DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 064 108 SE 013 766

AUTHOR Krahm, BarbaraTITLE Attitudes and Opinions of Principals and Teachers

Involved in an Experimental Earth Science Program inNew York State.

PUB CATE Apr 72NOTE 280.; Paper presented at the National Science

Teachers Association Annual Meeting, New York City,April 1972

EDRs PRICEDESCRIPTORS

MF-,50.C5 HC-$3.29*Attitudes; Curriculum Development; *Earth Science;Educational Research; Experimental Programs; Geology;*Principals; *Secondary School Science; *TeacherAttitudes

ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study, a doctoral thesis project,

was to determine the attitudes of selected principals and teachersrelative to their open and closed belief systems, science commitmentlevels, and opinions as to the extent of agreement or disagreementre4arding the adoption and implementation of the "RegentsExperimental Earth Science Curriculum" in New York State. TheAttitudes, Perceptions and Process (APP) Theory was utilized as aconce-atu.l research framework. The median, t test for uncorrelatedmeans, non-pooled variance, double classification of analyses ofvariance, ard the Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlationwere used to analyze the data. Significant differences were foundbetween principals and teachers on only one of the seven itemsstadied--nature of the experimental program. Significantrelationships (.05) were found for principals between belief systemand three of the seven items studied. (Author/PR)

U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS EIEEH REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS

OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED GO NOT NECESfARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY

CO

.t ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS OF PRINCIPALS AND TRAGHERS

CDrr.4

INVOLVED ni AN EXPERIMENTAL EARTH SG /ME%Co

Ca PROGRAM IN NEW YORN STATE161.1

PRESENTED BY

ilARBARA BRAM&SCIENCE TEACILER

JERICHO UN IOR HIGH SCI:1001JERICHO, NEW YORK

TO THE

20th ANNUAL MEET ING OF TO; NAT IONAL SC WOE TEAGISR3ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY, NSW YORK, APRIL 10;1972 ,i0o)

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE C OPY

Table of Contents

PageI. INTRODUCTION 1.

Significance of study le

Research hypothesis le

Research paradigm - APP Theory 2.

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3.

III. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, PROCEDURE 5.

Subjects 5.

Materials 6.

Procedure 6.

IV. FINDrNGS 7.

Distribution of educators' responses 7.

Comparison of Opinians of educators withdifferent belief systams 8.

Comparison of opinions of eduow nis withdifferent science commitments 9.

A Relationchips between educators' attitudesand opinions 90

Relationships between educators' attitudes,opinions and two variables 10.

V. CONCLUSIONS 11.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 12,

VII. REFERENCES 15.

VIII. TABLES 17.

Attitudes and Opinions of principals and Teachers Involved

in an Experimental Earth Science Program in New York State

Barbara Araks, Fordkam University

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes

of selected principals and teachers relative to their (1)

open and closed belief systems, t2) science commitment levels,

and opinions as to the extent of agreement or disagreement

regarding the adoption and implementation of the Regente

AWElmental Earth Science Crrriculum in New Ybrk State. The

An Theory 0%ttitudes, Perceptions and Prooes,) was utilised

as a conceptual research framework. The median, t toot for

uncorrelated means, non-poolee variance, double classification

of analyses of variance and, the Pearson product-moment

coefficient of correlation were used to analyse tin data.

Significant differences were found between principals and

teachers on only one of the seven items studied - nature of

the experimental program. Significant relationships (.05)

were found for principals between belief system and three

of the sevn items studied.

3

Pressures for science curriculum change will increase as

technological advances continuo in our society. Educators

must inquire as to the potential impact of the attitudinal

factors in relation to the adoption and implementation

of new science cur,riculum programs. Pre-service and

in-service education programs must prepare science educators

to meet the future needs of education. Perhaps, Eiss and

Harneck (b) assessed this need, when they recommended

that Schwirianso (19) Scince Support Scale be implemented

to assist in the evaluation cf teacher attitudes.

In 1967, New York State, endeavoring to keep pace with

societal change, developed and instituted a new earth

science curriculum program (4). It was predicated upon the

philosophy that student behaviors could be measured in terms

of learning skills, *tick would reflect the spocific attitudes

or open-mindedness and commitment to the value of science.

The participants involved in the experimental program.-

principeks and teachers-- were assumed to possess the same

kind of attitudes to be inculcated.

The implication of this lack of understanding of the

curriculum process chang and the attitudes cf the personnel

involved, demands an investigation of newly established

science education programs. To provide a conceptual research

model, the Ail' Theory was postulated, which involved

attitudes, perceptions and preoess. It proposed that

bclief system and science commitment attitudes tended to

vidence a positive relationihip in the degree of perceptions

of principals and teachers about the adoption and implementa-

tion of the experimental earth science program.

This hypothesis was based, in part, on related research

derived from Coleman (2), Neal (7)9 and Dutta(3). A composite

picture of their research revealed that : (1) social change

could be equated with curriculum change, a) attitudes

effected social change within the Catholic Church, and i3)

the inner s7stem of an individual was composed of attitudes

based on his values while his outer system ihvolved his

opinions about change principles.

The belief system was defined by Rokeach (9 57) as the

" extent toward which a person can receive, evaluate and act

on relevant information received from the outside on its

own intrinsic merits unencumbered by irrelevant factors aris-

ing from within the person or from the outside." The term,

science commitment, as defined by Schwirian (10 s i-45)9

ncompassed : rationalityus of reason to understand nature,

utilitarianismapplication of reason to understand tbe

natural world, universalismaoceptance of scientific ideas,

individualismdecisive individual action, progress and

meliorismacceptasioe of change in the name of progress and

better living.

Two other variablos--cost per pupil in the school die-

5

2.

