluation of this Attitude Inventory ( 2). In designing and developing the Attitude Inventory, the investigator reviewed available literature relating to the BSCS biology program; he interviewed a num­ber of scientists, high school teachers and others who were involved in the develop­ment of the BSCS materials and also a number of high school teachers who had not been involved in the development of that program. Included among the latter were individuals who had indicated unfavorable reactions to the new program. Written comments were also obtained from a group of high school science teachers who studied the BSCS materials in the spring semester of 1963 as a part of their course work in a seminar course for science teachers. These teachers' comments were re­lated to the strengths ·and weaknesses of the BSCS program as each teacher in­terpreted its practicability for his own school situation. Following a careful study of the materials thus obtained, a large number of statements were prepared, re­flecting specifically either a view favorable to the BSCS program or a view unfavor­able to the program. Subsequently, 70 of the statements were selected by the in­vestigator as being most likely to aid in the accurate identification of the genuine reactions of the teachers who would be involved in the investigation. These 70 statements were then compiled into a single instrument suitable for administering to a group of individuals. For each statement on the inventory, the respondent was asked for an indication of agreement or disagreement. Half of the statements re­flected attitudes and opinions commonly held by those persons who designed the BSCS biology program; thus, agreement with those statements could be considered to represent attitudes favorable to the BSCS biology program. The other half of the statements reflected attitudes and opinions common to those persons who spoke or wrote in favor of the traditional biology program or in opposition to the BSCS bi­ology program. This tentative draft of the attitude-measuring instrument was then administered to a selected group of individuals who had participated in the design and development of the BSCS biology program. Through the use of an item analysis of the inventory and by incorporating sug­gestions from those who had responded to statements in the inventory, the inven­tory was reduced from 70 items to 50. The basic format of the inventory was re­tained with half of the statements reflecting favorable attitudes and opinions and the other half reflecting unfavorable attitudes and opinions. The order of the state­ments in the inventory was determined through the use of a table of random num­bers. This 50-item inventory was resubmitted to the group of evaluators for sug­gestions, and following a second revision the inventory was reduced to 46 concise statements. An individual's score on the Attitude Inventory was determined by computing the number of items checked which indicated a favorable attitude toward the BSCS biology program, minus the number of items checked which in­dicated an unfavorable attitude toward the BSCS program. The maximum score possible on 'the inventory would, therefore, be a +23, indicating selection of all the statements compatible with the rationale of the BSCS biology program. The mini­mum score possible would be a -23, indicating selection of all the statements which were not compatible with the rationale of the BSCS program. Items judged to be in agreement with BSCS rationale and philosophy are indicated in the instru­ment below with an asterisk. Obviously, the asterisk was omitted in the instrument as reproduced and used in research studies. lt should be pointed out that the Attitude Inventory was designed and developed for use with teachers prior to the release of commercially prepared BSCS Biology materials. The final form of the Attitude Inventory follows: STUDY OF TEACHER REACTIONS TO BSCS PROGRAM ATTITUDE INVENTORY Name---------­ INSTRUCTIONS Attached are statements pertaining to the high school biology programs with which you are acquainted. These statements reflect a wide range of attitudes con­cerning these biology programs. We would like for you to read each statement carefully and ask yourself whether you agree or disagree with the statement. We realize that in some cases the de­cision will be a difficult one. If you agree with the statement, place a check mark in the space provided by the statement. If you do not agree with the statement, leave the space provided blank. Remember: Place a check mark only by those statements with which you defi­nitely agree. --0 1. Laboratory work in high school biology should be more closely inte­grated with the text material. 2. The high school biology program should be designed and controlled only by high school biology teachers. --0 3. The high school biology laboratory work would be more interesting if the nature of laboratory work were more investigative. --0 4. Demonstrations are not as effective as student participation type labora­tory work. 0 5. Students gain more scientific knowledge by participation in BSCS-type laboratory work than they do in the conventionally patterned labora­tory work. 6. Itwould be difficult, ifnot impossible, to teach the BSCS biology course in its present form. 7. It is not necessary that a student actually perform laboratory work in order to understand the principles of scientific investigation. 0 8. The BSCS biology program reflects the current trend in the biological sciences. 0 9. The situations which students are exposed to in BSCS biology are simi­lar to those situations faced by a scientist in his every day work. 10. The BSCS biology program has failed to provide for some of the most important aspects of the high school biology course. 11. A practical biology course that has immediately usable information for the student is what is needed in the high school. --0 12. BSCS biology adequately provides for differences in student ability. 13. The major emphasis in high school biology should be the structure and functions of organs and tissues. 14. Well-prepared motion pictures could be substituted for all high school biology laboratory work. --0 15. Our knowledge in the life sciences has been derived from limited ob­servations. __ 16. A slight modification of the existing high school biology program is all that is needed to provide an effective high school biology program. Items judged to be in agreement with BSCS rationale and philosophy. Identification ( 0 ) not to be shown ifinstrument is reproduced and used. The University of Texas Publication z4 --0 17. BSCS biology would enable the student to understand better the ways in which hypotheses are developed and tested. --0 18. Students come to understand science through participating in labora­tory work rather than by reading about science and watching demon­strations. 19. Accurate evaluation of a student's achievement in a laboratory-oriented course, such as the BSCS course, would be impossible. 20. At the present time, there is no need for a major revision of the high school biology program. --0 21. The use of six weeks of concentrated laboratory work in one area of biology is justifiable. 22. College-bound students would profit more from the conventional type of biology course than they would from the BSCS biology program. 0 23. In high school biology, major emphasis should be placed on the molec­ular, cellular, and community aspects of biology. --24. In considering the high school biology program as a whole, it appears that the existing program is adequate. --0 25. Biological laws are only summations of experiences, consequently, in the future one may expect these laws to become modified or even dis· carded. 26. The BSCS biology program seems designed exclusively for the above· average student. 0 27. It is only by engaging in the steps ·of scientific inquiry that a student becomes able to discern the difference between experimentation and ·complex instrumentation. 28. Actually, the so-called conventional high school biology course and the recommended BSCS biology course are quite similar. 29. The biology textbooks and laboratory manuals currently in use in the high schools are adequate. --0 30. The study of science as enquiry should be one of the major objectives of high school biology. --31. The benefits that a student derives from actual first-hand laboratory experimentation cannot be justified in terms of the amount of teacher time and materials required. --0 32. Laboratory investigations and open-ended experiments are excellent means for conveying an understanding of sdence. --33. Demonstrations performed by the science teacher are just as effective as s·tudent-performed laboratory experiments. --0 34. It is more important for the average student to understand the purpose 0 Items judged to be in agreement with BSCS rationale and philosophy. Identification ( 0 ) not to be shown ifinstrument is reproduced and used. JACOB W. BLANKENSIBP and method of science than for him to be acquainted with the latest theory of the universe or the newest hormone. 35. BSCS biology could be taught just as effectively without the extensive laboratory investigations suggested. 36. Laboratory exercises should stress the names of structures and proc­esses. --"'37. The traditional biology course offered in the high school is no longer adequate. --38. The need for the students to acquire factual information is greater than the need for them to understand the ways in which hypotheses are de­veloped. --0 39. Research biologists should be involved with others in designing the high school biology curriculum. --40. Biology should be taught as a body of factual information. --0 41. The BSCS biology program reflects careful planning of a practicable course. --0 42. In high school biology, student work should be centered in the labora­tory where real problems are explored. --43. It is doubtful that the BSCS approach to teaching high school biology would result in the students' acquiring a better understanding of the true work of the scientist. --44. The amount of time suggested for laboratory investigation in the BSCS biology program is excessive. --0 45. A student comes to understand science through participating in science, rather than by serving as a bystander who only reads about science. --0 46. Wholesale revision of the conventional high school biology course is imperative if a modern curriculum is to be developed. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ATTITUDE INVENTORY IN DETERMINING SCIENCE TEACHER ATTITUDES The effectiveness of the Attitude Inventory in determining science teachers' at­titudes toward the BSCS biology program was determined by comparing its identi­fication of attitudes with the identification of the same attitudes as determined by a composite assessment based on three additional, different measures. The other measures comprised a Peer Rating (3), an Instructors' Rating, and a Follow-up Questionnaire designed to ascertain use, lack of use, and anticipated use of the BSCS pmgram. The data used in determining the science teachers' attitudes toward the BSCS program were all obtained following a training period in a Summer Institute for 0 Items judged to be in agreement with BSCS rationale and philosophy. Identification ( ) not to be shown ifinstrument is reproduced and used. 0 High School Science Teachers where 55 biology teachers were given the opportu­nity to become thoroughly acquainted with the content, philosophy, and methods of the BSCS biology program. A brief description of the Peer Rating, the Instructors' Rating and the Follow-up Questionnaire is given below. The Peer Rating: At the conclusion of the training period each biology teacher compared his own attitude toward the BSCS biology program with what he per­ceived as being the attitude of each of the other science teachers with whom he had worked and studied during the summer. The completed Peer Rating, when placed on a two-day grid and tabulated, yielded two evaluations: the relative posi­tion in the group of each individual as seen by himself and the relative position in the group of each individual as seen by all the other group members. Research studies ( 3) have revealed that after individuals had worked closely together in training situations similar to the BSCS Summer Institute Training Programs, the members of the group were able to evaluate rather accurately the attitudes of their peers. The Peer Rating score used in this study was obtained by determining the relative position of each individual in the group as seen by all the other group mem­bers. The Instructors' Rating: At the conclusion of the summer training program, each instructor was asked to indicate what he perceived as being the reaction of each individual to the BSCS biology program. The instructors were asked to base this rating on any comments made by the individual which de:6.nitely, in the judgment of the instructor, placed the individual in the favorable-attitude or unfavorable­attitude category. If the instructor was unable to determine the proper category for a given student, this information was recorded. The Follow-up Questionnaire: Following the return of the biology teachers to their respective schools and after a period of adjustment to the new school year, a Follow-up Questionnaire was mailed to each of them. The information sought by this questionnaire was related to the actual use, lack of use, and anticipated future use of the BSCS biology program. In addition, reasons for non-use of the materials were sought in those instances where the program was not being used. The biology teacher sample was classi:6.ed into three categories based upon their composite ratings in the four different attitude measures. The three categories were: (1) those science teachers who had dearly demonstrated a favorable attitude toward the BSCS biology program; ( 2) those science teachers who had clearly demonstrated an unfavorable attitude toward the BSCS biology program; and ( 3) those science teachers who had not clearly demonstrated either a favorable attitude or an unfavorable attitude toward the program. The science teachers who satisfied one of the following three criteria were placed in the category of possessing a favorable attitude: ( 1) a score in the top quarter of the Attitude Inventory; ( 2) a rating in the top quarter of the Peer Rating; and ( 3) an indication that the science teacher was currently teaching BSCS biology, ex­pressed satisfaction with the program, and anticipated its continued use. In addi­tion to satisfying at least one of the above three criteria, the teacher must not have been given an unfavorable attitude rating by the ins·tructors. The teacher was clas­sified as possessing an unfavorable attitude if he satisfied any of the following cri­teria: ( 1) scored in the bottom quarter of the Attitude Inventory; ( 2) a rating in the bottom quarter of the Peer Rating; ( 3) an indication on the questionnaire that he was not teaching BSCS biology, did