- Email: [email protected]
Questionnaire data as a source for curriculum planning
Studiesin £ducationalEva/uation,Vol. 5, pp. 209-214.
0191-491X/79/1101-02095(Y3.00/0
© Pergamon Press Ltd. 1979. Printed in Great Britain.
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E D A T A A S A S O U R C E FOR CURRICULUM PLANNING Moshe Silberstein TeI-Aviv University
and Pinchas Tamir Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Curriculum planning and curriculum development may be conceived as a continuous process if they are to meet the rapidly changing needs of our society (Eden, 1975; Glass, 1965; Kelly, 1973; Mayer, 1978). Such a continuous process implies re-examination of existing programs and their continuous revisions on the basis of information gathered from a variety of sources (Fox, 1972; Schwab, 1972; Tyler, 1950; Tyler, 1976), such as literature reviews, evaluation studies, opinions and criticism of teachers and inspectors, etc. Another source, so far only scarcely used, is surveys and questionnaires seeking to obtain expert opinions on specific issues (Eden, 1975; Garan, 1977). Garan (1977) considers as an expert any person who is capable of contributing to the curriculum development process. Subject matter specialists, teachers, inspectors, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, parents, and lay citizens all may qualify. The present study reports results based on a questionnaire which was administered in the years 1975-76 for the purpose of assessing needs to guide the development of a new biology curriculum in Israel.
Purpose of Study The study aimed at an examination of the following questions: I. What is the relative degree of importance assigned to different objectives with special reference to those meeting the needs of subject matter (presenting biology as a scientific disipline), the society (utilizing biological principles in everyday life) and the individual student (reasoning skills, attitudes)? 2. How different are the emphases regarding skills and contents for different age groups (lower elementary, upper elementary, junior high, senior high)? 3. How do different groups of experts differ in their responses? 4. What are the opinions of different groups on specific issues (see below) related to the teaching of biology?
The Instrument The questionnaire was developed and validated in the year 1974. instrument consists of three parts:
The final
Part A: Objectives. Part A contains I00 items organized in 13 groups which cover a wide range of objectives (Bingman, 1969; Nuffield, 1965; Klinckman, 1970). These objectives may be categorized as follows: (a) Those related to the subject
209
210
M. Silberstein 8 P. Tamir
matter, to biology as a discipline; these include acquaintance with the major biological themes such as unity of pattern and diversity of form, continuity of life, the complementarity between structure and function. (b) Those related to the needs of society; these include the application of biological principles to social, economic, agricultural, environmental, industrial and health issues. (c) Those related to the needs of individual students; these include biological knowledge as a means to enhance understanding of self, physically and mentally. Part B: C o n t e n t s . This part contains 158 items organized in 22 groups of topics which relate to levels of organization in biology, major biological themes, and the interface of biology and agriculture. In both Part A and Part B the respondents were asked to rate each item on a 4-point scale as follows: 0 1 2 3
-
I I I I
am do am am
against including this, it may be harmful. not object, but I don't think it is important. in favor of inclusion, this is quite important. in favor of inclusion, this is very important.
Separate ratings were made for each of the four age groups, namely lower elementary (kindergarten, grades I, 2), upper elementary (grades 3, 4, 5, 6), junior high (grades 7, 8, 9), and senior high (grades I0, II, 12). P a r t C: S p e c i f i c I s s u e s . This part contains I0 open questions dealing with the following issues: the unique contribution of biology to education; the contribution of biology to rational behavior; the teaching of human biology; integration of biology and agriculture; field studies; and what is missing or what has received too much emphasis in existing programs.
In addition, some background data on the respondent were also collected.
