UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The limited success student in science : a survey of current practices in teaching junior secondary science… Healy, Peter Sinclair Davis 1978

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1979_A8 H43.pdf [ 7.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094832.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094832-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094832-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094832-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094832-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094832-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094832-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094832-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094832.ris

Full Text

THE LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENT IN SCIENCE A survey of current practices in teaching j u n i o r secondary science in B r i t i s h Columbia by PETER SINCLAIR DAVIS HEALY B.Sc,  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES u l t y of Education, Science Education Department)  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1978  Peter S i n c l a i r Davis Healy, 1978  In p r e s e n t i n g  this  thesis  an advanced degree at the L i b r a r y s h a l l I  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by h i s of  written  thesis  make i t  t h a t permission  for  the requirements  Columbia,  I agree  r e f e r e n c e and  f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f  this  It  for financial  i s understood that copying or gain s h a l l  of Science Education  2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  January 19,1979  Columbia  not  for  that  study. thesis  purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  D a t e  freely available  permission.  Department  fulfilment of  the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  representatives.  this  in p a r t i a l  or  publication  be allowed without my  ABSTRACT  The p u r p o s e 1.  of  'Determine  this  the s t a t u s  in the t e a c h i n g students 2.  those  was  to:  of c u r r e n t  of s c i e n c e  i n B.C.  Compare  study  to  limited  junior  secondary  the c u r r e n t  practices  advocated  practices  used  success  schools i n B.C.  in the l i t e r a t u r e  from  with  other  countries 3.  sProduce  provement  a set of recommendations  of  science  education  for  for  the  limited  im-  success  students A mail formation of  questionnaire  gained  limited  was  in a l i t e r a t u r e  success  students.  b u t e d t o a s e l e c t e d sample in  the P r o v i n c e  teachers  of  B.C.  class  size;  m i n a t i o n ; approaches teacher  background  The r e s u l t s of response  on t h e  the  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e 336 j u n i o r  items  on:  and t e a c h e r  student  sampled  Teachers grouping  of content  deter-  evaluation;  experience.  o f t h e r e s p o n s e s were r e p o r t e d as  and p e r c e n t a g e  distri-  teachers  the  student  c u r r i c u l a ; methods  to l e a r n i n g ;  was  science  p e r c e n t of  in-  teaching  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  to q u e s t i o n n a i r e  practices;  of  based  r e v i e w of  Eighty-two  (.299) r e s p o n d e d  responded  developed,  response.  . Results  frequency  provided  a p i c t u r e of c u r r e n t teachers  sampled.  practices them)  currently  Britain  1i t e r a t u r e  in  use  p e r c e i v e d by  (as  teachers  the perceived  in o t h e r c o u n t r i e s as  the  (parti-  reported  in  the  review. the comparison  and t h o s e  practices  three major c o n c l u s i o n s 1.  i n B»C.  advocated  as  was made between  and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s )  Based upon i n B.C.  i n B.C.  A comparison  and p r a c t i c e s  cularly  practices  A significantly  success  students  between  advocated  exists  at:  population  i n B.C.  practices  in the l i t e r a t u r e ,  were a r r i v e d large  current  of  limited  junior  secondary  schools A general  2.  population  awareness  of  of the e x i s t e n c e  l i m i t e d success  students  of a  i n B.C.  is  ev i d e n t Few  3.  special  developed  for  Most j u n i o r present  science  programs  l i m i t e d success  secondary  recommended  science  for  In  to the c o n c l u s i o n s  sixteen  instructing  recommendations  following: stration;  science teacher  been  students  in  B.C.  teachers  perceive  c u r r i c u l u m t o be l a r g e l y  appropriate addition  have  l i m i t e d success l i s t e d above  were g e n e r a t e d  training  and  further  instudents. a further  r e l a t i n g to  curriculum; teachers  and s c h o o l research.  the  the admini-  TABLE  OF CONTENTS Page  LIST OF TABLES  .  iv  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  vi  INTRODUCTION  1  CHAPTER 1  LITERATURE REVIEW AND  IMPLICATIONS  E x t e n t of the l i m i t e d  success  4  student  population Categories  5 of  limited  success  students  ...  5  F a c t o r s r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success in s c h o o l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l i m i t e d success students T e a c h i n g methods f o r l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  6 19  students 2  23  DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESCRIPTIVE SURVEY INSTRUMENT Impetus Survey  54 and  i n t e n t s of  instrument  Sampl i n g  survey  54  design  56  Plan  60  Procedures 3  63  Analysis RESULTS  -  Introduction  65  Questionnaire Demographic  6 3' 65  response  66  data  67  E x t e n t and c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e l i m i t e d s u c c e s s s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n i n B.C T e a c h i n g methods p r e s e n t l y i n use l i m i t e d success science students T e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s and t r a i n i n g • i i  for  72 77 103  CHAPTER ' 4"  Page CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  114  Introduction  ^ ^  Conclusions  115  Recommendations  117  Study  133  Conclusion  APPENDIX A  Questionnaire  Format  B  Sampling  Information  C  Covering  Letter  to S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s  155  D  Covering  Letter  to P r i n c i p a l s  1^9  E  Covering  Letter  to T e a c h e r s  F  Covering  Letter  for  G  F u r t h e r T e a c h e r Comments  H  Summary  o f Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Resu.l t s  I  Summary  of C o n c l u s i o n s  Follow-up  SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY  i i i  and Recommendations  1^4 1  ..  6  6  1 7 1  1  7  8  1  8  3  L I S T OF TABLES Chapter 1 1.1 1.2  Page  C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Common t o A l l L i m i t e d Success Students C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Unique t o Each o f t h e .Three C a t e g o r i e s of L i m i t e d Success Students  20 21  Chapter 3 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 4.1 4.2  4.3 5.1 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4  U n d e r g r a d u a t e M a j o r ( s ) or C o n c e n t r a t i o n ( s ) . . H i g h e r Degrees O v e r a l l Teaching Experience Previous Experience Teaching Limited S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s S c i e n c e i n a Homogeneous C l a s s Group a t t h e J u n i o r S e c o n d a r y L e v e l . . Year of Teaching C a r e e r t h a t Respondents F i r s t Taught S c i e n c e t o L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s i n a Homogeneous C l a s s Group GradesTaught in Schools Proportion o"f L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s i n B.C. Junior High S c h o o l s as R e p o r t e d by T e a c h e r s o f rtomogeneousl v Grouped S c i e n c e C l a s s e s . . . P r o p o r t i o n of L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s i n B.C. J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l s &s R e p o r t e d by T e a c h e r s o f H e t e r o g e n e o u s l y Grouped Science Classes P r o p o r t i o n of L i m i t e d Success Students in J u n i o r H i g h S c h o o l s as R e p o r t e d by A l l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Respondents R e l a t i v e P r o p o r t i o n of L i m i t e d Success S t u d e n t s by Sex Types o f G r o u p i n g R e p o r t e d Upward M o b i l i t y o f L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s i n Homogeneously Grouped C l a s s e s Grouping Within Heterogeneous Science Classes Average C l a s s S i z e Time T a b l e s Number o f Hours o f S c i e n c e P e r Week Number o f T e a c h e r s O f f e r i n g S p e c i a l Programs f o r T h e i r L i m i t e d Success Students S p e c i a l S c i e n c e Programs and A b i 1 i t y Grouping.. S u b j e c t A r e a s T a u g h t i n . G r a d e 8 , 9 and 10 Science T e x t ( s ) and L a b o r a t o r y M a n u a l s Used i n t h e I n s t r u c t i o n of L i m i t e d Success Students . . . i v  67 68 69 69 7.0 71 73  74 74 76 78 79 8u 8/1, 83 84i :  8-5-; 85 86 87  Page 7.5  T e a c h e r s ' O v e r a l l R a t i n g o f T e x t s and L a b o r a t o r y M a n u a l s Used 7.6 T e a c h e r s ' R a t i n g s o f T e x t s and L a b o r a t o r y M a n u a l s Used 7.7 S c i e n c e Course Content D e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r L i m i t e d Success Students 8.1 Frequency of Involvement of L i m i t e d Success . S t u d e n t s in V a r i o u s Approaches to L e a r n i n g . 9.1 E v a l u a t i o n of the P r o g r e s s of L i m i t e d Success Students 9.2 Components Used t o E v a l u a t e L i m i t e d Success Students 9.3 T e s t i n g : F r e q u e n c y Used i n t h e I n s t r u c t i o n of L i m i t e d Success Students 9.4 F r e q u e n c y o f V a r i o u s Methods o f R e p o r t i n g Progress of L i m i t e d Success Students 10.1 T e a c h e r s o f Homogeneously Grouped C l a s s e s : W i l l i n g n e s s t o Teach L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s i n Homogeneous C l a s s e s . Number of C l a s s e s 10.2 T e a c h e r s o f H e t e r o g e n e o u s l y Grouped C l a s s e s : P o s i t i o n on A b i l i t y G r o u p i n g 10.3 T e a c h e r s o f H e t e r o g e n e o u s l y Grouped C l a s s e s : D e s i r e t o Teach L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s S c i e n c e i n a S e p a r a t e _ C l a s s Group 10.4 T e a c h e r s o f H e t e r o g e n e o u s l y Grouped C l a s s e s : W i l l i n g n e s s t o Teach L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s i n Homogeneous C l a s s e s . Number of Classes 10.5 T e a c h e r s o f H e t e r o g e n e o u s l y Grouped C l a s s e s : D e s i r e t o Group and Teach L i m i t e d S u c c e s s Science Students in a Separate Class 10.6 T e a c h e r Commitment t o T e a c h i n g L i m i t e d Success Students 10.7 Method o f T e a c h e r A s s i g n m e n t t o Homogeneously G r o u p e d C l a s s e s o f L i m i t e d Success Science Students 10.8 F r e e Time o f J u n i o r S e c o n d a r y S c i e n c e Teachers 10.9 P r e - S e r v i c e Teacher T r a i n i n g R e l a t e d to L i m i t e d Success Students 10.10 E x t e n t o f P r e - S e r v i c e T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g R e l a t e d to L i m i t e d S u c c e s s S t u d e n t s 10.11 T e a c h e r s ' R a t i n g o f P r e - S e r v i c e T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g R e l a t e d to L i m i t e d Success Students 10.12 I n - S e r v i c e T e a c h e r T r a i n i n g R e l a t e d t o L i m i t e d .Success Students 10.13 T e a c h e r s ' R a t i n g o f I n - S e r v i c e T r a i n i n g v  88 89 9T 94 99 100 101 102'  1'0 3 1'04 105..  I" " 05  106; 107 108 109" IHO  HI 112; 112"  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The w r i t e r w i s h e s the t h e s i s Ryan,  to acknowledge  c o m m i t t e e , Dr.  P,  J.  t h e members  G a s k e l l and Dr.  for their invaluable advice, assistance  The w r i t e r w i s h e s primary a d v i s e r , couragement wishes British  to p a r t i c u l a r l y thank f o r his  throughout  to thank  time, e f f o r t ,  the t h e s i s .  the E d u c a t i o n a l  A.  and  R.  addition  W. C a r l i s l e , and e n -  the w r i t e r  Institute  support  G. support.  suggestions  Research  Columbia f o r t h e i r generous  vi  In  Dr.  of  of the  of study.  1 INTRODUCTION  The  impetus  writer's for  for this  experience  a p e r i o d of  study  stems  as a j u n i o r  three years.  largely  secondary  During  ten c l a s s e s . grouped These for tion  The  students  for science  students  various  r e a s o n s and as  Standard  classes  discipline,  evaluation  and  homework of  teachers.  changes were based  of  training  these  not  f r o m more  c h a n g e s was  t o be n o n - e x i s t e n t  in  and  science  curaverage  curriculum,  alteration  and  science error  experienced  on i n t u i t i o n  highly  students,  motiva-  and above  style,  d i d n o t seem t o a d e q u a t e l y  dealing with l i m i t e d success  achievement.  by t r i a l  assistance  the e v a l u a t i o n  specially  l i m i t e d success  Much a l t e r a t i o n o r i g i n a t e d  At b e s t ,  science  b o t h poor  required  and f r o m o c c a s i o n a l  seemed  low  showed  Teaching  t h e a b i l i t i e s and n a t u r e  students.  Teacher  were  t e a c h i n g methods  lacked effectiveness.  teacher  year  " l i m i t e d success"  a result  the  "modified"  used w i t h some s u c c e s s w i t h a v e r a g e  students,  to s u i t  of  three  due t o t h e i r p r e v i o u s  had e x p e r i e n c e d  and a t t i t u d e .  ricula,  in these  science  this  p e r i o d t h e w r i t e r i n s t r u c t e d a number  from  and  subjective. prepare  special  for  curricula  and r e l a t e d t e a c h i n g methods  were  evident. The e x p e r i e n c e  education  for  above  p r o m p t e d an e x a m i n a t i o n  l i m i t e d success  view h i g h l i g h t e d  the p a u c i t y  students. of r e s e a r c h  of  science  A literature redone  in t h i s  area  in  British  Columbia. ( B . C . ) .  to l i m i t e d success level  science  that,  CQuelch  study  the t o t a l  student  school  1975).  secondary  The l i t e r a t u r e  population  population.  to assume t h a t a p o p u l a t i o n  of  related  at the j u n i o r  i n B r i t a i n and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ,  of the l i m i t e d s u c c e s s 20% o f  one f o r m a l  students  had been c a r r i e d o u t  indicated  Only  this  was  the  size  in excess  It  seemed  size  also  of  reasonable existed  in  B.C. Given  the nature  probable  numbers  research  done  the c u r r e n t  limited  by c o m p a r i n g limited  in B.C.,  students  based  on t h e s e  for further  success  students  To c o n d u c t  was  success  developed  science naire  in B.C.,  needs  had a l r e a d y needs  as  were where  science  students.  taught  to  identified research  were g e n e r a t e d of  of  investigate  occurred.  on  Recomto  for  provide limited  province.  students  i n B.C.  a mail  and c i r c u l a t e d t o a sample Prior  of s c i e n c e  to i t s  of j u n i o r  development,  one s u m m a r i z e s  for  questionnaire  to the d i s t r i b u t i o n  r e l a t e d to the l i m i t e d success  Chapter  to  f o r these  science,  countries  their  and t h e l a c k  a preliminary examination  and p r e r e q u i s i t e  ducted.  education  investigation  in the  teachers.  literature  population  p i c t u r e of  with other  a basis  limited  science  students  B.C.  success  mendations  of  students,  i t seemed a p p r o p r i a t e  an o v e r a l l  success  l i m i t e d success  in the school  status  By o b t a i n i n g  of  of  secondary  the  question-  a r e v i e w of student  the f i n d i n g s  of  was  the  the con-  litera-  ture  review.  implementation sented. naire  In  commendations  two t h e  and a n a l y s i s  Chapter  response  chapter  three o u t l i n e s  in t a b u l a r of  of  the  study  form. are  process  of  development,  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e the r e s u l t s  of the  The c o n c l u s i o n s presented  is  prequesti  and  in chapter  refour.  CHAPTER  Literature  R e v i e w and  !•:  Implications:  Factors  w h i c h may c o n t r i b u t e t o l i m i t e d s u c c e s s characteristics t e a c h i n g methods  In  this  chapter  both the f a c t o r s  of  l i m i t e d success  for  the  is  a r e v i e w of  presented  manner maining  the  and s c i e n c e  research.  l i m i t e d success  l i m i t e d success  teaching  methods  identify  students.^  considered  In  appropriate  from the l i t e r a t u r e .  A review of students  students.  reviewed to  w h i c h may c o n t r i b u t e t o  and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f addition  students;  l i m i t e d success  l i t e r a t u r e is  and  l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d teaching  The few s t u d i e s  aire s p e c i a l l y n o t e d literature arises  success  disclosed  little  empirical  c a r r i e d out  in a  systematic  in the b i b l i o g r a p h y . from a n a l y s e s  The  re-  of p r a c t i c a l  ex-  perience. The t e r m l i m i t e d s u c c e s s s t u d e n t was chosen t o . ; . d e s c r i b e a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f s t u d e n t s h a v i n g a v a r i e t y of problems a f f e c t i n g t h e i r l e a r n i n g in s c i e n c e . For t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y , l i m i t e d s u c c e s s s t u d e n t s a r e d e f i n e d t o be t h o s e s t u d e n t s who a c h i e v e a c o n s i s t e n t D or E average in s c i e n c e (or e q u i v a l e n t r a t i n g ) , or t h o s e s t u d e n t s who a r e g r o u p e d s p e c i a l l y f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n due t o t h e i r low a c h i e v e m e n t . W h i l e i t i s t h e i n t e n t o f t h i s s t u d y t o examine s c i e n c e f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s , the r e v i e w to f o l l o w i s based on a more g e n e r a l v i e w of t h e l i m i t e d s u c c e s s student. I t i s assumed t h a t l i m i t e d s u c c e s s i n s c i e n c e i s t h e same as l i m i t e d s u c c e s s i n g e n e r a l as r e p o r t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e . 4  E x t e n t of the l i m i t e d success Many a u t h o r s , student,suggest significant school  estimate 1960, al.  s i z e and may c o m p r i s e  1972,  (Barbe Oxenhorn  1961,  1973).  the term l i m i e d  These  1972,  Newsom 1 9 6 3 , estimates  and A u s t r a l i a .  It  students  1961,  1969,  reasonable  the  15% t o 20% e s t i m a t e s  Categories In not have  of  in B r i t i s h  Columbia  secondary  given  l i m i t e d success  by a u t h o r s .  been g e n e r a t e d  diversity  A great  Columbia.  Although  four years  schools  of  supports  students  number o f these  students.  student  descriptive  students.  used can be r e d u c e d by  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these  that  in the l i t e r a t u r e .  to d e s c r i b e  of t e r m i n o l o g y  et  United  to suspect  the l i t e r a t u r e the term l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  used  Jenkins  B r i t a i n , the  e v i d e n c e , the w r i t e r ' s  in B r i t i s h  1968,  (Tanzer  there  experience  Page  f r o m 15% t o 50%  Havinghurst  of a  total  Others  exists  no s y s t e m a t i c  is  G u l l i f o r d 1975).  such a p o p u l a t i o n a l s o is  success  up t o 20% o f t h e  are f o r  is  such  Ferguson  the p o p u l a t i o n to range  W i t t y 1961,  States  w h i l e not using  5.  population  t h a t the p o p u l a t i o n of  population  Nettleship  student  Based  on  is  terms^  The considering the  O t h e r t e r m s used i n c l u d e : u n d e r a c h i e v e r s ; slow l e a r n e r s ; low a b i l i t y s t u d e n t s ; d i s a d v a n t a g e d s t u d e n t s ; s t u d e n t s o f low e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t ; c u l t u r a l l y d e p r i v e d s t u d e n t s ; under-privileged s t u d e n t s ; d i s c i p l i n e problems; nonacademic s t u d e n t s ; t e r m i n a l s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s ; p o t e n t i a l drop-outs; e a r l y school l e a v e r s ; n o n - c e r t i f i c a t e students; r e l u c t a n t l e a r n e r s ; n o n - c o l l e g e bound s t u d e n t s ; u n m o t i v a t e d s t u d e n t s and low a c h i e v e r s .  6 characteristics  examined  t h r e e major c a t e g o r i e s , learner  below average 1972).  average  is  or  average simply  students  to  identify the  i d e n t i f i e d by  above is  average  achievement  ability  (Oxen-  prevented from a t t a i n i n g  a c h i e v e m e n t by l i m i t e d m e n t a l  by l e a r n i n g a t a s l o w e r  (Younie  slow  student.  usually  in s p i t e of his  o r above  possible  the u n d e r a c h i e v e r ,  The s l o w l e a r n e r  capabilities other  is  and t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d  The u n d e r a c h i e v e r  horn  it  1974).  rate  The d i s a d v a n t a g e d  than  student  may be c u l t u r a l l y , e c o n o m i c a l l y , s o c i a l l y or i n t e l l e c t u a l l y disadvantaged or a slow  and i s  learner  Since  these  (Reissman 1962, students  and d i s a d v a n t a g e d experiences students purpose  in  of  science  said  likely  science  class.  students  term of  The p u r p o s e  of t h i s  the f a c t o r s causal  learners  successful  l i m i t e d success in  the  together for failing  the  grades  underachievers, have n o t  t h e y are o f t e n grouped  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d 'success  the p o s s i b l e  slow  t o be o f a p a r t i c u l a r a c h i e v e m e n t  the encompassing  t o examine  1974).  t h a t they are  Because  and d i s a d v a n t a g e d  underachiever  to l a c k  i n s t r u c t i o n or achieve  i n s c h o o l , and as  or c o n s i d e r e d  is  is  are  who a r e o f t e n s p e c i a l l y g r o u p e d  slow l e a r n e r s ,  Factors  it  Younie  (underachievers,  students)  school  i n an ungrouped  success  o f t e n c l a s s i f i e d as an  student  experienced  together level, is  used.  school  s e c t i o n of the l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w underlying  relationships  l i m i t e d success  of these f a c t o r s  and  from  7 the  perspectives  the  disadvantaged In  to  ever,  it  some o f t h e p o s s i b l e  success  in school  success cannot is  the slow l e a r n e r  and  student.  examining  limited  limited  of the u n d e r a c h i e v e r ,  tacitly  it  clear  be w h o l l y s o l v e d  understood  of these f a c t o r s w i l l  is  causal  a b l e to  related  t h a t the problems i n the c l a s s r o o m .  that teachers  be b e t t e r  factors  of How-  who r e c o g n i z e some  i m p l e m e n t any s u g g e s t i o n s  f o r w a r d e d t o h e l p t e a c h t h e s e s t u d e n t s ( B r i c k l i n and B r i c k ! i n 1 9 6 7 ) . The  underachiever As  previously  mentioned the underachiever  who a c h i e v e s  below h i s  and B r i c k l i n  (1967)  all  fall  students  Wellington half  state  t h a t from  (1965)  of the underachievers  (1967) emphasizes life.  If,  h a l f of a l l  that  backgrounds  maining  underachievers  is  advantagement  usually and  category.  come f r o m  one-  average Fine  come f r o m a l l  walks  s t a t e , over  do come f r o m a v e r a g e  or  a r e f r o m more d i s a d v a n t a g e d  C1973) s u p p o r t s  the l i n k  disadvantaged  between  by s t a t i n g :  accompanied w i t h c u l t u r a l  intellectual  student  of  d e p r i v a t i o n at  one-  above  i t can t h e n be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e  a c h i e v e m e n t and b e i n g achievement  40%  socioeconomically.  underachievers  underachievers  Weider  to  b e l i e v e t h a t over  as W e l l i n g t o n and W e l l i n g t o n  average  grounds.  15%  in schools  backgrounds  the  Bricklin  i n t o the underachievement  and W e l l i n g t o n  o r above a v e r a g e  of  expected p o t e n t i a l .  is  re-  backunder"Underdis-  home."^  ^ A r t h u r W e i d e r , "The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r A s s a y s t h e U n d e r a c h i e v e r , "The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 40 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 3 ) : 1 9 - 2 1 .  8 The  c h i l d who comes  not  have  the necessary  stimulation  to succeed  1967,  Weider  child  tends  sary  from a disadvantaged  for  1973).  a result  behind  (Fine  failure  in  ment of t h e low s e l f - c o n c e p t (Smith  et a l . 1 963,  Fine  to produce  disinterest  withdrawal  from l e a r n i n g  (Smith  has  Fine  subject spread 1967,  this  1967,  school  in  is of  1967,  as  a shield  and c o n t i n u e d  i n one s u b j e c t  which  is  considered  other  s u b j e c t areas  in  preconceived pectations  the  areas  neces-  1972).  The  develop-  underachievers  to prevent 1967,  is  further Weider  f a i l u r e of  poor  1973).  Bricklin  skill  (Fine  the area of necessary  students  can  have  may have  a  to a l l  preconceived  the t e a c h e r to having the student  may o n l y  the  has  student  If  low  a low  poor  reading  The  t h e a b i l i t y o f an u n d e r a c h i e v e r .  If  of  a signifi-  of the s t u d e n t .  one  a  1972).  the achievement  t o the e x p e c t e d l e v e l .  in  causing  to another  is  or  failure  teaching  subjects  a f f e c t i n g others  the student  said  underachievers  ( B r i c k l i n and  f r o m one s u b j e c t  (Oxenhorn  idea guides  for  failure  h o s t i l i t y to l e a r n i n g  into other  t o be a c r i t i c a l  disadvantaged  idea concerning  (Fine  low s e l f - c o n c e p t  a t t i t u d e toward a student  c a n t e f f e c t upon teacher of  setting  1 9 7 2 ) . A p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t example  teaching  Teacher  early  The e f f e c t of  to o v e r l a p  underachievement  Oxenhorn  teachers  Wong 1 9 7 8 ) .  thought  intellectual  Oxehnorn  so e v i d e n t  learning,  will  may l e a d t o t h e  1 967). T h i s  been a t t r i b u t e d t o poor  1967,  of  e t a l . 1 9 6 3 , B r i c k l i n and B r i c k l i n  Much o f t h e e a r l y  and  in the fundamental  schooling  net e f f e c t of t h i s  skills  in a t r a d i t i o n a l school  As  to f a l l  further  pre-school  background  this  ex-  achieve self-  9 concept  and t h e t e a c h e r ' s  situation  then  the s t u d e n t ' s  in a s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g  factors  from a v e r a g e more e a s i l y causes  leading  and above  CFine  is  is  average  teaching  backgrounds.  are  Events  broken  as  s u c h as  contributors  (Fine  mobile  1967,  wards  learning  physical  Bricklin  80% o f  emotional  c o n f l i c t e d emotional  these  attitudes."  may i n i t i a t e  1965).  negative  Fine  Shaw w h i c h  indicates  permissive  and  (pushes  feelings  Fine  cites  to-  1967,  a study  by  underinvolved  r e l a t e d to u n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t .  Shaw  B a r r y B r i c k l i n and P a t r i c i a M. B r i c k l i n , B r i g h t C h i l d Poor G r a d e s , t h e P s y c h o l o g y o f U n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t , ( D e l a c o r t e P r e s s , 1 9 6 7 ) , p. W. B e n j a m i n F i n e , U n d e r a c h i e v e r s , (New Y o r k : and Company I n c ~ 1 9 6 7 ) , p. 33.  seen  attitudes.  with the student  and W e l l i n g t o n  may be f a c t o r s  the  and f a m i l y c o n f l i c t s a r e  Wellington  parents  students  families,  ( B r i c k l i n and B r i c k l i n 1 9 6 7 ,  that  of  B r i c k l i n and  "conflicted  "over-involved"  hard f o r p e r f e c t i o n )  to  may be r e l a t e d t o  highly  families  to these  The p a r e n t who i s too  due t o  1972).  Some o f  1 967). B r i c k l i n and B r i c k l i n s u g g e s t t h a t o v e r underachievers  reinforced  Oxenhorn  to the underachievement  and h e a r i n g ) ,  and p o o r  1967,  a failing  i n v o l v e d when t r y i n g  identifiable factors  (vision  illness  task  maintain  low s e l f - c o n c e p t  prophecy  A more d i f f i c u l t isolate  expectations  E.P'.  Dutton  -  10 f o u n d p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between u n d e r a c h i e v i n g and p a r e n t s who d i d n o t s u p e r v i s e interest their  children  underachievement.  backgrounds  the m a j o r i t y are  p o r t i o n o f any g r o u p  school  approaches  catchment a r e a .  of  limited  all  slow  1972,  Younie  likely  is  thought  be  of of  necessary  These  o t h e r words Other authors  low I.Q.,  generally  t o be a m a j o r f a c t o r  l e a r n i n g by some a u t h o r s 1974).  This  authors  (Barbe propose  g e n e t i c make-up may l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e h i s  birth.  background  of s l o w l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  an i t e m r e l a t e d t o low I.Q.  lying  In  students  backgrounds.  lists  between 75 and 1 0 0 ,  I.Q.  success  under-  learner  Almost include  and  boys..  A need f o r d i f f e r e n t k i n d s  with the underachiever w i l l  due t o t h e i r d i v e r s e  that  t h a t come f r o m a v e r a g e  depend l a r g e l y upon t h e s o c i o e c o n o m i c  The s l o w  helps  can be c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e  achieving  the  involvement which  B r i c k l i n and B r i c k l i n s u g g e s t  o f t h e 80% o f t h e u n d e r a c h i e v e r s  will  for their children. Evidently  be an optimum p a r e n t a l  above a v e r a g e  raising  know what t o e x p e c t f r o m t h e i r  and had low a s p i r a t i o n s  t h e r e must  It  t h e i r c h i l d r e n , lacked  i n t h e i r c h i l d r e n , had u n c e r t a i n t i e s a b o u t  c h i l d r e n , d i d not  avoid  students  i n t e l l i g e n c e and I.Q.  1961, that a  under-  Oxenhorn person's  i n t e l l i g e n c e and are f i x e d  at  take a d i f f e r e n t stand r e g a r d i n g  and i n t e l l i g e n c e (Simon  1953,  Hughes 1 9 7 3 ,  Younie  1974,  I.Q.  11 Brennan  1975,  and I.Q. the  These  i n t e l l i g e n c e and  This  of  idea i m p l i e s  can c h a n g e .  in  Sturges'  i d e n t i f y low a t t a i n m e n t w i t h low a b i 1 i t y . . . s i n e e  the  always  nature of that  capable of  indicates  learner is  changeable  by t h e s e a u t h o r s  suggests  be a t e m p o r a r y phenomenon. two t y p e s  authors  (Johnson  of slow l e a r n e r s .  by an i n n a t e l a c k o f  1963,  Piaget's  One  intellectual  be l i m i t e d  Sturges  t h e o r y of  1976).  that children gradually  due t o  a series  of e a r l i e r  in  Piaget's  intellectual  Piaget's  progress stages.  t o cope w i t h c e r t a i n i n t e l l e c t u a l  The s t a g e s  literature  en-  b e l i e v e t h a t s1ow l e a r n i n g may be  in terms of  ing through  The  considerations.  Several explained  limited  should  t h e low i n t e l l i g e n c e com-  w h i l e t h e o t h e r may o n l y  vironmental  phasizes  care since  the e x i s t e n c e of  capability  able  The  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f a s t u d e n t as a s l o w l e a r n e r  p o n e n t may o n l y  ment  improvement."^  i n t e l l i g e n c e proposed  be done w i t h g r e a t  slow  it  that  not  is  i n t e l l i g e n c e makes  on  important  latter  view of  see i n t e l l i g e n c e  upon t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  I.Q.  i n t e l l i g e n c e of a student  words,"This  authors  They p l a c e a heavy e m p h a s i s  impact of the environment  the  1  1976).  as v a r i a b l e s .  children's  to  Sturges  develop-  t h e o r y em-  to a b s t r a c t The c h i l d i s  tasks  a t each  theory are h i e r a r c h i c a l , , that  thinkonly stage.  is, a  L . M . S t u r g e s , Non-Streamed S c i e n c e - A T e a c h e r ' s G u i d e , S t u d y S e r i e s No. 7, ( H a t f i e l d : The A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976), p.5.  12  lower  s t a g e must  be f u l l y r e a l i z e d b e f o r e a h i g h e r  can be d e v e l o p e d . will the  c o r r e c t "mental a g e . " secondary  students stage  range  level  i n age  theory states  thinking Since  occurs  says t h a t the c h i l d  1  tional  doubtedly  from about  twelve to s i x t e e n .  These  still  level  (1965)  (Beard  to a b s t r a c t  these Piaget's  1969).  thinking learners  working at a concrete opera-  understanding  they are asked (Gulliford  proposes  the  abstract  pre-abstract thinking  have d i f f i c u l t y  secondary  Mahan  progress  is  at  be remembered t h a t  and a t d i f f e r e n t ages the s l o w  many a b s t r a c t i o n s  junior  students  t h a t t h e t r a n s i t i o n to  students  level.  discussing  i t should  i n d i v i d u a l students  may be t h o s e  In  around the t h i r t e e n t h year  d i f f e r e n t rates  the  (1963)  be r e a d y t o l e a r n c e r t a i n c o n c e p t s o n l y when he  junior  at  Johnson  stage  students  un-  and d e a l i n g  with  to deal w i t h at  the  1969).  t h a t t h e s l o w l e a r n e r many  not 2  be u n i n t e l l i g e n t but see This  hypothesis  is  things  in a " d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t . "  also -discussed  and Dunn (1977) where s t u d e n t s own p r e f e r r e d method o f l e a r n i n g  by Weaver  are thought (or  (1971), t o have  Dunn their  learning style).  Students  G. O r v i l l e J o h n s o n , E d u c a t i o n f o r t h e Slow L e a r n e r s , (Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1963), p.44. Thomas W. Mahan, J r . , "The Slow L e a r n e r : S c h o o l R e v i e w 7 3 (Summer 1 9 6 5 ) : 7 7 - 8 8 .  Fact or  Excuse?",  who l e a r n  i n t h e i r own s t y l e may a p p e a r t o be s l o w  to t h e t e a c h e r a c c u s t o m e d t o more s t a n d a r d A student less  forced to learn  effectively Physical  learning  in a s t y l e not h i s  and t h u s  and h e a r i n g  can  have  e f f e c t s upon  the l e a r n i n g of a s t u d e n t  stone  K a r l i n 1969,  Hughes 1 9 7 3 ,  who come f r o m b a c k g r o u n d s  Younie  defects.  Sight  and h e a r i n g  more p r e d o m i n a n t among d i s a d v a n t a g e d Physical  needs  1974).  i n c i d e n c e of  physiological  needs,  has  four  l e v e l s of need.  love • needs,  e s t e e m needs  self-actualization  needs  are o r g a n i z e d  with  needs  requiring  physiological  (.1 954)  needs  t o be f u l f i l l e d )  higher basic  hungry or t i r e d will  with these students  are s a t i s f i e d . basic  needs  four,  and  satisfaction  ( i . e . has  before  A s t u d e n t who physiological  to l e a r n i n g u n t i l  Many s t u d e n t s  these  may come t o  school  u n s a t i s f i e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y those  from d i s a d v a n t a g e d  Non-physical  These  n o t be a b l e t o p r o c e e d t o  l e v e l s o f need and t h u s needs  Maslow  in a h i e r a r c h y  l o v e , esteem or s e l f - a c t u a l i z a t i o n needs. comes t o s c h o o l  vision  students.  s u c h as o u t l i n e d by Maslow  that everyone  Students  d e f e c t s may be  may e x p l a i n t h e s l o w l e a r n i n g o f some s t u d e n t s . states  (Feather-  w h e r e ' i n a d e q u a t e h e a l t h and  hygiene a r e p r a c t i c e d may have a h i g h e r and h e a r i n g  learn  learner.  deleterious 1951,  styles.  own may  a p p e a r t o be a s l o w  defects of v i s i o n  13 learners  backgrounds  (Hulicka  environmental e f f e c t s a r i s i n g  home may be c o n t r i b u t o r y t o s l o w l e a r n i n g .  1969). from the  Students  who  come f r o m homes where b a s i c tion  necessary  to succeed  p r a c t i c e d may become s l o w (Johnson Weaver  1963,  1971,  Given these  Hulicka  Hughes  may come f r o m a l l  and  in school learners  1969,  1973,  variables  skills  or  when t h e y r e a c h 1969,  1974,  Shelton  Slater  school 1971,  1975).  i t seems e v i d e n t t h a t s l o w  socioeconomic  stimula  a r e not t a u g h t  Karlin  Younie  intellectual  learners  levels.  Almost w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n the l i t e r a t u r e c i t e s self-concept authors  see  as  a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of  this  and c o n t i n u a l Mahan 1 9 6 5 ,  the slow l e a r n e r .  low s e l f - c o n c e p t as a p r o d u c t o f  f a i l u r e in school  Crowley a cause  1961,  (Brandwein  Glasser  1971).  They see  this  haviour  o f t e n e x h i b i t e d by the s l o w l e a r n e r .  previous produce having  not p r o v i d i n g  self-concept  to t r y  in c l a s s .  lack of m o t i v a t i o n  is  seen  This  of  t h e needed s u c c e s s  unwillingness (1975)  to  Students  l a c k m o t i v a t i o n and  by S l a t e r  be-  Gulliford  in the s t u d e n t .  a low s e l f - c o n c e p t o f t e n  unwilling  and a g g r e s s i v e  low s e l f - c o n c e p t t o be a p r o d u c t  teachers a high  previous 1958,  as  this  of both w i t h d r a w a l  Some  et a l .  failure  (1975) s e e s  low  are  to t r y  as  and  a defense  mechanism t o a v o i d f u r t h e r f a i l u r e . Closely is  r e l a t e d to the s t u d e n t ' s  the s e l f - f u l f i l l i n g  p e r i e n c e d or students teacher  prophecy.  l a c k of  Once  self-concept  :.teachers  heard o f the f a i l u r e of a s t u d e n t  t h e y may h o l d low e x p e c t a t i o n s continues  have  or g r o u p  f o r them.  t o e x p e c t low or f a i l i n g work  ex-  and  The does  of  15 not press  for higher  expectations fails  the s t u d e n t  and h i s  Ladd 1 9 7 3 ,  As a r e s u l t o f t h e s e  continues  low s e l f - c o n c e p t i s  Quelch 1975,  Featherstone lower  quality.  