not participate teaching the program, and did not prefer to teach the program even if conditions were such that he would be permitted to do so; and (4) received an "unfavorable attitude" rating from the instructor. Teachers not falling in either the "favorable attitude" category or the "unfavorable attitude" category were placed in an "indeterminate attitude" cate­ gory. The above listed criteria for classification of the sample into a favorable attitude group and an unfavorable attitude group resulted in the classification of 25 teachers as possessing favorable attitudes and 24 as possessing unfavorable attitudes; six were placed in an indeterminate attitude category. In the accompanying table there is shown a comparison of the effectiveness of the various measures used in determining the attitudes of the biology teacher sample. The number of teachers identified by the Attitude Inventory and the Peer Rating was limited to the top quarter in each case, and, therefore, the number of teachers selected was pre­determined. Only two of the 14 teachers identified by the Attitude Inventory as possessing a favorable attitude were ruled out by the use of the other three measures. If the criteria for selection were modified to permit the top half of the group on the Attitude Inventory to be selected instead of the top quarter, the Attitude Inventory would have successfully identified approximately three-fourths of those teachers who were identified as possessing a favorable attitude when all four measures were used. TABLE la COMPARISON OF MEASURES USED IN THE DETERMINATION OF ATTITUDES Number of Number of Number of Teachers Teachers Teachers Incorrectly Identified Identified Identified as Favorable as Unfavorable as Favorable Measure toBSCS toBSCS toBSCS" Attitude Inventoryf 14 14 2 Peer Ratingf 14 14 2 Instructors' Rating 34 6 11 Follow-up Questionnaire 24 4 9 Based upon a composite assessment of attitudes using all four measures. t Limited to top quarter; therefore, this number was predetermined. a Blankenship, Jacob W., "Biology Teachers and Their Attitudes Concerning BSCS," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (March, 1965), pp. 54-60. It should also be pointed out that while the Attitude Inventory and the Peer Rating were equally effective in correctly identifying attitudes, the Instructors' Rating was least accurate since it misidentified the attitude category of 11 members of the sample. While the Attitude Inventory proved to be effective in correctly identifying attitudes, it may be noted that there is value in using multiple separate measures of attitude because of the protection offered against incorrectly identifying an individual's attitude as being favorable when in reality his attitude is unfavorable. LITERATURE CITED 1. BSCS. "Teacher Preparation for BSCS Biology." BSCS Newsletter, No. 12 and No. 14. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1962. 2. Blankenship, Jacob W. "Biology Teachers and Their Attitudes Concerning BSCS." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Ill (March, 1965). Pp. 54-60. 3. Webb, Wilse B. "A Procedure for Obtaining Self-Ratings and Group Ratings." Journal of Consulting Psychology, XX (June, 1956). Pp. 233-236. IV. AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF BIOLOGY TEACHERS IN RELATION TO THEIR REACTIONS TO THE BSCS BIOLOGY PROGRAM Jacob W. Blankenship DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERS:r;rY STILLWATER, OKLAHOMA INTRODUCTION The appearance of new curricular materials in the secondary school sciences is, in part, a result of an increased interest on the part of educators and scientists. Their interest stems from a desire for a secondary school curriculum that is both interesting and consistent with current scientific knowledge. The teaching emphasis suggested in these new curricular materials is in some cases quite different from that found in conventional science courses ( 1). Little information is available concerning the science teachers' reactions to these new curriculum programs which call for modification of, and in some instances radical changes in, the teaching techniques normally used by science teachers. Since the new science curricula are devised so that the suggested techniques of teaching are essential to the success of the program, the question logically arises as to how science teachers view these modifications and changes in teaching techniques and whether their attitudes regarding these changes affect their effectiveness in using these materials. It would seem that inquiry into teacher reactions toward a cur­riculum program, such as the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ( BSCS) biology program, might provide information that would be helpful to those indi­viduals developing new curricular materials in that it would provide guidelines which would enable them to plan a science curriculum that is interesting and con­sistent with current scientific knowledge, and that can be used effectively by a majority of the secondary classroom teachers. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM This study was designed to permit the author to investigate the reactions of a selected group of science teachers to the BSCS biology program and relate these reactions to certain characteristics of this group of teachers. The general null hypothesis developed and investigated was: There are no differences in certain personal characteristics between teachers who demonstrate a favorable attitude (FA) toward BSCS biology and teachers who demonstrate an unfavorable attitude (UA) toward the BSCS biology. Specific questions posed for answering were related to whether significant differ­ences existed in the following areas between science teachers who demonstrated a favorable attitude toward the BSCS biology program and science teachers who demonstrated an unfavorable attitude toward the program: ( 1) the number of semester hours of academic course training in undergraduate biology; ( 2) mean grade point average in undergraduate biology; ( 3) age at the time of participation in a special training program designed to acquaint teachers with the content, philosophy, and methods of the BSCS biology program; ( 4) number of years experience teaching high school biology; ( 5) mean score on the Capacity for Status Scale (Cs) of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI); (6) mean score on the Social Presence Scale (Sp) of the CPI; (7) mean score on the Responsibility Scale (Re) of the CPI; (8) mean score on the Tolerance Scale (To) of the CPI; (9) mean score on the Achievement via Independence Scale (Ai) of the CPI; (10) mean score on the Intellectual Efficiency Scale (le) of the CPI; (11) mean score on the Flexibility Scale (Fx) of the CPI; ( 12) mean score on the Theoretical Values Scale (Th) of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values (AVL); (13) mean score on the Economic Value Scale (Ee) of the AVL. The above-mentioned vari­ables are those used in the study in an attempt to reduce the general hypothesis to manageable proportions. It is not the intention of the author to suggest that the variables being considersed are equal in value or importance. PROCEDURE The three conditions desirable for the study were: ( 1) a sufficiently large sample of science teachers; ( 2) a period of intensive training for these science teachers so that they might have the opportunity to become thoroughly familiar with the con­tent, philosophy, and methods of the BSCS biology program; ( 3) a data-gathering period immediately prior to and immediately following this training period. These conditions were met in a Summer Institute for High School Science Teachers, sponsored by an institution of higher learning (with the financial assistance of the National Science Foundation). Seven instruments were utilized in collecting necessary data for the study. Three instruments'--a Background Questionnaire, the California Psychological Inventory, and the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values-used to gather personal back­ground information and responses to the selected psychological scales were ad­ministered to the science teachers at the beginning of the summer training program. The teachers' reactions to the BSCS biology program were evaluated in the study by the teachers' demonstrated behavior as observed through the use of four different measures: an Attitude Inventory ( 2) designed and developed by the investigator, a Peer Rating ( 3), an Instructors' Rating, and a Follow-up Questionnaire designed to ascertain use, lack of use, and anticipated use of the BSCS program. The data used in determining the science teachers' reactions to the BSCS program were all obtained following the training period. The science teacher sample was classified into three categories based upon their composite ratings on the four attitude measures. The three categories were: ( 1) those science teachers who had clearly demonstrated a favorable attitude toward the BSCS biology program; ( 2) those science teachers who had clearly demon­ strated an unfavorable attitude toward the BSCS biology program; (3) those science teachers who had not clearly demonstrated either a favorable or an un­ favorable attitude. The science teachers who satisfied one of the following three criteria were placed in the category of possessing a favorable attitude: ( 1) a score in the top quarter JACOB W. BLA.NKENSIDP of the Attitude Inventory; ( 2) a rating in the top quarter of the Peer Rating; ( 3) an indication that the science teacher was currently teaching BSCS biology, ex­pressed satisfaction with the program, and anticipated its continued use. In addi­tion to satisfying at least one of the above three criteria the teacher must not have been given an "unfavorable attitude" rating by the instructors. The teacher was classified as possessing an unfavorable attitude if he satisfied any of the following criteria: ( 1) a score in the bottom quarter of the Attitude Inventory; ( 2) a rating in the bottom quarter of the Peer Rating; ( 3) an indication on the questionnaire that he was not teaching the BSCS biology, did not anticipate teaching the pro­gram, and did not prefer to teach the program even if conditions were such that he would be permitted to do so; and (4) received an "unfavorable attitude" rating from the instructor. Teachers not falling in either the "favorable attitude" or the "unfavorable attitude'' category were placed in an "indeterminate attitude" cate­gory. Application of the above-listed criteria for classification of the sample into a "favorable attitude" group and an "unfavorable attitude" group resulted in the classification of 25 science teachers as possessing favorable attitudes and 24 as possessing unfavorable attitudes. Six subjects were placed in an "indeterminate attitude" category. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The test of significance used on the 13 personal characteristic variables were the t-test and the chi-square test. The t-test was used on Variable 2, grade point aver­age, and on Variables 5 through 13, the psychological scale scores. Differences on Variables 1, 3, and 4 were tested by use of the chi-square test. In Table 1 there are shown the means, differences between the means, and the statistical significance of the differences for each of the 13 teacher characteristic variables. It is apparent that personality characteristics indicated by scores on the Achievement via Inde­pendence Scale and the Intellectual Efficiency Scale were significanlty higher for the favorable attitude group than for the unfavorable attitude group at the .01 level. Personality characteristics indicated by scores on the Social Presence Scale, Re­sponsibility Scale, Tolerance Scale, and Flexibility Scale were significantly higher for the favorable attitude group than for the unfavorable attitude group at the .05 level. On the other hand, scores on the Capacity for Status Scale, Theoretical Values Scale, and Economic Value Scale were not significantly different when the two groups were compared. It should also be noted that the unfavorable attitude group had more years experience than the favorable attitude group and that this difference was signifi­ cant. There were no significant differences between the two groups when factors of age, grade point average, and semester hours of biology were compared. In Table 2 are shown the number and percentage of the sample who taught BSCS biology during the 1963-1964 school year following their summer training program. A total of 27 of the 55-member sample, or 49 percent, taught the program Table 2 also shows the number of teachers who were planning to teach the program during the 1964-1965 school year: 44, or 80 percent of the sample, indicated intentions to teach BSCS biology. TABLE la THE MEANS, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEANS, AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCE FOR THE THIRTEEN VARIABLES Variable FA0 UAf XFA -XuA Significance (1) Sem. hrs. biology 32.240 29.208 3.032 N.S. ( 2) Grade point avg. 1.774 1.675 .099 N.S. (3) Age 31.520 35.292 -3.772 N.S. ( 4) Years experience 2.600 7.542 -4.942 .02 (5) CPI-Cs 21.280 19.708 1.572 N.S. (6) CPI-Sp 37.240 33.208 4.032 .05 (7) CPI-Re 33.680 31.292 2.388 .05 (8) CPI-To 26.040 23.000 3.040 .05 (9) CPI-Ai 21.480 18.875 2.605 .01 ( 10) CPI-le 42.080 37.667 4.413 .01 (11) CPI-Fx 10.320 7.833 2.487 .05 (12) AVL-Th 50.680 48.792 1.888 N.S. (13) AVL-Ec 38.520 40.958 -2.438 N.S. ° FA group: N = 25 t UA group: N = 24 a Blankenship, Jacob W., "Biology Teachers and Their Attitudes Concerning BSCS," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (March, 1965), pp. 54-60. TABLE 2a 1963-1964 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS OF NUMBERS OF TEACHERS INVOLVED IN TEACHING BSCS BIOLOGY FA UA Indeterminate Group Group Group Total Percentage Number Teaching BSCS 16 11 0 27 49% Number Not Teaching BSCS 9 13 6 28 51% Number Planning to Teach BSCS 1964-1965° 25 16 3 44 80% TOTAL N=55 Favorable Attitude Group N = 25 Unfavorable Attitude GroupN=24 Indeterminate Group N = 6 This includes those currently teaching BSCS biology who plan to continue teaching the program. a Blankenship, Jacob W., "Biology Teachers and Their Attitudes Concerning BSCS," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (March, 1965), pp. 54-60. In Table 3 there are shown data obtained in a second year follow-up study. In comparing Table 2 with Table 3 it should be noted that 38 of the teachers in the study actually taught the course during the 1964-1965 school year (not 44 as indi­cated plans to do so in Table 2). Also, it should be noted that 35 of them planned to teach BSCS biology during the 1965-1966 school year. Of the 24 teachers who were initially identified as being unfavorable toward the program, 12, or 50 percent, were planning to teach the program during the 1965-1966 school year, while 21 of the 25, or 80 percent, identified as possessing favorable attitudes toward the pro­gram were planning to teach the program. Table 4 comprises information relating to the reasons given for not teaching BSCS biology during the 196~1964 school year. Although a number of reasons were given, lack of availability of textbooks, laboratory space, and equipment were the primary reasons given by all three groups for not teaching BSCS biology in 1963:-1964. It should be noted, however, that the BSCS materials had just been made available by commercial publishers. During the 1964-1965 school year, how­ever, only two teachers from all three groups listed lack of the textbooks and related materials as factors in their decisions not to teach BSCS biology (see Table 5). Three teachers from the unfavorable attitude group listed "local school administra­tion does not favor use of the program" as their reason for not teaching BSCS biology. This reason was not given by any of the teachers in the other groups. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this study was to investigate the reactions of a selected group of science teachers to a new science program ( BSCS biology) and to relate these reactions to certain chari:..cteristics of this group of teachers. The sample consisted of 55 biology teachers who studied the content, philosophy, and methods of the TABLE 3 1964-1965 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS OF NUMBERS OF TEACHERS INVOLVED IN TEACHING BSCS BIOLOGY FA UA Indeterminate Group Group Group Total Percentage Number Teaching BSCS 20 16 2 38 69.1% Number Not Teaching BSCS 5 8 4 17 30.9% Number Planning to Teach BSCS 1965-1966° 21 12 2 35 63.6% TOTAL N = 55 FA Group N = 25 UA Group N = 24 Indeterminate Group N = 6 This includes those currently teaching BSCS biology who plan to continue teaching the program. TABLE 4a REASONS GIVEN FOR NOT TEACHING BSCS BIOLOGY 1963--1964 SCHOOL YEAR Indeter- FA UA minate Reasons Group Group Group Total 1. Think conventional course better than BSCS 0 0 0 0 2. Do not think BSCS Program fulfills local needs 0 0 0 0 3. Textbooks and related materials not available 4 5 2 11 4. Adequate laboratory space not available 3 7 2 12 5. Adequate equipment and supplies not available 5 9 4 18 6. Feel personal preparation and training inadequate 0 4 2 6 7. Excessive additional work required of teacher 0 2 0 2 8. Local school administration does not favor use of Program 1 2 0 3 9. Fellow biology teachers do not favor use of Program 0 1 0 1 10. Not currently teaching biology in Senior High School 1 1 0 2 11. Lack of funds to buy equipment and supplies 2 2 1 5 12. Other reasons 0 1 2 3 a Blankenship, Jacob W., "Biology Teachers and Their Attitudes Concerning BSCS," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (March, 1965), pp. 54-60. BSCS biology program in a summer training program. The data obtained and analyzed included: the number of semester hours of academic course credit in undergraduate biology; the earned grade-point average in undergraduate biology courses; the age of the teacher at the time of the teacher's attendance at the summer training program; the number of years of experience teaching high school biology; and nine scores, considered independently of one another, on selected psychologi­cal scales. Based upon an analysis of four different measures used in determining the teachers' reactions to the BSCS program, the science teachers were classified as reacting either favorably or unfavorably to the program. As a result of the data analysis, the null hypothesis that there are no differences between science teachers who react favorably to the BSCS biology program and science teachers who react unfavorably to the program was rejected. Analysis of the data revealed that, in general, science teachers who ranked higher on a group of scales measuring "capacity for independent thought and action" ( 4), and who had taught high school biology for three years or less reacted favorably to the JACOB W. BLANKENSHIP TABLE 5 REASONS GIVEN FOR NOT TEACHING BSCS BIOLOGY 1964-1965 SCHOOL YEAR Indeter-FA UA minate Reasons Group Group Group Total 1. Think conventional course better than BSCS 0 2. Do not think BSCS Program fulfills local needs 1 3. Textbooks and related materials not available 1 4. Adequate laboratory space not available 3 5. Adequate equipment and supplies not available 3 6. Feel personal preparation and training inadequate 0 7. Excessive additional work required of teacher 1 8. Local school administration does not favor use of Program 0 9. Fellow biology teachers do not favor use of Program 1 10. Not currently teaching biology in Senior High School 0 11. Lack of funds to buy equipment and supplies 0 12. Other reasons 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 2 9 8 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 2 0 BSCS biology program, while those teachers who ranked lower on measures of "capacity for independent thought and action" and who had been teaching high school biology for more than three years reacted unfavorably to the program. Based upon an analysis of the reasons given for non-use of the BSCS biology program during both the 1963-1964 school year and the 1964-1965 school year, the author is of the opinion that the assumption made by the BSCS that, "The BSCS fully recognizes that merely providing new curricular materials, however good they may be, will not necessarily result in improved biology teaching in the second­ary schools. It may facilitate improved teaching, but the teacher remains the key," (5) is supported by these findings. Thus, it would seem that additional studies relating to teacher reactions toward new curriculum programs would be appro­priate. LITERATURE CITED I. BSCS. "High School Biology." BSCS Newsletter No. 12. Biological Sciences Curriculwn Study. The University of Colorado, Boulder. 1962. Pp. 6-13. 2. Blankenship, Jacob W. "The Effectiveness of Four Methods of Determining Science Teacher Attitudes Toward a New Biology Program." School Science and Mathematics, LXVI. December, 1966. 3. Webb, Wilse B. "A Procedure for Obtaining Self-Ratings and Group Ratings." Journal of Consulting Psychology, XX. June, 1956. Pp. 233-236. 4. Mitchell, James V., Jr. and Pierce-Jones, John. "A Factor Analysis of Gough's California Psychological Inventory." Journal of Consulting Psychology, XXIV. October, 1960. Pp. 453-456. 5. BSCS. "Teacher Preparation for BSCS Biology." BSCS Newsletter No. 12, pp. 13-14 and No. 14. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1962. V. AN ANALYSIS OF CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE VERBAL BEHAVIOR OF STUDENT TEACHERS OF EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING IN A BSCS LABORATORY BLOCK William S. La Shier, Jr. SCHOOL OF EDUCATION THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LA"WRENCE,KANSAS The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ( BSCS) undertakes to link the con­ceptual schemes of biology with the spirit and processes of scientific inquiry. One of the special features of the BSCS program is the use of Laboratory Blocks for instruction. Each Laboratory Block covers a series of experiences which permit the student to study a specific biological problem as a biologist might study it if he were starting with the same level of knowledge as the student ( 1). The pioneering nature of the BSCS Laboratory Block materials points to the need for research concerning the challenging role of the science teacher. Among the many needs is that of determining some characteristics of effective teaching in the specific areas required for Laboratory Block instruction. One kind of attack on this problem is to delineate the basic relationship between verbal behavior of the teacher and subsequent achievement of the students in a class. One of the most important studies in this area was conducted by Flanders (2). In this study Flanders, utilizing the Flanders System of Interaction Analysis, categorized pat­terns of teacher influence observed in two groups of junior high school classes, mathematics and social studies. A pre-and post-test design was used to measure achievement. In addition, the students completed a student attitude inventory. The results of the study indicated that in classrooms in which the influence of the teacher was characterized as "indirect," both attitude and achievement scores of the students were superior to those in classrooms in which teacher influence was characterized as "direct." The design of research that purports to link student achievement with specific behavior of a teacher faces some well-defined obstacles. Mitzel and Gross ( 3) conducted a survey of the methods by which pupil growth criteria were developed in 20 quantitative studies of teaching effectiveness. The critical evaluation of these studies placed emphasis on the multi-dimensional nature of teacher effectiveness with its accompanying variations from goal to goal. The use of the Flanders System also has its limitations. Gage ( 4) pointed out that emphasis on the affective function of teaching ignores the cognitive aspects of classroom interaction. Yamamoto ( 5) noted the tendency to neglect the unique features of the individual student when one concentrates on the class as a group. In the Flanders System, for example, observers record the categories of student talk but fail to specify which student is doing the talking. This brief review of classroom interaction is intended to convey some of the problems encountered in studies of teacher effectiveness. The remainder of the paper will be used to describe a study involving student teachers of biology at The University of Texas at Austin. This study was designed to extend the use of the Flanders System to analyze the behavior of a group of student teachers and their eighth-grade science classes. The study described here had two purposes: first, to determine the relationship between certain aspects of the verbal behavior of student teachers and the achieve­ment and attitudes of eighth-grade students participating in a BSCS Laboratory Block entitled Animal Behavior (6); and second, to describe the differences, ifany, in interaction patterns between two groups of student teachers when classified according to the Flanders System, one group characterized as indirect and the other as direct. The observational system used in this study will be described in some detail because of its pertinence to researchers in other science curriculum areas as well as its importance in this study. One of the basic assumptions of the Flanders System of interaction analysis is that the verbal behavior of the teacher is an adequate sample of his total behavior. The observational procedure consists of a classroom observer classifying the statements in a classroom every three seconds and later tabulating the data in special matrices for analysis. The Flanders System employs a 10-category scheme with three broad divisions: (1) teacher talk, ( 2) student talk, and ( 3) silence or confusion. Teacher talk is further divided into two main types of influence, direct and indirect. Indirect influence is defined as actions taken by the teacher which encourage and support student participation. Direct influence refers to those acts that restrict student participation. The categories are outlined in Table 1. After the observation is completed, the category numbers are entered in the form of tallies into a 10-row by 10-column matrix. Since the category numbers were initially written in columns, any two adjacent numbers can form a sequence pair. The first number in each sequence pair refers to the row category and the succeeding number refers to the column category. Each of the 100 cells of the matrix, then, represents a sequence of events. As an example, a tally in the row­four-column-eight cell would indicate that the teacher asked a question and received an answer. The matrix enables one to analyze the amount of time certain patterns of teacher influence occur. The matrix also provides a statistical description called I/D Ratio. The l/ D Ratio is the total number of indirect teacher statements divided by the total number of direct statements. SUMMARY OF TIIE PROCEDURES A 30-hour workshop was arranged for 10 student teachers at The University of Texas at Austin to provide them with an opportunity to perform the experiments outlined in the Animal Behavior Laboratory Block by Follansbee ( 6). The student teachers then taught this BSCS Laboratory Block to 239 eighth-grade students for a period of six weeks. An achievement test for use with the Animal Behavior Laboratory Block entitled the "Animal Behavior Test" was constructed by the author using the BSCS grid for test analysis as a guide to the development of the test items ( 7). This test was used to measure the gain in pupil achievement with a six-weeks pre-and post-test TABLE 1" CATEGORIES FOR INTERACTION ANALYSIS WILLIAM S. LA SHIER, JR. I. ACCEPTS FEELING: accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a nonthreatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. 2. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: praises or encourages student action or behavior. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, "um hm?" or "go on" are included. 3. ACCEPTS QR USES IDEAS OF STUDENT: clarifying, build­ing, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. 4. ASKS QUESTIONS: asking a question about content or ·pro­cedure with the intent that a student answer. 5. LECTURING: giving facts or opinions about content or pro­cedure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. 6. GIVING DIRECTIONS: directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. . 7. CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY: statements in­tended to change student behavior from nonacceptable to ac­ceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference. 8.STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE: a student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits stu­dent statement and sets limits to what the student says. 9. STUDENT TALK-INITIATION: talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas. 10. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses, short periods of silence and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer. a Flanders, Ned A. Interaction Analysis in the Classroom, A Manual for Observers. The University of Michigan, 1964. design. The reliability coefficient for the "Animal Behavior Test" was obtained from the post-test results of 53 students. The Kuder-Richardson Formula (8) was used to determine the test reliability since this method is independent of any par­ticular split-up of items. The post-test reliability was found to be .521. Additional information concerning the eighth-grade students was obtained from test results on the California Achievement Tests in Reading and the California Mental Maturity Test. The attitudes of the students toward their student teachers were sampled by means of the Michigan Student Questionnaire ( 9) after comp le­tion of the Laboratory Block. Each student teacher was observed once a week by one of three trained observers. The identification of relationships among student achievement, student attitude, and I/D ratio of the teacher was accomplished by the use of nonparametric statistical tests. In the tests used in this study, the data were changed from scores to ranks. The information gathered in this study was used to relate the independent variable of I/D Ratio to the dependent variables of student achievement and student attitude. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study was confined to a consideration of the verbal behavior of 10 student teachers and the achievement and attitudes of 239 students. The results of the study might have been different if a larger number of student teachers and students had been involved. However, the use of nonparametric statistics con­tributed to the values of the study because no assumptions concerning the distri­bution of the population of student teachers or students were required. There were two limitations associated with the use of the BSCS Laboratory Block Animal Behavior in this study involving eighth-grade students. The first limitation was that the Laboratory Block had been written for tenth-grade students rather than eighth-grade students. The second limitation was the use of an experi­mental version of the laboratory manual. Many of the problems associated with these two limitations were worked out by the student teachers during their workshop. During the workshop the student teachers had access to final revisions of both the student Laboratory Block and the teacher's supplement to the Laboratory Block. These two laboratory manuals included revisions not found in the earlier editions. Also, the student teachers had an opportunity to observe eighth-grade students prior to teaching them the Labora­tory Block. This observation experience helped the student teachers, during the workshop, to modify sections of the material and procedures given in the student Laboratory Block. Inability to control some variables was another limiting factor in the study. Differences in socio-economic bcakgrounds of students, school environments, and influences of the cooperating teacher were among the variables beyond the control of the investigator. RESULTS OF THE STUDY A significant relationship was found at the .05 level between the gains in median achievement on the "Animal Behavior Test" and the I/D Ratios of the correspond­ing student teachers. A Kendall rank correlation coefficient of .51 was obtained from the data given in Table 2. When the effects of initial ability were separated out, the correlation between achievement and I/ D Ratio was reduced only slightly. The significant relationship between achievement and verbal behavior of the teacher can also be illustrated by using the i/d Ratio (Revised I/ D Ratio). This ijd Ratio is computed by dividing the summation of tallies in catgeories 1, 2, and 3 (Table I) by the summation of tallies in categories 6 and 7 for any given teacher. A correlation of .60 was found between the gains in median achievement on the "Animal Behavior Test" and the i/d or revised I/D Ratio. This correlation was significant at the .0083 level. When the effect due to the ability measured by the California Achievement Tests in reading was separated out, the correlation was reduced to .59. In other words, the students in the "indirect" classes appeared to achieve significantly more than students in the "direct" classes when the I/D or i/d Ratios were ranked. A significant correlation was found at the .05 level between the gains in median achievement on the "Animal Behavior Test" and the class medians on the Michigan Student Questionnaire ( 9). The Kendall rank correlation was .51. The classes with higher achievement gains then tended to score higher on attitudes toward the teacher and the school work. A significant relationship was also found at the .05 level between the l/D Ratios of the student teachers and the class medians on the Michigan Student Question­naire. The Kendall rank correlation was .56. This relationship indicated that, operating independently, the observers and the students were able to identify the degree of indirect influence of the student teachers. Several alternative reasons could be offered to explain the relationship between median gain in student achievement and teacher I/ D Ratio ratings. The rejection of these alternative explanations would add support to the main findings of the study. One explanation could be that the five most indirect student teachers (high I/D Ratios) were assigned to the classes with the highest initial reading ability. This hypothesis was rejected as a result of a test of significance. Another possibility might be that the five most indirect student teachers had been assigned to classes which were very low on the pre-test. It could be reasoned that these classes might achieve more gain on the achievement test because of the wider range available for improvement and not because of the influence of the teacher. This interpretation was rejected because of the lack of a significant rela­tionship between the pre-test medians and gains in median achievement. The results of giving the pre-and post-test design with a control group indicated that it was unlikely that the gains in median acheivement on the "Animal Behavior Test" were due to causes other than class instruction on the Animal Behavior Laboratory Block. The results of this study of eighth-grade science students parallel some of the findings of Flanders ( 2), who used a pre-and post-test design to measure achieve­ment in eighth-grade mathematics classes and seventh-and eighth-grade social studies classes. The findings of Flanders indicated that student achievement and attitude scores were significantly higher for those classes in which the teacher was more indirect. DESCRIPTION OF INTERACTION PATTERNS For the purpose of describing the differences in interaction patterns in this study, the composite matrix of the four most indirect student teachers (high I/ D Ratios) was compared on a percentage basis with that of the three most direct teachers. These two matrices are shown in Tables 3 and 4. The analysis of the matrices indi­ cated that: TABLE 2 I/D RATIOS AND i/d RATIOS OF STUDENT TEACHERS AND MEDIAN CLASS SCORES California Pre-Test Post-Test Achievement Michigan I/D i/d Class Animal Animal Tests in Student Ratio of Ratio of Code Behavior Behavior Reading Questionnaire Teacher Teacher B 17.6 27.6 126.0 187.0 .903 2.40 E 16.5 24.8 128.0 181.0 .658 .907 F 15.0 23.0 117.0 177.5 .223 .409 c 13.5 22.2 112.5 170.5 .709 1.73 J 15.3 20.4 103.8 167.5 .519 .801 H 16.7 23.4 117.3 166.0 .298 .360 D 17.9 26.3 128.3 185.5 .552 1.06 A 15.0 25.2 116.5 178.0 .762 2.04 G 14.7 21.5 111.5 157.8 .288 .418 I 12.3 18.5 97.5 168.0 .542 .634 Acceptance of feeling was used over four times as much by the indirect group. Statements of praise and encouragement were used twice as often by the indirect student teachers following student-initiated ideas. Clarifying and making use of student ideas as a category was used over twice as often by the indirect group after student-initiated talk. Lecture in a continuous fashion was used more by the direct group of student teachers. Total lecture time accounted for about 57 percent of teacher talk for the direct group as compared to 44 percent for the indirect group. Direction-giving was used nearly twice as often by the direct group. Criticism was sparingly used by both groups. Student Patterns were different for the two groups. There were over twice as many student-initiated statements in the indirectly taught group. Silence or confusion appeared more often in the classes taught by the direct group. The relationships between the two groups described in this study are quite similar to the results reported by Amidon and Giammatteo ( 10) in their study of superior teachers. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY This study indicated significant relationships between the verbal influence of the student teachers on the freedom of participation of the pupils and the subsequent achievement and constructive attitudes of the students. WILLIAM S. LA SHIER, JR. TABLE 3 COMPOSITE MATRIX FOR "INDIRECT" STUDENT TEACHERS, N =4, ADJUSTED FOR 1,000 TALLIES 0 Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO Total 0 The adjusted figure in each cell of the 10 X 10 matrix is determined by multiplying by 1,000 the ratio between the tally in that cell and the total tally. TABLE 4 COMPOSITE MATRIX FOR "DIRECT" STUDENT TEACHERS, N = 3, ADJUSTED FOR 1,000 TALLIES 0 • The adjusted figure in each cell of the 10 X 10 matrix is determined by multiplying by 1,000 the ratio between the tally in that cell and the total tally. Comparison of the two composite matrices indicated that the verbal behavior patterns of the indirect group of student teachers differed substantially from those of the direct group. The indirect group was more receptive to student-initiated ideas, tended to encourage these ideas more, and also made more of an effort to build upon these ideas than did the direct group of student teachers. The indirect group also spent less time lecturing and giving directions. This study, as well as other allied studies in interaction analysis, suggests impli­cations for both implementors of new science curricula and educators concerned with teacher training. Two of these allied studies in the area of science education will be reviewed briefly. An observational system consisting of 45 categories was developed and tried out in 10 high school biology classes by Parakh ( 11). In this study of 10 teachers, the most conspicuous feature was the preponderance of teacher talk. The "average" or composite teacher talked about 75 percent of the total time in lecture-discussion classes and about 50 percent of the total time in laboratory classes. Taking into account that these are average figures and that wide variations existed among individuals, the point is made that we need additional quantitative information about the manner in which science materials are being implemented. In a study of 17 physics teachers and their classes, Snider ( 12) noted that the verbal behavior of each of the teachers was quite consistent over a period of time provided that all observations were taken during a particular type of activity such as lecture, laboratory or recitation-discussion. This study by Snider emphasized the need for further investigation of teacher verbal behavior during such periods as laboratory investigations. The continued alliance between educational researchers and curriculum devel­opers should provide additional information concerning theories of classroom in­struction. It is to be hoped that the teacher of the future will be more concerned with ways in which students learn and the most effective ways to assist in this learning process. LITERATURE CITED 1. Lee, Addison E. "Biology Laboratory Instruction Innovation," The Science Teacher, 28 :46-53. October, 1961. 2. Flanders, Ned A. Teacher In-ftuence, Pupil Attitudes, aml Achievement. Washington: Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Coopera­tive Research, OE-25040. 1965. 3. Mitzel, H. E. and Gross, Cecily F. A Critical Review of the Development of Pupil Growth Criteria in Studies of Teacher Effectiveness. Research Series No. 31. New York: Division of Teacher Education, Board of Higher Education of the City of New York. 1956. 4. Gage, N. L. "Toward a Cognitive Theory of Teaching." Teachers College Record. 1964. 65:408-412. 5. Yamamoto, Kaoru. "Analysis of Teaching-Another Look." Paper presented at the an­nual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, February 1966, in Chicago, Illinois. 6. Follansbee, Harper. Animal Behavior. A Revised Experimental Edition. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. University of Colorado, Boulder. 1964. WILLIAM S. LA SHIER, JR. 7. Klinckmann, Evelyn. "The BSCS Grid for Test Analysis." BSCS Newsletter #19. Bio­logical Sciences Curriculum Study. University of Colorado, Boulder. 1963. Pp. 17-21. 8. Walker, Helen M. and Lev, Joseph. Statistical Inference. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. 1953. 9. Flanders, Ned. "Michigan Student Questionnaire." A copy of the MSQ was obtained through personal communication with the author who was at the University of Michi­gan, School of Education, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1965. 10. Amidon, Edmund J. and Giammatteo, Michael M. "The Verbal Behavior of Superior Teachers." Elementary School Journal. 65 :283-285. February 1965. 11. Parakh, Jal S. "A Study of Teacher-Pupil Interaction in High School Biology Classes." A paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, February, 1966, Chicago, Illinois. The research reported herein was supported by the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Cooperative Research Project No. S-269). 12. Snider, Ray M. "A Project to Study the Nature of Physics Teaching Using The Flanders Method of Interaction Analysis." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, February 19, 1966, in Chicago, Illinois. The research reported herein was supported by Cornell University and by the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U. S. Depart­ment of Health, Education and Welfare (Small Contract Project S-280). VI. LIBRARY RESOURCE BOOKS FOR IDGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY Betty Ann Bradley DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MC MURRY COLLEGE ABILENE, TEXAS In recent years, increased emphasis on many facilities and services of the public schools in Texas has followed the adoption of new curriculum programs. In par­ticular, programs in the sciences have reflected a need for a reexamination of the teaching techniques and materials in the courses offered. Many of the new pro­grams call for more attention to laboratory instruction and its requirement for equipment and facilities. A number of new textbooks are also available; among them are those developed in the major curriculum studies undertaken on a nation­wide scale. The textbook and the laboratory are important common denominators in the high school science class. Both, however, require supplementation for the best instruction, and among the important supplements are library resources. Both the research scientist and the science teacher require good library resources. In view of both the importance of textbooks and library resource materials in teaching high school biology and the recent publication of new textbooks, it ap­peared desirable to analyze the nature of the new textbooks and their recommen­dations for use of library resources and to compare the results with a similar analy­sis of older textbooks. This paper reports results of such a two-fold analysis. Ten textbooks were selected for the study. Five of these had copyright dates ranging from 1951 to 1954 and five were copyrighted in 1963 or later. The text­books analyzed were as follows: Textbook No. I. Baker, Arthur 0., and Lewis H. Mills Dynamic Biology Today New York, Rand McNally and Company, 1953 II. Dodge, Ruth A., William M. Smallwood, Ida Revely and Gus Bailey Elements of Biology Boston, Allyn and Bacon, 1952 III. Moon, Truman J., Paul B. Mann, and James H. Otto Modern Biology New York, Henry Holt, 1951 IV. Smith, Ella Thea Exploring Biology New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1951 V. Vance, B. B., and D. F. Miller Biology for y OU Chicago, J. G. Lippincott Company, 1954 VI. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study BETTY ANN BRADLEY Biological Science: Molecules to Man (Blue Version) Boston, Houghton Mifllin Company, 1963 VII. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study High School Biology (Green Version) Chicago, Rand McNally and Company, 1963 VIII. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Biological Science, An Inquiry Into Life (Yellow Version) New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1963 IX. Otto, James H., and Albert Towle Modern Biology New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1963 X. Gregory, William H., and Edward H. Goldman Biological Science for High School Dallas, Ginn and Company, 1965 The initial step in the study involved tabulating a list of all reference books (in­cluding pamphlets and bulletins) and periodicals cited and quoted in the several texts. All books and periodicals listed in bibliographies were included. The total list included 138 different titles; however, there were a total of 2,256 citations, in­cluding duplicates. The list included both the number of citations and quotations made and the number of different titles given. These data are given in Table 1. They indicate that the older textbooks used a few more references of different titles of books, but that the newer books used more quotations. On the other hand, more journals were cited and quoted in the newer books than in the older ones. It may also be noted that among the newer books the three BSCS textbooks used more quotations from books and a larger total number of journal citations and quotations than the other new books included in the study. The BSCS Blue Version was par­ticularly conspicuous in this respect. Publication dates of references (books and journals) were also determined and are given in Table 2. Obviously one could not expect listing of references published after 1954 in the older textbooks studied and, in general, one would expect a larger number of references with older publication dates in the older textbooks than in the newer ones. Virtually no journal references with publication dates prior to 1945 are listed in either the older or newer textbooks studied. The number of refer­ences to books published later than 1950 was somewhat similar except that the text by Otto and Towle had considerably more published in 1960 or later than any of the other newer books. Book references were classified in the following categories: College Textbooks; High School Textbooks; Books on Special Topics; and Miscellaneous (including encyclopedias) . The data reveal little difference among the ten textbooks studied concerning the nature of the references. In all of the texts the largest number of references were books on special subjects and, as might he expected, very few high school texts were cited in any of the texts studied. Two of the older texts did make some noticeable use of encyclopedias but only one of the newer textbooks men­tioned an encyclopedia. J oumal references were classified as professional journals or popular reading journals. In general more professional journals were used than popular reading journals. The BSCS Blue Version included the largest number of professional journals. TABLE 1 THE NUMBER OF BOOKS AND PERIODICALS CITED AND QUOTED IN THE TEXTBOOKS STUDIED Books Journals Total Total No. No. No. No. No. No. Cited Different Different Cited Different Different Textbooks and Titles Titles and Titles Titles Number Quoted Cited Quoted Quoted Cited Quoted Copyright 1951-1954 I 140 95 4 0 0 0 II 481 365 3 1 1 1 III 190 180 0 0 0 0 IV 233 189 11 30 12 4 v 157 151 5 4 4 1 Copyrightl963-1965 VI 246 149 74 235 23 23 VII 224 114 10 126 10 5 VIII 213 125 11 170 4 3 IX 234 229 3 52 6 4 x 138 120 5 88 3 1 The list of book references cited and quoted in the ten textbooks was compared with the AAAS Book List for Young Adults (1). The AAAS Book List contains over 1,000 science and mathematics books selected and recommended by scientists in many fields. The results of this comparison are given in Table 3 and reveal, as might be expected, that the newer texts contain more references listed in the AAAS Biology list than do the older texts. Of the five new texts studied, the one by Otto and Towle has the highest number of references cited in the AAAS Book List. Although reference to individual scientists and their research, strictly speaking, is not necessarily a library resource, such citations or quotations often lead the student to the library if made in such a way as to motivate the student to leam more about the individual scientist or the research he has pursued. For this reason, the textbooks studied were analyzed in terms of references made to individual scientists and their work. Table 4 summarizes the results and indicates that the newer textbooks have made much greater use of references to scientists and their work. Fairly similar numbers of scientists were introduced in all of the newer books with the text by Otto and Towle having the smallest number. .BETTY ANN BRADLEY TABLE 2 PUBLICATION DATES OF BOOKS AND JOURNALS CITED AND QUOTED IN THE TEXTBOOKS STUDIED DATES OF PUBLICATION 1929 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 Date Tertbook and to to to to to to and not Number Earlier 1934 1939 1944 1949 1954 1959 Later Known BOOKS Copyright 1951-1954 I 7 19 32 34 2 0 1 II 116 50 84 59 28 4 24 III 1 4 23 23 103 25 1 IV 19 5 21 27 48 56 13 v 10 11 31 43 32 20 10 Copyright 1963-1965 VI 6 1 2 7 3 21 49 56 4 VII 7 1 2 0 3 13 36 48 4 VIII 4 1 2 1 5 14 51 44 3 IX 2 1 3 1 4 13 43 140 22 x 4 1 2 0 9 16 44 27 17 JOURNALS Copyright 1951-1954 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 III 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IV 3 1 0 1 5 16 4 v 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Copyright 1963-1965 VI 1 1 0 0 16 69 81 56 11 VII 2 0 0 0 1 11 48 57 7 VIII 1 0 0 0 12 64 59 28 6 IX 1 0 0 0 4 13 9 21 4 x 0 0 0 0 0 6 36 45 1 The nature of reference use was studied for each of the ten textbooks analyzed. Data concerning citations varied considerably from one text to another and no conspicuous pattern differences were observed when the older books were com­pared with newer ones. In most instances the citations were in the form of a bibli­ography at the end of a chapter or unit. Some of the references were annotated, while others were not. The nature of the annotations varied considerably. In some instances the annotations pointed up specific uses; certain sections were singled TABLE 3 REFERENCES IN TEXTBOOKS STUDIED RECOMMENDED IN THE AAAS BOOK LIST Texts 1951-1954 Texts 1963-1965 I II III IV v VI VII VIII IX Total Number of Titles from Texts in AAAS Book List 4 22 17 29 9 50 38 45 72 43 Number of Titles from Texts that Appear Among First Priority Titles in AAAS Book List 1 12 4 10 3 20 13 20 25 15 TABLE 4 REFERENCE TO SCIENTISTS AND THEIR WORK IN THE TEXTBOOKS STUDIED Dates of Contributions of these Scientists Total No. 1850 1925 1940 Dates Textbook of Scientists Before to to to Not Number Introduced 1850 1925 1940 1960 Established Copyright 1951-1954 I 41 16 21 1 2 1 II 70 18 27 4 9 12 III 43 10 21 1 1 10 IV 78 27 17 4 23 8 v 32 9 13 0 3 7 Copyright 1963-1965 VI 146 46 43 10 33 14 VII 103 29 23 11 37 3 VIII 146 48 49 11 36 2 IX 69 19 27 5 17 1 x 135 36 36 11 33 19 out; and the degree of difficulty was indicated. In a number of instances complete information (complete name of author or title, name and address of publisher, publication date) for each reference was not given. The approach made by the different authors in listing references varied consider­ably. Some were listed simply as "References" or "Bibliography." Others appear BETIY ANN BRADLEY under such headings as "Increasing Your Knowledge of This Unit" or as "Applying Your Knowledge" for library research. Some were listed as "Further Reading" or "Interesting Reading." Suggestions to note advertisements in "reliable books and magazines"; '1ook up de.6.nitions," etc.; "find out all you can"; "consult reference books" were found. In one instance the suggestion is made that the students collect twigs from trees and with a "tree book" identify them. There were a number of suggestions to write reports on subjects not covered in the textbook. In another instance it is suggested that the students find out what new elements have been discovered and what vitamins are prepared commercially in capsule or tablet form. Suggestions that students study the lives of early scientists occur often. In one book the question was asked, why the library, as well as the laboratory, is important to scientific research. Contributions from the study reported here are perhaps as important for things found lacking as for the specific data collected and the trends observed. Although various suggestions were made for use of library resources, there were few, if any, really imaginative procedures that would appear to lead the student directly into the need for, and techniques of, library study. In general, it can be surmised that too many references were listed carelessly with incomplete data and insufficient annotations and perhaps with little good reason for inclusion. There is little evidence of research on the extent or nature of student use of library resources. Likewise, there is little evidence that most high school libraries are adequately stocked with appropriate references. On the positive side, however, the trend toward increased use of quotations (often in the context of providing evidence) and an increased use of journal references, as well as more use of up-to­ date materials, may be considered as progress in more effective use of library re­ sources. In the final analysis, textbook authors, teachers, and students need to recognize and accept what every scientist knows-that the library is an indispensa­ ble tool for effective work. LITERATURE CITED I. Deason, Hilary J. (ed.). The AAAS Science Book List for Young Adults. American As­sociation for the Advancement of Science, Washington. 1964. VII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOME SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHING MATERIALS AND EVALUATION OF THEffi USE IN THE HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY PROGRAM 0 Reese Duke DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RICE UNIVERSITY HOUSTON, TEXAS INTRODUCTION New curriculum programs in biology are well known and have been widely disseminated. They include a number of new textbooks, some of which were developed in the large national-level curriculum studies and others prepared in the traditional way. Many of these programs, particularly those developed by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, have included the development of certain ancillary materials that can be used in conjunction with the textbooks to develop the total program in high school biology. In many of the programs that have been developed, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on teaching inquiry as one of the important features of the course. In particular, the Laboratory Blocks (I), '1nvitations to Inquiry" ( 2), and the Single Topic Films ( 3) have been developed in the BSCS program to aid in meeting this objective. The techniques involved in teaching these materials vary from a completely "dry-lab" situation at one extreme to a "wet-lab" situation on the other. Relatively little attention has been given to the development of intermediate type materials. The project reported in this paper describes the design and evaluation of some new supplementary teaching materials that illustrate an intermediate position be­tween the two extremes mentioned above. DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS The project involved the development of a series of materials that we have chosen to call "Springboards for Discussion." They are designed for use with the overhead projector and audio-tape player. Each Springboard, with one or two exceptions, involves either singly or in combination some visual or audio presenta­tion of a classical or current experiment in biology. In certain instances selected scientists were asked questions and their answers were recorded; in other instances they were asked to give a more formal presentation. The visuals developed for each Springboard for Discussion included pictorial and diagrammatic materials with certain questions asked at various times within the presentation. The pattern-of-use design was such as to require interruption at many places in the presentation to allow interaction among members of the class and the teacher. Each Springboard included a Teacher's Guide that gave directions for the presentation, and Student Notebook Sheets for student responses. In this project, the Springboards for Discussion were designed to fit a particular 0 This project was supported in part by a grant from the United States Office of Edu­cation. te~book, BSCS Blue Version, Molecules to Man (4) ; however, they could be used with other texts and could serve as models for the development of other Spring­boards for Discussion. Twelve Springboards for Discussion were developed for the first semester of high school biology. These were: 1. Why Study Biology? 2. Why Are There No Bluebonnets on Serpentine Soils? 3. Is This a Living Fluid Infectant? 4. What Causes This Selective Advantage? 5. Is This a Case of Spontaneous Generation? 6. What Controls Cell Development? 7. What Is a Source of Carbon in Plants? 8. Listen to Leaders in Science: Microbiology. 9. What Are Some Techniques of Studying Cell Components? 10. Does the Nucleus Change During Differentiation? 