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 D i p . Ed., Makerere U n i v e r s i t y , Kampala, 1967 B.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973 M.Ed., The U n i v e r s i t y o f 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 in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Department o f Mathematics and S c i e n c e  We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  THE  Education  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 1981  @  Jimmy G o d w i l l Chakagondua, 1981  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head o f my department o r by h i s o r her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  It i s  understood t h a t copying o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department o f  ]j ftrTHS. pi S>CL' T - T ^ U  The  University of B r i t i s h  1956  Main Mall  Columbia  Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  Date  DE-6  (3/81)  \L  HcHXLk ,  / Q f f a .  (LftTfON  written  ABSTRACT  New elementary  s c i e n c e programmes have o f t e n been n o t i c e d to f a i l  at the stage of implementation. f a i l u r e s stemmed and  I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  from d i s c r e p a n c i e s which e x i s t e d between the d e v e l o p e r s  t e a c h e r s i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the new  programmes.  The purpose o f t h i s study was to determine t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of a new elementary agreements and disagreements congruencies classroom  t h e d e v e l o p e r s ' and  s c i e n c e programme;  practices. the v i e w p o i n t s of the d e v e l o p e r s  of the new and e s t a b l i s h e d programmes to be. determined  a n a l y s i s instrument  The second  through the  p a r t of the study u t i l i z e d  d e r i v e d from the respondents'  w i t h the i n i t i a l  characteristics  These v i e w p o i n t s were  and examined f o r agreements and disagreements  v a r i o u s Q-techniques.  The  any  o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s and a c t u a l  t e a c h e r s i n terms of what they p e r c e i v e d the d e f i n i n g  congruent  to examine  i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s ; and t o determine  The above was done by d e t e r m i n i n g and  t h a t p a r t of such  a classroom  v i e w p o i n t s t h a t were  d e s c r i p t i o n of the programmes.  r e s u l t s of the study showed t h a t t h e r e were no d i s t i n c t i v e  d e v e l o p e r s ' or t e a c h e r s ' v i e w p o i n t s , but t h a t most o f the respondents s i m i l a r v i e w p o i n t s c o n c e r n i n g the new programme.  had  A s m a l l group of t e a c h e r -  u s e r s h e l d a d i s t i n c t i v e v i e w p o i n t o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme, w h i l e t h e o t h e r v i e w p o i n t s o f the programme were vague. r e v e a l e d t h a t the new programme  The classroom d a t a  showed a h i g h e r congruency between  p e r c e p t i o n s and performances than d i d the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. t e a c h e r s were c l a s s i f i e d  analysis  A few  as non-implementers because they d i s p l a y e d 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.  iii  Some o f the 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 t e a c h e r s ' or performances i n c l u d e d teachers'  administrative  perceptions  support o f the new programme, t h e  e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h the e s t a b l i s h e d programme, inadequate  preparation  teacher  f o r implementation and l a c k o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f the r o l e o f  the new programme i n elementary s c i e n c e i n t h a t s c h o o l  district.  XV  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION  1  Background o f the problem  .  D e s c r i p t i o n o f terms, Abbreviations Purpose  .  . .  . .  .  .  .  .  1  .  .  .  .  .  4  .  .  .  .  .  5  of the study  5  Overview o f the study Assumptions  .  .  o f t h e study  General statement Specific  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  7  .  .  .  .  8  .  o f the problem  .  statements o f the problem  .  .  .  .  8  .  .  .  .  9  CHAPTER I I LITERATURE REVIEW  11  C u r r i c u l u m implementation p r o c e s s i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n .  11  Conceptions o f c u r r i c u l u m implementation  .  .  .  14  Q-methodology and r e s e a r c h i n e d u c a t i o n .  .  .  .  24  Q-methodology i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n .  .  .  .  28  .  CHAPTER I I I METHODS OF THE STUDY  30  Instruments  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  30  Q-methodology  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  30  S e l e c t i o n o f items f o r the Q-sort Pilot  .  .  t e s t i n g the items f o r the Q-sort  S e l e c t i o n o f the s u b j e c t s f o r the study  .  .  31  .  .  .  33  .  .  .  33  The Q-sort The Q - a n a l y s i s .  . .  .  .  .  The c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s instrument Introduction  .  .  .  . .  .  . .  .  . .  .  S e l e c t i o n o f the items f o r the instrument  . .  36 .  .  40  . .  35  40 .  41  V  Page  CHAPTER I I I Continued C.A.I, content v a l i d i t y C.A.I, r e l i a b i l i t y  .  .  Classroom  data c o l l e c t i o n  Classroom  data a n a l y s i s  .  .  .  . .  .  .  .  .  41  .  .  .  42  .  .  .  .  43  .  .  .  .  44  .  .  .  .  CHAPTER IV THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE Q-ANALYSIS Introduction  .  .  .  .  47  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  47  Correlation Matrix  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  48  Factor solution  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  48  .  .  .  .  .  51  .  .  51  I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f types Factor arrays  .  .  . .  . .  .  .  .  D e s c r i p t i o n and comparison o f types S i m i l a r i t i e s among types i n NESP  .  Consensus items among types i n NESP Disagreements among types i n NESP  .  Summary o f v i e w p o i n t s i n NESP .  .  S i m i l a r i t i e s among types i n EESP  .  .  58  .  .  .  .  59  .  .  .  .  63  .  .  .  .  66  . .  Consensus items among types i n EESP .  Summary of v i e w p o i n t s of EESP .  .  .  .  Disagreements among types i n EESP  .  .  .  .  .  69  .  .  71  .  .  .  .  76  .  .  .  .  78  .  .  .  .  Consensus items among a l l types a c r o s s programmes .  80 .  82  CHAPTER V THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASSROOM DATA ANALYSIS  85  "Observed" 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 NESP and EESP  .  91  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 o f types i n classrooms  .  92  NESP - p e r s p e c t i v e  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  93  EESP - p e r s p e c t i v e  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  96  F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g implementation Personal data Teachers  .  concerns  .  .  about NESP  of NESP .  . . ..  . .  .  . .  .  .  . .  100 101  .  106  vi  Page  CHAPTER V Continued Teacher p r e p a r a t i o n f o r implementation  109  Use o f NESP m a t e r i a l s  111  Teachers' view o f implementation  111  CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Summary  .  .  .  .  .  .  114  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  114  Purpose  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  114  Procedure  .  .  .  .  .  . . .  .  .  115  Results  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  117  F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g implementation Delimitations  .  .  .  .  .  Suggestions f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h  .  .  I m p l i c a t i o n s o f the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s .  . . .  . .  .  .  .  122  .  126  .  .  .  127  .  .  .  134  REFERENCES  136  APPENDIX A.  General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP .  .  APPENDIX B.  D i s t r i b u t i o n of the items a c c o r d i n g t o  .  .  149  NESP and EESP  APPENDIX C.  153  1. Q-sort r e c o r d sheet  .  .  2. Q-sort format and i n s t r u c t i o n  sheet o f item s c o r e s  Master  APPENDIX E.  Computer programme f o r Q - a n a l y s i s  APPENDIX F.  R e s u l t s o f the Q - a n a l y s i s  2. Rank-ordered  .  item a r r a y s  .  .  APPENDIX D.  1. C o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x  .  .  .  .  . .  .  156 .  .  .  157  160  .  165  168 .  . .  .  .  .  169  .  .  177  vii  Page  APPENDIX G.  Classroom a n a l y s i s  instrument  1. S e l e c t e d d e f i n i n g  .  .  .  .  185  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r C.A.I .  186  2. C.A.I.: O b s e r v a t i o n schedule .  .  .  .  187  3. C.A.I.: Teacher c h e c k - l i s t  .  .  .  191  .  4. C.A.I.: T e a c h e r - i n t e r v i e w g u i d e l i n e  APPENDIX H.  Teacher response form f o r NESP  APPENDIX I .  Instructions  APPENDIX J .  Request  .  questions  .  .  f o r judges r a t i n g C.A.I.  .  .  letters  195  198  .  202  203  1. Teachers l e t t e r  .  .  .  .  .  .  204  2. P r i n c i p a l s  .  .  .  .  .  .  206  letter  viii  LIST OF TABLES  Page  I.  F a c t o r M a t r i x s t r u c t u r e f o r the t h r e e  f a c t o r s i n NESP  .  49  2.  F a c t o r m a t r i x s t r u c t u r e f o r the t h r e e  f a c t o r s i n EESP  .  50  3.  Types i n NESP  .  .  4.  Types i n EESP  .  .  5.  F a c t o r a r r a y o f items i n NESP .  54  6.  F a c t o r a r r a y o f items i n EESP .  56  7.  Comparison o f the t h r e e types i n NESP  61  8.  Summary o f comparisons  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 o f the t h r e e types i n EESP  73  13.  Summary o f comparisons  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 a c r o s s types and programmes  84  18.  "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p e r t e a c h e r and a c c o r d i n g to NESP and EESP . . . . .  86  "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s y m b o l i z i n g types .  88  19. 20.  .  .  52 53  i n NESP  .  .  62  i n EESP  o f NESP and items  "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP and items s y m b o l i z i n g types . . . . .  90  21.  "Observed"  defining  characteristics  o f NESP  94  22.  "Observed"  defining  characteristics  of EESP  97  23.  E d u c a t i o n a l background  24.  Years o f t e a c h i n g elementary  25.  Grade l e v e l s c u r r e n t l y  26.  Elementary s c i e n c e programmes taught by the t e a c h e r s b e f o r e NESP .  of respondents  101  school science  taught by respondents  27.  The  28.  Summary o f Research F i n d i n g s  101 .  102  teachers' concerns about NESP .  102  105 .  .  .  123  LIST OF FIGURES  Rank-order continuum  Distribution  .  .  .  .  .  of items a c c o r d i n g t o c u r r i c u l u m  components  Design and s c o r i n g scheme f o r the Q-sort  'Observed' d e f i n i n g  characteristics  EESP per s u b j e c t  .  'Observed' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  .  .  o f NESP and .  .  .  o f NESP o r EESP  s y m b o l i z i n g any type o r . v i e w p o i n t s  Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the t h r e e types i n NESP  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  Items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the t h r e e types i n EESP  -  X  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S  The author wishes  t o express h i s s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e t o P r o f e s s o r  F r e d e r i c k A. G o r n a l l and Dr. V i n c e n t D'Oyley, h i s t h e s i s a d v i s o r s , f o r t h e i r i n v a l u a b l e guidance and encouragement, and i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r t h e generous manuscript.  t h e former,  c o n t r i b u t i o n of h i s time i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of t h i s  The o t h e r members o f t h e s u p e r v i s o r y committee; Dr. Robert  W. C a r l i s l e , Dr. G e r r y Coombs, Dr. Gaalen E r i c k s o n , and Dr. Anthony Boardman a r e g r a t e f u l l y acknowledged as w e l l f o r t h e i r v a l u a b l e comments and s u g g e s t i o n s which made t h i s work p o s s i b l e . The author would a l s o l i k e toL;thank Dr. Walter B o l d t f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e a t t h e i n c e p t i o n o f t h i s study, and f o r r e a d i n g t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a s p e c t s of t h e m a n u s c r i p t . The author wishes  t o pay s p e c i a l t r i b u t e to t h e l a t e Dr. Harry  G. Cannon who g e n e r o u s l y devoted h i s time and energy  to t h i s research since  i t s c o n c e p t i o n u n t i l h i s u n t i m e l y demise i n l a t e June o f 1981. The author a l s o wishes  t o express h i s s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to  the f o l l o w i n g persons f o r t h e i r i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e i n c o m p i l i n g t h i s r e p o r t ; Ms. Beth Howarth and Ms,. Saundra Menzies  ( e d i t o r s ) and Ms. C h r i s t i n e  van den D r i e s e n ( t y p i s t ) , who have s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h i s manuscript. Finally,  t h e author wishes  t o thank a l l those who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n  v a r i o u s ways, making i t p o s s i b l e f o r t h e study t o be completed,  especially  members o f t h e Mathematics and S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n Department, and t h e Graduate  O f f i c e of the Faculty of Education  (U.B.C).  1  CHAPTER 1  INTRODUCTION  Background of the  The  study  study  of c u r r i c u l u m implementation i s r e l a t i v e l y  d a t i n g back perhaps a decade (House, 1979).  Included  t h i s p e r i o d a r e some of the g e n e r a l m i s c o n c e p t i o n s tation. Pomfret  These a r e d e s c r i b e d by Rogers and (1977), Munby, Orpwood and  t i o n i s q u i t e o f t e n confused  i n the l i t e r a t u r e of  of c u r r i c u l u m  implemen-  Shoemaker (1971), F u l l a n and  R u s s e l l (1980).  Curriculum  with curriculum adoption.  i s concerned w i t h the d e c i s i o n to use new  new,  implementa-  Curriculum  adoption  c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s ; whereas  c u r r i c u l u m implementation r e f e r s to the a c t u a l use of the  curriculum  materials  F u l l a n M,  The  (Goodlad and K l e i n ,  processes  c r i t i c a l and  1970,  of i n t r o d u c i n g and  Gross e t a l . 1971  and  1979).  implementing an i n n o v a t i o n are f a r more  complex than has been p r e v i o u s l y acknowledged.  In r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s about c u r r i c u l u m implementation assessment, the most f r e q u e n t v a r i a b l e s encountered a r e the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e ; a d m i n i s t r a t i v e support;  a t t r i b u t e s of the new  p a t i o n i n w r i t i n g t e a c h i n g u n i t s ; and to adopt the i n n o v a t i o n .  curriculum;  teacher  partici-  t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n workshops  Heck (1979) c l a i m s i n her r e v i e w of  the  l i t e r a t u r e about c u r r i c u l u m implementation t h a t c e r t a i n common v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d a c r o s s s t u d i e s .  She  f u r t h e r c l a i m s to have d i s -  2  covered  some v a r i a b l e s to be i n f l u e n t i a l  namely, the l o c a l s t a f f and  i n curriculum  involvement i n p l a n n i n g ,  implementation,  the use of l o c a l m a t e r i a l s ,  t h e exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n among p r o j e c t s t a f f .  She a l s o c l a i m s  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 t h e a c t u a l c u r r i c u l a were l e s s 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 t o another s e t of v a r i a b l e s , a t t r i b u t e s o f an i n n o v a t i o n which i n c l u d e c o m p l e x i t y ,  compatibility, 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 c u r r i c u l u m .  They suggest  t h a t these v a r i a b l e s o r a t t r i b u t e s i n f l u e n c e c u r r i c u l u m a d o p t i o n and subsequently  c u r r i c u l u m implementation.  a study based on these  A l l a n and Wolf (1978) conducted  same a t t r i b u t e s t o examine whether t h e r e was any  r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e r c e i v e d a t t r i b u t e s o f an i n n o v a t i o n and subsequent adoption  of t h a t i n n o v a t i o n .  The r e s u l t s of t h e i r study  a t t r i b u t e s o f an i n n o v a t i o n p r o v i d e very process  of curriculum  little  insight  imply  i n t o the complex  implementation.  Most o f t h e s t u d i e s reviewed r e l i e d on t e a c h e r s '  self-report  of u s i n g an i n n o v a t i o n o r r e p o r t s by o t h e r s on how the teachers the extent  t h a t the  of c u r r i c u l u m implementation.  Studies  perceived  i n which m u l t i p l e  approaches were a p p l i e d t o determine the implementation of an i n n o v a t i o n are s c a r c e .  For  example, Crowther (1972) and L e i n h a r d t  combination of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s al. very  and c l a s s r o o m  observations;  (1975) a p p l i e d a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and document few s t u d i e s p i n p o i n t e d  i s conceivable  that v i e w i n g  such as that of t h e t e a c h e r , in d i f f e r e n t  analysis.  (1973) used a and Downey e t Furthermore,  the p e r s p e c t i v e s which were c o n s i d e r e d . implementation from d i f f e r e n t the d e v e l o p e r ,  It  standpoints  or the r e s e a r c h e r c o u l d  result  s e t s of f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g p e r c e p t i o n of c u r r i c u l u m  implementation.  Of s i g n i f i c a n c e i s the v i e w p o i n t  of the t e a c h e r s  who  3  have t o d e a l w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l p u p i l s i n t h e i r own unique situations.  But F u l l a n and Pomfret  (1977) warn r e s e a r c h e r s  i n considering teachers' reports of perceived  success  r e l i a b l e measure o f c u r r i c u l u m implementation.  t o be c a u t i o u s  o r non-success as a  Thus t h e d i s c r e p a n c y  between r e p o r t e d use and t h e a c t u a l use o f an i n n o v a t i o n i n a s i t u a t i o n becomes a s i g n i f i c a n t a researcher's 1971).  standpoint  i s s u e i n c u r r i c u l u m implementation from  (Fullan,  1977; Gross, G i a c q u i n t a and B u r n s t e i n ,  Doyle and Ponder (1977) imply  t i o n of developers  classroom  a discrepancy  between':the p e r c e p -  o f a new c u r r i c u l u m and t h e t e a c h e r s who have t o  implement i t . Some o f t h e most c r u c i a l i s s u e s a r i s i n g from these as f o l l o w s :  1.  studies are  What a r e t h e most e f f e c t i v e approaches o r c o n s t r u c t s  f o r c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g and measuring implementation?  2.  Are there  v a r i a t i o n s i n implementation o f the same i n n o v a t i o n by d i f f e r e n t And  3.  What a r e t h e f a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g success  c u r r i c u l u m implementation?  o r non-success o f  These i s s u e s and many o t h e r s r e l a t e d t o  c u r r i c u l u m use c a l l f o r more o b j e c t i v e and s y s t e m a t i c  study o f c u r r i c u l u m  implementation, l e a d i n g towards t h e documentation and f u r t h e r of some o f t h e causes o f  teachers?  understanding  success.or.non-success:of^curriculum.implementation.  4  D e s c r i p t i o n , of terms  G e n e r a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - Large number of items o r statements  about a  c u r r i c u l u m o r programme which c o l l e c t i v e l y p r o v i d e a comprehensive d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e 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 o r statements  about a  c u r r i c u l u m o r programme which i d e n t i f y the c u r r i c u l u m o r programme f o r a p a r t i c u l a r group of  subjects.  D e v e l o p e r - A p e r s o n i n v o l v e d i n i n i t i a t i o n , development and a d o p t i o n of a new o r r e d e s i g n e d c u r r i c u l u m .  A l s o , one who sometimes o r g a n i z e s o r  runs workshops, w r i t e s and e d i t s t e a c h i n g u n i t s . T e a c h e r - W r i t e r - A p e r s o n who has w r i t t e n one or more t e a c h i n g u n i t s . A l s o , a p e r s o n who i s a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n an a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s (workshop l e a d e r o r a t t e n d a n t ) , as w e l l as i n the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of a new c u r r i c u l u m or programme. Teacher-User - A p e r s o n who i s aware of a new c u r r i c u l u m o r programme, who may be i n v o l v e d i n the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the new c u r r i c u l u m o r programme, and who a t t e n d e d an o r i e n t a t i o n workshop. " T y p e " - A group of s u b j e c 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 e m s .  A type may be made up of  t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s , d e v e l o p e r s , o r mixes of d e v e l o p e r s and  teacher-users, teachers.  I n n o v a t i o n - "The d e l i b e r a t e s y s t e m a t i c attempt to change s c h o o l s t h r o u g h i n t r o d u c i n g new i d e a s and t e c h n i q u e s " - House, 1979.  5  C u r r i c u l u m Implementation of  - C u r r i c u l u m implementation  r e f e r s to a c t u a l  an i n n o v a t i o n or what an i n n o v a t i o n c o n s i s t s of i n p r a c t i c e  merely  says t h a t r e g a r d l e s s of who  use  ... I t  develops an i n n o v a t i o n , when i t i s  developed or how  i t i s developed, some implementation w i l l have o c c u r r e d  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 i n the s o c i a l  - Fullan,  system"  1979.  Viewpoint - A s e l e c t i o n of items or statements about a programme r a n g i n g 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  characteris-  tics .  Abbreviations  C.D.C.  = Clearly defining  C.N.D.C.  = C l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g  N.E.S.P.  = New  E.E.S.P.  = E s t a b l i s h e d elementary  C.A.I.  = Classroom a n a l y s i s  E.S.S.  = Elementary S c i e n c e S t u d i e s  E.Y.E.  = Examining Your Environment  T.P.S.  = Teaching Primary Science  S.C.I.S.  = S c i e n c e C u r r i c u l u m Improvement S t u d i e s  S.C.  = Schools C o u n c i l S c i e n c e  5/13  elementary  characteristics characteristics  s c i e n c e programme s c i e n c e programme  instrument  5/13.  Purpose of the study  The purpose why  new  of u n d e r t a k i n g t h i s study was  to shed some l i g h t • o n  c u r r i c u l a o f t e n do not succeed a t the stage of implementation. I t  6  was  p o s t u l a t e d t h a t at l e a s t p a r t of t h i s non-success stems from  d i f f e r e n c e s between c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p e r s  and  users,  the  particularly,  d i f f e r e n c e s between what they p e r c e i v e 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  curriculum.  such as complexity  While o t h e r  of the new  sources  of p r o b a b l e  c u r r i c u l u m and  difficulties  i t s i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y with  l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s were a l s o deemed s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r r a n t s to the study  focussed  problem was  implementation,  p r i m a r i l y on the problem of p e r c e p t i o n , and  how  this  r e l a t e d to a c t u a l classroom p r a c t i c e .  New  c u r r i c u l a a r e f r e q u e n t l y g i v e n f i e l d t e s t s or t r i a l s  selected teachers  and  students,  sometimes w i t h s p e c t a c u l a r r e s u l t s , f o r  i n s t a n c e , the t e s t i m o n i a l s of the A f r i c a n Primary Science P r o j e c t The  same c u r r i c u l u m a l s o was  classroom  seen to f a i l when i t was  Field  t r i e d under r e g u l a r  t e s t s or t r i a l s under normal  c o n d i t i o n s a r e a more v a l i d r e g u l a r classroom the t e a c h e r s  use.  test  f o r a new  I t i s important  i f not, what a r e the most p r o b a b l e  f o r both c u r r i c u l u m  c u r r i c u l u m a r e being  c a r r i e d out  implemented  i n a medium s i z e d urban  district  had  and  been i n v o l v e d i n implementing a new  provided  and  study  i n the Lower Mainland of B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada.  T h i s new  developers  s u c c e s s f u l l y the  district  gramme s i n c e 1979.  for  causes f o r f a i l u r e .  Overview of the  T h i s study was  classroom  c u r r i c u l u m intended  i n v o l v e d i n implementation to know how  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  concepts,  (APSP).  c o n d i t i o n s j u s t as d r a m a t i c a l l y as i t succeeded under e x p e r i -  mental c o n d i t i o n s .  and  with  school The  school  elementary s c i e n c e  programme emphasized the t e a c h i n g of  teachers with d i r e c t i o n i n teaching  pro-  science  specific  science  7  concepts.  I t was  a d e l i b e r a t e attempt to s h i f t  e s t a b l i s h e d programme which the new  from the  process-based  programme r e p l a c e d .  In a l l 27 p a r t i c i p a n t s were i n v o l v e d i n the study. included 5 developers,  11 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and  11 t e a c h e r - u s e r s .  s i x of the p a r t i c i p a n t s were expected to teach t h i s new other p a r t i c i p a n t was  a non-teaching a d m i n i s t r a t o r .  9 months to complete from D e c , The  nature  198CLuntil  of the study was  Sept.,  group Twenty  programme and  The  study  the  took about  1981.  such t h a t i t r e q u i r e d a two-phase  approach to i n v e s t i g a t i n g the subproblems o u t l i n e d below. devoted to d e t e r m i n i n g  The  Phase one  the g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new  was  curriculum,  NESP, as w e l l as the g e n e r a l 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 c u r r i c u l u m , EESP.  T h i s was  done through..document a n a l y s i s , i n t e r v i e w s and  w i t h s c i e n c e c o n s u l t a n t s and  t e a c h e r s who  the compared c u r r i c u l a .  Phase one  p o i n t s of the d e v e l o p e r s  of the new  the t e a c h e r s who  had  taught  and  s i s of what they p e r c e i v e d  e i t h e r one  r e q u i r e d the e s t a b l i s h e m e n t  or both of of the view-e  c u r r i c u l u m , as w e l l as the v i e w p o i n t s  were expected to implement the new  p o i n t s of the d e v e l o p e r s  discussions  curriculum.  The  of  view-  the t e a c h e r s were determined by p r o f i l e  analy-  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 NESP and  the d e f i n i n g 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  s u b j e c t s 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 c a t i o n df v a r i o u s Q-techniques.  The  appli-  items which the s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d  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  to  c l e a r l y defining character-  i s t i c s of EESP were s e l e c t e d to c o n s t i t u t e the Classroom A n a l y s i s I n s t r u ment , CAI. Phase two  of the study  i n v o l v e d the development and  of the Classroom A n a l y s i s Instrument. v a t i o n schedule,  a c h e c k l i s t and  The  instrument  an i n t e r v i e w schedule  utilization  c o n s i s t e d of an (see Appendix  obserG).  8  The  f u n c t i o n o f C . A . I , was  to examine the presence or absence of  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 of the practice. and  On  the b a s i s of  developers'  t h e new  two  t h i s examination,  viewpoints,  the  programmes i n t h e  classroom  with reference  teachers'  i n v e s t i g a t o r was  whether the  teachers'  implemented i n the classroom  able to determine whether  or the developers'  practice.  The  study  i s t i c s o f t h e new  curriculum  i n the classroom  Assumptions of the  i s assumed the  was  impl  being  the d e f i n i n g  character-  practice.  study  that general  from v a r i o u s and  viewpoint  being  a l s o examined the p o s s i b l  f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e d the presence or absence of  1.  to  p r o g r a m m e , NESP, o r t h e e s t a b l i s h e d p r o g r a m m e , ! E E S P , was  m e n t e d , and  It  the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a curriculum sources,  discussions with  can  be  s u c h as c u r r i c u l u m documents, the developers  and  teachers  of  formulated interviews the  new  curriculum. It  i s assumed 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 fied  It  i s assumed 3.  that  the  by  a t r a i n e d observer  i n a classroom  be  identi-  situation.  items s e l e c t e d f o r Q-sort were s u f f i c i e n t 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  General statement of  a)  can  that  evaluate  The  curriculum  general  p r o b l e m was  the  to describe  and  curriculum.  problem  to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y :  d e t e r m i n e what the d e v e l o p e r s  and  teachers  o f a new  curriculum  9  p e r c e i v e to be 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 of t h e new c u r r i c u l u m , b)  examine agreements and disagreements i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s 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 ,  c)  determine the presence t i c s i n classrooms  and d)  o r absence o f these d e f i n i n g  characteris-  where the new c u r r i c u l u m i s b e i n g  examine the p o s s i b l e : f a c t o r s  i n f l u e n c i n g the presence  implemented, o r 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 o f the c u r r i c u l u m i n the c l a s s room.  S p e c i f i c statements  of the problem  For the purpose o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n the g e n e r a l problem was delineated  through  a number o f s t e p s w i t h 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 d e v e l o p e r s  o f a new c u r r i c u l u m and the  t e a c h e r s who a r e implementing t h e c u r r i c u l u m p e r c e i v e 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 o f the new c u r r i c u l u m ? Subproblem 2.  Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n t types among d e v e l o p e r s  who can be s a i d to h o l d d i s t i n c t v i e w p o i n t s  and t e a c h e r s  on 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 c u r r i c u l u m ? STEP 3  COMPARISON OF VIEWPOINTS  Subproblem 3.  What a r e the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n v i e w p o i n t s between the  d i f f e r e n t types, developers  and t e a c h e r s , i n terms o f what  they  p e r c e i v e t o 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 o f the new c u r r i c u l u m ? Subproblem 4. different  What a r e the s i m i l a r i t i e s i n v i e w p o i n t s between the types i n terms o f what they p e r c e i v e to be;  10  STEP 4  a)  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  curriculum,  b)  the d e f i n i n g  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common t o 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 n o t b e l o n g t o e i t h e r  curriculum?  EXAMINATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW CURRICULUM AS JUDGED BY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS  Subproblem 5.  To what e x t e n t a r e 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 c u r r i c u l a and s y m b o l i z i n g d i f f e r e n t types p r e s e n t o r absent i n the classrooms where the new c u r r i c u l u m i s b e i n g implemented? Subproblem 6.  To what e x t e n t a r e the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  congruent w i t h t h e s e l e c t e d  and STEP 5  a)  o f the new c u r r i c u l u m ,  b)  o f the e s t a b l i s h e d  c)  o f any type?  "perceived" defining  characteristics  curriculum  DETERMINATION OF FACTORS INFLUENCING IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW CURRICULUM AS JUDGED BY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS  Subproblem 7.  What a r e some o f the p o s s i b l e  presence o r absence of the d e f i n i n g new c u r r i c u l u m and the e s t a b l i s h e d practice?  factors  i n f l u e n c i n g the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of b o t h the c u r r i c u l u m i n the c l a s s r o o m  11  CHAPTER 2  LITERATURE REVIEW  Curriculum  implementation process  i n science  education  In the e a r l y s e v e n t i e s t h e r e were o u t c r i e s about the h i a t u s that e x i s t e d between c u r r i c u l u m i n t e n t s and what was a c t u a l l y going on i n s c i e n c e c l a s s e s (Becher, 1971; MacDonald and Walker, These were the b e g i n n i n g s curriculum innovation.  1976);  o f today's d i v e r s e t h i n k i n g and p r a c t i c e i n  A review of the l i t e r a t u r e on c u r r i c u l u m  imple-  mentation i n d i c a t e s two l e v e l s o f argument t h a t c l a i m f a i l u r e of c u r r i c u l u m innovation i n science education the a  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  level. On t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  l e v e l , researchers  i n science education  adopted a predominantly s c i e n t i f i c mode of r e s e a r c h . educators  were o p t i m i s t i c t h a t s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n  "science-like" status. " s c i e n c e - l i k e " theory theory  The s c i e n c e  should  strive for a  The opponents o f t h i s view argued t h a t no such could e x i s t  i s an e x p l a n a t o r y  i n science education,  since  theory w i t h p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t i e s  U n l i k e s c i e n c e , t h e events i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n replicable.  have  Assuming t h a t r e s e a r c h  scientific  (Roberts,  1980).  a r e man-made and non-  i n science education  p a r t l y because of i t s p o t e n t i a l i n f l u e n c e on classroom  i s undertaken  p r a c t i c e and  c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n , the approaches i n t r a n s l a t i o n of r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s  12  to improve p r a c t i c e should n o t be the same as i n s c i e n c e . s c i e n t i f i c mode of r e s e a r c h has proved e f f e c t i v e m i l i t a r y technology,  there  i n science education.  is little  In support  evidence  Although the  i n space s c i e n c e and  of i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s  of t h i s view A t k i n  (1968) argues t h a t  the p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e n g i n e e r i n g modes of r e s e a r c h , the p r e v a l e n t modes i n science education, is often " t r i v i a l  have f l a w s .  or i r r e l e v a n t " and t h a t the e n g i n e e r i n g model i s  " s i m p l i c i t i c " f o r research engineering,  He c l a i m s t h a t the p s y c h o l o g i c a l model  i n science education.  The end products i n  f o r i n s t a n c e , a r e q u a n t i f i a b l e , w h i l e v a l u e s and s o c i a l  outcomes of any s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n  programme cannot be e a s i l y  quantified.  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 t o long-term  effects  of such s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n  that  programmes.  method has f a i l e d t o generate a theory  Therefore  i t i s claimed  or t h e o r i e s of e d u c a t i o n a l change  i n g e n e r a l and i n p a r t i c u l a r a theory o f s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n innovation 1975;  (Roberts,  and G l a s s ,  curriculum  1980; Power, 1976; Bowen, 1975; Roberts and R u s s e l l ,  1972).  Thus f a i l u r e of s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n  i n n o v a t i o n i s a t t r i b u t e d t o the p r o c l a i m e d s c i e n t i f i c mode of r e s e a r c h i n s c i e n c e The  this  curriculum  inappropriateness  o f the  education.  second l e v e l of argument d e a l s w i t h  the view t h a t  science  c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n s have o f t e n f a i l e d because some r e s e a r c h e r s and developers  i n science education  as a top-down process teachers  perceived curriculum innovation  with developers  a t t h e bottom.  and r e s e a r c h e r s  the d e v e l o p e r s  much m o d u l a t i o n .  of t h i s h i e r a r c h i c a l view of i n n o v a t i o n process and  a t the p i n n a c l e and  Teachers were expected t o enact  i n t e n t i o n s from c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s without  process  1  The opponents  argue t h a t i f the developers  t e a c h e r s were to c o a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e i n the implementation o f an  i n n o v a t i o n , t h e r e would be a b e t t e r chance o f the i n n o v a t i o n t a k i n g r o o t  13  as planned  (Goodlad,  Marsh, 1978).  1975;  Doyle and  Ponder, 1977;  and M c l a u g h l i n  and  Leithwood e t a l (1976) propose t h a t  " e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h and development i s e f f e c t i v e when n a t u r e of the problem and of the s o l u t i o n are d e l i b e r a t e d by p r a c t i t i o n e r and r e s e a r c h e r t o g e t h e r , on a b a s i s of equal s t a t u s , r e s p e c t and s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n " . Thus t e a c h e r s have gained r e c o g n i t i o n as v i t a l innovation  participants i n curriculum  process. The  f o c a l p o i n t s of the d i s c u s s i o n s among s c i e n c e e d u c a t o r s  been (1) the apparent  have  f a i l u r e of the s c i e n t i f i c method to p r o v i d e a frame-  work w i t h i n which c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n s s h o u l d be conducted,  (2)  the  q u e s t i o n of whether a p r e v a i l i n g r e s e a r c h paradigm i n s c i e n c e  education  should be " s c i e n c e - l i k e " o r whether the s e a r c h f o r a " s c i e n c e - l i k e " paradigm should be abandoned and directly  (Atkin,  1968;  s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n i s s u e s s h o u l d be G l a s s , 1972;  Roberts  and R u s s e l l ,  addressed  1975),  and  (3) the i d e a t h a t s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h should be based on a  broader  view o f s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n and grounded i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n e v e n t s . of the p r o p o s i t i o n s imply and  teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n  performance i n c l a s s r o o m  as areas of concern  Some  i n curriculum innovation i n the s e a r c h f o r  p r a c t i c a l methods t h a t would be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the f i e l d . would a l s o provide, the b a s i s f o r c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g c u r r i c u l u m  These  areas  implementation  process. Curriculum misunderstood  and  implementation  largely  p r o c e s s , u n t i l r e c e n t l y , was  ignored process.  c u r r i c u l u m d e v e l o p e r s were more concerned  D u r i n g the p a s t two  The  c e n t r a l i s s u e of r e s e a r c h was  as such perhaps c u r r i c u l u m implementation ( F u l l a n and Pomfret, 1977).  The  decades  w i t h r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s of  competing c o n t e n t c o u r s e s and methods of t e a c h i n g i n terms of achievement.  a  was  student  student achievement  and  assumed to have o c c u r r e d  r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t 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 s c h o o l s  c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n to b e g i n  to address new  led researchers issues.  Common (1979)  a s s e r t e d t h a t c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n s were o n l y p r o p o s a l s t h a t i n o r d e r to a c h i e v e implemented.  Before  the d e s i r e d change a new  then Berman and M c l a u g h l i n  p r i o r i t i e s o f r e s e a r c h had a s s e s s i n g student  achievement.  can c u r r i c u l u m d e s i g n e r s being  shifted The  f o r change  c u r r i c u l u m had (1976) had  and  to  noted  to c u r r i c u l u m implementation  be  the before  problem then becomes the f o l l o w i n g :  d e c i d e c o n f i d e n t l y t h a t a new  curriculum i s  implemented?  C o n c e p t i o n s of c u r r i c u l u m implementation  The regarded  process  c u r r i c u l u m implementation p r o c e s s , which has  as a n e b u l o u s f i e l d ,  science education.  There i s growing evidence  of the f i e l d and variations  to  the  i n mathematics  i n the l i t e r a t u r e which  i n d i c a t e s t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t attempts are b e i n g made to put implementation p r o c e s s  been  i s r a p i d l y a t t r a c t i n g a t t e n t i o n due  f a i l u r e o f numerous c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n s p a r t i c u l a r l y and  in  i n t o p e r s p e c t i v e ; to c l a r i f y  the  curriculum  the e x t e r n a l b o u n d a r i e s  t o s p e c i f y the i n t e r n a l v a r i a b l e s of the  observed  in practice. S u p e r f i c i a l l y the i s s u e seems simple but  p r a c t i c a l perspectives  from t h e o r e t i c a l  i t i s i n t r i g u i n g l y complex, a  problem s i t u a t i o n i n c u r r i c u l u m (1977) as w e l l as F u l l a n and  innovation studies.  Pomfret  and  problem-withinH a l l and  Loucks  (1977) seemed to have p i n p o i n t e d  the phenomenon, v i z , the problem of s p e c i f y i n g e x a c t l y what the i s b e f o r e measuring i t s implementation.  innovation  Lack of c l e a r s p e c i f i c a t i o n  an i n n o v a t i o n o n l y compounds the problem of c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g  the  of  15  implementation process,  a p r o c e s s w h i c h 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 i m p l e m e n t a t i o n v a r i a b l e s . 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  s p e c i f i c r e s e a r c h i s b e i n g done i n attempts such v a r i a b l e s .  it  little  t o i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e  These and s e v e r a l o t h e r s t u d i e s  implementation process s t i l l  Therefore,  imply that  curriculum  remains a dubious f i e l d a l t h o u g h i t has  gained r e c o g n i t i o n . Teachers o r 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 t o e f f e c t i v e l y use t h e i n n o v a t i o n i f they u n d e r s t a n d t h e 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 Upholding t h i s v i e w p o i n t , F u l l a n  t h a t comprise the i n n o v a t i o n .  (1979) proposed a broad framework o r  concept o f c u r r i c u l u m i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s w h i c h c o n s i s t e d of  five  dimensions and n i n e d e t e r m i n a n t s or causes of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  The frame-  work p r o v i d e d the v i t a l components of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n b u t f e l l  s h o r 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 i m p l e m e n t a t i o n assessment.  Only  very  few  i n implementation assessment.  s t u d i e s have employed c o n c e p t u a l frameworks 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 i m p l e m e n t a t i o n r e s e a r c h based on l e v e l s o f use of i n n o v a t i o n (LoU) among t e a c h e r s .  They h y p o t h e s i z e d a d e v e l o p m e n t a l  l e v e l s of use w i t h t i m e f a c t o r as an i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e . concept of c u r r i c u l u m i m p l e m e n t a t i o n p r o c e s s p o s t u l a t e s l e v e l s of use e x i s t categorized.  The l i n e a r that  different  i n the c l a s s r o o m e n v i r o n m e n t , and .can be d e f i n e d and  The,researchers  a l s o assumed t h a t the c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r  is  the p r i m a r y u n i t f o r a d o p t i o n and t h a t a l l o t h e r s o u r c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n about i n n o v a t i o n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n are s e c o n d a r y . of use,  each l e v e l h a v i n g seven c a t e g o r i e s  approach n e g l e c t s  They proposed e i g h t  of f u n c t i o n .  levels  T h e i r . 1977  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 t e a c h e r s .  