Sturges  t o do p o o r l y o r r e i n f o r c e d (Mahan  (1951) and Mahan (1965)  the  i n t e l l i g e n c e e x h i b i t e d by t h e s l o w l e a r n e r may be  subjects  upon r e a d i n g and w r i t t e n  is  depend l a r g e l y  understandable  t o be s l o w l e a r n e r s . learners  Mahan s a y s  may be a b l e t o .  express."  istics  skills.,  why s t u d e n t s  without these that these  school  expression skills  so-called  " c o m p r e h e n d much more t h a n  appear slow  they  factors  underlying  the c h a r a c t e r -  of t h e s l o w l e a r n e r a p p e a r t o be t h e same f a c t o r s  as t h o s e  r e l a t e d to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both the  a c h i e v i n g and d i s a d v a n t a g e d The d i s a d v a n t a g e d Much has school.  In  socially  student  been w r i t t e n a b o u t t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d this  study  the term d i s a d v a n t a g e d  i n meaning  pp.  While the w r i t e r r e c o g n i z e s of the a f o r e m e n t i o n e d terms  77-78.  is  student used  c u l t u r a l l y deprived,  deprived, e d u c a t i o n a l l y disadvantaged  different.  under-  student.  synonymously w i t h u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d  Ibid.,  S i n c e most  1  Many o f t h e c a u s a l  in  1965,  suggest t h a t  reading  can  even  1976).  due e n t i r e l y t o l i m i t e d  it  low  and c u l t u r a l l y  the d i f f e r e n c e s it  is  likely  that  16  schools for  do n o t make t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between them. T h e r e f o r e ,  the p u r p o s e  of t h i s  be made e v i d e n t .  these d i f f e r e n c e s w i l l  The f a c t t h a t much has  regarding  disadvantaged  indicates  the c l o s e  slow  study,  students  association  l e a r n i n g and u n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t .  underlying  and s l o w l e a r n i n g . is  felt  different  The r e p e t i t i o n o f  necessary  base o f agreement  those  Many o f t h e  of  sections  factors students  underachievement  these  underlying  in o r d e r to emphasize  between a u t h o r s  two  disadvantagement,  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i s a d v a n t a g e d  a r e s i m i l a r i f n o t t h e same as  factors  been a l l u d e d t o  in the p r e v i o u s between  not  t h e wide  w r i t i n g from the  three  perspectives.  Johnson  (1970)  talks  of:  g r o u p s o f p e o p l e whose ways o f l i v i n g value systems, language systems, a t t i t u d e s , b e l i e f s , experiential background e t c . - p r e v e n t them f r o m f u n c t i o n i n g i n t h e d o m i n a n t culture. While Johnson's it  is  easy  s t a t e m e n t seems  t o see t h a t as  ground, di sadvantaged w i t h the n e c e s s a r y  somewhat  a r e s u l t of t h i s  skills  and e x p e r i e n c e s t o be  tuned to the dominant c u l t u r e  Havinghurst  1966,  1969,  Noar  1967,  White 1971).  and  final  d i f f e r e n t back-  c h i l d r e n may come t o s c h o o l  in a school  Tuckman  sweeping  unequipped successful  (Ausubel  Tuckman and O ' B r i a n The d i s a d v a n t a g e d  1966, 1967,  s t u d e n t may  K e n n e t h J o h n s o n , "The C u l t u r a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d - S l o w L e a r n e r s or D i f f e r e n t L e a r n e r s ? " , J o u r n a l o f S e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n 45 (January 1970): 43-47.  learn  i n a d i f f e r e n t manner t h a n o t h e r c h i l d r e n due t o  different 1970,  background  White 1971),  student  is  Reissman  It  Webster  slower process disadvantaged  1970).  (Giddings  Physical  student operating  learning  students  Reissman  (1969) adds  may a p p e a r s l o w e r or m e t i c u l o u s "  in l e a r n i n g the b a s i c  approach to  1  believe that  and a r i t h m e t i c due t o a d i s a d v a n t a g e d  l e a d to a slower  (Giddings  Malkin  1967,  Bloom background.  Faunce  0.4  of  1967,  school the  reading, background reasoning  L o r e t a n and Umars Tuckman and  1966,  O'Brian  1971). (1964) In  four years  points  1966,  Noar  r e l a t e s changes  his  study  of  per y e a r  life.  in  I.Q.  he f o u n d t h a t  by e n v i r o n m e n t by as much as first  skills  t r a n s i t i o n to a b s t r a c t  than o t h e r s t u d e n t s  that  i n t h e i r work  writing  White  is a  mode may be  delay  1969,  1966,  in t h i s  A u s u b e l (1 966) and o t h e r a u t h o r s  1966,  Webster  disadvantaged  initial  will  1966,  t h a n a b s t r a c t l e a r n i n g and t h e r e f o r e t h e  due t o t h e i r " c a u t i o u s work.  Giddings  learner  as a s l o w l e a r n e r .  disadvantaged  1962,  may be t h a t t h e  largely a physical  1969,  identified  (Reissman  his  2.5  I.Q.  points  to a I.Q.  disadvantaged  may be a f f e c t e d  per y e a r f o r  may change  the  at a r a t e of  between t h e ages o f e i g h t  only  to f o u r t e e n .  Frank Reissman, " T e a c h e r s of the P o o r : A F i v e P o i n t P l a n , " i n How t o T e a c h D i s a d v a n t a g e d Y o u t h , e d s . A l l a n C . O r n s t e i n and P h i l i p D. V a i r o (New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay C o . , 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 402-417.  Bloom's is  findings  seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a l t h o u g h  n o t f i x e d a t b i r t h i t becomes  child have  ages.  It  seems  upon t h i s  Part of a disadvantaged in school  and l o v e needs  1967,  1969).  Tuckman  These needs  may  in  I.Q.  to  succeed  d e f i c i e n c i e s such  as  1967,  O'Brian  Tuckman and  seem t o r e l a t e t o  Maslow's  section. back-  As a r e s u l t o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n b a c k g r o u n d  congruent  In  preparedness  do n o t come f r o m d i s a d v a n t a g e d  tween t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e d  Glasman  (Noar  r e l a t e d in a previous  Most t e a c h e r s grounds.  child's  as a  background  p o t e n t i a l change  may stem f r o m more b a s i c  physiological  hierarchy  h a r d e r t o change  that a disadvantaged  a negative effect  intelligence  values  1970,  student  may c l a s h  Johnson  BetteTheim's  1970,  be-  and t h e teacher^:-, n o n -  CBetteTheim 1966, Webster  Goldman  1969,  1970).  words:  ...middle class teachers, despite t h e i r desire t o be h e l p f u l t o t h e c u l t u r a l l y d e p r i v e d c h i l d , and d e s p i t e . t h e i r b e s t i n t e n t i o n s , o f t e n g e t bogged down b e c a u s e t h e y c a n n o t t r a n s c e n d t h e i r own v a l u e s y s t e m t o meet t h a t o f t h e c h r i T d r e n . •••" ;  This  values  expectations failure  c l a s h may make i t s e l f  most e v i d e n t  h e l d by t h e t e a c h e r .  The t e a c h e r  from these  behaviour. student's  This  students  and r e c e i v e s t h i s  in  the  expects failing  c o n t i n u e d f a i l u r e can f u r t h e r d e p r e s s  a l r e a d y low s e l f - c o n c e p t ( F a u n c e  1967,  Noar  the 1967,  Bruno B e t t e l h e i m , " T e a c h i n g t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d , " i n The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r , e d . S t a t e n W. W e b s t e r (San F r a n c i s c o Chandler P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1966), pp. 423-429.  19 Tuckman  1969,  White  Although with  1971).  being disadvantaged  poverty, other factors  parental  i s most commonly  s u c h as  broken  homes and l a c k  a t t e n t i o n a r e c o n s i d e r e d t o be f o r m s  of  of l i m i t e d  success  As a r e s u l t o f t h e p o s s i b l e limited  success,discussed  of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of achievers,  1965,  and B r i d g e s Mitchell  1968,  and  factors  have  1 974,  students  1973,  Younie  1966,  Reissman  McCloskey  1974)  W e l l i n g t o n and  Oxenhorn  F i n e 1967, 1972,  1969,  Webster  Education  1 973).  1967, 1970,  WellBingham  Weider  1973,  James-: 1 975 , S c h i l l i n g e r 1 9 7 5 ) ,  1951,  Brandwein et a l .  1971,  students  Reissman Illinois  1966,  1969,  Janzen (Havinghurst  Faunce  Smiley  Upon e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e  l i s t e d in the l i t e r a t u r e  underachievers,  slow l e a r n e r s  1967,  1968,  Department of  characteristics  1958,  1 970 , M i l s o n  M a r t i n 1973,  L o r e t a n and Umars  Noar  be-  l i s t e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  and d i s a d v a n t a g e d  1962,  1967,  Weaver  (under-  students)  1 963 , De Hann and Kough 1 968,'. K a r n e s 1971,  underlying  s e c t i o n , a number  disadvantaged  K i n c a i d 1968,  (Featherstone  Townsend  tion  success  (Smith e t a l . 1963,  and P i a t k o w s k a  1970,  Tuckman  causal  B r i c k l i n and B r i c k l i n 1 9 6 7 ,  learners  Johnson  limited  Many a u t h o r s  of u n d e r a c h i e v e r s  students  in the p r e v i o u s  slow l e a r n e r s  come a p p a r e n t .  slow  backgrounds  1966).  Characteristics  ington  of  disadvantage  but not n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t e d to d i s a d v a n t a g e d (Malkin  associated  Occupa-  numerous^,  i t was f o u n d  and d i s a d v a n t a g e d  that  students,  20 have many lists  common and some u n i q u e  those  achievers, 1.2  lists  Although  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h a r e common t o slow l e a r n e r s  those  to each o f  every  several  success  and d i s a d v a n t a g e d  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which  the t h r e e t y p e s  to e x h i b i t a l l 1.2,  characteristics.  seem t o be  student  student.  would not  be i d e n t i f i a b l e i n an  Table  unique  be e x p e c t e d  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i s t e d in Tables  should  1.1  under-  students.  of l i m i t e d success  l i m i t e d success  Table  1.1  individual  and  limited  student.  TABLE  1.1  CHARACTERISTICS COMMON TO ALL LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS Limited success  students  are below grade  level  in o v e r a l l  academic  achieve-  ment lack  basic  have  a short  lack  powers  exhibit have  skills  a t t e n t i o n span of  poor  retention  a t t e n d a n c e and a r e f r e q u e n t l y  poor work and s t u d y  are d i s o r g a n i z e d have n e g a t i v e and have  i n r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g and a r i t h m e t i c  and l a c k  habits care of personal  a t t i t u d e s toward s c h o o l ,  learning difficulty  following  tardy  directions  effects  teachers  exhibit  poor o r a l  and w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n  lack m o t i v a t i o n to lack  interest  resist are  tasks  reasoning  learn  in academic t h a t seem  underdeveloped  skills  work  non-relevant  in or  lack cognitive  and  in or  l a c k a b i l i t y t o work  skills  are underdeveloped  in-  dependently lack  c u r i o s i t y and c r e a t i v i t y  have  poor  physical have  hearing,  and o t h e r  sensory-:'  problems  a low  self-concept  are a g g r e s s i v e  and/or  are withdrawn or are  speech  behaviour  hostile  detached  (discipline)  lack  a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l  have  short  problems  their social  t e r m , u n r e a l i s t i c or  TABLE  low  behaviour aspirations  1.2  CHARACTERISTICS UNIQUE TO EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORIES OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENT Underachievers are average  o r above  below a v e r a g e  in  average  achievement  i n a b i l i t y but  are  are  Slow  unable  to accept p r a i s e  volunteer  rarely  are often  selfish  and  and c r i t i c i s m r e a d i l y  inconsiderate  learners learn with  less  depth of  understanding  than  other  students lack  transfer  of  knowledge  skill  are o f t e n nervous  and e x h i b i t marked  avoid  o f weakness  on  t h e i r areas  concentrate  strengths  are e a s i l y have  confused  an I.Q.  often on  and  anxiety  score  ranging  f r o m 75 t o  come f r o m f a m i l i e s who p l a c e  100  little  value  education  have  strong  live  in a world of c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s  Disadvantaged  feelings  are o f t e n  are o f t e n  speak  expediency  t i r e d upon  in t h e i r  arrival  come f r o m h i g h l y  experience  little  and and  fatalism situations  students  tend towards  often  of hopelessness  mobile  considerable hungry,  medical English  or as  to  family  work school  families disruption  u n d e r c l o t h e d and have dental a second  come f r o m low income  care language  families  received  often experience -  consider than  family  feel  few  provided  peers important  ties  obligations l i m i t e d success  educators  students  listed  w i t h a base f r o m w h i c h t h e y  worked t o w a r d d e v e l o p i n g these  by  p e e r g r o u p a f f i l i a t i o n s more  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f have  discrimination  a p p r o p r i a t e methods  for  above  have  teaching  students.  Teaching  methods  The thought  i n t e n t of  l i m i t e d success  this  section  most a p p r o p r i a t e  students.  All  reference limited  t e a c h i n g methods  students.  consulted  to r e v i e w those  will  In  order of  and p r o v i d e d  limited  methods  success  be c o n s i d e r e d  examined  method t h e D i c t i o n a r y  was  is  students  for teaching  to the p r e v i o u s l y  success  teaching 1973)  for  with  characteristics to c l a r i f y the  Education  (third  of  term edition  the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n :  t e a c h i n g m e t h o d : (1) a r a t i o n a l o r d e r i n g and b a l a n c i n g i i i t h e l i g h t o f knowledge and p u r p o s e , of the s e v e r a l elements t h a t e n t e r i n t o the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s , the n a t u r e of the p u p i l , t h e m a t e r i a l s o f i n s t r u c t i o n , and t h e t o t a l learning situation (2) a s t a n d a r d p r o c e d u r e in the p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l and t h e c o n t e n t o f a c t i v i t i e s . The t e r m t e a c h i n g method e n c o m p a s s e s a w i d e s p e c t r u m activities Within areas  this have  teaching  associated  w i t h the t e a c h i n g / l e a r n i n g  situation.  b r o a d d e f i n i t i o n o f t e a c h i n g method t h e been  identified:  techniques;  teaching  grouping  practices;  technology;  and  of  following  curriculum;  teacher  24 attitude, areas  e x p e r i e n c e and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  o f t e a c h i n g method w i l l  Grouping  grouping  of these  struction  two s u r v e y s districts  teacher  In  students classes  for  F i n d l a y and B r y a n  in-  (1975)  were u s i n g  literareported  school  some f o r m o f  ( D e p a r t m e n t o f H e a l t h , E d u c a t i o n and W e l -  F i n d l a y and B r y a n Wilson  grouping  the  t h e i r r e v i e w of the  in the U n i t e d S t a t e s  survey  is  1971).  and S c h m i t s  In  in use.  recent  (1978) r e p o r t e d t h a t  they p o l l e d taught  was  a more  Although  in s i t u a t i o n s data f o r  where  Britain  were n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f w r i t i n g , i t known t h a t a b i l i t y many y e a r s There  against  has  of t h i s this  establish success will  grouping  in B r i t i s h  has  schools  grouping  controversy  p r a c t i c e have  (Sturges  over  1976).  students  Few a u t h o r s  50 y e a r s .  been f o r m u l a t e d .  the arguments  be e x a m i n e d i n  the past  surrounding  a number o f a r g u m e n t s  a p o s i t i o n on a b i l i t y  is  been w i d e l y p r a c t i c e d f o r  been a g r e a t d e a l o f c o n t r o v e r s y  t h e use o f a b i l i t y result  detail.  strategies  w h i c h b o t h e s t i m a t e d t h a t 77% o f t h e  74% o f t h e t e a c h e r s ability  success  in separate  1973).  grouping  grouping  1968,  limited  students  (Esposito  t u r e on a b i l i t y  fare  be e x a m i n e d now i n more  prevalent organizational  in the t e a c h i n g of  ability  specific  practices  One o f t h e most used  These  grouping  As a  for  and  In o r d e r  r e l a t i v e to  f o r and a g a i n s t  this  to limited  practice  detail.  r e v i e w e d were  in support  of a b i l i t y  grouping,  indeed,  the p o s i t i v e  reported  said  all  i n c l i n e d to t h i s  to a l l o w students  p r a c t i c e were  strategy.  t o work  s t u d e n t s . are s u p p o s e d l y  teacher  of t h i s  i n l i t e r a t u r e where t h e a u t h o r s  negatively is  aspects  can a d j u s t  to t h e l e v e l  his  of the students  Ability  grouping  a t t h e same  style  he i s  since  level.  and methods  instructing  to  The  cater  (Thomas  and Thomas 1 9 6 5 ,  Sturges  grouping  is  t o be " e c o n o m i c , e f f i c i e n t and e f f e c t i v e "  (Sturges  1976).  well  said  1976).  generally  a t t h e i r own pace  working  teaching  were  largely  Apparently  The p r a c t i c e o f a b i l i t y  high  a b i l i t y students  under an a c a d e m i c a l l y g r o u p e d  F i n d l a y and B r y a n Teachers, parents favour  1975,  Halderman  administrators  of high  1975,  a b i l i t y students,  Halderman  The p o s i t i v e  aspects  r e p o r t e d by p r o p o n e n t s grouping.  This  of e d u c a t o r s  1976,  and p a r e n t s ,  of a b i l i t y grouping  and B r y a n  situation  (Thomas and Thomas 1 965., 1976, of  Wilson  and S c h m i t s  a b i l i t y grouping  of h e t e r o g e n e o u s  (mixed  surprising  in the l i g h t of the f a c t t h a t t h i s  Ibid.,  p. 2.  1978).  in Findlay  1978). largely  ability)  Little  a b i l i t y grouping.  and S c h m i t s  were  the c u r r e n t  a b i l i t y grouping.  (Wilson  those  seem t o be  reviewed favoured  so w i d e l y used  1973,  1976).  especially  literature  is  very  (Esposito  Morrison  generally  may be an i n d i c a t o r o f  regarding  do  1  feelings  of This  the is  practice Wilson  and  Schmits  suggest  t h a t t e a c h e r s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and  may n o t be f a m i l i a r of the l o g i c a l results  w i t h the r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s  arguments  against  o f t h e r e s e a r c h has  review a r t i c l e s (Ekstrom Thomas 1 9 6 5 , 1976).  Esposito  1961,  1973,  Passow  1961  T h e r e seems  holds  t r u e i n 1978  1  This  (Wilson  t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n o f homogeneous  ability  grouping. is  of a b i l i t y  students  for ability  often  grouping. levels  or  1 966 , D a v i e s  Slater  Halderman 1976,  1975, work  (.1 953)  intelligence.  changing  resulting  seen  1978).  sup-  opposing  the  of s e l e c t i n g  by many a u t h o r s  1976).  as  Westby-Gibson  F i n d l a y and B r y a n  Sturges  which proposes  The f a c t  quantity is  1 975.,  in  heterogeneous  The p r o c e s s  is  1 9 6 1 , Passow  of  that there  s t a t e m e n t made  i n v a l i d and u n r e l i a b l e . ( W i l h e m s and  Simon's  grouping  and S c h m i t s  a g r e a t number o f a r g u m e n t s  practice  of  Morrison  t o be no c o n c l u s i v e e m p i r i c a 1 e v i d e n c e  porting  There  1975,  Ekstrom s t a t e s  v a r i a t i o n in experimental design"  still  The  1 9 6 1 , Thomas and  done on a b i l i t y  "no c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o f r e s u l t s . " in  grouping.  F i n d l a y and B r y a n  The r e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s  "a great  and some  been r e p o r t e d i n a number  a r e b e s t s u m m a r i z e d by E k s t r o m . is  ability  parents  1 975 ,  Sturges  the changeable  cites  nature  t h a t i n t e l l i g e n c e may be a  f u r t h e r e m p h a s i z e d by J o h n s o n  (1963),  Ruth B. E k s t r o m , " E x p e r i m e n t a l S t u d i e s i n Homogeneous G r o u p i n g : A C r i t i c a l R e v i e w , " S c h o o l R e v i e w 69 (Summer 1961): 216-226.  27 Bloom (.1 9 6 4 ) , telligence  Hughes  (1 973)  and Y o u n i e  may be a d y n a m i c q u a n t i t y  (.1 9 7 4 ) .  i t seems  Since  difficult  t o be b o t h v a l i d and r e l i a b l e when p l a c i n g s t u d e n t s abi1ity will  groups.  shift  (1975)  into  answer  between g r o u p s  says,  mistakes  In  ability  groups  and s o c i o e c o n o m i c  1961,  the s o c i a l  and Thomas  of  1976,  Sturges  seems  to a i d only the high  Wilson  s e l f - c o n c e p t and Espoito  Schmits  This  1978).  i s o l a t i o n also  1973,  1975,  Darke  1976,  1978).  students  F i n d l a y and B r y a n  The s u c c e s s  (Douglas  1966,  Jacobson  1976,  Sturges  re(Eash 1973,  Halderman  Grouping  who a t t a i n  improved academic achievement 1975,  of the high  1 964,  Wilson  ability  may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t e a c h e r e x p e c t a t i o n s prophecy)  re-  stimulation Esposito  and S c h m i t s  racial  groups  1966,  ability  1  students  Passow  F i n d l a y and B r y a n 1976,  right  and m a i n t a i n  intellectual  1965,  1975,  1964,  Davies  happens."  c o n t a c t between t h e s e v a r i o u s  Davies  a high  rarely  to exaggerate  differences.  in a lower l e v e l  Thomas  students  submit t h a t the i s o l a t i o n of tends  in  i n t e l l i g e n c e changes  i n s e l e c t i o n and g r o u p i n g authors  sulting  as  that  " i n t e r s t r e a m t r a n s f e r needed t o put  Several  duces  to the n o t i o n  in-  1968,  Davies  (Borg  and  students  (self-fulfilling  G o l d b e r g eit a l . 1 9 6 6 ,  and R o s e n t h a l  both  1975,  Passow Halderman  1976).  R. P e t e r D a v i e s , M i x e d A b i l i t y S m i t h L t d . , 1 975 ) , p . 8 .  Grouping  (London:  Temple  Rather ability group  is  as  than  being a s i t u a t i o n  reduced, various  being  students.  a catchall  authors  see  t h e low  underachievers,  a p a t h e t i c and u n m o t i v a t e d s t u d e n t s i n a homogeneous  grouping  n o t be as e v i d e n t  in a mixed a b i l i t y  group  1964,  Sturges  (1961),  Wilhems  and S t u r g e s  alone w i l l grouping tion  not  increase  may l o o k  each a b i l i t y  (Moody 1 9 7 0 ,  Passow  1966),  implying that  (1975),  (Ekstrom  Several  v a r i e d methods  1970,  of  ability  differentiato  1961,  studies,  Thomas  reviewed  and m a t e r i a l s  were l a r g e l y  inconclusive  Martin  Milson  1973,  in  1973,  1974). Slater  ( 1 9 7 5 ) and S t u r g e s  groups.  may be a s t a g n a t i o n  A possible of  b o t h t h e t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t 1964,  Borg  grouping  and m a t e r i a l s a p p r o p r i a t e  situations  Kellough  the lower a b i l i t y  (Yates  1964,  (1961),  Supporters  t h a t the l e a s t e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s  ment  would  1967,.  that a b i l i t y  may be t h e answer  and B r i d g e s  Davies gest  Hargraves  achievement.  by t h e w r i t e r , u t i l i z i n g grouping  state  to s t a t e m e n t s  group  and Thomas 1 9 6 5 ,  Bingham  which  (Borg  and W e s t b y - G i b s o n  (1976)  o f t e a c h i n g methods  ability  present a  1:976).  Eash (1964)  Thomas and Thomas 1 9 6 5 ,  of  discipline  myriad of problems  Yates  in  ability  f o r many d i f f e r e n t k i n d s  Slow l e a r n e r s ,  problems,  in which the range  Leighton  1970,  are o f t e n  r e s u l t of  t e a c h i n g methods, and s t u d e n t Reid  (1976)  1970).  sugassigned  this  assign-  boredom  behaviour  of  problems  F i n d l a y and B r y a n ture  (1975),  on a b i l i t y g r o u p i n g  spans  whose 1920  r e v i e w of the to 1970,  litera-  conclude  that  the p r a c t i c e continues without systematic j u s t i f i c a t i o n and, i n d e e d , w i t h few notabl.e s t u d i e s t o p o i n t t h e way t o a t e n a b l e s y n t h e s i s o f what happens when a b i l i t y g r o u p i n g i s usedA Wilson  and S c h m i t s  commendations institutions  regarding  ability tion  p r o d u c e d a number o f  a b i l i t y grouping.  if  A final  i n t o the f a c t o r s  ability  grouping  Schmits  advocate  warrant  recommendation  underlying  by t e a c h e r s .  training  trainees  advocated  t h e use  suggests  the c o n t i n u e d  For  re-  r e l a t e d to a b i l i t y  of the l i t e r a t u r e is  certain conditions  grouping.  Teacher  to f a m i l i a r i z e t h e i r  c l i e n t s of the r e s e a r c h  A reassessment  to a s c e r t a i n  have  are encouraged  and i n - s e r v i c e grouping.  (1978)  the p r e s e n t  of investiga-  support Wilson  of and  a s w i t c h f r o m homogeneous a b i l i t y g r o u p s t o heterogeneous small classroom groups in order to l i m i t the p o s s i b l e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s of a b i l i t y grouping w h i l e s t i l l a l l o w i n g the p r a c t i t i o n e r b e t t e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o meet i n d i v i d u a l needs t h a n a r e a l l o w e d by l a r g e group instruction.2  Warren G. F i n d l e y and M i r i a m M. B r y a n , The P r o s and o f A b i 1 i t y G r o u p i n g ( B l o o m i n g t o n : P h i D e l t a Kappa E d u c a t i o n a l F o u n d a t i o n , 1 975), p.6. B a r r y J . W i l s o n and D o n a l d W. S c h m i t s , " W h a t ' s A b i l i t y G r o u p i n g ? " , P h i D e l t a Kappan 59 ( A p r i l 535-536.  Cons  New i n 1978):  30 This  last  statement  seems t o u n d e r l y  t h e r e c e n t move  Britain  away f r o m homogeneous a b i l i t y  abi1ity  education.  Curriculum,  teaching  A great  deal  has  garding  the kind of  success  student.  directs  the t e a c h i n g  For t h i s  reason  technology of  have  set  approaches  and t e a c h i n g  been w r i t t e n  techniques  of  suited  to the  re-  limited  The  ensuring  teaching  examination  suggested  curriculum  often  used.  techniquesand  three areas  subcategories:  to l e a r n i n g ;  technology  and t e c h n o l o g i e s  included together.  in these  mixed  the c h o i c e of c u r r i c u l u m  curriculum, teaching been  to  in the l i t e r a t u r e  c u r r i c u l u m best  Inevitably  the l i t e r a t u r e  following  techniques  grouping  in  the  design;  success; evaluation  and  reporting. Before a statement formation  beginning by K e l l y  the  literature  r e v i e w of  this  section  (1974) may h e l p t o p r e f a c e t h e  to f o l l o w .  Kelly  in-  says:  I f we a c c e p t t h a t o n l y t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f e d u c a t i o n a r e common, we must be p r e p a r e d f o r q u i t e d r a m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s o f c o n t e n t and method t o s u i t the d r a m a t i c d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t c l e a r l y e x i s t in c h i l d r e n ' s s t y l e of l e a r n i n g , i n t e r e s t s , backg r o u n d s , a m b i t i o n s and t h e many o t h e r f a c e t s o f t h e i r unique p e r s o n a l i t i e s . • Kelly's  statement  necessary  for  suggests the  teaching  students  k i n d of  considerations  in a mixed a b i l i t y  A.V. K e l l y , Teaching Mixed Abi Ti t y C l a s s e s H a r p e r and Row P u b l i s h e r s , 1 9 7 4 ) , p. T0~.  class-  (London:  room and t h u s  includes  considerations evident  in  for  l i m i t e d success  teaching  ture  l i m i t e d success  the l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d  Curriculum design. indicates  in t h i s  t h e need f o r a h i g h l y  day  l i m i t e d success  life.  It  should  be a t an a p p r o p r i a t e  be c l o s e is  is  surroundings  to t h e i r r e a l i t y .  thought  thinking  to improve  skills.  level  lack of  introduction students  student  manner;  attention  spans;  and p e r h a p s  this  of  Glasman 1974,  school; utilize  achieve  Scottish  curriculum  in  Webster Centre  is  enhance  1970,  said  level.  needs  The  encourage  independent improve  learning  t h e need t o and  skills in  develop  interests 1969,  Darke  e t a l . 1972,  Kelly  for Mathematics,  their  lengthen  Many a u t h o r s  and B e r g e r  Tisher  to  and l e a r n i n g ; dormant  are  success  to l e a r n .  i n a more  previously  Karlin  curricula  their tasks;  teachers  and  content  by l i m i t e d  c u r r i c u l u m see  et a l . 1958,  1970,  the s t u d e n t s  work  at a h i g h e r  the r e l e v a n t  adult  for  curriculum  c u r r i c u l u m from s t u d e n t s '  (Brandwein  or  the  in part  This  interests,  all  and m o t i v a t i o n  become more m o t i v a t e d towards  own  m o t i v a t i o n and  be more c u r i o u s ;  attitudes  favour  interest  litera-  students.  The f a c t t h a t many s c i e n c e  of a r e l e v a n t  to:  the  The use o f r e l e v a n t  n o t r e l e v a n t may be e v i d e n c e d students'  section.  and e x p e r i e n c e s  s u g g e s t e d t h a t above  are  student-relevant  r e l e v a n c e may r e l a t e t o t h e s t u d e n t s ' every  These  students  W i t h few e x c e p t i o n s  c u r r i c u l u m when t e a c h i n g  their  students.  Science  and  1970,  Technical  Education Kelly  1976,  cautions  students' tension (1969)  Sturges  1976,  t h a t we s h o u l d  i n t e r e s t s and needs  and d e v e l o p m e n t " states  Wilkenson  n o t o n l y work t o but a l s o  of these  1  and Bowers  1976).  satisfy  toward the  "ex-  interests. Gulliford  that  r e s e a r c h e s show t h a t t h e c o n t e n t o f c o u r s e s and methods o f t e a c h i n g c a n n o t be d e c i d e d m e r e l y by c o n s i d e r i n g what t h e t e a c h e r w o u l d l i k e to a c h i e v e . He must a l s o c o n s i d e r what t h e p u p i l s can b e s t s t u d y i n t e r m s o f t h e stage of development in t h e i r t h i n k i n g . 2  Perhaps  the most d e s i r a b l e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f c o n t e n t  s u g g e s t e d by T i s h e r must  In  This  a science  1963,  3  should  may i n v o l v e  of h i g h l y  2  perceive  as  important  have  some say  the s t u d e n t s  course  courses and  as•desirable."  or  having  relevant topics  Scottish  Ibid. ,  see 3  "new  order to develop a r e l e v a n t c u r r i c u l u m the  themselves  1  (1972) who s t a t e t h a t  be a b l e n d i n g o f what s t u d e n t s  what t e a c h e r s  for  et a l .  is  Education  in the t o p i c s  t o be s t u d i e d .  a c t u a l l y generating some c h o i c e s  the  topics  among a number  s e l e c t e d by t h e t e a c h e r Department 1969,  students  Tuckman  (Newsom 1969,  p.22.  R o n a l d G u l l i f o r d , B a c k w a r d n e s s and E d u c a t i o n a l F a i l u r e ( S l o u g h : N a t i o n a l Foundation of E d u c a t i o n a l Research in E n g l a n d and W a l e s , 1 9 6 9 ) , p . 9 1 . R.P. T i s h e r , C.N. Power and L. E n d e a n , e d s . , F u n d a m e n t a l I s s u e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n ( S y d n e y : John W i l e y and Sons A u s t r a l i a P t y . L t d . , 1972), p.80.  33 Webster Younie 1976,  1970, 1974,  Ladd 1 9 7 2 , Kershaw  Wragg 1 9 7 6 ,  volved  Sturges  and S c o t t  1973,  1975,  Weider  Darke  1976,  W i l d e and Sommers 1 9 7 8 ) .  i n a d e c i s i o n making  process  1973, Sturges  Students  where t h e i r  in-  decisions  a r e n o n - t o k e n may i m p r o v e t h e low s e l f - c o n c e p t o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the l i m i t e d tion  success  i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g may a l s o  developed s o c i a l  skills.  the d e c i s i o n making objectives  Doohan 1 9 7 0 , Sommers  (Noar  help to  by s t u d e n t s  1967,  to  The  improve  A number o f a u t h o r s  and even t h e r u l e s  the c l a s s r o o m  student.  participaunder-  have  extended  i n c l u d e the s e t t i n g  and t h e i r c o n s e q u e n c e s  Tuckman  T i s h e r e t a l . 1972,  1969, Younie  Newsom 1974,  for  1963, Wilde  and  1978).  A n o t h e r method by w h i c h r e l e v a n t t o p i c s may be is  through  students  a l s o may e n h a n c e  who may work  1969,  Collette  Sturges  social  i n t e r a c t i o n between  i n g r o u p s o f two o r more  and Thomas 1 9 6 5 ,  Noar  1973,  chosen  p a r t i c i p a t i n g in p r o j e c t work.  o n l y can p r o j e c t work p r o v i d e r e l e v a n c e f o r t h e it  1967,  Scottish  K e l l y 1974,  Not  student, students  (Newsom 1 9 6 3 , Education  Schools  Thomas  Department  Council  1975,  1976).  S i n c e many l i m i t e d o r two y e a r s  earlier  success  students  than o t h e r s t u d e n t s  leave school a number o f  one authors  see t h e need f o r j o b o r v o c a t i o n a l l y - o r i e n t e d s c i e n c e Mahan  of  (1965) argues  that rsince  special  education  courses.  is  p r o v i d e d f o r t h o s e who i n t e n d t o p r o c e e d t o u n i v e r s i t y  it  34should  also  directly Younie  be p r o v i d e d f o r  those  to the w o r k i n g w o r l d .  (1974)  propose  Both Webster  a job-oriented curriculum is (1963)  and S c h o o l s  riculum should  not  exist  authors  o f s c i e n c e on s o c i e t y  students  advocate  age  1963,  and Umars  The S c o t t i s h Education suggests  (1971)  (Johnson  for jobs  at the  Wilkenson  a move t o w a r d s  will  promote f l e x i b i l i t y  with  a r a p i d l y changing  that  an  on t h e  students  Oxenhorn  and Bowers  future.  cur-  of a j o b . the  pos-  not  effects  to l i v e  in a  1 963 , Newsom  1972,  Martin  1973,  Science  and T e c h n i c a l  1976).  The  literature  a broad c u r r i c u l u r n in s c i e n c e in students  want,  present.  1 9 6 3 , L i s o n bee  1966,  While  that this  w h i c h may  an e m p h a s i s  Centre f o r Mathematics,  1976,  state  often excludes  and on h e l p i n g  technological Loretan  and  and p a r e n t s  o f as a g u a r a n t e e  change  in the f u t u r e or e x i s t Several  what s t u d e n t s  be t h o u g h t  of p r e p a r i n g  (1970)  m o t i v a t i o n to l e a r n .  Council  The r a t e o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l sibility  proceed  t h a t j o b - o r i e n t e d c u r r i c u l a may  p r o v i d e more r e l e v a n c e and t h u s  Newsom  who i n t e n d t o  who w i l l  Webster  be  (1970)  which  coping states  e m p h a s i s s h o u l d be p l a c e d on t h e q u a l i t y o f l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s as o p p o s e d t o t h e q u a n t i t y of m a t e r i a l c o v e r e d . When we l o o k a t t h e v a s t and r a p i d changes t h a t a r e t a k i n g p l a c e i n a l l segments o f o u r h i g h l y c o m p l e x s o c i e t y , we r e a l i z e t h a t i t i s more i m p o r t a n t f o r c h i l d r e n t o have q u a l i t a t i v e e x p e r i e n c e s t h a n m e r e l y m e m o r i z i n g f a c t s t h a t may q u i c k l y become obsolete.! _ ^ _ J.W. W e b s t e r , "A S c i e n c e Program f o r t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 54 ( J a n u a r y - March 1 9 7 0 ) : 5 1 - .  Child,"  35. The l i m i t e d s u c c e s s down o r d i l u t e d s c i e n c e In  some c a s e s  student  often receives  c u r r i c u l u m compared t o o t h e r  t h e l i t e r a t u r e seems t o s u p p o r t  r e d u c e d c o n t e n t and c o m p l e x i t y f o r t h e s e stone In  1951,  other  Shadrach  instances  1970,  this  Martin  1973,  Miller  d i l u t e d curriculum is  and i n t e r e s t t o s t u d e n t s  result  the r e d u c e d c o n t e n t and c o m p l e x i t y a  unmotivated" advocate pursue his  1  student  is  (Ladd  produced.  students.  the idea  students  relevance of  a watered  (Feather-  1974). seen t o  of  lack  s a y s t h a t as a "dull,  Most a u t h o r s  seem t o  a r e l e v a n t c u r r i c u l u m w i t h i n which a student  content to a l e v e l  of  complexity congruent  may  with  capabi1ities. The b a s i s  found  f o r a b r o a d , r e l e v a n t c u r r i c u l u m can  in the r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g 2  interdisciplinary literature  curriculum.  reviewed supports  interdisciplinary (Featherstone  the i n t e g r a t e d or  A large t h e use  p r o p o r t i o n of  o f an i n t e g r a t e d  c u r r i c u l u m with l i m i t e d success  1951, Johnson  1963,  be  Lange  or  students  and J o r g e n s e n  Newsom 1 963 , Feshbachi 1 969 , G u l l i f o r d 1 969 ,  the  1969,  Scottish  E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t 1969, Darke 1970, S c h o o l s C o u n c i l ] G e o r g e . 1 . L a d d , " W h o C a r e s ! ! (The Slow L e a r n e r : O b j e c t i v e s and E v a l u a t i o n ) , " S c h o o l S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s 72(March 1972):251-3. 2 . Some c o n f u s i o n i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e s e two t e r m s e x i s t s w i t h d i f f e r e n t meanings b e i n g used on e a c h s i d e o f t h e A t l a n t i c . For t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s p a p e r t h e t e r m i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y r e f e r s t o a s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m w h i c h d i s r e g a r d s t h e t r a d i t i o n a l bounda r i e s between t h e a r e a s o f s c i e n c e i n t h e s t u d y of c e n t r a l themes or p r o b l e m s . I n t e g r a t e d s t u d i e s f u r t h e r extends the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y b o u n d a r i e s t o o t h e r n o n - s c i e n c e a r e a s such as E n g l i s h , s o c i a l s t u d i e s and m a t h e m a t i c s .  36 1970,  Scottish  Education Sturges  Centre f o r Mathematics,  1976,  Sturges  1976,  Science  Wilkenson  and T e c h n i c a l  and Bowers  1976).  