11. Can Resting Cells be Forced to Grow? 12. Can Tumor Cells Produce Normal Cells? In each of the above cases the presentation was structured to elicit class dis­cussion and to give the students vicarious experiences in the methods used by scientists. Students were asked to anticipate certain results, to interpret data, to plan experiments to test hypotheses, or to criticize certain procedures. Their re­sponses formed the basis of class discussions and allowed the students opportunities to become acquainted with methods of scientists and with evidence upon which present-day understandings are based. An illustration of the Teacher's Guide and a facsimile copy of the transparencies of one of the Springboards, "Why Are There No Bluebonnets on Serpentine Soil?", is found at the end of this chapter. It should be remembered that appropriate use of any of the Springboards requires considerable emphasis on teacher-student inter­actions and on student-student interactions. Therefore, in actual use it is very im­portant not to unmask the various parts of each transparency until they are needed for the next step in the discussion. In the following facsimile copy, the effect of transparent covers is used to facilitate reading here, but obviously covers on the transparencies used in the classroom were opaque. EVALUATION OF TifE SPRINGBOARDS These Springboards were evaluated following their use in two schools in a large metropolitan school system. Preliminary test data gathered from both schools included pre-test scores on the Processes of Science Test and the Verbal Reasoning and Numerical Ability portions of the Differential Aptitude Test. Selected items on the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination and a post-test of the Processes of Science Test were administered to the first-semester biology classes in both schools at the end of the semester. Teacher feedback was obtained on each Springboard and on the project as a whole. The test data were analyzed by means of an analysis of variance, with scores on the Differential Aptitude Test serving as a concomitant variable and scores on selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination and gains between pre-and post-tests of the Processes of Science Test serving as criterion variables. Table 1 shows the necessary statistics about both groups needed for analysis of variance. Since the groups were considerably different on the concomitant variable of the Differential Aptitude Test scores, an adjusted mean (X) was computed for each group on the criterion variables. This held the Differential Aptitude Test scores constant for each comparison. Tables 2 and 3 are summary tables for the analysis of covariance that were computed for each of the criterion variables. The adjusted means for gains on the post-pre scores of Processes of Science Test are .1323 and .0244 for the experimental group and the control group, respectively. In order to test the significance of this difference an F ratio was computed for the two groups. This difference is shown in Table 2 to equal 17.4734. Referring to an F table, the probability was found to be <.01. The difference was significant; therefore, the experimental group showed a higher mean gain or gains of post-pre scores on the Processes of Science Test compared to the control group when the Differential Aptitude Test scores were held constant. TABLE 1 MEANS, ADJUSTED MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE PROCESSES OF SCIENCE TEST AND SELECTED ITEMS FROM THE BSCS COMPREHENSIVE FINAL EXAMINATION AND MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL APTITUDE TEST School I (Control group) Standard N=558 Xgain AdjustedX0 Deviation Processes of Science Test 2.3469 .0244 5.6648 Selected Items from the BSCS Comprehensive Final 13.8548 4.8113 5.1645 Differential Aptitude Test 54.7760 15.2667 School2 (Experimental group) Standard N=416 Xgain AdjustedX Deviation Processes of Science Test 2.0432 .1323 4.4805 Selected Items from the BSCS Comprehensive Final 11.7188 4.2782 3.8161 Differential Aptitude Test 45.0673 15.7820 Adjusted X= Y dependent variable-b X D.A. T. b = slope of the regression line of the dependent variable on Differential AptitudeTest scores. TABLE 2 SUMMARY TABLE OF THE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR GAINS ON THE SCORES BETWEEN PRE-AND POST-TESTS OF THE PROCESSES OF SCIENCE TEST Source of Sum of Variation Squares dfO Mean Square Ft Pt Between groups 463.2249 1 463.2249 17.4734 <.01 Within groups 25768.0186 972 26.5103 Total 262.31.2435 973 0 d£ = degrees of freedom t F = Mean square between groups Mean square within groups t P = Probability TABLE 3 SUMMARY TABLE OF THE ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE FOR SCORES ON SELECTED ITEMS OF THE BSCS COMPREHENSNE FINAL EXAMINATION Source of Sum of Variation Squares dfO Mean Square Ft Pt Between groups 74.3439 1 74.3439 4.8261 <.05 Within groups 14973.2355 972 15.4045 Total 15047.5794 973 d£ = degrees of freedom t F = Mean square between groups Mean square within groups t P =Probability The adjusted means for scores on selected items on the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination are 4.2782 and 4.8113 for the experimental group and the control group, respectively. In order to test the significance of this difference an F ratio was computed for the two groups. This is shown in Table 3 to equal 4.8261. Referring to an F table, the probability is found to be <.05. The difference was significant; therefore, the control group showed a higher mean score on selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination when the Differential Apti­tude Test scores were held constant. A significant difference was found between the control group and the experi­mental group on gains of the Processes of Science Test. Regression lines of the Processes of Science Test scores on Differential Aptitude Test scores for both groups were parallel over the observed range of the Differential Aptitude Test scores. A significant difference was found between the experimental group and the control group on scores of selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Exami­nation when the Differential Aptitude Test scores were held constant. Preliminary statistics showed scores on selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination per unit of the Differential Aptitude Test scores were the same for both the control group and the experimental group over the observed range of the Differential Aptitude Test scores. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The experimental group scored significantly higher on the Processes of Science Test (P<.OI) when scores on the Differential Aptitude Test were held constant. The control group scored significantly higher on the selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination (P<.05) when scores on the Differential Apti­ tude Test were held constant. Teacher feedback generally agreed with the analysis of the test data as reported above. CONCLUSIONS The Springboards for Discussion are effective devices for teaching the processes and procedures of scientific inquiry. Both the control and experimental groups made gains as measured by pre-and post-tests of the Processes of Science Test. The relatively higher gains of the experimental group when scores on the concomi­ tant variable were held constant probably reflect positive effects of the Spring­ boards for Discussion in terms of the objectives of this test. However, the higher gains made by the control group on selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination suggest that gains of the experimental group in learning scien­ tific inquiry may have been made at the expense of some teaching of content. The findings indicate, therefore, that future research is needed to compare the teaching of content per se and scientific inquiry per se. They also point up the need for creating new materials in which a stronger attempt to do both jobs is made. Although the Springboards for Discussion may be considered effective teaching devices to emphasize processes and procedures of scientific inquiry, their use must be judiciously fitted in with other materials of the biology program. Less material on other topics can be covered with the Springboards for Discussion format than with conventional classroom procedures. This situation may also account in part for the relatively higher score of the control group on selected items of the BSCS Comprehensive Final Examination. The preparation and use of materials such as the Springboards for Discussion appear to provide one potentially effective way of implementing changes in teaching patterns, particularly as they involve teaching the processes of science. The response by teachers, and the relative ease with which the materials were used in the project reported here, indicate the practicality of this approach and support the suggestion that other new materials of this type should be developed. LITERATURE CITED 1. Lee, Addison E., Lehman, David L. and Peterson, Glen E. (Editors). "Laboratory Blocks in Teaching Biology." Special Publication #5. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1967. 83 pp. 2. Schwab, Joseph J. (Supervisor). Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Biology Teach­ers' Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 1963. 585 pp. 3. Kempers, Bert and Auffenberg, Walter. "The Film Program." BSCS Newsletter #28. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. University of Colorado, Boulder. April 1966. Pp. 10-11. 4. BSCS. Biological Sciences: Molecules to Man. Houghton-Mifllin Co., Boston. 1963. 716 PP· SPRINGBOARD FOR DISCUSSION WHY ARE THERE NO BLUEBONNETS ON SERPENTINE SOIL? TEACHER'S GUIDE WHY ARE THERE NO BLUEBONNETS ON SERPENTINE SOIL? This Springboard for Discussion is designed for use after Chapter 1 of the BSCS Blue Version Textbook. During the discussion of topics 1-8 and 1-9 in Chapter 1, the role of investigation in science is emphasized. This Springboard is based upon an actual study and emphasizes the symbiotic relationship of a legume and the nitrogen-fixing bacteria. It illustrates one experimental approach and poses some interesting unanswered problems that might be tested by a similar approach. . Students may be aware of the symbiotic relationship of the nitrogen­fixing bacteria and legumes; if not, the teacher may provide this ~nfor­mation at the appropriate time in this-discussion. PR O·C E D UR E: BEFORE SHOWING THE FIRST TRANSPARENCY, HAND our PAGES FOR STUDENT NOTEBOOKS. THEN GIVE THE STUDENTS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: Not all questions encountered in biology can be answered easily_ by experimental studies. In many cases the scientist merely gets some "clues" that enable him to suggest possible explanations of the phenomena observed. Living organisms are affected by many things in their environments that the scientist may not be able to control precisely. On the other hand, careful observation of critical factors may provide information useful for designing experiments to test possible explanations of·the phenomena observed. PROJECT TRANSPARENCY # I AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY IN CENTRAL TEXAS THERE IS A REGION OF LAND WHERE SEVERAL TYPES OF IGNEOUS ROCK HAVE INTRUDED. THESE INTRUSIONS HAVE FORMED SMALL AREAS OF LAND. EACH AREA CONTAINS SOIL DERIVED F.ROM ONE TYPE OF ROCK. SEVERAL OF THESE SMALL AREAS ARE MADE UP OF SOILS F.ROM A PARTICULAR TYPE OF IGNEOUS ROCK CALLED SER­PENTINE. SURROUNDING THE SERPENTINE AREA ARE AREAS DERIVED F.ROM GRANITE, ANOTHER IGNEOUS ROCK. TEACHER 1S GUIDE --WHY ARE THERE NO BLUEBONNEI'S ON SERPENTINE SOIL? COm'D PROJECT TRANSPARENCY # II, PART 1 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY (DO NOT UNMASK PART 2 AT THIS TIME.) Allow the students time to write on their notebook pages suggestions to answer the question on t he transparency. Then discuss the ideas they have written and write them on the chalk board.• Then: ''Let's see what possibilities the botanist considered." UNMASK PART 2 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY. Compare the four possibilities suggested by the botanist with those the students have suggested. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages as well as the practicalities of each. Instruct the students to write in their notebook suggestions as to how ~ach of the possibilities suggested by·the botanist might be tested. Then: "Let's see how the botanist tested Possibility # 1. 11 A BCYI'.ANIST WHO WAS OBSERVING PLANTS IN THIS REGION OF TEXAS NCYI'ICED THAT BLUEBONNETS GREW ON THE GRANITE SOILS ADJACENT TO THE SERPENTINE SOILS, Bur DID NCYI' GROW ON THE SERPENTINE SOILS. HE WONDERED WHY BLUE­BONNETS WERE DISTRIBUTED IN THIS PATTERN. QUESTION: WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE Sa.IB POSSIBLE REASONS THIS PATTERN OCCURED? TEACHER'S GUIDE --WHY ARE THERE NO BLUEBONNETS ON SERPENTINE SOIL? CONT1D PROJECT TRANSPARENCY # III, PART 1 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY (DO Nor UNMASK PART 2 AT THIS TIME.} Compare what the botanist did with the suggestions students have made in their notebooks. Then: "Let's see what the botanist did next. " UNMASK PART 2 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY Review orally with the students the eyents thus far--the original observation that bluebonnets did not grow on serpentine soil while they did grow on adjacent granite soil; the botanist asked why; he then sug­gested some possibilities for testing; he eliminated the first possibility on the basis of certain specific observations; he then designed an experi­ment as illustrated here to get information that might enable him to choose among the other possibilities. Leave Part 2 on the screen and at this point introduce the following questions: Why did the botanist use a number of soil samples? Why did he use a number of seeds in each pot? Discuss answers to these questions. Emphasize the need for replication in research. Then: "Let's look at the results the Botanist obtained." POSSIBILITY # 1 -ANIMALS OR arHER AGENTS THAT COULD DISTRIBUTE THE BLUEBONNET SEEDS MIGHT Nor BE ABLE TO GET TO THE SERPENTINE SOILS DUE TO NATURAL OR MAN-MADE BARRIERS. THE BarANIST OBSERVED THAT ANIMALS AND arHER AGENTS THAT MIGHT DISTRIBUTE THE SEEDS WERE ON BarH THE GRAN­ITE AND THE SERPENTINE SOILS: THEREFORE, HE CONSIDERED THIS AS EVIDENCE TO ELIMINATE POSSIBILITY# 1. TEACHER'S GUIDE --WHY ARE-THERE NO BLUEBONNETS ON SERPENTINE SOIL? CONT 1D PROJECT TRANSPARENCY # rv, PART 1 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY. (DO NOT UNMASK PARTS 2, 3, AND 4 AT THIS TIME.) Ee sure the students understand why this decision was made. Then: "Let 1s see what the botanist observed next. " UNMASK PART 2 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY Then: ''What do you suppose the botanist ·a.id next?" Allow the students to make suggestions to answer this question. UNMASK PART 3 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY Allow time for discussion of these results. 'Ille students should develop from the observation the idea that although bluebonnet seeds germinate in both granite and serpentine soil,. they will continue to grow and develop root nodules only in the granite soil. The students should raise several questions at this -point. "What are root nodules? 