In the r e p o r t e d r e s e a r c h c e r t a i n i s s u e s 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 b e t t e r e x p l a i n e d by t h e i r  However, the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s were weak i n a c c o u n t i n g between l e v e l s and w i t h i n l e v e l s . suitable for clearly  specified  On  approach.  for variations  the whole the approach seems  innovations  on one  hand, and  on the  hand makes i t p o s s i b l e to s k i p l e v e l s of use, as each t e a c h e r has different  s t a r t i n g p o i n t i n terms of p e r s o n a l  and knowledge of an i n n o v a t i o n , which may  experience,  appropriate  Furthermore, a l t h o u g h  the a c t u a l use the t e a c h e r ' s  stance, type  framework i s an  particular  innovation  in a single isolated of the few  that  considers  of i n n o v a t i o n among implementers, i t u n f o r t u n a t e l y i n f l u e n c e on the implementation p r o c e s s  i n n o v a t i o n and or  not e x i s t  the approach i s one  f i c a n t , s i n c e i t i s the t e a c h e r who  success  The  not p r a c t i c a l f o r measuring any  because a l l the e i g h t l e v e l s of use may  use an  academic  t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t to view c u r r i c u l u m implementation i n  g e n e r a l but p r o b a b l y  case.  a  i n t u r n depend upon the  of i n - s e r v i c e or i n t r o d u c t i o n to the i n n o v a t i o n .  other  ignores  which i s v e r y  signi-  makes the f i n a l d e c i s i o n to adopt  i t i s h i s or her  and  i n f l u e n c e which determines i t s  failure. Stallings  developers innovation.  (1977) a p p l i e d an approach which r e q u i r e d  to s p e c i f y the key The  elements of an i n n o v a t i o n to e v a l u a t e  e v a l u a t i o n was  to determine i f student  outcomes were a consequence of the i n n o v a t i o n . conducted the r e s e a r c h i n n o v a t i o n were b e i n g  the  He  i n classrooms where the key implemented but  about implemention c r i t e r i a was  d i d not  reached.  the  achievement or  claimed  to  hav~  elements of  i n d i c a t e how  the  the d e c i s i o n  Churchman (1979) commented t h a t  h i s approach r e q u i r e d a r e p o r t e d yes/no d e c i s i o n about implementation of the key  elements.  In essence, the study was  based on the d e v e l o p e r s '  and  an e v a l u a t i o n of  the i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' n o t i o n s  innovation  of the key  elements,  17  and  r e p o r t e d use^of the key  elements of the i n n o v a t i o n .  how  he e s t a b l i s h e d the key  key  elements of the i n n o v a t i o n as compared to the p r e v i o u s  The  study  elements.  For instance, how  d i d not c o n s i d e r the teachers' v i e w p o i n t  the i n n o v a t i o n . perceptions  S t a l l i n g s , H a l l and  I t was  uncertain  d i f f e r e n t were the curriculum?  of the key  elements of  Louck's a l l r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on  of i n n o v a t i o n from developers' and  the  researchers' v i e w p o i n t s .  Rogers developed h i s concept of c u r r i c u l u m implementation as an "adoption  p r o c e s s " which c o n s i s t s of f i v e stages; awareness,  e v a l u a t i o n , : t r i a l and e a r l y adopters,  adoption.  He  early majority, late majority  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the adopters p e r c e p t i o n , sources innovation  d e s c r i b e s the adopters  include complexity,  He  claims  the i n d i v i d u a l ' s the  suggest d i r e c t l y how  mentation of an i n n o v a t i o n should be measured.  of an i n n o v a t i o n which they  innovators,  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  Rogers does not  Shoemaker's Communication of I n n o v a t i o n  as  laggards.  are i n f l u e n c e d by  of i n f o r m a t i o n , and  (Ingram, 1966) .  and  interest,  imple-  However, i n Rogers  and  (1971), they r e f e r to a t t r i b u t e s  suggest i n f l u e n c e a d o p t i o n .  compatibility, t r i a l a b i l i t y ,  These a t t r i b u t e s  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 c u r r i c u l u m as compared to an i n n o v a t i o n proposed to r e p l a c e i t . Rogers and s t u d i e s which adopted these between i n n o v a t i o n and The  Shoemaker r e p o r t e d  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  i n n o v a t i o n a d o p t i o n / r e j e c t i o n ( A l l a n and Wolf, 1978).  r e s u l t s of the s t u d i e s showed t h a t the a t t r i b u t e s p r o v i d e v e r y l i t t l e i n -  s i g h t - i n t o the complex a d o p t i o n  process.  The  the a t t r i b u t e s of an i n n o v a t i o n under review. q u e s t i o n : D i d the study p a r t i c u l a r l y those innovation?  s t u d i e s were r e s t r i c t e d There remains a  key  c o n s i d e r the o t h e r f a c t o r s suggested by  concerning  the t e a c h e r ' s  awareness and  to  Rogers,  interest  I f i t d i d , the r e s u l t s might have been s i g n i f i c a n t l y  i n the  different.  18  Here i s another results.  study which.used the a t t r i b u t e s and r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e  Hughes and K e i t h (1980) examined teacher p e r c e p t i o n of  relative  advantage, 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 and o b s e r v a b i l i t y of an  elementary  s c i e n c e programme i n r e l a t i o n to the degree of implementation.  They a l s o  h y p o t h e s i z e d n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between teacher p e r c e p t i o n of programme complexity  and  the degree of implementation.  dicateta positive relationship Rogers and  i n terms of the a t t r i b u t e s proposed by  Shoemaker, between the p o t e n t i a l u s e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n of an  i n n o v a t i o n and  i t s successful  implementation.  Some r e s e a r c h e r s have opted of an i n n o v a t i o n i n attempting process.  Their research findings i n -  f o r s t u d y i n g o n l y c e r t a i n components  to c o n c e p t u a l i z e the  implementation  Guns (1979), i n h i s study of the Community Schools  Columbia's Lower Mainland  in British  area, examined the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r a t e g i e s  a p p l i e d i n the implementation  process.  H i s approach, a p p a r e n t l y , was  the  most s u i t a b l e f o r the study, as the i n n o v a t i o n seemed too nebulous to "bundle"  or c o n c e p t u a l i z e i n c o n c r e t e measurable v a r i a b l e s .  He  compared  " d e s i g n a t e d community s c h o o l s " w i t h " r e g u l a r s c h o o l s " on the b a s i s of " c e r t a i n i n d i c a t o r s of degree of i n t e g r a t i o n of community r e s o u r c e s i n the c u r r i c u l a of the s c h o o l s " . cited  include f i e l d  and v o l u n t e e r s .  Yet  trips  ?  The  work and  examples of community r e s o u r c e s s e r v i c e e x p e r i e n c e , guest  i t i s q u i t e l i k e l y these so c a l l e d  he  speakers,  community  r e s o u r c e s were a v a i l a b l e to the s c h o o l s b e f o r e they were approved f o r the " d e s i g n a t e d  community schools','.  one's mind: How  were the " r e g u l a r s c h o o l s p r o h i b i t e d from  these r e s o u r c e s ? "designated  These q u e s t i o n s immediately  utilizing  To what extent d i d the " r e g u l a r s c h o o l s " and  community s c h o o l s " u t i l i z e  " o f f i c i a l " approval?  come to  the  the r e s o u r c e s p r i o r to the  T h i s case seems to be another  s p e c i f i c a t i o n of the i n n o v a t i o n v i s - a - v i s the  example of u n c l e a r  traditional.  19  Evans and  Sheffler  (1978) developed  f o r a s s e s s i n g c u r r i c u l u m implementation instrument was  based  (CDI), has  implementation  and  of the i n n o v a t i o n .  instrument  by c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n .  on a c o n c e p t u a l model of the Mathematical  System which they measured. Instrument  and a p p l i e d an  two  The  Instructional  instrument, C o n s u l t a n t s D i a g n o s t i c  components, one r a t e s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of  the o t h e r checks The  the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  instrument was  characteristics  designed to examine i f t h e r e  any d i s c r e p a n c y between the c o n c e p t u a l model of the i n n o v a t i o n as by the d e v e l o p e r s and the c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e . instrument,  (CDI), the r e s e a r c h e r s concluded  i n s t r u c t i o n a l system was  The  not b e i n g f u l l y  On  the b a s i s of  that the  was"  planned  this  mathematical  implemented as planned.  They  c l a i m e d however, t h a t when v i e w i n g the r e s u l t s a c r o s s the s c h o o l s the data i n d i c a t e d a h i g h e r r a t i n g on the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l aspect of implement a t i o n than d i d the i n s t r u c t i o n a l items. same instrument and found organization plan.  Heathers  (1972) a p p l i e d  s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n h i s study of an  But V a l d e s and Evans'  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  elementary  (1978) study showed a  between c l a s s r o o m o r g a n i z a t i o n and  i n s t r u c t i o n a l item r a t i n g s on s i m i l a r  implementation  s t u d i e s which  i n d i c a t e s t h a t s c h o o l s t h a t were r a t e d h i g h on o r g a n i z a t i o n tended r a t e d h i g h on i n s t r u c t i o n a l  the  items as w e l l .  The Evans and  study a l s o a s s e s s e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the degree  to be  Sheffler  of  implementation  as measured by the instrument and e i g h t o t h e r v a r i a b l e s such as i n n o v a t i v e n e s s of the s c h o o l s , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c l i m a t e , continuous  staff  t r a i n i n g and s t a f f and  study  student a t t i t u d e s towards i n n o v a t i o n .  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 and  of  The  implementation  the number of years the s c h o o l s were i n v o l v e d w i t h the i n n o v a t i o n .  T h i s f i n d i n g would appear to c h a l l e n g e H a l l and Louck's concept which  20  regards  the time f a c t o r i n implementation as c r u c i a l  l e v e l s of use of an i n n o v a t i o n . and Louck's concept  However, one  to a t t a i n i n g  higher  can a l s o argue t h a t H a l l  d e a l s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s w h i l e Evans  and  S h e f f l e r ' s f i n d i n g g e n e r a l i z e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l s d i s r e g a r d i n g the v a r i a t i o n s w i t h i n each s c h o o l and  among the t e a c h e r s .  The  the r e p o r t e d s t u d i e s show the i l l u s i v e n a t u r e of the f i e l d . s t u d i e s a l s o demonstrate how  process.  reported  Several studies  r e l i e d on d e s c r i b i n g and measuring the determinants n e g l e c t i n g the t e a c h e r who  and Ponder  The  i n a d e q u a t e l y the i n n o v a t i o n s were  c o n c e p t u a l i z e d d u r i n g the implementation  almost  r e s u l t s of  had  to the extent of  to implement the i n n o v a t i o n . Doyle  (1977) c l a i m t h a t t e a c h e r s tend to adopt and  implement what  appears to them as p r a c t i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e i n the classroom i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l circumstances.  situation  or  Doyle and Ponder put the case even  more e x p l i c i t l y when they s t a t e d , " t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a c u r r i c u l u m have meanings f o r . t e a c h e r s and t h a t these meanings determine i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways the a d o p t i o n and use of c u r r i c u l u m p r o p o s a l . A common and c o n t i n u i n g problem i n implementation i s the d i s c r e p a n c y between what a c u r r i c u l u m p r o p o s a l means to i t s d e s i g n e r s and what i t means to the t e a c h e r s who are b e i n g asked to use it." The  r e s u l t s from these s t u d i e s a l s o i n d i c a t e the need f o r more s y s t e m a t i c  approaches f o r i d e n t i f y i n g and  d e s c r i b i n g the v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t i n g  c u r r i c u l u m implementation  process.  Evans and  SheffIer,becoming  c u r r i c u l u m implementation  v a r i e s from teacher to t e a c h e r , recommended  t h a t f u t u r e s t u d i e s on c u r r i c u l u m implementation classrooms  aware t h a t  should focus on  individual  r a t h e r than. on s c h o o l s as a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t s f o r study.  G i a q u i n t a and  B e r n s t e i n put  be made f o r implementation situations".  Gross,  i t more e m p h a t i c a l l y t h a t c l a i m s should u n l e s s t h e r e i s evidence  T h i s p e r s p e c t i v e on implementation  i n the  not  "concrete  i s p a r a l l e l to the view  21  t h a t i t i s not  sufficient  they do, as evidence F u l l a n , M., 1977,  to accept what t e a c h e r s say, r a t h e r than what  f o r implementation  Waring, M.,  1979).  ( H a r t n e t t and N a i s h ,  1976;  T h e r e f o r e teacher p e r c e p t i o n of an  i n n o v a t i o n as w e l l as performance i n the c l a s s r o o m become areas of concern  i n s t u d i e s about c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n . Leithwood and MacDonald  (1976) view the c u r r i c u l u m  implementation  p r o c e s s as i n f l u e n c i n g d e c i s i o n s t e a c h e r s have to make about t h e i r room i n s t r u c t i o n s .  The  r e j e c t an i n n o v a t i o n .  teacher makes the f i n a l d e c i s i o n to adopt or In o t h e r words, e f f e c t i v e implementation  i n n o v a t i o n p a r t l y depends on knowledge about t e a c h e r s ' i n c u r r i c u l u m usage.  class-  T h i s immediately  of an  decision-making  i n v i t e s the q u e s t i o n : what  i n f l u e n c e s t e a c h e r s ' d e c i s i o n s about t h e i r c l a s s r o o m m a t e r i a l s and instructions?  Waring (1979) c o n s i d e r s t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of a programme  or p r o j e c t " c r u c i a l l y Harding  important  i n decision-making  (1975) argues f u r t h e r t h a t d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  about uptake". i n v o l v e s a teacher i n  matching h i s p e r c e p t i o n s of a programme to the " p e r c e i v e d needs of p u p i l s , the r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e and h i s own s t y l e of t e a c h i n g " .  She  aims and  o b j e c t i v e s and p r e f e r r e d  examined t e a c h e r p e r c e p t i o n s of N u f f i e l d p r o j e c t s  u s i n g a c h e c k l i s t of q u e s t i o n s about the " e s s e n t i a l s t r u c t u r e " , . a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of the p r o j e c t s f o r p u p i l s , d i f f e r e n c e s between N u f f i e l d and  t r a d i t i o n a l c o u r s e s , the advantages and disadvantages  N u f f i e l d c o n t e n t , approach and  the c o s t of a d o p t i o n .  of  adopting  A l l the  t e a c h e r s i n t e r v i e w e d p e r c e i v e d the p r o j e c t s as " e x t e r n a l o b j e c t s " , p r e s s u r e t h a t c o u l d not be i g n o r e d " and o n l y one  of r e j e c t i o n " .  The  "demanding a response  even i f  i n d i v i d u a l t e a c h e r s viewed the p r o j e c t s  d i f f e r e n t l y , a "welcome r e v o l u t i o n " , an " i n t r u s i o n " , a "new and a "powerful  "new  orthodoxy"  p r e s s u r e on e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s " i n t h e i r own  particular  22  situations.  T h e i r perceptions of the p r o j e c t s '  a p p r o a c h were u n c l e a r  though they spoke o f " i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l a p p r o a c h " , " 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 t e r m s .  A survey of t e a c h e r 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  R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t , CDRP i n d i c a t e d t h a t t e a c h e r s racteristics  perceived the f o l l o w i n g cha-  t o be the most i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s c i e n c e  projects:  1. 2.  Development of e x p e r i m e n t a l s k i l l s . The a b i l i t y t o i n v e s t i g a t e open-ended p r o b l e m s .  3.  An u n d e r s t a n d i n g of and a b i l i t y t o use t h e s c i e n t i f i c method.  Although teachers  p e r c e i v e d these aims t o ' b e i m p o r t a n t . , they  p e r c e i v e d as the most i m p o r t a n t aim o f s c i e n c e 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  science".  M c l a u g h l i n and Marsh (1978),  r e p o r t i n g on t h e Rand Change Agent  S t u d y , suggest t h a t t e a c h e r s a r e c a p a b l e 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 essential  for successful  t o t h i s v i e w and n o t e s  implementation.  B e n - P e r e t z (1980) i s  lamentably that r a r e l y are teachers'  and c o n c e r n s a c c e p t e d t o a f f e c t curriculum developers.  is sympathetic  interests  o r shape the d e c i s i o n s made by the e x t e r n a l  Leithwood et a l .  between p r a c t i t i o n e r and r e s e a r c h e r  (1976) s u g g e s t t h a t c o o p e r a t i o n  on the grounds o f m u t u a l r e s p e c t  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 t o s u c c e s s f u l  and  implementation. Connelly  (1972) proposes two ways o f t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e c u r r i c u l u m development p r o c e s 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 a g e n c i e s o u t s i d e the c l a s s r o o m and (b)  teacher involvement  i n the a d a p t a t i o n and development o f e x t e r n a l l y d e v e l o p e d 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 d e v e l o p e d c u r r i c u l u m , the  developers  must be knowledgeable of the t e a c h e r s ' 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 t o s u i t t h e i r  individual  23  t e a c h i n g s t y l e s and c l a s s r o o m s .  Thus t e a c h e r p e r c e p t i o n of an i n n o v a t i o n  as w e l l as a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n c u r r i c u l u m development p r o c e s s seem t o be c r u c i a l to s u c c e s s f u l implementation P o o l e r , and S a l e s i ,  ( C a f f a r e l l a , C a f f a r e l l a , Hart,  1979; C o l l i n g w o o d , 1979; F u l l a n and Pomfret,  1977;  Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). In b r i e f , the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and comments about  and  c u r r i c u l u m implementation  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  a l t h o u g h sketchy suggest  that:  a)  the study r e q u i r e s a c o n c i s e p r i o r 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 i n n o v a t i o n ;  b)  the c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r ' s p e r c e p t i o n of an i n n o v a t i o n i s an important f a c t o r i n any implementation p r o c e s s ;  c)  the study r e q u i r e s a s y s t e m a t i c approach o r method i n a s s e s s i n g the implementation of the i n n o v a t i o n ;  d)  the study of the implementation p r o c e s s should be r e s t r i c t e d s m a l l e r u n i t such as the c l a s s r o o m .  I t appeared  generally  implementation  that: e f f e c t i v e  to a  curriculum  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  d e v e l o p e r s of an i n n o v a t i o n c o - a c t i v e l y 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 d e s c r i b i n g the i n n o v a t i o n d u r i n g the implementation p r o c e s s . c u r r e n t study the i n v e s t i g a t o r proposed  In the  that e f f e c t i v e curriculum  implementation depends l a r g e l y on the teachers' p e r c e p t i o n of 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 new c u r r i c u l u m , and t h a t these d e f i n i n g i n f l u e n c e the d e c i s i o n s t e a c h e r s make about The  t h e i r classroom  characteristics instructions.  study i n v o l v e d s y s t e m a t i c examination of p e r c e p t i o n s of d e v e l o p e r s  and t e a c h e r s of a new programme, and determined demonstrated implemented.  the d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s  i n t h e classrooms where the new programme was b e i n g .  24  Q-METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH IN EDUCATION  Introduction  Q-methodology to describe  i s a term f o r m u l a t e d by W i l l i a m  Stephenson  a s e t o f 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  p s y c h o m e t r i c i d e a s a p p l i e d t o 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 , 1 9 7 3 ) . Q-methodology employs r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s w h i c h 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 perceptions  of i n d i v i d u a l s .  t o measure a t t i t u d e 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 psychology, (Nunnally, 1970).  b e h a v i o u r and  c l i n i c a l p s y c h o l o g y and p s y c h i a t r y  The fundamental p r i n c i p l e i n Q-methodology  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 p e r s o n s  r a t h e r than between p e r s o n s .  .  A major component o f Q-methodology method o f r a n k - o r d e r i n g o b j e c t s s p e c i f i e d continuum.  i s that  (items,  i s Q-sort,  a  sophisticated  statements o r s t i m u l i ) along a  A s u b j e c t i s p r o v i d e d w i t h a deck o f 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 o f t h e system under s t u d y , and i s i n s t r u c t e d to sort  the cards i n t o several p i l e s o r c a t e g o r i e s along a predetermined  d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r m i n g a normal o r q u a s i - n o r m a l d i s t r i b u t i o n .  For instance  a r a n k - o r d e r continuum o f CDC t o CNDC d e s c r i b i n g a programme o r a c u r r i c u lum u s i n g s t a t e m e n t s w i t h v a r y i n g degrees o f c l a r i t y between t h e two extremes i s shown i n F i g u r e 1. ^ ^ ^  d  r  l  y  f i n i n  8  .  . |  characteristic 9 { L D L )  F i g u r e 1.  |  I  8  7  Frequency 9 12 9  7  6  3~~2  5  4  5  . Q-score R a n k - o r d e r continuum f o r 60 i t e m  3  f  c l e a r l y not defining  characteristic  (CNDC) Q-sort.  25  The numbers 3, 5, 7 ... 7, 5, 3 i n d i c a t e the number of c a r d s to be p l a c e d i n each c a t e g o r y .  The  c o r r e s p o n d i n g numbers below them o r below the  a r e the v a l u e s a s s i g n e d to each c a r d i n a c a t e g o r y . 3 c a r d s on the extreme l e f t ,  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 The  and  defining  subjects are u s u a l l y  to b e g i n s o r t i n g by p l a c i n g the c a r d s a t the :extreme_ends and  working t h e i r way s u b j e c t s may  i n t o the c e n t r e , the n e u t r a l zone, where some of the  have more d i f f i c u l t y  The  i n making d e c i s i o n s .  s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s which f o l l o w Q-sort are based  v a l u e s a s s i g n e d to each c a r d i n a c a t e g o r y . are l i s t e d  category  c a t e g o r y a r e a s s i g n e d 8,  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " c a t e g o r y a r e each a s s i g n e d 1. instructed  For example the  "clearly defining characteristics"  are each a s s i g n e d 9, the°5 c a r d s i n the next  line  i n Appendix A.  m a t r i x by c o r r e l a t i n g every person's The  The  card items f o r t h i s  to e s t a b l i s h an  (Appendix  G-2)  persons become v a r i a b l e s and  d e t a i l s of which a r e p r e s e n t e d  person's  o b t a i n e d i s sub-  s u b j e c t s a r e compared f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and  u s i n g v a r i o u s Q-techniques,  study  intercorrelation  s o r t of items w i t h every o t h e r  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n matrix  m i t t e d to f a c t o r a n a l y s i s wherein observations.  the  An i n d i v i d u a l ' s s o r t i n g forms a p r o f i l e which i s  then used w i t h a l l the o t h e r p r o f i l e s  s o r t of items.  The  on  items  are  differences  i n Chapter  4,  and d e t a i l e d r e s u l t s of Q - a n a l y s i s a r e a l s o d i s p l a y e d i n theoAppendix. The outcomes of Q - a n a l y s i s a r e u s u a l l y a)  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s u b j e c t s w i t h s i m i l a r p r o f i l e s known as " t y p e s "  or " f a m i l i e s " each w i t h a d i s t i n c t way b)  two-fold;  of  sorting.  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the n a t u r e of the v i e w p o i n t s of each type i n  terms of the range of items which they p e r c e i v e d to be CDC c u r r i c u l u m and  of the e s t a b l i s h e d c u r r i c u l u m .  of the  new  26  Q-methodology i n e d u c a t i o n  Q-methodology has been a p p l i e d s u c c e s s f u l l y to measure a t t i t u d e s , behaviours i t was  and p e r c e p t i o n s i n d i f f e r e n t f i e l d s of study  o r i g i n a l l y designed  student a t t i t u d e s .  in clinical  s o c i a l psychology  and  researchers  and p s y c h i a t r y (Nunnally,  (1973) c l a i m s t h a t Q-methodology i s u s e f u l and  s t u d i e s i n psychology  when  s i t u a t i o n s to measure  R e c e n t l y Q-methodology has been used by  i n c l i n i c a l psychology, Kerlinger  f o r use  s i n c e 1935  1970).  flexible for  education.  In e d u c a t i o n the methodology has been employed e f f e c t i v e l y study a t t i t u d e s ^ b e h a v i o u r and p e r c e p t i o n s Smith 1963, and  wheeler 1960,  B o l d t 1978) .  more honest  The  1961,  they r e a l l y f e e l  1974,  the i n v e s t i g a t o r wants them to  (Nunnally  1967,  Melton  Housego  respond  and Humphreys 1980).  i n p a r t i c u l a r encourages s u b j e c t s to make d i s c r i m i n a -  t i o n s they would not perhaps normally"make methodology was  Griffiths  1966,  than a q u e s t i o n n a i r e type of measure i n which  show more of how  s t r u c t u r e d Q-sort  Sontag 1968,  1958,  Q-techniques encompass Q-sort which a l l o w s f o r a  s u b j e c t response  the s u b j e c t s may than how  The  Klein  ( K e r l i n g e r , 1956,  to  ( K e r l i n g e r 1964). "Therefore  c o n s i d e r e d to be a p p r o p r i a t e f o r the f i r s t p a r t of  study which r e q u i r e d 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 s of s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of a c u r r i c u l u m based on d i s c r e t e  the  this  different  individual  profiles. In c u r r i c u l u m implementation  s t u d i e s teacher p e r c e p t i o n of an  i n n o v a t i o n or c u r r i c u l u m change i s among a number of c r u c i a l  factors  p o s t u l a t e d to have i n f l u e n c e on success or non-success of c u r r i c u l u m implementation  (Rogers and  F u l l a n and Pomfret, 1977;  Shoemaker; 1971,  Doyle and Ponder,  Hughes and K e i t h , 1980).  1977;  Sontag (1968)  conducted  a Q-sort s t u d y 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 teaching behaviours  u s i n g an 8 0 - i t e m 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 teaching behaviours.  He e f f e c t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d f o u r of the h i g h e s t v a l u e  f o r two o f the t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r f a c t o r s as f o l l o w s : Concerns f o r  students  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 t u d e n t s t o be s e n s i t i v e t o the needs of o t h e r s . Takes advantage o f s t u d e n t 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 c o n c e r n when c o n f r o n t e d w i t h p e r s o n a l problems of p u p i l s . S t r u c t u r e and s u b j e c t  matter  Presents 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 matter. Adheres t o r u l e s he s e t s .  subject  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 l a n c e 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 t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r 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 t o 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  behaviours. I n a n o t h e r study u s i n g Q-methodology Housego and B o l d t (1978) s t u d i e d t h e p r i o r i t i e s of t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r s as p e r c e i v e d by s t u d e n t teachers consensus  i n a s c h o o l - b a s e d t r a i n i n g programme. (70%) on the p r i o r i t i e s a s s i g n e d  student-teachers.  They found a c o n s i d e r a b l e  t o the items among the  The s t u d e n t s were t h e n grouped on the b a s i s of the  " t y p e s " w i t h w h i c h they most h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e . The r e s e a r c h e r s fully  i d e n t i f i e d and d e s c r i b e d t h r e e h y p o t h e t i c a l t y p e s .  success-  Of s i g n i f i -  c a n t i m p o r t a n c e i n t h i s s t u d y was the l a r g e number o f i t e m s on w h i c h a l l  28  types seemed to agree.  F u r t h e r examination  of these consensus  items  showed t h a t the s u b j e c t s gave top p r i o r i t y to t e a c h e r b e h a v i o u r s t e a c h i n g - l e a r n i n g c a t e g o r y w h i l e they put low p r i o r i t y on f a l l i n g on t h e : . s o c i e t a l dimension  Q-methodology ( G r i f f i t h s ,  Humphreys, 1980).  s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d to 1974;  MacDonald, 1976;  G r i f f i t h s a p p l i e d the Q-techniques  g o a l s of B r i t i s h Columbia Secondary School Chemistry specialists,  t e a c h e r s and  behaviours  of the o r g a n i z a t i o n c a t e g o r y .  In s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n v e r y few have u t i l i z e d  students.  The  study showed t h a t t e a c h e r s were  a l s o r e p o r t e d t h a t the s t u d e n t s ' v i e w p o i n t d i f f e r e d  Q - s o r t . t e s t s were employed to p r e d i c t  t h a t most of the t e a c h e r s ' and  by Melton and Humphreys  the academic achievement c r e d i t s and  (1980),  student academic achievement i n  i n B i o l o g y ( r = .71).  The  (Pearson product-moment) between  student s e l f - i m a g e as i n d i c a t e d by the Q-scores  (r = .83)  a".  s h o r t on  on measurement of student s e l f - i m a g e .  r e s u l t s indicated high c o r r e l a t i o n s  and  However, G r i f f i t h s  of the programme g o a l s .  In a r e c e n t study conducted  High School s c i e n c e based  that  from t h a t of the  the s p e c i a l i s t s ' v i e w p o i n t s are s i m i l a r , the study f a l l s measure of a c t u a l implementation  and  c o u r s e s among  they r e p o r t e d t h e i r d e d i c a t i o n to a c h i e v e those g o a l s .  Although he seems to suggest  Melton  to examine the  aware of the. g o a l s of the p r o v i n c i a l c h e m i s t r y programme and  teachers.  i n the  (independent v a r i a b l e s )  (dependent v a r i a b l e s ) i n Chemistry The  students were expected  to  p r o v i d e a p r o f i l e of s e l f - i m a g e (or p e r c e p t i o n of s e l f - i m a g e ) which has then c o r r e l a t e d w i t h academic achievements i n Chemistry  and B i o l o g y .  29  Melton and Humphreys concluded t h a t the Q-sort was a good p r e d i c t o r o f academic success or non-success.  In 'a'- somewhat s i m i l a r way but on a l a r g e r  s c a l e , the i n v e s t i g a t o r o f the c u r r e n t extensively  t o i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e  innovation.  the Q-techniques  the t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n  o f an  In the l a t t e r s e c t i o n o f the study the i n v e s t i g a t o r  systematically  t o determine any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e a c h e r  of an i n n o v a t i o n possible  study a p p l i e d  and t e a c h e r use o f the i n n o v a t i o n  f a c t o r s which might have i n f l u e n c e d  attempted  perception  and t o d i s c l o s e any  t e a c h e r use o r non-use o f 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 o f c u r r e n t  standing of curriculum by many c u r r i c u l u m field  a)  implementation p r o c e s s as w e l l as the acceptance  researchers that  t h e r e i s inadequate r e s e a r c h  t o p r o v i d e even a t e n t a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n o f the f i e l d .  studies  under-  a l s o i n d i c a t e areas which r e q u i r e  further  i n the  The reviewed  i n v e s t i g a t i o n such as  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 o f implementation s t r a t e g i e s f o r  successful  curriculum  innovation  and b) f a c t o r s which i n f l u e n c e  d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i n the use o f c u r r i c u l u m  materials.  teachers'  30  CHAPTER 3  METHODS OF THE  STUDY  Instruments  Introduction The methodology adopted procedure.  The f i r s t  f o r t h i s study r e q u i r e d a two-phase  phase employed the Q-methodology to determine  the  v i e w p o i n t s of the d e v e l o p e r s , t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and t e a c h e r - u s e r s i n terms of  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 a  c u r r i c u l u m 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 an curriculum.  The  new  established  second phase r e q u i r e d the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a c l a s s r o o m  a n a l y s i s i n s t r u m e n t , C.A.I., based on some of the r e s u l t s from the phase of the study.  T h i s C.A.I, was  first  then used to c o l l e c t c l a s s r o o m d a t a .  Q-Methodology  The  s s u b j e c t s 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 - s o r t s , the p r e l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t y i n Q-study. These Q-sort workshops were scheduled over a p e r i o d of t h r e e weeks, from January  19th to February 6 t h , 1981.  workshops which r a n from 4:00 o b t a i n e d was  statistically  - 5:30  Each s u b j e c t attended two of the p.m.  Monday to F r i d a y .  The Q-sort data  a n a l y s e d u s i n g a Q - a n a l y s i s computer programme.  31 S e l e c t i o n o f items f o r t h e Q - s o r t  The  items f o r t h e Q - s o r t were s e l e c t e d from a v a r i e t y o f s o u r c e s :  l i t e r a t u r e reviews c o n c e r n i n g s t u d i e s on g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s o f elementary s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n ; a n a l y s e s o f documents o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d s c i e n c e programme and t h e new elementary w i t h t h e d e v e l o p e r s o f t h e new programme. was t o i d e n t i f y statements  elementary  s c i e n c e programme; and i n t e r v i e w s The purpose  o f these  activities  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  r e s p e c t i v e programmes and t o a s c e r t a i n t h e e x p e c t e d  o f the  characteristic  b e h a v i o u r m a n i f e s t a t i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s where t h e new programme o r the e s t a b l i s h e d programme statements  i s i n use.  In the i n i t i a l  developments o f the  a F u l l a n type o f framework, "Components o f implementation",  ( F i g u r e 2) was d e s i g n e d t o ensure a comprehensive coverage o f t h e programmes' c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  A l a r g e number of statements  d e s c r i b i n g the  two programmes was gathered and p r e s e n t e d t o t h e d e v e l o p e r s o f t h e new programme, t h r e e graduate s t u d e n t s who were t e a c h e r s o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme and t o 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  s c r e e n i n g t o ensure t h a t the statements were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e characteristics  o f t h e programmes.  From a l a r g e p o o l o f items, t h e  d e v e l o p e r s o f t h e new programme d i s t i n g u i s h e d NESP c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and s e p a r a t e l y t h e t h r e e former Then from 80 i n i t i a l  t e a c h e r s i d e n t i f i e d t h e EESP c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  items 60 were s e l e c t e d and e d i t e d f o r c o n c i s e n e s s  and c l a r i t y , a v o i d i n g any changes i n meaning o f t h e items  (Appendix A ) .  Some o f t h e items a r e d i s t i n c t i v e o f one programme w h i l e o t h e r items a r e 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  Established  Elementary  S c i e n c e Programme  S c i e n c e Programme,  NESP  EESP  h-'  4>  VO  V  -C-  Ln \#  ho  O  \«  VO \»  Ln  Ln  •>  O  Ln Ln  Ln  ** Ln  \* ON  o  »# Ln  I—"  H-•  o  Ln  CO v*  u>  Ln  Ln LO <«  •C-  Ln  Ln  CO  N#  \#  *•  "  Ln ho  h-•  Ln  Ln Ln  h-'  Ln  Ln  o  Ln  O  VO  ON  "  o->  I—"  VO  Ln  ho  LO  oo  -  LO  o w d o !>  TI  00  4>  LO  Pel  GO  Ln  Ln  H  c i  CO  Ln  CO Q  ho  vo  O  CTURE/ IZATION  1—  1  LO <*  CO  < M  CO  o>  p—'  1—  ho  pgl  ho  ho  H M  1  CO  " CO  LO LO  »* LO Ln  LO  (—• »*  ho  S« M  E5 CO  ON  AC  hO ho  ho  ho LO  ho Ln  ho  1—I  <  1—I  r. o a  TE  ho  t—*  ES  H 25 I—l i H  LO  h-'  VO  -P-  **  I—  1  o>  CO  1—' LO \*  *d b  1—'  CO  Ln  CO CO  ho VO  LO  O <•  LO ho  H  £> M  GY  >—•  LO  H M  AC HI  4>  O  CE  **  *~  O  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 h a v i n g screened and e d i t e d the i t e m s , the f i n a l were p i l o t t e s t e d u s i n g the Q-methodology. a u t h o r i t i e s requested 6 teachers to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p i l o t  60 items  The s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  (4 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and 2  teacher-users)  study.  The i n v e s t i g a t o r a d m i n i s t e r e d the Q - s o r t s c e n t r e on two s e p a r a t e e v e n i n g s .  at the  teachers'  One e v e n i n g the t e a c h e r s  sorted  the  60 i t e m c a r d s f o r the new e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e programme (NESP) and on a n o t h e r e v e n i n g they s o r t e d the items f o r the e s t a b l i s h e d s c i e n c e programme ( E E S P ) .  elementary  The i n v e s t i g a t o r a n a l y s e d the Q-sort  u s i n g a computer Q - a n a l y s i s  data  programme.  The r e s u l t s o f the Q - a n a l y s i s  showed t h a t the s u b j e c 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 t o 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 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 of t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  I n b o t h programmes some t e a c h e r - u s e r s  v i e w p o i n t s t o those of the t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s i . e . type i n each programme.  The p i l o t r e s u l t s  they belonged t o the same  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 t o d e s c r i b e NESP and EESP by d i f f e r e n t distinctively.  On the b a s i s of t h e s e r e s u l t s  to make arrangements  had s i m i l a r  subjects  the i n v e s t i g a t o r  proceeded  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 s u b j e c t s f o r the  main s c u d y .  S e l e c t i o n of the s u b j e c t s  The m a j o r i t y of the s u b j e c 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 t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s of an urban s c h o o l 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 participate ers,  conducted.  i n the study.  11 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and  programme (NESP) which was The The  The  subjects i n i t i a l l y  11 t e a c h e r - u s e r s of the new then at the implementation  science  stage.  time, and  would not j e o p a r d i z e them i n any way.  s c h o o l s where these request  i n the  be sent to the t e a c h e r s  d e l i v e r e d to 24 s c h o o l s and  study.  maintained they  that t h e i r  The p r i n c i p a l s of  the  l e t t e r s were to be d e l i v e r e d a l s o r e c e i v e d  l e t t e r s i n f o r m i n g them about the study and  the r e q u e s t l e t t e r s which were  (see Appendix J ) .  These l e t t e r s were hand  38 t e a c h e r s . Of the 38 t e a c h e r s approached  30 t e a c h e r s i n 19 s c h o o l s e l e c t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the study. initial  develop-  i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d would be t r e a t e d as group d a t a ^ t h a t  withdrawal  to  elementary  the t e a c h e r s t h a t complete anonymity would be  would be f r e e to withdraw from the study at any  to  c o n s i s t e d of 5  t e a c h e r s 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  l e t t e r assured  that any  Some a d d i t i o n a l t e a c h e r s v o l u n t e e r e d  30 t e a c h e r s , 27 turned up f o r the f i r s t  23 completed the second workshop and  Of  the  Q-sort workshop s e s s i o n s ,  16 o f f e r e d l e s s o n s f o r a n a l y s i s .  Each p a r t i c i p a t i n g t e a c h e r was  expected  t o Q-sort 60 item c a r d s  twice i n order t o : 1.  d e s c r i b e the new  2.  d e s c r i b e the e s t a b l i s h e d programme, EESP.  The  t e a c h e r - u s e r s and  l e a s t two  elementary  programme, NESP,  t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s were a l s o requested s c i e n c e l e s s o n s f o r a n a l y s i s and  i n t e r v i e w l a s t i n g not more than 30 minutes. both Q - s o r t s , and  to o f f e r a t  attend a  follow-up  In a l l 23 s u b j e c t s completed  16 t e a c h e r s o f f e r e d s c i e n c e l e s s o n s f o r  examination.  35  The  The one  Q-sort  s e l e c t e d and e d i t e d 60 items were p r i n t e d on 2" x 4" c a r d s ,  item p e r c a r d .  Each s u b j e c t , t h e r e f o r e , had a deck of 60 cards t o  s o r t i n t o a s p e c i f i e d number o f p i l e s o r c a t e g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o a p r e s c r i b e d frequency  d i s t r i b u t i o n a l o n g the continuum of 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 the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. The  s u b j e c t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o s o r t the items  i n t o nine c a t e -  g o r i e s a c c o r d i n g t o how w e l l they p e r c e i v e d each item, compared to a l l the o t h e r items, to be 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 o f the new programme o r o f the e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  Each s u b j e c t had to s o r t the  items f o r each programme a l o n g the s p e c i f i e d continuum r a n g i n g 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 tics".  The predetermined  frequency  d i s t r i b u t i o n format  i s given i n  f i g u r e 3. The the f i r s t  60 item Q-sort was a d m i n i s t e r e d  to a l l the 27 s u b j e c t s i n  round o f the workshops f o r the new programme and repeated f o r  23 s u b j e c t s f o r the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. s o r t the items  Four s u b j e c t s d e c l i n e d to  f o r the e s t a b l i s h e d programme on the grounds t h a t they d i d  not r e c a l l the programme s u f f i c i e n t l y enough to c a r r y out the Q - s o r t . Each s u b j e c t was a d v i s e d f i r s t items  and foremost  i n the deck, then to proceed  t o read c a r e f u l l y through the  t o p l a c e the items  into three  piles : 1) 2) 3)  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 NESP o r EESP, M a r g i n a l 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 NESP o r EESP, C l e a r l y n o t 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 NESP o r EESP.  gross  36  The  s u b j e c t was f u r t h e r i n s t r u c t e d  to s u b d i v i d e the thr.ee p i l e s , working  from both extremes of t h e continuum towards the c e n t r e , to complete the r e q u i r e d d i s t r i b u t i o n of items The  respondents  (see Appendix C-2).  who s o r t e d the items  f o r both programmes had  v a r i e d ranges o f time l a p s e between one t o two weeks from the f i r s t i n g to the second s o r t i n g except  the d e v e l o p e r s who unanimously  among themselves to s o r t the items  sort-  agreed  f o r both programmes a t the same s i t t i n g  on the b a s i s t h a t even a f t e r a week t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o r v i e w p o i n t s  on the  programmes which they c l a i m e d t o know so w e l l would n o t change. The  Q-sort workshop s e s s i o n s were o r g a n i z e d f o r s m a l l groups of  s u b j e c t s i n a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n where the i n v e s t i g a t o r met the s u b j e c t s over a p e r i o d o f approximately Q-sort  f i v e weeks.  