Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Investigation of the goals of the laboratory programme in secondary school chemistry courses in British… Griffiths, Stephen John 1974

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1974_A8 G75.pdf [ 6.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093125.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093125-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093125-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093125-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093125-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093125-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093125-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093125-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093125.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE GOALS OF THE LABORATORY PROGRAMME IN SECONDARY SCHOOL CHEMISTRY COURSES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by STEPHEN JOHN GRIFFITHS B.Sc.(Wales), M.Sc.(M.U.N.) A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of Science Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 1974 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date If McucL I97¥ i i Abstract In 1965 and 1966 a modified version of the Chem Study programme was introduced into Grades 11 and 12 i n B r i t i s h Columbia secondary schools, to replace Chem 90 and Chem 91, which were based on D u l l , Brookes and Metcalfe's text, Modern Chemistry. As a r e s u l t of t h i s change, a t r a d i t i o n a l , text-book centred course was replaced by a contemporary laboratory-centred course. In Chem Study, laboratory experience replaces the text as the primary source of information and the information gathered i n the laboratory i s used as the basis f o r the development of t h e o r e t i c a l concepts. I t i s considered most important by Chem Study that the teacher recognises the goals of the labora-tory programme and that he works towards these goals i n p r a c t i c e . In ad-d i t i o n , i t i s necessary f o r both teacher and student to recognise the re-lationsh i p e x i s t i n g between laboratory observations and the development of theory i f the major goals of the course are to be r e a l i s e d . This thesis describes an attempt to determine whether B r i t i s h Columbia secondary school chemistry teachers are indeed aware of the goals of the laboratory programme and whether they and t h e i r students think these goals are being achieved. Q-analysis procedures and techniques were used to gather and analyse the data. Three groups of interested people, namely, s p e c i a l i s t s , chemistry teachers and students were requested to describe the goals of the laboratory programme by rank-ordering a comprehensive l i s t of items, each describing one goal of laboratory work. The items, which were gathered from a wide v a r i e t y of sources, were arranged by each subject into a predetermined (modified normal) d i s t r i b u t i o n pattern. The item scores f o r each subject were correlated and the c o r r e l a t i o n matrix factor analysed. Each fa c t o r i i i i d e n t i f i e d by the computer programme represented a group of persons with s i m i l a r viewpoints. In addition a hierarchy of item acceptance was estab-lished for each f a c t o r on the basis of item z-scores. This enabled the viewpoint of each f a c t o r and the differences between viewpoints to be described. It has been shown that teachers are aware of the goals of the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme and that they believe that they work towards these goals i n p r a c t i c e . However, students perceive the p r i o r i t i e s of the goals of the laboratory course to be d i f f e r e n t from those described by the teacher. The differences that e x i s t between the viewpoints of teachers and students are i n part differences i n emphasis and i n part differences i n substance. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L i s t of Tables v l i L i s t of Figures ... v i i i 0 Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Study 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem 1 1.3 Research Hypotheses 3 1.4 Rationale for the Study 4 1.5 Descriptions of Terms Used 6 1.51 Role of the Laboratory i n T r a d i t i o n a l Courses i n Chemistry 6 1.52 The Role of Laboratory Work i n the Chem Study Programme 10 1.53 The Goals of the Laboratory 10 1.54 The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of a Factor 10 1.6 Experimental Design 11 1.61 Selection of Subjects 11 1.62 Method of Research Used 11 1.63 Method of C o l l e c t i n g Data 12 1.64 Method of Analysis 12 1.65 Assumptions Made 12 1.7 Limitations of the Study 13 V Chapter Page 2. Analysis of the Chem Study Course and the Modifications Introduced i n the B r i t i s h Colubmia Secondary School Curriculum 2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 The Nature of the Chem Study Course 14 2.21 The Course De-emphasises the Learning of Descriptive or Factual Chemistry .. '. 15 2.22 The Emphasis on Laboratory Experiments 16 2.23 The Emphasis on Teaching Contemporary Ideas i n Chemistry 17 2.24 The Use of Modern The o r e t i c a l Models to Tie Together the Chemical Information the Student Observes 18 2.3 Modification of the Chem Study Course i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary School Chemistry Programme 19 2.4 Phi l o s o p h i c a l Context of the Chem Study Course 20 2.5 Psychological Context of Chem Study , 22 2.6 S p e c i f i c Goals of the Laboratory 24 3. Method of Study 3.1 Introduction 27 3.2 Selection of the Subjects 27 3.3 Selection of the Items f o r the Q-sort 28 3.4 The Q-sorts 29 3.5 The Structured Interview 30 3.6 Administration of the Q-sorts and Structured Interviews 30 3.7 Scoring the Items 30 3.8 Analysis of the Data 31 v i Chapter Page 4. Results and Conclusions 4.1 Introduction 34 4.2 Results of Factor Analysis 34 4.3 Description of the Viewpoints 47 4.31 Description of F l Viewpoint - The Chem Study Viewpoint 47 4.32 Description of the F2 Viewpoint - The Student Viewpoint 48 4.33 Description of F3 Viewpoint - The T r a d i t i o n a l Viewpoint 49 4.4 Information from Interviews 50 4.5 Agreements and Disagreement Between the Viewpoints .... 51 4.6 Conclusions 55 4.7 Suggestions for Further Research 56 Bibliography 57 Appendix 1 60 Appendix II 64 Appendix III 66 v i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page I D i s t r i b u t i o n of Items i n Q-sort and Item Scores 32 II Rotated Factor Structure of Four Factors Corresponding to the Four Largest Values of the Latent Roots 35 III Factor Array of Item z-scores 39 IV D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Most Important (Positive) Items f o r r F l 41 V D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Least Important (Negative) Items for F l 42 VI D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Most Important (Positive) Items fo r F2 43 VII D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Least Important (Negative) Items for F2 44 VIII D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Most Important (Positive) Items for F3 45 IX D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Least Important (Negative) Items fo r F3 46 X Experience and Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Teachers, and t h e i r D i s t r i b u t i o n between the Factors 52 v i i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Agreement and Disagreement Between the Viewpoints 54 i x Acknowledgement The author wishes to express h i s gratitude to the following: h i s Advisory Committee, co n s i s t i n g of Dr. W.B. Boldt, Mr. W. Krayenhoff and Dr. R. Bentley, f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l guidance and suggestions. the D i r e c t o r of E.R.I.B.C., for allowing the author to contact teachers through h i s Regional Research Associates. the P r i n c i p a l s of Schools and School D i s t r i c t Supervisors f o r permitting the author to work i n the schools. the teachers and students who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the pr o j e c t . Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Study Three important groups can be expected to have an influence on the out-come of the laboratory programme i n any chemistry course. They are teachers, students and curriculum wr i t e r s . Each group can be expected to have a par-t i c u l a r focus of i n t e r e s t and, possibly, d i f f e r e n t viewpoints concerning the intended learning outcomes of the laboratory programme. These differences of opinion may create an educational problem i f the achievement of c e r t a i n goals, intended by the curriculum w r i t e r s , i s desired. If teachers, students and curriculum writers do not share the same views, those intended goals are not l i k e l y to be achieved. There i s some evidence that t h i s , i n f a c t , may be the case. The purpose of the present study i s to determine whether B r i t i s h Columbia secondary school teachers are aware of the goals of the laboratory a c t i v i t i e s of the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study Programme and whether they and t h e i r students perceive these goals as being achieved i n classroom p r a c t i c e . 1.2 Statement of the Problem Four s p e c i f i c problems were investigated. 1.21 What are the intended goals of the laboratory a c t i v i t i e s i n the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study Programme as interpreted by s p e c i a l i s t s i n chemistry teaching? Statements and suggestions concerning the intended goals of the labora-tory a c t i v i t i e s are incorporated i n the Chem Study l i t e r a t u r e and i n the P r o v i n c i a l curriculum guides (4:5). A d e f i n i t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these goals 2 was obtained by s o l i c i t i n g the opinions of a panel of s p e c i a l i s t s . This panel was composed of Univ e r s i t y Science Education professors i n B r i t i s h Columbia who were very f a m i l i a r with the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study course. The opinions thus obtained were used as a basis f o r comparing the opinions of other groups. 1.22 Do teachers of the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme perceive the i n -tended goals of the laboratory i n the same way as curriculum s p e c i a l i s t s i n th i s area? When a teacher i s faced with the task of teaching a ready-made course, such as the Chemical Bond Approach or Chem Study, he must f i r s t understand what i t i s the course i s attempting to accomplish and how i t sets about achieving i t s end. In other words, he must be concerned with i n t e r p r e t i n g the philosophy of the course and i d e n t i f y i n g i t s p r i o r i t i e s . In the sciences, and i n chemistry i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h i s requires a clear understanding of the re l a t i o n s h i p between laboratory work and theory. F a i l u r e to recognise t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme and to apply i t i n the classroom would r e s u l t i n f a i l u r e to a t t a i n the major goals of Chem Study, for the programme i s at le a s t as much concerned with method as i t i s with content. Indeed, i t would be possible to change the content without upsetting the basic p h i l o s o p h i c a l pattern, but a change i n the method of presenting the content would transgress the ph i l o s o p h i c a l guidelines of the course and such a course could no longer be t r u l y c a l l e d Chem Study. 1.23 In the opinion of the teachers using the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme, are they working towards the intended goals of the laboratory i n practice? In h i s a p p l i c a t i o n of the laboratory materials i n the classroom, the 3 teacher may be strongly influenced by factors other than h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the philosophy of the course and i t s p r i o r i t i e s . He may consider, f o r example, the nature of the public examinations, h i s own ideas concerning the ro l e of laboratory work or h i s view of the p a r t i c u l a r needs of h i s students to be more important. Consequently the goals of the laboratory programme taught i n a school may not be consistent with the teacher's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the intended goals of the laboratory programme. 1.24 In the opinion of the students, are the intended goals of the laboratory being achieved? One important reason f o r teaching chemistry i s to make students aware of the nature of the subject. The Chem Study programme i s p a r t i c u l a r l y con-cerned with making students aware of the r o l e which experimental work plays i n the development of concepts i n chemistry. What the student perceives to be the ro l e of the laboratory a c t i v i t i e s i n the course i s therefore an important factor i n assessing i t s success or f a i l u r e . 1.3 Research Hypotheses The basic hypotheses of t h i s study are as follows: 1.31 Teachers using the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme w i l l not per-ceive the intended goals of the laboratory i n a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t way from curriculum s p e c i a l i s t s . 1.32 There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between what teachers per-ceive to be the intended goals of the laboratory and t h e i r perception of goals they are working towards i n p r a c t i c e . 1.33 There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the opinions of students and the opinions of teachers with respect to the goals of the laboratory programme being achieved i n p r a c t i c e . 4 1.4 Rationale f o r the Study Growing disenchantment with the t r a d i t i o n a l text-book approach to the teaching of science reached a climax i n the U.S.A. i n the years immediately following the launching of Sputnik i n 1956. This h i s t o r i c event stimulated action which led to the reassessment of science teaching methods and the con-tent of science courses, e s p e c i a l l y at the high school l e v e l , and to the pro-duction of new courses i n physics (PSSC), chemistry (CBA, Chem Study) and biology (BSCS). These new courses a l l emphasised the experimental nature of science and the importance of laboratory experience i n the education of science students. In 1964 the Chemistry Committee of the B r i t i s h Columbia Department of Education Curriculum D i v i s i o n recommended to the Director of Curriculum that a somewhat modified form of the Chem Study programme be adopted f o r the Grade 11 and Grade 12 chemistry courses i n the Province, to replace the previous course based on the text Modern Chemistry by D u l l , Brookes and Metcalfe. This recommendation was accepted and the modified Chem Study course was pre-scribed f o r Grade 11 chemistry i n 1965 and for both Grades 11 and 12 i n 1966. The modifications are discussed i n Section 2.3. The decision to adopt the Chem Study approach presented chemistry teachers of the Province with a formidable task. To make the administrative decision e f f e c t i v e i n the classroom, chemistry teachers were required to reorient t h e i r approach from a t r a d i t i o n a l , text-book centred course which emphasised f a c t u a l knowledge, to a laboratory-based course which emphasizes the development and the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l models. In addition they had to f a m i l i a r i s e themselves with a considerable amount of new, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e o r e t i c a l , subject matter. 