states :  'The w h o l e n e s s o f a p u p i l ' s w o r l d s h o u l d n o t be o v e r l o o k e d in the p l a n n i n g process. As a p u p i l e x p l o r e s t h i n g s t h a t have a r o u s e d h i s c u r i o s i t y he w i l l u n c o n s c i o u s l y c r o s s b o u n d a r i e s between subjects. I n t e r e s t and m o t i v a t i o n i n s c i e n c e l e s s o n s may stem f r o m c u r r i c u l a w h i c h r e f l e c t t h e s e p o i n t s .1 •• Hughes  (1973)  adds f u r t h e r w e i g h t  interdisciplinary  c u r r i c u l u m by  t o t h e use o f an  integrated/  stating:  S p e c i a l s k i l l s in v a r i o u s s u b j e c t s w i l l o n l y be u s e f u l i f t h e y a r e an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f a comprehensive ' w h o l e ' . Therefore i t is necess a r y to i n t e g r a t e s u b j e c t s w i t h each o t h e r in s u c h a way t h a t t h e y p r o v i d e a g e n e r a l f r a m e work o f t h e e v e n t s o f e v e r y d a y l i v i n g . 2 In  a recent a r t i c l e  offering these  defining  a rationale for  its  the  i n t e g r a t e d c u r r i c u l u m and  use Brown  (1977)  states  that  c u r r i c u l a are: more a d e q u a t e f o r d e a l i n g w i t h many s o c i a l or t e c h n o l o g i c a l p r o b l e m s , r e f l e c t b e t t e r the s t r u c t u r e s and p r o c e s s e s o f s c i e n c e , e n a b l e s t r o n g e r t e a c h e r - p u p i 1 r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o be b u i l t u p , remove boredom f o r t e a c h e r s o f r e p e t i t i o n of s p e c i a l i s t m a t e r i a l . 3  Ibid.,  p.  17.  John M. H u g h e s , The Slow L e a r n e r i n Your C l a s s Thomas N e l s o n and Sons L t d . , 1 973) , p . 3 2 .  (London:  S a l l y A. B r o w n , "A Review o f t h e M e a n i n g s o f , and A r g u m e n t s f o r , I n t e g r a t e d S c i e n c e , " S t u d i e s in Science Education 4 (1977): 31-62.  The t r a d i t i o n a l c u r r i c u l u m i s t o work will  i n an a r e a s u i t e d t o h i s  help students  university  prepare f o r  courses  and m a t e r i a l s of  thought  and i s  already  to a l l o w the  t r a i n i n g and  final  interests,  examinations  appropriate for  in the s c h o o l s .  the  this  w r i t e r to advocate  ary approach  especially  and  apparatus  Brown's  i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y and d i s c i p l i n a r y s c i e n c e  leads  teacher  analysis education  t h e use o f t h e i n t e r d i s c i p l i n -  in the case of  the l i m i t e d  success  stu dent. Newsom Wilkenson  (1963),  and Bowers  overlap of various force  basic  lacking agree  Council  (1976)  (1970),  Hughes  are of the o p i n i o n  that to  c o m m u n i c a t i o n and c o m p u t a t i o n  skills  often  l i m i t e d success  student.  submit  in science  that there should  (Collette advocate  1973,  Milson  i n s t r u c t i o n , several be r e d u c e d e m p h a s i s  1973,  Munro  1974).  r e d u c e d dependence on b a s i c  ensure  that success  dependent  upon  these  interdisciplinary communication limited make t h e  in the s c i e n c e skills.  and a n a l y s i s  success  The a d v o c a c y  a p p r o a c h , the n e c e s s i t y  students  in s c i e n c e  in the b a s i c  on t h e s e  skills  who  do so t o  is  an  authors  student  course  authors  play  Authors  skills  the a b i l i t i e s of the l i m i t e d success  rein-  W h i l e most  t h a t r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g and a r i t h m e t i c s h o u l d  .  the  serves  in the  subjects  (1973),  (integration)  important part  for  Schools  and  allow to  not t o t a l l y  o f an for  integrated/  tools  of  and t h e weakness subjects  seem  of  to  i n c l u s i o n o f r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g and a r i t h m e t i c manda-  38 tory  in a science course  Further  r e i n f o r c e m e n t of  hanced by s t u d e n t o r a l 1970, tish  Oxenhorn  1972,  for  limited  language  work  success  skills  students.  is  thought  t o be e n -  (Newsom 1 963 , Tuckman 1 9 6 9 i  K e l l y 1974,  Schools  Council  1975,  C e n t r e f o r M a t h e m a t i c s , S c i e n c e and T e c h n i c a l  1976,  Sturges  1976).  K e l l y says t h a t a s t u d e n t ' s  Scot-  Education success  i n one mode o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n  (e.g.  oral)  communication  (e.g.  r e a d i n g and w r i t i n g ) .  i n o t h e r modes  Approaches to l e a r n best approach (making  through  (Texas  directed  is  1972,  1970,  1969, Van  Wilkenson  Deventer  1972). laws  Inductive  using  and Bowers  to t h e i n q u i r y or d i s c o v e r y a p r o b l e m by d e s i g n i n g  1976,  Texas  learning  specific  through a (Reissman  E d u c a t i o n Department  1972,  seem  r a t h e r than a d e d u c t i v e  t o be b e s t f a c i l i t a t e d  Scottish  increased  students  i n q u i r y or p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g approach  Reissman  Webster  an i n d u c t i v e  E d u c a t i o n a l Agency  thought  may l e a d t o  Limited success  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s or p r o v i n g  examples)  1965,  to l e a r n i n g :  1969,  Educational  Wong 1 9 7 6 ) .  In  Agency  contrast  a p p r o a c h where s t u d e n t s  pursue  t h e i r own e x p e r i m e n t s , t a k i n g  their  own d a t a and d e r i v i n g t h e i r own c o n c l u s i o n s ,  the d i r e c t e d  i n q u i r y approach helps  of  through tion  to ensure  the success  p r e - s e l e c t e d m a t e r i a l s and p r o c e d u r e s .  o f t h e i n d u c t i v e and d i r e c t e d i n q u i r y  should success  help to p r o v i d e the i n i t i a l students  tellectual  students The c o m b i n a -  approach  concrete experience  need t o a i d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i r  skills.  In  Karnes  addition this  a p p r o a c h may  limited in-  facilitate  39 the growth  of the s t u d e n t ' s  a pre-devised If  is  be b r o k e n Scottish  Martin 1975,  up i n t o s m a l l  Schools 1973, Darke  identifies  Bosworth  1975,  Clark  Sturges  the p o s i t i v e  further  on t h e c o m p o s i t i o n  of  use o f f r i e n d s h i p  or  motivated students  Shelton  and t h e s l o w  1971 , S t u r g e s  (Ausubel  Ibid.,  it  1967,  p.  80.  is  1  1973,  and  group or  student  Milson  Liberson  individual  differences,  a t t e n t i o n , and  improve-  Other authors  Kelly  (1974)  suggests  techniques,  of the s t u d e n t .  brighter  focus  students  Several  with  will  improve  the l e a r n i n g  student  (Karlin  and B e r g e r  slower in  both  1969,  1 973).  Due t o t h e n a t u r e laboratory  1967,  Sturges  by s o c i o m e t r i c  education"  that grouping  Hughes  Fabino  small  groups.  grouping  believe  the b r i g h t  of  relationships.  authors  (Noar  Wragg 1 9 7 6 ) .  personal  small  "social  1973,  1975,  individual  time f o r  ment o f t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t  the  1976,  aspects  for  should  1 969 , Marus.ek : 1 9 6 9 ,  Collette  enabling  less  individuals  1970,  as a l l o w i n g  t o enhance  groups or  Department  learning  the  then the c l a s s  Council  1976,  at  centered, a c t i v i t y - o r i e n t e d  to p r o c e e d e f f e c t i v e l y  Education  due t o s u c c e s s  task.  a concrete, student  process  1970,  learning  self-concept  of  necessary  Reissman  concrete  learning  to maintain  1969,  Whipple  small 1969,  in a  science  class Oxenhorn  size 1972,  40 Texas  Educational  Agency  1972,  The v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s f o r small the  group  work r e q u i r e s  individuals  teacher  has  or groups  adequate  than  experienced teacher. a homogeneously  five  students  a small  participating time  is  1965,  Quayle  Jenkins 1976,  that  number o f  teacher  In  groups  students.  grouped  class  1970,  solution  be no  even when t a u g h t  by an  advocate  s a f e t y of  1963,  Council  K e l l y 1974, In  of  students at  Weaver  Schillinger  students.  1971,  1975,  two o r more  Sturges  teachers  The a d d i t i o n o f  individual  h e l p and  Not o n l y can t e a c h e r s work  i n t e r a c t i o n with other teachers.  quick to p o i n t out  one  student/teacher  t h e s t u d e n t / t e a c h e r r a t i o by a f a c t o r  safety.  have  Thomas and Thomas  1971,  team t e a c h i n g  t h e same g r o u p  the  o f t h e i r own e x p e r t i s e and i n t e r e s t t h e y a l s o  is  sug-  should  to r e d u c i n g  (Newsom  Schools  et a l . 1973,  reduces  should  1973).  two a l l o w i n g t w i c e t h e t i m e f o r  by c l o s e  he  Younie  and Oxenhorn  to  the  a d d i t i o n , t h e t e a c h e r must  Collette  team t e a c h i n g  laboratory  all  to enable adequate  1972,  Wragg 1 9 7 6 ) .  instruct  In o r d e r  i n a number o f d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i m e n t s  One p o s s i b l e  or  g r o u p e d class: should be l e s s ' t h a n t w e n t y -  class  (Oxenhorn  ratio  individual  involved.  Both Younie  in s i z e .  enough  1974).  attention  twenty-five students  that  in  Younie  the t e a c h e r to give  that a heterogeneously  larger  students  time to s u p e r v i s e  have a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l gests  C o l l e t t e 1973,  the n e c e s s i t y  for  Sturges  harmony  of  improving  in the can  another  areas  benefit (1976)  among  team  41 members and t h e need f o r a f l e x i b l e this  t i m e t a b l e to  implement  teaching technique. A common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f many l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  is  t h e i r underdeveloped or reduced i n t e l l e c t u a l  including These  their ability  students  skills,  t o a b s t r a c t and make g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s .  are also  thought  t o l e a r n more e a s i l y  f i r s t h a n d and e x p e r i e n t i a l mode r a t h e r t h a n t h r o u g h tion;  A number o f a u t h o r s  actively  involves  materials abstract  students  can f a c i l i t a t e thinking  for  Younie  think  that a c u r r i c u l u m which  Schools  1951, Johnson  1 969 , S t u r g e s Council  1975,  M a t h e m a t i c s , S c i e n c e and T e c h n i c a l  Sturges  1976).  It  is  concrete experience is students  necessary  from d i s a d v a n t a g e d  This  Further activities role guest  s u c h as f i e l d  speakers.  to compensate  in s c i e n c e  for  those  who have n o t  (Reissman  1 969,  itself  discussions,  These  et al .  Centre  initial  yet  Tuckman  to the  teaching.  t r i p s , displaying  student  demonstrations  a c t i v i t i e s are thought  concept development, language In  Scottish  c o n c r e t e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s are found  playing, class  learning.  1 973., T i s h e r  t h a t an  backgrounds  situation  1 963 , Newsom  1976,  approach to l e a r n i n g l e n d s  laboratory-oriented  and  Education  f u r t h e r suggested  had t h e b e n e f i t o f tihi s e x p e r i e n c e 1969).  abstrac-  i n m a n i p u l a t i o n of c o n c r e t e  (.Featherstone  1974,  in a  the development of concepts  1 963 , Mahan 1 965 , R e i s s m a n 1972.  students  to  and  in  work, having  facilitate  d e v e l o p m e n t and t r a n s f e r  a d d i t i o n t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s a r e seen t o be  of  particularly backgrounds Berger 1972,  b e n e f i c i a l to students (Featherstone  1 969, Janzen  material centered  dimension  and a i d s . 1  in the l i t e r a t u r e  Shelton  1971,  models,  Kelly  1974,  Wragg  1976).  styles.  in s c i e n c e  audiovisual student-  a more c o n c r e t e aids  Approaching  1951, Ausubel  Department  Schools  1969, Tisher  Council  is  advocated  classes.  base  in  learning  1965,  Bloom 1970,  1972,  Sturges  group l e a r n i n g  1976,  re-  frees  students.  to a l l o w f o r t h i s  By p r o v i d i n g  relates  students  et a l .  basis with  to  and  Webster  1975,  audio  used  p r o c e e d a t t h e i r own pace and  t h e t e a c h e r t o work on a o n e - t o - o n e  bility  is  pictures, films,  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d or small  The use o f w o r k s h e e t s  Oxenhorn  many modes of l e a r n i n g  et a l . 1973,  1974,  quires' that students  1 970 ,  o f t e n termed m u l t i s e n s o r y  Education  Younie  A move t o  slides,  (Featherstone  Jenkins  and  b o t h t e a c h e r - c e n t e r e d and  learning  a v a r i e t y o f modes i s  Karlin  1976).  of concrete l e a r n i n g  one c o n c e p t p r o v i d e s  Scottish  Sturges  A combination of a u d i o v i s u a l  to a v a r i e t y of  1966,  Webster  and t e l e v i s i o n p r o v i d e  learning.  convey  In  situations  reproductions for  K e l l y 1974,  disadvantaged  W i t t y 1961,  Schoolis C o u n c i 1 1 9 7 0 , 1973,  Another  1951,  from  flexi-  carefully written  T e a c h e r - c e n t e r e d l e a r n i n g i s a more t r a d i t i o n a l o r d i d a c t i c approach to l e a r n i n g in c o n t r a s t to s t u d e n t c e n t e r e d l e a r n i n g where t h e r e i s much s t u d e n t a c t i v i t y and i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s .  43 core m a t e r i a l s  supplemented w i t h e x t e n s i o n s  t h e t e a c h e r can c a t e r t o a whole r a n g e his  class.  Worksheets  vent needless student, cularly 1963,  the s t u d e n t  has  Scottish  e t a l . 1973,  1976,  Sturges  been a b s e n t Education  Schools 1976,  learning  is  t o an  volves  aids  the concept of  and t e a c h e r from school  1975,  (Newsom  1969,  Ross  and Bowers  1975, 1976).  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d or small  indirect teaching.  i n d i r e c t teaching  Using  1  In  Interaction Analysis  con-  Campbel1  "the  affective  i n a d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t group  (1971),  C i t r o n and  and c o g n i t i v e  i n d i r e c t manner. was  of  for  low  of  Barnes  in students Campbell  shown t o be s u p e r i o r  levels  in-  of t h e F l a n d e r s - , System  (1970) e x a m i n e d t h e d i f f e r e n c e s r e s u l t i n g structed  group  s t y l e , d i r e c t teaching  modifications  the  parti-  t h e t e a c h e r b e i n g more d i d a c t i c and c r i t i c a l  students.  that  to c i r c u m -  Department  Council  Wilkenson  R e l a t e d t o t h e need f o r  trast  as  n o t e t a k i n g , a r e f e r e n c e and r e c o r d f o r  Kamm 1 9 6 9 ,  Darke  seen  enrichment  of a b i l i t i e s w i t h i n  and an a i d t o b o t h t h e s t u d e n t if  Jenkins  are a l s o  for  achievers."  on 2  in-  found both  ^The F l a n d e r s ' System of I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s d e f i n e s an i n d i r e c t t e a c h e r as one who f r e q u e n t l y q u e s t i o n s s t u d e n t s , a c c e p t s and uses s t u d e n t i d e a s , p r a i s e s and e n c o u r a g e s students and a c c e p t s t h e i r f e e l i n g s . The d i r e c t t e a c h e r f r e q u e n t l y uses the l e c t u r e t e c h n i q u e , gives d i r e c t i o n s to s t u d e n t s , c r i t i c i z e s s t u d e n t s , and a t t e m p t s t o j u s t i f y a u t h o r i t y . 2  James R. C a m p b e l l , " C o g n i t i v e and A f f e c t i v e P r o c e s s D e v e l o p ment and i t s R e l a t i o n t o a T e a c h e r ' s I n t e r a c t i o n R a t i o , " J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h i n S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 8 (December 1 9 7 1 ) : 31 7 - 3 2 3 .  44" Citron  and B a r n e s  "total  school  students  beliefs  performance"  taught  use o f t h i s  found t h a t  "problem s o l v i n g was  1  largely  h e l d by t h e t e a c h e r .  instruction  s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater  i n an i n d i r e c t manner.  a p p r o a c h depends  seems  ability"  It  seems  upon t h e  for  that  the  pedagogical  I n d i v i d u a l i z e d or small  to best f a c i l i t a t e  and  group  the i n d i r e c t t e a c h i n g  technique. As record,  limited short  (Tanzer  and S c o t t lesson is  students  have a poor  attendance  a t t e n t i o n span and poor powers  a non-sequential authors  success  curriculum is 1960,  1975).  recommended by a number  L e r n e r 1965,  Fabino  The n o n - s e q u e n t i a l  as an e n t i t y unto  of r e t e n t i o n ,  itself.  1975,  Kershaw  curriculum sets  This  type of  that a student's  and p o o r memory w i l l  absence,  short  n o t be f a c t o r s  other authors  causing  sequenced stone  program f o r  1951,  limited  L e i b h e r r 1966,  1962, Ausubel 1972,  advocate a small  1967,  Hughes 1 9 7 3 ,  him t o  1969,  1974,  In  fall con-  step, l o g i c a l l y • students  L o r e t a n and Umars  Reissman Younie  success  helping  a t t e n t i o n span  b e h i n d o r become b o r e d , f r u s t r a t e d and h o s t i l e . trast  each  curriculum  i n t e n d e d t o r e d u c e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f a i l u r e by  to ensure  of  Shelton  Sturges  (Feather-  1966,  1971,  1976,  Moore  Oxenhorn  Wong  1976).  I r v i n M. C i t r o n and C y r u s W. B a r n e s , "The S e a r c h f o r More E f f e c t i v e Methods o f T e a c h i n g H i g h S c h o o l B i o l o g y t o Slow L e a r n e r s Through I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s . P a r t I: The E f f e c t s of V a r y i n g Teaching P a t t e r n s , " J o u r n a l of Research in S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 7 (March 1 9 7 0 ) : 9 - 1 9 .  45" Featherstone suggests that there w i l l development  if  students  portant aspects  of a s u b j e c t from l e s s o n  (.1 976)  Bloom  student  should achieve a given  and M a r s h a l l  to the next stage  ( 1 9 7 6 ) recommends  Council  that strong  (1975)  (.1 977)  level  links  Many t e e n a g e r s  or  module's,  a sequential  b e f o r e he Sturges  facilitate  curriculum.  and Bowers using  Both  (1976)  short  may be t h e o p t i m a l  do n o t have o r d e r e d l i v e s  Ausubel  program.  be made t o  and W i l k e n s o n  im-  believe that a  of mastery  s u b m i t t h a t an i n t e r m e d i a t e a p p r o a c h contained units  to l e s s o n .  of a s e q u e n t i a l  c o n c e p t f o r m a t i o n when u s i n g Schools  memory  a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o remember  (1 9 6 6 ) ,  proceeds  be l i t t l e  self-  methodology.  outside  the  class-  room and a p p r e c i a t e t h e s e c u r i t y o f a s t r u c t u r e d , s e q u e n t i a l science  course.  sequential should  In  o r d e r to h e l p s t u d e n t s  l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n the steps  Karlin  al.  of the  in  the  sequence  be s u f f i c i e n t l y c h a l l e n g i n g , n o n - t r i v i a l and w i t h i n  the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the s t u d e n t s  1969,  succeed  and B e r g e r Tuckman  1972,  1969,  Sturges  Ensuring  success  1976,  Sturges  is  Glasser  1969,  1963, Reissman  1971, T i s h e r  and Bowers  f o r students  et  1976).  t h e t e a c h e r may who have  experienced  The c r e a t i o n o f a c o m f o r t a b l e  one s u g g e s t e d  and G u l l i f o r d 1 9 6 5 , 1976).  1972,  There are s t e p s  in the past.  (Johnson  and J o r g e n s e n  Wilkenson  success  c l a s s r o o m atmosphere (Tansley  Lange  Oxenhorn  success.  take to f a c i l i t a t e limited  1969,  concerned  by t h e  C r o w l e y 1969,  S i n c e many l i m i t e d  success  literature  Ornstein  1969,  students  do n o t  have o r d e r e d l i v e s that  the school  providing room. is  outside  the c l a s s r o o m  can c r e a t e g r e a t e r  also  student  thought has  (decision  routine  of r o u t i n e s  a degree of  making).  independence  Independence  and  Tuckman  1 969,  Hughes 1 9 7 3 ,  Limited success  1963, is  to a t t a i n goals  Tuckman  set  Hulicka  1970,  Janzen  positive sincere  1969, 1970,  reinforcement  (in  (1966), gest  the  his 1965,  success  rewards,(Featherstone 1972).  Positive  to encourage student.  students It  is  a p p r e c i a t e the nature  (Lerner  Sturges  1965,  1969, 1976,  Bloom 1 9 6 6 ,  Whipple  1969,  Wong 1 9 7 6 ) .  an o r a l  Karnes  Continual for  the  pattern  i d e a o f m a s t e r y ,:1 e a r n i n g a d v o c a t e d by  Ausubel  self-concept.  (1976) and M a r s h a l l  the p r o v i s i o n  of  and  Crowley  or w r i t t e n form)  e f f o r t and a c h i e v e m e n t may r e v e r s e  Bloom  it  responsibility  Oxenhorn  used  should  Tuckman  o f f a i l u r e and i m p r o v e The  suggested  et al . 1 973).  by t h e t e a c h e r o r  set  by  class-  and G u l l i f o r d  and  1969,  one t e c h n i q u e  of the goals  1969,  is  need t o e x p e r i e n c e  goals  recommended t h a t s t u d e n t s purpose  Jenkins  students  i m m e d i a t e and r e a l  reinforcement  in the  s e l f - c o n c e p t and  t o be s e l f - d i r e c t i n g ( T a n s l e y  Johnson  of s e c u r i t y  and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may  ability  1951,  advocated  i m p o r t a n t t o c r e a t e a s i t u a t i o n where  h e l p the development of a s t u d e n t ' s  through  is  feelings  a structured, consistent  While the e s t a b l i s h m e n t  it  continual  a v a r i e t y of meaningful  ways.  (1977)  seems  to  sug-  r e p e t i t i o n and r e v i e w Others,  in  not s p e c i f i c a l l y  47. advocating  mastery  repetition  and r e v i e w  1 958,  Moore  Tisher 1973,  learning, also  (Featherstone  1 962 , J o h n s o n  et a l . 1972, Munro  1974,  and T e c h n i c a l  1 963,  Oxenhorn  Scottish  Education  level  ingful  contexts  helps  Programmed and s u c c e s s Noar al.  1967, 1973,  advocate  learning  i t reduces  thought  Although sequences  and Umars  learning  units  ficulty)  o r w r i t e programmed  students  1969, Most  programmed and s t e p s  level  Younie  task.  learning  (Ausubel  1976).  learning  and a t i m e c o n s u m i n g  should  mean^  styles.  1967,  Jenkins  et  authors to  other  learning that  responses  To f i n d a p p r o p r i a t e  [content, reading  Each s t u d e n t  and  to achieve at a  to f a c i l i t a t e  t h e need f o r v e r b a l  1966,  Repetition retention  l e a r n i n g as a s u p p l e m e n t  (Loretan  L o r e t a n and Umars  Science  the r e i n f o r c e -  Department  Sturges  1966).  Hughes  of r e p e t i t i o n and r e v i e w f u r t h e r  Education  activities.  et a l .  The use o f a v a r i e t y o f  is  C o l l e t t e 1973,  a difficult  students  f o r l i m i t e d success  provide the necessary success  provide  for  Karnes 1 9 7 0 ,  1973,  1976).  for different learning  programmed  classroom  Martin  Sturges  but may a l s o  and modes  Scottish  1 969,  help to • f a c i l i t a t e  of a t t a i n m e n t .  to p r o v i d e  Brandwein  Centre f o r Mathematics,  ment needed by l i m i t e d s u c c e s s higher  1951,  Crowley  1972,  1976,  and r e v i e w may n o t o n l y concept development  p o i n t o u t t h e need  and l e v e l sequences (Ausubel  may  guarantee by  students  programmed of is  difgenerally  1966,  1974).  be made c o n t i n u a l l y aware o f  his  progress  (Whipple  out the s t u d e n t ' s makes  Janzen 1970).  strengths  e v i d e n t weaknesses  A graphical by K a r n e s  (positive  (1970)  Evaluation  serves  to  reinforcement)  by s t u d e n t s  so t h a t a t a l l  and  This  times  is  and  suggested  students  are  aware  weaknesses. and r e p o r t i n g .  The v e r y n a t u r e o f  and r e p o r t i n g may c a u s e a i n x i e t y and l e a d t o  success.  Glasser  or a B i s  a f a i l i n g grade."  (1971)  states  "any grade  Most  1  authors  less  evalua-  limited t h a n an A  who have w r i t t e n  about e v a l u a t i o n tend to a d v o c a t e a type o f 2  formative  evaluation  1965,  (Johnson  1971,  Scriven  Wragg  suggests  Students B's, or  1967,  making  receive  In  Thomas  Darke  1976,  Wragg's  not making  Sturges  should  1976,  a standard  or  headway w o u l d r e c e i v e  Darke  1976).  baseline.  would r e c e i v e A ' s  ability  or l e s s .  Glasser  Wragg  p l a n a s t u d e n t o f low a b i l i t y  an A w h i l e a h i g h e r  evaluation  and Thomas  p o s i t i v e progress  achieve a B standing  1  1963,  t h e g r a d e o f C as  other students E's.  point  f o r f u r t h e r r e p e t i t i o n and r e v i e w .  r e c o r d of progress  of s t r e n g t h s  tion  1969,  student might  could only  (1976) b e l i e v e s  be c o n d u c t e d on a week t o week  D's  that  basis  W i 1 1 i a m G l a s s e r M.D., " R e a c h i n g t h e U n m o t i v a t e d , " The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 38 (March 1 9 7 1 ) : 18-22  2  F o r m a t i v e e v a l u a t i o n , i n c o n t r a s t t o summative e v a l u a t i o n (where s t u d e n t s a r e e v a l u a t e d and g r a d e d based on t h e i r s t a n d i n g compared t o o t h e r s t u d e n t s ) , a s s e s s e s t h e p r o g r e s s o f a s t u d e n t r e l a t i v e t o h i s p r e v i o u s a c h i e v e m e n t and t a k i n g i n t o a c c o u n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s t r e n g t h s and w e a k n e s s e s .  concentrating nesses.  on i d e n t i f y i n g s t u d e n t ' s  Glasser  (1971)  placement of formal student  interviews  and Darke  letter  (1976)  grades  and a n e c d o t a l  strengths  in favour  of  realistic  (1976).  Sturges  suggests  that  be a c o m p o s i t e  and e f f o r t .  process  chosen  based take  evaluation  aspects  a student  tion  authors  Hughes  likely  and r e p o r t i n g  non-competetive  school  and  states  procedures.  the  reporting broadly  and  impression ability  consideration One such  of  considera-  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f an  situation  a  p h y s i c a l , emotional  A move t o m i x e d a close  both  t h a t we must  t o h e l p p r o v i d e a. t o t a l  require  about  of  t h e need f o r  (1973)  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l ,  in order  may r e v o l v e  evaluation  stress  for evaluation.  teaching w i l l evaluation  all  scheme.  into account  social of  is  Whatever  teacher-  A more  by S t u r g e s  attainment  re-  reports.  may be t h a t a d v o c a t e d mark  weak-  suggest the  approach  a student's  and  essentially  within a highly  competitive  society. Summary o f a p p r o p r i a t e The l i s t  below d e l i n e a t e s  are advocated limited list  are  example,  those  students. methods  Not  where  those as  t e a c h i n g methods  appropriate  included  for  in t h i s  that  teaching  summary  t h e r e seems t o be a d i f f e r e n c e  amongst t h e a u t h o r s  the  methods  in the l i t e r a t u r e  success  of o p i n i o n  teaching  of the l i t e r a t u r e  use o f a s e q u e n t i a l  or n o n - s e q u e n t i a l  (for program).  so" A science clude  course  for  consideration  of  - mixed-abi1ity - a relevant  limited  success  the f o l l o w i n g  students  practices  should and  in-  approaches:  classes  c u r r i c u l u m based  on s t u d e n t  needs  and  interests - an e l e m e n t o f  student of  d e c i s i o n - making .  - a  component  student  - a  j o b or v o c a t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d  - an  i n t e g r a t e d or  -  inductive  an  projects program  interdisciplinary  l e a r n i n g mode  approach  in a d i r e c t e d  inquiry  approach - a concrete, a c t i v i t y - o r i e n t e d - a small -  group or  a use o f  - a use  individualized learning  situation  teaching  of f i e l d  class oral  team  approach  t r i p s , student  discussions,  display,  demonstrations,  role  guest  playing,  speakers  and  work  -  a.use of  -  a- use o f  - a more  audio-visual  aids  worksheets  i n d i r e c t teaching  -  a consistent  -  a use o f  class  positive  routine reinforcement  - a use o f  r e p e t i t i o n and  - a use o f  programmed  -  students'  ensuring  approach  review  learning awareness  of t h e i r  progress  - an e v a l u a t i o n scheme w h i c h a c c o u n t s f o r t h e p r o g r e s s individual.  of t h e  51' T e a c h e r a t t i t u d e s , t r a i n i n g and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s In et a l .  (.1 958)  primary his  teaching  state that  importance  students.  limited  the l i m i t e d success "the teacher  students  students  should  1951,  Johnson  1969,  1971,  Younie  attitudes  will  likely  be. all  While  these  Many a u t h o r s  1974).  straight  (1976)  advise level,  is  teaching 1966,  1969,  Council  Reissman  holding  these  fair  suggested  should  they  of  essential  student.  to f a c i l i t a t e  of the n e c e s s a r y  1967,  Janzen 1970,  Reissman  Schools  C o l l e t t e 1 973,  the  the  attitudes,  the l i m i t e d success  Ausubel  1971,  s e e s them as  the a p p r o p r i a t e  and methods  .Schools  students  f o r w a r d ; warm;  necessary  and t h e l e a r n i n g  Whipple  to  t h a t t e a c h e r t r a i n i n g , at both  characteristics  1969,  of  consistent;  of the l i m i t e d success  g r o w t h and d e v e l o p m e n t o f  Leibherr  1967,  A teacher  be p a t i e n t ; f i r m ;  Sturges  in-service  1963,  toward  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s may seem t o be t h o s e  to t h e s e c u r i t y needs  for  for these  Ausubel  t h e l i t e r a t u r e has  good t e a c h e r s ,  pre-and  Of  1  possess are the d e s i r e  1963,  sympathetic; understanding; and d e m o c r a t i c as  the k e y . "  a t t i t u d e s teachers  and a t r u e r e s p e c t  (Featherstone Glasser  is  Brandwein  the a t t i t u d e of the t e a c h e r  The two p r e d o m i n a n t  success  teach these  is  student  student 1969,  Council  Martin  skills (Johnson  Tuckman 1970,  1 973 , K e l l y 1 974 ,  ^ a u l F. B r a n d w e i n , F l e t c h e r G. Watson and P a u l E. B l a c k w o o d , T e a c h i n g H i g h S c h o o l S c i e n c e : A Book o f Methods (New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e and W o r l d I n c . , 1 9 5 8 ) , p . 1 5 0 .  Younie  1974,  Quelch 1975,  Schools  Council  skills  which are  do t e a c h e r s  need t e a c h i n g  should  be " i m m a g i n a t i v e  also  (Schools  Council  theoretical Kelly  not  teacher  that teachers  "will  tion  o f any r e a l m e r i t . "  (if  these groups in  is  the school  grouping  as  situation students will  (Sturges  suggested  in which a l l  necessitate  the p u p i l s  that  therefore, educa-  t h a t the  ex-  suc-  The t e a c h i n g  to the l e a s t e x p e r i e n c e d  of  teachers  A move t o m i x e d a b i l i t y  by many a u t h o r s , teachers  if  pre-service  w i t h an  state  grouped).  "the  training  not teach the l i m i t e d  1976).  in t h e i r c l a s s e s .  they  1974).  He s t a t e s  Many a u t h o r s  homogeneously often l e f t  know  (Kelly  in a n y . . . a n d ,  to provide 3  p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r o f t e n does student  also  are taken then the  n o t become e x p e r t  be i n no p o s i t i o n  only  stimulating  in t h e i r p r e - s e r v i c e  " t a k e t o o many s u b j e c t s . "  will  cess  should  of e d u c a t i o n  t o o many d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s  Not  i n t u i t i v e and r e s o u r c e f u l "  Teachers 2  1  underpinnings"  suggests  should  1970).  1975).  wi11  will  have  create a  limited  Mixed a b i l i t y s c i e n c e  that pre-service  and i n - s e r v i c e  success teaching instruction  S c h o o l s C o u n c i l , C u r r i c u l u m B u l l e t i n 3: Changes i n S c h o o l S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g ( L o n d o n : E v a n s , Methuen E d u c a t i o n a l , 1970), p.112. 2  1 b i d. , p.  3  Ibid.,  p.  115. 117.  53. be p r o v i d e d  CSchools  t o new and e x p e r i e n c e d t e a c h e r s  1970,  Schools  Council  1975,  Sturges  1976).  1971,  Kelly  1974,  Schools  Council  Council  Conclus ion This students in  r e v i e w has who have  science.  i n d i c a t e d the e x i s t e n c e  difficulty  Some f a c t o r s  and t h e  student  lined.  A number  success  leading  characteristics  in  students  resulting  of a q u e s t i o n n a i r e  in j u n i o r  in  a group  of  particular  difficulties have  been  out-  been  identified  experienced  science.  f o r m a t i o n on c u r r e n t students  have  who have  The l i t e r a t u r e r e v i e w e d p r o v i d e d construction  and  to these  o f t e a c h i n g methods  to h e l p deal w i t h these limited  in school  of  teaching  secondary  the b a s i s  designed  practices science  in  for  to e l i c i t for B.C.  limited  the insuccess  CHAPTER  Development o f Survey Impetus and i n t e n t s At the p r e s e n t  of  2  the  Descriptive  Instrument  survey  t i m e i n B.C.  there  suggested f o r a l l j u n i o r secondary c u r r i c u l u m has  been  in  use  since  is  science  1968.  one  students.  c u r r i c u l u m and d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e l a t e d  methods  is  with  little  literature secondary as  discussion has  revealed only  to the l a r g e  and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . student  information  science  i n B.C.  and c o m m u n i c a t i o n courses,  or  i n B.C.  students  teachers  of  of  the  junior  (Quelch  l i t e r a t u r e from  1975). Britain  of the l i m i t e d  and t h e l a c k o f  regarding  has  teaching  A search  The p r o b a b l e s i z e  come more f a m i l i a r w i t h t h i s B.C.  one s t u d y  volume o f  population  and t h e i r s c i e n c e  schools  or c o m m u n i c a t i o n .  l i m i t e d success  opposed  success  by i n d i v i d u a l  This  Any m o d i f i c a t i o n  of t h i s  c a r r i e d out  curriculum  these  local  students  prompted t h e w r i t e r t o  area of s c i e n c e  education  bein  schools. As  science  a f i r s t step  instruction for  scriptive level,  in developing  survey  has  l i m i t e d success  students  been c o n d u c t e d a t t h e j u n i o r  grades e i g h t , nine  The s u r v e y  an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  addressed  of  a desecondary  and t e n . i t s e l f to the f o l l o w i n g 54  questions:  1.  What  is  population 2.  the s i z e  of the l i m i t e d  at the j u n i o r  What e d u c a t i o n a l  approaches presently success  secondary  practices  level,  B.C.?  curriculum,  and r e p o r t i n g )  used t o t e a c h s c i e n c e  to  are  limited  students?  What  is  the e d u c a t i o n a l  background  teachers  of  limited  students?  3.  student  in  (grouping,  to l e a r n i n g , e v a l u a t i o n being  success  success  and e x p e r i e n c e  Using  the data o b t a i n e d from the answers to the  above  i t was  possible  to address  of  questions  the f o l l o w i n g  broader  issues: 1.  How do e s t a b l i s h e d  i n B.C.  science  compare w i t h t h o s e  What  implications,  have  for  limited  administrators  if  any,  success  developed  In what ways can s c i e n c e  for  limited  3.  What f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h intents  should  the survey  f o r f u r t h e r communication  community;  to expose  teaching  additional  methods  A u s t r a l i a.  practice  teachers,  education  foundation  and p r o v i d e  in  B.C.?  be  enhanced  students?  of  the  outside  institutions?  2.  Additional  practices  do d i f f e r e n c e s  students,  and o t h e r  success  teaching  issues  conducted?  were:  to provide  w i t h the  debated  information  from B r i t a i n ,  be  teaching  in the  on r e l e v a n t  a  literature curricula  the U n i t e d S t a t e s  and  and  5:6.  Survey  instrument  In  order  design  to address  the  i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h i s  was  developed.  Source  of q u e s t i o n n a i r e  The r e v i e w o f  the  the broad  l i t e r a t u r e revealed  These  areas  students;  success istics  suggestions  literature science  methods  courses  methods  course  development  suggested  fill  in a d d i t i o n a l  asked  to p r o v i d e  table  for  Specific  science  information.  The i t e m s  of  covered  be  deto  various  by t h e w r i t e r  on t h e s c h o o l  teachers  size  and  asked  for  to were  time-  school.  by q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the  in the l i t e r a t u r e .  For example,  in t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r  information  were  in which a  could  on t h e  i t e m s were p r o d u c e d  information  and  to e s t i m a t e the e x t e n t  t h e i r science  questionnaire  character-  For e x a m p l e ,  students  based  Other  limited  statements  items.  which they of  for  o f d i f f e r e n t ways  were a s k e d  students.  l i m i t e d sue?  i d e n t i f i e d areas  l i m i t e d success  Teachers  of  of  teacher a t t i t u d e s ,  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  for  l i m i t e d success  prevalent  w i t h i n the  s u g g e s t e d a number  course  veloped.  teaching  The most  occurring  used t o g e n e r a t e  of  and a p p r o p r i a t e  and t r a i n i n g .  questionnaire  a number  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  appropriate  students  in  items  p e r t i n e n t to the t e a c h i n g  cess  outlined  chapter, a teacher  areas  included:  questions  items specific  57  information 1.  in the f o l l o w i n g  Students  - s i z e of the l i m i t e d student population  Teachers  2.  areas:  -  d i s t r i b u t i o n of l i m i t e d s t u d e n t s by sex  -  achievement students  Science  of  limited  total  teaching  -  teaching experience with success students;  Programs  experience.  subject  -  science  program  level  was  questionnaire  provided  range.  population  -  school t i m e t a b l e f o r year/semester). of  of  school.  