The r e s e a r c h e r conducted the  s e s s i o n s f o r most of the s u b j e c t s but i n some i n s t a n c e s two  s u b j e c t s , at separate own time and mailed volunteered  times, requested  i n the r e s u l t s .  to s o r t the second time i n t h e i r  In another  instance a subject  to a d m i n i s t e r the s o r t i n g f o r two o t h e r s u b j e c t s i n h i s  s c h o o l and a l s o m a i l e d  i n the r e s u l t s .  package f o r the Q-sort  i n c l u d e d a s o r t i n g mat w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s and  directions  i n order to f a c i l i t a t e  I t should be noted here  t h a t the  s e l f - s o r t i n g and r e c o r d i n g (see Appendix  C).  S c o r i n g scheme f o r the Q-sort  The  items  items  i n a c a t e g o r y were a s s i g n e d the c a t e g o r y v a l u e , and  the a s s i g n e d v a l u e f o r each item was r e c o r d e d on the Q-sort Record Sheet (see Appendix C - l ) . sheet  The i n d i v i d u a l s c o r e s were then compiled  (see Appendix D ) .  on a master  37  U s i n g a 9 - p o i n t s c a l e each s u b j e c t  s c o r e d 9 marks f o r the 3 items  p e r c e i v e d 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 NESP o r EESP, and 1 mark f o r items p e r c e i v e d 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 NESP o r EESP.  Each s u b j e c t  Sheet mentioned above. tics)  r e c o r d e d the s c o r e s on a s e p a r a t e Q-sort Record Items i n c a t e g o r y 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 -  each r e c e i v e d a s c o r e of 9 ; those i n c a t e g o r y 2 , a s c o r e o f 8 ; and  so on to items i n c a t e g o r y 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 ) w h i c h each i t e m r e c e i v e d a s c o r e of 1.  in  The i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s of the  p e r 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 f o r each programme were c o r r e l a t e d and a n a l y s e d 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-analysis  t e c h n i q u e s d e s c r i b e d i n the next s e c t i o n .  Evaluative criterion  Clearly defining characteristics  Marginally defining characteristics  C l e a r l y not defining characteristics  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  Figure 3 .  D e s i g n and s c o r i n g scheme f o r the Q-sort  38  Q-analysis  The  purpose o f t h e f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  points concerning the defining as  those o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d  entiate  was t o i d e n t i f y types o f view-  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the new programme as w e l l  programme.  The items which served to d i f f e r -  one v i e w p o i n t from another were i d e n t i f i e d  and d i s c u s s e d .  •  The  i n d i v i d u a l raw s c o r e s f o r the d e v e l o p e r s and the t e a c h e r s  were o r g a n i z e d i n t o an i t e m X s u b j e c t d a t a m a t r i x where the columns a r e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f Q - s c o r e s f o r b o t h programmes i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s of perceived defining or t h e e s t a b l i s h e d other subjects'  programme  profile  and  f o r each s u b j e c t were c o r r e l a t e d  on t h e b a s i s  Three f a c t o r s  i n each  g r e a t e r ease o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  However, i n t h i s case the r o t a t e d  (sea Tables  t o the  o f the  f a c t o r m a t r i x d i d not  The f a c t o r  analysis. the p a t t e r n o f s o r t i n g o f  l o a d i n g s were taken as a measure o f  each person's o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s o f each o f the h y p o t h e t i c a l factors  roots  f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes, t h e r e f o r e the  Each f a c t o r was seen t o c o r r e s p o n d t o person.  resultant  o f t h e magnitude o f the l a t e n t  u n r o t a t e d f a c t o r m a t r i x d a t a was used f o r f u r t h e r  a hypothetical  The  and the p r i n c i p a l f a c t o r s were r o t a t e d  varimax c r i t e r i o n f o r p o s s i b l e  produce a s i m p l e r s t r u c t u r e  The  w i t h every  t o form an i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x .  the number o f s u b j e c t s ,  factor matrix.  D).  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the new  i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x was f a c t o r a n a l y s e d . programme were s e l e c t e d  (see Appendix  1,2). The h i g h e r the person's l o a d i n g  types o r  on a f a c t o r the  g r e a t e r t h e 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 h y p o t h e t i c a l of person t h e f a c t o r r e p r e s e n t e d .  Ideally  individuals  type  should be grouped  a c c o r d i n g to< t h e f a c t o r on which they had the h i g h e s t f a c t o r  loading.  T h i s would then a l l o w each s u b j e c t t o be p l a c e d w i t h the h y p o t h e t i c a l  type  39  of  person the s u b j e c t most c l o s e l y resembled.  However, i n t h i s study the  s u b j e c t s were spread over seven a n d ; s i x f a c t o r s f o r the new programme and the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  r e s p e c t i v e l y , and i n each case the s u b j e c t s  were c l u s t e r e d h e a v i l y on the f i r s t  three f a c t o r s .  t h r e e of the s u b j e c t s i n each programme t h r e e f a c t o r s o l u t i o n s was chosen factor.  T h e r e f o r e , f o r two or  the h i g h e s t f a c t o r i n the f i r s t  to r e p r e s e n t t h e i r h y p o t h e t i c a l type or  The s u b j e c t s c o r r e l a t i n g most h i g h l y w i t h each f a c t o r thus  s i s t e d o f a unique  group of s i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h a d i s t i n c t i v e  The h y p o t h e t i c a l s o r t f o r each f a c t o r o r type was then  CNDC of each programme.  viewpoint.  determined  and f u r t h e r a n a l y s e d t o e s t a b l i s h a h i e r a r c h y o f item acceptance to  conr  from  CDC  The h y p o t e h t i c a l s o r t s f o r each type were then  a r r a y e d i n t o items ordered i n terms o f t h e i r z-scores i n o r d e r to compare the d i f f e r e n t  types.  The s u b j e c t s used  f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the f a c t o r  a r r a y s were those who had a l o a d i n g 0.37 o r g r e a t e r and those who had relatively  low l o a d i n g on, the o t h e r  factors.  A f t e r s e t t i n g the d i f f e r e n t  t y p e s , the items which the types  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 above) 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  (z-scores +0.8  and  ( z - s c o r e s - 0.8 and above  h i g h n e g a t i v e ) of each programme were s e l e c t e d 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 o t h e r t y p e s .  D i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s  between the types were examined by c o n s i d e r i n g each i t e m a c r o s s a l l types i n each  programme. Consensus items were a l s o i d e n t i f i e d by examining  a c r o s s a l l types f o r each item i n each programme.  the z-scores  If a difference  between the l a r g e s t and the s m a l l e s t z-score g i v e n to an item was than 1.00, the item was then s e l e c t e d as a consensus the z-scores f o r each  s e l e c t e d consensus  item.  item were averaged  Then across  less  40  types and  the r e s u l t a n t average  to s i z e and  z - s c o r e s arranged i n rank o r d e r a c c o r d i n g  i n o r d e r o f p r i o r i t y among a l l the t h r e e types i n each  programme. The r e s u l t s o f these Q-analyses  are p r e s e n t e d i n the next  chapter.  Classroom a n a l y s i s  instrument  Introduction The  f u n c t i o n of the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s instrument was  the presence or absence of 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 and the e s t a b l i s h e d programme i n c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e .  The  to  determine  programme  three-component  d e s i g n of the instrument ensured a comprehensive i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o sources and n a t u r e of the c l a s s r o o m s c i e n c e a c t i v i t i e s .  The  the  classroom  o b s e r v a t i o n s supplemented by the i n t e r v i e w s p e r m i t t e d not o n l y the examinat i o n o f the presence  or absence o f the s e l e c t e d items but a l s o  c o u n t e r p a r t s which a c t e d as r e f e r e n c e s . instrument was  second component o f the  the c h e c k l i s t which embraced items t h a t had been broken  down i n t o s m a l l u n i t s f o r examination. s e l e c t e d items was h i g h frequency  The  determined  The presence or absence of the  by the frequency of the s m a l l u n i t s .  i n s m a l l u n i t s f o r an item m a n i f e s t e d the presence  t h a t item.  C o n v e r s e l y , a low frequency r e c o r d i n g denoted  t h a t item.  The  The  A of  the absence of  t h i r d component of the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s instrument,  i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e , was suggested.  their  l e s s s t r u c t u r e d i n p r a c t i c e than the  taped i n t e r v i e w s , though g e n e r a l l y focused on  q u e s t i o n s , were f l e x i b l e enough to address d u r i n g the c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n s .  the  system scheduled  some c u r r e n t i s s u e s t h a t  arose  41  the  S e l e c t i o n o f the items f o r Classroom A n a l y s i s Instrument, C.A.I.  Items w i t h the h i g h e s t  z-scores  (+0.8 and above f o r each p r o -  gramme which the types c o n s i d e r e d t o 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 Appendix G - l ) .  i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n  These items which the d i f f e r e n t types p e r 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 the new programme were n o t a l l n e c e s s a r i l y the  programmes.  perceived originally  of the instrument (see  o r the e s t a b l i s h e d  the items o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d  Therefore, only  to be programme  to characterize  those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which the types  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 o f the programmes and a l s o selected  The  to c h a r a c t e r i z e  the programmes were u t i l i z e d .  f i r s t d r a f t copy of the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s  instrument was  submitted t o the d i s s e r t a t i o n committee members f o r s c r u t i n y , and then a d j u s t e d on recommendations from the committee b e f o r e the instrument was field  tested.  The f i e l d  three d i f f e r e n t classes was unnecessary to c a r r y  t e s t s with three d i f f e r e n t s c i e n c e showed such a h i g h c o n s i s t e n c y further tests rather  lessons i n  i n r a t i n g that i t  than t o embark on the a c t u a l  data c o l l e c t i o n .  Content  The  items s e l e c t e d  validity  f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n  o f the c l a s s r o o m  instrument c o r r e s p o n d to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the s u b j e c t s 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. of some items were not i n c l u d e d  analysis  selected  The n e g a t i v e c o u n t e r p a r t s  i n the i n s t r u m e n t , f o r i n s t a n c e  these items  42  11. 12. 45. 46. The  Provides Does not Requires Does not  supply and equipment r e a d i l y . p r o v i d e supply and equipment r e a d i l y . c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s . r e q u i r e c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s .  items were e v a l u a t e d by t h r e e judges who a r e s p e c i a l i s t s  s c i e n c e a t the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l .  i n elementary  The judges were requested t o r a t e the  instrument on a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e based  on the f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i o n :  How s u i t a b l e the instrument was f o r the a n a l y s i s of elementary s c i e n c e a c t i v i t i e s . The  judges h i g h l y r a t e d CAI ( 4 ,  5,  5)  as b e i n g s u i t a b l e f o r s c i e n c e l e s s o n  analysis.  Reliability  A second  " o b s e r v e r " was t r a i n e d through  g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the new programme  i n d i v i d u a l study o f the  (structure, goals, objectives,  t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s and m a t e r i a l s ) and a l s o the g e n e r a l 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 through  classroom e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the  instrument. The  second  " o b s e r v e r " was p r o v i d e d w i t h comparative  and  d e s c r i p t i v e documents o f the two programmes i n order to a c q u a i n t h i m s e l f w i t h the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between the new programme and the e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  The i n v e s t i g a t o r and the second  "observer"  spent  about one hour studying- the c o n t e n t s o f the instrument b e f o r e the second " o b s e r v e r " used and  the second  different  the instrument  i n a classroom s i t u a t i o n .  The i n v e s t i g a t o r  "observer" simultaneously analysed three lessons i n three  schools.  The a n a l y s e s were compared f o r agreement u s i n g a  s i m i l a r formula as i n Tamir's  (1977)  study;  43  P  =  number of agreements  n  X number o f agreements  n  1 Uu  disagreements  where  P e q u a l s percentage o f agreement.  Lesson 1  Items of agreement 17 Items of disagreement 4 %age o f agreement = 1_7 x 100 = 80.95 21  Lesson 2  Items of agreement 15 Items of disagreement 6 %age of agreement = L5 x 100 = 21  Lesson 3  71.43  Items of agreement 17 Items of disagreement 4 %age of agreement = _17 x 100 = 80.95 21  The average percentage o f agreement between the i n v e s t i g a t o r and the second " o b s e r v e r " 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 s i g n e d consent forms, the i n v e s t i g a t o r c o n t a c t e d the  t e a c h e r s 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 s c h o o l s or by  telephone to schedule an o b s e r v a t i o n and i n t e r v i e w time. for  these v i s i t s  was  respective schools.  The  timetable  arranged t o the convenience of the t e a c h e r s and Such an i n d i v i d u a l i z e d  schedule n e c e s s i t a t e d a long  p e r i o d f o r the s c h o o l v i s i t s between A p r i l and June, 1981.  In a l l 16  t e a c h e r s p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the a n a l y s i s of c l a s s r o o m s c i e n c e  activities.  Each t e a c h e r o f f e r e d a t l e a s t two l a s t i n g about 30 minutes.  The  s c i e n c e l e s s o n s and a s h o r t  were conducted e i t h e r d u r i n g the lunch-break or a f t e r  of  interview  i n t e r v i e w s , : which were'tape-recorded;  Each s c i e n c e l e s s o n was  their  school.  a n a l y s e d f o r the presence or  the 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 of the new  absence  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 l e s s o n a n a l y s e s wasetoo  r e c 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 p e r c e i v e d 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 and  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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  clearly  The purpose of the  o b s e r v a t i o n s c h e d u l e , one of the t h r e e components of the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s i n s t r u m e n t , was  t o d e p i c t the types of l e s s o n s t r a t e g i e s b e i n g employed,  the use o f ..materials, and the n a t u r e of t e a c h e r - s t u d e n t 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 i s s u e s as: Was  the resource.book  what e x t e n t and how was was.  f o r the new programme i n use?  i t b e i n g used?  The t h i r d component, the i n t e r v i e w ,  geared towards t h e assessment o f t h e t e a c h e r s ' v i e w o f t h e  programme and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  I f so, t o  new  Then through the i n t e r v i e w s an attempt  was  made t o d i s c l o s e any p o s s i b l e 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 success or nonsuccess of t h e new  elementary s c i e n c e programme.  Classroom d a t a a n a l y s i s  The c l a s s r o o m d a t a was  examined t o determine whether o r 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 " p e r 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 any t y p e s .  Through weighted  trans-  f o r m a t i o n s s t a n d a r d i z e d means were o b t a i n e d t o determine the programme b e i n g implemented and the type o r v i e w p o i n t demonstrated  i n the c l a s s r o o m s .  The d e t e r m i n a t i o n i n v o l v e d the e x a m i n a t i o n of any c o n g r u e n c i e s between a minimum number of weighted  i t e m s , "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and " p e r 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 any types o f v i e w p o i n t s . 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 t o t a l 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 of NESP or EESP and any types was then determined. c l a s s i f i e d as an implementer  characteristics  The teacher was then  or non-implementer of NESP or EESP according  to the minimum number of weighted items.  The viewpoints demonstrated i n  the classrooms were determined using a similar procedure.  The classroom  data were tabulated using the formata i n figures- 4 and 5 below:  Sub-  "Observed" characteristics  1  Total  Total common  Total Item distinctive wt. characteristics  Weighted Items  EESP  EESP  NESP  2 3  Figure 4f .  "Observed" defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP per subject.  NESP  46  Sub  "Observed" characteristics  F i g u r e 5.  Total  Item wt.  "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s types or v i e w p o i n t s  The r e s u l t s  Perceived defining jjype Type A  of NESP or EESP s y m b o l i z i n g any  and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s  are p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter 5.  characteristics B Type C  of the c l a s s r o o m d a t a  analysis  47  CHAPTER 4  THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE Q-ANALYSIS  Introduction  This chapter presents the results and interpretation of the Qanalysis with a detailed description of the types or viewpoints according to the subjects represented and the pattern of sorting i n each programme. The types or viewpoints are compared f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n their perceptions of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each programme. The results w i l l explicate the subproblems of STEP 2, STEP 3 and STEP 4 i n the statement of the s p e c i f i c problems outlined i n 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 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  implementors 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 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 e s t i m a t e d by the a p p l i c a t i o n of the v a r i o u s t e c h n i q u e s o f 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  Correlation matrix 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 ' o f t h e 27 s u b j e c t s i n the m a t r i x f o r the new programme ranged from - 0 . 5 5 t o 0 . 6 7 .  The range  f o r the 23 s u b j e c t s i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme was from - 0 . 5 5 t o 0 . 5 5 . The complete m a t r i x f o r each programme i s p r e s e n t e d 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 t o what e x t e n t the p r o f i l e s of t h e d i f f e r e n t s u b j e c t s had s i m i l a r shapes.  A c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n 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 o n l y 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 t h a t were  p e r c e i v e d t o be d e s c r i p t i v e of e i t h e r programme.  Factor s o l u t i o n In using a s t a t i s t i c a l c r i t e r i o n , (see A p p e n d i x F ) .  the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s y i e l d e d  However, a p p l y i n g t h e u t i l i t y c r i t e r i o n r e d u c e d t h e  f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e i n each programme t o t h r e e f a c t o r s . s o l u t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 1 and 2 b e l o w . F3 r e p r e s e n t s  The t h r e e  Each f a c t o r F I , F 2 , and  a group o f s u b j e c 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 .  f a c t o r thus represents  factor  Each  a h y p o t h e t i c a l t y p e o f p e r s o n whose v i e w p o i n t i s  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t h e p a t t e r n o f s o r t i n g .  Each o f t h e 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 t h e degree t o which t h e s u b j e c t s ' associated w i t h the three viewpoints or  factors.  s o r t i n g o f t h e items  is  49  Table The the  1  f a c t o r m a t r i x s t r u c t u r e f o r the t h r e e f a c t o r s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to t h r e e l a r g e s t v a l u e s of the l a t e n t r o o t s f o r the new programme  Subject No.  Fl  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  6  0.55  0.39  0.09  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  15  0.80  0.01  -0.12  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  25  -0.33  0.27  0.25  26  0.71  0.31  0.20  27  0.48  0.71  0.00  Significant  loadings  (0.37  TeacherUsers  TeacherWriters  Developers  or g r e a t e r ) a r e u n d e r l i n e d  50  Table 2 The f a c t o r m a t r i x s t r u c t u r e f o r the t h r e e f a c t o r s c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the t h r e e l a r g e s t v a l u e s of the l a t e n t r o o t s f o r the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  Subject No.  FI  F2  F3  1  -0.48  0.59  2  0.36  0.43  3  -0.77 ,  4  0.25  5  -0.21 ;  -0.21  0.34 0.10  0.39 '  0.00  -0.07  0.24  0.58  6  -0.52  0.14  0.59  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  19  0.59  0.42  -0.06  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  27  0.15  0.43  -0.41  Significant  loadings  (0.39  TeacherUsers  TeacherWriters  Developers  or g r e a t e r ) are u n d e r l i n e d  51  The be c o n s i d e r e d  factor  l o a d i n g s i n each o f the f a c t o r  solutions  above w i l l  as the c o r r e l a t i o n o f each person w i t h each o f the t h r e e  types F l , F2 and F3 i n T a b l e s  1 and 2.  Subjects r e p r e s e n t i n g each type i n each programme The  subjects belonging  t o each type and i n each programme were  c l a s s i f i e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e f a c t o r w i t h which they were most h i g h l y correlated. three f a c t o r s  The types were i d e n t i f i e d as A, B and C c o r r e s p o n d i n g F l , F2 and F3 as i n the above f a c t o r  Subjects belonging  solutions.  t o the t h r e e d i f f e r e n t types  programme were i d e n t i f i e d by number and group  Factor  arrays  t y p e s , f a c t o r a r r a y s f o r each type a c c o r d i n g t o the u s u a l Q-techniques to z - s c o r e s .  scores  (Stephenson, 1953 p. 174) and the f a c t o r a r r a y s f o r each  The s i g n i f i c a n t items w i t h h i g h e s t p o s i t i v e z-  (0.8 and above) and items w i t h h i g h e s t n e g a t i v e  above-negative d i r e c t i o n ) The were a l s o  z-scores  rank ordered  Appendix F ) .  o f the d i f f e r e n t  i n each programme were c o n s t r u c t e d  Tables 5 and 6 p r o v i d e  type and each programme.  i n each  (See T a b l e s 3 and 4) .  For the purpose of comparison and d e s c r i p t i o n  converted  t o the  z-scores  (-0.8 and  i n each f a c t o r a r r a y have been u n d e r l i n e d .  i n each a r r a y F l , F2 and F3 f o r each programme a c c o r d i n g t o s i z e and d i r e c t i o n  The items were ranked i n descending  a c c o r d i n g to item acceptance by the t h r e e types items p e r c e i v e d t o be c l e a r l y d e f i n i n g to be c l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g  (+, -) (see  o r d e r o f z-score  i n each c a s e , r a n g i n g  characteristics  to items  from  perceived  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the two programmes.  52  Table 3 S u b j e c t s b e l o n g i n g t o the t h r e e 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  3  27  D  __8  TU  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  TU = Teacher-users  o f the new programme  TW = T e a c h e r - w r i t e r s o f t e a c h i n g u n i t s f o r the new programme D  = Developers  o f the new programme.  3  53  Table 4 S u b j e c t s b e l o n g i n g t o 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 e s t a b l i s h e d s c i e n c e programme  TYPES A  B  C  3  1  5  7  TU  2  __8  __4  16  12  17  15  18  TW  19  TU  6  TU  __9 TW  22 27  D  20 21 23 24  D  25 26 Total  13  L e t t e r s A, B and C correspond  7  3  to the f a c t o r s F I , F2 and F3 i n T a b l e s 1 and 2  S u b j e c t s above the d o t t e d l i n e a r e t e a c h e r - u s e r s , s u b j e c t s above the s o l i d l i n e a r e t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and s u b j e c t s below the s o l i d l i n e a r e the d e v e l o p e r s of the new elementary s c i e n c e programme (NESP)  54  Table 5 NESP: F a c t o r a r r a y of item  Z-scores  ITEM  FI  F2  1. Emphasizes.content 'and p r o c e s s e s ;of 'science  0.23  -0 .92  2, Emphasizes;.processes  0 .17  1 .45  :  of s c i e n c e ;  F3 -0 .49 -0.38  3. P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use'  2 .09.  -0 .20  -1 .72  4. P r o v i d e s o r g a n i z e d way. of t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e  1 .88  -0 .22  -1.86  5. P r o v i d e s f o r needs and  0 .12  0.46  0 .13  6. Encourages a d a p t i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r age-groups  0 .35  0 .52  -0 .12  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 e n c e  1 .04  -0 .33  -0 .04  -2 .03  -0 .51  0 .93  1 .42  -1 .48  -1 .30  -0 .06  -1 .35  -1 .85  readily  0 .23  0 .08  2 .16  equipment  -1 .95  -0 .69  -0 .91  13. P r o v i d e s time f o r c h i l d r e n to i n v e s t i g a t e  -0 .04  1 .09  0 .56  14. Encourages t e a c h e r s to d e c i d e  -0 .83  -0 .24  -0 .62  0 .91  1 .18  -0 .51  -1 .49  -1 .31  0 .11  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  18. 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  0 .81  -0 .20  0 .12  -1 .19  -1 .12  -1 .35  20, P r o v i d e 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  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  22. Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s  0 .02  0 .14  0 .43  23. P r o v i d e 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 .65  0 .70  -0 .12  -1 .81  -0 .48  0 .44  25. P r o v i d e s students w i t h m a t e r i a l s f o r experiments  0 .45  0 .60  1 .29  26. Encourages students to c o l l e c t m a t e r i a l s  0 .64  1 .24  -0 .93  27. P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r d e v e l o p i n g  0 .80  -0 .38  1 .59  0 .37  -0 .11  1 .48  -0 .80  -1 .15  1 .43  0 .43  1 .12  -0 .13  i n t e r e s t s . o f age-groups  8. P r o v i d e s minimal d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e 9. Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c 10. Contains  science  concepts  independent u n i t s  11. P r o v i d e s supply and  equipment  12. Does not p r o v i d e supply and  content  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 t e a c h e r s  to i n t e r p r e t  19. P r o v i d e s u n i t s s e l e c t e d by the  24. P r o v i d e s l i t t l e  results  concepts  developers  opportunity f o r problem-solving  28. P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r s p e c i f i c 29. Encourages demonstration  concepts  science  to r e i n f o r c e  30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate concepts  concepts  concepts  -0.25  different  55  Table 5  (Continued)  ITEM 31. P r o v i d e s o p t i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c  science  concepts  Fl  F2  F3  1 .49  0 .29  0.42  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 concepts  -0 .75  0 .54  -1.13  33. Encourages t e a c h e r s t o develop m a t e r i a l s  -0 .53  0 .73  -0.61  34. Does not encourage t e a c h e r s t o develop m a t e r i a l s  -1 .67  -0 .78  1.30  35. Encourages t e a c h e r s t o r e l y on program m a t e r i a l s  -1 .45  -0 .97  0.06  36. Encourages use o f l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l s  -0 .13  0 .19  37. Encourages t e a c h e r s to m a i n t a i n  -0 .26  -1 .77  control  38. Encourages t e a c h e r s to be f a c i l i t a t o r s 39. P r o v i d e s students w i t h s p e c i f i c  instructions  -0.49 0.41  1 .36  -0 .35  -0 .39  -1 .21  1.16  -1.11  40. Encourages c h i l d r e n ' s experiments  -1 .17  1.46  0.13  41. Requires  t e a c h e r s t o complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s  -1 .37  -1 .93  2.03  42. Requires  t e a c h e r s t o work a t c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e  -0 .68  0 .65  1.29  -1 .28  0 .21  -1 .50  -2 .10  1.74  -1 .10  -0 .75.  1.43  -1 .24  0 .02  43. Discourages  s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary  44. Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary 45. Requires  cooperation  Saves teachers' p r e p a r a t i o n  48. Requires  science  c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s  46. Does n o t r e q u i r e t e a c h e r 47.  science  time  a l o t of preparation  time  -1.86  -2.10  0.66  -0 .71  -1.11  -1 .68  -1 .29  -0.04  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 situations  0 .26  1 .67  50. Encourages students t o d i s c r i m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n  0 .35  0 .16  0.13  51. Encourages students  0 .24  -0 .45  0.43  52. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be r e s o u r c e f u l  0 .35  0 .83  0.07  53. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be c r e a t i v e  0 .12  1.53  54. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be i m a g i n a t i v e  0 .24  1 .87  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  0 .66  -0 .12  -0.05  57. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o show i n i t i a t i v e  0 .74  1 .53  -0.00  58.  1 .59  1 .44  0.05  0 .95  0 .25  0.05  0 .92  0 .90  to search f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s  information  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 t o f o r m u l a t e  conclusions  60. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e  about  results  -0.11  -0.00 1.17  -0.81  (The items a r e g i v e n i n a b b r e v i a t e d form - see Appendix A f o r complete statements). U n d e r l i n e d item z - s c o r e s a r e 0.8 and above o r -0.8 and above i n n e g a t i v e direction.  56  Table 6 EESP: F a c t o r a r r a y of item  Z-scores  ITEMS  F2  F3  -1 .14  0.83  0 .76  0 .11  0.53  0 .14  3. P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use  -0 .45  1.21  2.00  4. P r o v i d e s o r g a n i z e d way  of t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e  -1 .20  -0.63  1 .69  5. P r o v i d e s f o r needs and  i n t e r e s t s of age-groups  1 .13  -0.80  0 .76  -0 .74  -0.94  -0 .79  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 e n c e  -1 .45  -0.73  0 .92  8. P r o v i d e s minimal d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e  -0 .91  1.74  -2 .17  1 .29  0.30  0 .60  0 .67  2.25  1 .37  -0 .28  -1.36  -0 .93  -1 .14  1.14  -0 .47  0 .53  0.63  -0 .01  -0 .07  0.26  -1 .24  -0 .06  0.34  0 .92  0 .11  -0.05  -0 .94  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  18. 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  1 .00  -0.53  1 .69  0 .62  1.79  -1 .71  -0.30  -0.89  0 .28  1 .62  -1.41  0 .15  -0 .27.  -0.39  -0 .01  0 .59  -0.13  0 .13  -1 .99  -0.35  -1 .24  25. P r o v i d e s c h i l d r e n w i t h m a t e r i a l s f o r 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 m a t e r i a l s  -0 .05  0.12  0.45  0 .62  0.41  0 .63  0.69  0 .47  2 .18  -0.06  -1 .10  0 .38  -0.14  0.45  0 .54  -0.25  1 .70  FI  1. Emphasizes c o n t e n t and p r o c e s s e s 2. Emphasizes p r o c e s s e s  of s c i e n c e  of s c i e n c e  .6. Encourages a d a p t i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r age-groups  9. Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c 10. Contains  science  concepts  independent s c i e n c e u n i t s  11. P r o v i d e s supply and  equipment  12. Does not p r o v i d e supply and  readily  equipment  readily  13. P r o v i d e s time f o r c h i l d r e n to i n v e s t i g a t e 14. Encourages t e a c h e r s to d e c i d e  content  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 t e a c h e r s to i n t e r p r e t  19. P r o v i d e s u n i t s s e l e c t e d by the  results  concepts  developers  20. P r o v i d e 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 21. Encourages c h i l d r e n to demonstrate r e s u l t s 22. Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s 23. P r o v i d e 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 24. P r o v i d e s l i t t l e  opportunity f o r problem-solving  27. P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r d e v e l o p i n g  concepts  28. P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e 29. Encourages demonstrations  to r e i n f o r c e  30. Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e concepts 31. P r o v i d e s o p t i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c  concepts concepts  -0.06  different  science  concepts  57  Table 6'  (Continued) ITEMS  32.  Fl  Provides options f o r u n s p e c i f i e d science  33. Encourages teachers  to develop  F3  concepts -0 .40  -0 .16  0 .48  1 .21  -1.10  -1 .08  -0 .16  -1.40  1 .89  0.92  materials  34. Does not encourage development o f m a t e r i a l s 35. Encourages t e a c h e r s  F2  t o r e l y on program m a t e r i a l s  0 .23  -1.39  36. Encourages use o f l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l s  -2.02  0 .85  -0.47  37. Encourages t e a c h e r s  to m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l  -1 .15  0 .71  -0.15  38. Encourages t e a c h e r s  t o be f a c i l i t a t o r s  2 .34  0 .57  1.22  -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  t o complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s  -1 .11  -1 .56  -1.23  42. Requires  teachers  to work a t c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e  1 .00  -0 .34  -0.93  s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e  -1 .44  0 .91  39. P r o v i d e s  students w i t h s p e c i f i c  43. Discourages 44.  instructions  Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e  45. Requires  c o o p e r a t i o n among  teachers  46. Does not r e q u i r e c o o p e r a t i o n among 47.  teachers  Saves t e a c h e r s ' p r e p a r a t i o n time  48. Requires  a l o t o f p r e p a r a t i o n time  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  1.41  -0 .39  -0 .34  -0.15  -0 .76  -0 .25  -2.32  -0 .15  -0 .44  -0.49  -0 .70  -2 .03  -0.01  -0 .61  2 .37  -0.94  -1 .08  -1 .55  0.45  50. Encourages students  to discrimate information  0 .13  -0 .73  -0.15  51. Encourages students  to s e a r c h f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s  0 .26  -0 .02  0.61  0 .22  -0 .86  -0.31  -0.42  -1 .76  -0.31  0 .16  -1 .76  -0.16  55. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o 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 t o c l a s s i f y  0 .13  -0 .19  0.77  -1 .41  -1 .41  -0.01  1 .77  -0 .37  1.38  1 .45  0 .62  0.91  1 .47  -0 .07  1.22  52. Teaches c h i l d r e n to be r e s o u r c e f u l 53. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be c r e a t i v e 54.  Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be i m a g i n a t i v e  57. Encourages c h i l d r e n to show 58.  information initiative  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 t o formulate  conclusions  60. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e  about  results  (The items a r e g i v e n i n a b b r e v i a t e d form - see Appendix A .for complete statements). U n d e r l i n e d item z-scores a r e 0.8 and above o r -0.8 and above i n n e g a t i v e direction.  58  The  items rank-ordered  w i t h a r r a y s i n g-scores were used w i t h every o t h e r v i e w p o i n t  a c c o r d i n g to s i z e and d i r e c t i o n , and to d e s c r i b e and compare one v i e w p o i n t  i n each programme.  The r e s u l t s of the d e s c r i p -  t i o n s and comparisons i n terms of s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s are presented  i n the next  s e c t i o n , STEP 3 of the study c o v e r i n g subproblems  3 and 4.  STEP 3.  DESCRIPTION AND COMPARISON OF VIEWPOINTS  Subproblem 3. different  What a r e the s i m i l a r i t i e s  i n v i e w p o i n t s between the  t y p e s , d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s , i n terms o f what they  p e r c e i v e 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 curriculum? Subproblem 4. different  What a r e the s i m i l a r i t i e s  i n v i e w p o i n t s between the  t y p e s , i n terms of what they p e r c e i v e to be:,  a)  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 c u r r i c u l u m ,  b)  the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s common to both  c)  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which do not belong to e i t h e r  curricula, curriculum?  D e s c r i p t i o n and comparison of the t h r e e types i n each  programme  For the purpose of d e s c r i b i n g and comparing the t h r e e types i n each programme  i n terms of 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 programmes, items w i t h the h i g h e s t p o s i t i v e (0.8 and above) and items w i t h the h i g h e s t n e g a t i v e z-scores  z-scores  (-0.8 and  above i n the n e g a t i v e d i r e c t i o n ) i n each a r r a y were s e l e c t e d to symbolize each v i e w p o i n t .  The items  s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to t h i s c r i t e r i o n a r e  59  r e f e r r e d t o 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 , CDC and c l e a r l y n o t d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , CNDC.  A complete l i s t  o f rank-ordered  items  a c c o r d i n g t o the types i n each programme and i n terms of what each type p e r c e i v e d t o be CDC and CNDC o f the programmes i s p r e s e n t e d and  12.  i n Tables 7  The main s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e types o r view-  p o i n t s i n NESP a r e g i v e n i n T a b l e s 7, 8 and  9, and d i s c u s s e d i n the next  section.  Similarities  i n v i e w p o i n t s between .  .: -_ .  the t h r e e types i n the new programme  In a c l o s e r examination  o f t h e subjects' p e r c e p t i o n s o f 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 t h e new s c i e n c e programme t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the s u b j e c t s was skewed towards Type A v i e w p o i n t .  T a b l e 7 shows t h e  d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the d e v e l o p e r s , t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and t e a c h e r - u s e r s i n Types A, B and C. Type A v i e w p o i n t was the most populous  (77.8%) c o m p r i s i n g 9  t e a c h e r - u s e r s , 8 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and 4 d e v e l o p e r s .  The v i e w p o i n t i s  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by these items t h e s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t o be CDC o f NESPj 4.  P r o v i d e s o r g a n i z e d way of t e a c h i n g elementary s c i e n c e .  7.  Provides d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching science.  9.  Provides u n i t s 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 t i c s o f the.new programme. organization.  s e l e c t e d as d i s t i n c t i v e  characteris-  The items d e s c r i b e the programme s t r u c t u r e o r  The s u b j e c t s a l s o c o n s i d e r e d some o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  (58, 59 and 60) i n t h e programme goals and o b j e c t i v e s c a t e g o r y t o be CDC of NESP though they were i n i t i a l l y  s e l e c t e d common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP  60  and EESP.  However, some items which the s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d 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 a l s o s e l e c t e d 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 o f t h e new programme  (see Table 7 ) .  Type A  v i e w p o i n t i s a l s o a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the e s t a b l i s h e d programme which they p e r c e i v e d t o be CNDC of NESP. o r i g i n a l NESP items as CNDC of NESP.  But they had a few  The o t h e r two  types or v i e w p o i n t s  h e l d by 6 o f t h e 27 s u b j e c t s a r e Types B and C c o m p r i s i n g 22.2% o f a l l the s u b j e c t s 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 v i e w p o i n t was shared by a s m a l l percentage  (11.1%) composed o f two t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and one d e v e l o p e r .  o f the sample The s u b j e c t s  a l s o 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 o f items which they p e r c e i v e d t o be e i t h e r CDC o r CNDC o f t h e new programme.  T h i s group  too p e r c e i v e d a few items c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the e s t a b l i s h e d 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 t h e new programme. c o n s i d e r e d o n l y one item (26) which was i n i t i a l l y the CDC o f t h e new programme  Type B v i e w p o i n t  d e s i g n a t e d t o NESP as  (see T a b l e 7 ) . And the s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d  v e r y few items of t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme as CNDC o f the new programme. Type C v i e w p o i n t i s r e p r e s e n t e d by an equal percentage sample as i n Type B v i e w p o i n t b u t . i t has fewer  o f the  items o f the e s t a b l i s h e d  programme among t h e items the. s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d to be d e s c r i p t i v e o f the new programme. Type C. a l s o : h a s a couple o f items f o r t h e new programme which t h e s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d 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 o f the new programme. In  c o n s i d e r i n g t h e items f o r examining  s i m i l a r i t i e s between the  t h r e e types not a s i n g l e item i s shared a c r o s s a l l types: andVa few-items a r e shared between p a i r s o f types i n t h e i r v i e w p o i n t s  (see T a b l e  9 ) . Types  A and B share t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s ; 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.  Table  7  Comparison of t h e three types i n terms of what they p e r c e i v e d 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 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) REPRESENTATIVE TYPES  TYPES 9  Teacher-users  8 Teacher-writers 4  Developers  Total  21  2 Teacher-writers  1  Developer  Total 2  3  Teacher-users  1 Teacher-writer  Total  3  Items p e r c e i v e d 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 (+)  Items p e r c e i v e d 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  3. P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o use. 4. * P r o v i d e s organized way o f t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e . 7.*Provides d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e . 9.*Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts. 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o d i s c u s s r e s u l t s . 31. P r o v i d e s o p t i o n s f o r s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts. 38. Encourages teachers t o be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 58. * S t i m u l a t e 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 t o f o r m u l a t e c o n c l u s i o n s . 60. *Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e about r e s u l t s .  8. P r o v i d e s minimal d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e . 12. Does not p r o v i d e supply and equipment. 16.*Encourages teachers to i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s . 24.*Provides l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g . 34. *Does not encourage teachers t o develop m a t e r i a l s . 35. *Encourages teachers t o 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 s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e . 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 time.  2. Emphasizes processes o f s c i e n c e . 