UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Defining characteristics of a new elementary science curriculum : variance among developers, teachers… Chakagondua, Jimmy Godwill 1981

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1982_A2 C49.pdf [ 11.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0095665.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095665-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095665-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095665-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095665-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095665-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095665-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0095665-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0095665.ris

Full Text

DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF A NEW ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM: VARIANCE AMONG DEVELOPERS, TEACHERS AND PRACTICES IN CLASSROOMS by JIMMY GODWILL CHAKAGONDUA Dip. Ed., Makerere U n i v e r s i t y , Kampala, 1967 B.Ed., The Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 M.Ed., The Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Mathematics and Science Education We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1981 @ Jimmy Godwill Chakagondua, 1981 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of ]j ftrTHS. pi S>CL' T - T ^ U (LftTfON The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date \L HcHXLk , / Q f f a . DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT New elementary science programmes have often been noticed to f a i l at the stage of implementation. I t was hypothesized that part of such f a i l u r e s stemmed from discrepancies which existed between the developers and teachers i n t h e i r perceptions of the new programmes. The purpose of t h i s study was to determine the developers' and teachers' perceptions of a new elementary science programme; to examine agreements and disagreements i n t h e i r perceptions; and to determine any congruencies or discrepancies between t h e i r perceptions and actual classroom p r a c t i c e s . The above was done by determining the viewpoints of the developers and teachers i n terms of what they perceived the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new and established programmes to be. These viewpoints were determined and examined for agreements and disagreements through the various Q-techniques. The second part of the study u t i l i z e d a classroom analysis instrument derived from the respondents' viewpoints that were congruent with the i n i t i a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the programmes. The r e s u l t s of the study showed that there were no d i s t i n c t i v e developers' or teachers' viewpoints, but that most of the respondents had si m i l a r viewpoints concerning the new programme. A small group of teacher-users held a d i s t i n c t i v e viewpoint of the established programme, while the other viewpoints of the programme were vague. The classroom data analysis revealed that the new programme showed a higher congruency between perceptions and performances than did the established programme. A few teachers were c l a s s i f i e d as non-implementers because they displayed an equal and i n s u f f i c i e n t number of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r both programmes. i i i Some of the possible factors which influenced teachers' perceptions or performances included administrative support of the new programme, the teachers' experiences with the established programme, inadequate teacher preparation for implementation and lack of c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the r o l e of the new programme i n elementary science i n that school d i s t r i c t . XV TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 Background of the problem . . . . . . 1 Description of terms, . . . . . . . 4 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . 5 Purpose of the study 5 Overview of the study . . . . . . . 7 Assumptions of the study . . . . . . 8 General statement of the problem . . . . . 8 Sp e c i f i c statements of the problem . . . . 9 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 11 Curriculum implementation process i n science education . 11 Conceptions of curriculum implementation . . . 14 Q-methodology and research i n education . . . . 24 Q-methodology i n science education . . . . . 28 CHAPTER III METHODS OF THE STUDY 30 Instruments . . . . . . . . . 30 Q-methodology . . . . . . . . . 30 Selection of items for the Q-sort . . . . 31 P i l o t t e s t i n g the items for the Q-sort . . . 33 Selection of the subjects f o r the study . . . 33 The Q-sort . 35 The Q-analysis . . . . . . . . . 36 The classroom analysis instrument . . . . . 40 Introduction . . . . . . . . 40 Selection of the items f o r the instrument . . 41 V Page CHAPTER III Continued C.A.I, content v a l i d i t y . . . . . . 41 C.A.I, r e l i a b i l i t y . . . . . . . 42 Classroom data c o l l e c t i o n . . . . . . 43 Classroom data analysis . . . . . . . 44 CHAPTER IV THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE Q-ANALYSIS . . 47 Introduction . . . . . . . . . 47 Correlation Matrix . . . . . . . . 48 Factor so l u t i o n . . . . . . . . 48 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of types . . . . . . . 51 Factor arrays . . . . . . . . . 51 Description and comparison of types . . . . 58 S i m i l a r i t i e s among types i n NESP . . . . . 59 Consensus items among types i n NESP . . . . 63 Disagreements among types i n NESP . . . . . 66 Summary of viewpoints i n NESP . . . . . . 69 S i m i l a r i t i e s among types i n EESP . . . . . 71 Consensus items among types i n EESP . . . . 76 Disagreements among types i n EESP . . . . . 78 Summary of viewpoints of EESP . . . . . . 80 Consensus items among a l l types across programmes . . 82 CHAPTER V THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASSROOM DATA ANALYSIS 85 "Observed" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP . 91 I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and de s c r i p t i o n of types i n classrooms . 92 NESP - perspective . . . . . . . . 93 EESP - perspective . . . . . . . . 96 Factors inf l u e n c i n g implementation of NESP . . . 100 Personal data . . . . . . . . 101 Teachers concerns about NESP . .. . . . . 106 v i Page CHAPTER V Continued Teacher preparation f o r implementation Use of NESP materials Teachers' view of implementation CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . 114 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 114 Purpose . . . . . . . . . 114 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . 115 Results . . . . . . . . . 117 Factors inf l u e n c i n g implementation . . . . 122 Delimitations . . . . . . . . . 126 Implications of the research findings . . . . 127 Suggestions for future research . . . . . 134 REFERENCES 136 APPENDIX A. General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP . . . . 149 APPENDIX B. D i s t r i b u t i o n of the items according to NESP and EESP 153 APPENDIX C. 1. Q-sort record sheet . . . . . 156 2. Q-sort format and i n s t r u c t i o n . . . 157 APPENDIX D. Master sheet of item scores . . . . 160 APPENDIX E. Computer programme for Q-analysis . . . 165 APPENDIX F. Results of the Q-analysis 168 1. Correlation matrix . . . . . 169 2. Rank-ordered item arrays . . . . 177 109 111 111 v i i Page APPENDIX G. Classroom analysis instrument . . . . 185 1. Selected defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for C.A.I . 186 2. C.A.I.: Observation schedule . . . . 187 3. C.A.I.: Teacher c h e c k - l i s t . . . . 191 4. C.A.I.: Teacher-interview guideline questions 195 APPENDIX H. Teacher response form f o r NESP . . . . 198 APPENDIX I. Instructions for judges r a t i n g C.A.I. . . 202 APPENDIX J . Request l e t t e r s 203 1. Teachers l e t t e r . . . . . . 204 2. P r i n c i p a l s l e t t e r . . . . . . 206 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Page I. Factor Matrix structure for the three factors i n NESP . 49 2. Factor matrix structure f o r the three factors i n EESP . 50 3. Types i n NESP . . . . 52 4. Types i n EESP . . 53 5. Factor array of items i n NESP . 54 6. Factor array of items i n EESP . 56 7. Comparison of the three types i n NESP 61 8. Summary of comparisons i n NESP . . 62 9. Summary items among types i n NESP 62 10. Consensus items among types i n NESP 64 11. Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among types i n NESP 66 12. Comparison of the three types i n EESP 73 13. Summary of comparisons i n EESP 74 14. Common items among types i n EESP 74 15. Consensus items among types i n EESP 76 16. Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among types i n EESP 78 17. Consensus items across types and programmes 84 18. "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s per teacher and according to NESP and EESP . . . . . 86 19. "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and items symbolizing types . 88 20. "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP and items symbolizing types . . . . . 90 21. "Observed" def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP 94 22. "Observed" def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP 97 23. Educational background of respondents 101 24. Years of teaching elementary school science 101 25. Grade l e v e l s c u r r e n t l y taught by respondents . 102 26. Elementary science programmes taught by the teachers before NESP . 102 27. The teachers' concerns about NESP 105 28. Summary of Research Findings . . . . 123 LIST OF FIGURES Rank-order continuum . . . . . D i s t r i b u t i o n of items according to curriculum components Design and scoring scheme for the Q-sort 'Observed' defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP per subject . . . . . . 'Observed' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP symbolizing any type or.viewpoints Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the three types i n NESP . . . . . . . . Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the three types i n EESP -X ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S The author wishes to express h i s sincere gratitude to Professor Frederick A. Gornall and Dr. Vincent D'Oyley, h i s thesis advisors, f o r th e i r invaluable guidance and encouragement, and i n p a r t i c u l a r the former, for the generous contribution of h i s time i n the preparation of t h i s manuscript. The other members of the supervisory committee; Dr. Robert W. C a r l i s l e , Dr. Gerry Coombs, Dr. Gaalen Erickson, and Dr. Anthony Boardman are g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged as well f or t h e i r valuable comments and suggestions which made t h i s work possible. The author would also l i k e toL;thank Dr. Walter Boldt for h i s assistance at the inception of t h i s study, and for reading the s t a t i s t i c a l aspects of the manuscript. The author wishes to pay s p e c i a l t r i b u t e to the l a t e Dr. Harry G. Cannon who generously devoted h i s time and energy to t h i s research since i t s conception u n t i l h i s untimely demise i n l a t e June of 1981. The author also wishes to express h i s sincere appreciation to the following persons for t h e i r invaluable assistance i n compiling t h i s report; Ms. Beth Howarth and Ms,. Saundra Menzies (editors) and Ms. Ch r i s t i n e van den Driesen ( t y p i s t ) , who have s i g n i f i c a n t l y contributed to t h i s manuscript. F i n a l l y , the author wishes to thank a l l those who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n various ways, making i t possible for the study to be completed, e s p e c i a l l y members of the Mathematics and Science Education Department, and the Graduate O f f i c e of the Faculty of Education (U.B.C). 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the study The study of curriculum implementation i s r e l a t i v e l y new, dating back perhaps a decade (House, 1979). Included i n the l i t e r a t u r e of t h i s period are some of the general misconceptions of curriculum implemen-t a t i o n . These are described by Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), F u l l a n and Pomfret (1977), Munby, Orpwood and Russell (1980). Curriculum implementa-t i o n i s quite often confused with curriculum adoption. Curriculum adoption i s concerned with the d e c i s i o n to use new curriculum materials; whereas curriculum implementation r e f e r s to the actual use of the curriculum materials (Goodlad and K l e i n , 1970, Gross et a l . 1971 and F u l l a n M, 1979). The processes of introducing and implementing an innovation are far more c r i t i c a l and complex than has been previously acknowledged. In research reports about curriculum implementation assessment, the most frequent v a r i a b l e s encountered are the organizational structure; administrative support; a t t r i b u t e s of the new curriculum; teacher p a r t i c i -pation i n w r i t i n g teaching u n i t s ; and teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n workshops to adopt the innovation. Heck (1979) claims i n her review of the l i t e r a t u r e about curriculum implementation that c e r t a i n common var i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d across studies. She further claims to have d i s -2 covered some variables to be i n f l u e n t i a l i n curriculum implementation, namely, the l o c a l s t a f f involvement i n planning, the use of l o c a l materials, and the exchange of information among project s t a f f . She also claims that the a t t r i b u t e s or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the actual c u r r i c u l a were less r e l a t e d to implementation than the above v a r i a b l e s . However, Rogers and Shoe-maker (1971) r e f e r to another set of v a r i a b l e s , a t t r i b u t e s of an innovation which include complexity, c o m p a t i b i l i t y , t r i a l a b i l i t y , o b s e r v a b i l i t y , and the r e l a t i v e advantage i t has over an e x i s t i n g curriculum. They suggest that these variables or a t t r i b u t e s influence curriculum adoption and subsequently curriculum implementation. A l l a n and Wolf (1978) conducted a study based on these same a t t r i b u t e s to examine whether there was any re l a t i o n s h i p between perceived a t t r i b u t e s of an innovation and subsequent adoption of that innovation. The r e s u l t s of t h e i r study imply that the at t r i b u t e s of an innovation provide very l i t t l e i nsight into the complex process of curriculum implementation. Most of the studies reviewed r e l i e d on teachers' s e l f - r e p o r t of using an innovation or reports by others on how the teachers perceived the extent of curriculum implementation. Studies i n which multiple approaches were applied to determine the implementation of an innovation are scarce. For example, Crowther (1972) and Leinhardt (1973) used a combination of questionnaires and classroom observations; and Downey et a l . (1975) applied a questionnaire and document a n a l y s i s . Furthermore, very few studies pinpointed the perspectives which were considered. It i s conceivable that viewing implementation from d i f f e r e n t standpoints such as that of the teacher, the developer, or the researcher could r e s u l t in d i f f e r e n t sets of factors influencing perception of curriculum implementation. Of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the viewpoint of the teachers who 3 have to deal with p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s of i n d i v i d u a l pupils i n t h e i r own unique s i t u a t i o n s . But F u l l a n and Pomfret (1977) warn researchers to be cautious i n considering teachers' reports of perceived success or non-success as a r e l i a b l e measure of curriculum implementation. Thus the discrepancy between reported use and the actual use of an innovation i n a classroom s i t u a t i o n becomes a s i g n i f i c a n t issue i n curriculum implementation from a researcher's standpoint (Fullan, 1977; Gross, Giacquinta and Burnstein, 1971). Doyle and Ponder (1977) imply a discrepancy between':the percep-t i o n of developers of a new curriculum and the teachers who have to implement i t . Some of the most c r u c i a l issues a r i s i n g from these studies are as follows: 1. What are the most e f f e c t i v e approaches or constructs for conceptualizing and measuring implementation? 2. Are there v a r i a t i o n s i n implementation of the same innovation by d i f f e r e n t teachers? And 3. What are the factors i n f l u e n c i n g success or non-success of curriculum implementation? These issues and many others r e l a t e d to curriculum use c a l l f o r more objective and systematic study of curriculum implementation, leading towards the documentation and further understanding of some of the causes of success.or.non-success:of^curriculum.implementation. 4 D e s c r i p t i o n , of terms General C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - Large number of items or statements about a c u r r i c u l u m or programme which c o l l e c t i v e l y prov ide a comprehensive d e s c r i p t i o n of the c u r r i c u l u m . D e f i n i n g C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - A s m a l l number of items or statements about a c u r r i c u l u m or programme which i d e n t i f y the c u r r i c u l u m or programme f o r a p a r t i c u l a r group of s u b j e c t s . Developer - A person i n v o l v e d i n i n i t i a t i o n , development and adopt ion of a new or redes igned c u r r i c u l u m . A l s o , one who sometimes organizes or runs workshops, w r i t e s and e d i t s t each ing u n i t s . Teacher -Wri te r - A person who has w r i t t e n one or more t each ing u n i t s . A l s o , a person who i s a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n an adopt ion process (workshop leader or a t t e n d a n t ) , as w e l l as i n the implementat ion of a new c u r r i c u l u m or programme. Teacher-User - A person who i s aware of a new c u r r i c u l u m or programme, who may be i n v o l v e d i n the implementat ion of the new c u r r i c u l u m or programme, and who attended an o r i e n t a t i o n workshop. "Type" - A group of sub jec t s w i t h s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s , and each type has a d i s t i n c t way of s o r t i n g i t ems . A type may be made up of t e a c h e r - u s e r s , t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s , d e v e l o p e r s , or mixes of developers and t e a c h e r s . Innova t ion - "The d e l i b e r a t e sys temat ic attempt to change schools through i n t r o d u c i n g new ideas and t echn iques " - House, 1979. 5 Curriculum Implementation - Curriculum implementation refers to actual use of an innovation or what an innovation consists of i n pra c t i c e ... It merely says that regardless of who develops an innovation, when i t i s developed or how i t i s developed, some implementation w i l l have occurred when c e r t a i n new c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a c t u a l l y i n use in the s o c i a l system" - F u l l a n , 1979. Viewpoint - A s e l e c t i o n of items or statements about a programme ranging from c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s . Abbreviations C.D.C. = Cl e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s C.N.D.C. = C l e a r l y not de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s N.E.S.P. = New elementary science programme E.E.S.P. = Established elementary science programme C.A.I. = Classroom analysis instrument E.S.S. = Elementary Science Studies E.Y.E. = Examining Your Environment T.P.S. = Teaching Primary Science S.C.I.S. = Science Curriculum Improvement Studies S.C. 5/13 = Schools Council Science 5/13. Purpose of the study The purpose of undertaking t h i s study was to shed some l i g h t • o n why new c u r r i c u l a often do not succeed at the stage of implementation. I t 6 was postulated that at l e a s t part of t h i s non-success stems from the differences between curriculum developers and users, p a r t i c u l a r l y , d i f f e r e n c e s between what they perceive to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum. While other sources of probable d i f f i c u l t i e s such as complexity of the new curriculum and i t s i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y with l o c a l conditions were also deemed s i g n i f i c a n t deterrants to implementation, the study focussed p r i m a r i l y on the problem of perception, and how t h i s problem was r e l a t e d to actual classroom p r a c t i c e . New c u r r i c u l a are frequently given f i e l d t e s t s or t r i a l s with selected teachers and students, sometimes with spectacular r e s u l t s , for instance, the testimonials of the A f r i c a n Primary Science Project (APSP). The same curriculum also was seen to f a i l when i t was t r i e d under regular classroom conditions j u s t as dramatically as i t succeeded under experi-mental conditions. F i e l d t e s t s or t r i a l s under normal classroom conditions are a more v a l i d test for a new curriculum intended for regular classroom use. It i s important for both curriculum developers and the teachers involved i n implementation to know how s u c c e s s f u l l y the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum are being implemented and i f not, what are the most probable causes for f a i l u r e . Overview of the study This study was c a r r i e d out i n a medium sized urban school d i s t r i c t i n the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada. The school d i s t r i c t had been involved i n implementing a new elementary science pro-gramme since 1979. This new programme emphasized the teaching of science concepts, and provided teachers with d i r e c t i o n i n teaching s p e c i f i c science 7 concepts. It was a d e l i b e r a t e attempt to s h i f t from the process-based established programme which the new programme replaced. In a l l 27 p a r t i c i p a n t s were involved i n the study. The group included 5 developers, 11 teacher-writers and 11 teacher-users. Twenty six of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were expected to teach t h i s new programme and the other p a r t i c i p a n t was a non-teaching administrator. The study took about 9 months to complete from D e c , 198CLuntil Sept., 1981. The nature of the study was such that i t required a two-phase approach to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the subproblems outlined below. Phase one was devoted to determining the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum, NESP, as w e l l as the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established curriculum, EESP. This was done through..document analysis, interviews and discussions with science consultants and teachers who had taught e i t h e r one or both of the compared c u r r i c u l a . Phase one required the establishement of the view-e points of the developers of the new curriculum, as well as the viewpoints of the teachers who were expected to implement the new curriculum. The view-points of the developers and the teachers were determined by p r o f i l e analy-s i s of what they perceived to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and the defining c h a r a c t e r i s i t i c s of EESP. The d i f f e r e n t viewpoints of the subjects were compared f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s , through the a p p l i -cation df various Q-techniques. The items which the subjects perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g character-i s t i c s of EESP were selected to constitute the Classroom Analysis Instru-ment , CAI. Phase two of the study involved the development and u t i l i z a t i o n of the Classroom Analysis Instrument. The instrument consisted of an obser-vation schedule, a c h e c k l i s t and an interview schedule (see Appendix G). 8 The f u n c t i o n o f C.A.I, was t o examine t h e p r e s e n c e o r absence o f t h e s e l e c t e d d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e two programmes i n t h e c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e . On t h e b a s i s of t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t e a c h e r s ' and d e v e l o p e r s ' v i e w p o i n t s , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r was a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e new programme, NESP, o r t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme,!EESP, was b e i n g i m p l mented, and whether t h e t e a c h e r s ' o r t h e d e v e l o p e r s ' v i e w p o i n t was b e i n g implemented i n t h e c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e . The s t u d y a l s o examined t h e p o s s i b l f a c t o r s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d t h e p r e s e n c e o r absence o f t h e d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s o f t h e new c u r r i c u l u m i n t h e c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e . A s s u m p t i o n s of t h e s t u d y I t i s assumed t h a t 1. t h e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a c u r r i c u l u m can be f o r m u l a t e d f rom v a r i o u s s o u r c e s , s u c h as c u r r i c u l u m documents, i n t e r v i e w s and d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h t h e d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s o f t h e new c u r r i c u l u m . I t i s assumed t h a t 2. t h e d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a new c u r r i c u l u m can be i d e n t i -f i e d by a t r a i n e d o b s e r v e r i n a c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n . I t i s assumed t h a t 3. t h e i t e m s s e l e c t e d f o r Q - s o r t were s u f f i c i e n t t o d e s c r i b e and e v a l u a t e t h e d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a new c u r r i c u l u m . G e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r o b l e m The g e n e r a l p r o b l e m was t o s y s t e m a t i c a l l y : a) d e t e r m i n e what t h e d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s o f a new c u r r i c u l u m 9 perceive to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum, examine agreements and disagreements i n t h e i r perceptions of these defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , determine the presence or absence of these defining c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s i n classrooms where the new curriculum i s being implemented, examine the po s s i b l e : f a c t o r s influencing the presence or absence of the defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the curriculum i n the c l a s s -room. S p e c i f i c statements of the problem For the purpose of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n the general problem was delineated through a number of steps with s p e c i f i c subproblems. STEP 1 SELECTION OF THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS STEP 2 PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW CURRICULUM AND THE ESTABLISHED CURRICULUM Subproblem 1. What do the developers of a new curriculum and the teachers who are implementing the curriculum perceive to be the defin i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum? Subproblem 2. Are there d i f f e r e n t types among developers and teachers who can be said to hold d i s t i n c t viewpoints on the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum? STEP 3 COMPARISON OF VIEWPOINTS Subproblem 3. What are the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n viewpoints between the d i f f e r e n t types, developers and teachers, i n terms of what they perceive to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum? Subproblem 4. What are the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n viewpoints between the d i f f e r e n t types i n terms of what they perceive to be; b) c) and d) 10 a) the defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established curriculum, b) the defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common to both c u r r i c u l a , c) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which do not belong to eit h e r curriculum? STEP 4 EXAMINATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW CURRICULUM AS JUDGED BY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS Subproblem 5. To what extent are the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both c u r r i c u l a and symbolizing d i f f e r e n t types present or absent i n the classrooms where the new curriculum i s being implemented? Subproblem 6. To what extent are the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s congruent with the selected "perceived" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a) of the new curriculum, b) of the established curriculum and c) of any type? STEP 5 DETERMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW CURRICULUM AS JUDGED BY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS Subproblem 7. What are some of the possible factors i n f l u e n c i n g the presence or absence of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both the new curriculum and the established curriculum i n the classroom practice? 11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Curriculum implementation process i n science education In the early seventies there were outcries about the hiatus that existed between curriculum intents and what was a c t u a l l y going on i n science classes (Becher, 1971; MacDonald and Walker, 1976); These were the beginnings of today's diverse thinking and pr a c t i c e i n curriculum innovation. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on curriculum imple-mentation indicates two l e v e l s of argument that claim f a i l u r e of curriculum innovation i n science education athe t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l and the p r a c t i c a l l e v e l . On the t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , researchers i n science education have adopted a predominantly s c i e n t i f i c mode of research. The science educators were o p t i m i s t i c that science education should s t r i v e f o r a " s c i e n c e - l i k e " status. The opponents of t h i s view argued that no such " s c i e n c e - l i k e " theory could e x i s t i n science education, since s c i e n t i f i c theory i s an explanatory theory with p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t i e s (Roberts, 1980). Unlike science, the events i n science education are man-made and non-r e p l i c a b l e . Assuming that research i n science education i s undertaken p a r t l y because of i t s p o t e n t i a l influence on classroom p r a c t i c e and curriculum innovation, the approaches i n t r a n s l a t i o n of research findings 12 to improve pra c t i c e should not be the same as i n science. Although the s c i e n t i f i c mode of research has proved e f f e c t i v e i n space science and m i l i t a r y technology, there i s l i t t l e evidence of i t s effectiveness i n science education. In support of t h i s view Atkin (1968) argues that the psychological and engineering modes of research, the prevalent modes in science education, have flaws. He claims that the psychological model i s often " t r i v i a l or i r r e l e v a n t " and that the engineering model i s " s i m p l i c i t i c " for research i n science education. The end products i n engineering, for instance, are q u a n t i f i a b l e , while values and s o c i a l outcomes of any science education programme cannot be e a s i l y q u a n t i f i e d . Furthermore, the s c i e n t i f i c method i s i n s e n s i t i v e to long-term e f f e c t s of such science education programmes. Therefore i t i s claimed that t h i s method has f a i l e d to generate a theory or theories of educational change in general and i n p a r t i c u l a r a theory of science education curriculum innovation (Roberts, 1980; Power, 1976; Bowen, 1975; Roberts and Ru s s e l l , 1975; and Glass, 1972). Thus f a i l u r e of science education curriculum innovation i s at t r i b u t e d to the proclaimed inappropriateness of the s c i e n t i f i c mode of research i n science education. The second l e v e l of argument deals with the view that science curriculum innovations have often f a i l e d because some researchers and developers i n science education perceived curriculum innovation process as a top-down process with developers and researchers at the pinnacle and teachers at the bottom. Teachers were expected to enact the developers intentions from curriculum materials without much modulation. 1 The opponents of t h i s h i e r a r c h i c a l view of innovation process argue that i f the developers and teachers were to co a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the implementation of an innovation, there would be a better chance of the innovation taking root 13 as planned (Goodlad, 1975; Doyle and Ponder, 1977; and Mclaughlin and Marsh, 1978). Leithwood et a l (1976) propose that "education research and development i s e f f e c t i v e when nature of the problem and of the so l u t i o n are deliberated by p r a c t i t i o n e r and researcher together, on a basis of equal status, respect and substantive c o n t r i b u t i o n " . Thus teachers have gained recognition as v i t a l p a r t i c i p a n t s i n curriculum innovation process. The f o c a l points of the discussions among science educators have been (1) the apparent f a i l u r e of the s c i e n t i f i c method to provide a frame-work within which curriculum innovations should be conducted, (2) the question of whether a p r e v a i l i n g research paradigm i n science education should be " s c i e n c e - l i k e " or whether the search for a " s c i e n c e - l i k e " paradigm should be abandoned and science education issues should be addressed d i r e c t l y (Atkin, 1968; Glass, 1972; Roberts and R u s s e l l , 1975), and (3) the idea that science education research should be based on a broader view of science education and grounded i n science education events. Some of the propositions imply teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n curriculum innovation and performance i n classroom as areas of concern i n the search for p r a c t i c a l methods that would be appropriate for the f i e l d . These areas would also provide, the basis for conceptualizing curriculum implementation process. Curriculum implementation process, u n t i l r e c e n t l y , was a misunderstood and l a r g e l y ignored process. During the past two decades curriculum developers were more concerned with research reports of competing content courses and methods of teaching i n terms of student achievement. The c e n t r a l issue of research was student achievement and as such perhaps curriculum implementation was assumed to have occurred (Fullan and Pomfret, 1977). The r e a l i z a t i o n that new science c u r r i c u l a 14 did not have any s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on schools led researchers i n curriculum innovation to begin to address new issues. Common (1979) asserted that curriculum innovations were only proposals f o r change and that i n order to achieve the desired change a new curriculum had to be implemented. Before then Berman and Mclaughlin (1976) had noted the p r i o r i t i e s of research had s h i f t e d to curriculum implementation before assessing student achievement. The problem then becomes the following: can curriculum designers decide c o n f i d e n t l y that a new curriculum i s being implemented? Conceptions of curriculum implementation process The curriculum implementation process, which has been regarded as a nebulous f i e l d , i s r a p i d l y a t t r a c t i n g a ttention due to the f a i l u r e of numerous curriculum innovations p a r t i c u l a r l y i n mathematics and science education. There i s growing evidence i n the l i t e r a t u r e which indicates that s i g n i f i c a n t attempts are being made to put the curriculum implementation process into perspective; to c l a r i f y the external boundaries of the f i e l d and to specify the i n t e r n a l v a r i a b l e s of the observed v a r i a t i o n s i n p r a c t i c e . S u p e r f i c i a l l y the issue seems simple but from t h e o r e t i c a l and p r a c t i c a l perspectives i t i s i n t r i g u i n g l y complex, a problem-within-problem s i t u a t i o n i n curriculum innovation studies. H a l l and Loucks (1977) as well as F u l l a n and Pomfret (1977) seemed to have pinpointed the phenomenon, v i z , the problem of s p e c i f y i n g exactly what the innovation i s before measuring i t s implementation. Lack of c l e a r s p e c i f i c a t i o n of an innovation only compounds the problem of conceptualizing the 15 implementat ion p r o c e s s , a process which r e q u i r e s adequate i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of the s p e c i f i c implementat ion v a r i a b l e s . T h e r e f o r e , i t i s not s t a r t l i n g that F u l l a n (1979) and House (1979) c l a i m t h a t l i t t l e s p e c i f i c r e sea rch i s be ing done i n attempts to i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e such v a r i a b l e s . These and s e v e r a l o ther s t u d i e s imply that c u r r i c u l u m implementat ion process s t i l l remains a dubious f i e l d a l though i t has gained r e c o g n i t i o n . Teachers or the u l t i m a t e implementers of an i n n o v a t i o n are most l i k e l y to e f f e c t i v e l y use the i n n o v a t i o n i f they understand the s t r u c t u r a l , b e h a v i o u r a l and p h i l o s o p h i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t comprise the i n n o v a t i o n . Uphold ing t h i s v i e w p o i n t , F u l l a n (1979) proposed a broad framework or concept of c u r r i c u l u m implementat ion process which c o n s i s t e d of f i v e dimensions and n i n e determinants or causes of implementa t ion . The frame-work prov ided the v i t a l components of implementat ion but f e l l shor t on e x p l i c i t o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n i n terms of c u r r i c u l u m implementat ion assessment. Only v e r y few s t u d i e s have employed conceptua l frameworks i n implementat ion assessment. Of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the H a l l and Loucks (1977) concept of c u r r i c u l u m implementat ion re sea rch based on l e v e l s of  use of i n n o v a t i o n (LoU) among t e a c h e r s . They hypothes ized a developmental l e v e l s of use w i t h t ime f a c t o r as an important v a r i a b l e . The l i n e a r concept of c u r r i c u l u m implementat ion process p o s t u l a t e s tha t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of use e x i s t i n the c lassroom environment , and .can be d e f i n e d and c a t e g o r i z e d . The , re searcher s a l s o assumed tha t the c las sroom teacher i s the pr imary u n i t f o r adopt ion and t h a t a l l o ther sources of i n f o r m a t i o n about i n n o v a t i o n implementat ion are secondary. They proposed e i g h t l e v e l s of u se , each l e v e l h a v i n g seven c a t e g o r i e s of f u n c t i o n . T h e i r . 