h o u r s of  class  science  science  (full  per  size  format  Information choice  evaluation  -  science  text(s)  methods evaluation  -  of  determination  student  - number week ,.  grades  manual(s)  -  - grade  limited  and  and use  content  - teaching  Schools  areas  - appropriateness - course  Questionnaire  success  -  and l a b o r a t o r y  4.  success  - u n d e r g r a d u a t e and g r a d u a t e b a c k grounds - teacher t r a i n i n g r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success students  - present taught 3.  success  to a l l o w f o r  elicited items.  from t e a c h e r s Whenever  t e a c h e r comment.  through  appropriate,  multiple space  The f o r m a t o f  was  each  i t e m was  chosen  by c o n s i d e r i n g  r e q u i r e d and by m o d e l l i n g ful  questionnaires  ment J u n i o r  Science  The q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1.  The f i r s t  and s c h o o l 2.  was  section  to l i m i t e d  grouped  classes.  t o by t e a c h e r s  section  Initial and r e v i s e d bers. tion  B.C.  Assess-  Learning  Survey 1978,  Nasr  three major  1977)  sections:  background  p r e c e d e d by a  answered  who t a u g h t  junior  was  science  versions through  of  of  in  branch  science  i n Richmond  teachers  taught  science  responded  the r e m a i n i n g  four  taught  responded students  t o by a l l  teachers.  and c o n t e n t  of  programs  prior  to  distribution  junior  District.  taught  examined  c o m m i t t e e mem-  through  administra-  secondary  Three  homogeneously  teachers  were  with thesis  t o seven  in  who  homogeneously  to these  were e l i c i t e d  School  question-  classes  consultation  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  the  was  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  comments  statement  by t e a c h e r s  students  grouped  questionnaire  Additional  nature  d e a l t w i t h the s t r u c t u r e  teachers  while  success-  into  The p a r a l l e l  The t h i r d s e c t i o n  of  was  success  in heterogeneously  Evaluation  information  on p r e v i o u s l y  Teacher  the double-branched  science  teachers'  the  information,.  One b r a n c h was  This  of  dealt with teacher  naire.  3.  1970,  divided  section  The s e c o n d  indicating  questions  (Hambleton  Secondary  the nature  of  grouped in  science  these classes  heterogeneously  59grouped  science  classes.  complete a p i l o t v e r s i o n on i t s  resulted  Further  and use o f the  in the f i n a l  teachers  version  p i l o t a second  and  thesis  i n f o r m a t i o n from the  pilot  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  p i l o t was  deemed  to  comment  consultation with  Due t o t h e l a c k o f m a j o r a m b i g u i t y  first  were a s k e d  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  c o n t e n t and f o r m a t .  c o m m i t t e e members  A).  The seven  evidenced  (Appendix  in  the  unnecessary.  Re 1 i ab i 1 i t y The q u e s t i o n n a i r e interpretation courses  for  was  designed  of the nature  l i m i t e d success  p o r t e d on t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l ing.  Most o f t h e  origin. survey  Kerlinger data, cites  shown t h a t high.  It  also  (1973), Parten  year.  the p r e v i o u s n a i r e was  their  students.  Teachers  background  and t e a c h e r  in his  discussion  on  science  also  retrainin  checking  (1950) whose work on s u r v e y s  assumed  q u e s t e d w o u l d n o t change the s c h o o l  and s t r u c t u r e of  teachers'  i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d was f a c t u a l  the r e l i a b i l i t y was  t o sample  of  "personal  factual  t h a t the k i n d of  r a d i c a l l y over  items"  has 1  information  t h e 1978  portion  Given the nature of the data c o n s t a n c y  findings  on r e l i a b i l i t y  of  surveys  j u d g e d t o have a s u f f i c i e n t l y h i g h  the  level  is reof and  questionof  reliabi1ity.  F r e d N. K e r l i n g e r , F o u n d a t i o n s o f B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h 2nd e d . , (New Y o r k : H o l t R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , I n c . 1973), p. 417.  Sampling  pIan  The p o p u l a t i o n  s a m p l e d was d e f i n e d t o be t h o s e  t e a c h i n g a t l e a s t one o f s c i e n c e e i g h t , n i n e o r t e n public  schools  o f B.C.  more t h a n one g r a d e  Many j u n i o r  level  of  science  and t e n .  Ministry  of E d u c a t i o n  total  number o f  teachers  instructing  and t e n . listing  Hence a t e a c h e r m i g h t up t o t h r e e t i m e s .  q u i r e d t o chose  teachers  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of was g r a n t e d  statistics  only  teachers  This  utilized  the  of E d u c a t i o n  sampling  a t each g r a d e  level.  of E d u c a t i o n  t o use  i n September  e a c h t e a c h e r as to t h e i r grade  teaching  eight  and f o u r  a grade load.  science  classes  Learning  f r a m e , d e v e l o p e d by B.C.  information teachers 1977.  eight,  nine  was  re-  an e q u a l Permission the  sampling  Assessment 2 Research,  s u b m i t t e d t o the The s a m p l i n g  frame  nine or ten t e a c h e r  Ministry labelled according  For e x a m p l e , a t e a c h e r t e a c h i n g  classes,  one g r a d e  in other s u b j e c t areas  nine  the  Ministry  once and t o e n s u r e  frame r e c e n t l y e m p l o y e d by t h e S c i e n c e  teach  report  1  Some f o r m o f s a m p l i n g  by t h e M i n i s t r y  Survey.  in the  the  grade  science eight,  appear  in  teachers  s c i e n c e , f o r example  eight  teachers  science  two  class  w o u l d have a t w o -  A t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f each s c h o o l y e a r a l l B.C. t e a c h e r s a r e r e q u i r e d to complete form " J " f o r the M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n . T h i s f o r m r e q u i r e s t e a c h e r s t o l i s t t h e t r a i n i n g and t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e t h e y have had i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s u b j e c t s and t e a c h i n g l o a d t h e y p r e s e n t l y c a r r y . B.C. R e s e a r c h , V6S 2 L 2 .  3650 Wesbrook M a l l ,  Vancouver,  Canada  61 thirds  p r o b a b i l i t y of being  chosen  and a o n e - t h i r d p r o b a b i l i t y o f teacher. for  When c h o s e n ,  science  tion  as a s c i e n c e e i g h t  being  chosen  as  a science  e a c h t e a c h e r was a s s i g n e d a g r a d e  by p r o b a b i l i t y and was removed f r o m t h e  to prevent  teacher  a second  selection.  d e t e r m i n e d by t h e s a m p l i n g  The p o p u l a t i o n  frame y i e l d e d t h e  nine level  populasize  following  numbers: Science  -8  Science  9  Science  10  N =  N = 425 N =  Total Using size  this (n)  following  total  i t was  by a p p l y i n g  439  444  N =1308 possible  Cochran's  to c a l c u l a t e the  (1963) f o r m u l a  sample  and g i v e n  1  information: level  of  confidence  = 95%  (z =  2.00)  maximum a l l o w a b l e e r r o r  =  5%  (e =  0.05)  maximum v a r i a n c e  = 50%  (p =  0.5)  n - N z pq —2—~~2~~ Ner + z pq 2  substituting  f o r N,  w  h  e  r  e  =  1  _  z , p and q  n = 306 o r 23.4%  of the  population.  W i l l i a m G. C o c h r a n , S a m p l i n g T e c h n i q u e s , 2nd e d . , Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons I n c . 1 96 3 ) , p . 7 5 .  (New  the  Thirteen  p e r c e n t o f B.C.  school  to p a r t i c i p a t e in the survey. size  i n advance  of  d i s t r i c t s d i d not  To e n s u r e  -contacting a l l  an a d e q u a t e  school  districts  was d e c i d e d t o add a minimum o f 10% more t e a c h e r s sample.  B.C.  Research  s u g g e s t e d a sample  33% f o r t h e random s y s t e m a t i c (Appendix  B).  participating base  A 33% sample school  sampling  was  chosen  used a r a n d o m l y  s e l e c t e d every  Science  8 : n =  146  Science  9 ': n =  142  Science  10 ': n =  148  deleted.  sample  starting  366  (28%)  was  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  Science  8 : n =  125  Science  9 : n =  122  10  or  used non-  a greater pro-  then  level.  utilized  from the n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i n g school  Science  o f 25%  p o i n t and  level  the  The  was:  n = 436  s i z e of  The f i n a l  to  The s a m p l i n g  sampled at each grade  Total  teachers  chosen  sample it  to a l l o w f o r  t h i r d t e a c h e r a t each g r a d e  number o f t e a c h e r s  A final  method  d i s t r i c t s and t o p r o v i d e  f o r g e n e r a l i z a b i 1 i t y of r e s u l t s .  cedure  size  wish  : n =  Total  n =  119 366  after  districts  teachers  was:  the were  6 3'  Procedures Superintendents c o n t a c t e d by m a i l naires  (Appendix  intent  of  C).  after  the t e a c h e r s  All  the survey  in t h e i r  to cooperate  received a covering  from  district, the  (Appendix  D).  teachers.  letter  (Appendix  and a p r e - s t a m p e d , s e 1 f - a d d r e s s e d  questionnaires  in order  return  were coded w i t h a t h r e e  to implement f o l l o w - u p p r o c e d u r e s .  follow-up  procedures  after  initial  the  question-  was d i s t r i b u t e d t o t h e s c i e n c e  a questionnaire  number  were  i n v o l v e d were n o t i f i e d o f  and a s k e d  Sampled t e a c h e r s  envelope.  districts  t h e l e t t e r s t o t h e P r i n c i p a l s were m a i l e d  the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  E)  school  Once a u t h o r i z a t i o n was o b t a i n e d to conduct  of the study  Shortly  B.C.  p r i o r to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of  the S u p e r i n t e n d e n t s Principals  of a l l  were  initiated  questionnaire  digit  These  a p p r o x i m a t e l y ten  mailing  (Appendix  days  F).  Analysis Upon r e c e i p t o f t h e c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , r e s p o n s e s were coded and punched on c o m p u t e r U.B.C. M u l t i v a r i a t e C o n t i n g e n c y gram (MVTAB) was  ever,  response  required only  c e r t a i n comparisons  quired, students  such as  cards. computer  used t o c a l c u l a t e b o t h f r e q u e n c y  s p o n s e and p e r c e n t a g e Most a n a l y s i s  Tabulations  to  items of the  univariate  and n o n - l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  for  of  The prore-  questionnaire.  considerations.  between r e s p o n s e  between p r o v i s i o n s  the  i t e m s were  limited  students  in  Howre-  success homogeneously  64 grouped c l a s s e s . bivariate  To make c o m p a r i s o n s  o p t i o n o f t h e MVTAB p r o g r a m was  The r e s u l t s o f t h i s following  such as  chapter.  analysis  this  the  used.  are d i s c u s s e d  in  the  CHAPTER  3  RESULTS I n t r o d u c t ion In  this  reported  chapter  by t h e sample  teachers,are grouped  together  under  Questionnaire  -  Demographic  _ Teaching -  Schools  -  Extent  Tables  the f o l l o w i n g  are  headings:  (page 66)  (page 69) (page 71 )  and c o m p o s i t i o n  of  i n B.C.  students  i n B.C.  of r e s u l t s  presently  for  (page  are not n e c e s s a r i l y of  the  the t a b l e t i t l e . and p e r c e n t  the  w i t h the of  student  limited  success  77)  .and . t r a i n i n g  i t e m t h e number  both the f r e q u e n c y  i n use  items  success  72)  (page  To a i d c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e  preceeding  the l i m i t e d  (page  t h a t the c o r r e s p o n d i n g  enthesis  science  of r e l a t e d r e s u l t s  experience  methods  questionnaire  questionnaire,as  secondary  (page 67)  Teaching  occur.  junior  response  - Teacher attitudes  order  B.C.  of the  data  population  Tables  of  presented.  -  -  the r e s u l t s  103) listed  in  questionnaire corresponding  item appears Each  response  the  table  to the  in  par-  reports questionnaire  item. A number items  (e.g.  of  questionnaire  i t e m s were m u l t i p l e  i t e m one and t h i r t e e n ) . 65  Teachers  response  had t h e  option  t o c h e c k more t h a n one a l t e r n a t i v e w i t h i n such an The a n a l y s i s  of these  be c o n s i d e r e d  i t e m s r e q u i r e d each a l t e r n a t i v e t o  as a s e p a r a t e  item.  Therefore the percent  r e s p o n s e r e p o r t e d i n a r e l a t e d t a b l e does n o t total  100.  results  The t a b l e s  (*)  f o l l o w i n g the t a b l e  A summary o f t h e m a j o r f i n d i n g s may be f o u n d  in Appendix  Questionnaire  response  1978  pating  teachers.  (87% o f B.C. s c h o o l  range o f r u r a l / u r b a n  were m a i l e d .  naires  and s o c i o e c o n o m i c  A total  teachers  (n = 94  partici-  r e p r e s e n t e d a wide areas  in the P r o v i n c e .  145 f o l l o w - u p l e t t e r s and  questionnaires  310 (85%) q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  o f 299 (82%) o f t h e r e t u r n e d  A p p r o x i m a t e l y an e q u a l nine  districts  were r e t u r n e d by May 2 6 ,  were s u i t a b l e f o r a n a l y s i s  33%),, g r a d e  were m a i l e d on May 1 5 ,  districts)  By June 3 0 , 1978  been r e t u r n e d .  number.  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  The s c h o o l  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 220 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s 1978 a t w h i c h p o i n t  item  H.  o f 336 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s  t o t h e sample  necessarily  r e p o r t i n g m u l t i p l e response  have an a s t e r i s k  A total  item.  0  r  purposes.  number o f g r a d e  31%) and g r a d e  had  question-  1  eight  (n=98'.. o r  t e n (n=107 o r 36%)  completed the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  Of t h e 299 t e a c h e r s twenty-two said  responding  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  t h a t b o t h homogeneous and  science  teaching occurred  replied  t o both b r a n c h e s  in t h e i r s c h o o l .  heterogeneous These  teachers  of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  ^ E l e v e n sample t e a c h e r s d i d n o t t e a c h s c i e n c e a t t h e j u n i o r s e c o n d a r y l e v e l o r were n o t a t t h e s c h o o l i n d i c a t e d by t h e samp! m g .  Demographic  Data  Education Tables graduate  background  1.1  and 1.2  background  of  of  questionnaire  o u t l i n e the the  (la)  respondents  undergraduate  and  respondents.  TABLE 1.1  *  UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR(S) OR CONCENTRATION(S)  Subject Area  Frequency of Response  Percentage of R e s p o n s e (%)  Biology  152  51  Chemi s t r y  11 7  39  Phys i cs  64  21  Earth  Science  26  9  Space  Science  7  2  104  35  Other  Of t h e 104 majors(s) areas  of  science  reporting  or c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , , science  listed,  and s c i e n c e  and t w e n t y - e i g h t (e.g.  teachers  math, p h y s i c a l  twenty-nine  forty-six  background  (9%)  other  undergraduate (10%)  (.15%) l i s t e d  (e.g.  English  reported a non-science education,  history).  and  had  other  a nonbiology)  background  68 (lb)  TABLE 1.2  *  HIGHER DEGREES  Degree  No h i g h e r  Obtained  Frequency of Res pon se 239  80  M.Sc.  21  7  M.A.  10  3  M.Ed.  21  7  5  2  7  2  Ph.D.  (or  degree  Percentage of R e s p o n s e (%)  equivalent)  Other  Of t h e seven  teachers  reporting  other  higher  one r e p o r t e d an M.Sc.  in e d u c a t i o n , another  and one M . A . S c .  respondents  nature  of  Teaching  their  in  higher  indicate  the  degree.  t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e of  experience  teaching  homogeneous g r o u p s can  tables  d i d not  M.B.A.  experience  The t o t a l their  Four  an  degrees  2.1 , .2.':2 and  2.3.  science  the respondents  to l i m i t e d  success  be d e t e r m i n e d by e x a m i n a t i o n  and students of  6.9 (3)  TABLE  2.1  OVERALL TEACHING  Years of Experience  EXPERIENCE  Frequency of Response  First  Percentage of R e s p o n s e (%) (n=299)  21  7  Second o r  third  48  16  Fourth  ninth  117  39  112  38  1  <1  299  1 00  to  Tenth or  over  No r e s p o n s e T o t a 1s  (4a) PREVIOUS SCIENCE  EXPERIENCE  TABLE  2.2  TEACHING LIMITED SUCCESS  IN A HOMOGENEOUS CLASS GROUP  AT  STUDENTS  THE  JUNIOR  SECONDARY LEVEL  Previous E x p e r i en ce  Frequency of Response  Percentage of R e s p o n s e {%) (n=299)  Yes  169  57  No  129  43  1  <1  No R e s p o n s e Totals  2 99  .  1 00  70 (4b)  TABLE  2.3  YEAR OF TEACHING CAREER THAT RESPONDENTS FIRST  TAUGHT  SCIENCE TO LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS IN A HOMOGENEOUS CLASS GROUP  Year of Teaching  Frequency of Response  Career  Percentage of R e s p o n s e (%) (n=299)  First  64  21  Second  23  8  Third  27  9  Fourth  10  3  45  15  1  < 1  169  57  Fifth No  or  above  response Totals  Table  2.1  four years  vious  or  less  previous  experience.  group.  in t h e i r f i r s t  51% s a i d  classes  Since  more t h a n  first  e x p e r i e n c e w i t h homogeneously students  or  in t h e i r f i r s t or  23%  reported  have  students  of  prescience  who d i d  they f i r s t  second y e a r  of the respondents  reported  Fifty-seven  Of t h e t e a c h e r s  these  science  Only  l i m i t e d success  experience  half  respondents  i n d i c a t e d t h a t they d i d  teaching  i n a homogeneous c l a s s  all  experience.  teaching  respondents  experience  port t h i s  77% o f  o r more t e a c h i n g  three years p e r c e n t of  shows t h a t  taught  teaching.  (.51%) r e p o r t e d  grouped second  1imited  year  re-  it  their  success  seems  evident that often previous  t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e has  been c o n s i d e r e d b e f o r e a s s i g n m e n t  to these  not  71  classes.  Schoo1s Table of grades  3.1  i n d i c a t e s the types  taught)  For comparison  of  school  in which the r e s p o n d e n t s  purposes  r e p o r t e d by I n f o r m a t i o n  t a b l e 3.1 Services  also  (in  terms  reported teaching.  gives  of t h e B.C.  figures Ministry  as of  Education.  (6a)  TABLE  GRADES TAUGHT  3.1  IN SCHOOLS  Number and Percentage of Schools Reported by the M i n i s t r y Reported by Respondents2 of Education^  Grades Taught  1.12  (34)  123  (41)  8-12  96  (29)  106  (36)  10 - 12  27  (8)  20  (7)  9 - 12  7  (2)  9  (3)  9  11  (3)  6  (2)  K - 12  10  (3)  4  (1)  Other  68  (21)  27  (9)  4  (1)  8 - 10  8 -  No Response  -  Totals  331 (100)  299 (100)  Numbers schools  in parentheses r e f e r to percentage of in the c a t e g o r i e s l i s t e d .  total  Numbers  in parentheses  response.  refer  to percentage of  72 Table exist  3.1  shows more r e s p o n s e s  in the grade  than s c h o o l s  e i g h t to ten c a t e g o r y , the ten to t w e l v e  c a t e g o r y and t h e n i n e t o t w e l v e c a t e g o r y .  Because  had more t h a n one s c i e n c e t e a c h e r r e s p o n d i n g naire  t h e numer o f r e s p o n s e s  t h e number o f s c h o o l s . schools,  It  is  i n some  as  in  Population  size  to the  instances  r e p o r t e d by t h e M i n i s t r y  of  student  of the l i m i t e d  success  in both  teaching s i t u a t i o n s . Teachers  geneously  science classes  grouped  (table 4.2). grouped  c l u d e d the t o t a l  limited  were merged t o p r o v i d e 4.3). level  Since  of  from t e a c h e r s  at each  and h e t e r o g e n e o u s  of  teaching  of h o m o g e n e o u s l y  grouped  in-  limited  percentage teachers situations  an o v e r a l l e s t i m a t e f o r t h e  some r e s p o n d e n t s  homo-  grade  number o f  The e s t i m a t e s  hetero-  of  science students taught  student  percentages  taught, yielded a total  (table 4.1).  f r o m both homogeneous  grade  success  number o f c l a s s e s  science classes  of t e a c h i n g load  (table  Information  estimated  wh i ch , iwh.en d i v i ded i n t o t h e t o t a l  success  of  homogeneous  and h e t e r o g e n e o u s  level  than  Education.  success  p o p u l a t i o n was p r o v i d e d by t e a c h e r s  geneously  greater  B.C.  An e s t i m a t i o n o f t h e s i z e  directly  question-  c l o s e l y r e f l e c t s the a c t u a l  E x t e n t and c o m p o s i t i o n o f t h e l i m i t e d population  some s c h o o l s  can be seen t h a t t h e t y p e s  as r e p o r t e d by r e s p o n d e n t s ,  distribution  that actually  Province  t e a c h more t h a n  one  limited  students  success  73 and o t h e r s t e a c h b o t h classes,.the  effective  h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y and h o m o g e n e o u s l y total  (8)-(9)  response in t a b l e  TABLE  4.3  was  grouped 338.  4.1  PROPORTION OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS IN  B.C.  JUNIOR  HIGH SCHOOLS AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS OF H0M0GENEOUSLY GROUPED SCIENCE CLASSES  Percentage of Teaching Load  Frequency  of  Percentage of Response (%) (n = 146)  Response  Grade 8  Grade 9  Grade 10  Total  Up to 20%  1  4  4  9  6  Up to 33%  13  12  8  33  23  Up to 50%  11  7  23  41  28  Over 50%  13  18  18  49  33  0  6  8  14  10  Sub-totals  38  47  61  146  100  Sub-percentages  26  32  42  100  No Response  "  74' (.17)  TABLE 4.2  PROPORTION OF LIMITED SUCCESS  STUDENTS  IN  B.C.  JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOLS AS REPORTED BY TEACHERS OF HETEROGENEOUSLY GROUPED SCIENCE  Percentage of "...Students, .  Frequency of Response  CLASSES  Percentage of Response (%) (n = 1 9 2 )  Up t o 10%  78  41  Up t o 20%  75  39  Up t o 33%  25  13  Up t o 50%  8  4  Over 50%  4  2  No R e s p o n s e  2  1  1 92  1 00  Totals  TABLE  4.3  PROPORTION OF LIMITED SUCCESS  STUDENTS  HIGH SCHOOLS AS REPORTED  ALL •i QUESTIONNAIRE  BY  IN JUNIOR  RESPONDENTS.  Percent of Overal1 Student Population Up t o 10% Up t o 20% Up t o 33% Up t o 50% Over 50% No R e s p o n s e Totals  Frequency of Response 78 84 58 49 53 1 6 338  Percentage of Response (%) (n = 338) 23 25 1 7 14 1 6 5 1 00  75 . T a b l e 4.1 grouping  shows an i n c r e a s e  from grade  heterogeneously seem t o  eight  grouped  in reported a b i l i t y  to grade  science  ten.  classes  identify a smaller population  students  t h a n do t e a c h e r s  classes  (table 4.1).  spondents  Teachers (table  of  success  grouped  percent of  report a l i m i t e d success  4.2)  limited  of homogeneously  Forty-seven  of  student  all  re-  population  of  2'0%-or h i g h e r . The f i g u r e s  l i s t e d in t a b l e s  that  a 1imited success  size  exists  Composition Table  i n B.C. of  student  junior  4.1  population  secondary  l i m i t e d success  to 4 . 3 of  indicate significant  schools.  student  population  5.1  shows t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f  limited  students  by sex  as r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s  of grouped  classes.  This  table also  limited  success  figures  for  classes. sponse,  students  teachers  Numbers these  response.  shows an o v e r a l l by sex  science  distribution  o b t a i n e d by c o m b i n i n g  o f homogeneous  in parentheses  success  and  a r e p r e c e e d e d by f i g u r e s  the  heterogeneous  r e f e r to percentage of f r e q u e n c y  of  reof  76 (11,18)  TABLE  5.1  RELATIVE PROPORTION OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS BY  SEX  Frequency and Percentage Response' Homogeneous ly  Proportion  and Heterogeneously Grouped Classes (n=321)  Homogeneously Heterogeneously Grouped Classes Grouped Classes (n=127) (n=192)  A l l boys  1  «D  1 «1)  Well over h a l f boys  28 (22)  53 (28)  About h a l f boys and half g i r l s  77 (61)  124 (65)  2  11)  81 (25) 201  (63)  Well over h a l f g i r l s  5  (4)  9  (5)  14  (4)  All  1  «D  1  «D  2  (1)  15 (12)  4  (2)  19  (7)  girls  No response  Twenty-eight classes  said  from w e l l teachers  t h a t the c o m p o s i t i o n  over of  composition.  percent of teachers  half  to a l l  homogeneous  boys.  classes  of  heterogeneous  of these  classes  Twenty-three  percent  reported similar  T w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of a l l  ranged of  class  respondents  reported  U n l e s s o t h e r w i s e i n d i c a t e d i t e m s n i n e t o t w e n t y - o n e were a n a l y z e d on t h e b a s i s o f 321 r e s p o n d e n t s . Since twentytwo r e s p o n d e n t s r e p l i e d to b o t h homogeneous and h e t e r o geneous g r o u p i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e b r a n c h e s t h e number o f e f f e c t i v e r e s p o n s e s i n c r e a s e d f r o m 299 t o 3 2 1 . The t e a c h e r s a n s w e r i n g b o t h o f t h e s e b r a n c h e s r e p o r t e d d o i n g so b e c a u s e b o t h f o r m s o f g r o u p i n g were p r a c t i c e d i n t h e c l a s s e s t h e y taught.  77 that well  over  half  boys w h i l e o n l y more  of t h e i r  4% r e p o r t e d w e l l  boys e x p e r i e n c e  Teaching  methods  science  students  Grouping  limited  limited  presently  a number  section  success  i n use  outlines  of q u e s t i o n s  geneous g r o u p i n g  half in  for  girls.  science  limited  the responses  regarding  practices.  were  Evidently  than  girls.  success  grouping  respondents.  reports  Table  success  ment l e v e l indicates  6.2  students  are  of t e a c h e r s  homogeneous and  Tables  e x t e n t to which v a r i o u s  6.1  practices  the d i f f e r e n c e s  in  class  and h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y  comparisons  between  time t a b l e s  science  limited  success  for  and homogeneous c l a s s e s respectively.  existing  in  achieveTable  of  hours  Further of  heterogeneous  in,tables  6.4  between  classes.  and number  by  which  system.  grouped  are r e p o r t e d  to  to a higher  size  students  show t h e  are u t i l i z e d  on t h e e x t e n t  promoted  to  hetero-  and 6.3  w i t h i n a homogeneous g r o u p i n g  homogeneously  6.6  over  students  practices  This  limited  success  6.5  and  TABLE  6.1  TYPES OF GROUPING REPORTED  Type o f Grouping  Frequency of Respon se  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  Homogeneous  105  35  Heterogeneous  1 70  57  22  7  2  1  299  1 00  Homogeneous and Heterogeneous No d a t a Tota1s  Teachers'  comments  and h e t e r o g e n e o u s Comments  i n d i c a t e d t h a t both  grouping  does  homogeneous  occur w i t h i n a s i n g l e  showed t h a t o f t e n g r a d e e i g h t and n i n e  school.  science  were h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y g r o u p e d w h i l e g r a d e t e n s c i e n c e was homogeneously  grouped.  Teacher r e p o r t s  indicate that a b i l i t y  grouping  b e i n g p r a c t i c e d i n 42% of a l l r e s p o n d e n t s '  schools.  is  7.9 (12)  TABLE  6.2  UPWARD MOBILITY OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS HOMOGENEOUSLY  P r o p o r t i o n of Upward M o v i n g Students  GROUPED  CLASSES  Frequency of Response  All  Percentage of Response {%) (n=321)  4  1  1 5  5  7  2  31  10  None  57  19  No  1 5  4  Much more t h a n About  half  half  Wei 1 under  half  response  129  Total s  T a b l e 6.2 students within  a homogeneously  This  success  students  40  t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y of l i m i t e d  do n o t p r o g r e s s  many l i m i t e d success  shows  grouped  students  system.  be t r u e f o r  study.  It  seems  tend to remain  that  limited  grouping  limited  in h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y grouped c l a s s e s , examined in t h i s  success  to higher achievement l e v e l s  w i t h i n a homogeneous  f i n d i n g may a l s o  IN  system.  success  students  however t h i s was  not  80 (19)  TABLE  6.3  GROUPING WITHIN HETEROGENEOUS SCIENCE CLASSES  Occurrence Grouping  of  Grouping  does  occur  Grouping occur  does  not  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%) (n=321)  14  4  121  38  Grouping occurs sometimes No  17  4  1  1 94  60  response Totals  Thirty-six  percent of  geneous t e a c h i n g these  classes.  by t e a c h e r  The t y p e s  success  individualized materials  following success  students:  used  hetero-  sometimes (as  including:  with a brighter  program  students  students.  further  of g r o u p i n g  student  from  group at l e a s t  are v a r i e d ,  learning  for a l l  brighter  the respondents  situations,  comments)  of a l i m i t e d  for  55  indicated  the  pairing  student;  and t h e p r o v i s i o n  w i t h more c h a l l e n g i n g  Other  teacher  accommodations  comments  teachers  in  of  an core  extensions  show t h e  make f o r  limited  871  - a more l e n i e n t m a r k i n g  scheme  - a reduced e x p e c t a t i o n f o r these - a grouping  students  based on r e a d i n g a b i l i t y  and p r e v i o u s  math a c h i e v e m e n t - a grouping  based on f r i e n d s h i p  - a grouping  for special  Some t e a c h e r s  said  projects  that grouping  was a v e r y d i f f i c u l t  time  consuming.  able  l a b o r a t o r i e s and m a t e r i a l s were i n a p p r o p r i a t e .  few s a i d  A number o f t e a c h e r s  s a i d t h a t the a v a i l -  t h a t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of l i m i t e d  was a d i f f i c u l t  task  since  a d v a n c e who t h e s e s t u d e n t s  (10a,  and  success  A  students  t h e y were n o t i n f o r m e d i n were.  1 5 a , 16)  TABLE  6.4  AVERAGE CLASS SIZE  Class Size  Frequency and Percentage Response Homogeneously Homogeneously Grouped Limited Grouped NonSuccess Limited Success Heterogeneously Students Students Grouped Classes (n=321) (n=321) (n=323)  Less than 16  29  (9)  4  (1)  8  (2)  16 - 20  37 (11)  3  (1)  13  (4)  21 - 25  36 (11)  41 (13):  54 (17)  26 - 30  12  (4)  62 (19)  101 (31)  Over 30  2  (1)  3  (1)  13  (4)  13  (4)  16  (5)  5  (2)  No response Totals  129 (40)  129 (40)  194 (60)  8.2T a b l e 6.4 science Table  i n d i c a t e s t h a t 80% o f h o m o g e n e o u s l y  classes  6.4  students  also  have t w e n t y - f i v e o r f e w e r s t u d e n t s shows l a r g e r c l a s s e s  in homogeneously  success  students  in excess (59%)  grouped n o n - l i m i t e d  s t a t e t h a t the s i z e of these c l a s s e s  of twenty-one s t u d e n t s . A m a j o r i t y of  in heterogeneous sizes  grouping  a class  s i z e not exceeding t w e n t y - f i v e students  the l i t e r a t u r e i t appears  geneously limited  in excess  (Oxenhorn as  success  students  teachers  of t w e n t y - s i x s t u d e n t s .  1972,  Collette  is  1973,  i f many s c i e n c e c l a s s e s  grouped s t u d e n t s  is  situations reported  class  1974)  success  Ninety percent  science  in  i n them.  for non-limited  grouped c l a s s e s .  of the t e a c h e r s of homogeneously  grouped  and h o m o g e n e o u s l y  of  Since  advocated  Younie  hetero-  grouped  non-  e x c e e d t h i s recommended c l a s s  size.  83 (10b,  1 5 b , 20a) TIME  TABLE  6.5  TABLES  Frequency and Percentage Response Type  of T1 *lillc i mo a hi L af U 1c  Homogeneously Grouped Science Classes Q  Limited Success Students(n=321)  Non-Limited Success Students (n=321)  Heterogeneously Grouped Science Classes (n=321)  Regular or fullyear  65 (20)  59 (18)  90 (28)  Semestered  30  (9)  34 (11)  65 (20)  Quartered  13  (4)  14  (4)  18  (5)  8  (2)  8  (2)  12  (4)  13  (4)  14  (4)  9  (3)  Other No Response Totals  129 (40)  129 (40)  A b i v a r i a t e comparison limited  success  students  between t h e r e s p o n s e s  and n o n - l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  i n d i c a t e d few t i m e t a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s heterogeneously higher  grouped  (4%).  science classes  p r o p o r t i o n of semester  t e a c h e r s of'homogeneous  194 (60)  science  r e l a t e d to students  Teachers  of  report a s l i g h t l y  s y s t e m t i m e t a b l e s t h a n do classes.  84 (10c,  15c,  20b)  TABLE  6.6  NUMBER OF HOURS OF SCIENCE PER WEEK  Frequency and Percentage Response Hours of Science Per Week  Homogeneously Grouped Science Classes Limited Success Students(n=321)  Heterogeneously Grouped Science Classes (n=321)  Non-Limited Success Students (n=321)  0 - 1 hour  0  (0)  0  (0)  1  «D  1 - 2 hours  3  (1)  1 «D  0  (0)  (8)  22  31  (10)  2-3  hours  25  3-4  hours  50 (16)  47 (15)  71  (22)  4-5  hours  24  (7)  27  (8)  56  (17)  5-6  hours  13  (4)  15  (5)  22  (7)  Over 6 hours  2  (1)  2 «D  7  (2)  No Response  1:2  (4)  (5)  6  (2)  129 (40)  194  (60)  Totals  15  129 (40)  A b i v a r i a t e comparison limited  success  students  d i c a t e d few d i f f e r e n c e s taught  p e r week.  heterogeneous  between t h e r e s p o n s e s  and n o n - l i m i t e d s u c c e s s (4%)  students  hours  of  Few m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s seem t o e x i s t  and homogeneous  of s c i e n c e p r o v i d e d per week. i n g t h e number o f  i n t h e number o f  r e l a t e d to  hours  grouping  p e r week does  science  between  i n t h e number o f  D i l u t i o n of  in-  hours  s c i e n c e by r e d u c -  n o t a p p e a r t o be a w i d e -  spread p r a c t i c e in the i n s t r u c t i o n of l i m i t e d  success  students.  85 . Curriculum,  t e a c h i n g t e c h n i q u e s and t e a c h i n g  technology  C u r r i c u l urn (25a)  TABLE  7.1  NUMBER OF TEACHERS OFFERING SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR THEIR LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Programs  Frequency of Respon se  S p e c i a l program offered No s p e c i a l No  program  74  25  206  69  19  6  299  100  response Totals  (25a)  Percentage of Response (%)  TABLE  7.2  SPECIAL SCIENCE PROGRAMS AND A B I L I T Y  GROUPING  F r e q u e n c y and P e r c e n t a g e Type o f  Grouping  Special Yes  Response  Rrogram O f f e r e d (n=299 ) No  No  Response  Homogeneou s  43  (14)  50  (17)  12  (4)  'Heterogeneous  23  (8)  143  (48)  4  (1)  8  (3)  Homogeneous and heterogeneous  12.  (4)  2 ( 1)  86 Teacher r e p o r t s do n o t  provide  a special  success  students  provide  a special  are  teachers  while  show t h a t a l m o s t science  (table 7.1). science  course  even  grouped  is  t h a t do  students  science  grouped  i f a b i l i t y grouping  do n o t d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e s c i e n c e success  for their limited  f o r these  31% t e a c h i n h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y  Evidently  respondents  Of t h e t e a c h e r s  program  of homogeneously  70% o f  58%  classes  science  classes.  p r a c t i c e d many  program  teachers  for their limited  students.  (7) SUBJECT AREAS TAUGHT  TABLE 7.3  *  IN GRADE 8,  9 AND 10 SCIENCE  Frequency  and P e r c e n t a g e  Grade 8  Grade 9  Grade  Physics  149  (50)  159  (53)  138  (46)  C hem i s t r y  163  (55)  161  (54)  147  (49)  Biology  152  (51)  150  (50)  146  (49)  Earth  Science  125  (42)  22  (7)  83  (28)  Space  Science  7  (2)  75  (25)  9  (3)  4  (1)  1  (<T)  5  (2)  7  (2)  8  (3)  15  (5)  Subj e c t  Integrated  Science  Interdisciplinary Science  Response 10  87 (22a)  TABLE 7.4  *  TEXT(S) AND LABORATORY MANUALS USED IN THE  IN-  STRUCTION OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Text or Laboratory Manual  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%)  Introducing Science Concepts in the Laboratory  152  51  Developing Science Concepts in the Laboratory  146  49  Extending Science Concepts in the Laboratory  133  45  31  10  14  5  100  33  A combination of the above  46  15  A modification of the above  47  16  Pathways in Science  (Oxenhorn)  I n v i t a t i o n s to Investigate Science (Wong) Other  One-third survey  (33%)  r e p o r t e d t h e use  and s o u r c e s  than those  15% o f r e s p o n d e n t s curricula. manuals this  of the t e a c h e r s  Over  item.  curricula  l i s t e d in  item twenty-two.  r e p o r t e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s of  were l i s t e d by t e a c h e r s  this manuals A further  existing  different texts,  Among t h e more p r e v a l e n t o f are:  to  of o t h e r t e x t s , l a b o r a t o r y  thirty-seven  and s o u r c e s  responding  laboratory  commenting  these  alternate  on  88 -  teacher prepared worksheets,  -  Concepts  -  Modern  -  Intermediate  and C h a l l e n g e s  General  - Mixtures  Science  Science  in  l o c a l l y developed  -  Cambridge  laboratories  (Winkler et  al.)  Series  Curriculum  Study  units  Work-A-Texts  in A c t i o n  -  Spaceship  -  Ginn P h y s i c a l  Earth  Series  Series  Science  (22b) TEACHERS'  in Science  and  Chemistry  -  - Science  notes  and L i f e  TABLE  Science  7.5  OVERALL RATING OF TEXTS AND LABORATORY MANUALS USED  Frequency of Response  Rating  Very  8  3  36  12  101  34  1 21  40  33  11  suitable  Su i t a b l e Somewhat  suitable  Un su i t a b l e No  response  Teacher responses  to  Percentage of Response {%) (n=299)  i t e m s 22a and 22b were compared t o p r o -  duce an i n d i v i d u a l t e x t r a t i n g  shown i n t a b l e  7.6.  89 (22a)-(22b)  TABLE  7.6  TEACHERS'RATINGS OF TEXTS AND LABORATORY MANUALS USED  Frequency and Percentage Response  Text or Laboratory Manual  Very Suitable  Suitable  Somewhat Suitable  Unsuitable  No Response  Introducing Science Concepts in the Laboratory  4  (3)  17 (11)  57 (37)  67 (44)  7  (5)  Developing Science Concepts in the Laboratory  3  (2)  17 (1:2)  59 (40)  58 (40)  9  (6)  Extending Science Concepts in the Laboratory  2  (1)  11  (8)  50 (38)  64 (48)  6  (5)  Pathways in Science (Oxenhorm)  2  (6)  6 (20)  17 (55)  5 (16)  1  (3)  I n v i t a t i o n s to Investigate Science (Wong  1  (7)  3 (22)  8 (57)  2 (14)  0  (0)  Others  4  (4)  16 (16)  37 (37)  35 (35)  8  (8).  Seventy-four l a b o r a t o r y manuals  p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s t h e y were u s i n g  to u n s u i t a b l e  for teaching  (table  7.5).  Table  poorly  rated texts  and s u p p l i e d ments  7.6 and  science  shows t h a t laboratory  by t h e B.C.  