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o d i s c u s s r e s u l t s . 26.*Encourages students t o 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 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 53. *Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be c r e a t i v e . 54. *Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be i m a g i n a t i v e . 55. *Teache8 c h i l d r e n t o be i n q u i s i 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 . 58. * S t i m u l a t e 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 .  9.*Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts. 10. Contains independent u n i t s . 16. *Encourages teachers t o i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s . 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. 29.*Encourages demonstration t o r e i n f o r c e concepts. 37.*Encourages teachers t o maintain c o n t r o l . 39.*Provides students w i t h s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s . 41.*Requires teachers t o complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 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 time.  l l . * P r o v i d e s supply and equipment r e a d i l y . 25. P r o v i d e s students w i t h m a t e r i a l s f o r experiments. 27. P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r d e v e l o p i n g concepts. 28. * P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts. 29. *Encourages demonstration t o r e i n f o r c e concepts. 34.*Does not encourage teachers t o develop m a t e r i a l s . 41. *Requires teachers t o complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s . 42. Requires teachers t o work a t c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e . 44. *Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e . 45. *Requires c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s .  3. Provides a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o u s e . 4. P r o v i d e s organized way of teaching s c i e n c e . 9.*Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts. 10. Contains independent u n i t s . 19. P r o v i d e s u n i t s s e l e c t e d by the d e v e l o p e r s . 32. P r o v i d e s o p t i o n s f o r u n s e p c i f i e d concepts. 38. Encourages teachers t o be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 43. Discourages s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e . 46. Does not r e q u i r e teacher c o o p e r a t i o n . 47. *Saves teachers p r e p a r a t i o n time.  I n i t i 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 o f the new programme  (-)  62  Table 8 Summary o f comparisons between Types A, B and C i n the new programme  TYPES  A  I B  C  REPRESENTATIVE TYPES  RATIO  9 Teacher-users  9/11  8 Teacher-writers  8/11  4 Developers  4/5  2 Teacher-writers  2/11  1 Developer  1/5  2 Teacher-users  2/11  1 Teacher-writer  1/11  TOTAL  % of a l l Subjects  21  77.8  . 3  11.1  .3  11.1  27  Total  T a b l e 9~ Common items among t h e d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s on the new programme  _ . „ V  T>  A/B  A/C  B/C  C  Clearly defining. characteristics 15. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o discuss r e s u l t s . 58. S t i m u l a t e s c h i l d r e n ' s interest i n science.  C l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g characteristics 16. Encourages t e a c h e r s to i n t e r pret r e s u l t s . 41. Requires t e a c h e r s t o complete specified units. 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 time. 43. D i s c o u r a g e s s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e . 9. P r o v i d e s u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c science concepts. 10. Contains independent s c i e n c e units.  63  58.  Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s interest  i n science.  15.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o d i s c u s s  results.  16.  Encourages  teachers  to i n t e r p r e t  41.  Encourages  teachers  t o complete s p e c i f i e d number o f 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 e l e m e n t a r y  48.  Requires a l o t of p r e p a r a t i o n time.  results.  science.  Type A and Type C share o n l y one i t e m w h i c h they p e r c e i v e d t o be a 43.  c l e a r l y n o t d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e new programme; Discourages  s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary  science.  Type B and Type C share two n e g a t i v e 9.  Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c science  10.  C o n t a i n s independent s c i e n c e u n i t s .  items:  concepts.  However, t h e r e were some items on w h i c h a l l t h e t h r e e types i n the new e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e programme agree i n o r d e r o f p e r c e p t i o n from clearly defining characteristics  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 r a n k - o r d e r e d based on t h e s i z e o f t h e average z - s c o r e s o f the consensus  items a c r o s s a l l t h e t h r e e types as p r e s e n t e d b e l o w .  Items on w h i c h t h e r e i s consensus  across  types  • i n t h e new programme  A consensus between t h e l a r g e s t  l e s s than 1.00.  i t e m i s one on w h i c h f o r a l l t y p e s t h e d i f f e r e n c e  z - s c o r e and t h e s m a l l e s t z - s c o r e g i v e n t h a t i t e m  Table 10 g i v e s a l i s t o f t h e i t e m s on w h i c h a l l t h e  t h r e e types seemed t o agree i n o r d e r o f p e r c e p t i o n from h i g h e s t z-score  is  t o l o w e s t average  z-score.  average  64  Table  IQ  Consensus items i n o r d e r 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-score f o r the new programme  ITEM  " °~ z-score  58 S t i m u l a t e s c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  i n science  1.00  11 P r o v i d e s 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 i n f o r m a t i o n to new 28 P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r s p e c i f i c  situations  s c i e n c e concepts  0.61 0.58  53 Teaches c h i l d r e n to be c r e a t i v e  0.55  30 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o 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 r e s o u r c e f u l  0.46  59 Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e c o n c l u s i o n s  0.42  42 Requires  0.42  t e a c h e r s t o work at c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e  2 Emphasizes p r o c e s s e s of s c i e n c e  0.41  23 P r o v i d e 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  0.41  60 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e about r e s u l t s  0.34  6 Encourages a d a p t i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r d i f f e r e n t age-groups  0.25  18 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 concepts  0.24  50 Encourages c h i l d r e n to d i s c r i m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n  0.21  56 Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y  0.16  information  51 Encourages students to s e a r c h f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s 33 Encourages t e a c h e r s to develop  t h e i r own  materials  0.07 -0.14  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 s  -0.14  39 P r o v i d e s students w i t h s p e c i f i c  -0.15  instructions  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  -0.18  to r e i n f o r c e concepts  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 Emphasizes content and p r o c e s s e s of s c i e n c e  -0.39  41 Requires t e a c h e r s t o complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s  -0.42  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 concepts  -0.45  44 Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary  -0.62  43 D i s c o u r a g e s  science  s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary  science  -0.98  65  The  consensus items c o n s t i t u t e about 50% of a l l the items on  which the t h r e e types seem to agree.  From a d e t a i l e d examination of  these consensus items, i t seems t h a t the d e v e l o p e r s as w e l l as the t e a c h e r s of the new programme  c h a r a c t e r i z e the programme by i t s g o a l s and  as i n d i c a t e d by the items they p e r c e i v e d the programme  objectives  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  such as the f o l l o w i n g :  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 .  50.  Encourages students t o d i s c r i m i n a t e  51.  Encourages students to s e a r c h f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s .  52.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be  53.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be c r 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  58.  Stimulates children's  59.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o f o r m u l a t e  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 .  information.  resourceful.  information.  i n t e r e s t i n science. conclusions.  However, they a l s o seemed t o agree t h a t i s t i c s d i d not d e s c r i b e  NESP.  g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s  29,  21, 39, 36 and 33) were i n i t i a l l y  of EESP, and many of them (items,  the f o l l o w i n g  a c c o r d i n g to the i n i t i a l  character-  A few o f these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d e a l t  the  correctly dissociated  some d e f i n i n g  associated  w i t h NESP.  with  19, 44, 41, 1, The types  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP from NESP  d e l i n e a t i o n of the programmes:  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.  32.  Provides options f o r unspecified  43.  Discourages standardizing  concepts.  elementary  science.  66  Items on w h i c h t h e r e i s  disagreement  a c r o s s types i n the new programme  There are some items oh w h i c h t h e r e i s disagreement types.  among the  These items are p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 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 b e l o w .  T a b l e 11 Items w h i c h d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the t h r e e types i n the new programme  Types: ITEMS  A  z-scores B  C  3 . P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o 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  1 .04  -0.33  -0.04  science  12. Does n o t p r o v i d e s u p p l y and equipment  -1 .95  -0.69  -0.91  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  0 .36  -1.48  0.05  27. Provides m a t e r i a l s f o r developing science concepts  0 .80  -0.38  1.59  -0 .75  0.54  -1.13  32. Provides options f o r u n s p e c i f i e d concepts 3 7 . Encourages  teachers  science  to m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l  -0 .26  -1.77  0.41  4 0 . Encourages c h i l d r e n ' s experiments  -1 .17  1.46  0.13  4 5 . R e q u i r e s c o o p e r a t i o n among  -1 .10  -0.75  1.43  4 9 . Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n t o new situations  0,.26  1.67  -0.11  54. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be i m a g i n a t i v e  0,.24  1.87  1.17  5 7 . Encourages c h i l d r e n t o show i n i t i a t i v e  0,.74  1.53  -0.00  teachers  Clearly Defining  Fig. 6:  Items which differentiate among the three types in NESP  I  1  I  J  Type A Legend  Type B Type C  Clearly Not Defining  17  27  37 ITEMS  40  49  54  I  57  \  68  The d i f f e r e n c e s  between t h e t h r e e t y p e s i n t h e new programme  d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 6 a r e d i s c u s s e d i n some d e t a i l as below. More t h a n t y p e s B and C t y p e A p e r c e i v e d t h e s e items t o be clearly defining  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e new programme:  3.  P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o u s e .  7.  P r o v i d e s s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g elementary s c i e n c e .  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 t h a n t y p e s B and C, t y p e A p e r c e i v e d t h e s e items t o be  c l e a r l y n o t 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 programme: 12.  Does not p r o v i d e s u p p l y and equipment.  40.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o d e s i g n t h e i r own e x p e r i m e n t s .  45.  R e q u i r e s c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s . More t h a n t y p e s A and C, t y p e B p e r c e i v e d t h e s e 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 o f t h e new programme: 40.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o d e s i g n t h e i r own e x p e r i m e n t s .  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 i m a 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 t h a n t y p e s A and C, t y p e B p e r c e i v e d t h e s e 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 o f t h e new programme:  27.  Provides m a t e r i a l s f o r developing science concepts.  37.  Encourages t e a c h e r s t o m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l ,  45.  R e q u i r e s c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s . More t h a n _ t y p e s A and B, t y p e C p e r c e i v e d t h e s e 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 o f t h e new programme: 27.  Provides material  f o r developing science concepts.  37.  Encourages t e a c h e r s t o m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l .  45.  R e q u i r e s c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s .  69  More than type A and B, type C p e r c e i v e d these items 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 o f the new programme: 3.  P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o use.  32.  Provides options f o r u n s p e c i f i e d science concepts.  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  57.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to show  Summary:  situations.  initiative.  Viewpoints on the new elementary  s c i e n c e programme  The r e s u l t s o f t h e Q - a n a l y s i s o f the Q-sort d a t a from the new programme a r e h i g h l i g h t e d by the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the t h r e e d i s t i n c t v i e w p o i n t s among the d e v e l o p e r s and the t e a c h e r s o f the new programme. The  t h r e e main v i e w p o i n t s were d i s t i n g u i s h e d on the b a s i s o f what the  s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d t o be CDC and CNDC o f the new programme.  A brief  d e s c r i p t i o n o f the v i e w p o i n t s i s p r e s e n t e d below. Type A v i e w p o i n t comprises  most of the s u b j e c t s (77.8%),  9 t e a c h e r - u s e r s , 8 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and 4 of the 5 d e v e l o p e r s .  This  suggests t h a t Type A v i e w p o i n t was a p o p u l a r v i e w p o i n t among the s u b j e c t s . Type A v i e w p o i n t c h a r a c t e r i z e s the>new programme by i t s s t r u c t u r e o r o r g a n i z a t i o n as m a n i f e s t e d by t h e items which the s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d 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 o f the new programme.  For i n s t a n c e  the v i e w p o i n t i s symbolized by such items as " p r o v i d e s an o r g a n i z e d way of t e a c h i n g elementary  s c i e n c e " , p r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o use",  and " p r o v i d e s u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c the new programme.  science concepts" being d e s c r i p t i v e of  However, Type A d i d not p e r c e i v e the programme goals  and o b j e c t i v e s as d i s t i n c t i v e • ' f e a t u r e s o f t h e new programme.  70  Type B v i e w p o i n t w r i t e r s seems t o suggest  r e p r e s e n t e d by one developer  and two t e a c h e r -  t h a t 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 d e a l w i t h some a s p e c t s of the programme goals and o b j e c t i v e s . The v i e w p o in t  i m p l i e s t h a t the items which r e l a t e t o the programme g o a l s  and o b j e c t i v e s d e s c r i b e the new programme b e t t e r than the items to the programme s t r u c t u r e or o r g a n i z a t i o n as suggested point.  I t i s a d i s t i n c t viewpoint  c o n s i d e r s some o f the items  viewpoint  i n the programme s t r u c t u r e or o r g a n i z a t i o n T h i s i s almost an  t o the Type A v i e w p o i n t .  Type C v i e w p o i n t ,  teacher v i e w p o i n t ,  t e a c h e r - u s e r s and one t e a c h e r - w r i t e r . Type C v i e w p o i n t  by Type A view-  from Type A v i e w p o i n t because i t  component u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the new programme. opposing  relating  i s symbolized  i s r e p r e s e n t e d by two  U n l i k e the other two v i e w p o i n t s ,  by the items  the s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d 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 o f the new programme from a wider spectrum of t h e programme components.  The v i e w p o i n t  c h a r a c t e r i z e s the  new programme by i t s goals and o b j e c t i v e s , m a t e r i a l s and i m p l i e d t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s or processes. different  Although  from Type A v i e w p o i n t ,  Type B and Type C a r e u n i q u e l y  they form a m i n o r i t y o f the v i e w p o i n t s ,  b e i n g h e l d by o n l y s i x of the twenty-seven s u b j e c t s i n NESP.  T h e r e f o r e by  t h i s s t a n d a r d , the m a j o r i t y of the d e v e l o p e r s , t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and t e a c h e r u s e r s of NESP i n 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 d e f i n i n g 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 s t r u c t u r e or organization.  71  Similarities the d i f f e r e n t  types  i n viewpoints  i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme,  The t h r e e d i f f e r e n t the o r i g i n a l  types  27 i n NESP were u n l i k e the t h r e e types  12 and 13), w i t h  EESP  i d e n t i f i e d among the 23 s u b j e c t s of  In EESP the 23 s u b j e c t s are d i s t r i b u t e d Tables  between  i n the new  programme.  i n almost 3:2:1 r a t i o (see  13 s u b j e c t s i n Type A, 7 s u b j e c t s i n Type B and  3 s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t i n g Type C v i e w p o i n t s . Type A v i e w p o i n t EESP.  represented  56.5% of a l l the 23 s u b j e c t s i n  The s u b j e c t s h o l d i n g t h i s v i e w p o i n t  u s e r s , 6 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and 4 d e v e l o p e r s . representativeness  of v i e w p o i n t ,  be t e a c h e r - w r i t e r - d e v e l o p e r  of EESP i s composed of 3 t e a c h e r Considering  the r a t i o of the  i t c o u l d be a p p r o p r i a t e l y proclaimed  viewpoint  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the t e a c h e r - u s e r s .  to  because of the r e l a t i v e l y low The v i e w p o i n t  r e p r e s e n t s most of  the developers' (4/5) and more than one h a l f of the t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s ' (6/9) perceptions  of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Type A p e r c e i v e d them were i n i t i a l l y  (see T a b l e  13).  Among the  to be CDC of EESP, almost one h a l f of  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP.  But o n l y 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 p e r c e i v e d to be CNDC of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. t h i s viewpoint  Therefore  was probably  t h a t the s u b j e c t s 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  programme.  represented  i s composed o f 3 t e a c h e r - u s e r s , subjects perceived  to suggest t h a t  i n f l u e n c e d by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP or  than those of the e s t a b l i s h e d Type B v i e w p o i n t  i t would seem reasonable  30.4% of a l l the 23 s u b j e c t s , and  3 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and 1 d e v e l o p e r .  The  some o f 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  The s u b j e c t s a l s o p e r c e i v e d almost an equal  72  number o f t h e i n i t i a l l y the e s t a b l i s h e d point  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP t o be CNDC o f  programme.  characterizes  Thus on t h e b a s i s o f these items Type B view-  the e s t a b l i s h e d programme by about one h a l f o f the  items which were i n i t i a l l y  s e l e c t e d to d e s c r i b e  would seem t o suggest t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s  the new programme.  e i t h e r d i d not remember the  e s t a b l i s h e d programme o r d i d n o t express t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n programme as w e l l as i t was i n i t i a l l y Type C v i e w p o i n t  This  o f t h e new  characterized.  i s p r e s e n t e d by e x c l u s i v e l y t e a c h e r - u s e r s .  These  t e a c h e r s form 13.1% of a l l t h e 23 s u b j e c t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n second Q-sorts to describe  t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  t e r i z e d by mixed o r i g i n a l regarded a few i n i t i a l l y  items o f NESP as w e l l as EESP.  o n l y v e r y few i n i t i a l l y  CNDC o f t h e e s t a b l i s h e d  The s u b j e c t s  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 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. perceived  The v i e w p o i n t i s c h a r a c -  However, the s u b j e c t s  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP as  programme.  The s u b j e c t s  perceived  more  initially  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f EESP than those o f NESP t o d e s c r i b e the e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  I n o t h e r words the s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n  of the  e s t a b l i s h e d programme, as judged by t h e above c r i t e r i o n , seems c l o s e r 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 o f EESP. In examining the items which d i s t i n g u i s h the three s e v e r a l items t r a v e r s e  two o r t h r e e  types i . e . there  types  a r e some common  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s among p a i r s o f types or among a l l the three  viewpoints  of EESP.  Types A and B share 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 which they  perceived  t o be CNDC of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme: (see Table 14):  41.  Requires t e a c h e r s t o complete a s p e c i f i e d number of u n i t s i n a y e a r .  57.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o show  initiative.  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 3 Teacher-users 6 Teacher-writers 4 Developers Total  13  3 Teacher-users 3 Teacher-writers 1 Developer Total  7  3 Teacher-users  Total  3  Items perceived to be clearly defining characteristics (+) Items perceived to be clearly not defining characteristics (-) 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 f a c i l i t a t o r s . 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.*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. 31. Provides options for specific science concepts. 35. Encourages teachers to rely on programme materials. 38.*Encourages teachers to be f a c i l i t a t o r s . 55.*Teachea children to be inquisitive. 58.*Stimulates children's interest in science 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.  * I n i t i a l l y selected characteristics of the established programme  74  T a b l e 13 Summary o f comparisons between Types A, B and C i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  TYPES  A  B  C  REPRESENTATIVE TYPES  RATIO  3 Teacher-users  3/9  6 Teacher-writers  6/9  4 Developers  4/5  3 Teacher-users  3/9  3 Teacher-writers  3/9  1 Developer  1/5  3 Teacher-users  3/9  TOTAL  % of a l l Subjects  13  56.5  7  30.4  3  13.1  23  Total  Table 14. Common items among the t h r e e v i e w p o i n t s on the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  TYPES  Clearly defining characteristics  41. Requires t e a c h e r s t o 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 t o show initiative.  A/B  A/C  B/C  C l e a r l y not d e f i n i n g characteristics  38. Encourages t e a c h e r s t o be facilitators. 55. Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be inquisitive. 58. S t i m u l a t e s c h i l d r e n ' s interest i n science. 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e about r e s u l t s .  24. P r o v i d e s l i t t l e o p p o r t u n i t y for problem-solving. 41. Requires t e a c h e r s to complete specified units. standardizing 43. Discourages elementary s c i e n c e .  3. P r o v i d e s a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o use. 10. Contains independent u n i t s . 35. Encourages t e a c h e r s t o r e l y  41. Requires t e a c h e r s t o complete specified units.  on programme-materials.  75  A l t h o u g h Types A and C shared the  B shared no  items they c o n s i d e r e d to be  CDC,  Types A and  following:  38.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to be  55.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be  58.  Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  60.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to h y p o t h e s i z e about the  facilitators.  inquisitive. in science. results.  Types A and C a l s o p e r c e i v e d the f o l l o w i n g items t o be CNDC of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme: 24.  Provides l i t t l e  41.  Requires  43.  Discourages  opportunities f o r problem-solving  t e a c h e r s to complete s p e c i f i e d u n i t s i n a y e a r . s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary  Types A and v i e w p o i n t but  skills.  science.  C showed a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of s i m i l a r i t y i n  i n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s Type A out-numbered Type C,  2:1.  Types A, B and C c o n s i d e r e d item 41 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. Types B and  C p e r c e i v e d the f o l l o w i n g items to be  clearly  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; 3.  P r o v i d e s t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use.  10.  Contains independent  35.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to r e l y on programme m a t e r i a l s . As i n the new  science u n i t s .  programme t h e r e were a l s o some items which a l l  types seemed to agree were e i t h e r 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 or 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme. These are the consensus items which were rank-ordered s i z e of the average d e s c r i b e d below.  a c c o r d i n g to the  z-scores a c r o s s a l l the three types and  are  76  T a b l e 15 Consensus items i n o r d e r o f p e r c e p t i o n from h i g h e s t average z - s c o r e t o lowest average. z-score i n e s t a b l i s h e d programme  ITEM  A  V  6  r  a  g  59 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o formulate c o n c l u s i o n s  0.99  58 S t i m u l a t e s c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  0.92  i n science  60 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e about r e s u l t s 9 Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c  e  z-score  s c i e n c e concepts  0.87 0.73  11 P r o v i d e s supply and equipment r e a d i l y  0.67  31 P r o v i d e s o p t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e concepts  0.66  27 P r o v i d e s m a t e r i a l s f o r d e v e l o p i n g s c i e n c e concepts  0.55  13 P r o v i d e s time f o r c h i l d r e n t o i n v e s t i g a t e on t h e i r own  0.40  5 P r o v i d e s f o r needs and i n t e r e s t s o f d i f f e r e n t age-groups  0.36  48 Requires a l o t o f p r e p a r a t i o n time  0.27  56 Teaches c h i l d r e n t o c l a s s i f y  0.24  information  30 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o formulate d i f f e r e n t concepts  0.23  23 P r o v i d e 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  0.20  25 P r o v i d e s c h i l d r e n w i t h m a t e r i a l s f o r experiments  0.13  22 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o seek i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s  -0.22  50 Encourages students t o d i s c r i m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n  -0.25  16 Encourages t e a c h e r s t o i n t e r p r e t r e s u l t s  -0.29  20 P r o v i d e 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  -0.30  52 Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be r e s o u r c e f u l  -0.32  46 Does r e q u i r e c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s  -0.36  40 Encourages c h i l d r e n t o experiment  -0.44  on t h e i r own  54 Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i m a g i n a t i v e  -0.59  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 e n c e concepts  -0.65  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  -0.73  6 Encourages a d a p t i n g m a t e r i a l s f o r d i f f e r e n t age-groups  -0.82  34 Does not encourage development o f m a t e r i a l s  -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  -1.30  t e a c h e r s t o complete s p e c i f i e d number of u n i t s  77  Items on which t h e r e i s consensus  across  types i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  As .it i s the case i n the new the d i f f e r e n t all  the items.  programme, the consensus  items among  types i n the e s t a b l i s h e d programme c o n s t i t u t e about A c l o s e r examination of these consensus  items  50% of  suggests  t h a t the 23 s u b j e c t s seem to i d e n t i f y the e s t a b l i s h e d programme by  two  main components, f i r s t , by the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s of the programme as i l l u s t r a t e d by the agreements on these items p e r c e i v e d t o be  descriptive  of EESP: 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.  Stimulates children's i n t e r e s t  59.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e 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 e h s i z e about  i n science.  results.  and  secondly by t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g y , as p o r t r a y e d by these  13.  P r o v i d e s time f o r c h i l d r e n t o i n v e s t i g a t e on t h e i r  30.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e d i f f e r e n t  48.  Requires a l o t of p r e p a r a t i o n time.  items: own.  concepts.  However, the items which the s u b j e c t s seemed to agree on as b e i n g 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 spread over t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s , a l t h o u g h most of the items came from the g o a l s and component.  objectives  These items a r e :  44.  Encourages a p p l i c a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n t o new  50.  Encourages students to d i s c r i m i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n .  52.  Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be  54.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be i m a 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 .  resourceful.  situations.  78  • The o t h e r items the s u b j e c t s seemed t o a s s o c i a t e w i t h b e i n g u n d e s c r i p t i v e o f 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 e a c h i n g 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 o r o r g a n i z a t i o n component.  Items on w h i c h t h e r e i s disagreement types  i n the e s t a b l i s h e d  across  programme  J u s t as i n t h e new programme, t h e r e are items i n the programme which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the t y p e s .  established  These items a r e  i n T a b l e 16, a r e 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 c u s s e d  presented  i n the s e c t i o n  which f o l l o w s . T a b l e 16 Items on w h i c h t h e r e i s disagreement  a c r o s s types i n EESP  Types:  3-scores  A  B  C  -1 .20  -0..63  1.69  -0 .91  1.74  -2.17  -1 .14  1.14  -0.47  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  1 .84  -0.62  0.44  21. Provides u n i t s selected for c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  1 .62  -1.41  0.15  2 9 . Encourages d e m o n s t r a t i o n t o r e i n f o r c e c o n c e p t s  2 .18  -0.06  -1.10  -2 .02  0.85  -0.47  1.00  -0.34  -0.93  -0 .70  -2.03  -0.01  ITEM 4 . P r o v i d e s o r g a n i z e d way of t e a c h i n g  science  8. Provides minimal d i r e c t i o n f o r teaching  science  12. Does n o t p r o v i d e s u p p l y and equipment  3 6 . 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 4 2 . R e q u i r e s t e a c h e r s work a t c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e 4 7 . Saves t e a c h e r s  p r e p a r a t i o n time  Clearly Defining  Fig. 7:  Items which differentiate among the three types in EESP  Type A Legend Type B Type C  Clearly Not Defining  12  17  21 ITEMS  29  36  42  lW-'i'.'.tl I  <*7  '1  80  More than Types B and C, Type A p e r c e i v e d 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme: 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. 21. P r o v i d e s u n i t s s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g t o the c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t . 29. Encourages t e a c h e r s to demonstrate t o r e i n f o r c e 42. Requires  concepts.  t e a c h e r s t o work a t c h i l d r e n ' s r a t e .  More than Types B and C, Type A p e r c e i v e d t h i s item t o 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme:  36. Encourages use o f l o c a l l y a v a i l a b l e m a t e r i a l . More than Types A and C, Type B p e r c e i v e d 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme: 8. P r o v i d e s minimal  d i r e c t i o n i n t e a c h i n g elementary  science.  12. Does n o t p r o v i d e supply and equipment. More than Types A and C, Type B p e r c e i v e d t h i s item t o 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme: 47. Saves t e a c h e r s p r e p a r a t i o n time. More than Types A and B, Type C p e r c e i v e d t h i s item to be 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 of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme: 4. P r o v i d e s an o r g a n i z e d way o f t e a c h i n g elementary  science.  More than Types A and B, Type C p e r c e i v e d t h i s item t o 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 o f the e s t a b l i s h e d programme: 8. P r o v i d e s minimal  Summary:  Viewpoints  d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g elementary  on the e s t a b l i s h e d elementary  science.  s c i e n c e programme  The r e s u l t s from Q - a n a l y s i s o f the Q-sort d a t a from the 23 s u b j e c t s i n " t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d programme showed two main outcomes.  As i n the a n a l y s i s  81  of data from the new identified. j e c t s was 3:2:1  programme, t h e r e were three d i s t i n c t  viewpoints  But u n l i k e the.new programme the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the sub-  l e s s skewed towards the Type A v i e w p o i n t .  s p l i t between the t h r e e v i e w p o i n t s  There was  almost  a  i n terms of 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 e s t a b l i s h e d programme. Type A v i e w p o i n t , which r e p r e s e n t e d of a l l the s u b j e c t s , was  comprised  s l i g h t l y more than one  half  of the t h r e e s u b j e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  groups: 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 and d e v e l o p e r s .  This  c o u l d be d e s c r i b e d as a t e a c h e r - w r i t e r - d e v e l o p e r v i e w p o i n t .  viewpoint The  viewpoint  emphasizes the programme goals and o b j e c t i v e s as b e i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. items  The  s u b j e c t s i n t h i s group p e r c e i v e d  from the c u r r i c u l u m g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s component to be  these  clearly  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: 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.  38.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to be  55.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be  58.  Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  59.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e 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 Items 17 and  w h i l e the o t h e r items  facilitators.  inquisitive. in science.  about  results.  38 are d i s t i n c t i v e of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme are f e a t u r e s common to both programmes as  selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  They viewed s e v e r a l items  initially  i n the components of  s-tructure ( 4 , 7, 4 l ) , content . ( l , - ' 2 4 ) , and '-materials ( l 2 j 36) as 'undescript i v e o f t h e established!programme. Type B v i e w p o i n t  r e p r e s e n t e d about 1/3  of a l l the s u b j e c t s , and  a l s o c o n s i s t e d 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 and  one d e v e l o p e r .  This  group of s u b j e c t s t h e r e f o r e , seemed to h o l d the view t h a t the e s t a b l i s h e d  82  programme can be d i s t i n g u i s h e d by some o f the items d e p i c t i n g the programme s t r u c t u r e and m a t e r i a l s .  The s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d 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 o f the programme.  They a l s o p e r c e i v e d some of  the items i n the c u r r i c u l u m g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s component t o be uncharact e r i s t i c o f the programme as i l l u s t r a t e d by some o f t h e i r  identification  items w i t h h i g h n e g a t i v e z - s c o r e s such as these (see T a b l e 6 ) . 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  53. Teaches  c h i l d r e n t o be c r e a t i v e .  54. Teaches  c h i l d r e n t o be i m a g i n a t i v e .  57. Encourages  situations.  c h i l d r e n to show i n i t i a t i v e .  Type C v i e w p o i n t , which'was h e l d by t h r e e t e a c h e r - u s e r s , i s unique i n that t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a r e e x c l u s i v e l y t e a c h e r - u s e r s , not a mixed type, as i n a l l the o t h e r c a s e s .  T h i s v i e w p o i n t i s s i m i l a r t o Type A  v i e w p o i n t i n t h a t the s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d s e v e r a l s i m i l a r items t o be 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.  As w e l l , both v i e w p o i n t s  c o n s i d e r e d another s e t of s i m i l a r items t o be u n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the programme  (see T a b l e 14).  Items on which t h e r e i s consensus all  types and a c r o s s programmes  The consensus examined  items i n both programmes f o r a l l types were  (Tables 10 and 15) t o i d e n t i f y the items t h a t a l l types agreed on  a c r o s s the programmes. t  among  For each item on which a l l types seemed t o agree  on . i n both programmes, the average z - s c o r e s were f u r t h e r averaged and rank o r d e r e d .  T a b l e 17 g i v e s a l i s t  o f the items on which a l l types i n  both programmes seemed t o agree i n o r d e r o f p e r c e p t i o n from h i g h e s t  83  average  2  z-scores All  t o l o w e s t average  2  z-scores.  the t y p e s seemed t o agree t h a t the f o l l o w i n g items belonged  t o b o t h programmes: 11.  P r o v i d e s s u p p l y and equipment r e a d i l y .  23,  Provides opportunities for problem-solving.  30. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o f o r m u l a t e d i f f e r e n t 5 6 . Teaches c h i l d r e n t o c l a s s i f y  concepts.  information.  58. Stimulates 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 . 5 9 . Encourages c h i l d r e n t o f o r m u l a t e c o n c l u s i o n s . 60. Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e about  results.  They a l s o seemed to agree t h a t items 32 and 41 b e l o n g e d t o n e i t h e r programme; however, items 2 3 , 3 0 , 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 o f t h e 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 w h i c h the d i f f e r e n t t y p e s seemed t o agree b e l o n g e d t o b o t h programmes o r 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 o f the programmes f a l l under the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s of the c u r r i c u l u m component. T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t a l l the s u b j e c t s  seemed t o 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 b o t h programmes t o be i n the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s c a t e g o r y of c u r r i c u l u m components.  T h i s statement  i s r e i n f o r c e d by the e v i d e n c e t h a 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 g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s c a t e g o r y items t o 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 o r EESP i n the e a r l i e r analyses.  F u r t h e r m o r e , t h e s e items  (56, 5 8 , 59 and 60) were  o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n a t e d as common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP and EESP.  Averaged a c r o s s t y p e s and programmes.  84  T a b l e 17 Consensus items i n o r d e r of p e r c e p t i o n from h i g h e s t 21-scores t o l o w e s t z - s c o r e s a c r o s s types and programmes ?  ITEM  Average z-score  58. S t i m u l a t e 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  0.96  1 1 . P r o v i d e s s u p p l y and equipment r e a d i l y  0.74  5 9 . Encourages c h i l d r e n to' f o r m u l a t e c o n c l u s i o n s  0.71  6 0 . Encourages c h i l d r e n to h y p o t h e s i z e about  0.61  results  3 0 . Encourages c h i l d r e n t o f o r m u l a t e d i f f e r e n t  concepts  0.35  23. Provides o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r problem-solving  0.30  5 6 . Teaches c h i l d r e n t o c l a s s i f y i n f o r m a t i o n  0.20  32. Provides options f o r u n s p e c i f i e d 41. Requires teachers  concepts  -0.55  t o complete s p e c i f i e d number of u n i t s  -0.86  The p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n marks the c o m p l e t i o n of phase one of study.  As s t a t e d  the  i n Chapter 1 t h e phase i n v o l v e d the a s c e r t a i n m e n t of the  g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e two programmes, and the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of . t h e v i e w p o i n t s of the d e v e l o p e r s and implementers o f the new programme on t h e b a s i s of what they p e r c e i v e d t o 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 new programme v e r s u s  the  those of t h e 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 s u b j e c t s t h r o u g h t h e i r Q-sort p r o f i l e s , the types were t h e n 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 programmes.  i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of the two  T h i s l e d to the second phase o f 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 l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s C l a s s r o o m A n a l y s i s I n s t r u m e n t , CAI i s p r e s e n t e d  instrument.  i n Appendix G.  i n s t r u m e n t was a p p l i e d i n the a n a l y s e s o f 30 e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e The r e s u l t s  The The lessons.  and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the a n a l y s e s are p r e s e n t e d i n t h e n e x t  c h a p t e r w h i c h c o v e r s STEP 4 and subproblems 5 and 6 of the s t u d y .  85  CHAPTER 5  THE RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE CLASSROOM DATA ANALYSIS  The " o b s e r v e r " r e c o r d s f o r each t e a c h e r were a n a l y s e d t o determine the e x t e n t t o w h i c h the " o b s e r v e d "  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s correspond  to the  " p e r 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 o f NESP o r EESP and t h e types o r v i e w p o i n t s as e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Q - a n a l y s i s i n Chapter interpretations  4.  The r e s u l t s and  o f t h e c l a s s r o o m d a t a a r e g i v e n from two p e r s p e c t i v e s , f i r s t  from NESP v i e w p o i n t s and s e c o n d l y from EESP v i e w p o i n t s i n STEP 4 of t h e s t u d y c o v e r i n g subproblems 5 and 6.  STEP 4.  IMPLEMENTATION  Subproblem 5.  OF NESP AS JUDGED BY DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS.  To what e x t e n t do 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  belong  to b o t h c u r r i c u l a and t o what e x t e n t do they s y m b o l i z e the d i f f e r e n t types p r e s e n t o r absent  i n t h e c l a s s r o o m s where t h e  new c u r r i c u l u m i s b e i n g implemented? Subproblem 6.  