1977 approach n e g l e c t s the a t t i t u d i n a l , m o t i v a t i o n a l and a f f e c t i v e behaviours 16 of the teachers. In the reported research c e r t a i n issues which were found s t a t i s t i c a l l y i n s i g n i f i c a n t were better explained by t h e i r approach. However, the research findings were weak in accounting for v a r i a t i o n s between l e v e l s and within l e v e l s . On the whole the approach seems suit a b l e for c l e a r l y s p e c i f i e d innovations on one hand, and on the other hand makes i t possible to skip l e v e l s of use, as each teacher has a d i f f e r e n t s t a r t i n g point i n terms of personal experience, academic stance, and knowledge of an innovation, which may i n turn depend upon the type of i n - s e r v i c e or introduction to the innovation. The framework i s an appropriate t h e o r e t i c a l construct to view curriculum implementation i n general but probably not p r a c t i c a l f or measuring any p a r t i c u l a r innovation because a l l the eight l e v e l s of use may not e x i s t i n a single i s o l a t e d case. Furthermore, although the approach i s one of the few that considers the actual use of innovation among implementers, i t unfortunately ignores the teacher's influence on the implementation process which i s very s i g n i -f i c a n t , since i t i s the teacher who makes the f i n a l d e cision to adopt and use an innovation and i t i s his or her influence which determines i t s success or f a i l u r e . S t a l l i n g s (1977) applied an approach which required the developers to specify the key elements of an innovation to evaluate the innovation. The evaluation was to determine i f student achievement or outcomes were a consequence of the innovation. He claimed to hav~ conducted the research i n classrooms where the key elements of the innovation were being implemented but did not indicate how the decision about implemention c r i t e r i a was reached. Churchman (1979) commented that his approach required a reported yes/no decision about implementation of the key elements. In essence, the study was an evaluation of innovation based on the developers' and the i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' notions of the key elements, 17 and reported use^of the key elements of the innovation. It was uncertain how he established the key elements. For instance, how d i f f e r e n t were the key elements of the innovation as compared to the previous curriculum? The study did not consider the teachers' viewpoint of the key elements of the innovation. S t a l l i n g s , H a l l and Louck's a l l r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on the perceptions of innovation from developers' and researchers' viewpoints. Rogers developed his concept of curriculum implementation as an "adoption process" which consists of f i v e stages; awareness, i n t e r e s t , evaluation, : t r i a l and adoption. He describes the adopters as innovators, early adopters, early majority, l a t e majority and laggards. He claims the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the adopters are influenced by the i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception, sources of information, and the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation (Ingram, 1966) . Rogers does not suggest d i r e c t l y how imple-mentation of an innovation should be measured. However, i n Rogers and Shoemaker's Communication of Innovation (1971), they r e f e r to a t t r i b u t e s of an innovation which they suggest influence adoption. These a t t r i b u t e s include complexity, c o m p a t i b i l i t y , t r i a l a b i l i t y , o b s e r v a b i l i t y and r e l a t i v e advantage which r e l a t e to an e x i s t i n g curriculum as compared to an innovation proposed to replace i t . Rogers and Shoemaker reported studies which adopted these a t t r i b u t e s to diagnose the r e l a t i o n s h i p between innovation and innovation adoption/rejection (Allan and Wolf, 1978). The r e s u l t s of the studies showed that the a t t r i b u t e s provide very l i t t l e i n -s i g h t - i n t o the complex adoption process. The studies were r e s t r i c t e d to the a t t r i b u t e s of an innovation under review. There remains a key question: Did the study consider the other factors suggested by Rogers, p a r t i c u l a r l y those concerning the teacher's awareness and i n t e r e s t i n the innovation? If i t did, the r e s u l t s might have been s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 18 Here i s another study which.used the a t t r i b u t e s and reported p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s . Hughes and Keith (1980) examined teacher perception of r e l a t i v e advantage, com p a t i b i l i t y , t r i a l a b i l i t y and o b s e r v a b i l i t y of an elementary science programme i n r e l a t i o n to the degree of implementation. They also hypothesized negative c o r r e l a t i o n between teacher perception of programme complexity and the degree of implementation. Their research findings i n -di c a t e t a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i n terms of the a t t r i b u t e s proposed by Rogers and Shoemaker, between the p o t e n t i a l users' perception of an innovation and i t s successful implementation. Some researchers have opted for studying only c e r t a i n components of an innovation i n attempting to conceptualize the implementation process. Guns (1979), i n h i s study of the Community Schools in B r i t i s h Columbia's Lower Mainland area, examined the administrative strategies applied i n the implementation process. His approach, apparently, was the most suitable for the study, as the innovation seemed too nebulous to "bundle" or conceptualize i n concrete measurable v a r i a b l e s . He compared "designated community schools" with "regular schools" on the basis of " c e r t a i n indicators of degree of int e g r a t i o n of community resources i n the c u r r i c u l a of the schools". The examples of community resources he c i t e d include f i e l d t r i p s ? work and service experience, guest speakers, and volunteers. Yet i t i s quite l i k e l y these so c a l l e d community resources were a v a i l a b l e to the schools before they were approved for the "designated community schools','. These questions immediately come to one's mind: How were the "regular schools prohibited from u t i l i z i n g these resources? To what extent did the "regular schools" and the "designated community schools" u t i l i z e the resources p r i o r to the " o f f i c i a l " approval? This case seems to be another example of unclear s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the innovation v i s - a - v i s the t r a d i t i o n a l . 19 Evans and Sh e f f l e r (1978) developed and applied an instrument for assessing curriculum implementation by classroom observation. The instrument was based on a conceptual model of the Mathematical I n s t r u c t i o n a l  System which they measured. The instrument, Consultants Diagnostic Instrument (CDI), has two components, one rates organizational aspects of implementation and the other checks the i n s t r u c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the innovation. The instrument was designed to examine i f there was" any discrepancy between the conceptual model of the innovation as planned by the developers and the classroom p r a c t i c e . On the basis of t h i s instrument, (CDI), the researchers concluded that the mathematical i n s t r u c t i o n a l system was not being f u l l y implemented as planned. They claimed however, that when viewing the r e s u l t s across the schools the data indicated a higher r a t i n g on the organizational aspect of implemen-ta t i o n than did the i n s t r u c t i o n a l items. Heathers (1972) applied the same instrument and found s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n h i s study of an elementary organization plan. But Valdes and Evans' (1978) study showed a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.69 between classroom organization and i n s t r u c t i o n a l item ratings on s i m i l a r implementation studies which indicates that schools that were rated high on organization tended to be rated high on i n s t r u c t i o n a l items as w e l l . The Evans and Sh e f f l e r study also assessed the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the degree of implementation as measured by the instrument and eight other variables such as innovativeness of the schools, administrative climate, continuous s t a f f  t r a i n i n g and s t a f f and student attitudes towards innovation. The study showed no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the degree of implementation and the number of years the schools were involved with the innovation. This f i n d i n g would appear to challenge H a l l and Louck's concept which 20 regards the time factor i n implementation as c r u c i a l to a t t a i n i n g higher l e v e l s of use of an innovation. However, one can also argue that H a l l and Louck's concept deals with i n d i v i d u a l teachers while Evans and She f f l e r ' s f i n d i n g generalizes for i n d i v i d u a l schools disregarding the v a r i a t i o n s within each school and among the teachers. The r e s u l t s of the reported studies show the i l l u s i v e nature of the f i e l d . The reported studies also demonstrate how inadequately the innovations were conceptualized during the implementation process. Several studies r e l i e d on describing and measuring the determinants to the extent of almost neglecting the teacher who had to implement the innovation. Doyle and Ponder (1977) claim that teachers tend to adopt and implement what appears to them as p r a c t i c a l l y applicable i n the classroom s i t u a t i o n or i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l circumstances. Doyle and Ponder put the case even more e x p l i c i t l y when they stated, "that c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a curriculum have meanings for . teachers and that these meanings determine i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways the adoption and use of curriculum proposal. A common and continuing problem i n implementation i s the discrepancy between what a curriculum proposal means to i t s designers and what i t means to the teachers who are being asked to use i t . " The r e s u l t s from these studies also indicate the need for more systematic approaches for i d e n t i f y i n g and describing the variables a f f e c t i n g curriculum implementation process. Evans and SheffIer,becoming aware that curriculum implementation varies from teacher to teacher, recommended that future studies on curriculum implementation should focus on i n d i v i d u a l classrooms rather than. on schools as appropriate units for study. Gross, Giaquinta and Bernstein put i t more emphatically that claims should not be made for implementation unless there i s evidence i n the "concrete s i t u a t i o n s " . This perspective on implementation i s p a r a l l e l to the view 21 that i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t to accept what teachers say, rather than what they do, as evidence for implementation (Hartnett and Naish, 1976; F u l l a n , M., 1977, Waring, M., 1979). Therefore teacher perception of an innovation as well as performance i n the classroom become areas of concern i n studies about curriculum innovation. Leithwood and MacDonald (1976) view the curriculum implementation process as inf l u e n c i n g decisions teachers have to make about t h e i r c l a s s -room i n s t r u c t i o n s . The teacher makes the f i n a l decision to adopt or r e j e c t an innovation. In other words, e f f e c t i v e implementation of an innovation p a r t l y depends on knowledge about teachers' decision-making i n curriculum usage. This immediately i n v i t e s the question: what influences teachers' decisions about t h e i r classroom materials and instructions? Waring (1979) considers teachers' perceptions of a programme or project " c r u c i a l l y important i n decision-making about uptake". Harding (1975) argues further that decision-making involves a teacher i n matching hi s perceptions of a programme to the "perceived needs of p u p i l s , the resources a v a i l a b l e and his own aims and objectives and preferred s t y l e of teaching". She examined teacher perceptions of N u f f i e l d projects using a c h e c k l i s t of questions about the " e s s e n t i a l structure", . appropriateness of the projects for p u p i l s , differences between N u f f i e l d and t r a d i t i o n a l courses, the advantages and disadvantages of adopting N u f f i e l d content, approach and the cost of adoption. A l l the teachers interviewed perceived the projects as "external objects", "new pressure that could not be ignored" and "demanding a response even i f only one of r e j e c t i o n " . The i n d i v i d u a l teachers viewed the projects d i f f e r e n t l y , a "welcome revolution", an " i n t r u s i o n " , a "new orthodoxy" and a "powerful pressure on external c o n s t r a i n t s " in t h e i r own p a r t i c u l a r 22 s i t u a t i o n s . T h e i r pe rcep t ions of the p r o j e c t s ' approach were u n c l e a r though they spoke of " i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l approach" , " i n q u i r y " and " d i s c o v e r y " as d i s t i n g u i s h i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of N u f f i e l d p r o j e c t s w i t h o u t i n t e r p r e t i n g the terms. A survey of teacher p e r c e p t i o n s by C u r r i c u l u m D i f f u s i o n Research P r o j e c t , CDRP i n d i c a t e d t h a t teachers p e r c e i v e d the f o l l o w i n g c h a -r a c t e r i s t i c s to be the most important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s c i ence p r o j e c t s : 1. Development of exper imenta l s k i l l s . 2 . The a b i l i t y to i n v e s t i g a t e open-ended problems . 3 . An unders tanding of and a b i l i t y t o use the s c i e n t i f i c method. Al though teachers pe rce ived these aims t o ' b e important . , they p e r c e i v e d as the most important aim of s c i ence e d u c a t i o n , " c l e a r l y knowledge of the b a s i c f a c t s of s c i e n c e " . M c l a u g h l i n and Marsh (1978), r e p o r t i n g on the Rand Change Agent Study, suggest t h a t teachers are capable p r o f e s s i o n a l s whose p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n making about c u r r i c u l u m a c t i v i t i e s and o b j e c t i v e s i s e s s e n t i a l f o r s u c c e s s f u l implementa t ion . Ben-Pere tz (1980) i s sympathetic to t h i s v iew and notes lamentably t h a t r a r e l y are t e a c h e r s ' i n t e r e s t s and concerns accepted to a f f e c t or shape the d e c i s i o n s made by the e x t e r n a l c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p e r s . Leithwood et a l . (1976) suggest t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n between p r a c t i t i o n e r and re searcher on the grounds of mutual re spec t and s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n , may l e a d to s u c c e s s f u l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . Conne l ly (1972) proposes two ways of teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the c u r r i c u l u m development proces s : (a) teacher involvement w i t h the c e n t r a l c u r r i c u l u m development agencies o u t s i d e the c lassroom and (b) teacher involvement i n the a d a p t a t i o n and development of e x t e r n a l l y developed m a t e r i a l s . T h e r e f o r e , i n the case of e x t e r n a l l y developed c u r r i c u l u m , the developers must be knowledgeable of the teachers ' p e r c e p t i o n o f an i n n o v a t i o n and how they adapt e x t e r n a l l y developed m a t e r i a l s to s u i t t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l 23 teaching styles and classrooms. Thus teacher perception of an innovation as well as ac t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n curriculum development process seem to be c r u c i a l to successful implementation ( C a f f a r e l l a , C a f f a r e l l a , Hart, Pooler, and S a l e s i , 1979; Collingwood, 1979; Fullan and Pomfret, 1977; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). In b r i e f , the research findings and comments i n the l i t e r a t u r e about curriculum implementation although sketchy suggest that: a) the study requires a concise p r i o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and des c r i p t i o n of the innovation; b) the classroom teacher's perception of an innovation i s an important factor i n any implementation process; c) the study requires a systematic approach or method i n assess-ing the implementation of the innovation; and d) the study of the implementation process should be r e s t r i c t e d to a smaller unit such as the classroom. It appeared generally that: e f f e c t i v e curriculum implementation i s f e a s i b l e i f both the p o t e n t i a l implementers and the developers of an innovation co-actively p a r t i c i p a t e i n i d e n t i f y i n g and describing the innovation during the implementation process. In the current study the investigator proposed that e f f e c t i v e curriculum implementation depends l a r g e l y on the teachers' perception of def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a new curriculum, and that these defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s influence the decisions teachers make about t h e i r classroom i n s t r u c t i o n s . The study involved systematic examination of perceptions of developers and teachers of a new programme, and determined the d i f f e r e n t viewpoints demonstrated i n the classrooms where the new programme was being . implemented. 24 Q-METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH IN EDUCATION I n t r o d u c t i o n Q-methodology i s a term formulated by W i l l i a m Stephenson to d e s c r i b e a set of p h i l o s o p h i c a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l , s t a t i s t i c a l and psychometr ic ideas a p p l i e d to r e s e a r c h on i n d i v i d u a l s ( K e r l i n g e r , 1973). Q-methodology employs r e s e a r c h techniques which embrace Q - s o r t , c o r r e l a t i o n s and f a c t o r a n a l y s i s to measure a t t i t u d e s , behaviour and p e r c e p t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s . The methodology has been w i d e l y a p p l i e d p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s o c i a l p sychology , c l i n i c a l psychology and p s y c h i a t r y ( N u n n a l l y , 1970). The fundamental p r i n c i p l e i n Q-methodology i s tha t i t r e l i e s on comparisons between d i f f e r e n t responses w i t h i n persons r a t h e r than between per sons . . A major component of Q-methodology i s Q-sor t , a s o p h i s t i c a t e d method of r a n k - o r d e r i n g o b j e c t s ( i t ems , statements or s t i m u l i ) a long a s p e c i f i e d cont inuum. A sub jec t i s p r o v i d e d w i t h a deck of 60-120 c a r d s , each c a r r y i n g an a t t r i b u t e of the system under s tudy , and i s i n s t r u c t e d to s o r t the cards i n t o s e v e r a l p i l e s or c a t e g o r i e s a long a predetermined d i s t r i b u t i o n forming a normal or quas i -normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . For i n s t a n c e a r a n k - o r d e r continuum of CDC to CNDC d e s c r i b i n g a programme or a c u r r i c u -lum u s i n g statements w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of c l a r i t y between the two extremes i s shown i n F i g u r e 1. ^ ^ r l y Frequency c l e a r l y not d ^ f i n i n 8 . . | | I 9 12 9 7 5 3 d e f i n i n g characteristic 9 8 7 6 5 4 3~~2 f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c { L D L ) . Q-score (CNDC) F i g u r e 1. Rank-order continuum f o r 60 i tem Q-sor t . 25 The numbers 3, 5, 7 ... 7, 5, 3 ind i c a t e the number of cards to be placed i n each category. The corresponding numbers below them or below the l i n e are the values assigned to each card i n a category. For example the 3 cards on the extreme l e f t , " c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " category are each assigned 9, the°5 cards i n the next category are assigned 8, and so on u n t i l the l a s t 3 cards on the extreme r i g h t , " c l e a r l y not de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " category are each assigned 1. The subjects are usually instructed to begin sorting by placing the cards at the :extreme_ends and working t h e i r way into the centre, the neutral zone, where some of the subjects may have more d i f f i c u l t y i n making decisions. The s t a t i s t i c a l analyses which follow Q-sort are based on the values assigned to each card i n a category. The card items for t h i s study are l i s t e d i n Appendix A. An i n d i v i d u a l ' s sorting forms a p r o f i l e which i s then used with a l l the other p r o f i l e s to e s t a b l i s h an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix by c o r r e l a t i n g every person's sort of items with every other person's sort of items. The i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix (Appendix G-2) obtained i s sub-mitted to factor analysis wherein persons become v a r i a b l e s and items are observations. The subjects are compared for s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences using various Q-techniques, d e t a i l s of which are presented i n Chapter 4, and d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s of Q-analysis are also displayed i n theoAppendix. The outcomes of Q-analysis are usually two-fold; a) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of subjects with s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s known as "types" or " f a m i l i e s " each with a d i s t i n c t way of s o r t i n g . b) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the nature of the viewpoints of each type i n terms of the range of items which they perceived to be CDC of the new curriculum and of the established curriculum. 26 Q-methodology i n education Q-methodology has been applied successfully to measure at t i t u d e s , behaviours and perceptions i n d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s of study since 1935 when i t was o r i g i n a l l y designed for use i n c l i n i c a l s i t u a t i o n s to measure student a t t i t u d e s . Recently Q-methodology has been used by researchers i n c l i n i c a l psychology, s o c i a l psychology and psychiatry (Nunnally, 1970). Kerlinger (1973) claims that Q-methodology i s useful and f l e x i b l e for studies i n psychology and education. In education the methodology has been employed e f f e c t i v e l y to study attitudes^behaviour and perceptions (Kerlinger, 1956, 1958, 1966, Smith 1963, wheeler 1960, K l e i n 1961, Sontag 1968, G r i f f i t h s 1974, Housego and Boldt 1978) . The Q-techniques encompass Q-sort which allows for a more honest subject response than a questionnaire type of measure in which the subjects may show more of how the investigator wants them to respond than how they r e a l l y f e e l (Nunnally 1967, Melton and Humphreys 1980). The structured Q-sort i n p a r t i c u l a r encourages subjects to make discrimina-tions they would not perhaps normally"make (Kerlinger 1964). "Therefore the methodology was considered to be appropriate for the f i r s t part of t h i s study which required the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and descriptions of d i f f e r e n t subjects' perceptions of a curriculum based on d i s c r e t e i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s . In curriculum implementation studies teacher perception of an innovation or curriculum change i s among a number of c r u c i a l factors postulated to have influence on success or non-success of curriculum implementation (Rogers and Shoemaker; 1971, Doyle and Ponder, 1977; Fu l l a n and Pomfret, 1977; Hughes and Keith, 1980). Sontag (1968) conducted a Q-sort study of t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n of d e s i r a b l e t each ing behaviours u s i n g an 80- i tem Q-sort whose items were d e s c r i p t i v e of a v a r i e t y of t each ing b e h a v i o u r s . He e f f e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d four of the h i g h e s t va lue f o r two of the teacher behaviour f a c t o r s as f o l l o w s : Concerns f o r s tudents P r o v i d e s i n d i v i d u a l i z e d m a t e r i a l s f o r p u p i l s as r e q u i r e d . Teaches s tudents to be s e n s i t i v e to the needs of o t h e r s . Takes advantage of s tudent i n t e r e s t i n p l a n n i n g l e s s o n s . Shows s i n c e r e concern when confronted w i t h per sona l problems of p u p i l s . S t r u c t u r e and sub jec t matter Present s w e l l planned l e s s o n s . Is c o n s i s t e n t i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g d i s c i p l i n e . I n h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , shows competent knowledge of the sub jec t m a t t e r . Adheres to r u l e s he s e t s . These few r e p r e s e n t a t i v e items i n d i c a t e a t a g lance how the items were c a t e g o r i z e d i n t o d i f f e r e n t teacher behaviour f a c t o r s . These exemplary items were the more p o s i t i v e items which Sontag r e q u i r e d to i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e the h i e r a r c h y of s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n of teacher b e h a v i o u r s . In another study u s i n g Q-methodology Housego and B o l d t (1978) s t u d i e d the p r i o r i t i e s of teacher behaviours as p e r c e i v e d by s t u d e n t -teachers i n a school-based t r a i n i n g programme. They found a c o n s i d e r a b l e consensus (70%) on the p r i o r i t i e s as s igned to the items among the s t u d e n t - t e a c h e r s . The s tudents were then grouped on the b a s i s of the " t y p e s " w i t h which they most h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e . The re searcher s succes s -f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d and d e s c r i b e d three h y p o t h e t i c a l t y p e s . Of s i g n i f i -cant importance i n t h i s s tudy was the l a r g e number of i tems on which a l l 28 types seemed to agree. Further examination of these consensus items showed that the subjects gave top p r i o r i t y to teacher behaviours i n the teaching-learning category while they put low p r i o r i t y on behaviours f a l l i n g on the:.societal dimension of the organization category. In science education very few studies have been reported to have u t i l i z e d Q-methodology ( G r i f f i t h s , 1974; MacDonald, 1976; Melton and Humphreys, 1980). G r i f f i t h s applied the Q-techniques to examine the goals of B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary School Chemistry courses among s p e c i a l i s t s , teachers and students. The study showed that teachers were aware of the. goals of the p r o v i n c i a l chemistry programme and that they reported t h e i r dedication to achieve those goals. However, G r i f f i t h s also reported that the students' viewpoint d i f f e r e d from that of the teachers. Although he seems to suggest that most of the teachers' and the s p e c i a l i s t s ' viewpoints are s i m i l a r , the study f a l l s short on a". measure of actual implementation of the programme goals. In a recent study conducted by Melton and Humphreys (1980), Q-sort.tests were employed to predict student academic achievement i n High School science based on measurement of student self-image. The r e s u l t s indicated high c o r r e l a t i o n s (Pearson product-moment) between student self-image as indicated by the Q-scores (independent variables) and the academic achievement c r e d i t s (dependent variables) i n Chemistry (r = .83) and i n Biology (r = .71). The students were expected to provide a p r o f i l e of self-image (or perception of self-image) which has then correlated with academic achievements i n Chemistry and Biology. 29 Melton and Humphreys concluded that the Q-sort was a good predictor of academic success or non-success. In 'a'- somewhat s i m i l a r way but on a larger scale, the invest i g a t o r of the current study applied the Q-techniques extensively to i d e n t i f y and describe the teachers' perception of an innovation. In the l a t t e r section of the study the investigator attempted systematically to determine any r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher perception of an innovation and teacher use of the innovation and to di s c l o s e any possible factors which might have influenced teacher use or non-use of the innovation. Conclusion The l i t e r a t u r e review i l l u s t r a t e s the depth of current under-standing of curriculum implementation process as well as the acceptance by many curriculum researchers that there i s inadequate research i n the f i e l d to provide even a tentative d e f i n i t i o n of the f i e l d . The reviewed studies also indicate areas which require further i n v e s t i g a t i o n such as a) i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and de s c r i p t i o n of implementation strategies for successful curriculum innovation and b) factors which influence teachers' decision-making i n the use of curriculum materials. 30 CHAPTER 3 METHODS OF THE STUDY Instruments Introduction The methodology adopted for t h i s study required a two-phase procedure. The f i r s t phase employed the Q-methodology to determine the viewpoints of the developers, teacher-writers and teacher-users in terms of what they perceived to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a new curriculum as well as the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an established curriculum. The second phase required the construction of a classroom analysis instrument, C.A.I., based on some of the r e s u l t s from the f i r s t phase of the study. This C.A.I, was then used to c o l l e c t classroom data. Q-Methodology The ssubjects p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study were i n v i t e d to a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n to perform the Q-sorts, the preliminary a c t i v i t y i n Q-study. These Q-sort workshops were scheduled over a period of three weeks, from January 19th to February 6th, 1981. Each subject attended two of the workshops which ran from 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. Monday to Friday. The Q-sort data obtained was s t a t i s t i c a l l y analysed using a Q-analysis computer programme. 31 Selection of items f o r the Q-sort The items for the Q-sort were selected from a v a r i e t y of sources: l i t e r a t u r e reviews concerning studies on goals and objectives of elementary science education; analyses of documents of the established elementary science programme and the new elementary science programme; and interviews with the developers of the new programme. The purpose of these a c t i v i t i e s was to i d e n t i f y statements suggesting d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respective programmes and to ascer t a i n the expected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c behaviour manifestations i n s i t u a t i o n s where the new programme or the established programme i s i n use. In the i n i t i a l developments of the statements a F u l l a n type of framework, "Components of implementation", (Figure 2) was designed to ensure a comprehensive coverage of the programmes' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A large number of statements describing the two programmes was gathered and presented to the developers of the new programme, three graduate students who were teachers of the established programme and to two u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l elementary science s p e c i a l i s t s f o r screening to ensure that the statements were representative of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programmes. From a large pool of items, the developers of the new programme distin g u i s h e d NESP c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and separately the three former teachers i d e n t i f i e d the EESP c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Then from 80 i n i t i a l items 60 were selected and edited f o r conciseness and c l a r i t y , avoiding any changes i n meaning of the items (Appendix A). Some of the items are d i s t i n c t i v e of one programme while other items are common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i . e . shared by both programmes (see Appendix B). New Elementary Science Programme NESP Established Elementary Science Programme, EESP h - ' 4> h o L O O V O V O <* C O Q H L n Pel - C - \# c i 1—1 vo h o C O \« h-• o IZATION CTURE/ L n L n 4> H-• L n L n • C - I—" L O V O C O L O V O o \» v* <« w d GO L n L n L n u> L n L n L n L O GO 00 •> O C O O oo o !> ** N# \# TI C O L n L n L n *• L n L n L n < L n I—" V O L n h-' L O M \* »# " " - C O O N L n L n O N L n L n o h o L n o o-> h o o> p—' 1—1 h o pgl H h o h o M C O S« " M C O L O E5 L O C O »* L O L O L n O N (—• h o »* AC r. h o h O o t—* h o 1—I a < 1—I TE h o h o H 25 L O I—l i H ES h o h o L n *d L O h - ' *~ 1—' V O - P - O L O b ** ** \* CE H 4> I—1 1—' C O M o> C O L n C O AC C O HI h o L O H HI V O O <• £> O L O L O M >—• h o GY 33 P i l o t t e s t i n g the items f o r the Q-sort A f t e r hav ing screened and e d i t e d the i t ems , the f i n a l 60 items were p i l o t t e s t e d u s i n g the Q-methodology. The school d i s t r i c t a u t h o r i t i e s requested 6 teachers (4 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and 2 t eacher-user s ) to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p i l o t s tudy . The i n v e s t i g a t o r admin i s t e red the Q-sorts at the t e a c h e r s ' c en t re on two separate even ings . One evening the teachers so r ted the 60 i tem cards f o r the new elementary sc ience programme (NESP) and on another evening they s o r t e d the items f o r the e s t a b l i s h e d elementary s c i ence programme (EESP). The i n v e s t i g a t o r analysed the Q-sort data u s i n g a computer Q-ana lys i s programme. The r e s u l t s of the Q-ana lys i s showed tha t the sub jec t s d i f f e r e d i n t h e i r v i e w p o i n t s on what they p e r c e i v e d to be the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of the new programme as w e l l as the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. In both programmes some teacher-user s had s i m i l a r v i e w p o i n t s to those of the t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s i . e . they belonged to the same type i n each programme. The p i l o t r e s u l t s a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t the 60 items can be a p p l i e d to d e s c r i b e NESP and EESP by d i f f e r e n t sub jec t s d i s t i n c t i v e l y . On the b a s i s of these r e s u l t s the i n v e s t i g a t o r proceeded to make arrangements f o r the s e l e c t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s as sub jec t s f o r the main scudy. S e l e c t i o n of the sub jec t s The m a j o r i t y of the sub jec t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study were s e l e c t e d by the a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of an urban school d i s t r i c t where the 34 i n v e s t i g a t i o n was conducted. Some add i t i o n a l teachers volunteered to p a r t i c i p a t e in the study. The subjects i n i t i a l l y consisted of 5 develop-ers, 11 teacher-writers and 11 teacher-users of the new elementary science programme (NESP) which was then at the implementation stage. The teachers were i n v i t e d by l e t t e r to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. The l e t t e r assured the teachers that complete anonymity would be maintained that any information provided would be treated as group data^that they would be free to withdraw from the study at any time, and that t h e i r withdrawal would not jeopardize them i n any way. The p r i n c i p a l s of the schools where these request l e t t e r s were to be delivered also received l e t t e r s informing them about the study and the request l e t t e r s which were to be sent to the teachers (see Appendix J ) . These l e t t e r s were hand delivered to 24 schools and 38 teachers. Of the 38 teachers approached 30 teachers i n 19 schools elected to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. Of the i n i t i a l 30 teachers, 27 turned up for the f i r s t Q-sort workshop sessions, 23 completed the second workshop and 16 offered lessons for a n a l y s i s . Each p a r t i c i p a t i n g teacher was expected to Q-sort 60 item cards twice i n order to: 1. describe the new programme, NESP, 2. describe the established programme, EESP. The teacher-users and teacher-writers were also requested to o f f e r at l e a s t two elementary science lessons for analysis and attend a follow-up interview l a s t i n g not more than 30 minutes. In a l l 23 subjects completed both Q-sorts, and 16 teachers offered science lessons for examination. 35 The Q-sort The selected and edited 60 items were printed on 2" x 4" cards, one item per card. Each subject, therefore, had a deck of 60 cards to sort into a s p e c i f i e d number of p i l e s or categories according to a prescribed frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n along the continuum of defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme and the established programme. The subjects were instructed to sort the items into nine cate-gories according to how well they perceived each item, compared to a l l the other items, to be a c l e a r l y d efining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the new programme or of the established programme. Each subject had to sort the items f o r each programme along the s p e c i f i e d continuum ranging from " c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " to " c l e a r l y not def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s " . The predetermined frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n format i s given i n figur e 3. The 60 item Q-sort was administered to a l l the 27 subjects i n the f i r s t round of the workshops for the new programme and repeated f o r 23 subjects for the established programme. Four subjects declined to sort the items f o r the established programme on the grounds that they did not r e c a l l the programme s u f f i c i e n t l y enough to carry out the Q-sort. Each subject was advised f i r s t and foremost to read c a r e f u l l y through the items i n the deck, then to proceed to place the items into three gross p i l e s : 1) c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP, 2) Marginally defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP, 3) C l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP. 36 The subject was further instructed to subdivide the thr.ee p i l e s , working from both extremes of the continuum towards the centre, to complete the required d i s t r i b u t i o n of items (see Appendix C-2). The respondents who sorted the items f o r both programmes had varied ranges of time lapse between one to two weeks from the f i r s t s o r t -ing to the second sorting except the developers who unanimously agreed among themselves to sort the items f o r both programmes at the same s i t t i n g on the basis that even a f t e r a week t h e i r perceptions or viewpoints on the programmes which they claimed to know so well would not change. The Q-sort workshop sessions were organized for small groups of subjects i n a ce n t r a l l o c a t i o n where the investigator met the subjects over a period of approximately f i v e weeks. The researcher conducted the Q-sort sessions for most of the subjects but in some instances two subjects, at separate times, requested to sort the second time i n t h e i r own time and mailed i n the r e s u l t s . In another instance a subject volunteered to administer the sorting for two other subjects i n his school and also mailed i n the r e s u l t s . It should be noted here that the package for the Q-sort included a sorting mat with i n s t r u c t i o n s and dir e c t i o n s in order to f a c i l i t a t e s e l f - s o r t i n g and recording (see Appendix C). Scoring scheme f or the Q-sort items The items i n a category were assigned the category value, and the assigned value f o r each item was recorded on the Q-sort Record Sheet (see Appendix C - l ) . The i n d i v i d u a l scores were then compiled on a master sheet (see Appendix D). 