5 There has been l i t t l e work undertaken to assess the e f f e c t s of the Chem Study programme on the teaching of chemistry. Heath and S t i c k e l l (11:45-46) compared students i n newer chemistry programmes (CBA and Chem Study) with students i n t r a d i t i o n a l programmes. They established that students i n the newer programmes performed better i n tests designed for these programmes than did the control groups and that the control groups achieved higher scores on tests designed for t r a d i t i o n a l courses. They argued that these r e s u l t s showed that the content of the new courses was undoubtedly d i f f e r e n t from that of the t r a d i t i o n a l courses. Rainey (22:539-544) taught two groups of high school chemistry classes, using a conventional approach for one of the groups and the Chem Study course for the other. His r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r to those of Heath and S t i c k e l l ; the Chem Study group achieved higher scores on the Chem Study test and the con-ventional group achieved higher on an ACS-NSTA ( t r a d i t i o n a l ) t e s t . He also noted that students i n conventional classes c o n s i s t e n t l y produced better write-ups of experiments but that those i n the Chem Study group seemed to enjoy the laboratory work more. Hein (12:245-249) surveyed a l l Missouri chemistry teachers i n an attempt to determine the e f f e c t s of the new chemistry courses (Chem Study, CBA) on teaching p r a c t i c e . He found that teachers of the new courses devoted a greater proportion of class time to laboratory work and placed a greater em-phasis on 'open-ended' experiments, on the discovery of p r i n c i p l e s from ex-perimental data and on quantitative laboratory work. About one h a l f (53.3%) of the teachers of the newer chemistry programmes employed 'open-ended' ex-periments - a rather low f i g u r e , because both courses claim to have open-ended experiments. This r e s u l t may be an i n d i c a t i o n that the laboratory a c t i v i t i e s for the courses were not being used as intended or i t may be due to a mis-understanding of the term 'open-ended', which i s not c l e a r l y defined i n the paper. There has been no study of the e f f e c t s of introducing the modified Chem Study programme on teaching p r a c t i c e i n B r i t i s h Columbia secondary school chemistry classes. In view of the implications of the decision to adopt Chem Study as the basis of the P r o v i n c i a l Chemistry programme for Grades 11 and 12, e s p e c i a l l y with respect to i t s e f f e c t upon teaching methods, and i n view of the s c a r c i t y of information i n t h i s area i n the l i t e r a t u r e , i t would appear that a study of the s i t u a t i o n i n the secondary schools of B r i t i s h Columbia i s warranted. 1.5 Descriptions of Terms Used 1.51 Role of the Laboratory i n T r a d i t i o n a l Courses In Chemistry Courses based on. D u l l , Brookes and Metcalfe's text have been l a b e l l e d " t r a d i t i o n a l " (Walker, 25:603-609; Bennett, 2:823-830) or "conventional" (Rainey, 22:539-544) when compared with contemporary programmes, such as Chem Study, Chemical Bond Approach and N u f f i e l d Chemistry. T r a d i t i o n a l courses are characterised by 1. t h e i r emphasis on using the text-book to teach f a c t u a l knowledge, 2. t h e i r use of the laboratory to i l l u s t r a t e f a c t s described i n the text, 3. t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l approach, and 4. t h e i r lack of continuity. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are discussed below i n more d e t a i l . 7 1.511 Emphasis on using the Text-book to Teach Facts T r a d i t i o n a l courses are centered on the text-book as the source of knowledge to the extent that they "can be, and are, taught without a labor-atory." (Walker, 25:603-609) Questions at the end of each chapter demand r e c a l l of d e f i n i t i o n s , statements and descriptions used i n the text. For example, i n D u l l , Brookes and Metcalfe's text, (9:84, 101) the terms "oxidation" and "combustion" are defined and, at the end of the chapter, the student i s asked to d i s t i n g u i s h between the two terms. The authors stress the importance of t h i s aspect of the work i n the preface to the text ( D u l l , 9:v, v i ) : Chemical words and terms are defined and pronounced i n a short glossary at the beginning of each chapter and again, when the word or term appears i n the text, i t i s printed i n boldface i t a l i c s and defined. These words and terms are also l i s t e d at the end of each chapter i n the material e n t i t l e d "Test Yourself on these Terms". . . . At the end of each unit there appears two sets of more d i f f i c u l t exercises. . . . The former contains an abundance of d r i l l m aterial. . . . 1.512 Use of the Laboratory to I l l u s t r a t e Facts Described i n the Text Rainey (22:539-544) taught two groups of chemistry students using a "conventional" approach and two other groups using the Chem Study materials and compared the r e s u l t s . His "conventional" approach u t i l i s e d laboratory work i n a manner t y p i c a l of t r a d i t i o n a l courses: "text assignments and class r e c i t a t i o n - d i s c u s s i o n preceded a l l laboratory work. A l l laboratory work was an outgrowth from class material . . .". In t r a d i t i o n a l courses, laboratory work usually consisted of "preparing" X, "showing the properties of" Y or "proving" Z and, to t h i s end, the laboratory manuals provided r e c i p e - l i k e i n s t r u c t i o n s on procedure. 8 Laboratory work was c l e a r l y of secondary importance and t y p i c a l l y be-tween ten and twenty experiments were done i n a year. Rainey used eighteen experiments. In B r i t i s h Columbia a minimum of twenty experiments were s t i p -ulated for Chemistry 91, at l e a s t twelve of which were to be performed by the p u p i l . Of these experiments ten were s p e c i f i e d and ten optional. The t i t l e s of the s p e c i f i e d experiments l i s t e d below are t y p i c a l of those of laboratory experiments i n t r a d i t i o n a l chemistry courses: Experiment 23* Preparation of insoluble s a l t s Experiment 29* Sulphuric acid Experiment (not i n laboratory manual) Show the e f f e c t s of various factors on the speed of chemical change (* the experiment numbers r e f e r to the laboratory manual (Black, 3).) 1.513 H i s t o r i c a l Approach This approach gives r i s e to two features c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t r a d i t i o n a l text books: (a) The use of h i s t o r i c a l examples to i l l u s t r a t e the gradual develop-ment of modern ideas i n science. T y p i c a l of t h i s i s the discussion of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of elements which begins with Dobereiner's work (1917) i n which a r e l a t i o n s h i p between chemical properties and atomic weights was f i r s t recognised. This i s followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of Newland's Law of Octaves (1864) and Mendeleef's Pe r i o d i c Table i n which the idea of using atomic weights as the basis for the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of elements was further developed. F i n a l l y , the work of Mosely (1913) led to the experimental determination of atomic numbers and to t h e i r replacement of atomic weights as the basis of the p e r i o d i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of elements ( D u l l , 9:55-63). (b) The i n c l u s i o n of examples of i n d u s t r i a l processes, often described i n great d e t a i l and often obsolete before they were included i n the text. 9 The Lead Chamber process for the manufacture of s u l f u r i c a c i d i s an example of t h i s (Dull, 9:390). Frequently, d e t a i l e d diagrams of the apparatus are also included, as i n the de s c r i p t i o n of the Hooker C e l l f o r the preparation of chlorine ( D u l l , 9:362). 1.514 Lack of Continuity Walker (25:603-609) observes that i n D u l l , Brookes and Metcalfe's book, "the ideas, the f a c t s , etc. are presented as l i t t l e t i n y packets . . . e n t i t i e s unto themselves." This i s exemplified i n Unit 3 i n the text which consists of these four chapters: Chapter 7 Oxygen Chapter 8 Hydrogen Chapter 9 The Gas Laws Chapter 10 Water The discussion of the Gas Laws makes no reference to oxygen or hydrogen, even though they are the only gases studied up to that point i n the text. Neither are the Gas Laws mentioned i n the chapter on water which follows. The Gas Laws chapter i s quite i s o l a t e d and no attempt i s made to l i n k i t up to the rest of the uni t . In contrast with t r a d i t i o n a l chemistry courses, Chem Study r e j e c t s the h i s t o r i c a l approach and de-emphasises the learning of d e s c r i p t i v e chemistry. It stresses the r o l e of laboratory experimentation i n introducing modern theories of chemistry d i r e c t l y and uses the t h e o r e t i c a l models so developed to provide continuity and to t i e together p r a c t i c a l observations made by the students. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are discussed i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter 2. 10 1.52 The Role of Laboratory Work i n the Chem Study Programme The Chem Study programme i s unique i n the way i t proposes to use the laboratory f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes. M e r r i l l (18:69-73) states that "Chem Study uses the laboratory more and i t uses i t d i f f e r e n t l y . " Laboratory work sets the scene and provides the foundation f o r the whole course. Observations are made i n the laboratory and from these, t h e o r e t i c a l models are developed. The models are f i r s t applied d i r e c t l y to a l i m i t e d number of chemical problems and are then further a r t i c u l a t e d to a r r i v e at generalizations. Thus, the key to the successful implementation of the Chem Study programme i s i n i d e n t i f y i n g the r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s between laboratory experiment and chemical theory and i n using t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p as the basis of the teaching process. C a r e f u l l y chosen laboratory experiences are c r i t i c a l to the whole programme and t h e o r e t i c a l discussions a r i s e from these experiences. Theory i s not developed u n t i l the appropriate data are acquired by students, usually by means of laboratory experiments. In other words, relevant laboratory experience precedes t h e o r e t i c a l discussion. 1.53 The Goals of the Laboratory It i s possible that the laboratory be used i n a v a r i e t y of ways i n a chemistry course. For example, laboratory exercises may be intended to pro-vide concrete examples of theory, to develop i n v e s t i g a t i v e s k i l l s , to confirm predictions and/or to introduce phenomena to be discussed i n c l a s s . These and other general applications of laboratory work within the framework of the course are referred to as the goals of the laboratory. 1.54 The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of a Factor The analysis of the r e s u l t s of t h i s project has produced a number of fa c t o r s , representing groups of i n d i v i d u a l s with s i m i l a r viewpoints. Each 11 factor i s associated with a hypothetical viewpoint concerning the s i x t y statements i n the item sample used i n the study. The viewpoints of each fa c t o r were established by taking the twelve most favored (most p o s i t i v e ) and the twelve least favored (most negative) statements or items on the factor's ordered l i s t of items. These twenty-four items together constitute the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of the f a c t o r . 1.6 Experimental Design 1.61 Selection of Subjects Teachers from three major geographical areas of B r i t i s h Columbia were contacted and t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the project requested. A l l those who agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e made up the teacher sample. The teachers i n each school v i s i t e d also provided from one to s i x students for the student sample. Cur-riculum s p e c i a l i s t s from F a c u l t i e s of Education i n B r i t i s h Columbia U n i v e r s i -t i e s formed the sample of s p e c i a l i s t s i n the project. Altogether, three s p e c i a l i s t s , thirty-two teachers and f i f t y - t h r e e students were interviewed i n the project. 1.62 Method of Research Used The study u t i l i s e s Q-methodology and techniques to analyse and i d e n t i f y viewpoints with respect to the goals of laboratory work. The instrument f o r measuring i n d i v i d u a l perceptions of the goals of laboratory work was a Q-sort, which consisted of a deck of s i x t y cards, each card bearing a si n g l e unique item, or statement, describing one possible goal of laboratory work. Addi-t i o n a l information was c o l l e c t e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g teachers by means of structured interviews (Appendix I I ) . 12 1.63 Method of C o l l e c t i n g Data The researcher personally interviewed a l l subjects and supervised a l l Q-sorts. Each subject was presented with a stack of s i x t y s h u f f l e d item-cards and was instr u c t e d to sort these, on the basis of t h e i r order of importance, into a predetermined pattern of d i s t r i b u t i o n . Each item was scored and the item scores recorded. A f t e r completing the Q-sorts, teachers were interviewed and the data recorded on the questionnaire sheets (Appendix I I ) . 1.64 Method of Analysis A computer programme was prepared to analyse the data. F i r s t , a Pearson product-moment c o e f f i c i e n t c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was formed from the raw data. This matrix was f a c t o r analysed to y i e l d p r i n c i p a l axis f a c t o r s , which, i n turn, were subjected to a varimax r o t a t i o n . The rotated factors obtained represented groups of persons with s i m i l a r viewpoints. An item array of weighted responses was then determined f o r each f a c t o r and the item arrays converted to z-scores. The z-scores were then used to determine a hierarchy of item acceptance for each f a c t o r and the differences between factors i n order to provide the basis for d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g the factors from one another. 1.65 Assumptions Made Teachers were requested to do two Q-sorts of the items. The f i r s t (Q-sort 2) to express t h e i r perception of the intended goals of the labora-tory and the second (Q-sort 3) to express t h e i r perception of the goals of the laboratory programme as i t was applied to t h e i r own classrooms. These sorts were done consecutively and i t has been assumed that the sorting of items i n Q-sort 3 was not influenced by the sorting of items i n Q-sort 2. 13 1.7 Limitations of the Study The sampling procedure cannot be considered to have provided a random sample of teachers and students i n B r i t i s h Columbia. However, the samples obtained are such that, with caution, the r e s u l t s may be used as strong i n d i c a t o r s of the views of s p e c i a l i s t s , teachers and students i n the Province. Chapter 2 Analysis of the Chem Study Course and the Modifications Introduced  i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary School Curriculum 2.1 Introduction Chem Study and a number of other contemporary courses In high school chemistry, physics and biology were developed i n response to urgent demands by the s c i e n t i f i c community. Texts and courses i n science i n use p r i o r to 1956 evidently did not r e f l e c t the outlook and p r a c t i c e of modern science and i t was f e l t that t h i s deficiency could have a detrimental impact on s c i e n t i f i c and tec h n i c a l progress. Vast f i n a n c i a l resources were made a v a i l -able to the s c i e n t i f i c community to develop appropriate science programmes for the schools. Chem Study i s one course which emerged from t h i s era of curriculum reform. In Sections 2.2 and 2.3 re s p e c t i v e l y , the major features of the Chem Study programme and the modifications that were made i n adapting i t f o r use i n B r i t i s h Columbia secondary schools are discussed. 