UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Behaviour pattern of a science teacher in teaching the nature of science Anamuah-Mensah, Jophus 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 A53.pdf [ 8.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055281.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055281-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055281-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055281-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055281-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055281-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055281-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055281-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055281.ris

Full Text

B E H A V I O U R P A T T E R N O F A S C I E N C E T E A C H E R I N T E A C H I N G T H E N A T U R E O F S C I E N C E by JOPHUS ANAMUAH-MENSAH B.Sc.(Ed), University of Cape Coast, 1971 B.Sc.(Hons), University of Cape Coast, 1972 M.Sc, University of Cape Coast, 1974 THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS •in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Science Education) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November, 1978 c) Jophus Anamuah-Mensah, 1978 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f inanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date P . X f T * N W . f f W g * 2 A B S T R A C T BEHAVIOUR PATTERN OF A SCIENCE TEACHER IN TEACHING THE NATURE OF SCIENCE The general focus of the study was to describe the behaviour patterns used by a science teacher i n his normal teaching that contribute to the teaching of science and to develop hypotheses about some of the factors contributing to these behaviours. The s p e c i f i c questions posed i n this study were: 1. Over a period of time, what behaviour patterns does a science teacher use i n his normal teaching i n d i f f e r e n t c l a s s -room settings that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science? 2. What are some of the variables under-lyi n g any observed behaviour pattern within each setting over the period of the study? 3. Which classroom settings does the teacher make the most use of for teaching the nature of science? The patterns (both general and s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c ) of the teacher's behaviour were determined through an analysis of verbal and non-verbal behaviour using a modification of the Classroom Observation Instrument de-veloped for the Earth Science Curriculum Project. This instrument defines four classroom settings, namely, the developing text material setting, the pre-lab setting, the laboratory setting and the post-lab discussion. - i i -Data on the factors contributing to these patterns were c o l l e c t e d through a formal pre-study i n t e r -view and through d a i l y observation of the classroom and discussion with the teacher. In p a r t i c u l a r data were co l l e c t e d on the teacher's intents, the teacher's per-ception of his students, a v a i l a b i l i t y of materials, the topics for the lessons, e t c. In addition, data were co l l e c t e d on other factors which emerged during the observation and discussions with the teacher. One major conclusion of the study was that the teacher used both general (or recurrent) behaviours and si t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviours i n each classroom setting during the three-week study. Some of the general be-haviours observed i n the d i f f e r e n t classroom settings were as follows: During the developing text material setting, students were observed to pa r t i c i p a t e i n the lessons only through responding to the teacher's questions and there was a neglect of the philosophical l i m i t a t i o n s of science. In the pre-lab, students were never observed to i d e n t i f y and state the problem or hypothesis for i n -vestigation. During the lab sessions, the students were observed to ask questions and contribute ideas while the teacher moved around the groups asking questions and giving d i r e c t answers to students' questions. During the post-lab discussion, apart from drawing conclusions and predictions, students were not observed to communicate with other students or to provide c r i t i c a l and speculative analysis of the i r data. The findings were found to r e f l e c t such i n t e r a c t i v e factors as (1) the p r e s c r i p t i v e structure of the text, (2) the topics for the lessons, (3) the duration of the lessons, (4) the teacher's perception of the students, (5) the pressure to complete the topics i n the lim i t e d time a v a i l a b l e , and (6) the teacher's approach which r e f l e c t e d the structure of the text, the duration of the lessons and the pressure to complete the topics i n a lim i t e d time. An analysis of the data, indicated that the teacher used the laboratory setting most and the pre-lab l e a s t for teaching the nature of science. - i v -TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES i x LIST OF FIGURES x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x i Chapter ONE" THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 1 1.00 The Scope of the Study 1 1.10 The Purpose of the Study 3 1.2 0 Importance of the Study 3 TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 5 2.00 Literature Defining Nature of Science for the Study 5 2.10 Studies of Teacher Behaviour Employing Systematic Observation 8 2.2 0 Studies on Teachers' Under-standing of the Nature of Science 13 THREE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 17 3.00 Questions for the Study 17 3.10 General Design 18 3.2 0 Methodology 19 3.30 Factors 21 3.31 The Intent of the Teacher.. 21 3.32 Teacher's Perception of his Students 22 3.33 Topics Chosen for the Lessons 24 3.34 A v a i l a b i l i t y of Materials.. 24 3.35 Time Constraints on the Teacher . 25 -v-page Chapter 3.4 0 The Pre-Study Interview 2 5 3.41 Daily Schedule 26 3.42 Post Lesson Interview 26 3.50 The Observation Instrument 2 7 3.51 Description of Smith's Instrument... 2 7 3.52 Modification of Smith's Instrument for the study 30 3.5 3 Observer Training Program 35 3.54 Observation Technique 37 3.60 The School Setting 38 3.70 Interobserver Agreement 42 FOUR DATA, RESULTS AND ANALYSES 4 5 4.00 General Introduction 45 4.10 Questions One and Two - Behaviour Patterns 45 4.2 0 Developing text Material Setting 4 7 4.21 Introduction 4 7 4.22 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n t h i s Setting 48 4.2 3 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviours of the Teacher 6 8 4.24 Setting Summary 70 4.30 Pre-Laboratory Setting 72 4.31 Introduction 7 2 4.32 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n the Pre-lab Setting... 73 4.33 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher During t h i s Setting 87 4.34 Setting Summary 9 7 - v i -page Chapter 4.4 0 Laboratory Setting 9 9 4.41 Introduction 99 4.42 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n the Laboratory Setting 101 4.4 3 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviour of the Teacher i n the Laboratory Setting 116 4.44 Setting Summary 121 4.50 Post Laboratory Setting .... 12 3 4.51 Introduction 12 3 4.52 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n thi s Setting 125 4.5 3 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviour of the Teacher 136 4.54 Setting Summary 141 4.60 Question Three 143 FIVE LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 14 6 5.00 Introduction 146 x 5.10 Limitations to the Study 14 7 5.20 Implications for Research 149 5.30 Implications for the Program Developers, Teacher Educators and Teachers 152 REFERENCES 156 APPENDICES 161 A. The Modified Classroom Observation Instrument 161 B. Special Instructions for Recording Behaviours 168 C. Objectives for Science Teaching ... ... ... 170 - v i i -APPENDICES D. Interview Schedule E. Guiding Form ... F. Developing Text Material. - v i i i -L I S T O F T A B L E S Table page I Behaviour items observed per single Occurrences of the Developing Text Material Setting on a Time Line 5 0 II Summary of Observations for the Developing Text Material Setting as Recorded on the Modified In-strument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 III Lesson Topics for Each Setting According to Order of Occurrence 56 IV Teacher's Intents for' Each Lesson 59 V Behaviour Items Observed Per Single Occurrences of the Pre-Laboratory Setting on a Time Line . 74 VI Summary of Observations for the Pre-Laboratory Setting as Recorded on the Modified Instrument 76 VII Behaviour Items Observed Per Single Occurrences of the Laboratory Setting on a Time Line 102 VIII Summary of Observations for the Laboratory Setting as Recorded on the Modified Instrument 105 IX Behaviour Items Observed Per Single Occurrences of the Post Laboratory Setting on a Time Line 126 X Summary of Observations for the Post Laboratory Setting as Recorded on the Modified Instrument 12 8 - i x -L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1. A Representation of the Design of the Study Plot of Item Frequency Against the Number of Settings Behaviour was Used i n the Developing Text Material Setting Item Frequency Against Number of Settings Behaviour was Used i n Pre-Laboratory Setting Item Frequency Against Number of Settings Behaviour was Used i n Laboratory Setting Item Frequency Against Number of Settings Behaviour was Used i n Post Laboratory Setting -x-A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T The author wishes to express his i n -debtedness to Professor Jim Gaskell for his encouragement and valuable guidance i n seeing the study to i t s completion and to Professors A l Ryan and Walter Bolt for t h e i r advice during the formative stages of t h i s study. The author also wishes to thank a l l those who, i n diverse ways, contributed to make the study a p o s s i b i l i t y and to express his gratitude to his wife, Beatrice, and children, Ebow, Ekua and Maame, for t h e i r u n f a i l i n g support and en-couragement throughout the graduate study. - x i --1-CHAPTER ONE T H E R E S E A R C H P R O B L E M 1.00 THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY Recent c u r r i c u l a r innovations such as PSSC Physics and Project Physics seem to emphasize the nature of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry or the "way of the s c i e n t i s t " (Commission on College Physics, 1972). I t i s therefore important to study how the science teacher using such c u r r i c u l a r materials w i l l be-have. Such studies have already been c a r r i e d out by a number of researchers such as Evans (1969), Gallagher, (1970), Hunter (1969), Moon (1971),,Parakh (1969) and Tisher and Power (1975) but the findings are c o n f l i c t i n g . For example, Evans (1969) reported that teachers using the BSCS c u r r i c u l a r materials did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from teachers using non-BSCS materials i n terms of such be-haviours as the development of s c i e n t i f i c processes (e.g. observation, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ) , "content development" or the time devoted to "management" a c t i v i t i e s . However, Moon (1971) noted that teachers using the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) materials showed highly s i g n i f i c a n t differences from " t r a d i t i o n a l teachers" by demonstrating greater preference for high l e v e l questions and by increasing the amount of the teacher's verbal -2-influence during the students' a c t i v i t i e s . Likewise, Lashier and Ni e f t (1975) reported some s i g n i f i c a n t differences between teachers using the Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS) materials and those using non-ISCS materials. The ISCS teachers were found to play a less dominant role and th e i r classrooms were characterised by high levels of student a c t i v i t y . In a study by Gallagher (1970) involving s i x competent biology teachers teaching the same topics from the BSCS curriculum, the teachers were found to vary i n the strategies used i n presenting the concepts. The d i v e r s i t y was noted i n t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n a l goals, l e v e l of con-ceptualization, manner of i n i t i a t i o n of the topics, actual ideas discussed, the sequence of ideas covered and additional ideas included. Thus i t ' s not clear whether the use of innovative programs per se r e s u l t i n a d i f f e r e n t set of teacher behaviours. In order to interpret these findings i t i s necessary to have information on the constraints operating i n the system i n which the material i s being used and t h e i r e f f e c t on the behaviour of the teacher. That i s , i t i s important to explain why teachers behave in the way they do. In-vestigation of t h i s may well help to explain the occurrence of certain behaviours in the classroom and be useful to both program developers and teachers. I t i s to t h i s problem of i d e n t i f y i n g the teacher's behaviour and why they occur that the present study i s addressed. -3-1.10 The purpose of the Study The purpose of the present study i s to describe the behaviour patterns used by a science teacher in his normal teaching that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science and to develop hypotheses about some of the possible factors a f f e c t i n g those behaviours. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the questions to which t h i s study i s addressed are: 1. Over a period of time what behaviour patterns does a science teacher use i n h i s normal teaching in d i f f e r e n t classroom settings that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science? 2. What are some of the variables underlying any observed behaviour patterns within each setting over the period of the study? 3. Which classroom settings does the teacher make the most use of for teaching the nature of science? 1.20 Importance of the Study It i s envisaged that anawers to these questions w i l l be of considerable importance to the teacher, teacher educator and the program developer. I t w i l l enable the program developer to be aware of the li m i t a t i o n s i n teach-ing the nature of science and incorporate them i n new pro-grams. The s p e l l i n g out of such l i m i t a t i o n s i n new pro-grams w i l l enable the program user to become aware of them -4-and also s e n s i t i z e him to analyze h i s own behaviour i n teaching the nature of science. Teachers may recognize how the i r intents, the p a r t i c u l a r text material used or the kind of topic can a f f e c t the type of behaviour ex-hi b i t e d . I t i s also hoped that t h i s study w i l l enable teachers to become conscious of t h e i r patternsof behaviour including things they do and don't do when teaching the nature of science and the possible reasons contributing to t h e i r behaviour. Becoming conscious of present patterns i s the f i r s t step i n r a t i o n a l l y modifying that behaviour. -5-CHAPTER TWO R E V I E W O F R E L A T E D L I T E R A T U R E 2.00 LITERATURE DEFINING NATURE OF SCIENCE FOR THE STUDY The "Nature of Science" has been defined i n the l i t e r a t u r e i n terms of the way the s c i e n t i s t goes about his work (Commission on College Physics, 1972). However, the actual s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the way the s c i e n t i s t goes about his work may d i f f e r according to the view point brought into i t - whether i t i s philosophical or s o c i o l o g i c a l or both. An example: of one view point brought into the de-f i n i t i o n of the way of the s c i e n t i s t , Wish and his associates (1975) i n developing t h e i r Instrument for Observing Classroom Science Behaviour i n the elementary school, described the following behaviours as consistent with teaching and learning the nature of science: Selection of a problem, formulating hypothesis, structuring tests, c o n t r o l l i n g and manipulating variables, making operational d e f i n i t i o n s , gathering data, i n t e r -preting data and predicting. This view i s emphasized by Anderson (1968) who writes that, to teach the nature of science, the student's work should "approximate as much as possible that of the actual investigations of the s c i e n t i s t s " . -6-In his view, the s c i e n t i s t i n his research i n -vestigations spends much time i n defining the problems, formulating hypotheses, designing experiments and formulating conclusions and predictions but very l i t t l e time i n the c o l l e c t i o n of data. He maintained that to teach the nature of science, i t i s important for the students to be extensively involved i n a l l stages of the process - that i s , defining the problem, formulating hypotheses, designing experiment, c o l l e c t i n g data and formulating conclusions. Tamir (1976) used si m i l a r stages to define the nature of science (inquiry teaching, in his terminology) i n the laboratory. Also Lunetta and Tamir (197 8) applied s i m i l a r stages to analyze the content of PSSC and Project Physics laboratory manuals to i d e n t i f y the extent to which they emphasize the processes of science. So f a r , the above explanations have viewed the nature of science as a process or method and the teaching of the nature of science as the complete involvement of students in the process. However, Connelly and his associates (1977) maintain that the nature of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry should be viewed i n terms of the following: 1. That s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s always subject tp change and r e v i s i o n - the change occurring when-ever the s c i e n t i f i c community i s persuaded of the value of a proposed r e v i s i o n . -7-2. That s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s always tentative -i t i s the most adequate account of the world at a particular'time. 3. That guiding conceptions of the s c i e n t i s t determine the type of problem selected for investigation and the data he c o l l e c t s . 4. That d i f f e r e n t guiding conceptions may lead to d i f f e r e n t legitimate enquiries i n the same problem area. They believe that i n teaching the nature of science the above views should be transmitted to the students i n some way. These l a t t e r statements w i l l be referred to as the "assumptions" of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry as oppossed to the "processes" of science. To Connelly and his workers (1977), the guiding conceptions influences the s p e c i f i c stages i n the "process" of science such as the choice of the problem, the data c o l l e c t i o n and even the interpretation of the r e s u l t s . Thus, i n contrast to the views of Anderson (1968) and others, the view expressed by Connelly and others i s a l l embracing, recognising both the "process" of science and the "assumptions" of science. This wider view i s an attempt at a more pragmatic and r e a l i s t i c view of science. In this study, teaching the nature of science w i l l be defined i n terms of teacher classroom behaviours con-sis t e n t with the processes and assumptions of science as defined above but s p e c i f i c a l l y as defined by the Class-room Observation Instrument relevant to ESCP (Smith 1969). -8-That i s , i n teaching the nature of science, the teacher i s expected to extensively engage the students i n the processes of science and should convey o r a l l y the assumptions of science to the students. 2.10 Studies of Teacher Behaviour Employing Systematic  Observation A wide variety of systematic observational systems have been used to capture the quantitative and q u a l i t a t i v e dimensions of teacher-pupil interactions i n the classroom in order to obtain an empirical backing for our classroom practices. This attempt started as far back as the work of Horn (1914) on pupil p a r t i c i p a t i o n , through the work of Anderson (1939) i n categorizing the teacher-pupil con-tacts on a "dominative-integrative" dimension, to the work of Withall (1949) on "learner-centredness", "neutral" and "teacher centredness" and Flander's (1970) concept of "directness" and "indirectness". Since the work of Flanders over 200 observational systems have mushroomed; t h i s i n -cludes the early works of Smith and Meiox (1962, 1967), Bellack and associates (1966) and many others.. The f i r s t generation of systematic observational instruments de-signed to analyze the classroom i n t e r a c t i v e behaviour of teachers and students were used to describe in t e r a c t i o n i n a l l subject areas of the curriculum. For instance, Smith and Meu;x ('196 7 ) used t h e i r instrument on strategies of teaching i n analyzing the in t e r a c t i v e behaviour i n Science, Mathematics, History and Social Studies. -9-Referring to the general nature of the observational systems extent at that time and the fact that they were not designed to capture the s p e c i f i c aspects of science teaching e s p e c i a l l y laboratory a c t i v i t i e s , a number of researchers (e.g. Parakh, 1969; F i s c h l e r zt al. 1967-68) developed systems purported to be capable of monitoring science classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s . However, i n reviewing these new systems Rosenshine (1970) noted that most of the "science-specific systems" contain very l i t t l e to d i s t i n g u i s h them from the systems developed for use i n a l l subject areas. For example, he noted that the systems developed by Parakh (1969) and Evans and Balzer (1970) contain only one or two items s p e c i f i c to science. How-ever both the science-specific systems and the general systems have been used to investigate science teaching i n both the elementary schools and secondary schools. These studies have always sought to provide a description of science teaching based e n t i r e l y on the frequency counts of the items included i n the instrument or system used for the study. In a study conducted i n the science classroom and laboratory, Parakh (1967-1968) recorded that the teacher talks about 75% of the time i n the science classroom and about 50% of the time i n the laboratory. Snider (196 5) using Flanders System of i n -teraction analysis reported similar findings for a sample of 17 physics teachers and on the basis of further -10-analysis of the kinds of teacher verbal behaviour con-cluded that much of physics teaching i s ' t e l l i n g 1 . In a recent study to investigate the use of laboratories i n the high school and college l e v e l s , Tamir (19 77) reported that i n a l l the 31 laboratories observed 11% of the t o t a l laboratory time was devoted to ' v e r i f i c a t i o n ' items while 13% was devoted to 'investigative' items. He noted that out of the 18 teachers involved i n the study seven were 'inquiry-oriented', three ' t r a d i t i o n a l ' , and the rest equal on both 'inquiry' and ' v e r i f i c a t i o n ' items. One point to be made here i s that i n almost a l l the studies using systematic observational instruments, no attempt was made to c o l l e c t data on factors which might have contributed to the sort of behaviour exhibited by the teacher. A second point i s that, only very few studies have been reported on the behaviour pattern of science teachers i n d i f f e r e n t settings or i n the same set t i n g over time. In a study to investigate the behaviour pattern of three experienced sophomore biology teachers using Flanders instrument and involving sixteen observa-tio n s , Urbach (1966) reported that recurring patterns of verbal i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques did e x i s t for each teacher i n the classroom. This observation i s similar to that of Smith (1969) when he studied the behaviour of three teachers using the ESCP materials for two weeks in d i f f e r e n t classroom settings which he defined i n terms of the major categories in his instrument - that i s , the developing text material, pre-lab, lab and post-lab. He noted that teacher's behaviour within a "classroom setting i s r e l a t i v e l y consistent i n recurring i n -stances of that setting" and that differences occur from one setting to another although he did not pro-vide any data on the d a i l y behaviour pattern of the teachers. In both studies, the researchers did not attempt to explain why the teachers behaved i n the way they did although t h i s would have helped i n i d e n t i f y i n g the con-s t r a i n t s i n the system. Also i n both studies, the teachers' behaviour was not studied on a continuous basis. The teachers selected the times suitable for the observations - a procedure which might lead to the observation of atypical behaviour. . One study which was done over a period of one year to compare the e f f e c t of "Indirect/Direct" r a t i o (I/D) of selected science teachers as measured by Flanders ' instrument on students' achievement showed that the higher "I/D" teachers varied i n t h e i r style of teaching as the year went by (Wolfson, 197 3). Apart from the fact that the teachers were observed on only a few occassions during the year, no possible reasons were advanced to ex-p l a i n the " f l e x i b i l i t y " i n the behaviour of the higher "I/D" teacher. From these s t u d i e s , " i t appears that over a short period d e f i n i t e recurring patterns can be i d e n t i f i e d while -12-over a long period of one year some teachers tend to be " f l e x i b l e " i n t h e i r behaviour. However, in a l l these studies no attempt was made to c o l l e c t data on factors which might have con-tributed to the sort of behaviour pattern exhibited by the teacher. Smith (1969) i n his study, recommended that the investigation of factors such as teacher's perception of the c u r r i c u l a r materials, teacher intent with regard to the i n d i v i d u a l lessons, students' per-ceptions of the c u r r i c u l a r materials may "pay-off i n describing to some extent why teachers and students be-have as they do i n the classroom". As a beginning, these factors can be studied i n our investigation of the behaviour of a science teacher with one class of students on a continuous basis over a period of time. The present study i s an i n i t i a l attempt to describe the behaviour pattern used by a science teacher that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science to one class of students over three weeks and to i d e n t i f y some of the factors which may be contributing to any observed patterns of behaviour. -13-2.20 Studies on Teachers' Understanding Of the Nature  of Science A major objective for many modern school programs has been the students attainment of an understanding of the current conception of the nature of science as ex-pressed by such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as the tentative nature of knowledge and the fact there are d i f f e r e n t concep - io tions or methodologies i n science (Kimball, 19 68; Carey, and Stauss 1968). This implies that the science teacher teaches the nature of science and above a l l understands the nature of science. However not a single study was i d e n t i f i e d as investigating the teaching of the nature of science per se although Parakh (1967-68) noted i n his study of biology teachers using the BSCS c u r r i c u l a r materials that no reference was made by the teachers i n his study to the "nature of science" which was one of the items i n his instrument. The l i t t l e research on the nature of science has con-centrated on the teacher's understanding of the nature of science and factors believed to contribute to t h i s understanding (Kimball, 1968; Schmidt, 1968; Welch and P e l l a 1968; Carey and Stauss, 1968, 1970; B i l l e h and Hasan, 19 75). To aid i n the measurement of the under-standing of the nature of science, a number of tes t i n -struments have been developed - the Test for the Under-standing of Science (TOUS), the Nature of Science Scale (NOSS), the Nature of Science Test (NOST) and the -14-Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes (WISP). The studies by Welch and P e l l a (1968) and Schmidt (1968) among others indicated that the science teacher's understanding of the nature of science was lower than that of the pr a c t i c i n g s c i e n t i s t but higher than that of the students. Schmidt (1968) i n his study involving s c i e n t i s t s and some science teachers and students i n -dicated further that high a b i l i t y students scored higher than 50% of the science teachers in his study when TOUS was used as the instrument, thus confirming the already e x i s t i n g notion that some secondary science teachers understanding of science was no better than the students they may be teaching. However, Kimball (1968) noted that a major error in these studies had been the use of a non-representative sample of teachers. The studies by Welch and P e l l a (1968) and Schmidt (1968) used a cross-section of science teachers which included unqualified science teachers. According to Kimball (1968), "Studies i n which the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of the teachers were not controlled are of doubtful value " In a subsequent study i n which he explored the understanding of the nature of science exhibited by science teachers q u a l i f i e d with a major i n science as compared to that of pr a c t i c i n g s c i e n t i s t s with s i m i l a r academic backgrounds, he con-cluded that no differences existed between these groups in t h e i r understanding of the nature of science. In the same study, Kimball reported that neither experience of the science teachers nor time of graduation appeared to -15-have any e f f e c t on teachers' concept of the nature of science. Carey and Stauss (1968> 1970) i n a number of studies to explore the rel a t i o n s h i p between experienced science teachers' understanding of science as measured by the WISP instrument and some academic variables (e.g. t o t a l university grade point average, t o t a l science cr e d i t s , high school science units, number of years of teaching, physics c r e d i t s , and t o t a l college science hours) noted l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the teachers' understanding of science and the variables used i n the study. Similar findings were reported by Lavach (1969) with the TOUS and in a recent study by B i l l e h and Hasan (19 75) using:, the NOST instrument. Although, understanding the nature of Science i s pre-requisite to teaching i t , the r e s u l t s of Kimball's (1968) study shows that q u a l i f i e d experienced science teachers have the same understanding of the nature of science as do p r a c t i c i n g s c i e n t i s t s . Also, the studies c i t e d indicate that most of the independent variables examined i n the studies were found to have no e f f e c t on the teachers' understanding of the nature or science. Even though- we can assume from these studies that q u a l i f i e d science teachers understand the nature of science at least as well as p r a c t i c i n g s c i e n t i s t s , no study was found to have investigated how the teacher's understanding of the nature of science and other factors contribute to the type of behaviour used by the teacher -16-i n his teaching. There i s therefore, an urgent need to study the behaviour pattern of the teacher i n teach-ing the nature of science and the factors that con-tribute to such behaviour. I t i s to t h i s problem that the present study i s addressed. -17-CHAP.TER THREE D E S I G N A N D M E T H O D O L O G Y The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to provide a detailed description of the project's design and methodology. 3.00 QUESTIONS FOR THE STUDY The s p e c i f i c questions asked i n t h i s study are: 1. Over a period of time what behaviour patterns does a science teacher use i n his normal teaching i n d i f f e r e n t classroom settings that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science? 