37 Using a 9 -po in t s ca le each sub jec t scored 9 marks f o r the 3 items p e r c e i v e d to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP, and 1 mark f o r items p e r c e i v e d to be c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP. Each sub jec t recorded the scores on a separate Q-sort Record Sheet mentioned above. Items i n category 1 ( c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s ) each r e c e i v e d a score of 9 ; those i n category 2 , a score of 8 ; and so on to items i n category 9 ( c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) i n which each i t e m r e c e i v e d a score of 1. The i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s of the perce ived d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r each programme were c o r r e l a t e d and analysed f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s u s i n g the v a r i o u s Q-ana lys i s techniques d e s c r i b e d i n the next s e c t i o n . E v a l u a t i v e C l e a r l y M a r g i n a l l y C l e a r l y not c r i t e r i o n d e f i n i n g d e f i n i n g d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Frequency 3 5 7 9 12 9 7 5 3 Q-score 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 F i g u r e 3 . Design and s c o r i n g scheme f o r the Q-sort 38 Q-analysis The purpose of the factor analysis was to i d e n t i f y types of view-points concerning the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme as well as those of the established programme. The items which served to d i f f e r -entiate one viewpoint from another were i d e n t i f i e d and discussed. • The i n d i v i d u a l raw scores f o r the developers and the teachers were organized into an item X subject data matrix where the columns are d i s t r i b u t i o n s of Q-scores f o r both programmes (see Appendix D ) . The i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s of perceived de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new or the established programme for each subject were corr e l a t e d with every other subjects' p r o f i l e to form an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix. The resultant i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was fa c t o r analysed. Three factors i n each programme were selected on the basis of the magnitude of the lat e n t roots and the number of subjects, and the p r i n c i p a l factors were rotated to the varimax c r i t e r i o n f o r possible greater ease of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the fac t o r matrix. However, i n t h i s case the rotated factor matrix did not produce a simpler st r u c t u r e f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes, therefore the unrotated f a c t o r matrix data was used f o r further a n a l y s i s . Each f a c t o r was seen to correspond to the pattern of so r t i n g of a hypothetical person. The fa c t o r loadings were taken as a measure of each person's or representativeness of each of the hypothetical types or factors (sea Tables 1,2). The higher the person's loading on a factor the greater the c o r r e l a t i o n between the i n d i v i d u a l and the hypothetical type of person the f a c t o r represented. I d e a l l y i n d i v i d u a l s should be grouped according to< the f a c t o r on which they had the highest factor loading. This would then allow each subject to be placed with the hypothetical type 39 of person the subject most c l o s e l y resembled. However, in th i s study the subjects were spread over seven and;six factors f o r the new programme and the established programme re s p e c t i v e l y , and i n each case the subjects were clustered heavily on the f i r s t three f a c t o r s . Therefore, for two or three of the subjects i n each programme the highest f a c t o r i n the f i r s t three f a c t o r solutions was chosen to represent t h e i r hypothetical type or fa c t o r . The subjects c o r r e l a t i n g most highly with each f a c t o r thus conr s i s t e d of a unique group of s i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l s with a d i s t i n c t i v e viewpoint. The hypothetical sort for each f a c t o r or type was then determined and further analysed to e s t a b l i s h a hierarchy of item acceptance from CDC to CNDC of each programme. The hypotehtical sorts for each type were then arrayed into items ordered i n terms of t h e i r z-scores i n order to compare the d i f f e r e n t types. The subjects used for the construction of the factor arrays were those who had a loading 0.37 or greater and those who had r e l a t i v e l y low loading on, the other f a c t o r s . After s e t t i n g the d i f f e r e n t types, the items which the types perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (z-scores +0.8 and above) and c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (z-scores - 0.8 and above high negative) of each programme were selected to d i f f e r e n t i a t e a p a r t i c u l a r type from a l l other types. Differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s between the types were examined by considering each item across a l l types in each programme. Consensus items were also i d e n t i f i e d by examining the z-scores across a l l types for each item i n each programme. If a difference between the largest and the smallest z-score given to an item was less than 1.00, the item was then selected as a consensus item. Then the z-scores for each selected consensus item were averaged across 4 0 types and the resultant average z-scores arranged i n rank order according to size and i n order of p r i o r i t y among a l l the three types i n each programme. The r e s u l t s of these Q-analyses are presented i n the next chapter. Classroom analysis instrument Introduction The function of the classroom analysis instrument was to determine the presence or absence of defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme and the established programme i n classroom p r a c t i c e . The three-component design of the instrument ensured a comprehensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n into the sources and nature of the classroom science a c t i v i t i e s . The classroom observations supplemented by the interviews permitted not only the examina-t i o n of the presence or absence of the selected items but also t h e i r counterparts which acted as references. The second component of the instrument was the c h e c k l i s t which embraced items that had been broken down into small units f or examination. The presence or absence of the selected items was determined by the frequency of the small u n i t s . A high frequency i n small units for an item manifested the presence of that item. Conversely, a low frequency recording denoted the absence of that item. The t h i r d component of the classroom analysis instrument, the interview schedule, was less structured i n pr a c t i c e than the system suggested. The taped interviews, though generally focused on scheduled questions, were f l e x i b l e enough to address some current issues that arose during the classroom observations. 41 Selection of the items f or  the Classroom Analysis Instrument, C.A.I. Items with the highest z-scores (+0.8 and above f o r each pro-gramme which the types considered to be most d e s c r i p t i v e of the programmes) were i d e n t i f i e d and u t i l i z e d i n the construction of the instrument (see Appendix G - l ) . These items which the d i f f e r e n t types perceived to be def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme or the established programme were not a l l n e c e s s a r i l y the items o r i g i n a l l y selected to characterize the programmes. Therefore, only those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which the types perceived to be the de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programmes and also o r i g i n a l l y selected to characterize the programmes were u t i l i z e d . The f i r s t d r a f t copy of the classroom analysis instrument was submitted to the d i s s e r t a t i o n committee members for scrutiny, and then adjusted on recommendations from the committee before the instrument was f i e l d tested. The f i e l d tests with three d i f f e r e n t science lessons i n three d i f f e r e n t classes showed such a high consistency i n r a t i n g that i t was unnecessary to carry further t e s t s rather than to embark on the actual data c o l l e c t i o n . Content v a l i d i t y The items selected for the construction of the classroom analysis instrument correspond to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the subjects selected c o r r e c t l y to be d e s c r i p t i v e of both programmes. The negative counterparts of some items were not included i n the instrument, for instance these items 42 11. Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 12. Does not provide supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. 46. Does not require cooperation among teachers. The items were evaluated by three judges who are s p e c i a l i s t s i n elementary science at the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l . The judges were requested to rate the instrument on a 5-point scale based on the following c r i t e r i o n : How suitable the instrument was for the analysis of elementary science a c t i v i t i e s . The judges highly rated CAI (4, 5 , 5) as being suitable f o r science lesson an a l y s i s . R e l i a b i l i t y A second "observer" was trained through i n d i v i d u a l study of the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme (structure, goals, objectives, teaching strategies and materials) and also the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme, and through classroom experience with the instrument. The second "observer" was provided with comparative and des c r i p t i v e documents of the two programmes i n order to acquaint himself with the s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the new programme and the established programme. The investigator and the second "observer" spent about one hour studying- the contents of the instrument before the second "observer" used the instrument i n a classroom s i t u a t i o n . The investigator and the second "observer" simultaneously analysed three lessons i n three d i f f e r e n t schools. The analyses were compared for agreement using a si m i l a r formula as in Tamir's (1977) study; 43 P = number of agreements n n X 1 Uu number of disagreements agreements where P equals percentage of agreement. Lesson 1 Items of agreement 17 Items of disagreement 4 %age of agreement = 1_7 x 100 = 80.95 21 Lesson 2 Items of agreement 15 Items of disagreement 6 %age of agreement = L5 x 100 = 71.43 21 Lesson 3 Items of agreement 17 Items of disagreement 4 %age of agreement = _17 x 100 = 80.95 21 The average percentage of agreement between the investigator and the second "observer" i s P = 77.78. Classroom data c o l l e c t i o n On r e c e i v i n g the signed consent forms, the investigator contacted the teachers i n d i v i d u a l l y through v i s i t i n g at t h e i r schools or by telephone to schedule an observation and interview time. The timetable for these v i s i t s was arranged to the convenience of the teachers and t h e i r respective schools. Such an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d schedule necessitated a long period for the school v i s i t s between A p r i l and June, 1981. In a l l 16 teachers p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the analysis of classroom science a c t i v i t i e s . Each teacher offered at least two science lessons and a short interview l a s t i n g about 30 minutes. The interviews,: which were'tape-recorded; were conducted ei t h e r during the lunch-break or a f t e r school. Each science lesson was analysed for the presence or absence of the selected defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme or the 44 e s t a b l i s h e d programme. The o b j e c t i v e of these lesson analyses wasetoo rec o n s t r u c t m i r r o r images of the items which the d i f f e r e n t types perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme and c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. The purpose of the observation schedule, one of the three components of the classroom a n a l y s i s instrument, was to depict the types of lesson s t r a t e g i e s being employed, the use of ..materials, and the nature of teacher-student i n t e r a c t i o n s . The second component, the c h e c k l i s t , examined the items which d e a l t w i t h such issues as: Was the resource.book f o r the new programme i n use? I f so, to what extent and how was i t being used? The t h i r d component, the i n t e r v i e w , was. geared towards the assessment of the teachers' view of the new programme and implementation. Then through the i n t e r v i e w s an attempt was made to d i s c l o s e any p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d the success or non-success of the new elementary science programme. Classroom data a n a l y s i s The classroom data was examined to determine whether or not the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were congruent w i t h the "perceived" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP and any types. Through weighted t r a n s -formations standardized means were obtained to determine the programme being implemented and the type or viewpoint demonstrated i n the classrooms. The determination involved the examination of any congruencies between a minimum number of weighted items, "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and "perceived" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP and any types of viewpoints. A minimum number of weighted "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s was set at 2/3 of mean of d i s t i n c t i v e "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP. 45 Item weight was calculated per teacher using the mean divided by the total number of "observed" items. The sum of the item weights of a l l the "observed" items provided the total number of weighted items. The congruency between these weighted items and the "perceived" defining characteristics of NESP or EESP and any types was then determined. The teacher was then classified as an implementer or non-implementer of NESP or EESP according to the minimum number of weighted items. The viewpoints demonstrated in the classrooms were determined using a similar procedure. The classroom data were tabulated using the formata in figures- 4 and 5 below: Sub- "Observed" characteristics Total Total common Total distinctive characteristics Item wt. Weighted Items 1 EESP NESP EESP NESP 2 3 Figure 4f . "Observed" defining characteristics of NESP and EESP per subject. 46 Sub "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Total Item wt. Perceived defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Type A jjype B Type C Figure 5. "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP symbolizing any types or viewpoints The r e s u l t s and interpretations of the classroom data analysis are presented i n Chapter 5. 47 CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE Q-ANALYSIS Introduction This chapter presents the results and interpretation of the Q-analysis with a detailed description of the types or viewpoints according to the subjects represented and the pattern of sorting in each programme. The types or viewpoints are compared for similarities and differences in their perceptions of the defining characteristics of each programme. The results w i l l explicate the subproblems of STEP 2, STEP 3 and STEP 4 in the statement of the specific problems outlined in Chapter 1. STEP 2. PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW PROGRAMME AND THE ESTABLISHED PROGRAMME Subproblem 1. What do the developers of a new curriculum and the teachers who are implementing the new curriculum perceive to be the defining characteristics of the new curriculum? Subproblem 2. Are there different types among developers and implementors who can be said to hold distinct viewpoints on the defining characteristics of the new programme? The viewpoints of the developers of the new elementary science programme and those of the teachers who were implementing the new programme 48 were es t imated by the a p p l i c a t i o n of the v a r i o u s techniques of the Q-a n a l y s i s as p r e s e n t e d ' i n t h i s c h a p t e r . R e s u l t s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Q-analysis C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x The c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x between Q-score p r o f i l e s ' of the 27 sub jec t s i n the m a t r i x f o r the new programme ranged from -0 .55 to 0 .67 . The range f o r the 23 sub jec t s i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme was from -0 .55 to 0 . 5 5 . The complete m a t r i x f o r each programme i s presented i n Appendix F . The c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x i n d i c a t e s to what extent the p r o f i l e s of the d i f f e r e n t sub jec t s had s i m i l a r shapes. A c l o s e r examinat ion of each c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x i n d i c a t e s t h a t on ly a few p r o f i l e s were r a t h e r s i m i l a r i n shape i n each programme and suggests l i t t l e consensus on items tha t were p e r c e i v e d to be d e s c r i p t i v e of e i t h e r programme. F a c t o r s o l u t i o n In u s i n g a s t a t i s t i c a l c r i t e r i o n , the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d (see Appendix F ) . However, a p p l y i n g the u t i l i t y c r i t e r i o n reduced the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e i n each programme t o three f a c t o r s . The t h r e e f a c t o r s o l u t i o n s are presented i n Tables 1 and 2 be low. Each f a c t o r F I , F 2 , and F3 repre sent s a group o f sub jec t s w i t h s i m i l a r s o r t i n g p a t t e r n s . Each f a c t o r thus repre sent s a h y p o t h e t i c a l type o f person whose v i ewpo in t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the p a t t e r n o f s o r t i n g . Each o f the t h r e e f a c t o r s o l u -t i o n s a l s o show the degree t o which the s u b j e c t s ' s o r t i n g o f the items i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the t h r e e v i e w p o i n t s or f a c t o r s . 49 Table 1 The factor the three matrix structure largest values of for the three factors corresponding to the latent roots for the new programme Subject No. F l F2 F3 1 0.79 0.15 0.02 2 0.50 0.11 -0.28 3 0.70 -0.21 -0.11 4 0.37 -0.06 0.34 5 0,24 -0.11 -0.80 Teacher-6 0.55 0.39 0.09 Users 7 0.65 0.47 0.31 8 0.42 -0.07 -0.48" 9 0,72 -0.27 -0.14 10 0.70 -0.14 0.39 11 0.59 0.21 0.14 12 0.69 0.11 -0.16 13 -0.56 0.39 -0.16 14 0.74 -0.22 0.26 Teacher-15 0.80 0.01 -0.12 Writers 16 0.23 -0.01 -0.76 17 0.65. -0.40 0.18 18 0.36 -0.46 -0.20 19 0.44 0.68 -0.13 20 0.53 -0.23 -0.05 21 0.75 -0.31 0.05 22 0.56 -0.15 -0.25 23 0.49 -0.48 0.32 24 0.60 0.55 -0.14 Developers 25 -0.33 0.27 0.25 26 0.71 0.31 0.20 27 0.48 0.71 0.00 S i g n i f i c a n t loadings (0.37 or greater) are underlined 50 Table 2 The factor matrix structure for the three factors corresponding to the three largest values of the latent roots for the established programme Subject No. FI F2 F3 1 -0.48 0.59 -0.21 2 0.36 0.43 ; 0.34 3 -0.77 , -0.21 0.10 4 0.25 0.39 ' 0.00 5 -0.07 0.24 0.58 Teacher-6 -0.52 0.14 0.59 Users 7 0.55 0.17 0.25 8 0.76 0.12 0.09 9 -0.11 -0.01 0.76 12 -0.05 0.72 -0.04 15 0.44 0.68 -0.22 16 0.45 0.29 0.28 17 -0.41 0.28 0.27 18 -0.5O 0.26 -0.02 Teacher-19 0.59 0.42 -0.06 Writers 20 -0.66 -0.04 0.35 21 0.65 -0.41 0.33 22 0.15 0.43 -0.41 23 -0.58 0.17 -0.41 24 -0.46 0.24 0.12 25 0.59 -0.28 -0.14 26 -0.77 0.21 -0.04 Developers 27 0.15 0.43 -0.41 S i g n i f i c a n t loadings (0.39 or greater) are underlined 51 The factor loadings i n each of the factor solutions above w i l l be considered as the c o r r e l a t i o n of each person with each of the three types F l , F2 and F3 i n Tables 1 and 2. Subjects representing each type i n each programme The subjects belonging to each type and i n each programme were c l a s s i f i e d on the basis of the factor with which they were most highly cor r e l a t e d . The types were i d e n t i f i e d as A, B and C corresponding to the three factors F l , F2 and F3 as i n the above factor solutions. Subjects belonging to the three d i f f e r e n t types i n each programme were i d e n t i f i e d by number and group (See Tables 3 and 4) . Factor arrays For the purpose of comparison and de s c r i p t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t types, factor arrays f o r each type i n each programme were constructed according to the usual Q-techniques (Stephenson, 1953 p. 174) and converted to z-scores. Tables 5 and 6 provide the factor arrays for each type and each programme. The s i g n i f i c a n t items with highest p o s i t i v e z-scores (0.8 and above) and items with highest negative z-scores (-0.8 and above-negative d i r e c t i o n ) i n each fa c t o r array have been underlined. The z-scores i n each array F l , F2 and F3 for each programme were also rank ordered according to siz e and d i r e c t i o n (+, -) (see Appendix F ) . The items were ranked i n descending order of z-score according to item acceptance by the three types i n each case, ranging from items perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to items perceived to be c l e a r l y not defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two programmes. 52 Table 3 Subjects belonging to the three d i f f e r e n t types i n the new programme TYPES A B C 1 18 5 2 19 TW __8 TU 3 27 D 16 TW 4 6 TU 7 9 10 _n 12 13 14 15 TW 17 20 21 22 23 24 D 25 26 Total 21 3 3 TU = Teacher-users of the new programme TW = Teacher-writers of teaching units for the new programme D = Developers of the new programme. 53 Table 4 Subjects belonging to the three d i f f e r e n t types i d e n t i f i e d by number and group i n the established science programme TYPES A B C 3 1 5 7 TU 2 TU 6 TU __8 __4 __9 16 12 TW 17 15 18 TW 22 19 27 D 20 21 23 24 D 25 26 Total 13 7 3 Letters A, B and C correspond to the factors FI, F2 and F3 i n Tables 1 and 2 Subjects above the dotted l i n e are teacher-users, subjects above the s o l i d l i n e are teacher-writers and subjects below the s o l i d l i n e are the developers of the new elementary science programme (NESP) 54 Table 5 NESP: Factor array of item Z-scores ITEM FI F2 F3 1. Emphasizes.content 'and processes ;of 'science 0.23 -0 .92 -0 .49 2,: Emphasizes;.processes of science; 0 .17 1 .45 -0.38 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use' 2 .09. -0 .20 -1 .72 4. Provides organized way. of teaching science 1 .88 -0 .22 -1.86 5. Provides for needs and i n t e r e s t s . o f age-groups 0 .12 0.46 0 .13 6. Encourages adapting materials for age-groups 0 .35 0 .52 -0 .12 7. Provides direction.-for teaching science 1 .04 -0 .33 -0 .04 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n f or teaching science -2 .03 -0 .51 0 .93 9. Contains units with s p e c i f i c science concepts 1 .42 -1 .48 -1 .30 10. Contains independent units -0 .06 -1 .35 -1 .85 11. Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y 0 .23 0 .08 2 .16 12. Does not provide supply and equipment -1 .95 -0 .69 -0 .91 13. Provides time for c h i l d r e n to investigate -0 .04 1 .09 0 .56 14. Encourages teachers to decide content -0 .83 -0 .24 -0 .62 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to discuss r e s u l t s 0 .91 1 .18 -0 .51 16. Encourages teachers to i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s -1 .49 -1 .31 0 .11 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method 0 .36 -1 .48 0.05 18. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c concepts 0 .81 -0 .20 0 .12 19. Provides units selected by the developers -1 .19 -1 .12 -1 .35 20, Provides units selected for children's i n t e r e s t 0 .49 0 .89 -0 .60 21. Encourages c h i l d r e n to demonstrate r e s u l t s 0 .18 -0 .42 -0.25 22. Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek inconsistencies 0 .02 0 .14 0 .43 23. Provides opportunities for problem-solving 0 .65 0 .70 -0 .12 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunity for problem-solving -1 .81 -0 .48 0 .44 25. Provides students with materials for experiments 0 .45 0 .60 1 .29 26. Encourages students to c o l l e c t materials 0 .64 1 .24 -0 .93 27. Provides materials for developing concepts 0 .80 -0 .38 1 .59 28. Provides materials for s p e c i f i c science concepts 0 .37 -0 .11 1 .48 29. Encourages demonstration to rein f o r c e concepts -0 .80 -1 .15 1 .43 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts 0 .43 1 .12 -0 .13 55 Table 5 (Continued) ITEM F l F2 F3 31. Provides options f o r s p e c i f i c science concepts 1 .49 0 .29 0.42 32. Provides options for unspecified concepts -0 .75 0 .54 -1.13 33. Encourages teachers to develop materials -0 .53 0 .73 -0.61 34. Does not encourage teachers to develop materials -1 .67 -0 .78 1.30 35. Encourages teachers to r e l y on program materials -1 .45 -0 .97 0.06 36. Encourages use of l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e materials -0 .13 0 .19 -0.49 37. Encourages teachers to maintain control -0 .26 -1 .77 0.41 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s 1 .36 -0 .35 -1.11 39. Provides students with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s -0 .39 -1 .21 1.16 40. Encourages children's experiments -1 .17 1.46 0.13 41. Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d units -1 .37 -1 .93 2.03 42. Requires teachers to work at children's rate -0 .68 0 .65 1.29 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science -1 .28 0 .21 -1.86 44. Promotes standardizing elementary science -1 .50 -2 .10 1.74 45. Requires cooperation among teachers -1 .10 -0 .75. 1.43 46. Does not require teacher cooperation -1 .24 0 .02 -2.10 47. Saves teachers' preparation time 0.66 -0 .71 -1.11 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time -1 .68 -1 .29 -0.04 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new situat i o n s 0 .26 1 .67 -0.11 50. Encourages students to discriminate information 0 .35 0 .16 0.13 51. Encourages students to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s 0 .24 -0 .45 0.43 52. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be resourceful 0 .35 0 .83 0.07 53. Teaches chi l d r e n to be creative 0 .12 1.53 -0.00 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative 0 .24 1 .87 1.17 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e 0 .79 1 .31 -0.00 56. Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information 0 .66 -0 .12 -0.05 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e 0 .74 1 .53 -0.00 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science 1 .59 1 .44 0.05 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions 0 .95 0 .25 0.05 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s 0 .92 0 .90 -0.81 (The items are given i n abbreviated form - see Appendix A for complete statements). Underlined item z-scores are 0.8 and above or -0.8 and above i n negative d i r e c t i o n . 56 Table 6 EESP: Factor array of item Z-scores ITEMS FI F2 F3 1. Emphasizes content and processes of science -1 .14 0.83 0 .76 2. Emphasizes processes of science 0 .11 0.53 0 .14 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use -0 .45 1.21 2.00 4. Provides organized way of teaching science -1 .20 -0.63 1 .69 5. Provides for needs and in t e r e s t s of age-groups 1 .13 -0.80 0 .76 .6. Encourages adapting materials for age-groups -0 .74 -0.94 -0 .79 7. Provides d i r e c t i o n f or teaching science -1 .45 -0.73 0 .92 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n f or teaching science -0 .91 1.74 -2 .17 9. Contains units with s p e c i f i c science concepts 1 .29 0.30 0 .60 10. Contains independent science units 0 .67 2.25 1 .37 11. Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y -0 .28 -1.36 -0 .93 12. Does not provide supply and equipment r e a d i l y -1 .14 1.14 -0 .47 13. Provides time for c h i l d r e n to investigate 0 .53 0.63 -0 .01 14. Encourages teachers to decide content -0 .07 0.26 -1 .24 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to discuss r e s u l t s -0 .06 0.34 0 .92 16. Encourages teachers to i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s 0 .11 -0.05 -0 .94 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method 1 .84 -0.62 0 .44 18. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c concepts 1 .00 -0.53 1 .69 19. Provides units selected by the developers 0 .62 1.79 -1 .71 20. Provides units selected for children's i n t e r e s t -0.30 -0.89 0 .28 21. Encourages c h i l d r e n to demonstrate r e s u l t s 1 .62 -1.41 0 .15 22. Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek inconsistencies -0 .27. -0.39 -0 .01 23. Provides opportunities for problem-solving 0 .59 -0.13 0 .13 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunity for problem-solving -1 .99 -0.35 -1 .24 25. Provides c h i l d r e n with materials for experiments -0 .31 1.02 -0 .32 26. Encourages c h i l d r e n to c o l l e c t materials -0 .05 0.12 0.45 27. Provides materials for developing concepts 0 .62 0.41 0 .63 28. Provides materials for s p e c i f i c science concepts -0.06 0.69 0 .47 29. Encourages demonstrations to r e i n f o r c e concepts 2 .18 -0.06 -1 .10 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts 0 .38 -0.14 0.45 31. Provides options for s p e c i f i c science concepts 0 .54 -0.25 1 .70 57 Table 6' (Continued) ITEMS F l F2 F3 32. Provides options for unspecified science concepts -0 .40 -0 .16 -1.39 33. Encourages teachers to develop materials 0 .48 1 .21 -1.10 34. Does not encourage development of materials -1 .08 -0 .16 -1.40 35. Encourages teachers to r e l y on program materials 0 .23 1 .89 0.92 36. Encourages use of l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e materials -2.02 0 .85 -0.47 37. Encourages teachers to maintain control -1 .15 0 .71 -0.15 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s 2 .34 0 .57 1.22 39. Provides students with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s -0 .50 1 .30 -0.01 40. Encpurages c h i l d r e n ''s experiments -0 .37 -0 .46 -0.48 41. Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d units -1 .11 -1 .56 -1.23 42. Requires teachers to work at children's rate 1 .00 -0 .34 -0.93 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science -1 .44 0 .91 1.41 44. Promotes standardizing elementary science -0 .39 -0 .34 -0.15 45. Requires cooperation among teachers -0 .76 -0 .25 -2.32 46. Does not require cooperation among teachers -0 .15 -0 .44 -0.49 47. Saves teachers'preparation time -0 .70 -2 .03 -0.01 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time -0 .61 2 .37 -0.94 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information -1 .08 -1 .55 0.45 50. Encourages students to discrimate information 0 .13 -0 .73 -0.15 51. Encourages students to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s 0 .26 -0 .02 0.61 52. Teaches ch i l d r e n to be resourceful 0 .22 -0 .86 -0.31 53. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be creative -0.42 -1 .76 -0.31 54. Teaches ch i l d r e n to be imaginative 0 .16 -1 .76 -0.16 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e 1 .09 0.06 1.38 56. Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information 0 .13 -0 .19 0.77 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e -1 .41 -1 .41 -0.01 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science 1 .77 -0 .37 1.38 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions 1 .45 0 .62 0.91 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s 1 .47 -0 .07 1.22 (The items are given i n abbreviated form - see Appendix A .for complete statements). Underlined item z-scores are 0.8 and above or -0.8 and above i n negative d i r e c t i o n . 58 The items rank-ordered according to siz e and d i r e c t i o n , and with arrays i n g-scores were used to describe and compare one viewpoint with every other viewpoint i n each programme. The r e s u l t s of the descrip-tions and comparisons i n terms of s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences are presented i n the next section, STEP 3 of the study covering subproblems 3 and 4. STEP 3. DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF VIEWPOINTS Subproblem 3. What are the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n viewpoints between the d i f f e r e n t types, developers and teachers, i n terms of what they perceive to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum? Subproblem 4. What are the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n viewpoints between the d i f f e r e n t types, i n terms of what they perceive to be:, a) the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established curriculum, b) the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common to both c u r r i c u l a , c) c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which do not belong to either curriculum? Description and comparison of the three types i n each programme For the purpose of describing and comparing the three types i n each programme i n terms of what they perceived to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programmes, items with the highest p o s i t i v e z-scores (0.8 and above) and items with the highest negative z-scores (-0.8 and above i n the negative d i r e c t i o n ) i n each array were selected to symbolize each viewpoint. The items selected according to t h i s c r i t e r i o n are 59 referred to as c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , CDC and c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , CNDC. A complete l i s t of rank-ordered items according to the types i n each programme and i n terms of what each type perceived to be CDC and CNDC of the programmes i s presented i n Tables 7 and 12. The main s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences between the types or view-points i n NESP are given i n Tables 7, 8 and 9, and discussed i n the next section. S i m i l a r i t i e s i n viewpoints between . .: -_ . the three types i n the new programme In a closer examination of the subjects' perceptions of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new science programme the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the subjects was skewed towards Type A viewpoint. Table 7 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the developers, teacher-writers and teacher-users i n Types A, B and C. Type A viewpoint was the most populous (77.8%) comprising 9 teacher-users, 8 teacher-writers and 4 developers. The viewpoint i s characterized by these items the subjects perceived to be CDC of NESPj 4. Provides organized way of teaching elementary science. 7. Provides d i r e c t i o n f or teaching science. 9. Provides units with s p e c i f i c science concepts. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were o r i g i n a l l y selected as d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of the.new programme. The items describe the programme structure or organization. The subjects also considered some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (58, 59 and 60) i n the programme goals and objectives category to be CDC of NESP though they were i n i t i a l l y selected common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP 60 and EESP. However, some items which the subjects perceived to be CNDC were i n i t i a l l y NESP c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . They also selected i n i t i a l EESP c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as CDC of the new programme (see Table 7). Type A viewpoint i s also associated with c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme which they perceived to be CNDC of NESP. But they had a few o r i g i n a l NESP items as CNDC of NESP. The other two types or viewpoints held by 6 of the 27 subjects are Types B and C comprising 22.2% of a l l the subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the f i r s t Q-sorts. . Type B viewpoint was shared by a small percentage of the sample (11.1%) composed of two teacher-writers and one developer. The subjects also had mixed d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n of items which they perceived to be eit h e r CDC or CNDC of the new programme. This group too perceived a few items characterizing the established programme as c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme. Type B viewpoint considered only one item (26) which was i n i t i a l l y designated to NESP as the CDC of the new programme (see Table 7 ) . And the subjects selected very few items of the established programme as CNDC of the new programme. Type C viewpoint i s represented by an equal percentage of the sample as i n Type B viewpoint but.it has fewer items of the established programme among the items the. subjects perceived to be de s c r i p t i v e of the new programme. Type C. also:has a couple of items for the new programme which the subjects perceived to be c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme. In considering the items f o r examining s i m i l a r i t i e s between the three types not a single item i s shared across a l l types: andVa few-items are shared between pairs of types i n t h e i r viewpoints (see Table 9). Types A and B share the following items; Cl e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme. Table 7 Comparison of the three types i n terms of what they perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme (NESP) TYPES REPRESENTATIVE TYPES Items perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (+) Items perceived to be c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (-) 9 Teacher-users 8 Teacher-writers 4 Developers Total 21 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 4. *Provides organized way of teaching science. 7.*Provides d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching science. 9.*Contains u n i t s with s p e c i f i c science concepts. 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to discuss r e s u l t s . 31. Provides options f o r s p e c i f i c science concepts. 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 58. *Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. *Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions. 60. *Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s . 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n for teaching science. 12. Does not provide supply and equipment. 16.*Encourages teachers to in t e r p r e t r e s u l t s . 24.*Provides l i t t l e opportunity f o r problem-solving. 34. *Does not encourage teachers to develop m a t e r i a l s . 35. *Encourages teachers to r e l y on program m a t e r i a l s . 41.*Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. 44. *Promotes standardizing elementary science. 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. 2 Teacher-writers 1 Developer Total 3 2. Emphasizes processes of science. 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to discuss r e s u l t s . 26.*Encourages students to c o l l e c t m a t e r i a l s . 40. Encourages c h i l d r e n ' s experiments. 49.^Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new situations 53. *Teaches c h i l d r e n to be c r e a t i v e . 54. *Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative. 55. *Teache8 c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 57. *Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . 58. *Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t i n science. 9.*Contains u n i t s with s p e c i f i c science concepts. 10. Contains independent u n i t s . 16. *Encourages teachers to in t e r p r e t r e s u l t s . 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method. 29.*Encourages demonstration to r e i n f o r c e concepts. 37.*Encourages teachers to maintain c o n t r o l . 39.*Provides students with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s . 41.*Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 44.*Promotes standardizing elementary science. 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. 2 Teacher-users 1 Teacher-writer Total 3 l l . * P r o v i d e s supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 25. Provides students w i t h materials f o r experiments. 27. Provides materials f o r developing concepts. 28. *Provides materials f o r s p e c i f i c science concepts. 29. *Encourages demonstration to r e i n f o r c e concepts. 34.*Does not encourage teachers to develop materials. 41. *Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 42. Requires teachers to work at ch i l d r e n ' s r a t e . 44. *Promotes standardizing elementary science. 45. *Requires cooperation among teachers. 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 4. Provides organized way of teaching science. 9.*Contains u n i t s with s p e c i f i c science concepts. 10. Contains independent u n i t s . 19. Provides u n i t s selected by the developers. 32. Provides options for unsepcified concepts. 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. 46. Does not require teacher cooperation. 47. *Saves teachers preparation time. I n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme 62 Table 8 Summary of comparisons between Types A, B and C i n the new programme TYPES REPRESENTATIVE TYPES RATIO TOTAL % of a l l Subjects 9 Teacher-users 9/11 A 8 Teacher-writers 4 Developers 8/11 4/5 21 77.8 I B 2 Teacher-writers 1 Developer 2/11 1/5 . 3 11.1 C 2 Teacher-users 1 Teacher-writer 2/11 1/11 . 3 11.1 27 Total Table 9~ Common items among the d i f f e r e n t viewpoints on the new programme _ V. T >„ C C l e a r l y defining. C l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s A/B 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to discuss r e s u l t s . 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 16. Encourages teachers to i n t e r -pret r e s u l t s . 41. Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 44. Promotes standardizing elementary science. 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. A/C 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. B/C 9. Provides units with s p e c i f i c science concepts. 10. Contains independent science u n i t s . 63 58. S t imula te s c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t i n s c i e n c e . 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to d i s c u s s r e s u l t s . 16. Encourages teachers to i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s . 4 1 . Encourages teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d number of u n i t s i n a y e a r . 44. Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e . 48. Requires a l o t of p r e p a r a t i o n t i m e . Type A and Type C share o n l y one i tem w h i c h they p e r c e i v e d to be a c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the new programme; 43 . Discourages s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e . Type B and Type C share two n e g a t i v e i t e m s : 9 . Conta ins u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c s c i ence c o n c e p t s . 10. Conta ins independent s c i ence u n i t s . However, there were some items on which a l l the three types i n the new elementary sc ience programme agree i n o rder of p e r c e p t i o n from c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The items were rank-ordered based on the s i z e of the average z - s core s of the consensus items across a l l the three types as presented be low. Items on which there i s consensus across types • i n the new programme A consensus i tem i s one on which f o r a l l types the d i f f e r e n c e between the l a r g e s t z - score and the smallest z-score given that item i s l e s s than 1.00. Table 10 g ives a l i s t of the items on which a l l the three types seemed to agree i n order of p e r c e p t i o n from h i g h e s t average z - score to lowest average z - s c o r e . 64 Table IQ Consensus items i n order of perception from highest average z-score to lowest average z-score for the new programme ITEM " °~ z-score 58 Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science 1.00 11 Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y 0.81 49 Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s 0.61 28 Provides materials for s p e c i f i c science concepts 0.58 53 Teaches c h i l d r e n to be creative 0.55 30 Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts 0.47 52 Teaches c h i l d r e n to be resourceful 0.46 59 Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions 0.42 42 Requires teachers to work at children's rate 0.42 2 Emphasizes processes of science 0.41 23 Provides opportunities for problem-solving 0.41 60 Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s 0.34 6 Encourages adapting materials for d i f f e r e n t age-groups 0.25 18 Encourages ch i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c concepts 0.24 50 Encourages c h i l d r e n to discriminate information 0.21 56 Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information 0.16 51 Encourages students to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s 0.07 33 Encourages teachers to develop t h e i r own materials -0.14 36 Encourages use of l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e materials -0.14 39 Provides students with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s -0.15 21 Encourages c h i l d r e n to demonstrate t h e i r r e s u l t s -0.16 29 Encourages demonstrations to r e i n f o r c e concepts -0.18 17 Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method -0.36 1 Emphasizes content and processes of science -0.39 41 Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d units -0.42 32 Provides options for unspecified concepts -0.45 44 Promotes standardizing elementary science -0.62 43 Discourages standardizing elementary science -0.98 65 The consensus items constitute about 50% of a l l the items on which the three types seem to agree. From a detai l e d examination of these consensus items, i t seems that the developers as well as the teachers of the new programme characterize the programme by i t s goals and objectives as indicated by the items they perceived to be defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programme such as the following: 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s . 