Determining the compatability of a teacher's orientation to science instruction with a set of curriculum materials

Studies in EducationalEveluedon, %1ol.5, pp. 215-222.

0191-491X/79/1101-0215505.00/0

© PergamonPressLtd. 1979. Printedin Great Britain.

DETERMINING THE COMPATABILITY OF A TEACHER'S ORIENTATION TO SCIENCE INSTRUCTION WITH A SET OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS Menahem

Finegold

Technion, Israel F. M i c h a e l

Connelly

and M. W. Wahlstrom

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Canada

User Problems with New Materials The decisions confronting practitioners concerning new modes of teaching and new instructional materials are difficult to make and are often based on hidden or hard to defend premises. Teachers, principals, consultants, and others are neither trained nor guided in the making of curricular choices, and they are not provided with viable models for decision-making. Teachers and others make decisions, of course, both in the selection of materials and in their day to day implementation; however, these decisions are often outcomes of pragmatic concerns such as the lack of time and lack of necessary support materials. Furthermore, such decisions often reflect a distrust of change and a recognition of the difficulties of implementation rather than more substantive matters of content, philosophy, and teaching style. We believe that teacher choice of materials and programs should he linked to the individual teacher's orientation to the subject matter and to the teaching approach prescribed for curricular materials. In this view, curricular decisions by the teacher of science should he founded in the teacher's concept of the nature of science and of science teaching. For example, curricular materials frequently state a certain philosophy of scientific method and the detailed thinking behind these statements is often found in project newsletters and the like. It is reasonable to expect teachers making a decision on the use of materials to study these views and to determine their compatibility with their own views. While the perception of incompatibility between the two would not constitute an argument against the validity of the materials, it would clearly constitute a defensible argument for rejection of the materials by any particular teacher. Unfortunately, however, the school science teacher is not trained to make the necessary investigation of compatibility. Not only is the teacher unequipped for such decision-making, but it appears that curriculum developers usually do not take into account the philosophical and pedagogical stance of prospective teachers in relation to their new materials. A case in point is provided by the summer school orientation courses which were designed by BSCS to prepare teachers for teaching BSCS materials. Herron (1971), in an investigation of a group of teachers using BSCS material, found that only three months after an intensive summer orientation course, it was already impossible to differentiate, in class teaching, between teachers who had taken part in

215

216

M. Finegold, F. M. Connelly ~ M. W. Wahlstrom

the course and those who had not. Presumably, despite the efforts of the developers, teachers very quickly returned to their own preferred teaching styles. During the course of developing secondary school science curriculum materials, we have had experiences similar to those reported by Herron, and this paper reports on the use of an instrument developed by us to meet the problem of incompatibility between teacher and materials. In brief, our approach is not an implementation procedure in which teachers are trained to use the materials by overcoming their incompatibility with them, but rather, teachers are encouraged to make an in-depth examination of new materials and to assess their own compatibility with the materials.

MATERIALS ANALYSIS SYSTEMS & TEACHER ORIENTATION The importance of developing analytic schemes which help teachers choose curricular materials has been recognized for a number of years. Numerous systems are now available, but few are directly concerned with the match between a teacher and a specific set of materials. Nothing resembling the teacher-student matching models found in the psychology of instruction literature has been developed. Nevertheless, some of the elements useful for matching teachers and materials are found in the literature. We will briefly describe some of these before introducing the instrument developed in our own work. Stevens and Morrissett (1967) proposed a materials analysis system which takes into account certain teacher variables. However, their emphasis on teachers is extended only to the assessment of capabilities required by the teacher in the use of the materials. In general, their system would be useful if a potential user approached new materials with questions such as "What must the teacher do in order to make the program effective?" or "What must be done to the teacher to make the new materials effective in the classroom?" These questions are, of course, helpful if a decision to implement the materials has already been made and if, as in the BSCS program noted above, the problem is to convert teachers to their effective use. If, however, the problem is to find the best set of curricular materials for teachers with given preferences and capabilities, then of more help would be questions of the form "Is the teacher's approach to the subject-matter compatible with that built-in to the materials" and "Is the teacher's teaching style compatible with that required by the materials?" The beginnings of a materials analysis system built on the approach reflected in these latter questions is found in some of the work of the Educational Products Information Exchange Institute (EPIE) (Stake, 1967). Two of their more recent publications concerning early childhood education reflect an interest in the teacher's overall orientations (Elliot et al., 1972, 1974). Using the proposed analysis system, teachers are asked to check off their preferred point of view on child development from a list of three possibilities, and, in light of this preference, to assess their programming preferences and preferences among selected curricular materials. These preferences could, of course, as with Stevens and Morrissett's system, be used as an indicator of teacher capabilities needing attention during implementation. But even if the results were put to this rather limited use, there would still be the gain of having teachers confront their own preferences in addition to those built into the materials. Another interesting approach is found in the Teacher Self Inventory developed by the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS, 1974) project. The teacher is asked to characterize himself/herself by scoring one of a pair of opposing classroom events, e.g. "uses answers to stimulate thinking" vs. "corrects mistakes." The teacher then constructs a profile of the scores and is invited to compare this profile with an average profile completed for a sample of SCIS teachers. The inventory is not, therefore, a materials implementation instrument