Sample A stratified sample of the following populations was selected: elementary teachers, secondary school science teachers, science inspectors, science teachers in teacher training institutions, and natural and social scientists. All the groups were included in the final sample with the exception of some social scientists who refused to participate, claiming that this was outside their field of expertise. The elementary teachers were selected from those who participated in inservice science courses. The secondary teachers were selected from a list of subscribers to the Biology Teacher Bulletin. Only 25% of these groups responded. Questionnaires were mailed to all the inspectors, all the science teachers in teacher-training institutions, and all the science faculty members at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv University. The response rate of these groups was 40% to 50%. The final distribution of useable responses was: elementary teachers, 17; secondary teachers, 99; inspectors, 16; science teachers in teacher training institutions, 24; and scientists, 31. Because of the length of the different parts, 62 responded to Part A only, 57 to Part B only, and 70 to Part C only. The total N = 189.
FINDINGS R e l a t i v e Importance of Objectives for Different Grade Levels Table 1 presents the distribution of responses according to the three need areas. Examination of the data in Table I reveals that most objectives are con-
1:
The Relative
1.98 2.45
0.90
2.02
1.92 0.38 0.60 1.43
1.52
1.91 1.15 1.67 1.97 1.57 2.02
+ * + + + +
2.35 2.69
++ ++
2.57 2.15 2.42 2.63 2.49 2.67 2.33 2.75 2.38 2.26 2.65 2.74
++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
2.72 2.86
2.52 2.62
++ ++
++ ++
2.58 2.59 2.68
++ ++ ++
2.57
2.51
++
++
?
Rating
Junior High
2.79 2.84 2.87
++ ++
2.84 ++
++
2.73 2.60
++ ++ + ++
2.21 2.85
2.71
++
2.81
++
2.83 2.88 2.90 2.89
2.81 2.72
++ ++
++ ++ ++ ++
2.82 2.60 2.81
++ ++ ++
2.75
2.80
++
++
%
Rating
Senior High
1.51-2.25Medium importance (1; 2.26-3.00High importance
1.81
2.39
2.39 1.20 1.73 2.14
+
++
++ * + +
2.15
1.92 2.15
+ +
+
1.90 2.18 2.21
1.80
+ + + +
2
Rating
0.00-0.75 Against (-) 0.76-1.50 Not important (*)
+ ++
13 4
Rating key: The means range from 0 to 3:
*
1
+
The Student
Importanceof biology for self-understanding Positiveattitudes toward Science Nature
*
+
+
*
0.98 1.37 0.71 0.96
* *
1.28
7 4 5 3
*
19
1.12 1.44
0.36
* *
4 4
1.28 1.63 1.69
9
* + +
1.10
* 10 4 1
x
Rating
Grades
Upper Elementary
for Different
Lower Elementary
to Objectives
No. of Items
Assigned
The nature of Israel History of science History of biologists Applicationof biology in life
b. Society
C.
Importance
Major biologicalthemes Organisms Science as enquiry Applicationof biological principals Knowledgeof inquiry skills Understandinginquiry concepts and processes Understandingstatistical concepts Active use of inquiry skills Treatmentof data Performanceand manipulation Design Reporting
a. Subject Matter
ObjectivesRelating to the Needs of:
TABLE
Y
2 9.
% 2;1 2 2 ij 0
3
9 2 3.
212
M. Silberstein ~ P. Tamir
sidered to be very important for junior and senior high school students. On the other hand, there are significant differences as far as lower levels are concerned. In the lower elementary level, top priority is given to objectives related to the needs of individual students and the affective domain: love of nature and positive attitudes toward the environment. In order to save space, the breakdown of the data in Table l is not included in this article. However, examination of these data reveals that knowledge about most inquiry skills is considered inadequate for the early elementary grades. Making observations is a notable exception. Knowledge of certain scientific concepts such as experiments, data, and conclusions as well as making observations and measurements are most important in the upper elementary grades. While curiosity, open-mindedness, team work, responsibility, and positive attitudes toward science, nature, and living organisms are considered very important already at the early elementary level, accuracy, perseverance, self-reliance, readiness to improve quality of life, and realism become very important only at the upper elementary level. Only at the junior high level do the more abstract inquiry concepts such as hypothesis, assumption, control, replication, dependent and independent variable, and experimental error and sample become very important. At the same time, the active inquiry skills such as interpretation, drawing conclusions, designing experiments, working with a microscope, identifying a problem, hypothesizing and reporting in graphs and tables also become very important.