2.2 The Nature of the Chem Study Course The authors of Chem Study consider i t most important that the course should present chemistry to students i n such a way as to r e f l e c t the nature and processes of science: It (the course) should serve as a reasonable presentation of science for those who should s e r i o u s l y consider a pro-f e s s i o n a l future i n any s c i e n t i f i c f i e l d . (J.A. Campbell i n M e r r i l l and Ridgeway, 19:17) That the course should serve as a "reasonable presentation of science" 15 i s a key consideration. Other decisions concerning the nature and develop-ment of Chem Study follow, almost as a matter of course. F i r s t the " a c t i v i t i e s of science" are c a r e f u l l y defined and the pattern thus developed i s used as the model f or the development of the topics i n the course. The basic a c t i v i t i e s of science are given (Pimentel, 20:2) as: to accumulate information through observation, to organise t h i s information and to seek r e g u l a r i t i e s i n i t , to wonder why the r e g u l a r i t i e s e x i s t , to communicate the findings to others. The chemist, as a s c i e n t i s t , i s involved i n these a c t i v i t i e s i n those areas of science of i n t e r e s t to chemists. Four major features of the course make i t quite d i f f e r e n t from the t r a d i t i o n a l high school courses: 1. The course de-emphasises the learning of d e s c r i p t i v e or f a c t u a l chemistry. 2. It emphasises laboratory experimentation (Campbell, 7:51-62). 3. It emphasises the teaching of contemporary ideas i n chemistry (McClellan, 17:49). 4. It uses modern t h e r o e t i c a l models to t i e together the chemical i n f o r -mation that the student observes (Campbell, 7:51-62). These features are discussed i n more d e t a i l below. 2.21 The Course De-emphasises the Learning of Descriptive or Factual Chemistry Walker (25:603-609) describes Chem Study as a "thinking" course i n which the emphasis Is placed on ideas, with the fact s serving as the "v e h i c l e " f o r the ideas. Discussion i n the text centers on the development of t h e o r e t i c a l models and t h e i r scope, and questions at the end of the chapters test the students' understanding through applications to r e a l s i t u a t i o n s . Students 16 are required to use rather than r e c a l l information. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n the following two examples: Ql. I f a piece of copper metal i s dropped Into a s o l u t i o n containing Cr +3 ions, what w i l l happen? Explain using E°s. (The E° values are contained i n the text.) (Pimentel, 20:222) Q2. Knowing the o r b i t a l s carbon uses for bonding, use the p e r i o d i c table to p r e d i c t the formula of the chloride of s i l i c o n . What o r b i t a l s does s i l i c a use f o r bonding? (Pimentel, 20:298) 2.22 The Emphasis on Laboratory Experimentation A v a l i d p i c t u r e of chemistry must include d i r e c t laboratory experience (McClellan, 17:43). This quotation summarises s u c c i n c t l y the philosophy of the authors of Chem Study and t h e i r approach to chemistry r e f l e c t s t h i s philosophy. I t i s a course based on an experimental approach to chemistry, as advertised c l e a r l y i n the t i t l e of the text: "Chemistry - An Experimental Science." Campbell (7:51-62) expresses his reasons for t h i s approach i n the following words: The experimental approach seems highly desirable since chemistry i s a science which deals with things as w e l l as ideas, and i t has been rather w e l l established that students remember much longer what they see and p h y s i c a l l y manipulate . . . . " The whole course, then, i s centered on the laboratory. Results ob-tained by students i n the laboratory provide the basis for the development and discussion of chemical theory. Consequently, experiments have been care-f u l l y designed to provide the desired observations and students frequently receive d e t a i l e d i n s t r u c t i o n s to ensure that the " c o r r e c t " observations are made (Pode, 21:98-103). The laboratory experiments are c a r e f u l l y integrated into the programme to show the r e l a t i o n s h i p between p r a c t i c a l observations and the development and understanding of t h e o r e t i c a l models. 17 2.23 The Emphasis on Teaching Contemporary Ideas i n Chemistry It i s important to make the student keenly aware that he i s preparing himself to deal with the s c i e n t i f i c problems of todayy not those of Dalton's time (McClellan, 17:49). The development of topics i n " t r a d i t i o n a l " chemistry texts was along h i s t o r i c a l l i n e s . Discussions of the atomic theory, f o r example, evolved from a study of chemical changes and the properties and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of substances. These studies led to the establishment of weight r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Laws of Constant Composition, M u l t i p l e Proportions) which i n turn enabled Dalton to postulate the existence of atoms. Dalton's ideas about atoms were then applied to the study of gases and led to the recognition of the existence of molecules. The Chem Study authors have rejected t h i s approach i n favor of a more d i r e c t and less confusing route. They f i r s t postulated the existence of atoms on the basis of evidence from volume r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n gaseous reactions and then extended the concept to weight r e l a t i o n s h i p s and the properties of s o l i d s . The l o g i c of the development as i t appears i n Chem Study i s j u s t about the opposite of what appears i n the h i s t o r i c a l approach. The authors ignore h i s t o r i c a l chronology i n favor of a more d i r e c t approach made possible by today's knowledge. In the "Teacher's Guide" McClellan (17:77) j u s t i f i e s t h i s action i n these words: If i t i s intended only to c l a r i f y the l o g i c by which chemical evidence supports the atomic theory, there i s no o b l i g a t i o n to display the tortuous process by which the l o g i c was recog-nised... There i s no need to drag the student through h a l f a century of confusion that beclouded the acceptance and e f f e c -t i v e use of the theory. Indeed, i f one's i n t e r e s t i s to ensure that the student understands l o g i c , i t i s undesirable to r e l a t e l o g i c to chronology because i t accents d i f f i c u l t y . 18 This absence of the h i s t o r i c a l approach i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Chem Study course. One notable exception i s found i n Chapter 15 (Pimentel, 20: 252-273), which discusses electrons and the energy states of atoms. Another aspect of " t r a d i t i o n a l " courses s i g n i f i c a n t l y occupies a very minor r o l e i n Chem Study. I t i s the applications of chemistry i n industry. For example, te c h n i c a l descriptions of manufacturing processes are omitted. Such pro-cesses are con t i n u a l l y being replaced by updated and improved techniques and, as a r e s u l t , many of the descriptions i n " t r a d i t i o n a l " texts are ob-solete. The Lead Chamber Process f o r the manufacture of sulphuric acid i s a c l a s s i c example of t h i s . The same reaction i s discussed i n Chem Study but i n a quite d i f f e r e n t context, where i t provides an example of a gas volume c a l c u l a t i o n (Pimentel, 20:227). 2.24 The Use of Modern The o r e t i c a l Models to Tie Together the Chemical Information the Student Observes Science could not advance i f our overwhelming mass of know-ledge were not ordered with the aid of theories. (McClellan, 17:45) The o r i g i n and function of theory i n science i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d and emphasised throughout the course. Theories, or working models, are developed on the basis of d i r e c t experimental evidence and, once established, the models are applied to s i t u a t i o n s beyond the scope of the o r i g i n a l supportive data. Thus the theories are extended and the extensions j u s t i f i e d by further laboratory work. Theories, then, are used to organise knowledge i n the course. This approach i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the treatment of e q u i l i b r i a and re l a t e d t o p i c s . The concept of equilibrium (Pimentel, 20:142-162) i s developed on the basis of the reaction between carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, a 19 reaction the students had met e a r l i e r i n the course. Once established the p r i n c i p l e s of equilibrium are applied to a number of other systems, such as vapor pressure, s o l u b i l i t y and to other chemical phenomena. These examples lead to a gene r a l i s a t i o n of the observations, known as the Le Chatelier P r i n c i p l e . Equilibrium i s then discussed q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and the idea i s developed of the equilibrium state as a compromise between the states of minimum energy and maximum randomness. In the chapters which follow, the equilibrium concept i s used as the basis for the discussion of s o l u b i l i t y , s o l u t i o n and p r e c i p i t a t i o n (Pimentel, 20:163-178) and the d i s s o c i a t i o n of aqueous acids and bases (Pimentel, 20:179-198). In t h i s way, the e q u i l i b -rium state i s the u n i f y i n g theme l i n k i n g together a number of apparently diverse observations and seemingly unrelated concepts. The student has, i n these three chapters, been taken through the pro-cess of creating a t h e o r e t i c a l model and then using i t to organise and ex-tend h i s knowledge. This procedure i s the basis of s c i e n t i f i c progress. 2.3 Modifications of the Chem Study Course i n the B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary  School Chemistry Programme Chem Study forms the basis of the secondary school chemistry programme i n B r i t i s h Columbia, but i t was deemed necessary to make some r e l a t i v e l y small changes to make the course more s u i t a b l e for B r i t i s h Columbia students. The Introduction to the Chemistry 11 (Revised) Curriculum Guide (4:3) summarises these changes as follows: Since experience has shown that the Chem Study programme cannot be used to i t s f u l l e s t advantage i n a sing l e school year, i t has been adapted f o r the reorganised B r i t i s h Columbia Curriculum as a two-year sequence under the name Chemistry 11 and Chemistry 12. Some i n d u s t r i a l chemistry has been added to the programme, and greater emphasis has been placed on reaction chemistry and problem-solving. 20 The most widespread changes were made i n the Chem 11 programme. The d i v i s i o n of the Chem Study course into two one-year courses was coupled with a rearrangement of the sequence of teaching some of the chapters. The Chemistry 11 course consists of Chapters 1 to 7, followed by Chapters 14, 18 and 25. This rearrangement made i t desirable, f o r example, to "strengthen the introduction to chemical bonding." This i s achieved by employing p i c t o r i a l representation of bonds, using a s i m p l i f i e d electron-dot p i c t u r e . The content of Chemistry 11 has further been enriched by (a) providing a d d i t i o n a l experiments on the chemistry of the halogens and (b) including some examples of applications of chemical p r i n c i p l e s i n i n d u s t r i e s i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Both Chemistry 11 and Chemistry 12 have been modified by placing more emphasis on problem solving and c a l c u l a t i o n s . I t i s stressed, however, that these and other minor changes are not departures from the Chem Study course, but are supplements to i t . The philosophy of the course remains unchanged and every e f f o r t i s made to present the a d d i t i o n a l material i n accordance with the general p r i n c i p l e s of the Chem Study programme. 2.4 P h i l o s o p h i c a l Context of the Chem Study Course Thomas Kuhn c l a s s i f i e s research i n science into "normal" and "revolu-tionary" a c t i v i t i e s (Kuhn, 14:5-6). Normal science consists of research which i s f i r m l y based on one or more past achievements i n science acknow-ledged by the s c i e n t i f i c community as a basis f o r further p r a c t i c e ; that i s a c t i v i t i e s based on established paradigms. Revolutionary science, on the other hand, i s concerned with the creation of new paradigms to replace those no longer s a t i s f a c t o r y . 21 Long periods of normal science alternate with short periods of revolu-tionary science. Thus most s c i e n t i s t s are involved with the undertakings of normal science, because the bulk of science a c t i v i t i e s are those of concern to normal s c i e n t i s t s . The f r a c t i o n of revolutionary s c i e n t i s t s i n the t o t a l population of s c i e n t i s t s has always been a very small one. This implies that e f f o r t s i n science education, to be of greatest value, should be directed towards the preparation of science students f o r t h e i r most l i k e l y r o l e as p r a c t i t i o n e r s of normal science. The Chem Study course i s very concerned with preparing students for possible careers i n science ( M e r r i l l and Ridgeway, 19:2) and consequently concentrates e x c l u s i v e l y on what Kuhn (14:47) re f e r s to as " f i n g e r exercises," i . e . learning the paradigms through "problem solving a c t i v i t i e s both with p e n c i l and paper and with instruments i n the laboratory." Considerable scope i s given to the more imaginative and creative students. Open-ended questions encourage the student to a r t i c u l a t e and/or ex-tend the paradigms to new areas of a p p l i c a t i o n . This feature i n p a r t i c u l a r r e f l e c t s the nature of normal science research, i n which most research chemists are engaged. This approach makes students aware of the nature of theory and i t s r o l e i n the development of ideas i n science. Chem Study can f a i r l y be said to be concerned with the education of what Kuhn would c a l l "normal" chemists. Since a c t i v i t i e s of normal science, are f i r m l y based on currently held paradigms, the science educator should be concerned with f a m i l i a r i s i n g s t u-dents with these paradigms. The chemistry student should be taught the theories, working hypotheses, models, etc., upon which current research i n chemistry i s based. Kuhn makes i t c l e a r , however, that paradigms are not presented i n i s o l a t i o n , but i n the context of supporting evidence and some of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s . 22 He (Kuhn, 14:46) writes: S c i e n t i s t s ... never learn concepts, laws and theories i n the abstract and by themselves.... A new theory i s always announced together with i t s applications to some concrete range of natural phenomena; without them i t would not even be a candidate for acceptance. In Chem Study, theories are introduced i n the manner suggested by Kuhn and i t i s here that the laboratories play t h e i r most important r o l e . Theory i s discussed only a f t e r the student has made observations i n the laboratory. The data gathered there form the basis of cl a s s discussions which lead to the development of a theory. Once established, the theory i s discussed i n the context of further applications and extensions. These, wherever pos-s i b l e , are supported by laboratory exercises, p e n c i l and paper exercises and thought problems. The student i s introduced to the theory i n the l i g h t of i t s supporting evidence (which i s kept to a minimum) and i t i s then applied to other examples and further a r t i c u l a t e d to include a d d i t i o n a l observed phenomena. These indeed are the a c t i v i t i e s of normal science. Kuhn's conception of the structure of science strongly implies that students of chemistry should be taught the basic paradigms of chemistry and the p h y s i c a l and mental techniques commonly used by p r a c t i s i n g chemists. Chem Study strongly emphasises both these aspects throughout the course. The authors, i n designing the course, have surely taken the structure of the subject into account. 