Teacher Compatibility to a Curriculum

217

but is, rather, an instrument aimed directly at teacher self-assessment of factors which characterize teachers of SCIS materials. Our review of the literature failed to reveal any further instruments which would add useful background to our work on matching teacher orientations with those of materials. Somewhat akin to the SCIS procedure, we have developed a profiling technique for the teacher's use in representing self-analysis data. The data have the flavor of that found in EPIE materials, but we have extended the range of basic preferences to include the nature of science, of learnin~ and of instruction. Unlike the Stevens and Morrissett and SCIS recommendations, comparisons in our work are made with an "ideal" teacher of the specific materials in keeping with the assumptions built into the materials.

Teacher Orientation In developing the process of teacher self-analysis and materials selection d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s p a p e r , two a s s u m p t i o n s w e r e made. The f i r s t was t h a t t h e i n i t i a l stage of teacher deliberation and choice concerning curricular materials should be t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g p r o g r a m s i n w h i c h t h e t e a c h e r a l r e a d y h a s some i n t e r est. This process of choice would of course be facilitated by the prior analysis of these materials by the developers or others familiar with the materials. The s e c o n d a s s u m p t i o n was t h a t i n o r d e r t o make t h e m a t e r i a l s function properly the teachers should have a practical means of examining their own orientation to teaching. As an outcome of the initial stage of selection and of these selfanalyses, the teacher would then be able to choose materials for content, philosophical approach, and teaching style. The question arises as to why teacher selection should begin from existing programs, and not, as advocated by Elliot with reference to the EPIE materials, move from self-analysis to the selection of type of program and then to a selection of actual programs. In our view, the answer is a matter of simple practicality. Our own experience in curricular research and development suggests that teachers have neither the time nor the inclination for extensive self-analysis whose ultimate usefulness depends upon the hoped-for existence of a particular kind of curricular material. We have found, on the other hand, that given curricular materials which seem interesting, teachers are quite prepared to invest time and effort in self-examination in order to assess the potential of the materials for them in their own classrooms. Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that the field of curricular materials is so well developed that materials are available in a broad range of content, philosophical framework, and instructional methodology. Rather, the development of materialsseems so haphazard as to make it extremely unlikely that a teacher will find materials suited to his/her previously established philosophical and pedagogical stance where the stance is generated in isolation from actual program materials. Even if teachers in search of a particular philosophy and methodology do find a suitable program, they may well find that while their requirements are met by the developer's stated intentions, they are not met by the actual materials. That this may be so is shown by Herron (1971) in his critical examination of four National Science Foundation texts in which he found great discrepancies between developers' claims for the texts and the texts themselves. In short, we believe that materials analysis is essential to defensible curricular choice, and we believe that this analysis should precede, or perhaps coincide with the analysis of the teacher's stance. The question of why we stress the teacher selection of materials and the use of careful assessment by the teacher of his compatibility with the materials over an implementation strategy designed to convert teachers to the use of

218

M. Finegold, F. M. Connelly 8" M. W. Wahlstrom

materials, is, perhaps, a more interesting question. Our reasons are both empirical and philosophical. Empirically, the record on successful implementation is poor (Connelly, 1972). Here implementation is defined in terms of the intended effects of the materials and not merely in terms of their existence in the classroom. Studies such as Herron's reported above show that even with welldesigned implementation strategies teachers tend to go their own way. Philosophically, we believe that it is desirable for teachers who best know their students and themselves to make the decisions over content and instructional methodology. External developers and senior administrators within a school system cannot know the particular needs of particular children. The judgments on what is best for them are most informatively made by the teachers working with the students and their parents. These arguments have been developed more extensively elsewhere (Connelly and Ben-Peretz, in press). Suffice it to say that while we believe in the development of the best possible curricular materials, we also believe in the importance of teacher choice of those materials. This orientation which is built into our instrument is described below.