Relative Importance of D i f f e r e n t Topics at D i f f e r e n t Grade Levels No treatment of levels of organization is recommended in the lower elementary grades. As students move to the upper elementary level, they should mainly concentrate on the organism, with occasional reference to tissues, systems, populations, and communities. Full treatment of all levels including the cell and the biosphere ~s recommended for both levels of secondary school. A more detailed reference was made to different topics dealing with the cellular level. Here it is considered very important that junior high students recognize the general structure of a cell as well as the difference between plant and animal cells and basic processes such as diffusion. On the other hand, topics such as the cell organelles, active absorption, phagocytosis, energy paths, enzymatic processes, and cell respiration had better be left for the senior high level. As to different organisms, the early elementary grades call for getting acquainted with common macroscopic organisms such as insects, starfishes, snails, vertebrates, and higher plants. Only at the senior high school is a full study of microscopic organisms recommended. As to. communities and populations, some acquaintance with biotopes and seasonal phenomena is advocated for the early elementary grades. Extension of this acquaintance and the study of other kinds of interrelationships (e.g. symbiosis, parasitism) is recommended for the upper elementary grades. The importance of topics related to the environment peaks at the upper elementary and junior high school level. Topics related to the human culture, such as holidays, clothes, food, housing, and health are associated mainly with the upper elementary grades. The relative importance of studying common organisms is considered to be lower at the senior high school compared with junior high and elementary levels. A similar trend may be observed regarding the interface between biology and agriculture. Topics such as preparing a garden, sowing and planting, caring for plants and animals, recognition and control of weeds, recognition of common crops and their life cycle, and caring for ornamentals are considered very important at both elementary levels. Preparing a garden, sowing, and planting become less important in the junior high and unimportant in the senior high level. All the other topics mentioned above are considered less important in the senior high level.
Questionnaires ~ Curriculum Manning
213
Degree of Agreement among Groups of Respondents Generally there was a high level of agreement among the different groups. The inspectors tended to assign relatively low ratings, elementary teachers and scientists relatively high ratings, while secondary teachers occupied a middle position. Perhaps inspectors, who are cognizant of the difficulties of teaching science, especially at the elementary level, refrain from setting aspirations too high. When respondents involved in curriculum development are compared with respondents who have not been involved in this process, the following differences emerge: Although the involved group consistently assigned lower ratings, they did find topics which stress the applications of biology to be very important. These differences may reflect the experience of those involved in curriculum development in knowing what are realistic expectations, as well as the recent trend among curriculum specialists toward the applied aspects of the disciplines.
Specific Issues S e v e n t y p e o p l e r e s p o n d e d t o P a r t C o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n i n g l0 open questions. We s h a l l r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s p e r t a i n i n g t o two o f t h e s e , namely human b i o l o g y and t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f b i o l o g y and a g r i c u l t u r e . F i r s t , 43% b e l i e v e t h a t human b i o l o g y s h o u l d be s t u d i e d as a t o p i c i n i t s own r i g h t w h i l e 28% a d v o c a t e integration with other biological topics. Half of the reasons given p e r t a i n to t he s u b j e c t m a t t e r and t h e o t h e r h a l f t o d i d a c t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Next, 61% b e l i e v e t h a t human b i o l o g y s h o u l d be s t u d i e d as an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r s e d e a l i n g w i t h b i o l o g y p r o p e r as w e l l as s o c i a l , a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l , and c u l t u r a l a s p e c t s , w h i l e 36% a r e a g a i n s t such an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r s e -- m a i n l y b e c a u s e o f a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t e a c h i n g such a c o u r s e by r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s . The m a j o r i t y o f t h o s e a d v o c a t i n g an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r s e f e e l t h a t i t s h o u l d be s t u d i e d a t t h e s e n i o r high l e v e l . As t o t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f b i o l o g y and a g r i c u l t u r e , 77% a g r e e t h a t such i n t e g r a t i o n i s d e s i r a b l e ; however, 16% b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s d e s i r a b l e o n l y f o r r u r a l s t u d e n t s and n o t f o r urban s t u d e n t s .