2. What are some of the variables underlying any observed behaviour patterns within each setting over the period of the study? 3. Which classroom settings does the teacher make the most use of for teaching the nature of science? Apart from factors which emerged from the study, the factors believed to be relevant i n providing possible ex-planations to the teacher's behaviour include i) Teacher's intent with regard to i n d i v i d u a l lessons (suggested by Smith (1969)) i i ) Teacher's o v e r a l l intent for the period of the study i i i ) Teacher's perception of the students i n the class ,x iv) The topics for the lessons v) The a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources such as text materials and equipment and vi) Time constraints on the teacher. 3.10 GENERAL DESIGN The general design for the study can be looked at with the aid of the following i l l u s t r a t i o n : Range of possible Actual behaviours behaviours for used i n teaching teaching the the nature of nature of science science Factors Behaviour General 4 Teacher's items i n the ob-servation instrument — > patterns (including patterns not used) • \ intent Situation s p e c i f i c A, \ \ Teacher's perception > hebaviours of students Other factors Figure 1 A Representation of the Design for the Study The range of possible behaviours of* the teacher i n teaching the nature of science are defined by the items i n the observation instrument used for the study. During the study, the teacher's behaviour was observed and coded using the observation instrument. The observed behaviours were examined for general patterns and s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c patterns and the factors i d e n t i f i e d i n the study were -19-examined to see the extent to which they provided plausible reasons for the teacher's behaviour. 3.20 METHODOLOGY In t h i s study, the classroom behaviour of an ex- • perienced junior secondary science teacher with one pa r t i c u l a r class of students was investigated to provide answers to the questions posed i n the study. In order to keep track of the teacher's d a i l y behaviour with h i s class of students the observations were made continuously - that i s , each time the teacher came into contact with the students for the purpose of teaching them. To answer questions one and three - the teacher's behaviour pattern and the setting mostly used i n teaching the nature of science - a modification of the Classroom Observation Instrument Relevant to the Earth Science C u r r i -culum Project (Smith, 1969> 1971) was used to code the teacher's behaviour from audio and video tape recordings. The exact procedure followed was as follows: a small, pocket-sized F.M. wireless transmitter (with frequency 33.40Hz) was "worn" by the teacher i n the front pocket of his s h i r t . during the lessons to enable both the high and low decibel l e v e l of verbal communication between the teacher and the students at in d i v i d u a l laboratory benches to be recorded v i a an F.M. wireless microphone receiver, model ST-3 played into a Califone cassette tape recorder (model 35 30) provided with a counter. To record the non-verbal behaviours i n the -20-modif ied" Classroom Observation Instrument Relevant to the Earth Science Curriculum Project (Appendix A) such as "Teacher conducts demonstration relevant to investigation theme", "Students proceed with investigation without d i r e c t i o n from the teacher", "Teacher demonstrates use of apparatus or equipment", "Teacher performs part of i n v e s t i -gation for student i n response to question about procedure", "Teacher grades students on lab procedure as they work", "Teacher moves from station to station", "Student makes own observations", "Students prepare a written report of the d e t a i l s and re s u l t s of the investigation", "Teacher works mathematical problems for students", "Students graph or otherwise organize data", and "Students compare res u l t s with others", a video tape recording was employed i n con-junction with the audio tape recording. Also these non-verbal behaviours were noted anytime they occurred. One day of practice was used to est a b l i s h appropriate sound l e v e l s and also to acclimate the students to the presence of the equipment and the investigator before actual recordings were taken. The recordings obtained for each lesson were played at a l a t e r date and coded independently by using the special coding instructions (Appendix B) by the i n -vestigator and a graduate student i n science education trained i n the use of the instrument. The data obtained from the coded sheet were tabulated on a time l i n e i n terms of each classroom setting observed and t h i s was used to answer the questions on the behaviour pattern used by -21-the over time and the classroom setting mostly used i n teaching the nature of science. 3.30 FACTORS Data for the question: "What are some of the variables underlying any observed behaviour patterns within each setting over the period of the study" were obtained by gathering information on pre-specified factors such as the teacher's intent with regard to in d i v i d u a l lessons, the teacher's perception of the students i n his class as com-pared to other students at the same grade l e v e l , the topics for the lessons, the a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources such as text materials and equipment and time constraints on the teacher. At the same time other relevant i n -formation was gathered informally through observations and discussions with the teacher. 3.31 The Intent of the Teacher The intent of the teacher during any p a r t i c u l a r lesson was defined as the i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives he hoped to a t t a i n during that lesson. These i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives can be expressed i n terms of behaviours that students are expected to exhibit during the lesson (Klopfer, 1971). Using Klopfer's (1971) scheme of i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives for science teaching as a source, ten statements were constructed. A continuous l i n e with end points l a b e l l e d 'Strong Emphasis' and 'Low Emphasis' and a box l a b e l l e d -22-'not present' are provided i n front of each statement (Appendix C). This p a r t i c u l a r scale was chosen because the main aim was to i d e n t i f y the r e l a t i v e emphasis given to the i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives by the teacher. This instrument was given to the teacher at the beginning of the study to indicate at the beginning of each lesson which objectives he hoped to achieve i n each lesson. The teacher selected the objectives by checking the appropriate point on the scale for each of the ten objective statements. The objectives indicated by the teacher to have high emphasis were taken to be i n d i c a t i v e of his intent for the lesson. The teacher's o v e r a l l intents for the period of the study were i d e n t i f i e d by asking him to check the same ten objective statements during the pre-study interview. A l l the objectives checked by him to be high were taken as the teacher's o v e r a l l intent. Informal conversations held with the teacher during his free hours served to c l a r i f y some of his intents. This q u a l i t a t i v e information on the teacher's intents both o v e r a l l and for each lesson were examined for t h e i r contribution to the explanation of the teacher's be-haviour i n each s e t t i n g . 3.32 Teacher's Perception of h i s Students The teacher's general perception of his students was defined i n terms of how the teacher characterizes his -23-students compared to other students at the same grade l e v e l . This was i d e n t i f i e d through the following items i n the Interview Schedule (Appendix D) which was administered to the teacher p r i o r to the study. These items are item 4 (In terms of other students i n the same grade l e v e l you have taught, how would you characterize the students i n this class?) , item 6 (How would you characterize the students i n terms of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n cl a s s , asking questions, contributing u n s o l i c i t e d ideas, responding to teacher's questions, etc?), item 7 (Would you say the students enjoy doing science?) and item 8 (Would you say they enjoy carrying out a c t i v i t i e s such as experiments i n class?) . Apart from the i n i t i a l interview, the teacher was interviewed a f t e r each lesson either immediately or during the lunch break to indicate how he perceived the just-ended lesson. I n i t i a l l y only variations of a single question such as "What stands out for you about the lesson you've just taught?" was asked. Since the teacher had a busy schedule t h i s was done i n order not to waste his time i n responding to too many questions. Also i t was hoped that the question would reveal among other things, the teacher's perception of the students during the lesson. Apart from t h i s major question, other questions believed by the i n -vestigator, during each lesson to have a bearing on any observed behaviour were asked. For example, i n the f i r s t lesson where the students were observed to only respond to -24-the teacher's questions and not ask questions themselves, the investigator asked the question, "Why did the students not ask questions during the lesson" . The various sources of the information on the teacher's perception of the students were examined to see how they contributed to the teacher's behaviour i n each setting. 3.33 Topics Chosen for the Lessons I t was thought that the p a r t i c u l a r topics chosen for the lessons and their substantive content might contribute to the teacher's behaviour i n teaching the nature of science and also i n determining to some extent the c l a s s -room settings used for teaching the nature of science. Data on t h i s was obtained by i d e n t i f y i n g the s p e c i f i c topics for each lesson. For instance, a topic on the h i s t o r i c a l development of the microscope involved teaching the nature of science i n the "developing text material" setting. Also a topic on the observation of a student's own blood caused the teacher to outline c e r t a i n safety precautions to be taken compared to that of observing already prepared blood s l i d e s . 3.34 A v a i l a b i l i t y of Materials The materials included both textual materials and equipment. The investigator believed that where materials were not available for, say student experimentation, the type of behaviour exhibited by the teacher might be d i f f e r e n t -25-from a situ a t i o n where materials were ava i l a b l e . Data on t h i s factor were obtained during each lesson; depending on the lesson, the investigator recorded i n the f i e l d notes whether there were s u f f i c i e n t materials for the kinds of a c t i v i t i e s i n the classroom. 3.35 Time Constraints on the Teacher This involved determining how the teacher f e l t about the amount of time he had to cover the materials i n the course and the adequacy of assistance from lab technicians. Data on t h i s were obtained from item 9 and 10 of the Interview Schedule (Appendix D) concerning the amount of lab assistance from the lab tedinician and the pressure to complete the topics i n the course respectively. At the same time, the investigator noted how much assistance the technician rendered during each lesson. 3.40 THE PRE-STUDY INTERVIEW Three days p r i o r to the three-week observation period, the teacher was interviewed with the aid of an Interview Schedule (Appendix D) which he responded to by writing down his responses. This was intended to provide certain information about the teacher and the students including the teacher's perception of the students, his o v e r a l l intent, the time constraints on the teacher and the adequacy of assistance from the lab technician. -26-3.41 Daily Schedule P r i o r to the d a i l y observations, the teacher was given s u f f i c i e n t copies of the Objectives for Science Teaching forms (Appendix C) to indicate his intents for each lesson by checking each of the ten statements. These were completed and co l l e c t e d at the beginning of each lesson. The rationale behind allowing the teacher to keep the blank forms u n t i l the beginning of each lesson was to give him ample time to r e f l e c t on his intents for the lessons. During each lesson, the t o t a l behaviour of the teacher was recorded on an audiotape and a videotape. At the same time the non-verbal behaviours were recorded i n the f i e l d notes anytime they occurred with the number on the numerical counter of the tape i n d i c a t i n g where such behaviour occurred. Other information c o l l e c t e d informally during the study was done through the use of the Guiding Form (Appendix E) . 3.42 Post Lesson Interview The teacher was interviewed informally immediately afte r each lesson or, where t h i s was not possible, during the free hours of the teacher. I n i t i a l l y , variants of the question: "What stands out for you about the lesson you've just taught?" were asked i n order to unpack the teacher's innate feelings about the lesson, e s p e c i a l l y his per-ception of the students and intents for the i n s t r u c t i o n . Other questions used to follow up the i n i t i a l question -27-depended on the observers i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of any "interesting" phenomenon during the lessons and the amount of time the teacher had to spare. 3.50 THE OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT 3.51 Description of Smith's Instrument From the d e f i n i t i o n of the teaching of the nature of science used i n t h i s study, a search was made through the l i t e r a t u r e to i d e n t i f y any systematic observation i n -strument having items consistent with t h i s d e f i n i t i o n . From the available instruments including those i n the anthology, Mirrors of Behaviour (Simon and Boyer, 1967, 1970a, 1970b, 1974), the Classroom Observation Instrument Relevant to ESCP (Smith, 1969., 19 71) was found to contain items of i n t e r e s t for the present study. In t h i s study i t w i l l be referred to as Smith's Instrument. The instrument groups teacher and student behaviours into four major categories consistent with classroom settings expected to occur i n ESCP classes. These settings were: Developing text material, Pre-lab, Laboratory and Post-lab discussion. Developing text material: This i s defined as the written, graphical descriptions, d e f i n i t i o n s , explanations, and questions (exclusive of laboratory exercises) re-presenting the content of a chapter. The text material may be developed through informal lecture, discussion, demonstration, audio-visual presentation, or a combination -28-of the above approaches. Pre-Laboratory: This i s defined as the b r i e f i n t e r v a l p r i o r to the lab a c t i v i t y i n which the problems to be investigated are introduced by the teacher or the students. The introduction to a laboratory investigation may be done in several ways, e.g. demonstration, discussion or assignment review. Laboratory: This i s the i n t e r v a l when students are a c t i v e l y engaged i n c o l l e c t i n g data related to the i n -vestigation or analyzing data provided i n the ESCP text. Post-Laboratory Discussion: This i s the period during which laboratory r e s u l t s are analyzed. This discussion i s characterized by reporting of results and references to laboratory data to support interpretations. These broad categories are further divided into sub-categories each of which includes several behavioral items. The subcategories are l a b e l l e d alphabetically from A to 0 and the s p e c i f i c behaviour items under the subcategories are l a b e l l e d as follows: A l , A2, .... An; B l , B2,.... Bn; etc. The major behaviour items included i n the instrument, according to the broad categories are: Developing text material setting 1. Demonstrating behaviours r e l a t i v e to the nature of Science . 2. Discussion about the process of Science . Pre-Lab 1. Identifying the problem to be investigated. 2. Instructions on conduct of investigation • -29-Laboratory 1. Identifying the major components of the investigation. 2. Response to student's questions. 3. Evaluation of students' performance. Post-Lab 1. Analyzing the data. 2. Interpreting the r e s u l t s . The instrument was developed from the observation of an ESCP class and the objectives and philosophy of the Earth Science Curriculum Project which, l i k e most recent c u r r i c u l a r materials, emphasizes the teaching of the nature of science. The l i s t of behaviour items i d e n t i f i e d from these sources were sent to judges consisting of ESCP writers and t r i a l teachers who rated each of the items as (a) consistent with the nature of ESCP, (b) inconsistent with the nature of ESCP or (c) neutral. From the judges' ratings, items whose median were from 1.00 - 1.49 were considered consistent with the ESCP philosophy and objectives; those with median from 1.50 - 2.49 were con-sidered neutral while those with values of 2.50 - 3.00 were considered inconsistent with ESCP. The r e l i a b i l i t y of measures from the instrument was established through the determination of inter-observer agreement (P) for which a value of 74% was obtained. The instrument conforms to a sign system as described by Mitzel and Medley (1963) . This i s because the items do not exhaust a l l possible teacher and student behaviour i n -30-the classroom but rather represent items related to the ESCP inquiry approach that were of i n t e r e s t to Smith. In using the instrument therefore, each behaviour:item i s recorded whenever that p a r t i c u l a r behaviour occurs. S p e c i a l l y formulated ground rules (Appendix B) for helping the observer to code the items i n the instrument are available for users of the instrument. Apart from Smith (1969), Tamir (1977) used the instrument to investigate how laboratories are used i n I s r a e l at the high school and undergraduate college l e v e l s . In selecting the instrument for t h i s purpose, Tamir described i t as "the most suitable of available i n -struments for observing laboratory work". Since he was more interested i n the "processes" of science he did not use the "Developing text material" category. 3.52 Modification of Smith's Instrument for the Study From the d e f i n i t i o n of the teaching of the nature of science used i n t h i s study - that i s , the teacher's classroom behaviour should be consistent with promoting the processes of science as well as conveying the h i s t o r i c a l and philosophical assumptions of science such as viewing s c i e n t i f i c knowledge as only tentative, that there are many conceptions or methods through which knowledge can be obtained - the philosophy of the ESCP curriculum was examined to see how similar i t was to the view used i n the study. Also.the s p e c i f i c items i n the -31-instrument were examined to see how they derive from the view of the nature of science i n t h i s study. In reviewing the ESCP material, Investigating the Earth (ESCP, 1965), the following statements were found to be pertinent to the study: ESCP i s intended to give the student an understanding.....of the methods of science.... In the laboratory.... the student makes observations and measurements, and he interpretes data.... The body of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge at any given moment represents only one stage i n man's e f f o r t to understand and explain the universe .... Today's useful theories may be the h a l f -truths of tomorrow...., demonstrate how s c i e n t i s t s work and exmphasize the.... knowledge that come from investigation and discovery (ESCP, 1965) . The view of the nature of science underlying these statements i s that science consists of processes which students should be involved i n , that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s tentative and keeps changing and that there i s not just one method or theory (conception) of science but that there are several theories and methods. This view of the nature of science i s consistent with the view used in t h i s study. From t h i s view of the"' nature of science, statements such as the following could be derived: 1. Teacher talks about the tentative nature of knowledge i n science. 2. Teacher talks about the development of knowledge i n science. 3. Teacher talks about the place of theory i n science. . -32-4. Students i d e n t i f y relevant problems for investigation. 5. Students state hypothesis about the r e l a t i o n -ship between variables. 6. Students devise procedures for inv e s t i g a t i o n . 7. Students perform investigation. 8. Students interpret data and r e s u l t s . 9. Students make predictions from re s u l t s or conclusions. Most of these statements and others which can be deduced from the above view were found to be present in Smith's Instrument. Thus, the instrument i s con-s i s t e n t with the view of the nature of science used in this study and therefore appropriate for the description of a teacher teaching the nature of science. However, as indicated by Smith (1969) some of the items rated by the judges to be inconsistent with ESCP philosophy were s t i l l included i n order to i d e n t i f y "behaviours a n t i t h e t i c a l i n p r i n c i p l e to the ESCP approach". In adopting the instrument for thi s study, a l l the items with median values of 2.50 and above were regarded as being highly inconsistent with the teaching of the nature of science and were therefore removed from the instrument thus leaving only neutral and consistent items. The following i s a l i s t by major categories of items dropped and t h e i r mean values: Developing text material: 1. Teacher asks students to memorize names of objects. 2.75. 2. Teacher asks students to memorize classes of objects or Geologic structures. 2.75. -33-3. Teacher asks students a question requiring only a "yes" or "no" response. 2.50 4. Students respond to teacher questions with a "yes" or "no" answer. 2.75. Pre-lab: 1. Teacher gives step-by-step directions for performing inve s t i g a t i o n . 2.75 Laboratory: 1. Teacher describes observation students should make.2.50. 2. Teacher t e l l s student his procedure i s wrong. 2.75. 3. Teacher s i t s at desk or leaves room. 2.75. 4. Teacher says or does nothing i n response to student question about investigation procedure. 2.90, Post Lab: 1. Teacher t e l l s student his re s u l t s are incorrect. 2.50. 2. Teacher describes conclusions students should deduce from r e s u l t s . 2.50. 3. Teacher suggests that a l l students should ar r i v e at the same conclusions. 2.90. In addition, words or phrases l i k e "Earth Science" and "Geologic Structures" were either e n t i r e l y removed or replaced by the word "Science". Other possible items derived from the view of the nature of science used i n the study were added to the instrument. The items added are given i n the l i s t below for the major settings. Developing Text Material: 1. Teacher asks student to f i n d out the answer. -34-' Pre-lab; 1. Teacher asks students to formulate hypothesis for the experiment. 2. Teacher asks student to operationalize the variables in the experiment. 3. Teacher demonstrates use of apparatus or equipment. 4. Student states hypothesis for the investigation., 5. Student provides operational d e f i n i t i o n s for the variables i n the study. 6. Teacher states hypothesis for inves t i g a t i o n . Laboratory : 1. Student asks teacher for help with investigation procedure. Because the classroom behaviour was recorded on video and audio tapes, the ground rules for recording the behaviour (Appendix B) were modified s l i g h t l y to take t h i s and other things l i k e teacher demonstrations during laboratory settings into account. The modified i n -strument and the ground rules appear i n Appendix A and B. Using Smith's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , the items in the modified form were i d e n t i f i e d to be neutral (N) or con-s i s t e n t (C) with the teaching of the nature of Science (as in Appendix A). Thus a l l the behaviour items with rating values of 1.00-1.50 were regarded as consistent with teaching the nature of Science. In the study by Smith (1969) these were considered to be consistent with the philosophy and objectives of the ESCP curriculum. In addition, ce r t a i n items, A3 (teacher emphasizes h i s t o r i c a l development of knowledge i n Science) and A4 (Teacher explains how information i s obtained i n Science and almost a l l the new items introduced into the o r i g i n a l instrument were considered to be consistent with teaching the nature of Science. In Appendix A, the items are i d e n t i f i e d as (C) or (N) denoting whether they are con-s i s t e n t or neutral with respect to teaching the nature of Science respectively. 3.53 Observer Training Program Systematic observation of the classroom settings with the aid of the video and audio tapes were carr i e d out by the investigator throughout the study. I n i t i a l t r a i n i n g i n the use of Smith's Instrument involved following part of the t r a i n i n g program recommended by Smith (1969) . This involved the following steps: 1. F a m i l i a r i z a t i o n with the major categories and the location of student's and teacher's behaviour items. 2. F a m i l i a r i t y with the abbreviated form of the items (Appendix F) and the meanings of the items. 3. Knowledge of the ground rules for coding be-haviours on the instrument (Appendix B). 4. Coding of three tape recorded science lessons on three separate occassions. Steps one through three took approximately two weeks to master. The recording of the lessons was done on d i f f e r e n t occassions i n a Junior High School classroom -36-by the investigator with the aid of an audio tape and an F.M. wireless microphone and receiver i n a period of two weeks. During the recording sessions, the investigator took notes using questions similar to the one used i n the actual study (Appendix E ) . The l i s t of objectives was also t r i e d on two of the three teachers involved i n the "pre-study exercise". Because of the commitments of the teachers only one teacher was interviewed a f t e r the lesson and his comments noted. I t i s interesting to note however that the guiding questions provided much needed focus because i n an e a r l i e r observation involving two student teachers, (and where guiding questions were not used) the investigator recorded every l i t t l e thing that happened i n the class even though most of them were found a f t e r discussion with my advisor, to be unrelated to the questions of the study and therefore i r r e l e v a n t . The tape recorded lessons were coded and kept t i l l a l a t e r date when i t was used i n the t r a i n i n g of a second coder, a graduate student i n Science Education. The tra i n i n g of the second coder was similar to that of the investigator. I t involved one week of f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n with the items i n the instrument, and one week of coding f i v e tapes each including more than one set t i n g . De-f i n i t i o n s of some of the items were c l a r i f i e d during t h i s - 3 7 -period and i n t e r - r a t e r agreement was determined for each setting. 3 . 5 4 Observation Technique A cassette tape recorder, radio transmitter and radio receiver were used as already described to record the verbal communication between the teacher and the students. Memorex C-120 cassette tapes were used to make the recordings. The F.M. wireless microphone receiver and the cassette tape recorder were placed on the observer's table at the back of the room. The non-verbal aspects of the behaviour i n the classroom were recorded on a port-able video recorder situated near the investigator's table and focussed mainly on the positions of the teacher. I t ' s microphone was suspended from the c e i l i n g i n the middle of the room. Concurrently, the non-verbal behaviour relevant to the instrument were recorded i n the f i e l d notes anytime they occurred with the aid of the recording form (Appendix F ) . The Guiding Form was used to gather further information. At the end of each lesson both the video and audio recordings were synchronised and played to i d e n t i f y any inaudible verbal behaviour of the students. Any inaudible verbal behaviour was noted and c l a r i f i c a t i o n sought with the teacher where possible. On reaching home, the audio-tapes were replayed to i d e n t i f y and note down any questions which might crop up. During the two hours bus -38-ride to the school each day, the investigator used the time to refresh his memory on the items i n the various settings, replan the guiding questions by adding any new questions materializing from the previous lesson, read through the relevant sections in the recommended lab text including the a c t i v i t i e s for the day and the post lab questions on the previous day's lesson. Reflection on the previous lessons also enabled the investigator to replan the questions to be included i n the post lesson informal interview with the teacher. 3.60 THE SCHOOL SETTING The teacher p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s exploratory study was selected by a committee of two faculty members in the Department of Science Education who were conversant with the teacher's work. The most important factors considered i n selecting the teacher for the study were (1) that he taught junior secondary science (2) that he had at lea s t 5 years of science teaching experience (3) that he was w i l l i n g to have an observer i n his class (4) that he was l i k e l y to include teaching the nature of science i n his d a i l y teaching. The teacher selected for the study had a master's degree i n Science Education and 14 years of science teach-ing experience - 7 years in an elementary school where the ESS Curriculum was used, 2 years i n a univer s i t y and 5 years in the Junior Secondary School where th i s study was conducted. -39-The school i t s e l f was situated i n a r e s i d e n t i a l area of a suburb of a large metropolitan area and was a mixed day school i n terms of the sex, ethnic and socio-economic background of the students. The l a s t factor probably stemmed from the fact that the main occupation of people i n t h i s suburb was trading (only a small number were professionals) with an average income of approximately ten to eighteen thousand d o l l a r s . Thus most of the students come from the middle and lower middle income groups. The classes i n the school were not streamed i n any way - the students selected or "sign up" for the teachers they l i k e d to work with. Normally, the school operated on a f i v e period day but during "sign up" days when students i n grades eight and nine selected t h e i r teachers, the duration of the periods were shortened from 60 minutes to 50 minutes to allow for a s i x t h period. The teacher taught a grade eight class.two grade ten classes and a grade 9 class i n that order each day. The class observed i n t h i s study was a grade ten class of students of average to above average a b i l i t y . Apart from his primary duties, the teacher was also a c t i v e l y involved i n a number of teacher associa-ti o n and community a c t i v i t i e s . From the i n i t i a l interview with the teacher p r i o r to the study, the teacher's o v e r a l l intents for the course during the period of the study and his perception -40-of the students i n the class chosen for the study com-pared to other students at the same l e v e l were i d e n t i f i e d through his response to the Interview Schedule (Appendix D). The teacher's o v e r a l l intents were i d e n t i f i e d to be: 1. Students should acquire s p e c i f i c science-related manual s k i l l s - s k i l l s i n microscopy. 