'What is their structure and composition? Are root nodules necessary for bluebonnets to grow? If so, why are they necessary? At this point jt may be.necessary to introduce information to help the students answer these questions. (This step in the teaching process is some~hat analogous to "prior knowledge" the working scientist uses.) From a discussion of these questions, students should understand the following idea: Since the nodules contain bacteria that "fix atomspheric nitrogen, plants lacking nodules may lack sufficient nitrogen to grow. Thus the germinating bluebonnets in the serpentine s.oil may not have had enough nitrogen for con­tinued growth because they had no root nodules to fix atmospheric nitrogen. UNMASK PART 4. AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY Instruct the students to write suggestions in notebooks. AFTER THE BLUEBONNET SEEDS HAD BEEN PLANTED SEVERAL WEEKS, THE BCYrANIST OBSERVED THAT APPROXThiATELY 95°/o OF THE SEEDS SPRODrED IN BOTH TYPES OF SOIL. ON THE BASIS OF THIS EVIDENCE HE ELIMINATED POSSIBILITY # 2. POSSIBILITY # 2 --THE SOILS MAY CONTAIN SCME SUBSTANCE WHICH KEEPS THE BLUEBONNET SEEDS FRCM GERMINATING. TEACHER 'S GUIDE --WHY ARE THERE NO BLUEBONNEI'S ON SERPENTINE SOIL? CONT'D PROJECT TRANSPARENCY# V, PART 1 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY. (DO NOT UNMASK PARTS 2, 3, 4 AND 5 AT THIS TIME.~.. Ask the students to compare the suggestions they, wrote in their notebooks with what the botanist acutally did. Then: "Let's see what results he obtained." UNMASK PART 2 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY On the basis of evidence now at hand, ask the students to chos.e; be­tween these two remaining possibilities. Then: ''Let's see what the botanist decided. 11 UNMASK PART 3 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY Note that the botanist di~ indeed select # 3 as the most probale explanation as to why bluebonnets fail to grow on serpentine soil. Compare this decision with those made by students. Then: ''While this decision appears to be an answer to the original question that started this Springboard for Discussion, have new questions been raised211 Allow students time to .write suggestions in their notebooks and then report them orally to the class. UNMASK PART 4 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY The discussion should bring o~t that this question is unanswered at present. However, one interesting clue may b.e suggested. It is known that serpentine soils often lack molybdenum. It has also been shown that this element i s required for growth by the nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Now: ''What new problem does this clue suggest?" Discuss possibilities. UNMASK PART 5 AND READ ALOUD COPY ON TRANSPARENCY Ask students to write in their notebooks suggestions as t,o how to answer the question on tbe transparency. Conclude this Springboard for Discussion with a listing and discussion of the appropriateness of the suggestions recorded and include a final reminder that as we answer one question in science, new ones are sure t9 emerge. TO TEST THE ASSUMPTION THAT BWEBONNETS IN THE SERPENTINE SOIL IACK NITROOEN, THE BOTANIST SET UP AN EXPERIMENT SIMIIAR TO THE EARLIER ONE. HE AGAIN COLLECTED SERPENTINE SOIL AND DIVJ])ED IT INTO TWO GROUPS OF POTS. 'ID ONE GROUP HE ADDED NITROGEN. THE OTHER GROUP SERVED AS A CONTROL. VIII. THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STUDENT CHECKLIST TO DETERMINE CLASSROOM TEACHING PRACTICES IN HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY Leonard H. Kochendorfer DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY VALPARAISO, INDIANA INTRODUCTION The ultimate test of the effectiveness of any new curriculum is the extent to which it contributes to its desired outcomes. Curriculum makers in recent years have seriously attempted to identify the philosophy, rationale, and objectives that underlie the materials they have developed. For example, Glass ( 1), Schwab ( 2), and Kolb ( 3), as well as a number of other sources, give the philosophy and rationale for the development of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ( BSCS) materials. A substantial number of materials from this study have now been produced and are now in use. Thus at least two tasks may be identified and should be carried out with some success before one can assess the effectiveness of programs in which these materials are used. One of these tasks involves an analysis of the relationship between the actual classroom practice where these materials are used and the philosophy and rationale of the program and a com­parison of this relationship with that found in classes not using the new materials. The importance of classroom practice to the successful use of curriculum materials has been recognized by Tyler (4), Hurd (5), Grohman (6), Flanders (7), and others. In fact Hurd (8) has suggested that the limited influence of the efforts of biology curriculum committees in the past has been due to their "consistent failure to directly recognize that the measure of course improvement is to be found more in improved methods of teaching than in the reassortment and realignment of subject content." An instrument and technique were developed to try to accomplish the task of identifying actual classroom practices as they relate to the philosophy and rationale of the BSCS program. It is the purpose of this paper to describe the development and evaluation of an instrument that we have called the Biology Classroom Activity Checklist (BCAC). This instrument was designed to help accomplish the first task identified above. A second task is also important in the ultimate test of the effectiveness of any new curriculum. It would require an evaluation of the changes in behavior of students in the new programs and would also require the development of new instruments to determine this change. We have not attempted to deal with this second task in the work reported here. DESCRIPTION OF TEACHER PRACTICES The problem of determining the nature of the classroom practices advocated by BSCS was given some direction by Belanger ( 9) when he stated that "Embedded in the documents of contemporary science curricula are a variety of teaching be­havioral factors which are valued as important dimensions of science teaching: The problem became one of reading the various materials written by persons associated with BSCS and itemizing the teaching practices that were contained in these materials. Fifty-three specific classroom practices based on these statements of BSCS rationale were formulated. These practices, written in terms of the stu­dent's viewpoint, were organized into seven sections, as follows: Section A-Role of the Teacher in the Classroom Section B-Student Classroom Participation Section C-Use of Textbook and Reference Materials Section D-Design and Use of Tests Section E-Laboratory Preparation Section F-Type of Laboratory Activities Section G-Laboratory Follow-up Activities JUDGMENT OF TEACHER PRACTICES Although these classroom practices were based on published statements of BSCS rationale, it was still necessary to receive a subjective judgment of these practices to determine whether or not they manifest teacher effectiveness. This judgment was obtained by submitting the list of classroom activities to five individuals selected for their knowledge of BSCS philosophy. Each individual was either a member of the BSCS writing team, a member of a BSCS committee, or a BSCS staff consultant. This panel included both scientists and classroom teachers. These persons were asked to decide whether each of these classroom practices would contribute positively, negatively, or not at all toward BSCS objectives. Ratings of the judges and other comments they made were considered in rewriting the instru­ment. Guilford's ( 10) method of computing the reliability of judgmental ratings was used. The judgment reliability coefficients are recorded in Table 1. These coefficients indicate a high degree of agreement among the judges and between the judges and the authors of the instrument concerning the way in which each of these items contributes toward teacher effectiveness. TABLE 1 JUDGMENTAL RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM ACTNITY CHECKLIST ITEMS Intraclass Correlation Among judges .84 Between Judge A and authors .95 Between Judge Band authors .93 Between Judge C and authors .90 Between Judge D and authors .89 Between Judge E and authors .88 LEONARD H. KOCHENDORFER DEVELOPMENT OF THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM ACTIVITY CHECKLIST (BCAC) The formulation of a list of teaching practices that were judged to be those that contribute positively toward the attainment of BSCS objectives was the first step in this study. The next step involved the development of a technique for determin­ing the extent to which each of these practices occurred in a particular classroom. After a critical review of the methods used in previous studies, the technique selected was that of having students report on the practices that took place in their classroom. This approach was chosen because it was felt that students were in an advantageous position to know what took place in the classroom. Investigators such as Cornell ( 11), Reed ( 12), Cogan ( 13), and Lewin ( 14) believe that stu­dents can accurately report what they have observed. It should be noted that the author of this study received no objections from any of the 75 teachers whose students completed the checklist subsequently developed and used. Initially two forms of the instrument were written. Form A consisted of 53 state­ments such as: "Our tests often ask us to write out definitions of terms." The student was instructed to indicate TRUE if the statement described what occurs in his classroom and FALSE ifit did not. For Form B the same item was written as follows: "Our tests ask us to write out definitions of terms." The student was to indicate NEVER, SELDOM, OFTEN, or ALWAYS. Both forms were administered to several local biology classes. Form B required about 50% more time to complete than Form A, and the variance of scores was slightly less on Form A than on Form B. Because of these two factors it was decided to write items in the style of Form A. Of the 53 items on the BCAC, 26 were judged as describing practices that con­tributed positively toward the attainment of BSCS objectives and 27 were judged as describing negative practices. In the instrument as it appears in this paper the positive BSCS practices are indicated by an asterisk. Obviously the asterisks were omitted in the instrument as published and used in several research studies. The first step in the scoring procedure involved counting the "correct" responses of each student. A positive item that was marked TRUE or a negative item that was marked FALSE was classified as a correct response. The percentage of correct responses was computed as the student's score. Thus the test scores had a potential range of 0 to 100 with the highest scores indicating a greater degree of agreement with biology classroom practices recommended by individuals associated with BSCS. The BCAC instrument as finally developed and used for studies to be reported subsequently is given below: BIOLOGY CLASSROOM ACTIVITY CHECKLISTa The purpose of this checklist is to determine how well you know what is going on a This checklist has been developed by Addison E. Lee and Leonard H. Kochendorfer for investigative purposes only. No right to reproduction is granted or implied without wiitten permission of the authors. in your biology class. Each statement describes some classroom activity. The activi­ties are not judged as either good or bad. Therefore, this checklist is not a test and is not designed to grade either you or your teacher. You are to read each statement and decide if it describes the activities in your class. All answers should be recorded on the answer sheet. NO MARKS should be made in this booklet. SAMPLE QUESTION Checklist Answer Sheet T F 1. My teacher often takes class attendance. 1. [ ] [ ] If the statement describes what occurs in your classroom, blacken the space under the letter T (TRUE) on answer sheet; if it does not, blacken in the space under the letter F (FALSE). REMEMBER: 1. The purpose of the checklist is to determine how well you know what is going on in your classroom. 2. Make no marks in this booklet. 3. All statements should be answered on the answer sheet by blackening in the space under the chosen response in pencil or ink. 4. Please do not write your name on this booklet or answer sheet. SECTION A 1. Much of our class time is spent listening to our teacher tell us about biology. 2. My teacher doesn't like to admit his mistakes. 3. If there is a discussion among students, the teacher usually tells us who is right. 4. My teacher often repeats almost exactly what the textbook says. 0 5. My teacher often asks us to explain the meaning of certain things in the text. 6. My teacher shows us that biology has almost all of the answers to questions about living things. 0 7. My teacher asks questions that cause us to think about things that we have learned in other chapters. 0 8. My teacher often asks questions that cause us to think about the evidence that is behind statements that are made in the textbook. SECTIONS B 1. My job is to copy down and memorize what the teacher tells us. 0 2. We students are often allowed time in class to talk among ourselves about ideas in biology. 3. Much of our class time is spent in answering orally or in writing questions that are written in the textbook or on study guides. 0 4. Classroom demonstrations are usually done by students rather than by the teacher. 0 Items considered as those which contribute positively toward the attainment of BSCS objectives. Identification ( 0 ) not to be included if instrument is reproduced and used. LEONARD H. KOCHENDORFER 5. We seldom or never discuss the problems faced by scientists in the discovery of a scientific principle. 0 6. If I don't agree with what my teacher says, he wants me to say so. 7. Most of the questions that we ask in class are to clear up what the teacher or text has told us. 0 8. We often talk about the kind of evidence that is behind a scientist's conclusion. SECTION C 1. When reading the text, we are expected to learn most of the details that are stated there. 2. We frequently are required to write out definitions to word lists. 0 3. When reading the textbook, we are always expected to look for the main problems and for the evidence that supports them. 0 4. Our teacher has tried to teach us how to ask questions of the text. 5. The textbook and the teacher's notes are about the only sources of biological knowledge that are discussed in class. 0 6. We sometimes read the original writings of scientists. 0 7. We are seldom or never required to outline sections of the textbook. SECTION D 0 1. Our tests include many questions based on things that we have learned in the laboratory. 2. Our tests often ask us to write out definitions of terms. 0 3. Our tests often ask us to relate things that we have learned at different times. 0 4. Our tests often ask us to figure out answers to new problems. 0 5. Our tests often give us new data and ask us to draw conclusions from these data. 6. Our tests often ask us to put labels on drawings. SECTION E 1. My teacher usually tells us step-by-step what we are to do in the laboratory. 0 2. We spend some time before every laboratory in determining the purpose of the experiment. 