To what e x t e n t a r e t h e "observed"  characteristics  congruent w i t h t h e " p e r 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 o f a) t h e new c u r r i c u l u m b) t h e 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  T a b l e 18 "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  Sub  "Observed" characteristics  per teacher and a c c o r d i n g t o NESP and EESP  Total. Total :T6tal comm. d i s .  Dis. , Dis. EESP NESP  Item Weighted EESP wt.  Weighted NESP  1  3, 4, 7, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 41, 48, 55*, 59*, 60*  13  3  10  4  6  0.90  2  3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15, 25, 28, 48, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60*  15  6  9  6  3  1.00  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  6  3, 4, 5, 8, 15, 28, 30, 54*, 58*, 59*, 60*  11  4  7  4  3  1.30  5  4  7  3, 9, 17, 25, 27, . 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  9  4, 5, 16, 18, 28, 29, 34, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60*  12  5  7  1  6  1.30  1  '8  10  4, 5, 15, 28, 30, 35, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60*  12  6  6  3  3  1.60  5  5  11  3, 4, 7, 18, 25, 28, 30, 35, 41, 48, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60*  15  5  10  5  5  0.90  5  5  12  3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 25, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 41, 45, 48, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60*  19  4  15  8  7  0.60  5  4  4  u  5  3  .continued  87  T a b l e 18 (Continued)  "Observed" characteristics  Sub  3, 4, 7, 9, 16, 1 4  15  3  17  ".. T o t a l T o t a l D i s . D i s . Item Weighted Weighted T o t a l comm. d i s . EESP NESP wt. EESP NESP  18,  25, ^ , 1 9 , ^ 4 1 , ^ 4 5 , 53*, 54*, 55*, 57*, 58*, 59*, 60* 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 25, 28, _29, 35, 41, 48, 55* 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 16, 18, 25, 26, 28, 29, 35, 41, 45, 53*, 54*, 55*, 57* 58*, 59*,  i  g  7  12  3  9  0.80  h  2  12  1  11  6  5  0.90  5  22  7  15  5  10  0.60  3  5  7  , 6  60* 4, 7_, 9, 10, 16, 18,  25  27  I?:"H:§I; lk ll:  60 3, 4, 9, 16, 25, 28, 30, 35, 41, 48, 55, 58, 59, 60 N = 16  TOTAL MEAN  Decision point:  17  4  13  5  8  °-  70  14  4  10  5  5  222  71  151  69  82  '  4  0.90  9.44  2/3 o f mean (6 weighted items o f any programme s t a n d a r d i z e d mean)  * Common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Items numbered 48 and below a r e d i s t i n c t i v e o f NESP or EESP U n d e r l i n e d items a r e ' d i s t i n c t i v e of NESP  6  5  5  88  T a b l e 19 "Observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP, and items  Sub  "Observed" C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - NESP  Item T o t a l Weight  4, 7, 16, 18, 28, 41, 55, 59, 60  s y m b o l i z i n g the d i f f e r e n t types  Weighted "Perceived" defining Items C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - NESP A  B  C Type A  *  Type B  Type C  4 7  11 18  11 18  26 28  28 29  49 50  41 45  2  4, 9, 28, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60  -9  1.10  7 3 1  3  4, 9, 16, 18, 28, 29, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60  11  0.90  6 4 4  9 11 18 28 49  51 52  49 50  4  4, 5, 9, 55, 60  5  1.90  6 0 0  50 51 52  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  14  4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 28, 29, 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  17  4, 7, 9, 16, 18, 26, 28, 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, 12 55, 58, 59, 60  0.80  6 2 2  27  4, 9, 16, 28, 41, 55, 58, 59 60  1.10  7 2 2  9  continued  89  N = 16  TOTAL  153  MEAN  9.56  Viewpoint d e c i s i o n : 2/3 o f mean (6 weighted 5 weighted Type o r v i e w p o i n t  items o f any type among the c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s items were a l s o accepted)  T a b l e 20 "Observed"  Sub  90  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f EESP and items s y m b o l i z i n g the d i f f e r e n t types  Item  "Observed" C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - EESP  T o t a l Weight  Weighted "Perceived" defining C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - EE! Items A  B  C Type A  Type B  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 d e c i s i o n : 2/3 o f mean (6 weighted 5 weighted Type o r v i e w p o i n t  items o f any type among the c a t e g o r i z e d s u b j e c t s items were a l s o accepted)  91  The  "observed" d e f i n i n g  characteristics  The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s where the new elementary g i v e n i n T a b l e 1&.  of NESP and EESP  "observed" to be p r e s e n t i n the classrooms  s c i e n c e programme, NESP, was i n p r o g r e s s are  The t a b l e  a c c o r d i n g to the i n d i v i d u a l  p r e s e n t s the "observed"  characteristics  t e a c h e r s , programmes and whether the c h a r a c -  t e r i s t i c s are common to both programmes o r d i s t i n c t i v e of e i t h e r programme.  The "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  numbers of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  as i n the Q - a n a l y s i s .  In T a b l e 18 i t can be observed some of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of common items v a r i e d  a l l 16 t e a c h e r s  demonstrated  from 1 to 7, the number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from a low of 8 to a h i g h 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 i s t i c s of NESP the f o l l o w i n g Three  that  of both programmes a l t h o u g h the t o t a l number  "observed" f o r each t e a c h e r v a r i e d  1.  are i d e n t i f i e d by the o r i g i n a l  of EESP to d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r -  f e a t u r e s can be e p i t o m i z e d from T a b l e 18:  t e a c h e r s (4, 6 and 10) d i s p l a y e d v e r y few but almost equal  numbers (3;3, 4:3, 3:3 r e s p e c t i v e l y )  of d i s t i n c t i v e  characteristics  of EESP and NESP. 2.  Three t e a c h e r s 0-1, 15 and 27)demonstrated numbers  (5:5, 6:5, and 5:5 r e s p e c t i v e l y )  almost equal and medium of d i s t i n c t i v e  characteris-  t i c s of EESP and NESP. 3.  Three t e a c h e r s (9, 3 and 1) d i s p l a y e d uneven and medium r a t i o s (1:6, 2:6 and 4:6 r e s p e c t i v e l y )  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 t e a c h e r s (12, 14 and 17)showed many d i s t i n c t i v e (8:7, 3:9 and 5:10) of EESP and NESP. distinctive characteristics  Teachers  characteristics  14 and 17 have more  of NESP than they have f o r EESP.  92  5.  Two t e a c h e r s (7 and 8) showed a few unequal numbers (5:1 and 4:2) o f distinctive characteristics characteristics The  o f EESP and NESP w i t h the d i s t i n c t i v e  o f EESP exceeding those of NESP.  f e a t u r e s d e s c r i b e d above i n d i c a t e t h a t the d e f i n i n g  characteristics  of both programmes were demonstrated  by a l l the t e a c h e r s .  But t e a c h e r s 1, 3, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 25 e x h i b i t e d more d i s t i n c t i v e characteristics  o f NESP than those o f EESP.  They a l s o d i s p l a y e d more  than one t h i r d o f 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 16 t e a c h e r s (67 items out 151 - see T a b l e 18). 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  a l t h o u g h t h e i r t o t a l d i s p l a y s were low.  characteristics  Teachers  2, 7 and 8  of EESP than those of NESP  Teachers 4, 10 and 27  equal numbers o f 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 In the d i s c u s s i o n about  d i s p l a y e d by a l l  demonstrated  o f NESP and EESP.  the extent t o which the "observed"  correspond t o t h e " p e r 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, EESP and any t y p e s , the w r i t e r c o n s i d e r s the s t a n d a r d i z e d means o f distinctive characteristics  o f both programmes.  To determine';th:e  dominant programme which a t e a c h e r e x h i b i t e d a t l e a s t 6 weighted t h a t programme as w e l l as 5 weighted were c o n s i d e r e d .  items o f  items s y m b o l i z i n g a type or v i e w p o i n t  Can a t e a c h e r be c a t e g o r i z e d on the b a s i s o f the above  c r i t e r i a as an implementor  o r non-implementor o f NESP or EESP, and i f so  from what p e r s p e c t i v e ?  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 o f types a c c o r d i n g t o programmes b e i n g implemented  The s l a s h e d areas i n T a b l e 18 show t e a c h e r s c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the programme they b e s t demonstrated  i n t h e i r t e a c h i n g as determined  93  by the s t a n d a r d i z e d means of weighted  items.  The t e a c h e r s a r e a l s o  c a t e g o r i z e d i n a s i m i l a r way on the b a s i s o f type -or v i e w p o i n t symbolized  by t h e i r d i s p l a y e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  The main f e a t u r e s of the  programmes which were implemented and the types o r v i e w p o i n t s the "observed"  best  symbolized by  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e d i s c u s s e d from two p e r s p e c t i v e s , the  NESP and t h e EESP p e r s p e c t i v e s , a c c o r d i n g t o s u b j e c t s r e p r e s e n t e d i n each programme. Table  18 shows the c a t e g o r i e s o f t e a c h e r s a c c o r d i n g t o the  programme they were predominantly s t a n d a r d i z e d means c r i t e r i o n . teachers  implementing  as determined  F o l l o w i n g the e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i o n  five  (3, 9, 14, 17 and 25) were d e s i g n a t e d as -implementers of NESP and  three teachers  (2, 7 and 8} were c l a s s i f i e d  as implementers o f EESP.  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t s w i t h s i m i l a r "observed" t e r i s t i c s which are congruent presented  by the  i n Tables  defining  The  charac-  w i t h " p e r c e i v e d " types or v i e w p o i n t s i s  19 and 20.  The n a t u r e o f the v i e w p o i n t s o f each type  i n each programme i s d i s c u s s e d from two p e r s p e c t i v e s as f o l l o w s : NESP p e r s p e c t i v e : The  f i v e t e a c h e r s c a t e g o r i z e d as implementers o f NESP (see  T a b l e 18) demonstrated many 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 NESP as summarized i n T a b l e 21.  The 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 c o n s i s t o f 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. T h i s 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 c a s e s .  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 o f NESP they demonstrated i n c l u d e : 4. • P r o v i d e s o r g a n i z e d way o f t e a c h i n g elementary 18.  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  28.  Provides materials f o r s p e c i f i c  science.  concepts.  science concepts.  94  T a b l e 21 "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 NESP d i s p l a y e d by 5 t e a c h e r s c l a s s i f i e d NESP implementers  3  4,  9  4, 5,  18,  28, 29,  16,  18,  28,  9,  55, 57, 58, 59, 60 59, 60  58,  54,  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,  53, 54, 55, 57,  25  4,  7, 9, 16,  18, 26, 28,  CAINESP 4, ITEMS  7, 9, 11, 26,  28,  29, 41, 45,  55,  48,  41,  29, 34, 41, 45, 49, 53, 54,  58,  59, 60  58, 59, 60  55, 57, 58,  59, 60  They a l s o demonstrated c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were d e s i g n a t e d as common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP and EESP.  The common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s p l a y e d  d e s c r i b e the programme g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s and they are:. 58. S t i m u l a t e s 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 t o f o r m u l a t e 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  results.  S u b j e c t s 14 and 17 d i s p l a y e d more 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 NESP than the o t h e r -four  teachers i n t h i s  category.  T a b l e 19 shows t h e "observed" or v i e w p o i n t s six  i n NESP.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s symbolizing  A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t a n d a r d i z e d means c r i t e r i o n the  implementers o f NESP p o r t r a y e d Type A v i e w p o i n t  teachers viewpoint.  1,  i n their teaching,i.e.,  3, 9, 14, 17 and 25 a r e implementers o f NESP from a Type A The "observed"  Type A v i e w p o i n t  features c l e a r l y  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 o f NESP. 14,  types  defining Teachers  17 and 25 n o t a b l y d i s p l a y e d most o f Type A items which were p e r c e i v e d  to be CDC o f NESP (see T a b l e 19). T h e r e f o r e NESP d e f i n i n g  characteristics  95  demonstrated  by these implementers  p e r c e i v e d t o be CDC o f NESP.  were comprised  o f items which Type A  These items a r e :  4.  P r o v i d e s o r g a n i z e d way of t e a c h i n g elementary  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 elementary  9.  Contains u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c  science.  science concepts.  58.  Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  59.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e 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  i n science.  results.  The group a l s o d i s p l a y e d two p o s i t i v e consensus i n NESP seemed t o agree belonged  science.  items which a l l types  t o NESP ( Q - a n a l y s i s r e s u l t s ) .  Therefore  the "observed" v i e w p o i n t o r type i n NESP c o n s i s t e d o f CDC and p o s i t i v e consensus  items o f NESP.  The "observed" CDC of NESP f e l l  a l o n g two  c a t e g o r i e s o f programme components: items 4, 7 and 9 d e s c r i b e the programme s t r u c t u r e or o r g a n i z a t i o n , w h i l e items 58, 59 and 60 d e a l w i t h the programme g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s component o f NESP (see F i g u r e 2 ) . Since the items concerned w i t h programme g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s a r e common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP and EESP, i t can be argued  that t h i s  "observed"  v i e w p o i n t i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d by 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 NESP a s s o c i a t e d w i t h programme s t r u c t u r e o r o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e some of the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e congruent  with "perceived" defining  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP, e s p e c i a l l y Type A v i e w p o i n t as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter  4. Type B and C v i e w p o i n t s of NESP were not p o r t r a y e d i n any  c l a s s r o o m as judged by the s t a n d a r d i z e d means c r i t e r i o n and excluded the non-implementers who might have demonstrated i n their teaching.  Furthermore  different  types or v i e w p o i n t s  o f t h e 6 s u b j e c t s who were i n the  " p e r c e i v e d " Type B and C v i e w p o i n t s o n l y two, one from each type, o f f e r e d  96  lessons  for analysis.  of NESP b u t  Subject  27 was  i n the Type B p e r c e p t i o n  i n h i s t e a c h i n g he demonstrated equal numbers of  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP and EESP and  t h e r e f o r e c o u l d not be  as an implementer o f e i t h e r programme. viewpoint  NESP and  The  second s u b j e c t  distinctive categorized  Consequently, whatever type  h i s " o b s e r v e d " c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s symbolized,  (see Table' 18).  category  (8) was  was  not  or  considered  i n the Type C p e r c e p t i o n  of  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 d i s p l a y e d o f EESP. implementer o f NESP.  Thus he  c o u l d not be c l a s s i f i e d as  A l l f i v e teachers  an  i n the "observed" Type A v i e w -  p o i n t implementers were a l s o i n the " p e r c e i v e d " Type A v i e w p o i n t  of  NESP. EESP p e r s p e c t i v e : The  three teachers  (2, 7 and  8) who  implementers o f EESP demonstrated r e l a t i v e l y istics  were c a t e g o r i z e d fewer d i s t i n c t i v e  as character-  o f EESP t h a n 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 d i s p l a y e d by  c l a s s i f i e d implementers o f NESP (compare T a b l e s  21 and  22).  However,  they d i s p l a y e d 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 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 teachers  of NESP.  programmes.  The  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  25.  Provides  students  54.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be  60.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to h y p o L h e s i z e about  The  the  methods to  use.  with materials for observation imaginative.  " o b s e r v e d " 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  congruent w i t h  and i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  results.  these  t e a c h e r s which  are  t h e " p e r 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 EESP can  grouped i n t o two  parts:  be  97  Table  22  " O b s e r 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 EESP d i s p l a y e d by 3 t e a c h e r s c l a s s i f i e d EESP implementers  2  3,  7  3,  8  3,  CAIEESP ITEMS  a)  8, 10,  15,  25, 17, 2 5 , 27,  10,  4 8 , 5 4 , 55,  5 7 , 58, 5 9 , 60  5 4 , 55,  5 8 , 5 9 , 60  30,  25,  48, 54,  17, 2 5 , 3 , 8 , 10, 12, 33, Items s e l e c t e d f o r l e s s o n a n a l y s i s  38,  48,  57,  60 5 8 , 5 9 , 60  55,  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 t o 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 t o be  inquisitive.  58. Stimulates 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 . 5 9 . Encourages c h i l d r e n t o f o r m u l a t e c o n c l u s i o n s . 6 0 . Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e about b)  P o s i t i v e consensus  items w h i c h a l l types i n EESP seemed t o agree  b e l o n g t o EESP (from the r e s u l t s of 25.  results.  Q-analysis).  P r o v i d e s s t u d e n t s 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. Provides 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 developing science  concepts,  3 0 . Encourages c h i l d r e n t o f o r m u l a t e d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t s about e x p e r i m e n t s . The  i d e n t i f y i n g " o b s e r 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 EESP which  are  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s group and which c o r r e s p o n d t o the " p e r c e i v e d "  ing  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP a r e the p o s i t i v e consensus  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.  defin-  items and i t e m 17, a  The " o b s e r 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 d i s p l a y e d by t h i s group are spread over f o u r programme components. For  i n s t a n c e i t e m 17 r e f e r s  t o programme g o a l s , i t e m 25  describes  c o n t e n t , i t e m 27 d e a l s w i t h m a t e r i a l s and i t e m 30 d e s c r i b e s  the t e a c h i n g  98  strategy.  The unique f e a t u r e o f t h i s group was t h a t i t demonstrated  s e v e r a l 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 EESP (15, 27, 30, 54 and 57) which were n o t among the " p e r 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 o f EESP (see Table 22). The  d i f f e r e n t types or v i e w p o i n t s  teachers a r e shown i n T a b l e which symbolized  15.  Subject  Type A v i e w p o i n t .  demonstrated by the t h r e e  7 demonstrated  The "observed"  characteristics  defining characteristics  which a r e congruent w i t h the " p e r 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 Type A c o n s i s t mostly  of common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  (17, 55, 58, 59 and 6 0 ) .  Two t e a c h e r s (2 and 8) demonstrated d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " p e r c e i v e d " Type C.  The "observed"  symbolizing  d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are  congruent w i t h the " p e r 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 i n c l u d e the f o l l o w i n g items Type C p e r c e i v e d 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 EESP: 3. P r o v i d e s  a source  f o r t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s and methods t o u s e .  10. Contains  t e a c h i n g u n i t s which a r e independent o f each o t h e r .  25. P r o v i d e s  students 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 .  48. Requires  a l o t of preparation  time.  These CDC c o n s t i t u t e the d i s t i n g u i s h i n g f e a t u r e o f these t e a c h e r s ' viewp o i n t o f EESP.  The items  o r g a n i z a t i o n , content the "observed"  r e p r e s e n t t h r e e components o f the programme:  and t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g y (see F i g u r e 2 ) .  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which correspond  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t h i s viewpoint  The r e s t o f  w i t h the " p e r c e i v e d "  a r e common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o NESP and  EESP (see Table 1 8 ) . There was no "observed" among t h e implementers.  Type B viewpoint  of EESP demonstrated  S u b j e c t s 6 and 12 were c l o s e t o q u a l i f y i n g : a s  implementers o f 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 t o Type A . subject  Of the t h r e e implementers o n l y  7 m a i n t a i n e d h i s " p e r c e i v e d " Type A v i e w p o i n t i n h i s  teaching.  Teachers 2 and 8,grouped i n the " o b s e r v e d " Type C v i e w p o i n 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 o f EESP.  These t h r e e  implementers of EESP, a r e from the t e a c h e r - u s e r s Thus f i v e t e a c h e r s  subjects,classified  group i n the- s t u d y .  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 t h r e e t e a c h e r s  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 t e a c h e r s  account  f o r one h a l f o f the 16 t e a c h e r s who p r o v i d e d the s c i e n c e l e s s o n s f o r analysis.  The second h a l f demonstrated almost e q u a l numbers o f " 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 t e a c h e r s  4,  10, 1 1 , 15 and  27 do not o n l y have e q u a l w e i g h t e d items f o r b o t h programmes, are below the q u a l i f y i n g s t a n d a r d f o r NESP or EESP.  they a l s o  A l t h o u g h the  r e m a i n i n g t h r e e s u b j e c t s a l s o showed below s t a n d a r d w e i g h t e d i t e m s ,  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 i m p l e m e n t i n g NESP o r EESP (see T a b l e 1 8 ) . Teachers 6 and 12 seem more implementers of EESP t h a n NESP, and t e a c h e r  1 i s more o r l e s s an NESP implementer from a Type A v i e w p o i n t .  As t h e 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 e x t e n t of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 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 . of the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s the n e x t s e c t i o n .  However, some  i n f l u e n c i n g the e x t e n t of usage are i n c l u d e d i n  The w r i t e r recommends c u r i o u s r e a d e r s to  extrapolate  the programme d i m e n s i o n i n use by t h e s e 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 w h i c h 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  values of the teachers  (Dunkin and B i d d l e , 1974).  In t h i s study,  the  and  100  r e s e a r c h e r attempted t o i d e n t i f y the p o s s i b l e  f a c t o r s which  influenced  the p r e s e n c e o r absence o f 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 the new programme and the e s t a b l i s h e d s e c t i o n , STEP 5 c o v e r i n g  STEP 5.  programme.  These a r e p r e s e n t e d i n the next  subproblem 7 as s t a t e d  FACTORS INFLUENCING THE IMPLEMENTATION ISTICS OF THE NEW  Subproblem 7.  i n Chapter 1.  OF THE DEFINING CHARACTER-  CURRICULUM.  What a r e some o f the p o s s i b l e  factors  i n f l u e n c i n g the  p r e s e n c e o r absence o f 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 the new curriculum  and t h e e s t a b l i s h e d  curriculum  i n the classroom  practice?  In o r d e r t o p r o v i d e f u r t h e r meaning and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the "observed" c l a s s r o o m i n t e r a c t i o n s the f o l l o w i n g put  i n tabular  d a t a was c o l l e c t e d and  form f o r ease o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  In s e c t i o n  13 o f the t e a c h e r i n t e r v i e w  t h e r e were t e n q u e s t i o n s . ground, t e a c h i n g  form  These q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n e d  (see Appendix to educational  G-4) back-  e x p e r i e n c e , grade l e v e l c u r r e n t l y b e i n g t a u g h t , programme  taught b e f o r e the new programme, and c o n c e r n s about t h e new programme. Section  3 i n the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s  d a t a from the t e a c h e r i n t e r v i e w s .  i n s t r u m e n t p r o v i d e d another s e t of The i n t e r v i e w  s c h e d u l e had t e n g u i d e -  l i n e q u e s t i o n s which f o c u s s e d on t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n , use of the new programme m a t e r i a l s ,  and the t e a c h e r ' s r o l e i n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  views a l s o d i s c l o s e d  the 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 i n t e r -  the presence  or absence o f 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 t h e new programme o r the established  programme i n c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e .  101  P e r s o n a l d a t a about  respondents  In t h i s s e c t i o n the p e r s o n a l data o f the t e a c h e r s who  offered  l e s s o n s f o r a n a l y s i s i s r e p o r t e d t o e x p l a i n some of the "observed" c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the c l a s s r o o m s .  T a b l e 23 E d u c a t i o n a l background o f  respondents  Subject No. Less than b a c h e l o r ' s degree  1, 14, 22  B a c h e l o r ' s degree  2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,  Master's  degree  •  11,  12, 13, 15, 16,  17,  18, 19, 20, 21, 23  3, 8  Total  Percent  3  13.04  18  78.26  2  8.70  D o c t o r a l degree Other 23  100%  Total  Percent  8  34.78  8  34.78  7  30.43  23  99.99  T a b l e 24 Years o f t e a c h i n g elementary  science  Subject No. First  year  2 ;to 3 years 4 t o 10 y e a r s  1, 2 , 3 , 4 , 9 ,  17, 19, 20  11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 23  11 t o 15 y e a r s  5, 10,  over  6, 7, 8, 12, 18, 21, 22  15 years  102  T a b l e 25 Grade l e v e l s c u r r e n t l y 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  5  21.74  20, 22, 23 7  7, 12, 15, 18, 21  23  100%  T a b l e 26 Elementary s c i e n c e programmes taught by the respondents b e f o r e the new programme  Total  Percent*  S c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m improvement study, SCIS  1  3.57  E x p e r i e n c e s i n s c i e n c e , EIS  1  3.57  16  57.14  Examining your environment, EYE  5  17.86  T e a c h i n g primary s c i e n c e , TPS  1  3.57  Schools c o u n c i l s c i e n c e 5/13  2  7.14  Other  2  7.14  28  99.99  Elementary s c i e n c e study, ESS'  T o t a l number o f responses  :  * Percentage c a l c u l a t e d on the b a s i s o f t o t a l number o f responses r e c e i v e d . Some t e a c h e r s taught more than one programme b e f o r e the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f the new programme.  103  E d u c a t i o n a l background of the  teachers  A comparison of the e d u c a t i o n a l background of the  teachers  shows, i n Table 23, a n o t i c e a b l e s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l a c h i e v e ment.  The m a j o r i t y of the t e a c h e r s , 78.3%, h o l d b a c h e l o r ' s  w h i l e two  t e a c h e r s have master's degrees and  than a b a c h e l o r ' s degree.  t h r e e t e a c h e r s possess  numbers  (Table 24)  (8, 8 and  7).  shows t h r e e d i s t i n c t  i n elementary  s c i e n c e ; and  s c i e n c e f o r over f i f t e e n y e a r s .  groups of almost  s c i e n c e r a i s e s an  years'  elementary  s c i e n c e and  i n terms  interesting  e x i s t s between the number  the degree of  implementation  programme. In terms of the grade l e v e l s c u r r e n t l y taught  t e a c h e r s were w e l l spread group, 43.5%  taught  grade 2 l e v e l s ; and noting;  science  e l e v e n to f i f t e e n  seven have taught  q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g what r e l a t i o n s h i p , i f any, of y e a r s of t e a c h i n g elementary  equal  T h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t e a c h e r s  of t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e w i t h elementary  of the new  s c i e n c e as r e p o r t e d  A l l the t e a c h e r s have taught elementary  f o r f o u r or more y e a r s ; e i g h t of them have had experience  less  None of the t e a c h e r s has- a d o c t o r a l degree.  The number of y e a r s of t e a c h i n g elementary by the t e a c h e r s  degrees,  t h a t one  from k i n d e r g a r t e n to grade 7.  grades 5 and another  of the K-2  6; f o u r taught  f o u r taught  observations. t h a t the new  the  A sizeable  a t the k i n d e r g a r t e n  grades 3 and 4.  and  I t i s worth  group of t e a c h e r s o f f e r e d l e s s o n s f o r  o b s e r v a t i o n w h i l e most of them taught i n c i d e n t a l l y and  (Table 25),  t h e r e f o r e i t was  or s a i d they taught  almost  T h i s i s an important  science  i m p o s s i b l e to schedule  point p a r t i c u l a r l y  lesson  i n view of the  programme recommends some s c i e n c e u n i t s w i t h s p e c i f i c  fact  concepts  104  (a s e c t i o n i n the r e s o u r c e book) to be taught  at the k i n d e r g a r t e n  level.  T h i s seems to i n d i c a t e a c o n f l i c t among the t e a c h e r s , and between the t e a c h e r s and  the d e v e l o p e r s  of the new  s c i e n c e a t the k i n d e r g a r t e n l e v e l . grade 5-6  programme on methods of t e a c h i n g  Seven of the ten t e a c h e r s i n the  group, a l l the f o u r t e a c h e r s i n the grade 3-4  of the t e a c h e r s i n the grade 7 group p a r t i c i p a t e d  group, and  i n the l e s s o n a n a l y s e s .  Table 26 shows t h a t a c c o r d i n g to a l l the responses more than h a l f of the responses Study  (ESS) was  taught more than any of the o t h e r programmes.  programme, which r e c e i v e d f i v e responses,  got one  or two  had  taught ESS,  the new  responses. one  programme.  The  The  D i v i s i o n , Elementary  responses  ESS  programme was  taught ESS  Science  1-7,  o n l y i n terms of the responses  One  classroom  installed  1969).  elementary  Columbia  Curriculum  i n p a r t i c u l a r was  (the t e a c h e r i s i n the over t h a t those t e a c h e r s who  have  revelation  have taught ESS  f o r the "observed"  (16  characteristics  i m p l i e d , i n the r e s u l t s of  15 y e a r s ' e x p e r i e n c e  group).  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 i n the classrooms 7, 8 and  12).  class-  the  of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme  had .longer e x p e r i e n c e w i t h ESS  s u b j e c t s 6,  one  s c i e n c e f o r e l e v e n or more  i s a member of the group) i n the  a n a l y s i s , as a s t r o n g advocate  NESP (Table 18,  in British  Table 26 does c o n f i r m t h i s  T h i s p r o b a b l y a l s o accounts  teacher  teachers  As Table 24 shows, more than  from t e a c h e r s who  of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme (ESS rooms.  t h a t many of the  i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t these same t e a c h e r s may  f o r q u i t e a l o n g time.  responses).  A s i d e from  the r e s t of the programmes  (B.C. Dept. of E d u c a t i o n ,  h a l f of the t e a c h e r s have taught Therefore  suggest  Science  of the e a r l i e s t programmes, b e f o r e the i n t r o d u c t i o n of  s c h o o l s i n the e a r l y s e v e n t i e s  years.  received  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the Elementary  the EYE  three  This  suggests-  d i s p l a y e d more  than they d i d those  of  105  T a b l e 27 Respondents' concerns  about the new programme  How do you r a t e the new programme i n terms of i t s s u i t a b i l i t y f o r elementary s c i e n c e o r f o r your students? No. Don't know  1  Unsuitable  -  Suitable Very  suitable  Percent 4..35  14  60,.87  8  34,.78  23  100  Has the student i n t e r e s t and m o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g s c i e n c e changed s i n c e the new programme has been i n t r o d u c e d ? No.  Percent  No o p i n i o n  4  17.39  Cannot n o t i c e any change  7  30.43  M o t i v a t i o n seems t o have i n c r e a s e d  12  52.17  M o t i v a t i o n seems t o have decreased  -  -  23  99.99  What i s your image o f the new programme as i t r e l a t e s t o your classroom s i t u a t i o n ? No.  Percent  A welcome change  10  43.48  A f u l f i l l e r o f a need  11  47.83  A c r e a t o r of u n j u s t i f i e d No i d e a  demand  -  -  2  8.70  23  100.01  106  T a b l e 27 4.  5.  (Continued)  How do you compare the new programme w i t h what you were t e a c h i n g b e f o r e 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  L e s s complex  10  43.48  More complex  7  30.43  23  99.99  How w i l l i n g would you be t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e v e l o p i n g a new e l e m e n t a r y s c i e n c e programme d u r i n g s c h o o l h o u r s 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  P r o b a b l y would not p a r t i c i p a t e  7  30.43  P r o b a b l y 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  T h i s s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s i n f o r m a t i o n about the t e a c h e r s ' towards the new programme and i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .  attitude  By r e f e r r i n g t o  T a b l e 27 i t can be shown t h a t almost a l l the t e a c h e r s i n the study r a t e d t h e new programme as e i t h e r s u i t a b l e o r v e r y s u i t a b l e f o r e l e m e n t a r y schoo or f o r t h e i r students.  Only one t e a c h e r d i d n ' t know whether the new  107  programme was  u n s u i t a b l e , s u i t a b l e or very s u i t a b l e f o r elementary  or f o r h i s s t u d e n t s .  On  the q u e s t i o n of the image of the new  most of the t e a c h e r s c o n s i d e r e d the new and  a f u l f i l l e r of a need  However, when i t came  t e a c h e r s had no  to a comparison between the new  taught b e f o r e .  The  idea.  programme and what  the t e a c h e r s taught b e f o r e NESP, the t e a c h e r s were almost programme was  programme,  programme a welcome change (43.5%)  (47.8%), and o n l y two  whether the new  school  evenly s p l i t  more o r l e s s complex than what they  on  had  o t h e r s i x t e a c h e r s had no o p i n i o n or d i d n ' t n o t i c e any  d i f f e r e n c e between NESP and what they had  taught b e f o r e the i n t r o d u c t i o n  of NESP. One  q u e s t i o n on the response  form d e a l t w i t h change i n student  i n t e r e s t and m o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g s c i e n c e . programme about one m o t i v a t i o n had  half  A f t e r u s i n g the  new  (52.2%) of the t e a c h e r s b e l i e v e d t h a t  i n c r e a s e d s i n c e the adoption of NESP.  The  student  o t h e r h a l f of  the t e a c h e r s e i t h e r had no o p i n i o n (17.4%) or d i d n ' t n o t i c e any  change  (30.4%) i n the s t u d e n t s ' i n t e r e s t and m o t i v a t i o n i n l e a r n i n g s c i e n c e . g e n e r a l the t e a c h e r s had  a h i g h r e g a r d f o r NESP and  u s e f u l c o n t r i b u t i o n to the t e a c h i n g of elementary  c o n s i d e r e d NESP a  science.  These r e s u l t s  are complementary to the e a r l i e r . . r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g t h a t most of t e a c h e r s had The  made a marked s h i f t  to the use of the new  t e a c h e r s ' responses  to the l a s t  In  the  programme.  item i n Table 27 i n d i c a t e t h a t  more than one h a l f of the t e a c h e r s would be w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e v e l o p i n g a new The  responses  percentage  programme on the c o n d i t i o n t h a t r e l e a s e time be  which i n d i c a t e u n w i l l i n g n e s s c o n s t i t u t e q u i t e a  allocated.  significant  (34.8%) i n t h a t o f t e n the t e a c h e r ' s r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m development  i s predetermined Ponder, 1977;  by the d e v e l o p e r s  and Evans and  (Roberts,  Shaffler,  1976).  1980;  Goodlad, 1975;  Doyle  and  These r e s e a r c h e r s argue t h a t  108  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 i s c r u c i a l , and t e a c h e r s ' w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e over and  assume  above t h e i r r e g u l a r  teaching  duties.  Teacher p r e p a r a t i o n to implement NESP  The taped  information provided  i n t e r v i e w s of  room a n a l y s e s  i n t h i s s e c t i o n was  (1) the s i x t e e n s u b j e c t s who  of l e s s o n s and  (2) the d e v e l o p e r s  viewed f o r a s s e s s i n g the extent  The  new  programme was  i n i t i a t e d and  to d e s i g n  the s t r u c t u r e and  of NESP under the d i r e c t was  The  were  the extent  inter-  to which  developed under the  centre administered  implementation s t r a t e g i e s of NESP.  of t e a c h e r s  of NESP who  class-  they  to implement NESP.  of a p r o f e s s i o n a l development c e n t r e . ment and  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the  to which the p o t e n t i a l implementers of  NESP were i n v o l v e d i n programme development and were prepared  t r a n s c r i b e d from  The  draw up  auspices  the  develop-  c e n t r e s e l e c t e d a group the goals and  objectives  s u p e r v i s i o n of. the c e n t r e p e r s o n n e l .  One  teacher  r e l e a s e d from her s c h o o l to work h a l f time at the c e n t r e i n o r d e r  compile the concept content  f l o w c h a r t s f o r the t e a c h i n g u n i t s .  t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s planned t h e i r u n i t s based on these to the s p e c i f i e d  s c i e n c e concepts and  u n i t s have s t r u c t u r a l u n i f o r m i t y . r e s o u r c e book which was The  who  The  f l o w c h a r t s conforming  Thus the NESP t e a c h i n g  u n i t s were then compiled  to a l l the..elementary  implementation s t r a t e g i e s d e v i s e d by  f o r the t e a c h e r - u s e r s were intended  distributed  The  contents.  into a  schools.  the c e n t r e ,  particularly  form the m a j o r i t y of the p o t e n t i a l implementers,  to i n t r o d u c e them to the new  programme.  The  t e a c h e r s were  i n v i t e d to one-day o r i e n t a t i o n workshops; which were w e l l attended have r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from  to  a l l the elementary schools,.  The  centre  but d i d not personnel  109  visited  a l l the s c h o o l s i n o r d e r to e x p l a i n the usage of the NESP r e s o u r c e  book and  show the s c h o o l s how  expected  to p r e s e n t  expected  to s e l e c t a t l e a s t f i v e s c i e n c e u n i t s , one  a r e a , and  to use  supply l i s t s  the o r d e r forms.  to the c e n t r e a n n u a l l y .  i n d i c a t e the s u p p l i e s r e q u i r e d .  instituted  The  s c h o o l s were Each t e a c h e r  was  from each s c i e n c e  T h i s r o u t i n e seemed to-have "been  to ensure teacher commitment.  However, i t seems t h e r e were no  attempts made to a c q u a i n t the t e a c h e r s w i t h 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  NESP, a p r e r e q u i s i t e i n i t s e l f  f o r i t s s u c c e s s f u l implementation.  the t e a c h e r s seemed unaware of how the s t u d e n t s and t i o n of NESP. of  the p r o f e s s i o n a l development c e n t r e d u r i n g the  Furthermore, t h e r e was  no  follow-up a f t e r  NESP to r e s o l v e i s s u e s o b s t r u c t i n g i t s proper The  ten  d i f f e r e n t l y they would i n t e r a c t  group who  r e g u l a r elementary  schools.  seven who  items f o r NESP.  attended  Q-sorted  two  was  composed of  d e v e l o p e r s who  Among the ten t e a c h e r - u s e r s  or two workshops and  workshops each. them wrote one  twenty  four  the o t h e r s i x were personnel.  Two  the o t h e r two  of the t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s o f f e r e d t h r e e and  five  The number of u n i t s each one wrote a l s o v a r i e d ; t h r e e of o r two  t h r e e to f i v e u n i t s . z a t i o n and  in  above c o n t r i b u t i n g u n i t s o f f e r e d o r i e n t a t i o n  workshops i n s c h o o l s o t h e r than t h e i r own. o f f e r e d one  taught  These s u b j e c t s were from the o r i g i n a l  the i n t r o d u c t o r y o r i e n t a t i o n workshop, and  t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s over and  installa-  i n i t i a l try-out  i n t r o d u c e d to NESP a t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e s c h o o l s by the c e n t r e The  with  use.  o f f e r e d l e s s o n s f o r examination  t e a c h e r - u s e r s , f o u r t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and  Thus  u n i t s , and The  the f o u r t h t e a c h e r - w r i t e r c o n t r i b u t e d  d e v e l o p e r s were a l s o r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the o r g a n i -  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the i n t r o d u c t o r y workshops. A t o t a l of t h i r t y - s e v e n s c h o o l p e r s o n n e l members were engaged i n  the development and d i s s e m i n a t i o n of NESP. The  teacher-users,  teacher-  110  w r i t e r s , and the d e v e l o p e r s r e f e r r e d to i n t h i s study were s e l e c t e d by the P r o f e s s i o n a l 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 o f NESP  Teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n the development o f NESP had a n o t i c e a b l e  i n f l u e n c e on some o f the t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s . T h i s i n t u r n appeared a f f e c t e d t h e i r a t t i t u d e towards i t s implemention.  t o have  Some of the t e a c h e r -  w r i t e r s expressed s t r o n g commitment t o the implementation  o f NESP as  e x e m p l i f i e d by these q u o t a t i o n s from the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h them: I am more aware of the o b j e c t i v e s , and f e e l c o n f i d e n t i n u s i n g the u n i t s . I am the author o f many u n i t s and f e e l r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s [NESP] implementation. These q u o t a t i o n s i n c i d e n t a l l y came from i n t e r v i e w s w i t h t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s 14 and 17 who d i s p l a y e d many CDCs of NESP i n t h e i r c l a s s r o o m t e a c h i n g (see T a b l e 18).  In c o n t r a s t , some t e a c h e r s d i d n o t share the a n x i e t y of  these t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s about  implementing  NESP.  These were the t e a c h e r s  who d i d not c o n t r i b u t e any u n i t s to NESP, and o n l y attended the o r i e n t a t i o n workshops t o f a m i l i a r i z e themselves  w i t h NESP m a t e r i a l s .  quoted below t o emphasize t h e i r p o i n t o f view about  Some o f them a r e  i t s implemention.  .... programme m a t e r i a l s don't appeal t o me. I don't use the r e s o u r c e book [NESP]; t h a t i n t e r e s t me. T h i s o p p o s i t e view o f implementation i l l u s t r a t e s perhaps  I tend t o do t h i n g s  p r e s e n t e d by these t e a c h e r s  the e f f e c t s o f n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme  development a c t i v i t i e s which p r o b a b l y l e d t o the programme's r e j e c t i o n r e g a r d l e s s o f the q u a l i t y o f the p r o d u c t , time  o f money spent on p r o d u c i n g  the p r o d u c t .  f u r t h e r to d i s c l o s e any r o o t  I t would be i n t e r e s t i n g t o probe  Ill  causes of such s t a n c e . teacher-users  However, as i t had been p o i n t e d out e a r l i e r , more  implemented some aspects of NESP than of EESP s t r a t e g i e s .  Use  The  of NESP m a t e r i a l s  t e a c h e r s ' r e p l i e s i n the i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s about the  use  of NESP m a t e r i a l s v a r i e d i n t h e i r assessment of NESP m a t e r i a l s , from b e i n g inadequate Two  to b e i n g too much f o r an elementary  t e a c h e r s argued t h a t NESP d i d not p r o v i d e a " t o t a l " s c i e n c e  f o r the elementary  school c h i l d r e n .  