2. Students should become aware of the technologi-ca l applications of science. 3. Students should develop t h e i r interests and attitudes towards science, e.g. acceptance of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry as a way of thought. 4. Students should apply s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and methods to other problem areas. 5. Students should learn s p e c i f i c course content. 6. Students should observe and measure some phenomenon. On his perception of his students, the ±eacher was found to perceive his students as exhibiting the following attributes i n his cla s s : 1. Show above average p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n cla s s . 2. Ask a l o t of questions i n cla s s . 3. Contribute u n s o l i c i t e d ideas i n cla s s . 4. Respond always to teacher's questions. 5. Always do assignments given to them. 6. Are average to above average i n academic standing and hardworking. 7. Enjoy doing science and carrying out experiments i n science. In terms of time constraints, the teacher indicated that the semester system did not allow enough time for -41-covering topics i n the course. The topics dealt with by the teacher during the period of the study were taken from Unit one - C e l l s , Reproduction and Heredity - of the prescribed lab text, Extending Science Concepts i n the Laboratory (Schmidt, 1970). From statements i n the Curriculum Guide (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970) science was conceived as an i n -quiry process involving observations, organization of data and explanations which may take the form of model building, induction, deduction and speculations, and that a l l the d i f f e r e n t s c i e n t i f i c methods involve observations and ex-planations. Thus science i s viewed as a process; the philosophical and h i s t o r i c a l aspects of science were not considered es s e n t i a l i n t h i s laboratory text. The lab text i t s e l f consisted .of a.series of ex-periments designed to convey cert a i n concepts to the students. I t i s recommended i n the text that whenever possible, these investigations should be performed by the students. Each investigation i n the lab text i s preceded by a short introduction on the nature of the investigation and sometimes background information. This i s followed by a l i s t of apparatus and materials needed for each experi-ment. The directions for conducting the experiments are interspersed with "procedure" questions that focus the students attention on the observations and conclusions to be made from the a c t i v i t i e s . Each experiment i s followed by a series of graded (post investigation) questions aimed -42-at consolidating the student's observations and con-clusions. According to the Curriculum Guide, concepts emerging from the experiments should be related to a "meaningful body of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge which the students understand and can use to solve problems" (Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970) . However, the empha.sis on the student's a c q u i s i t i o n of c e r t a i n s k i l l s and techniques i n contrast to subject matter content leaves a serious gap i n the student's knowledge. The teacher, therefore has to i d e n t i f y these gaps and bridge them by introducing relevant substantive structure whenever t h i s i s needed for a complete under-standing of a phenomenon. F i n a l l y , the text recommends that a teacher following the course should move from station to station during lab periods to give s p e c i f i c directions and attention to students requiring them. 3.70 INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT In the o r i g i n a l study i n which Smith's Instrument was developed, the r e l i a b i l i t y of the instrument was estimated by obtaining measures of interobserver agree-ment between two outside observers (Smith, 1969) . The percent of interobserver agreement was calculated by the formula: number of agreements P = x 100 number of agreements + number of disagreements (1) -43-where P = the percentage of agreement; number of agreements = the frequency with which the observers agreed an item occurred plus the number of items observers agreed did not occur (each of these l a t t e r agreements were recorded as having a frequency of one for each classroom setting observed); number of disagreements = number of times observers disagreed on the frequency with which an item occurred. This formula was also used by Tamir (19 77) to estimate the r e l i a b i l i t y of a study he conducted using Smith's Instrument. However, i t appears that the i n -clusion of items which were not observed to occur in the determination of the r e l i a b i l i t y greatly i n f l a t e s the value for the percentage agreement. For the t r a i n i n g period i n t h i s study, interobserver agreement was calculated f i r s t by using the entire procedure followed by Smith, that i s , by using the above formula and secondly by using the same formula but eliminating the number of items coders agreed did not occur from the "number of agreements". Also because of the nature of the questions asked i n the study, the percentage agree-ment was determined for each of the four settings. This i s i n agreement with the observation made by Frick and Semmel (1978) that observer agreement should be deter-mined "on the same unit(s) of behaviour that w i l l be used i n data analysis", that i s , i f comparisons are to -44-be made of groups of categories as i s planned for th i s study, interobserver agreement measures should be based on t o t a l frequencies for the groups of categories. On the above basis, the following percentages of agreement were obtained using the two procedures for each of the major categories. Developing text material Procedure 1 Procedure 2 Prelab 95.8 83.3 Laboratory 96.4 88.9 Post laboratory 91.5 82.1 This portrays the i n f l a t i o n accompanying the use of the f i r s t procedure. The mean percentage agreement from the second procedure was 81.7%. In using the instrument Smith obtained percentage agreement of 74% while Tamir obtained an agreement of 82%. Thus, the value obtained for thi s study, 81.7% can be considered to be good when compared to those obtained i n the above studies. -45-CHAPTER FOUR D A T A , R E S U L T S A N D A N A L Y S E S 4.00 GENERAL INTRODUCTION The previous chapter surveyed the methodology for answering the three questions i n the study, namely: 7 . Ovefi a pe.fii.od o{, ti.mii, what bzhavZou.fi pattcfins does a scie.nce, teache.fi cue. in hts nofimat te.achi.ng [tn dtHe.fie.nt ctassfioom settings) that contribute, to the. te.ac.htng the. nature. ojj science? 2. What afie. some, ol thz vafitabtes unde.fitytng any obscfived be.havtou.fi patterns wtthtn each sztttng ove.fi the pe.fii.od ofi the. study? 3. What class fioom settings does the te.ache.fi make, the. most use 0& fiofi teachtng the. natufie. o£ science dufilng his nofimat teaching? In the present chapter, the findings of the study are presented and discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the three questions. Questions one and two are discussed together for each of the four settings - the developing text material, prelab, lab and postlab settings, while ques-tion three i s discussed separately. 4.10 QUESTIONS ONE AND TWO - BEHAVIOUR PATTERNS The f i r s t question: "Over a period of time> what behaviour patterns does a science teacher use i n his normal teaching (in d i f f e r e n t classroom settings) that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science" was answered by examining the single occurrences of each setting and the summary of the frequencies of the items i n each setting together with the par t i c i p a n t observation data c o l l e c t e d during the study. These data were examined for each of the settings over the three-week observation period to i d e n t i f y the following behaviour patterns of the teacher. I. The General Behaviour Patterns of the Teacher. This class of behaviours was arrived at by examining the above sources to i d e n t i f y the following behaviours: i) Consistently used General Behaviours. This group of general behaviour included any behaviour item i d e n t i f i e d to be used i n a l l the lessons in a p a r t i c u l a r setting i i ) Unused General Behaviours. These are general behaviours i d e n t i f i e d by behaviour items which were not used i n any of the lessons i n a p a r t i c u l a r setting, i i i ) Inconsistently Used General Behaviours. This groups a l l those general behaviours i d e n t i f i e d by behaviour items which were used i n some but not a l l lessons but which were judged from the informal data col l e c t e d during the study to be a general pattern of -47-the teacher. I I . Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviours of the Teacher. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s class of behaviour involved examining the data sources to i d e n t i f y the remaining behaviour items which were used i n some but not a l l lessons but which were considered to be s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c due to the pre v a i l i n g conditions as w i l l be explained l a t e r on. The second question i n the study - "What are some of the factors underlying any observed differences i n patterns within each setting over the period of the study"? -was answered by q u a l i t a t i v e analyses of the factors used i n the study ( i . e . those chosen a p r i o r i ) and those which emerged from the study ( i . e . from the informal data col l e c t e d during the study) to i d e n t i f y which ones and to what extent they o f f e r plausible explanations to the observed behaviours. 4.20 DEVELOPING TEXT MATERIAL SETTING 4.21 Introduction (from informal data) This classroom setting occurred on six d i f f e r e n t occassions out of the t o t a l of ten class periods observed and for the f i r s t class period i t was the only i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting observed. During t h i s setting, the teacher talked most of the time (this was explained by the teacher to be his general style of introducing new topics by.giving a "lecture"), infrequently asked questions and never encouraged students to ask questions. Students were never observed to -48-contribute u n s o l i c i t e d responses (although the teacher indicated i n the i n i t i a l interview that his students generally demonstrated t h i s behaviour i n his classes) and responded only when the teacher asked questions. In the f i r s t lesson i n thi s setting, the teacher dealt with the " h i s t o r i c a l development and use of the microscope" i n b i o l o g i c a l work. He did t h i s by using h i s t o r i c a l vignettes to demonstrate how the microscope has increased our knowledge of the microscopic world of plants. Lesson 2 was mainly a recap of lesson 1 but the teacher used the l a t t e r part of the time to demonstrate the parts of the microscope using an- actual compound microscope and a drawing of a compound microscope i n the lab text. Lesson 3 dealt with questions on the parts of the microscope i n the lab text. However, a l l the questions were not answered during the lesson because some of them required the use of reference sources to provide s a t i s -factory answers. Lesson 7 dealt with a generalized plant c e l l but the teacher used the f i r s t part of the lesson to review lesson 1. In lesson 9 the teacher talked about the structure of the human blood from handouts given to the students. In lesson 10 which dealt with the i n t e r n a l structure of the lea f , the teacher referred students to the drawing of a transverse section of a leaf i n the lab text and discussed the d i f f e r e n t layers (palisade layer, spongy mesophyll, epidermis, e t c ) and t h e i r functions. 4.22 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n this Setting. The general behaviour patterns of the teacher were i d e n t i f i e d by examination of the data i n Tables I and II and F i g . 2 r together with information c o l l e c t e d informally. Table I presents the d i f f e r e n t behaviour items, used i n each of the s i x lessons i n th i s setting together with t h e i r frequencies and the duration of each lesson i n the set t i n g . Table II on the other hand summarizes the frequencies of a l l the items in'.the modified Smith instrument over the six lessons observed i n the setting. I t includes those behaviours which were not used by the teacher i n any of the lessons. Figure 2> i s a graph of the summary data i n Table I I . I t shows how the t o t a l frequency of the i n d i v i d u a l items relate to the number of d i f f e r e n t lessons (settings) i n which the i n d i v i d u a l behaviour items are used. i) Consistently used General Behaviours. From examining Tables I and II and F i g . 2, the general behaviour pattern of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d by behaviour items used consistently in a l l the six developing text material lessons was as follows: 1. The teacher encourages students to "observe" and "name" objects and structures (D3* and D5). k The l e t t e r s and numbers i n the parenthesis a f t e r each behaviour represent the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n symbol of the behaviour item in the modified Smith instrument. -50-TABLE 1 B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d p e r S i n g l e O c c u r r e n c e s  O f The D e v e l o p i n g T e x t M a t e r i a l S e t t i n g on a T i m e L i n e L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m s F r e q u e n c y ( m i n u t e s ) O b s e r v e d o f I t e m s 1 48 A3 T emp h i s t dev o f k n l d g e i n S 14 A4 T e x p hw i n f o i s o b t i n S 5 B l T a k s ~ S t o e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 8 B2 T a k s S t o s p e c a b t f u t o r p s t p h e n 2 B3 T a k s S t o d e f nw wds i n t e x t 5 C4 T g v s d i r a n s t o S q u e s 1 Dl S e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 5 D2 S d e f nw wds u s e d i n t e x t 5 D3 S nam o b j o r s t r 2 D5 S o b s o b j o r s t r 5 D8 S r e l nw i n f o t o t p c o f d i s c 1 2 21 A3 T emp h i s t d e v o f k n l d g e i n S 1 A4 T e x p hw i n f o i s o b t i n S 2 B l T a k s S t o e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 2 B2 T a k s S t o s p e c a b t f u t o r p s t p h e n 1 Dl S e x p why som p h e n o c c d 2 D3 S nam o b j o r s t r 7 D5 S o b s o b j o r s t r 2 3 3 12 B l T a k s S t o e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 5 B2 T a k s S t o s p e c a b t f u t o r p s t p h e n 4 B3 T a k s S t o d e f nw wds i n t x t 2 D l S e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 5 D2 S d e f nw wds u s d i n t x t 2 D3 S nam o b j o r s t r 12 D5 S o b s o b j o r s t r 6 7 6 A3 T emp h i s t d e v o f k n l d g e m S 2 B l T a k s S t o e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 1 Dl S e x p why sm p h e n o c c d 1 D3 S nam o b j o r s t r 2 D5 S o b s o b j o r s t r 1 c o n t i n u e d . -51-TABLE 1 - ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n No ' D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m s F r e q u e n c y ( m i n u t e s ) O b s e r v e d o f I t e m s 9 9 B3 T a k s S t o d e f nw wds i n t x t 1 D2 S d e f nw wds i n t x t 1 D3 S nam o b j o r s t r 4 D5 S o b s o b j o r s t r 3 10 15 B2 T a k s s p e c a b t f u t o r p s t p h e n 8 B3 T a k s S t o d e f nw wds i n t x t 1 D2 S d e f nw wds u s d i n t x t 1 D3 S nam o b j o r s t r 6 D5 S o b s o b j o r s t r 1 TABLE 1 - ( c o n c l u d e d ) TABLE I I Summary o f O b s e r v a t i o n s F o r The D e v e l o p i n g T e x t M a t e r i a l S e t t i n g a s R e c o r d e d on t h e M o d i f i e d I n s t r u m e n t Number o f T i m e s S e t t i n g Was O b s e r v e d : 6 B e h a v i o u r I t e m s N o . o f S e t t i n g s ( l e s s o n s ) i n F r e q u e n c y N w h i c h B e h a v i o u r o f O c c u r s B e h a v i o u r AO NATURE OF SCIENCE A l T e a c h e r d i s t i n g u i s h e s b e t w e e n f a c t a n d t h e o r y - -A2 T e a c h e r s t r e s s e s t h e t e n t a t i v e n a t u r e o f k n o w l e d g e i n s c i e n c e - -A 3 T e a c h e r e m p h a s i z e s h i s t o r i c a l d e -v e l o p m e n t o f k n o w l e d g e i n s c i e n c e 3 17 A4 T e a c h e r e x p l a i n s how i n f o r m a t i o n i s o b t a i n e d i n s c i e n c e 2 7 A5 T e a c h e r i d e n t i f i e d u n s o l v e d p r o b l e m s i n s c i e n c e - -BO TEACHER QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO STUDENT PROCESSES B l T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o e x p l a i n why some phenomenon o c c u r r e d 4 16 B2 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o s p e c u l a t e a b o u t t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f f u t u r e o r p a s t phenomena 4 15 B3 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o d e f i n e new w o r d s u s e d i n t e x t 4 9 CO TEACHER RESPONSE TO STUDENT QUESTIONS CI T e a c h e r r e f e r s s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n b a c k t o s t u d e n t - -C2 T e a c h e r a n s w e r s s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n w i t h a n a n a l o g y c o n t i n u e d . -53-TABLE I I - ( c o n t i n u e d ) N o . o f S e t t i n g s B e h a v i o u r I t e m s ( l e s s o n s ) i n F r e q u e n c y w h i c h B e h a v i o u r o f O c c u r s B e h a v i o u r C3 T e a c h e r r e s p o n d s t o s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n w i t h , "I d o n ' t know b u t w i l l f i n d t h e a n s w e r f o r y o u " - -C4 T e a c h e r g i v e s d i r e c t a n s w e r t o s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n 1 1 C5 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o f i n d o u t a n s w e r - -DO STUDENT PROCESS STATEMENTS Dl S t u d e n t e x p l a i n s why ( c a u s a l i t y ) some phenomenon h a s . o c c u r r e d 4 13 D2 S t u d e n t d e f i n e s new w o r d s u s e d i n t e x t 4 9 D3 S t u d e n t names o b j e c t s o r s t r u c t u r e s 6 33 D4 S t u d e n t c l a s s i f i e s o b j e c t s o r s t r u c t u r e s - -D5 S t u d e n t s o b s e r v e s o b j e c t s o r s t r u c t u r e s 6 39 D6 S t u d e n t s s t a t e s h y p o t h e s i s - -D7 S t u d e n t u s e s s p a c e / t i m e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n e x p l a n a t i o n o r d e s c r i p t i o n - -D8 S t u d e n t r e l a t e s n e w l y i n t r o d u c e d i n -f o r m a t i o n t o t o p i c o f d i s c u s s i o n 1 1 D9 S t u d e n t i d e n t i f i e d p r o b l e m s f o r p o s s i b l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n — TABLE I I - ( c o n c l u d e d ) Item Frequency Figure 2. Plot of Item Frequency Against the Number of Settings Behaviour was used in the Developing Text Material Setting -55-This behaviour was observed frequently throughout t h i s setting and also i n the laboratory setting. The high frequency of thi s behaviour compared to the other possible behaviours points to a s p e c i f i c focus for many of the questions asked by the teacher i n t h i s s e t t i n g . That i s most of the questions asked by the teacher required the students to "name" or "observe" an object or structure or a phenomenon. The "naming" of an object or structure i s however considered to be neutral with respect to teaching the nature of science. The use of thi s behaviour - encouraging students to "name" and "observe" objects and structures - seems to be p a r t i a l l y related to the nature of the topics dealt with in t h i s setting (Table III) and the approach used. In lesson 1 which dealt with the " h i s t o r i c a l development and use of the microscope", the teacher performed a demonstra-tion on Brownian motion using an overhead projector, asked students to observe photographs of Robert Hooke 1s micros-cope and the drawing of a feather and cork c e l l s by Robert Hooke i n the reference book . Thus the students had much opportunity to "observe" objects, structures and phenomenon. The only opportunity for naming an object was when the teacher asked the students to i d e n t i f y a model of the DNA molecule displayed on a shelf during the lesson. This probably explains the low frequency nature of t h i s behaviour item i n t h i s lesson. In lessons 2 and 3, students were asked to "observe" and "name" the d i f f e r e n t parts of the microscope. In lesson 3 which was an extension of lesson 2 -56-TABLE III L e s s o n T o p i c s F o r E a c h S e t t i n g A c c o r d i n g To  O r d e r o f O c c u r r e n c e L e s s o n N o . S e t t i n g T o p i c 1 D e v e l o p i n g t e x t m a t e r i a l H i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d u s e o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e i n b i o l o g y 2 D e v e l o p i n g t e x t m a t e r i a l P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y P a r t s o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e O p e r a t i o n and c a r e o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e O p e r a t i o n a n d c a r e o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e 3 D e v e l o p i n g t e x t m a t e r i a l P o s t - l a b P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y P a r t s o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e O p e r a t i o n a n d c a r e o f t h e m i c r o s c o p e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i m a g e a n d d e p t h o f f i e l d C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i m a g e 4 P o s t - l a b P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e i m a g e D e p t h o f f i e l d D e p t h o f f i e l d 5 P o s t - l a b P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y D e p t h o f f i e l d M a g n i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e m i c r o s c o p e M a g n i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e m i c r o s c o p e 6 P o s t - l a b M a g n i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e m i c r o s c o p e 7 D e v e l o p i n g t e x t m a t e r i a l P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y A g e n e r a l i z e d c e l l O b s e r v a t i o n o f l i v i n g a n d n o n -l i v i n g p l a n t c e l l s O b s e r v a t i o n o f l i v i n g a n d n o n - l i v i n g p l a n t c e l l s 8 P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y O b s e r v a t i o n o f l i v i n g a n d n o n - l i v i n g p l a n t c e l l s O b s e r v a t i o n o f l i v i n g a n d n o n - l i v i n g p l a n t c e l l s 9 P o s t - l a b D e v e l o p i n g t e x t m a t e r i a l P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y Human s k i n c e l l s S t r u c t u r e o f human b l o o d O b s e r v a t i o n o f human b l o o d c e l l s O b s e r v a t i o n o f human b l o o d c e l l s c o n t i n u e d -57-T A B L E I I I - ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n N o . T o p i c . S e t t i n g 10 P o s t - l a b D e v e l o p i n g t e x t m a t e r i a l P r e - l a b L a b o r a t o r y O b s e r v a t i o n o f human b l o o d c e l l s I n t e r n a l s t r u c t u r e o f a l e a f O b s e r v i n g t h e v a r i o u s k i n d s o f c e l l s i n a l e a f O b s e r v i n g t h e v a r i o u s k i n d s o f c e l l s i n a l e a f . TABLE III-: ( c o n c l u d e d ) -58-students answered text questions related to the parts of the microscope. In lessons 7, 9 and 10 students observed and named the parts of a generalized c e l l , the components of blood and inner structure of a leaf respectively. The low frequency nature of the behaviour item - "students observe objects or structures" - i n lesson 10 i s explained by the fact that students observed only one object - a cross-section of the le a f , i n their lab text. Thus, the nature of the six topics dealt with and the approach used i n t h i s setting lend themselves to allowing students to "observe" and "name" objects, structures and phenomena. Also, the teacher's intents for each lesson (Table i v )' seem to suggest a possible explanation for the consistent use of t h i s behaviour i n a l l the lessons i n t h i s setting. In a l l the lessons with the exception of lessons 2 and 3, the teacher had as one of his intents that "students should observe and measure some phenomenon" (this also happens to be one of the teacher's o v e r a l l i n t e n t s ) . This objective or intent of the teacher w i l l require asking the students to observe a number of objects, structures and/or phenomena in order to achieve i t . I t can.therefore be regarded as contributing to the use of t h i s behaviour i n lessons 2 and 3. i i ) Unused General Behaviours. The general behaviour pattern i d e n t i f i e d from behaviour items not used i n any of the lessons i n Table II and Fig 2 were: 1. Teacher refers students questions back to -59-TABLE TV T e a c h e r ' s I n t e n t s F o r E a c h L e s s o n L e s s o n N o . O b j e c t i v e s 1 a ) S t u d e n t s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d become a w a r e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o f s c i e n c e c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d r e c o g n i z e t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s a n d h i s t o r i c a l b a c k g r o u n d o f s c i e n c e 2 a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d become a w a r e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o f s c i e n c e b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e - r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d i n t e r p r e t d a t a a n d / o r f o r m u l a t e h y p o t h e s e s 3 a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e - r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d d e v e l o p t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a n d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s s c i e n c e c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d become a w a r e o f t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s o f s c i e n c e 4 a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d i d e n t i f y a p r o b l e m a n d / o r s e e k a s o l u t i o n c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e - r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s 5 a) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d l e a r n s p e c i f i c c o u r s e c o n t e n t b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e - r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s 6 a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d l e a r n s p e c i f i c c o u r s e c o n t e n t b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d i d e n t i f y a p r o b l e m a n d / o r s e e k a s o l u t i o n c o n t i n u e d . . . - 6 0 -TABLE IV,- ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n N o . O b j e c t i v e s a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon 7 b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e -r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s C V S t u d e n t s s h o u l d d e v e l o p t h e i r i n t e r e s t s and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s s c i e n c e a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon 8 b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e -r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d d e v e l o p t h e i r i n t e r e s t s a n d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s s c i e n c e a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon 9 b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a p p l y s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e a n d m e t h o d s t o o t h e r p r o b l e m a r e a s c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e -r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s a ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d l e a r n s p e c i f i c c o u r s e c o n t e n t 10 b) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d o b s e r v e a n d m e a s u r e some phenomenon c ) S t u d e n t s s h o u l d a c q u i r e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e -r e l a t e d m a n u a l s k i l l s . TABLE IV, - ( c o n c l u d e d ) - 6 1 -students (CI) 2. Teacher answers student questions with an analogy (C2) 3. Teacher responds to student questions with "I don't know but w i l l f i n d out the answer for you" (C3). 4. Teacher asks students to fin d out the answer themselves (C5). The non-occurrence of these behaviours ( a l l of which are considered to be neutral with respect to teaching the nature of science) compared to the occurrence of the alternative response - "teacher gives d i r e c t answer to student's questions" i s re f l e c t e d in the teacher's domi-nation of a l l the lessons i n thi s setting - the teacher did most of the tal k i n g and t o l d them what he wanted them to know; apart from the f i r s t lesson where the teacher gave a d i r e c t answer to a question by a student, the students did not ask questions during the lessons even though the teacher indicated i n the i n i t i a l interview that his students demonstrate above average p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n asking questions in his classes. Thus apart from giving d i r e c t answer to a single question asked by a student i n the f i r s t lesson the teacher did not have the opportunity to use other alternative behaviours l i k e " r e f e r r i n g students questions back to students"because students did not ask questions during the lessons. Also from informal data collected during the laboratory settings and post lab settings and also during informal talk between the teacher -62-and his students, the teacher was observed to respond f r e -quently to questions by giving a d i r e c t answer. It appeared therefore that t h i s alternative behaviour comes more e a s i l y to the teacher than the other alternative behaviours which were not used by him. 5. Teacher, distinguishes between fa c t and theory (Al) 6. Teacher stresses the tentative nature of knowledge i n science (A2). 7. Teacher i d e n t i f i e s any major unsolved problems i n science (A5). The teacher was not observed to "distinguish between fact and theory", "stress the tentative nature of knowledge i n science" or " i d e n t i f y any unsolved problems i n science" i n any of the six lessons i n t h i s setting probably because the teacher did not consider the philosophical l i m i t a t i o n s of knowledge i n science to be s i g n i f i c a n t for the students.. In lesson 1 (Table TV) where the teacher had as one of his objectives or intents, the recognition by the students of the "philosophical l i m i t a t i o n s and h i s t o r i c a l development of knowledge i n science", only the h i s t o r i c a l aspect was emphasized. He talked about how the microscope was used by certain h i s t o r i c a l figures to obtain information about the microscopic world of plants but did not mention the philosophical nature of the knowledge obtained from the microscope and how one idea superseded the other. That i s , the "tentative nature of knowledge i n science"and "the d i s t i n c t i o n between fact and theory" were probably not -63-considered s i g n i f i c a n t even though a l l these behaviours are considered to be consistent with teaching the nature of science. 8 . Teacher encourages students to c l a s s i f y objects or structures ( D 4 ) . 9 . Teacher encourages students to state hypotheses ( D 6 ) . 10. Teacher encourages students to use space/time relationship i n explanation or description (D7). 