50. Encourages students to discriminate information. 51. Encourages students to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s . 52. Teaches chi l d r e n to be resourceful. 53. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be cr e a t i v e . 56. Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information. 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s . However, they also seemed to agree that some defining character-i s t i c s did not describe NESP. A few of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s dealt with the goals and objectives of EESP, and many of them (items, 19, 44, 41, 1, 29, 21, 39, 36 and 33) were i n i t i a l l y associated with NESP. The types c o r r e c t l y dissociated the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP from NESP according to the i n i t i a l d elineation of the programmes: 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method. 32. Provides options for unspecified concepts. 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. 66 Items on which there i s disagreement  across types i n the new programme There are some items oh which there i s disagreement among the t y p e s . These items are presented i n Table 11 and d e s c r i b e d i n some d e t a i l as i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 6 be low. Table 11 Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the three types i n the new programme Types: z - scores ITEMS A B C 3. Prov ide s a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use 2 .09 -0 .20 -1 .72 7. P r o v i d e s d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g s c i ence 1 .04 -0 .33 -0 .04 12. Does not p rov ide supply and equipment -1 .95 -0 .69 -0 .91 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to l e a r n s c i e n t i f i c method 0 .36 -1 .48 0.05 27. P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r deve lop ing s c i ence concepts 0 .80 -0 .38 1.59 32. P r o v i d e s o p t i o n s f o r u n s p e c i f i e d s c i ence concepts -0 .75 0.54 -1 .13 37. Encourages teachers to m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l -0 .26 -1 .77 0.41 40. Encourages c h i l d r e n ' s experiments -1 .17 1.46 0.13 45. Requires c o o p e r a t i o n among teachers -1 .10 -0 .75 1.43 49 . Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n to new s i t u a t i o n s 0, .26 1.67 -0 .11 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i m a g i n a t i v e 0, .24 1.87 1.17 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e 0, .74 1.53 -0 .00 Clearly Defining Fig. 6: Items which differentiate among the three types in NESP I 1 J I Type A Legend Type B Type C I \ Clearly Not Defining 17 27 37 40 ITEMS 49 54 57 68 The d i f f e r e n c e s between the three types i n the new programme depicted i n Figure 6 are discussed i n some d e t a i l as below. More than types B and C type A perceived these items t o be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme: 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o use. 7. Provides s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching elementary science. 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o l e a r n s c i e n t i f i c method. More than types B and C, type A perceived these items t o be c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme: 12. Does not provide supply and equipment. 40. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o design t h e i r own experiments. 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. More than types A and C, type B perceived these items t o be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme: 40. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o design t h e i r own experiments. 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o new s i t u a t i o n s . 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be ima g i n a t i v e . 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o show i n i t i a t i v e . More than types A and C, type B perceived these items t o be c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme: 27. Provides m a t e r i a l s f o r developing science concepts. 37. Encourages teachers t o maintain c o n t r o l , 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. More than_types A and B, type C perc e i v e d these items to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the new programme: 27. Provides m a t e r i a l f o r developing science concepts. 37. Encourages teachers t o maintain c o n t r o l . 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. 69 More than type A and B, type C perceived these items to be c l e a r l y not defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme: 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 32. Provides options f o r unspecified science concepts. 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s . 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . Summary: Viewpoints on the new elementary science programme The r e s u l t s of the Q-analysis of the Q-sort data from the new programme are highlighted by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the three d i s t i n c t viewpoints among the developers and the teachers of the new programme. The three main viewpoints were distinguished on the basis of what the subjects perceived to be CDC and CNDC of the new programme. A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the viewpoints i s presented below. Type A viewpoint comprises most of the subjects (77.8%), 9 teacher-users, 8 teacher-writers and 4 of the 5 developers. This suggests that Type A viewpoint was a popular viewpoint among the subjects. Type A viewpoint characterizes the>new programme by i t s structure or organization as manifested by the items which the subjects perceived to be c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme. For instance the viewpoint i s symbolized by such items as "provides an organized way of teaching elementary science", provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use", and "provides units with s p e c i f i c science concepts" being d e s c r i p t i v e of the new programme. However, Type A did not perceive the programme goals and objectives as d i s t i n c t i v e • ' f e a t u r e s o f the new programme. 70 Type B viewpoint represented by one developer and two teacher-writers seems to suggest that the def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme deal with some aspects of the programme goals and objectives. The viewpoint implies that the items which r e l a t e to the programme goals and objectives describe the new programme better than the items r e l a t i n g to the programme structure or organization as suggested by Type A view-point. It i s a d i s t i n c t viewpoint from Type A viewpoint because i t considers some of the items i n the programme structure or organization component u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the new programme. This i s almost an opposing viewpoint to the Type A viewpoint. Type C viewpoint, teacher viewpoint, i s represented by two teacher-users and one teacher-writer. Unlike the other two viewpoints, Type C viewpoint i s symbolized by the items the subjects perceived to be c l e a r l y d efining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme from a wider spectrum of the programme components. The viewpoint characterizes the new programme by i t s goals and objectives, materials and implied teaching strategies or processes. Although Type B and Type C are uniquely d i f f e r e n t from Type A viewpoint, they form a minority of the viewpoints, being held by only s i x of the twenty-seven subjects i n NESP. Therefore by t h i s standard, the majority of the developers, teacher-writers and teacher-users of NESP in t h i s study i d e n t i f i e d the new programme by i t s o r i g i n a l l y intended defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e s c r i p t i v e of i t s structure or organization. 71 S i m i l a r i t i e s i n viewpoints between  the d i f f e r e n t types i n the established programme, EESP The three d i f f e r e n t types i d e n t i f i e d among the 23 subjects of the o r i g i n a l 27 i n NESP were unlike the three types i n the new programme. In EESP the 23 subjects are d i s t r i b u t e d i n almost 3:2:1 r a t i o (see Tables 12 and 13), with 13 subjects i n Type A, 7 subjects i n Type B and 3 subjects representing Type C viewpoints. Type A viewpoint represented 56.5% of a l l the 23 subjects i n EESP. The subjects holding t h i s viewpoint of EESP i s composed of 3 teacher-users, 6 teacher-writers and 4 developers. Considering the r a t i o of the representativeness of viewpoint, i t could be appropriately proclaimed to be teacher-writer-developer viewpoint because of the r e l a t i v e l y low representation of the teacher-users. The viewpoint represents most of the developers' (4/5) and more than one hal f of the teacher-writers' (6/9) perceptions of the established programme (see Table 13). Among the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Type A perceived to be CDC of EESP, almost one h a l f of them were i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP. But only a few o r i g i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP were perceived to be CNDC of the established programme. Therefore i t would seem reasonable to suggest that t h i s viewpoint was probably influenced by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or that the subjects r e c a l l e d the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme better than those of the established programme. Type B viewpoint represented 30.4% of a l l the 23 subjects, and i s composed of 3 teacher-users, 3 teacher-writers and 1 developer. The subjects perceived some of the o r i g i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP to CDC of the established programme. The subjects also perceived almost an equal 72 number of the i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP to be CNDC of the established programme. Thus on the basis of these items Type B view-point characterizes the established programme by about one h a l f of the items which were i n i t i a l l y selected to describe the new programme. This would seem to suggest that the subjects either did not remember the established programme or did not express t h e i r perception of the new programme as well as i t was i n i t i a l l y characterized. Type C viewpoint i s presented by exclus i v e l y teacher-users. These teachers form 13.1% of a l l the 23 subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n second Q-sorts to describe the established programme. The viewpoint i s charac-t e r i z e d by mixed o r i g i n a l items of NESP as well as EESP. The subjects regarded a few i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme as c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP. However, the subjects perceived only very few i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP as CNDC of the established programme. The subjects perceived more i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP than those of NESP to describe the established programme. In other words the subjects' perception of the established programme, as judged by the above c r i t e r i o n , seems closer to the o r i g i n a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of EESP. In examining the items which d i s t i n g u i s h the three types several items traverse two or three types i . e . there are some common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among pairs of types or among a l l the three viewpoints of EESP. Types A and B share the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which they perceived to be CNDC of the established programme: (see Table 14): 41. Requires teachers to complete a s p e c i f i e d number of units i n a year. 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . Table 12 Comparison of the three types in terms of what they perceived to be clearly defining characteristics and clearly not defining characteristics of the established programme (EESP) TYPES REPRESENTATIVE TYPES Items perceived to be clearly defining characteristics (+) Items perceived to be clearly not defining characteristics (-) 3 Teacher-users 6 Teacher-writers 4 Developers Total 13 5. Provides for needs and interests of age-groups. 9. Contains units with specific science concepts. 17.*Encourages children to learn scientific method. 21. Encourages children to demonstrate results. 29. Encourages demonstration to reinforce concepts. 38.*Encourages teachers to be facilitators. 55.*Teaches children to be inquisitive. 58. *Stimulates children's interest in science. 59. *Encourages children to formulate conclusions. 60. *Encourages children to hypothesize about results. 1. Emphasizes content and processes of science. 4. Provides organized way of teaching science. 7. Provides direction for teaching science. 12.*Does not provide supply and equipment. 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunity for problem-solving. 36. *Encourages use of locally available materials. 37. Encourages teachers to maintain control. 41. Requires teachers to complete specified units. 43.*Discourages standardizing elementary science. 57.*Encourages children to show initiative. 3 Teacher-users 3 Teacher-writers 1 Developer Total 7 3.*Provides activities and methods to use. 8.*Provides minimal direction for teaching science. 10.*Contains independent units. l2.*Does not provide supply and equipment 19. Provides units selected by the developers. 25. Provides students with materials for experiments. 33. Encourages teachers to develop materials. 35. Encourages teachers to rely on programme materials. 39. Provides students with specific instructions. 48.*Requires a lot of preparation time. 6.*Encourages adapting materials for age-groups. 11. Provides supply and equipment readily. 20, *Provides units selected for children's interest. 21. Encourages children to demonstrate results. 41. Requires teachers to complete specified units. 47. Saves teachers preparation time. 49.^Encourages application of information to new situations. 53. *Teaches children to be creative. 54. *Teaches children to be imaginative. 57.*Encourages children to show initiative. 3. *Provides activities and methods to use. 4. Provides organized way of teaching science. 10.*Contains independent units. 18. Encourages children to learn scientific concepts. 3 Teacher-users 31. Provides options for specific science concepts. 35. Encourages teachers to rely on programme materials. 38.*Encourages teachers to be facilitators. 55.*Teachea children to be inquisitive. 58.*Stimulates children's interest in science Total 3 60.*Encourages children to hypothesize about results. 8.*Provides minimal direction for teaching science. 14. Encourages teachers to decide content. 19. Provides units selected by the developers. 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunity for problem-solving. 29. Encourages demonstration to reinforce concepts. 32.*Provides options for unspecified concepts. 34. Does not encourage teachers to develop materials. 41. Requires teachers to complete specified units. 43.*Discourages standardizing elementary science. 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. * Initially selected characteristics of the established programme 74 Table 13 Summary of comparisons between Types A, B and C i n the established programme TYPES REPRESENTATIVE TYPES RATIO TOTAL % of a l l Subjects 3 Teacher-users 3/9 A 6 4 Teacher-writers Developers 6/9 4/5 13 56.5 3 Teacher-users 3/9 B 3 1 Teacher-writers Developer 3/9 1/5 7 30.4 C 3 Teacher-users 3/9 3 13.1 23 Total Table 14. Common items among the three viewpoints on the established programme TYPES Clea r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s C l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s A/B 41. Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunity for problem-solving. 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be 41. Requires teachers to com-A/C i n q u i s i t i v e . plete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 58. 60. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s . 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 41. Requires teachers to com-plete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . B/C 10. 35. Contains independent u n i t s . Encourages teachers to r e l y on programme-materials. 75 Although Types A and B shared no items they considered to be CDC, Types A and C shared the following: 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about the r e s u l t s . Types A and C also perceived the following items to be CNDC of the established programme: 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunities for problem-solving s k i l l s . 41. Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d units in a year. 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. Types A and C showed a considerable amount of s i m i l a r i t y i n viewpoint but in representativeness Type A out-numbered Type C, 2:1. Types A, B and C considered item 41 undescriptive of the established programme. Types B and C perceived the following items to be c l e a r l y d efining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme; 3. Provides teaching a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 10. Contains independent science u n i t s . 35. Encourages teachers to r e l y on programme materials. As i n the new programme there were also some items which a l l types seemed to agree were either c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme. These are the consensus items which were rank-ordered according to the siz e of the average z-scores across a l l the three types and are described below. 76 Table 15 Consensus items i n order of perception from highest average z-score to lowest average. z-score i n established programme ITEM A V 6 r a g e z-score 59 Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions 0.99 58 Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science 0.92 60 Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s 0.87 9 Contains units with s p e c i f i c science concepts 0.73 11 Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y 0.67 31 Provides options for teaching science concepts 0.66 27 Provides materials f o r developing science concepts 0.55 13 Provides time f o r ch i l d r e n to investigate on t h e i r own 0.40 5 Provides f o r needs and in t e r e s t s of d i f f e r e n t age-groups 0.36 48 Requires a l o t of preparation time 0.27 56 Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information 0.24 30 Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts 0.23 23 Provides opportunities for problem-solving 0.20 25 Provides c h i l d r e n with materials for experiments 0.13 22 Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek inconsistencies -0.22 50 Encourages students to discriminate information -0.25 16 Encourages teachers to int e r p r e t r e s u l t s -0.29 20 Provides units selected for children's i n t e r e s t -0.30 52 Teaches c h i l d r e n to be resourceful -0.32 46 Does require cooperation among teachers -0.36 40 Encourages c h i l d r e n to experiment on t h e i r own -0.44 54 Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative -0.59 32 Provides options f o r unspecified science concepts -0.65 49 Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new situa t i o n s -0.73 6 Encourages adapting materials for d i f f e r e n t age-groups -0.82 34 Does not encourage development of materials -0.88 57 Encourage c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e -0.94 41 Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d number of units -1.30 77 Items on which there i s consensus across  types i n the established programme As .it i s the case in the new programme, the consensus items among the d i f f e r e n t types i n the established programme constitute about 50% of a l l the items. A closer examination of these consensus items suggests that the 23 subjects seem to i d e n t i f y the established programme by two main components, f i r s t , by the goals and objectives of the programme as i l l u s t r a t e d by the agreements on these items perceived to be d e s c r i p t i v e of EESP: 56. Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information. 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages ch i l d r e n to formulate conclusions. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypotehsize about r e s u l t s . and secondly by teaching strategy, as portrayed by these items: 13. Provides time for ch i l d r e n to investigate on t h e i r own. 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts. 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. However, the items which the subjects seemed to agree on as being undescriptive of the established programme spread over three cate-gories, although most of the items came from the goals and objectives component. These items are: 44. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s . 50. Encourages students to discriminate information. 52. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be resourceful. 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative. 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . 78 • The o ther items the sub jec t s seemed to a s s o c i a t e w i t h be ing u n d e s c r i p t i v e of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme i n c l u d e d items 32 and 40 from the t each ing s t r a t e g i e s component and items 6 and 20 from the programme s t r u c t u r e or o r g a n i z a t i o n component. Items on which there i s disagreement across  types i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme J u s t as i n the new programme, there are items i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the t y p e s . These items are presented i n Table 16, are i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 7, and are d i s cus sed i n the s e c t i o n which f o l l o w s . Table 16 Items on which there i s disagreement across types i n EESP Types: 3-scores ITEM A B C 4. Prov ide s organ ized way of t e a c h i n g sc ience -1 .20 -0..63 1.69 8 . Prov ides minimal d i r e c t i o n f o r t each ing sc ience -0 .91 1.74 -2 .17 12. Does not p rov ide supply and equipment -1 .14 1.14 -0 .47 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to l e a r n s c i e n t i f i c method 1 .84 -0 .62 0.44 21 . Prov ide s u n i t s s e l e c t e d f o r c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t 1 .62 -1 .41 0.15 29. Encourages demonstrat ion to r e i n f o r c e concepts 2 .18 -0 .06 -1 .10 36. Encourages use of l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l -2 .02 0.85 -0 .47 42 . Requires teachers work at c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e 1.00 -0 .34 -0 .93 47. Saves teachers p r e p a r a t i o n time -0 .70 -2 .03 -0 .01 Clearly Defining Fig. 7: Items which differentiate among the three types in EESP Type A Legend Type B lW-'i'.'.tl Type C I '1 Clearly Not Defining 12 17 21 ITEMS 29 36 42 <*7 80 More than Types B and C, Type A perceived these items to be c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme: 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method. 21. Provides units selected according to the children's i n t e r e s t . 29. Encourages teachers to demonstrate to reinfo r c e concepts. 42. Requires teachers to work at children's rate. More than Types B and C, Type A perceived t h i s item to be a clearly, not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the established programme: 36. Encourages use of l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e material. More than Types A and C, Type B perceived these items to be c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme: 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n i n teaching elementary science. 12. Does not provide supply and equipment. More than Types A and C, Type B perceived t h i s item to be a c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . of the established programme: 47. Saves teachers preparation time. More than Types A and B, Type C perceived t h i s item to be a c l e a r l y d efining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the established programme: 4. Provides an organized way of teaching elementary science. More than Types A and B, Type C perceived t h i s item to be a . c l e a r l y not defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the established programme: 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching elementary science. Summary: Viewpoints on the established elementary science programme The r e s u l t s from Q-analysis of the Q-sort data from the 23 subjects in"therestablished programme showed two main outcomes. As i n the analysis 81 of data from the new programme, there were three d i s t i n c t viewpoints i d e n t i f i e d . But unlike the.new programme the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sub-j e c t s was less skewed towards the Type A viewpoint. There was almost a 3:2:1 s p l i t between the three viewpoints i n terms of what they perceived to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme. Type A viewpoint, which represented s l i g h t l y more than one half of a l l the subjects, was comprised of the three subject representative groups: teacher-users, teacher-writers and developers. This viewpoint could be described as a teacher-writer-developer viewpoint. The viewpoint emphasizes the programme goals and objectives as being c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the established programme. The subjects i n t h i s group perceived these items from the curriculum goals and objectives component to be c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP: 17. Encourages ch i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method. 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s . Items 17 and 38 are d i s t i n c t i v e of the established programme while the other items are features common to both programmes as i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . They viewed several items i n the components of s-tructure (4, 7, 4 l ) , content . (l,-'24), and '-materials ( l 2 j 36) as 'undescrip-t i v e of the established!programme. Type B viewpoint represented about 1/3 of a l l the subjects, and also consisted of teacher-users, teacher-writers and one developer. This group of subjects therefore, seemed to hold the view that the established 82 programme can be distinguished by some of the items depicting the programme structure and materials. The subjects perceived these items to be c l e a r l y d efining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programme. They also perceived some of the items i n the curriculum goals and objectives component to be uncharac-t e r i s t i c of the programme as i l l u s t r a t e d by some of t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n items with high negative z-scores such as these (see Table 6). 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s . 53. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be c r e a t i v e . 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative. 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . Type C viewpoint, which'was held by three teacher-users, i s unique in that the representatives are ex c l u s i v e l y teacher-users, not a mixed type, as i n a l l the other cases. This viewpoint i s s i m i l a r to Type A viewpoint i n that the subjects perceived several s i m i l a r items to be de s c r i p t i v e of the established programme. As w e l l , both viewpoints considered another set of s i m i l a r items to be uncharacteris t i c of the programme (see Table 14). Items on which there i s consensus among  a l l types and across programmes The consensus items i n both programmes for a l l types were examined (Tables 10 and 15) to i d e n t i f y the items that a l l types agreed on across the programmes. For each item on which a l l types seemed to agree t on . i n both programmes, the average z-scores were further averaged and rank ordered. Table 17 gives a l i s t of the items on which a l l types i n both programmes seemed to agree i n order of perception from highest 83 2 2 average z - score s to lowest average z - s c o r e s . A l l the types seemed to agree t h a t the f o l l o w i n g items belonged to both programmes: 11. P rov ide s supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 23, P rov ide s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g . 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t s . 56. Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y i n f o r m a t i o n . 58 . S t imula te s c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t i n s c i e n c e . 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate c o n c l u s i o n s . 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to h y p o t h e s i z e about r e s u l t s . They a l s o seemed to agree tha t items 32 and 41 belonged to n e i t h e r programme; however, items 23 , 30, 32 and 42 were o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme, and i t e m 11 was a s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the new programme (see Table 17 ) . The items which the d i f f e r e n t types seemed to agree belonged to both programmes or were common d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programmes f a l l under the goals and o b j e c t i v e s of the c u r r i c u l u m component. Thi s sug-gests t h a t a l l the sub jec t s seemed to have p e r c e i v e d the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c -t e r i s t i c s of both programmes to be i n the goals and o b j e c t i v e s category of c u r r i c u l u m components. Th i s statement i s r e i n f o r c e d by the evidence tha t the d i f f e r e n t types c o n s i s t e n t l y p e r c e i v e d many goa l s and o b j e c t i v e s ca tegory items to be d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP i n the e a r l i e r a n a l y s e s . Furthermore , these items (56, 58 , 59 and 60) were o r i g i n a l l y des ignated as common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP and EESP. Averaged across types and programmes. 84 Table 17 Consensus items i n order of p e r c e p t i o n from h i g h e s t 21-scores to lowest z - scores across types and programmes ITEM ? Average z- score 58. S t imula te s c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t i n s c i ence 0.96 11. Prov ide s supply and equipment r e a d i l y 0.74 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to' formulate c o n c l u s i o n s 0.71 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothes i ze about r e s u l t s 0.61 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts 0.35 23 . Prov ide s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g 0.30 56. Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y i n f o r m a t i o n 0.20 32. P r o v i d e s opt ions f o r u n s p e c i f i e d concepts -0 .55 41 . Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d number of u n i t s -0 .86 The preced ing s e c t i o n marks the comple t ion of phase one of the s tudy . As s t a t e d i n Chapter 1 the phase i n v o l v e d the ascer ta inment of the genera l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two programmes, and the e s tab l i shment of . the v i e w p o i n t s of the developers and implementers of the new programme on the b a s i s of what they p e r c e i v e d to be d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme versus those of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. Having i d e n t i f i e d the types of sub jec t s through t h e i r Q-sort p r o f i l e s , the types were then compared f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the two programmes. T h i s l e d to the second phase of the study' which r e q u i r e d the c o n s t r u c t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n of a c la s sroom a n a l y s i s i n s t r u m e n t . The Classroom A n a l y s i s Ins t rument , CAI i s presented i n Appendix G. The instrument was a p p l i e d i n the analyses of 30 elementary sc ience l e s s o n s . The r e s u l t s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the analyses are presented i n the next chapter which covers STEP 4 and subproblems 5 and 6 of the s tudy . 85 CHAPTER 5 THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASSROOM DATA ANALYSIS The "observer" records f o r each teacher were analysed to determine the extent to which the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s correspond to the "per c e i v e d " d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP and the types or viewpoints as e s t a b l i s h e d by the Q-analysis i n Chapter 4. The r e s u l t s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the classroom data are given from two p e r s p e c t i v e s , f i r s t from NESP viewpoints and secondly from EESP viewpoints i n STEP 4 of the study c o v e r i n g subproblems 5 and 6. STEP 4. IMPLEMENTATION OF NESP AS JUDGED BY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS. Subproblem 5. To what extent do the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s belong to both c u r r i c u l a and to what extent do they symbolize the d i f f e r e n t types present or absent i n the classrooms where the new c u r r i c u l u m i s being implemented? Subproblem 6. To what extent are the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s congruent w i t h the "perceived" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a) the new c u r r i c u l u m b) the e s t a b l i s h e d c u r r i c u l u m and c) any type? i i 86 Table 18 "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s per teacher and according to NESP and EESP "Observed" Total. Total Dis. , Dis. Item Weighted Weighted Sub c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :T6tal comm. d i s . EESP NESP wt. EESP NESP 3, 4, 7, 16, 18, 25, 1 28, 35, 41, 48, 55*, 59*, 60* 13 3 10 4 6 0.90 4 5 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 2 25, 28, 48, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 15 6 9 6 3 1.00 u 3 3 3, 4, 9, 16, 18, 28, 29, 35, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 13 5 8 2 6 1.20 2 h 4 3, 4, 5, 9, 25, 30, 50*, 60* 8 2 6 3 3 1.60 5 5 3, 4, 5, 8, 15, 28, 6 30, 54*, 58*, 59*, 60* 11 4 7 4 3 1.30 5 4 3, 9, 17, 25, 27, . >» 7 30, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 12 6 6 5 1 1.60 2 8 3, 10, 25, 26, 29, 48, 54*, 60* 8 2 6 4 2 1.60 U 3 4, 5, 16, 18, 28, '8 9 29, 34, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 12 5 7 1 6 1.30 1 4, 5, 15, 28, 30, 10 35, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 12 6 6 3 3 1.60 5 5 3, 4, 7, 18, 25, 11 28, 30, 35, 41, 48, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 15 5 10 5 5 0.90 5 5 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 12 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 41, 45, 48, 57*, 19 4 15 8 7 0.60 5 4 58*, 59*, 60* .continued 87 Table 18 (Continued) "Observed" ".. Total Total Dis. Dis. Item Weighted Weighted Sub c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Total comm. d i s . EESP NESP wt. EESP NESP 3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 1 4 25, ^ , 1 9 , ^ 4 1 , ^ 4 5 , i g 7 12 3 9 0.80 2 h 53*, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 25, 15 28, _29, 35, 41, 48, 12 1 11 6 5 0.90 5 5 55* 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 16, 3 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, , 17 35, 41, 45, 53*, 54*, 22 7 15 5 10 0.60 3 76 55*, 57* 58*, 59*, 60* 4, 7_, 9, 10, 16, 18, 25 I?:"H:§I; lk ll: 17 4 13 5 8 °-70 4 '6 60 3, 4, 9, 16, 25, 28, 27 30, 35, 41, 48, 55, 14 4 10 5 5 0.90 5 5 58, 59, 60 N = 16 TOTAL 222 71 151 69 82 MEAN 9.44 Decision point: 2/3 of mean (6 weighted items of any programme -standardized mean) * Common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Items numbered 48 and below are d i s t i n c t i v e of NESP or EESP Underlined items a r e ' d i s t i n c t i v e of NESP 88 Table 19 "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP, and items symbolizing the d i f f e r e n t types "Observed" Sub C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - NESP Total Weighted "Perceived" defining Item Items C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - NESP Weight A B C Type A Type B Type C 4, 7, 16, 18, 28, 41, 55, 4 11 11 59, 60 * 7 18 18 2 4, 9, 28, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 -9 1.10 7 3 1 9 11 18 26 28 28 29 3 4, 9, 16, 18, 28, 29, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 11 0.90 6 4 4 28 49 49 50 41 45 50 51 52 51 49 4 4, 5, 9, 55, 60 5 1.90 6 0 0 52 50 6 4, 5, 28, 54, 58, 59, 60 7 1.40 7 3 1 53 58 53 57 51 52 7 9, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 7 1.40 6 3 0 59 60 58 53 8 26, 29, 54, 60 4 2.40 2 2 2 9 4, 5, 16, 18, 28, 29, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 11 0.90 5 4 4 10 4, 5, 28, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 9 1.10 6 3 1 11 4, 7, 18, 28, 41, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 10 1.00 7 4 3 12 4, 7, 9, 26, 28, 41, 45, 57, 58, 59, 60 11 0.90 6 5 4 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 28, 29, 14 41, 45, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 16 0.60 5 3 4 15 4, 9, 28, 29, 41, 55 6 1.60 5 2 5 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 26, 28, 17 29, 41, 45, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 17 0.60 5 4 4 25 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 26, 28, 41, 55, 58, 59, 60 12 0.80 6 2 2 27 4, 9, 16, 28, 41, 55, 58, 59 60 9 1.10 7 2 2 continued 89 N = 16 TOTAL 153 MEAN 9.56 Viewpoint d e c i s i o n : 2/3 of mean (6 weighted items of any type among the categorized subjects -5 weighted items were also accepted) Type or viewpoint Table 20 90 "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP and items symbolizing the d i f f e r e n t types Weighted "Perceived" defining Sub "Observed" C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - EESP Total Item Weight Items A B C Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s Type A Type B - EE! Type 1 3, 25, 35, 48, 55, 59, 60 . 7 1.30 7 4 4 13 17 3 8 3 10 2 3, 8, 10, 15, 25, 48, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 12 0.70 4 4 5 23 25 10 12 13 23 3 3, 35, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 7 1.30 5 1 5 27 30 13 23 25 27 4 3, 25, 30, 55, 60 5 1.80 5 4 5 38 48 25 27 30 6 3, 8, 15, 30, 54, 58, 59, 60 8 1.10 3 3 4 55 56 30 33 38 48 7 3, 17, 25, 27, 30, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 11 0.80 6 3 5 58 59 60 48 56 55 56 8 3, 10, 25, 48, 54, 60 6 1.50 5 6 7 58 9 34, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 6 1.50 6 0 5 60 10 15, 30, 35, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 9 1.00 5 1 4 11 3, 25, 30, 35, 48, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 10 0.90 6 4 6 12 3, 10, 15, 25, 30, 34, 35, 48, 57, 58, 59, 60 12 0.70 4 4 4 14 3, 25, 48, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 10 0.90 6 4 5 15 3, 10, 15, 25, 35, 48, 55 . 