DISCUSSION The results indicate that the respondents differentiate between the needs of the individual students, the subject matter, and the society. As far as the elementary grades are concerned, the needs of individual students are assigned top priority, followed by societal needs -- leaving subject matter needs for last. These results may be interpreted as indicating that at the elementary level one should focus on the development of attitudes and interests of students, thereby laying a sound foundation for further study of science. As students mature, other considerations such as those pertaining to the needs of society and the nature of the discipline play a more decisive role. The best way to meet the needs of individual students at the elementary school appears to be to stress the study of macroscopic organisms, environmental understanding, and participation in gardening and plant and animal care. Curiosity, positive attitudes and careful observations should play a central role in the study of science at the elementary level. This view of learning science at the elementary level is certainly different from common views of curriculum developers in the 1960s, which advocated the study of basic concepts and the acquisition of reasoning and inquiry skills right from the early elementary grades (Hicks et al., 1970, pp.89-93). Elementary science programs in Israel followed this general trend, although recently there has been a tendency to return to nature studies and to revive the emphasis on the aesthetic, personal, and social aspects which characterized the study of science in Israel in the 1930s.
214
M. Silberstein 8 P. Tamir
When we turn to the secondary level, we find an entirely different picture. The secondary level appears to be the time to study science with appropriate emphasis on its substantive as well as its syntactic structures. The major difference between the junior and senior high levels appears to be in three aspects: (1) The postponement of quantitative statistical treatment of data to the senior high level; (2) leaving the study of highly abstract concepts such as molecular and ultramicroscopic cell processes, regulation, genetics, evolution, and sophisticated inquiry skills to senior high level; and (3) when integration is sought, such as in the case of an integrated human biology course, again the senior high is the right level. In closing, we reiterate that the findings of this study should be considered as a part of a systematic endeavor to collect a variety of input data which may serve as a basis for making rational decisions in curriculum planning.
REFERENCES BINGHAM, R.M. (Ed.). Inquiry objectives in the teaching of biology, McRel and BSCS, 1969. EDEN, S. The translations of general educational aims into functional objectives; a need assessment study. SEE, 1975, 2 ( 1 ) , 5 - 1 2 . FOX, S. The practical image of the practical. Curriculum Theory Network, 1972, i0, 45-57. GARAN, L. Expert judgments as evaluation data. In A. Lewy (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum evaluation. Paris: UNESCO, 1977, pp.167-188. GLASS, B. Con~nents. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter, 1965, 26, I-3.
HICKS, V.W., HOUSTON, R.W., CHENCY, D.B., & MARQUARD, L.R. The new elementary school curriculum. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1970. KELLY, P.J. Nuffield A-level biological science project. In Schools Council Research Studies, Evaluation in curriculum development; twelve case studies. London: McMillan, 1973, pp.91-109. KLINCKMAN, E. (Supervisor). Biology teachers' handbook. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1970. MAYER, W.V. A rationale for existence. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Journal, 1978, i, 7-8. Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project. A-level biology; aims and outline scheme. London, 1965. SCHWAB, J.J. The practical: Arts of eclectic. School Review, 1973, 81, 493-542. TYLER, R.W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. TYLER, R.W. Specific approaches for curriculum development. Berkeley, CA: McCutchon, 1976.
THE AUTHORS MOSHE SILBERSTEIN is Director of Biology Curriculum Projects for the Curriculum Center, Ministry of Education & Culture in Jerusalem and Senior Teacher at the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University. His main areas of interest are in the theory of curriculum development, implementation, and teacher education. PINCHAS TAMIR is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and Israel Science Teaching Center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Director of the Israel High School Biology Project. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University (1968), specializing in science education, education psychology, and measurement. His research concentrates on various aspects of science education, curriculum development and evaluation, non-routine testing, and teacher education.