11. Teacher encourages students to i d e n t i f y problems for possible investigation (D9). These general behaviour patterns considered consistent with respect to teaching the nature of science (with the exception of item D4 above) were not used by the teacher i n t h i s setting. Students were not observed to " c l a s s i f y " objects or structures i n a l l the lessons in t h i s setting, a behaviour which probably r e f l e c t s the nature of the topic for the lessons (Table III) and more s i g n i f i c a n t l y the way the topics were treated by the teacher i n each of the six lessons. For example, i n lesson 1 which dealt with the " h i s t o r i c a l development and use of the microscope i n biology", the nature of the content dealt with does not lend i t s e l f e a s i l y to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of objects. No objects were provided for possible c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by the students. The main thrust of the lesson was to provide a h i s t o r i c a l account of the use of the microscope i n b i o l o g i c a l work. Lesson 2 dealt with the "parts of the microscope" and involved learning the names of the d i f f e r e n t parts of the -64-compound microscope; t h i s therefore does not require any grouping of objects. Since as already mentioned, students did not con-tribute u n s o l i c i t e d information in class but only res-ponded when they were asked to by the teacher, the students would "state hypothesis" or "i d e n t i f y problems for possible inve s t i g a t i o n " only when they were c a l l e d upon to do that. But since the main thrust of the teacher's question as already explained was to d i r e c t students to "observe" and "name" objects and structures and did not include much higher order questions requiring students to "hypothesize" or " i d e n t i f y problems for possible i n v e s t i g a t i o n " these behaviours were not used i n any of the lessons. The use of "space/time re l a t i o n s h i p s " i n explanation or description by the students involves the use of complete sentences instead of single word statements to describe or explain phenomenon. This behaviour was not observed most probably because students' responses to teachers questions almost always involved the use of one or two word state-ments. This explanation i s given further support by the observation that i n answering the post lab questions i n the i r lab report books most of the students wrote single word answers instead of complete sentences even a f t e r repeated warning by the teacher. i i i ) Inconsistently Used General Behaviours. From Table I and II and F i g . 2 , 7 the general behaviour pattern of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d from behaviour items -65-which were used i n some but not a l l lessons but which were found from the participant observation data to be a general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the teacher are as given below: 1. Teacher encourages students to explain why (causality) some phenomenon has occurred (Bl and Dl) . This behaviour i s considered to be consistent with the view of the nature of science used i n the study and was observed to occur i n a l l the lessons i n t h i s setting except the l a s t two lessons - lessons 9 and 10. I t i s however considered to be a general behaviour of the teacher i n ' t h i s setting i n that i t i s related to the "question-asking" behaviour of the teacher which even though i n f r e -quent, did occur i n every lesson. Since t h i s behaviour i n -volves much thought on the part of the student (leading to a greater expenditure of time), i t s absence i n the l a s t two lessons seems to be par t l y a r e f l e c t i o n of the "lack of time to cover the remaining topics" as expressed by the teacher at the end of lesson 7 and at the beginning of lesson 9. This probably caused the teacher to rush through the remaining topics i n order to cover as many of them as possible. Also the non-occurrence of th i s be-haviour i n lesson 9 may be due to the short duration of thi s setting (9 minutes) i n lesson 9. 2. Teacher asks students to speculate about future or past phenomena (B2). The teacher was observed to ask students to "speculate about some phenomenon (a behaviour considered consistent wi -66-teaching the nature of science) i n a l l lessons except lessons 7 and 9. This behaviour seems to be a character-i s t i c of the question-asking behaviour'of the teacher as explained above. Also the o v e r a l l intent - the acceptance of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry as a way of thought - seems to account for i t s use as a general behaviour. I t was however, not observed i n lessons 7 and 9 probably because of the fact that the duration of t h i s setting i n these lessons (Table I) were r e l a t i v e l y short - 6 minutes i n lesson 7 and 9 minutes i n lesson 9. 3. Teacher encourages students to define new words used i n the text (B3 and D2). This behaviour, although considered to be a general behaviour of the teacher i s regarded to be neutral with respect to the view of the nature of science used i n t h i s study. I t i s considered a general behaviour of the teacher even though i t was not used i n lessons 2 and 7, because i t s use depends on the "question-asking" behaviour of the teacher as explained above. But as any d e f i n i t i o n offered by the students rests on the teacher asking them to speci-f i c a l l y define a concept, the non-occurrence of t h i s behaviour i n lesson 2 may be explained by the fact that lesson 2 was mainly a recap of lesson 1 and therefore did not involve any new concepts; the l a t t e r part of lesson 2 which involved i d e n t i f y i n g the parts of the microscope from a l a b e l l e d drawing i n the lab text did not involve any new words which had to be defined. Thus the way the topic was -67-treated i n lesson 2 of t h i s setting probably precluded the use of t h i s behaviour-defining new terms - i n lesson 2. In lesson 7 even though new terminologies were en-countered, the teacher chose to explain them himself, a behaviour conforming to the teacher's habit of " t e l l i n g " students what they should know ( i . e . teacher's domination of the se t t i n g ) . From a comment made by the teacher at the end of lesson 7 that he had r e a l i s e d that there were s t i l l too many topics to cover for the short time remaining for the rest of the term, i t can be inferred that lack of time to cover the topics probably contributed to the teacher defining the new terms. I t may also be that the duration of t h i s setting (6 minutes) did not allow enough time for asking students to define any new terms encountered during the lesson. In summarizing the general behaviour of the teacher in t h i s setting, i t can be said that the teacher tended to emphasize mostly low order student processes such as "observe", "name" and "define" and almost completely neglected the philosophical aspects of science. This be-haviour seem to r e f l e c t on such factors as (1) the topics and the approach which emphasized content a c q u i s i t i o n , (2) the dominating behaviour of the teacher (3) lack of time to cover the topics (4) the teacher's intent to get students to observe and measure some phenomenon and (5) the short duration of some of the lessons. -68-4.23 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviours of the Teacher On examining Table I in conjunction with other participant observation data, the s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c be-haviours of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d by items used i n some but not a l l lessons were found to consist of the following : 1. Teacher encouraged students to r e l a t e newly introduced information to topic of discussion (D8) i n the f i r s t lesson only. Even though the teacher introduced new information into some of the other lessons, i t was only i n lesson 1 that the teacher s p e c i f i c a l l y asked the students to r e l a t e i t to the topic of discussion. In a l l the other lessons in which new information was introduced, the teacher used i t to explain some phenomenon or concept. This r e f l e c t s the dominating behaviour of the teacher - his tendency to t e l l his students everything. Also the examination of Table I reveals that the teacher had more time during lesson 1 (48 minutes) for discussion compared to the duration of the other lessons i n t h i s setting. 2. Teacher gave d i r e c t answer to student question (C4) i n only the f i r s t lesson. This behaviour i s considered to be neutral with respect to the teaching of the nature of science and was observed only i n lesson 1 where a single question was asked by a student. The infrequency of t h i s behaviour i n lesson 1 and i t s t o t a l absence i n the other lessons in t h i s setting may be considered consistent with the fact that students - 6 9 -were generally found not to ask quesitons during t h i s setting. Clearly, t h i s i s i n contradiction to the teacher's perception of his students as contributing u n s o l i c i t e d i n -formation i n class and asking questions i n c l a s s . I t also r e f l e c t s on the teacher's dominating behaviour i n the setting. 3. Teacher emphasized the h i s t o r i c a l development of knowledge i n science (A3) i n only lesson 1, 2 and 7. This behaviour was observed to occur only i n lessons dealing i n some way with the h i s t o r i c a l development Of knowledge about the microscopic world of plants. Its use i n lesson 1 most probably r e f l e c t s the nature of the topic dealt with i n t h i s lesson, namely, "the h i s t o r i c a l development and use of the microscope i n biology". During t h i s lesson, the teacher used h i s t o r i c a l vignettes to show the use of microscope in i d e n t i f y i n g microscopic structures of the plant. Also the use of t h i s behaviour i n t h i s lesson i s consistent with one of the intents of the teacher during t h i s lesson - that "students should re-cognize the philosophical l i m i t a t i o n s and h i s t o r i c a l back-ground of science". The behaviour was again used i n lessons 2 and 7 because during both lessons, the teacher reviewed lesson 1. 4. Explanation of how information i s obtained i n science (A4) occurred only i n the f i r s t two lessons of this setting. The explanation of how information i s obtained i n science arose out of the discussion of the work done by the -70-h i s t o r i c a l figures used i n lesson 1. The teacher explained how the microscope has been and i s s t i l l used to i d e n t i f y the f i n e structures of the plant and micro-organisms. The behaviour was used i n lesson 2 because the teacher reviewed lesson 1 during t h i s lesson. However, i t did not occur i n lesson 7 even though the teacher reviewed lesson 1 in lesson 7. This i s because i n lesson 7 the enti r e setting took six minutes (Table I) and the review was done by asking only a couple of questions about the work of Robert Hooke. Thus probably t h i s did not allow much time for using t h i s behaviour i n lesson 7. Both lessons 1 and 2 had r e l a t i v e l y longer durations. In summarizing the s p e c i f i c behaviour of the teacher i t can be stated that the infrequent and s p e c i f i c behaviour of asking students to make high l e v e l process statements (like r e l a t i n g new information to t o p i c ) , giving d i r e c t responses (answers) to student questions and emphasizing the history of science r e f l e c t s on such varied p r e v a i l i n g factors as (1) the dominating behaviour of the teacher, (2) the short duration of the settings, (3) the un-questioning (non-inquisitive) attitude of the students, (4) the topics and the approach which.emphasized content a c q u i s i t i o n . 4.24 Setting Summary In general, both s p e c i f i c and general behaviour patterns were used by the teacher in the developing text -71-material setting. The dominant general behaviour used by the teacher was to emphasize low order student processes such as "observe", "name" and "define" and almost t o t a l l y neglect the philosophical l i m i t a t i o n s of science. Higher order student processes such as "stating hypothesis" and using "space/time relationships i n explanation or description" were not encouraged. These behaviour patterns are consistent with p r e v a i l i n g factors such as (1) the dominating behaviour of the. teacher, (2) the topics and approach used which emphasized content a c q u i s i t i o n , (3) lack of time to cover topics (4) the teacher's i n -tent to get students to observe and measure some pheno-menon and (5) the short duration of most of the lessons. The pattern of behaviour described above does not en-courage students to ask many questions i n c l a s s . Con-sequently the teacher has few opportunities to respond to student questions. On the few occassions when he did, in l i n e with his general pattern of behaviour, he answered the questions d i r e c t l y rather than responding by using analogy, by r e f e r r i n g back to students, by saying " i don't know but w i l l f i n d the answer for you"or by asking the students to f i n d out the answer themselves. The pressure of time that the teacher f e e l s to cover a set number of topics dees not allow him to encourage student use of high order processes. But on those occasions when he f e l t less pressure he did encourage the -72-use of such processes. However,since the teacher's general behaviour pattern does not encourage the students to be i n q u i s i t i v e , on those occassions when he wanted them to be i n q u i s i t i v e he found i t d i f f i c u l t to get them to respond appropriately. Although the teacher did not emphasize the h i s t o r i c a l and philosophical nature of knowledge i n science i n his general teaching there were a few occasions on which the h i s t o r i c a l aspect of science was stressed as he f e l t that t h i s would f a c i l i t a t e the student's understanding and appreciation of a p a r t i c u l a r topic. The introductory lesson to the Unit was the major occassion on which he was observed to use the entire class period to emphasize a h i s t o r i c a l topic. However, the time spent on t h i s i n -creased the pressure l a t e r on to get through the rest of the Unit with maximum e f f i c i e n c y . 4.30 PRE-LABORATORY SETTING 4.31 Introduction This i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting was observed to occur on eight d i f f e r e n t occassions. It occurred i n the second, t h i r d , fourth, f i f t h , seventh, eigth, nincth and tenth lessons of the ten lessons observed i n the study. The teacher's behaviour i n t h i s setting was notably p r e s c r i p t i v e - informing students about the investigation to be done -73-and i t s purpose. The only talking done by students was to respond to teacher's questions as i n the Developing text material setting. Here too,students were not observed to contribute u n s o l i c i t e d responses. However,-even though the teacher dominated the setting, generally he did not give step-by-step di r e c t i o n s for the conduct of the investigation. This,as he explained,was to avoid unnecessary r e p e t i t i o n and waste of time because the s p e c i f i c directions for each investigation were c l e a r l y given i n the lab text and the students were capable of reading with understanding. During t h i s setting and the laboratory and post.lab settings the teacher followed the contents of the lab text c l o s e l y - he restated the problem i n the text and asked students to proceed with the i n -vestigation by following the directions i n the text. Also during t h i s setting, the teacher's "question-asking "be-haviour became more infrequent - almost absent; t h i s led to less student t a l k . It was also observed during the setting that the teacher did not repeat his own statements or ask students to repeat statements they had previously made concerning some,phenomenon or object. 4.32 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n the Pre-Lab Setting As i n the developing text material setting, the general behaviour patterns of the teacher were i d e n t i f i e d by examining the data i n Tables :V> VI and F i g . 3 . for -74-TABLE v ' B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d P e r S i n g l e O c c u r r e n c e s Of T h e P r e - L a b o r a t o r y S e t t i n g On A T i m e L i n e L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n ( m i n u t e s ) B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d F r e q u e n c y o f O b s e r v e d I t e m s 2 8 E4 T s t p r o b t o be i n v e s t E6 T c o n d t dem r e l t o i n v e s t thme F l T demon u s e o f app o r e q u i p F2 T d i s c p o t ' l d i f f i n l a b p r o F5 T a k s S t o p r e p w r t r e p o f i n v e s t F6 T mk s t a b t s a f p r e c HI S p r o c w i n v e s t w/o d i r f r T 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 E4 T s t p r o b t o be i n v e s t HI S p r o c w i n v e s t w/o d i r f r o m T 2 1 4 6 E4 T s t p r o b t o be i n v e s t HI S p r o c w i n v e s t w/o d i r f r o m T 1 1 5 15 E4 T s t p r o b t o be i n v e s t F l T demon u s e o f a p p o r e q u i p F2 T d i s c p o t ' l d i f f i n l a b p r o F3 T e x p hw t o mk meas F4 T e x p hw t o wk m a t h p r o b H3 S r e q c l a r o f l a b d i r 3 1 1 5 5 1 7 15 E3 T a k s S t o r e l i n v e s t p r e v wk E4 T s t p r o b t o be i n v e s t E6 T c o n d t dem r e l t o i n v e s t thme F l T dem u s e o f a p p o r e q u i p F2 T d i s c p o t ' l d i f f i n l a b p r o F3 T e x p hw t o mk meas F4 T e x p hw t o wk m a t h p r o b G3 S r e l i n v e s t t o p r e v wk HI S p r o w i n v e s t w/o d i r f r o m T 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 8 E2 T a k s S t o s t p u r o f i n v e s t E4 T s t p r o b t o be i n v e s t E5 T r e l i n v e s t t o p r e wk F2 T d i s c p o t ' l d i f f i n l a b p r o F5 T a k s S t o p r e p w r t r e p o f i n -v e s t F6 T mk s t a b t s a f p r e c HI S p r o c w i n v e s t w/o d i r f o r T G2 S s t p u r p o f i n v e s t 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 c o n t i n u e d . . . -75-TABLE V ••- ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m s F r e q u e n c y o f ( m i n u t e s ) O b s e r v e d O b s e r v e d I t e m s E4' T s t : p r o b t o be i n v e s t 1 E6 T c o n d t dem r e l t o i n v e s t 9 12 thme 1 F l T dem u s e o f a p p o r e q u i p 1 F5 T a k s S t o p r e p w r t r e p o f i n v e s t 1 F6 T mk s t a b t s a f p r e c 4 F2 T d i s c p o t 1 1 d i f f i n l a b 10 5 p r o 1 F3 T e x p hw t o mk meas 1 F4 T e x p hw t o wk m a t h p r o b 1 F5 T a k s S t o p r e p w r t r e p o f i n v e s t 1 TABLE- V - ( c o n c l u d e d ) - 7 6 -T A B L E - V I Summary o f O b s e r v a t i o n s f o r t h e P r e - L a b o r a t o r y S e t t i n g a s  R e c o r d e d on t h e M o d i f i e d I n s t r u m e n t Number o f T i m e s S e t t i n g was O b s e r v e d : 8 B e h a v i o u r I t e m s N o . o f S e t t i n g s B e h a v i o u r O c c u r r e d F r e q u e n c y o f B e h a v i o u r EO TEACHER: I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF PROBLEM FOR INVESTIGATION E l T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o s t a t e p r o b l e m t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d E2 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o s t a t e p u r p o s e o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n E3 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o r e l a t e i n -v e s t i g a t i o n t o p r e v i o u s w o r k E4 T e a c h e r s t a t e s p r o b l e m t o be i n v e s t i g a t e d E5 T e a c h e r r e l a t e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o p r e v i o u s w o r k E6 T e a c h e r c o n d u c t s i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e l e v a n t t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n theme E7 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o f o r m h y p o t h e s i s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n E8 T e a c h e r s t a t e s h y p o t h e s i s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n E9 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e v a r i a b l e s i n t h e h y p o t h e s i s FO TEACHER: DIRECTIONS ON CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION F l T e a c h e r d e m o n s t r a t e s u s e o f a p p a r a t u s o r e q u i p m e n t F2 T e a c h e r d i s c u s s e s p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n l a b p r o c e d u r e F3 T e a c h e r e x p l a i n s how t o make m e a s u r e m e n t s F4 T e a c h e r e x p l a i n s how t o w o r k m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o b l e m s F5 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o p r e p a r e a w r i t t e n r e p o r t o f t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n F6 T e a c h e r makes s t a t e m e n t a b o u t s a f e t y p r e -c a u t i o n s 1 7 1 3 5 3 3 4 3 1 2 14 1 6 7 7 5 8 c o n t i n u e d . -77-TABLE VI - ( c o n t i n u e d ) N o . o f B e h a v i o u r I t e m s S e t t i n g s F r e q u e n c y B e h a v i o u r o f O c c u r r e d B e h a v i o u r GO S T U D E N T : I D E N T I F I C A T I O N OF PROBLEMS FOR INVESTIGATION G l S t u d e n t r e s t a t e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n theme d e s c r i b e d by t e a c h e r - -G2 S t u d e n t s t a t e s p u r p o s e o f t h e i n -v e s t i g a t i o n 1 1 G3 S t u d e n t r e l a t e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o p r e v i o u s w o r k 1 2 G4 S t u d e n t s t a t e s own p r o b l e m f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n - -G5 S t u d e n t s t a t e s h y p o t h e s i s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n - -G6 S t u d e n t p r o p o s e s o p e r a t i o n a l d e -f i n i t i o n s f o r v a r i a b l e s i n t h e s t u d y - -HO STUDENT: DIRECTIONS ON CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION HI S t u d e n t p r o c e e d w i t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h o u t d i r e c t i o n f r o m t h e t e a c h e r 5 5 H2 S t u d e n t r e a d s a l o u n d d i r e c t i o n s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n - -H3 S t u d e n t r e q u e s t s c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f l a b d i r e c t i o n s 1 1 TABLE V I ' - ( c o n c l u d e d ) -78-Number of Settings Behaviour was used M <»> *- 01 <n -79-the pre-lab s e t t i n g . i) Consistently Used General Behaviours. Following a si m i l a r procedure, i t can be seen from Tables V and VI and F i g . 3, that no behaviour item was used consistently in a l l the lessons i n th i s setting, i i ) Unused General Behaviours. From Tables V and VI and F i g . 3, the general behaviour pattern of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d from be-haviour items not used i n any of the lessons in th i s setting were: 1) In i d e n t i f y i n g problems for investigation, teacher asks students to state the problem for investigation ( E l ) . Students were never observed to i d e n t i f y and state the problem for investigation despite the fact that the i n -vestigations were c l e a r l y given i n the lab text used by both the teacher and the students and can therefore be i d e n t i f i e d by the students. This may be due to the pres-c r i p t i v e behaviour of the teacher during that setting -that of t e l l i n g the students everything they need to know about the inves t i g a t i o n . By not asking the students to state the problem for the investigation, the teacher missed opportunities to engage i n a behaviour considered to be consistent with teaching the nature of science. I t i s also possible that t h i s behaviour did not occur in - 8 0 -t h i s setting because the teacher was convinced that "students at th i s l e v e l need to be given every guidance i n conducting laboratory investigations". 2. Teacher states hypothesis or ask students to state hypothesis and operationalized variables for the investi g a t i o n (E7, E8, E9, G5-, G6) . Neither the teacher nor the students were observed to state hypotheses and supply operational d e f i n i t i o n s for variables i n the investigation even though these be-haviours are considered consistent with teaching the nature of science. This might be due to the structure of the lab text used by the teacher and the students. The text material delineates the investigations to be done and provides step-by-step directions integrated with procedural questions aimed at focusing students' observations and -understanding. In addition graded questions are provided after each investigation (Post-investigation questions) to reinforce students understanding of the investigations. However, the text does not i d e n t i f y or provide statements of hypothesis or d e f i n i t i o n of variables. Since the teacher adhered c l o s e l y to the contents of the lab text, the absence of these behaviours in his normal teaching can probably be accounted for by the absence of hypothesis statements or operational d e f i n i t i o n s i n .the text. Looked at i n a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t way, another plausible reason could be that the nature of most of the topics i n th i s -81-s e t t i n g such as " o p e r a t i o n and care of the microscope", " o b s e r v a t i o n of l i v i n g and n o n - l i v i n g c e l l s " , " o b s e r v a t i o n of human blood c e l l s " and "observing the v a r i o u s k i n d s o f c e l l s i n a l e a f " and the approach used i n i t h e t e x t do not len d themselves r e a d i l y to the use o f these behaviour items - h y p o t h e s i z i n g and d e f i n i n g o p e r a t i o n a l l y by the teacher. 3 . Teacher encourages students to r e s t a t e i n -v e s t i g a t i o n theme d e s c r i b e d by him ( G l ) . Since d u r i n g t h i s s e t t i n g , students were observed t o t a l k o n l y when they were asked a q u e s t i o n , the f a c t t h a t students were never observed t o r e s t a t e the i n v e s t i g a t i o n theme d e s c r i b e d by the teacher i n a l l the l e s s o n s c o u l d be a s c r i b e d t o the v e r y few qu e s t i o n s (three) asked by the teacher. Apart from the f a c t t h a t the teacher was not observed to ask the students a t any time d u r i n g the s e t t i n g t o r e s t a t e the i n v e s t i g a t i o n theme, the tea c h e r ' s f r e -quent statements concerning the l a r g e number of " t o p i c s to be covered i n the s h o r t time remaining f o r the r e s t of the term", probably e x p l a i n s the absence of t h i s behaviour item. That i s , the occurrence of t h i s behaviour would have been j u s t a sheer waste of time because i t would have meant r e p e a t i n g a statement a l r e a d y made by the teacher, a behaviour c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the t e a c h i n g of the nature of s c i e n c e . 4. Teacher encourages students to s t a t e t h e i r own problems f o r the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s (G4). Although students':,, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e i r own problems f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d to be c o n s i s t e n t - 8 2 -with teaching the nature of science, they were never observed during this setting to investigate t h e i r own problems. This might be due to the teacher's close adherence to the lab text which delineates a l l the i n -vestigation to be done by the students. 5. Teacher encourages students to read aloud directions for investigation in the lab text (H2). Students were never observed to read aloud the directions for investigation during this setting. This might be explained thus: Because of the teacher's frequent complaints about the limited time l e f t for covering the remaining topics i n the course, he probably regarded the reading of the investigation directions during t h i s setting as a waste of time. The students were always observed to read the directions during the laboratory setting. The reading aloud of directions (a behaviour considered neutral with respect to teaching the nature of science) might probably be used i n a class where the students don't have s u f f i c i e n t lab texts and where the students are perceived to be of low academic a b i l i t y . However, i n th i s study, each of the students had one lab text and were perceived by the teacher to be ranging from average to bright i n academic a b i l i t y . i i i ) Inconsistently used General Behaviours • From Table V, the general-behaviour pattern of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d from the behaviour items used i n some but not a l l lessons but which were found from the informal data to be -83-a general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of him were: ." 1. Teacher i d e n t i f i e s problems for possible investigation (E.4:) . The teacher was generally observed to i d e n t i f y the problem for investigation i n each lesson, a behaviour con-sidered inconsistent with teaching the nature of science. This r e f l e c t s the teacher's dominating behaviour and the fact that he was convinced that students at t h i s l e v e l need a l l the guidance necessary for carrying out the investigations successfully. However, i n lesson 10, this behaviour was not observed mainly because i n the preceding developing text material setting during the same lesson the teacher stated the problem to be investigated by the students. However th i s could not be coded i n the prelab setting because i t did not occur i n th i s s e t t i n g . The above behaviour occurred i n the developing text material setting of lesson 10 because of the approach used by the teacher i n treating the topic - "the i n t e r n a l structure of a l e a f " during that setting. During the Developing text material setting, the teacher very f r e -quently referred to what the students were supposed to observe during the investigation - "observing the various kinds of c e l l s i n a l e a f " thus establishing some strong l i n k between the developing text material setting and the prelab setting. This l i n k was not observed i n lesson 9 where similar topics were treated in the developing text material setting and prelab setting or i n lessons 2 and 7 -84-where a developing text material setting immediately precedes a prelab setting. Thus because of the approach used by the teacher during lesson 10, he did not probably see the need to distinguish mentally between the de-veloping text material and pre-lab settings i n t h i s lesson but assumed that since he had stated' the problem already, there was no need for a restatement. 