Ministry  suggested the f o l l o w i n g  and l a b o r a t o r y  manuals  said  were o n l y to l i m i t e d  t h a t the  somewhat  suitable  success  students  the m a j o r i t y of manuals of  i n t h e way t h e y  these  are those  Education.  reasons  for rating did:  textsand  suggested  Teachercomthe  texts  90. -  reading  level  is  inappropriate  students  (some say  -  concepts  and  -  content  -  some t e x t s are  -  is  instructions  boring,  About  t r u e f o r most are too  Concepts  Science  work  - text layout  is  dull,  texts  and t h e a s s o c i a t e d  texts  seems e v i d e n t indirectly 7.5  the c l o s e l y  curriculum Table  in  These  (tables  teachers  are  Science)  to  needed  r e p o r t e d t h e use  7.3  of  rate these  of  Education  and 7.4)  related curriculum)  results  in  are not r e l a t e d  s u g g e s t e d by t h e M i n i s t r y  t h a t most  and 7 . 6 ) .  academic  more d i a g r a m s  curriculum  students)  intelligence  While a m a j o r i t y of r e s p o n d e n t s the s c i e n c e  success  difficult  and C h a l l e n g e s  to s t u d e n t s '  laboratory  limited  i r r e l e v a n t and t o o  (e.g.  insulting  Reading  this  for  texts poorly  it (and (tables  i m p l y t h e need f o r a new  science.  7.7  limited  success  science  course  shows t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h students  use  various  content f o r these  teachers  means t o  students.  of  determine  (23)  SCIENCE  TABLE  COURSE CONTENT DETERMINATION FOR LIMITED  Frequency Proportion of Course  None of the course Less than half the course  Based on Student Interest (n=299)  7.7  Based on Student Choice (n=Z99)  Based on JobOriented Science (n=299)  and  SUCCESS  Percentage  Based on Content Reduction (n=299)  STUDENTS  Response  Based on Reduction of Complexity (n=299)  Based on Core Ba snd nn an A1 t e r n . i t. i ve S e q u e n t i a l Proijram Curriculum (n=299) (n=299)  62 (21)  159 (53)  140 (47)  58 (19)  56 (19)  19  (6)  131 (44)  120 (40)  76 (26)  93 (31)  60 (20)  58 (19)  29 (10)  48 (16)  About half the course  46 (16)  7  (2)  13  (4)  53 (18)  45 (15)  74 (25)  32 (11)  More than h a l f the course  19  (6)  1 «1)  6  (2)  42 (14)  35 (12)  65 (22)  10  (3)  9  (3)  2  3  (1)  42 (14)  63 (21)  73 (24)  22  (7)  44 (15)  44 (15)  42 (14)  39 (13)  56 (19)  Almost al1 the course No response  43 (14)  (1)  54 (18)  _ .  The r e s u l t s of item twenty-three above show a r e l a t i v e l y high non-response. c i r c l e the zero option of this item.  This non-response is possibly due to teachers neglecting to  1  92  Only  29% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  of t h e i r s c i e n c e  course  student  choice.  Sixty-five  did  use  student  science  course.  Apparently  success  students  significant  course  content  seem t o see curriculum  that  t h e y based  l i m i t e d success percent  to p r o v i d e  determination.  that  some b a s i s  decision  from s t u d e n t  on  they  for  their  allow their  making  However,  portion  students  reported  few t e a c h e r s  a  powers  in  a majority interests  limited  (65%) in  their  planning. of  r e d u c t i o n of  science  content  and 48% o f  o r more o f or  interest  a need t o work  The use  Forty-six  for  said  course  content reduction  c o m p l e x i t y appears respondents  t h e i r course  was  t o be  reported that  and a  wide-spread. one-half  based on a r e d u c t i o n  of  content  complexity. Few t e a c h e r s  their  science  (7%)  course  reported that one-half  for  based on j o b - o r i e n t e d Seventy-one ing  one-half  success Only  structured their  percent  respondents  course  or  of a l l  more.  respondents  t h e i r science  on t h e p r e s e n t  sequential  students  of  was  science.  o r more o f  students  21% o f  l i m i t e d success  o r more  said  program  course  for  Curriculum.  t h e y used an  alternative  a basis  bas-  limited  Core  as  B.C.  reported  for one-half  of  93 Teacher  comments  Teachers' in  comments  the p r e s e n t  towards  r e l a t e d to science  science  indicated their desire  students.  - a need f o r  variety requires  -  a simple  to supplement  these  approach  text with  diagrams  text  - a need t o d i l u t e t h e e x i s t i n g - a need f o r a h i g h l y  of  need:  a modular  structured  laboratory  of  changes  oriented  The comments  o u t l i n e d the f o l l o w i n g areas  a need f o r  for  curriculum s p e c i f i c a l l y  l i m i t e d success  teachers  programs  structured  course program  with  short  steps -  a need f o r programmed  learning  and f i 1 1 - i n - t h e - b l a n k s  worksheets - a need t o m o d i f y dividual ized  the e x i s t i n g  program  on an  in-  basis  - a need f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e  reading  t o be k e p t t o a minimum and  less  level,  writing  mathematical  emphasis - a need f o r a hands on a p p r o a c h general -  l a b o r a t o r y manual  a need f o r a more  Approaches Table  to 8.1  the frequency  including  and t e x t  individualized  a more  book  program.  learning outlines t h a t they  the responses  of  involve  l i m i t e d success  in a v a r i e t y of approaches  to  their  learning.  teachers  indicating students  (24)  TABLE  8.1  FREQUENCY OF INVOLVEMENT OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS IN VARIOUS APPROACHES TO LEARNING  Frequency of Involvement  Teacher Arranged Experiments  Discovery Method Experiments  (n=299)  (n=299)  F r e q u e n c y and P e r c e n t a g e R e s p o n s e Small GroupProject Lecture and Individualized Approach Notes Learning (n=299) (n=299) (n=299)  2  60 (20)  28  72 (24)  116 (39)  55 (18)  131 (44)  (3)  128 (43)  57 (19)  121 (41)  89 (30)  12  (4)  71 (24)  15  (5)  20  (7)  22  17  (6)  115 (39)  79 (26)  Once o r twice a term  11  (4)  58 (19)  64 (21)  143 (48)  Once or twice a month  36 (12)  70 (23)  46 (15)  39 (13)  166 (55)  69 (23)  23  (8)  Almost every c l a s s  63 (21)  34 (12)  22  (7)  3  (1)  31 (10)  No response  20  28 (10)  29 (10)  25  (9)  21  Frequency of Involvement  (7)  Frequency Demonstrations (n=299)  and P e r c e n t a g e  F i e l d Trips (n=299)  Oral Presentations (n=299)  10  (n=299)  Programmed Learning (n=299)  5 (2)  120 (40)  170 (57)  Once o r twice a term  45 (15)  127 (43)  77 (26)  Once or twice a month  130 (44)  20  (7)  13  (5)  102 (34)  18  Once or twice a week  84 (28)  3  (1)  10  (3)  109 (36)  7  (2)  Almost every c l a s s  13  (4)  4  (1)  4  (1)  29 (10)  7  (2)  No response  22  (7)  25  (8)  25  (8)  21  Never  The r e s u l t s is possibly  (7)  Response Review  8  (3)  178 (60)  30 (10)  52 (18)  (7)  (n=299)  30 (10)  40 (13)  Once o r twice a week  Discussion (n=299)  AudioVisual Aids (n=299)  34 (11)  (1)  17  Class  (6)  3  Never  Worksheets  (6)  37 (12)  o f i t e m t w e n t y - f o u r show a r e l a t i v e l y h i g h n o n - r e s p o n s e . This non-response due t o t e a c h e r s n e g l e c t i n g t o c i r c l e t h e z e r o o p t i o n o f t h i s i t e m .  (1)  10  (9),  37 (12)  (7)  (3)  95 Labwork. using  Seventy-six  teacher arranged  students  at l e a s t  t h e y use  the d i s c o v e r y  Small of a l l or  group  a week.  The  a good d e a l  use a s m a l l this  group  not appear  35%  Sixty  said  percent  individualized  (once approach  at l e a s t  approaches  to  once  learning  t o be w i d e s p r e a d  in  i n d i c a t e a p r e f e r e n c e to whole c l a s s  B.C.  teaching  of the t i m e . Twenty-six  percent of respondents  involve  i n p r o j e c t work d u r i n g  the school  chose  or  these  ported t h a t they never  p r o p o r t i o n of respondents  limited  success  extent.  kind of approach  use o f e i t h e r o f  P r o j e c t work.  cant  limited  r e p o r t e d t h a t they never or r a r e l y  t h e y use  results  instruct  method t o t h e same  t o a m a j o r e x t e n t does These  to  reported  once o r t w i c e a week w h i l e o n l y  respondents  15% say  labwork  and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d l e a r n i n g .  t w i c e a term)  while  p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s  success  students  a t o p i c of  re-  t h e i r l i m i t e d success  it  may n o t  year. is  Given t h i s  evident  that  students signifi-  many  have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  i n t e r e s t t o them w h i c h p r o j e c t work  to can  facilitate. L e c t u r e and n o t e s . reported that  t h e y use  F i f t y - t h r e e percent of t h e l e c t u r e and n o t e s  respondents  approach  least  once a week w i t h t h e i r l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  students.  These  results  group  support  individualized  t h a t they  r e l a t e d to small  and  learning.  Worksheets. said  those  at  Twenty-three  use w o r k s h e e t s  percent of a l l at l e a s t  respondents  once o r t w i c e a  week w h i l e 70% use w o r k s h e e t s less  to  i n s t r u c t t h e i r l i m i t e d success  worksheets for  are not  in widespread  l i m i t e d success Audio-visual  reported using 59% s a i d or  less  science  aids.  relatively limited  rare  Class reported  in  B.C.  at l e a s t  a ids  on a t  aids,  basis,  on a d a y - t o - d a y  Eighty-two  science  a monthly  class  basis.  said  discussions.  in f i e l d  success  students  are not exposed  while  through  oral  students.  communication students  of  oral  skills  may n o t have  respondents in  A further  class  76%  with at l e a s t percent  involve  the  of  their limited  E v i d e n t l y many l i m i t e d to the c o n c r e t e  experiences  T h i r t y - f i v e percent of  respondents  trip.  presentations  they never  Since  trips.  a field  presentations.  57% s a i d  The  teachers  students  Forty  t h a t they d i d not  students  using  while  seems  p e r c e n t of a l l  t h e i r l i m i t e d success  success  ported  once a week  students.  least  as  respondents  Oral  respondents  once o r t w i c e a month  that they presented demonstrations  facilitated  basis  students.  involving  same f r e q u e n c y  Apparently  t h e i r l i m i t e d success  discussion.  discussion  all  aids  among a m a j o r i t y o f  success  or  use on a f r e q u e n t  students  t h e y use a u d i o - v i s u a l to i n s t r u c t  students.  T h i r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of  audio-visual  use o f a u d i o - v i s u a l  said  once o r t w i c e a month  used  with l i m i t e d success this  approach  s k i l l s may work i t seems  with  t o enhance  t h a t many l i m i t e d  the o p p o r t u n i t y  to  improve  students  these other  success these  97 non-oral  skills  Review.  in t h e i r s c i e n c e  Eighty  percent of  classes. respondents  t h e y r e v i e w e d once o r t w i c e a month limited  success  students.  science  of  limited  Programmed  their  basis.  percent  that  learning.  they never  limited  approach  success  Relatively  at  least  and  Sixty  students  frequent in  the  percent of  respondents  learning  while  to  instruct  28% r e p o r t e d u s i n g  this  once o r t w i c e a t e r m .  Further differences homogeneously  they  students.  used programmed  success  instructing  said  r e v i e w seems t o be a common o c c u r r e n c e  teaching  said  or more when  Forty-six  r e v i e w on a w e e k l y o r d a i l y  indicatetf t h a t  existing  between  teachers  heterogeneously  grouped  science  of  classes Some c o m p a r i s o n s practices  have  of teachers  of  already  been made between  homogeneously  grouped  science  content  d e t e r m i n a t i o n and a p p r o a c h e s  evident  between  parison  of  found 10%)  that  classes.  these  Further  a significantly  of  teachers  of  classes  reported  using  the M i n i s t r y  in  both  to learning  were  teachers.  Upon  w i t h type of grouping greater  heterogeneously  percentage grouped  the l a b o r a t o r y  of E d u c a t i o n  heterogeneously  differences  two g r o u p s o f  t e a c h i n g methods  and  the  texts  than d i d t e a c h e r s  (in  com-  it  was  excess  of  science suggested of  by  homogeneously  98 grouped  classes.  Teachers using  of homogeneously  both s t u d e n t  course  grouped  c h o i c e and s t u d e n t  classes  reported  i n t e r e s t to determine  c o n t e n t to a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than d i d t e a c h e r s  heterogeneously Teachers  grouped  classes.  of h o m o g e n e o u s l y  grouped  science  classes  r e p o r t e d r e d u c i n g c o n t e n t and c o m p l e x i t y o f c o u r s e for  limited  teachers  success  students  of heterogeneously  Teachers reported using  Teachers reported using extent  grouped  grouped  homogeneously  heterogeneously  a lecture  science  grouped  grouped  and n o t e s  did  classes.  the core c u r r i c u l u m to a g r e a t e r  of  content  to a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than  of h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y  than d i d t e a c h e r s of  of  classes extent  science  science  classes.  classes  approach to a g r e a t e r  than d i d t e a c h e r s o f homogeneously  grouped  science  classes. It  is  perienced grouped  a p p a r e n t t h a t more f r e e d o m o f c h o i c e i s by b o t h t e a c h e r s and s t u d e n t s  science classes.  heterogeneous  classes.  and c o m p l e x i t y o f a c o u r s e  for  classes.  limited  t o be  i n homogeneous  Evidently reducing  more common i n h o m o g e n e o u s l y science  homogeneously  More a t t e n t i o n a p p e a r s  p a i d to the i n t e r e s t s of the s t u d e n t s than  of  ex-  success  classes  content students  than h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y  is  grouped  -99 Evaluation  and  Tables questions progress reports Table  reporting  9.1  t o 9.4  outline  r e l a t e d to the e v a l u a t i o n of t h e i r  l i m i t e d success  on t h e e x t e n t o f  9.2  students  teachers'  reports  students.  is  Table  of r e p o r t i n g  Table  used when 9.4  student  and r e p o r t i n g  students.  to of  Table  involvement  the major areas  are e v a l u a t e d .  which t e s t i n g  student  responses  in  the 9.1  evaluation.  in which l i m i t e d success  9.3  shows t h e e x t e n t  instructing  shows t h e usage o f  to  l i m i t e d success the v a r i o u s  methods  progress.  (26a)  TABLE  9.1  1  EVALUATION OF THE PROGRESS OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  Evaluator(s)  Frequency of Response  Teacher only  132  44  21  7  Equally by student and teacher  0  0  Mainly by student, p a r t i a l l y by teacher  0  0  Student only  0  0  Other  1  <1  145  49  Mainly by teacher, p a r t i a l l y by student  No response  Item t w e n t y - s i x had a h i g h i n c i d e n c e o f n o n - r e s p o n s e . An e r r o r o f n u m b e r i n g f o l l o w i n g i t e m 25a r e s u l t e d i n the;, l a c k of t e a c h e r response to t h i s i t e m .  TOO Eighty-six evaluation was based limited  percent of respondents  of student  solely success  progress  statedthat  on t h e t e a c h e r w h i l e student  involvement  (26b)  reporting  TABLE 9.2  i n t h e i r own e v a l u a t i o n .  *  Frequency  and  SUCCESS STUDENTS  P e r c e n t a g e Response  Component Used  Student l a b o r a t o r y write-ups  evaluation  14% i n d i c a t e d some  COMPONENTS USED TO EVALUATE LIMITED  Evaluation Component  this  on t h e  Component Not Used  145  (93)  11  (7)  Proj ects  99  (63)  57  (37)  Oral  44  (29)  111  (71)  Tes t s  141  (90)  15  (10)  Attitude  102  (66)  53  (34)  69 35  (44) (23)  "87 1 20  (56)  talks  Attendance Other Student  laboratory  write-ups  and t e s t s  were  (77) reported  t o be used by t h e m a j o r i t y  (93% and 90% r e s p e c t i v e l y )  respondents  item (26b).  answering  of respondents  reported  and p r o j e c t work students.  this  including  Forty-four  A p p r o x i m a t e l y 65%  components  in t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n  included attendance  than  30% r e p o r t e d  of a t t i t u d e  of l i m i t e d  percent of respondents  they  success  said  in t h e i r assessment while  including  oral  talks  of  or o t h e r  that less  forms  of  assessment. different their  Most t e a c h e r s evaluation  pation  students.  Teachers  worksheets  and n o t e b o o k s ;  workhabits;  student  e x p l a n a t i o n to the t e a c h e r ; a f i n a l riculum; e f f o r t ; reading long  two t o  to assess  based o n :  in c l a s s ;  t o use  components  l i m i t e d success  evaluation  appear  (24)  work  TABLE  by  the p r o g r e s s also  of  reported partici-  assignments  and  oral  exam on t h e c o r e  cur-  assignments;  t e r m l e a r n i n g and f i e l d  three  writing skills  with  students.  9.3  TESTING: FREQUENCY USED IN THE  INSTRUCTION OF  LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Frequency Use  of  Frequency of Response  Never Once o r  t w i c e a term  Once o r t w i c e a month Once o r t w i c e a week Almost No  every  Seventy-five  9.2  t o be c o n s i s t e n t  where t e s t i n g was  the o v e r a l l  5  40  13  180  60  41  14  4  1  20  7  p e r c e n t of respondents  t e s t e d with a monthly seems  14  class  response  evaluation  said  to d a i l y f r e q u e n c y . w i t h the r e s u l t said of  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  t o have  that This  they result  reported in  a heavy  l i m i t e d success  emphasis students.  table in  1.02 (26c)  TABLE 9.4  *  FREQUENCY OF VARIOUS METHODS OF REPORTING PROGRESS OF LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Reporting Method  Frequency of Response  Formal l e t t e r grades (A,B,C,D,E)  Percentage of Response [%) (n=299)  150  50  Satisfactory/unsatisfactory  12  4  Pass/fail/incomplete  19  6  Anecdotal  53  18  Other  15  5  Many t e a c h e r s in c o n j u n c t i o n reporting  i n d i c a t e d t h e use  with formal  schemes t e a c h e r s  letter  of  grades.  reported  complete/incomplete  -  H (honours), S ( s a t i s f a c t o r y ) ,  -  used o n l y  -  other  S-  (minimal  pass)  in f i n a l  report  i f mark  is  below  C+  - A,B,C,D/not mastered -  the  (incomplete/fail)  Pass/Fail a  Some o f  reporting  were:  -  I  anecdotal  or  incomplete  C/Pass/Fail 1,2,3,4,5 scale  Further  analysis  1 being  the  of the data  best showed t h a t f o r m a l  letter  .1 0 3 grades  were used  teachers Teacher  by a l a r g e r  o f homogeneous  than  proportion  heterogeneous  science  t o 10.1:3 o u t l i n e t h e t r a i n i n g t h a t  r e c e i v e d r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success  of these  ) of classes.  a t t i t u d e s and t r a i n i n g  TableslO.l  examine  (16% more  some o f t h e f a c t o r s  students  and  respondents  in  addition  w h i c h may r e l a t e t o t h e  attitudes  teachers.  (14)  TABLE  10.1  TEACHERS OF HOMOGENEOUSLY GROUPED CLASSES: TO TEACH  WILLINGNESS  LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS IN HOMOGENEOUS CLASSES. NUMBER OF CLASSES  Number o f Classes  No  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%) (n=321)  0  51  16  1  33  10  2  10  3  3  4  4  1  1 —  5  0  6  1  7  1  8  2  1  26  8  129  40  Response Totals  1  :  Forty-two grouped  class  to teach at of  p e r c e n t of t h e t e a c h e r s situations  least  one  l i m i t e d success  of h o m o g e n e o u s l y not wish  students.  grouped  (21a)  homogeneously  r e p o r t e d t h a t they would  homogeneously  to teach these  from  Forty  classed students  TABLE  grouped  be w i l l i n g  science  p e r c e n t of the  class teachers  i n d i c a t e d that they in a s p e c i a l  did  science  class.  10.2  TEACHERS OF HETEROGENEOUSLY GROUPED CLASSES: POSITION ON A B I L I T Y  GROUPING  i  Position on A b i l i t y Grouping  Wish to group a l l l i m i t e d success students  ;  Do not wish to group l i m i t e d success students No response Totals  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%) (n=321)  94  29  91  28  9  3  194  60  105 (21b)  TABLE 1 0 . 3  TEACHERS Of HETEROGENEOUSLY GROUPED CLASSES: DESIRE TO TEACH LIMITED- SUCCESS  STUDENTS  SCIENCE  IN A SEPARATE CLASS GROUP  Desire to Teach Limited Success Students in a Separate Class  Frequency of Response  Would teach these classes Would not teach these classes No response Totals  (21c)  Percentage of Response (%) (n=321)  64  20  114  36  1  4  194  60  TABLE 10.4  TEACHERS OF HETEROGENEOUSLY GROUPED CLASSES: WILLINGNESS  TO TEACH LIMITED SUCCESS  IN HOMOGENEOUS CLASSES.  Number of Classes  STUDENTS  NUMBER OF CLASSES  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response {%) (n=321)  0  78  24  1  64  20  2  32  10  3  6  2  4  0  0  14  4  194  60  No response Totals  .1  About  one-half  (49%).of  grouped  science  classes  limited  success  students  (table said  10.2).  the t e a c h e r s  into a separate  of l i m i t e d success  percent said  least  one c l a s s  students In  (table order  grouping  group class  teachers  to teach these  students  to  science  F i f t y - n i n e p e r c e n t of these  three  heterogeneously  indicated their desire  t h a t t h e y w o u l d n o t choose  classes  of  also  separate  (table 10.3).  Fifty-  t h a t t h e y w o u l d be w i l l i n g t o t e a c h  of s e p a r a t e l y  grouped  limited  at  success  10.4).  to i n t e r p r e t t e a c h e r s '  more c l e a r l y t h e r e s u l t s  have  been compared and r e p o r t e d  four  possible  positions  position  of t a b l e s  10.2  i n t a b l e 10.5  teachers  an a b i l i t y and  which  may h o l d r e g a r d i n g  10.3 shows ability  grouping. (21a)-(21b)  TABLE  10.5  TEACHERS OF HETEROGENEOUSLY GROUPED CLASSES: DESIRE TO GROUP AND TEACH LIMITED SUCCESS SCIENCE STUDENTS IN A SEPARATE CLASS  Teachers' p o s i t i o n  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%) (n=321)'  Would group and teach 1 imited'success students  45  14  Would group but not teach 1 imited success students  48  15  19  6  66 16 194  21 4 60  Would not group but would teach separate groups of l i m i t e d success students Would not group and not teach separate groups of l i m i t e d success students No response Totals  06  TO 7  Twenty-nine  p e r c e n t of respondents  w o u l d group  l i m i t e d success  for  instruction.  science  in favour  About  of a b i l i t y grouping  to teach these  classes.  heterogeneously willing  students  grouped  class  into separate  h a l f of these  they  classes  teachers  r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y were w i l l i n g  Sixty  percent of t e a c h e r s  classes  of  s a i d they would not  to teach l i m i t e d success  separate  indicated that  science  students  be  in a  group.  By c o m b i n i n g  the r e s u l t s  partial  p i c t u r e of  success  students  of t a b l e s  10.1  and 10.4 a  t e a c h e r commitment t o t e a c h i n g l i m i t e d  may be g e n e r a t e d  TABLE  (table  10.6).  10.6  TEACHER COMMITMENT TO TEACHING LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Commitment  Show a desire to teach l i m i t e d success students Prefer not to teach l i m i t e d success students Not analysable No response  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response {%) (n=321)  116  36  48  15  117  37  40  12  108 The 117 r e s p o n d e n t s in  t a b l e 10.1  any  separate  teachers  were t h o s e  who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t w i s h classes  of  i n t a b l e 10.5  teach l i m i t e d success results  not a n a l y s a b l e  l i m i t e d success who s a i d  students  students  to  teach  plus  those  t h e y w o u l d n o t group in a separate  teaching  science  teachers  l i m i t e d success  (13)  or  class.  i n d i c a t e t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f B.C.  secondary  teachers  The junior  do n o t h o l d a commitment  to  students.  TABLE  10.7  *  METHOD OF TEACHER ASSIGNMENT TO HOMOGENEOUSLY GROUPED  Method o f  Own  CLASSES  OF  LIMITED SUCCESS SCIENCE STUDENTS  Frequency of Response  Assignment  choice  Science  department  decision  Assignment  by d e p a r t m e n t  Assignment  by p r i n c i p a l  head  Other  Most t e a c h e r s in t a b l e 10.7.  checked o n l y  The r e s u l t s  show  assignments to s p e c i a l l y grouped success  students  Percentage of Response (%) (n=321 )  35  11  27  8  16  5  59  18  15  5  one o f t h e methods that teachers science  classes  listed  report that for limited  a r e made by e i t h e r t h e p r i n c i p a l o r  de-  109 p a r t m e n t head  (23%).  By c o n s i d e r i n g  of homogeneously  grouped  creases  Only  t o 68%.  11%'of  i n homogeneous  grouping  to teach these  classes.  t h e a l t e r n a t e methods  science all  situations) The l i s t  by c o u n s e l l o r  basis  -  by v i c e - p r i n c i p a l  the t o t a l ported.  these  classes  the some  two f i g u r e s  teachers option of  respondents:  by s c i e n c e  teachers  tabling  separate  that they taught.  in t e a c h e r s '  mine what f r e e t i m e t e a c h e r s (table  having  t o r e p o r t t h e number o f  number o f b l o c k s Using  of  i t was  In  addition  t i m e t a b l e s was possible  to  had a v a i l a b l e p e r t i m e t a b l e  TABLE  10.8  FREE TIME OF JUNIOR SECONDARY SCIENCE TEACHERS  Number of Classes Per Cycle  0 1 2 3 Miscellaneous No Response  re-  deter-  10.8). (6)  in-  recommendation  by random t i m e  and n o n - s c i e n c e  (.28%  r e p o r t e d by  - assignment  science  the p r o p o r t i o n  report  of assignment  were a s k e d  teachers  below p r e s e n t s  -  assignment  those  respondents  on a r o t a t i o n a l  Teachers  cycle  classes  - assignment assignment  only  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  32 1 72 27 13 36 19  11 58 9 4 12 6  1 1.0 Fifty-eight class  percent of respondents  r e p o r t e d one  per t i m e t a b l e c y c l e w h i l e 1T% s a i d  any f r e e t i m e . classes  misinterpreted  they d i d not  T h i r t e e n p e r c e n t had two t o t h r e e  per c y c l e .  Thirty-six  the nature of  as m i s c e l l a n e o u s  in t a b l e  (2a)  respondents  item s i x  spare  (12%)  have  spare obviously  and so were  classified  10.8.  TABLE  10.9  PRE-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING RELATED TO LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Pre-Service Training  Have received pre-service t r a i n i n g Have not received pre-service t r a i n i n g  Frequency of Response  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  64  21  233  78  2  1  No response  (2b)  TABLE 10.10  EXTENT OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING RELATED TO LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Amount of Pre-Service Training  A whole course Half a course A few hours of a course An hour of a course I n c i d e n t a l l y during a course No response  Frequency of Response 15 4 23 1 18 3  Percentage of Response (%) (n-299) 5 1 8 <1 6 1  :i 11 (2c) TEACHERS'  TABLE  10.11  RATING OF PRE-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING  RELATED TO LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  Rating  Very  Frequency, of Response.  useful  Of some  use  Of l i t t l e Of no No  use  1  41  14  15  5  1  <T  3  1  response  in  p o r t e d no p r e v i o u s students. ing  4  use  The r e s u l t s  table  Of t h e t e a c h e r s  (only  21%)  30% s a i d  r e l a t e d to t h e s e  teachers  with special  few h o u r s o r of  that this sequent  less  training  teaching  of  at  some s p e c i a l  reported (table  receive  least  of  l i m i t e d success  respondentsre-  success  course  The b a l a n c e  (69%)  training did  78% o f  r e c e i v e d a whole  training  who was  who d i d r e p o r t  students.  of t h i s  teachers  show t h a t  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d  they  a course  percent  10.9  training  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  of  train-  or  these  receiving  10.10).  half  a  Seventy  prior  training  indicate  some use  to t h e i r  sub-  students  (table  10.11).  (5a)  TABLE  1.0.12  IN-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING RELATED TO LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS  In-service  Has  been  Has  not  Training  provided been  provided  (5b) TEACHERS'  19  242  81  TABLE  10.13  Frequency of Res pon se  Useful Of l i t t l e  No  57  2  40  13  9  3  3  1  242  81  use  use  response  Most t e a c h e r s in-service (table  (81%)  r e p o r t e d t h a t they d i d not  t r a i n i n g r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d  10.12).  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  5  useful  Of no  Percentage of Response (%) (n=299)  RATING OF IN-SERVICE TRAINING  Rating  Very  Frequency of Response  Of t h e t e a c h e r s  success  who s a i d  receive  students  they did  receive  .1.1 3 some s p e c i a l found  this  in-service  training  The r e s u l t s number o f  77% r e p o r t e d t h a t  t o be a t l e a s t  outlined  conclusions  in the f o l l o w i n g  training  in t h i s  of  some use  chapter  and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  chapter.  have  they  (.table  had  10.13).  suggested a  which are  presented  CHAPTER  4  Cone 1 us i o n s and  Recommendations  I n t r o d u c t ion This  chapter  commendations  presents  derived  recommendations  item.  of  existed  a guideline  as  the lower l i m i t  as  having  section  for  educational chapter  details  conclusions sion  on t h e b a s i s  the o p t i o n s was  is  based  of  used when  upon  the a c c e p t a n c e  and  of  (1)  10%  10%  a  or  question-  bivariate  items.  this  The  percentage  of a p r o b l e m  area  significance.. divided  the r e s u l t s  and s e c t i o n  leading  was  re-  one o p t i o n o f a  where a d i f f e r e n c e o f  between  and  Conclusions  were made between q u e s t i o n n a i r e  10% as  This  (2)  under  The same 10% l e v e l  comparisons use  reporting  item or  more r e s p o n s e s naire  from t h e s u r v e y .  were o n l y g e n e r a t e d  o r more r e s p o n d e n t s questionnaire  the major c o n c l u s i o n s  i n t o two s e c t i o n s ; and d i s c u s s i o n  two d e t a i l s  to the recommendations  the.'first  leading  to  the  the r e s u l t s  and  also  in t h i s  listed  discus"  section. Since on t e a c h e r must  all  conclusions  perception  be e x e r c i s e d  are  based  and n o t v a l i d a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n  before  p l e m e n t a t i o n of the  and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s  a c c e p t a n c e , r e j e c t i o n or  findings.  114  caution  im-  115 Conclus ions Forty-seven  percent of respondents  portion  of  classes  t o be i n e x c e s s  percent of success (table  limited  respondents  science 6.1).  of grouping (table  success of  students 20%  said  students  in  (table 4.3).  in homogeneously  In  total  63% o f  grouping  for  r e p o r t e d and t h e w i d e s p r e a d indicates  special students  program (table  of  percent of  limited  awareness  of  respondents  The r e m a i n i n g  of E d u c a t i o n  1  (tables  success  teachers  success success  size  with  of  existence.  7.3,  7.4  a  science said  presently  ^Curriculum guides: B r i t i s h Columbia M i n i s t r y J u n i o r S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m G u i d e s - Grade 8, Grade 1 0 , 1970. Laboratory Concepts  using  reported using  t h e c u r r i c u l u m and l a b o r a t o r y t e x t s  by t h e M i n i s t r y  its  form  classes  attempt to deal  to teach t h e i r l i m i t e d 7.1).  classes  reported  both the s i g n i f i c a n t  p o p u l a t i o n and a g e n e r a l Twenty-five  grouped  the l i m i t e d  students  used  The numbers  limited  r e p o r t e d some  respondents  they taught.  students  Forty-two  grouped  within t h e i r heterogeneously  6.3).  pro-  science  t h a t they taught  students  this  their  A f u r t h e r 21% o f t e a c h e r s  some f o r m o f a b i l i t y  these  r e p o r t e d the  and  they suggested 7.7).  of E d u c a t i o n Grade 9,  texts: Manf r e d :C. Schmi d , e d . , E x t e n d i n g S c i e n c e in the L a b o r a t o r y (Scarborough: P r e n t i c e - H a l l of  C a n a d a , 1 9 7 0 ) . W a l t e r H.Rasmussen and M a n f r e d C . S c h m i d , e d s . d e v e l o p i n g S c i e n c e Concepts' in the L a b o r a t o r y ' ( S c a r borough": P r e n t i c e - H a l 1 o f Canada , 1 9 6 8 ) . M a n f r e d C . S c h m i d , e d . i n t r o d u c i n g Science Concepts in the L a b o r a t o r y (Scarborough: P r e n t i c e H a l l of Canada, 1973).  116 An a v e r a g e tory the  of  82% o f  t e x t s were o n l y instruction  7.6).  Teacher  further  of  respondents somewhat  reported  suitable  l i m i t e d success  comments  (in  Chapter  indicate additional  curriculum for  these  to u n s u i t a b l e  science  students  1.  for (table  of the present  f o r an a p p r o p r i a t e  G)  cur-  new  students.  Based on t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d t h r e e m a j o r can be  labora-  t h r e e and A p p e n d i x  drawbacks  r i c u l u m and t h e need and d e s i r e  that these  conclusions  drawn: A significantly  success  students  large  exist  in  population B.C.  of  junior  limited secondary  schools 2.  A general  population is 3.  of  awareness  of  the e x i s t e n c e  l i m i t e d success  students  of a  in  B.C.  evident Few s p e c i a l  veloped  for  Most j u n i o r present  science  l i m i t e d success secondary  recommended  appropriate  programs  for  have  students  science  been in  teachers  B.C. perceive  c u r r i c u l u m t o be l a r g e l y  instructing  de-.'  l i m i t e d success  the  instudents  11 7 Recommendations C u r r i culurn O n l y one q u a r t e r  (25%)  development of a s p e c i a l  of respondents  science  program  success  students  (table 7.1).  special  programs  14% were t e a c h e r s  grouped  science  while  classes  8% were t e a c h e r s  classes  (table 7.2).  for  their  Of t h e t e a c h e r s  (33% o f of  reported  of  all  homogeneously  homogeneous  heterogeneously  7.4 that  and 7 . 7 ) .  grouped  An a v e r a g e  of Education  curriculum)  suitable  f o r the  students  (table  ported using gested  were o n l y  7.6).  Forty-six  than  of  students  was  students,  laboratory  limited  7.3,  reported  closely  success  un-  science  From 5% t o 33% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  of Education  than  (tables  those  7.4  and  resug7.7),  a l t e r n a t i v e c u r r i c u l a were n o t r a t e d more t h e recommended c u r r i c u l u m  percent of respondents  one-half  re-  s u i t a b l e to  o t h e r c u r r i c u l a and s o u r c e s  these  suitable  (and t h e  somewhat  i n s t r u c t i o n of  by t h e M i n i s t r y  however  science  (tables  o f 82% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  the s u g g e s t e d l a b o r a t o r y t e x t s  related  teachers)  The m a j o r i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t s  s u g g e s t e d by t h e M i n i s t r y  limited  reporting  p o r t e d t h e use o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m and a s s o c i a t e d texts  the  t h e i r science  course  (table  7.6).  reported that at for  limited  least  success  based on r e d u c e d c o n t e n t compared t o  other  w h i l e 48% r e p o r t e d t h a t s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f  duced c o m p l e x i t y c o m p r i s e d  at l e a s t o n e - h a l f  of  re-  their  science  course  for  l i m i t e d success  Fifty-three  percent of  any  of  portion  students cent said course  within  choice  they d i d not  for  The  respondents  t h e i r science  on s t u d e n t  these  (table  base  students  grouping  developed  to t h e e x i s t i n g l a c k of f a i t h variance  major c u r r i c u l u m approaches i n B.C.  riculum 1973,  the  Younie  appear  1963,  1974).  among  riculum. basing  teaching materials (Ekstrom  The  B.C.,  lack  the  for  respondents'  indicates  l i m i t e d success  of  1972,  regarding  students  science content  The l i t e r a t u r e  such a d i l u t e d C o l l e t t e 1973,  curriculum  the adequacy  curSturges say  indicates of  this  a  cur-  choice within a curriculum,  p a r t o f a c u r r i c u l u m on s t u d e n t s '  j o b - o r i e n t e d aspects  a major Two  of course  students.  of  adherence  The f a c t t h a t many t e a c h e r s  teachers  Allowing  in  t o be r e d u c t i o n  Ladd  science  of the l i t e r a t u r e .  they modify or r e j e c t the e x i s t i n g concern  their  per-  interests.  curriculum  inappropriateness  (Johnson  of  Passow 1 9 6 6 ) .  and c o m p l e x i t y compared t o o t h e r indicates  Twenty-one  and c u r r i c u l u m and t h e  in the e x i s t i n g  base  l i m i t e d success  that appropriate  programs  7.7).  they d i d not  t o each a b i l i t y l e v e l  with the s u g g e s t i o n s  students  (table  that e f f e c t i v e  requires  science  texts  7.7).  any p o r t i o n  Thomas and Thomas 1 9 7 5 ,  specially  for  on s t u d e n t  and c u r r i c u l u m be p r o v i d e d 1961,  said  course  literature indicates  abi1ity  students  of s c i e n c e  is  the s e l f - c o n c e p t o f l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  said  interests to help  students  and  and  the  improve provide  1.1 9 them w i t h a more r e l e v a n t and m o t i v a t i n g (Newsom 1 9 6 3 , Tisher  e t a l . 1972,  The l a c k o f tion as  Larlin  compared 1.  It  Teachers  of  is  benefit 2.  student-centered  students  in general  success  students  in  science  background.  students  should  Nine  percent  of  undergraduate  recommended  that  background  science  at the j u n i o r  experience.  have  expertise  Accordingly  expertise  science  these  1imited  The l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s t h a t  generalists.  