0191-491X/79/1101-02095(Y3.00/0
© Pergamon Press Ltd. 1979. Printed in Great Britain.
Q U E S T I O N N A I R E D A T A A S A S O U R C E FOR CURRICULUM PLANNING Moshe Silberstein TeI-Aviv University
and Pinchas Tamir Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Curriculum planning and curriculum development may be conceived as a continuous process if they are to meet the rapidly changing needs of our society (Eden, 1975; Glass, 1965; Kelly, 1973; Mayer, 1978). Such a continuous process implies re-examination of existing programs and their continuous revisions on the basis of information gathered from a variety of sources (Fox, 1972; Schwab, 1972; Tyler, 1950; Tyler, 1976), such as literature reviews, evaluation studies, opinions and criticism of teachers and inspectors, etc. Another source, so far only scarcely used, is surveys and questionnaires seeking to obtain expert opinions on specific issues (Eden, 1975; Garan, 1977). Garan (1977) considers as an expert any person who is capable of contributing to the curriculum development process. Subject matter specialists, teachers, inspectors, philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, parents, and lay citizens all may qualify. The present study reports results based on a questionnaire which was administered in the years 1975-76 for the purpose of assessing needs to guide the development of a new biology curriculum in Israel.
Purpose of Study The study aimed at an examination of the following questions: I. What is the relative degree of importance assigned to different objectives with special reference to those meeting the needs of subject matter (presenting biology as a scientific disipline), the society (utilizing biological principles in everyday life) and the individual student (reasoning skills, attitudes)? 2. How different are the emphases regarding skills and contents for different age groups (lower elementary, upper elementary, junior high, senior high)? 3. How do different groups of experts differ in their responses? 4. What are the opinions of different groups on specific issues (see below) related to the teaching of biology?
The Instrument The questionnaire was developed and validated in the year 1974. instrument consists of three parts:
The final
Part A: Objectives. Part A contains I00 items organized in 13 groups which cover a wide range of objectives (Bingman, 1969; Nuffield, 1965; Klinckman, 1970). These objectives may be categorized as follows: (a) Those related to the subject
209
210
M. Silberstein 8 P. Tamir
matter, to biology as a discipline; these include acquaintance with the major biological themes such as unity of pattern and diversity of form, continuity of life, the complementarity between structure and function. (b) Those related to the needs of society; these include the application of biological principles to social, economic, agricultural, environmental, industrial and health issues. (c) Those related to the needs of individual students; these include biological knowledge as a means to enhance understanding of self, physically and mentally. Part B: C o n t e n t s . This part contains 158 items organized in 22 groups of topics which relate to levels of organization in biology, major biological themes, and the interface of biology and agriculture. In both Part A and Part B the respondents were asked to rate each item on a 4-point scale as follows: 0 1 2 3
-
I I I I
am do am am
against including this, it may be harmful. not object, but I don't think it is important. in favor of inclusion, this is quite important. in favor of inclusion, this is very important.
Separate ratings were made for each of the four age groups, namely lower elementary (kindergarten, grades I, 2), upper elementary (grades 3, 4, 5, 6), junior high (grades 7, 8, 9), and senior high (grades I0, II, 12). P a r t C: S p e c i f i c I s s u e s . This part contains I0 open questions dealing with the following issues: the unique contribution of biology to education; the contribution of biology to rational behavior; the teaching of human biology; integration of biology and agriculture; field studies; and what is missing or what has received too much emphasis in existing programs.
In addition, some background data on the respondent were also collected.
Sample A stratified sample of the following populations was selected: elementary teachers, secondary school science teachers, science inspectors, science teachers in teacher training institutions, and natural and social scientists. All the groups were included in the final sample with the exception of some social scientists who refused to participate, claiming that this was outside their field of expertise. The elementary teachers were selected from those who participated in inservice science courses. The secondary teachers were selected from a list of subscribers to the Biology Teacher Bulletin. Only 25% of these groups responded. Questionnaires were mailed to all the inspectors, all the science teachers in teacher-training institutions, and all the science faculty members at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv University. The response rate of these groups was 40% to 50%. The final distribution of useable responses was: elementary teachers, 17; secondary teachers, 99; inspectors, 16; science teachers in teacher training institutions, 24; and scientists, 31. Because of the length of the different parts, 62 responded to Part A only, 57 to Part B only, and 70 to Part C only. The total N = 189.