2. Teacher encouraged students to proceed with investigation without d i r e c t i o n from the teacher (HI). Students were observed i n almost a l l the lessons to proceed with investigation without s p e c i f i c directions from the teacher, a behaviour considered consistent with teaching the nature of science. However, even though the teacher did not give step by step directions for conducting the investigation the lab text did provide the needed dir e c t i o n s . Thus the students did not use t h e i r own i n -dividual procedures for carrying out the investigations. The teacher probably avoided repeating the instructions in the text to save time. This probably explains why t h i s c behaviour was observed i n most of the lessons and why i t i s considered as a general behaviour of the teacher. How-ever, the behaviour was not observed i n lessons 5, 9, and 10 where the teacher stated the step by step directions for the conduct of the investigations i n the lab text. The teacher mentioned during the pre-lab settings of these lessons that i t was d i f f i c u l t to get very good r e s u l t s i f -85-the procedure were not followed c l o s e l y . For example in lesson 9 which dealt with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the student's own blood c e l l s , the teacher went further to prepare a demonstration s l i d e which the students could use i f they f a i l e d to get a good s l i d e themselves; and in lesson 10, the students were provided with commercially prepared s l i d e s of the cross-section of a l e a f to draw from a f t e r they have t r i e d mounting sections on t h e i r own. 3. Teacher asked students to prepare written reports of the investigations (F5) i n only lessons 2,8,9 and 10 of t h i s setting. Apart from i t s use i n the very f i r s t lesson which involved laboratory investigation (lesson 2) t h i s behaviour was not used in the succeeding four lessons i n t h i s setting most l i k e l y due to the teacher's perspective of h i s students as hardworking, and always doing assignments given to them. In lesson 2 - "operation and care of the microscope" which started o f f the series of labs, the teacher made the f i r s t general statement that students "should write report of a l l the investigations to be done from now on, t h i s w i l l involve answering the black questions in the procedure and the actual lab (post-investigation) questions in complete sentences, your written re-ports w i l l be c o l l e c t e d l a t e r on " The teacher was convinced from t h i s general statement that the students would do as t o l d since he saw them as being hardworking -86-and always did assignments given to them. Thus he probably saw no need to repeat the inst r u c t i o n s or ex-pectations i n the lessons immediately following lesson 2. However, the behaviour was observed i n lesson 8 where the teacher reminded the students that the lab reports for the investigations c a r r i e d out so far would be c o l l e c t e d at the end of next lesson, lesson 9. In lesson 9, the teacher t o l d the students to i n -clude a report of the investigations to be done during the laboratory setting of lesson 9. In lesson 10, that behaviour was again used by the teacher because after going through ( i . e . marking) the reports, the teacher noticed that many of the students "did not write the re-port the way I asked you to; most of you just wrote one word answers to the questions". He emphasized that since the lab reports would serve as th e i r notes from which they could review the concepts dealt with, they should be written i n meaningful form. In summary, i t can be stated that no'hypothesis statements were made i n any of the investigations, the teacher generally i d e n t i f i e d the problems for i n v e s t i -gation and asked the students to follow the investigation procedures in the text and prepare written reports of the investigations. These general behaviours seem to r e f l e c t such factors as (1) the dominating behaviour of the teacher, (2) the structure of the lab text which i s presc r i p t i v e , in "def ining the problem and procedure -87-for investigation and which does not allow for the statement of alternative hypotheses, (3) lack of time and pressure to complete a large number of topics in a short time and (4) the teacher's perception of his students as hardworking. 4.33 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher During th i s Setting From Table V, the si t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviour patterns of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d by items used i n some but not a l l lessons were as follows: 1. Teacher encouraged students to state purpose of investigation (E2, G2) i n only lesson 8. This behaviour i s considered consistent with teaching the nature of science i n th i s setting but was not observed i n almost a l l the lessons because of the teacher's pr e s c r i p t i v e behaviour. The teacher was observed to :' i d e n t i f y the problem and state the purpose of the i n -vestigation i n an attempt to give maximum guidance to the students i n the conduct of the investigation. However, i t s occurrence i n lesson 8 could be r a t i o n a l i z e d as follows: Lesson 8 which dealt with "observing l i v i n g and non-living plant c e l l s " was a continuation of lesson 7 which the student could not f i n i s h because of lack of time. During lesson 7, the teacher i d e n t i f i e d the problem and stated the purpose of the investi g a t i o n but encouraged students to relate the investigation to some previous work. However, since lesson 8 was a continuation -88-of the investigation i n lesson 7, the teacher chose to ask the students to restate the purpose stated by him i n previous lesson instead of repeating i t himself. This kind of behaviour occurred aft e r almost every laboratory lesson, i . e . during the post lab settings when the teacher always asked the students to state the purpose of the previous lab investigation probably as a way of checking t h e i r understanding. 2. Teacher encouraged students to relate invest.--igation theme to previous work (E3,G3):'in lesson 7. 3. Teacher related the investigation theme to previous work (E5) i n only lesson 8. Although these two behaviours are considered con-s i s t e n t with the teaching of the nature of science, they were not observed to be general behaviours of the teacher. Both the teacher and the students were not observed to relate the investigation to previous work probably be-cause the lab text which the teacher adhered to, does not s p e c i f i c a l l y state the l i n k between d i f f e r e n t investigations. However, the teacher did ask a student to relate the investigation i n lesson 7 - "observation of l i v i n g and non-living plant c e l l s " to previous work done i n the elementary grade, levels.on food tests. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the/ teacher" encouraged, .students through asking a question to relate the staining technique i n the investigation to the -89-i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of starch i n food substances with iodine to give a blue-black coloration. This occurred because the teacher indicated that "the technique of staining used to d i f f e r e n t i a t e the c e l l s i n a plant i s sim i l a r to the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of starch" which the students were f a m i l i a r with. But i n lesson 8, the teacher established the re-l a t i o n himself by r e f e r r i n g to the starch test already discussed i n lesson 7. He used t h i s behaviour i n lesson 8 because he discovered during the preceding laboratory work in lesson 7 - "observation of l i v i n g and non-living plant c e l l s " that students did not seem to grasp the significance of staining in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g c e l l s . 4. Teacher conducted demonstration relevant to investigation theme (E6) i n only lessons 2,7 and 9. This behaviour ^considered ;co.nsiste:ri.t withr':t6aching- . the nature of science) i s i d e n t i f i e d as a s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviour of the teacher i n the pre-lab setting in that i t occurred only when the teacher envisaged possible d i f f i c u l t i e s to be encountered by the students during the investigation due to the high l e v e l of manual s k i l l s i n -volved. The ac q u i s i t i o n of s k i l l s i n the use of the microscope by the students was of prime importance to the teacher as he indicated i n a l l the 8 lessons in t h i s setting that the "students should acquire s p e c i f i c science related manual s k i l l s " (Table l,y) . . The teacher em-phasized every now and then during post lesson con-versation that he wanted his students "to be able to use -90-the microscope c o r r e c t l y , including the technique of cutting sections, staining, mounting s l i d e s and drawing from the microscope". The teacher's indica t i o n of the d i f f i c u l t i e s of certai n investigations probably stemmed from his long experience in teaching t h i s course over a number of years. Thus to make sure that at least students became fa m i l i a r with the required manipulatory s k i l l s involved i n an i n -vestigation, the teacher performed demonstrations when-ever he came to one of the " d i f f i c u l t " investigations. He indicated that he did thi s i n order to avoid a l o t of procedural questions during the lab setting. According to the teacher, he would have preferred to treat each " d i f f i -c u l t " investigation i n two or three lessons to get the student to acquire the s k i l l s required but "there i s no time". In lesson 2 - "operation and care of the microscope" -which was the f i r s t lesson in t h i s setting, the teacher performed part of the investigation for the students to demonstrate the proper use of the microscope probably i n order to safeguard against possible breakages since t h i s was "the f i r s t time that students are actually going to learn how to use the' microscope". Lesson 7 "observation of l i v i n g and non-living plant c e l l s " was the f i r s t investigation which involved cutting t h e i r plant sections with a razor blade (instead of a microtome) and staining for observation under the microscope. Because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n getting very thin sections with the razor blade, the teacher de-monstrated th i s technique. The "observation of human blood c e l l s " i n lesson 9 involved the students i n observing t h e i r own blood c e l l s under the microscope. Teacher envisaged d i f f i c u l t i e s i n getting a good blood smear on the s l i d e , i n using the s t e r i l e lancet, and i n using the staining technique s p e c i f i e d i f the instructions were not s t r i c t l y adhered to. He therefore went through the entire investigation with the students with the r e s u l t that a "masterpiece" blood s l i d e was produced which the students could refer to. 5. Teacher demonstrated the use of apparatus (Fl) i n only lessons 2, 5, 7 and 9. This behaviour was observed only where the i n -vestigation involved the use of new techniques such as proper handling of microscope, as i n lesson 2, reading the millimetre scale under the microscope as i n lesson 5, cutting sections for mounting and staining on a s l i d e as in lessons 7 and 9 respectively. It arose as a necessary component of conducting demonstrations where some " d i f f i c u l t y " was envisaged with some investigations — that i s , i n lessons 2, 7 and 9 as explained previously. It however occurred in lesson 5, "magnification with the microscope" because t h i s lesson i n -volved observing the millimetre- markings on the edge of -92-a p l a s t i c r u l e r to determine the diameter of the low power, medium power and high power f i e l d s of the microscope, a new technique for the students. There was therefore the danger of students attempting to observe the r u l e r with the high power objective lens and therefore destroying the lens. The teacher therefore showed how the r u l e r should be used to determine the f i e l d diameter for the three f i e l d s . 6. Teacher discussed the potential d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the lab procedure (F2) i n lessons 2,5,7,8 and 10 and not at a l l i n the other lessons. Although t h i s behaviour i s considered consistent with teaching the nature of science and was used i n f i v e out of the eight lessons i n t h i s setting, i t i s s t i l l considered to be a situ a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviour of the teacher. This i s because i t was observed mainly during the discussion of investigations which involved the use of new techniques -lessons 2,5 and 7 as explained above, and lessons which involved cutting thin sections of a plant with a razor blade as i n lessons 7, 8 and 10. This behaviour occurred i n lesson 8 because students complained during the laboratory setting of lesson 7 of not being able to get thin sections for observation. I t was observed again i n lesson 10 which dealt with "observing the various kinds of c e l l s i n a lea f " ; t h i s also involved cutting thin sections of plant leaf for staining and observation. 1 -93-7. Teacher made statements about s a f e t y p r e c a u t i o n s to be e x e r c i s e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s (F6) i n l e s s o n s 2,8 and 9 o n l y . Warning students about p o s s i b l e dangers i n h e r e n t i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i s c o n s i d e r e d c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t e a c h i n g the nature o f s c i e n c e . However i t s occurrence i n t h i s s e t t i n g i s c o n s i d e r e d to be s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c i n t h a t i t was observed o n l y when there was the l i k e l i h o o d of u s i n g hazardous or d e l i c a t e m a t e r i a l s i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s as i n l e s s o n s 2,8 and 9. In l e s s o n 8 which was a c o n t i n u a t i o n of l e s s o n 7, the teacher asked students to use a d d i t i o n a l reagents such as p h l o r o g l u c i n o l f o r s t a i n i n g the c r o s s s e c t i o n s of the p l a n t m a t e r i a l s c u t by the students, and pure a l c o h o l f o r de-h y d r a t i n g the c e l l s . However,since the p h l o r o g l u c i n o l i s prepared i n a l c o h o l and i s t h e r e f o r e h i g h l y inflammable on d i r e c t c o n t a c t w i t h flame j u s t as pure a l c o h o l i s , the teacher advised the students to keep the reagents away from flame. The teacher a l s o warned the students t o r e f r a i n from d r i n k i n g the a l c o h o l because i t c o n t a i n e d t o x i c sub-stances. In l e s s o n 9 students had to prepare smears of t h e i r own blood on a s l i d e and observe i t a f t e r s t a i n i n g , under the microscope. Teacher warned t h a t i n such i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , students were to a v o i d exchanging used l a n c e t s i n punching t h e i r f i n g e r s to prevent p o s s i b l e t r a n s f e r o f blood d i s e a s e s -94-such as nucleosis. Other precautions taken in t h i s lesson involved warning students who were haemophiliacs from punching t h e i r fingers because of possible profuse bleeding. The behaviour was also observed in lesson 2 because the teacher indicated his concern about the microscope as follows: Teacher: The. mlcfiobcope. li> [highly] e.xp e.ni> Iv e. and de.llcate. Yoa afie. a tacky gfioap to havz the. oppoH.tan.Lty to a&e. the.&e. mlcfio&cope.t>, the. be.it In the. s c h o o l . . . . . . , howe.vefi nevzfc lofiQut to cafifiy the. mlctLO&cope. aftoand by placing one. hand at the. bottom with the. othe.fi hand holding the. aim. Why should yoa do thlil Student: To avoid dftopplng It. Teacher: Alio I don't want yoa to ai>e. the high powe.fi obje.ctlve. len& Indlicn.lmlnate.ly. [othzfiwl&z yoa may) knock It agaln&t a illde. the.fie.by de.&tfioyIng the leni . 8. Teacher explained how to make measurements (F3) in lessons 5, 7 and 10. 9. Teacher explained how to work mathematical problems (F4) i n lessons 5, 7 and 10 only. These two behaviours considered to be consistent with teaching the nature of science occurred only i n the pre-labs to laboratory investigations involving the uses of mathematical calculations to ar r i v e at the magnification of a drawing made from the observation of a s l i d e under the microscope. That is,, the occurrence of these behaviours -95-was related to the nature of the topic for the lesson. Lesson 5, which dealt with "magnification with the microscope" was the f i r s t lesson i n t h i s setting which involved the discussion of microscope constants and object magnification. That i s , i t i s the f i r s t prelab setting whose laboratory setting involve the manipulation of numbers to arrive at the microscope constants. The teacher therefore explained how to make the measurements and com-pute the constants from the f i e l d diameter. This concept was transferred to both lesson 7 and lesson 10 where the procedure i n the lab text c a l l e d for the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the magnification of any drawings made by the students. The teacher explained how to pro-ceed to get the correct measurements through asking students to r e c a l l the procedure used i n lesson 5. These behaviours were not observed in lessons 8 and 9 because lesson 8 was a continuation of lesson 7 so probably there was no need to restate how the measurements and mathematical computations should be done; and i t was not observed i n lesson 9 because even though the procedure in the text asked for accurate drawing and the i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n of the magnification of th e i r drawing, the teacher asked the students to make only sketches of the blood c e l l s and not bother about i n d i c a t i n g the magnifi-cation; the teacher asked the students to do t h i s mainly because he re a l i s e d that there was not enough time (only 11 minutes) for the students to complete the investigation -96-during the laboratory s e t t i n g . 11. Student requested c l a r i f i c a t i o n of lab directions (H3) i n only lesson 5. This behaviour, though consistent with the teaching of the nature of science, was observed to be absent i n almost a l l the lessons with the exception of lesson 5. This might be due to the fact that students read the step by step directions given in the lab text only during the laboratory setting and not during the prelab setting or even before the prelab setting. Thus, without reading the assignment before or during the prelab setting, the students would not be able to i d e n t i f y and question the teacher on the "not-so-clear" steps in the procedure. The behaviour was however observed i n lesson 5 because i t was during t h i s lesson that teacher t r i e d to explain the procedures involved i n computing the magnification of draw-ings made under the microscope and computing the microscope constant from the f i e l d diameter; the mathematics involved was a b i t confusing to the students and t h i s prompted one of them to ask the teacher to provide further c l a r i f i c a t i o n . In sum, occassionally, the teacher asked the students to i d e n t i f y some aspects of the problem for investigation such as:- i t s purpose or i t s r e l a t i o n to other investigations, conducted demonstrations and i d e n t i f i e d constraints i n the investigations. On other occassions, he related the i n -vestigation to previous work (and barely encouraged students -97-to ask questions about the i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r o c e d u r e ) . The o c c a s i o n a l use o f these behaviours seems oto .be c o n s i s t e n t with such f a c t o r s as (1) the dominating behaviour o f the teacher, (2) the d i f f i c u l t y of the techniques i n v o l v e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s as p e r c e i v e d by the teacher, (3) the mathematical nature o f the t o p i c s , (4) the hazardous or d e l i c a t e nature o f the m a t e r i a l s used i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , (5) the l a c k of time to complete t o p i c s which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the teacher's technique o f aski n g students to read the i n v e s t i g a t i o n d i r e c t i o n s o n l y d u r i n g the l a b s e t t i n g , and (6) the tea c h e r ' s technique o f not r e p e a t i n g h i s own statements and of not a s k i n g students to repeat statements they had p r e v i o u s l y made concerning a phenomenon. 4.34 S e t t i n g Summary From the above a n a l y s i s o f the behaviour p a t t e r n c o n t r i b u t i n g to the t e a c h i n g o f the nature o f s c i e n c e d u r i n g the teacher's normal day to day t e a c h i n g , i t can be con-cluded t h a t j u s t as i n the developing t e x t m a t e r i a l s e t t i n g , the teacher g e n e r a l l y uses both r e c u r r e n t behaviours and s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviours i n t h i s s e t t i n g . The dominant gen e r a l or r e c u r r e n t behaviours o f the teacher i n t h i s s e t t i n g was to i d e n t i f y the problems f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n and ask the students to f o l l o w the i n v e s t i g a t i o n procedures and prepare w r i t t e n r e p o r t of t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ; no hypothesis was pro v i d e d f o r any o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . - 9 8 -The occurrence of these recurrent behaviours seem to be consistent with such factors as (1) the dominating be-haviour of the teacher, (2) the structure of the lab text which i s pprescriptive and does not allow for the statement of hypotheses, (3) lack of time to complete topics, (4) and the teacher's perception of his students as hardworking. These recurrent behaviours of the teacher did not encourage students to p a r t i c i p a t e well i n t h i s setting; the teacher completely dominated the setting. Thus i t was only on certain occasions that the students had the chance to make some contributions during the setting. Thus, i n l i n e with his technique of not repeating his own statements and asking students to repeat t h e i r statements, the teacher related the i n v e s t i -gation to previous work and also asked the students to i d e n t i f y some aspect of the problem such as i t s purpose or i t s r e l a t i o n to other investigations. Occasionally when the techniques or mathematical computations involved i n carrying out the investigations were perceived by the teacher to be d i f f i c u l t (a reminiscence of his dominating be-haviour) and when the nature of the materials used were such that precautions had to be taken, the teacher always conducted demonstrations including mathematical calcu-lations and i d e n t i f i e d the precautions involved. Also reading the investigation procedures only during the laboratory setting did not give the students much chance -99-to ask questions on .the procedures during t h i s setting. On the only occasion.' when the students had the chance they asked for the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of certain parts of the dire c t i o n s . 4.40 LABORATORY SETTING 4.41 Introduction The laboratory settings were observed on eight d i f f e r e n t occassions. They occurred i n lessons 2,3,4,5, 7,8,9 and 10 of the ten lessons observed i n thi s study. The most consistent behaviour observed i n t h i s setting was the involvement of students i n carrying out the i n v e s t i -gations themselves and the assessment of students under-standing of the investigations through a series of questions asked by the teacher as he moved from one work-ing group to another. The students asked many questions both procedural and non-procedural questions i n t h i s setting although only the procedural ones were coded by the instrument. Thus t h i s setting was mainly dominated by the students; however, frequently, the teacher exhibited his usual tendency as seen in the developing text and pre-lab settings of t e l l i n g students things they should know -a behaviour consistent with his general intent of teaching students''to-'1 "learn s p e c i f i c course content'. During t h i s setting some students worked i n groups while two students worked on th e i r own. The groups were formed by the students themselves and the average number of students in a group -100-was three. There were s u f f i c i e n t materials available for the students to use during the investigations - there were twelve working compound microscopes available to the students and each working group was made to sign out one of the microscopes for the r e s t of the term. During the setting, the teacher and the students followed the contents of the lab text c l o s e l y , i . e . the procedures l a i d out i n the text and the sequencing of the topics. However, in lessons 9 and 10, the teacher re-versed the sequence of the topics because of a change i n the time table brought about by the signing up of students to tutors during the time that lesson 9 was observed. During the signing-up week the t o t a l number of periods per day was increased from f i v e to six and the duration of each period was reduced to about 4 5 minutes from the normal 6 0 minutes. Because of this change, the teacher chose to treat the topics he believed required shorter time to com-plete. Thus he treated "preparation and observation of human blood c e l l s " i n lesson 9 instead of the "observation of the various kinds of c e l l s on a leaf" which he l a t e r treated i n lesson 10. The teacher also used t h i s setting to talk about topics not d i r e c t l y related to the investigations the students were doing. For example he asked students to observe a mosquito pond i n the lab and discussed the hatching of the mosquito larvae. He also mounted a s l i d e -101-of the pond water from the mosquito pond and asked students to observe the diatoms and other organisms. The topics for the various lessons i n t h i s s e t t i n g are as given i n Table I I I . 4.42 General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n the Laboratory Setting Following the procedure used i n the developing text material and pre lab settings, t h i s behaviour pattern was i d e n t i f i e d by examination of sim i l a r data (Tables VII and VIII and F i g . 4) for the laboratory setting. i) Consistently Used General Behaviours From Tables VII and VIII and Fig.4, the general be-haviour patterns of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d by the be-haviour items used consistently i n a l l the lessons were: 1. Teacher encourages students to make th e i r own observation ( L l ) . The involvement of students i n doing the experiments themselves - observing blood c e l l s , or the c e l l s i n a plant - probably r e f l e c t s the teacher's perception of his students as "enjoying doing science", "enjoying carrying out experiments i n science" and also p a r t i c i p a t i n g f u l l y i n his classes. The use of this behaviour may also be consistent with the intents of the teacher for the lessons i n thi s s etting. In a l l the lessons, the teacher indicated that the "students should observe and measure" some phenomenon or - 1 0 2 -TABLE V I I B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d P e r S i n g l e O c c u r r e n c e s O f  The L a b o r a t o r y S e t t i n g On A T i m e L i n e L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d F r e q u e n c y o f I terns 11 T a k s S t o o b s sm o b j o r p h e n 1 12 T a k s S t o d e s sm o b j o r p h e n 5 13 T a k s S t o e x p why o r hw sm phen o c c d 1 14 T e x p why o r hw sm p h e n o c c d 1 J 3 T r e f q u e s a b t i n v e s t p r o c k b t o S 3 2 22 J 4 T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c 5 J 5 T p e r p t o f i n v e s t f S i n r e s t o q u e s 3 K2 T a k s l d g q u e s t o e v a l wk 15 K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a * LI S k i own o b s * L2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 5 14 T e x p why o r hw sm p h e n o c c d 1 J 2 T a n s S q u e s a b t i n v e s t p r o c w a n l g y 1 3 12 J 4 T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c 3 K2 T a k s l d g q u e s t o e v a l wk 10 K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a * LI S mk own o b s * L 2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 5 n T a k s S t o o b s sm o b j o r p h e n 10 12 T a k s S t o d e s sm o b j o r p h e n 2 14 T e x p why o r hw sm p h e n o c c d 7 J l T r e s t o S q u e s w p r o f a n s q u e s 2 J 3 T r e f q u e s a b t i n v e s t p r o c bk t o S 2 4 35 J 4 T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c 6 J 5 T p e r p t o f i n v e s t f r S i n r e s t o q u e s 1 K2 T a k s l d g q u e s t o e v a l wk 29 K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a * LI S mk own o b s * L2 S a k s T f o h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 9 c o n t i n u e d - 1 0 3 --TABLE V I I ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d F r e q u e n c y o f I t e m s 12 T a k s S t o d e s sm o b j o r p h e n 6 14 T e x p why o r hw sm p h e n o c c d 1 J l T r e s p t o S g v e s w p r o f a n s q u e s 2 J 3 T r e f q u e s a b t i n v e s t p r o c 5 16 J 4 J 5 bk t o S T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c T p e r p t o f i n v e s t f S i n r e s t o q u e s 1 1 1 K2 T a k s I d g q u e s t o e v a l wk 17 K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a * LI S mk own o b s * L2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 5 11 T a k s S t o o b s sm o b j o r p h e n 4 12 T a k s S t o d e s sm o b j o r p h e n 2 14 T e x p why o r hw sm p h e n o c c d 4 J l T r e s t o S q u e s w p r o f a n s q u e s 1 J 3 T r e f q u e s a b t i n v e s t p r o c bk t o S 1 7 29 J 4 J 5 T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c T p e r p t o f i n v e s t f S i n r e s t o q u e s 9 3 K2 T a k s i d g q u e s t o e v a l wk 14 K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a * LI S mk own o b s * L 2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 12 11 T a k s S t o o b s sm o b j o r p h e n 5 14 T e x p why o r hw sm p h e n o c c d 8 J l T r e s p t o S q u e s w p r o f a n s 1 q u e s J 3 T r e f q u e s a b t i n v e s t p r o c bk t o S 1 8 44 J 4 T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c 13 J 5 T p e r p t o f i n v e s t f S i n r e s t o q u e s 2 K2 T a k s I d g q u e s t o e v a l wk 18 K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a * LI S mk own o b s * L 2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 14 c o n t i n u e d . . . - 1 0 4 -TABLE V M ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n No, D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d F r e q u e n c y o f I t e m s 11 I I T a k s S t o o b s sm o b j o r p h e n K2 T a k s I d g q u e s t o e v a l wk K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a L I S mk own o b s L 3 S p r e p w r t r e p o f i n v e s t L2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c 10 22 I I T a k s S t o o b s sm o b j o r p h e n J 4 T g v s d i r a n s a b t i n v e s t p r o c K2 T a k s I d g q u e s t o e v a l wk K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a LI S mk own o b s L 2 S a k s T f h i p w i n v e s t p r o c TABLE V I I ( c o n c l u d e d ) - 1 0 5 -TABLE V I I I SUMMARY OF OBSERVATIONS FOR THE LABORATORY SETTING AS RECORDED ON THE MODIFIED INSTRUMENT NUMBER OF TIMES SETTING WAS OBSERVED : 8 BEHAVIOUR ITEMS No o f S e t t i n g s B e h a v i o u r F r e q u e n c y o f O c c u r r e d B e h a v i o u r 10 T E A C H E R : I D E N T I F Y C R I T I C A L ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION T l T a s k s s t u d e n t t o o b s e r v e some o b j e c t o r phenomena 6 25 12 T a s k s s t u d e n t t o d e s c r i b e some o b j e c t o r phenomena 4 15 13 T a s k s s t u d e n t t o e x p l a i n why ( c a u s a l i t y ) o r how ( m e c h a n i c s ) some phenomenon o c c u r r e d 1 1 14 T e x p l a i n s ( c a u s a l i t y ) o r how ( m e c h a n i c s ) some phenomenon o c c u r r e d 6 22 JO TEACHER:RESPONSE TO STUDENT QUESTION ABOUT INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE J l T r e s p o n d s t o s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n a b o u t p r o -c e d u r e by s u g g e s t i n g a p r o c e s s f o r a n s w e r i n g q u e s t i o n s 4 6 J 2 T a n s w e r s s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n a b o u t i n -v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h an a n a l o g y 1 1 J 3 T r e f e r s s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n a b o u t i n -v e s t i g a t i o n p r o c e d u r e b a c k t o s t u d e n t 5 8 J 4 T g i v e s d i r e c t a n s w e r t o s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n a b o u t i n v e s t i g a t i o n 7 45 J 5 T p e r f o r m s p a r t o f i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o r s t u d e n t i n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n a b o u t p r o c e d u r e 6 10 KO TEACHER-EVALUATION KT T g r a d e s s t u d e n t s on l a b p r o c e d u r e a s t h e w o r k - -K2 T a s k s l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n s t o e v a l u a t e s t u d e n t s w o r k 8 112 K3 T moves f r o m s t a t i o n t o s t a t i o n 8 * LO STUDENT:IDENTIFY C R I T I C A L ASPECTS OF THE INVESTIGATION LI S make own o b s e r v a t i o n s 8 * L2 S a s k s t e a c h e r f o r h e l p w i t h i n v e s t i g a t i o n p r o c e d u r e 8 59 L 3 S p r e p a r e a w r i t t e n r e p o r t o f t h e d e -t a i l s a n d r e s u l t s 1 * 5 1 0 15 20 25 30 35 "*0 -»5 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 Item Frequency Figure 4. Item Frequency Against Number of Settings Behaviour was used in Laboratory Setting -107-"acquire s p e c i f i c science-related .manual s k i l l s " , o r both (both objectives occur i n the o v e r a l l intents of the teacher). To achieve these objectives or intents, students should be encouraged to do the investigations themselves as was done by the teacher i n t h i s study. 