7 1.30 4 5 7 17 3, 10, 25, 35, 48, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 12 0.70 4 3 5 25 10, 25, 30, 35, 48, 55, 58, 59, 60 9 1.00 7 4 7 27 3, 25, 30, 35, 48, 55, 58, 59, 60 9 1.00 7 4 7 N = 16 TOTAL 140 MEAN 8.75 Viewpoint decision: 2/3 of mean (6 weighted items of any type among the categorized subjects -5 weighted items were also accepted) Type or viewpoint 91 The "observed" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s "observed" to be present i n the classrooms where the new elementary science programme, NESP, was i n progress are given i n Table 1&. The table presents the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s according to the i n d i v i d u a l teachers, programmes and whether the charac-t e r i s t i c s are common to both programmes or d i s t i n c t i v e of eit h e r programme. The "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are i d e n t i f i e d by the o r i g i n a l numbers of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as i n the Q-analysis. In Table 18 i t can be observed that a l l 16 teachers demonstrated some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both programmes although the t o t a l number of common items varied from 1 to 7, the number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s "observed" f o r each teacher varied from a low of 8 to a high of 22. Using the r a t i o of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP to d i s t i n c t i v e character-i s t i c s of NESP the following features can be epitomized from Table 18: 1. Three teachers (4, 6 and 10) displayed very few but almost equal numbers (3;3, 4:3, 3:3 respectively) of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP and NESP. 2. Three teachers 0-1, 15 and 27)demonstrated almost equal and medium numbers (5:5, 6:5, and 5:5 respectively) of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of EESP and NESP. 3. Three teachers (9, 3 and 1) displayed uneven and medium r a t i o s (1:6, 2:6 and 4:6 respectively) of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP and NESP. 4. Three teachers (12, 14 and 17)showed many d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (8:7, 3:9 and 5:10) of EESP and NESP. Teachers 14 and 17 have more d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP than they have for EESP. 92 5. Two teachers (7 and 8) showed a few unequal numbers (5:1 and 4:2) of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP and NESP with the d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP exceeding those of NESP. The features described above indicate that the def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both programmes were demonstrated by a l l the teachers. But teachers 1, 3, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 25 exhibited more d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP than those of EESP. They also displayed more than one t h i r d of a l l the d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s displayed by a l l 16 teachers (67 items out 151 - see Table 18). Teachers 2, 7 and 8 demonstrated more d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP than those of NESP although t h e i r t o t a l displays were low. Teachers 4, 10 and 27 demonstrated equal numbers of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP. In the discussion about the extent to which the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s correspond to the "perceived" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP, EESP and any types, the writer considers the standardized means of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both programmes. To determine';th:e dominant programme which a teacher exhibited at least 6 weighted items of that programme as well as 5 weighted items symbolizing a type or viewpoint were considered. Can a teacher be categorized on the basis of the above c r i t e r i a as an implementor or non-implementor of NESP or EESP, and i f so from what perspective? I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and de s c r i p t i o n of types according to  programmes being implemented The slashed areas i n Table 18 show teachers c l a s s i f i e d according to the programme they best demonstrated i n t h e i r teaching as determined 93 by the standardized means of weighted items. The teachers are also categorized i n a s i m i l a r way on the basis of type -or viewpoint best symbolized by t h e i r displayed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The main features of the programmes which were implemented and the types or viewpoints symbolized by the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are discussed from two perspectives, the NESP and the EESP perspectives, according to subjects represented i n each programme. Table 18 shows the categories of teachers according to the programme they were predominantly implementing as determined by the standardized means c r i t e r i o n . Following the established c r i t e r i o n f i v e teachers (3, 9, 14, 17 and 25) were designated as -implementers of NESP and three teachers (2, 7 and 8} were c l a s s i f i e d as implementers of EESP. The i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the subjects with s i m i l a r "observed" defining charac-t e r i s t i c s which are congruent with "perceived" types or viewpoints i s presented i n Tables 19 and 20. The nature of the viewpoints of each type in each programme i s discussed from two perspectives as follows: NESP perspective: The f i v e teachers categorized as implementers of NESP (see Table 18) demonstrated many defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP as summarized in Table 21. The defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s displayed consist of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between NESP and EESP. This group demonstrated s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n both cases. The s i m i l a r d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP they demonstrated include: 4. • Provides organized way of teaching elementary science. 18. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c concepts. 28. Provides materials for s p e c i f i c science concepts. 94 Table 21 "Observed" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP displayed by 5 teachers c l a s s i f i e d NESP implementers 3 4, 9, 18, 28, 29, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 9 4, 5, 16, 18, 28, 54, 58, 59, 60 14 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 28, 29, 41, 45, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 17 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 26, 28, 29, 41, 45, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 25 4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 26, 28, 41, 48, 55, 58, 59, 60 CAI-NESP ITEMS 4, 7, 9, 11, 26, 28, 29, 34, 41, 45, 49, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60 They also demonstrated c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were designated as common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP. The common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s displayed describe the programme goals and objectives and they are:. 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s . Subjects 14 and 17 displayed more defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP than the other -four teachers i n t h i s category. Table 19 shows the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s symbolizing types or viewpoints i n NESP. According to the standardized means c r i t e r i o n the s i x implementers of NESP portrayed Type A viewpoint i n t h e i r teaching,i.e., teachers 1, 3, 9, 14, 17 and 25 are implementers of NESP from a Type A viewpoint. The "observed" Type A viewpoint features c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , CDC, and p o s i t i v e consensus items of NESP. Teachers 14, 17 and 25 notably displayed most of Type A items which were perceived to be CDC of NESP (see Table 19). Therefore NESP defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 95 demonstrated by these implementers were comprised of items which Type A perceived to be CDC of NESP. These items are: 4. Provides organized way of teaching elementary science. 7. Provides d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching elementary science. 9. Contains units with s p e c i f i c science concepts. 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about r e s u l t s . The group also displayed two p o s i t i v e consensus items which a l l types i n NESP seemed to agree belonged to NESP (Q-analysis r e s u l t s ) . Therefore the "observed" viewpoint or type i n NESP consisted of CDC and p o s i t i v e consensus items of NESP. The "observed" CDC of NESP f e l l along two categories of programme components: items 4, 7 and 9 describe the programme structure or organization, while items 58, 59 and 60 deal with the programme goals and objectives component of NESP (see Figure 2). Since the items concerned with programme goals and objectives are common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP, i t can be argued that t h i s "observed" viewpoint i s distinguished by the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP associated with programme structure or organization. Therefore some of the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are congruent with "perceived" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP, e s p e c i a l l y Type A viewpoint as described i n Chapter 4. Type B and C viewpoints of NESP were not portrayed i n any classroom as judged by the standardized means c r i t e r i o n and excluded the non-implementers who might have demonstrated d i f f e r e n t types or viewpoints i n t h e i r teaching. Furthermore of the 6 subjects who were i n the "perceived" Type B and C viewpoints only two, one from each type, offered 96 lessons for a n a l y s i s . Subject 27 was i n the Type B perception category of NESP but i n h i s teaching he demonstrated equal numbers of d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP and therefore could not be categorized as an implementer of e i t h e r programme. Consequently, whatever type or viewpoint h i s "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s symbolized, was not considered (see Table' 18). The second subject (8) was i n the Type C perception of NESP and demonstrated fewer d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP than those he displayed of EESP. Thus he could not be c l a s s i f i e d as an implementer of NESP. A l l f i v e teachers i n the "observed" Type A view-point implementers were also i n the "perceived" Type A viewpoint of NESP. EESP perspective: The three teachers (2, 7 and 8) who were categorized as implementers of EESP demonstrated r e l a t i v e l y fewer d i s t i n c t i v e character-i s t i c s of EESP than d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP displayed by the c l a s s i f i e d implementers of NESP (compare Tables 21 and 22). However, they displayed more d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP than those of NESP. They a l s o demonstrated common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two programmes. The teachers demonstrated some s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as: 3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 25. Provides students with materials for observation and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypoLhesize about r e s u l t s . The "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s displayed by these teachers which are congruent with the "perceived" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP can be grouped i n t o two p a r t s : 97 Table 2 2 "Observed" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP d i s p l a y e d by 3 teachers c l a s s i f i e d EESP implementers 2 3 , 8, 10, 15, 25, 48, 54, 55 , 57, 58, 59, 60 7 3 , 17, 25, 27, 30, 54, 55 , 58, 59, 60 8 3 , 10, 25 , 48, 54, 57 , 60 C A I -EESP ITEMS 3, 8 , Items 10, 12, s e l e c t e d 17, 25, f o r l e s s o n 33, a n a l y s i s 38, 48, 55 , 58, 59, 60 a) C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p e r c e i v e d to be CDC of EESP 17. Encourages c h i l d r e n to l e a r n the s c i e n t i f i c method. 55 . Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 58. S t imula te s c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t i n s c i e n c e . 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formula te c o n c l u s i o n s . 60 . Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothes i ze about r e s u l t s . b) P o s i t i v e consensus items which a l l types i n EESP seemed to agree be long to EESP (from the r e s u l t s of Q - a n a l y s i s ) . 25. P rov ide s s tudents w i t h m a t e r i a l s f o r o b s e r v a t i o n and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 27. Prov ide s i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s f o r deve lop ing sc ience concept s , 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formula te d i f f e r e n t concepts about exper iments . The i d e n t i f y i n g "observed" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP which are associated with t h i s group and which correspond to the "perceived" d e f i n -i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP are the p o s i t i v e consensus items and i tem 17, a d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of EESP. The "observed" d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s d i s p l a y e d by t h i s group are spread over four programme components. For i n s t a n c e i tem 17 r e f e r s to programme g o a l s , i tem 25 d e s c r i b e s c o n t e n t , i t em 27 dea l s w i t h m a t e r i a l s and i tem 30 d e s c r i b e s the t each ing 98 strategy. The unique feature of th i s group was that i t demonstrated several d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP (15, 27, 30, 54 and 57) which were not among the "perceived" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP (see Table 22). The d i f f e r e n t types or viewpoints demonstrated by the three teachers are shown i n Table 15. Subject 7 demonstrated c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which symbolized Type A viewpoint. The "observed" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are congruent with the "perceived" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Type A consist mostly of common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (17, 55, 58, 59 and 60). Two teachers (2 and 8) demonstrated defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s symbolizing "perceived" Type C. The "observed" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are congruent with the "perceived" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s include the following items Type C perceived to be c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP: 3. Provides a source for teaching a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 10. Contains teaching units which are independent of each other. 25. Provides students with materials for observation and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. These CDC constitute the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g feature of these teachers' view-point of EESP. The items represent three components of the programme: organization, content and teaching strategy (see Figure 2). The rest of the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which correspond with the "perceived" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n th i s viewpoint are common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to NESP and EESP (see Table 18). There was no "observed" Type B viewpoint of EESP demonstrated among the implementers. Subjects 6 and 12 were close to qualifying:as implementers of EESP (see Table 18). I f they had been c l a s s i f i e d so, 99 they would have belonged to Type A . Of the three implementers o n l y sub jec t 7 mainta ined h i s " p e r c e i v e d " Type A v i ewpo in t i n h i s t e a c h i n g . Teachers 2 and 8,grouped i n the "observed" Type C v i ewpo in t , were not i n the " p e r c e i v e d " Type C v i e w p o i n t of EESP. These three s u b j e c t s , c l a s s i f i e d implementers of EESP, are from the teacher-user s group i n the- s t u d y . Thus f i v e teachers are c a t e g o r i z e d implementers of NESP from a Type A v i e w p o i n t and three teachers are c a t e g o r i z e d as implementers of EESP from two v i e w p o i n t s , Types A and C. The c l a s s i f i e d teachers account f o r one h a l f of the 16 teachers who prov ided the sc ience le s sons f o r a n a l y s i s . The second h a l f demonstrated almost equal numbers of " p e r c e i v e d " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP. For i n s t a n c e teachers 4 , 10, 11, 15 and 27 do not on ly have equal weighted items f o r both programmes, they a l s o are below the q u a l i f y i n g s tandard f o r NESP or EESP. Al though the remaining three sub jec t s a l s o showed below standard weighted i t ems , the r e s u l t s do i n d i c a t e t h e i r i n c l i n a t i o n towards implementing NESP or EESP (see Table 18) . Teachers 6 and 12 seem more implementers of EESP than NESP, and teacher 1 i s more or l e s s an NESP implementer from a Type A v i e w p o i n t . As the o b j e c t i v e of t h i s s e c t i o n was the assessment of the extent of implementat ion of NESP and EESP, a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of programme usage by the c l a s s i f i e d non-implementers has been o m i t t e d . However, some of the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the extent of usage are i n c l u d e d i n the next s e c t i o n . The w r i t e r recommends c u r i o u s readers to e x t r a p o l a t e the programme dimension i n use by these s o - c a l l e d non-implementers from Tables 19 and 20. There are many f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e what a c t u a l l y goes on i n classrooms i n c l u d i n g c u r r i c u l u m , p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g of the rooms, b e l i e f s and va lue s of the teachers (Dunkin and B i d d l e , 1974). In t h i s s t u d y , the 100 researcher attempted to i d e n t i f y the pos s i b l e f a c t o r s which influenced the presence or absence of the de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme and the established programme. These are presented i n the next section, STEP 5 covering subproblem 7 as stated i n Chapter 1. STEP 5. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEFINING CHARACTER-ISTICS OF THE NEW CURRICULUM. Subproblem 7. What are some of the possible f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g the presence or absence of the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new curriculum and the established curriculum i n the classroom practice? In order to provide further meaning and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the "observed" classroom i n t e r a c t i o n s the following data was c o l l e c t e d and put i n tabular form f o r ease of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . In section 13 of the teacher interview form (see Appendix G-4) there were ten questions. These questions pertained to educational back-ground, teaching experience, grade l e v e l c u r r e n t l y being taught, programme taught before the new programme, and concerns about the new programme. Section 3 in the classroom analysis instrument provided another set of data from the teacher interviews. The interview schedule had ten guide-l i n e questions which focussed on teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n , use of the new programme materials, and the teacher's r o l e i n implementation. The i n t e r -views also d i s c l o s e d the possible factors which influenced the presence or absence of the defi n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme or the established programme i n classroom p r a c t i c e . 101 Personal data about respondents In t h i s section the personal data of the teachers who offered lessons f o r analysis i s reported to explain some of the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the classrooms. Table 23 Educational background of respondents Subject No. Total Percent Less than bachelor's degree 1, 14, 22 • 3 13.04 Bachelor's degree 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 18 78.26 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 Master's degree 3, 8 2 8.70 Doctoral degree Other 23 100% Table 24 Years of teaching elementary science Subject No. Total Percent F i r s t year 2 ;to 3 years 4 to 10 years 1, 2,3, 4,9, 17, 19, 20 8 34.78 11 to 15 years 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23 8 34.78 over 15 years 6, 7, 8, 12, 18, 21, 22 7 30.43 23 99.99 102 Table 25 Grade lev e l s currently taught by respondents Subject No. Total Percent K - 2 2, 5, 13, 19 4 17.39 3 - 4 3, 10, 11, 14 4 17.39 5 - 6 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 10 43.48 20, 22, 23 7 7, 12, 15, 18, 21 5 21.74 23 100% Table 26 Elementary science programmes taught by the respondents before the new programme Total Percent* Science curriculum improvement study, SCIS 1 3.57 Experiences i n science, EIS 1 3.57 Elementary science study, ESS' 16 57.14 Examining your environment, EYE 5 17.86 Teaching primary science, TPS 1 3.57 Schools council science 5/13 2 7.14 Other 2 7.14 Total number of responses 28 99.99 : * Percentage calculated on the basis of t o t a l number of responses received. Some teachers taught more than one programme before the introduction of the new programme. 103 Educational background of the teachers A comparison of the educational background of the teachers shows, i n Table 23, a noticeable s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e i r educational achieve-ment. The majority of the teachers, 78.3%, hold bachelor's degrees, while two teachers have master's degrees and three teachers possess less than a bachelor's degree. None of the teachers has- a doctoral degree. The number of years of teaching elementary science as reported by the teachers (Table 24) shows three d i s t i n c t groups of almost equal numbers (8, 8 and 7). A l l the teachers have taught elementary science for four or more years; eight of them have had eleven to f i f t e e n years' experience i n elementary science; and seven have taught elementary science for over f i f t e e n years. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of teachers in terms of t h e i r experience with elementary science raises an i n t e r e s t i n g question regarding what r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, exists between the number of years of teaching elementary science and the degree of implementation of the new programme. In terms of the grade l e v e l s currently taught (Table 25), the teachers were well spread from kindergarten to grade 7. A sizeable group, 43.5% taught grades 5 and 6; four taught at the kindergarten and grade 2 l e v e l s ; and another four taught grades 3 and 4. I t i s worth noting; that one of the K-2 group of teachers offered lessons f o r observation while most of them taught or said they taught science i n c i d e n t a l l y and therefore i t was almost impossible to schedule lesson observations. This i s an important point p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the fa c t that the new programme recommends some science units with s p e c i f i c concepts 104 (a section i n the resource book) to be taught at the kindergarten l e v e l . This seems to indicate a c o n f l i c t among the teachers, and between the teachers and the developers of the new programme on methods of teaching science at the kindergarten l e v e l . Seven of the ten teachers i n the grade 5-6 group, a l l the four teachers i n the grade 3-4 group, and three of the teachers i n the grade 7 group p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the lesson analyses. Table 26 shows that according to a l l the responses received more than h a l f of the responses indicated that the Elementary Science Study (ESS) was taught more than any of the other programmes. Aside from the EYE programme, which received f i v e responses, the rest of the programmes got one or two responses. The responses suggest that many of the teachers had taught ESS, one of the e a r l i e s t programmes, before the introduction of the new programme. The ESS programme was i n s t a l l e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia schools i n the early seventies (B.C. Dept. of Education, Curriculum D i v i s i o n , Elementary Science 1-7, 1969). As Table 24 shows, more than one ha l f of the teachers have taught elementary science for eleven or more years. Therefore i t i s conceivable that these same teachers may have taught ESS for quite a long time. Table 26 does confirm t h i s r e v e l a t i o n only i n terms of the responses from teachers who have taught ESS (16 responses). This probably also accounts for the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the established programme (ESS i s a member of the group) i n the c l a s s -rooms. One teacher in p a r t i c u l a r was implied, i n the r e s u l t s of the classroom analysis, as a strong advocate of the established programme (the teacher i s i n the over 15 years' experience group). This suggests-that those teachers who had .longer experience with ESS displayed more defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP in the classrooms than they did those of NESP (Table 18, subjects 6, 7, 8 and 12). 105 Table 27 Respondents' concerns about the new programme How do you rate the new programme i n terms of i t s s u i t a b i l i t y for elementary science or for your students? No. Percent Don't know 1 4. .35 Unsuitable -Suitable 14 60, .87 Very suitable 8 34, .78 23 100 Has the student i n t e r e s t and motivation i n learning science changed since the new programme has been introduced? No. Percent No opinion 4 17.39 Cannot notice any change 7 30.43 Motivation seems to have increased 12 52.17 Motivation seems to have decreased - -23 99.99 What i s your image of the new programme as i t rel a t e s to your classroom situation? No. Percent A welcome change 10 43.48 A f u l f i l l e r of a need 11 47.83 A creator of u n j u s t i f i e d demand - -No idea 2 8.70 23 100.01 106 Table 27 (Continued) 4 . How do you compare the new programme w i t h what you were t e a c h i n g before t h i s programme? No. Percent No o p i n i o n 3 13.04 Cannot n o t i c e any d i f f e r e n c e 3 13.04 Less complex 10 43.48 More complex 7 30.43 23 99.99 5 . How w i l l i n g would you be to p a r t i c i p a t e i n deve lop ing a new elementary sc ience programme d u r i n g school hours i f r e l e a s e time were given? No. Percent D e f i n i t e l y would not p a r t i c i p a t e 1 4.35 Probab ly would not p a r t i c i p a t e 7 30.43 Probably would p a r t i c i p a t e 9 39.13 D e f i n i t e l y would p a r t i c i p a t e 6 26 .09 23 100.00 Teachers concerns about the new programme Thi s s e c t i o n prov ides i n f o r m a t i o n about the t e a c h e r s ' a t t i t u d e towards the new programme and i t s imp lementa t ion . By r e f e r r i n g to Table 27 i t can be shown tha t almost a l l the teachers i n the study r a t e d the new programme as e i t h e r s u i t a b l e or very s u i t a b l e f o r elementary schoo or f o r t h e i r s t u d e n t s . Only one teacher d i d n ' t know whether the new 107 programme was unsuitable, suitable or very suitable f or elementary school or for his students. On the question of the image of the new programme, most of the teachers considered the new programme a welcome change (43.5%) and a f u l f i l l e r of a need (47.8%), and only two teachers had no idea. However, when i t came to a comparison between the new programme and what the teachers taught before NESP, the teachers were almost evenly s p l i t on whether the new programme was more or less complex than what they had taught before. The other s i x teachers had no opinion or didn't notice any difference between NESP and what they had taught before the introduction of NESP. One question on the response form dealt with change i n student i n t e r e s t and motivation i n learning science. After using the new programme about one h a l f (52.2%) of the teachers believed that student motivation had increased since the adoption of NESP. The other h a l f of the teachers e i t h e r had no opinion (17.4%) or didn't notice any change (30.4%) in the students' i n t e r e s t and motivation in learning science. In general the teachers had a high regard for NESP and considered NESP a useful c o n t r i b u t i o n to the teaching of elementary science. These r e s u l t s are complementary to the earlier..research f i n d i n g that most of the teachers had made a marked s h i f t to the use of the new programme. The teachers' responses to the l a s t item in Table 27 indicate that more than one h a l f of the teachers would be w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n developing a new programme on the condition that release time be a l l o c a t e d . The responses which indicate unwillingness constitute quite a s i g n i f i c a n t percentage (34.8%) i n that often the teacher's r o l e in curriculum development i s predetermined by the developers (Roberts, 1980; Goodlad, 1975; Doyle and Ponder, 1977; and Evans and S h a f f l e r , 1976). These researchers argue that 108 teachers' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme development i s c r u c i a l , and assume teachers' willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e over and above t h e i r regular teaching duties. Teacher preparation to implement NESP The information provided i n t h i s section was transcribed from taped interviews of (1) the sixteen subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the c l a s s -room analyses of lessons and (2) the developers of NESP who were i n t e r -viewed for assessing the extent to which the p o t e n t i a l implementers of NESP were involved i n programme development and the extent to which they were prepared to implement NESP. The new programme was i n i t i a t e d and developed under the auspices of a professional development centre. The centre administered the develop-ment and implementation strategies of NESP. The centre selected a group of teachers to design the structure and draw up the goals and objectives of NESP under the d i r e c t supervision of. the centre personnel. One teacher was released from her school to work ha l f time at the centre i n order to compile the concept content flow charts for the teaching u n i t s . The teacher-writers planned t h e i r units based on these flow charts conforming to the s p e c i f i e d science concepts and contents. Thus the NESP teaching units have s t r u c t u r a l uniformity. The units were then compiled into a resource book which was d i s t r i b u t e d to a l l the..elementary schools. The implementation strategies devised by the centre, p a r t i c u l a r l y for the teacher-users who form the majority of the p o t e n t i a l implementers, were intended to introduce them to the new programme. The teachers were in v i t e d to one-day o r i e n t a t i o n workshops; which were well attended but did not have representatives from a l l the elementary schools,. The centre personnel 109 v i s i t e d a l l the schools i n order to explain the usage of the NESP resource book and show the schools how to use the order forms. The schools were expected to present supply l i s t s to the centre annually. Each teacher was expected to se l e c t at least f i v e science units, one from each science area, and indicate the supplies required. This r o u t i n e seemed to-have "been i n s t i t u t e d to ensure teacher commitment. However, i t seems there were no attempts made to acquaint the teachers with the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP, a prerequisite in i t s e l f f o r i t s successful implementation. Thus the teachers seemed unaware of how d i f f e r e n t l y they would i n t e r a c t with the students and the professional development centre during the i n s t a l l a -t i o n of NESP. Furthermore, there was no follow-up a f t e r i n i t i a l try-out of NESP to resolve issues obstructing i t s proper use. The group who offered lessons for examination was composed of ten teacher-users, four teacher-writers and two developers who taught i n regular elementary schools. These subjects were from the o r i g i n a l twenty seven who Q-sorted items f o r NESP. Among the ten teacher-users four attended the introductory o r i e n t a t i o n workshop, and the other six were introduced to NESP at t h e i r respective schools by the centre personnel. The teacher-writers over and above contributing units offered o r i e n t a t i o n workshops i n schools other than t h e i r own. Two of the teacher-writers offered one or two workshops and the other two offered three and f i v e workshops each. The number of units each one wrote also varied; three of them wrote one or two u n i t s , and the fourth teacher-writer contributed three to f i v e u n i t s . The developers were also responsible for the organi-zation and administration of the introductory workshops. A t o t a l of thirty-seven school personnel members were engaged i n the development and dissemination of NESP. The teacher-users, teacher-110 writ e r s , and the developers referred to i n t h i s study were selected by the Professional Development Centre from t h i s group. Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n development of NESP Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development of NESP had a noticeable influence on some of the teacher-writers. This i n turn appeared to have affected t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards i t s implemention. Some of the teacher-writers expressed strong commitment to the implementation of NESP as exemplified by these quotations from the interviews with them: I am more aware of the objectives, and f e e l confident i n using the u n i t s . I am the author of many units and f e e l responsible f o r i t s [NESP] implementation. These quotations i n c i d e n t a l l y came from interviews with teacher-writers 14 and 17 who displayed many CDCs of NESP i n t h e i r classroom teaching (see Table 18). In contrast, some teachers did not share the anxiety of these teacher-writers about implementing NESP. These were the teachers who did not contribute any units to NESP, and only attended the or i e n t a t i o n workshops to f a m i l i a r i z e themselves with NESP materials. Some of them are quoted below to emphasize t h e i r point of view about i t s implemention. .... programme materials don't appeal to me. I don't use the resource book [NESP]; I tend to do things that i n t e r e s t me. This opposite view of implementation presented by these teachers i l l u s t r a t e s perhaps the e f f e c t s of non-participation i n programme development a c t i v i t i e s which probably led to the programme's r e j e c t i o n regardless of the q u a l i t y of the product, time of money spent on producing the product. It would be i n t e r e s t i n g to probe further to d i s c l o s e any root I l l causes of such stance. However, as i t had been pointed out e a r l i e r , more teacher-users implemented some aspects of NESP than of EESP s t r a t e g i e s . Use of NESP materials The teachers' r e p l i e s i n the interview questions about the use of NESP materials varied i n t h e i r assessment of NESP materials, from being inadequate to being too much for an elementary science programme. Two teachers argued that NESP did not provide a " t o t a l " science experience f o r the elementary school c h i l d r e n . One teacher i n p a r t i c u l a r claimed to have taught most of the NESP units and consequently had s h i f t e d to teaching from other sources. Several of the teachers reported that they taught NESP as well as other materials because of t h e i r personal in t e r e s t s and the children's i n t e r e s t s . Five of the respondents were convinced that NESP materials were more appropriate f o r elementary school science. However, in general, the new programme was regarded highly by most of the teachers i n t h i s study. This stature of NESP and the f a c t that i t was i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y created account more for i t s wide usage in the schools than other f a c t o r s . Teachers' view of implementation The teachers recognized that the f i n a l decision to use or r e j e c t a programme l a r g e l y rested i n t h e i r hands. They also acknowledged t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n decision making on the basis of the r e a l i t i e s of t h e i r classroom s i t u a t i o n . Most of them seemed content with the 112 u n i d i r e c t i o n a l approach to implementation of NESP. They viewed t h e i r r o l e i n the implementation process as that of passive adopters of new materials not as co-active implementers, capable of causing c o n f l i c t s , r e d i r e c t i o n or process r e d e f i n i t i o n . There was almost an overwhelming acknowledgement of the Professional Development Centre as the chief custodian of NESP and responsible party for i t s implementation. The p r i n c i p a l s were reported to be supportive of NESP as were any teachers who volunteered to p a r t i c i -pate i n i t s implementation. However, the discrepancy between the teachers about whether NESP was adequate or inadequate as an elementary science programme shows the lack of c l a r i t y over the role of NESP as i t r e l a t e s to the t o t a l elementary science curriculum in the school d i s t r i c t . Some teachers considered NESP materials as supplementary to other programmes, while other teachers thought NESP was a complete elementary science programme which needed further development and implementation. Many teachers affirmed the importance of using NESP materials. This implies a notion of implementation as the adoption of programme materials rather than involving behavioural and s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the teaching and learning of elementary science. Although most teachers reported that the schools were responsible for the r e q u i s i t i o n of supplies and equipment, a few teachers submitted t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l supply and equipment l i s t s showing the minimum f i v e - u n i t plan. In two instances the teachers pleaded for an improved de l i v e r y system and charged that, occasionally, supplies and equipment arr i v e d a f t e r the period?scheduled i n which they were to teach the selected u n i t s . In several cases the p r i n c i p a l s or teachers i n charge of supplies and equipment sought the teachers' assistance i n making the orders, and t h i s 113 could have accounted for some of the delays i n d e l i v e r y . In b r i e f , the teachers recognized and accepted o v e r a l l the h i e r a r c h i c a l implementation structure. They also accepted t h e i r passive implementer roles at the base of the pyramid; As one of them admitted; ... teachers have the f i n a l say about units they l i k e and the units that work with the c h i l d r e n . The l i t e r a t u r e on implementation process emphasizes the point that those people involved i n the development of new programmes must also be a c t i v e l y involved i n implementation. This would mean that the innovation or intended changes are understood by the p o t e n t i a l implementers, thus ensuring successful implementation (Leithwood, 1974; Nkosona, 1978; Kritek, 1976; and Harlen, 1977). There seemed to be l i t t l e evidence of th i s i n the outgoing responses from the schools and the teachers. The summary of the research f i n d i n g s , i t s implications and suggestions for future research are presented i n the next chapter. 114 CHAPTER 6 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS^ This chapter presents a b r i e f review of the study, i t s o b j e c t i v e s and major f i n d i n g s . I t a l s o discusses the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study, the i m p l i c a t i o n s deduced from the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the research r e s u l t s , and gives a proposal f o r f u t u r e research. Summary Purpose The f i r s t part of t h i s study was designed to determine percep-t i o n s of developers and teachers of a new elementary science programme i n terms of the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of that programme, to determine any agreements and disagreements i n t h e i r perceptions of these d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and to examine how the teachers perceptions were r e l a t e d to a c t u a l classroom use of the new programme m a t e r i a l s . Teacher perception of an in n o v a t i o n has been recognized as v i t a l i n determining the success or non-success of an innovation or change. The second part of the study r e q u i r e d the use of the classroom a n a l y s i s instrument to determine the presence or absence of the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme, of the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme, and to determine the viewpoints being implemented by 115 the individual teachers. Through structured interviews and response forms some of the possible factors influencing the presence or absence of the defining characteristics of the new programme, established programme, or any viewpoints in the classrooms were identified. Procedure In chapter three, the two instruments applied for the collection of data were described in detail. These instruments were the Q-methodology and the classroom analysis instrument, CAI. •j Q-methodology The Q-methodology was used in the f i r s t phase of the study to determine the respondents' perceptions of the defining characteristics of the new elementary science programme, NESP, and of the established elementary science programme, EESP. The Q-methodology consisted of the Q-sorts and Q-analysis. Each person was administered a 60 item Q-sort to describe both programmes according to what he perceived to be clearly defining characteristics, CDC, of the new elementary science programme, NESP, and what he perceived to be clearly not defining characteristics, CNDC, of the established elementary science programme, EESP. The charac-teristics were organized into categories, and each item was assigned a category value which was recorded on the Q-sort record sheet (see Appendix C-l). The individual profiles based on the defining characteris-tics were then correlated and analysed for similarities and differences using the various Q-techniques. A factor analysis was conducted to identify types of viewpoints concerning defining characteristics of NESP and EESP. 116 The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i f f e r e n t i a t e d one type from another, as well as consensus items among a l l types, were i d e n t i f i e d and discussed. Classroom analysis instrument Those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP that respondents perceived to be CDC were selected to constitute the basis f o r the classroom analysis instrument, CAI. The instrument had three components: classroom observa-t i o n schedule, c h e c k l i s t , and interview schedule. The observation schedule and c h e c k l i s t components were supplemented by the interviews, which permitted in-depth analysis of the classroom a c t i v i t i e s . The instrument was judged by three s p e c i a l i s t s i n elementary science at the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l on the basis of i t s s u i t a b i l i t y for the examination of an elementary science programme. Using a 5-point scale each of the judges highly rated the CAI (4, 5 and 5). During the i n i t i a l examination of the classroom a c t i v i t i e s , a second "observer" was trained to e s t a b l i s h inter-observer r e l i a b i l i t y . The inter-observer agreement between the inve s t i g a t o r and the second "observer" was 77.8%. The school v i s i t s involved sixteen teachers i n ten schools spread over two months from A p r i l to June, 1981. Analysis The Q-sorts provided two sets of p r o f i l e s f o r each subject. These p r o f i l e s r e f l e c t e d what each subject perceived to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme and of the established programme. The i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s were correlated and analysed f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and 117 differences through the various Q-techniques. The subjects with s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s were grouped as types or f a m i l i e s , and the nature of each type was i d e n t i f i e d . Each type or viewpoint was compared with every other viewpoint i n terms of s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n each programme. The items with z-scores 0.8 and above, perceived to be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each type i n both programmes, were selected as the basis f o r the construction of the CAI. The instrument was then applied to the c o l l e c t i o n of classroom data, which was tabulated and examined f o r congruencies between the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the "perceived" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the two programmes. Through an estimated number of weighted-items, the programme under implementation, and the viewpoint displayed by each teacher were determined. The interviews with the teachers, along with the personal data they provided, were analysed to determine some of the possible factors which influenced the presence or absence of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP i n the classrooms. Results Summary of r e s u l t s of Q-analysis 1. The r e s u l t s of the study showed that the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a programme provided a convenient method for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and des c r i p t i o n of an innovation or proposed change. 