One  have taught most of the NESP u n i t s and t e a c h i n g from o t h e r s o u r c e s . taught and  s c i e n c e programme. experience  teacher i n p a r t i c u l a r claimed  consequently  had  shifted  to  S e v e r a l of the t e a c h e r s r e p o r t e d t h a t they  NESP as w e l l as o t h e r m a t e r i a l s because of t h e i r p e r s o n a l  the c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t s .  F i v e of the respondents  NESP m a t e r i a l s were more a p p r o p r i a t e f o r elementary However, i n g e n e r a l , the new most o f the t e a c h e r s i n t h i s s t u d y . t h a t i t was  were convinced  regarded  T h i s s t a t u r e of NESP and  h i g h l y by the  view of  implementation  r e j e c t a programme l a r g e l y r e s t e d i n t h e i r hands.  t h e i r classroom  fact  more f o r i t s wide usage i n  t e a c h e r s r e c o g n i z e d t h a t the f i n a l d e c i s i o n to use  their responsibility  that  factors.  Teachers'  The  interests  school science.  programme was  i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c r e a t e d account  the s c h o o l s than o t h e r  to  or  They a l s o acknowledged  i n d e c i s i o n making on the b a s i s of the r e a l i t i e s  situation.  Most of them seemed content w i t h  the  of  112  u n i d i r e c t i o n a l approach to implementation of NESP. i n the implementation p r o c e s s  as t h a t of p a s s i v e adopters  not as c o - a c t i v e implementers, capable or p r o c e s s  redefinition.  They viewed t h e i r  There was  of new  of c a u s i n g c o n f l i c t s ,  role  materials  redirection  almost an overwhelming acknowledgement  of the P r o f e s s i o n a l Development Centre as the c h i e f c u s t o d i a n of NESP and r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y f o r i t s implementation. to be  s u p p o r t i v e of NESP as were any  The  p r i n c i p a l s were r e p o r t e d  t e a c h e r s who  volunteered  to  partici-  pate i n i t s implementation. However, the d i s c r e p a n c y NESP was  between the teachers  about whether  adequate or inadequate as an elementary s c i e n c e programme shows  the l a c k of c l a r i t y over the r o l e of NESP as i t r e l a t e s to the elementary s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m i n the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . considered other  total  Some teachers  NESP m a t e r i a l s as supplementary to o t h e r programmes, w h i l e  teachers  thought NESP was  a complete elementary s c i e n c e programme  which needed f u r t h e r development and a f f i r m e d the  implementation.  importance of u s i n g NESP m a t e r i a l s .  of implementation as the a d o p t i o n involving behavioural  and  Many  teachers  This implies a notion  of programme m a t e r i a l s r a t h e r than  s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the t e a c h i n g and  learning  of elementary s c i e n c e . Although most t e a c h e r s  reported  f o r the r e q u i s i t i o n of s u p p l i e s and t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l supply plan.  In two  system and  and  t h a t the s c h o o l s were r e s p o n s i b l e  equipment, a few  equipment l i s t s  i n s t a n c e s the teachers  pleaded  In s e v e r a l cases  submitted  showing the minimum f i v e - u n i t f o r an improved d e l i v e r y  charged t h a t , o c c a s i o n a l l y , s u p p l i e s and  the p e r i o d ? s c h e d u l e d  teachers  equipment a r r i v e d a f t e r  i n which they were to teach the s e l e c t e d u n i t s .  the p r i n c i p a l s or t e a c h e r s  i n charge of s u p p l i e s  and  equipment sought the t e a c h e r s ' a s s i s t a n c e i n making the o r d e r s , and  this  113  c o u l d have accounted  f o r some of the d e l a y s i n d e l i v e r y .  In b r i e f , the t e a c h e r s r e c o g n i z e d and accepted o v e r a l l h i e r a r c h i c a l implementation implementer  structure.  They a l s o accepted t h e i r p a s s i v e  r o l e s a t the base of the pyramid; As one of them admitted;  ... t e a c h e r s have the f i n a l say about u n i t s they l i k e the u n i t s t h a t work w i t h the c h i l d r e n . The  the  and  l i t e r a t u r e on implementation p r o c e s s emphasizes the p o i n t t h a t  people i n v o l v e d i n the development of new i n v o l v e d i n implementation.  programmes must a l s o be  e n s u r i n g s u c c e s s f u l implementation 1976;  t h i s i n the  and H a r l e n , 1977).  outgoing  The  actively  T h i s would mean t h a t the i n n o v a t i o n or  intended changes are understood by the p o t e n t i a l implementers,  Kritek,  those  (Leithwood,  1974;  Nkosona,  There seemed t o be l i t t l e  thus 1978;  evidence of  responses from the s c h o o l s and the t e a c h e r s .  summary of the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s , i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s  and  s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h are p r e s e n t e d i n the next c h a p t e r .  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 t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s , and gives a proposal f o r future research.  Summary  Purpose The  f i r s t p a r t o f t h i s study was designed  t i o n s o f d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s o f a new elementary  t o determine  percep-  s c i e n c e programme i n  terms 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 a t programme, t o determine any agreements and disagreements  i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f 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 t o examine how t h e t e a c h e r s p e r c e p t i o n s were r e l a t e d t o a c t u a l c l a s s r o o m use o f t h e new programme m a t e r i a l s .  Teacher p e r c e p t i o n  of an i n n o v a t i o n has been r e c o g n i z e d as v i t a l i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e success o r non-success o f an i n n o v a t i o n o r change. The  second p a r t o f t h e study r e q u i r e d t h e use o f t h e c l a s s r o o m  a n a l y s i s i n s t r u m e n t t o determine  t h e presence  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 programme, o f 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 t h e e s t a b l i s h e d programme, and t o determine  t h e v i e w p o i n t s b e i n g 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 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new programme, established programme, or any viewpoints i n the classrooms were i d e n t i f i e d .  Procedure In chapter three, the two instruments applied f o r the c o l l e c t i o n of data were described i n d e t a i l .  These instruments were the Q-methodology  and the classroom analysis instrument, CAI.  •j  Q-methodology  The Q-methodology was used i n the f i r s t phase of the study to determine the respondents' perceptions of the defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new elementary science programme, NESP, and of the established elementary science programme, EESP. Q-sorts and Q-analysis.  The Q-methodology consisted of the  Each person was administered a 60 item Q-sort to  describe both programmes according to what he 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 , CDC, of the new elementary science programme, NESP, and what he 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 , CNDC, of the established elementary science programme, EESP.  The charac-  t e r i s t i c s 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 p r o f i l e s based on the defining characteris-  t i c s were then correlated and analysed f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences using the various Q-techniques.  A factor analysis was conducted to identify  types of viewpoints concerning defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s 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 as consensus  type from another, as w e l l  items among a l l types, were i d e n t i f i e d and d i s c u s s e d .  Classroom  analysis  instrument  Those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of NESP and EESP t h a t respondents t o be CDC  perceived  were s e l e c t e d t o c o n s t i t u t e the b a s i s f o r the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s  instrument, CAI.  The  instrument had  t i o n s c h e d u l e , c h e c k l i s t , and  t h r e e components: c l a s s r o o m  i n t e r v i e w schedule.  observa-  The o b s e r v a t i o n schedule  and c h e c k l i s t components were supplemented by the i n t e r v i e w s , which p e r m i t t e d i n - d e p t h a n a l y s i s of the c l a s s r o o m The  instrument was  activities.  judged by t h r e e s p e c i a l i s t s  i n elementary  s c i e n c e at the u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l on the b a s i s of i t s s u i t a b i l i t y examination o f an elementary  s c i e n c e programme.  of the judges h i g h l y r a t e d the CAI examination  (4, 5 and 5 ) .  of the c l a s s r o o m a c t i v i t i e s , a second  to e s t a b l i s h i n t e r - o b s e r v e r r e l i a b i l i t y . between the i n v e s t i g a t o r and the second The  school v i s i t s  The  f o r the  Using a 5-point s c a l e D u r i n g the  each  initial  " o b s e r v e r " was  trained  i n t e r - o b s e r v e r agreement  " o b s e r v e r " was  77.8%.  involved s i x t e e n teachers i n ten schools  spread over two months from A p r i l to June,  1981.  Analysis  The Q-sorts p r o v i d e d two  s e t s of p r o f i l e s f o r each s u b j e c t .  These p r o f i l e s r e f l e c t e d what each s u b j e c t 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 The  programme and of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme.  i n d i v i d u a l p r o f i l e s were c o r r e l a t e d and a n a l y s e d f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s  and  117  d i f f e r e n c e s through the v a r i o u s Q-techniques. p r o f i l e s were grouped was i d e n t i f i e d .  The s u b j e c t s w i t h  as types o r f a m i l i e s , and the n a t u r e of each  type  Each type or v i e w p o i n t was compared w i t h every o t h e r  v i e w p o i n t i n terms o f 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 each The  similar  programme.  items w i t h z - s c o r e s 0.8 and above, 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 o f each type i n both programmes, were s e l e c t e d as the b a s i s f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the CAI.  The instrument was then a p p l i e d  to the c o l l e c t i o n of c l a s s r o o m d a t a , which was t a b u l a t e d 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 " 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 the two programmes. weighted-items,  t h e programme under implementation,  d i s p l a y e d by each t e a c h e r were The  Through an e s t i m a t e d number of and the v i e w p o i n t  determined.  i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the t e a c h e r s , a l o n g w i t h the p e r s o n a l data  they p r o v i d e d , were a n a l y s e d to determine  some of the p o s s i b l e  which i n f l u e n c e d the presence o r absence of the d e f i n i n g  factors  characteristics  of NESP o r EESP i n the c l a s s r o o m s .  Results  Summary of r e s u l t s o f Q - a n a l y s i s 1.  The r e s u l t s of the study showed t h a t 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 p r o v i d e d a convenient method f o r 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 an i n n o v a t i o n o r proposed  2.  change.  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 NESP and EESP, the respondents were a b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between the two programmes. p e r c e p t i o n s of the respondents below:  The p r e v a l e n t  of NESP and EESP a r e b r i e f l y  presented  118  P e r c e p t i o n s o f t h e d e v e l o p e r s , t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and t e a c h e r - u s e r s of NESP and  EESP P e r c e p t i o n s o f NESP The d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s o f NESP p r o v i d e d a v i e w p o i n t  programme, i n terms of 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 , which c l o s e l y with the i n i t i a l l y or and  of the  corresponds  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP.  The v i e w p o i n t  type i n t h i s case was made up of a mix o f d e v e l o p e r s , t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s teacher-users.  The most p r e v a l e n t v i e w p o i n t was Type A, h e l d by most  of  the d e v e l o p e r s  (4/5), t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s (8/11) and t e a c h e r - u s e r s  of  t h e 27 respondents.  The 21 Type A respondents  d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were congruent  i d e n t i f i e d NESP by t h e  with the i n i t i a l  t i c s which d e s c r i b e the programme s t r u c t u r e or o r g a n i z a t i o n . these respondents  (9/11)  characterisFurther,  a l s o 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 which  d e s c r i b e t h e programme g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s t o be n o n - d e f i n i t i v e o f NESP. T h i s p e r c e p t i o n i s a l s o congruent  w i t h t h e programme p l a n n e r s ' 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 e s t a b l i s h e d as common c h a r a c t e r istics  to NESP and EESP and n o t t o d i s t i n g u i s h between  them.  The o t h e r two v i e w p o i n t s on NESP, shared between 6 of the 27 respondents, and  a r e Types B and C.  Type B v i e w p o i n t p r e s e n t e d by one d e v e l o p e r ,  two t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s , was almost  an oppossing v i e w p o i n t  to Type A. U n l i k e  Type A v i e w p o i n t , Type B 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 which d e s c r i b e NESP g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s 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 o f NESP. T h i s i s c o n t r a r y t o what the d e v e l o p e r s of  i n s t i t u t e d o r i g i n a l l y as d e s c r i p t i v e  NESP. The Type C v i e w p o i n t , on t h e o t h e r hand, as p r e s e n t e d by one  t e a c h e r - w r i t e r , and two t e a c h e r - u s e r s , d i d n o t c h a r a c t e r i z e NESP by any one programme component.  T h i s v i e w p o i n t was symbolized  by the d e f i n i n g  119  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from t h r e e of the programme components, namely, goals and o b j e c t i v e s , t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s , and m a t e r i a l s .  Type C v i e w p o i n t  resembles Type B i n one a s p e c t , t h a t they both p e r c e i v e d some of the items which d e s c r i b e NESP goals and o b j e c t i v e s 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 t h r e e v i e w p o i n t s  seemed t o agree on about 50% of  the items as r e l a t i n g to NESP (see T a b l e ing  10).  The consensus items  regard-  NESP i n c l u d e some 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 which d e s c r i b e goals'  and o b j e c t i v e s of NESP. istics  T h i s was not a s u r p r i s e as most of the c h a r a c t e r -  i n t h i s c a t e g o r y were i n i t i a l l y  e s t a b l i s h e d 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 p e r c e i v e d some items t o be more d e s c r i p t i v e of NESP than d i d Type B and C (see F i g u r e 6 ) .  P e r c e p t i o n s o f EESP Of the 27 respondents  t o NESP Q - s o r t , 23 a l s o 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 p e r c e p t i o n s of its defining characteristics. identified.  U n l i k e NESP, the p a t t e r n of d i s t r i b u t i o n of the  i s l e s s skewed (see T a b l e s expressed  12 and 13).  The o u t s t a n d i n g  by 56.5% of these 23 respondents  respondents, users  As i n NESP t h r e e Types, A, B and C were  comprising  i n t h i s group.  from the programme  Type A v i e w p o i n t  There were 13  c h a r a c t e r i z e d EESP by items  goals and o b j e c t i v e s c a t e g o r y .  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP.  viewpoint  4 d e v e l o p e r s , 6 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s , and 3 t e a c h e r - . -  c o n t r a r y to what the d e v e l o p e r s  respondents  was Type A.  respondents  initially  mostly  This viewpoint i s  c o n s t i t u t e d as d i s t i n c t i v e  Furthermore, almost  one h a l f of the items the  p e r c e i v e d t o be CDC of EESP were the o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d  120  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f NESP. of  The s u b j e c t s a l s o s e l e c t e d a few c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  EESP t o be CNDC of t h a t programme.  demonstrate  T h e r e f o r e , t h e respondents  a c l e a r p e r c e p t i o n o f EESP as planned by t h e d e v e l o p e r s .  C o n s i d e r i n g t h e c o m p o s i t i o n o f the group, in  d i d not  10 of them having  participated  t h e development of NESP, and t h e remaining t h r e e having been t e a c h e r -  u s e r s , o f t h e new programme, i t i s probable t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s r e c a l l 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 o f NESP b e t t e r than those of EESP. Type B v i e w p o i n t was expressed by seven respondents, or 30.4% o f the 23 s u b j e c t s , composed of 1 d e v e l o p e r , 3 t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s , and 3 t e a c h e r users.  The respondents  p e r c e i v e d some of t h e i n i t i a l l y  i s t i c s of NESP t o be CDC o f EESP.  selected character-  The s u b j e c t s a l s o p e r c e i v e d almost  equal numbers o f NESP and EESP items t o be CNDC o f EESP. r e s u l t s o f t h e respondents' p r o f i l e a n a l y s e s suggest  The o v e r a l l  t h a t t h e respondents  i n Type B v i e w p o i n t d i d n o t a c c u r a t e l y remember the d e f i n i n g of  characteristics  EESP, and t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f EESP was vague. Type C v i e w p o i n t was p r e s e n t e d by t h r e e t e a c h e r - u s e r s , o r 13.1%  of  t h e 23 s u b j e c t s .  These respondents  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 The  c h a r a c t e r i z e d EESP by some of i t s -  some of the>  s u b j e c t s s e l e c t e d more o f t h e i n i t i a l l y  common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  established c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  EESP than those o f NESP to i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e the programme.  There-  f o r e , Type C p e r c e p t i o n of EESP was c l o s e r t o the i n i t i a l v i e w p o i n t any of Types A and B above.  than  However, t h e r e were some items on which t h e r e  seemed t o be agreement among t y p e s . The  items on which t h e r e was consensus  on EESP a c r o s s a l l the  t h r e e v i e w p o i n t s c o n s t i t u t e d 50% of a l l t h e items.  A l l o f t h e 23 s u b j e c t s  seemed to agree on items from t h e programme g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s and from the t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s t o be d e s c r i p t i v e of EESP.  A l s o , they a l l seemed  121  to  agree  t h a t the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which d i d not b e l o n g 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 T a b l e 12).  This r e s u l t  confirms the e a r l i e r r e s u l t s , which-showed the respondents EESP d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a c c u r a t e l y .  T a b l e 10,  d i d not  i n Chapter  the items which d i f f e r e n t i a t e among the t h r e e v i e w p o i n t s .  further recall  4, shows  Several  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p o r t r a y e d t o show the d i f f e r e n c e s i n v i e w p o i n t s are a l s o i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the i n i t i a l the r e s u l t s  s e l e c t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP.  showed t h a t v e r y few respondents  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.  The  remembered c l e a r l y  i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e EESP a c c u r a t e l y by the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  to  i t i n the study.  t h r e e y e a r s may  3.  R e s u l t s and The  in  Chapter  seemed-  designated  f a c t t h a t NESP has been i n the s c h o o l s f o r n e a r l y  p a r t l y account  f o r these  results.  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c l a s s r o o m  r e s u l t s and  data  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the c l a s s r o o m d a t a p r e s e n t e d  5 showed the presence  programmes i n the c l a s s r o o m s , the o r i g i n a l 27 o f f e r e d  the  t e a c h e r s i n Type C v i e w p o i n t  to  The  In g e n e r a l ,  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 both  i n v a r y i n g degrees.  S i x t e e n t e a c h e r s of  l e s s o n s f o r examination.  They demonstrated  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 i n t h e i r t e a c h i n g (see T a b l e 18).  The programme under implementation  and the v i e w p o i n t s p o r t r a y e d were  d i s c u s s e d a c c o r d i n g t o the i n d i v i d u a l classrooms f e a t u r e s of the r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d In  Table  18 s u b j e c t s 3, 9,  implementers of the new all  examined, and  i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 14,  17 and  25 are c a t e g o r i z e d as  programme on the b a s i s of the c r i t e r i a  demonstrated Type A v i e w p o i n t  composed of one d e v e l o p e r , two  the main  i n their teaching.  t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s and  two  set.  T h i s group  They  was  teacher-users.  In  the e a r l i e r assessment of s u b j e c t p e r c e p t i o n s , these same s u b j e c t s were classified  as Type A as w e l l .  Teacher  1 was  c l o s e to b e i n g c a t e g o r i z e d as  1  122  an implementer  of NESP from Type A p e r s p e c t i v e but d i d n ' t demonstrate  s u f f i c i e n t number of d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . C performers among the p o t e n t i a l implementers  a  There were no Types B and of NESP.  Subjects 2, 7 and 8 were c l a s s i f i e d as implementers  of the  e s t a b l i s h e d programme though they e x h i b i t e d r e l a t i v e l y fewer  distinctive  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EESP.  Type C view-  Teacher-users 2 and 7 demonstrated  p o i n t o f EESP i n t h e i r classrooms a l t h o u g h they d i d not belong to Type C p e r c e p t i o n group of EESP.  However, the t h i r d t e a c h e r - u s e r , number 8,  was  c l a s s i f i e d Type A v i e w p o i n t performer and thus maintained h i s p e r c e p t i o n classification. of  S u b j e c t s 6 and 12 were c l o s e to q u a l i f y i n g as  EESP and Type A v i e w p o i n t performers but t a l l i e d  number of items.  insufficient  weighted  There were no Type B v i e w p o i n t performers among the  p o s s i b l e implementers all  implementers  of EESP. The s u b j e c t s 2,-6,-7 and 8 i n t h i s group were  t e a c h e r - u s e r s except number 12 who  was  a teacher-writer.  However, s u b j e c t s 4, 10, 11, 15 and 27 d i d not o n l y have an equal number of weighted  items f o r both programmes, but a l s o had  i n s u f f i c i e n t number of each f o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n as implementers EESP.  an  of NESP or  T h e r e f o r e , the p o s s i b l e v i e w p o i n t s they p o r t r a y e d i n t h e i r t e a c h i n g  c o u l d not be determined '(_s.ee T a b l e 28) .  F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g implementation of NESP  The p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s which of  i n f l u e n c e d the presence or  absence  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 NESP or EESP i n the classrooms were  i n f e r r e d from i n t e r v i e w s w i t h programme development  p e r s o n n e l and t e a c h e r s , '  from the t e a c h e r s ' p e r s o n a l d a t a sheet, and from s c h o o l v i s i t s . data a v a i l a b l e , i t appeared  t h a t the e d u c a t i o n a l background  From the  of the t e a c h e r s  T a b l e 28  123  Summary o f Research F i n d i n g s Established E l e m e n t a r y S c i e n c e Programme  New E l e m e n t a r y S c i e n c e Programme Subjects  1 2 3 4  Perception Types A B C  Types A B C  /* / /* /  /*  7  10 11 12 13 14 15  21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Total  1  / 1  0  0  /* / /  Non Implementer  0  1  /  0 /*  1  0  0  / /  /* 1 1 1 1  /*  /*  /  /  / / / /  19  Types A B C  0  1*  /* / / / / /* /  " O b s e r v e d " performance  /  / /  18 20  Types A B. C  /  16 17  Perception  /  8 9  Non Implementer  /*  5 6  " O b s e r v e d " Performance  1 1  / / / / / /* /  1 1 I 1 1  /* /  / 27  6  /  1 5  *  Congruency between p e r c e p t i o n and performance  O  D i s c r e p a n c y between p e r c e p t i o n and performance  23  5  5  124  was  n e i t h e r a h i n d r a n c e nor an advantage to the implementation  EESP.  However, the number of y e a r s a t e a c h e r had  s c h o o l d i s t r i c t was  taught  of NESP or  s c i e n c e i n the  an i n d i c a t o r of the p e r i o d the t e a c h e r had  taught  ESS  (one of the e s t a b l i s h e d programmes which made up the EESP and which had . been i n use  i n the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t  s i n c e the s e v e n t i e s ) .  The  two  c l a s s i f i e d as implementers o f EESP have taught s c i e n c e f o r over i n the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ,  and t h e r e f o r e have had  than the o t h e r t e a c h e r s . to the new  teachers  15 y e a r s  longer experience with  They might have had more d i f f i c u l t i e s  programme a f t e r such a l o n g p e r i o d w i t h ESS  than the  ESS  to change relatively  newer t e a c h e r s i n the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . H i s t o r i c a l l y , the new developed  s c i e n c e programme was  pre-implementation  system was  designed,  to enhance implementation,  to p r e s e n t supply and equipment l i s t s  Centre would then send  where the s c h o o l s were to the Centre a n n u a l l y . The  the r e q u i r e d s u p p l i e s and  equipment to the r e s p e c t i v e  However, the i n v e s t i g a t o r noted  forms i n some cases were, not used to some of the problems v o i c e d .  as planned.  service  t h a t the  requisition  T h i s might have c o n t r i b u t e d  T h i s model of implementation  process  r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e r e be  an e s t a b l i s h e d time l i n e f o r implementation,  3 y e a r s , t h a t t h e r e be  continuous  f o l l o w - u p support, m o n i t o r i n g  a d d r e s s i n g problems of programme i n s t a l l a t i o n  ( F u l l a n , 1981) .  e v i d e n t from the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h the d e v e l o p e r s and the e a r l y o r i e n t a t i o n s f o r implementation, m a i n t a i n momentum.  and  A communication  There were some i n d i c a t i o n s i n the s c h o o l s t h a t the  needed improvement.  The  workshops at the C e n t r e ,  p r o v i d e d o r i e n t a t i o n s e r v i c e s at the s c h o o l s as w e l l .  schools.  and  under the d i r e c t i o n of a P r o f e s s i o n a l Development C e n t r e .  Centre a l s o a d m i n i s t e r e d  expected  initiated  little  such as  and It  was  teachers that, a f t e r  f o l l o w - u p was  done to  125  The  NESP was a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y i n t r o d u c e d , t h e r e f o r e , the s c h o o l s  were o b l i g e d t o use the m a t e r i a l s .  Most of the t e a c h e r - w r i t e r s  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o implement the new programme.  expressed  Although the teachers had  a h i g h regard f o r t h e programme, some of them seemed u n c e r t a i n about the new dimensions, p a r t i c u l a r l y " t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e and t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s proposed i n the new programme.  T h i s does suggest t h a t  was inadequate t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n t o implement NESP. implementation, the teachers needed t o be acquainted  there  For successful with  the new o r r e v i s e d  m a t e r i a l s , t h e t e a c h i n g s t r a t e g i e s and/or the p h i l o s o p h i c a l assumptions embodied i n the new programme.  For i n s t a n c e , the k i n d e r g a r t e n  had  two d i f f e r e n t v i e w p o i n t s  But  the new programme recommends s e v e r a l t e a c h i n g u n i t s w i t h  teachers  on K-Science t e a c h i n g , i n c i d e n t a l o r f o r m a l .  s c i e n c e concepts f o r k i n d e r g a r t e n  classes.  specific  Although f i v e t e a c h e r s were  c a t e g o r i z e d as implementers o f NESP on the b a s i s o f t h e i r demonstrated knowledge and understanding  of the new programme, t h e r e was no c o n c l u s i v e  m o t i v a t i o n a l f a c t o r t h a t can be d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e i r  success.  There seemed t o be a l a c k of c l a r i t y over the r o l e o f 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 t o t h e t o t a l elementary curriculum.  In s e v e r a l c a s e s ,  teachers  viewed the NESP r e s o u r c e book as  supplementary m a t e r i a l to o t h e r programmes. teachers  science  And, i n some s c h o o l s , the  viewed the NESP r e s o u r c e book as a programme to be implemented.  Both p o i n t s o f view looked the r e s o u r c e book. behavioural  on implementation as a d o p t i n g  the contents of  Implementation seemed not to be viewed i n terms o f  and s t r u c t u r a l changes i n the elementary s c i e n c e programme.  126  D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f the  study  The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of implementation  p r o c e s s assessment  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 of a programme p r o v i d e d a broad of study.  area  The Q-methodology proved f u n c t i o n a l i n the e s t i m a t i o n and  examination  of 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 of these  characteristics.  defining  But i n the l e s s o n a n a l y s i s , i n o r d e r to make c l a s s r o o m  a n a l y s e s manageable, the c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s instrument had to the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the respondents d e s c r i p t i v e of NESP and EESP.  t o be  p e r c e i v e d to be  restricted clearly  I t would a l s o have been d e s i r a b l e to  inter-  view and examine the p e r c e p t i o n s of the d e v e l o p e r s of the e s t a b l i s h e d programme, but they were not a c c e s s i b l e to the The  s u b j e c t s who  participated  nominated by the E d u c a t i o n a l C e n t r e . any  investigator.  i n the study were mostly  those  The r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s d i d not show  e f f e c t t h i s might have on s u b j e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n , n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n , or  on the study.  The  s u b j e c t s seemed to accept or r e f u s e to p a r t i c i p a t e i n  any p a r t o f the study at w i l l , as the r e s u l t s showed: the study w i t h 27 s u b j e c t s , 16 of whom saw  the study through to the  started  end.  A f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e d e l i m i t a t i o n i s what i s known i n c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n s t u d i e s as t e a c h e r s " a c t i n g " f o r the o b s e r v e r . t i o n was  minimized  i n t h i s study, because the o b s e r v a t i o n schedule  component of CAI was classrooms.  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  I t a l s o probed i n t o the n a t u r e and  sources of the  through f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w s and examination of documents. t e a c h e r s were unaware of what the " o b s e r v e r " was t e a c h e r was  This d e l i m i t a -  observed  at l e a s t  some e f f o r t to " a c t " on two  activities,  Secondly  searching f o r .  the  Each  twice and as such i t would have r e q u i r e d  o c c a s i o n s w i t h o u t g i v i n g i t away.  127  A l t h o u g h the i n v e s t i g a t i o n was context  of two  conducted w i t h i n  the  elementary s c i e n c e programmes, i t b a s i c a l l y d e a l s  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; and,  therefore, i t i s :  expected t h a t the study w i l l be r e p l i c a b l e i n o t h e r elementary programmes "and a c r o s s o t h e r d i s c i p l i n e s i n elementary  science  schools.  However, t h e r e a r e some drawbacks i n the use 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 a programme to i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e i n n o v a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of comparing two For i n s t a n c e , l a c k of d i f f e r e n c e between the two mean t h a t t h e r e i s no change i n t r o d u c e d , of the implementation of the new useful information.  with  an  programmes.  programmes would  t h e r e f o r e , the assessment  programme would not r e v e a l  In the case of i n t r o d u c i n g a new  any  discipline in t  a school d i s t r i c t ,  assuming the method would be 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 , 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 c o u l d be used to assess  the degree of implementation of the d i s c i p l i n e .  researcher,  i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , w i l l have to d e c i d e 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 t h a t symbolize that w i l l  The  c o n s t i t u t e a manageable classroom  the programme  analysis  and  instrument.  D i s c u s s i o n of the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s  The previous those  d e t a i l s o f the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s were p r e s e n t e d  chapter.  In t h i s s e c t i o n , the i n v e s t i g a t o r has  extracted  f i n d i n g s t h a t are of profound importance to the problem of  p e r c e p t i o n between d e v e l o p e r s c u r r i c u l u m implementation. and  i n the  and  A discrepancy  t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of a new  p a r t of the reason  teachers  and  to the problem of  between the  programme was  developers'  suggested to  f o r the f a i l u r e of i t s implementation.  The  be  128  i n v e s t i g a t o r compares the method of d e t e r m i n i n g p e r c e p t i o n s w i t h methods used  i n o t h e r implementation  studies.  The r e s e a r c h e r a l s o  p r e s e n t s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s on :the p o s s i b l e e f f e c t  that teacher  p a r t i c i p a t i o n has on p e r c e p t i o n s and programme implementation.  In  c o n c l u s i o n the author d i s c u s s e s the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s other s t u d i e s and l i t e r a t u r e on implementation  and  f o c u s s e s on  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 o r implementation compared w i t h o t h e r  on  why  assessment when  approaches.  Through the u t i l i z a t i o n 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  and  the e s t a b l i s h e d programmes, t h i s study i d e n t i f i e d  and  d e s c r i b e d t h r e e d i s t i n c t v i e w p o i n t s i n each programme which were h e l d by the d e v e l o p e r s and  t e a c h e r s o f the new  programme.  The most  s i g n i f i c a n t o f the r e s u l t s on p e r c e p t i o n was t h a t most o f the and  t e a c h e r s had  identified  s i m i l a r v i e w p o i n t s of the new  the new  characteristics.  programme by i t s o r i g i n a l l y The  programme. instituted  developers They  distinctive  i m p l i c a t i o n f o r c u r r i c u l u m implementation  is  t h a t 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 can be a p p l i e d to 1  examine p e r c e p t i o n s .  The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p e r c e p t i o n s of a programme  by i t s d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s p r o v i d e s a more e x t e n s i v e  examination  of p e r c e p t i o n s than, f o r i n s t a n c e , Rogers' and Shoemakers' " a t t r i b u t e s " of a programme which have been a p p l i e d i n some s t u d i e s on  implementation,  These " a t t r i b u t e s " r e f e r to a g e n e r a l i z e d i m p r e s s i o n by which a r e s e a r c h e r attempts  to determine  the c o r r e l a t i o n between a t e a c h e r ' s  p e r c e p t i o n of the e x i s t i n g programme and proposed  to r e p l a c e i t .  t h a t of the new  programme  For the a s p i r i n g programme d e v e l o p e r s ,  the  d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a l o n g w i t h the framework o f c u r r i c u l u m components (see f i g u r e 2 ) , p r o v i d e the b a s i s f o r i n s t i t u t i n g a  new  129  programme. to be  This entails,  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  i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e new  the developers  specify  programme.  As  changes  i t i s done i n t h e  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  study,  of the  proposed  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 c o m p o n e n t s ' f r a m e w o r k . distinctive characteristics of  then guide  the implementation  These  assessment  t h e programme when i n o p e r a t i o n . T h e r e a r e some d r a w b a c k s t o u s i n g t h e  characteristics particularly  o f a programme t o i d e n t i f y  i n t h e c a s e o f c o m p a r i n g two  l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two render  that  new  discipline  The  approach  disciplines, defining  For i n s t a n c e ,  assessment f r u i t l e s s .  to assess  A  discipline,  applicable across d i s i p l i n e s .  circumstance, the researcher suggests CDC,  programmes.  i n t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f a new  t h e method w o u l d be  characteristics,  d e s c r i b e an i n n o v a t i o n ,  programmes u n d e r s t u d y w o u l d  the e x e r c i s e of implementation  l i m i t a t i o n w o u l d be  and  defining  In  the use of c l e a r l y  second  assuming  this  defining  the degree of implementation  of  the  r a t h e r t h a n o f a n i n n o v a t i o n o f a p r e v i o u s programme.  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 s u c h a s m a t h e m a t i c s , may  n o t be  but  easily  then  some  d e s c r i b e d by  their  characteristics. On  the i s s u e of 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 c h a n g e , t h e s t u d y showed a l t h o u g h t h e r e w e r e some d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two most c a s e s , t h e y had p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e new participants  similar  elementary  identified  characteristics  viewpoints, particularly  t h e new  instituted  s c i e n c e programme. programme b y  i n t h e programme.  c o n t r a r y to the p e r s i s t e n t view  groups,  its initial  the  the  distinctive  These f i n d i n g s  i n the l i t e r a t u r e  in  concerning Most of  that,  that there  are are  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 o f i n n o v a t i o n s between d e v e l o p e r s and teachers.  T h i s v i e w has been r e g a r d e d as p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e  f a i l u r e o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of new programmes a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , 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; D o y l e and P o n d e r , 1977; and Hughes and K e i t h , 1 9 8 0 ) . v i e w suggest f u r t h e r t h a t t e a c h e r s  The proponents o f t h i s  tend t o p e r f o r m d i f f e r e n t l y from  t h e d e v e l o p e r s ' p l a n n e d i n t e n t s u n l e s s t h e y 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 o f t h e programme w h i c h would t h e n .lead to i t s s u c c e s s f u l successful  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n . However,  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n does n o t i m p l y a s u c c e s s f u l i n n o v a t i o n o r  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 s t u d y  w i t h t h e s e arguments on b o t h p o i n t s .  conflict  I n 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 t h e new programme b u t o n l y a few t e a c h e r s d i s p l a y e d i n ; t h e i r c l a s s r o o m s congruent w i t h t h e planned changes.  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w h i c h were  This implies that a  teachers'  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 o f performance.  Secondly, teacher p a r t i c i p a t i o n or n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n  t h e development o f the programme d i d n o t seem to be r e l a t e d to p e r c e p t i o n s or " o b s e r v e d " p e r f o r m a n c e s .  These unexpected f i n d i n g s  suggest t h a t t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n ( i n workshops, w r i t i n g t e a c h i n g u n i t s o r on the development team) has no e f f e c t on s u c c e s s f u l Implementation.  I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n where t h e programme i n t e n t s were  adoptive, successful  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n would i m p l y an a p p l i c a t i o n i n  the c l a s s r o o m of the changes proposed by the d e v e l o p e r s  (Waring,  1975).  T h i s would suggest t h a t the k i n d s o f t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme  1  development t o ensure s u c c e s s f u l implementation  should i n c l u d e  t r a i n i n g i n the a c t u a l use o f t e a c h i n g s k i l l s o r s t r a t e g i e s i n the new programme.  However, t h e r e i s always  proposed  the q u e s t i o n o f  whether t h e t e a c h e r s agree o r d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s of  the new programme..  T h e r e f o r e the author proposes a f u r t h e r  of  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between the implementers'  a t t i t u d e towards t h e new programme.  and  study  non-implementers'  In p a r t i c u l a r , whether the  t e a c h e r s agreed o r d i s a g r e e d w i t h the proposed  changes t o t h e new  programme, and why they were p e r f o r m i n g i n the "observed" manner. The i s s u e o f t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n programme d e v e l o p ment and implementation i s not an easy one to u n t a n g l e . and Pomfret because  As F u l l a n  (1977) put i t , " r e s e a r c h i n t h i s a r e a i s i n c o n c l u s i v e  t h e n a t u r e and d i f f e r e n t dimensions  not been r e l a t e d t o implementation  o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n have  outcomes".  They a l s o acknowledge  t h a t the degree o f t e a c h e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s a prominent  variable i n  curriculum innovation l i t e r a t u r e . The  implementation assessment  study i s what F u l l a n  (1977) termed  which was attempted  the " f i d e l i t y  i n this  perspective", a  measure o f t h e e x t e n t t o which a c t u a l use corresponds to planned use T h i s n o t i o n o f implementation r e q u i r e s p r e c i s e 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 o f t h e i n n o v a t i o n p r i o r t o a s s e s s i n g i t s implementation. I t r e q u i r e s the t e a c h e r s to understand t e a c h i n g approaches  the b a s i c framework and  advocated by the programme d e v e l o p e r s .  The  t e c h n i q u e s a p p l i e d i n t h i s study met these demands f o r f i d e l i t y to programme d e s i g n .  132  The  r e s e a r c h techniques q u i t e o f t e n encountered  in  the l i t e r a t u r e i n c l u d e t e a c h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , s t r u c t u r e d or focussed i n t e r v i e w s , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and document a n a l y s e s , a combination  of q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and d i r e c t  and  classroom observations.  In c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n s t u d i e s , the c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r i s i n c r e a s i n g l y becoming the focus of r e s e a r c h . study of c u r r i c u l u m implementation classroom  T h i s suggests  should be r e s t r i c t e d  ( C a f f a r e l l a , C a f f a r e l l a , H a r t , P o o l e r and  Collingwood,  1979;  Rogers and  and B e r n s t e i n , 1971).  