3. We often cannot finish our experiments because it takes so long to gather equipment and prepare solutions. 4. The laboratory meets on a regularly scheduled basis (such as every Friday). 0 5. We often use the laboratory to investigate a problem that comes up in class. 0 6. The laboratory usually comes before we talk about the specific topic in class. 7. Often our laboratory work is not related to the topic that we are studying in class. 8. We usually know the answer to a laboratory problem that we are investigating before we begin the experiment. SECTION F 1. Many of the experiments that are in the laboratory manual are done by the teacher or other students while the class watches. 0 Items considered as those which contribute positively toward the attainment of BSCS objectives. Identification ( 0 ) not to be included if instrument is reproduced and used. 0 2. The data that I collect are often different from data that are collected by the other students. 3. Our teacher is often busy grading papers or doing some other personal work while we are working in the laboratory. 0 4. During an experiment we record our data at the time we make our observa­tions. 0 5. We are sometimes asked to design our own experiment to answer a question that puzzles us. 6. We often ask the teacher if we are doing the right thing in our experiments. 0 7. The teacher answers most of our questions about the laboratory work by asking us questions. 8. We spend less than one-fourth of our time in biology doing laboratory work. 9. We never have the chance to try our own ways of doing the laboratory work. SECTION G 0 1. We talk about what we have observed in the laboratory within a day or two after every session. 0 2. After every laboratory session, we compare the data that we have collected with the data of other individuals or groups. 3. Our teacher often grades our data books for neatness. 4. We are required to copy the purpose, materials, and procedure used in our experiments from the laboratory manual. 0 5. We are allowed to go beyond the regular laboratory exercise and do some experimenting on our own. 0 6. We have a chance to analyze the conclusions that we have drawn in the laboratory. 7. The class is able to explain all unusual data that are collected in the labo­ratory. ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY The final form of the Biology Classroom Activity Checklist was administered to 1,261 tenth-grade biology students in 64 classrooms. These classrooms were located in eleven states and the teachers involved were using a variety of curriculum materials. The method used to establish the reliability of the instrument was based on the assumption that all variance in the intraclass scores represented error variance and the interclass variance expressed true variance. If the instrument is a reliable measure of classroom activity, one would expect greater variance in the indices assigned to the total population of classrooms than in the indices assigned to indi­vidual classroms. Horst ( 15) developed a reliability measure based upon the com­parison of these variances. The reliability coefficient obtained with this formula was .96. There were several indications of the validity of the BCAC. The correlation of .84 among the judgmental evaluations of the instrument items is indicative of a Items considered as those which contribute positively toward the attainment of BSCS objectives. Identification ( 0 ) not to be included if instrument is reproduced and used. LEONARD H. KOCHENDORFER 77 high degree of agreement concerning the content validity of these items. One would expect that the nature of the activities which occur in the classroom portion of a biology class would be highly correlated with the type of activities that take place in the laboratory portion. For example, it would be incongmous for a teacher to stress the investigatory nature of biology in the classroom and then conduct a strictly illustrative laboratory. If the BCAC is a valid means of determining what takes place in a biology class, the scores which the pupils assign to the classroom portion of the course, represented in sections A through D, should be highly correlated with the scores assigned to the laboratory portion, represented in sections E through G. The correlation coefficient between the class mean scores on the laboratory portion and the classroom portion of the BCAC was .84. POTENTIAL USES OF THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM ACTNITY CHECKLIST It is possible to conceive of several applications for an instrument such as the Biology Classroom Activity Checklist. Many curriculum projects emphasize that the method by which the materials are taught is important to their successful use; yet this aspect is often virtually ignored when curriculum evaluation is under­ taken. Usually the assumption is made that the appropriate teaching practices are being used as long as teachers who are reputed to be successful claim to be using them. Curriculum research may be made more valid if the appropriate teaching practices are identified and an instrument such as BCAC is used to determine whether or not these specific practices actually take place in the classroom. This type of instrument may also have a use in the pre-service and in-service training of teachers. Since the BCAC itemizes specific teacher practices, these items can serve as a basis for discussion among teacher and students. The instru­ ment could also be used by teachers for self-evaluation. SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to develop a valid, yet easy to administer, tech­ nique of determining the extent to which the classroom practices of teachers are in agreement with the practices advocated by a particular curriculum project. A list of classroom activities, based upon the published statements of individuals associated with BSCS and verified by a panel of judges, was formulated. This checklist was administered to over 1,200 students of 64 teachers and reliability and validity data were gathered. A reliability coefficient of .96 was obtained. Two methods of computing validity each yielded a coefficient of .84. An instrument such as this should be useful in the evaluation of new curricula and in the training of teachers. 0 Items considered as those which contribute positively toward the attainment of BSCS objectives. Identification ( 0 ) not to be included if instrument is reproduced and used. LITERATURE CITED 1. Glass, B. "BSCS High School Biology." BSCS Newsletter No. 6. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. University of Colorado, Boulder. 1960, p. 5. 2. Schwab, J. (Supervisor). Biology Teachers' Handbook. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1963, p. 45. 3. Kolb, H. (Supervisor) . Teachers' Guide: High School Biology, BSCS Green Version. Rand McNally, Chicago. 1964. 4. Tyler, R. W. "Analysis of Strenghs and Weaknesses in Current Research in Science Education." Unpublished paper read at Science Education Centers for Research and Development, Ohio State University, Nov. 1, 1965. 5. Hurd, P. DeH. and Rowe, M. "Science in the Secondary School." Review of Educa­tional Research. 1964, 34, p. 287. 6. Grohman, H. Personal communication, January 15, 1964. 7. Flanders, N. "Intent, Action, and Feedback: A Preparation for Teaching." Journal of Teacher Education. 1963, 14, p. 251. 8. Hurd, P. DeH. "Biological Education in American Schools, 1890-1960." BSCS Bul­letin No. 1. American Institute of Biological Sciences, Washington. 1961, p. 234. 9. Belanger, M. "The Study of Teaching and the New Science Curricula." Science Teacher. 1964, 31, p. 33. 10. Guilford, J. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1965, p. 299. 11. Cornell, F., Lindvall, C., and Saupe, J. An Exploratory Measurement of individualities of Schools and Classrooms. Bureau of Educational Research, University of Illionis Press, Champaign. 1952, p. 12. 12. Reed, H. "Implication for Science Education of a Teacher Competence Research." Science Education. 1962, 46, p. 475. 13. Cogan, M. "The Behavior of Teachers and the Productive Behavior of Their Pupils.'' Journal of Experimental Education. 1958, 27, p. 89. 14. Lewin, K. "Psychology and the Process of Group Living." Journal of Social Psychology. 1943, 17, p. 121. 15. Horst, P. "A Generalized Expression of the Reliability of Measures." Psychometrics. 1949, 14, pp. 21-32. IX. CLASSROOM PRACTICES OF HIGH SCHOOL BIOLOGY TEACHERS USING DIFFERENT CURRICULUM MATERIALS Leonard H. Kochendorfer DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY VALPARAISO UNIVERSITY VALPARAISO, INDIANA STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Schwab (1), Hurd (2), Grohman (3), and others have stated that the way in which a teacher uses the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study ( BSCS) materials is important for successful outcomes. This statement raises a number of questions. To what extent do teachers using BSCS materials follow classroom practices that are in harmony with the BSCS philosophy and rationale? How do the practices of first-year BSCS teachers compare with those used by more experienced BSCS teach­ers? To what degree are these same practices being utilized by teachers using cur­riculum materials other than BSCS? What is the relationship between a teacher's expressed acceptance of BSCS philosophy and rationale and the nature of his class­room practices? What is the relationship between a teacher's classroom practices and the gain in his students' understanding of the nature of science? Studies con­ducted at the Science Education Center of The University of Texas at Austin have provided some data concerning these questions. It is recognized that the student-teacher relationship is complex and is influenced by a variety of factors. Because of this complexity, it is not practical to designate a single group of classroom practices as being the most effective approach to teach­ing a subject. The purpose of this study was primarily that of ascertaining the ex­tent to which the teaching approach and techniques advocated by BSCS are cur­rently being used by a selected sample of both BSCS and non-BSCS teachers. No attempt has been made to place a value judgment on the various teaching practices analyzed or various curriculum materials used in the study. INSTRUMENTS USED TO GATHER DATA Since no suitable instrument was available to determine actual classroom prac­tices of teachers using curriculum materials, the first task in this study was to de­velop one for this purpose. Descriptions of the development and evaluation of the instrument, Biology Classroom Activity Checklist (BCAC) as well as a copy of the instrument itself are found elsewhere in this monograph ( 4). The instrument is composed of 53 specific classroom activities based upon published statements of BSCS philosophy rationale and verified by a panel of judges thoroughly familiar with this program. The students in one class of each teacher who participated in the study completed the BCAC. A single mean score was computed for each class­room and adjusted to a O-to-100 range, with the highest scores indicating a greater degree of agreement with practices recommended by BSCS. Reliability and va­lidity coefficients of .96 and .84, respectively, were obtained for the instrument. Other instruments used in the study were: (a) The Processes of Science Test (POST) developed in the BSCS program and designed to measure the student's understanding of the process of science and the scientific enterprise. This test is reported to measure a student's ability to interpret data and deal with hypotheses ( 5). The test contains 40 items and was adminis­tered to students participating in this study as a pre-test in the fall of 1965 and as a post-test in the spring of 1966. (b) An Attitude Inventory, developed by Blankenship ( 6, 7) as a means to de­termine the reactions of science teachers to the BSCS program. A 30-item slightly modified form of this instrument was used in this study. ADMINISTRATION OF INSTRUMENTS September, 1965-Processes of Science Test. Administered to 1,484 tenth-grade students in 64 classrooms. April, 1966-Processes of Science Test. Readministered to 1,210 tenth-grade stu­dents in 64 classrooms. April, 1966-Biol.ogy Classroom Activity Checklist. Completed by 1,231 tenth­grade students in 64 classrooms. April, 1966-Attitude Inventory. Completed by 64 teachers in the sample se­lected for the study. SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE OF CLASSES USED IN STUDY In order to obtain a sample that could be expected to represent a variety of teaching practices, three distinct groups of classes were selected. Each of these groups was composed of tenth-grade biology classes as follows: (a) Group EB: This group consisted of one class of students from each of 22 teachers who \Vere identified from published BSCS teacher lists and had con­siderable training and experience in the BSCS program. The mean number of years of experience in teaching BSCS by these teachers was 5.0. This group was composed of classes from 12 states. Fourteen classes used BSCS Blue Version, six used the Yell ow Version, and two used the Green Version ( 8). ( b) Group BB: This group consisted of one class of students from each of 21 teachers who were identified as not having had previous experience and training in the BSCS program, but who were using the materials for the first time. The teachers in this group were identified by their respective science supervisors and were located in seven cities in one state. Nineteen classes used the Yellow Version and two used the Green Version. ( c) Group NB: This group consisted of one class of students of each of 21 teach­ers from schools which were given an option to use BSCS materials but which were identified as using cuniculum materials other than BSCS. The teachers in this group were identified by their respective science supervisors and were lo­cated in three cities in a single state. It should be emphasized that these groups were deliberately selected to provide populations that might be expected to exhibit a variety of teaching approaches and methods. It is not suggested that these groups are representative of the larger popu­lations from which they were drawn. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The data recorded in Table 1 indicate that, when the groups described above are considered as entities, statistically significant differences exist among them in re­gard to the classroom practices of experienced BSCS teachers, first-year BSCS teachers, and teachers using curriculum materials other than BSCS. The data show that the practices of the experienced BSCS teachers more closely conform to those advocated by BSCS, with beginning BSCS teachers showing the next highest de­gree of conformity and the non-BSCS showing the least degree of conformity. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF THE BIOLOGY CLASSROOM ACTNITY CHECKLIST MEAN SCORES OF THE THREE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Mean Score q