2. Using the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP, the respondents were able to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two programmes. The prevalent perceptions of the respondents of NESP and EESP are b r i e f l y presented below: 118 Perceptions of the developers, teacher-writers and teacher-users of NESP  and EESP Perceptions of NESP The developers and teachers of NESP provided a viewpoint of the programme, i n terms of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , which corresponds c l o s e l y with the i n i t i a l l y selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP. The viewpoint or type i n t h i s case was made up of a mix of developers, teacher-writers and teacher-users. The most prevalent viewpoint was Type A, held by most of the developers (4/5), teacher-writers (8/11) and teacher-users (9/11) of the 27 respondents. The 21 Type A respondents i d e n t i f i e d NESP by the def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were congruent with the i n i t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s which describe the programme structure or organization. Further, these respondents also perceived the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which describe the programme goals and objectives to be no n - d e f i n i t i v e of NESP. This perception i s also congruent with the programme planners' i n t e n t i o n , because most of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were established as common character-i s t i c s to NESP and EESP and not to d i s t i n g u i s h between them. The other two viewpoints on NESP, shared between 6 of the 27 respondents, are Types B and C. Type B viewpoint presented by one developer, and two teacher-writers, was almost an oppossing viewpoint to Type A. Unlike Type A viewpoint, Type B perceived the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which describe NESP goals and objectives to be d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP. This i s contrary to what the developers i n s t i t u t e d o r i g i n a l l y as de s c r i p t i v e of NESP. The Type C viewpoint, on the other hand, as presented by one teacher-writer, and two teacher-users, did not characterize NESP by any one programme component. This viewpoint was symbolized by the defining 119 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from three of the programme components, namely, goals and objectives, teaching s t r a t e g i e s , and materials. Type C viewpoint resembles Type B i n one aspect, that they both perceived some of the items which describe NESP goals and objectives as d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP. However, a l l three viewpoints seemed to agree on about 50% of the items as r e l a t i n g to NESP (see Table 10). The consensus items regard-ing NESP include some of the def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which describe goals' and objectives of NESP. This was not a surprise as most of the character-i s t i c s i n t h i s category were i n i t i a l l y established as common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . However, there was disagreement on some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i . e . , Type A perceived some items to be more d e s c r i p t i v e of NESP than did Type B and C (see Figure 6). Perceptions of EESP Of the 27 respondents to NESP Q-sort, 23 also p a r t i c i p a t e d i n i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of EESP by i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r perceptions of i t s d efining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As i n NESP three Types, A, B and C were i d e n t i f i e d . Unlike NESP, the pattern of d i s t r i b u t i o n of the respondents i s less skewed (see Tables 12 and 13). The outstanding viewpoint expressed by 56.5% of these 23 respondents was Type A. There were 13 respondents, comprising 4 developers, 6 teacher-writers, and 3 teacher-.-users i n t h i s group. Type A viewpoint characterized EESP by items mostly from the programme goals and objectives category. This viewpoint i s contrary to what the developers i n i t i a l l y constituted as d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP. Furthermore, almost one h a l f of the items the respondents perceived to be CDC of EESP were the o r i g i n a l l y selected 120 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP. The subjects also selected a few c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP to be CNDC of that programme. Therefore, the respondents did not demonstrate a c l e a r perception of EESP as planned by the developers. Considering the composition of the group, 10 of them having p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the development of NESP, and the remaining three having been teacher-users, of the new programme, i t i s probable that the subjects r e c a l l e d the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP better than those of EESP. Type B viewpoint was expressed by seven respondents, or 30.4% of the 23 subjects, composed of 1 developer, 3 teacher-writers, and 3 teacher-users. The respondents perceived some of the i n i t i a l l y selected character-i s t i c s of NESP to be CDC of EESP. The subjects also perceived almost equal numbers of NESP and EESP items to be CNDC of EESP. The o v e r a l l r e s u l t s of the respondents' p r o f i l e analyses suggest that the respondents i n Type B viewpoint did not accurately remember the de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP, and t h e i r perception of EESP was vague. Type C viewpoint was presented by three teacher-users, or 13.1% of the 23 subjects. These respondents characterized EESP by some of i t s -d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and by some of the> common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The subjects selected more of the i n i t i a l l y established c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP than those of NESP to i d e n t i f y and describe the programme. There-fore, Type C perception of EESP was closer to the i n i t i a l viewpoint than any of Types A and B above. However, there were some items on which there seemed to be agreement among types. The items on which there was consensus on EESP across a l l the three viewpoints constituted 50% of a l l the items. A l l of the 23 subjects seemed to agree on items from the programme goals and objectives and from the teaching strategies to be de s c r i p t i v e of EESP. Also, they a l l seemed 121 to agree that the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which did not belong to EESP were mostly the i n i t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP (see Table 12). This r e s u l t further confirms the e a r l i e r r e s u l t s , which-showed the respondents did not r e c a l l EESP defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s accurately. Table 10, i n Chapter 4, shows the items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the three viewpoints. Several c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s portrayed to show the differences in viewpoints are also inconsistent with the i n i t i a l selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP. In general, 1 the r e s u l t s showed that very few respondents remembered c l e a r l y the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP. The teachers i n Type C viewpoint seemed-to i d e n t i f y and describe EESP accurately by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s designated to i t i n the study. The fa c t that NESP has been i n the schools for nearly three years may p a r t l y account for these r e s u l t s . 3. Results and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the classroom data The r e s u l t s and interpretations of the classroom data presented in Chapter 5 showed the presence of the de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both programmes i n the classrooms, i n varying degrees. Sixteen teachers of the o r i g i n a l 27 offered lessons for examination. They demonstrated the def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of both programmes i n t h e i r teaching (see Table 18). The programme under implementation and the viewpoints portrayed were discussed according to the i n d i v i d u a l classrooms examined, and the main features of the r e s u l t s are presented i n the following se c t i o n . In Table 18 subjects 3, 9, 14, 17 and 25 are categorized as implementers of the new programme on the basis of the c r i t e r i a set. They a l l demonstrated Type A viewpoint in t h e i r teaching. This group was composed of one developer, two teacher-writers and two teacher-users. In the e a r l i e r assessment of subject perceptions, these same subjects were c l a s s i f i e d as Type A as w e l l . Teacher 1 was close to being categorized as 122 an implementer of NESP from Type A perspective but didn't demonstrate a s u f f i c i e n t number of defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . There were no Types B and C performers among the p o t e n t i a l implementers of NESP. Subjects 2, 7 and 8 were c l a s s i f i e d as implementers of the established programme though they exhibited r e l a t i v e l y fewer d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP. Teacher-users 2 and 7 demonstrated Type C view-point of EESP i n t h e i r classrooms although they did not belong to Type C perception group of EESP. However, the t h i r d teacher-user, number 8, was c l a s s i f i e d Type A viewpoint performer and thus maintained his perception c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Subjects 6 and 12 were close to q u a l i f y i n g as implementers of EESP and Type A viewpoint performers but t a l l i e d i n s u f f i c i e n t weighted number of items. There were no Type B viewpoint performers among the possible implementers of EESP. The subjects 2,-6,-7 and 8 in this group were a l l teacher-users except number 12 who was a teacher-writer. However, subjects 4, 10, 11, 15 and 27 did not only have an equal number of weighted items for both programmes, but also had an i n s u f f i c i e n t number of each for q u a l i f i c a t i o n as implementers of NESP or EESP. Therefore, the possible viewpoints they portrayed i n t h e i r teaching could not be determined '(_s.ee Table 28) . Factors inf l u e n c i n g implementation of NESP The possible factors which influenced the presence or absence of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or EESP i n the classrooms were in f e r r e d from interviews with programme development personnel and teachers,' from the teachers'personal data sheet, and from school v i s i t s . From the data a v a i l a b l e , i t appeared that the educational background of the teachers Table 28 Summary of Research F i n d i n g s 123 E s t a b l i s h e d New Elementary Sc ience Programme Elementary Science Programme P e r c e p t i o n "Observed" Performance P e r c e p t i o n "Observed" performance Subjects Types Types Non Types Types Non A B C A B C Implementer A B . C A B C Implementer 1 /* /* / 2 / 0 0 3 /* /* 1 4 / / 1 / 5 / 1 6 / 0 0 7 / 1* /* 8 / 0 9 /* /* 1 10 / / / 11 / / / 12 / 0 0 13 / 14 /* /* 15 / / / / 16 / 1 17 /* /* 1 18 / 1 19 / 1 20 / 1 21 / 1 22 / 1 23 / 1 24 / I 25 /* /* 1 26 / 1 27 / / 1 / T o t a l 27 6 5 23 5 5 * Congruency between p e r c e p t i o n and performance O Di screpancy between p e r c e p t i o n and performance 124 was neither a hindrance nor an advantage to the implementation of NESP or EESP. However, the number of years a teacher had taught science in the school d i s t r i c t was an i n d i c a t o r of the period the teacher had taught ESS (one of the established programmes which made up the EESP and which had . been i n use i n the school d i s t r i c t since the seventies). The two teachers c l a s s i f i e d as implementers of EESP have taught science for over 15 years i n the school d i s t r i c t , and therefore have had longer experience with ESS than the other teachers. They might have had more d i f f i c u l t i e s to change to the new programme a f t e r such a long period with ESS than the r e l a t i v e l y newer teachers i n the school d i s t r i c t . H i s t o r i c a l l y , the new science programme was i n i t i a t e d and developed under the d i r e c t i o n of a Professional Development Centre. The Centre also administered pre-implementation workshops at the Centre, and provided o r i e n t a t i o n services at the schools as w e l l . A communication system was designed, to enhance implementation, where the schools were expected to present supply and equipment l i s t s to the Centre annually. The Centre would then send the required supplies and equipment to the respective schools. There were some indications i n the schools that the service needed improvement. However, the investigator noted that the r e q u i s i t i o n forms i n some cases were, not used as planned. This might have contributed to some of the problems voiced. This model of implementation process requires that there be an established time l i n e f o r implementation, such as 3 years, that there be continuous follow-up support, monitoring and addressing problems of programme i n s t a l l a t i o n (Fullan, 1981) . I t was evident from the interviews with the developers and teachers that, a f t e r the early orientations for implementation, l i t t l e follow-up was done to maintain momentum. 125 The NESP was administratively introduced, therefore, the schools were obliged to use the materials. Most of the teacher-writers expressed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to implement the new programme. Although the teachers had a high regard f o r the programme, some of them seemed uncertain about the new dimensions, p a r t i c u l a r l y " t h e organizational structure and teaching strategies proposed i n the new programme. This does suggest that there was inadequate teacher preparation to implement NESP. For successful implementation, the teachers needed to be acquainted with the new or revised materials, the teaching strategies and/or the philosophical assumptions embodied i n the new programme. For instance, the kindergarten teachers had two d i f f e r e n t viewpoints on K-Science teaching, i n c i d e n t a l or formal. But the new programme recommends several teaching units with s p e c i f i c science concepts for kindergarten c l a s s e s . Although f i v e teachers were categorized as implementers of NESP on the basis of t h e i r demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the new programme, there was no conclusive motivational factor that can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r success. There seemed to be a lack of c l a r i t y over the ro l e of the l o c a l l y i n i t i a t e d programme as i t r e l a t e d to the t o t a l elementary science curriculum. In several cases, teachers viewed the NESP resource book as supplementary material to other programmes. And, i n some schools, the teachers viewed the NESP resource book as a programme to be implemented. Both points of view looked on implementation as adopting the contents of the resource book. Implementation seemed not to be viewed i n terms of behavioural and s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the elementary science programme. 126 Delimitations of the study The conceptualization of implementation process assessment using the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a programme provided a broad area of study. The Q-methodology proved functional i n the estimation and examination of developers' and teachers' perceptions of these defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . But i n the lesson a n a l y s i s , i n order to make classroom analyses manageable, the classroom analysis instrument had to be r e s t r i c t e d to the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the respondents perceived to be c l e a r l y d e s c r i p t i v e of NESP and EESP. It would also have been desirable to i n t e r -view and examine the perceptions of the developers of the established programme, but they were not accessible to the i n v e s t i g a t o r . The subjects who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study were mostly those nominated by the Educational Centre. The research findings did not show any e f f e c t t h i s might have on subject p a r t i c i p a t i o n , non-participation, or on the study. The subjects seemed to accept or refuse to p a r t i c i p a t e i n any part of the study at w i l l , as the r e s u l t s showed: the study started with 27 subjects, 16 of whom saw the study through to the end. A further possible d e l i m i t a t i o n i s what i s known i n classroom observation studies as teachers "acting" f or the observer. This d e l i m i t a -t i o n was minimized i n t h i s study, because the observation schedule component of CAI was not r e s t r i c t e d to the a c t i v i t i e s displayed:.in the classrooms. I t also probed into the nature and sources of the a c t i v i t i e s , through follow-up interviews and examination of documents. Secondly the teachers were unaware of what the "observer" was searching f o r . Each teacher was observed at least twice and as such i t would have required some e f f o r t to "act" on two occasions without giving i t away. 127 Although the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was conducted within the context of two elementary science programmes, i t b a s i c a l l y deals with the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a programme; and, therefore, i t i s : expected that the study w i l l be r e p l i c a b l e i n other elementary science programmes "and across other d i s c i p l i n e s i n elementary schools. However, there are some drawbacks i n the use of the de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a programme to i d e n t i f y and describe an innovation, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of comparing two programmes. For instance, lack of d i f f e r e n c e between the two programmes would mean that there i s no change introduced, therefore, the assessment of the implementation of the new programme would not reveal any u s e f u l information. In the case of introducing a new d i s c i p l i n e i n t a school d i s t r i c t , assuming the method would be applicable across d i s c i p l i n e s , the c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s could be used to assess the degree of implementation of the d i s c i p l i n e . The researcher, i n t h i s instance, w i l l have to decide on the number of c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that symbolize the programme and that w i l l c onstitute a manageable classroom analysis instrument. Discussion of the research findings The d e t a i l s of the research findings were presented i n the previous chapter. In t h i s section, the investigator has extracted those findings that are of profound importance to the problem of perception between developers and teachers and to the problem of curriculum implementation. A discrepancy between the developers' and teachers' perceptions of a new programme was suggested to be part of the reason for the f a i l u r e of i t s implementation. The 128 inves t i g a t o r compares the method of determining perceptions with methods used i n other implementation studies. The researcher also presents research findings on :the possible e f f e c t that teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n has on perceptions and programme implementation. In conclusion the author discusses the implications of the findings on other studies and l i t e r a t u r e on implementation and focusses on why t h i s study i s a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e f or implementation assessment when compared with other approaches. Through the u t i l i z a t i o n of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new and the established programmes, t h i s study i d e n t i f i e d and described three d i s t i n c t viewpoints i n each programme which were held by the developers and teachers of the new programme. The most s i g n i f i c a n t of the r e s u l t s on perception was that most of the developers and teachers had s i m i l a r viewpoints of the new programme. They i d e n t i f i e d the new programme by i t s o r i g i n a l l y i n s t i t u t e d d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The implication for curriculum implementation i s that the defining 1 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a programme can be applied to examine perceptions. The determination of perceptions of a programme by i t s de f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s provides a more extensive examination of perceptions than, for instance, Rogers' and Shoemakers' " a t t r i b u t e s " of a programme which have been applied i n some studies on implementation, These " a t t r i b u t e s " r e f e r to a generalized impression by which a researcher attempts to determine the c o r r e l a t i o n between a teacher's perception of the e x i s t i n g programme and that of the new programme proposed to replace i t . For the a s p i r i n g programme developers, the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , along with the framework of curriculum components (see fi g u r e 2), provide the basis for i n s t i t u t i n g a new 129 programme. T h i s e n t a i l s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s p e c i f y i n g t h e changes t o be i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e new programme. As i t i s done i n t h e s t u d y , t h e d e v e l o p e r s s p e c i f y t h e d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p r o p o s e d programme a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c u r r i c u l u m components' framework. These d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h e n g u i d e t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n assessment o f t h e programme when i n o p e r a t i o n . There a r e some drawbacks t o u s i n g the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a programme to i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e an i n n o v a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c a s e o f c o m p a r i n g two programmes. F o r i n s t a n c e , l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two programmes under s t u d y w o u l d r e n d e r t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n assessment f r u i t l e s s . A second l i m i t a t i o n w o u l d be i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a new d i s c i p l i n e , assuming t h a t t h e method would be a p p l i c a b l e a c r o s s d i s i p l i n e s . I n t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s u g g e s t s t h e u s e o f c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , CDC, t o a s s e s s the degree o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e new d i s c i p l i n e r a t h e r t h a n o f an i n n o v a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s programme. The a p p r o a c h seems a p p l i c a b l e a c r o s s d i s c i p l i n e s b u t t h e n some d i s c i p l i n e s , such as m a t h e m a t i c s , may n o t be e a s i l y d e s c r i b e d by t h e i r d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . On t h e i s s u e o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s between d e v e l o p e r s ' and t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f i n n o v a t i o n o r change, t h e s t u d y showed t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e r e were some d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two g r o u p s , i n most c a s e s , t h e y had s i m i l a r v i e w p o i n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n c e r n i n g t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e new e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e programme. Most o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i d e n t i f i e d t h e new programme by i t s i n i t i a l d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n s t i t u t e d i n t h e programme. These f i n d i n g s a r e c o n t r a r y t o t h e p e r s i s t e n t v i e w i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e t h a t t h e r e a r e 130 d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n p e r c e p t i o n s of i n n o v a t i o n s between developers and teacher s . T h i s v iew has been regarded as p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the f a i l u r e of implementat ion of new programmes and, consequent ly , the f a i l u r e o f most i n n o v a t i o n s (Rogers and Shoemaker, 19.71; Doyle and Ponder, 1977; and Hughes and K e i t h , 1980) . The proponents of t h i s v iew suggest f u r t h e r tha t teachers tend to perform d i f f e r e n t l y from the d e v e l o p e r s ' planned i n t e n t s unles s they were a p a r t of the development team. The assumption was t h a t t e a c h e r s ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme development enhances p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n of the programme which would then . lead to i t s s u c c e s s f u l implementa t ion . However, s u c c e s s f u l implementat ion does not imply a s u c c e s s f u l i n n o v a t i o n or programme. The r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s examined i n t h i s study c o n f l i c t w i t h these arguments on both p o i n t s . In the f i r s t i n s t a n c e , most p a r t i c i p a n t s had s i m i l a r p e r c e p t i o n of the new programme but o n l y a few teachers d i s p l a y e d i n ; t h e i r classrooms c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were congruent w i t h the planned changes. T h i s i m p l i e s that a t e a c h e r s ' p o s i t i v e p e r c e p t i o n of a programme i s an i n s u f f i c i e n t i n d i c a t i o n of performance. Secondly , teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the development of the programme d i d not seem to be r e l a t e d to percep t ions or "observed" performances. These unexpected f i n d i n g s suggest tha t teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( i n workshops, w r i t i n g t each ing u n i t s or on the development team) has no e f f e c t on s u c c e s s f u l Implementat ion. I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n where the programme i n t e n t s were a d o p t i v e , s u c c e s s f u l implementat ion would imply an a p p l i c a t i o n i n the c lassroom of the changes proposed by the developers (Waring, 1975). Th i s would suggest t h a t the k i n d s o f teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme 1 development to ensure successful implementation should include t r a i n i n g i n the actual use of teaching s k i l l s or strategies proposed i n the new programme. However, there i s always the question of whether the teachers agree or disagree with the goals and objectives of the new programme.. Therefore the author proposes a further study of the diff e r e n c e s between the implementers' and non-implementers' a t t i t u d e towards the new programme. In p a r t i c u l a r , whether the teachers agreed or disagreed with the proposed changes to the new programme, and why they were performing i n the "observed" manner. The issue of teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme develop-ment and implementation i s not an easy one to untangle. As F u l l a n and Pomfret (1977) put i t , "research i n t h i s area i s inconclusive because the nature and d i f f e r e n t dimensions of p a r t i c i p a t i o n have not been rel a t e d to implementation outcomes". They also acknowledge that the degree of teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a prominent v a r i a b l e i n curriculum innovation l i t e r a t u r e . The implementation assessment which was attempted i n t h i s study i s what Ful l a n (1977) termed the " f i d e l i t y perspective", a measure of the extent to which actual use corresponds to planned use This notion of implementation requires precise i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and de s c r i p t i o n of the innovation p r i o r to assessing i t s implementation. I t requires the teachers to understand the basic framework and teaching approaches advocated by the programme developers. The techniques applied i n th i s study met these demands for f i d e l i t y to programme design. 132 The research techniques quite often encountered i n the l i t e r a t u r e include teacher questionnaires, structured or focussed interviews, q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and document analyses, and a combination of questionnaires and d i r e c t classroom observations. In curriculum innovation studies, the classroom teacher i s i n -creasingly becoming the focus of research. This suggests that the study of curriculum implementation should be r e s t r i c t e d to the classroom ( C a f f a r e l l a , C a f f a r e l l a , Hart, Pooler and S a l e s i , 1979; Collingwood, 1979; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; and Gross, Giaquinta and Bernstein, 1971). Therefore, d i r e c t classroom observations would be the most i d e a l and desirable technique for implementation assessment. The classroom analysis instrument, CAI, applied i n t h i s study was developed from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the subjects' perceptions that were congruent with the o r i g i n a l descriptions of the two programmes (see Appendix G - l ) . The instrument consisted of three parts namely an observation schedule, a c h e c k l i s t , and a focussed interview schedule. The design of the instrument permitted the examination of congruencies or discrepancies between teachers' perceptions, performances and the designers' plan. The instrument, therefore, provided a more, vigorous analysis of the classroom a c t i v i t i e s than the usual classroom instruments do. Generally, classroom observations require long periods, and need sometimes expensive equipment such as good q u a l i t y recording and video equipment,, 133 Another technique which has been applied i n measuring implementation i s a framework of l e v e l s of use, LoU, developed by H a l l , Wallace and Dossett (1973). I t o r i g i n a l l y consisted of eight l e v e l s of use, ranging from non—use to renewal. The modified LoU Scale, LoU—Mod, has four d i s c r e t e l e v e l s of use, namely, mechanical use, routine use, refinement and modification. The framework uses focussed interview techniques based on a v a r i e t y of behaviours associated with each l e v e l of use, i n a three behavioural category. The teacher interviews are rated f o r both LoU and degree of use, DoU, i n order to determine the l e v e l of implementation, L o l , achieved by the teachers. The techniques seem so complex that a researcher would require extensive t r a i n i n g to use the method e f f e c t i v e l y . Neufeld (1979) referred to t h i s drawback, plus the l i m i t a t i o n of the techniques to assess only one new c h a r a c t e r i s t i c or innovation at a time. The method recommends repeated interviews to cover a l l the new features i n a programme. This would tend to become t i r i n g and cumbersome for the researcher as well as the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the study. The approach also encourages classroom observation and document analysis to s p e c i f y the innovations inherent i n the programme under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . But the approach does not ind i c a t e the reference point for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d e s c r i p t i o n of the innovation i n any s i t u a t i o n . Furthermore, any innovation s p e c i f i e d i n each case i s the l i a b i l i t y of the i n d i v i d u a l researcher. In t h i s study the innovation or change was i d e n t i f i e d and described through e l i c i t i n g the d e f i n i n g character-i s t i c s of each programme and comparing the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of one programme with the other using the f i v e curriculum components' 134 structure. This process involved not only the researcher but also the developers and teachers as stated e a r l i e r . This study attempted to accommodate some of the issues on which studies on curriculum implementation assessment have been c r i t i c i z e d , such as lack of precise d e s c r i p t i o n of innovations, non-involvement of developers and teachers, n o n - u t i l i z a t i o n of classroom observations and the lack of a systematic approach. This study also applied the d i f f e r e n t common techniques employed i n implementation assessment (document a n a l y s i s , interviews and response forms) as well as introducing lesson analysis and Q-techniques to the f i e l d . Therefore the study constituted a comprehensive and systematic implementation assessment of the new elementary science programme. Suggestions for future research The r e s u l t s and implications of the research findings in d i c a t e the following areas f o r future research. 1. I t i s suggested that the present study be r e p l i c a t e d i n the same school d i s t r i c t , but with d i f f e r e n t group of subjects, to examine possible v a r i a t i o n s within the p o t e n t i a l implementers. 2. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n involved developers and teachers, which i s the pattern i n many studies, and tends to exclude c h i l d r e n and parents, 135 sometimes on the pretext that they doT.not have the expertise to -discuss science curriculum issues. I t i s suggested that a r e l a t e d study should also include the viewpoints of students, parents and p r i n c i p a l s . Despite the high regard f o r NESP, and ;the administrative support, there was low extent of implementation. One of the factors suggested was the lack of c l a r i t y among the teachers over the ro l e of NESP, as i t r e l a t e s to the t o t a l elementary science curriculum i n the school d i s t r i c t . It i s suggested that i t would be worthwhile to investigate the teachers' view of implementation of NESP, or of the implementation process i n general. P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme development, w r i t i n g teaching guides, and workshop attendance were not important predictors of success or non-success i n implementation. Successful implementation was judged by demonstrated knowledge and understanding of the new programme. I t i s suggested that a. s i m i l a r study should focus on how the implementers acquire knowledge and understanding of an innovation or proposed change. As the NESP i s i n i t s t h i r d year i n the schools, i t might be worthwhile to conduct a s i m i l a r study, i n a year or so, which focusses on examining any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the length of time a curriculum has been in use, the extent of usage, and i t s modification or adaptation. 136 REFERENCES Albert, D.T. Q-Technique and I t s methodology: A b r i e f introduction and consideration. A paper presented at the 1971 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York C i t y , Feb., 1971. Alian, G.S., and Wolf, J r . W.C. Relationships between perceived a t t r i b u t e s of innovations and t h e i r subsequent adoption. Eeabody Journal of Education, 1978. Andrews, W.D., Duvall, J.G., T r o c k i , F.R. The human element i n curriculum change. Man, Society and Technology, 1978, 37 (7), 10-13. Ashley, J.P., and Butts, D.P. Research and Curriculum Development i n Science Education, U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, No. 7203, Monograph, 1970. Atkin, J.M. Research s t y l e s i n Science Education. Journal of  Research i n Science Teaching, 1967-68, 5, 338-345. Bales, R.E. Interaction Process Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Pa., 1950. Beauchamp, G.A. Curriculum Theory, Third E d i t i o n , I l l i n o i s , The Kagg Press, 1975. Becher, A. and Maclure, S. The P o l i t i c s of Curriculum Change. Hutchinson, London, 1978. Ben-Peretz, M. Teachers r o l e i n curriculum development: An a l t e r n a t i v e approach. Canadian Journal of Education, 1980, 5 (2). v Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. Implementation of Educational Innovation. The Educational Forum, 1976, 40 (3), 345-370. Berman, P., and Pauly, E. Federal programs supporting educational change, Vol. 11: Factors a f f e c t i n g change projects. Santa Monica, C a l i f . : Rand Corporation, 1975. Block, J . The Q-sort Method i n Personality Assessment and  P s y c h i a t r i c Research, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, S p r i n g f i e l d , I l l i n o i s , 1961. Bowen, B.L. The need for Paradigms i n Science Education Research. Science Education, 1975, 59 (3), 423-430. 137 Boyd, W.L. The p o l i t i c s of curriculum change and s t a b i l i t y . Educational Researcher, 1979, 2(3). 12-18. Brameld, T. Education f o r Merging Age. New York, Harper & Row, 1961. B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Education, Elementary Science, Teachers curriculum, Interim guide, 1977. B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of Education, Material-based Unit Program, Elementary Science, Interim, 1977. Bruner, J.S. (Ed.). The process of Education Reconsidered. Washington, D.C, 1971. Bruner, J.S. Toward a theory of In s t r u c t i o n . Belknap, Harvard, 1969. C a f f a r e l l a , E.P., C a f f a r e l l a , R.S., Hart, J.E., Pooler, A.E., and S a l e s i , R.A.A. Methodology f or pr e d i c t i n g the d i f f u s a b i l i t y of educational innovations. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association f o r Educational Communication and Technology, New Orleans, 1979. Charters, W.W. J r . et a l . The process of Planned Change i n the School's I n s t r u c t i o n a l Organization. C.A.S.E.A. Monograph, Oregon: Centre f o r the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, 1973. Churchman, D. A new approach to evaluating the implementation of innovative educational programs. Educational Technology, 1979. 25-28. Clem, N.W. What are the basic values i n a changing world? Delta  Kappa Gamma B u l l e t i n , 1971, 37 (5), 39-41. Collingwood, V. Planning of innovation i n higher education. Program Learning and Educaitonal Technology, 1979, 16 (1), 8-15. Connelly, F.M. The functions of curriculum development, Inter- change, 1972, 3 (2 & 3), 161-177. Common, D.L. Curriculum implementation. Canadian Association f o r Curriculum Studies, Saskatoon, 1979. Cooley, W.W. Klopfer, and Leopold, E. The evaluation of s p e c i f i c education of s p e c i f i c educational innovations, Journal of  Research i n Science Teaching, 1963, 1, 73-80. 138 Crowther, F. Factors a f f e c t i n g the rate of adoption of the 1971 Alberta S o c i a l Studies curriculum f o r elementary schools. Master's Thesis, U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1972. Dalin, P. Limits to Educational Change. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1978. Dalin, P. In CERI: Case Studies of Educational Innovation. IV, Strategies f o r Innovation i n Education (OECD), 1973. Daniels, M. and Wright, I.