2.5 Psychological Context of Chem Study I t i s i n s t r u c t i v e to examine the structure of the Chem Study programme i n the context of Piaget's theory of knowledge. The course i s intended for students i n Piaget's "formal operational" stage of development. Students at 23 t h i s stage are capable of great mobility of thought. They are no longer de-pendent upon concrete experiences, but are able to think a b s t r a c t l y and to manipulate ideas systematically without the necessity of concrete experiences to j u s t i f y the manipulations (Almie, 1:18; Furth, 10:31-32). However, when faced with a new or d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n the student tends to regress i n h i s l e v e l of thought to a lower stage - to the "concrete operational" and even to the "preoperational" stage on occasions (Shayer, 23:182-186; Almie, 1:136). When t h i s happens, i t may be necessary to provide the learner with relevant concrete operational experiences before he i s able to cope with the new or d i f f i c u l t material at the formal operational l e v e l . Chem Study e f f e c t i v e l y meets the p o s s i b i l i t y of regression by providing the student with c a r e f u l l y selected experiences at the concrete operational l e v e l i n the laboratory before introducing new concepts. The experiments the students perform a f f o r d r e s u l t s and observations that provide the basis for the development of chemical p r i n c i p l e s and t h e o r e t i c a l models. The author of the laboratory manual (Malm, 16:43) writes: He (the student) should have the opportunity to discover the p r i n c i p l e s f or himself, through h i s own laboratory work. Through p r i o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n appropriate ex-periments, a student w i l l f u l l y r e a l i s e how p r i n c i p l e s are derived and why they are retained. A f t e r the students have received t h i s concrete experience the Chem Study authors r a p i d l y develop the theories and extend the a p p l i c a t i o n of the models to other s p e c i f i c examples. The ideas are then f urther manipulated to include data which, at f i r s t s i ght, might appear to be unrelated to the o r i g i n a l experiences. The manipulations are j u s t i f i e d by r e l a t i n g them to yet more examples. The text i s the v e h i c l e f or t h i s treatment, but the laboratory experiences are c a r e f u l l y integrated with the text to help the 24 programme develop smoothly. Students are expected to create t h e i r own hy-potheses on the basis of t h e i r laboratory experiences; they are expected to understand the l o g i c of the development of the model i n the text and of the further manipulation of t h i s abstract model to include other, more remote ap p l i c a t i o n s . The development of theory and i t s further manipulation are exercises at the formal operational l e v e l , but as i s the p r a c t i c e i n science, the r e s u l t s of these manipulations are confirmed by experiment i n the laboratory. In terms of Piaget's theory, then, the Chem Study approach to teaching chemistry appears to be based on sound psychological p r i n c i p l e s . In addition to the above, J.S.F. Pode (21:98-103) observed that the authors of Chem Study appeared to apply four c r i t e r i a when s e l e c t i n g and ordering ideas f o r the text. These are: 1. Is the idea so important that no f i r s t course i s complete without i t ? 2. Can the idea be developed honestly at a l e v e l comprehensible to high school students? 3. Can i t be developed out of experimental evidence that high school students can gather, or at l e a s t understand? 4. Does i t t i e into other parts of the course so that i t s use can be reinforced i n practice? These, Pode comments, are educational considerations, not chemical ones. 2.6 S p e c i f i c Goals of the Laboratory In Chem Study, laboratory work plays a key r o l e by providing the p r a c t i c a l observations and experimental data necessary for the l o g i c a l develop-ment of t h e o r e t i c a l models. Observation i s the basic a c t i v i t y of science and i t i s the basic a c t i v i t y of Chem Study i n the sense that the development of t h e o r e t i c a l models i s j u s t i f i e d i n terms of p r i o r observations made i n the 25 laboratory. Whenever possible the student c a r r i e s out relevant experiments i n the laboratory before the subject i s discussed i n c l a s s . This p r a c t i c e gives the student the opportunity to make his own discoveries, to make a tentative search for r e g u l a r i t i e s and to develop h i s own working hypotheses (Campbell, 6:2-5). The r e s u l t s of the laboratory exercises are c r i t i c a l to the development of the programme. Great care i s taken to ensure that the desired data and observations are obtained, by c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t i n g r e l i a b l e experiments and providing students with d e t a i l e d procedural i n s t r u c t i o n s . Very l i t t l e op-portunity i s given to students to develop t h e i r own procedure or to devise t h e i r own experiments. About three-quarters of the experiments are quantitative and students are expected to get r e s u l t s within about a 5% accuracy. Laboratory techniques must therefore be given adequate attention and, to t h i s end, teachers are instruc t e d to devote the prelab discussion l a r g e l y to experimental and mani-pulative d e t a i l s (McClellan, 17:4). While the laboratories are not intended s p e c i f i c a l l y to teach technique, a reasonable technique i s necessary to give the student reasonably accurate r e s u l t s . The accuracy of the data i s also improved by using combined class r e s u l t s rather than i n d i v i d u a l r e s u l t s as the basis for class discussion. This technique avoids the need for time consuming r e p e t i t i o n of experiments while i t emphasises the advantages of d u p l i c a t i n g one's data. In some instances the laboratory i s used to provide j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the extension of a working model. The p r i n c i p l e s of chemical e q u i l i b r i a are discussed on the basis of a minimum of d i r e c t evidence. The model thus de-veloped i s then applied i n the discussion of s o l u b i l i t y and the equilibrium 26 constant, applied to p r e c i p i t a t i o n reactions, i s c a l l e d the s o l u b i l i t y prod-uct. The laboratory determination of the s o l u b i l i t y product of s i l v e r ace-tate helps j u s t i f y t h i s treatment. Another a p p l i c a t i o n of the equilibrium model i s to acid-base reactions i n aqueous s o l u t i o n . This also i s supported by laboratory experiments. In both these cases, laboratory work j u s t i f i e s s p e c i f i c manipulations and extensions of the o r i g i n a l theory. One of the four basic a c t i v i t i e s of science, l i s t e d i n Section 2.2 of th i s t h e s i s , concerns the communication of the findings of science to others. The laboratory manual (Malm, 16:v) stresses the importance of th i s a c t i v i t y : I t i s a laboratory-centered course which ... stresses the preparation of well-organised tables f o r recording data and the r e s u l t s of c a l c u l a t i o n s so that you can more r e a d i l y make deduction and recognise the r e g u l a r i t i e s which e x i s t . The laboratory manual contains a number of features to help the student prepare good reports. F i r s t the student receives general i n s t r u c t i o n s which apply to a l l laboratory reports (Malm, 16:ix). These are supplemented f o r each experiment by including sample tables (Malm, 16:6) for the data to be co l l e c t e d and/or a l i s t of the measurements that must be made (Malm, 16:13). Also, students are c a r e f u l l y led through the c a l c u l a t i o n s by a serie s of sequential questions or i n s t r u c t i o n s (Malm, 16:17-18). The student i s given enough assistance to ensure that the r e s u l t s he obtains are adequate to j u s t i f y the development of the t h e o r e t i c a l model which follows. F i n a l l y , the labs are used as the basis of a v a r i e t y of discussion questions, to encourage students to apply the p r i n c i p l e s observed i n the experiments to new sit u a t i o n s (Malm, 16:v). Chapter 3  Method of Study 3.1 Introduction This project i s concerned with i n v e s t i g a t i n g the b e l i e f s of curriculum s p e c i a l i s t s , teachers and pupils with respect to the goals of the laboratory programme i n B r i t i s h Columbia secondary school chemistry courses. I t was proposed to c l a s s i f y i n d i v i d u a l s on the basis of t h e i r b e l i e f s , to describe the group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and to discuss the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the groups. Other studies which have been concerned with determining types or groups within a population and with describing group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have adopted Q-methodology to.achieve t h e i r objectives ( T i l l e r , 24; Ignatovich, 13). In t h i s method, subjects perform a Q-sort on selected items, which involves arranging a c o l l e c t i o n of items into a s p e c i f i e d number of ranked p i l e s , usually according to a modified normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . Appropriate s t a t i s t i c a l treatment (see 3.8 below) establishes c l u s t e r s of i n d i v i d u a l s with s i m i l a r response patterns. Supplementary information i s also obtained from the sub-j e c t s by conducting structured interviews. The information obtained enables groups of i n d i v i d u a l s with s i m i l a r b e l i e f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be i d e n t i f i e d i n a population, and the group c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to be described. Q-analysis thus appears to provide the kind of information required i n t h i s study and i t was decided to adopt Q-methodology and techniques for the project. 3.2 Selection of the Subjects Three major geographical areas i n B r i t i s h Columbia were chosen f o r the 28 project - Vancouver Island, the Lower Mainland (including Vancouver) and the Southern i n t e r i o r of the Province from Princeton to Nelson. These areas were chosen (a) because they provide a sample of schools i n c i t y , town and r u r a l s i t u a t i o n s , and (b) because of t h e i r ready a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the interviewer. Regional Research Associates of the Educational Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Columbia (ERIBC) i n these major geographical areas were contacted and requested to locate teachers of Chemistry 11 and 12 who would agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the research programme and who would, In addition, provide a small number of Grade 12 chemistry students to make up the student sample. Curriculum s p e c i a l i s t s were obtained from F a c u l t i e s of Education i n the University of B r i t i s h Columbia and i n the Un i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a . These were f a c u l t y members who were very f a m i l i a r with the Chem Study approach. A t o t a l of three curriculum s p e c i a l i s t s , thirty-two teachers and f i f t y - t h r e e Grade 12 chemistry students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the project. The thirty-two teachers represent approximately 10% of the teachers of Grades 11 and 12 chemistry i n the Province. 3.3 Selection of the Items for the Q-sort A review of l i t e r a t u r e concerned with the goals of laboratory work i n science and/or chemistry teaching programmes was undertaken. This review included writings of chemists, chemistry teachers, textbook authors, cur-riculum designers, psychologists and philosophers of science from the 1930's to the present. A wide v a r i e t y of statements and opinions about laboratory work was c o l l e c t e d and, a f t e r e d i t i n g , these provided more than eighty items, each describing a s i n g l e goal of laboratory work. Care was taken to ensure that the items c o l l e c t e d were representative of the views of proponents of both t r a d i t i o n a l and modern chemistry courses. 29 The sample was reduced to s i x t y items by removing ambiguous and d u p l i -cate items. The items were then examined by s i x Science Education profes-sors and chemists who were asked to evaluate the items f o r possible redun-dancies and c l a r i t y of expression. A l i s t of the sample of s i x t y items i s recorded i n Appendix I. 3.4 The Q-sorts The s i x t y items i n the item sample were printed on cards, one item to a card. The Q-sorts therefore involved the s o r t i n g of a deck of s i x t y cards into a s p e c i f i e d number of p i l e s or categories. Subjects were instructed to sort the items into nine categories, ranging from "most important" (Category 1) to " l e a s t important" (Category 9). The required d i s t r i b u t i o n of items between the categories i s shown i n Table I. A copy of t h i s modified normal d i s t r i b u t i o n was placed i n view of a l l sub-, j e c t s during the sort. Subjects were advised to divide the s i x t y items into three p i l e s i n i t i a l l y , having (a) important, (b) neutral, and (c) unimpor-tant statements of the goals of laboratory work r e s p e c t i v e l y , then to further subdivide the three p i l e s to give the required d i s t r i b u t i o n of items. Subjects were instructed not to rank the items within the categories. Four Q-sorts were conducted, corresponding to the four s p e c i f i c problems given i n Section 1.2. Q-sort 1 (Problem 1.21) Curriculum S p e c i a l i s t s were instruc t e d to sort the statements printed on the item cards to ind i c a t e the intended order of im-portance of the goals of the laboratory programme i n the B r i t i s h Columbia secondary school chemistry courses. Q-sort 2 (Problem 1.22) Teachers of Grades 11 and 12 were instruc t e d to sort the items to ind i c a t e the intended order of importance of the goals of 30 the laboratory programme, based on t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r a t i o n a l e of the course as described i n the Chem Study l i t e r a t u r e and i n the P r o v i n c i a l Curriculum Guide. Q-sort 3 (Problem 1.23) The same teachers were instruc t e d to sort the sample of items to indic a t e the order of importance of the goals of laboratory work i n t h e i r own teaching of the chemistry curriculum. Q-sort 4 (Problem 1.24) Grade 12 chemistry students were instruc t e d to sort the items to in d i c a t e what they perceive to be the order of importance of the goals of the laboratory a c t i v i t i e s i n the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme, based upon the way the laboratories were conducted i n the course. 3.5 The Structured Interview The information obtained from Q-sorts 2 and 3 was supplemented by con-ducting a structured interview with the teachers concerned. This provided a d d i t i o n a l information of a more personal nature which has been used to des-cribe the i n d i v i d u a l s who share s i m i l a r b e l i e f s about the goals of laboratory work. A copy of the interview questionnaire i s included i n Appendix I I . 3.6 Administration of the Q-sorts and Structured Interviews The researcher v i s i t e d every subject and conducted and supervised a l l Q-sorts personally, to ensure a more consistent presentation of i n s t r u c t i o n s and to encourage a more genuine e f f o r t by the subjects. For the teachers, Q-sort 2 was administered f i r s t , followed by Q-sort 3 and, f i n a l l y , the structured interview. 3.7 Scoring the Items Each item i n the Q-sort was assigned a score and t h i s was recorded on a 31 master sheet (Appendix III) . Items i n Category 1 (most important) each received a score of 9, those i n category 2, a score of 8 and so on to the items i n Category 9 (least important), each of which received a score of 1. (See Table I) 3.8 Analysis of the Data ( T i l l e r , 24; Ignatovich, 13; Maclean, 15) 3.81 An i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was f i r s t formed by c o r r e l a t i n g every person's sort of items with every other person's sort of items. 