2. Teacher asks leading questions to evaluate the student's understanding of the investigation (K2) 3. Teacher moves from station to station to give attention to i n d i v i d u a l working groups (K3) . These behaviours are considered to be consistent with teaching the nature of science and were observed to be used both frequently and consistently throughout the study. The teacher moved around the groups asking questions to assess the students' understanding of both the procedure and the s p e c i f i c content to be learned i n the investigations and explaining some phenomenon to them. However not much movement was done i n lesson 3 where the teacher got t i e d up with setting up a lab t e s t for his grade 9 group. The teacher's intent for each lesson that "students should acquire s p e c i f i c science-related manual s k i l l s " , s p e c i f i -c a l l y the techniques of microscopy, and his o v e r a l l intent - that "students should learn s p e c i f i c course content", probably contributed to the teacher's movement around the groups, together with his question asking and his explana-ti o n of some phenomenon to the students. 4. Teacher encourages students to ask for help with investigation procedure (L2). -108-The teacher's in d i c a t i o n that his students "ask questions" and "contribute u n s o l i c i t e d ideas" apply i n th i s i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting where students were observed to demonstrate t h i s behaviour rather profusely. Some of the student's questions asked for help with the investigation procedure while others were geared to understanding of the course content. I t could be argued that the occurrence of t h i s behaviour as a general behaviour i n t h i s setting r e f l e c t s on the teacher's approach to the handling of the pre-laboratory settings. That i s during or before the prelab setting students were not encouraged to read the directions for the investiga-tions and ask questions on any "knotty" points i n the dire c t i o n s . The only time students read the directions was during the laboratory se t t i n g . Thus, a f t e r reading the procedure, the students c a l l on the teacher to help them with the "knotty" points i n the di r e c t i o n s . However, there were instances where some students asked the teacher for help with the investigation without taking their time to read through the directions c a r e f u l l y . Thus both the teacher's perception of his students and his approach to the prelab contributed to the use of th i s behaviour i n thi s setting. This behaviour i s how-ever considered neutral with respect to teaching the nature of science. i i ) Unused General Behaviours The teacher's general behaviour as i d e n t i f i e d from -109-items not used i n any of the lessons as seen i n Table VIII and Fig-4 was: 1. Teacher grades students on lab procedure as they work (Kl). The teacher was not observed i n a l l the lessons to grade students on lab procedures. The teacher did not require the students to write out the procedures because they were already l a i d out i n the lab text. Therefore students were not graded oh lab procedures even though t h i s behaviour i s considered to be consistent i n teaching the nature of science. i i i ) Inconsistently Used General Behaviours. The general behaviour patterns as i d e n t i f i e d by behaviour items used i n some but not a l l lessons but which were considered from the informal data c o l l e c t e d during the study to be general behaviour pattern of the teacher (Table VII and Fig.4) were: 1. Teacher asks students to observe some object or phenomenon (II) This behaviour occurred any time the teacher moved from one working group to another and at times when he.:-found a p a r t i c u l a r l y good s l i d e prepared by a student or when he performed part of the investigation i n answer to a student question for help. I t was the teacher's general behaviour to move from one group of students to -110-another explaining some content and asking questions most of which always required the student to observe some object or phenomenon. The use of thi s behaviour i n almost a l l the lessons also r e f l e c t s on the nature of the investigations (topics) dealt with':.in the eight lessons i n t h i s setting (Table'LTI). The topics required the observation of s l i d e preparations of a plant part as i n lessons 7,8 and 10 or blood c e l l s as i n lesson 9 or the observation of the millimeter scale on a. p l a s t i c r u l e r as i n lesson 5, the depth of f i e l d of a thread as i n lesson 4 or the observation of the l e t t e r s and dots in a newspaper as i n lessons 2 and 3. Thus the teacher had the opportunity through the nature of the i n -vestigations to ask the student to observe some object or phenomenon. Also one of the teacher's o v e r a l l intents - that "students should observe and measure some phenomenon" probably r e f l e c t s on the use of thi s behaviour as a general behaviour pattern i n t h i s setting. However, i t was not observed i n lesson 3 because he did not have much time to observe the work of a l l the groups as was his behaviour i n the other lessons occurring in t h i s s e t t i n g . He had to neglect most of the groups during lesson 3 mainly because he was busy laying out a lab t e s t for his grade 9 class on the student working benches. These grade 9 students were expected to come to -111-the lab to take the tes t immediately a f t e r lesson 3 i . e . during the f i f t h period of the day. Also, there was not much time l e f t for t h i s setting (12 minutes) and the teacher wanted to use the available time to set up the t e s t . The behaviour was also not used i n lessons probably because th i s lesson, by the very nature of the dire c t i o n s given for the investigation, did not involve much observation work. The only observation to be done was that of observing the millimeter scale of a rul e r under the microscope. However, even though the teacher did not ask the students to observe some object or phenomenon he did ask them to describe what they saw under the microscope by asking questions l i k e : "Mow many l i n e s do you see under the low power objective lens?" "What about the medium power objective"? This behaviour required the students to observe the object under the microscope. 2. Teacher gives d i r e c t answer to students' questions about the investigation procedure (J4). This i s i n l i n e with the observation made i n discussing the developing text material setting that i t was the teacher's normal behaviour of giving d i r e c t answers to students,!; questions although only one question was asked by the students i n that setting. In the laboratory setting, the students asked many questions (as was perceived by the teacher) and the teacher was -112-almost always observed to be quick at giving d i r e c t responses to these questions. This i s probably con-s i s t e n t with one of his general or o v e r a l l intents that "students should learn s p e c i f i c course content';' But because of t h i s quick reaction to students' questions, the teacher r a r e l y had time to use other al t e r n a t i v e forms of responding to t h e i r quesitons. However, i t was observed that on the few occasions' that the teacher had time to r e f l e c t on the questions , he almost always gave a l t e r -native responses l i k e r e f e r r i n g a student question back to the student. In lesson 9, the teacher did not respond at a l l to a studentI'.s questions because on one occassion he was observed to be busy discussing a point with another student. On another occasion, the teacher was observed to be busy talking to another student who was asking permission to absent herself from the next day's cl a s s . 3. Teacher explains why (causality) or how (mechanics) some phenomenon occurred (14). Just as the teacher was observed to respond quickly in giving d i r e c t answers to students.' questions, he was observed to do most of the explanations instead of asking the students to do so. This almost always occurred i n response to student questions about the occurrence of some object or structure-.- " i s that round blob the nucleus?"; but at other times the teacher would explain a phenomenon -113-on his own v o l i t i o n i n the process of describing some phenomenon or object probably i n order to give further d e t a i l s about an object i n his endeavour to achieve his objective - that "students should learn s p e c i f i c course content". However, i n lesson 9, although the teacher spent most of the time i n describing the red and white blood c e l l s on the slides to the d i f f e r e n t working groups, his descriptions did not include any causal r e l a t i o n -ships or how they occurred p a r t l y as he indicated that t h i s content was not r e q u i r e d A l s o because the teacher r e a l i s e d that there was very l i t t l e time i n this setting (11 minutes) for the students to be able to complete the inves t i g a t i o n , he asked the students to " t r y to do the investigation at l e a s t once". This made the students rush through to complete the invest i g a t i o n within the limi t e d time thus leaving them with no time to ask ques-tions requireing explanations. The teacher was also not observed to o f f e r ex-planations in lesson 10 probably because of the following reason. During the developing text material setting i n lesson 10, the teacher explained the function, occurrence and nature of the d i f f e r e n t c e l l s i n the leaf to the students. Thus, because most of the explanations were provided by the teacher during the developing text material -114-setting, there was probably no need to repeat i t in the laboratory setting. Students were also observed to o f f e r explanations of the occurrence of some object on t h e i r own. 4. Students prepared written report of the d e t a i l s and r e s u l t s of the investigation (L3) during t h i s s e t t i n g . Although the teacher asked the students - during the prelab setting to write reports of t h e i r investigation, students were not observed to write the complete report in the laboratory. According to the teacher, the written report of any investigation includes not only the observations ( i n -cluding drawings) and res u l t s but written answers to the procedure questions and the "actual" lab questions i n the lab text. Thus, even though students wrote t h e i r observations during the lab setting they did not write t h e i r answers to the text^questions during most of the lab setting. This was because the teacher expected them to complete the writing of the report, i . e . answering the text questions, as a homework to be done afte r each investigation and used during the post lab discussions. It was also observed that students r a r e l y had enough time to complete the investigations assigned by the teacher. This explains why the writing of the complete lab report was given to the students as homework and why the students -115-were not observed to write t h e i r reports during most of the laboratory settings. However, i n lesson 9, since the students were not expected to make accurate drawings cof the blood c e l l s or indicate the magnification of t h e i r drawings, they had enough time to write the f u l l report of the investigation during the setting. In sum, during the laboratory setting, the teacher encouraged students to carry out the investigations, ask questions and prepare written reports of the investigations. He.also moved from one working group to another, asking leading questions, giving d i r e c t responses (answers) to students' questions and providing explanations for some phenomenon; however there was no grading of students' lab procedures. These general behaviours seem to be consistent with such factors as (1) the teacher's tendency to provide "descriptions" and "explanations" of phenomenon (a factor, reminiscent of his dominating behaviour i n e a r l i e r s e t t i n g s ) , (2) the teacher's tendency to respond quickly to student questions (also a factor r e f l e c t i n g on his dominating behaviour i n e a r l i e r s e t t i n g s ) , (3) the nature of the investigation (topic) which required the observation of objects under the microscope, (4) the teacher's technique of asking students to read the investigation directions during the lab settings (a r e f l e c t i o n of the pressure to complete a set of t o p i c s ) , (5) the longer time duration of the lesson, (6) the teacher's perception of the students -116-as enjoying doing science experiments and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n class through asking questions and o f f e r i n g u n s o l i c i t e d ideas, (7) the teacher's intent to teach students to observe and measure, and acquire s p e c i f i c course content and science-related manual s k i l l s and (8) the pr e s c r i p t i v e nature of the lab text which does not allow the students to devise t h e i r own procedures. 4.4 3 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviours of the Teacher i n the Laboratory Setting. The si t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviours of the teacher i n th i s setting as i d e n t i f i e d from behaviour items used i n some but not a l l lessons i n thi s setting in conjunction with other pa r t i c i p a n t observation information were: 1. Teacher asked students to describe some object or phenomenon (12) i n only lessons 2,4,5 and 7. Although i t was the teacher's general behaviour to ask frequently the students to observe an object or phenomenon, i t was infrequent on his part to ask them to describe what they saw. The teacher was observed to pro-vide the descriptions almost a l l the time. This ex-plains why i t did not occur very"often. The behaviour was, however, observed i n lessons 2,4,5 and 7 not as a regular behaviour of the teacher but as a r e f l e c t i o n of some p r e v a i l i n g conditions at the time of the lesson (as i n lessons 2 and 5) and the general i n -frequency of such questions, i . e . out of say, f i v e -117-descriptions open to both the teacher and the students, the teacher would ask the students to describe just one. During lesson 2 most of the students were c a l l e d to the counselling o f f i c e to take an exam thus leaving only 19 students out of the 32 i n the cla s s . In addition to t h i s , lesson 2 happened to be the f i r s t laboratory lesson during which the students actually learned to manipulate the microscopes. As such the teacher spent much time trying to f i n d out whether students were making the r i g h t observations and manipulations by asking them•to describe t h e i r observations and how they went about i t . This i s r e f l e c t e d i n the high frequency of thi s behaviour i n t h i s lesson. The investigation i n lesson 5 was regarded by the teacher as the basis for the remaining topics to be dealt with for the rest of the term and was the f i r s t lesson involving mathematical computations. During the lesson students were to determine the diameter of the f i e l d for the three objective lenses from the observa-tion of the millimeter scale on a r u l e r placed under the microscope and use i t to compute the microscope constant. Getting the correct f i e l d diameter from the r u l e r was the key to obtaining the correct microscope constant. As such the teacher spent some time to get students to give accurate descriptions of t h e i r observations, r e s u l t i n g in the high frequency of thi s behaviour i n t h i s lesson. -118-As explained above, the behaviour was observed i n lessons 4 and 7 not because i t occurred frequently but because i t occurred infrequently. That is,.'in'both lessons the teacher as usual did most of the "describing"" him-s e l f even though he was observed to ask the students on two occassions i n both lessons to describe some phenomenon. 2. Teacher asked students to explain why (causality) or how (mechanics) some phenomenon occurred (13) i n only lesson 2. As already explained, i t was the teacher's normal behaviour to provide explanations about the occurrence -of some phenomenon. As such, for him to ask a student to provide explanations for the occurrence of some phenomenon would d e f i n i t e l y depend on p r e v a i l i n g conditions. This is-why i t was not observed i n most of the lessons in th i s setting. However, i t was observed to be used i n lesson 2. During lesson 2, teacher spent r e l a t i v e l y longer times with in d i v i d u a l groups of students than i n the other lessons because he had only 19 students i n the class. Thus he had much time to r e a l l y get at student's understanding of the phenomenon they were observing under the microscope (the composition of colours i n newspaper p r i n t s ) . But even i n this s i t u a t i o n only one instance of t h i s behaviour was observed which again goes to emphasize the teacher's tendency to o f f e r most of the explanations himself. -119-3. Teacher responded to student questions about investigation procedure by suggesting a process for answering questions (Jl) i n lessons 4,5 7 and 8. 4. Teacher answered student questions about i n -vestigation procedure with an analogy (12) i n lessons 3 and 7. 5. Teacher referred students questions about i n -vestigation procedure back to students (J3) i n lessons 2,4,5,7 and 8. 6. Teacher performed part of the investigation for students in response to questions about i n -vestigation procedure "(J5) i n lessons 2,4,5,7, and 8. As already explained, because of the teacher's ten-dency to respond quickly to student's questions, he always responded by giving d i r e c t answers to t h e i r questions except on ithose few occassions when hevpaused to r e f l e c t on the questions. Thus, the above alternative verbal responses occurred during those occassions when the teacher had time to come up with alternative ways of answering the students' questions. In addition the teacher per-formed part of the investigation for the students (a non-verbal response) i n response to procedural questions in lessons 2,4,5,7 and 8 because i n a l l these lessons (1) teacher did not provide an already prepared s l i d e which the students could refer to i n case they encountered -120-any d i f f i c u l t i e s resolvable by reference to such a s l i d e as was done i n lessons 9 and 10, and (2) the teacher was not kept busy for example arranging a lab t e s t for another group of students as was observed i n lesson 3. In lesson 9, the teacher prepared a s l i d e of his blood during the pre-lab setting and i n lesson 10 he provided a commercially prepared s l i d e of the cross section of a l e a f which the students could refer to i n case they were not able to produce a good s l i d e themselves. In lesson 3, the teacher engaged himself during t h i s setting in setting up a lab test for his grade 9 Earth Science class on the same lab benches that the grade 10 students were working on. He even asked some students to help him because he r e a l i s e d he did not have enough time (12 minutes) during t h i s lab to set up the t e s t . This even caused his general behaviour of moving from "station to station" to correspond mainly to where he placed the te s t materials (unlabelled rocks). He therefore had no time to perform part of the investigation for the students i n response to t h e i r questions. Thus occassionally, the teacher asked the students to "describe" and "explain" certain phenomena and responded to t h e i r questions i n other alt e r n a t i v e ways such as suggesting a process for answering questions, by using analogy, by r e f e r r i n g students' questions back to them or performing part of the investiga-tion for the students. -121-These occassional behaviours seem to r e s u l t from such general behaviours of the teacher as his question-asking behaviour, and his encouragement of the students to carry out the investigations and ask questions. Also such factors as (1) the newness of the techniques or concepts to the students which made i t necessary for the teacher to spend much time "explaining" and asking questions, (2) the r e l a t i v e l y longer times spent with i n d i v i d u a l groups and (3) the temporary pause exhibited by the teacher in responding to students'questions. 4.44 Setting Summary From the above analysis, i t can be concluded that the teacher uses both general or recurrent behaviour patterns and s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c or occassional behaviours i n his normal teaching i n t h i s setting. This i s sim i l a r to the conclusion drawn for the preceding two settings. During the laboratory setting, the teacher encouraged students to carry out the investigations, ask questions and pre-pare written reports of th e i r investigations. The teacher was also observed to move from one working group of students to another, asking questions, giving d i r e c t answers to students'questions and providing: explanations for some phenomenon but was not observed to grade students on laboratory procedures. Factors which seemed to contribute to these be-haviours include teacher factors such as (1) the teacher's -122-tendency to "describe" and "explain" some phenomenon and his tendency to respond quickly to student questions (both of which r e f l e c t on his dominating behaviour i n e a r l i e r settings), (2) the teacher's technique of asking students to read the investigation d i r e c t i o n s during the lab settings (in order to save time), (3) the teacher's perception of the students as enjoying doing science ex-periments and p a r t i c i p a t i n g in class through asking questions and o f f e r i n q u n s o l i c i t e d ideas, (4) the teacher's intent to teach students to observe and measure, and acquire s p e c i f i c course content and science-related manual s k i l l s , and other factors such as (1) the nature of the investigation (topic) which re-quired the observation of objects under the microscope, (2) the longer time duration of the lessons, and (3) the p r e s c r i p t i v e nature of the lab text which does not allow the students to devise t h e i r own procedures. The above general behaviours of the teacher con-tributed to increased student involvement during t h i s setting. Thus even though the teacher had the tendency to "describe" and "explain" most phenomenon to the students, his general behaviour of asking leading questions en-abled the students to "describe" and "explain" certain phenomena. But t h i s p a r t i c u l a r general behaviour of the teacher - asking leading questions - seemed to be prevalent on those occassions when the teacher spent much time with i n d i v i d u a l student groups and when the nature of the investigation was such that techniques or concepts -123-involved were unfamiliar to the students. On the few occassions when the teacher paused for a while before responding to the students'questions, he did not give d i r e c t answers but used other alternative techniques to respond to the questions such as by suggesting a: process for answering questions, using analogy, r e f e r r i n g student questions back to students and performing part of the investigation for the students. 4.50 POST LABORATORY SETTING 4.51 Introduction This i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting occurred on six d i f f e r e n t occassions and for the sixth class period observed i n the study, i t was the only i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting observed. It occurred i n lessons 3,4,5,6, 9 and 10 of the ten lessons observed i n the study. As i n the developing text material and pre-lab settings, the post-lab settings were e n t i r e l y dominated by the teacher; i t was e s s e n t i a l l y based on a one-way "teacher question-student response"interaction. That i s , despite the fact that the modified classroom observation instrument did not provide for students' questions, almost a l l the questions i n t h i s setting were asked by the teacher with the students responding only to these questions. Students were observed on only a few occassions to ask questions. One important factor c o n t r i -buting to thi s was.the teacher's close adherence to the lab text. The teacher used the procedure questions -124-integrated with the lab directions and the questions provided after each investigation i n the lab text for the post-laboratory discussions. However, not a l l the questions i n the lab text were asked because the answers to some of the questions involved consulting other reference sources. However, because of the time l i m i t a -tions the -teacher did not=ask the students to respond to those questions. A l l the post lab settings were held on the next day after the corresponding laboratory investiga-t i o n . This had to be done because of time l i m i t a t i o n s for each laboratory setting (resulting in the fact that the questions i n the lab text were given to the students as homework to be completed for discussion the following day) . Apart from the post lab questions taken from the lab text, the teacher asked other questions one of which appeared i n almost a l l the six lessons i n t h i s setting. This question was: "What was the purpose of the (yester- / day's) lab?" According to the teacher the post lab discussions were held i n order to help the students to write correct answers i n t h e i r lab reports since the lab reports served as t h e i r notes on the concepts dealt with i n each i n -vestigation. I t was therefore necessary for them to write accurate observations and conclusions i n order for i t to serve as a useful source of reference for reviewing a l l the concepts i n the investigations l a t e r on. Because of - 1 2 5 -t h i s , the teacher always gave the correct answers to the post-lab questions when the students f a i l e d to provide the appropriate correct responses. The students were never asked to re-do the investigations or consult other references because of th e i r i n a b i l i t y to answer a question. 4 . 5 2 . General Behaviour Pattern of the Teacher i n t h i s  Setting Following a similar procedure to the one used i n the preceding settings, the general behaviour patterns of the teacher i n the post-laboratory setting were i d e n t i -f i e d by examining Tables IX and ;X and F i g . ; 5 i n con-junction with the informal data co l l e c t e d during the study. i) Consistently Used General Behaviours. The general behaviour pattern of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d from behaviour items used i n a l l the lessons in th i s setting (Tables IX and X,and F i g . 5 ) was.as follows: Teacher encourages students to state conclusions of their investigations ( N i 5 , P 5 ) . This behaviour, considered consistent with teaching the nature of science, was observed to be used in every post laboratory setting. This i s r e f l e c t e d i n .the i n -f e r e n t i a l nature of some of the post-lab questions in the lab text. For example, the following question from the lab text was asked during the post lab discussion i n ". - 1 2 6 -TABLE <IX" B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d P e r S i n g l e O c c u r r e n c e s O f The  P o s t L a b o r a t o r y S e t t i n g On A T i m e L i n e L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n (mi n u t e s ) B e h a v i o u r I t e m s O b s e r v e d F r e q u e n c y o f i t e m s 3 24 N5 T a k s S t o s t c o n c l N8 T a k s S t o mk p r e d f r r e s P5 S s t c o n c l P8 S mk p r e d f r d a t 4 2 4 1 4 11 N3 T a k s S t o i d e n t r e g i n d a t N5 T a k s S t o s t c o n c l N7 T a k s S t o r e l c o n c l t o p s t r e s N8 T a k s S t o mk p r e d f r r e s P3 S i d e n t i f y r e g i n d a t P5 S s t c o n c l P7 S r e l c o n c l t o p s t r e s P8 S mk p r e d f r d a t 4 6 1 5 3 5 1 5 5 20 N5 T a k s S t o s t c o n c l N6 T a k s S t o s u p c o n c l w e v i d f r i n v e s t N8 T a k s S t o mk p r e d f o r r e s P5 S s t c o n c l P6 S s u p c o n c l w e v i d f o r i n v e s t P8 S mk p r e d f r d a t 8 2 1 7 2 1 6 50 Ml T a k s S t o q r o r o t h r w o r g d a t V M2 T wks m a t h p r o b f S N5 T a k s S t o s t c o n c l " ' N6 T a k s S t o s u p c o n c l w e v i d f r i n v e s t N7 T a k s S t o r e l c o n c l t o " p s t r e s N8 T a k s S t o mk p r e d f r r e s N10 T i d e n t s o r o f e r / v a r i n d a t 01 S g r o r o t h r w o r g d a t P5 S s t c o n c l P6 S s u p c o n c l w e v i d e f r i n v e s t P7 S r e l c o n c l t o p s t r e s P8 S mk p r e d f r d a t 3 17 6 3 1 11 " 2 3 5 3 1 9 c o n t i n u e d . . . - 1 2 7 -TABLE IX - ( c o n t i n u e d ) L e s s o n N o . D u r a t i o n B e h a v i o u r I t e m F r e q u e n c y ( m i n u t e s ) O b s e r v e d o f /Items 9 7 N5 T a k s S t o s t c o n c l 1 N7 T a k s S t o r e l c o n c l t o p s t r e s 3 P5 S s t c o n c l 1 P7 S r e l c o n c l t o p s t r e s 3 N5 T a k s S t o s t c o n c l 6 N6 T a k s S s u p c o n c l w 10 7 e v i d f r i n v e s t 1 N7 T a k s S t o r e l c o n c l t o p s t r e s 1 P5 S s t c o n c l 6 P7 S mk p r e d f r d a t 1 T A B L E . IX - ( c o n c l u d e d ) - 1 2 8 -TABLE X Summary o f O b s e r v a t i o n s f o r t h e P o s t L a b o r a t o r y S e t t i n g As R e c o r d e d o n t h e M o d i f i e d I n s t r u m e n t Number o f T i m e s S e t t i n g was O b s e r v e d : 6 B e h a v i o u r I t e m s No. o f S e t t i n g B e h a v i o u r O c c u r r e d F r e q u e n c y o f B e h a v i o u r I t e m s MO TEACHER: DATA REDUCTION Ml T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o g r a p h o r o t h e r w i s e o r g a n i z e d a t a 2 4 M2 T e a c h e r w o r k s m a t h e m a t i c a l p r o b l e m s f o r s t u d e n t s 1 17 NO TEACHER: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION Nl T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o c o m p a r e r -s u l t s among t h e m s e l v e s - -N2 T e a c h e r a s k s f o r d i v e r g e n t i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n o f r e s u l t s - -N3 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o i d e n t i f y r e g u l a r i t i e s i n d a t a 1 4 N4 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o d i e n t i f y s o u r c e s o f e r r o r o r v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e d a t a - -N5 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o s t a t e c o n -c l u s i o n s 6 31 N6 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o s u p p o r t c o n -c l u s i o n s w i t h e v i d e n c e f r o m i n v e s t i -g a t i o n 3 6 N7 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o r e l a t e c o n -c l u s i o n s t o : p a s t r e s u l t s 3 5 N8 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t t o make p r e d i c t i o n s f r o m r e s u l t s 4 19 N9 T e a c h e r a s k s s t u d e n t s t o p r o p o s e f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s u g g e s t e d b y r e s u l t s - -N10 T e a c h e r i d e n t i f i e s s o u r c e s o f e r r o r v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e d a t a 1 2 00 STUDENT: DATA REDUCTION 01 S t u d e n t g r a p h o r o t h e r w i s e o r g a n i z e d a t a 1 3 c o n t i n u e d . . . - 1 2 9 -TABLE . X - ( c o n t i n u e d ) B e h a v i o u r I t e m s N o . o f F r e q u e n c y S e t t i n g o f B e h a v i o u r B e h a v i o u r O c c u r r e d I t e m s 02 S t u d e n t a s k s t e a c h e r i f r e s u l t s a r e c o r r e c t - -PO STUDENT: INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION PI S t u d e n t c o m p a r e r e s u l t s w i t h o t h e r s _ -P2 S t u d e n t d i s c u s s d i v e r g e n t i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n s o f r e s u l t s - -P3 S t u d e n t i d e n t i f i e s r e g u l a r i t i e s i n d a t a 1 3 P4 S t u d e n t i d e n t i f i e s s o u r c e s o f e r r o r o r v a r i a b i l i t y i n d a t a - -P5 S t u d e n t s t a t e s c o n c l u s i o n s 6 28 P6 S t u d e n t s u p p o r t s c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n 2 5 P7 S t u d e n t r e l a t e s c o n c l u s i o n s t o p a s t r e s u l t s 4 6 P8 S t u d e n t makes p r e d i c t i o n s f o r m r e s u l t s 4 16 P9 S t u d e n t p r o p o s e s i n v e s t i g a t i o n s u g g e s t e d by r e s u l t s - -P19 S t u d e n t a s k s t e a c h e r i f c o n c l u s i o n s a r e c o r r e c t - -P l l S t u d e n t t r y t o r e a c h c o n c e n s u s on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f r e s u l t s - -P12 S t u d e n t a s k s t e a c h e r w h a t c o n c l u s i o n s s h o u l d be d e d u c e d TABLE - X - ( c o n c l u d e d ) 2 i t 6 8 1 0 1 2 Ik 1 6 1 8 2 0 2 2 2>t 2 6 2 8 3 0 3 2 Item Frequency Figure 5 . Item Frequency Against Number of Settings Behaviour was used in Post Laboratory Setting -131-lesson 6 : "What i s the approximate length i n millimeters and microns of the micro-organism (shown i n the photograph"?). i i ) Unused General Behaviours The teacher's general behaviour pattern i d e n t i f i e d from behaviour items not used in t h i s setting were found to be: 1) Teacher encourages students to ask about whether t h e i r r e s u l t s or conclusions are correct or what conclusions to deduce from the results (02,P10,P12). Students were never observed to ask i f th e i r r e s u l t or conclusions were correct most probably because the teacher was observed to indicate by his immediate verbal comment after each student's answer to his questions that the answer was either r i g h t or wrong. He used words l i k e "good", "ri g h t " , "yes", and "no" which made i t unnecessary for the students to ask i f th e i r answers were correct. Students were also not observed to ask for possible conclusions to be deduced from the investigation mainly because the teacher was observed to ask the students to conclude from th e i r investigations as part of his normal or general behaviour. Also since a l l the questions for the post lab discussions were asked by the teacher, as already explained, the students' most frequent and consistent behaviour during the setting was to respond to the teacher's questions - i . e . t h i s behaviour probably r e f l e c t s the one -132-way teacher question- student.response strategy adopted in t h i s setting. 