(Eds.) Implementation Viewpoints. The Monograph Series, nentre f o r the study of curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. Downey, L., and Associates. The S o c i a l Studies i n Alberta, 1975. Edmonton, Alberta. L. Downey Research Associates, 1975. Doyle, W., and Ponder, G. The p r a c t i c a l i t y i n teacher d e c i s i o n -making. Interchange, 1977/78, 8 (3), 1-12. Doyle, W., and Ponder, G. The ethnic of p r a c t i c a l i t y : Implications f o r curriculum development. Curriculum Theory, 1977, 74-80. Driver, R., and Easley, J . Pupils and Paradigms: a review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to concept development i n adolescent science students. Studies i n Science Education, 1978, 5, 61-68. Duke, D.L., Towards Responsible Innovation. The Educational Forum, 1978, 42 (3), 351-371. Dunkin, M.J., Biddle, B.J. The Study of Teaching, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974. Eash, M.J. Developing an instrument f o r assessing i n s t r u c t i o n a l material. Curriculum- theory Network, Supplement on curriculum evaluation: P o t e n t i a l i t y and r e a l i t y , monograph, 1972, 193-221. Easley, J.A. J r . S c i e n t i f i c method as an educational objective. The Encyclopedia of Education, MacMillan and Free Press, 1971, 8, 150-157. E l l i o t , J . Some key concepts underlying teachers' evaluation of innovation, Paper presented at B r i t i s h Educational Research Association Conference, 1977. ESS. Teacher's Guide f o r Ice Cubes, St. Louis: Webster D i v i s i o n , McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969. 139 Evans, T.P. Research on teaching involving the systematic observation of classroom behavior. In Blazer et a l . (eds.). A review of research on teacher behavior, Colombus, AETS & ERIC, 1973, 198-208. Evans, W., and Berman, E.H. Strategy for evaluating curriculum implementation. Curriculum Studies, 1977, 9 (1), 75-80. Evans, W., S h e f f l e r , J.W. Assessing the implementation of an i n s t r u c t i o n a l system. Journal of Educational Administration, 1976, 14 (1), 107-118. F r i c k , T., and Semmel, M.I. Observer agreement and r e l i a b i l i t i e s of classroom observational measures. Review of Educational  Research, 1978, 48 (1), 157-187. Firestone, W.A. P a r t i c i p a t i o n and influence i n planning of educational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioural  Science, 1977, 13 (2), 167-183. F i s c h l e r , A.S. and Zimmer, G. The development of an observational instrument for science teaching. Journal of Research i n  Science Teaching, 1967-1967, 5 (2), 127-137. Fu l l a n , M., and Pomfret, A. Research on curriculum and i n s t r u c t i o n implementation. Review of Educational Research, 1977, 47 (2), 335-397. Ful l a n , M., and Park, P. Curriculum Implementation. M i n i s t r y of Education, Ontario, Toronto, 1981. Full a n , M. Conceptualizing problems of curriculum implementation. Curriculum Canada, W. Weiner, (Ed.), 1979, 40-50. Ful l a n , M. Implementation: I t s nature and determinants. Paper presented at the meeting of IMTEC (International Management Training for Educational Change), Oslo, Norway, 1975. Gerlovich, J.A., Downs, G.E., and Magrane, G. Development of a t o o l f or assessing and r e v i s i n g science curriculum i n Iowa Schools. Science Education, 1980, 64 (5), 645-650. Giacquinta, J.B. The process of organizational change i n schools. Review of Research i n Education, 1973, 1, 179-204. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A.L. The discovery of grounded theory and strategies for q u a l i t a t i v e research, Chicago, Aldine, 1967. Glass, G. The wisdom of s c i e n t i f i c inquiry on education. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1972, 9 (1), 3-18. 140 Goodlad,.J.I., and K l e i n , M.F. Behind' the Classroom Door. Wdrthington, Ohio, C.A., Jones P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970. Goodlad, J . I . , Renata, V.S., and K l e i n , M.F. The Changing School Curriculum, New York, Found f o r the advancement of education, 1966. Gordon, W.W. P a r t i c i p a n t observation i n Canadian classrooms: The need, r a t i o n a l , technique and development i m p l i c a t i o n s . Canadian J o u r n a l of Education, 1977, 2 ( 3 ) , 55-74. Gross, N., G i a q u i n t a , J.B. and B e r n s t e i n , M. Implementing Innovations: A S o c i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s of Planned Change, Harper and Row, New York, 1971. Guns, R.W. A study of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s used to i n t e g r a t e community resources i n t o the c u r r i c u l a of community schools. Unpublished, Ed.D., Thesis, 1979, H a l l , G.E. The instrument f o r the a n a l y s i s of science teaching: A system of measuring teaching behaviour. The Research and Development Centre f o r Teacher Education, The U n i v e r s i t y of Texas at A u s t i n , 1969. H a l l , G.E., and Loucks, S.F.A. A development model f o r determining whether the treatment i s a c t u a l l y implemented. American Edu- c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 1977, 14 ( 3 ) , 263-276. H a l l , G.E., Wallace, R.C, and Dossett, W.A. A developmental c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the adoption process w i t h i n educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , A u s t i n : Research and Development Centre f o r Teacher Education, The U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, Ed., 095, 126, 1973. H a l l i w e l l , H.F. The N u f f i e l d science p r o j e c t s . In CELC: School  Science Teaching, HMSO, London, 1964. Hamilton, D., J e n k i n s , D., King, C , MacDonald, B., and P a r l e t t , M. (Ed.). Beyond the Numbers Game, A reader i n educational e v a l u a t i o n . London, MacMillan Education L t d . , 1977. Harding, J . Curriculum change: A model of teacher decision-making. J o u r n a l of Curriculum S t u d i e s , 1987, 10 ( 4 ) , 351-355. Harding, J.M., K e l l y , P.J., and Nicodemus, R.B. The study of c u r r i c u l u m change. Studies i n Science Education, 1976. 3, 1-30. H a r t n e t t , A., and Naish, M. (Eds.). Theory, values and the c l a s s -room teacher. Theory and P r a c t i c e of Education, 1976, 1, 199. G r i f f i t h s , S.J. An i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the goals of the l a b o r a t o r y programme i n Secondary School Chemistry i n B r i t i s h Columbia. Unpublished Masters' Thesis, 1974. 141 Harlen, W. A stronger teacher r o l e i n curriculum development? Curriculum Studies, 1977, 9 (1), 21-29. Hass, G., Bond J . , and Wiles, J . Curriculum Planning, A l l y n and Bacon Inc., 1974. Heathers, G. Overview of innovations i n organization for learning. Interchange, 1972, 3, 47-68. Heck, S. Measuring Implementation; I t s Importance i n Evaluating  the Outcomes of a Parent Education Program. Research and Development Centre for Teacher Education, The University of Texas at Austin, 1979. Herbert, M., K l i e b a r d . The r i s e of s c i e n t i f i c curriculum making and i t s aftermath. Curriculum Theory Network, 1975, 5 (1). Herbert, J . , and A t t r i d g e , C. A guide for developers and users of observation systems and manuals. American Educational Research  Journal, 1975, 12 (1), 1-20. Herron, M. On teachers' perception and c u r r i c u l a innovation. Curriculum Theory Network Monograph Supplement: Elements of  Curriculum Development, 1971, 47-52. Hess, R.J., and Rogers, A.M. F i d e l i t y of program implementation and student achievement of program objectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the evaluation network, St. Louis, Missouri, 1977, 26-28. H i l l , C. Teachers as Change Agents, Clearing House, 1971, 45, -424-428. Holt, J . How Children F a i l , Penguin, 1969. House, E.R. Three perspectives on innovation: The technological, The p o l i t i c a l , and the c u l t u r a l . National I n s t i t u t e of Education Knowledge Synthesis Project, 1979. House, E.R. Technology versus c r a f t : A ten year perspective on innovation. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1979, 11 (1), 1-5. Housego, B.E.J., and Boldt, W.B. P r i o r i t i e s of teacher behaviour as perceived by student teachers i n a school-based program: An exploratory study. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1978, 24 (1), 53-65. Huberman, M. Microanalysis of Innovation Implementation, University of Geneva, Switzerland and Stanford University, 1979. 142 Hurd, P.H. Research i n science education: Planning for the future. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1971. 8 (3), 243-249, Hughes, A.S., and Keith, J . J . Teacher-perception of an innovation and degree of implementation. Canadian Journal of Education, 1980, 5 C2 ) , 43-51. Ingram, E.J. The P o l i t i c s of P o l i c y Implementation, Education  Canada, 1978, 18 (3), 19-23. Jenkins, F.W., and Kass, H. The p o t e n t i a l of a teacher-generated frame of reference as a curriculum research and development perspective. A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, 1980. Jones, H.L., Thompson, B., and M i l l e r , A.H. How teachers perceived s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences among various teaching models. Journal Of Research i n Science Teaching, 1980, 4, 321-326. Jungwirth, E. A study of the s t a b i l i t y of biology teachers' p r i o r i t i e s and expectations. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1975, 69-77. Karplus, R. The science curriculum improvement study. Journal  of Research i n Science Teaching, 1974, 2 (4), 293-303. Kerlinger, F. Attitudes towards education and perceptions of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : A Q study, American Educational  Research Journal, 1966, 3, 159-168. Kerlinger, F. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 2nd Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Kerlinger, F. Q-methodology and the t e s t i n g of theory, N.Y., New York University, 1958, (Mimeograph), 55. Kerlinger, F. Q-methodology, In Brown, S. and Brenner, (Eds.), Science, Psychology and Communications: Essays honouring Stephenson, W., New York: Teachers College Press, 1972. K l e i n , M. Attitudes toward education: Preliminary report, Los Angeles: John Tracy c l i n i c , 1961, 25. 143 Kri t e k , W.J. Lessons from the l i t e r a t u r e on implementation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 1976, 12 (3), 86-102. Leinhardt, G, Observation as a t o o l f or evaluation of implementation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, 1973. Leithwood, K.A., and MacDonald, R.A. Reasons given by teachers f o r t h e i r curriculum choices. Canadian Journal of Education, 1981, 6 C2 ) . Leithwood, K.A., and R u s s e l l , H.H. Focus on implementation. Interchange, 1973, 4 (1), 10-26. Leithwood, K.A., Clipsham, J.S., Mynes, F., and Baxter, R.P. In c o l l a b o r a t i o n with McNabb, J.D. Planning Curriculum Change: A Model and Case Study. Toronto, The Ontario I n s t i t u t e for  Studies i n Education, 1976. L i c a t a , J.W., E l l i s , E.C., Wilson, CM. The P r i n c i p a l ' s r o l e : I n i t i a t i n g structure for educational change. National  Association for Secondary School P r i n c i p a l s , 1977, 25-33. Loucks, S., and P r a t t , H. A concern-based approach to curriculum change. Educational Leadership, 1979, 37 (3), 212-215. Lynn, L.M., and Carol, T.F. How to Measure Program Implementation. London, Sage Publications Ltd., 1978. MacDonald, B., and Walker, R. Changing the Curriculum, Open Books, 1976. MacDonald, R.G. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of cognitive s t y l e to the achievement of selected goals of an intermediate l e v e l open area programme. Unpublished Thesis, 1976. Martin, J . The development and use of classroom observation instrument. Canadian Journal of Education, 1977, 2 (3), 43-54. McKinley, W.L., and Westberry, I. S t a b i l i t y and Change: The public schools of Gary, Indiana, 1950-1970. In case studies i n : curriculum change. Great B r i t a i n and the United States. Reid, W.A. and Walker, D.F. (Ed.), (Routledge and Kegan Paul: London), 1975, 1-53. McLaughlin, M. Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change i n classroom organization. Paper presented to the American Educational Research Meetings, Washington, D.C, 1975. 144 McLaughlin, M.W., and Marsh, D.D, St a f f development and school changes. Teachers College Record, 1978, 80 (1), 69-94. McQuitty, L.L. C a p a b i l i t i e s and improvements of linkage analysis as a c l u s t e r i n g method. Educational and Psychological  Measurement, 1966, 26, 253-265. Melton, L., and Humphreys, D. Using the Q-sort as a predictor of academic success i n self-paced i n d i v i d u a l i z e d science classes. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1980, 17 (3), 243-249. M i l l e r , R.I. (Ed.). Perspectives on Educational Change, New York. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Morris, L.L., and Fitz-Gibbon, C.T. How to Measure Implementation, Sage Publi c a t i o n s , Beverly H i l l s , London, 1978. Munby, H., Orpwood, G., and R u s s e l l , T. (Ed.). Seeing Curriculum  i n a New Li g h t : Essays from science education, OISE Press, 1980. Nelson, B. C o r r e l a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the r o l e of the elementary teacher while teaching science and the science teaching practices used, Science Education, 1978, 62 (1), 53-58. Nelson, M., and Sieber, S.D. Innovations i n urban secondary schools. School Review, 1976, 84, 213-231. Neufeld, G. Assessing the degree of implementation of the important features of a e u r r i c u l a r innovation. Curriculum Implementation  and I t s Relationship to Curriculum Development i n Science, (Ed.) Tamir P., Blum A., Hofstein A., and Sabar N., Jerusalem, I s r a e l , 1979. Nicodemus, R.B. Why science teachers adopt new curriculum project. Educational Research, 1977, 19 (2), 83-91. Nkosana, A.M. Analysis of curriculum policy-making i n post c o l o n i a l period: The case in.Jamaica. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, 1978. Nunnally, J . Analysis of p r o f i l e data. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1962, 59, 311-319. Nunnally, J . Introduction to psychological measurement,' N.Y., McGraw-Hill, 1970. Nunnally, J . Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967. 145 Oberlin, L. Science Teacher Observation Rating Form (STORF), paper presented at SSMA Annual Convention, Des Moines, Iowa, 1973. OECD: Handbook on Curriculum Development, CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation), P a r i s , 1975. Okpalobi, M.J. An exploration of l e v e l s of use of innovation i n the evaluation of a teaching reading content areas. S t a f f Development Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1979. O l i v e r , A. Curriculum Improvement: A guide to problems, p r i n c i p l e s and procedures, New York. Dodd, Mead, 1965. Olson, J.K. Teacher constructs and curriculum innovation. Paper presented to the Annual Conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1979. P e l l e g r i n , R.J. Problems and assumptions i n :the implementation of innovations. Journal of Research and Development i n Education, 1975, 9 (1), 93-102. Pinar, W., (Ed.). Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconceptualists, Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a , McCutchan Publishing Co., 1975. Pincus, J . , and Williams, R.C. Planned change i n urban school d i s t r i c t s , Phi Delta Kappan, 1976, 60 (10), 729-733. Power, N.C. Competing Paradigms i n science education research. Journal of Research i n Science Teaching, 1976, 13 (6), 579-587. Pressman, J . , and Wildavsky, A. Implementation, Berkeley, University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1976. Regan, E.M., Leithwood, K.A. E f f e c t i n g Curriculum Change, Toronto, Ontario I n s t i t u t e for Studies i n Education, 1974. Reimer, E., School i s Dead, Penguin, 1971. Richard, Pring. Knowledge and Schooling, London, Open Books, 1976. Richter, J r . M.N. Science as a C u l t u r a l Process, Massachusetts, Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 1972. Roberts, D.A., and Ru s s e l l , T.L. An a l t e r n a t i v e approach to science education research: Drawing from p h i l o s o p h i c a l analysis to examine p r a c t i c e . Curriculum Theory Network, 1975, 5 (2), 107-125. 146 Roberts, D.A. Theory, curriculum development, and the unique events of p r a c t i c e . Seeing Curriculum i n a New L i g h t : Essays from Science Education, 1980, 65-87. Rogers, E., and Shoemaker, F. The Communication of Innovations, New York, Free Press, 1971. Rosenshine, B. Evaluation of classroom i n s t r u c t i o n . Review of  Educational Research, 1970, 40 (2), 279-300. Sarason, S. The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change, Boston, A l l y n and Bacon, 1971. S c h e f f l e r , I. Conditions of Knowledge, Scott, Foresman & Company, 1965. S c h e f f l e r , I. Science and S u b j e c t i v i t y , New York, The Bobbs-M e r r i t t Company Inc., 1967. School D i s t r i c t No. 41, Burnaby. Elementary Science Resource  Books, 1979. Schwab Joseph, J . Structure of the d i s c i p l i n e s : Meanings and s i g n i f i c a n c e s . The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum, Chicago, Rand McNally. 1964, 6-32. Ibi d . What do s c i e n t i s t s do? Behavioral Science, 1960, 5, 1-27. Schwab, J . J . Science, Curriculum and L i b e r a l Education, Un i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1978. Schwab, J . J . , i n Vandenberg, D. (Ed.). Theory of Knowledge and  Problems of Education, U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1969. Shipman, M. Inside a Curriculum Project, London, Methuen, 1974. Short, E.C., and Marconnit (Ed.). Contemporary Thought on Public  School Curriculum, Iowa, Wm. , C? Brown Company Publishers, 1968. Smith, I. The invariance of educational a t t i t u d e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n to s o c i a l a t t i t u d e s : An inverse factor a n a l y t i c study. Unpublished Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Dept. of Educational Psychology. New York U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Smith, J.P. The development of a classroom instrument relevant to the earth science curriculum project. Journal o f Research i n  Science Teaching, 1971, 8 (3), 231-235. Sontag, M. Attitudes toward education and perception of teacher behaviours. American Educational Research Journal, 1968. 5, 385-402. 147 Stake, R.E., Easley J . , et a l . Case Studies i n Science Education, Vo l . IX Design, overview and general findings, I l l i n o i s , Centre for I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research and Curriculum Evaluation, 1978. S t a l l i n g s , J.A. A study of implementation i n seven follow-through educational models and how i n s t r u c t i o n a l processes r e l a t e to c h i l d outcomes. A paper presented at the conference on Research on Teacher E f f e c t : An examination by policy-makers and r e-z' .<•: searchers, Austin, Texas, 1977. Stenhouse, L., An Introduction to Curriculum Research and  Development, London, Heineman,"1975. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behaviour, Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1953. Tamlr, P. How are the laboratories used? Journal of Research i n  Science Teaching, 1977, 14 (4), 311-316. Tamir, P., and Jungwirtt, E. Teaching objectives i n biology: P r i o r i t i e s and expectations. Science Education, 1972, 56, 31-39. Taylor, Paul, W. Normative Discource, Englewood C l i f f e , N.J., P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1961. Thier, H.D. From SCIS to PELE: Approaches to e f f e c t i v e dissemi-nation, implementation and adaptation of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. Science Education, 1981, 65 (1). Tyler, R.W. Basic P r i n c i p l e s of Curriculum and Instruction,. The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Chicago and London, 1975. Valdes, A., and Evans, W. IPI Nationwide Network Evaluation Study. Research f o r Better Schools, Inc., P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1973. Walker, D.F., and Schaffarsick, J . Comparing C u r r i c u l a . Review of  Education Research, 44, 1, Winter, 1974, 83-111. Walton, J . , and Welton, J . (Ed.). Rational Curriculum Planning, London, Ward Lock Educational, 1976. Waring, M. The implementation of curriculum change i n school science i n England and Wales. European Journal of Science  Education, 1979, 1 (3). Werner, W. (Ed.). Curriculum Canada, Canadian As s o c i a t i o n for Curriculum Studies and Centre for the Study of Curriculum and I n s t r u c t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979. 148 Wheeler, D.K. Western A u s t r a l i a n r e s u l t s on an educational a t t i t u d e scale. Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, 1960, 51, 113-121. Williams, E. Implementation analysis and assessment, In P.D. Cook (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review, Beverly H i l l s , Sage Pub l i c a t i o n s , 1978, (3). Wish, P.A., Shannon, H.A., Wasik, J.L. A report on an instrument for observing classroom science behaviour i n the elementary school. ERIC document, 1975. Wrigley, J . The schools c o u n c i l . In Educational Research i n B r i t a i n , Edited by Butcher, J.,and Pont, H.B. 1970, 2, 32. Yamatoto, K., Jones, J.P., and Ross, M.B. A note on the processing of classroom observation records. American Educational Research  Journal, 1972, 9 (1), 29-43. 149 APPENDIX A General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP 150 General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new elementary science programme (NESP)  and the established elementary science programme (EESP - ESS, TPS, SCIS  and Science 5/13). 1. Emphasizes both content and processes of science. 2. Emphasizes processes of science. 3. Provides a source for teaching a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 4. Provides an organized way of teaching science concepts. 5. Provides f o r needs and i n t e r e s t s of p a r t i c u l a r age-groups. 6. Encourages adapting the materials for d i f f e r e n t age-groups. 7. Provides s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n for teaching elementary science. 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n for teaching elementary science. 9. Contains teaching units which are organized around s p e c i f i c science concepts. 10. Contains teaching units which are independent of each other. 11. Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 12. Does not provide supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 13. Provides s u f f i c i e n t time for ch i l d r e n to investigate on t h e i r own. 14. Encourages teachers to decide the content of student i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . 15. Encourages ch i l d r e n to discuss the r e s u l t s of experiments with each other. 16. Encourages teachers to interpret or explain the r e s u l t s of experiments. 17. Encourages ch i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method. 18. Encourages c h i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c concepts. 19. Provides teaching units selected according to the i n t e r e s t s and experience of the developers. 151 20. Provides teaching units selected according to the children's i n t e r e s t and experience. 21. Encourages c h i l d r e n to demonstrate t h e i r attainment of science concepts. 22. Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek for inconsistencies i n c o l l e c t e d data. 23. Provides greater opportunities for learning problem-solving-skills. 24. Provides l i t t l e opportunities for learning problem-solving s k i l l s . 25. Provides students with materials for observation and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 26. Encourages students to c o l l e c t materials for observation and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 27. Provides i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials for developing science concepts. 28. Provides i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials for a t t a i n i n g s p e c i f i c science concepts. 29. Encourages teachers to demonstrate to r e i n f o r c e s p e c i f i c science concepts. 30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts about experiments. 31. Provides a v a r i e t y of options for teaching s p e c i f i c science concepts. 32. Provides a v a r i e t y of options for teaching unspecified science concepts. 33. Encourages teachers to develop t h e i r own materials. 34. Does not encourage teachers to develop t h e i r own materials. 35. Encourages teachers to r e l y on materials provided by the developers. 36. Encourages teachers to use l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e materials. 37. Encourages teachers to maintain control of learning experiences. 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s of learning experience. 39. Provides students with s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s to carry out prescribed experiments. 152 40. Encourages c h i l d r e n to design t h e i r own experiments based on t h e i r own hypotheses. 41. Requires teachers to complete s p e c i f i e d number of units i n a year. 42. Requires teachers to work at the children's own rate of speed. 43. Discourages standardizing elementary science. 44. Promotes standardizing elementary science. 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. 46. Does not require cooperation among teachers. 47. Saves teachers preparation time. 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. 49. Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s . 50. Encourages students to discriminate between important and unimportant data. 51. Encourages students to search for r e g u l a r i t i e s . 52. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be resourceful. 53. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be c r e a t i v e . 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative. 55. Teaches ch i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 56. Teaches ch i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y information. 57. Encourages ch i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate conclusions based on c o l l e c t e d data. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about the r e s u l t s of experiments. Legend ESS - Elementary science study SCIS - Science curriculum improvement study TPS - Teaching primary science EYE - Examining your environment Science 5/13 - Schools council science 5/13 153 APPENDIX B D i s t r i b u t i o n of items according to NESP and EESP 154 New Elementary Science Programme -NESP Established Elementary Science Programme -EESP ESS, EYE, TPS, SCIS, Science 5/13 1 2 NB. As i d e n t i f i e d by the 4 3 NB. As i d e n t i f i e d by the developers of NESP 5 6 former teachers of EESP 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 13 16 15 18 17 19 20 21 22 24 23 49 25 26 49 50 28 27 50 51 29 30 51 52 31 32 52 53 34 33 53 54 35 36 54 55 37 38 55 56 39 40 56 57 41 42 57 58 44 43 58 59 45 46 59 60 47 48 60 Figure 2. Items d i s t r i b u t e d according to programmes, NES and EESP 155 APPENDIX C 1. Q-sort record sheet 2. Q-sort format and i n s t r u c t i o n s 156 THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Mathematics and Science Department. Confidential Description of programme Q-sort Record Sheet Teacher Programme School Date Instructions: Please record the numbers of items placed in each category in the appropriate space below. Please note that there should be one item only in each square, and there should be one item for every square. Category value No. of items in each category 1 2 3 h 5 6 7 8 9 12 (N.B. Items in category value 1 indicate "Not Clearly defining Characteristics", items l i s t e d in category value 9 indicate C l e a r l y defining Characteristics".) 157 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SORTING THE ITEMS Purpose The purpose of t h i s instrument i s to help us f i n d out what the teachers consider to be the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a new programme. To do t h i s we would l i k e you to sort items describibg a programme according to what you consider to be the c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and not c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programme. Directions 1. Take the deck of cards and read through the items once before you st a r t s o r t i n g . 2. Sort the items according to how c l e a r l y they describe the programme i n three p i l e s ; a) c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s b) marginal defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c) not c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 3. Next sort the c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to f i t the f i r s t three categories (1, 2 & 3) on your left-hand side. Note the number of items required i n each category. Choose 3 c l e a r l y defining character- i s t i c s and place them i n category 1. Continue with so r t i n g , putting the required number of items i n each category. 4. ;, Now sort the items i n (c) not c l e a r l y defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the l a s t three categories (9, 8 & 7) i n that order. Again note the number of items required i n each category. 5. Then sort the items i n (b) marginal defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the same way working from category 4 to 5 and put the remaining items i n category 6. Check your s o r t i n g . Rearrange the items i f you wish, but make c e r t a i n that you have the required number of items i n each category. 6. Now record the card-numbers of each item i n the Q-sort record sheet. Please read the in s t r u c t i o n s before you record the card-numbers which i d e n t i f y the statements. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS CLEARLY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS MARGINALLY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS CLEARLY NOT DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS Categor ie s No. of items i n each category ( T o t a l 60) 12 S o r t i n g format used f o r the Q-sorts showing the c r i t e r i a f o r s o r t i n g and the p r e s c r i b e d frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n Ln OO APPENDIX D Master sheet of item scores (Item x subject data matrix) 160 Item scores of subjects based t h e i r perceptions of  the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP NESP Q-SCORES: Item x subject data matrix for Q-sort 1 SUBJECTS;: . TU TW DEV. :TEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 I : 3 9 5 5 7 9 5 6 5 6 4 1 5 8 4 4 8 6 5 7 9 4 6 4 5 3 2 2 4 5 3 4 6 9 9 9 5 3 3 6 8 5 4 4 4 6 7 5 3 8 3 8 7 9 9 3 7 8 9 9 9 5 6 7 9 7 7 9 2 9 9 7 9 9 6 9 9 9 9 4 1 8 5 4 9 7 8 7 8 4 5 3 9 9 7 6 2 9 9 9 8 7 5 9 8 5 9 5 2 8 5 5 4 5 5 6 5 4 6 3 6 9 7 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 6 5 5 4 8 5 4 5 5 6 4 9 7 9 6 4 6 5 6 5 6 9 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 7 5 2 3 6 3 7 7 7 6 4 8 5 7 5 4 5 9 8 7 5 5 8 7 2 5 8 5 9 8 5 8 4 3 4 5 8 2 5 3 7 3 4 2 3 2 1 4 3 7 1 1 4 1 5 4 5 1 1 1 3 7 1 4 9 7 4 9 8 8 3 .5 8 7 6 9 7 4 7 7 6 9 7 2 8 8 9 9 3 4 7 3 10 5 8 5 5 9 4 4 6 7 2 3 5 1 4 5 8 7 8 3 8 7 9 4 7 3 1 3 11 6 4 4 8 1 5 8 2 5 8 5 3 4 5 4 1 8 4 6 4 7 1 8 4 6 5 4 12 2 6 3 2 8 2 1 2 5 1 3 2 6 2 3 6 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 5 1 3 .13 3 5 6 7 4 6 4 4 6 7 4 4 4 7 4 4 4 5 5 2 5 3 5 6 5 7 9 14 4 3 4 3 7 3 4 8 4 4 6 5 7 3 3 4 5 5 4 7 3 3 4 4 1 3 5 15 7 7 5 8 5 7 5 7 6 5 6 5 5 5 8 7 7 6 7 7 6 6 5 9 4 6 8 16 3 3 2 5 3 3 3 4 1 3 6 3 9 2 5 8 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 4 2 2 17 5 5 6 5 4 9 5 6 6 4 7 6 5 4 5 6 6 7 2 3 7 7 4 5 4 6 3 18 6 7 7 8 4 8 6 5 7 5 7 7 1 5 6 6 9 9 6 4 7 4 6 6 5 5 5 19 3 2 3 1 8 2 2 6 2 2 2 2 8 3 5 7 4 1 3 4 5 4 7 2 7 4 1 20 9 8 2 6 7 5 7 2 5 9 9 3 6 4 4 6 6 4 6 7 5 4 2 4 4 8 7 21 7 2. 7 5 5 3 3 3 5 .5 6 7 1 7 6 7 8 2 3 1 5 3 5 6 6 4 .4 22 5 4 7 3 4 6 4 6 4 5 6 6 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 6 7 5 7 6 5 6 23 6 7 8 4 5 8 6 4 8 3 5 7 4 6 5 6 5 3 7 4 6 6 3 7 7 6 5 24 2 6 1 5 5 2 1 4 2 2 4 2 8 1 2 3 4 5 3 5 2 1 2 3 6 4 5 25 6 2 7 6 2 6 8 5 3 6 4 6 3 7 5 3 5 2 5 5 6 3 7 9 4 6 6 26 5 8 6 5 6 5 8 6 7 5 5 5 7 7 7-= 8 4 3 7 5 5 4 4 8 6 6 7 27 6 5 6 5 1 8 6 5 6 . 7 5 5 6 8 4 3 7 6 5 5 9 5 7 5 5 • 5 4 28 5 4 6 6 2 8 6 2 5 7 5 5 7 7 4 3 6 6 5 8 5 4 6 4 3 5 5 29 5 2 5 7 3 1 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 6 4 1 3 4 2 3 3 6 6 2 5 3 3 161 NESP Q-SCORES: Item x subject data matrix for Q-sort 1 SUBJECTS l : TU TW DEV. :TEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 30 5 7 4 4 5 5 7 7 4 5 6 7 5 5 8 5 3 6 9 7 4 7 5 8 8 5 6 31 9 9 5 6 4 6 6 9 8 8 3 9 4 9 9 3 6 7 6 8 8 4 3 5 2 6 6 32 4 3 5 9 6 2 5 9 2 6 2 8 9 3 2 8 2 5 5 3 2 5 6 6 6 3 7 33 4 5 4 3 7 5 3 5 1 5 4 8 6 3 6 5 3 3 6 4 3 2 4 6 2 7 6 34 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 1 8 3 1 2 5 5 4 2 3 2 2 2 7 2 3 35 3 3 1 2 4 4 2 3 6 2 2 1 7 2 2 7 2 4 5 1 7 5 7 2 6 2 1 36 4 8 8 2 6 3 5 5 5 4 1 6 2 6 6 6 3 6 4 2 4 8 8 5 2 4 7 37 4 6 1 6 3 5 4 8 8 6 3 4 3 4 6 5 6 5 1 5 5 5 7 3 5 3 2 38 6 6 7 4 7 5 9 4 6 8 7 7 2 7 6 8 8 6 4 8 7 8 8 7 2 9 5 39 6 4 2 7 2 2 3 7 7 6 6 5 7 4 4 3 3 7 2 6 2 5 6 4 4 4 4 40 5 3 4 2 5 7 5 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 1 7 3 5 6 3 6 5 4 7 41 1 1 5 6 1 1 5 4 4 6 1 3 3 1 2 1 7 4 1 4 1 5 7 1 9 4 1 42 3 6 6 7 2 5 7 5 4 3 3 4 7 3 3 3 2 4 5 1 4 3 5 8 4 4 7 43 5 1 4 3 8 3 4 8 4 3 2 5 6 2 3 9 2 5 7 6 3 4 1 3 1 2 4 44 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 8 2 2 6 8 1 6 3 5 3 1 6 5 2 45 1 3 2 4 3 5 5 1 1 5 2 3 3 6 5 2 2 5 3 4 4 3 6 2 7 5 4 46 2 4 4 1 9 5 1 7 5 . 3. 3 4 8 2 3 9 6 7 6 2 4 3 2 3 8 2 5 47 7 5 9 7 7 4 4 7 4 6 4 5 5 6 5 7 7 9 5 6 8 8 7 5 8 4 4 48 2 5 3 3 6 4 3 1 3 1 4 2 9 3 1 5 1 5 3 4 2 5 1 4 3 3 2 49 4 2 4 8 .6 7 8 2 4 4 5 8 6 5 6 5 4 1 9 5 5 5 4 5 7 8 6 50 5 3 7 3 5 6 5 3 5 . 7 5 9 3 5 8 5 3 6 5 5 6 7 4 7 8 3 6 51 5 6 6 3 4 6 5 6 5 4 5 6 5 5 5 4 5 2 4 5 6 7 4 7 8 5 3 52 7 6 4 4 5 6 7 4 3 4 8 4 5 6 7 5 4 4 8 6 4 5 5 6 5 7 5 53 8 6 3 6 5 4 7 5 3 4 8 3 6 4 5 5 5 5 8 6 4 6 5 5 9 6 8 54 8 6 5 5 3 6 7 5 3 4 8 4 6 4 5 2 5 2 8 6 4 6 5 5 9 5 8 55 8 5 5 6 5 7 8 5 6 . 5 8 4 4 6 7 5 6 7, 8 6 4 6 4 5 6 8 8 56 5 5 8 5 6 7 3 4 7 6 6 6 3 6 7 4 5 8 7 7 6 7 6 5 3 6 4 57 8 4 5 4 5 6 7 5 5 7 8 4 6 4 7 5 5 5 8 6 5 6 5 8 5 7 8 58 8 5 6 5 4 7 9 6 8 8 9 8 5 8 6 6 7 4 6 4 7 6 5 7 3 9 9 59 6 7 6 4 4 8 4 6 7 7 5 8 2 6 8 6 7 : 3 4 5 6 7 6 6 5 6 6 60 7 7 5 2 6 7 6 7 8 5 5 7 3 5 8 7 6 8 9 2 6 8 5 9 5 7 6 162 EESP Q-SCORES: Item x subject data matrix f o r Q-sort 2 SUBJECTS : TU TW DEV. [TEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 2 5 3 2 9 4 7 2 6 8 8 5 4 4 6 5 6 5 3 8 7 3 7 2 4 '4 8 5 6 5 3 1 5 5 8 3 3 8 5 5 1 6 9 5 5 7 4 . 3 5 6 3 5 8 7 7 6 9 9 6 8 8 1 4 5 4 6 4 3 4 6 5 4 3 6 3 7 7 8 5 9 8 3 6 5 4 4 5 3 8 1 1 2 6 1 6 5 4 6 7 5 8 5 6 5 6 3 3 5 5 5 7 5 4 6 6 3 6 6 5 6 3 3 6 4 3 6 3 5 3 3 4 3 5 6 2 6 6 7 6 4 3 4 3 7 2 7 4 6 7 5 3 8 7 4 5 5 4 2 4 3 7 1 2 1 5 3 6 8 6 6 4 8 2 2 7 4 1 8 7 5 5 6 5 4 2 9 9 2 6 3 7 9 5 7 5 8 8 6 5 9 5 4 6 5 9 7 6 3 7 5 3 3 6 4 8 10 7 8 4 9 9 8 6 6 6 9 8 7 6 7 7 6 2 6 5 9 4 5 5 11 1 1 4 6 2 4 9 6 4 3 4 9 2 2 4 2 7 5 4 5 8 4 2 12 7 1 5 5 5 2 1 7 5 7 8 1 6 2 5 1 3 7 7 5 9 3 7 13 8 4 7 3 5 5 3 3 5 7 5 4 7 5 4 5 4 5 4 8 4 9 4 14 3 8 2. 7 3 3 5 7 3 6 4 6 5 6 7 6 8 7 6 2 1 4 6 15 8 3 5 2 5 7 4 2 7 7 5 5 8 7 2 8 3 3 7 8 3 7 3 16 4 5 3 4 5 3 8 7 3 5 5 6 3 3 9 4 5 7 5 4 8 2 8 17 5 3 7 4 6 9 5 4 4 5 4 4 1 9 8 6 6 2 8 5 6 5 9 18 3 4 7 6 6 9 5 5 8 5 4 6 7 8 3 7 5 4 4 4 5 5 6 19 8 5 1 6 3 2 7 7 2 8 9 7 9 3 7 6 5 4 2 8 7 5 7 20 6 6 6 4 9 5 3 5 4 1 3 5 5 4 5 4 6 8 4 4 6 5 3 21 4 3 6 5 5 4 5 5 6 1 4 6 6 4 6 8 6 4 5 5 6 6 6 22 6 2 5 4 4 6 4 4 5 3 6 2 4 6 6 5 5 5 7 6 4 5 5 23 7 4 6 5 4 9 6 4 4 4 4 4 7 6 4 5 6 6 6 6 4 6 4 24 4 3 1 5 5 1 6 3 3 5 5 6 6 6 8 2 5 4 5 4 7 3 2 25 6 5 3 5 2 8 9 4 4 7 7 9 1 4 4 4 7 6 3 9 5 5 5 26 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 5 5 6 3 4 6 5 6 3 3 6 6 8 2 6 3 27 5 8 4 6 6 2 4 6 9 6 .'5 8 4 3 5 7 4 4 4 6 8 5 2 28 5 4 4 7 2 5 5 8 8 7 6 9 2 3 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 6 29 3 9 5 6 6 3 8 8 2 2 7 7 2 7 8 3 7 7 6 4 7 5 8 30 8 6 5 5 7 6 2 2 5 5 3 6 5 8 3 9 2 2 8 6 5 8 4 163 EESP Q-SCORES: Item x subject data matrix f o r Q-sort 2 SUBJECTS TW DEV. :TEMS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 12 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 31 4 2 5 8 6 7 5 3 9 7 2 2 5 4 4 9 7 5 4 3 3 9 5 32 8 3 7 7 4 1 2 3 3 5 2 4 7 3 5 6 2 5 5 4 6 7 2 33 7 6 7 9 3 6 4 5 2 5 7 2 3 5 5 6 6 8 4 6 2 7 5 34 3 5 3 4 4 3 8 3 2 6 6 7 6 4 5 3 6 2 6 5 7 2 7 35 7 6 2 5 8 4 9 6 7 8 9 8 5 5 6 4 7 7 2 9 7 3 7 36 6 6 4 8 4 3 4 4 5 5 7 8 5 5 5 3 6 6 1 4 2 4 3 37 2 9 2 9 3 4 5 7 6 4 8 5 3 4 9 4 8 8 2 3 5 1 8 38 4 9 9 3 7 7 5 6 7 4 8 5 9 8 8 8 3 8 5 5 1 6 6 39 7 8 3 7 6 4 6 7 5. . 7 6 7 4 1 . 9 4 8 6 3 2 2 5 2 40 5 2 4 3 5 6 4 3 3 6 4 3 7 7 3 8 3 3 4 7 3 8 3 41 1 5 1 1 1 1 7 8 5 1 4 5 1 1 7 2 9 9 2 1 9 2 9 42 3 1 7 2 1 5 6 4 4 6 6 4 3 9 4 4 2 5 8 7 5 8 3 43 9 5 6 6 5 4 2 6 1 5 5 3 2 9 3 2 1 9 7 3 3 6 1 44 2 8 2 2 5 2 7 9 6 5 7 6 4 3 7 1 9 1 3 1 9 1 9 45 4 3 2 1 1 2 2 7 1 5 7 8 3 2 7 5 5 4 5 5 8 4 1 46 4 5 5 7 8 5 8 6 2 4 3 1 8 7 3 4 8 7 3 5 6 2 6 47 1 5 5 7 7 3 5 8 5 2 1 5 2 5 5 2 9 2 1 3 8 2 1 48 9 5 4 8 4 4 3 6 3 8 9 2 6 5 6 1 1 8 9 2 3 8 8 49 2 7 8 3 6 7 4 3 5 3 2 3 5 2 1 5 4 3 5 7 5 4 5 50 6 2 6 5 4 3 3 4 6 2 5 4 5 5 2 8 7 5 8 7 5 3 5 51 6 4 5 4 5 5 6 4 7 6 5 4 4 6 6 5 5 2 6 6 7 4 7 52 5 4 6 6 3 5 1 5 5 4 2 3 5 3 2 7 5 4 5 5 5 8 5 53 5 4 9 3 3 5 4 1 5 2 1 2 4 5 1 7 5 3 5 6 4 6 4 54 5 4 8 3 4 5 4 2 5 2 1 1 6 5 2 7 5 3 6 6 4 7 4 55 5 7 8 3 5 8 4 2 8 6 5 6 8 6 1 9 5 3 8 7 4 6 4 56 5 7 5 4 5 6 7 5 7 3 6 4 3 5 3 7 5 5 7 6 5 4 5 57 5 2 8 1 4 6 1 1 5 4 2 3 8 6 3 7 3 3 5 5 1 5 4 58 6 5 9 2 7 6 6 5 8 5 3 6 7 4 4 6 4 6 5 4 2 9 4 59 7 7 6 5 7 7 5 5 6 6 5 7 6 7 6 5 4 5 7 7 3 7 6 60 9 7 5 4 6 8 2 5 7 4 3 7 7 8 8 6 3 ' 4 7 7 5 7 5 164 APPENDIX E The computer program for the Q-analysis (Designed by G r i f f i t h s , S.J. 1974) MICHIGAN TERMINAL SYSTEM FORTRAN G<21.8 MAIN 10-29-81 PAGE P001 0001 0002 0003 0004 0005 OOOS 0007 0008 0009 0010 001 1 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 0019 0020 002 1 002 2 002 3 0024 0025 002S 0027 0028 0O29 0030 0031 0032 0033 0034 0035 0036 0037 0038 0039 0040 004 1 0O4 2 0043 0044 0O4 5 0046 0047 0048 0049 0050 0051 0052 0053 0054 0055 0056 0057 0058 DIMENSION F(120.10),NG(10).FMTI20).IGPS(120,10),W(120.10) DIMENSION A(60. 120).WISC60. 10),RM( 10).STD(10),Z(60. 10).I SRC 60. 10) DIMENSION ZS(60.10) READC5.98) (FMTId).d =1.20) WRIT E(6,99)(FMT(J).J=1,20) 98 FORMAT(20A 4) 99 FORMAT ( ' 1 ' .20A4) READC5.100) NF.MS.NW.IP 100 F0RMATI4I5) READ(5.98) (FMT(J),d =1.20) DO 1 I=1.NS 1 READC 5.FMT) (F(I . J ) . d =1.NF) DO 3 d=1.NF DO 35 1=1.NS 35 IGPS(I.d)=0 3 NG(d)=0 DO 4 1=1.NS TEMP=0.0 DO 5 J=1,NF IF(ABS(F(I.J)).IT.TEMP) GO TO 5 K = d TEMP=ABS(F(I.J)) 5 CONTINUE NG(K)=NG(K)-M IGPS(NG(K),K)=I 4 CONTINUE IF(IP.NE.1) GO TO 45 WRITEC6.41 ) 41 FORMATC'-SELECTION MATRIX'//) DO 42 1=1.NS WRITEC6.43) (IGPSCI.d). d =1.NF) 43 FORMATC'O'.10110) 42 CONTINUE 45 DO 46 1=1.NS DO 46 d=1,NF 46 W(l.d)=0.0 DO 6 K= 1 ,NF L=NG(K) DO 7 I=1.L W(I.K)=F(IGPSCI.K).K)/(1.-F(IGPS(I.K).K)**2) 7 CONTINUE 6 CONTINUE IF(IP.NE. 1 ) GO TO 65 WRITEC6.61 ) 61 FORMATC'-WEIGHT MATRIX'//) DO 62 1=1.NS WRITEC6.63) (W(I,d).d =1.NF) 63 FORMAT)'O'.10C3X.F7.4)) 62 CONTINUE 65 READC 5.98 ) CFMT(d).d= 1 .20) DO 8 1=1,NW 8 READ(4.FMT)(AC I.d).d=1.NS) DO 9 d=1.NF DO 91 1=1,NW L=NG(d) WIS(I,d)=0.0 DO 10 K=1.L WISC I ,d)=WIS(I.d)+W(K.d)*A(I.IGPS(K.d)) 1 .000 2 .000 3.000 4 .000 5.000 6.000 7 .000 8 .000 9.000 1O.000 11.000 12.000 13.000 14.000 15.000 16.000 17.000 18.000 19.000 20.000 2 1 .000 22.000 23.000 24.000 25.000 26.000 27.000 28.000 29.000 30.000 3 1 .000 32.000 33.000 34.000 35.000 36 .000 37.000 38 .000 39.000 40.000 41.000 42.000 43.000 44.000 45.000 4G.000 47.000 48.000 49.000 50.000 51.000 52.000 53.000 54.000 55.000 56.000 57.000 58.000 ON MICHIGAN TERMINAL SYSTEM FORTRAN G(21.8) MAIN 10-0059 10 CONTINUE 0060 9 1 CONTINUE 006 1 9 CONTINUE 0062 IF(IP.NE.1) GO TO 85 0063 WRITE(6.81) 0064 81 FORMAT)'-WEIGHTED ITEM SCORES'//) 0065 DO 82 1=1.NW 0066 WRITE(6.83) (WIS(I.d).d=1.NF) 0067 83 FORMAT('0'.10(2X.F8.2)) 0068 82 CONTINUE 0069 85 DO 12 J=1.NF 0070 RM(U)=0.0 007 1 STD(J)=0.0 0072 DO 11 I=1.NW 0073 RM(0)=RM(J)+WIS(I.J) 0074 STD(d)=STD(d)+WIS(I.d)**2 0075 1 1 CONTINUE 0076 RM(J)=RM(J)/FLOAT(NW ) 0077 STD(d) = SORT(STD(d)/FLOAT(NW)-RM(J) " 2 ) 0078 12 CONTINUE 0079 DO 13 I=1.NW 0080 DO 14 d=1,NF 0081 • 14 Z(I.d)=(WIS(I.d)-RM(d))/STD(d) 0082 13 CONTINUE 0083 IF(IP.NE.1) GO TO 135 0084 WRITE(6.131) 0085 131 FORMAT('-Z-SCORES'//) O086 DO 132 1=1.NW 0087 WRITE(6.133) (Z(I.d).d=1.NF) 0088 133 FORMAT('0'.10( 3X.F7.4)) 0089 132 CONTINUE 0090 135 DO 15 d=1.NF 009 1 DO 15 I = 1.NW 0092 ISR(I.d)=I 0093 15 ZS(I.J)=Z(I,d) 0094 DO 16 1=1.NF 0095 NL=NW-1 0096 DO 17 d=1.NL 0097 M = d+ 1 0098 DO 18 K=M,NW 0099 IF(Z(d.I).GT.Z(K.I)) GO TO 18 0100 TEMP=Z(d.I) 0101 Z(J.I)=Z(K.I) 0102 Z(K.I)=TEMP 0103 ITMP=ISR(d,I) 0104 ISR(d.I)=ISR(K,I) 0105 ISR(K.I)=ITMP 0106 18 CONTINUE 0107 17 CONTINUE 0108 16 CONTINUE 0109 WRITE(6,19) 01 10 19 FORMAT('1DIMENSI0NS AS IN STEP 5'//) 0111 DO 200 I=1.NW 01 12 WRITEI6.201) (ISR(I.d).d=1.NF) 0113 201 FORMAT*'0'.10110) 0114 200 CONTINUE 01 15 L=NF-1 0116 DO 202 I=1.L 43 : 23 PAGE P002 59.000 60.000 61.000 62.000 63.000 64.000 65.000 66.000 67.000 68.000 69.000 70.00O 71.000 72.000 73.000 74.000 75.000 76.000 77.000 78.000 79.000 80.000 8 1 .000 82.000 83.000 84 .000 85.000 86 .000 87.000 88 .000 89.000 90.000 91.000 92.000 93.000 94.000 95.000 96.000 97.000 98.000 99.000 100.000 101.000 102.000 103 .000 104.000 105.000 106.000 107.000 108.000 109.000 110.000 111.000 112.000 113.000 114.000 115.000 116.000 ON ON MICHIGAN TERMINAL SVSTEM FORTRAN G(21.8) MAIN 10-29-81 M=I+ 1 0117 DO 203 J=M.NF n i 1Q DO 204 K=1,NW y Z(K.1)=ZS(K.I)-ZS(K.J) 01 20 204 ISR(K,1)=K 0121 WRITE(6,205) I.J „ , r „ „ ™ T i . T T n k l AS IN ' 0123 205 FORMAT( ' 1DIMENSI0NS FOR DIFFERENTIATION AS IN 1/'0',3X.'ORDER'.6X.'ITEM'.5X,'DIFFERENCE //) 0124 NL=NW-1 0125 DO 206 11=1.NL NM=I1+1 0126 DO 207 JJ-NM.NW IF(Z(II.1).GT.Z(JJ.D) GO TO 207 0128 TEMP=Z( II.D 0129 Z(II.1)=Z(JJ.') 0131 Z(JJ.1)=TEMP ITMP=ISR(11.1) 0132 ISRUI . 