teachers  be chosen  to  secondary  Fifty-one  science  classes  students  back-  teachers in  science  students  i n one a r e a  will  (Kelly  1974).  with teach level.  p e r c e n t of  e x p e r i e n c e w i t h homogeneously  l i m i t e d success  se-  particular.  reported a non-science  1.1).  is  the  administration  from a t e a c h e r s ' It  learning  cur-  and  condary  being  to  in the l i t e r a t u r e .  junior  than  1976).  determina-  approach  o f B.C.  (table  Wragg  in c u r r i c u l u m  wide a b i l i t y r a n g e  and s c h o o l  1970,  1976,  reflects  had p r e v i o u s  taught  Sturges  r i c u l u m be d e v e l o p e d w h i c h  Teaching  of  Webster  recommended that a new s c i e n c e  l i m i t e d success  rather  1969,  to the recommendations  respondents  ground  1974,  involvement  a less  Teachers' all  Kelly  student  indicates  and B e r g e r  curriculum  teachers  grouped  classes  reported that they  in t h e i r f i r s t or second  year  who  of  first  teaching the  (table 2.3).  The l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s  least experienced teachers  classes  of homogeneously  (Sturges grouped that  1 976).  are assigned  grouped  science  to  of  classes  often  instruct  l i m i t e d success  In choos'i ng, t e a c h e r s  l i m i t e d success  that  students  homogeneously it  is  not  evident  t e a c h e r s w i t h some e x p e r i e n c e a r e s e l e c t e d f o r  these  assignments. 3.  It  is  recommended' t h a t t e a c h e r s  t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e be a s s i g n e d special  science  success  students.•  Teacher  classes  commitment.  s o t T i e  to  for limited  At l e a s t  151 o f r e s p o n d e n t s  d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d be w i l l i n g t o group students classes  for  science  Thirty-six  would be w i l l i n g t o i n s t r u c t circumstances  Sixty grouped these of  classes  these  (table  (table  classes  teachers  10.7).  said  said  students  Eleven  who t a u g h t  they  any  homogeneously  t h a t t h e y were a s s i g n e d  t o t e a c h such  p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s  any s p a r e  success these  that  under  in-  10.6).  t h e y chose  class  time during  to  Only  students  should  that teachers  28%  classes  reported  that  the week.,  10.8).  The l i t e r a t u r e s t a t e s success  percent said  by a P r i n c i p a l o r d e p a r t m e n t h e a d .  t h e y d i d n o t have (table  these  p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s  science  limited  but were n o t w i l l i n g t o t e a c h  (table 10.5).  grouping  teach  of l i m i t e d  be c o m m i t t e d t o t e a c h i n g  these  students  (Featherstone  1951,  Johnson  Reissman  1969,  1971,  Younie  indicate  that  secondary to  Glasser  a significant  science  teachers  i n s t r u c t i n g these  that  the  ficult time  junior  1974).  secondary  4.  do n o t a p p e a r  It  is  to c l a s s e s  only  5.  It  only  recommended  grouped students  size.  science or l e s s  dif-  be  that teachers  classes while  of t w e n t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s  time f o r  teaching  be  and h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y  given and  preparation.  (table 6.4).  students  as-  they teach  sizes  11% r e p o r t e d c l a s s  both homogeneously  is  range.  reported class  of  It  classes  percent of t e a c h e r s  teachers  time.  limited  be  grouped  in the c l a s s e s  Eighty  B.C.  assigned  h o l d a commitment t o  spare  spare  students..  of a wide a b i l i t y  some c h o i c e  Class  is  preparation  grouped  recommended t h a t t e a c h e r s  adequate  states  i f t h e y h o l d a com-  to heterogeneously  i f they  is  also  students  that teachers  of homogeneously  students  students  t o be c o m m i t t e d  do n o t have  mitment to t e a c h i n g these signed  junior  r e q u i r i n g adequate  teachers  recommended  further  B.C.  reports  E v i d e n t l y a s i g n i f i c a n t number o f  science  success  success  1967,  Teacher  The l i t e r a t u r e  i n s t r u c t i o n of l i m i t e d  (Kelly  Ausubel  1974).  p r o p o r t i o n of  students.  and t i m e c o n s u m i n g ,  1963,  homogeneous  of  twenty-five  sizes  in  Approximately  grouped  grouped  of  non-1imited  classes  excess 38%  of  success  reported  class  12 2 sizes  o f t w e n t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s ;or The 1 i t e r a t u r e recommends  whether  homogeneously  less. that  Although  science  classes  within still  l i m i t e d success  a class  The m a j o r i t y o f  6.  of  heterogeneously  and h o m o g e n e o u s l y students  size  grouped  of  students  twenty-six grouped  classes  is  recommended  classes Student reporting  science  students  volvement  (table  9.1).  (90%)  and s t u d e n t  their  l i m i t e d success  oral  student  talks  (table  9.2).  attitude  (29%)  in  science  respondents science  was d e t e r m i n e d  while student  and o t h e r e v a l u a t i o n  Seventy-five  and  p e r c e n t of  write-ups  (66%),  p e r c e n t of  t h a t they t e s t e d with a frequency  success  students.  Most t e a c h e r s  students,  more.  classes  14% r e p o r t e d m i n i m a l  laboratory  or  classes  1imited success  indicated that evaluation  by t h e t e a c h e r w h i l e o n l y  (60%),  of  fall  in the l i t e r a t u r e .  grouped  Eighty-six  on t h e e v a l u a t i o n  i n B.C.  science  l i m i t e d success  evaluation.  grouped  for non-limited  that a l l  homogeneously  for  Younie  students  be r e d u c e d t o t w e n t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s particular  should  t h e l i t e r a t u r e , 11%  seem t o e x c e e d t h e s u g g e s t i o n s It  1972,  homogeneously  the suggested g u i d e l i n e s maintain  classes,  grouped,  (Oxenhorn  the m a j o r i t y of for  science  or heterogeneously  not exceed t w e n t y - f i v e s t u d e n t s 1974).  all  solely  student  reported using (93%) fewer  to  projects  attendance components  of a t l e a s t  tests  evaluate  used  teachers  in-  (44%), (23%)  reported once  or  123 t w i c e a month  (table  9.3).  The l i t e r a t u r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t s t u d e n t i n d e c i s i o n m a k i n g may remove  student  improve  feelings  of  student  involvement  self-concept,  help  and f a t a l i s m  and,  hopelessness  by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e i r own e v a l u a t i o n , g i v e ity  for r e a l i s t i c self-evaluation  Education Younie base  Department  1974,  is  Sturges  1969,  Ladd 1 9 7 2 ,  1976,  Wragg 1 9 7 6 ) .  advocated to p r o v i d e  student  progress  t o do w e l l  ing  (Hughes 1 9 7 3 ) .  general of h i s  evaluating strengths  where t e a c h e r s to s t u d e n t s . B.C.  science  and w e a k n e s s e s  Evaluation  of  seems  both c o g n i t i v e  7.  It  is  recommended  Although  i s made  is  a rare  in  aware upon  these  is  they  occurrence  students  upon o n l y  in  two o r  components areas  it  inadequate  to  that teachers  the p r o g r e s s  learn-  evaluation  student.  t h e number o f components evaluate  it  l i m i t e d success  any  (and  op-  1976).  of e v a l u a t i o n  the p o t e n t i a l of  an  with his  and a f f e c t i v e ( a t t i t u d e )  base  of  w h i c h may be b u i l t  t o be based  clude  evaluation  has  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of  d i f f e r e n t components.  evaluate  the student  (Darke  three  seem t h a t a n a r r o w  1973,  A wide  congruent  indicate that  relinquish  classes  Scottish  By t e s t i n g f r e q u e n t l y  frequently)  results  Sturges  that a student  at something  o r r e m e d i a t e d as n e c e s s a r y The s u r v e y  1963,  opportun-  both a broad p i c t u r e  and t o e n s u r e  portunity style  (Newsom  an  use  increase to  of t h e i r l i m i t e d  inwould  124 success  students  portunities own work Teacher  for  and  and  include  students  reported success  taking  training.  Twenty-one  some p r e - s e r v i c e  students  (table  10.9).  said  they  reported  that  they experienced  hours or  less)  percent  of  said  sequent  of  took  special  teachers  that  this  teaching  include  students  1974,  was  few B.C.  had l i t t l e , likely  skills 8.  of  Council  if  that  any,  is  junior  these  recommended  or p o r t i o n  some use  of  students,  service  training  Seventy  students  Sturges  1971, Since  teachers  in t h i s  area,  students.  r e l a t e d to  be i n c l u d e d of  science  10.11).  success  1976).  that a required  sub-  training  science  training  train-  (table  some t i m e t o a c q u i r e  a course,  success  few  to t h e i r  Schools Council  secondary  take  (a  70%  10.10).  pre-service  1975,  pre-service  they w i l l  teaching It  Council  these  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d  1970,  limited  some p r e - s e r v i c e  l i m i t e d success that  of  amount  (table  of  respondents  o r more w h i l e  a minimal  who e x p e r i e n c e d  of  r e l a t e d to  percent  course  some components  Schools  training  training  training  of  (Schools  seems t h a t  is  their  percent  Thirty  a half  The l i t e r a t u r e s u g g e s t s  Kelly  to evaluate  progress.  teachers  should  op-  training  Pre-service  ing  more  course limited  in the  teachers.  pre-  the  it have it  125 In-service respondents  training.  reported  Less than  having  r e c e i v e d any  training  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success  10.12).  Seventy-seven  that  this  limited  training  success  pre-service t h a t more been  of  students  training  (table  teachers  said  to t h e i r t e a c h i n g  10.13).  reported  it  in-service  of  in-service  students  these  some use (table  was  compensatory  of  (19%)  Since  is  of  little  surprising  training  has  not  provided. 9.  It  is  recommended  a month  students  be  (table as  respondents success  to l e a r n i n g .  reported  Eighty-eight  a directed  Only  frequently  students  (table  reported  that  least  once o r  quent  use  demonstrations  or  percent  while  t w i c e a month of  respondents  or  discovery  percent  of  their  limited  8.1)  and 76%  said  at l e a s t  once o r  twice  aids  of  less)  respondents  frequently  59% r e p o r t e d or  twice  using a  percent  used a u d i o - v i s u a l  of  approach  involved  (table  Thirty-five  once  Forty  never  trips  t w i c e a week)  (once  Thirty-nine  that they  8.1). they  at l e a s t  8.1).  percent  inquiry  58% r e p o r t e d  (table  in f i e l d  u t i l i z e d class  a month  using  8.1).  reported  success  increased.  d i r e c t e d experiments)  approach  in-service  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d  respondents (teacher  that  training  Approaches  they  percent  was  one-fifth  less  (table  reported that  (at fre-  8.1). they  n e v e r used a s m a l l over o n e - h a l f  group  (53%)  or  said  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach  t h e y used t h e l e c t u r e and  and notes  a p p r o a c h f r e q u e n t l y ( a t l e a s t once o r t w i c e a week) 8.1).  Worksheets  were r e p o r t e d t o be used a t a maximum  o f once o r t w i c e a month by 70% o f r e s p o n d e n t s least  once o r t w i c e a week by o n l y 23% o f  (table  8.1).  ( t a b l e 8.1)  learning said  they never  Seventy-one  involved their limited  success  discussion  8.1),  h o w e v e r , 97% r e p o r t e d t h e y n e v e r in o r a l  presentations said  they never  in the i n s t r u c t i o n of l i m i t e d  students  (table  trips  1974,  advocates  1963,  Sturges  these  Twenty-six  used t h e p r o j e c t success  that l i m i t e d  Newsom 1 9 6 3 ,  1976).  and d e m o n s t r a t i o n s  concrete experiences. an e x t e n s i o n  in  (table  involved  science  success  l e a r n by c o n c r e t e e x p e r i e n c e  1951, Johnson  Younie  respondents  8.1).  The l i t e r a t u r e  stone  programmed  students  (table 8.1).  approach  should  used  a t l e a s t once o r t w i c e a month  percent of respondents  students  reported  p e r c e n t of  class  students  respondents  ( a t l e a s t once o r t w i c e a  and 60% s a i d  (table 8.1).  they  and a t  F o r t y - s i x percent of respondents  t h e use o f f r e q u e n t r e v i e w week)  (table  Reissman  L a b o r a t o r y work,  a r e seen  (Feather1969, field  to help p r o v i d e  Audio-visual  aids  are thought  to c o n c r e t e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s  and  provide  a l t e r n a t e modes  of l e a r n i n g to a l l o w f o r  diverse  learning  (Featherstone  styles  these t o be  help students'  1951, Ausubel  1965,  Bloom 1 9 6 6 , Younie  Webster  1974,  learning  is  dividually student  said  1976,  Individual  Sturges  1970,  1976,  resulting  Department  Wragg 1 9 7 6 ) . group  or  pace c o n g r u e n t student  Since  frequent thought  Schools  Darke  students  the p r o v i s i o n  Bowers  1976,  1973,  Sturges oral  are a l s o  Texas Ausubel 1976).  modes,  presentations  learning)  with students  is  Education 1967,  considered  1976,  programmed  steps  Sturges  Jenkins  thought  approach,  learning  (Reissman 1972,  and  Collette in  t o be p r o m o t e d by b o t h  t o be u s e f u l  pre-  Wilkenson  et a l . 1973,  These  are  1969,  communication,  discussion.  1976)  experiences  learning with  Agency  Students'  and c l a s s  Darke  needless  Jenkins  of a d i r e c t e d i n q u i r y  short  on  to proceed at a  lack successful  but n o n - t r i v i a l , s u c c e s s  1970,  worksheets  Kamm 1 9 6 9 ,  1976,  teaching  Hughes 1 9 7 3 ,  The use o f  1963,  Council  to help provide  Webster  than  (Newsom  to  1970,  individualized  r e v i e w and s u p p l e m e n t a l  arranged,  indirect  w i t h t h e i r a b i l i t y and t o p r e v e n t  l i m i t e d success  school  in-  Milson  to a l l o w students  note-taking  et a l . 1973,  group  attention  1969,  a d v o c a t e d to f r e e the t e a c h e r to deal basis,  1974,  in better teacher-  individual  C o l l e t t e 1973,  in a small  an i n d i v i d u a l  Kelly  and s m a l l  d i f f e r e n c e s and a more  Education  Council  et a l . 1973,  t o h e l p t h e t e a c h e r t o d e a l more  student  (especially  in  1976).  with the s t u d e n t s ,  (Scottish  Schools  is  Sturges  Jenkins  relationships,improved  allow for style  1970,  oral  f o r the l i m i t e d  other oral  approaches success  •12 8 s t u d e n t who i s  a poor r e a d e r a n d / o r Karnes  1970,  writer  Tuckman  1969,  Sturges  1 976).  student  w i t h b o t h r e l e v a n c e and t h e o p p o r t u n i t y  Student  Oxenhorn  regarding  som 1 9 6 3 ,  Thomas and Thomas 1 9 6 5 ,  Schools While  science above  i t appears  teachers  it  a p o r t i o n of h i s  Council  is  respondents  are  do n o t  as  some B.C.  if  in a l l  frequent  student  junior  small  aids;  and f r e q u e n t r e v i e w  Kelly  discussed  percentage  group (on  field (at  or  It  is  individualized  a weekly  trips;  training  on t h e methods student  include  necessary  involvement  in:  to  and  instruction facilitate  small  group  and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d l e a r n i n g ;  project  work; o r a l  review.  This  presentations  training  t o use  and/or  visual  aids,  1 earn i n g .  should produce  and  encourage  teachers  appropriate  worksheets  and  audio-  programmed  basis);  oral  l e a s t once o r  recommended t h a t p r e - s e r v i c e  in-service  of students  a wee k ) . 10.  (New-  secondary  approaches  p r o j e c t s ; worksheets  use o f a u d i o - v i s u a l  presentations  course  t h e i r l i m i t e d success  in the f o l l o w i n g approaches: learning;  t o make  1976).  that a s i g n i f i c a n t  involve  1974,  C o l l e t t e 1973,  Sturges  1963,  to p r o v i d e : t h e  science  1975,  involved  apparent  Kelly  p r o j e c t s are" s a i d  decisions  1974,  1972,  (Newsom  twice  Ability  grouping.  Sixty-three  r e p o r t e d the e x i s t e n c e in t h e i r science  classes  l i m i t e d success  percent  said  geneously  (tables  Forty science class  science  classes  (table  grouped  6.1).  Twenty-one  within their  (table  grouped  of homogeneously  l i m i t e d success  science  10.4).  Nearly  one-half  grouped  science  classes  is  classes one o f  science  group a l l  classes  no c o n c l u s i v e  ability  the  grouping,  latter  practice  l i t e r a t u r e (Esposito  and B r y a n  1975,  Wilson  than  1973,  (table  l i m i t e d success 10.2). of  heterogeneous  t h e most Davies  favoured 1975,  1978).  Although  i n B.C.  is  significantly  i n d i c a t e d in the l i t e r a t u r e i t  is  evident  the p r a c t i c e i s secondary  is  they  in support  and S c h m i t s  the p r a c t i c e of a b i l i t y g r o u p i n g  of  heterogeneously  (table  evidence  one  students  classes  of  o f e i t h e r homogeneous o r  less  least  science  these  the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  Findlay  grouped  reported that  of t e a c h e r s  wished.to  into separate there  (49%)  hetero-  6.3).  they would t e a c h at  were w i l l i n g t o t e a c h a t l e a s t  in the recent  classes  F i f t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t of the t e a c h e r s  heterogeneously  While  Forty-two  science  occasionally classes  grouping  and 6 . 3 ) .  grouped  reported that  10.1).  students  6.1  percent of the teachers  of s e p a r a t e l y  (table  students  they grouped  grouped  respondents  o f some f o r m o f a b i l i t y  p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d homogeneously for  p e r c e n t of  still  schools.  heterogeneously  favoured  The t y p e s  grouped  i n many B.C. of grouping  classes  (see  that  junior  occurring  c h a p t e r three")  in indicate  •1 30  that  a v a r i e t y o f methods  wide p a t t e r n  desire  classes  willingness  of l i m i t e d  o f many r e s p o n d e n t s  classes  indicates  ability  grouping.  mismatch  a large  o f many t e a c h e r s  success for  11.  in the It  is  Presently  literature  abi1ity is  i n B.C.  science  there appears  think  and t h e  on a b i l i t y  and e d u c a t i o n a l  stated  of  t o be  position  grouping. disstatus  thinking  on  grouping.  also  recommended t h a t  and i n - s e r v i c e struction grouping  and t h e  be s t i m u l a t e d on t h e c u r r e n t  of r e s e a r c h  It  province-  teach  body o f t e a c h e r a c c e p t a n c e  recommended t h a t d e b a t e and  cussion  12.  students  to  s p e c i a l l y grouped  between what t e a c h e r s  advocated  Further  used w i t h no c o n s i s t e n t  evolving.  The e x p r e s s e d separate  is  pre-service  t r a i n i n g provide  in-  i n a p p r o p r i a t e methods w i t h i n heterogeneous  of  classes.  research  Composition Twenty-five  of the l i m i t e d  success  p e r c e n t of respondents  half  of t h e i r l i m i t e d  success  only  4% r e p o r t e d t h a t w e l l  This  higher  proportion  r e p o r t e d by t e a c h e r s  h a l f were g i r l s  o f male l i m i t e d  success  of both h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y classes.  The  over  were boys w h i l e  geneously  grouped  science  and g i r l s  is  noted in the l i t e r a t u r e  also  population.  reported that well  students  over  student  (table students  and  5.1). is  homo-  imbalance of but l i t t l e  boys explana-  tion  is  forwarded f o r  1967).  It  seems  c a r r i e d out 13.  is  causal  Once t h e s e  to h e l p  have  been  boys  transfer (18%)  o f t h e i r homogeneously to a h i g h e r This  in t h i s  grouped  a b i l i t y group  l a c k of  to a l l o w m o b i l i t y of  It  is  transfer  1975).  of g r o u p i n g  is  Two  very  be c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e factors  underlying  limited  success  students  special  science  classes.  inter-  little  causal for  to remain  in-  students  research  the tendency  level  possible:  transfer. that further  in  any  also  may be t o o  l i m i t e d success  may p r o g r e s s  recommended  grouping.  a t t h e same g r a d e  inter-group  systems  inter-group  in  students  r e d u c e d upward m o b i l i t y a r e  themselves  and  category.  l i m i t e d success  of p r e s e n t  14.  students  reported that  the  not warrant  reduce  of respondents  of t h i s  students  to  then  ability  pretations  the  students.  i n homogeneous  in the l i t e r a t u r e (Davies  flexible  pro-  identified it will  a l l u d e d to  nature  the  the h i g h e r  of l i m i t e d success  t h e number o f  6.2).  be  car-  t o d e v e l o p a p p r o p r i a t e measures  Less than o n e - f i f t h  (table  be  i d e n t i f y some o f  underlying  factors  Inter-group  advanced  investigation  o f male l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  o v e r a l l numbers  particular  that further  Bricklin  area.  factors  portion  the  ( B r i c k l i n and  recommended t h a t r e s e a r c h  r i e d out  be p o s s i b l e  occurrence  desirable  in t h i s  It  its  and  or thus  J 32 Increase  of  l i m i t e d success  level.  Of t h e t e a c h e r s  science  classes  students  reporting  homogeneously  26% r e p o r t e d g r o u p i n g  reported grouping  in grade  nine  ten  increase  in the i n c i d e n c e of s p e c i a l  level.  The  It  ^increase  science  classes  indicates  limited  success  students  nature known  at t h i s 15.  It  is  evident  eight,  grouping  an i n c r e a s i n g  increase  of  with  is  an  higher  special  population  grade  32%  grouping  that there  i n t h e number  with higher  and c a u s e s o f t h e  in grade  grade  grouped  and 42% r e p o r t e d  in grade  grade  (table 4.1).  with higher  level.  w i t h grade  of The  level  is  not  time.  is  recommended  that further  in-  v e s t i g a t i o n be. i n i t f a t e d t o d e t e r m i n e the causal ported science  factors  increase  of  students  underlying  the  re-  l i m i t e d success  with  increasing  grade  1 eve!. Limited success  student  grouped  classes.  Six  grouped  science  classes  students  classes  percent of teachers  teachers  of  r e p o r t e d t h a t 20% o r category  p e r c e n t of t e a c h e r s  of  reported that  students  heterogeneously  the l i m i t e d success  classes  of  r e p o r t e d t h a t 20% o r  were l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  percent of  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in  less  of  their classes  homogeneously less  of  (table 4.1). grouped  their Eighty  science  t h e i r s t u d e n t s were i n  (table 4.2).  homogeneously  homogeneously  grouped  Eighty-four science  were composed  of  20%  or  1 more  l i m i t e d success  fifth  of t e a c h e r s  students  of heterogeneously  reported a l i m i t e d success 20%  (table  a greater geneous  4.2).  (table 4.1).  student  grouped  of  science  population  Homogeneous g r o u p i n g  proportion  Less than  classes  in excess  seems t o  l i m i t e d success  one-  of  identify  students  than  hetero  grouping.  16.  It  is  recommended  that further  vestigation  be c o n d u c t e d  the f a c t o r s  causing  of  l i m i t e d success  in  homogeneously  compared  to  determine  the h i g h e r student  grouped  inincidence  identification  science  to h e t e r o g e n e o u s l y  classes  grouped  science  classes. Study  Conclusion Two h u n d r e d  science  teachers  sample  of  336).  used.  The h i g h  and n i n e t y - n i n e responded  a good b a s i s  rejection  or  results  survey,  for  caution  is  frame  and t h e t e s t e d  of a p p r o p r i a t e  l i m i t e d success urged  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the  students  before findings.  school  (82%~of a  and t h e d a t a s h o u l d  f o r the c o n s i d e r a t i o n  and t e a c h i n g methods As w i t h any  tested sampling  of response  frame gave s i g n i f i c a n t  secondary  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  A previously level  junior  was  sampling provide curricula in  B.C.  acceptance,  APPENDIX  Questionnaire  1 34  A  Format  The L i m i t e d Success S t u d e n t *  i n Science:  A survey o f c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s i n j u n i o r secondary s c i e n c e i n B r i t i s h Columbia  For the purposes o f t h i s study l i m i t e d u s c c e s s as:  students are defined  a) those s t u d e n t s a c h i e v i n g a c o n s i s t e n t D or E average i n science or b) those s t u d e n t s s p e c i a l l y grouped f o r t h e purposes o f i n s t r u c t i o n due t o p r e v i o u s low achievement.  science  1 36  I n order t o o b t a i n a c l e a r p i c t u r e of c u r r e n t p r a c t i c e s i n B.C. j u n i o r secondary s c i e n c e f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s , we ask you f o r a few minutes o f your time to complete t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e has a b r a n c h i n g not be r e q u i r e d t o do every page.  p a t t e r n so t h i s means you w i l l  Your response i s completely c o n f i d e n t i a l . The number on t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s s o l e l y f o r f o l l o w - u p purposes. The data o b t a i n e d w i l l be used o n l y by the p r i n c i p a l r e s e a r c h e r and h i s a d v i s o r . Our r e p o r t w i l l c o n s i s t o n l y o f group percentages and no i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s , s c h o o l s or s c h o o l d i s t r i c t w i l l be made.  NOTE: P l e a s e check or c i r c l e the a p p r o p r i a t e response f o r each item. On some i t e m s , more than one c h o i c e may be marked. Such items w i l l be preceded by ( M u l t i p l e Response Item)'. A l l other items a r e t o be responded to o n l y once. 1  P l e a s e r e t u r n the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , pre-stamped envelope p r o v i d e d . The r e t u r n of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s requested by May 24, 1978.  2  LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS L i m i t e d success  students are defined as:  a)  those s t u d e n t s a c h i e v i n g a c o n s i s t e n t D o r E average (or e q u i v a l e n t r a t i n g ) i n s c i e n c e or  b)  those students s p e c i a l l y grouped f o r s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n due t o t h e i r low achievement.  PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING BACKGROUND INFORMATION  ( M u l t i p l e Response Item) a)  P l e a c e check your undergraduate m a j o r ( s ) o r c o n c e n t r a t i o n ( s ) , biology chemistry physics  Q . . f—]  earth science  Q  space s c i e n c e  r ~ j  other b)  r~]  (please s p e c i f y )  . . Q  ( M u l t i p l e Response Item) Higher degrees no h i g h e r degree  [~J r-j  M. Sc M.A  •  M.Ed  r-]  Ph.D.  (or e q u i v a l e n t ) . . .| [  Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) .  . . r-j  a)  D i d you r e c e i v e any i n s t r u c t i o n i n the t e a c h i n g o f l i m i t e d s t u d e n t s a t your teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n ? Yes Q  b)  NoQ  1 38  ( i f No p l e a s e proceed t o q u e s t i o n 3)  S i n c e you r e c e i v e d s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a t your teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n , a p p r o x i m a t e l y how much i n s t r u c t i o n was provided? a whole course  Q  h a l f a course  Q  a few hours of a course incidentaly  Q Q  an hour of a course  c)  success  d u r i n g a course  ...[—]  S i n c e you r e c e i v e d s p e c i a l i n s t r u c t i o n a t your teacher t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n , how u s e f u l has t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n been t o your teaching? very u s e f u l  Qj  of some use  rn  of l i t t l e use  rn  of no use  Q  In what year of your t e a c h i n g c a r e e r a r e you a t p r e s e n t ? Q  first second or t h i r d fourth  Q  to ninth  [j  t e n t h o r over a)  Have you taught j u n i o r s c i e n c e (grade 8, 9 or 10) t o l i m i t e d success students i n a s e p a r a t e c l a s s group, a t any p r e v i o u s time i n your teaching career? Yes •  b)  NoQ  ( i f No p l e a s e proceed  t o q u e s t i o n 5)  S i n c e you have taught j u n i o r s c i e n c e t o l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s i n s e p a r a t e c l a s s groups, i n what year of your t e a c h i n g c a r e e r d i d you f i r s t teach these s t u d e n t s ? first  Q  second third  Q  fourth  Q  f i f t h or above  . . . •  4  5.  a)  Have you attended any i n - s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g to a s s i s t you i n t e a c h i n g l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? Yes [j  b)  No [ j  ( i f No p l e a s e proceed  •  of some use  Q  of l i t t l e use  f—]  of no use . a)  1  2  3  4  —  rj  What grades a r e taught i n your K  b)  t o q u e s t i o n 6)  S i n c e you have r e c e i v e d some i n s e r v i c e t r a i n i n g how u s e f u l has t h i s t r a i n i n g been t o your teaching? very u s e f u l  6.  1 39  5  6  school? 7  8  9  10  11  12  What i s the t o t a l student p o p u l a t i o n o f your s c h o o l ? • • 200-400  • • ••  400-600  • • ••  600-800  • • ••  800 -1000  • • • •  1000 -1200 More than 1200 . . . How many s e p a r a t e c l a s s e s i n a l l s u b j e c t areas teach? 1 d)  2  3  4  5  7  6  8  9  What i s the t o t a l number of s e p a r a t e b l o c k s i n your t i m e t a b l e ? 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  5  7.  (Multiple  Response Item)  P l e a s e check the s u b j e c t areas you p r e s e n t l y teach i n j u n i o r Science 8  Science 9  • •  interdisciplinary  **  • •  ....  other (please s p e c i f y ) .  •  . .  Scienc  • • • • • •  • • • • • • •  • • *  science.  •  i n t e g r a t e d - d i s c i p l i n e s of s c i e n c e (eg. c h e m i s t r y and b i o l o g y ) merged to study themes of i n t e r e s t , i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y - s u b j e c t areas o t h e r than s c i e n c e (eg. s o c i a l s t u d i e s ) e n t e r i n t o the study of themes of a s c i e n t i f i c n a t u r e . 8.  Please indicate  number of c l a s s e s p r e s e n t l y taught a t each grade l e v e l .  Science 8  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Science 9  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  S c i e n c e 10  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  TO COMPLETE THIS QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE READ THE  FOLLOWING  PRESENT TEACHING RESPONSIBILITIES I f your l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s are grouped i n s e p a r a t e classes for science instruction  p l e a s e proceed  to  Question 9 of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f your l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s a r e not grouped i n s e p a r a t e c l a s s e s f o r s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n p l e a s e proceed to Q u e s t i o n 16 of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e .  6  141 LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS:  SPECIALLY GROUPED  DUE TO THEIR LOW ACHIEVEMENT  9.  10.  Of the j u n i o r s c i e n c e c l a s s e s you teach how many a r e grouped s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ?  a)  Science 8  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Science 9  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Science 10  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  What i s the average s i z e of your c l a s s e s f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? l e s s than 1 6 16-20  •  21-25  D  26 -  30  over 30 b)  r~|  Q  r-]  How i s s c i e n c e p r e s e n t l y t i m e t a b l e d f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s i n your s c h o o l ? r e g u l a r or f u l l year . semestered quartered other (please s p e c i f y )  c)  • • • •  A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many hours of s c i e n c e p e r week a r e p r o v i d e d f o r your l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? 0 -  1 hour  1 -  2 hours  Q  2 -  3 hours  Q  3 -  4 hours  Q  4 -  5 hours  Q  5 -  6 hours  (~J  rj  over 6 hours  7  11.  Of the l i m i t e d success s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s you t e a c h what i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of these s t u d e n t s by sex? a l l boys  12.  1 42  Q  w e l l over h a l f a r e boys  f—|  about h a l f boys and h a l f g i r l s  f—]  w e l l over h a l f a r e g i r l s  Q  all girls  •  Over the p e r i o d of a year what p r o p o r t i o n of your l i m i t e d success s c i e n c e ; s t u d e n t s a r e promoted t o a h i g h e r a c h i e v i n g group a t the same grade l e v e l ? all  Q  w e l l over h a l f  . . . . Q Q  about h a l f  w e l l under h a l f . . . . Q none 13.  Q  ( M u l t i p l e Response Item) How were you chosen t o teach these l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? f—j  own c h o i c e s c i e n c e department  assignment by department  14.  . . . . f—]  head  assignment by p r i n c i p a l  f—[  other (please s p e c i f y )  D  Given your c h o i c e and your p r e s e n t t e a c h i n g l o a d , how many c l a s s e s of s c i e n c e f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s would you be w i l l i n g t o teach? 0  15.  r—j  decision  a)  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  What i s the average s i z e o f your n o n - l i m i t e d s u c c e s s s c i e n c e c l a s s e s ? l e s s than 16  Q  16-20  •  21-25  •  26 - 30  . Q  over 30  Q  8  143  b)  How i s s c i e n c e p r e s e n t l y t i m e t a b l e d f o r n o n - l i m i t e d success i n your s c h o o l ? r e g u l a r or f u l l year  Q  semestered  Q  quartered other c)  students  rj Q  (please s p e c i f y )  How many hours of s c i e n c e per week a r e p r o v i d e d f o r your n o n - l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? 0 - 1 hour  rj  1-  2 hours  Q  2-  3 hours  rj  3-  4 hours  Q  4 - 5 hours  [~J  5 - 6 hours  . . •  over 6 hours  Q  Comments r e l a t e d t o t h i s p o r t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e :  PLEASE PROCEED TO QUESTION 22  9  144 LIMITED SUCCESS STUDENTS: NO SPECIAL GROUPING  16.  What i s the average s i z e of your s c i e n c e c l a s s e s ? Q  l e s s than 16  17.  16-20  •  21-25  •  26 - 30  •  Over 30  •  A p p r o x i m a t e l y what percentage of the s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s you teach a r e l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? up t o 10%  •  up t o 20%  . . . . Q  up t o 33%  •  up t o 50%  •  over 50% 18.  rj  Of those s t u d e n t s you c o n s i d e r t o be l i m i t e d success what i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of these s t u d e n t s by sex? a l l boys  Q  w e l l over h a l f boys  Q  about h a l f boys and h a l f g i r l s  . r_j  w e l l over h a l f g i r l s  [j]  all girls 19.  Q  Do you group s t u d e n t s a c c o r d i n g to t h e i r a b i l i t y w i t h i n your s c i e n c e classes? Yes •  No Q  Sometimes •  Comments  10  20.  a)  How i s s c i e n c e p r e s e n t l y t i m e t a b l e d i n your  145  Q  r e g u l a r o r f u l l year semestered  r-]  quartered  r-j  other (please s p e c i f y ) b)  school?  •  A p p r o x i m a t e l y how many c l a s s hours of s c i e n c e p e r week a r e p r o v i d e d f o r your j u n i o r s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s ?  0 - 1  '  •  1 - 2 hours  •  •  2 - 3 hours 3 - 4 hours  •  4 - 5 hours 5 - 6 hours  •  over 6 hours 21.  a)  r~J  Given the c h o i c e would you group a l l l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s separate c l a s s e s f o r science? Yes •  b)  No •  Given the c h o i c e would you opt t o teach these s e p a r a t e s c i e n c e c l a s s e s f o r l i m i t e d success students? Yes •  c)  into  No •  Given t h e c h o i c e and your present t e a c h i n g l o a d , how many separate c l a s s e s of l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s would you be w i l l i n g to teach?  0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Comments r e l a t e d t o t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e  PLEASE TURN TO QUESTION 22  11  146 PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR JUNIOR SCIENCE PROGRAM  ( M u l t i p l e Response Item) What t e x t ( s ) o r l a b manual(s) do you use w i t h your l i m i t e d s t u d e n t s (grouped o r ungrouped)? I n t r o d u c i n g S c i e n c e Concepts i n t h e L a b o r a t o r y (Schmid e t al.) Developing S c i e n c e Concepts i n t h e L a b o r a t o r y (Schmid e t al.)  Q rj  E x t e n d i n g S c i e n c e Concepts i n t h e L a b o r a t o r y (Schmid e t al.)  Q  Pathways i n S c i e n c e (Oxenhorn e t al.)  Q  I n v i t a t i o n s to I n v e s t i g a t e Science (Wong e t al.)  Q  Other(s) (please s p e c i f y )  Q  A combination of the above  Q  A m o d i f i c a t i o n of the above (please s p e c i f y ) . . .  success  Q  Other comments  How do you r a t e t h e t e x t ( s ) and/or l a b manual(s) you a r e u s i n g f o r your l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? very s u i t a b l e  Q  suitable  Q  somewhat s u i t a b l e  Q  unsuitable  Q  Comments  12  23.  How much of your s c i e n c e course f o r l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s (grouped or ungrouped) i s based on the f o l l o w i n g ?  1 47  SCALE: 0 none of the course  2 about h a l f the course  1 much l e s s than h a l f the course  3 much more than h a l f the course  Job-oriented science  0  1  Reduced content compared t o o t h e r c l a s s e s and s t u d e n t s .  0  P r e s e n t B.C. Curriculum  3  4  1  3  4  0  1  3  4  An a l t e r n a t i v e s t r u c t u r e d , s e q u e n t i a l s c i e n c e program  0  1  3  4  Content determined by teacher through students' interests.  