3.82 The resultant matrix was factor analysed, so that persons were var i a b l e s and items were observations. The p r i n c i p a l factors were submitted to varimax r o t a t i o n f o r ease of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Each rotated factor corresponds to a hypothetical type of person; i . e . each f a c t o r represents a group of persons with s i m i l a r patterns of b e l i e f with respect to the objectives of laboratory work. The fa c t o r loadings are a measure of each person's c o r r e l a t i o n with each of the hypothetical types, or f a c t o r s . The higher a person's loading on a factor the greater the cor-r e l a t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the hypothetical type of person the factor represents. Individuals were then grouped according to the fa c t o r on which they had the highest factor loading. In t h i s way they were placed with the hypothetical type of person they most c l o s e l y resemble. The population of each f a c t o r thus consists of a unique group of s i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l s . 3.83 Item responses were then analysed to e s t a b l i s h a hierarchy of item acceptance (from most important to l e a s t important items) f o r each hypothetical type of person (or f a c t o r ) . This was done as follows: 3.831 Each person was assigned a weighting constant (W) by s e l e c t i n g h i s highest f a c t o r loading (r) and applying the formula Most Important Least Important Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of Cards i n Category 2 3 6 11 16 11 6 3 2 Category Score 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Table I D i s t r i b u t i o n of Items i n Q-sort and Item Scores 33 3.832 Each person's item scores were then weighted by mu l t i p l y i n g h i s item scores by h i s weighting constant (W). For each f a c t o r , the weighted item scores of a l l the i n d i v i d u a l s comprising the fa c t o r population were summed, item by item, to give an item array of weighted responses f o r each f a c t o r . 3.833 The raw scores on the items i n the arrays were converted to z-scores f o r purposes of comparison and the r e s u l t i n g item-scores ordered. This provided a hierarchy of item or goal acceptance f o r each f a c t o r . D i f -ferences between item z-scores f o r the d i f f e r e n t types were used to d i f -f e r e n t i a t e between the f a c t o r s . A differ e n c e of 1.0 i n z-scores f o r an item was considered s i g n i f i c a n t . Chapter 4  Results and Conclusions 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents a p r i n c i p a l - a x i s s o l u t i o n to the problem of i d e n t i f y i n g types of viewpoints concerning the goals of the laboratory i n teaching chemistry at the secondary school l e v e l . Statements which serve to d i f f e r e n t i a t e one viewpoint from another and areas of agreement and disagree-ment between the d i f f e r e n t viewpoints are i d e n t i f i e d and discussed. 4.2 Results of Factor Analysis Q-scores f o r the subjects - s p e c i a l i s t s , teachers and students - were as-sembled into an item x subject data matrix i n which the columns were d i s t r i -butions of Q-scores f o r i n d i v i d u a l subjects. This data matrix i s included i n Appendix I I I . Correlations between columns were computed and the r e s u l t i n g Pearson product moment c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s arrayed i n a subject x sub-j e c t matrix of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . This i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s matrix was subjected to factor a nalysis. Four factors were selected on the basis of the magnitude of the latent roots and rotated to varimax r o t a t i o n . Table II gives the rotated factor structure f o r the four f a c t o r s o l u t i o n . Each f a c t o r , F l , F2, F3 and F4, represents a grouping of subjects around a common pattern of sorting items. Hence, each factor represents a type of person whose viewpoint can be characterised by the pattern of so r t i n g items. The c o e f f i c i e n t s given i n Table II represent the degree to which the subjects' sort of items were associated with the four d i f f e r e n t viewpoints. Subjects were placed i n the fac t o r i n which they had the highest f a c t o r c o e f f i c i e n t or loading. 35 Table II Rotated Factor Structure of Four Factors Corresponding to the  Four Largest Values of the Latent Roots Subject F l F2 F3 F4 Q-sort 1 1 0.805* -0.055 -0.028 0.138 ( S p e c i a l i s t s ) 2 0.747* 0.320 -0.147 -0.025 3 0.663* 0.279 -0.205 0.096 Q-sort 2 (Teachers) 4 5 6 0.636* 0.637* 0.282 0.236 0.058 0.427* -0.328 -0.204 -0.276 0.158 0.227 0.016 7 0.394* 0.323 -0.028 -0.182 8 0.659* 0.153 -0.131 0.118 9 0.522* 0.217 0.490 -0.019 10 0.586* 0.195 0.116 0.223 11 0.667* 0.419 -0.022 0.127 12 0.775* 0.193 -0.056 0.065 13 0.484* 0.407 0.290 0.078 14 0.708* 0.217 -0.162 0.188 15 0.513* 0.488 -0.301 0.051 16 0.666* 0.181 0.039 0.024 17 0.612* 0.156 0.240 0.310 18 0.656* 0.308 -0.005 0.334 19 0.752* 0.330 0.135 0.065 20 0.139 0.463* -0.087 0.193 21 0.705* 0.159 -0.203 0.123 22 0.715* 0.140 -0.237 0.085 23 0.496 0.542* 0.075 0.056 24 0.716* 0.229 -0.210 0.045 25 0.367 0.432* 0.223 0.207 26 0.575* 0.230 -0.070 0.278 27 0.332 0.108 -0.166 0.406* 28 0.672* 0.212 0.158 0.259 29 0.509 0.205 -0.569* 0.085 30 0.800* -0.112 -0.146 0.254 31 0.745* 0.224 -0.184 -0.205 32 0.832* -0.007 -0.132 0.039 33 0.598* 0.354 -0.131 0.094 34 0.796* 0.257 -0.105 0.099 35 0.617* 0.090 -0.164 0.165 Q-sort 3 (Teachers) 36 37 0.550* 0.274 0.192 0.409* -0.343 -0.120 0.186 0.034 38 0.409* 0.181 0.201 0.032 39 0.502* -0.041 -0.231 -0.022 40 0.426* 0.081 0.019 0.167 41 0.356 0.291 0.237 0.427* 42 0.559* -0.006 -0.425 0.064 * Subject's highest factor loading 36 Table II (Continued) Subj ect F l F2 F3 F4 43 0.661* 0.079 -0.240 -0.054 44 0.422 0.044 -0.647* 0.122 45 0.675* 0.301 -0.216 0.200 46 0.582* 0.447 0.019 -0.146 47 0.561* 0.410 0.062 -0.168 48 0.544* 0.073 0.255 0.329 49 0.600* 0.313 -0.097 0.311 50 0.790* 0.238 -0.047 0.041 51 0.180 0.407* -0.027 , 0.235 52 0.279* -0.014 -0.039 0.187 53 0.225 0.151 -0.219 0.276* 54 0.323 0.412 -0.422* 0.012 55 0.518* 0.154 0.252 0.107 56 -0.090 0.389* 0.196 -0.007 57 0.219 0.194 0.042 0.421* 58 0.232 -0.116 -0.264 0.403* 59 0.668* -0.016 0.262 0.288 60 0.430* 0.108 -0.250 -0.235 61 0.745* 0.014 -0.078 0.218 62 0.675* -0.050 -0.356 -0.206 63 0.597* -0.088 -0.423 -0.154 64 0.394 0.568* -0.009 0.274 65 0.589* 0.007 -0.333 0.322 66 0.662* 0.324 0.106 0.212 67 0.195 0.384* -0.233 0.196 68 -0.098 0.498* -0.031 0.207 69 .0.040 -0.116 -0.326* 0.208 70 0.069 0.725* -0.122 0.184 71 0.072 0.595* -0.044 0.183 72 0.027 0.332 -0.351* -0.220 73 0.300 0.073 -0.619* 0.437 74 0.010 0.731* -0.050 -0.050 75 -0.051 -0.085 -0.082 0.732* 76 0.209 0.499* 0.147 0.421 77 0.159 -0.060 -0.799* 0.120 78 0.336 0.700* -0.165 -0.041 79 0.170 0.647* 0.151 0.236 80 0.257 0.802* -0.111 -0.012 81 0.219 0.662* 0.028 0.283 82 0.380 0.174 -0.272 0.425* 83 0.080 0.789* 0.036 0.026 84 0.176 0.142 -0.515* 0.306 85 0.128 0.682* -0.056 0.333 86 0.152 0.375 -0.377* 0.048 87 0.024 0.464* 0.349 0.171 Q-sort 4 (Students) * Subject's highest factor loading Table II (Continued) Subject F l F2 F3 F4 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 0.291 0.377 0.186 0.391* 0.100 0.093 0.239 -0.011 0.361 0.396* 0.170 -0.035 0.034 0.080 -0.211 0.471 0.278 0.337 0.328 0.330 0.064 0.010 0.116 0.302 0.155 0.164 0.463 0.384 0.062 0.300 0.125 -0.020 0.176 0.748* 0.521* -0.040 0.377 0.755* 0.516* 0.404* 0.313* 0.281 0.075 0.222 0.521* 0.765* 0.557* 0.056 0.263 0.332 0.598* 0.578* 0.520* 0.112 0.443* 0.546* 0.707* 0.770* 0.688* 0.378 0.638* 0.236 0.486* 0.593* 0.831* .0.474* -0.163 0.013 0.373* -0.197 -0.066 -0.334 0.229 0.072 0.147 -0.172 -0.217 -0.265 -0.222 -0.119 0.480* -0.637* 0.372* -0.086 -0.098 0.022 -0.143 -0.221 0.292 -0.067 -0.289 0.090 -0.479* -0.325 0.008 -0.359 0.065 0.172 0.233 -0.096 0.393 0.058 -0.048 -0.045 0.162 0.054 0.062 0.601* 0.078 0.307 -0.039 0.307 0.136 0.069 0.130 0.120 0.120 -0.018 0.051 0.500 -0.118 0.363 -0.019 -0.080 -0.090 0.194 -0.012 0.489 -0.038 0.050 0.182 0.293 Eigenvalues % Variance % T o t a l Variance 36.1604 30.1 48.11 10.7055 8.9 6.5908 5.5 4.2757 3.6 *Subject's highest factor loading 38 The f i r s t three factors i n the four-factor s o l u t i o n accounted f or 109 out of 120 subjects. Thus, three d i f f e r e n t viewpoints about the goals of the laboratory i n the teaching of chemistry characterise the opinions of the 109 subjects. The fourth factor was neglected and i s not included i n further discussions. The s o r t i n g pattern of the items which i s associated with each d i f f e r e n t viewpoint was then determined. The fa c t o r loading of each subject was used to weight the subject's item scores. For each f a c t o r , the weighted item scores were then summed, item by item, f o r a l l subjects belonging to the fa c t o r . The t o t a l s were arrayed i n an item x factor matrix. The columns of scores i n t h i s matrix are re f e r r e d to as fa c t o r arrays. To f a c i l i t a t e comparison of the fa c t o r arrays, the scores were transformed to standardised scores or z-scores. The f a c t o r arrays of z-scores f o r the f i r s t three factors of the four f a c t o r s o l u t i o n are given i n Table I I I . The z-scores i n each array, F l , F2, and F3, were then ordered according to s i z e and d i r e c t i o n (+, - ) . Only the twelve items having the highest p o s i t i v e scores and the twelve items having the highest negative scores i n each array were used f o r comparing the three viewpoints. The twenty-four items i n each factor array, selected according to t h i s c r i t e r i o n , are r e f e r r e d to as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c items of each f a c t o r or viewpoint. Tables IV and V give the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c items of F l , Tables VI and VII give those of F2, and Tables VIII and IX give the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c items of F3. 39 Table I I I Factor Array of Item z-Scores Item F l F2 F3 1 0.90 0.64 -0.41 2 -0.54 0.46 0.28 3 -2.12 0.41 0.62 4 -0.65 1.37 -0.14 5 0.94 0.69 -0.48 6 -0.54 0.40 0.19 7 0.56 1.59 -0.17 8 -0.08 1.00 0.25 9 0.26 1.51 -0.50 10 -1.97 0.79 0.94 11 0.98 1.17 0.03 12 0.90 0.71 -0.31 13 -0.47 1.26 0.35 14 0.20 -0.23 0.59 15 -0.30 -1.06 1.32 16 -1.07 -1.53 2.07 17 0.34 -0.11 0.76 18 -0.14 0.19 0.38 19 -1.98 -2.17 2.31 20 0.48 0.79 -0.30 21 -0.15, -0.14 0.53 22 -0.35 -1.17 1.61 23 0.54 0.01 0.75 24 -0.06 0.08 -0.04 25 2.00 1.41 -0.55 26 -0.41 -0.40 -1.52 27 0.00 0.78 -1.51 28 -0.29 0.78 0.51 29 1.13 0.02 -0.56 30 1.65 0.57 -0.57 31 2.50 0.78 -0.63 32 0.98 -0.04 0.56 33 0.45 0.35 -0.81 34 0.79 0.49 -0.09 35 0.70 0.51 0.08 36 1.24 0.32 0.02 37 -0.13 -1.03 1.23 38 0.31 -0.76 0.90 39 -0.31 1.00 0.15 40 -1.08 1.15 0.60 41 -0.18 -0.96 -1.21 42 -0.65 -2.25 0.55 43 -0.04 -0.53 -1.74 44 -0.40 -1.57 -1.42 45 0.22 -0.37 -1.24 .1 40 Table III (Continued) Item F l F2 F3 46 -0.29 -1.29 -1.35 47 0.39 -0.05 -1.53 48 -0.29 -0.92 -1.51 49 0.67 -0.75 -0.10 50 1.24 0.73 -1.40 51 0.70 -0.29 -1.56 52 0.33 0.59 -1.48 53 -0.09 1.03 -0.15 54 -1.30 -0.95 0.97 55 -1.93 -1.70 1.71 56 -2.42 -1.87 2.38 57 1.08 0.62 0.45 58 -1.74 -2.37 0.72 59 -0.77 -0.14 -0.13 60 -0.61 0.43 -0.39 Table IV D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scbres of the Twelve Most Important (Positive) Items for F l z-score z-score z-score Most Important (+) Items f o r F l F l F2 A ( l , 2)* F3 A ( l , 3)** 31 Encourages students to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s 2.50 0.78 1.72 -0.63 3.13 25 Teaches students to i n t e r p r e t experimental r e s u l t s 2.00 1.41 0.59 -0.55 2.55 30 Trains students to observe accurately 1.65 0.57 1.08 -0.57 2.22 36 I l l u s t r a t e s the nature of experimental science 1.24 0.31 0.92 0.02 1.22 50 Teaches students to reason l o g i c a l l y 1.24 0.73 0.51 -1.40 2.64 29 Encourages unbiased observation 1.13 0.02 1.11 -0.56 1.69 32 Teaches students to c l a s s i f y information 0.98 -0.04 0.44 0.56 0.42 57 I l l u s t r a t e s the uncertainty of experimental r e s u l t s 1.08 0.62 0.46 0.45 0.63 11 Provides a basis for understanding s c i e n t i f i c models 0.98 1.17 -0.19 0.03 0.95 5 Leads to development of t h e o r e t i c a l models 0.94 0.69 0.25 -0.48 1.42 1 Introduces t h e o r e t i c a l discussion 0.90 0.64 0.26 -0.41 1.31 12 Emphasises the importance of experimental work 0.90 0.71 -0.19 -0.31. 1.21 * A ( l , 2) = z(Fl) - z(F2) ** A ( l , 3) = z(F l ) - z(F3) Table V D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of  the Twelve Least Important (Negative) Items for F l z-scores z-score z-score Least Important (-) Items f o r F l F l F2 A ( l , 2)* F3 A ( l , 3)** 42 Teaches students to be honest -0.65 -2.25 1.60 0.56 -1.20 4 Confirms predictions made by theory -0.65 1.37 -2.02 -0.14 -0.51 59 Helps students understand chemical terminology -0.77 -0.14 -0.63 -0.13 0.64 16 Teaches students how to use a balance properly -1.07 -1.53 0.46 2.07 -3.14 40 Reinforces the learning of f a c t s i n chemistry -1.08 1.15 -2.23 0.60 -1.68 54 Provides a way to assess student performance i n the course -1.30 -0.95 -0.35 -0.97 -2.27 58 Gives students an opportunity to rel a x and enjoy themselves -1.74 -2.37 0.63 0.72 -2.46 55 Helps students get a good grade i n the course -1.93 -1.70 -0.23 1.71 -3.64 10 V e r i f i e s statements made by teacher or textbook -1.97 0.79 -2.76 0.94 -2.91 19 Teaches students to keep t h e i r lab bench neat and clean -1.98 -2.17 0.19 2.31 -4.29 3 Proves theory i s correct -2.12 0.41 -2.53 0.62 -2.74 56 Helps students pass the departmental examination -2.42 -1.87 -0.55 2.38 -4.80 * A ( l , 2) = z(F l ) - z(F2) ** A ( l , 3) = z(F l ) - z(F3) Table VI D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Most Important (Positive) Items for F2 Most Important (+) Items f o r F2 z-score F2 z-score F l A(2, 1)* z-score F3 A(2, 3)** 7 Makes the p r i n c i p l e s of chemistry easier to understand 1.59 0.56 1.03 -0.17 1.76 9 I l l u s t r a t e s the close r e l a t i o n s h i p between theory and observation 1.51 0.26 1.25 -0.50 2.01 25 Teaches students to i n t e r p r e t experimental r e s u l t s 1.41 2.00 -0.59 -0.55 1.96 4 Confirms predictions made by theory 1.37 -0;65 2.02 -0.14 1.51 13 Provides j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l treatments 1.26 -0.47 1.73 0.35 0.91 11 Provides a basis f o r understanding s c i e n t i f i c models 1.17 0.98 0.19 0.03 1.14 40 Reinforces the learning of fa c t s i n chemistry 1.15 -1.08 2.23 0.60 0.55 53 Provides a basis f o r further study i n chemistry 1.03 -0.09 1.11 -0.15 1.18 8 Shows that theory explains observation 1.00 -0.08 1.08 0.25 0.75 39 Provides an i n t e r e s t i n g way of present-ing s c i e n t i f i c f a c t s to students 1.00 -0.31 1.31 0.15 0.85 20 Teaches experimental techniques 0.79 0.48 0.31 -0.30 1.09 10 V e r i f i e s statements made by teacher or textbook 0.79 -1.97 2.76 0.94 -0.15 * A(2, 1) = z(F2) - z(Fl) ** A(2, 3) = z(F2) - z(F3) Table VII D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Least Important (Negative) Items for F2 Least Important (-) Items for F2 z-score F2 z-score F l A(2, .1)*. . z-score F3 A(2, 3)** 41 Teaches students to be s e l f - r e l i a n t -0.96 -0.18 -1.04 -1.21 0.25 37 Shows how s c i e n t i s t s work -1.03 -0.13 -0.90 1.23 -2.26 15 Teaches orderly work habits -1.06 -0.30 -0.76 1.32 -2.38 22 Teaches the s k i l l s of good report w r i t i n g -1.17 -0.35 -0.82 1.61 -2.78 46 Teaches students to be imaginative -1.29 -0.29 -1.00 -1.35 0.06 16 Teaches students how to use a balance properly -1.53 -1.07 -0.46 2.07 -3.60 44 Teaches students to be creative -1.57 -0.40 -1.17 -1.42 -0.15 55 Helps students get a good grade i n the course -1.70 -1.93 0.23 1.71 -3.41 56 Helps students pass the Departmental examination -1.87 -2.42 0.55 2.38 -4.25 19 Teaches students to keep t h e i r lab bench neat and clean -2.17 -1.98 -0.19 2.31 -4.48 42 Teaches students to be honest -2.25 -0.64 -1.61 0.55 -2.80 58 Gives students an opportunity to relax and enjoy themselves -2.36 -1.74 -0.62 0.72 -3.08 * A(2, 1) = z(F2) - z(Fl) ** A(2, 3) = z(F2) - z(F3) Table VIII D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Factors 1, 2 and 3 i n Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Most Important (Positive) Items for F3 Most Important (+) Items for F3 z-score F3 z-score F l A(3, 1)* z-score F2 A(3, 2)** 56 Helps students pass the departmental examination 2.38 -2.42 4.80 -1.87 4.25 19 Teaches students to keep t h e i r lab bench neat and clean 2.31 -1.98 4.29 -2.17 4.48 16 Teaches students how to use a balance properly 2.07 -1.07 3.14 -1.53 3.60 55 Helps students get a good grade i n the course 1.71 -1.93 3.64 -1.70 3.41 22 Teaches the s k i l l s of good report w r i t i n g 1.61 -0.35 1.96 -1.17 2.78 15 Teaches orderly work habits 1.32 -0.30 1.62 -1.06 2.38 37 Shows how s c i e n t i s t s work 1.23 -0.13 1.36 -1.03 2.26 54 Provides a way to assess student performance i n the course 0.97 -1.30 2.27 -0.96 1.92 10 V e r i f i e s statements made by teacher or textbook 0.94 -1.97 2.91 0.79 0.15 38 Teaches students to think l i k e s c i e n t i s t s 0.90 0.31 0.59 -0.76 1.66 17 Emphasises accuracy i n measurement 0.76 0.34 0.42 -0.11 0.87 23 Teaches methods of presenting data c l e a r l y 0.75 0.54 0.20 . . 