1 ) = ISR(JJ. 1 ) 0133 ISR(JJ.1)=ITMP 0135 207 CONTINUE 0136 206 CONTINUE DO 208 K=1,NW 0137 0138 WRITE(6,209) K . I SR (K . 1 > . Z (K , 1 ) 0139 209 F0RMAT('O'.I6.SX.I6.5X.F10.4) 208 CONTINUE 0140 014 1 203 CONTINUE 202 CONTINUE 0143 STOP 0144 ...VP .„ cnnon NDI 1ST. NODECK. LOAD. NOMAP OPTIONS IN EFFECT-0 ID.EBCDIC.SOURCE.NOLISTNODECK.LDAD.NOMAP : 0 S T T A ^ ? i C ^ E F F E C S O U R C r S ^ ; E M M E ^ S - ' 4^4^ PROGRAM SIZE . 57402 •STATISTICS* NO DIAGNOSTICS GENERATED No e r r o r s In MAIN : 43:23 PAGE P003 117.000 118.000 119.000 120.000 121.000 12 2.000 123.000 124.000 125.000 126.000 127 .000 128.000 129.000 130.000 131.000 132 .000 133.000 • 134 .000 135.000 136.000 137.000 138.000 139.000 140.000 14 1.000 142.000 14 3.000 144.000 145.000 168 APPENDIX F The r e s u l t s of the Q-analyses FACTOR ANALYSIS NESP 2 NO. OF CASES 60 NO OF VARIABLES 27 MEANS STANDARD DEVIATION X 1 5 . OOOOO 2 09923 X 2 5.00OOO 2.09923 X 3 5.00000 2.09922 X 4 5.OOOOO 2.09923 X 5 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 6 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 7 5.00000 2.09923 X 8 5.OOOOO 2.09922 X 9 5.OOOOO 2.09923 X 10 5.OOOOO 2.09923 X 1 1 5.00000 2.09922 X 12 5.00000 2.09923 X 13 5. OOOOO 2.09923 X 14 5.00000 2.09923 X 15 5.OOOOO 2.09923 X 16 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 17 5.OOOOO 2.09923 X 18 5 OOOOO 2.09922 X 19 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 20 5.00000 2.09923 X 2 1 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 22 5.00000 2.09923 X 23 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 24 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 25 5 OOOOO 2.09923 X 26 5.OOOOO 2.09923 X 27 5 OOOOO 2.09923 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 1 1 . OOOOO X 2 0 46 154 1 . OOOOO X 3 0. 25769 0. 34616 1 . OOOOO X 4 -0. 40385 -0. 33846 -0. 21 154 1 . OOOOO OOOOO X 5 0 4 1538 0. S03B5 0. 25769 -0. 53077 1 . OOOOO X 6 0 60769 0 43077 0. 23077 -0. 52692 0. 57692 1 . X 7 0. 59615 0. 66154 0. 39615 -0. 54231 0. 58846 0. 47692 X 8 0 30769 0. 31 154 0. 20769 -0. 13461 0. 20000 0. 296 15 X 9 0 25769 0. 20769 0. 20000 -0. 03461 -0. 05385 0. 15769 X 10 0 20769 0. 1307 7 0 27692 -0. 02692 0. 01923 0. 22692 X 1 < 0 27692 0 50000 0 24231 -0 .55385 0 53846 0 46539 X 12 0 10769 0 17692 0 246 15 -0 .26538 0 .30000 0 26538 X 1 3 0 .27308 0 . 48077 0 26923 0 .05000 0 .15769 0. 14231 X 14 0 3 1923 0 .346 15 0 .37308 -0 .17308 0 .38077 0 2B077 X 15 0 .23846 0 .43077 0 .32308 -0 . 196 15 0 .41923 0 .25000 X 16 0 . 4 1154 0 .53846 0 .26923 -0 .20769 0 .42308 0 .30000 X 17 0 .36154 0 .53462 0 .36539 -0 .49231 0 .69231 0 .59231 X 18 0 20769 0 .27692 0 .00769 -0 .46539 0 .48462 0 46923 X 19 0 . 55000 0 .46154 0 .40000 -0 .2346 1 0 .28077 0 .42692 X 20 -0 33077 -0 .20385 -0 .22308 0 .17308 -0 .27692 -0 .23846 X 7 X 8 X 9 X 10 X 1 1 X 12 1 . OOOOO 0. 14615 1 OOOOO 0. 28077 -0. 1 1923 1 . OOOOO 0. 26538 -0. 15385 0. 66923 1 . OOOOO OOOOO 0. 40769 0. 29231 0. 10385 0. 0846 1 1 . OOOOO 0. 20769 0. 16923 0 09231 0. 18846 0. 37692 1 . 0 40000 0. 03077 0 17692 0. 20385 0. 01154 -0. 01538 0 .40000 0 03846 0 .02308 -0 . 06923 0. 30000 0. 096 1 5 0 .4 2308 0 3 1538 -0 .OOOOO 0 3 1 154 0 .38846 0. 396 15 0 .41154 0 .33846 -0 03462 -0 .11923 0 .29231 -0 .04 615 0 .55000 0 . 196 15 0 .17692 0 .18462 0 .67693 0 .33462 0 .37308 0 .31923 -0 .02692 -0 .04615 0 .47308 0 .21154 0 .46154 0 .08846 0 . 21154 0 .08846 0 .11538 -0 .02308 -0 .22308 -0 .11538 -0 .21923 -0 .30000 -0 .11154 -0 .23846 2 • 22 23 24 25 2G 27 13 14 15 1S 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 X 2S X 27 0.51953 0.39231 0.45000 0.43846 0.42308 0.27308 0.43462 X 13 1 .00000 0.52692 0. 13846 0. 55385 0. 19615 -0.08462 0.55769 0.096 15 .42692 .15385 .12692 .15385 _.17308 0.350OO 0.64615 X 25 X 2G X 27 0.54615 0.40769 0.35385 0.50385 .56154 .70385 .46154 0. 0. O. X 14 0. 0. 0. 0. X 25 1.OOOOO 0.43846 0.28462 O.1B461 0.26923 0.48077 0. 16923 0.25769 0.30769 X 15 O. 0. O. 0. -O. O. O. O. O. 0. X 26 1.OOOOO -0.28462 -O.40769 -0.01154 -0.47692 -0.41538 -0.12692 -0.01154 X 16 1.OOOOO 0.10769 .51538 .5230B .00385 .55385 .00769 .4 5000 .26154 .10000 .37308 .27308 0 . 32308 0.40385 0.54615 0.37308 0 11538 0 . 5 1154 0.61154 O.30000 0.21923 X 17 1.00000 O.27692 O.36154 O.22308 0.05385 -O.3423 1 O.31923 0.28077 0.26154 O.33846 0.41923 0.39231 0.06923 X 27 31923 0.37308 1.00000 0.35000 0.45385 0.25000 0.49231 0.43462 O. 30769 0.23077 X 18 OOOOO 33462 253B5 58846 03077 70000 30385 13461 26154 48462 43846 . 58462 0.54615 0.46538 0.35000 0.53462 0.49615 0.43846 0.34615 X 19 OOOOO 53846 .303B5 .23077 .36154 .42308 24615 0.64231 0.54615 0.33077 0.03462 EIGENVALUES 9.17759 0.62793 0.19780 3.027 18 0.55953 O.17167 2.44807 0.54869 O.13469 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OE E R V A L U E S 0.33991 0.45203 0.83302 0.85375 O. ° 0 97434 0.98070 0.98569 1 .53796 0.51890 O.12831 0.59967 0.89328 0.99044 1 .25702 0.43351 0.10437 O. 64622 0.90934 0.9943 1 0.25000 -0.05769 O.16154 0.22692 0.39616 0.33077 0.21154 X 20 1 .00000 03462 14231 27692 35769 19231 36154 _ 57G93 O.16154 -0.09231 1 .09752 0.38928 0.09498 0.68687 0.92376 0.99782 0.03462 0.26154 0.35769 0.24231 -0 05385 O.08462 0.05000 X 21 1.OOOOO 0.06154 0.46154 0.35000 0.30385 0.30385 0.24231 0.29231 0.66923 OOOOO 17692 01923 18846 .35385 . 27308 . 14231 03846 1 .05B06 O. 34905 0.05879 0.72606 0.93669 1.OOOOO 0.07 308 0.27692 0.33462 O.22308 -0.06538 0.10385 0.05769 X 22 0.4038S 0.32692 0.24231 0.52692 O 53077 O.40000 -0.01154 X 23 OOOOO 34231 13461 33B46 .53077 .51538 .57308 0.06538 0.39231 0. 32308 0.40385 O.19615 0.06154 -0.0423' X 24 1 OOOOO 0.36154 0.41923 O.18077 0.21923 0.12308 1 OOOOO 0.36539 0.15769 0.04615 0.21154 1 OOOOO 0.48846 0.33077 O.14231 0. B8769 0.31710 0.75894 O.94843 0.73720 0.28879 0.78624 0.959 13 0.63520 O 2 1302 O. 80977 O 96702 EIGENVECTORS VECTOR O. 0. -0 227 13 2 1460 23489 06478 2 3007 0. 177 16 •0.10237 O.11491 0.12852 -O.04792 -0.02288 0.05 149 0 .44796 -O 19145 0.0501 1 O.13040 O. 26151 O. 1 1802 O. 18609 0.08591 -0.26228 -0.08624 0.01251 -0.12837 15980 14629 0.09265 -0.30295 -0.05594 -0.25739 -0.02714 -0.23052 O.16604 O. 14662 O. 13825 0.06324 0.39055 -0.03987 -O.17700 -O 08257 -0.30B19 0.12507 -0.01643 0.09675 -O.2B714 -0.18270 0.21120 0.39276 0. O. O. -O. -0. -O.18637 O.18204 .23623 .22447 .22244 . 15489 . 10196 0.05457 -0.09076 0.30128 -0.23B05 -0.02660 -0.08644 -O.35356 -O.11815 O.0001O 0.2431 1 O. 17375 0.23142 -O.12745 -0.13482 -0.07817 O 16B44 -0.03068 O 24825 -O.10377 0.41711 0.14560 -0.05569 -O.20805 O.11'03 -0.00694 22955 2 1305 19322 1 1865 26935 .12041 .00725 .19555 0.09162 O.17435 0.01324 O 29146 0.25066 0.03099 -0.16546 0.05 154 0.26281 0.24890 O.15870 0.00825 -O.17876 O.40B56 -0.07852 0.03222 0.00028 -0.0771B -O 16642 0.08549 0.02438 -0.21966 O.15102 -O 15475 0.12341 O.16171 -0.03597 -O.27829 0.22008 0.205 16 0.41522 -0.09267 0.23037 O.21748 0.25945 0.07630 O.19696 -0.00806 0.31331 -0.48554 -0.08806 -0.04303 -0.21368 0.09512 O.13243 -0.26473 O 07917 -O 10794 -0.06248 O. 15629 -0.50835 O.160O1 O.1077B -0.31112 -0.02183 -0.18495 -O 27134 O 171 NESP FACTOR MATRIX ( 7 FACTORS) F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6 F 7 z 1 0. G8808 0. 11271 -o. 16017 -0. 05943 0. 50224 0. 13661 -0. 078 15 z 2 0. 79224 0. 14948 0. 01957 0. 18 142 -0. 06272 -0. 24 150 0. 1 1580 z 3 0. 50301 0. 1 1004 -o. 27694 0. 1551 1 -o. 32 194 0. 4 1146 -0. 17823 z 4 - o . 5G46 1 0. 39055 -0. 15953 0. 37363 -0. 09692 0. 0001 1 0. 188 10 z 5 0. 73648 -0. 22 174 0. 26355 -0. 12869 -0. 06244 -0. 00728 -0. 19607 z 6 0 . 6954 1 -0. 20643 -0. 01 135 -0. 2 1622 0. 28 104 0. 05399 -0. 04475 z 7 0. 796 17 0. 01435 -0. 12285 -o. 0957 1 0. 02733 -o. 16212 -0. 07 155 z 8 0. 37386 -0. 06258 0. 34435 0. 5 1493 0. 25829 0. 27 18 1 0. 2 1672 z 9 0 . 2 3 114 -0. 01403 -0. 75969 -0. 05336 0. 10665 -0. 27733 -0. 03646 z 10 0. 23984 -0. 1087 1 -0. 79539 0. 13367 -0. 02447 -0. 28427 -0. .09304 z 1 1 0. 650 1 3 -0. 40029 0. 17979 -0. .02838 -0, 2 1465 -o. 09391 0. . 1 1475 z 1 2 0. 35755 -0. 45634 -0. 20085 0. . 1 1490 -0. 28858 0. 34253 0. . 28645 z 13 0. 4 4 4 16 0. 6795 1 -0. 129 19 -0. 02038 -0. 20484 -0. . 10847 0 .07896 z 1 4 0. 55 149 0. 38701 0. 08538 -o. . 2952 1 -0. 39640 0. .23654 -0 .11762 z 15 .0. 52638 -0. 23457 -0. .04800 0. . 5 1728 -0 .23326 -0. .06865 0 .07034 z 1G 0. 64543 0. 46864 0. .30596 0 .01642 0 03474 -0 .02157 0 .10553 z 17 0 .75402 -o. .31102 0 .05041 -0 .20639 -o . 24627 0 .00040 -0 .08 104 z 18 0 .48988 -0. . 48420 0 .32100 -0 .11492 0 .24383 -0 .15423 0 . 18866 z 19 0 .59669 0. . 545 12 -0 .13778 -0 .26499 0 . 14848 0 .20303 -0 .01702 z 20 -0 .32700 0 . 27 193 0 .25036 -0 .38584 -0 .20736 -0 .12060 0 .5631 1 z 2 1 0 .7 1 160 0 .30823 0 .20109 0 .06386 0 .056 19 -0 . 16100 -0 .06442 z 22 0 .56374 -0 .15005 -0 .25003 -0 .37570 -o .03043 -0 .11934 0 .38264 z 23 0 .4 1882 -0 .06936 -o .48220 0 .11998 0 .23679 0 .257 14 0 .45761 z 24 0 .71564 -0 .26949 -0 .14200 -0 .03299 -0 . 13247 0 .20033 -0 .10947 z 25 0 .70107 -0 .13601 0 .38842 0 .1805G 0 . 12449 -o .09146 -0 .07325 z 26 0 .58534 0 .20950 0 .14335 0 .36145 -o .18551 -o . 37891 0 .01766 z 27 0 .48076 0 .7 1085 0 .0004 4 0 .10601 0 .16932 0 . 1159 1 0 .01773 ITERATION VARIANCES CYCLE 0 0. 158333 1 0.302826 2 0.337053 3 0.345334 4 0.345483 5 0.345492 6 0.345495 7 0.345496 8 0.345497 9 0.345497 10 0.345497 11 0.345497 172 NESP ( cont inued) R O T A T E D F A C T O R M A T R I X ( 7 F A C T O R S ) V A R I A B L E F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6 F 7 Z 1 0 4 6 0 0 8 0 5 1 3 9 0 - 0 . 2 2 1 4 5 - 0 0 3 2 5 1 0 . 4 0 7 1 6 -o 0 5 4 8 3 - 0 . 3 1 2 5 5 Z 2 0 3 7 9 7 9 0 4 6 8 6 6 - 0 . 1 8 0 1 9 0 . 5 8 0 7 5 0 . 1 2 5 1 9 0 . 0 9 4 8 7 0 . 0 2 5 1 7 z 3 0 0 7 8 5 7 0 3 6 5 0 8 - 0 . 1 3 0 4 8 0 . 0 9 4 2 6 0 . 0 1 9 1 9 0 . 6 6 1 6 2 - 0 , 2 5 9 0 3 z 4 - 0 8 1 3 4 9 - 0 0 4 115 0 . 0 0 5 2 8 0 . 0 5 3 4 5 0 . 0 4 5 8 1 - 0 . 0 6 6 3 3 0 . 0 9 0 9 9 z 5 0 . 7 3 7 0 4 0 2 2 2 7 0 0 . 0 9 1 7 3 0 . 2 4 6 1 9 - 0 . 0 7 3 1 0 0 . 18011 - 0 . 14261 z 6 0 7 0 3 9 1 0 2 5 0 0 3 - 0 . 1 4 0 5 7 0 0 0 6 6 4 0 . 2 4 0 9 0 0 . 0 4 6 1 2 - 0 . 1 3 7 8 5 z 7 0 . 5 6 5 2 3 0 4 2 4 4 5 - 0 . 3 1 1 9 1 0 2 7 2 6 4 0 . 0 4 3 0 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 0 - 0 . . 0 7 0 9 3 z a 0. 1 2 4 2 7 0 . 1 0 7 2 2 0 . 3 8 5 1 9 0 . 3 9 5 8 7 0 . 5 6 B 6 8 0 . 0 7 3 4 3 - 0 . 2 3 2 6 8 z 9 0 0 4 8 4 6 0 . 0 8 9 1 9 - 0 . 8 3 8 8 7 - 0 . 0 1 3 5 9 0 . 0 6 9 7 6 0 . 0 1 9 8 1 -o. 0 6 1 3 6 z 10 - 0 . 0 0 2 8 1 - 0 0 1 9 7 6 - 0 . 8 6 1 6 2 0 1 4 2 1 0 0 . 0 3 3 4 2 0 . 1 4 8 4 7 - 0 154 10 z 11 0. 6 5 8 6 5 -o 0 2 1 3 8 0 . 0 0 8 0 6 0 3 9 4 4 9 0 . 0 4 5 1 8 0 . 2 8 2 2 2 0 . 1 1 149 z 12 0 2 6 7 1 1 - 0 . 2 0 2 2 1 - 0 . 0 9 1 4 3 0 1 2 6 4 7 0 . 3 1 6 2 0 0 . 6 5 3 6 9 0 0 9 158 z 1 J -o 0 9 5 1 9 0 . 7 6 4 9 8 - 0 . 1 8 2 6 1 0 . 2 3 9 1 4 - 0 . 1 0 2 0 0 0 . 1 0 1 4 4 0 1 7 4 8 6 z 14 0 2 5 8 7 5 0 . 6 5 8 2 6 0 . 1 0 1 5 5 - 0 0 0 2 4 2 - 0 . 2 6 6 0 4 0 . 4 2 6 8 4 0 108 19 z 15 0 1 9 3 0 5 - 0 . 0 2 6 0 3 - 0 . 1 1 7 0 8 0 . 6 5 3 7 0 0 . 1 7 4 8 7 0 . . 3 6 2 8 5 - 0 . 1 5 7 5 5 z 16 0 2 5 7 7 8 0 7 1 6 3 8 0 . 1 8 9 1 7 0 . 3 3 4 5 3 0 0 9 8 7 3 -0 , 0 2 5 4 3 0 . 0 7 1 6 1 z 17 0 7 3 8 3 4 0 . 1 5 1 4 0 - 0 . 0 9 6 6 6 0 . 2 1 6 9 9 - 0 . 0 8 7 5 7 0 . 3 8 1 10 0 . 0 1 4 8 5 z 18 0 . 7 3 0 9 9 - 0 1 4 0 1 6 0 . 1 0 3 4 0 0. 2 2 0 9 8 0. 2 6 8 3 4 - 0 . 1 3 0 4 8 0 . 0 8 3 3 7 z 19 0 . 2 1 4 2 7 0 . 8 3 6 1 3 - 0 . 1 3 1 9 7 - 0 . 1 3 4 9 0 0 . . 1 2 6 7 6 0. 0 9 4 6 7 - 0 . 0 1 6 4 9 z 2 0 - 0 . 1 9 9 7 7 0 0 5 7 2 8 0 . 2 3 7 6 1 - 0 . 1 3 8 9 9 - 0 . 0 6 9 2 1 - 0 . . 1 5 5 5 9 0 . 7 8 6 8 1 z 21 0 3 7 0 0 0 0. 6 0 3 1 5 0 . 0 1 7 3 9 0 . 4 0 9 8 1 0. 0 1 8 1 1 - 0 . 0 5 2 3 2 - 0 . 0 8 4 3 6 z 2 2 0 5 2 8 7 4 0 . 1 8 7 9 7 - 0 . 3 8 5 7 9 0 . 0 2 6 4 7 0. 2 0 9 4 0 0 . 1 6 6 4 9 0 . 41 177 z 2 3 0 1 0 9 9 9 0 . 1 6 6 0 9 - 0 . 3 8 7 2 3 0 . 0 0 8 2 6 0 . 6 9 6 5 0 0 . 2 8 1 8 9 0 . 0 6 6 6 3 z 24 0 5 6 8 9 2 0 . 1 7 3 2 1 - 0 . 1 7 2 1 0 0 . 1 4 3 4 5 0 . 1 0 2 0 6 0 . 4 7 8 1 3 - 0 . 18 102 z 2 5 0 5 8 4 17 . 0 . 2 2 6 4 5 0 . 1 9 5 1 9 0 . 4 7 8 0 1 0 . 1 4 1 1 7 - 0 . 0 1 7 1 4 - 0 . 2 0 8 1 8 z 2 6 0 1 6 5 0 9 0 . 3 6 4 2 0 - 0 . 0 7 3 1 5 0 7 3 9 3 0 - 0 . 0 6 1 3 1 0 . 0 0 8 6 7 - 0 . 0 1 8 4 9 z 2 7 - 0 0 7 2 16 0 8 4 7 7 3 0 . 0 0 9 8 0 0 . 1 4 4 9 7 0 . 1 8 3 3 2 - 0 . 0 3 0 2 4 - 0 . 1 0 2 9 2 C H E C K ON COMMUNAL I T I E S B E F O R E A F T E R V A R I A B L E R O T A T I O N R O T A T I O N D I F F E R E N C E X 1 0 . 7 9 2 3 6 0 . . 7 9 2 3 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 2 0 7 5 8 9 5 0 . 7 5 8 9 4 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 3 0 6 7 0 5 9 0 . 6 7 0 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 4 0 6 8 114 0 . 6 8 1 13 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 X 5 0 7 1 9 9 9 0 . 7 1 9 9 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 X 6 0 6 5 6 9 9 0 . 6 5 6 9 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 X 7 0 . 6 9 0 5 0 0 . 6 9 0 4 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 8 0 7 1 4 9 8 0 . 7 1 4 9 6 0 . O O 0 0 2 X 9 0 7 2 3 2 2 0 . 7 2 3 2 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 X 10 0 8 0 9 9 1 0 . 8 0 9 9 0 0 . 0 O O 0 1 X 11 0 6 8 4 10 0 . 6 8 4 0 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 X 12 0 6 7 2 2 9 0 . 6 7 2 2 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 13 0 . 7 3 6 0 8 0 . 7 3 6 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 * X 14 0 7 7 5 2 7 0 7 7 5 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 15 0 . 6 6 6 0 5 0 . 6 6 6 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 16 0 7 4 2 8 9 0 . 7 4 2 8 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 17 0 7 7 7 6 3 0 . 7 7 7 6 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 18 0 7 0 9 5 1 0 . 7 0 9 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 19 0 . 8 0 5 9 5 0 8 0 5 9 3 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 2 0 0 . 7 6 7 0 6 0 7 6 7 0 4 0 . 0 O 0 0 2 X 21 0 . 6 7 9 1 3 0 6 7 9 1 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 X 2 2 0 . 7 0 5 5 7 0 7 0 5 5 5 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 2 3 0 . 7 5 8 7 3 0 . 7 5 8 7 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 24 0 . 6 7 5 6 8 0 . 6 7 5 6 6 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 2 5 0 . 7 2 2 6 9 0 . 7 2 2 6 8 0 . O O O 0 2 X 2 6 0 . 7 1 6 0 1 0 . 7 1 5 9 9 0 . 0 0 0 0 2 X 2 7 0 . 7 9 0 1 0 0 . 7 9 0 0 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 FACTOR ANALYSIS EESP 2 NO. OF CASES 60 NO. OF VARIABLES 23 MEANS STANDARD DEVIATION VARIABLE X 1 5 OOOOO 2. 09923 X 2 5 OOOOO 2 09923 X 3 5 OOOOO 2 09923 X 4 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 5 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 6 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 7 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X a 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 9 5 OOOOO 2 09923 X 10 5 OOOOO 2 09923 X 11 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 12 S OOOOO 2 .09923 X 13 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 14 5 .05000 2 .11070 X IS 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 16 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 17 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 18 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 19 5 OOOOO 2 .09923 X 20 5 .03333 2 .09896 X 21 5 .01667 2 .07071 X 22 5 .03333 2 .08275 X 23 5 OOOOO 2 .09922 CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 1 1 . OOOOO X 2 - 0 . 046 15 1 . OOOOO X 3 0 15385 -0. 16923 1 . OOOOO X 4 0 . 15385 0. 2846 1 -0. 20769 1 . OOOOO X 5 0 . 06923 0. 33077 0. 15385 0. 0923 1 1 OOOOO X 6 0. 15769 0 . 06923 0. 45769 -o. 02308 0. 3423 1 1 . OOOOO X 7 - 0 33077 0 . 26538 -0. 4 1923 0. 08077 0. 0307 7 -0. 06923 X 8 0 . 36923 0 . 03462 -0. 27308 0. 18077 0. 08077 0. 05769 X 9 0 . . 14615 0 . 28077 -0 50000 0 . 20000 -0. 04615 -0 1846 1 X 10 - 0 . .08077 0 . 34615 - 0 . 47692 0 . 06154 -0 0346 1 1 -° 07692 X 1 1 0 25000 - 0 . 02308 0 . 40000 0 . 00385 0. 20000 1 0 40769 X 12 0 35385 0 . 02308 0. 22308 - 0 . 05000 0 33462 0 20769 X 13 - 0 .04615 0 . 36154 -o 4923 1 0 . . 20385 0 10385 -0 296 15 X 14 -o .55466 0 19509 -0. 40930 0 09946 0 0038 3 -0 15301 X 15 0 19231 -0 08846 o 43846 -0 18462 0 01538 0 43462 X 16 0 35769 - 0 22308 o. 42308 -0 .19231 -0 1 1538 0 146 15 X 17 0 .37308 -0 1923 1 o 20769 -0 24231 0 0307 7 0 .35OO0 X 18 - 0 .35000 -o 08461 -0 43462 -0 . 1 1923 -0 06154 -0 .48077 X 19 0 .52692 -0 22308 0 .55385 -0 .08846 0 00385 0 .38077 X 20 0 .18849 0 .16156 -0 .06155 0 .28850 -0 .08463 -0 .19618 X 21 -0 .24564 0 .40551 -0 .49519 0 .35092 0 .04289 -0 .24 175 X 22 -0 08916 0 .16282 0 .15 119 -0 07366 0 .32951 0 .44193 X 23 -0 .16923 0 .28077 -o .24615 0 .06538 0 1 1538 -0 02308 X 7 X 8 X 9 X 10 X ' 11 X ' 12 1 . OOOOO 0. 15769 1 , OOOOO 0 29615 0 5 1539 1 . OOOOO 0 46923 0 2 1923 0. 33462 1 .OOOOO -0. 15769 0. 02308 -0. 05385 -0 .23077 1 .OOOOO -0. 196 15 0 1923 1 -0. 04615 -0 .12692 0 .15385 1 .OOOOO 0. 30385 0 13462 0 45000 0 .36539 -0 .06923 -0 .18461 0 39783 -0 39400 -0. 01530 0 .17979 -0 . 37 105 -0 .28689 -o. 24231 -0 .01539 -0 3 1923 -0 .10385 0 .25385 0 .34231 -0 29615 0 10000 -0 .0807 7 -0 .31538 0 .48846 0 .06923 0 06538 0 26538 0 0846 1 0 .06154 0 .25769 0 . 18846 0 .33461 -0 .13846 0 .1307 7 0 .20769 -0 .33077 -0 .32692 -0 36923 0 .19615 -0 .28077 -0 . 196 15 0 .30000 0 .28462 0 . 12694 0 .10386 0 .3 1927 -0 .05770 0 .01923 -0 .08078 0 .25734 -0 .10917 0 37042 0 .32363 -0 .31973 -0 .2 3005 0 04652 0 .06978 -0 .08529 0 .18G08 -0 .13 180 0 .15506 0 .296 15 0 .07G92 0 .396 16 -0 .02308 -o .03462 -0 .03077 X 13 1 OOOOO O 1B3S1 -0 38077 -0.17308 -0 25000 0.24231 -O.29231 O.25773 O.50299 -O.12793 O.36539 1 OOOOO 0. 22 186 1 . OOOOO 0. 62734 0. 25000 0. 30984 0. 40769 0 . 29837 -0 4 1 154 •0 58909 0 50769 •0 1 1898 -0 .23080 0 44 189 -0 .53808 0 .06901 0 .33726 0 .26777 -0 .17308 1 .OOOOO O. 17692 -O.18462 0.40769 0.09232 -0.45620 -O.18608 -0.03846 1.OOOOO -O.10000 0.31154 -O.13079 -0.49129 0.0G59O -O.17692 1.OOOOO -0.54615 -0.18079 0.32753 -0.10467 O.26923 1 OOOOO 0.03077 -0.47569 0. 10854 -0.34616 1.OOOOO 0.19875 -0.30655 0.08463 1.OOOOO 0.00773 0.32363 1.OOOOO 0.07753 1 . OOOOO EIGENVALUES 5.88951 0.61080 O.14517 2 . 8083 1 O 57283 O.13959 2.38120 0.54077 O. 13377 CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF EIGENVALUES 0.25607 0.37817 0.48170 0.83929 0.86420 0.88771 0.98812 0.99418 1.OOOOO 1 81997 O. 46275 0.56083 O.90783 1 . 38680 0.40698 0.621 13 0.92552 1 . 13055 O. 33225 0.67028 0.93997 0.891 17 0.26382 0.70903 0.95144 O 88082 0.25715 0.74733 0.96262 0.79532 O. 22765 0. 78 190 0 97252 0.70914 O.21358 0.81274 0.98180 EIGENVECTORS -0. 198 1 1 0. 14832 -0. 31631 0 10423 -0. -0. 20686 -0. 17071 0. 24449 0. 26828 -0. 0. 31340 -0. 04593 0. 17 101 0. 35202 0. 2 3600 -0. 12551 0. 23451 0. 0. 15233 0. 16407 0. 24799 -0. 24254 -0. 0. 07340 -0. 00674 0. 12969 -0. 13854 0. 27985 0. 06544 -0. 00327 0. -0 01288 0 17682 -0. 04013 0. 21517 0. 0 05570 0 49536 0. 10386 -0 01 155 0 25336 0. 22335 0. 32883 0 0 .16688 0 03585 0. 08 14 2 0 .06395 -0 0 22996 -0 .07969 0 09553 -6 . 17328 0 .01117 0 .12304 -0 .29301 0 0 .41788 -0 .08942 0 .13334 -0 .02143 -0 -0 .09546 -0 .09001 0 .50150 0 15903 -0 .14860 -0 .09914 -0 .12049 0 -0 .23537 0 .50307 -0 0O841 -0 .13487 -0 0 .03471 0 .09226 0 .18295 ERROR BOUNDS FOR EIGENVALUES 0.0000447 0.0000348 ' 0.0000233 0.0000151 0.0000247 ERROR BOUNDS FOR EIGENVECTORS 0.OOO0290 0.0001628 0.0OO1092 0.0000698 0.0001928 02951 27073 -0. -0. 2 1365 23764 0. -0. 22555 19096 -0. 0. 02084 24 153 0. -0. 18258 3181 1 0. 0. 18421 06 105 14061 02546 0. 0. 08442 09956 0. 0. 10029 14 143 0. -0. 4317 1 1647 1 0. 0. 40445 12589 0. 0. 17 135 25908 37590 22683 0. -0. 38385 26305 0. 0. 15872 07656 -0. -0. 02335 0889 1 -0. -0. 07946 024 18 0. -0. 18453 26430 22336 1 1853 0 0 .06958 .01879 -0 -0. 23763 43771 -0 -0 .28734 .25563 -0 0 .14826 .00444 -0 0 .32868 .27262 16799 04331 0 0 .12112 .36750 0 0 18 193 12120 -0 0 .09182 . 26279 0 -0 . 11374 . 19193 -0 -0 .203 30 .05545 31876 13753 -0 -0 .24399 .05421 -0 -0 .34569 .14902 0 0 . 16457 .23623 0 -0 .04773 .09652 -0 -0 .25912 .26839 O.OOOOI34 0.0001045 FACTOR MATRIX ( 6 FACTORS) F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6 Z 1 -0 48079 0.58992 -0.21378 -0.01558 -0.20406 0.16909 ^ Z 2 0 35995 0 39549 0.43184 0.34180 0.01315 -0.15801 Z 3 -0 76764 -0.21033 0.10098 0.30131 0.144B9 -0.10541 EESP F AC*T0R M A T R I X ( 6 F A C T O R S ) F 1 F 2 F 3 2 1 - 0 . 4 8 0 7 9 0 . 5 8 9 9 2 -0. 21378 2 2 0 . 3 5 9 9 5 0 . 3 9 5 4 9 0. 43184 Z 3 - 0 . 7 6 7 6 4 -0. 21033 0. 10098 Z 4 0 . 2 5 2 9 6 0 . 3 9 3 0 0 -0. 0 0 5 0 5 Z 5 - 0 . 07 162 0 . 2 3 5 6 4 0. 5 8 0 0 6 Z 6 - 0 . 51850 0 . 14 147 0 . 5 9 2 3 2 Z 7 0 . 54737 0 . 1 6 8 0 6 0 . 2 4 4 9 2 Z e - 0 . ,05057 0 . 7 2 3 4 5 - 0 . 0 3 6 0 3 Z 9 0 . .44309 0 . 6 7 7 7 8 - 0 . 1 2 2 6 1 Z 10 0 .44704 0 . 2 8 7 1 5 0. 2 8 4 7 5 Z 11 -0 .50200 0 . 2 5 5 2 8 - 0 . 0 1 9 8 7 Z 12 - 0 . 4 1 4 3 0 0 . 2 7 4 9 6 0 . 2 7 2 8 5 Z 13 0 .59334 0 . 4 1 5 5 7 - 0 . 0 6 1 9 3 Z 14 0 .65106 - 0 . 4 0 6 4 6 0 . 3 3 2 0 3 Z 15 - 0 .65702 - 0 . 0 4 2 6 7 0 . 3 5 0 0 2 z 16 - 0 .57672 0 . 1 6 6 8 5 - 0 . 4 0 5 9 1 z 17 - 0 .46343 0 . 2 3 7 0 0 0 . 1 1 8 1 3 z 18 0 . 5 8 6 1 5 - o . 2 7 6 0 2 - 0 . 1 3 7 2 0 z 19 - 0 . 7 7 1 9 9 0 . 2 1 0 9 7 - 0 . 0 3 7 3 2 z 20 0 . 14816 0 . 4 3 4 1 7 - 0 . 4 0 7 8 5 z 21 0 .76056 0 . 1 2 3 0 0 0 . 0 8 5 9 5 z 22 -0 .11146 - 0 . 0 1 1 2 9 0 . 7 6 4 3 9 z 23 0 .4 1502 0 . 2 1733 0 . 1 6 0 2 7 F 4 F 5 F 6 - 0 . 0 1 5 5 8 - 0 . 2 0 4 0 6 0 . 1 6 9 0 9 0 . 3 4 1 8 0 0 . 0 1 3 1 5 - 0 . 15801 0 . 3 0 1 3 1 0 . 1 4 4 8 9 - 0 . 10541 0 . 4 4 3 6 1 - 0 . 3 4 5 0 6 - 0 . 1 2 8 1 1 0 . 3 0 1 3 3 0 . 1 9 7 8 3 0 . 3 3 8 9 3 0 . 0 9 3 8 7 0 . 1 4 2 6 4 - 0 . 2 5 9 4 2 - 0 . 3 2 0 5 7 0 . 2 1 4 2 5 - 0 . 3 6 7 5 6 - 0 . 3 8 7 6 4 - 0 . 1 0 8 1 3 0 . 1 7 4 9 8 - 0 . 2OO01 0 . 1 3 3 9 4 0 . 0 5 0 7 4 - 0 . 4 4 3 4 1 - 0 . 2 3 9 4 1 - 0 . 2 7 5 5 2 0 . 2 2 5 1 3 0 . 4 9 2 1 0 - 0 . 2 5 0 2 7 0 . 0 4 8 3 6 - 0 . 1 0 5 3 1 0 . 5 3 4 9 0 0 . 1 0 9 8 5 0 . 1 5 7 0 3 - 0 . 0 0 8 9 5 0 . 0 8 6 2 7 - 0 . 0 2 5 2 3 - 0 . 1 4 3 4 0 - 0 . 1 5 9 9 0 - 0 . 0 5 1 0 0 - 0 . 1 4 6 2 3 0 . 0 2 5 3 5 0 . 4 3 2 7 8 - 0 . 0 5 7 6 4 - 0 . 5 9 0 4 9 0 . 1 4 2 7 3 - 0 . 1 5 8 4 5 - 0 . 3 4 4 8 6 0 . 3 0 9 4 6 0 . 2 5 1 1 7 0 . 0 0 6 0 0 - 0 . 2 2 6 0 2 - 0 . 1 0 2 6 3 0 . 3 6 7 7 8 - 0 . 0 6 5 3 0 - 0 . 2 8 5 3 7 0 . 3 1 0 2 3 - 0 . 1 1 2 4 2 0 . 0 3 6 9 1 - 0 . 1 0 7 5 1 - 0 . 1 0 6 0 0 0 . 0 9 8 0 9 0 . 1 2 8 8 8 0 . 5 9 0 5 8 0 . 1 9 4 5 3 ITERATION VARIANCES CYCLE 0 0 . 194539 1 0 . 2 9 2 7 9 4 2 0 . 3 0 9 4 8 1 3 0 . 3 3 1 4 4 5 4 0 . 3 3 7 8 6 7 5 0 . 3 3 9 0 4 8 6 0 . 3 3 9 4 2 3 7 0 . 3 3 9 5 3 3 8 0 . 3 3 9 5 6 2 9 0 . 3 3 9 5 6 9 10 0 . 3 3 9 5 7 0 11 0 . 3 3 9 5 7 0 12 0 . 3 3 9 5 7 0 13 0 . 3 3 9 5 7 0 14 0 . 3 3 9 5 7 0 176 EESP (continued) ROTATED FACTOR VARIABLE Z 1 Z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Z 20 Z 21 22 23 • MATRIX ( 6 FACTORS) F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6 -0 .21477 -0 . 14477 0 .00446 0 . 15627 0 . 18262 0 .75528 0 .22355 0 .28002 0 .40425 0 .56018 0 .01378 . -o .09282 -0 .46886 -0 .40544 0 .2 1334 -0 . 13983 0 .55590 -0 .09096 -0 .01540 0 .02864 0 .02733 0 . 72428 -0 .13055 0 .08540 0 .2 1833 -0 .14746 0 . 73732 0 . 12262 0 .10026 0 .06151 -o . 354 16 0 .15267 0 .59283 -0. .01989 0 ,48515 -o. .01379 0 .335 19 0 .72223 0 .00979 0, .04057 -0. .03762 -0. .18565 0 .11515 0. ,30913 0, .06200 0 . ,04660 -o. ,04434 0. . 77653 0. . 53 1 19 0, .40720 -0, .09559 0 . . 26459 - 0 . ,05200 0. .44882 0. .03680 0. ,74906 0, .06054 0. . 10033 -0. 33154 0. ,08435 -0. ,02922 -o. 07572 0. .09222 0. 04238 0 . 80325 0. 10458 -0. 08088 -0. 32416 0. 51668 -0. 0831 1 -0. 02959 0. 48461 0. 56279 0. 25634 -0. 06774 0. 40884 - 0 . 08482 0. 06321 0. 2 1367 0. 23959 0. 10872 0. 09458 -0. 39049 -o. 67205 -0. 54373 0. 04869 0. 34746 -0. 28751 0. 30380 0. 10887 -0. 02633 -0. 25107 -o. 24066 - 0 . 18145 0 . 68732 0. 29913 -0. 23543 0. 38352 0. 081 17 -0. 44868 0 . 32245 0. 40578 o O O O o o 6014 1 61271 08292 44053 17800 74555 0. -0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 12 130 15524 01955 12650 19746 07 156 -o. 0. -o. 0. 0. 0. 22575 07964 36049 02878 7 1966 22356 - 0 . -0. 0. 0. -o. 0. 36405 02261 6291 1 52797 13927 06837 - 0 . 0 . 0 . -0. -o. 0. 32892 34589 20002 4034 1 13416 15892 -0 0. 0. -0. -o. -0. 2 1967 42 131 15732 24251 05717 08665 CHECK ON COMMUNALI TIES VARIABLE X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 BEFORE ROTATION 0. 69534 6 1443 76660 .55073 .64193 .736 15 67161 .71982 .73127 .69322 .67305 .62123 . 56539 . 72798 .60556 , 7 1647 67906 7 1637 70352 59776 71121 62926 64839 0. O. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. AFTER ROTATION 0. 69533 0.61441 .76658 .55072 .64192 .73614 .67159 .71981 .73126 0.69320 0.67303 0.62122 O.56538 0.72796 0.60555 .71645 .67904 .71635 . 70350 .59775 0.71 1 19 0.62925 0.64838 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. DIFFERENCE O.OOOOI 0.00001 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.00001 O.00001 O.OOOOI 0.0OOO1 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00001 0.00002 O.OOOOI 0.00002 177 NESP: Items rank-ordered ranging from the highest Z-scores to the lowest Z-scores according to item acceptance ( C l e a r l y d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r -i s t i c s to c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) by types ORDER FI Items F2 Items F3 Items 1 3 54 11 2 4 49 41 3 58 57 44 4 31 53 27 5 9 40 28 6 38 2 45 7 7 58 29 8 59 55 34 9 60 26 42 10 15 15 25 11 18 30 54 12 27 13 39 13 55 60 8 14 57 20 13 15 26 52 24 16 47 33 51 17 56 23 22 18 23 42 31 19 20 25 37 20 25 32 50 21 30 6 40 22 28 5 5 23 17 31 18 24 6 59 16 25 50 43 52 26 52 36 35 27 49 50 59 28 51 22 58 29 54 11 17 30 11 46 57 178 NESP (Continued) ORDER F l Items F2 Items F3 Items 31 1 28 55 32 21 56 53 33 2 18 48 34 53 3 7 35 5 4 56 36 22 14 49 37 13 7 6 38 10 38 23 39 36 27 30 40 40 21 21 41 37 51 2 42 39 24 1 43 33 8 36 44 42 12 15 45 32 47 20 46 29 45 33 47 14 34 14 48 45 1 60 49 19 35 12 50 46 19 26 51 43 29 38 52 41 39 47 53 35 48 32 54 16" 16 9 55 44 10 19 56 34 17 3 57 48 9 10 58 24 37 43 59 12 41 4 60 8 44 46 179 EESP: Items rank-ordered ranging from the highest Z-scores to the lowest Z-scores according to item acceptance (Clearly defining character-i s t i c s --to-clearly- not- defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) by types ORDER FI Items F2 Items F3 Items 1 38 48 3 2 29 10 31 3 17 35 18 4 58 19 4 5 21. 8 58 6 60 39 55 7 59 3 10 8 9 33 60 9 5 12 38 10 55 25 35 11 42 43 15 12 18 36 7 13 10 1 59 14 27 37 56 15 19 28 5 16 23 13 1 17 13 59 27 18 31 38 51 19 33 2 9 20 30 27 . 28 21 51 15 49 22 35 9 30 23 52 14 26 24 54 26 17 25 50 55 20 26 56 51 21 27 2 16 2 28 16 29 23 29 26 60 13 30 28 23 57 180 EESP (Continued) ORDER F l Items F2 Items F3 Items 31 15 30 47 32 14 32 39 33 46 34 22 34 22 56 44 35 11 45 50 36 20 31 37 37 25 42 54 38 40 44 53 39 44 24 52 40 32 58 25 41 53 22 12 42 3 46 36 43 39 40 40 44 48 18 46 45 47 17 6 46 6 4 42 47 45 7 11 48 8 50 48 49 34 5 16 50 49 52 33 51 41 20 29 52 12 6 41 53 1 11 24 54 37 57 14 55 4 21 32 56 57 59 34 57 43 41 43 58 7 54 19 59 24 53 8 60 36 47 45 APPENDIX G assroom a n a l y s i s instrument 182 APPENDIX G-l Selected d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r CAI 183 Items selected from the new programme 4. Provides an organized way of teaching science concepts. 7. Provides s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching science concepts. 9. Contains teaching units organized around s p e c i f i c science concepts. 11. Provides supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n to discuss the r e s u l t s of experiments with each other. 26. Encourages ch i l d r e n to c o l l e c t materials for observation and in v e s t i g a t i o n . 28. Provides i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials for a t t a i n i n g s p e c i f i c science concepts. 29. Encourages teachers to demonstrate to re i n f o r c e s p e c i f i c science concepts. 34. Does not encourage the teachers to develop t h e i r own materials. 41. Requires teachers to complete a s p e c i f i e d number of units i n a year. 44. Promotes standardizing elementary science. 45. Requires cooperation among teachers. 49. Requires a p p l i c a t i o n of information to new s i t u a t i o n s . 53. Teaches ch i l d r e n to be c r e a t i v e . 54. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be imaginative. 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e . 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 59. Encourages ch i l d r e n to formulate conclusions based on c o l l e c t e d data. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n to hypothesize about the r e s u l t s of experiments. 184 Items selected from the established programme 3. Provides a source for teaching a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use. 8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n for teaching elementary science. 10. Contains teaching units which are independent of each other. 12. Does not provide supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 17. Encourages ch i l d r e n to learn s c i e n t i f i c method. 25. Provides students with materials f o r observation and i n v e s t i g a t i o n . 33. Encourages teachers to develop t h e i r own materials. 38. Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s of learning experiences. 48. Requires a l o t of preparation time. 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i n q u i s i t i v e . 58. Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t i n science. 60. Encourages ch i l d r e n to formulate conclusions based on c o l l e c t e d data. 185 A STUDY OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION CLASSROOM ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT DEVELOPED BY JIMMY CHAKAGONDUA, 1981 APPENDIX G-2 Classroom observation schedule Adapted from Science Teacher Observation  Rating Form (STORF) developed by Lynn Oberlin, University of F l o r i d a , Nov. 1973. 187 STRATEGY Was the lesson selected according to the student 's in teres t ? 2. Was the lesson selected from an independent uni t or text? 3. Did the teacher fol low the lesson plan? 4. Did the teacher pose problems or provide materia ls to encourage students design the i r own a c t i v i t i e s / experiments? 5. Did students descr ibe t h e i r experiences in the i r own terminology and "concepts"? 6. Did students change to new act iv i t ies /exper iments depending on the i r in teres t s ? Did students prac t i ce any s c i e n t i f i c s k i l l s ? Did students design the i r own experiments? Did students fol low the i r own in teres t s ? 17 USE OF 10. Were the mater ia l s intended for ch i ld ren to invest igate on t h e i r own? 11. Did the materia ls lead to formation of d i f f e r e n t concepts? 12. Did the teacher allow mis-conceptions? 1. Was the lesson selected well in advance from the f i v e spec i f i ed areas of science? Was the lesson from the unit selected for the general scheme? 3. Was the lesson planned along the format recommended in the resource book? 7 4. Did the teacher i n s t ruc t students to perform s p e c i f i c ac t iv i t ies /exper iments? 5. Was the lesson designed to teach s p e c i f i c science concepts? 6. Did the teacher play dominant ro le during the 1esson? 7. Did students learn any science concepts? 8. Did students perform presc r ib -ed act iv i t ies /exper iments? 9. Did the teacher allow students to perform other a c t i v i t i e s / experiments based on the i r in teres t s ? MATERIALS 10. Were the mater ia ls intended to a t t a in cer ta in concepts? 11. Did the mater ia ls lead to attainment o f the intended concepts? 12. Did the teacher question misconceptions? 28 188 To 13. Did the teacher use im-provised mater ia l s? TEACHER-STUDENT To [13. Did the teacher use materia ls recommended In the resource  " n i t ? Hi] INTERACTION 14. Did students perform d i f f e r -ent ac t i v i t i e s /exper iments ? 15. Did students work at t h e i r own pace? 16. Did students questions shape the d i r e c t i o n of the lesson? 8 14. Did a l l the students perform the same a c t i v i t i e s ? 15. Did students proceed at the same rate? 16. Did the teacher determine the d i r e c t i o n of the lesson? 17. Did students share t h e i r exper iences/resu l t s with each other? 18. Did the teacher encourage students to share t h e i r exper iences/resu l t s ? 15 17. Did students maintain i n -d iv idua l experiences/ resul ts? 18. Did the teacher a s s i s t the students to draw conclusions or re su l t s from the i r exper iences/resu l t s? 19. Did students conduct i n -d iv idua l or group a c t i v i t i e s / ] experiments? 20. Did the teacher engage in student a c t i v i t i e s / e x p e r i -ments? 19. Did the students l i s t e n only? 20. Did the teacher demonstrate for the en t i re c lass? 29 21. Did the students answer each others questions? 22. Did the teacher al low ch i ld ren chance to ask questions? 55 23. Did the students volunteer to answer questions? 24. Did students volunteer to perform a c t i v i t i e s / experiments? I 57 21. Did the teacher answer a l l the students questions? 22. Did the teacher ask a l l the questions? 23. Did the teacher request students to answer questions? 24, Did the teacher request students to perform ac t i v i t ie s /exper iments ? 189 Hoi 25.' ' Did the students enjoy per-forming a c t i v i t i e s / experiments under those condit ions? 58 To 25.* Did the teacher enjoy teaching under those condi t ions? 26. Did the teacher encourage guessing or hypothesizing? To 26, Did the teacher expect the students to know and not guess? 27. Did ch i ld ren base t h e i r conclusions on t h e i r observations? 28. Did the ch i l d ren correct t h e i r own mistakes? 27. Did the teacher help the ch i l d ren formulate con-c lus ions from the a c t i v i t i e s / experiments? 28. Did the teacher correct c h i l d r e n s ' mistakes? 59 OBSERVATION SUMMARY SHEET NO. School Teacher Grade Level Item No. Observed Charac te r i s t i c s Observed Behavior Frequency Mean Check Items 1 2 3 TOTAL General comments:-Observer's s ignature Date APPENDIX G-3 Teacher c h e c k - l i s t 2. CHECK-LIST: Use of the resource book /^V'V*0 ITEM "OBSERVED" CHARACTERISTIC 3 2 1 Mean Check LH '• 2. Does the teacher use the ideas and mater ia l s from the resource book? Does the teacher use h i s /her own ideas and materia ls from other sources? 9 3. 4. Does the teacher use the teaching units according to the concepts set in the resource book? Does the teacher use the resource units as well as other materia ls to teach the concepts suggested in the resource book? 10 5. 6. Does the teacher use the teaching units i n -dependently? Does the teacher have choices among teaching units for s p e c i f i c science concepts? 25. 7. 8.* 9. Does the teacher provide the mater ia l s for observation and invest i gat ion? Does the teacher use the suggested mater ia l s for ac t i v i t ie s /exper iments? Do the students bring in mater ia l s for observation and invest i gat ion? 26 53 10. 11. Do the students construct or make things based on the i r own ideas? Do students construct or make things from sug-gestions in the resource uni t? 54 12. 13. 14. Does the teacher make suggestions for ch i l d ren to construct or make things? Does the teacher accept c lass suggestions to construct or make things? Does the teacher d i sp lay students ' group work? 193 CHECK-LIST: Use of the resource book (Cont'd) ITEM 41 "OBSERVED" CHARACTERISTIC 15, 16 45 17 18 Does the teacber use s p e c i f i c number of units in a year? Are the resource units she/he uses spread over the f i ve science areas suggested in the resource book? Does the teacher seek ass i s tance in using the resource book? Does the teacher o f f e r ass i s tance in the use of the resource book? Mean Check 48 19 20 Does the resource book save the teacher preparation time? How often does the teacher use the resource book? TOTAL 194 APPENDIX G-4 Teacher i n t e r v i e w g u i d e l i n e questions 195 3. TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDELINE QUESTIONS Interview focus: Teacher participation in the development and implementation of the New Elementary Science Programme. A. Preparation for Implementation 1. Number of curriculum workshops, a) Attended 0 _ 1 - 2 _ _ _ _ 3 - 5 _ _ 5 & over b) Offered 0 _ _ _ _ 1 - 2 _ _ _ _ 3 - 5 _ _ _ _ 5 & over 2. Number of teaching units, a) Assisted in writing 0 _ _ 1 - 2 _ _ _ _ 3 - 5 _ _ _ _ 5 & over b) Wrote 0 1 - 2 _ _ _ 3 - 5 _ _ _ _ 5 & over B. Implementation of the New Curriculum 3. What particular dimensions of the programme have you found useful? 4. Could any parts of the programme be changed? If yes, how and why? .196 5. Do you use o t h e r m a t e r i a l s as w e l l as t h e programme m a t e r i a l s ? Why? 6. Do you use o t h e r m a t e r i a l s r a t h e r t han t h e programme m a t e r i a l s ? Why? 7. How s u p p o r t i v e i s y o u r s c h o o l t oward s i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e new programme? 8. D id y o u r s c h o o l encou rage an o n - g o i n g s t a f f p r e p a r a t i o n d u r i n g t he i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ? 9. Who do you p e r c e i v e t o be t h e key p e r s o n ( s ) i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s ? 10. Do you p e r c e i v e y o u r s e l f t o be a key pe r son i n t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s ? APPENDIX H Teacher response form for the new programme 198 B. TEACHER RESPONSE FORM FOR THE NEW PROGRAMME Reference No: Date: Please provide the following infonnation about your teaching experience. 1. What i s your educational background ? Less than batchelor's degree Batchelor's degree Master's degree _ Doctoral degree Other(please,specify) Response y / 2. What programme did you teach before this new programme ? SCIS EIS ESS EYE TPS Sc.5/l3. i i r Other (please, specify) Response \/ 3. How many years of teaching elementary science '? Fi r s t year . .. 2 to 3 years h to 10 years II to 15 years Over 15 years : Response k. What grade level do you now teach ? 7 6 5 h 3 2 1 Response 199 5. How long have you been teaching i n the same school ? Years. Concerning the new programme 6. How do you rate the new programme i n terms of i t s s u i t a b i l i t y for elementary science or for your students ? Don't know • , ; Unsuitable Suitable Very suitable Response y 7. Has the student interest and motivation i n learning science i n the school changed since the new programme has been introduced ? No opinion Cannot notice any change Motivation seems to have increased Motivation seems"to have degreased Response y 8. What i s your image of the new programme as i t relates to your classroom situation ? A welcome change A f u l f i l l e r of a need A creator of unjustified demand No idea Response >/ 200 9. How do you compare the new programme with what you were teaching before this programme? No opinion Cannot notice any difference Less complex ; More complex Response 10. How willi n g would you be to participate in developing a new elementary science programme during school hours i f release time was given? Definitely would not participate Probably would not participate Probably would participate Definitely would participate Response 201 APPENDIX I I n s t r u c t i o n f o r judges r a t i n g the CAI 202 Introduction to the Classroom Analysis Instrument for the judges The top items i n each programme which the three Types of subjects considered to be the most de s c r i p t i v e of the programmes were i d e n t i f i e d and u t i l i z e d i n the construction of the instrument which consists of a) Classroom Observation Instrument, b) Check-list and c) Interview Schedule. These items which the d i f f e r e n t types perceived to be the def i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the programmes are not necess a r i l y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were established to symbolize the new programme and the established programme. Therefore only those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which belong to the respective programmes were constituted i n the :'. instrument. The design of the Classroom Observation Instrument i s such that permits the examination of the presence or absence of not only the selected items but also t h e i r counterparts which act as references. The check-l i s t embraces items that have been broken down into simpler and easier to examine u n i t s . The presence or the absence of the items w i l l be determined by the frequence of the smaller u n i t s . A high frequency recording i n small units for one item manifests the presence of that item. Inversely, a low recording denotes the absence of that item. The teacher interviews w i l l focus on the structured questions as well as seek to d i s c l o s e any factors which may be r e l a t e d to the predominant items in the classroom s i t u a t i o n . Rating the Classroom Analysis Instrument Using a 5-point scale, please rate the Classroom Analysis Instrument based on the.following c r i t e r i a : How suitable the instrument i s for the analysis of elementary science classroom a c t i v i t i e s . Least Most 1 2 3 4 5 Signature: Date: APPENDIX J Request l e t t e r s 205 RESPONSE FORM Please i n d i c a t e below whether you w i l l allow us to s i t i n and observe three science lessons and/or attend the workshops as scheduled. A l l workshops w i l l be conducted at the Schou Educational Centre s t a r t i n g at 4:00 p.m. each day. A) Please s e l e c t one evening for each workshop. Jan. 19-23 Jan. 26-30 Feb. 2-6 Monday Tuesday Wednesday ] Friday 3 C Response 1 -* I 1st Workshop I v J 2nd Workshop B) I accept you to s i t i n and observe three of my science lessons. I do not accept you to s i t i n and observe three of my science lessons. Response \f Name School Please return the completed response form i n the envelope provided. Thank you. 

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.831.1-0095665/manifest

Comment

Related Items