0  1  3  4  Content  0  1  3  4  0  1  3  4  M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n Core  chosen by s t u d e n t s .  Less complex a c t i v i t i e s compared to o t h e r c l a s s e s and s t u d e n t s . 24.  4 almost a l l the course 2  How o f t e n do you i n v o l v e your l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s i n the f o l l o w i n g a c t i v i t i e s and approaches? SCALE: 0 Never  1 Once or t w i c e a Term  2 Once or t w i c e a month  3 Once or t w i c e a week  4 Almost every class period  0  1  2  3  4  Discussion  0  1  2  3  4  L e c t u r e and notes  0  1  2  3  4  Demons t r a t i o n s  0  1  2  3  4  0  1  2  3  4  Programmed l e a r n i n g  0  1  2  3  4  P r o j e c t work  0  1  2  3  4  Work sheets  0  1  2  3  4  Field  0  1  2  3  4  I n d i v i d u a l i z e d or s m a l l group l e a r n i n g  0  1  2  3  4  Testing  0  1  2  3  4  Oral presentations  0  1  2  3  4  0  1  2  3  4  0  1  2  3  4  Students d o i n g experiments  Students doing experiments  ( t e a c h e r arranged)  ( d i s c o v e r y method)  trips  Review to r e i n f o r c e s k i l l s and  concepts  Use of a u d i o - v i s u a l a i d s (eg. f i l m s , overheads, slides)  13  25.  a)  Have you developed a s p e c i a l s c i e n c e program f o r your success s t u d e n t s ? YesQ  b)  NoD  limited  148  ( i f No p l e a s e proceed t o q u e s t i o n 27)  ( M u l t i p l e Response Item) S i n c e you have developed a s p e c i a l s c i e n c e program f o r your l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ( i n a grouped o r ungrouped s i t u a t i o n ) , i n what way i s t h i s program evaluated? E v a l u a t e d by student achievement based on standardized tests  • • •  E v a l u a t e d by student achievement based on t e a c h e r designed t e s t s  . . .  ••  E v a l u a t e d through student a t t i t u d e and interest  •  E v a l u a t e d through f o r m a l s c i e n c e department d i s c u s s i o n s  Q  Not f o r m a l l y e v a l u a t e d  Q  Other 26.  a)  (please s p e c i f y )  Who e v a l u a t e s the p r o g r e s s of your i i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s ? E v a l u a t i o n s o l e l y by teacher  • • • .• • •  E v a l u a t i o n m a i n l y by t e a c h e r , p a r t i a l l y by s t u d e n t . . E v a l u a t i o n e q u a l l y by t e a c h e r and student E v a l u a t i o n m a i n l y by s t u d e n t , p a r t i a l l y by t e a c h e r . E v a l u a t i o n s o l e l y by s t u d e n t Other b)  (please s p e c i f y )  A p p r o x i m a t e l y what percentage do each of the f o l l o w i n g c o n t r i b u t e to the e v a l u a t i o n of your l i m i t e d success s c i e n c e s t u d e n t s ? 0  up t o 20% up to 40% up to 60% up to 80% up to 100%  Student l a b w r i t e - u p s Proj ects Oral talks Tests Attitude Attendance  14  c)  1 49  ( M u l t i p l e Response Item) How i s the progress  of your l i m i t e d success  students  reported?  f o r m a l l e t t e r grades (A, B, C, D, E) . . . Q satisfactory/unsatisfactory  Q  Pass/fail/incomplete  r~]  Anecdotal  . Q  Other ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y )  rj  Comments r e l a t e d t o t h i s p o r t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e :  THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND COOPERATION P l e a s e r e t u r n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n the s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , pre-stamped envelope p r o v i d e d . The r e t u r n of t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s requested by May 24, 1978.  For f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n o r i n q u i r i e s p l e a s e Mr. P.S. Healy  contact:  (phone 228-4969) or  Dr. R.W. C a r l i s l e  (phone 228-5056)  c/o F a c u l t y of E d u c a t i o n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n Department U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1W5  I f you w i s h t o r e c e i v e a copy of the f i n a l r e p o r t r e s u l t i n g from t h i s survey p l e a s e c o n t a c t the people above o r w r i t e your name and address i n t h e space p r o v i d e d below.  15  APPENDIX  Sampling  B  Informati  150  151 Description  of Sampling  Frame Used f o r Mr.  Peter  Healy  Phase I : D e t e r m i n i n g t h e e l i g i b l e s c i e n c e t e a c h e r s and a s s i g n i n g them t o one o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s o f science teachers. 1.  Categories:  1) 2) 3)  Grade Grade Grade  8 Science 9 Science 10 S c i e n c e  teacher teacher teacher  2.  The September 30, 1977 Form J t e a c h e r i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e , s o r t e d by s c h o o l c o d e , was used t o e n s u r e a g e o g r a p h i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n in the f i n a l sample. A l l teacher records were e x a m i n e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h s e c o n d a r y g r a d e / s u b j e c t s were t a u g h t by each t e a c h e r .  3.  Teachers 33) a s :  who had l i s t e d t h e i r t e a c h i n g  Other School I n s t r u c t i o n a l S t a f f P r i n c i p a l of More t h a n One S c h o o l D i s t r i c t - w i d e Supervisor Other D i s t r i c t - w i d e I n s t r u c t i o n a l were r e j e c t e d f r o m f u r t h e r 4.  position  staff  (item  (code (code (code (code  6) 7) 8) 9)  consideration.  R e m a i n i n g t e a c h e r s were e x a m i n e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e number o f t i m e s t h e y q u a l i f i e d as a t e a c h e r o f one o f the 3 c a t e g o r i e s . (A t e a c h e r may t e a c h s e v e r a l c l a s s e s of s e c o n d a r y s c i e n c e programs and may t h e r e f o r e q u a l i f y for several categories.) S e c o n d a r y l e v e l g r a d e s and s u b j e c t s were p i c k e d f r o m items 46-59. Example: A t e a c h e r who has  filled  in  items 46-59 w i t h  1 class Science 8 2 classes Science 9 1 class Science 10 qualifies 5.  4 times  (for  the 4 s c i e n c e  classes).  T e a c h e r s a r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a s s i g n e d t o one o f c a t e g o r i e s i n w h i c h t h e y have q u a l i f i e d . Example:  the  In t h e above c a s e t h e t e a c h e r q u a l i f i e d f o u r times. He t h e r e f o r e has a 1/41h c h a n c e o f being a s s i g n e d to each of these c a t e g o r i e s . T e a c h e r s who q u a l i f y f o u r t i m e s a r e s y s t e m a t i c a l l y a s s i g n e d as f o l l o w s : the f i r s t  1 52 t e a c h e r i s a s s i g n e d to the f i r s t c a t e g o r y where he q u a l i f i e s , t h e s e c o n d t o t h e s e c o n d , . . . t h e f o u r t h ' t e a c h e r to the f o u r t h , the f i f t h t e a c h e r to the f i r s t c a t e g o r y , e t c . In t h e above e x a m p l e t h e t e a c h e r has l o w i n g p r o b a b i l i t i e s of a s s i g n m e n t : 1/4 2/4 1/4 6.  to Grade t o Grade t o Grade  the  fol-  8 9 10  F o l l o w i n g t h e above p r o c e d u r e , t e a c h e r s a r e a s s i g n e d t o one and o n l y one c a t e g o r y . (Note: i f t h e t e a c h e r t e a c h e s none o f t h e S e c o n d a r y L e v e l S c i e n c e c o u r s e s and g r a d e c o m b i n a t i o n s , he i s r e j e c t e d f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ) The a t t a c h e d t a b l e shows t h e number o f t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d to each of these c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g to the Geographic Zone i n w h i c h t h e y t e a c h and f o r t h e P r o v i n c e as a w h o l e .  Phase 1.  II:  S e l e c t i n g the a c t u a l of the c a t e g o r i e s .  sample  of t e a c h e r s  in  each  B e c a u s e o f t h e numbers o f t e a c h e r s a s s i g n e d t o each c a t e g o r y , t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o c e d u r e was a d o p t e d i n o r d e r to s e l e c t an a p p r o p r i a t e sample s i z e : The l i s t o f t e a c h e r s was s o r t e d i n t o t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c a t e g o r i e s and l i s t e d by zone ( r e g i o n ) w i t h i n category. P i c k i n g a number a t random between 1 and 3 , t h i s t e a c h e r was c h o s e n f r o m t h e f i r s t zone i n e a c h category. E v e r y 3 r d t e a c h e r t h e r e a f t e r i n each c a t e g o r y was p i c k e d to a r r i v e a t a 33% s a m p l e , p r o p o r t i o n t o zones.  Codes Used m Items 4 6 - 5 9 50300 Agriculture 14214 General Science 12700 Human L i f e S c i e n c e s (Health) 50900 Biology ) o n l y t h e s e codes 81500 Chemistry ) used f o r S e n i o r 83000 Physics ) Level categories 81800 Earth Sciences/Geology )  A l l codes used f o r Junior Level c a t e g o r i es.  1 53 Reasons f o r E x c l u d i n g  Teaching  Position  Codes ' 6 - 9  S p e c i a l t e a c h e r s such as m u s i c , l i b r a r y a r e code 6 and g e n e r a l l y n o t t e a c h i n g any S c i e n c e . Codes 7-9 a r e t e a c h e r s w i t h more t h a n one s c h o o l and f o r c a n n o t p r o p e r l y answer t h e f a c i l i t y q u e s t i o n s on questionnaires.  are  therethe  01 CO  o  cc  LO CM ^"  "3" <ST ^1-  O  CO  o  CO  to  CO  o  o  o  CD  LO  to  CO  CM CO  to cn  i—  CM  o  CM  o r-»  co  o to  oo  o->  CM  O  CO  LO LO  CM  co  CO CM  o CO  •3-  ID  o CO CO  O  LO  o cn co r-~ to co LO  o o  CM  o  •  o  cn CD  1  r—'  CM  CO  UJ  UJ Q  LU Q  < C at  <c  <:  CD  CD  CD  CM  CO  LO  to  UJ Q  LU O  O  LU Q cC C£.  <C <c <C 00  CD  cn CD  LO  to  CC CD  LU Q  •  Cd  co  •  <_>  CO  o CO  cn o  CD  CD  CO  cn o  CD  ,— CD  s:  O  LU  00  o  r— , CD  CM  1 1  CD  CO  >,— i— CD  • CJ>  LU  C »—t CO  i— i— CD  CM i— CD  LO  to  CO  •  _J  UJ s: <_>  Q-  CM I— CD  CM  o UJ  CD  _i  r -c < O 1—  1  CD  CM r— CD  00  cn „ o CM  APPENDIX  Covering  Letter  to  155  C  Superintendents  156  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A 2075 WESBROOK MALL  VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 FACULTY O F EDUCATION  We are w r i t i n g to you to obtain permission to survey some of the j u n i o r secondary science teachers of your d i s t r i c t . By means of a mail questionnaire (Appendix 1), our i n t e n t i s to develop an understanding of science teaching f o r l i m i t e d success students i n B r i t i s h Columbia. For the purpose of t h i s study l i m i t e d success students are defined as those students who achieve a c o n s i s t e n t D o r E average i n s c i e n c e , o r those students s p e c i a l l y grouped f o r science i n s t r u c t i o n due to previous low achievement. In a d d i t i o n to d e f i n i n g the ' s t a t e of the a r t ' i n B.C. i t i s our i n t e n t to o u t l i n e p a r t i c u l a r needs of l i m i t e d success students, r e l a t e the f i n d ings to p r a c t i c e s worldwide, and suggest some l i n e s of a c t i o n which might enhance the teaching of science to these students. In surveying the province the most e f f e c t i v e methodology w i l l be to use a sampling frame* whereby o n e - t h i r d to one-half of the j u n i o r secondary science teachers i n any one school d i s t r i c t would be i n v o l v e d . The sample w i l l cover grades eight, nine and ten, and some twenty minutes w i l l be needed to complete the q u e s t i o n n i a r e . We t h e r e f o r e request permission to m a i l t h i s questionnaire to s p e c i f i c teachers i n your school d i s t r i c t . Once having gained your permission we w i l l proceed to contact the p r i n c i p a l s and teachers i n v o l v e d . We a n t i c i p a t e that the questionnaire w i l l be ready f o r m a i l i n g by May 1978. Complete anonymity of teachers, schools and school d i s t r i c t as we a r e only i n t e r e s t e d i n group data.  i s guaranteed  Your cooperation i s g r e a t l y appreciated. Should you r e q u i r e f u r t h e r information please contact us a t the numbers l i s t e d below. Yours s i n c e r e l y ,  Mr.  P.S. Healy  Dr. R.W. C a r l i s l e Science Education Department  158 Appendix 1  The items o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t t h e f o l l o w i n g information: 1.  Teachers - undergraduate  and g r a d u a t e background.  - teacher t r a i n i n g r e l a t i v e to l i m i t e d students  success  - t o t a l teaching experience - teaching experience w i t h l i m i t e d success  students  - s u b j e c t a r e a s and grades p r e s e n t l y t e a c h i n g 2.  School  - grade l e v e l  ranges  - population size - s c h o o l t i m e t a b l e f o r s c i e n c e (e.g. f u l l 3.  year/semester)  Students - s i z e of l i m i t e d success student p o p u l a t i o n - science class  size  - number o f hours o f s c i e n c e p e r week - d i s t r i b u t i o n of l i m i t e d success s t u d e n t s a c c o r d i n g to sex: - achievement of l i m i t e d success  students  - e v a l u a t i o n procedures 4.  S c i e n c e Program - t e x t ( s ) and l a b manual(s) used and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s - course content determination - t e a c h i n g methods used - program e v a l u a t i o n  APPENDIX  Covering  Letter  159  to  D  Principals  1  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A 2075 WESBROOK MALL  VANCOUVER. B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 FACULTY OF  EDUCATION  Dear P r i n c i p a l : We are w r i t i n g you to o b t a i n your cooperation i n a province-wide survey we are conducting. The d i s t r i c t superintendent has been contacted and has agreed to permit us to survey i n t h i s d i s t r i c t . We ask f o r your f u r t h e r a s s i s t a n c e i n the implementation of t h i s study. C e r t a i n j u n i o r secondary science teachers i n your school have been s e l e c t e d to answer a questionnaire (Appendix 1) r e l a t e d to science f o r l i m i t e d success students. For the purpose of t h i s study l i m i t e d success students are defined as those students achieving a c o n s i s t e n t D or E average i n science, or those students s p e c i a l l y grouped f o r science i n s t r u c t i o n due to previous low achievement. In a d d i t i o n to d e f i n i n g the 'state of the a r t ' i n B.C. i t i s our i n t e n t to o u t l i n p a r t i c u l a r needs of l i m i t e d success students, r e l a t e the f i n d i n g s to p r a c t i c e s world-wide and suggest some l i n e s of a c t i o n which might enhance the teaching of science to these students. The sample of teachers w i l l cover grades e i g h t , nine and ten, and some twenty minutes w i l l be needed to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . We a n t i c i p a t e that the questionnaire w i l l be ready f o r m a i l i n g by May 1978. Complete anonymity of teachers, school and school d i s t r i c t are only i n t e r e s t e d i n group data.  i s guaranteed  as  we  Since we are sampling a f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l science teacher population i t i s important that we o b t a i n a good response. Your school's p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be g r e a t l y appreciated. Thank you i n advance f o r your cooperation. Yours s i n c e r e l y ,  Mr.  P.S.  Healy  Dr. R.W. Carlisle Science Education Department  161 Appendix 1  The  items of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e designed 1.  t o e l i c i t the f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  Teachers - undergraduate and g r a d u a t e background - teacher t r a i n i n g r e l a t i v e to l i m i t e d success  students  - total":teachi:ng::experience - teaching experience w i t h l i m i t e d success  students  - s u b j e c t a r e a s and grades p r e s e n t l y t e a c h i n g . 2.  School  - grade l e v e l range - p o p u l a t i o n of  school  - s c h o o l t i m e t a b l e f o r s c i e n c e (e.g. f u l l y e a r / s e m e s t e r ) 3.  S t u d e n t s - s i z e of the l i m i t e d success - science class  student  population  size  - number of hours o f s c i e n c e per week - d i s t r i b u t i o n o f l i m i t e d success  students according to  - achievement o f l i m i t e d success  students  sex  - e v a l u a t i o n procedures 4.  S c i e n c e Programs - t e x t ( s ) and - course content  l a b manual(s).'used and  determination  - t e a c h i n g methods used - program e v a l u a t i o n  appropriateness  Covering  APPENDIX  E  Letter  Teachers  162  to  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A 2075 WESBROOK MALL  VANCOUVER, B.C. CANADA V6T 1W5 FACULTY OF  EDUCATION  Dear Colleague: In the i n t e r e s t of improving j u n i o r science f o r what we c a l l l i m i t e d success students we ask f o r help i n completing the enclosed questionnaire. For the purpose of t h i s survey we d e f i n e l i m i t e d success students as those students achieving a c o n s i s t e n t D or E average i n science or those students s p e c i a l l y grouped f o r science i n s t r u c t i o n due to previous low achievement. In a d d i t i o n to d e f i n i n g the 'state of the a r t ' i n B.C. i t i s our i n t e n t to o u t l i n e p a r t i c u l a r needs of l i m i t e d success students, r e l a t e the f i n d i n g s to p r a c t i c e s worldwide and suggest some l i n e s of a c t i o n which might enhance the teaching of science to these students. Your response to t h i s questionnaire i s c o n f i d e n t i a l and be used s t r i c t l y f o r research purposes. The number on the questionnaire i s f o r follow-up purposes only.  will  As we are sampling a f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l j u n i o r science teacher population i t i s important that we o b t a i n a good response. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be g r e a t l y appreciated. The d i s t r i c t superintendent and your p r i n c i p a l have been contacted regarding t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e and have agreed to your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Please r e t u r n the completed questionnaire by May the self-stamped, pre-addressed envelope provided.  24, 1978  Your cooperation i s g r e a t l y appreciated. Yours s i n c e r e l y ,  Mr. P.S.  PSH/had Enclosure  Healy  Dr. R.W. C a r l i s l e Science Education Department  in  APPENDIX  Covering L e t t e r for  164  F  Follow-up  T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F BRITISH C O L U M B I A 2075 WESBROOK MALL  VANCOUVER, B.C., CANADA V6T 1W5 FACULTY OF  EDUCATION  Dear Colleague: Approximately mailed to you. We event you have not we have included a  two weeks ago a l e t t e r and a q u e s t i o n n a i r e were have not, as y e t , r e c e i v e d your r e p l y . In the r e c e i v e d or misplaced the previous q u e s t i o n n a i r e second copy with t h i s l e t t e r .  In the i n t e r e s t of improving j u n i o r science f o r what we c a l l l i m i t e d success students we ask f o r help i n completing the enclosed q u e s t i o n n a i r e . For the purpose of t h i s survey we d e f i n e l i m i t e d success students as those students achieving a c o n s i s t e n t D or E average i n science or those students s p e c i a l l y grouped f o r s c i e n c e i n s t r u c t i o n due to previous low achievement. In a d d i t i o n to d e f i n i n g the 'state of the a r t ' i n B.C. i t i s our i n t e n t to o u t l i n e p a r t i c u l a r needs of l i m i t e d success students, r e l a t e the f i n d i n g s to p r a c t i c e s worldwide and suggest some l i n e s of a c t i o n which might enhance the teaching of science to these students. Your response to t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s c o n f i d e n t i a l and w i l l be used s t r i c t l y f o r research purposes. The number on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s f o r follow-up purposes only. As we are sampling a f r a c t i o n of the t o t a l j u n i o r science teacher population i t i s important that we obtain a good response. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be g r e a t l y appreciated. The d i s t r i c t superintendent and your p r i n c i p a l have been contacted regarding t h i s questionnaire and have agreed to your p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Please r e t u r n the completed questionnaire by May the self-stamped, pre-addressed envelope provided.  31, 1978  Your cooperation i s g r e a t l y appreciated. Yours s i n c e r e l y ,  Mr.  PSH/had Enclosure  P.S.  Healy  Dr. R.W. Carlisle Science Education Department  in  APPENDIX  Further  Teacher  166  G  Comments  167 Further  teacher  Teachers  comments  responding  v i d e d e x t e n d e d comment  a t t h e end o f  sections.  The comments  to f u r n i s h  additional  practices B.C.  comments  teacher opinion comments  help  comments  are  not  for  may a l s o  as  the c u r r e n t students failure  leading in t h i s  or u n w i l l i n g n e s s n o t change -  success  students  presented  limited  situation)  limited  success  in s c i e n c e  success  in e n g l i s h  form of  integration)  and  other should  due t o  is  success  problems  to p a r t i c i p a t e  this  following  success  to d i s c i p l i n e is  in  information.  frustrates  school  science  indicate  W h i l e many of t h e  limited  program  included  junior  and o p i n i o n - o r i e n t e d  of  pro-  major  regarding  be used to h e l p  province-wide  Causes and c o n t i n u a t i o n  -  are  t o e l a b o r a t e on t h e r e s u l t s speculative  often  the three  teachers  limited  and a t t i t u d e .  be c o n s i d e r e d  -  of t h e s e  information  and programs  These  to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e  non-performance (streaming  based  and m a t h e m a t i c s  does  on  limited  (need  some  168 Selection -  and g r o u p i n g  limited  success  courses  given  success  students  other -  special  in  students  are given  a choice  in  (limited  a c t u a l l y have more c h o i c e than,  timetabled for limited  s t a r t o u t as  small  groups  success  but  mushroom  size  students  are grouped  by c o u n s e l l o r s  and t h e  science  a r e needed t o t e a c h l i m i t e d  success  head  smaller classes students  - they are b a s i c a l l y a chore to teach  grouping  seems  resulting -  students  success  certain prerequisites  classes  department -  limited  students)  students  -  of  in poor  a three level students middle  to lower these  students'  -  self-concept  behaviour  s y s t e m used  in t h i s  - t o p 20 p e r c e n t ; a v e r a g e  55 p e r c e n t and l i m i t e d  school:  best  students  success  -  students  -  b o t t o m 25 p e r c e n t . -  students class  -  and p a r e n t s  success  many t y p e s  student classes  of students  loaders",  t h e main -  class  c a u s e : of  (some  success  eight  a r e composed  slow, previous  disturbers,  limited  an o p t i o n f o r n o n - a c a d e m i c grade  the l i m i t e d  w i t h c o u n s e l l o r and t e a c h e r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n  limited  "free  chose  success  of failures,  "sleepers") is  slow  science exists  -  reading after  169 -  -  limited  success  seem t o b e n e f i t and  from t h e i r presence  in heterogeneous  smaller class  a r e needed t o g i v e  cess  sizes  students  .' t o o  big  the necessary  then these  and t h e w i l l -  students  separate  to  classes limited  attention, if  students  will  learn  lose  suc-  classes  are  interest  succeed.  classes  are deadening  f o r the  teacher-  Curriculum -  lower reading  level  be s u c c e s s f u l  w i t h grouped  (little -  transfer  students (they  and s i m p l e e x p e r i m e n t s limited  between l e v e l s  take four  half  chemistry  in favour  of  space  to  students  occurs)  courses  tend to a v o i d academics  success  seem  o f t h e i r own  such as  choice  physics  s c i e n c e and  and  con-  servation) , -  in grade  eight  material  in a d e m o n s t r a t i o n - o r i e n t e d c l a s s .  pass  this  limited  course  success  students  learn  core If  t h e n t h e y may t a k e a c a d e m i c  they  science  mi x -  students  -  provision occur  -  for  (e.g..  lower l e v e l all  -  must  take three of f o u r limited  success  Chemistry  non-compulsory  semesters  students  becomes courses  of  science  when h a r d e r  Household  Chemistry)  are a v a i l a b l e  students  students and t e n  must  take s i x  (chemistry,  quarters  biology,  in science  physics  and  units  nine  earth  to  s c i e n c e ar.e' c o m p u l s o r y academic s c i e n c e -  i f grouping  is  plus  two o p t i o n s )  possible  by s t u d e n t  occurred a special  course  -  non-  choice  such as  IIS  w o u l d be u s e f u l -  a more p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d t h a n c o n t e n t - o r i e n t e d course  provides  more s u c c e s s  for  limited  success  studen ts -  the present  s c i e n c e program  is  to a c a d e m i c a l l y  o r i e n t e d - need a j o b o r l i f e - o r i e n t e d p r o g r a m . Evaluation  and r e p o r t i n g o f 1 i m i t e d . s u c c e s s  students'  progress -  limited  success  l a z y t o hand  limited  Other  too  w h i c h make up  grade  success  differently  a r e n o t dumb but a r e  in l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t s  most o f t h e i r -  students  students  a r e t r e a t e d and marked  b u t need t o be i n a m i x e d  group  comments -  separate  classes  tremendous  of l i m i t e d  - the M i n i s t r y  special  students  t e a c h e r t i m e - o n l y one c l a s s  time per t e a c h e r to ensure  existence  success  m a t e r i a l s and  at a  a good j o b  of E d u c a t i o n should  of l i m i t e d  take  success  recognize  students  programs  and  the provide  APPENDIX  Summary o f S u r v e y  171  H  Results  1 72  Summary  of survey  results-  The f o l l o w i n g 1 i s t s ' summarize, t h e more s t r i k i n g sults that  reported in t h i s findings  survey.  r e p o r t e d are  such  as t h e  1978  Learning  school  o r g a n i z a t i o n , school  implications for  i n g and f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . each s t a t e d r e s u l t  -  table  than  77% o f  science  The  results  teaching,  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , teacher  train-  purposes the  parantheses.  r e p o r t e d no u n d e r g r a d u a t e  science  (.1.1) 20% o f a l l  respondents  reported  graduate  (1.2) respondents  51% o f r e s p o n d e n t s groups of for  Survey.  have  results  For c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e  teaching experience -  may  f o l l o w e d by t h e number o f  9% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  less  perceptions  data  degrees -  is  in  experience -  emphasized  Some r e s u l t s  Assessment  b e l o w have  Demographic  be  v a l i d i t y upon p u b l i c a t i o n o f o t h e r  listed  associated  must  based on t e a c h e r  and n o t v a l i d a t e d o b s e r v a t i o n . reinforced  It  re-  reported four years (2.1) who had t a u g h t  l i m i t e d success  their f i r s t  of t e a c h i n g  students  science said  time in t h e i r f i r s t or  (2.3)  or more  to  separate  they d i d second  so  year  E x t e n t and c o m p o s i t i o n population  of the l i m i t e d success  i n B.C.  - 47% o f r e s p o n d e n t s student  population  population -  student  sampled  25% o f r e s p o n d e n t s their only  reported the l i m i t e d  success  t o be 20% or more o f t h e s c h o o l (4.3) r e p o r t e d t h a t more t h a n  l i m i t e d success  students  4% r e p o r t e d t h a t w e l l  were boys  over  50% o f  while  h a l f were  girls  C5.1) T e a c h i n g methods science  presently  i n use f o r l i m i t e d  success  students  Grouping -  42% o f r e s p o n d e n t s grouping  -  students -  in t h e i r science  80% o f t e a c h e r s classes  six  classes  of homogeneously  reported class  sizes  ,(6.1) grouped  science  of t w e n t y - f i v e or  less  [6.4)  59% o f t e a c h e r s classes  r e p o r t e d t h e use o f a b i l i t y  of heterogeneously  reported class  students  sizes  grouped  in excess  science  of t w e n t y -  (.6.6)  C u r r i culurn -  25% o f r e s p o n d e n t s special students  r e p o r t e d t h a t they  s c i e n c e programs (.7.1)  offered  for their limited  success  1 74 -  1 Mo o f r e s p o n d e n t s laboratory  manuals  what s u i t a b l e  -  to u n s u i t a b l e  for  65% o f  reported that  respondents  t o some e x t e n t  science  course  29% o f r e s p o n d e n t s choice science  course  33% o f r e s p o n d e n t s curricula  in order  they to  student  determine  (7.7)  in order  used  to determine  student their  (7.7)  r e p o r t e d t h e use  to t e a c h t h e i r  science  used  r e p o r t e d t h a t they  content  some-  (7.5)  content  t o some e x t e n t  and  were o n l y  teaching  students  their  -  t h e y were u s i n g  to l i m i t e d success  interest  -  r e p o r t e d t h a t the t e x t s  of  alternative  l i m i t e d success  students  (7.4) -  46% o f r e s p o n d e n t s least  half  students  48% o f least  -  t h e i r science  respondents  for  based  on r e d u c e d  students  (.7.7)  compared  to  other  respondents science  course  for  based  c o m p l e x i t y compared  reported basing  course  for  one  to  other  half  of  l i m i t e d success  students  B.C.  ported  o f an a l t e r n a t i v e s t r u c t u r e d  t h e use  curriculum  core  (7.7)  at  l i m i t e d success  on t h e p r e s e n t  tial  at  l i m i t e d success  r e p o r t e d t h a t they  their science  students  their  they  (7.7)  half  71% o f  course  on r e d u c e d c o n t e n t  students -  reported that  curriculum while only  21% r e -  sequen-  1 75 Approaches -  to 'Learning  76% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  reported using  teacher  l a b o r a t o r y work t o i n s t r u c t l i m i t e d at  l e a s t once o r t w i c e  arranged  success  a week w h i l e o n l y  students  35%  said  t h e y used t h e d i s c o v e r y method t o t h e same e x t e n t •(8.1) -  60% o f a l l r e s p o n d e n t s or r a r e l y or  r e p o r t e d t h a t they  (once o r t w i c e  a t e r m ) used a s m a l l  i n d i v i d u a l i z e d approach w i t h t h e i r  success  students  26% o f r e s p o n d e n t s involve work  -  their  r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y used  lecture  a p p r o a c h a t l e a s t once a week  and n o t e s limited  success  70% o f r e s p o n d e n t s instruct their  limited  40% o f r e s p o n d e n t s volve t h e i r trips  students  limited  success  the  (8.1)  r e p o r t e d t h e use o f  o r t w i c e a month o r l e s s  -  in p r o j e c t  53%.of r e s p o n d e n t s  to  -  students  not  (8.1)  with t h e i r -  success  this  (8.1)  r e p o r t e d t h a t they d i d  limited  group  limited  w h i l e 15% s a i d t h e y used  a p p r o a c h a t l e a s t once a week -  never  worksheets  students  once  (8.1)  r e p o r t e d t h a t they d i d not success  students  in  in-  field  (8.1)  57% o f r e s p o n d e n t s volve t h e i r  limited  presentations  (8.1)  r e p o r t e d t h a t they d i d not success  students  in  oral  in-  1 76 -  60% o f r e s p o n d e n t s programmed success  learning  students  Evaluation  reported that  who r e p o r t e d on t h e e v a l u a t i o n  progress  solely  stated  tests;  grades  student  attitudes  at least  -  to r e p o r t  class  science  of a b i l i t y grouping  students  (.9.3)  limited  success  reported  of l i m i t e d  students  reported that  situation  under  (10.6) they would n o t  be w i l l i n g t o t e a c h l i m i t e d s u c c e s s grouping  teachers  r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d be  situation  15% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  any  of l i m i t e d  (10.2)  to teach l i m i t e d success  any g r o u p i n g -  a month  (.9.2)  (9.4)  36% o f r e s p o n d e n t s willing  laboratory  and t r a i n i n g  in favour  success  once  as  r e p o r t e d t h e use o f f o r m a l  - 49% o f h e t e r o g e n e o u s being  evaluation  were s t u d e n t  (A,B,C,D,E)  progress  (9.1)  reported the t e s t i n g  50% o f r e s p o n d e n t s letter  Teacher  students  e v a l u a t i o n was  a t t i t u d e and p r o j e c t s  -'."75% o.T r e s p o n d e n t s  -  this  of student  r e p o r t e d by r e s p o n d e n t s write-ups,  that  on t e a c h e r j u d g m e n t  t h e m a j o r components  success  limited  and R e p o r t i n g  of student  -  their  used  (8.1)  - 86% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  based  to i n s t r u c t  they never  (10:6)  students  in  68% o f  teachers  success  science  a principal classes  classes  respondents  grouped  reported being  or department  78% o f r e s p o n d e n t s ing  homogeneously  students  while only  teach these 11% o f  of  limited assigned  head t o t e a c h  28% o f t h e s e  these  teachers  chose  to  (10,7) r e p o r t e d no s p a r e  time  (.10.8)  r e p o r t e d no p r e - s e r v i c e  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success  students  train-  (10.9)  70% o f r e s p o n d e n t s  w i t h some p r e - s e r v i c e  training  reported that  t r a i n i n g was  o f some  use  this  by  to t h e i r t e a c h i n g  of  at l e a s t  l i m i t e d success  students  (10.11) 81% o f r e s p o n d e n t s ing  r e p o r t e d no i n - s e r v i c e  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success  77% o f  respondents  training least  who d i d r e c e i v e  reported that  some use  students  (10.13)  this  some  training  train(10.12) in-service  t o be o f  at  APPENDIX  Summary o f C o n c l u s i o n s  178  and  I  Recommendations  1 79  Summary o f  conclusions  and  recommendations  Conclusions Based on t h e d a t a can be 1.  c o l l e c t e d three major  conclusions  drawn: A significantly  success  students  large  exist  population  i n B.C.  of  junior  limited secondary  schools 2.  A general  population is 3.  awareness  of  of  the e x i s t e n c e  l i m i t e d success  students  of a  in  B.C.  been  de-  evident Few s p e c i a l  veloped  for  Most j u n i o r present  science  l i m i t e d success secondary  recommended  appropriate  programs  for  have  students  science  in  teachers  B.C. perceive  c u r r i c u l u m t o be l a r g e l y  instructing  l i m i t e d success  the  instudents  Re commen da t i on s 1.  It  is  recommended  the development reflects secondary students  that  steps  o f a new s c i e n c e  t h e wide a b i l i t y r a n g e students in  in g e n e r a l  particular  be t a k e n  towards  curriculum of  B.C.  which  junior  and l i m i t e d  success  180 2.  It  is  recommended  background  be c h o s e n level  3.  recommended  is  teaching science 4.  It  experience classes  is  for  that teachers  limited that  success  grouped  success  be done o n l y  further  heterogeneously if  the t e a c h e r  students 5.  It  choice  It  holds  is  is  regardless  recommended  recommended  number  of  components  8.  It  is  It  classes  holds is  to  to  be done  only  teaching  be g i v e n  t e a c h and a d e q u a t e  recommended  science  grouping,  some spare  classes,  be r e d u c e d  to a  students that  they  their limited  of a c o u r s e , included  limited  range  that a l l  of student  is  of  of  teachers  preparation  It  gress  science  they  maximum o f t w e n t y - f i v e 7.  of  of t e a c h e r s  that teachers  i n the c l a s s e s  students  students.  a commitment  recommended  special  the t e a c h e r  t h a t assignment  grouped  junior  w i t h some  classes  if  these  of a wide a b i l i t y  time f o r 6.  science  to t e a c h i n g  recommended  at the  the assignment  t o homogeneously  a commitment  science  be a s s i g n e d t o t e a c h  recommended  students  with  to teach s c i e n c e  secondary It  that teachers  teachers use  increase  to e v a l u a t e  success  the  in the p r e - s e r v i c e  pro-  students.  that a r e q u i r e d course  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d  the  success  training  of  or  students, science  portion be teachers.  181 9.  It  is  training  recommended  t h a t t h e amount  r e l a t e d to l i m i t e d success  of  in-service  students  be  in-  creased., 10.  It  is  training sary  recommended include  that pre-service  instruction  to f a c i l i t a t e  student  presentations,  should  encourage  involvement  propriate grammed 11.  It  and r e v i e w .  teachers  audio-visual  is  recommended  educational It  project  small work;  training  and/or  produce  worksheets  and  ap-  pro-  learning. t h a t d e b a t e and d i s c u s s i o n  s t i m u l a t e d on t h e c u r r e n t  12.  neces-  in:  This  t o use  aids,  in-service  i n t h e methods  g r o u p and i n d i v i d u a l i z e d l e a r n i n g ; oral  and  is  training  thinking  on a b i l i t y  recommended provide  propriate  methods  status  of  that pre-service  grouping  and  grouping  i n s t r u c t i o n which of  research  be  and  includes  within  in-service ap-  heterogeneous  classes 13. help  It  is  recommended  i d e n t i f y some o f t h e c a u s a l  the h i g h e r 14.  that research  It  is  proportion recommended  ducted to determine tendency special  for  factors  that further  the c a u s a l  classes  research  factors  students  to  underlying  o f male l i m i t e d s u c c e s s  l i m i t e d success  science  be c a r r i e d o u t  be  students. con-  underlying to remain  the in  15.  It  is  initiated  recommended to determine  the r e p o r t e d students 16.  