0.01 0.73 * A(3, 1) = z(F3) - z(Fl) ** A(3, 2) = z(F3) - z(F2) Table IX D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Between Factors 1, 2 and 3 in Terms of the z-scores of the Twelve Least Important (Negative) Items f o r F3 Least Important (-) Items for F3 z-score F3 z-score F l A(3, .1)*. z-score F2 A(3, 2)** 41 Teaches students to be s e l f - r e l i a n t -0.18 -1.03 -0.96 -0.25 45 Teaches students to be curious -1.24 0.22 -1.46 -0.37 -0.87 46 Teaches students to be imaginative -1.36 -0.29 -1.06 -1.29 -0.06 50 Teaches students to reason l o g i c a l l y -1.40 1.24 -2.64 0.73 -2.13 44 Teaches students to be creative -1.42 -0.40 -1.02 -1.57 0.15 52 Stimulates i n t e r e s t i n chemistry -1.48 0.33 -1.81 0.59 -2.07 48 Teaches students to show i n i t i a t i v e -1.51 -0.29 -1.22 -0.92 -0.59 27 Provides maximum opportunity f o r discovery learning -1.51 0.90 -2.41 0.78 -2.29 26 Encourages students to design t h e i r own experiments -1.52 -0.41 -1.11 -0.40 -1.12 47 Teaches students to be i n q u i s i t i v e -1.53 0.39 -1.92 -0.05 -1.48 51 Teaches students to think c l e a r l y -1.56 0.70 -2.26 -0.29 -1.27 43 Teaches students to be resourceful -1.74 -0.04 -1.70 . -0.53 -1.21 * A(3, 1) = z(F3) - z(Fl) ** A(3, 2) = z(F3) - z(F2) ON 47 4•3 Description of the Viewpoints The d e s c r i p t i o n of the viewpoints of the f i r s t three factors shown i n Table I I , based on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c items of those f a c t o r s , i s presented below. 4.31 Description of the F l Viewpoint - The Chem Study Viewpoint The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items (the twelve most important and twelve l e a s t important items) of the F l viewpoint are recorded i n Tables IV and V r e s p e c t i v e l y , together with t h e i r z-scores. According to the F l viewpoint i t i s most important that the laboratory course should i l l u s t r a t e the nature, importance and uncertainty of experi-mental science. I t should teach students to be unbiased and accurate i n t h e i r observations, to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s i n t h e i r observations and to c l a s s i f y and i n t e r p r e t the information obtained. On the other hand, the teaching of chemical terminology and s p e c i f i c experimental techniques should be among the l e a s t important aspects of laboratory work. In the F l viewpoint, i t i s not considered important that laboratory work should r e i n f o r c e or v e r i f y facts and theories described i n the text or by the teacher, or that i t should confirm t h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s . Nor i s i t considered important that labora-tory work should be concerned with assessing student performance or helping students improve t h e i r performance i n examinations. The F l viewpoint i s representative of opinions expressed i n f i f t y - t w o (52) i n d i v i d u a l s o r t s , of which f i f t y (50) were sorts performed by s p e c i a l i s t s and teachers (Q-sorts 1, 2 and 3). Only two (2) p u p i l sorts (Q-sort 4) are included i n the f a c t o r . 'This factor may j u s t i f i a b l y be l a b e l l e d the Chem Study Viewpoint. The breakdown of the factor population i s as follows: 48 Number of belonging i n each Q-Subj ects to F l -sort T o t a l number of subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each Q-sort Q- sort 1 ( S p e c i a l i s t s ) 3 3 Q- sort 2 (Teachers) 26 32 Q--sort 3 (Teachers) 21 31 Q- sort 4 (Students) 2 53 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the F l viewpoint are thus representative of the opinions of s p e c i a l i s t s and teachers. S p e c i a l i s t s (3 of 3) and teachers (26 of 32) have very s i m i l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the intended goals of the labora-tory programme f o r B r i t i s h Columbia secondary school chemistry courses. Further, about two-thirds (21 of 31) of the same teachers think that they work towards these same objectives i n p r a c t i c e . 4.32 Description of F2 Viewpoint - The Student Viewpoint The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of the F2 viewpoint are l i s t e d i n Tables VI and VII r e s p e c t i v e l y , together with t h e i r z-scores. One of the most important goals of the laboratory course, according to the F2 viewpoint, i s to i l l u s t r a t e the close r e l a t i o n s h i p that e x i s t s between observation and theory. Laboratory experience provides a basis for the under-standing and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l models and confirms t h e r o e t i c a l pre-d i c t i o n s . Another important goal of the laboratory course i s to present fa c t s i n an i n t e r e s t i n g way, and to v e r i f y and r e i n f o r c e f a c t u a l knowledge and s t a t e -ments made i n the text or by the teacher. Laboratory work i s also considered important i n teaching p r a c t i c a l techniques and i n helping prepare the student for further studies i n chemistry. In contrast, the teaching of clean and or-derly work habits and of the s k i l l s of good report w r i t i n g are considered to be among the l e a s t important goals of laboratory work. In the F2 viewpoint the 49 contribution of the laboratory course to the development of such personal a t t r i b u t e s as c r e a t i v i t y , s e l f - r e l i a n c e , honesty, imaginativeness and i t s r o l e i n assessing student performance and i n helping to improve t h i s performance, i s also considered to be unimportant. The F2 viewpoint represents the opinions expressed i n 43 i n d i v i d u a l s o r t s , of which 35 were the sorts of pupils (Q-sort 4) and only 8 were the sorts of teachers, (Q-sorts 2 and 3). The composition of the population of t h i s factor i s as follows: Number of belonging i n each Q-subj ects to F2 -sort T o t a l number of students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each Q-sort Q-sort 1 ( S p e c i a l i s t s ) 0 3 Q-sort 2 (Teachers) 4 32 Q-sort 3 (Teachers) 4 31 Q-sort 4 (Students) 35 54 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the F2 viewpoint are thus representative of the opinions of nearly 65% of the students. They evidently have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ciew of the goals of the laboratory course i n the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study programme. 4.33 Description of F3 Viewpoint - The T r a d i t i o n a l Viewpoint The C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of the F3 viewpoint are l i s t e d i n Tables VIII and IX r e s p e c t i v e l y , together with t h e i r z-scores. A most important goal of the laboratory course, i n the F3 viewpoint, i s to demonstrate how s c i e n t i s t s work and to encourage students to model t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s along s i m i l a r l i n e s . To t h i s end, the laboratories emphasise the development of clean and orderly work habits, the importance of accuracy i n measurement and the presentation of good, clear reports. The contributions 50 of the laboratory course to the improvement and assessment of student per-formance and i t s use i n v e r i f y i n g statements made by the teacher or text are also considered to be very important. The a p p l i c a t i o n of laboratory work •to teach students to be curious, to show i n i t i a t i v e , to think c l e a r l y , and to develop other desirable personal a t t r i b u t e s i s placed among the le a s t impor-tant aspects of the course. According to the F3 viewpoint l i t t l e or no opportunity i s provided f o r students to engage i n discovery learning or to design t h e i r own experiments. The F3 viewpoint represents the opinions of 14 i n d i v i d u a l s . Of these, 3 are teachers and 11 p u p i l s . The population i s made up as follows: Number of belonging i n each Q-subj ects to F3 -sort T o t a l number of subjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n each Q-sort Q-•sort 1 ( S p e c i a l i s t s ) 0 3 Q-•sort 2 (Teachers) 1 32 Q-•sort 3 (Teachers) 2 31 Q-•sort 4 (Students) 11 54 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the F3 viewpoint are representative of 20% of the students sampled. 4.4 Information from Interviews The information gathered from the interviews of teachers i s summarised i n Table X. The teachers who are members of F2 and F3 did not show any sp e c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s with respect to experience or q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . (a) Only 4 teacher responses to Q-sort 2 and 4 teacher responses to Q-sort 3 were c l a s s i f i e d as F2 responses. A t o t a l of 5 i n d i v i d u a l teachers accounted f o r these 8 responses. (3 i n d i v i d u a l s responded i n the same 51 way to both Q-sorts). Of these 5 teachers, 3 had taught for 10 years or more and 2 had taught for 5 years or l e s s . Only 1 of the 5 had le s s than 5 chemistry courses i n h i s degree programme, (b) Three teacher responses were represented i n the F3 ( t r a d i t i o n a l ) view-point. One of these had taught for 12 years and had taught the D u l l and Metcalfe course, while the other two had taught for only three years and had not taught the D u l l and Metcalfe course. 4.5 Agreements and Disagreements Between the Viewpoints In order to compare and contrast the various viewpoints an analysis of the items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e each f a c t o r from a l l the other factors was made. Tables IV to IX give the items and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s . Following the example of H.B. T i l l e r (24), a difference i n z-scores of 1.0 or greater was considered to represent a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n opinion. With respect to the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of the F l (Chem Study) viewpoint (Tables I I and III) and those items considered l e a s t important by the F2 (student) viewpoint (Table V), the two factors or viewpoints show a consider-able degree of agreement. In only one-third (12 of 36) of the above items do s i g n i f i c a n t differences appear between the f a c t o r s . However, of the items considered most important i n the F2 viewpoint (Table IV) three-quarters (9 of 12) d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the selections of F l . Teachers and s p e c i a l i s t s (Fl) emphasise the r o l e of the laboratory course i n teaching the major processes of science, namely observation, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , as preliminary stages i n the l o g i c a l development of t h e o r e t i c a l models. Students (F2) tend to place more emphasis on the d e t a i l s of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between observation and theory and on the u t i l i t y of laboratory work i n substantiating theory and making i t easier to understand. In t h i s Table X Experience and Q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of Teachers and Their D i s t r i b u t i o n Among the Factors* Number of years teaching chemistry Number of subjects D i s t r i b u t i o n of subjects i n F l , F2 and F3 for Q-sorts 2 and 3 whether subject taught D u l l and Metcalfe course Number of chemistry courses i n degree programme F l F2 F3 Yes No 5+ less than 5 0 - k 11 Q-2 10 0 1 Q-3 7 1 1 0 11 8 3 5 - 9 10 Q-2 8 1 0 Q-3 7 1 0 3 7 7 3 10 + 11 Q-2 7 3 0 Q-3 6 2 1 10 1 10 1 * Apparent discrepancies i n the t o t a l s of the numbers of subjects are due to the f a c t that F4 has not b included i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . o U l NJ 53 respect the difference between the two factors i s one of emphasis rather than of substance. However, a su b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups i s evident i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards the use of laboratory work to teach tech-niques, to present facts and to v e r i f y statements made i n the text or by the teacher. Teachers and s p e c i a l i s t s place these among t h e i r l e a s t important objectives of the laboratory course while students include them i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of most important items. Much wider differences of opinion occur between the F3 ( t r a d i t i o n a l ) viewpoint and the viewpoints of the other two f a c t o r s . The comparison of the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of F l and F2 with those of F3 show that s i g n i f i c a n t differences occur between F l and F3 and between F2 and F3 In 16 of the 24 items considered for each fa c t o r . When compared with the C h a r a c t e r i s t i c Items of F3, the item sorts of F l and F2 display s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n 19 and 16 items r e s p e c t i v e l y . L i t t l e common ground i s apparent between the opinions expressed by the viewpoints of F l and F3, while the opinions expressed by the F2 viewpoint are intermediate between the two extremes and overlap both to some extent. This i s i l l u s t r a t e d diagramatically i n F i g . 1. The divergence of opinion between the F3 and F l viewpoints i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the fa c t that h a l f (6 of 12) of the items considered most important by F3 are included i n the l i s t of l e a s t important items selected by F l . These Items are concerned with the use of the laboratory to v e r i f y statements made by the teacher or i n the text, to improve student performance i n examinations and to develop good laboratory work habits and techniques. The viewpoints of F2 and F3 are s i m i l a r i n that both consider the use of laboratory work to teach p r a c t i c a l s k i l l s and to v e r i f y statements made by the teacher or i n the text to be important. However F i g . 1 Agreement and Disagreement Between the Three Viewpoints Goals of the Laboratory To teach the processes of science To provide background for development of theory To show the relationship between labs and theory To teach s k i l l s and to provide v e r i f i c a t i o n of statements To improve performance i n examinations F l (Chem Study) Viewpoint Items: Items: 30,31,32,29,26 5,11,25,50 F2 (Student Viewpoint) Items: Items: Items: 11,25 4,7,8,9,13 10,20,39,40 F3 [Traditional Viewpoint) Items: Items: 10,15,16,17,19 17,54,55 22,23,37,38 55 they d i f f e r widely i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards the use of the laboratory course to help students perform well i n examinations. The F3 viewpoint includes the relevant items among i t s most important selections while, i n the F2 viewpoint, they are included i n the l e a s t important items. 