Shoemaker, 1971;  Therefore, d i r e c t  and  The  t h i s study was  Salesi,  developed  classroom observations  from the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  implementation  i n the s u b j e c t s '  w i t h the o r i g i n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of  programmes (see Appendix G - l ) .  The  instrument  c o n s i s t e d of  t h r e e p a r t s namely an o b s e r v a t i o n s c h e d u l e , a c h e c k l i s t , focussed i n t e r v i e w schedule. the examination  and  The d e s i g n of the instrument  of congruencies  p e r c e p t i o n s , performances and  a  permitted  o r d i s c r e p a n c i e s between t e a c h e r s '  the d e s i g n e r s ' p l a n .  t h e r e f o r e , p r o v i d e d a more, v i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s of the activities  1979;  c l a s s r o o m a n a l y s i s i n s t r u m e n t , CAI, a p p l i e d i n  p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t were congruent the two  to the  Gross, G i a q u i n t a  would be the most i d e a l and d e s i r a b l e technique f o r assessment.  t h a t the  than the u s u a l c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u m e n t s do.  The  instrument,  classroom Generally,  c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n s r e q u i r e l o n g p e r i o d s , and need sometimes expensive equipment,,  equipment such as good q u a l i t y  r e c o r d i n g and  video  133  Another technique which has been a p p l i e d i n measuring implementation H a l l , Wallace  i s a framework o f l e v e l s o f use, LoU, and D o s s e t t  l e v e l s of use,  The m o d i f i e d  f o u r d i s c r e t e l e v e l s of use, namely,  r o u t i n e use, refinement  and m o d i f i c a t i o n .  The  f o c u s s e d i n t e r v i e w techniques based on a v a r i e t y of a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each l e v e l of use, The  by  The  techniques  would r e q u i r e e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g Neufeld  category.  and degree of  use,  L o l , achieved  seem so complex t h a t a r e s e a r c h e r to use the method  effectively.  (1979) r e f e r r e d to t h i s drawback, p l u s the l i m i t a t i o n of  techniques time.  mechanical  behaviours  i n o r d e r t o determine the l e v e l of implementation,  the t e a c h e r s .  LoU  framework uses  i n a three behavioural  t e a c h e r i n t e r v i e w s a r e r a t e d f o r b o t h LoU  DoU,  by  I t o r i g i n a l l y c o n s i s t e d of e i g h t  r a n g i n g from non—use to renewal.  S c a l e , LoU—Mod, has use,  (1973).  developed  to a s s e s s o n l y one new  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c or i n n o v a t i o n a t a  The method recommends repeated  f e a t u r e s i n a programme.  the  i n t e r v i e w s to cover a l l the  T h i s would tend to become t i r i n g  new  and  cumbersome f o r the r e s e a r c h e r as w e l l as the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the  study.  The approach a l s o encourages c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n and document a n a l y s i s to But  s p e c i f y t h e i n n o v a t i o n s i n h e r e n t i n the programme under  the approach does not i n d i c a t e the r e f e r e n c e p o i n t f o r 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 i n n o v a t i o n i n any Furthermore, any  innovation specified  the i n d i v i d u a l r e s e a r c h e r . was  investigation.  situation.  i n each case i s the l i a b i l i t y of  In t h i s study the i n n o v a t i o n o r change  i d e n t i f i e d and d e s c r i b e d through  eliciting  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 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 w i t h t h e o t h e r u s i n g the f i v e c u r r i c u l u m components'  134  structure.  This process involved not only  the d e v e l o p e r s and teachers  as s t a t e d  the r e s e a r c h e r  but also  earlier.  T h i s study attempted to accommodate some o f t h e i s s u e s on which s t u d i e s on c u r r i c u l u m criticized,  implementation assessment have been  such as l a c k o f p r e c i s e d e s c r i p t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n s ,  non-involvement o f d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s , classroom observations  n o n - u t i l i z a t i o n of  and t h e l a c k o f a s y s t e m a t i c  approach.  This  study a l s o a p p l i e d t h e 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 , i n t e r v i e w s  and response  forms) as w e l l as i n t r o d u c i n g l e s s o n a n a l y s i s and Q-techniques to the f i e l d . systematic  Therefore  the study c o n s t i t u t e d a comprehensive and  implementation assessment o f the new elementary  science  programme.  Suggestions f o r f u t u r e  The  research  r e s u l t s and i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the r e s e a r c h  i n d i c a t e the f o l l o w i n g areas f o r f u t u r e 1.  I t i s suggested t h a t t h e p r e s e n t  findings  research.  study be r e p l i c a t e d i n t h e same  s c h o o l d i s t r i c t , b u t w i t h d i f f e r e n t group o f s u b j e c t s , possible variations within 2.  to examine  the p o t e n t i a l implementers.  The i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e d d e v e l o p e r s and t e a c h e r s ,  which i s the  p a t t e r n i n many s t u d i e s , and tends to exclude c h i l d r e n and p a r e n t s ,  135  sometimes on the p r e t e x t t h a t they doT.not have the e x p e r t i s e to -discuss science curriculum issues. study s h o u l d a l s o  I t i s suggested t h a t a r e l a t e d  i n c l u d e the v i e w p o i n t s of s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s and  principals. D e s p i t e t h e h i g h r e g a r d f o r NESP, and ;the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t h e r e was low e x t e n t o f implementation.  support,  One o f t h e f a c t o r s  suggested  was t h e l a c k o f c l a r i t y among the t e a c h e r s over the r o l e o f NESP, as it  r e l a t e s t o t h e t o t a l elementary  district.  I t i s suggested  that  science c u r r i c u l u m i n the school  i t would be worthwhile  the t e a c h e r s ' view o f implementation  to i n v e s t i g a t e  of NESP, o r 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 t e a c h i n g g u i d e s , and workshop attendance were n o t important p r e d i c t o r s of success o r nons u c c e s s i n implementation. demonstrated suggested  S u c c e s s f u l implementation was judged by  knowledge and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the new programme.  It is  t h a t a. s i m i l a r study s h o u l d f o c u s on how t h e implementers  a c q u i r e knowledge and u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f an i n n o v a t i o n o r proposed  change.  As t h e NESP i s i n i t s t h i r d y e a r i n t h e s c h o o l s , i t might be worthwhile to conduct examining  a s i m i l a r study, i n a year or so, which f o c u s s e s on any r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l e n g t h o f time a c u r r i c u l u m has  been i n use, t h e e x t e n t o f usage, and i t s m o d i f i c a t i o n or a d a p t a t i o n .  136  REFERENCES  A l b e r t , D.T. Q-Technique and I t s methodology: A b r i e f i n t r o d u c t i o n and c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 1971 Annual Meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New York C i t y , Feb., 1971. A l i a n , G.S., and Wolf, J r . W.C. R e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e r c e i v e d a t t r i b u t e s of i n n o v a t i o n s and t h e i r subsequent a d o p t i o n . Eeabody J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , 1978. Andrews, W.D., D u v a l l , J.G., T r o c k i , F.R. The human element i n c u r r i c u l u m change. Man, S o c i e t y and Technology, 1978, 37 ( 7 ) , 10-13. A s h l e y , J.P., and B u t t s , D.P. Research and C u r r i c u l u m Development i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, No. 7203, Monograph, 1970. A t k i n , J.M. Research s t y l e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of R e s e a r c h i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1967-68, 5, 338-345. B a l e s , R.E. Pa.,  I n t e r a c t i o n P r o c e s s A n a l y s i s , Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1950.  Beauchamp, G.A. C u r r i c u l u m Theory, The Kagg P r e s s , 1975. Becher, A. and M a c l u r e , S. Hutchinson, London,  Third Edition,  Illinois,  The P o l i t i c s of C u r r i c u l u m Change. 1978.  Ben-Peretz, M. Teachers r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m development: An a l t e r n a t i v e approach. Canadian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , 5 (2).  1980,  v  Berman, P. and McLaughlin, M. Implementation of E d u c a t i o n a l Innovation. The E d u c a t i o n a l Forum, 1976, 40 ( 3 ) , 345-370. Berman, P., and P a u l y , E. F e d e r a l programs s u p p o r t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l change, V o l . 11: F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g change p r o j e c t s . Santa Monica, C a l i f . : Rand C o r p o r a t i o n , 1975. B l o c k , J . The Q-sort Method i n P e r s o n a l i t y Assessment and P s y c h i a t r i c Research, C h a r l e s C. Thomas, P u b l i s h e r , Springfield, I l l i n o i s , 1961. Bowen, B.L. The need f o r Paradigms i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1975, 59 ( 3 ) , 423-430.  Research.  137  Boyd, W.L. The p o l i t i c s of c u r r i c u l u m change and s t a b i l i t y . E d u c a t i o n a l Researcher, 1979, 2(3). 12-18. Brameld, T. 1961.  Education  f o r Merging Age. New York, Harper & Row,  B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n , Elementary Teachers c u r r i c u l u m , I n t e r i m g u i d e , 1977.  Science,  B r i t i s h Columbia, M i n i s t r y of E d u c a t i o n , M a t e r i a l - b a s e d Program, Elementary S c i e n c e , I n t e r i m , 1977. Bruner, J.S. ( E d . ) . The p r o c e s s Washington, D . C , 1971.  of Education  Bruner, J.S. Toward a theory o f I n s t r u c t i o n . 1969.  Unit  Reconsidered.  Belknap, H a r v a r d ,  C a f f a r e l l a , E.P., C a f f a r e l l a , R.S., H a r t , J . E . , P o o l e r , A.E., and S a l e s i , R.A.A. Methodology f o r p r e d i c t i n g t h e d i f f u s a b i l i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l i n n o v a t i o n s . Paper presented a t t h e annual c o n f e r e n c e o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Communication and Technology, New O r l e a n s , 1979. C h a r t e r s , W.W. J r . e t a l . The p r o c e s s o f Planned Change i n t h e School's I n s t r u c t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n . C.A.S.E.A. Monograph, Oregon: C e n t r e f o r t h e Advanced Study o f E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 1973. Churchman, D. A new approach t o e v a l u a t i n g t h e implementation o f i n n o v a t i v e e d u c a t i o n a l programs. E d u c a t i o n a l Technology, 1979. 25-28. Clem, N.W. What a r e t h e b a s i c v a l u e s i n a changing world? Kappa Gamma B u l l e t i n , 1971, 37 ( 5 ) , 39-41.  Delta  C o l l i n g w o o d , V. P l a n n i n g o f i n n o v a t i o n i n h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . Program L e a r n i n g and E d u c a i t o n a l Technology, 1979, 16 ( 1 ) , 8-15. C o n n e l l y , F.M. The f u n c t i o n s o f c u r r i c u l u m development, change, 1972, 3 (2 & 3 ) , 161-177.  Inter-  Common, D.L. C u r r i c u l u m implementation. Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n f o r C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , Saskatoon, 1979. Cooley, W.W. K l o p f e r , and L e o p o l d , E. The e v a l u a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c education of s p e c i f i c educational innovations, J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1963, 1, 73-80.  138  Crowther, F. F a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g t h e r a t e of a d o p t i o n of t h e 1971 A l b e r t a S o c i a l S t u d i e s c u r r i c u l u m f o r elementary s c h o o l s . Master's T h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a , 1972. D a l i n , P. L i m i t s t o E d u c a t i o n a l Change. New York, S t . M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1978. D a l i n , P. I n CERI: Case S t u d i e s o f E d u c a t i o n a l I n n o v a t i o n . S t r a t e g i e s f o r I n n o v a t i o n i n E d u c a t i o n (OECD), 1973.  IV,  D a n i e l s , M. and Wright, I.(Eds.) Implementation V i e w p o i n t s . The Monograph S e r i e s , n e n t r e f o r t h e study o f c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1980. Downey, L., and A s s o c i a t e s . The S o c i a l S t u d i e s i n A l b e r t a , 1975. Edmonton, A l b e r t a . L. Downey Research A s s o c i a t e s , 1975. D o y l e , W., and Ponder, G. The p r a c t i c a l i t y i n t e a c h e r d e c i s i o n making. I n t e r c h a n g e , 1977/78, 8 ( 3 ) , 1-12. Doyle, W., and Ponder, G. The e t h n i c o f p r a c t i c a l i t y : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c u r r i c u l u m development. C u r r i c u l u m Theory, 1977, 74-80. D r i v e r , R., and E a s l e y , J . P u p i l s and Paradigms: a review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o concept development i n a d o l e s c e n t science students. S t u d i e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1978, 5, 61-68. Duke, D.L., Towards R e s p o n s i b l e 1978, 42 ( 3 ) , 351-371.  Innovation.  The E d u c a t i o n a l Forum,  Dunkin, M.J., B i d d l e , B . J . The Study of Teaching, and Winston, I n c . , 1974.  Holt,  Rinehart  Eash, M.J. D e v e l o p i n g an instrument f o r a s s e s s i n g i n s t r u c t i o n a l material. Curriculum- theory Network, Supplement on c u r r i c u l u m e v a l u a t i o n : P o t e n t i a l i t y and r e a l i t y , monograph, 1972, 193-221. E a s l e y , J.A. J r . S c i e n t i f i c method as an e d u c a t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e . The E n c y c l o p e d i a o f E d u c a t i o n , M a c M i l l a n and F r e e P r e s s , 1971, 8, 150-157. Elliot,  ESS.  J . Some key concepts u n d e r l y i n g t e a c h e r s ' e v a l u a t i o n o f i n n o v a t i o n , Paper presented a t B r i t i s h E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n Conference, 1977.  Teacher's Guide f o r I c e Cubes, S t . L o u i s : Webster D i v i s i o n , McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.  139  Evans, T.P. Research on t e a c h i n g i n v o l v i n g the s y s t e m a t i c o b s e r v a t i o n of c l a s s r o o m b e h a v i o r . In B l a z e r e t a l . ( e d s . ) . A r e v i e w of r e s e a r c h on teacher b e h a v i o r , Colombus, AETS & ERIC, 1973, 198-208. Evans, W., and Berman, E.H. Strategy for evaluating curriculum implementation. C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 1977, 9 ( 1 ) , 75-80. Evans, W., S h e f f l e r , J.W. A s s e s s i n g the implementation of an i n s t r u c t i o n a l system. J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 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 o b s e r v a t i o n a l measures. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1978, 48 ( 1 ) , 157-187. F i r e s t o n e , W.A. P a r t i c i p a t i o n and i n f l u e n c e i n p l a n n i n g of e d u c a t i o n a l change. The J o u r n a l of A p p l i e d B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n c e , 1977, 13 ( 2 ) , 167-183. F i s c h l e r , A.S. and Zimmer, G. The development of an o b s e r v a t i o n a l instrument f o r s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g . J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1967-1967, 5 ( 2 ) , 127-137. F u l l a n , M., and Pomfret, A. Research on c u r r i c u l u m and i n s t r u c t i o n implementation. Review of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1977, 47 ( 2 ) , 335-397. F u l l a n , M., and Park, P. C u r r i c u l u m Implementation. of E d u c a t i o n , O n t a r i o , T o r o n t o , 1981.  Ministry  F u l l a n , M. C o n c e p t u a l i z i n g problems of c u r r i c u l u m implementation. C u r r i c u l u m Canada, W. Weiner, ( E d . ) , 1979, 40-50. F u l l a n , M. Implementation: I t s n a t u r e and determinants. Paper presented a t the meeting of IMTEC ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l Management T r a i n i n g f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Change), O s l o , Norway, 1975. G e r l o v i c h , J.A., Downs, G.E., and Magrane, G. Development of a t o o l f o r a s s e s s i n g and r e v i s i n g s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m i n Iowa Schools. S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1980, 64 ( 5 ) , 645-650. G i a c q u i n t a , J.B. The p r o c e s s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l change i n s c h o o l s . Review of Research i n E d u c a t i o n , 1973, 1, 179-204. G l a s e r , B., and S t r a u s s , A.L. The d i s c o v e r y of grounded theory and s t r a t e g i e s f o r q u a l i t a t i v e r e s e a r c h , Chicago, A l d i n e , 1967. G l a s s , G. The wisdom of s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y on e d u c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1972, 9 ( 1 ) ,  3-18.  140  G o o d l a d , . J . I . , and K l e i n , M.F. Behind' the Classroom Door. W d r t h i n g t o n , 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 S c h o o l C u r r i c u l u m , New Y o r k , Found f o r the advancement of e d u c a t i o n , 1966. Gordon, W.W. P a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n i n Canadian c l a s s r o o m s : need, r a t i o n a l , t e c h n i q u e and development i m p l i c a t i o n s . Canadian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , 1977, 2 ( 3 ) , 55-74.  The  G r o s s , N., G i a q u i n t a , J.B. and B e r n s t e i n , M. Implementing I n n o v a t i o n s : 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 Y o r k , 1971. Guns, R.W. A s t u d y 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 t o i n t e g r a t e community r e s o u r c e s i n t o the c u r r i c u l a of community s c h o o l s . U n p u b l i s h e d , Ed.D., T h e s i s , 1979, H a l l , G.E. The i n s t r u m e n t f o r the a n a l y s i s of s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g : A system o f measuring t e a c h i n g b e h a v i o u r . The Research and Development C e n t r e f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t A u s t i n , 1969. H a l l , G.E., and L o u c k s , S.F.A. A development model f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e t r e a t m e n t i s a c t u a l l y implemented. American Educ 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., W a l l a c e , R . C , and D o s s e t t , W.A. A developmental c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n o f the a d o p t i o n p r o c e s s w i t h i n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , A u s t i n : Research and Development C e n t r e f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n , 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 s c i e n c e p r o j e c t s . S c i e n c e T e a c h i n g , HMSO, London, 1964.  I n CELC:  School  H a m i l t o n , D., J e n k i n s , D., K i n g , C , MacDonald, B., and P a r l e t t , ( E d . ) . Beyond the Numbers Game, A r e a d e r i n e d u c a t i o n a l e v a l u a t i o n . London, M a c M i l l a n E d u c a t i o n L t d . , 1977.  M.  H a r d i n g , J . C u r r i c u l u m change: A model of t e a c h e r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . J o u r n a l o f C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 1987, 10 ( 4 ) , 351-355. H a r d i n g , J.M., K e l l y , P . J . , and Nicodemus, R.B. The s t u d y of c u r r i c u l u m change. S t u d i e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1976. 3,  1-30.  H a r t n e t t , A., and N a i s h , M. ( E d s . ) . Theory, v a l u e s and the c l a s s room t e a c h e r . Theory and P r a c t i c e of E d u c a t i o n , 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 g o a l s of the l a b o r a t o r y programme i n Secondary S c h o o l C h e m i s t r y i n B r i t i s h Columbia. U n p u b l i s h e d M a s t e r s ' T h e s i s , 1974.  141  H a r l e n , W. A s t r o n g e r t e a c h e r r o l e i n c u r r i c u l u m development? C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 1977, 9 ( 1 ) , 21-29. Hass, G., Bond J . , and W i l e s , J . Bacon I n c . , 1974.  Curriculum  H e a t h e r s , G. Overview o f i n n o v a t i o n s Interchange , 1972, 3, 47-68.  Planning, A l l y n  and  i n organization for learning.  Heck, S. Measuring Implementation; I t s Importance i n E v a l u a t i n g the Outcomes of a Parent E d u c a t i o n Program. Research and Development Centre f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n , The U n i v e r s i t y of Texas a t A u s t i n , 1979. H e r b e r t , M., K l i e b a r d . and i t s a f t e r m a t h .  The r i s e of s c i e n t i f i c c u r r i c u l u m making C u r r i c u l u m Theory Network, 1975, 5 ( 1 ) .  H e r b e r t , J . , and A t t r i d g e , C. A guide f o r d e v e l o p e r s and users of o b s e r v a t i o n systems and manuals. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 1975, 12 ( 1 ) , 1-20. Herron, M. On t e a c h e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n and c u r r i c u l a i n n o v a t i o n . C u r r i c u l u m Theory Network Monograph Supplement: Elements of C u r r i c u l u m 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 o b j e c t i v e s . Paper presented a t the annual meeting of the e v a l u a t i o n network, S t . L o u i s , M i s s o u r i , 1977, 26-28. Hill,  C. Teachers as Change Agents, C l e a r i n g House, 1971, 424-428.  Holt, J.  How  C h i l d r e n F a i l , Penguin,  45,  -  1969.  House, E.R. Three p e r s p e c t i v e s on i n n o v a t i o n : The t e c h n o l o g i c a l , The p o l i t i c a l , and the c u l t u r a l . N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e of E d u c a t i o n Knowledge S y n t h e s i s P r o j e c t , 1979. House, E.R. Technology v e r s u s c r a f t : A t e n year p e r s p e c t i v e on innovation. J o u r n a l of C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 1979, 11 ( 1 ) , 1-5. Housego, B.E.J., and B o l d t , W.B. P r i o r i t i e s of teacher behaviour as p e r c e i v e d by student t e a c h e r s i n a school-based program: An e x p l o r a t o r y study. The A l b e r t a J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1978, 24 ( 1 ) , 53-65. Huberman, M. M i c r o a n a l y s i s of I n n o v a t i o n Implementation, U n i v e r s i t y of Geneva, S w i t z e r l a n d and S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y ,  1979.  142  Hurd, P.H. Research i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n : P l a n n i n g f o r the future. J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1971. 8 ( 3 ) , 243-249, Hughes, A.S., and K e i t h , J . J . T e a c h e r - p e r c e p t i o n of an and degree of implementation. Canadian J o u r n a l of 1980, 5 C 2 ) , 43-51. Ingram, E . J . The P o l i t i c s of P o l i c y Implementation, Canada, 1978, 18 ( 3 ) , 19-23.  innovation Education,  Education  J e n k i n s , F.W., and Kass, H. The p o t e n t i a l of a t e a c h e r - g e n e r a t e d frame of r e f e r e n c e as a c u r r i c u l u m r e s e a r c h and development p e r s p e c t i v e . A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian S o c i e t y f o r the Study of E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t e du Quebec a M o n t r e a l , 1980. Jones, H.L., Thompson, B., and M i l l e r , A.H. How teachers p e r c e i v e d s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s among v a r i o u s t e a c h i n g models. J o u r n a l Of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1980, 4, 321-326. Jungwirth, E. A study of the s t a b i l i t y of b i o l o g y t e a c h e r s ' p r i o r i t i e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s . J o u r n a l of C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s , 1975, 69-77. K a r p l u s , R. The s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m improvement study. Journal of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1974, 2 ( 4 ) , 293-303. K e r l i n g e r , F. A t t i t u d e s towards e d u c a t i o n and p e r c e p t i o n s of teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : A Q study, American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 1966, 3, 159-168. K e r l i n g e r , F. Foundations of B e h a v i o r a l Research, 2nd New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1973. K e r l i n g e r , F. Q-methodology and the t e s t i n g of theory, New York U n i v e r s i t y , 1958, (Mimeograph), 55.  Ed.  N.Y.,  K e r l i n g e r , F. Q-methodology, In Brown, S. and Brenner, ( E d s . ) , S c i e n c e , Psychology and Communications: Essays honouring Stephenson, W., New York: Teachers C o l l e g e P r e s s , 1972. K l e i n , M. Los  A t t i t u d e s toward e d u c a t i o n : P r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t , 25.  Angeles: John T r a c y c l i n i c , 1961,  143  K r i t e k , W.J. Lessons from the l i t e r a t u r e on implementation. E d u c a t i o n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 1976, 12 ( 3 ) , 86-102. L e i n h a r d t , G, O b s e r v a t i o n as a t o o l f o r e v a l u a t i o n of implementation. Paper presented a t the meeting of the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New O r l e a n s , 1973. Leithwood, K.A., and MacDonald, R.A. Reasons g i v e n by t e a c h e r s f o r t h e i r c u r r i c u l u m c h o i c e s . Canadian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n , 1981, 6 C 2 ) . Leithwood, K.A., and R u s s e l l , H.H. Focus on I n t e r c h a n g e , 1973, 4 ( 1 ) , 10-26.  implementation.  Leithwood, K.A., Clipsham, J.S., Mynes, F., and B a x t e r , R.P. I n c o l l a b o r a t i o n w i t h McNabb, J.D. P l a n n i n g C u r r i c u l u m Change: A Model and Case Study. T o r o n t o , The O n t a r i o I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, 1976. L i c a t a , J.W., E l l i s , E.C., W i l s o n , C M . 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 s t r u c t u r e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l change. National A s s o c i a t i o n f o r 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 c u r r i c u l u m change. E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 1979, 37 ( 3 ) , 212-215. Lynn, L.M., and C a r o l , T.F. How to Measure Program Implementation. London, Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s L t d . , 1978. MacDonald, B., 1976.  and Walker, R.  Changing the C u r r i c u l u m ,  Open Books,  MacDonald, R.G. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e to the achievement of s e l e c t e d g o a l s o f an i n t e r m e d i a t e l e v e l open a r e a programme. Unpublished T h e s i s , 1976. M a r t i n , J . The development and use of classroom instrument. Canadian J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n ,  observation 1977, 2 ( 3 ) , 43-54.  M c K i n l e y , W.L., and Westberry, I . S t a b i l i t y and Change: The p u b l i c s c h o o l s o f Gary, I n d i a n a , 1950-1970. In case s t u d i e s i n : c u r r i c u l u m change. Great B r i t a i n and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Reid, W.A. and Walker, D.F. ( E d . ) , (Routledge and Kegan P a u l : London), 1975, 1-53. McLaughlin, M. Implementation as mutual a d a p t a t i o n : Change i n classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n . Paper presented to the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research Meetings, Washington, D . C , 1975.  144  McLaughlin, M.W., and Marsh, D.D, S t a f f development and s c h o o l changes. Teachers C o l l e g e Record, 1978, 80 ( 1 ) , 69-94. M c Q u i t t y , L.L. C a p a b i l i t i e s and improvements o f l i n k a g e a n a l y s i s as a c l u s t e r i n g method. E d u c a t i o n a l and P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement, 1966, 26, 253-265. M e l t o n , L., and Humphreys, D. Using the Q-sort as a p r e d i c t o r of academic success i n s e l f - p a c e d i n d i v i d u a l i z e d s c i e n c e c l a s s e s . J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1980, 17 ( 3 ) , 243-249. M i l l e r , R.I. ( E d . ) . P e r s p e c t i v e s on E d u c a t i o n a l Change, New Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.  York.  M o r r i s , L.L., and F i t z - G i b b o n , C.T. How to Measure Implementation, Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , B e v e r l y H i l l s , London, 1978. Munby, H., Orpwood, G., and R u s s e l l , T. ( E d . ) . Seeing C u r r i c u l u m i n a New L i g h t : Essays from s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n , OISE P r e s s , 1980. N e l s o n , 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 w h i l e t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e and the s c i e n c e t e a c h i n g p r a c t i c e s used, S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1978, 62 ( 1 ) , 53-58. Nelson, M., and S i e b e r , S.D. I n n o v a t i o n s i n urban secondary schools. School Review, 1976, 84, 213-231. N e u f e l d , G. A s s e s s i n g the degree o f implementation of the important f e a t u r e s of a e u r r i c u l a r i n n o v a t i o n . C u r r i c u l u m Implementation and I t s R e l a t i o n s h i p to C u r r i c u l u m Development i n S c i e n c e , (Ed.) Tamir P., Blum A., H o f s t e i n A., and Sabar N., Jerusalem, I s r a e l , 1979. Nicodemus, R.B. Why s c i e n c e t e a c h e r s adopt new c u r r i c u l u m p r o j e c t . E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1977, 19 ( 2 ) , 83-91. Nkosana, A.M. A n a l y s i s of c u r r i c u l u m p o l i c y - m a k i n g i n post c o l o n i a l p e r i o d : The case in.Jamaica. Unpublished D o c t o r a l T h e s i s , 1978. N u n n a l l y , J . A n a l y s i s of p r o f i l e d a t a . 1962, 59, 311-319.  Psychological Bulletin,  N u n n a l l y , J . I n t r o d u c t i o n to p s y c h o l o g i c a l measurement,' N.Y., McGraw-Hill, 1970. Nunnally,  J.  Psychometric Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1967.  145  O b e r l i n , L. S c i e n c e Teacher O b s e r v a t i o n R a t i n g Form (STORF), paper presented a t SSMA Annual Convention, Des Moines, Iowa, 1973. OECD: Handbook on C u r r i c u l u m Development, CERI (Centre f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Research and I n n o v a t i o n ) , P a r i s , 1975. O k p a l o b i , M.J. An e x p l o r a t i o n of l e v e l s of use of i n n o v a t i o n i n the e v a l u a t i o n of a t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g content a r e a s . Staff Development P r o j e c t . Paper presented a t the annual meeting of American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , San F r a n c i s c o , 1979. O l i v e r , A. C u r r i c u l u m Improvement: A guide to problems, p r i n c i p l e s and procedures, New York. Dodd, Mead, 1965. O l s o n , J.K. Teacher c o n s t r u c t s and c u r r i c u l u m i n n o v a t i o n . Paper presented to the Annual Conference o f the Canadian S o c i e t y f o r the Study of E d u c a t i o n , Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1979. P e l l e g r i n , R.J. Problems and assumptions i n :the implementation of i n n o v a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f Research and Development i n E d u c a t i o n , 1975, 9 ( 1 ) , 93-102. P i n a r , W., ( E d . ) . C u r r i c u l u m T h e o r i z i n g : The R e c o n c e p t u a l i s t s , B e r k e l e y , C a l i f o r n i a , McCutchan P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1975. P i n c u s , J . , and W i l l i a m s , R.C. Planned d i s t r i c t s , P h i D e l t a Kappan, 1976,  change i n urban s c h o o l 60 (10), 729-733.  Power, N.C. Competing Paradigms i n s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h . J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1976, 13 ( 6 ) , 579-587. Pressman, J . , and Wildavsky, A. of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1976. Regan, E.M., Toronto, Reimer, E.,  Leithwood, K.A.  Implementation, B e r k e l e y , U n i v e r s i t y  E f f e c t i n g C u r r i c u l u m Change,  Ontario I n s t i t u t e f o r Studies i n Education, School i s Dead, Penguin,  Richard, Pring.  Knowledge and  1974.  1971.  S c h o o l i n g , London, Open Books,  R i c h t e r , J r . M.N. S c i e n c e as a C u l t u r a l P r o c e s s , Schenkman P u b l i s h i n g Company, I n c . , 1972.  1976.  Massachusetts,  Roberts, D.A., and R u s s e l l , T.L. An a l t e r n a t i v e approach to s c i e n c e e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h : Drawing from p h i l o s o p h i c a l a n a l y s i s t o examine p r a c t i c e . C u r r i c u l u m Theory Network, 1975, 5 ( 2 ) , 107-125.  146  Roberts, D.A. Theory, c u r r i c u l u m development, and the unique events of p r a c t i c e . Seeing C u r r i c u l u m i n a New L i g h t : E s s a y s from S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1980, 65-87. Rogers, E., and Shoemaker, F. The New York, F r e e P r e s s , 1971.  Communication of  Innovations,  Rosenshine, B. E v a l u a t i o n of c l a s s r o o m i n s t r u c t i o n . E d u c a t i o n a l Research, 1970, 40 ( 2 ) , 279-300. Sarason, S. Boston, Scheffler, I. 1965.  The C u l t u r e of the S c h o o l and A l l y n and Bacon, 1971.  Review of  the Problem of Change,  C o n d i t i o n s of Knowledge, S c o t t , Foresman & Company,  S c h e f f l e r , I . S c i e n c e and S u b j e c t i v i t y , New M e r r i t t Company I n c . , 1967.  York, The  S c h o o l D i s t r i c t No. Books, 1979.  S c i e n c e Resource  41, Burnaby.  Elementary  Bobbs-  Schwab Joseph, J . S t r u c t u r e of the d i s c i p l i n e s : Meanings and significances. The S t r u c t u r e of Knowledge and the C u r r i c u l u m , Chicago, Rand M c N a l l y . 1964, 6-32. Ibid.  What do s c i e n t i s t s do?  Behavioral Science,  Schwab, J . J . S c i e n c e , C u r r i c u l u m and L i b e r a l U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1978.  1960,  5,  1-27.  Education,  Schwab, J . J . , i n Vandenberg, D. ( E d . ) . Theory of Knowledge and Problems o f E d u c a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 1969. Shipman, M.  I n s i d e a C u r r i c u l u m P r o j e c t , London, Methuen,  1974.  S h o r t , E.C., and Marconnit ( E d . ) . Contemporary Thought on P u b l i c S c h o o l C u r r i c u l u m , Iowa, Wm. , C? Brown Company P u b l i s h e r s , 1968. Smith, I . The i n v a r i a n c e of e d u c a t i o n a l 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 i n v e r s e f a c t o r 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 E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. New York U n i v e r s i t y , 1963. Smith, J.P. The development of a classroom instrument the e a r t h s c i e n c e c u r r i c u l u m p r o j e c t . J o u r n a l o f S c i e n c e Teaching, 1971, 8 ( 3 ) , 231-235.  r e l e v a n t to Research i n  Sontag, M. A t t i t u d e s toward e d u c a t i o n and p e r c e p t i o n of teacher behaviours. American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 1968. 5, 385-402.  147  Stake, R.E., E a s l e y J . , e t a l . Case S t u d i e s i n S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , V o l . IX Design, o v e r v i e w and g e n e r a l f i n d i n g s , I l l i n o i s , Centre f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research and C u r r i c u l u m E v a l u a t i o n , 1978. S t a l l i n g s , J.A. A study o f implementation i n seven f o l l o w - t h r o u g h e d u c a t i o n a l models and how i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s r e l a t e to c h i l d outcomes. A paper presented a t the c o n f e r e n c e on Research on Teacher E f f e c t : An examination by p o l i c y - m a k e r s and r e-z' .<•: s e a r c h e r s , A u s t i n , Texas, 1977. Stenhouse, L., An I n t r o d u c t i o n to C u r r i c u l u m Research Development, London, Heineman,"1975. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behaviour, Chicago P r e s s , 1953.  Chicago,  and  U n i v e r s i t y of  Tamlr, P. How are the l a b o r a t o r i e s used? J o u r n a l of Research i n S c i e n c e Teaching, 1977, 14 ( 4 ) , 311-316. Tamir, P., and J u n g w i r t t , E. Teaching o b j e c t i v e s i n b i o l o g y : P r i o r i t i e s and e x p e c t a t i o n s . S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1972, 56, 31-39. T a y l o r , P a u l , W. Normative D i s c o u r c e , Englewood C l i f f e , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1961.  N.J.,  T h i e r , H.D. From SCIS to PELE: Approaches to e f f e c t i v e d i s s e m i n a t i o n , implementation and a d a p t a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs. S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1981, 65 ( 1 ) . T y l e r , R.W. B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s of C u r r i c u l u m and I n s t r u c t i o n , . The U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, Chicago and London, 1975. V a l d e s , A., and Evans, W. IPI Nationwide Network E v a l u a t i o n Study. Research f o r B e t t e r S c h o o l s , I n c . , P h i l a d e l p h i a , 1973. Walker, D.F., and S c h a f f a r s i c k , J . Comparing C u r r i c u l a . E d u c a t i o n Research, 44, 1, Winter, 1974, 83-111. Walton, J . , and Welton, J . ( E d . ) . R a t i o n a l C u r r i c u l u m London, Ward Lock E d u c a t i o n a l , 1976.  Review of  Planning,  Waring, M. The implementation of c u r r i c u l u m change i n s c h o o l s c i e n c e i n England and Wales. European J o u r n a l of S c i e n c e E d u c a t i o n , 1979, 1 ( 3 ) . Werner, W. ( E d . ) . C u r r i c u l u m Canada, Canadian As s o c i a t i o n f o r C u r r i c u l u m S t u d i e s and Centre f o r the Study of C u r r i c u l u m 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 e d u c a t i o n a l a t t i t u d e s c a l e . J o u r n a l of S o c i a l Psychology, 1960, 51, 113-121. W i l l i a m s , E. Implementation a n a l y s i s and assessment, I n P.D. Cook ( E d . ) , E v a l u a t i o n S t u d i e s Review, B e v e r l y H i l l s , Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1978, ( 3 ) . Wish, P.A., Shannon, H.A., Wasik, J.L. A r e p o r t on an instrument f o r o b s e r v i n g classroom s c i e n c e behaviour i n the elementary s c h o o l . ERIC document, 1975. W r i g l e y , J . The s c h o o l s c o u n c i l . I n E d u c a t i o n a l Research i n B r i t a i n , E d i t e d by Butcher, J.,and Pont, H.B. 1970, 2, 32. Yamatoto, K., Jones, J.P., and Ross, M.B. A note on the p r o c e s s i n g of c l a s s r o o m o b s e r v a t i o n r e c o r d s . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l , 1972, 9 ( 1 ) , 29-43.  149  APPENDIX A General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s  o f NESP and EESP  150  General c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the new and  the e s t a b l i s h e d elementary  and  S c i e n c e 5/13).  elementary  s c i e n c e programme (NESP)  s c i e n c e programme (EESP - ESS,  TPS,  1.  Emphasizes both content and p r o c e s s e s of s c i e n c e .  2.  Emphasizes p r o c e s s e s of s c i e n c e .  3.  P r o v i d e s a source f o r t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s and methods to use.  4.  P r o v i d e s an o r g a n i z e d way  5.  P r o v i d e s f o r needs and  6.  Encourages a d a p t i n g the m a t e r i a l s f o r d i f f e r e n t  7.  P r o v i d e s s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g elementary  8.  P r o v i d e s minimal  9.  Contains t e a c h i n g u n i t s which are o r g a n i z e d around s p e c i f i c  SCIS  of t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e c o n c e p t s .  i n t e r e s t s of p a r t i c u l a r  age-groups. age-groups.  d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g elementary  science.  science. science  concepts. 10.  Contains t e a c h i n g u n i t s which are independent  of each o t h e r .  11.  P r o v i d e s supply and equipment  12.  Does not p r o v i d e supply and equipment  13.  P r o v i d e s s u f f i c i e n t time f o r c h i l d r e n t o i n v e s t i g a t e on t h e i r  14.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to d e c i d e the content of student  15.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to d i s c u s s the r e s u l t s of experiments  readily. readily. own.  investigations. w i t h each  other. 16.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to i n t e r p r e t or e x p l a i n the r e s u l t s of experiments.  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.  18.  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  19.  P r o v i d e s t e a c h i n g u n i t s s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to the i n t e r e s t s e x p e r i e n c e of the d e v e l o p e r s .  concepts. and  151  20.  P r o v i d e s t e a c h i n g u n i t s s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to the c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t and  21.  experience.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to demonstrate t h e i r attainment  of s c i e n c e  concepts. 22.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to seek f o r i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n c o l l e c t e d  23.  Provides greater opportunities f o r learning  24.  Provides l i t t l e  25.  P r o v i d e s students 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  26.  Encourages students to c o l l e c t m a t e r i a l s f o r o b s e r v a t i o n and  data.  problem-solving-skills.  opportunities f o r learning problem-solving  skills.  investigation.  investigation. 27.  Provides 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 developing science concepts.  28.  Provides i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials f o r a t t a i n i n g s p e c i f i c science concepts.  29.  Encourages t e a c h e r s t o demonstrate to r e i n f o r c e s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e 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.  P r o v i d e s a v a r i e t y of o p t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g s p e c i f i c  science concepts.  32.  P r o v i d e s a v a r i e t y of o p t i o n s f o r t e a c h i n g u n s p e c i f i e d s c i e n c e concepts.  33.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to develop  34.  Does not encourage t e a c h e r s to develop  35.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to r e l y on m a t e r i a l s p r o v i d e d by the d e v e l o p e r s .  36.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to use  37.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to m a i n t a i n c o n t r o l of l e a r n i n g  38.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to be f a c i l i t a t o r s of l e a r n i n g  39.  P r o v i d e s students w i t h s p e c i f i c experiments.  t h e i r own m a t e r i a l s . t h e i r own m a t e r i a l s .  locally available materials. experiences. experience.  i n s t r u c t i o n s to c a r r y out p r e s c r i b e d  152  40.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to d e s i g n t h e i r own own  experiments based on  their  hypotheses.  41.  Requires  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 .  42.  Requires  teachers  to work at the c h i l d r e n ' s own  43.  Discourages  44.  Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e .  45.  Requires  46.  Does not r e q u i r e c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s .  47.  Saves teachers p r e p a r a t i o n  48.  Requires  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  50.  Encourages students  r a t e of speed.  s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e .  c o o p e r a t i o n among t e a c h e r s .  time.  a l o t of p r e p a r a t i o n  time. situations.  to d i s c r i m i n a t e between important  and  unimportant  data. 51.  Encourages students  to s e a r c h f o r r e g u l a r i t i e s .  52.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be r e s o u r c e f u l .  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 c h i l d r e n to be  inquisitive.  56.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to c l a s s i f y  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  59.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to f o r m u l a t e  60.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to h y p o t h e s i z e  information.  i n science. c o n c l u s i o n s based on c o l l e c t e d  about the r e s u l t s of experiments.  