2. Teacher encourages students to compare results among themselves or reach concensus on the interpretation of res u l t s (Nl, PI and P l l ) . Because the post lab settings were based on a one way teacher question - student response strategy, the teacher was never observed to encourage students to com-pare re s u l t s or t r y to reach a concensus on t h e i r i n t e r -pretation of t h e i r results during t h i s setting because t h i s would have implied encouraging student-student interactions in t h i s setting. However, during the laboratory settings, the teacher was observed to encourage students to observe each other's work i n order to compare t h e i r r e s u l t s . 3. Teacher encourages the divergent interpretation of results (N2,P2) by the students. During both the post lab settings and lab settings, the teacher was observed to provide explanations to the divergent results obtained by the students instead of asking the students to provide the explanations. For example, during the post lab discussion of the human blood c e l l s , the teacher explained to the students why the red and white c e l l s were observed to occur mostly around the periphery of the s l i d e . Also during the lab investigation in lesson 8,'.the teacher explained why a water blob was observed on the s l i d e prepared by a student. This behaviour seems to be part of the teacher's normal tendency to -13 3-explain every phenomenon himself (as already explained during the discussion of the laboratory lessons). Also since there was only "one correct answer" to the questions asked during the post lab, there was probably no need for the teacher to ask for d i f f e r e n t interpretations or d i f f e r e n t answers. 4. Teacher encourages the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y i n the data obtained from the investigations by the students (N4,P4). Although the teacher had the opportunity in lesson 6, to ask the students to i d e n t i f y the source of v a r i a b i l i t y of the two sets of f i e l d diameter and microscope constants obtained during the investigation i n lesson 5, he rather chose to i d e n t i f y the source himself by t e l l i n g the students that they were using two d i f f e r e n t microscopes. This behaviour i s consistent with the teacher's tendency to explain every phenomenon ..himself. 5. Teacher encourages students to propose further investigation suggested by r e s u l t s of t h e i r investigations (N9,P9). The teacher was never observed to propose or ask the students to propose any further investigations suggested by the re s u l t s probably because none of the questions i n the lab text required such a behaviour. As already explained, with the exception of questions l i k e the one requiring students to restate the purpose of the -134-investigation under discussion, a l l the post lab questions were based on the questions i n the lab text. But since none of the questions i n the lab text required the i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n of further investigations, the teacher was not observed to use t h i s behaviour. i i i ) Inconsistently Used General Behaviour The general behaviour of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d from items used in some but not a l l lessons occurring in th i s setting but regarded from the informal data col l e c t e d during the observations to be a general behaviour was: Teacher encourages students to make predictions from results of investigation (N8,P8). Although the teacher did not encourage students to propose possible investigations suggested by re s u l t s , he did encourage them to make predictions from the r e s u l t s . This behaviour i s considered to be a general behaviour of the teacher because i t seemed to generate from the post lab questions i n the text material. In lesson 6 where the class discussed the "magnification with the microscope", almost a l l the questions i n the text required the students to use t h e i r results.' on the f i e l d diameter and microscope constant to make p r e d i c t i o n s , e.g. "An object stretches across 1/5 of the high-power f i e l d . What i s i t s length? You are t o l d to draw i t with a magnification of 200 x. What length w i l l the object be i n your drawing?" This probably explains the high frequency of t h i s behaviour i n lesson 6. -135-The behaviour was,however,not used in lessons 9 and 10 because the questions i n the lab text did not require prediction. The questions asked from the text i n these settings were: "Compare the structures of t y p i c a l plant and animal c e l l s . How are they similar? How do they d i f f e r ? " "Are there any c e l l s which are stained more than one colour? What does th i s observation t e l l you about Wright's stain?" Only these post investigation questions were asked and they do not require the prediction of an outcome. Apart from the fact that the text questions did not require the use of this:' behaviour, the teacher was not observed to ask questions which would require the students to predict in lessons 9 andVlO. This might be ex-plained by the teacher's i n d i c a t i o n at the beginning of lesson 9 that he s t i l l had a l o t of topics to cover i n the short time remaining for the res t of the term. It i s probably because of thi s that the post lab setting i n lessons9 and 10 were made r e l a t i v e l y short (7 minutes). In summarising the teacher's general behaviour i n the post laboratory setting, i t can be stated that the teacher uses t h i s setting to encourage students to make conclusions and predictions from t h e i r investigations but did not use i t to encourage students to discuss re s u l t s -136-araong themselves, i d e n t i f y sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y , propose further investigation or encourage students to ask for confirmation of t h e i r r e s u l t s . Factors contributing to these general behaviours include (1) the predictive and i n f e r e n t i a l nature of some of the post lab questions in the lab text,(2) the one-way teacher question-student answer interaction (reminiscent of the teacher's dominating behaviour in the e a r l i e r settings), and (3) the teacher's tendency to "explain" every phenomenon (also a r e f l e c t i o n of his dominating behaviour). 4.53 Situation S p e c i f i c Behaviours of the Teacher. The s i t u a t i o n s p e i c f i c behaviours of the teacher as i d e n t i f i e d by behaviour items used i n some but not a l l lessons were: 1. Teacher encouraged students to graph or otherwise organize t h e i r data (Ml,01) i n only lesson 6. This behaviour was observed to be used i n only one of the six lessons i n . t h i s setting because i n a l l the other lessons neither the teacher nor the text asked for the organization of the data i n any special way such as tabulation or graphing. However, i n lesson 6 (Table I I I ) , the lab text required the students to organize the data i n tabular form. During the post lab discussion i n lesson 6, the teacher asked the students to tabulate t h e i r r e s u l t s -137-using the outline given i n the text. 2. Teacher worked mathematical problems for students (M2) i n only lesson 6 during t h i s setting. Lesson 6, which was the post lab to the lab on "magnification with the microscope", was the f i r s t and only lesson i n the post lab setting to deal with the mathematical computation of the magnification of objects seen under the microscope and the c a l c u l a t i o n of the microscope constant to be used or applied i n the succeeding lab lessons (lessons 7,8, 9 and 10) to indicate the magnification of their drawings. As such the teacher spent the entire 50 minutes i n t h i s lesson t r y i n g to get the students to comprehend the calculations involved. He gave them a formula for computing the drawing magnification from the drawing size and the r e a l size of an object and worked examples using the students' data. In addition, the lab text questions i n t h i s lesson, involved computing the magnification from some hypothetical data. 3. Teacher encouraged students to i d e n t i f y r e g u l a r i -t i e s i n data (N3r,P3) in only lesson 4. From the structure of the lab investigations, t h i s behaviour was found to be more l i k e l y to occur i n the post lab of the lab investigation of the " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of image" i n lesson 4 and the post lab of the topic " l i v i n g and non-living plant c e l l s " . This i s because -138-i d e n t i f y i n g r e g u l a r i t i e s involve observing more than one object and only these two topics involved the observation of more than one object. In the lab investigation of the "c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the image" i n lesson 3, students observed d i f f e r e n t l e t t e r s under the microscope and noted what they looked l i k e . Some of the l e t t e r s l i k e "e" were seen to be inverted while others l i k e "X" retained t h e i r configuration. In both lessons 7 and 8, students observed cross-sections of l i v i n g and non-living plant materials l i k e onion leaves, cork and p i t h . The non-living c e l l s were found to be devoid of c e l l contents l i k e nuclei while the l i v i n g c e l l s contained n u c l e i . As such i n the post lab i n lesson 4 students were asked to i d e n t i f y r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the data. However, this behaviour was not observed for the post lab lesson of lab lesson 8 because the post lab for this lesson (lab) was not observed due to some technical d i f f i c u l t i e s which de-veloped with the radio microphone used for the study. Hence i t can be stated that the nature of the topic or the structure of the investigation probably rendered the use of this behaviour f e a s i b l e . 4. Teacher encouraged students to support con-clusions with evidence from investigation (N6, P6) i n lessons 5, 6 and 10. As already mentioned, most of the questions used i n -139-the post lab discussions were derived, :from'the text material. But since the lab text questions do not s p e c i f i c a l l y ask for the use of data to support i n -ferences made, t h i s behaviour was therefore not •"" observed i n lessons 3,4 and 9. The use of t h i s be-haviour i n lessons 5,6 and 10, however, seems not to be explained by any of the factors used so far i n analysing the d i f f e r e n t settings. However, i t was noted that t h i s behaviour occurred when the students gave "wrong" answers in response to the teacher's questions (requiring them to conclude from the in v e s t i g a t i o n ) . 5. Teacher encouraged students to relate '.con-clusions to past re s u l t s (N7, P7) i n lessons 4, 6, 9 and 10. The use of thi s behaviour i n lessons 4, 6, 9 and 10 seems to r e f l e c t p a r t l y on the lab text questions and on the students:!; previous knowledge related to the p a r t i -cular investigation. In lessons 9 and 10, the lab text questions related d i r e c t l y to the lab investigations i n lessons 7 and 8. In lesson 6... the completion of the table- involved the use of the metric system since the diameter Of the f i e l d was required i n millimeters and microns. The teacher therefore asked the students to r e c a l l t h e i r previous knowledge about the rel a t i o n s h i p between, say, millimeters and microns i n order to convert the numerical conclusions deduced for the f i e l d diameter i n millimeters into microns. In lesson 4, the teacher -140-asked the students to relate the image seen,under the microscope to the working of a pin-hole camera which the students were already f a m i l i a r with. However, no plausible explanation was found for not using t h i s behaviour i n lessons 3 and 5. 6. Teacher i d e n t i f i e d sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y i n data (N10) i n lesson 6. As already explained, i t was only i n t h i s lesson (lesson 6) that opportunity existed for i d e n t i f y i n g the source of v a r i a b i l i t y of the two d i f f e r e n t f i e l d d i a -meters obtained for the low power f i e l d , the medium power f i e l d or the high power f i e l d . The teacher was observed to explain that t h e i r d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s stemmed from the fact that they were using two d i f f e r e n t microscopes with d i f f e r e n t constants. This r e f l e c t s on the teacher's tendency to explain everything himself. It was also observed that wrong observations or errors made by the student during the laboratory settings were explained by the teacher, thus making i t unnecessary for them to be discussed in the post lab settings. Thus the material (microscopes) ' used by the students created the v a r i a b i l i t y i n the data, and the teacher's tendency to explain things himself caused the use of th i s behaviour in lesson 6. In summarizing the si t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviours of the teacher i n t h i s setting, i t can be stated that occassionally the teacher worked mathematical.".problems -141-and i d e n t i f i e d sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y i n the data and encouraged students to use such behaviours as organizing data, i d e n t i f y i n g r e g u l a r i t i e s , supporting conclusions and r e l a t i n g conclusions to past r e s u l t s . Factors which appear to contribute to the use of these behaviours include such factors as (1) the teacher's tendency to explain everything (which i s a r e f l e c t i o n of his dominating behaviour), (2) structure of the i n -vestigation i n the lab text which c a l l for tabulation of results or the comparison of d i f f e r e n t things, (3) the nature of topics which c a l l for mathematical computation and (4) wrong responses given by students to teacher's questions requiring the making of inferences. 4.54 Setting Summary From the analysis of the behaviour used by the teacher i n this setting, i t can be infer r e d that the teacher uses both s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviours and re-current or general behaviours i n his normal teaching i n th i s setting. The dominant general behaviour used by the teacher i n t h i s setting was to encourage students to make conclusions and predictions from the r e s u l t s of t h e i r investigations. However, he did not encourage students to discuss results among themselves, i d e n t i f y sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y , propose further i n -vestigations or encourage students to ask for confirma-tion of the i r r e s u l t s . These general behaviours appear to -142-r e f l e c t on such factors as (1) the predictive and i n -f e r e n t i a l nature of some of the post lab questions i n the lab text, (2) the one-way teacher question - student answer interaction (which r e f l e c t s on the dominating behaviour of the teacher), and (3) the teacher's tendency to "explain" every phenomenon (also a r e f l e c t i o n of his dominating behaviour). However, on certain occasions, the teacher used certain other behaviours. Thus when the nature of the topic involved manipulating numbers, the teacher was observed to work mathematical.'.problems for the students. Also the teacher's use of such behaviour as the i d e n t i f i -cation of sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y i n the data seems to be consistent with the teacher's tendency to explain every phenomenon which i s a r e f l e c t i o n of his dominating behaviour. On occasions when the students give wrong con-clusions, the teacher encouraged them to support the con-clusions with evidence from the in v e s t i g a t i o n . Also where the structure of the investigation c a l l e d for the tabulation of res u l t s or the comparison of d i f f e r e n t objects, the teacher encouraged the students to organize t h e i r data i n tabular form and to i d e n t i f y r e g u l a r i t i e s i n the data. -143-4.60 QUESTION THREE The l a s t question i n the study - "what classroom settings does the teacher make the most use of for teaching the nature of science during his normal teach-ing" - required the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (and subsequent com-parison) of the range of behaviour items used out of a l l the possible behaviour items considered consistent with teaching the nature of science i n the d i f f e r e n t i n s t r u c -t i o n a l settings and the i r corresponding average f r e -quencies from Tables I I , VI, VIII and X. i n conjunction with the l i s t of neutral and consistent items i n Appendix F. This procedure o f f s e t s the i n e q u a l i t i e s i n the t o t a l number of possible behaviour items considered consistent with teaching the nature of science i n each of the settings. In the developing text material Setting, examination of the summary data for the setting, Table II and the items considered consistent with teaching the nature of science i n the setting, (Appendix F) shows that out of the 13 behaviour items considered consistent with teaching the nature of science i n the developing text material setting, the teacher used 7 (with an average frequency of 15). Si m i l a r l y , for the pre-lab set t i n g , examination of the summary data for the setting shows that out of 21 possible behaviours consistent with teaching the nature of science i n t h i s setting, the teacher used 12 (with an average frequency of about 3). -144-In the laboratory setting, out of the 10 possible behaviour items considered consistent with 'teaching the nature of science i n t h i s setting, the teacher used 9 (with an average frequency of 23). In the post laboratory setting, out of the 21 possible behaviours considered consistent with teaching the nature of science in the setting, the teacher used 12 (with an average frequency of 11). These results can be summarized as follows: Developing text Pre-lab Lab Post-lab material  Range (ratio) of 7/13 12/21 8/10! 12/21 items used Average frequency 15 3 2 3 11 of items used Taking both the range (or ratio) of items and t h e i r average frequencies into consideration, i t can be seen that more items are used i n the lab setting and with higher frequency than i n the other settings where almost the same range of behaviours are used but with d i f f e r e n t frequencies. Although the developing text material, pre-lab and post-lab settings have almost the same' range'of items, the average frequency with which the items are used i n the developing text material and post-lab settings are f a r higher than i n the pre-lab setting. Hence i t can be concluded that the teacher teaches the nature of science more i n the laboratory setting and -145-lea s t i n the pre-lab setting. This observation i s i n agreement with the informal observation data co l l e c t e d in the study where i t was found that the teacher allowed the students to dominate the laboratory setting but completely controlled the pre-lab setting and to some extent allowed students to contribute through his questions i n the developing text and post-lab settings. - 1 4 6 -CHAPTER FIVE L I M I T A T I O N S A N D I M P L I C A T I O N S OF T H E S T U D Y 5.00 INTRODUCTION The primary focus of thi s study was to describe the behaviour patterns used by a science teacher i n his normal teaching that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science and to develop hypotheses about some of the factors contributing to these behaviours. The s p e c i f i c questions asked i n the study were answered by observing one class of the teacher for three weeks using audio and video tape recorders together with participant observation techniques as described i n Chapter Three. The tapes were coded by the observer and a trained coder using a modification of Smith's Instrument which contained behaviour items c l a s s i f i e d as consistent or neutral with respect to the teaching of the nature of science. A pre-study interview and a questionnaire given to the teacher at the beginning of each lesson were used to i d e n t i f y the teacher's o v e r a l l intent, intent for each lesson and his perception of his students. Other factors such as the teacher's in t e r a c t i o n pattern and the structure of the text material were noted through pa r t i c i p a n t observation. -147-In the preceding chapter, the data obtained from these observations were used as a basis for an analysis of the teacher's behaviour i n the d i f f e r e n t settings and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of factors contributing to the teacher's behaviour. From th i s detailed analysis broad conclusions were drawn. In the present chapter, the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study and the implications for further research w i l l be discussed. In addition, the implications for teachers, teacher educ-actors and program developers w i l l be explored. In looking at the implications for further research and for program developers and teacher educators, some of the findings of the study w i l l be mentioned and related to the l i t e r a t u r e . 5.10 LIMITATIONS TO THE STUDY The study explores the factors r e f l e c t i n g the be-haviour used by a science teacher that contribute to the teaching of the nature of science during his normal teach-ing. However, to be able to interpret the findings of the study i n t e l l i g e n t l y , two major problems which l i m i t the g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of the study should be recognized. These are (1) problems with the Instrument and (2) problems re s u l t i n g from a small case study. In the f i r s t case, given the view of the nature of science used i n the study, not a l l possible behaviours are l i s t e d i n Smith's Instrument. For example the behaviour: Teacher explains the o r i g i n , character and role of problems i n science, was not included i n the developing text -148-material setting. I t may be argued that including a l l these behaviours may make the task of coding a laborious one. Following from t h i s , i t should be recognized that the view of the nature of science used i n the study i s only one view out of other possible views. As such when these other views are considered, the instrument may be even more inadequate. Also the ground rules for using the instrument do not allow the coding of behaviours i n a setting d i f f e r e n t from the one being observed at any time. Thus i f the teacher talks about the h i s t o r i c a l development of knowledge during the post-lab setting, t h i s behaviour cannot be coded since t h i s item occurs only i n the developing text material setting. In the second case, a case study of one teacher for only three weeks can only be exploratory i n nature. A longer period of time with more teachers i s needed before more d e f i n i t e conclusions can be reached. In addition, since the teacher was observed to depend heavily on the lab text, the study i s lim i t e d i n some way to the lab text used by the teacher and the students. A lab text with d i f f e r e n t orientation may produce a d i f f e r e n t set of teacher behaviours. Thus with the above l i m i t a t i o n s i n view, the findings of t h i s study are only intended to provide an empirical base for subsequent experimental studies of factors causing teachers to behave i n certain ways when teaching the nature of science as part of t h e i r normal teaching. -149-In spite of the above, the study was useful because i t i d e n t i f i e d the incongruity between the teacher's perception of the students - e.g. as contributing un-s o l i c i t e d responses and asking questions i n class - and the actual (or observed) behaviour of the students. Also, the analytic technique used allowed the int e r p r e t a t i o n of the teacher's behaviour i n terms of unconscious (un-conscious to the teacher) factors operating i n the system. 5.20 IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH The findings of thi s study, while i n s u f f i c i e n t for making any strong generalizations due to the l i m i t a t i o n s described above, do point to certa i n directions for possible research. The f i r s t of these i s methodological and i s aimed at meeting the lim i t a t i o n s described i n section 5.20 above. I t i s proposed that a larger sample of teachers be observed for a much longer period of time for the purpose of making some generalizations. Based on the view of the nature of science implied i n Smith's Instrument, a l l possible behaviours should be included i n the i n -strument to see whether there w i l l be any differences i n the patterns exhibited by the teacher. Also d i f f e r e n t views of the nature of science could be explored (by con-structing instruments with these views) to i d e n t i f y the d i f f e r e n t teacher behaviours which may be observed. The second d i r e c t i o n suggested by t h i s study i s substantive i n nature and i s aimed at exploring and -150-r e f i n i n g the findings of the study. Recognizing the role of text material i n teaching the nature of science, the text materials could be varied i n order to determine how the materials change the teacher's behaviour. Also to i d e n t i f y the impact of students on the teacher's behaviour, d i f f e r e n t groups of students could be used to determine how the d i f f e r e n t perceptions the teachers have for each group influence the teacher's behaviour; and how these teacher perceptions are consistent with the actual (or observed) behaviours. To i d e n t i f y how relevant the duration of the lesson and the pressure to complete a set number of topics i n a limited time are to the teacher's behaviour, the teacher could be asked to teach without any of these r e s t r a i n t s to see i f the same patterns would be used by the teacher. One in t e r e s t i n g finding of the study was that the teacher's mode of response to student's questions changed whenever he paused for sometime a f t e r a student's question. From t h i s i t can be hypothesised that an i n -crease i n the length of time a teacher remains s i l e n t a f t e r a student's question w i l l increase the q u a l i t y of res-ponse from the teacher. Although, t h i s i s not supported d i r e c t l y by findings reported by Rowe (1974) when studying the e f f e c t of "wait-time" on students' and teachers' be-haviour, i t s t i l l has some bearing on her findings. Rowe (1974) noted amon.g other things that an increase s i n the length -151-of time a teacher remains silent("wait-time" measured in seconds) increases the net v a r i a b i l i t y i n teacher verbal behaviour questions. Although her findings did not report r anything on the type of responses given by the teacher a f t e r a student's question per se, i t has a bearing on the responses given by the teacher. Another general finding of the study, that the teacher uses general (or recurrent) behaviours i n each i n s t r u c t i o n a l setting during the three-week observation i s supported by the finding of Smith (1969) i n h i s two-week study that a teacher's behaviour "within a classroom setting i s re-l a t i v e l y consistent i n recurring instances of that s e t t i n g " . This i s also given further support by the conclusion reached by Urbach (1966) i n a two-week study that recurring patterns of verbal i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques do e x i s t for each teacher i n the science classroom. The type of recurrent behaviours noted by Urbach (1966) were d i f f e r e n t from those i n t h i s study since he used Flanders1:-' system which contains a d i f f e r e n t set of categories and i s also verbal i n nature. Thus the finding i n t h i s study that the teacher moved around the groups i n a l l the lessons i n the lab setting did not occur i n the study by Urbach. However, i t i s s t i l l im-portant to note that i n t h e i r normal teaching, science teachers use cer t a i n recurrent behaviours. The present study in addition to corroborating the findings of the above studies, looked at factors contributing to these recurring behaviour patterns. I t also looked at the v a r i a t i o n i n be-haviour (that i s , si t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c behaviours) and noted -152-possible factors contributing to these. 