FINDINGS R e l a t i v e Importance of Objectives for Different Grade Levels Table 1 presents the distribution of responses according to the three need areas. Examination of the data in Table I reveals that most objectives are con-
1:
The Relative
1.98 2.45
0.90
2.02
1.92 0.38 0.60 1.43
1.52
1.91 1.15 1.67 1.97 1.57 2.02
+ * + + + +
2.35 2.69
++ ++
2.57 2.15 2.42 2.63 2.49 2.67 2.33 2.75 2.38 2.26 2.65 2.74
++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++
2.72 2.86
2.52 2.62
++ ++
++ ++
2.58 2.59 2.68
++ ++ ++
2.57
2.51
++
++
?
Rating
Junior High
2.79 2.84 2.87
++ ++
2.84 ++
++
2.73 2.60
++ ++ + ++
2.21 2.85
2.71
++
2.81
++
2.83 2.88 2.90 2.89
2.81 2.72
++ ++
++ ++ ++ ++
2.82 2.60 2.81
++ ++ ++
2.75
2.80
++
++
%
Rating
Senior High
1.51-2.25Medium importance (1; 2.26-3.00High importance
1.81
2.39
2.39 1.20 1.73 2.14
+
++
++ * + +
2.15
1.92 2.15
+ +
+
1.90 2.18 2.21
1.80
+ + + +
2
Rating
0.00-0.75 Against (-) 0.76-1.50 Not important (*)
+ ++
13 4
Rating key: The means range from 0 to 3:
*
1
+
The Student
Importanceof biology for self-understanding Positiveattitudes toward Science Nature
*
+
+
*
0.98 1.37 0.71 0.96
* *
1.28
7 4 5 3
*
19
1.12 1.44
0.36
* *
4 4
1.28 1.63 1.69
9
* + +
1.10
* 10 4 1
x
Rating
Grades
Upper Elementary
for Different
Lower Elementary
to Objectives
No. of Items
Assigned
The nature of Israel History of science History of biologists Applicationof biology in life
b. Society
C.
Importance
Major biologicalthemes Organisms Science as enquiry Applicationof biological principals Knowledgeof inquiry skills Understandinginquiry concepts and processes Understandingstatistical concepts Active use of inquiry skills Treatmentof data Performanceand manipulation Design Reporting
a. Subject Matter
ObjectivesRelating to the Needs of:
TABLE
Y
2 9.
% 2;1 2 2 ij 0
3
9 2 3.
212
M. Silberstein ~ P. Tamir
sidered to be very important for junior and senior high school students. On the other hand, there are significant differences as far as lower levels are concerned. In the lower elementary level, top priority is given to objectives related to the needs of individual students and the affective domain: love of nature and positive attitudes toward the environment. In order to save space, the breakdown of the data in Table l is not included in this article. However, examination of these data reveals that knowledge about most inquiry skills is considered inadequate for the early elementary grades. Making observations is a notable exception. Knowledge of certain scientific concepts such as experiments, data, and conclusions as well as making observations and measurements are most important in the upper elementary grades. While curiosity, open-mindedness, team work, responsibility, and positive attitudes toward science, nature, and living organisms are considered very important already at the early elementary level, accuracy, perseverance, self-reliance, readiness to improve quality of life, and realism become very important only at the upper elementary level. Only at the junior high level do the more abstract inquiry concepts such as hypothesis, assumption, control, replication, dependent and independent variable, and experimental error and sample become very important. At the same time, the active inquiry skills such as interpretation, drawing conclusions, designing experiments, working with a microscope, identifying a problem, hypothesizing and reporting in graphs and tables also become very important.