Legend ESS  - Elementary s c i e n c e  data.  study  SCIS - Science c u r r i c u l u m improvement study TPS - Teaching primary s c i e n c e EYE - Examining your environment S c i e n c e 5/13 - Schools c o u n c i l s c i e n c e 5/13  153  APPENDIX B D i s t r i b u t i o n of items a c c o r d i n g to NESP and EESP  154  New Elementary S c i e n c e Programme NESP  E s t a b l i s h e d Elementary S c i e n c e Programme EESP  -  ESS, EYE, TPS, SCIS, S c i e n c e 1  2  4  3  5  6  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  NB. As i d e n t i f i e d by the d e v e l o p e r s of NESP  F i g u r e 2.  Items d i s t r i b u t e d  5/13  NB. As i d e n t i f i e d by the former t e a c h e r s of EESP  a c c o r d i n g to programmes, NES and EESP  155  APPENDIX C 1. Q-sort r e c o r d  sheet  2. Q-sort format and  instructions  156  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Mathematics and Science Department. Confidential  Description of programme Q-sort Record Sheet  Teacher  School  Programme  Date  Instructions: Please record the numbers of items placed i n each category i n the appropriate space below. Please note that there should be one item only i n each square, and there should be one item for every square. Category value  No. of items i n each category  1 2 3 h  5  12  6 7 8  9  (N.B. Items i n category value 1 indicate "Not Clearly defining Characteristics", items l i s t e d i n category value 9 indicate C l e a r l y defining Characteristics".)  157  INSTRUCTIONS FOR SORTING THE ITEMS  Purpose The purpose o f t h i s instrument i s t o h e l p us f i n d out what the t e a c h e r s c o n s i d e r t o be 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 programme. To do t h i s we would l i k e you to s o r t items d e s c r i b i b g a programme a c c o r d i n g t o what you c o n s i d e r t o be 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 and n o 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 o f the programme.  Directions 1.  Take the deck of cards and read through the items once b e f o r e you start sorting.  2.  Sort the items a c c o r d i n g t o how c l e a r l y they d e s c r i b e 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) m a r g i n a l d e f i n i n g 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 s o r t 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 t o f i t the f i r s t t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s (1, 2 & 3) on your l e f t - h a n d s i d e . Note the number o f items r e q u i r e d i n each c a t e g o r y . Choose 3 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 p l a c e them i n c a t e g o r y 1. Continue w i t h s o r t i n g , p u t t i n g the r e q u i r e d number o f items i n each c a t e g o r y .  4. ;, Now s o r t the items i n (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 i n the l a s t t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s (9, 8 & 7) i n t h a t o r d e r . Again note the number of items r e q u i r e d i n each c a t e g o r y . 5.  Then s o r t t h e items i n (b) m a r g i n a l d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s the same way working from c a t e g o r y 4 to 5 and put the remaining items i n c a t e g o r y 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 t h a t you have the r e q u i r e d number of items i n each category.  6.  Now r e c o r d the card-numbers of each item i n the Q-sort r e c o r d sheet. P l e a s e read the i n s t r u c t i o n s b e f o r e you r e c o r d 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  Categories  No. o f 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 - s o r t s 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 s u b j e c t d a t a  matrix)  160  Item scores of s u b j e c t s based t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f 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 NESP and EESP  NESP Q-SCORES: Item x s u b j e c t data m a t r i x f o r Q-sort 1  TW  SUBJECTS;: .TU  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 s u b j e c t d a t a m a t r i x f o r Q-sort 1  DEV.  TW  SUBJECTSl: TU  :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  9  2  6  8  5  9  5  7  6  8  162  EESP Q-SCORES: Item x s u b j e c t d a t a m a t r i x f o r Q-sort 2  SUBJECTS : TU [TEMS 1  TW  DEV.  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 s u b j e c t d a t a m a t r i x f o r Q-sort 2  DEV.  TW  SUBJECTS :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 f o r the Q - a n a l y s i s (Designed by G r i f f i t h s , S.J. 1974)  MICHIGAN TERMINAL SYSTEM FORTRAN G<21.8 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  98 99 100 1 35 3  5 4 41 43 42 45 46  7 6 61 63 62 65 8  MAIN  PAGE P001  10-29-81  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) FORMAT(20A 4) FORMAT ( ' 1 ' .20A4) READC5.100) NF.MS.NW.IP F0RMATI4I5) READ(5.98) (FMT(J),d =1.20) DO 1 I=1.NS READC 5.FMT) ( F ( I . J ) . d =1.NF) DO 3 d=1.NF DO 35 1=1.NS IGPS(I.d)=0 NG(d)=0 DO 4 1=1.NS TEMP=0.0 DO 5 J=1,NF I F ( A B S ( F ( I . J ) ) . I T . T E M P ) GO TO 5 K=d TEMP=ABS(F(I.J)) CONTINUE NG(K)=NG(K)-M IGPS(NG(K),K)=I CONTINUE IF(IP.NE.1) GO TO 45 WRITEC6.41 ) FORMATC'-SELECTION MATRIX'//) DO 42 1=1.NS WRITEC6.43) (IGPSCI.d). d =1.NF) FORMATC'O'.10110) CONTINUE DO 46 1=1.NS DO 46 d=1,NF 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) CONTINUE CONTINUE IF(IP.NE. 1 ) GO TO 65 WRITEC6.61 ) FORMATC'-WEIGHT MATRIX'//) DO 62 1=1.NS WRITEC6.63) (W(I,d).d =1.NF) FORMAT)'O'.10C3X.F7.4)) CONTINUE READC 5.98 ) CFMT(d).d= 1 .20) DO 8 1=1,NW 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) 0059 0060 006 1 0062 0063 0064 0065 0066 0067 0068 0069 0070 007 1 0072 0073 0074 0075 0076 0077 0078 0079 0080 0081 0082 0083 0084 0085 O086 0087 0088 0089 0090 009 1 0092 0093 0094 0095 0096 0097 0098 0099 0100 0101 0102 0103 0104 0105 0106 0107 0108 0109 01 10 0111 01 12 0113 0114 01 15 0116  10 91 9 81 83 82 85  1 1 12 • 14 13 131 133 132 135 15  18 17 16 19 201 200  MAIN  CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE IF(IP.NE.1) GO TO 85 WRITE(6.81) FORMAT)'-WEIGHTED ITEM SCORES'//) DO 82 1=1.NW WRITE(6.83) (WIS(I.d).d=1.NF) FORMAT('0'.10(2X.F8.2)) CONTINUE DO 12 J=1.NF RM(U)=0.0 STD(J)=0.0 DO 11 I=1.NW RM(0)=RM(J)+WIS(I.J) STD(d)=STD(d)+WIS(I.d)**2 CONTINUE RM(J)=RM(J)/FLOAT(NW ) STD(d) = SORT(STD(d)/FLOAT(NW)-RM(J) " 2 ) CONTINUE DO 13 I=1.NW DO 14 d=1,NF Z(I.d)=(WIS(I.d)-RM(d))/STD(d) CONTINUE IF(IP.NE.1) GO TO 135 WRITE(6.131) FORMAT('-Z-SCORES'//) DO 132 1=1.NW WRITE(6.133) (Z(I.d).d=1.NF) FORMAT('0'.10( 3X.F7.4)) CONTINUE DO 15 d=1.NF DO 15 I = 1.NW ISR(I.d)=I ZS(I.J)=Z(I,d) DO 16 1=1.NF NL=NW-1 DO 17 d=1.NL M = d+ 1 DO 18 K=M,NW I F ( Z ( d . I ) . G T . Z ( K . I ) ) GO TO 18 TEMP=Z(d.I) Z(J.I)=Z(K.I) Z(K.I)=TEMP ITMP=ISR(d,I) ISR(d.I)=ISR(K,I) ISR(K.I)=ITMP CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE WRITE(6,19) FORMAT('1DIMENSI0NS AS IN STEP 5'//) DO 200 I=1.NW WRITEI6.201) (ISR(I.d).d=1.NF) FORMAT*'0'.10110) CONTINUE L=NF-1 DO 202 I=1.L  10-  43 : 23 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  PAGE P002  ON ON  MAIN  MICHIGAN TERMINAL SVSTEM FORTRAN G(21.8) 0117 n i 1Q y 01 20 0121  204  0124 0125 0126 0128 0129 0131 0132 0133 0135 0136  207 206  0137 0138 0139 0140 014 1  209 208 203 202  0143 0144  T  ...VP .„ c n n o n NDI 1ST. NODECK. LOAD. NOMAP OPTIONS IN EFFECTID.EBCDIC.SOURCE.NOLISTNODECK.LDAD.NOMAP : ST A^?iC^ SOURCrS^;E ME^ - ' ^44^PROGRAM SIZE . 57402 •STATISTICS* NO DIAGNOSTICS GENERATED e r r o r s In MAIN 0  No  M=I+ 1 DO 203 J=M.NF DO 204 K=1,NW Z(K.1)=ZS(K.I)-ZS(K.J) ISR(K,1)=K WRITE(6,205) I . J „ , „ „ ™ i . T T n k l AS IN ' FORMAT( ' 1DIMENSI0NS FOR DIFFERENTIATION AS IN 1/'0',3X.'ORDER'.6X.'ITEM'.5X,'DIFFERENCE //) NL=NW-1 DO 206 11=1.NL NM=I1+1 DO 207 JJ-NM.NW I F ( Z ( I I . 1 ) . G T . Z ( J J . D ) GO TO 207 TEMP=Z( I I . D Z(II.1)=Z(JJ.') Z(JJ.1)=TEMP ITMP=ISR(11.1) I S R U I . 1 ) = ISR(JJ. 1 ) ISR(JJ.1)=ITMP CONTINUE CONTINUE DO 208 K=1,NW WRITE(6,209) K . I SR (K . 1 > . Z (K , 1 ) F0RMAT('O'.I6.SX.I6.5X.F10.4) CONTINUE CONTINUE CONTINUE STOP r  205  0123  10-29-81  0  T  E F F E C  M  S  : 43:23  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  PAGE P003  168  APPENDIX F The r e s u l t s of the Q-analyses  FACTOR ANALYSIS  NESP 2  NO. OF CASES NO OF VARIABLES  60 27  MEANS X X X X 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 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  5 . OOOOO 5.00OOO 5.00000 5.OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5.00000 5.OOOOO 5.OOOOO 5.OOOOO 5.00000 5.00000 5. OOOOO 5.00000 5.OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5.OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5.00000 5 OOOOO 5.00000 5 OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5 OOOOO 5.OOOOO 5 OOOOO  STANDARD DEVIATION 2 09923 2.09923 2.09922 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09922 2.09923 2.09923 2.09922 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09922 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923 2.09923  CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS  X 5 X 4 X 3 X 2 1 1 . OOOOO 1 X 46 154 1 OOOOO . X 2 0 1 OOOOO . 0. 34616 0. 25769 X 3 1 OOOOO . -0. 21 154 -0. 33846 X 4 -0. 40385 25769 -0. 53077 1 OOOOO . S03B5 0. 0. X 5 0 4 1538 0. 57692 -0. 52692 0. 23077 0 43077 X 6 0 60769 0. 58846 -0. 54231 0. 39615 0. 66154 0. 59615 X 7 0. 20000 -0. 13461 0. 20769 0. 31 154 X 8 0 30769 -0. 05385 03461 -0. 20000 0. 20769 0. 0 25769 X 9 0. 01923 -0. 02692 0 27692 0. 1307 7 X 10 0 20769 0 53846 -0 .55385 0 24231 0 50000 X 1 < 0 27692 0 .30000 0 246 15 -0 .26538 0 17692 X 12 0 10769 0 .15769 0 .05000 0 26923 0 . 48077 X 1 3 0 .27308 0 .38077 -0 .17308 0 .37308 0 .346 15 X 14 0 3 1923 0 .41923 . 196 15 -0 0 .32308 0 .43077 X 15 0 .23846 0 .42308 .20769 -0 .26923 .53846 0 X 16 0 . 4 1154 0 0 .69231 -0 .49231 0 .36539 0 .53462 X 17 0 .36154 0 .48462 -0 .46539 0 .00769 0 .27692 X 18 0 20769 .2346 1 0 .28077 -0 .40000 0 0 .46154 X 19 0 . 55000 -0 .27692 0 .17308 -0 .22308 -0 .20385 X 20 -0 33077 X  X  6  1 OOOOO . 0. 47692 0. 296 15 0. 15769 0. 22692 0 46539 0 26538 0. 14231 0 2B077 0 .25000 0 .30000 0 .59231 0 46923 0 .42692 -0 .23846  X  7  1 OOOOO . 0. 14615 0. 28077 0. 26538 0. 40769 0. 20769 0 40000 0 .40000 0 .4 2308 0 .41154 0 .55000 0 .37308 0 .46154 -0 .22308  X  8  1 OOOOO -0. 1 1923 -0. 15385 0. 29231 0. 16923 0. 03077 0 03846 0 3 1538 0 .33846 0 . 196 15 0 .31923 0 .08846 -0 .11538  X  9  X 10  X 1 1  1 . OOOOO 0. 66923 1 OOOOO . 0. 0846 1 1 OOOOO . 0. 10385 18846 0. 37692 0. 09231 0 0. 01154 0. 20385 0 17692 0. 30000 -0 .06923 0 .02308 0 3 1 154 0 .38846 -0 .OOOOO .11923 0 .29231 03462 -0 -0 0 .67693 0 .18462 0 .17692 0 .47308 -0 .04615 -0 .02692 .08846 0 .11538 . 21154 0 0 -0 .30000 -0 .11154 -0 .21923  X 12  OOOOO 1 . -0. 01538 0. 096 1 5 0. 396 15 -0 .04 615 0 .33462 0 .21154 -0 .02308 -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 X 25 X 2G X 27  0.54615 0.40769 0.35385 0.50385 0..56154 0..70385 O..46154  0.51953 0.39231 0.45000 0.43846 0.42308 0.27308 0.43462  0.28462 O.1B461 0.26923 0.48077 0. 16923 0.25769 0.30769  -0.28462 -O.40769 -0.01154 -0.47692 -0.41538 -0.12692 -0.01154  X 16 X 15 X 14 X 13 1 .00000 1.OOOOO 0.52692 1.00000 0.10769 0. 13846 OOOOO O.27692 .51538 O. 0. 55385 33462 O.36154 0..5230B 0. 19615 253B5 O.22308 -0.08462 O..00385 58846 0.05385 0.55769 0..55385 03077 -O.3423 1 0.096 15 -O..00769 70000 O.31923 .4 5000 .42692 O. 0. 0.28077 30385 O..26154 0..15385 0.26154 13461 O..10000 0..12692 O.33846 26154 .15385 O..37308 0. 0.41923 48462 .27308 _.17308 0. 0.39231 43846 0 . 32308 0.350OO 0.06923 . 58462 0.40385 0.64615 X 25 1.OOOOO 0.43846 31923  EIGENVALUES 9.17759 0.62793 0.19780  X 26 1.OOOOO 0.37308  3.027 18 0.55953 O.17167  227 13 O.2 1460 23489 0. 06478 -0 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  0.51154  0.61154 O.30000 0.21923 X 17  OOOOO 53846 .303B5 .23077 .36154 .42308 24615 0.64231 0.54615 0.33077 0.03462  0.35000 0.45385 0.25000 0.49231 0.43462 O. 30769 0.23077  0.54615 0.46538 0.35000 0.53462 0.49615 0.43846 0.34615  0.25000 -0.05769 O.16154 0.22692 0.39616 0.33077 0.21154  0.03462 0.26154 0.35769 0.24231 -0 05385 O.08462 0.05000  0.07 308 0.27692 0.33462 O.22308 -0.06538 0.10385 0.05769  0.4038S 0.32692 0.24231 0.52692 O 53077 O.40000 -0.01154  0.06538 0.39231 0. 32308 0.40385 O.19615 0.06154 -0.0423'  X 20  X 21  X 22  X 24  X 19  X 23  X 18  1 .00000 03462 14231 27692 35769 19231 36154 _ 57G93 O.16154 -0.09231  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  OOOOO 34231 13461 33B46 .53077 .51538 .57308  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  X 27 1.00000  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  EIGENVECTORS VECTOR  0.54615 0.37308 0 11538  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  1 .53796 0.51890 O.12831  1 .25702 0.43351 0.10437  1 .09752 0.38928 0.09498  1 .05B06 O. 34905 0.05879  0. B8769 0.31710  0.73720 0.28879  0.63520 O 2 1302  0.59967 0.89328 0.99044  O. 64622 0.90934 0.9943 1  0.68687 0.92376 0.99782  0.72606 0.93669 1.OOOOO  0.75894 O.94843  0.78624 0.959 13  O. 80977 O 96702  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  -O.18637 O.18204 0..23623 O..22447 O..22244 -O.. 15489 ..10196 -0. 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  0.07630 O.19696  O 07917 -O 10794  -0.03597 -O.27829  -0.00806 0.31331  -0.06248 O. 15629  0.22008 0.205 16  -0.48554 -0.08806  -0.50835 O.160O1  0.41522 -0.09267  -0.04303 -0.21368  O.1077B -0.31112  0.23037 O.21748  0.09512 O.13243  -0.02183 -0.18495  0.25945  -0.26473  -O 27134  O  171  NESP FACTOR  z 1 z 2 z 3 z 4 z 5 z 6 z 7 z 8 z 9 z 10 z 11 z 12 z 13 z 14 z 15 z 1G z 17 z 18 z 19 z 20 z21 z 22 z 23 z 24 z 25 z 26 z 27  MATRIX ( 7 F 1 0.G8808 0.79224 0. 50301 - o . 5G46 1 0.73648 0 .6954 1 0. 796 17 0.37386 0 .2 3 114 0.23984 0.650 1 3 0.35755 0.4 4 4 16 0. 55 149 .0. 52638 0.64543 0 .75402 0 .48988 0 .59669 -0 .32700 0 .7 1 160 0 .56374 0 . 4 1882 0 .71564 0 .70107 0 .58534 0 .48076  ITERATION CYCLE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  FACTORS) F 2 0. 11271 0. 14948 0. 1 1004 0. 39055 -0. 22 174 -0. 20643 0. 01435 -0. 06258 -0. 0 1 4 0 3 -0. 1087 1 -0. 40029 -0. 45634 0. 6795 1 0. 38701 -0. 23457 0. 46864 -o..31102 -0.. 4 8 4 2 0 0.. 545 12 0 . 27 193 0 .30823 -0 .15005 -0 .06936 -0 .26949 -0 .13601 0 .20950 0 .7 1085  VARIANCES 0. 158333 0.302826 0.337053 0.345334 0.345483 0.345492 0.345495 0.345496 0.345497 0.345497 0.345497 0.345497  F  3  -o. 16017 0. 01957  -o.27694  -0. 15953 0. 26355 -0. 01 135 -0. 12285 0. 34435 -0. 75969 -0. 79539 0. 17979 -0. 20085 -0. 129 19 0. 0 8 5 3 8 -0..04800 0..30596 0 .05041 0 .32100 -0 .13778 0 .25036 0 .20109 -0 .25003 -o .48220 -0 .14200 0 .38842 0 .14335 0 .0004 4  4 F -0. 05943 0. 18 142 0. 1551 1 0. 37363 -0. 12869 -0. 2 1622 -o.0957 1 0. 5 1493 -0. 05336 0. 13367 -0..02838 0.. 1 1490 -0. 02038 -o.. 2952 1 0.. 5 1728 0 .01642 -0 .20639 -0 .11492 -0 .26499 -0 .38584 0 .06386 -0 .37570 0 .11998 -0 .03299 0 .1805G 0 .36145 0 .10601  F 5 0. 50224 -0. 06272 -o.32 194 -0. 09692 -0. 06244 0. 28 104 0. 02733 0. 25829 0. 10665 -0. 02447 -0, 2 1465 -0. 28858 -0. 20484 -0. 39640 -0 .23326 0 03474 -o . 24627 0 .24383 0 . 14848 -0 .20736 0 .056 19 -o.03043 0 .23679 -0 . 13247 0 . 12449 -o .18551 0 .16932  F 6 0. 13661 -0. 24 150 0. 4 1146 0. 0001 1 -0. 00728 0. 05399 -o. 16212 0. 27 18 1 -0. 27733 -0. 28427 -o.09391 0. 34253 -0.. 10847 0..23654 -0..06865 -0 .02157 0 .00040 -0 .15423 0 .20303 -0 .12060 -0 . 16100 -0 .11934 0 .257 14 0 .20033 -o.09146 -o. 37891 0 . 1159 1  7 F -0. 078 15 0. 1 1580 -0. 17823 0. 188 10 -0. 19607 -0. 04475 -0. 07 155 0. 2 1672 -0. 03646 -0..09304 0.. 1 1475 0.. 28645 0 .07896 -0 .11762 0 .07034 0 .10553 -0 .08 104 0 . 18866 -0 .01702 0 .5631 1 -0 .06442 0 .38264 0 .45761 -0 .10947 -0 .07325 0 .01766 0 .01773  172  NESP ( c o n t i n u e d ) ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX ( VARIABLE F 1 Z 1 0 46008 Z 2 0 37979 0 07857 z 3 -0 81349 z 4 0. 73704 z 5 0 70391 z 6 0. 56523 z 7 0. 1 2 4 2 7 z a 0 04846 z 9 -0. 00281 z 10 0. 6 5 8 6 5 z 11 0 2671 1 z 12 z 1J -o0 02 95 58 17 95 z 14 0 19305 z 15 0 25778 z 16 0 73834 z 17 0. 73099 z 18 0. 21427 z 19 - 0 . 19977 z 20 0 37000 z 21 0 52874 z 22 0 10999 z 23 0 56892 z 24 0 5 8 4 17 . z 25 0 16509 z 26 - 0 0 7 2 16 z 27  7 FACTORS) F 2 0 51390 0 46866 0 36508 - 0 0 4 115 0 22270 0 25003 0 42445 0 . 10722 0. 08919 -0 01976 -o 0 2 1 3 8 -0. 20221 0. 76498 0. 65826 -0. 02603 0 71638 0. 15140 - 0 14016 0. 83613 0 05728 0. 6 0 3 1 5 0 . 18797 0 . 16609 0 . 17321 0. 22645 0. 36420 0 84773  F 3 -0.22145 -0.18019 -0.13048 0.00528 0.09173 -0.14057 -0.31191 0.38519 -0.83887 -0.86162 0.00806 -0.09143 -0.18261 0.10155 -0.11708 0.18917 -0.09666 0.10340 -0.13197 0.23761 0.01739 -0.38579 -0.38723 -0.17210 0.19519 -0.07315 0.00980  F 4 - 0 03251 0 .58075 0 .09426 0 .05345 0 .24619 0 00664 0 27264 0 . 39587 - 0 .01359 0 14210 0 39449 0 12647 0. 23914 -0 00242 0. 65370 0. 33453 0. 21699 0. 2 2 0 9 8 - 0 . 13490 - 0 . 13899 0. 40981 0. 02647 0. 00826 0 . 14345 0. 47801 0 73930 0 . 14497  F 5 0 .40716 0 . 12519 0 .01919 0 .04581 -0 .07310 0 .24090 0 .04301 0 . 56B68 0 .06976 0 .03342 0 .04518 0 .31620 -0 .10200 -0. 26604 0 . 17487 0 09873 -0. 08757 0. 2 6 8 3 4 0 .. 1 2 6 7 6 -0. 06921 0. 0 1 8 1 1 0. 2 0 9 4 0 0. 69650 0 . 10206 0 . 14117 -0. 06131 0 . 18332  F  6 05483 0 .09487 0 .66162 -0 .06633 0 . 18011 0 .04612 0 .11110 0 .07343 0 .01981 0 . 14847 0 .28222 0 .65369 0 .10144 0 .42684 0 .. 3 6 2 8 5 -0, 0 2 5 4 3 0 . 3 8 1 10 - 0 . 13048 0. 0 9 4 6 7 - 0 . . 15559 -0. 05232 0 . 16649 0. 28189 0. 47813 -0. 01714 0. 00867 - 0 . 03024  -o  C H E C K O N COMMUNAL I T I E S  X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  BEFORE ROTATION 0.79236 0 75895 0 67059 0 6 8 114 0 71999 0 65699 0.69050 0 71498 0 72322 0 80991 0 6 8 4 10 0 67229 0.73608 0 77527 0.66605 0 74289 0 77763 0 70951 0.80595 0.76706 0.67913 0.70557  X X X X X  23 24 25 26 27  0.75873 0.67568 0.72269 0.71601 0.79010  VARIABLE  1 2 3  4 5 6  7 8 9 10  11  AFTER ROTATION 0 .. 7 9 2 3 4 0 .75894 0 .67057 0 . 6 8 1 13 0 .71997 0 .65698 0 .69049 0 .71496 0 .72321 0 .80990 0 .68408 0 .67227 0 .73606 0 77525 0 .66603 0 .74287 0 .77761 0 .70950 0 80593 0 76704 0 67912 0 70555 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.  75871 67566 72268 71599 79008  DIFFERENCE 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00001 0.00001 0.00001 0.00002 0.OO002 0.00001 0.0OO01 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.0O002 0.00001 0.00002 0.00002 0.00002 0.OOO02 0.00002 0.00001  *  F -0 0 -0 0 -0 -0 -0. -0  7 .31255 .02517 ,25903 .09099 . 14261 . 13785 .07093 .23268 -o. 0 6 1 3 6 - 0 154 10 0 . 1 1 149 0 0 9 158 0 17486 0 108 19 - 0 . 15755 0. 07161 0. 01485 0. 08337 -0. 01649 0 . 78681 -0. 08436 0 . 4 1 177 0. 06663 - 0 . 18 102 - 0 . 20818 -0. 01849 - 0 . 10292  FACTOR NO. NO.  ANALYSIS  EESP  OF C A S E S OF V A R I A B L E S  2  60 23  MEANS VARIABLE X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 7 X X X 9 X 10 X 11 X 12 X 13 X 14 X IS X 16 X 17 X 18 X 19 X 20 X 21 X 22 X 23  5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5  a  CORRELATION  X X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 X 9 X 10 X 1 1 X 12 X 13 X 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 X 18 X 19 X 20 X 21 X 22 X 23  STANDARD  DEVIATION  2. 0 9 9 2 3 2 09923 2 09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 09923 2 09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .11070 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09923 2 .09896 2 .07071 2 .08275 2 .09922  OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO .05000 OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO OOOOO .03333 .01667 .03333 OOOOO  COEFFICIENTS  1 1 .OOOOO - 0 . 0 4 6 15 0 15385 0 . 15385 0 . 06923 0. 1 5 7 6 9 - 0 33077 0 . 36923 0 .. 14615 - 0 . .08077 0 25000 0 35385 - 0 .04615 -o . 5 5 4 6 6 0 19231 0 35769 0 .37308 - 0 .35000 0 .52692 0 .18849 -0 . 2 4 5 6 4 -0 0 8 9 1 6 -0 . 1 6 9 2 3  X  2  1 .OOOOO -0. 16923 0. 2 8 4 6 1 0. 3 3 0 7 7 0 . 06923 0 . 26538 0 . 03462 0 . 28077 0 . 34615 - 0 . 02308 0 . 02308 0 . 36154 0 19509 -0 0 8 8 4 6 - 0 22308 -0 1923 1 -o 0 8 4 6 1 -0 2 2 3 0 8 0 .16156 0 .40551 0 .16282 0 .28077  X  3  1 .OOOOO -0. 20769 0. 1 5 3 8 5 0. 4 5 7 6 9 - 0 . 4 1923 -0. 27308 -0 5 0 0 0 0 - 0 . 47692 0 . 40000 0. 2 2 3 0 8 -o 4 9 2 3 1 -0. 4 0 9 3 0 o 43846 o. 4 2 3 0 8 o 20769 -0 4 3 4 6 2 0 .55385 -0 . 0 6 1 5 5 -0 . 4 9 5 1 9 0 .15 119 -o . 2 4 6 1 5  X  4  1 .OOOOO 0. 0 9 2 3 1 -o. 0 2 3 0 8 0. 0 8 0 7 7 0. 18077 0 . 20000 0 . 06154 0 . 00385 - 0 . 05000 0 .. 2 0 3 8 5 0 09946 -0 18462 -0 .19231 -0 2 4 2 3 1 -0 . 1 1923 -0 .08846 0 .28850 0 .35092 -0 0 7 3 6 6 0 .06538  X  X  5  1 OOOOO 0. 3 4 2 3 1 0. 0 3 0 7 7 0. 0 8 0 7 7 -0. 0 4 6 1 5 -0 0 3 4 6 1 0. 2 0 0 0 0 0 33462 0 10385 0 0038 3 0 01538 -0 1 1538 0 0307 7 -0 0 6 1 5 4 0 00385 -0 . 0 8 4 6 3 0 .04289 0 .32951 0 1 1538  6  1 .OOOOO -0. 0 6 9 2 3 0. 0 5 7 6 9 -0 1846 1 07692 0 40769 0 20769 -0 2 9 6 15 -0 15301 0 43462 0 146 15 0 .35OO0 -0 .48077 0 .38077 -0 . 1 9 6 1 8 -0 .24 175 0 .44193 -0 0 2 3 0 8  1 -° 1  X  7  1 .OOOOO 0. 1 5 7 6 9 0 29615 0 46923 -0. 1 5 7 6 9 -0. 196 15 0. 3 0 3 8 5 0 39783 24231 -0 2 9 6 1 5 0 06538 0 .33461 -0 3 6 9 2 3 0 . 12694 0 .25734 0 04652 0 .296 15  -o.  X  8  1 ,OOOOO 0 5 1539 0 2 1923 0. 0 2 3 0 8 0 1923 1 0 13462 -0 3 9 4 0 0 -0 .01539 0 10000 0 26538 -0 .13846 0 .19615 0 .10386 -0 .10917 0 .06978 0 .07G92  X  9  1 .OOOOO 0. 3 3 4 6 2 -0. 0 5 3 8 5 -0. 0 4 6 1 5 0 45000 -0. 0 1 5 3 0 -0 3 1923 -0 .0807 7 0 0846 1 0 .1307 7 -0 .28077 0 .3 1927 0 37042 -0 .08529 0 .396 16  X 10  X '11  X '12  1 .OOOOO -0 . 2 3 0 7 7 -0 . 1 2 6 9 2 0 .36539 0 .17979 -0 . 1 0 3 8 5 -0 . 3 1 5 3 8 0 .06154 0 .20769 -0 . 196 15 -0 . 0 5 7 7 0 0 .32363 0 .18G08 -0 . 0 2 3 0 8  1 .OOOOO 0 .15385 -0 . 0 6 9 2 3 -0 . 37 105 0 .25385 0 .48846 0 .25769 -0 . 3 3 0 7 7 0 .30000 0 .01923 -0 . 3 1 9 7 3 -0 .13 180 .03462  1 .OOOOO -0 .18461 -0 . 2 8 6 8 9 0 .34231 0 .06923 0 . 18846 -0 . 3 2 6 9 2 0 .28462 -0 . 0 8 0 7 8 -0 .2 3 0 0 5 0 .15506 -0 .03077  -o  X 13 1 OOOOO O 1B3S1 -0 38077 -0.17308 -0 25000 0.24231 -O.29231 O.25773 O.50299 -O.12793 O.36539  EIGENVALUES 5.88951 0.61080 O.14517  1 OOOOO 0. 22 186 0. 62734 0. 30984 0 . 29837 •0 58909 •0 1 1898 0 44 189 0 .06901 0 .26777  1 . OOOOO 0. 25000 0. 40769 -0 4 1 154 0 50769 -0 .23080 -0 .53808 0 .33726 -0 .17308  1 .OOOOO O. 17692 -O.18462 0.40769 0.09232 -0.45620 -O.18608 -0.03846  2.38120 0.54077 O. 13377  2 . 8083 1 O 57283 O.13959  CUMULATIVE PROPORTION OF EIGENVALUES 0.25607 0.37817 0.48170 0.83929 0.86420 0.88771 0.98812 0.99418 1.OOOOO  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 81997 O. 46275  1 . 38680 0.40698  1 . 13055 O. 33225  0.891 17 0.26382  O 88082 0.25715  0.79532 O. 22765  0.70914 O.21358  0.56083 O.90783  0.621 13 0.92552  0.67028 0.93997  0.70903 0.95144  0.74733 0.96262  0. 78 190 0 97252  0.81274 0.98180  EIGENVECTORS -0. 198 1 1 -0. 20686 0. 31340 0. 35202 0. 15233 0. 07340 -0. 13854 -0 01288 0 05570 -0 01 155 0 .16688 0 22996 -6 . 17328 0 .41788 -0 .09546 0 15903 -0 .23537 0 .03471  0. 14832 -0. 17071 -0. 04593 0. 2 3600 0. 16407 -0. 00674 0. 27985 0 17682 0 49536 0 25336 0 03585 -0 .07969 0 .01117 -0 .08942 -0 .09001 -0 .14860 0 .50307 0 .09226  1 . OOOOO  -0. 31631 0. 24449 0. 17 101 -0. 12551 0. 24799 0. 12969 0. 06544 -0. 04013 0. 10386 0. 22335 0. 08 14 2 0 09553 0 .12304 0 .13334 0 .50150 -0 .09914 -0 0O841 0 .18295  -0. 02084 0. 24 153  0. 18258 -0. 3181 1  0. 18421 0. 06 105  0. 10029 0. 14 143  0. 4317 1 -0. 1647 1  0. 40445 0. 12589  0. 17 135 0. 25908  0. 38385 -0. 26305  0. 15872 0. 07656  -0. 02335 -0. 0889 1  -0. 07946 -0. 024 18  0. 18453 -0. 26430  -0 .28734 -0 .25563  -0 .14826 0 .00444  -0 .32868 0 .27262  0 10423 0. 26828  -0. 02951 -0. 27073  -0. 2 1365 -0. 23764  0. 23451 -0. 24254  0. 14061 -0. 02546  0. 08442 0. 09956  -0. 00327 0. 21517  0. 37590 0. 22683  0. 22555 -0. 19096  0. 32883 0 .06395  0 22336 -0 1 1853  0 .06958 0 .01879  -0 23763 -0. 43771  -0 .29301 -0 .02143  0 16799 -0 04331  0 .12112 0 .36750  0 18 193 0 12120  -0 .09182 0 . 26279  0 . 11374 -0 . 19193  -0 .203 30 -0 .05545  -0 .12049 -0 .13487  0 31876 -0 13753  -0 .24399 -0 .05421  -0 .34569 -0 .14902  0 . 16457 0 .23623  0 .04773 -0 .09652  -0 .25912 -0 .26839  ERROR BOUNDS FOR EIGENVALUES 0.0000447  0.0000348 ' 0.0000233  0.0000151  0.0000247  0.0000698  0.0001928  O.OOOOI34  ERROR BOUNDS FOR EIGENVECTORS 0.OOO0290  0.0001628  0.0OO1092  FACTOR MATRIX ( 6 FACTORS) F 1 F 2 Z 1 -0 48079 0.58992 Z 2 0 35995 0 39549 Z 3 -0 76764 -0.21033  F  3 F -0.21378 0.43184 0.10098  4 F -0.01558 0.34180 0.30131  0.0001045  5 F -0.20406 0.01315 0.144B9  6 0.16909 -0.15801 -0.10541  ^  EESP F AC*T0R M A T R I X ( 6 F 1 - 0 . 48079 2 1 0. 35995 2 2 - 0 . 76764 Z 3 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z  z z z z z z z z  4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  0. 25296 - 0 . 07 162 - 0 . 51850 0. 54737 - 0 . ,05057 0. .44309 0 .44704 -0 .50200 -0 . 4 1 4 3 0 0 .59334 0 .65106 -0 .65702 -0 .57672 -0 .46343 0 .58615 -0 . 7 7 1 9 9 0 . 14816 0 .76056 -0 .11146 0 .4 1502  ITERATION CYCLE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  FACTORS) F 2 0. 58992 0. 39549  -0. 21033 0. 39300 0. 23564 0 . 14 1 4 7 0 . 16806 0. 72345 0. 67778 0. 28715 0 .25528 0 .27496 0 .41557 -0 .40646 -0 .04267 0 . 16685 0 .23700 -o .27602 0 .21097 0 .43417 0 .12300 -0 .01129 0 . 2 1733  VARIANCES 0 . 194539 0.292794 0.309481 0.331445 0.337867 0.339048 0.339423 0.339533 0.339562 0.339569 0.339570 0.339570 0.339570 0.339570 0.339570  F  3  -0. 21378 0. 43184 0. 10098 -0. 0 0 5 0 5 0. 5 8 0 0 6  59232 24492 03603 12261 0. 2 8 4 7 5 - 0 .01987 0 .27285 -0 .06193 0 .33203 0 .35002 -0 .40591 0 .11813 - 0 . 13720 -0 .03732 -0 .40785 0 .08595 0 .76439 0 . 16027  0. 0. -0. -0.  4 F - 0 . 01558 0 . 34180 0 . 30131  5 F - 0 . 20406 0. 01315 0 . 14489  6 F 0 . 16909 - 0 . 15801 - 0 . 10541  0. 44361 0. 30133 0. 09387 - 0 . 32057 - 0 . 38764 - 0 . 2OO01 - 0 .44341 0 .22513 0 .04836 0 .10985 0 .08627 -0 .15990 0 .02535 -0 .59049 -0 .34486 0 .00600 0 .36778 0 .31023 -0 .10751 0 .12888  - 0 . 34506 0 . 19783 0 . 14264 0. 21425 - 0 . 10813 0 . 13394 - 0 . 23941 0 .49210 - 0 .10531 0 . 15703 -0 .02523 -0 .05100 0 .43278 0 . 14273 0 .30946 -0 .22602 -0 .06530 - 0 . 11242 -0 .10600 0 .59058  - 0 . 12811 0 . 33893 - 0 . 25942 - 0 . 36756 0 . 17498 0. 05074 - 0 . 27552 - 0 . 25027 0. 53490 - 0 .00895 - 0 .14340 - 0 .14623 - 0 .05764 - 0 . 15845 0 .25117 -0 .10263 - 0 .28537 0 .03691 0 .09809 0 .19453  176  EESP  (continued)  ROTATED FACTOR •OR MATRIX ( 6 FACTORS) VARIABLE F 1 F 2 F 3 Z 1 -0 .21477 -0 . 14477 0 .00446 Z 2 0 .22355 0 .28002 0 .40425 3 -0 .46886 -0 .40544 0 .2 1334 4 -0 .01540 0 .02864 0 .02733 5 0 .2 1833 -0 .14746 0 . 73732 6 . 354 16 0 .15267 0 .59283 7 0 .335 19 0 .72223 0 .00979 8 0 .11515 0.,30913 0,.06200 9 0.. 53 1 19 0,.40720 -0,.09559 10 0..03680 0.,74906 0,.06054 1 1 -0.,02922 07572 0..09222 12 -0. 0 8 0 8 8 -0. 32416 0. 51668 13 0. 56279 0. 25634 -0. 0 6 7 7 4 14 0. 2 1367 0. 23959 0. 10872 15 -0. 54373 0. 0 4 8 6 9 0. 34746 16 -0. 0 2 6 3 3 -0. 25107 24066 17 -0. 23543 0. 38352 0. 081 17 18 6014 1 0. 12 130 19 22575 61271 -0. 15524 0. 0 7 9 6 4 Z 20 08292 0. 0 1 9 5 5 36049 Z 21 44053 0. 12650 0. 0 2 8 7 8 22 17800 0. 19746 0. 7 1966 23 74555 0. 07 156 0. 22356  -o  -o.  -o.  -o. -o.  o O O O o o  z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z  F 4 0 . 15627 0 .56018 -0 . 13983 0 . 72428 0 . 12262 -0..01989 0,.04057 0 . ,04660 0 . . 26459 0.. 10033 0. 04238 -0. 0831 1 0. 40884 0. 0 9 4 5 8 -0. 28751 - 0 . 18145 -0. 44868  F 5 0 . 18262 0 .01378 0 .55590 -0 .13055 0 .10026 0 ,48515 -0..03762 ,04434 - 0 . ,05200 -0. 33154 0 . 80325 -0. 0 2 9 5 9 - 0 . 08482 -0. 39049 0. 3 0 3 8 0 0 . 68732 0 . 32245  - 0 . 36405 -0. 02261 0. 6291 1 0. 52797 13927 06837 0.  -0. 0. 0. -0.  -o.  CHECK ON COMMUNALI T I E S  VARIABLE 1 X X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 X 6 X 7 X 8 X 9 X 10 X 1 1 X 12 X 13 X 14 X 15 X 16 X 17 X 18 X 19 X 20 X 21 X 22 X 23  BEFORE ROTATION 0. 69534 0 6 1443 0 76660 0 .55073 0 .64193 0 .736 15 0 67161 0 .71982 0 .73127 0 .69322 0 .67305 0 .62123 0 . 56539 0.. 72798 0..60556 0., 7 1647 0. 67906 0. 7 1637 0. 70352 0. 59776 0. 71121 0. 6 2 9 2 6 0 64839  AFTER ROTATION 0. 69533 0.61441 0..76658 O..55072 0..64192 0..73614 0..67159 0..71981 0..73126 0.69320 0.67303 0.62122 O.56538 0.72796 0.60555 0..71645 0..67904 0..71635 0.. 7 0 3 5 0 0..59775 0.71 1 19 0.62925 0.64838  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  -o.  32892 34589 20002 4034 1 13416 0. 15892  -o.  F 6 0 .75528 .09282 -0 .09096 0 .08540 0 .06151 .01379 -0..18565 0.. 77653 0..44882 0.,08435 0. 10458 0. 48461 0. 06321 67205 0. 10887 0. 29913 0. 40578  . -o  -o.  -o.  -0 2 1967 0. 42 131 0. 15732 -0. 24251 05717 -0. 0 8 6 6 5  -o.  177  NESP:  ORDER  Items r a n k - o r d e r e d r a n g i n g from the h i g h e s t Z-scores t o the lowest Z-scores a c c o r d i n g t o i t e m 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 t o 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  F I 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 r a n g i n g from the h i g h e s t Z-scores to the lowest Z-scores a c c o r d i n g 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-clearly- 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  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  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  3  F3 Items  10  180  EESP  ORDER  (Continued)  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 defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for  CAI  183  Items s e l e c t e d from the new programme 4.  P r o v i d e s an o r g a n i z e d way of t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e  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  9.  Contains  t e a c h i n g u n i t s o r g a n i z e d around s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e  11.  Provides  supply and equipment  15.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to d i s c u s s the r e s u l t s of experiments w i t h  concepts. concepts.  readily. each  other. 26.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o c o l l e c t m a t e r i a l s f o r o b s e r v a t i o n and investigation.  28.  Provides  instructional materials f o r attaining specific  science  concepts. 29.  Encourages teachers  t o demonstrate t o r e i n f o r c e s p e c i f i c  science  concepts. 34.  Does not encourage the t e a c h e r s  41.  Requires  44.  Promotes s t a n d a r d i z i n g elementary s c i e n c e .  45.  Requires  c o o p e r a t i o n among  49.  Requires  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  53.  Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be c r e a t i v e .  54.  Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be i m a g i n a t i v e .  55.  Teaches c h i l d r e n t o be i n q u i s i t i v e .  57.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o show  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 t o formulate  60.  Encourages c h i l d r e n t o h y p o t h e s i z e  teachers  t o develop  t h e i r own m a t e r i a l s .  t o complete a s p e c i f i e d number o f u n i t s i n a y e a r .  teachers. situations.  initiative.  c o n c l u s i o n s based on c o l l e c t e d  data.  about the r e s u l t s o f experiments.  184  Items s e l e c t e d from the e s t a b l i s h e d programme 3.  P r o v i d e s a source f o r t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s and methods to u s e .  8.  P r o v i d e s minimal  d i r e c t i o n f o r t e a c h i n g elementary  science.  10.  Contains t e a c h i n g u n i t s which are independent  of each o t h e r .  12.  Does not p r o v i d e supply and equipment r e a d i l y .  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.  25.  P r o v i d e s s t u d e n t s 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 .  33.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to develop  38.  Encourages t e a c h e r s to be f a c i l i t a t o r s of l e a r n i n g  48.  Requires  55.  Teaches c h i l d r e n to be  58.  Stimulates c h i l d r e n ' s i n t e r e s t  60.  Encourages c h i l d r e n to formulate c o n c l u s i o n s based  t h e i r own m a t e r i a l s . experiences.  a l o t of p r e p a r a t i o n time. inquisitive. i n science. on c o l l e c t e d  data.  185  A STUDY OF ELEMENTARY SCIENCE CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION  CLASSROOM ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT  DEVELOPED JIMMY  BY  CHAKAGONDUA,  1981  APPENDIX G-2 Classroom o b s e r v a t i o n schedule Adapted from S c i e n c e Teacher O b s e r v a t i o n R a t i n g Form (STORF) developed by Lynn O b e r l i n , U n i v e r s i t y of F l o r i d a , Nov. 1973.  187  STRATEGY  Was the l e s s o n s e l e c t e d a c c o r d i n g to the s t u d e n t ' s interest? 2. Was the l e s s o n s e l e c t e d from an independent u n i t or t e x t ? 3. Did the t e a c h e r f o l l o w the l e s s o n plan?  4. Did the t e a c h e r pose problems or p r o v i d e m a t e r i a l s to encourage students design t h e i r own a c t i v i t i e s / experiments?  1. Was the l e s s o n s e l e c t e d well in advance from the f i v e s p e c i f i e d areas o f science? Was the l e s s o n from the u n i t s e l e c t e d f o r the general scheme? 3. Was the l e s s o n planned along the format recommended i n the r e s o u r c e book? 7 4. Did the teacher i n s t r u c t students to perform s p e c i f i c activities/experiments?  5. Did students d e s c r i b e t h e i r experiences i n t h e i r own terminology and " c o n c e p t s " ?  5. Was the l e s s o n designed to teach s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts?  6. Did students change to new activities/experiments depending on t h e i r i n t e r e s t s ?  6. Did the teacher play dominant r o l e d u r i n g the 1esson?  Did students p r a c t i c e any scientific skills? Did students design own experiments?  their  Did students f o l l o w t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s ? 17  8. Did students perform p r e s c r i b ed a c t i v i t i e s / e x p e r i m e n t s ? 9. Did the t e a c h e r allow students to perform o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s / experiments based on t h e i r interests?  MATERIALS  USE OF 10. Were the m a t e r i a l s intended f o r c h i l d r e n to i n v e s t i g a t e on t h e i r own? 11. Did the m a t e r i a l s l e a d to formation o f d i f f e r e n t concepts? 12. Did the teacher a l l o w conceptions?  7. Did students l e a r n any s c i e n c e concepts?  mis-  10. Were the m a t e r i a l s intended to a t t a i n c e r t a i n concepts? 11. Did the m a t e r i a l s l e a d to attainment o f the intended concepts? 12. Did the t e a c h e r question misconceptions? 28  188  To  To  [13. Did the t e a c h e r use m a t e r i a l s recommended In the r e s o u r c e "nit? Hi]  13. Did the t e a c h e r use improvised materials?  INTERACTION  TEACHER-STUDENT 14. Did students perform d i f f e r ent a c t i v i t i e s / e x p e r i m e n t s ?  14. Did a l l the students perform the same a c t i v i t i e s ?  15. Did students work a t t h e i r own pace?  15. Did students proceed a t the same r a t e ?  16. Did students q u e s t i o n s shape the d i r e c t i o n o f the l e s s o n ? 8  16. Did the t e a c h e r determine the d i r e c t i o n o f the l e s s o n ?  17. Did students share t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s / r e s u l t s with each o t h e r ?  17. Did students m a i n t a i n i n dividual experiences/ resul ts?  18. Did the t e a c h e r encourage students to share t h e i r experiences/results?  18. Did the t e a c h e r a s s i s t the students to draw c o n c l u s i o n s or r e s u l t s from t h e i r experiences/results?  15 19. Did students conduct i n d i v i d u a l or group a c t i v i t i e s / ] experiments?  19. Did the students only?  listen  20. Did the t e a c h e r engage i n student a c t i v i t i e s / e x p e r i ments?  20. Did the t e a c h e r demonstrate f o r the e n t i r e c l a s s ?  21. Did the students answer each o t h e r s q u e s t i o n s ?  21. Did the t e a c h e r answer a l l the students q u e s t i o n s ?  22. Did the t e a c h e r a l l o w c h i l d r e n chance to ask questions?  22. Did the t e a c h e r ask a l l questions?  29  the  55  23. Did the students v o l u n t e e r to answer q u e s t i o n s ?  23. Did the t e a c h e r request students to answer q u e s t i o n s ?  24. Did students v o l u n t e e r to perform a c t i v i t i e s / experiments?  24, Did the t e a c h e r r e q u e s t students to perform activities/experiments?  I 57  189  Hoi  To 25.' ' Did the students enjoy performing a c t i v i t i e s / experiments under those conditions?  2 5 . * Did the teacher enjoy t e a c h i n g under those conditions?  58 26. Did the t e a c h e r encourage guessing or h y p o t h e s i z i n g ?  To  26, Did the t e a c h e r expect the students to know and not guess?  27. Did c h i l d r e n base t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s on t h e i r observations?  27. Did the teacher help the c h i l d r e n formulate conc l u s i o n s from the a c t i v i t i e s / experiments?  28. Did the c h i l d r e n c o r r e c t t h e i r own m i s t a k e s ?  28. Did the t e a c h e r c o r r e c t c h i l d r e n s ' mistakes? 59  OBSERVATION SUMMARY SHEET  School  NO.  Teacher Grade Level  Item No.  Observed  Observed Behavior Frequency  Characteristics  1  2  3  TOTAL General  comments:-  Observer's  signature Date  Mean  Check Items  APPENDIX G-3 Teacher c h e c k - l i s t  2.  CHECK-LIST:  ITEM  /^V'V*  Use o f the r e s o u r c e book  "OBSERVED" CHARACTERISTIC  3  LH '•  Does the teacher use the ideas and m a t e r i a l s the r e s o u r c e book?  from  2.  Does the teacher use h i s / h e r own ideas m a t e r i a l s from o t h e r sources?  3.  Does the teacher use the t e a c h i n g u n i t s a c c o r d i n g to the concepts set i n the r e s o u r c e book?  4.  Does the teacher use the r e s o u r c e u n i t s as well as o t h e r m a t e r i a l s to teach the concepts suggested i n the resource book?  5.  Does the teacher use the t e a c h i n g u n i t s dependently?  6.  Does the teacher have c h o i c e s among t e a c h i n g u n i t s f o r s p e c i f i c s c i e n c e concepts?  7.  Does the teacher provide the m a t e r i a l s 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 ?  8.*  Does the teacher use the suggested for activities/experiments?  materials  26  9.  Do the students b r i n g i n m a t e r i a l s 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 ?  for  53  10.  Do the students c o n s t r u c t or make t h i n g s on t h e i r own i d e a s ?  11.  Do students c o n s t r u c t or make t h i n g s gestions i n the r e s o u r c e u n i t ?  12.  Does the teacher make s u g g e s t i o n s f o r c h i l d r e n to c o n s t r u c t or make t h i n g s ?  13.  Does the teacher accept c l a s s s u g g e s t i o n s c o n s t r u c t or make t h i n g s ?  14.  Does the teacher d i s p l a y  9  10  25.  54  students'  and  in-  for  based  from sug-  to  group work?  2  1  0  Mean Check  193  CHECK-LIST:  "OBSERVED"  ITEM  41  45  48  Use o f the r e s o u r c e book  (Cont'd)  CHARACTERISTIC  Mean  15,  Does the t e a c b e r use s p e c i f i c number o f u n i t s in a year?  16  Are the r e s o u r c e u n i t s she/he uses spread over the f i v e s c i e n c e areas suggested i n the r e s o u r c e book?  17  Does the t e a c h e r seek a s s i s t a n c e i n u s i n g the r e s o u r c e book?  18  Does the t e a c h e r o f f e r a s s i s t a n c e i n the use o f the r e s o u r c e book?  19  Does the r e s o u r c e book save the t e a c h e r p r e p a r a t i o n time?  20  How o f t e n does the t e a c h e r use the r e s o u r c e book?  TOTAL  Check  194  APPENDIX  G-4  Teacher i n t e r v i e w g u i d e l i n e q u e s t i o n s  195  3.  TEACHER INTERVIEW Interview focus:  A.  GUIDELINE QUESTIONS Teacher participation in the development and implementation of the New Elementary Science Programme.  Preparation for Implementation 1. Number of curriculum workshops, a) Attended  0 1 - 2_  _ _  _  3 - 5_  _  _  5 & over b) Offered  0_  _  _  _  1 - 2_  _  _  _  3 - 5_  _  _  _  _  _  1 - 2_  _  _  _  3 - 5_  _  _  _  5 & over 2. Number of teaching units, a) Assisted in writing  0  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 y o u u s e o t h e r m a t e r i a l s  as w e l l  as t h e programme  6.  Do y o u u s e o t h e r m a t e r i a l s  rather  t h a n t h e programme  7.  How s u p p o r t i v e  8. D i d y o u r s c h o o l implementation?  i s your  school  encourage  towards  an o n - g o i n g  implementing  staff  9. Who do y o u p e r c e i v e t o be t h e k e y p e r s o n ( s ) process?  10. Do y o u p e r c e i v e y o u r s e l f process?  t o be a k e y p e r s o n  materials?  Why?  materials?  Why?  t h e new programme?  preparation during  the  in the implementation  i n the implementation  APPENDIX H Teacher response form f o r 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)  2.  What programme did you teach before this new programme ? SCIS  i  i  r  EIS  ESS  EYE  TPS  Sc.5/l3.  Response  Other (please, specify)  3.  How many years of teaching elementary science '? F i r s t year  . ..  2 t o 3 years h t o 10 years II t o 15 years Over 15 years  :  Response k.  y/  Response  What grade  7  l e v e l do you now teach ?  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 f o r elementary science or f o r your students ? Don't know ,;  •  Unsuitable Suitable Very suitable  7.  Response  y  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  8.  Response  y  What i s your image of the new programme as i t relates t o your classroom situation ? A welcome change A fulfiller  of a need  A creator of u n j u s t i f i e d demand No idea Response >/  200  9.  How do you compare the new programme with what you were teaching before t h i s programme? No opinion Cannot notice any d i f f e r e n c e Less complex  ;  More complex Response  10.  How w i l l i n g would you be t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n developing a new elementary science programme during school hours i f release time was given? D e f i n i t e l y would not p a r t i c i p a t e Probably would not p a r t i c i p a t e Probably would p a r t i c i p a t e D e f i n i t e l y would p a r t i c i p a t e 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  I n t r o d u c t i o n to the Classroom A n a l y s i s Instrument  f o r the judges  The top items i n each programme which the t h r e e Types o f s u b j e c t s c o n s i d e r e d to be the 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 c o n s t r u c t i o n of the instrument which c o n s i s t s of a) Classroom O b s e r v a t i o n Instrument, b) C h e c k - l i s t and c) I n t e r v i e w Schedule. These items which the d i f f e r e n t types 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 programmes are not n e c e s s a r i l y the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which were e s t a b l i s h e d to symbolize the new programme and the e s t a b l i s h e d programme. T h e r e f o r e o n l y those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which b e l o n g to the r e s p e c t i v e programmes were c o n s t i t u t e d i n the :'. instrument. The d e s i g n of the Classroom O b s e r v a t i o n Instrument i s such t h a t p e r m i t s the examination of the presence or absence of not o n l y the s e l e c t e d items but a l s o t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t s which a c t as r e f e r e n c e s . The checkl i s t embraces items t h a t have been broken down i n t o s i m p l e r and e a s i e r to examine u n i t s . The presence or the absence of the items w i l l be determined by the frequence o f the s m a l l e r u n i t s . A h i g h frequency r e c o r d i n g i n s m a l l u n i t s f o r one item m a n i f e s t s the presence of t h a t item. I n v e r s e l y , a low r e c o r d i n g denotes the absence o f t h a t i t e m . The t e a c h e r i n t e r v i e w s w i l l focus on the s t r u c t u r e d q u e s t i o n s as w e l l as seek to d i s c l o s e any f a c t o r s which may be r e l a t e d to the predominant items i n the c l a s s r o o m s i t u a t i o n . R a t i n g the Classroom A n a l y s i s  Instrument  U s i n g a 5-point s c a l e , p l e a s e r a t e the Classroom A n a l y s i s based on t h e . f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a :  Instrument  How s u i t a b l e the instrument i s f o r the a n a l y s i s of elementary science classroom a c t i v i t i e s . Least 1  Signature:  Most 2  3  4  5  Date:  APPENDIX J Request l e t t e r s  205 RESPONSE FORM  P l e a s e i n d i c a t e below whether you w i l l a l l o w us t o s i t i n and observe t h r e e s c i e n c e l e s s o n s and/or a t t e n d t h e workshops as scheduled. A l l workshops w i l l be conducted a t t h e Schou E d u c a t i o n a l Centre at 4:00 p.m. each day.  A)  P l e a s e s e l e c t one evening Monday  f o r each workshop. Tuesday  26-30  Feb.  2-6  Wednesday  Friday  ]  Jan. 19-23 Jan.  3  C Response  1 -* I I  B)  starting  v  J  1 s t Workshop 2nd Workshop  I accept you t o s i t i n and o b s e r v e t h r e e o f my s c i e n c e l e s s o n s .  I do n o t a c c e p t you t o s i t i n and observe t h r e e o f my s c i e n c e l e s s o n s .  Response  Name  \f  School  P l e a s e r e t u r n the completed r e s p o n s e form i n t h e envelope p r o v i d e d .  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