4.6 Conclusions The sample of s p e c i a l i s t s provided a d e f i n i t i v e opinion of the goals of the laboratory for the purpose of t h i s study. By t h i s standard, i t i s ap-parent that the majority of teachers c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t the intent of the laboratory course and are of the opinion that they apply the laboratory exercises accordingly i n p r a c t i c e . Hypotheses 1.31 and 1.32 (page 3) are thus confirmed. However, hypothesis 1.33 has been shown to be untenable. Students seem to perceive that the intended goals of the laboratory exercises are to j u s t i f y t h e o r e t i c a l treatments, to help them understand s c i e n t i f i c models and to make the p r i n c i p l e s of chemistry easier to understand. In Piagetian terms, s t u -dents appear to believe that t h e i r laboratory experiences are intended to provide the concrete operational experiences which enable them to cope with abstract ideas. Kuhn (14:111) noted that teacher and student must be expected to see things d i f f e r e n t l y . Looking at a contour map, the student sees l i n e s on paper, the cartographer a p i c t u r e of a t e r r a i n . Looking at a bubble-chamber photograph, the student sees confused and broken l i n e s , the p h y s i c i s t a record of f a m i l i a r subnuclear events. Only a f t e r a number of such trans-formations does the students become an inhabitant of the s c i e n t i s t ' s world, seeing that the s c i e n t i s t sees and responding as the s c i e n t i s t does. An important goal of the Chem Study i s to make students aware of the r o l e of laboratory work i n the course (Section 1.24). I t i s evident, however, 56 that the programme has been only p a r t i a l l y successful i n t h i s regard. The extent to which the course has c l e a r l y f a i l e d to achieve t h i s goal corres-ponds to the overlap between the Student Viewpoint (F2) with the T r a d i t i o n a l Viewpoint (F3). 4.7 Suggestions for Further Research 4.71 This study should be repeated i n B r i t i s h Columbia and elsewhere with random samples of secondary school chemistry teachers and students. 4.72 Similar studies, where courses other than Chem Study are being taught, might be undertaken. 4.73 Further in v e s t i g a t i o n s into the differences between the viewpoints of teachers and students i n chemistry and i n other subject areas would be of value. A greater understanding of these factors would a s s i s t the teacher i n presenting h i s subject with greater sympathy for the student viewpoint. This would l i k e l y improve teacher-student communication. BIBLIOGRAPHY 58 6 Bibliography 1. Almie, M. Young Children's Thinking, Teachers' College Press, Columbia Uni v e r s i t y , (1967). 2. Bennett, L.M. and B.K. Pyke A Discussion of the New Chemistry Programmes and the T r a d i t i o n a l Programmes i n High School, School Science and Mathematics 64, (1967). 3. Black, N.H. New Laboratory Experiments i n P r a c t i c a l Chemistry, The Macmillan Company, New York. 4. B r i t i s h Columbia, Province: Department of Education, Curriculum D i v i s i o n , Chemistry 11 (Revised) Curriculum Guide, V i c t o r i a (1966). 5. B r i t i s h Columbia, Province: Department of Education, Curriculum D i v i s i o n , Chemistry 12 Curriculum Guide, V i c t o r i a (1966). 6. Campbell, J.A. The Chemical Education Materials Study, J . Chem. Ed. 38, (1961). 7. Campbell, J.A. Chemistry - An Experimental Science, The School Review, 51-62, (1962). 8. Dewar, M.J.S. An Introduction to Modern Chemistry, Athlone Press, London, (1965). 9. D u l l , C.E., W.O. Brookes and H.C. Metcalfe Modern Chemistry, (Canadian E d i t i o n ) , Holt (Clark-Irwin), (1953). 10. Furth, H.G. Piaget and Knowledge, Prentice H a l l , (1969). 11. Heath, R.W. and D.W. S t i c k e l l CHEM and CBA E f f e c t s on Achievement i n Chemistry, Science Teacher, 30 (5), (1963). 12. Hein, H.C. The Role of Laboratory Instruction i n High School Chemistry, School Science and Mathematics, 70_, (1970). 13. Ignatovich, F.R. Types of Elementary School Principal-Leaders. A Q-Factor Analysis. Presented to the A.E.R.A. Convention, (February 1971). 14. Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions, Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, (1970). 15. MacLean, M.S. J r . , T. Danbury, and A.D. Talbott C i v i l Defense B e l i e f Patterns 16. Malm, L.E. (Ed.) Laboratory Manual for Chemistry, An Experimental  Science, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Fransisco, (1963). 59 17. McClellan, A.L. (Ed.) Teacher's Guide for Chemistry, An Experimental Science, W.H. Freeman and Company, San Fransisco, (1963). 18. M e r r i l l , R.J. Chem Study i n Action, Journal of Secondary Education, 37_, (1962). 19. M e r r i l l , R.J. and D.W. Ridgeway The Chem Study Story, W.H. Freeman and Company, (1969). 20. Pimentel, G.P. (Ed.) Chemistry, An Experimental Science, W.H. Freeman and Company, (1963). 21. Pode, J.S.F. CBA and Chem Study: An Appreciation, Journal of Chemical Education, 43, (1966). 22. Rainey, R.G. A Comparison of the Chem Study Curriculum and a Conventional Approach i n Teaching High School Chemistry, School Science and Mathematics, 67_, (1967). 23. Shayer, M. How to Assess Science Courses, Education i n Chemistry, 1_ (5), (1970). 24. T i l l e r , H.B. Quality B e l i e f Patterns i n Secondary Education: A Q-analysis, Presented to the A.E.R.A. Convention, (February 1971). 25. Walker, N. Chem Study, CBA and Modern Chemistry: A Comparison, School Science and Mathematics, 67, (1967). APPENDIX I L i s t of Statements i n Item Sample 61 L i s t of Statements, i n Item Sample 1. introduces t h e o r e t i c a l discussion 2. i l l u s t r a t e s new applications of theory 3. proves theory i s correct 4. confirms predictions made by theory 5. leads to development of t h e o r e t i c a l models 6. solves problems posed by theory 7. makes the p r i n c i p l e s of chemistry easier to understand 8. shows that theory explains observations 9. i l l u s t r a t e s the close r e l a t i o n s h i p between theory and observation 10. v e r i f i e s statements made by teacher or textbook 11. provides a basis for understanding s c i e n t i f i c models 12. emphasises the importance of experimental work 13. provides j u s t i f i c a t i o n s of t h e o r e t i c a l treatments 14. emphasises the importance of quantitative lab work 15. teaches orderly work habits 16. teaches students how to use a balance properly 17. emphasises accuracy i n measurement 18. f a m i l i a r i s e s students with apparatus and chemicals 19. teaches students to keep t h e i r lab bench neat and clean 20. teaches experimental techniques 21. teaches students to follow i n s t r u c t i o n s accurately 22. teaches the s k i l l s of good report w r i t i n g 23. teaches methods of presenting data c l e a r l y 24. gives p r a c t i c e i n problem solving 62 25. teaches students to i n t e r p r e t experimental r e s u l t s 26. encourages students to design t h e i r own experiments 27. provides maximum opportunity for discovery learning 28. i l l u s t r a t e s the properties of matter 29. encourages unbiased observation 30. t r a i n s students to observe accurately 31. encourages students to search f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s 32. teaches students to c l a s s i f y information 33. teaches students how to formulate testable hypotheses 34. teaches students to discriminate between important and unimportant observations 35. teaches s c i e n t i f i c method 36. i l l u s t r a t e s the nature of experimental science 37. shows how s c i e n t i s t s work 38. teaches students to think l i k e s c i e n t i s t s 39. provides an i n t e r e s t i n g way of presenting s c i e n t i f i c f a c t s to students 40. re i n f o r c e s the learning of f a c t s i n chemistry 41. teaches students to be s e l f - r e l i a n t 42. teaches students to be honest 43. teaches students to be resourceful 44. teaches students to be creative 45. teaches students to be curious 46. teaches students to be imaginative 47. teaches students to be i n q u i s i t i v e 48. teaches students to show i n i t i a t i v e 49. teaches students to be discriminating 63 50. teaches students to reason l o g i c a l l y 51. teaches students to think c l e a r l y 52. stimulates i n t e r e s t i n chemistry 53. provides a basis for further studies i n chemistry 54. provides a way to assess student performance i n the course 55. helps students get a good grade i n the course 56. helps students pass the Departmental examination 57. i l l u s t r a t e s the uncertainty of experimental r e s u l t s 58. gives students an opportunity to relax and enjoy themselves 59. helps students understand chemical terminology 60. introduces research techniques APPENDIX II Questionnaire f o r Teachers Questionnaire f o r Teachers Reference No Number of years teaching chemistry Number of chemistry courses i n degree Chemistry courses now taught Did you teach the D u l l and Metcalfe course? Which course do you prefer teaching? Reasons: Do you believe you are teaching the Chem Study lab a c t i v i t i e s as suggested i n the course l i t e r a t u r e and i n the curriculum guide? Yes e n t i r e l y 5 4 3 2 1 Not at a l l If not, why not? What modifications have you made? What factors other than the course materials and the curriculum guide influence your teaching of the labs? (a) P r o v i n c i a l exams Yes 5 4 3 2 1 (b) Personal b e l i e f s 5 4 3 2 1 (c) Science methodology courses at u n i v e r s i t y 5 4 3 2 1 (d) Needs of students 5 4 3 2 1 (e) Lab f a c i l i t i e s 5 4 ' 3 2 1 (f) Other 5 4 3 2 1 B r i e f l y explain: Now that p r o v i n c i a l examinations are being abolished, w i l l you change your approach to the use of labs i n the chemistry courses? What changes w i l l you make? APPENDIX III Q-scores: Subject x Item Data Matrices Table I Q-sort 1 Table II Q-sort 2 Table III Q-sort 3 Table IV Q-sort 4 T a b l e 1 Q S c o r e s : S u b j e c t x Item Da ta M a t r i x f o r Q-so r t s 1 I tem Sco r e s o f S p e c i a l i s t s . Based on t h e i r I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the In tended Goa l s o f the L a b o r a t o r y i n the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study Programme S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 SI 1 4 2 1 3 5 3 5 4 4 2 4 7 4 8 6 4 8 5 3 6 6 5 5 5 9 5 7 5 6 6 S2 2 7 6 3 6 9 6 5 6 7 4 8 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 1 5 5 4 5 3 8 5 6 4 7 7 S3 3 7 5 3 3 7 5 6 4 6 1 7 7 . 4 5 2 4 5 6 2 5 3 3 4 6 9 4 5 7 6 6 S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 T a b l e 1 41 42 (Cont inued ) 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 SI 1 9 6 6 7 4 6 5 5 4 3 5 5 6 5 6 5 7 5 6 7 7 4 5 4 4 2 8 1 3 3 S2 2 8 5 6 6 7 9 6 7 4 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 6 6 4 3 2 2 1 6 2 3 4 S3 3 8 6 9 6 4 7 4 4 6 5 5 5 4 4 6 5 5 4 6 5 5 8 5 3 2 1 8 5 5 3 * E x p l a n a t i o n o f Code : S = S p e c i a l i s t Table 2 Q Scores: Subject x Item Data Matrix for Q-sort 2  Item Scores of Teachers, Based on their Interpretation of the Intended Goals of the Laboratory In the Provincial Chem Study Programme Subject Computer Item Code* Number 1 TA1 4 8 TBI 5 5 TB2 6 4 TB3 7 6 TCI 8 6 TC2 9 6 TD1 10 2 TD2 11 7 TE1 12 6 TF1 13 6 TGI 14 4 TG2 15 7 TH1 16 5 TH2 17 5 TH3 18 5 T i l 19 6 TI2 20 5 TJ1 21 4 TK1 22 9 TL1 23 5 TM1 24 7 TM2 25 9 TNI 26 5 TN2 27 7 T01 28 5 TP1 29 6 TQ2 30 9 TQ1 31 5 TQ3 32 9 TS1 33 6 TT1 34 6 TT2 35 6 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 5 3 6 5 5 5 3 6 2 6 6 5 3 3 4 6 4 2 6 3 3 5 3 7 4 6 4 5 8 3 4 4 5 3 5 6 6 2 6 9 3 3 5 3 4 4 2 4 4 6 6 4 7 6 5 5 6 7 6 5 5 5 5 9 5 5 3 4 7 4 2 4 1 3 2 2 7 5 4 4 5 8 3 4 8 6 6 7 3 5 5 8 5 8 8 1 7 9 7 7 1 2 2 3 1 7 3 3 7 8 8 4 4 7 2 7 3 1 2 8 3 9 7 6 1 6 7 5 3 4 2 2 5 4 5 4 4 7 3 9 2 5 1 8 5 3 2 6 3 6 8 6 4 2 6 5 7 7 6 7 8 5 3 5 8 6 7 7 7 7 5 1 6 9 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 2 6 9 4 4 5 4 8 6 5 7 6 4 6 6 6 6 4 5 1 7 3 2 7 7 5 6 7 5 3 9 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 2 5 4 4 5 4 8 4 6 6 6 6 6 1 5 4 5 7 5 6 1 7 7 4 3 4 3 5 3 2 6 5 6 7 5 8 3 6 4 8 9 4 4 5 7 5 4 5 5 4 5 6 4 6 5 4 6 4 3 4 5 5 6 6 6 2 8 6 6 7 7 3 5 5 5 5 4 8 2 8 4 3 4 5 3 6 5 2 6 4 6 7 5 9 4 7 3 6 7 5 3 5 7 4 6 9 8 6 8 7 5 6 3 3 4 4 2 4 3 2 4 5 6 6 5 7 7 6 5 3 6 9 5 4 5 3 2 8 4 4 8 5 4 6 4 4 4 6 5 7 4 7 4 9 3 6 6 2 2 4 7 5 5 4 4 3 4 6 4 8 5 5 5 5 4 7 6 4 7 5 6 3 6 5 5 8 3 1 5 3 3 6 6 6 3 5 5 4 5 7 3 6 4 2 6 6 3 6 6 8 4 6 5 7 7 5 3 3 5 5 6 4 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 3 7 3 1 5 4 5 7 6 8 5 3 5 7 9 7 6 6 6 4 7 7 8 3 5 5 5 2 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 2 4 5 4 3 6 7 6 6 3 2 2 8 4 6 3 5 2 9 7 5 7 2 4 7 5 1 6 6 3 5 5 7 4 8 7 5 7 4 1 4 8 3 6 3 7 2 6 4 6 6 4 5 7 6 3 6 4 5 6 4 6 5 9 4 7 6 6 4 6 9 4 8 5 9 5 7 4 6 4 5 2 4 6 5 6 5 5 5 7 8 4 3 4 7 7 8 3 4 9 4 4 5 4 3 6 5 5 4 5 3 6 5 2 5 5 4 5 5 8 5 9 5 6 7 5 2 5 4 4 5 7 8 6 5 5 9 5 5 5 6 7 2 6 6 5 7 6 8 4 4 4 7 8 5 3 3 5 4 6 5 6 5 6 6 4 4 6 5 6 3 2 5 7 4 4 4 7 6 9 5 7 6 6 3 3 3 4 3 4 6 7 3 6 6 5 4 8 5 6 2 9 5 5 5 4 5 6 6 5 8 6 4 4 2 6 3 7 5 6 2 8 9 5 6 4 6 7 7 3 7 5 3 6 6 8 5 6 6 7 5 5 5 6 7 5 5 5 7 4 6 5 5 5 4 3 2 5 2 5 4 2 5 4 7 6 7 3 8 6 5 3 5 8 5 5 4 5 1 8 6 3 6 5 3 6 4 2 5 3 6 5 5 7 7 8 5 6 7 4 1 3 6 4 5 4 4 2 7 7 2 5 5 4 4 5 3 6 4 4 6 6 8 6 5 5 8 9 3 2 3 8 3 5 5 4 1 5 7 3 5 5 3 5 5 2 4 6 5 5 4 7 4 9 5 7 6 4 2 5 7 3 7 5 8 4 7 9 5 8 5 3 8 6 3 6 1 4 5 3 6 6 7 5 7 6 4 1 3 6 4 6 6 6 3 7 .4 4 4 3 3 7 5 3 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 7 4 6 8 2 5 5 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5- 3 7 6 6 3 3 9 6 3 3 7 8 * Explanation of Code: Digit 1: T = Teacher D i g i t 2: Code l e t t e r of school D i g i t 3: Identification number of teacher i n the school T a b l e 2 (Cont inued ) S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 TA1 4 7 6 5 7 6 5 6 7 5 5 7 1 7 5 5 5 5 4 8 9 9 5 4 3 2 1 4 2 4 5 TB I 5 7 7 6 4 5 9 8 8 5 4 5 4 5 5 7 7 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 6 2 4 5 TB2 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 5 5 7 7 6 4 8 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 7 9 5 5 3 4 1 3 4 TB3 7 8 5 5 5 5 9 5 2 4 2 2 3 3 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 3 5 6 5 9 4 6 6 TC I 8 9 8 3 6 2 5 5 6 7 3 7 4 5 4 6 3 6 4 5 7 5 6 6 1 1 1 8 5 4 6 TC2 9 9 7 6 5 6 4 6 6 6 3 3 3 3 1 4 3 6 3 4 6 6 3 6 6 4 4 7 2 5 3 TD1 10 9 7 6 7 8 8 4 4 4 4 5 3 5 4 5 3 6 3 5 6 5 5 4 2 3 3 7 3 1 5 TD2 11 9 6 7 3 5 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 5 6 8 5 5 6 2 1 1 6 4 4 4 TE1 12 9 6 5 5 5 7 5 8 5 3 4 4 5 6 4 4 4 5 4 6 7 6 5 4 2 3 6 2 5 5 TF1 13 9 8 9 5 8 7 7 7 4 5 2 1 2 1 4 2 5 2 4 4 4 6 6 4 3 3 4 3 3 7 TGI 14 9 7 4 7 6 8 3 4 5 4 6 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 5 2 1 1 6 5 3 5 TG2 15 9 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 3 5 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 4 8 4 6 4 1 1 1 5 2 3 6 TH1 16 6 7 6 7 7 8 6 7 3 3 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 5 5 5 6 4 2 2 6 1 4 5 TH2 17 8 5 7 4 9 6 7 9 5 5 3 3 3 4 7 5 5 3 5 4 4 5 5 4 2 1 6 1 5 5 TH3 18 8 5 7 8 9 9 4 4 5 6 4 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 7 6 5 5 4 2 1 7 4 5 5 T i l 19 9 7 5 7 . 