Relative Importance of D i f f e r e n t Topics at D i f f e r e n t Grade Levels No treatment of levels of organization is recommended in the lower elementary grades. As students move to the upper elementary level, they should mainly concentrate on the organism, with occasional reference to tissues, systems, populations, and communities. Full treatment of all levels including the cell and the biosphere ~s recommended for both levels of secondary school. A more detailed reference was made to different topics dealing with the cellular level. Here it is considered very important that junior high students recognize the general structure of a cell as well as the difference between plant and animal cells and basic processes such as diffusion. On the other hand, topics such as the cell organelles, active absorption, phagocytosis, energy paths, enzymatic processes, and cell respiration had better be left for the senior high level. As to different organisms, the early elementary grades call for getting acquainted with common macroscopic organisms such as insects, starfishes, snails, vertebrates, and higher plants. Only at the senior high school is a full study of microscopic organisms recommended. As to. communities and populations, some acquaintance with biotopes and seasonal phenomena is advocated for the early elementary grades. Extension of this acquaintance and the study of other kinds of interrelationships (e.g. symbiosis, parasitism) is recommended for the upper elementary grades. The importance of topics related to the environment peaks at the upper elementary and junior high school level. Topics related to the human culture, such as holidays, clothes, food, housing, and health are associated mainly with the upper elementary grades. The relative importance of studying common organisms is considered to be lower at the senior high school compared with junior high and elementary levels. A similar trend may be observed regarding the interface between biology and agriculture. Topics such as preparing a garden, sowing and planting, caring for plants and animals, recognition and control of weeds, recognition of common crops and their life cycle, and caring for ornamentals are considered very important at both elementary levels. Preparing a garden, sowing, and planting become less important in the junior high and unimportant in the senior high level. All the other topics mentioned above are considered less important in the senior high level.
Questionnaires ~ Curriculum Manning
213
Degree of Agreement among Groups of Respondents Generally there was a high level of agreement among the different groups. The inspectors tended to assign relatively low ratings, elementary teachers and scientists relatively high ratings, while secondary teachers occupied a middle position. Perhaps inspectors, who are cognizant of the difficulties of teaching science, especially at the elementary level, refrain from setting aspirations too high. When respondents involved in curriculum development are compared with respondents who have not been involved in this process, the following differences emerge: Although the involved group consistently assigned lower ratings, they did find topics which stress the applications of biology to be very important. These differences may reflect the experience of those involved in curriculum development in knowing what are realistic expectations, as well as the recent trend among curriculum specialists toward the applied aspects of the disciplines.
Specific Issues S e v e n t y p e o p l e r e s p o n d e d t o P a r t C o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n t a i n i n g l0 open questions. We s h a l l r e p o r t t h e r e s u l t s p e r t a i n i n g t o two o f t h e s e , namely human b i o l o g y and t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f b i o l o g y and a g r i c u l t u r e . F i r s t , 43% b e l i e v e t h a t human b i o l o g y s h o u l d be s t u d i e d as a t o p i c i n i t s own r i g h t w h i l e 28% a d v o c a t e integration with other biological topics. Half of the reasons given p e r t a i n to t he s u b j e c t m a t t e r and t h e o t h e r h a l f t o d i d a c t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Next, 61% b e l i e v e t h a t human b i o l o g y s h o u l d be s t u d i e d as an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r s e d e a l i n g w i t h b i o l o g y p r o p e r as w e l l as s o c i a l , a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l , and c u l t u r a l a s p e c t s , w h i l e 36% a r e a g a i n s t such an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r s e -- m a i n l y b e c a u s e o f a n t i c i p a t e d d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t e a c h i n g such a c o u r s e by r e g u l a r c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s . The m a j o r i t y o f t h o s e a d v o c a t i n g an i n t e g r a t e d c o u r s e f e e l t h a t i t s h o u l d be s t u d i e d a t t h e s e n i o r high l e v e l . As t o t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f b i o l o g y and a g r i c u l t u r e , 77% a g r e e t h a t such i n t e g r a t i o n i s d e s i r a b l e ; however, 16% b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s d e s i r a b l e o n l y f o r r u r a l s t u d e n t s and n o t f o r urban s t u d e n t s .