THE TEACHER'S PROFILE AS SELF ASSESSMENT The authors of this paper have been involved for a number of years (1970-76) in a research project related to enquiry teaching in science (Connelly, Finegold & Wahlstrom, 1976). One of the outcomes of our research has been a set of instructional materials designed to be used for enquiry teaching in the science classroom. During the developmental period of the project's work, large numbers of teachers were contacted through conventions, conferences, workshops, school board intervention, and so on. Some 40 schools in and around Toronto, Ontario took an active part in field testing the materials. During this period, it became clear from the project's program of formative evaluation that not all of the teachers involved in the program were comfortable with our notions concerning the nature of scientific enquiry or with the modes of instruction which were adopted. For example, some teachers rejected our view (Connelly, Finegold, Clipsham & Wahlstrom, 1977), derived from Schwab (1960, 1962), concerning the functions of principles of enquiry in determining problem areas and in determining the means of investigation of these problem areas. Other teachers rejected the enquiry into enquiry discussion technique, claiming that classroom discussion is oriented towards a small percentage of students and is unduly time consuming for a class as a whole. We came to the conclusion that it would be useful to develop a scheme to enable teachers interested in our materials to examine their compatibility with their own approach to science and science teaching. To this end, a handbook was prepared which presents the goals of enquiry teaching, describes a way of examining teacher compatibility with enquiry teaching, and assists teachers in meeting the goals of enquiry teaching (Connelly, Wahlstrom, Finegold & Elbaz, 1977). It is one of the main aims of the handbook to help teachers in the process of deciding whether to try our materials, and in so doing to help teachers avoid the disillusionment which almost invariably follows inappropriate choice of curriculum materials. In the present paper, we are concerned only with that part of the handbook which is directly related to teacher self-assessment of compatibility with the materials and techniques of enquiry teaching. This section of the handbook consists of an instrument called Teacher Orientation to Science Instruction (TOTSI). Aspects of the instructional situation which are dealt with are as follows: i. 2. 3. 4. 5.

The The The The The

teacher's orientation to the nature of science. teacher's approach to discussion. teacher's role in guiding discussion. teacher's role in fostering student independence. role of the student in the classroom.

Teacher Compatibility to a Curriculum

219

6. Student's attitudes to discussion. 7. The role of the materials. 8. The role of the environment. The profiling instrument (Connelly, Finegold, Wahlstrom & Ben-Peretz, 1977) is comprised of a set of statements arranged in eight subsets, one for each of the eight aspects of instruction outlined above. The respondents are asked to show the extent to which each statement reflects their own position by selecting one of seven response categories. They are also asked to show what instructional situation they would like to maintain in their class. For example, one of the statements on the teacher's orientation to the nature of science is: "The way in which a researcher looks at his subject-matter is an important factor in setting up problems for research in science." The response categories are: A My view of science as expressed in my teaching:

B The view of science I would like to incorporate in my teaching:

For both A and B, the respondent chooses the appropriate responses, ranging from "(1) differs from that in the statement" to "(7) is described by the statement." A respondent's profile is generated by adding the scores on the specific items (scores from I to 7) and recording the total score for each subset or aspect of instruction. The total score for each subset is then recorded on a scale weighted to account for the fact that the subsets have different numbers of items. Each person's profile is a two-dimensional set, one part relating to the actual instructional situation, and one part relating to the instructional situation the respondent would like to maintain. The profile presented in Figure I was selected at random from a set of responses by experienced teachers of science who had taken part in a short program of orientation to the Patterns of Enquiry curriculum materials. Reading the Profile. The profile matrix was designed in such a manner that a respondent's profile would indicate both his/her position with regard to instruction, and the extent to which this position is compatible with that called for by the instructional materials. In this sense, the profile provides for the examination of teacher self-image and also provides the means for a defensible choice of appropriate curriculum materials. A respondent who is in general agreement with the views of the developers, and who would probably be successful in classroom use of the materials, could be expected to generate a profile predominantly in the right portion of the matrix. A respondent whose approach to teaching is not compatible with that of the developers, and who would probably not make effective use of the materials in class, would generate a profile predominantly in the left portion of the matrix. We have noted that profile A represents the actual classroom situation and profile B the classroom situation which the teacher would like to create. Differences between the two profiles may suggest areas in which the respondent might wish to learn more about the materials, or about the changes he/she would be advised to make in order to be able to use the materials effectively.