6 8 3 5 5 5 4 4 4 1 5 4 5 4 6 7 6 5 6 3 2 2 8 3 4 2 TI2 20 7 6 5 5 9 5 6 6 5 4 4 1 3 5 4 4 6 5 1 5 8 5 9 4 3 3 5 2 8 6 TJ1 21 9 5 6 4 5 6 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 1 8 3 3 5 TK1 22 8 6 7 4 4 5 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 5 7 6 8 3 6 6 6 6 5 3 2 1 7 2 4 5 TL1 23 8 7 6 4 6 5 5 5 6 5 5 2 5 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 7 6 5 3 1 2 6 1 4 3 TM1 24 7 6 7 6 6 7 6 8 5 4 5 3 4 6 6 5 7 5 5 6 5 5 4 3 1 1 6 2 2 3 TM2 25 6 5 4 6 2 7 5 4 7 6 3 .3 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 5 6 5 5 1 1 6 5 6 4 TNI 26 8 4 4 4 8 8 5 7 4 3 4 3 9 2 7 3 4 4 6 6 6 5 4 5 2 1 7 1 5 5 TN2 27 5 5 6 4 7 9 4 4 5 4 6 7 5 6 7 4 4 5 5 7 2 8 5 1 1 1 5 2 4 5 T01 28 8 6 3 4 5 6 5 7 5 2 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 6 4 5 5 4 4 1 9 1 5 3 TP1 29 9 4 7 8 4 6 3 5 4 3 5 5 6 6 9 5 6 5 7 6 6 8 3 4 1 1 3 4 5 5 TQ2 30 9 6 7 7 6 6 5 4 5 1 • 4 2 5 6 4 4 5 4 6 7 4 5 5 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 TQ1 31 9 4 4 5 6 7 5 7 3 3 6 7 5 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 7 5 3 2 1 8 4 5 3 TQ3 32 8 6 6 7 6 7 • 5 7 5 1 5 5 5 4 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 8 3 4 4 TS1 33 9 5 6 6 5 5 3 4 4 6 5 6 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 4 3 2 2 7 1 4 4 TT1 34 8 8 6 7 9 6 5 5 3 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 6 4 5 9 5 6 5 3 2 2 7 1 5 4 TT2 35 9 8 3 8 6 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 6 6 7 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 6 3 1 1 4 2 3 3 * E x p l a n a t i o n o f Code : D i g i t 1: T = Teache r D i g i t 2: Code l e t t e r o f s c h o o l D i g i t 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f t e a che r i n the s c h o o l ON vo T a b l e 3 Q S c o r e s : S u b j e c t x Item Da ta M a t r i x f o r Q-sor t 3  I tem Sco r e s o f T e a c h e r s , Based on the Goa l s of the L a b o r a t o r y as A p p l i e d In t h e i r Own C lass rooms S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 TA1 36 6 4 3 6 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 5 3 7 2 3 3 3 5 5 8 5 5 TB2 37 4 7 6 6 7 5 5 4 7 3 4 7 6 6 4 2 3 1 4 7 2 5 5 6 9 4 8 5 5 TB3 38 9 1 2 4 5 5 3 6 3 2 4 9 5 7 1 4 4 6 2 7 3 4 8 7 8 4 3 1 4 TC I 39 7 1 1 3 8 6 9 7 5 1 6 6 6 3 5 2 3 5 4 4 4 2 9 5 9 2 5 1 5 TC2 40 9 5 4 9 3 8 7 8 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 3 5 7 5 6 6 7 3 4 5 4 TD1 41 3 5 5 5 6 4 6 5 5 6 6 6 5 6 7 6 8 7 6 8 5 4 5 3 8 4 5 5 7 TD2 42 5 4 3 7 7 3 5 5 5 2 7 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 1 6 3 5 5 6 6 6 6 4 7 TE1 43 5 5 1 2 5 5 8 4 4 1 5 5 5 2 3 3 4 3 3 7 3 5 7 5 8 2 9 6 7 TF1 44 8 3 4 4 6 4 4 4 5 3 5 5 4 5 2 3 5 5 2 5 4 2 3 4 6 9 6 5 6 TGI 45 5 4 3 6 4 3 8 4 8 2 7 5 4 5 4 3 5 4 2 6 3 6 6 6 9 3 7 4 7 TG2 46 8 5 1 5 9 5 7 5 6 4 9 7 7 6 5 2 5 5 4 6 5 4 5 5 7 4 3 8 3 TH1 47 8 7 4 4 9 8 5 5 5 4 9 7 5 7 5 5 6 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 7 8 7 5 6 TH2 48 6 3 2 3 4 1 6 5 5 3 5 5 4 8 4 5 5 8 4 7 7 7 4 5 9 2 4 5 5 TH3 49 4 5 2 6 5 6 5 5 6 5 4 5 4 4 6 4 3 5 3 6 7 2 6 6 7 3 6 5 7 T i l 50 5 4 2 4 6 5 5 6 6 3 6 6 5 5 6 1 5 3 1 5 5 5 6 5 9 5 4 3 7 T I2 51 6 6 9 5 6 5 7 5 7 6 5 6 9 5 4 6 5 5 3 4 4 3 5 5 6 3 5 5 4 TJ1 52 5 6 5 4 5 6 4 4 7 4 4 5 4 4 2 6 4 9 1 5 7 2 6 6 8 3 3 7 7 TK1 53 5 2 1 8 5 2 7 6 6 5 8 3 7 6 5 4 5 5 1 5 3 5 5 4 5 6 4 4 6 LT1 54 7 5 3 5 8 7 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 3 4 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 9 6 9 8 4 6 TM1 55 9 4 3 4 5 4 4 6 3 5 7 5 5 5 5 1 8 8 6 8 6 7 6 5 5 2 5 5 6 TM2 56 7 5 3 6 5 4 5 6 6 8 7 5 6 5 5 1 6 9 1 4 7 8 7 5 5 4 5 6 5 TNI 57 5 4 2 4 5 3 7 4 4 3 5 6 3 6 8 6 3 9 7 8 6 4 5 6 6 5 5 6 5 TN2 58 5 2 4 6 5 5 3 6 6 5 5 8 5 4 4 4 3 7 5 7 6 2 7 4 6 3 4 4 7 T01 59 5 2 3 4 5 3 5 5 5 1 5 8 5 6 8 5 6 6 6 7 7 4 5 6 9 4 5 5 6 TP1 60 7 5 1 5 9 4 8 7 6 1 4 4 7 5 5 3 5 6 3 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 7 5 6 TQ2 61 6 6 2 4 6 4 5 4 3 3 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 4 1 5 4 6 6 5 9 8 5 5 6 TQ1 62 5 5 1 2 6 6 6 4 3 2 8 7 3 6 5 4 4 6 2 6 4 3 6 5 7 4 7 3 8 TQ3 63 9 8 2 3 9 4 5 2 5 1 5 5 3 3 4 3 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 6 4 7 5 8 TS1 64 6 4 3 6 6 4 7 5 9 4 6 9 8 7 5 3 7 6 2 7 2 5 5 4 7 5 5. 6 5 TT1 65 6 4 1 6 4 3 4 5 5 3 4 6 4 6 5 3 4 5 3 6 5 5 4 6 5 6 7 4 7 TT2 66 8 3 4 4 4 3 6 5 6 4 4 6 5 6 4 5 5 5 3 7 5 5 7 6 9 4 2 6 6 30 * E x p l a n a t i o n o f Code : D i g i t 1: T = Teacher D i g i t 2: Code l e t t e r o f s c h o o l D i g i t 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f p u p i l i n the s c h o o l T a b l e 3 (Cont inued ) S u b j e c t Computer I tem Code* Number 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 TA1 36 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 5 4 5 6 2 7 7 5 4 4 4 8 9 9 4 3 2 1 1 3 3 4 4 TB2 37 5 6 3 5 8 8 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 3 5 1 6 3 5 6 5 4 3 6 2 6 7 TB3 38 7 6 1 3 6 3 2 2 7 5 4 2 4 1 7 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 2 8 3 5 8 2 6 2 TCI 39 9 9 6 5 5 5 8 9 5 4 7 5 4 8 8 5 8 7 6 8 9 9 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 8 TC2 40 8 8 4 5 6 5 3 8 5 5 4 4 7 3 6 5 6 7 8 8 8 6 2 1 8 1 7 5 e 2 TD1 41 4 7 4 7 6 5 5 4 5 2 4 4 3 3 4 5 4 4 5 3 3 9 6 2 2 1 7 1 5 6 TD2 42 8 5 5 4 2 7 4 3 4 3 6 7 6 6 3 6 7 6 8 9 9 5 5 2 4 1 4 5 5 4 TE1 43 8 6 6 7 6 7 6 5 5 3 5 4 6 4 6 4 5 6 7 9 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 6 TF1 44 7 6 6 6 5 4 4 5 5 4 7 1 9 7 6 7 6 7 6 8 8 5 5 5 3 1 4 5 6 5 TGI 45 9 6 4 8 5 6 4 4 6 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 6 7 5 7 5 2 1 1 6 5 3 6 TG2 46 9 6 6 7 6 8 5 6 5 5 3 4 6 4 6 4 6 4 5 7 6 5 6 4 4 4 3 1 2 6 TH1 47 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 6 5 5 5 5 2 2 2 6 1 1 4 TH2 48 6 7 4 3 5 9 7 6 6 5 4 4 4 3 6 6 6 3 5 6 8 6 5 5 2 4 5 1 6 5 TH3 49 8 7 5 9 9 6 3 3 4 4 4 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 7 8 6 5 6 4 1 1 7 3 4 4 T i l 50 9 8 6 7 7 8 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 7 6 5 6 6 3 2 2 7 5 3 4 TI2 51 8 5 3 2 7 5 8 5 3 5 4 6 6 4 6 4 5 4 2 7 6 7 8 4 1 1 4 2 5 3 TJ1 52 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 3 3 5 6 5 3 4 6 6 5 7 4 5 4 5 5 6 1 4 9 3 8 TK1 53 6 4 4 6 7 4 3 5 6 6 6 5 7 2 7 4 7 7 6 5 4 9 5 4 3 3 8 9 4 3 TL1 54 6 6 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 5 7 2 7 3 6 7 6 4 5 4 6 8 6 3 1 2 5 1 4 7 TM1 55 6 7 4 7 9 6 5 4 3 5 6 5 5 4 3 4 6 4 5 7 5 4 5 6 2 3 6 1 4 2 TM2 56 4 5 4 6 3 5 3 3 6 8 3 2 5 4 2 4 4 2 5 4 4 9 5 6 6 7 6 7 4 3 TNI 57 6 5 5 5 2 5 4 4 7 7 6 2 6 3 5 5 6 4 5 4 5 7 R 1 1 4 7 1 9 6 TN2 58 5 5 5 6 5 5 2 6 3 3 8 9 8 4 3 4 7 7 5 6 5 6 4 1 1 2 6 9 4 6 T01 59 7 7 3 4 5 6 4 6 6 3 5 7 3 4 4 5 4 4 5 8 6 5 4 4 3 2 9 1 5 2 TP1 60 6 6 6 8 3 7 4 2 6 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 7 7 9 6 8 2 5 6 6 4 4 4 2 TQ2 61 8 8 9 7 5 5 4 2 3 1 7 5 6 7 6 6 6 5 7 7 6 4 5 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 TQ1 62 9 4 3 6 5 8 6 7 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 5 5 5 5 7 6 4 4 1 7 4 5 4 TQ3 63 8 5 7 6 5 5 4 4 5 3 6 7 6 5 6 5 6 7 5 5 7 6 4 4 5 3 7 6 4 4 TS1 64 6 4 4 6 6 5 3 6 5 7 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 5 5 8 5 3 1 2 8 1 5 5 TT1 65 5 7 7 4 9 6 3 8 4 3 5 5 7 6 5 5 5 5 7 8 9 6 5 2 2 1 4 2 5 6 TT2 66 9 7 5 7 6 6 5 3 5 5 3 2 5 4 5 4 4 5 8 7 7 4 6 3 1 1 5 2 6 5 * E x p l a n a t i o n o f Code : D i g i t 1 D i g i t 2 D i g i t 3 T = Teache r Code l e t t e r o f s c h o o l I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f p u p i l i n the s c h o o l Table 4 (a) Subjects PAI to PL4  Q Scores: Subject x Item Data Matrix for Q-Sort 4  Item Scores of Students, Based on Their Perception of the Goals of the Laboratory i n the Provincial Chem Study Programme Subject Computer Item Code* Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PAI 67 5 5 6 9 6 5 7 7 7 6 5 4 4 5 5 1 6 8 1 6 4 4 4 6 6 3 5 5 6 6 PA2 68 1 5 9 8 1 4 4 9 8 8 4 5 6 5 3 2 4 6 2 5 5 5 3 4 6 6 5 5 2 5 PB1 69 4 5 5 4 4 5 6 5 7 5 4 7 4 5 2 3 5 6 1 5 5 5 4 5 6 5 4 5 5 5 PB2 70 6 6 7 7 6 5 6 6 7 5 7 5 7 3 4 5 4 5 1 6 5 1 5 4 6 4 9 7 5 5 PB3 71 5 5 5 5 6 8 8 5 5 8 5 7 5 3 3 2 5 7 1 5 4 3 6 5 4 3 4 4 4 6 PB4 72 3 3 5 5 6 7 8 5 7 4 6 4 4 6 2 2 6 5 1 5 6 6 3 7 6 7 8 4 7 6 PB5 73 3 5 3 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 3 4 3 4 6 6 5 6 6 3 5 4 5 6 9 4 5 6 PB6 74 7 7 7 8 6 9 7 8 8 7 6 3 7 3 2 5 5 5 2 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 6 6 6 5 PD1 75 3 4 4 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 5 7 4 7 7 7 5 9 6 6 5 4 5 6 5 5 8 5 2 6 PD2 76 4 7 5 7 6 4 2 9 8 6 8 7 6 6 6 6 4 6 5 6 7 3 5 3 3 2 4 8 5 7 PD3 77 6 5 4 5 6 5 6 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 1 4 4 1 5 4 3 3 5 5 6 6 5 5 5 PE1 78 8 5 5 6 8 5 8 7 5 6 9 4 7 5 4 3 3 4 2 6 6 3 6 5 7 3 9 5 6 5 PE2 79 3 3 5 8 6 5 5 8 8 9 4 4 9 5 4 4 7 5 1 5 6 5 6 6 7 3 3 7 5 7 PG1 80 9 5 5 7 5 5 9 5 6 6 7 7 8 6 3 1 5 4 2 6 5 3 5 5 7 5 6 5 6 6 PG2 81 6 5 3 5 4 4 9 3 7 8 6 6 6 3 5 4 7 7 1 8 5 4 5 5 9 5 5 7 4 5 PG3 82 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 1 5 8 2 5 4 5 4 4 6 1 8 8 5 6 PG4 83 5 6 7 7 7 6 9 8 7 6 9 6 7 6 4 3 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 8 6 5 5 5 5 5 PHI 84 4 4 5 7 3 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 4 4 1 2 3 4 6 7 4 6 5 6 8 5 5 4 7 PH2 85 6 6 4 6 4 6 7 7 8 6 6 6 7 4 5 4 4 7 2 6 5 <; 6 5 5 4 9 8 5 5 PH3 86 6 5 3 6 7 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 6 3 5 3 4 5 2 7 5 3 4 5 5 6 7 5 6 9 PH4 87 6 6 5 7 6 6 6 7 7 5 8 5 7 4 3 3 5 5 3 6 6 5 5 6 9 2 3 5 5 8 P l l 88 4 4 6 7 5 4 2 5 4 3 4 5 5 6 4 5 6 7 2 6 5 2 7 4 4 1 7 8 6 5 PI2 89 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 8 5 7 3 2 4 4 1 6 5 6 5 6 8 9 f 4 3 5 PL1 90 5 5 6 6 5 4 5 6 6 5 5 9 5 6 4 4 4 7 1 7 9 3 7 4 5 5 5 5 4 6 PL2 91 9 6 6 5 8 6 6 5 6 5 7 5 9 5 4 4 5 7 2 7 4 1 4 6 7 5 5 6 6 6 PL3 92 7 5 5 7 5 7 8 6 7 5 8 7 5 4 3 2 4 3 2 5 3 3 4 5 6 5 q 6 6 5 PL4 93 5 5 7 8 6 5 7 8 6 8 7 4 5 6 4 3 4 5 2 6 5 7 5 5 o 7 6 6 4 5 * Explanation of Code: Digit 1: P = Student Digit 2: Code l e t t e r of school Digit 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number of student i n the school K 3 T a b l e 4 (a) (Con t i nued ) S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PAI 67 4 3 6 4 5 4 5 7 8 3 3 5 5 4 7 7 8 3 5 9 6 3 4 2 2 2 5 4 5 5 PA2 68 7 5 7 5 5 7 5 6 4 7 5 3 3 4 4 3 6 4 6 7 6 4 5 6 4 3 6 1 6 5 PB1 69 3 6 3 7 6 2 8 3 8 4 9 1 7 6 4 3 6 7 9 6 6 8 5 2 7 3 4 6 6 4 PB2 70 6 6 5 5 5 6 4 4 9 5 2 3 4 2 5 2 8 4 4 4 3 8 8 5 3 3 5 3 4 6 PB3 71 5 4 6 6 6 5 7 6 6 9 3 1 4 5 6 5 5 4 4 7 4 7 7 3 6 2 9 2 4 6 PB4 72 4 4 7 4 3 3 2 4 3 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 9 8 4 9 6 4 1 4 6 PB5 73 7 6 6 4 5 5 2 2 5 5 8 2 7 6 7 7 8 9 4 8 7 7 4 3 1 1 5 4 6 6 PB6 74 5 5 5 5 5 6 3 4 9 6 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 6 3 1 2 6 1 5 5 PD1 75 3 4 2 4 6 5 5 5 8 5 2 2 7 8 6 5 4 6 5 4 7 9 6 3 1 1 5 9 6 6 PD2 76 9 7 4 4 8 6 5 5 5 6 5 1 5 2 4 2 4 5 5 8 5 7 9 3 1 1 4 1 6 4 PD3 77 4 3 6 4 5 6 3 2 5 3 7 7 9 9 8 7 7 8 5 7 7 6 6 4 2 2 6 8 6 5 PE1 78 7 5 4 5 5 4 3 2 7 6 4 2 5 4 5 4 4 4 6 7 5 6 6 6 3 1 5 1 4 5 PE2 79 6 6 6 6 5 6 4 4 6 7 3 2 5 4 5 3 4 4 6 5 5 5 4 4 2 1 7 2 5 5 PG1 80 6 5 7 7 5 5 4 4 9 8 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6 8 4 3 3 7 2 5 5 PG2 81 6 5 6 6 6 5 3 4 5 8 3 1 4 2 5 2 7 4 5 7 4 6 5 3 2 4 6 4 6 5 PG3 82 6 5 5 5 6 6 3 6 6 3 3 5 4 3 7 6 7 7 7 7 7 9 6 4 2 2 9 6 4 6 PG4 83 5 5 5 7 5 6 4 1 6 8 4 3 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 5 4 6 6 2 2 1 6 4 5 5 PHI 84 6 4 6 6 6 6 3 5 4 5 5 2 6 7 4 7 9 9 3 5 8 8 6 5 2 1 6 5 4 7 PH2 85 6 7 5 5 5 4 3 3 8 7 3 2 5 3 4 3 5 2 3 5 5 9 5 4 1 1 6 5 4 4 PH3 86 5 4 6 4 8 4 3 4 7 7 2 3 6 6 7 8 8 4 1 9 6 6 6 5 5 5 2 1 5 4 PH4 87 4 4 8 4 4 6 4 9 4 5 4 1 2 3 4 7 6 4 5 6 7 5 4 5 3 1 5 2 5 5 PI1 88 3 5 5 6 8 6 5. 7 4 6 8 3 5 4 9 5 4 6 5 7 2 9 6 6 5 1 5 5 5 5 PI2 89 3 5 8 7 6 3 2 4 4 7 5 2 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 9 7 7 6 6 5 1 6 7 PL1 90 7 5 3 4 8 8 4 6 5 7 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 6 5 6 7 4 3 3 4 6 3 8 PL2 91 7 4 7 8 6 5 2 4 5 5 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 7 4 5 5 3 3 3 6 3 5 8 PL3 92 6 5 6 6 5 4 4 4 6 6 4 1 4 2 5 3 5 5 3 7 6 8 9 5 5 4 4 1 4 6 PL4 93 6 7 5 5 6 6 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 2 5 2 5 4 4 6 4 1 6 3 3 3 5 1 4 9 * E x p l a n a t i o n o f Code : D i g i t 1: P = S tudent D i g i t 2: Code l e t t e r o f s c h o o l D i g i t 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f s t u d e n t i n the s c h o o l OJ T a b l e 4 (b) S u b j e c t s PL5 to PT3  Q S c o r e s : Sub jec t x Item Data M a t r i x f o r Q-sor t 4  I tem Sco res o f S t u d e n t s , Based on T h e i r P e r c e p t i o n o f the G o a l s o f the L a b o r a t o r y i n the P r o v i n c i a l Chem Study Programme S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 PL5 94 6 5 3 5 5 4 7 4 7 2 6 5 4 6 3 5 4 6 1 7 2 3 5 4 6 8 9 4 6 4 PL6 95 6 7 4 6 8 5 7 5 5 5 8 6 5 5 3 2 4 4 3 6 5 3 5 5 9 7 6 6 5 8 PL7 96 4 6 5 5 3 5 5 3 6 6 6 9 5 5 6 5 6 8 9 4 8 1 4 4 7 5 6 3 5 7 PM1 97 8 9 3 4 6 8 5 7 9 3 6 4 6 4 4 2 5 4 4 7 5 3 5 3 6 5 6 5 4 5 PM2 98 5 6 7 8 9 4 5 7 6 6 7 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 4 6 7 2 5 4 8 5 5 9 6 6 PM3 99 5 5 9 8 5 6 8 6 6 9 5 6 8 6 4 4 5 5 2 7 5 4 4 5 7 4 6 6 5 6 PM4 100 5 4 4 7 6 5 6 7 8 5 5 6 5 4 6 6 6 8 2 7 4 1 7 5 7 3 6 6 2 5 PM5 101 6 5 4 5 4 4 9 6 4 7 5 7 5 5 6 2 5 6 3 6 5 5 7 4 5 1 4 5 4 5 PN1 102 7 7 5 6 7 4 8 6 8 7 6 6 8 5 1 3 6 3 3 4 5 2 5 4 9 5 6 5 4 5 PN2 103 4 5 2 7 5 5 4 5 6 5 5 8 6 5 3 4 6 8 1 9 6 4 6 6 8 3 5 6 4 9 PN3 104 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 2 2 7 6 9 6 7 6 4 6 8 5 3 7 3 5 6 4 4 PPI 105 7 5 4 5 6 4 8 5 9 3 5 6 4 8 4 3 7 5 3 5 8 5 5 2 6 4 4 5 4 7 PP2 106 5 7 4 7 6 8 6 7 9 5 7 5 8 3 4 3 5 6 2 5 3 4 . 4 5 6 4 5 9 5 5 PQ1 107 5 7 7 6 7 5 6 6 6 6 6 4 5 4 4 3 5 5 2 5 4 4 4 4 5 6 5 7 5 5 PQ2 108 3 5 5 5 5 6 9 4 5 4 4 6 5 5 5 3 5 5 4 6 9 7 8 6 7 1 4 5 6 6 PQ3 109 4 5 5 5 7 6 3 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 2 5 4 7 3 7 4 5 7 9 6 9 2 6 4 5 P04 110 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 6 4 7 6 4 5 5 5 9 7 4 8 6 3 3 2 8 4 5 6 3 6 PR1 111 5 4 3 3 3 4 8 6 5 6 4 4 3 5 6 4 4 5 2 8 5 7 7 6 6 2 7 5 9 5 PR2 112 2 3 3 3 2 3 7 3 7 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 2 5 6 4 5 4 5 9 8 5 6 5 PR3 113 5 5 6 6 4 6 9 6 8 4 6 6 5 3 2 1 2 4 4 5 5 3 7 5 8 6 7 8 5 4 PR4 114 4 4 6 9 5 5 6 7 7 6 8 7 6 4 2 3 5 5 2 6 4 3 5 5 4 5 9 6 5 4 PR5 115 4 5 6 8 5 6 8 6 6 6 9 6 6 5 5 5 5 7 5 7 5 2 4 3 8 5 9 6 3 7 PSI 116 5 4 3 3 5 5 4 5 6 4 6 3 4 5 7 6 6 8 7 6 6 7 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 3 PS2 117 6 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 6 3 5 6 5 5 5 2 4 5 1 6 4 3 3 6 8 6 9 3 5 5 PT1 118 6 6 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 6 4 3 5 9 4 4 6 6 6 7 8 7 7 4 7 3 5 4 2 7 PT2 119 6 6 4 6 6 5 6 5 7 5 5 9 5 9 3 2 5 6 4 7 7 3 6 5 7 5 5 5 8 6 PT3 120 9 5 5 6 5 5 7 5 7 4 6 7 6 5 5 3 6 6 1 8 4 1 4 4 q 7 6 3 5 6 * E x p l a n a t i o n c f Code : D i g i t 1: P = Student D i g i t 2: Code l e t t e r o f s c h o o l D i g i t 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f s tuden t i n the s c h o o l T a b l e 4 (b) (Cont inued ) S u b j e c t Code* Computer Number I tem 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 PL5 94 8 5 6 7 6 6 4 3 5 4 5 3 6 5 4 5 6 5 5 5 7 9 7 3 2 1 4 1 4 8 PL6 95 5 4 5 7 6 5 2 3 4 6 6 2 4 3 7 4 7 5 4 9 4 6 6 5 1 3 4 1 4 5 PL 7 96 6 5 6 3 7 6 2 4 5 5 7 3 4 2 5 4 4 4 2 7 5 8 5 3 5 1 3 4 7 5 PM1 97 5 7 6 6 5 5 3 2 5 6 7 4 7 7 5 5 6 4 4 6 4 5 8 3 2 1 6 1 5 5 PM2 98 7 5 6 1 7 5 4 4 5 4 5 4 6 2 5 3 3 3 1 6 5 3 8 3 4 4 6 2 6 5 PM3 99 6 4 5 5 7 6 5 5 7 7 2 1 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 5 4 5 4 3 3 3 6 1 5 7 PM4 100 8 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 9 4 3 1 6 3 3 2 3 3 7 4 6 6 5 4 5 5 9 4 5 5 PM5 101 5 3 3 6 9 7 5 5 7 6 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 3 2 5 5 9 8 8 6 6 7 1 5 5 PN1 102 6 5 6 7 5 5 3 4 6 6 5 3 5 2 5 4 4 4 5 9 5 4 7 3 4 2 5 1 5 4 PN2 103 6 7 5 4 7 5 3 2 7 6 6 1 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 7 5 5 5 4 3 2 6 3 3 7 PN3 104 7 8 7 7 5 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 6 3 5 4 4 6 6 5 4 1 5 8 1 4 9 6 5 6 PP1 105 7 6 6 9 3 5 1 2 5 6 7 2 6 5 6 5 6 6 7 6 4 5 5 4 4 3 3 1 4 5 PP2 106 8 5 5 6 4 5 4 4 5 6 3 1 5 2 6 5 7 4 3 4 3 6 6 4 2 6 6 1 5 7 PQ l PQ2 PQ3 PQ4 107 6 4 5 5 4 8 5 2 3 6 3 1 7 1 9 3 9 8 5 6 5 8 7 4 3 2 5 3 6 4 108 4 6 5 7 5 5 4 3 4 7 4 3 3 2 6 2 6 1 7 8 7 6 8 5 6 3 4 2 4 5 109 6 5 4 6 8 5 3 4 4 7 4 1 6 3 5 2 4 5 6 6 3 1 8 5 5 3 5 7 6 8 110 5 6 4 5 8 6 7 7 6 5 4 3 5 2 7 2 7 4 5 5 6 6 5 3 1 1 9 4 5 6 PR1 111 6 4 5 6 7 5 1 2 4 4 6 6 5 6 4 6 5 5 7 9 8 7 4 5 5 3 5 1 3 5 PR2 112 6 4 9 4 4 6 5 6 7 7 5 1 1 5 6 5 6 4 4 8 6 7 3 4 3 4 5 4 6 8 PR3 113 5 4 7 5 4 4 1 5 9 7 6 5 4 3 5 3 7 2 3 4 7 6 4 3 5 5 6 6 5 5 PR4 114 5 3 5 5 6 7 4 5 7 8 4 2 5 3 5 3 6 4 5 6 4 7 8 4 3 1 6 1 6 5 4 PR5 115 5 3 5 5 6 6 1 2 7 6 7 4 4 4 4 4 5 7 5 5 3 3 4 4 2 4 5 1 3 PSI 116 5 5 5 6 8 5 4 4 6 6 1 1 3 4 A 2 3 2 4 4 2 7 6 6 7 9 5 9 7 8 PS2 117 8 4 8 5 5 4 2 4 5 5 6 3 6 6 7 7 7 7 6 9 7 7 4 4 3 2 5 1 5 6 PT1 118 9 7 5 3 6 5 4 1 8 6 5 1 4 2 5 3 4 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 5 3 8 3 4 2 PT2 119 5 5 8 7 5 3 2 3 4 8 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 7 4 4 6 3 1 2 6 1 5 6 PT3 120 6 5 7 8 6 5 4 6 8 5 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 3 5 7 * E x p l a n a t i o n o f Code : D i g i t 1: P = S tudent D i g i t 2: Code l e t t e r of s c h o o l D i g i t 3: I d e n t i f i c a t i o n number o f s tuden t i n the s c h o o l 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093125/manifest

Comment

Related Items