DISCUSSION The results indicate that the respondents differentiate between the needs of the individual students, the subject matter, and the society. As far as the elementary grades are concerned, the needs of individual students are assigned top priority, followed by societal needs -- leaving subject matter needs for last. These results may be interpreted as indicating that at the elementary level one should focus on the development of attitudes and interests of students, thereby laying a sound foundation for further study of science. As students mature, other considerations such as those pertaining to the needs of society and the nature of the discipline play a more decisive role. The best way to meet the needs of individual students at the elementary school appears to be to stress the study of macroscopic organisms, environmental understanding, and participation in gardening and plant and animal care. Curiosity, positive attitudes and careful observations should play a central role in the study of science at the elementary level. This view of learning science at the elementary level is certainly different from common views of curriculum developers in the 1960s, which advocated the study of basic concepts and the acquisition of reasoning and inquiry skills right from the early elementary grades (Hicks et al., 1970, pp.89-93). Elementary science programs in Israel followed this general trend, although recently there has been a tendency to return to nature studies and to revive the emphasis on the aesthetic, personal, and social aspects which characterized the study of science in Israel in the 1930s.
214
M. Silberstein 8 P. Tamir
When we turn to the secondary level, we find an entirely different picture. The secondary level appears to be the time to study science with appropriate emphasis on its substantive as well as its syntactic structures. The major difference between the junior and senior high levels appears to be in three aspects: (1) The postponement of quantitative statistical treatment of data to the senior high level; (2) leaving the study of highly abstract concepts such as molecular and ultramicroscopic cell processes, regulation, genetics, evolution, and sophisticated inquiry skills to senior high level; and (3) when integration is sought, such as in the case of an integrated human biology course, again the senior high is the right level. In closing, we reiterate that the findings of this study should be considered as a part of a systematic endeavor to collect a variety of input data which may serve as a basis for making rational decisions in curriculum planning.
REFERENCES BINGHAM, R.M. (Ed.). Inquiry objectives in the teaching of biology, McRel and BSCS, 1969. EDEN, S. The translations of general educational aims into functional objectives; a need assessment study. SEE, 1975, 2 ( 1 ) , 5 - 1 2 . FOX, S. The practical image of the practical. Curriculum Theory Network, 1972, i0, 45-57. GARAN, L. Expert judgments as evaluation data. In A. Lewy (Ed.), Handbook of curriculum evaluation. Paris: UNESCO, 1977, pp.167-188. GLASS, B. Con~nents. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Newsletter, 1965, 26, I-3.
HICKS, V.W., HOUSTON, R.W., CHENCY, D.B., & MARQUARD, L.R. The new elementary school curriculum. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1970. KELLY, P.J. Nuffield A-level biological science project. In Schools Council Research Studies, Evaluation in curriculum development; twelve case studies. London: McMillan, 1973, pp.91-109. KLINCKMAN, E. (Supervisor). Biology teachers' handbook. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1970. MAYER, W.V. A rationale for existence. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Journal, 1978, i, 7-8. Nuffield Foundation Science Teaching Project. A-level biology; aims and outline scheme. London, 1965. SCHWAB, J.J. The practical: Arts of eclectic. School Review, 1973, 81, 493-542. TYLER, R.W. Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1950. TYLER, R.W. Specific approaches for curriculum development. Berkeley, CA: McCutchon, 1976.
THE AUTHORS MOSHE SILBERSTEIN is Director of Biology Curriculum Projects for the Curriculum Center, Ministry of Education & Culture in Jerusalem and Senior Teacher at the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University. His main areas of interest are in the theory of curriculum development, implementation, and teacher education. PINCHAS TAMIR is an Associate Professor in the School of Education and Israel Science Teaching Center at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Director of the Israel High School Biology Project. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University (1968), specializing in science education, education psychology, and measurement. His research concentrates on various aspects of science education, curriculum development and evaluation, non-routine testing, and teacher education.