Field-test Analysis The instrument was field tested with 56 science teachers taking courses at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Thirty five of those teachers, holding a minimum of a Bachelor's degree with majors in biology, physics, or chemistry, were taking a summer course in science education. Twenty one were experienced teachers taking Master's level courses. Part of the course time of each group was devoted to a study of the Patterns of Enquiry materials, methods, and rationale.

220

M. Finegold, ~ M .

FIGURE I:

Connelly 8 M .

W. Wahlstrom

Sample Teacher's Profile for Enquiry Materials No. of ~estions

Subset i. Your orientation to the nature of science 2. Your approach to discussion

Profiles

9

14

26

3i

3~ \4~ 156

56

f

9

26 26 32

14

K 56 38~./" •

/

56

j,,"

3. Your techniques in guiding discussion

8

4. Moving students towards independence in discussion

9

5. Role of the student in your classroom

7

6. Students' attitudes towards discussion

7

7. Role of materials in your classroom

7

8. Environmental influences

3

..... Profile A:

View expressed in my teaching.

--Profile

View I would like to incorporate

B:

2g

49

14 26 26 / 3i 7/,,4"4 ,

~

1~

1§

~

3~

56 3g

56 42 42

6 3

~

~ 6

" 9

12

30

36

42

15

18

21

in my teaching.

We have noted above that in constructing the profile, a respondent adds the scores on the items in each subset to form a total score for that subject. Hanna (1975) points out that in order for these scores to be additive, the items in a given subset must be monotonically related to the attribute assessed in that subset. In addition, the items in one subset must measure only one such attribute. Wahlstrom, Hanna and Connelly (1976) found it reasonable to assume that the condition of monotoneity was met in constructing the items. The condition of unidimensionality was assessed by checking the magnitudes of the intercorrelations between the items on each of the eight subsets and it was found that subset 2 was not unidimensional. A high coefficient of reliability, combined with a high degree of relevance of the items (content and construct validity), indicates that a subset can be considered valid for the construction of a profile. Nunnally (1967) assumes that a reliability coefficient of at least 0.50 is sufficient for evaluation of a group attribute, while a coefficient of 0.80 is necessary for evaluating an attribute of an individual. Table l, giving the Hoyt coefficient of reliability for each of the subsets, shows that subset 2 is not unidimensional and therefore not reliable for measuring attitudes to discussion. If subset 2 is excluded, the entire seven-subset instrument is a valid means to the construction of teacher profiles, but is not sufficiently reliable for discrimination between teachers. For example, since the reliability coefficient of subset I is 0.57 (response A) and 0.67 (response B), it meets the standard of reliability for groups, but not for individuals. Four important points should be considered here:

re.cherCompatibiliW ~ a Curriculum TABLE i:

Hoyt Coefficient

of Reliability

for Each Item-Subset

Subset

Response A

Response B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

.57 .21 .69 .86 .77 .88 .70 .89

.67 .28 .72 .89 .75 .87 .75 .92

221

(N = 56)

First, it appears that the instrument provides a useful basis for making defensible curriculum-committee decisions on the adoption of new programs, or for the assessment of the attitudes of groups of teachers to the materials. Second, while subset 2 is not unidimensional, its individual items are significant. The difficulty of non-unidimensionality can be overcome by treating each of the eight items individually rather than as a group. As Hanna notes (1975): "This subtest is certainly not unidimensional, and it would be meaningless to sum the scores over the items. On the other hand, interesting information can be extracted from the individual items." Third, and most important, the instrument was not designed to discriminate between individual teachers. It was the aim of the developers to generate a learning experience for teachers who wish to make a careful analysis of their beliefs and practices in relation to a set of curriculum materials. Hanna's study shows that this learning experience can be enhanced by providing the teachers with valid and reliable group responses for purposes of comparison and discussion. Finally, analysis of responses for sets A and B indicates that in general, mean scores for B show significant gains over mean scores for A. Teachers apparently expect that classroom experience with the Patterns of Enquiry materials would strengthen their commitment to its strategies and goals.