5.30 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROGRAM DEVELOPERS, TEACHER  EDUCATORS AND TEACHERS. To i d e n t i f y the implications for program developers, teachers and teacher trainers i t might be necessary to look at how some of the findings of t h i s study relate to those of Smith (196 9). Smith reported that i n the developing text material setting, teachers respond to student questions mainly by giving d i r e c t answers and that behaviour items having to do with the philosophy of science were not used by the teachers. These findings are similar to those i n th i s study and probably goes to show the teacher's i n -adequate perception of how these behaviours related to the philosophy of science are related to and could be taught i n the development of text material setting.' Program de-velopers aware of thi s could make i t more e x p l i c i t i n t h e i r programs that the philosophical basis of science should be transmitted to the students. Inclusion of thi s i n programs would enable teacher educators to emphasize i t in t h e i r work. Results from th i s study shows that when the teacher remains s i l e n t for some time aft e r a student's question, he almost always use other alternative response behaviours (instead of giving a d i r e c t answer). This could be incorporated i n a teacher education program to a l t e r teachers' response patterns. In the pre-laboratory setting, Smith reported that students were never observed to i d e n t i f y and state the -153-purpose of the investigation problem and relate the investigation to previous work. In t h i s study, i t was found that the students were never involved i n i d e n t i f y i n g and stating the investigation problem, i n hypothesizing, operationalizing variables and r e l a t i n g the investigation to previous work although the teacher was observed to ask students to state the purpose of the inve s t i g a t i o n . I t was found that the structure of the lab text (including the need to provide certain facts) and the pressure to com-plete topics do not allow for the use of these behaviours. If the lab text could be organized i n such a way that both the s y n t a c t i c a l and substantive structures are equally represented, there would not be any need for the teacher to provide the students with extra information (subject matter content). Also i f i t could be organized i n such a way that (1) variables could be i d e n t i f i e d and hypothesis statements made and (2) students could recognize the relationship between the experiments and previous work, i t would make the teacher's task easier and lead to the use of such behaviours. Other findings similar i n both studies i n the pre-lab are (1) students were never observed to read aloud directions for invest i g a t i o n . (2) Students seldom request c l a r i f i c a t i o n of lab di r e c t i o n s . The occurrence of the l a s t behaviour was found to r e f l e c t the fact that students only read the lab directions during the laboratory setting. Thus i f students could be made to think of the problem for investigation well ahead of -154-time, illuminating discussions could be generated during the pre-lab. From the data reported by Smith (1969) i t was clear that i n the lab setting, the teacher never graded students on lab procedures, always moved from station to station and almost always gave d i r e c t answers (as i n the developing text material setting) to student questions. The same findings have been reported i n t h i s study. In addition, i t was found i n t h i s study that the text required the teacher to move from station to station and that because the investiga-t i o n procedures were not devised by the students, there was no need to grade the students on the prescribed directions in the text. In the post-lab, Smith (1969) reported that "except i n the case of asking students to state conclusions, teachers seldom, i f ever, ask students the kinds of questions that stimulate communication between students or that lead to c r i t i c a l and speculative analysis of the data". In t h i s study, a similar finding was arrived at - apart from making conclusions and predictions, students were never observed to be encouraged to compare res u l t s , discuss divergent interpretations, t r y to reach consensus on i n t e r -pretation of r e s u l t s , i d e n t i f y sources of error or v a r i a b i l -i t y i n data or encourage students to propose further i n -vestigations suggested by the r e s u l t s . I f i t could be made e x p l i c i t i n a program that students should be allowed to -155-communicate with each other on t h e i r r e s u l t s , i t may be easier for teachers to encourage th i s behaviour i n the post-lab discussions. Also because teachers may be t i e d down by the text material, questions in the lab text could be reanalysed to ensure that they encourage c r i t i c a l and speculative analysis of the data. Although there are certain l i m i t a t i o n s to the study, i t ' s findings on the pattern of teacher behaviour are well corraborated by the findings of other studies, e s p e c i a l l y that of Smith. These behaviors, i n addition to the factors contributing to them, appear to have po t e n t i a l usefulness for program developers, teachers and teacher educators. However, since t h i s study i s exploratory, further research i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n i s needed. -156-R E F E R E N C E S Anderson, H.H. The measurement of domination and of s o c i a l l y integrative behaviour i n teachers' contacts with children. C h i l d Development, 1939, 10, 73-89. Anderson, R.D. Using the laboratory to teach the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 1968, 30(8), 633-636. Bellack, A.A., Kliebard, H.M., Hyman, R.T., and Smith, F.L., J r . The Language of the Classroom. New York: Columbia University Press, 1966. B i l l e h , V.Y., and Hasan, O.E. Factors a f f e c t i n g teachers' gain i n understanding the nature of science. Journal of  Research i n Science Teaching, 1975, 1_2 (3), 209-219. Carey, R.L., and Stauss, N.G. An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 1968, 5_2(4) , 358-363. Carey, R.L., and Stauss, N.G. An analysis of experienced science teachers' understanding of the nature of science. S chool S c ienc e and Ma thema t i c s , 1970, 7_0(5) , 366-376. Commission on College Physics. The Divergent Laboratory. College Park, Maryland: Commission on College Physics, 1972. Connelly, F.M., Wahlstrom, M.W., Finegold, M., and Elbaz, F. Energy Teaching i n Science: A Handbook for Secondary  School Teachers. Toronto: The Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education, 1977. Earth Science Curriculum Project. Investigating the earth (Teacher's Guide, V o l . 1, Rev. ed.). Boulder, Colorado: Earth Science Curriculum Project, 1965. Evans, T.P. A category system for teacher behaviours. The American Biology Teacher, 1969, 31(4), 221-224. Evans, T.P. and Balzer, L. An inductive approach to the study of biology teacher behaviours. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1970, 7, 47-56. -157-Fis c h l e r , A.S., and Zimmer, G. The development of an observational instrument for science teaching. Journal  of Research i n Science Teaching, 1967-1968, 5(2) 127-137. Flanders, N.A. Analyzing Teaching Behaviour. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970. Frick , T., and Semmel, M.I. Observer agreement and r e l i a b i l i t i e s of classroom observational measures. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48(1), 157-184. Gallagher, J . J . Three studies of the classroom. In J . J . Gallagher G.A. Nuthall and B. Rosenshine (Eds.), Classroom Observation (AERA monograph series on curriculum evaluation, No. 6). Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Horn, E. D i s t r i b u t i o n of opportunity for p a r t i c i p a t i o n among the various pupils i n classroom r e c i t a t i o n . New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1914. Hunter, E. Talking i n f i r s t grade classrooms. Urban Review, 1969, 4, 39-43. Kimball, M.E. Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of s c i e n t i s t s and science teachers. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1968, 5_(2) , 110-119. Klopfer, L.E. Evaluation of learning i n science. In B.S. Bloom, J.T. Hastings and G.F. Madaus (Eds.), Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of  student learning. New York:McGraw-Hill, 1971. Lashier, W.S., J r . , and N i e f t , J.W. The ef f e c t s of an in d i v i d u a l i z e d , self-paced science program on selected teacher, classroom, and student variables - ISCS l e v e l one. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1975, 12(4), 359-369. Lavach, J.F. Organisation and evaluation of an inservice program i n the history of science. Journal of Research  in Science Teaching, 1969, 6(2), 166-170. Lunetta, V.N., and Tamir, P. An analysis of laboratory  a c t i v i t i e s : i n two modern science c u r r i c u l a : Project  Physics and PSSC. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research i n Science Teaching, Toronto, Ontario, A p r i l 1978. -158-Moon, T.C. A study of verbal behaviour patterns i n primary grade classrooms during science a c t i v i t i e s . Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1971, £(2), 171-177. Parakh, J.S. A study of teacher-pupil i n t e r a c t i o n i n high school biology classes: Part II - Description and analysis. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1967-1968, 5(4), 183-192. Parakh, J.S. A study of teacher-pupil in t e r a c t i o n i n high school biology classes: Part I - The development of a category system. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1969, 6(3), 284-292. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of Education, Div i s i o n of curriculum. Junior secondary school science curriculum guide - Science 10. Province of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970. Rosenshine, B. Evaluation of classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40^(2) , 279-300. Rowe, M.B. Wait-time and rewards as i n s t r u c t i o n a l variables, t h e i r influence on language, l o g i c , and fate control: Part One - wait-time. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1974, 11(2), 81-94. Schmidt, D.J. Test on understanding science: A comparison of several groups. Journal of Research i n Science  Teaching, 1968, 5(4), 365-366. Schmidt, M.C. (Ed.) Extending science concepts i n the  laboratory. Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1970. Simon, A., and Boyer, E.G. (Eds.). Mirrors for behaviour: An anthology of classroom observation instruments (Vols. 1-6). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools 1967. Simon, A., and Boyer, E.G. (Eds.). Mirrors for behaviour: An anthology of classroom observation  instruments (Vols. 7-14 and Summary). Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1970. (a). Simon, A., and Boyer, E.G. (Eds.). Mirrors for behaviour: Ah anthology of classroom observation instrument (Supplementary Vols. A and B). . Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools, 1970. (b). Simon, A., and Boyer, E.G. Mirrors for Behaviour I I I . Wyncote, Pa.: Communication Materials Centre, 1974. -159-Smith, B.O., and Meux, M.O. A gtudy of the l o g i c of  logic of teaching. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1962. Smith, B.O., Meux, M., Coombs, J., Nuthall, G., and Precians, R. A study of the strategies of teaching. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Bureau of Educational Research, University of I l l i n o i s , 1967. Smith, J.P. The development of a classroom observation instrument relevant to the Earth Science Curriculum Project. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Standford University, 1969 . Smith, J.P. The development of a classroom observation instrument relevant to the Earth Science Curriculum Project. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1971, 8, 231-235. Snider, R.M. A project to study the nature of e f f e c t i v e  physics teaching. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED003 826, 1965. Tamir, P. The role of the laboratory i n science  teaching (Teaching Report No. 10 - Iowa Un i v e r s i t y ) . ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED135 606, 1976. Tamir, P. How are the laboratories used? Journal of  Research i n Science Teaching, 1977, 14(4), 311-316. Tisher, R., and Power, C.N. The e f f e c t s of classroom  a c t i v i t i e s , p u p i l perception and educational values  where self-paced c u r r i c u l a are used. (Report of AACRDE Proj e c t ) . Monash University, 1975. Urbach, F.D. A study of recurring patterns of teaching. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , The University of Nebraska, 1966. Welch, W.W., and P e l l a , M.O. The development of an instrument for inventoring knowledge of the process of science. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1968, 5(1), 64. Wish, P.A., Shannon, H.A., and Wasik, J.L. A report  on an instrument for observing classroom science  behaviour i n the elementary school. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED115 502, 1975. Withall, J . The development of a technique for the measurement of social-emotional climate i n classrooms. Journal of Experimental Education, 1949, r7, 347-361. -160-Wolfson, M.L. A consideration of d i r e c t and i n -d i r e c t teaching styles with respect to achievement and retention of learning i n science classes. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1973, 10, 285-290. -161-APPENDIX A T H E M O D I F I E D C L A S S R O O M O B S E R V A T I O N I N S T R U M E N T DEVELOPING TEXT MATERIAL AO Teacher demonstrates the following behaviours r e l a t i v e to the nature of science A l Teacher distinguishes between fact and theory 1.00 (C) A2 Teacher stresses the tentative nature of current knowledge i n science 1.10 (C) A3 Teacher emphasizes h i s t o r i c a l de-velopment of knowledge i n science 1.75 (C) A4 Teacher explains how information i s obtained i n science 1.75 (C) A5 Teacher i d e n t i f i e d major unsolved problems i n science 1.50 (C) BO Teacher questions r e l a t i v e to student processes B l Teacher asks students to explain why (causality) some phenomenon occurred 1.10 (C) B2 Teacher asks students to speculate about the occurrence of future or past phenomena 1.10 (C) B3 Teacher asks students to define new words used i n text 2.00 (N) CO Teacher response to student quesitons CI Teacher refers student questions back to student 1.83 (N) C2 Teacher answers student question with an analogy 1.75 (N) C3 Teacher responds to student question with, "I don't know but w i l l f i n d the answer for you". 1.75 (N) -162-C4 Teacher gives d i r e c t answer to student question 2.00 (N) C5 Teacher asks students to fi n d out the answer (N) DO Student process statements Dl Student explains why (causality) some phenomenon has occurred 1.10 (C) D2 Student defines new words used i n text 1.83 (N) D3 Student names objects or structures 2.00 (N) D4 Student c l a s s i f i e s objects or structures 1.83 (N) D5 Students observe objects or structures 1.25 (C) D6 Student states hypothesis 1.25 (C) D7 Students use space/time relationships in explanation or description 1.00 (C) D8 Student relates newly introduced i n -formation to topic of discussion 1.00 (C) D9 Student i d e n t i f i e s problems for possible investigation 1.10 (C) PRE-LABORATORY E0 Teacher: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problem for investigation E l Teacher asks students to state problem to be investigated 1.10 (C) E2 Teacher asks students to state purpose of the investigation 1.00 (C) E3 Teacher asks students to relate investigation to previous work 1.00 (C) E4 Teacher states problem to be investigated 1.83 (N) E5 Teacher relates investigation to previous work 1.10 (C) E6 Teacher conducts demonstration relevant to investigation theme 1.50 (C) -163-E7 Teacher asks students to formulate hypothesis for experiment (C) E8 Teacher states hypothesis for investigation (C) E9 Teacher asks students to operationalize the variables i n the experiment (C) FO Teacher: Directions on Conduct of the Investigation F l Teacher demonstrates use of apparatus or equipment (C) F2 Teacher discusses potential d i f f i c u l t i e s i n lab procedure 1.25 (C) F3 Teacher explains how to make measurements 1.50 (C) F4 Teacher explains how to work mathematical problems 1.5 0 (C) F5 Teacher asks students to prepare a written report of the investiga-t i o n 1.10 (C) F6 Teacher makes statement about safety precautions 1.00 (C) GO Student: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of problem for Investigation Gl Student restates investigation theme described by teacher 1.83 (N) G2 Student states purpose of the investigation 1.10 (C) G3 Student relates investigation to previous work 1.00 (C) G4 Student states own problem for investigation 1.25 (C) G5 Student states hypothesis for investigation (C) G6 Students provide operational d e f i n i t i o n s for the variables i n the investigation (C) -164-HO Student: Directions on conduct of investigation Hi Students proceed with investigation without d i r e c t i o n from the teacher 1.50 (C) H2 Student reads aloud directions for investigation 2.17 (N) H3 Student requests c l a r i f i c a t i o n of lab directions 1.50 (C) L7ABORATORY 10 Teacher: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r i t i c a l aspects of the investigation 11 Teacher asks student to observe some object or phenomenon 1.10 (C) 12 Teacher asks student to describe some object or phenomenon 1.5 0 (C) 13 Teacher asks student to explain why (causality) or how (mechanics) some phenomenon occurred 1.50 (C) 14 Teacher explains why (Causality) or how (mechanics) some phenomenon occurred 1.00 (C) JO Teacher: Response to student questions about investigation procedure J l Teacher responds to student question about investigation procedure by suggesting a process for answering question 1.75 (N) J2 Teacher answers student question about investigation procedure with an - . v analogy - 1.75 (N) J3 Teacher refers student questions about investigation procedure back to student 1.25 (C) J4 Teacher gives d i r e c t answer to student question about i n v e s t i -gation 1.75 (N) J5 Teacher performs part of investiga-tion for student i n response to question about procedure 2.00 (N) -165-KO Teacher: Evaluation K l Teacher grades students on lab procedure as they work 1.10 (C) K2 Teacher asks leading questions to evaluate student work 1.10 (C) K3 Teacher moves from station to station 1.00 (C) L0 Student: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of c r i t i c a l aspects of the investigation L l Students make own observations 1.00 (C) L2 Student asks teacher for help with investigation procedure 1.90 (N) L3 Students prepare a written report of the d e t a i l s and res u l t s of the investigation 1.10 (C) POSTLABORATORY DISCUSSION M0 Teacher: Data reduction Ml Teacher asks students to graph or otherwise organize data , 1.00 (C) M2 Teacher works mathematical problems for students 2.00 (N) NO Teacher: Interpretation of results of investigation Nl Teacher asks students to compare res u l t s among themselves 1.00 (C) N2 Teacher asks for divergent interpretations of r e s u l t s 1.00 (C) N3 Teacher asks students to i d e n t i f y r e g u l a r i t i e s i n data 1.00 (C) N4 Teacher asks students to i d e n t i f y sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y in the data 1.00 (C) N5 Teacher asks students to state conclusions 1.10 (C) -166-N6 Teacher asks student to support con-clusions with evidence from i n -vestigation 1-00 (C) N7 Teacher asks student tO relate conclusions to past re s u l t s 1.00 (C) N8 Teacher asks student to make predictions from re s u l t s 1.00 (C) N9 Teacher asks students to propose further investigation suggested by re s u l t s 1.10 (C) N10 Teacher i d e n t i f i e s sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y i n data 1.90 (N) 00 Student: Data reduction 01 Students graph or otherwise organize data 1.10 (C) 02 Student asks i f re s u l t s are correct 2.17 (N) P0 Student: Interpretation of r e s u l t s of investigation PI Students compare res u l t s with others 1.10 (C) P2 Students discuss divergent i n t e r -pretations of r e s u l t s 1.10 (C) P3 Student i d e n t i f i e s r e g u l a r i t i e s i n data 1.10 (C) P4 Student i d e n t i f i e s sources of error or v a r i a b i l i t y i n the data 1.10 (C) P5 Student states conclusions 1.25 (C) P6 Student supports conclusions with evidence from the investigation 1.10 (C) P7 Student relates conclusions to past r e s u l t s (No rating considered con-si s t e n t by author) (C) -167-p8 Student makes prediction from results 1.10 (C) P9 Student proposes investigation suggested by re s u l t s 1.10 (C) P10 Student asks teacher i f con-clusions are correct 2.17 (N) P l l Student asks teacher what conclusions should be deduced 2.00 (N) P12 Students try to reach con-sensus on interpretation of results 1.25 (C) -168-APPENDIX B SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR RECORDING BEHAVIOURS 1. F i l l i n the required information (teacher's name, class period, data, etc.) at the top of each page of the observation instrument. 2. The observation of a behaviour w i l l be recorded by a slash placed i n the series of boxes at the r i g h t of the item. Place only one slash i n each box. When a l l the recording spaces for any one item have been f i l l e d , record subsequent behaviours by crossing the e x i s t i n g slashes with another slash. Use a second sheet only when t h i s operation has been completed. 3. Record the occurrence of a behaviour only i f i t occurs within the si t u a t i o n , e.g. laboratory, post-lab discussion, i n which i t i s l i s t e d . 4 . Ignore behaviours having to do s t r i c t l y with classroom management or other forms of administrative a c t i v i t y . 5. Record a p a r t i c u l a r behaviour each time i t i s observed except i n the following case: A. Teacher or student repeats the same statement or question (or only s l i g h t l y reworded versions thereof) without the occurrence of intervening statements or questions by either teacher or student. In the event that exception A occurs, record that p a r t i c u l a r behaviour only the f i r s t time that i t i s observed i n the uninterrupted sequence. 6. Attention i s c a l l e d to the special nature of items K l , K3, LI, and L3 of the Laboratory a c t i v i t y . Each of these four behaviours may consume a considerable amount of time i n i t s demonstration; therefore, the observer w i l l record the occurrence of each of these behaviours only i f i t i s the f i r s t time that the behaviour i s observed within the laboratory period. Record these items by putting a c i r c l e around t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers. 7. Record demonstrations c a r r i e d out by the teacher during the laboratory period as part of the laboratory period. -169-8. Record demonstrations which take the whole of a class period under Laboratory setting. I f the students do the investigation a f t e r teacher demonstration use the pre-lab setting to record the teacher's demonstration. 9. Use counter on tape to signal change of set t i n g . 10. The recording procedure i s the same when the class i s working i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n small groups as i t i s when the class i s taught as a large group. The only difference i s i n the numerical size of the reference group. 11. More than one behaviour may be demonstrated i n a teacher or student discourse. When th i s occurs record each behaviour separately, recording as many i d e n t i f i a b l e behaviours as possible (in these instances recordings w i l l have to be made quickly. For example, a student statement describing why some phenomenon occurred may also involve a s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . In t h i s case observer w i l l record the occurrence of both an "explains why" and a "space/time" type of student behaviour 12. The observer (or coder) i s cautioned not to expect to record a subsequent student behaviour each time he records a teacher behaviour. Nor should the observer (or coder) expect each student behaviour to be pre-ceded by a relevant teacher behaviour. 13. Do not mark i n the t o t a l s column. APPENDIX C OBJECTIVES FOR SCIENCE TEACHING The 10 items below cover the possible i n s t r u c t i o n a l objectives which a science teacher might choose for a pa r t i c u l a r lesson. Please indicate which of the ob-jectives below are part of your plan for the coming lesson, and the emphasis you intend to give them. HIGH LOW NOT EMPHASIS EMPHASIS PRESENT E.C. STUDENTS SHOULD LAUGH x 1. Students should"learn s p e c i f i c course content. 2. Student should observe and measure some phenomenon. 3. Students should i d e n t i f y a problem and/or seek a solution. 4. Students should interpret data and/or formulate hypotheses. 5. Students should apply s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and methods to other problem areas. 6. Students should use theoretical models to explain concepts e.g. kinetic theory of gases 7. Students should acquire s p e c i f i c science-related manual s k i l l s e.g. weighing. 8. Students should develop their interests and attitudes towards science e.g. acceptance of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry as a way of thought. 9. Students should become aware of the technological applications of science 10. Students should recognize the philosophical limitations and h i s t o r i c a l background of science. -171-APPENDIX D I N T E R V I E W S C H E D U L E 1) Educational q u a l i f i c a t i o n 2) Number of years of Science Teaching exDerience 3) Grade l e v e l of class 4) In terms of other students i n the same l e v e l you have taught, how would you characterize the students i n th i s class? 5) In general, when you teach science how much emphasis would you give to the following objectives? (attached) 6) How would you characterize the students i n terms of the following: (i) P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n cla s s : Above average • Average Below average ( i i ) Asking questions i n c l a s s : Above average Average-Below average ( i i i ) Contribute u n s o l i c i t e d ideas i n cla s s : Above average Average Below average (iv) Respond to teacher's questions i n cla s s : Above average • Average Below average -172-(v) Do assignments given to them: Always Usually Not at a l l (vi) Hardworking: Above average Average Below average (vii) Academic status: Above average Average Below average 7) Would you say the students enjoy doing science' 8) Would you say they enjoy carrying out a c t i v i t i e s such as experiments i n class? 9) In general, do you have: i) about the r i g h t amount of assistance i n setting up labs? i i ) too l i t t l e assistance? i i i ) more than enough assistance? 10) In general, when you cover topics i n the course do you f e e l you have: i) about the r i g h t amount of time? i i ) too l i t t l e time? i i i ) more than enough time?_ -173-APPENDIX E G U I D I N G F O R M 1. What type of setting i s occurring? 2. Is the teacher adhering to the objectives checked i n the l i s t ? 3. Has part of the lesson been treated i n a previous class? 4. Are materials adequate for student's experiments? 5. Are the materials too delicate for student's use? 6. Does the topic lend i t s e l f e a s i l y to the processes and/or assumptions of science? 7. Size of c l a s s . 8. What i s the topic for the lesson? 9. Is the teacher given any assistance i n preparing for a laboratory class? 10. Is there anything to indicate whether or not students have done assignments given to them? 11. Do students contribute u n s o l i c i t e d ideas? 12. Record other behaviours relevant to nature of science but not present i n instrument. 13. Use counter on tape to signal change of setting. 14. Record non-verbal items —D5; E6, F l , HI, J5, K l , K3, LI, L3; M2, 01, PI, P2; i n f i e l d notes. 15. C i r c l e non-frequency items — K l , K3, L l and L3 in the laboratory setting when they are observed. 16. I f i t ' s a post Lab only go around to see i f students have organised data or examine the students' lab report co l l e c t e d by the teacher. 17. Record student responses and questions which may be inaudible on the tape. GRADE LEVEL: Teacher: Date: APPENDIX F DEVELOPING TEXT MATERIAL Observer: Class Period: DURATION School: TEACHER Tot AO (Nat of S) A l T dst btw f a c t & thry A2 T s t r tent nat of knldge i n S A3 T emp h i s t dev of knldge i n S A4 T exp hw i n f o i s obt i n S A5 T ident unslvd prob i n S | BO (T Ques Rel to S Proc) I B l T aks S to exp why sm phen occd B2 T aks S to spec abt f u t or pst phen B3 T aks S to def nw wds i n t x t 1 CO (Resp to S Ques) I CI T r e f S ques bk to S C2 T ans S ques w anlgy C3 T resp S ques w "I dn't knw" C4 T gvs d i r ans to S ques C5 T aks S to fd out ans I— | STUDENT Tct DO (S Proc St) Dl S exp why sm phen occd D2 S def nw wds usd i n t x t D3 S nam obn or s t r D4 S c l s f y obj or s t r D5 S obs obj or s t r D6 S st hyp D7 S use S/T r e l i n exp'n or des'n D8 S r e l nw i n f o to tpc of d i s c D9 S ident prob f poss i n v e s t GRADE LEVEL: PRE"LABORATORY DURATION: Teacher: Date: Observer: Class Period: School: TEACHER EO (Ident of Prob f invest) E l T aks S to s t prob to be invest E2 T aks S to s t pur of inves t E3 T aks S to r e l i n v e s t pre wk E4 T s t prob to be in v e s t E5 T r e l i n v e s t to pre wk E6 condt dem r e l to inves t thme E7 T aks S to form hyp f er.pt E8 T s t hyp f inves t E9 T aks S to op vav hyp FO (Dir on Condt of Invest) F l T demon use of app or equip F2 T d i s c p o t ' l d i f f i n lab pro F3 T exp hw to mk meas F4 T exp hw to wk math prob F5 T aks S to prep wrt rep of invest F6 T mk s t abt saf prec STUDENT Tot GO (Ident of Prob f Invest) Gl S r e s t s i n v e s t thme des by T G2 S s t purp of i n v e s t G3 S r e l inve s t to pre wk G4 S s t own prob f in v e s t G5 S s t hyp f inves t G6 S pr op def f var i n sty HO (Dir on Condt of Invest) HI S pro w inves t w/o d i r f r T H2 S rd aloud d i r f in v e s t H3 S req c l a r of lab d i r — L I l l GRADE LEVEL: L A B O R A T O R Y DURATION: Teacher: Date: Observer: . Class Period: School: Time: TEACHER 10 (Ident C r i t Asp of Invest) 11 T aks S to obs sm obj or phen 12 T aks S to des sm obj or phen 13 T aks S to exp why or hw sm phen occd 14 T exp why or hw sm phen occd JO (Resp to S Ques Abt Invest Proc) J l T resp to S ques w pro f ans ques J2 T ans S ques abt inve s t proc w anlgv J3 T r e f ques abt invest proc bk to S J4 T gvs d i r ans abt i n v e s t proc J5 T per pt of inve s t f S i n res to ques K0 (Eval) K l T grds S on lab proc K2 T aks ldg ques to eval wk K3 T mvs f r s t a - t - s t a STUDENT L0 (Ident C r i t Asp of Invest) ! L i S mk own obs L2 S aks Tf hip w i n v e s t proc L3 S prep wrt rep of i n v e s t 1 GRADE LEVEL: Teacher: Date: IV POST-LAB DISCUSSION Observer: Class Period: School: DURATION: Time: TEACHER MO (Dat Red) Ml T aks S to gr or othrw org dat M2 T wks math prob f S . i NO (Interp of Res of Invest) Nl T aks S to comp res amq selv N2 T aks f d i v i n t e r p of res j N3 T aks S to ident reg i n dat il N4 T aks S ident sor or er/var i n dat 1 N5 T aks S to st concl ! • N6 T aks S sun concl w evid f r invest N7 T aks S to r e l concl to pst res N8 T aks S to mk pred f r res N9 T aks S to prop inve s t sug by res N10 T ident sor of er/var i n dat J I STUDENT Tot OO (Dat Red) T i 01 S gr or othrw org dat 02 S aks T i f res are cor ! PO (Interp of Res of Invest) I PI S comp res amg selv i P2 S d i s c d i v i n t e r p of res I P3 S ident reg i n dat P4 S ident sor of er/var i n dat P5 S s t concl P6 S sup concl w evid f r invest i l_ . VI S r e l concl to pst res 1 1 P8 3 mk pred f r o dat 1 j I P9 S prop invest sug by res I i j P10 S aks i f concl are cor i It II P l l 3 t r y rech cons on i n t e r o res 1 f 1 I P12 S aks T Wh Concl sh be ded 1 i f"1 ! 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055281/manifest

Comment

Related Items