It  is  with  increase  that further the causal of  increasing  recommended  l i m i t e d success  factors  l i m i t e d success grade  that further  student  geneously  grouped  science  geneously  grouped  science  be  underlying science  level  c o n d u c t e d t o d e t e r m i n e why t h e r e of  investigation  investigation  is  a high  incidence  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in classes classes  compared  be  to  homohetero-  SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliographic ing  headings:  books;  sertations; journals  references research and o t h e r  marked w i t h an a s t e r i s k  (*)  are  l i s t e d under  reports;  theses  references.  the f o l l o w -  and  Those  disreferences  d e n o t e e m p i r i c a l l y based  studies.  Books A u s u b e l , D a v i d P. "A T e a c h i n g S t r a t e g y f o r C u l t u r a l l y D e p r i v e d P u p i l s : C o g n i t i v e and M o t i v a t i o n a l C o n siderations." In The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r , pp. 467-475. E d i t e d by S t a t e n W. W e b s t e r . San F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. . "How r e v e r s i b l e a r e c o g n i t i v e and m o t i v a t i o n a l e f f e c t s of c u l t u r a l d e p r i v a t i o n ? Implicat i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g the c u l t u r a l l y d e p r i v e d c h i l d . " In E d u c a t i o n o f t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d , pp. 3 0 6 - 3 2 6 . E d i t e d by H a r r y A. P a s s o w , M i r r i a m G o l d b e r g and Abraham T. Tannenbaum. New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1967. B a c k s t r o m , C. H . , and H u r s c h , G.D. N o r t h i West U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s ,  Survey 1963.  B e a r d , Ruth M. P i a g e t ' s Developmental Y o r k : B a s i c Books I n c . , 1969.  Research.  Psychology.  New  B e t t e l h e i m , Bruno. "Teaching the Disadvantaged." In The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r , pp. 4 2 3 - 4 2 9 . Edited by S t a t e n W. W e b s t e r . San F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. B l o o m , B e n j a m i n S. S t a b i l i t y and Change i n Human Cha r a c t e r i s t i e s . New Y o r k : W i l e y , 1 964. . Human C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and S c h o o l New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l Book C o . , 1976.  Learning.  Bloom, Sophie. "Improving the E d u c a t i o n of C u l t u r a l l y Deprived C h i l d r e n : A p p l y i n g L e a r n i n g Theory to Classroom I n s t r u c t i o n . " In The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r , pp. 4 9 0 - 4 9 8 . E d i t e d by S t a t e n W. W e b s t e r . San F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. 1 83  184 Borg,  W a l t e r R. A b i l i t y Grouping in the P u b l i c Schools 2nd e d . M a d i s o n : Denbar E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h S e r v i c e s , 1966.  Bosworth, David. "Science." In M i x e d A b i l i t y pp. 1 3 7 - 1 5 7 . E d i t e d by R. P e t e r D a v i e s . Temple S m i t h L t d . , 1 975.  Grouping, London:  B r a n d w e i n , P a u l F . ; W a t s o n , F l e t c h e r G . . and B l a c k w o o d , P a u l E. T e a c h i n g H i g h S c h o o l S c i e n c e : A Book o f Methods. New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , B r a c e and W o r l d I n c . , 1 958. B r i c k l i n , B a r r y and B r i c k l i n P a t r i c i a M. Bright ChildP o o r G r a d e s , The P s y c h o l o g y o f U n d e r a c h i e v e m e n t D e l a c o r t e P r e s s , 1967. C o c h r a n , W i l l i a m G. S a m p l i n g T e c h n i q u e s . 2nd e d . New Y o r k : John W i l e y and Sons I n c . , 1963. C o l l e t t e , A l f r e d T. Teaching Science School. B o s t o n : A l l y n and Bacon  in the Secondary I n c . , 1973.  Darke, John. "Teaching Science in M i x e d - A b i l i t y Groups." T e a c h i n g M i x e d A b i l i t y G r o u p s , pp. 1 4 2 - 1 6 1 . E d i t e d by E. C. Wragg. L o n d o n : D a v i d and C h a r l e s L t d . , 1 976. D a v i e s , R. P e t e r . Mixed A b i l i t y S m i t h L t d . , 1 975.  Grouping.  London:  Temple  De H a a n , R o b e r t F. and K o u g h , J a c k . Identifying S t u d e n t s With S p e c i a l Needs. Revised ed. Chicago: S c i e n c e R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s , 1968. F a b i n o , E l e a n o r R. and L i b e r s o n , E u n i c e S. LifeA c t i v i t i e s and E x p l o r a t i o n . B o s t o n : Houghton M i f f 1 i n C o . , 1 975. F e a t h e r s t o n e , W. B. T e a c h i n g t h e Slow L e a r n e r . New York: Bureau of P u b l i c a t i o n s , Teachers C o l l e g e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1951. F i n d l a y , Warren G. and B r y a n , M i r r i a m M. Ability G r o u p i n g , 1970: S t a t u s , Impact and A l t e r n a t i v e s . Athens G e o r g i a : U n i v e r s i t y of G e o r g i a Center f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Improvement, 1971.  . The P r o s and Cons o f A b i l i t y B l o o m i n g t o n I n d i a n a : P h i D e l t a Kappa F o u n d a t i o n , 1 975. Fine,  Benjamin. Underachievers. and Co. I n c . , 1 967.  Gay,  L. E.  Grouping. Educational  New Y o r k :  R. Educational Research. Columbus: M e r r i l l P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1976.  E.P.  Dutton  Charles  George, C h r i s t o p h e r , ed. Non-Streamed S c i e n c e O r g a n i z a t i o n and P r a c t i c e . H a t f i e l d : The A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976. G o l d b e r g , M i r r i a m ; P a s s o w , A. H a r r y and J u s t m a n , The E f f e c t s o f A b i l i t y G r o u p i n g . New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1966.  Joseph  Good, C a r t e r V . , e d . D i c t i o n a r y of E d u c a t i o n , 3rd e d . New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l Book Co. I n c . , 1973. G u l l i f o r d , Ronald. B a c k w a r d n e s s and E d u c a t i o n a l F a i l u r e Slough: N a t i o n a l Foundation of E d u c a t i o n a l Research i n E n g l a n d and W a l e s , 1969. Hannam, C h a r l e s ; S m y t h , P a t and S t e p h e n s o n , Young T e a c h e r s arid R e l u c t a n t L e a r n e r s . s m i t h : Penguin Books, 1971.  Norman. Hammer-  H a v i n g h u r s t , R o b e r t J . "Who A r e t h e S o c i a l l y D i s advantaged?" In The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r , p p . 20-29. E d i t e d by S t a t e n W. W e b s t e r . San F r a n c i s c o C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. Hughes, John M. The Slow L e a r n e r i n Your C l a s s . Thomas N e l s o n and Sons L t d . , 1973.  London  H u l i c k a , I r e n e M. "The S o c i a l l y U n m o t i v a t e d . " In The Slow L e a r n e r , p p . 4 5 - 6 8 . E d i t e d by J o s e p h Roucek. New Y o r k : P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y I n c . ,  S. 1969  J o h n s o n , G. O r v i l l e . E d u c a t i o n f o r t h e Slow L e a r n e r s . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1963. K a r l i n , M.S. and B e r g e r R. S u c c e s s f u l Methods f o r T e a c h i n g t h e Slow L e a r n e r . West Nyac'k (N . Y .) : Parker P u b l i s h i n g Co. I n c . , 1969.  K e l l y , A. V. Teaching Mixed A b i l i t y C l a s s e s . H a r p e r and Row P u b l i s h e r s , 1974. L a n g e , E r w i n F. and J o r g e n s e n , H a r o l d T e a c h i n g and t h e Slow L e a r n e r . " L e a r n e r , pp. 2 3 1 - 2 4 0 . E d i t e d by New Y o r k : P h i l o s o p h i c a l L i b r a r y Leibherr, Harold Publication Materials. Biological  London:  C. "Science In The Slow J o s e p h S. R o u c e k . I n c . , 1969.  G. and P e t e r s o n , G l e n E. BSCS S p e c i a l No. 4 The T e a c h e r and the BSCS S p e c i a l B o u l d e r : The A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f S c i e n c e s , 1966.  Lockard, David J . , ed. S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s C u r r i c u l a r Developments I n t e r n a t i o n a l l y 1956-1974. Project of: The C o m m i s s i o n on S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e Advancement o f S c i e n c e and The S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g Center of the U n i v e r s i t y of Maryl a n d , 1 975. L o r e t a n , J o s e p h 0. and Umars, S h e l l e y . Pisadvantaged. New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y , 1966.  Teaching the College Press,  M a l k i n , Samuel. "The C u l t u r a l l y D e p r i v e d C h i l d and Science." In The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r , pp. 595-599. E d i t e d by S t a t e n W. W e b s t e r . San F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. Misselbrook, Hilda. N u f f i e l d Secondary S c i e n c e Teacher's Guide. L o n d o n : Longman Group L t d . , Noar,  1970.  Gertrude. What R e s e a r c h Says t o t h e T e a c h e r #33Teaching the Disadvantaged. Washington: N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , 1967.  O r n s t e i n , A l l a n C. " T e a c h n i q u e s and F u n d a m e n t a l s f o r Teaching the D i s a d v a n t a g e d . " In How t o Teach D i s a d v a n t a g e d Y o u t h , pp. 1 3 9 - 1 5 2 . E d i t e d by A l l a n C. O r n s t e i n and P h i l i p D. V a i r o . New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay Co. I n c . , 1 969. O x e n h o r n , J o s e p h M. Teaching Science in Secondary S c h o o l s . New Y o r k : I n c . , 1 972 .  to U n d e r a c h i e v e r s G l o b e Book Co.  P a r t e n , M. S u r v e y s , P o l l s and S a m p l e s . New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row, 1950. C i t e d by K e r l i n g e r , F r e d N. F o u n d a t i o n s o f B e h a v i o r a l R e s e a r c h . 2nd e d . New Y o r k : H o l t & R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n I n c . , 1 9 7 3 .  187 Reissman, Frank. The C u l t u r a l l y D e p r i v e d C h i l d . H a r p e r and Row, 1962.  New  York:  "Teachers of the Poor: A Five P o i n t P l a n . " In How t o Teach D i s a d v a n t a g e d Y o u t h , p p . 4 0 2 - 4 1 7 . E d i t e d by A l l a n C. O r n s t e i n and P h i l i p D. V a i r o . New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay C o . , 1969. R o s e n t h a l , R o b e r t and J a c o b s e n , L e n o r e . Pygmalian in the C l a s s r o o m : T e a c h e r E x p e c t a t i o n s and P u p i l s ' I n t e l 1 e c t u a l Development. New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1968. C i t e d by H a l d e r m a n n , K e n n e t h F. " A b i l i t y G r o u p i n g - I t s E f f e c t s on L e a r n e r s . " N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s B u l l e t i n 60 (397) (February 1976): 85-89.(*) R o u c e k , J o s e p h S., Philosophical  ed. The Slow L e a r n e r . L i b r a r y I n c . , 1969.  New  York:  S c r i v e n , M i c h a e l ; Gagne, R o b e r t M. and T y l e r , R a l p h W. P e r s p e c t i v e s of C u r r i c u l u m E v a l u a t i o n . Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y and C o . , 1967. S h e l t o n , B a k e r 0. T e a c h i n g and G u i d i n g t h e Slow L e a r n e r . West N y a c k ( N . Y . ) : P a r k e r P u b l i s h i n g Co. I n c . , 1 9 7 1 . S i m o n , B. I n t e l l i g e n c e T e s t i n g and t h e C o m p r e h e n s i v e School. : L a w r e n c e and W i s h a r t , 1 9 5 3 . C i t e d by S t u r g e s , L. M. Non-Streamed S c i e n c e - A Teacher's Guide. H a t f i e l d : The A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976. S t u r g e s , L. M. Non-Streamed S c i e n c e - A T e a c h e r ' s Guide. H a t f i e l d : The A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976. T a b a , H i l d a and E l k i n s , D. Teaching S t r a t e g i e s f o r the Cul t u r a l l y . D i s a d v a n t a g e d . . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1 966. Thomas, R. M u r r a y and Thomas, S h i r l e y M. Individual D i f f e r e n c e s in the Classroom. New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay Co. I n c . , 1965. T i s h e r , R. P . ; P o w e r , C. N. and Endean L. Fundamental Issues in Science E d u c a t i o n . S y d n e y : John W i l e y and Sons A u s t r a l i a P t y . L t d . , 1972.  1 88 Tuckman, B r u c e W. "The T e a c h e r and t h e P s y c h o l o g y of the C u l t u r a l l y D e p r i v e d . " In P r e p a r i n g t o Teach the Disadvantaged pp. 3 - 2 0 . E d i t e d by B r u c e W. Tuckman and John L. O ' B r i a n . New Y o r k : The F r e e P r e s s , 1969. W e a v e r , F r a n k B. H e l p i n g Slow L e a r n e r s and U n d e r educated A d u l t s . B r e n t w o o d (Mid.) : C l a s s N a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g , 1971. Weber, K e n n e t h J . Y e s , They Can! T o r o n t o : P u b l i s h i n g , 1974.  Metheun  Webster, Stateh W., ed., The D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r . San F r a n c i s c o : C h a n d l e r P u b l i s h i n g C o . , 1966. W e l l i n g t o n , C. B u r l e i g h and W e l l i n g t o n , J e a n . The U n d e r a c h i e v e r : Ch a 11enges and G u i d e l i n e s . C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y and C o . , 1965. Whipple, Gertrude. " C u r r i c u l u m f o r the D i s a d v a n t a g e d . " In How t o Teach D i s a d v a n t a g e d Y o u t h , pp. 2 3 5 246. E d i t e d by A l l a n C. O r n s t e i n and P h i l i p D. Vairo. New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay Co. I n c . , 1969. W h i t e , W. F. T a c t i c s f o r T e a c h i n g t h e New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1971.  Disadvantaged.  W i l k e n s o n , D a v i d and B o w e r s , J o h n , e d s . , The Lamp P r o j e c t - A T e a c h e r ' s Handbook. H a t f i e l d : The A s s o c i a t i o n o f S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976. Wong, H a r r y K. and D o l m a t z , M a l v i n S. I n v i t a t i o n s to Investigate Science. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1 976. Wragg, E. C. Teaching M i x e d - A b i 1 i t y Groups. Newton A b b o t : D a v i d and C h a r l e s H o l d i n g s 1 976. Y o u n i e , W. J . Learning. 1 974.  I n s t r u c t i o n a T Approaches to New Y o r k : T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e  Ltd.,  Slow Press,  Journals A b r a h a m , W. A. "A V a r i e t y o f I d e a s P e r t i n e n t t o t h e Slow L e a r n e r . " E d u c a t i on 81 [ F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 1 ) : 352-355. A n d e r s e n , H. 0. "A P h i l o s o p h y o f E d u c a t i o n f o r t h e Slow L e a r n e r i n S c i e n c e . " The A m e r i c a n B i o l o g y T e a c h e r 28 (March 1 9 6 6 ) : 2 0 0 - 2 0 4 . A u s u b e l , D a v i d P. "The E f f e c t s of C u l t u r a l D e p r i v a t i o n on L e a r n i n g P a t t e r n s . " A u d i o V i s u a l Instruction 10 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 6 5 ) : 1 0-1 2. B a r b e , W a l t e r B. " T h e Slow L e a r n e r - A P l e a f o r U n d e r s t a n d i n g . " l a ^ u c j j j o n . 81 ( F e b r u a r y 1 961 ): 3 2 3 - 3 2 5 . B i n g h a m , N. E l d r i d . "A D e m o n s t r a t i o n o f t h e R o l e o f S c i e n c e i n Programs o f E d u c a t i o n a l l y D e p r i v e d C h i l d r e n i n Grades Seven t o N i n e . " Science E d u c a t i o n 52 ( A p r i l 1 9 6 8 ) : 2 4 6 - 2 5 5 . T * T ^ B i n g h a m , N. E l d r i d and C r o n i n , C. R o b e r t . " D I S C U S , A D e m o n s t r a t i o n o f an Improved S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m . : for Underachieving Students." S c h o o l S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s 70 ( J u n e 1 9 7 0 ) : 5 2 7 - 5 4 2 . (*) B i n g h a m , N. E l d r i d and B r i d g e s , C. M . " Science f o r U n d e r a c h i e v i n g Y o u t h I l l u s t r a t e d by t h e DISCUS P r o g r a m . " S c h o o l S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s 74 ( M a y - J u n e 1 9 7 4 ) : 3 8 9 - 3 9 5 . (*) B l a c k l a w s , P e t e r . "Slow Learners in Comprehensive Schools - I n c l u s i o n Versus the S p e c i a l Group." Forum 12 (Autumn 1 9 6 9 ) : 24-27. B r e n n a n , W i l f r e d K. " T h e C u r r i c u l a r Needs o f L e a r n i n g P u p i l s : Some C o n s i d e r a t i o n s . " T r e n d s 17 ( S p r i n g 1 9 7 3 ) : 5 9 - 6 2 .  Slow Forward  . " T h e C u r r i c u l a r Needs o f Slow L e a r n i n g Pupils." S e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n 41 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 4 ) : 141-144. B r i d g e s , C. M. e t a l . " E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e C o o p e r a t i v e C o l l e g e - S c h o o l S c i e n c e Improvement Program t o P r e p a r e T e a c h e r s t o Teach t h e DISCUS P r o g r a m . " S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 57 ( A p r i l - J u n e 1 9 7 3 ) : 1 9 3 - • 199. (*)  190 B r o w n , S a l l y A. "A Review o f t h e M e a n i n g s o f , and Arguments f o r , I n t e g r a t e d S c i e n c e . " S t u d i e s in S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 4 (1 9 7 7 ) : 31 - 6 2 . Cady, B a r b a r a . " L o o k i n g Up t o t h e Low A c h i e v e r . " Momentum 8 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 7 7 ) : 4 1 - 4 2 . C a m p b e l l , James R. " C o g n i t i v e and A f f e c t i v e P r o c e s s D e v e l o p m e n t and i t s R e l a t i o n t o a T e a c h e r s I n t e r action Ratio." Journal of Research in Science T e a c h i n g 8 (December 1 9 7 1 ) : 3 1 7 - 3 2 3 . (*) C a s s e l l , R u s s e l l N. " C o u n s e l l i n g the D i s a d v a n t a g e d . " E d u c a t i o n 90 (November - December 1 9 6 9 ) : 1 0 3 - 1 0 8 . C i t r o n , I r v i n M. and B a r n e s , C y r u s W. "The S e a r c h f o r More E f f e c t i v e Methods of T e a c h i n g H i g h S c h o o l B i o l o g y t o Slow L e a r n e r s T h r o u g h I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s - P a r t I: The E f f e c t s o f V a r y i n g T e a c h i n g Patterns." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 7 (March 1 9 7 0 ) : 9 - 1 9 . (*) . "The S e a r c h f o r More E f f e c t i v e Methods o f T e a c h i n g High School B i o l o g y to Slow L e a r n e r s Through I n t e r a c t i o n A n a l y s i s - P a r t I I : The E f f e c t s of Various Constant Teaching P a t t e r n s . " J o u r n a l o f R e s e a r c h i n S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 7 (March 1970): 21-28. (*) C l a r k , D a v i d B. J o u r n a l of  " G r o u p Work W i t h E a r l y S c h o o l L e a v e r s . " Curriculum Studies 7 (1975): 42-54.  C o w a r d , E.M. "Lamp P r o j e c t : Case S t u d y - M a t e r i a l s . " S c h o o l S c i e n c e R e v i e w 59 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 7 ) : 5 - 1 2 . C r o w l e y , R e g i s F. " T e a c h i n g the Slow L e a r n e r . " S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 58 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 6 9 ) : 4 8 - 4 9 . Darke, John. "Mixed A b i l i t y 1970): 15-17.  S c i e n c e . " Forum 13  The (Autumn  Doohan, J o s e p h E. "Some P r a c t i c a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r E f f e c t i v e l y T e a c h i n g Low A c h i e v i n g S t u d e n t s a t the S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l L e v e l . " J o u r n a l of Secondary E d u c a t i o n 45 (November 1 9 7 0 ) : 3 3 5 - 3 3 6 . Dunn,  R i t a and Dunn, K e n n e t h . " F i n d i n g the Best F i t : Learning S t y l e s , Teaching . S t y l e s . " National A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s B u l l e t i n 59 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 7 5 ) . (*]  191 Dunn,  R i t a ; Dunn, K e n n e t h and P r i c e Gary E. "Diagnosing Learning S t y l e s : A P r e s c r i p t i o n for Avoiding Malpractice Suits." P h i D e l t a Ka.ppan ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 7 ) : 418-420. (*)  E d g a r , I r v i n T. " S c i e n c e , N a t u r e - and t h e S u r v i v a l of Man." The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 38 ( A p r i l 1 9 7 1 ) : 45-47. E k s t r o m , Ruth B. " E x p e r i m e n t a l S t u d i e s i n Homogeneous Grouping: A C r i t i c a l Review." S c h o o l R e v i e w 69 (Summer 1 9 6 1 ) : 2 1 6 - 2 2 6 . E s p o s i t o , Dominik. "Homogeneous and H e t e r o g e n e o u s A b i l i t y G r o u p i n g : P r i n c i p a l F i n d i n g s and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r E v a l u a t i n g and D e s i g n i n g More E f f e c t i v e Educational Environments." Review of E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h 43 ( S p r i n g 1 9 7 3 ) : 1 6 3 - 1 7 9 . F e r g u s o n , D o n a l d G. Slow L e a r n e r . " 326-330.  " R e v i e w o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e on t h e E d u c a t i o n 81 ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 1 ) :  Geisert, Paul. "A Computer Model f o r t h e Slow S t u d e n t . " The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 35 (March 1 9 6 8 ) : 1 3 - 1 7 . G i d d i n g s , M o r s l e y G. " S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n and t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d : A d a p t i n g C u r r i c u l u m Reforms t o t h e S p e c i a l R e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d . " S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 50 ( A p r i l 1 9 6 6 ) : 2 0 6 - 2 1 2 . G l a s m a n , N a f t a l y S. " T e a c h e r s ' Low E x p e c t a t i o n L e v e l s of T h e i r C u l t u r a l l y D i f f e r e n t S t u d e n t s : A View From A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . " J o u r n a l o f S e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n 45 ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 0 ) : 8 2 - 9 3 . Glasser, William. "Reaching the U n m o t i v a t e d . " S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 38 (March 1 9 7 1 ) : 1 8 - 2 2 .  The  . " D i s o r d e r s i n Our S c h o o l s : Causes and Remedies." P h i D e l t a Kappan 59 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 8 ) : 331-333. Good, Thomas L. and B r o p h y , J e r e E. "The S e l f F u l f i l l i n g Prophecy." Todays E d u c a t i o n 6 0 ( 4 ) ( A p r i l 1971): 52-53. C i t e d by H a l d e r m a n n , K e n n e t h F. " A b i l i t y G r o u p i n g - I t s E f f e c t s on L e a r n e r s . " N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s B u l l e t i n 60 ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 6 ) : 8 5 - 8 9 .  192 Gul 1 i f o r . d , Ron. "Slow L e a r n e r s : Problems, Assessment and R e s o u r c e s . " E d u c a t i o n 3-13 3 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 7 5 ) : 71-76. . " T w e n t y - F i v e Y e a r s of E x t r a H e l p f o r Slow Learners." S u p p l e m e n t t o E d u c a t i o n 146 (25 J u l y 1976): v i . H a l d e r m a n n , K e n n e t h F. " A b i l i t y Grouping - Its E f f e c t s on L e a r n e r s . " N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of Secondary S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l ' s B u l l e t i n 60 ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 7 6 ) : 85-89. Hinson, Michael. " T e a c h i n g S c i e n c e t o Slow L e a r n e r s in Secondary S c h o o l s . " Remedial E d u c a t i o n 7 ( F e b r u a r y 1 972) : 4 6 - 4 8 . J a n z e n , Henry L. "The P r o b l e m o f Slow L e a r n e r s . " C h a l l e n g e i n E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 12 ( W i n t e r - S p r i n g 1972-1973): 46-53. Johnson, Kenneth. "The C u l t u r a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d L e a r n e r s or D i f f e r e n t L e a r n e r s ? " J o u r n a l of S e c o n d a r y E d u c a t i o n 45 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 0 ) : 4 3 - 4 7 .  Slow  Johnson, V i r g i n i a Ruth. " S c i e n c e Education in the ' R i g h t ' Mode." A m e r i c a n B i o l o g y T e a c h e r 39 ( O c t o b e r 1 9 7 7 ) : 427-429. Kamm, M a r t i n D. " T e a c h i n g a B a s i c S c i e n c e Course to Mixed A b i l i t y Groups." School S c i e n c e Review 51 (December 1 9 6 9 ) : 2 6 3 - 2 6 9 . K a r n e s , M e r l e B. "The Slow L e a r n e r . . . What A r e H i s C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and N e e d s ? " Todays E d u c a t i o n 59 (March 1 970) : 4 2 - 4 4 . K e l l o u g h , R i c h a r d D. "A H u m a n i s t i c A p p r o a c h : An E x p e r i m e n t i n t h e T e a c h i n g o f B i o l o g y t o Slow L e a r n e r s i n H i g h S c h o o l - An E x p e r i m e n t i n C l a s s room E x p e r i m e n t a t i o n . " S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 54 ( J u l y - September 1 9 7 0 ) : 2 5 3 - 2 6 2 . (*) K e r s h a w , I. and S c o t t , P. J . " S c i e n c e f o r P u p i l s o f Low E d u c a t i o n a l A t t a i n m e n t . " School Science Review 56 (March 1 9 7 5 ) : 449-463. L e r n e r , M o r r i s R. " B u i l d i n g a Science Program." S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 32 (November 1 9 6 5 ) : 2 8 - 3 0 .  The  193 L a d d , George T. "Who C a r e s ! ! (The Slow L e a r n e r : O b j e c t i v e s and E v a l u a t i o n ) . " S c h o o l S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s 72 (March 1 9 7 2 ) : 251-253. L i b e r s o n , E u n i c e and F a b i n o , E l e a n o r . "Teaching B i o l o g y to Non-Academic S t u d e n t s . " The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 32 (November 1 9 6 5 ) : 30-32. Lisonbee, Lorenzo. " T e a c h i n g S c i e n c e to the advantaged P u p i l . " The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r (October 1963): 18-21.  Dis30  M c C r e a r y , Eugene. "Teaching the C u l t u r a l l y D i f f e r e n t . " I n t e g r a t e d E d u c a t i o n 13 ( F e b r u a r y 1 9 6 5 ) : 3 8 - 4 6 . Mahan, Thomas W. "The Slow L e a r n e r : S c h o o l R e v i e w 73 (Summer 1 9 6 5 ) :  Fact or 77-88.  Excuse?"  M a r c h e s e , R i c h a r d S. "A L i t e r a t u r e S e a r c h and R e v i e w o f t h e C o m p a r i s o n o f I n d i v i d u a l i z e d and C o n v e n t i o n a l Modes o f I n s t r u c t i o n i n S c i e n c e . " School Science and M a t h e m a t i c s 77 (December 1 9 7 7 ) : 699-703. M a r s h a l l , Kim. Student."  "You Can Turn Around t h e F a i l i n g L e a r n i n g 6 (October 1977): 50-51+.  Marusek. John: "A P r o g r a m P r o v i d i n g H i g h l y I n d i v i d u a l i z e d I n s t r u c t i o n f o r Slow L e a r n i n g Math and S c i e n c e Students." S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 53 ( A p r i l 1 9 6 9 ) : 217-219. M i l l e r , I. "The Slow L e a r n e r and t h e New S c i e n c e Syllabus." A c t i v i t y B u l l e t i n f o r Teachers in S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s 22 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 46-48. M i l s o n , James L e e . " S c i e n c e and t h e Below A v e r a g e S t u d e n t : The E f f e c t o f C u r r i c u l a r M a t e r i a l s on Attitudes." J o u r n a l of Experimental Education 41 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 3 ) : 3 7 - 4 8 . (*) "The D e v e l o p m e n t and E v a l u a t i o n o f P h y s i c a l S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m M a t e r i a l s D e s i g n e d t o Improve Students A t t i t u d e s . " J o u r n a l of Research in S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g 9 (March 1 9 7 2 ) : 2 8 9 - 3 0 4 . (*) M i t c h e l l , K e n n e t h R. a n d . P i a t k o w s k a , O l g a E. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Associated with Underachievement: Targets for Treatment." Australian Psychologist 9 (November 1 974) : 1 9 - 4 1 .  194 Moore, A r n o l d J . "Science Instructional Materials f o r the L o w - A b i l i t y J u n i o r High School S t u d e n t . " S c h o o l S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s 62 (November 1 9 6 2 ) : 556-563. M u n r o , J . K. "The Low A c h i e v e r S c i e n c e . " 1.8 ( O c t o b e r 1 974) : 4 5 .  Lab  N e t t l e s h i p , John. " T e a c h i n g S c i e n c e t o Slow Remedial E d u c a t i o n 7 (June 1972): 5-7.  Talk Learners."  Okey, James R. "Diagnosing Learning D i f f i c u l t i e s . " The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 37 (May 1 9 7 0 ) : 5 9 - 6 1 . P a l m e r , E. C. " S c i e n c e and t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d P r o b e 3 (June 1 9 7 4 ) : 3 - 1 3 .  Child."  Q u a y l e , T h e r a l d P. " I n d i v i d u a l i z e d S c i e n c e f o r t h e Slow Learner." Todays E d u c a t i o n 59 (March 1 9 7 0 ) : 5 0 - 5 1 . Reissman, Frank. " E d u c a t i o n of the C u l t u r a l l y Child." The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 32 (November 14-16. ~~  Deprived 1965):  R o s s , D. L. "An A p p r o a c h t o M i x e d A b i l i t y S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g in the Secondary S c h o o l . " School S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s . 57 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 6 ) : 776-779. . "Mixed A b i l i t y Teaching." School R e v i e w 57 ( S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 6 ) : 7 7 6 - 7 7 9 .  Science  S h a d r a c h , John P. and H e n s o n , C. M. "Science for Low A c h i e v e r . " S c h o o l and Community 56 (March 1 970) : 34>=.  the  S l a t e r , C. W. "The Slow L e a r n e r . " Educational D e v e l o p m e n t C e n t e r R e v i e w 17 (Autumn 1 9 7 5 ) : 10-15. S t u r g e s . , . L. M. " P r o b l e m s i n T e a c h i n g S c i e n c e t o NonStreamed C l a s s e s . " S c h o o l S c i e n c e R e v i e w 55 (December 1 9 7 3 ) : 2 2 4 - 2 3 2 . T a n z e r , C. " U t i l i z i n g Our T o t a l t h e Slow L e a r n e r . " School 60 (March 1 9 6 0 ) : 1 8 1 - 1 8 6 .  P o t e n t i a l : Science for S c i e n c e and M a t h e m a t i c s  195 T h o r n b u r g , H e r s h e l D. " A t t i t u d e Determinants in Holding Dropouts in S c h o o l . " Journal of Educational Research " 68 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 5 ) : 1 8 1 - 1 8 5 . (*) Townsend, Ian J . " S c i e n c e f o r the S p e c i a l I n t r o d u c t i o n and D e f i n i t i o n . " S c h o o l 52 ( J u n e 1 9 7 1 ) : 7 6 8 - 7 7 1 .  C h i l d P a r t I: S c i e n c e Review  . "Science f o r the S p e c i a l C h i l d Part II: D e v e l o p m e n t o f Some A p p r o p r i a t e T e c h n i q u e s . " S c h o o l S c i e n c e R e v i e w 53 (March 1 9 7 2 ) : 4 7 5 - 4 9 6 . W e b s t e r , J . W. "A S c i e n c e Program f o r t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d Child." S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n 54 ( J a n u a r y - March 1 9 7 0 ) : 49-53. Weider, A r t h u r . achiever." 19-21.  "The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r A s s a y s t h e The S c i e n c e T e a c h e r 40 ( J a n u a r y  Under1973):  W i l d e , John W. and Sommers, P e g g y . "Teaching D i s r u p t i v e A d o l e s c e n t s : A Game Worth W i n n i n g . " P h i D e l t a Kappan 59 ( J a n u a r y 1 9 7 8 ) : 342-343. W i l h e m s , F r e d T. and W e s t b y - G i b s o n , D o r o t h y . " G r o u p i n g : Research O f f e r s Leads." E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p 18 ( A p r i l 1961): 410-413. W i l s o n , B a r r y J . and S c h m i t s , D o n a l d W. "What's in A b i l i t y Grouping?" P h i D e l t a Kappan 5 9 ( A p r i l 1978): 535-536. W i t t y , P. "Needs 81 ( F e b r u a r y Research  o f Slow L e a r n i n g 1961): 331-335.  Pupils."  New  Education  Reports  Charach , .Larpy, Using Mail Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : The O p t i m a l M e t h o d o l o g y and an E x a m p l e . Vancouver: E d u c a t i o n a l Research I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1 975. D o u g l a s , M.W.B. The Home and S c h o o l . M a c g i b b o n and K e e , [1964]. C i t e d i n S t u r g e s , L. M . , N o n - S t r e a m e d S c i e n c e - A T e a c h e r ' s G u i d e , p. 3. H a t f i e l d : The A s s o c i a t i o n f o r S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976.  196 F e s h b a c h , Seymour e t a l . A T r a i n i n g , D e m o n s t r a t i o n and Research Program f o r the R e m e d i a t i o n of L e a r n i n g D i s o r d e r s in CuTturaTTy' Disadvantaged Y o u t h , Los A n g e l e s : C a l i f o r n i a U n i v e r s i t y , D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y , C a l i f o r n i a S t a t e Department of Educat i o n , O f f i c e o f C o m p e n s a t o r y E d u c a t i o n ; ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 3 4 2 3 7 , 1968. H a m b l e t o n , D. C . ; W r i g h t , E r i c a ; D o o l i t t l e , G i n s and Burbidge, Scott. A Survey of Outdoor E d u c a t i o n in M e t r o p o l i t a n Toronto: A t t i t u d e s , A c t i v i t i e s and F a c i 1 i t i e s . Toronto: Research Department: The M e t r o p o l i t a n S c h o o l B o a r d , 1970. James, R i c h a r d . A H o l i s t i c M i l i e u Approach to High Risk S t u d e n t s : A T i t l e III ESEA P r o j e c t ERIC Document R e p o r d u c t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 1 1 6 1 1 6 , 1 9 7 5 . Newsom, John H. H a l f Our F u t u r e . S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1964. Page,  London:  Her  Majesty's  W i l l i a m R. I n s t r u c t i o n a l Systems f o r S t u d e n t s with L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s ; ' J u n i o r High School P r o g r a m . W a s h i n g t o n : ERIC D o c u m e n t a t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 0 3 5 1 3 8 , 1968.  S c h i l l i n g e r , Sue, C o o r d i n a t o r . Focus: A Successful H i g h S c h o o l Program f o r D e a l i n g w i t h D i s a f f e c t e d Youth. R o s e v i l l e M i n n . : ERIC D o c u m e n t a t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 1 1 8 7 1 4 , 1975. Schools C o u n c i l . W o r k i n g P a p e r No. 2 R a i s i n g t h e S c h o o l L e a v i n g Age. L o n d o n : Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1965. Schools C o u n c i l . W o r k i n g P a p e r No. 27 ' C r o s s ' d w i t h A d v e r s i t y : The E d u c a t i o n o f S o c i a l l y D i s a d v a n t a g e d C h i l d r e n in Secondary S c h o o l s . L o n d o n : Evans and Methuen E d u c a t i o n a l , 1970. Schools C o u n c i l . W o r k i n g P a p e r No. 33 C h o o s i n g a C u r r i c u l u m f o r t h e Young S c h o o l L e a v e r . L o n d o n : Evans and .Methuen E d u c a t i o n a l , 1 9 7 1 . Schools C o u n c i l . C u r r i c u l u m B u l l e t i n 3 Changes School Science Teaching. L o n d o n : Evans and Methuen E d u c a t i o n a l , 1974.  \  in  197 Schools C o u n c i l . C u r r i c u l u m B u l l e t i n 5 Teaching M a t e r i a l s f o r Disadvantaged C h i l d r e n . London: Evans and Methuen E d u c a t i o n a l , 1 9 7 5 . Shaw, M e r v i l l e C. A t t i t u d e s and C h i l d R e a r i n g • p r a c t i c e s of the P a r e n t s o f B r i g h t Academic U n d e r a c h i e v e r s . W a s h i n g t o n : U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Texas  Theses  E d u c a t i o n Agency. S o c i a l S t u d i e s and t h e D i s advantaged. A u s t i n : ERIC D o c u m e n t a t i o n S e r v i c e , ED 0 8 6 5 6 4 , 1972. and d i s s e r t a t i o n s  Magnes, F r a n k l i n M . , " L i f e S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l a r M a t e r i a l s f o r t h e Slow L e a r n e r a t t h e N i n t h Grade L e v e l . " Ed. D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , B a l l S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 3 . Moody, John C . , " T h e E f f e c t s of L i n e a r and M o d i f i e d L i n e a r Programed M a t e r i a l s on A c h i e v e m e n t o f Slow L e a r n e r s i n T e n t h Grade B . S . C . S . Special Materials S t u d y . " Ph.(D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a , 1 970. N a s r , GamelE. I., " T h e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f Chem S t u d y in B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary S c h o o l s : A Survey, Masters' t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1 977. Quelch, Terry P., "A S e t o f G u i d e l i n e s f o r an A l t e r n a t e S c i e n c e C o u r s e f o r Low A c h i e v e r s a t t h e N i n t h Grade Level." Major paper towards M a s t e r s ' thesis, Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1975. Other  references  Dunn, R i t a ; Dunn K e n n e t h and P r i c e , Gary E. " I d e n t i f y i n g I n d i v i d u a l L e a r n i n g S t y l e s and t h e I n s t r u c t i o n a l Methods a n d / o r R e s o u r c e s t o w h i c h They R e s p o n d . " Paper p r e s e n t e d at the annual meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New Y o r k , N . Y . , 1 9 7 7 .  198 J e n k i n s , E. W.; C a r t e r , D. C; B r e n n a n , K; L a w s o n , K; L e i g h , R. and S c o t t , P. J . "The T e a c h i n g of S c i e n c e t o P u p i l s o f Low E d u c a t i o n a l A t t a i n m e n t . " P a m p h l e t p r o d u c e d by t h e C e n t r e f o r S t u d i e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y o f L e e d s , 1973. S o a r e s , L o u i s e M. and S o a r e s , A n t h o n y T. "Personality and O c c u p a t i o n a l I n t e r e s t C o r r e l a t e s o f D i s advantaged S t u d e n t s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d at the annual meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , C h i c a g o , A p r i l 1972. S c o t t i s h Education Department. " C u r r i c u l u m Papers-7 S c i e n c e f o r G e n e r a l E d u c a t i o n - f o r t h e f i r s t two y e a r s and t h e e a r l y s c h o o l l e a v e r . " Her M a j e s t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1969. The S c o t t i s h C e n t r e f o r M a t h e m a t i c s , S c i e n c e and Technical Education." O c c a s i o n a l P a p e r Number 3 S c i e n c e i n SI and S2 A science course f o r p u p i l s o f a l l a b i l i t i e s i n t h e f i r s t two y e a r s of S c o t t i s h S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s . " 1976. Wong, H a r r y K. D i r e c t o r I I S p r o j e c t , Redwood C i t y , California. Personal correspondence, February  1978.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094832/manifest

Comment

Related Items