Teachers' Views of the Instrument Since the instrument was primarily intended for self-analysis by individual teachers, it was considered important to establish how teachers viewed the instrument and its profiling technique. To this end, teachers in both of the field test groups, who had completed and carefully examined their profiles, were asked to answer a number of questions. These questions related to enquiry oriented instruction, the Handbook as a preparatory device, and the profiling technique. Responses were requested on a 7-point scale ranging from "(I) very little" to "(7) very much." Of particular interest to the present report were their responses to two questions. First, when asked "Do you believe that the handbook has potential as a means of examining teacher/materials compatibility?" only 14% responded negatively (answers of i, 2, or 3), as opposed to the 67% who gave positive responses of 5, 6, or 7. On the second question, "De you believe that the profile technique is useful as a means of portraying teacher/materials compatibility?" 19% responded negatively and 64% positively (N=S6 for both results). From these responses, it is clear that a significantly large proportion of the teachers were prepared to accept the profile as a means of portraying teacher/materials compatibility. Furthermore, this does not appear to be dependent upon the type of profile each teacher generated.

99~

M. Finegold, F. M. Connelly ~ M. W. Wahlstrom

TOTSI could be adapted for use with curricular materials other than those which form the basis of the study presented here. This would require a preliminary analysis of those materials according to the dimensions of the instrument. Another strategy that could be used, particularly as applied to professional development activities for teachers, would be to have teachers use the instrument both for analysis of new materials and analysis of their own preferences. Undoubtedly this would lower reliability but for purposes of professional development should be educationally useful.

REFERENCES CONNELLY, F.M. The functions of curriculum development. Interchange, 1972, 3 (2/3), 161-177. CONNELLY, F.M., & BEN-PERETZ, M. Teachers' roles in the using and doing of research and curriculum development. Journal of Curriculum Studies, in press. CONNELLY, F.M., FINEGOLD, M., CLIPSHAM, J., & WAHLSTROM, M.W. Scientific enquiry and the teaching of science. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1977. CONNELLY, F.M., FINEGOLD, M., & WAHLSTROM, M.W. (Principal Investigators). Patterns of enquiry project report. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1976. CONNELLY, F.M., FINEGOLD, M., WAHLSTROM, M.W., & BEN-PERETZ, M. TOTSI matches teacher to curriculum. The Science Teacher, 1977, 44(2), 24-26. CONNELLY, F.M., WAHLSTROM, M.W., FINEGOLD, M., & ELBAZ, F. Enquiry teaching in science: A handbook for secondary school teachers. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1977. ELLIOT, D.L. et al. Early childhood education; How to select and evaluate materials. Educational Product Report, 1972, 5(42). ELLIOT, D.L. et al. Selecting and evaluating beginning reading materials. Educational Product Report, 1974, 7(62/63). HANNA, G. An assessment of teacher response to questionnaires on enquiry teaching in science (Qualifying research paper). Toronto: Ontario Institute for

Studies in Education, 1975. HERRON, M.D. The nature of scientific enquiry. School Review, 1971, 79, 171-212. NUNNALLY, J.C. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill, 1967. SCHWAB, J.J. What do scientists do? Behavioral Science, 1960, i, 1-27. SCHWAB, J.J. The teaching of science as enquiry. In The teaching of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962. Science Curriculum Improvement Study. Teacher self-inventory. In SCIS Teacher's handbook. Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, 1974. STAKE, R.E. A research rationale for EPIE. The EPIE Forum, 1967, i(I), 7-15. STEVENS, W.W., Jr., & MORRISSETT, J. A system for analyzing social science curricula. The EPIE Forum, 1967, •(4), 10-15. WAHLSTROM, M.W., HANNA, G., & CONNELLY, F.M. An analysis of curriculum decisions in the teaching of science as enquiry. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, Fredericton, N.B., 1976.

THE AUTHORS MENAHEM FINEGOLD is a member of the faculty of the Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, in the Department of Education in Technology & Science. MICHAEL F. CONNELLY is a faculty member in the Department of Curriculum at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and in the School for Graduate Studies of the University of Toronto. MERLIN W. WAHLSTROM is a faculty member in the Department of Measurement & Evaluation at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.