3.

triet Wt.: a program success rating-- wore included in the

rosearoh a-tgn. Cost per pupil in the school district was a

statistic obtained from the Annual Education Summary (1 s 152-

75). The program svecess rating was formulated for this

study, by dividing the number of students passing the Regents

experimental earth scalene* examination on the raw score only,

by the total number of students taking the experimental

earth science examination. This score Was interpreted as a

raw score percentage and further as the program sweeps rating

criterion within a school. The raw score results were obtain-

ed from the malsAgELL22221.1 (8 : 1).

Statement of the Problem

This study sought to determine the attitudes of selented

principals and teachers relative to their (1) open and alosd

belief systems, (2) science commitment levels, and (3)

opinions as to the extent of agreement or disagreement regard-

ing the adoption and implementation of the BlEents Eustimental

Earth Science Curriculum in New York State. The study also

sought to determine what relationships, if any, existed

between these attitudes, opinions and the control variables :

(1) cost per pupil in the school district and (2) program

success rating.

Specifically, this study proposed to obtain data regard-

ing the following questions :

4.

1. What was the distribution of the extent of the belief

system, mcience commitment and opinions about the experimental

program ?

2. Did significant differences exist between the responses

of principals and teachers about b2lief systems, science

commitment and opinione about the experimental earth science

program ?

3. Did significant diffrences exist between the responses

of open and closed belief system educators concerning their

opinions about the experimental earth science program ?

4. Did a significant interaction exist between belief

system and educational role ?

b. Did significant differences exist between the respor,Als

of educators with high and low science commitmnt concerning

their opinions snout the experimental earth science program ?

6. Did a significant interaction exist between science

cOmmitment and educational role it

7. Did significant relationships exist between pallier systems,

science commitment and opinions about th xperimental

earth science program for teachers and principals ?

8. Did significant relationships exist between the responses

of principals concerning their belief systems, science

commitment, opinions about the experimental earth science

program and th variables of cost per pupil in the school

district and program success rating

5.

v. Did significant relationships exist betwen tao responses

of teacaers concerning their belief systems, science commit.

went, opinions about the experimental earth science program

and the variables of cost per pupil in the school district

and program success rating ?

Tne Subjects, The Materials and The Procedure

The Subjects

This study investigated 89 principals and 105 teachers,

who were participants in tbe 18 state-wide Experimental

Earth Science Try-out Centers in New York State, during the

1968-1969 school year. Usable responses from 44 principals

and 63 teachers, representing 55 per cent of the original

samp14, served as ths data for the study.

The Materials

Data were obtained in the study through the Opinionnatro.

This three-part instrument measured the revondnt's blief

system, level of science commitment and appraisal of the

experimental earth science program in New York State. The

Rokoach Dogmatism Scales Form E, was used to measure the

belief system, while the Schwirian Soisncs Scale

was used to measure science commitment. Tim reliebilities

of the Rokiach (9) aratism Scale& Form Et ranged from

.68 to .93, while the reliability of the Sckwiriaa (10)

6.

Science 4npport Seale was 8733 The third part of the

instrument was developed specifically for this study and it

pertained to the appraisal of seven major factors involved

in the adoption and implementaticn of the experimental

program : adoption as, (2) adoption influencs, (3

nature of the program, (4) student learning, (5) parent

reaction, (6) principal support, and (7) teacher qualifications.

The Procedure

A jury was included in the study to assist in the develqp-

ment of the instrument. Five administrators and 20 teachers

were involved in a pilot study to review the instrument for

the purpose of further refinement.

Data were analyzed according to the questions posed in

the studyis sub-problems. These included the number of

respondents, the extent of the responses, and the means,

standard deviationd and range of values as determined In

the three parts of the Opinionnaire. The median was mployed

to dichotomize subjects on the belief e continuum and

the ',fiance commitment continuum. The t test for uncorrelated

means, non-pooled variano, was used to determine whether

the responset of principals differed from teachers on belief

systems, science commitment and opinions ibout the experimental

program.

Double classification analyses of variance wore used

to analyze the eart ILL scores on the Ainionnaire. The

9

7.

main effects of educational role and belief system as well as

the main effects of educational 1-11e and science commitment,

were employed in the 2 x 2 design. T rearson product.

moment coefficient of correlation was utilized to determine

relationships betiveen the attitudes Ll) belief system, k2)

science commitment. and opinions about the experimental program,

as well as the relationships between these attitudes, opinions

and the variables : (1) cost per pupil in the school dislxict

and the (2) program success rating, for principals and

teacbers. Significant differences we*re accepted when the

level of confidence was at .05 or less. All computations

were performed on Honeywell Data rrocessing equipment.

The Findings

The findings, described in five sections, were related

as follows : tl) Distribution of Educators' Responses Concern..

ing their Attitudes and Opinions, (2) Comparison of Opinions

of Educators with Different Blif Systems, (3) Ga*,arisan or

Opinions of Educators with Different Science Commitments, (4)

Relationships between Educators' Attitudes and Opinions, and

(5) Relationships between Educators' Attitudes, Opinions and

Two Variables.

I. Distribution of Educators Responses Concerning their

Attitudes and Opinions

1. rrincipals as a group, tended to hav more Ivor belief

systems, as measured by the Esomtism Scale,

10

a.science commitment attitudes, as measured by the Science

SuEort Seale, than teachers; bu l. these differences were not

statistically significant (t = 1.39).

2. Principals tended to be in greater agreement than teachers

about adoption ease, principal support and teacher qualifica-

tions in the experimental program, as categorized on Part III

of the Opinionnaire (Table I, mean values - itema 81,86,87).

3. Teachers appeared to be In stronger agreement and more

perceptive than principals about adoption influences, nature

of the program, student learning and parent reaction to the

TIrogiam, as categorized on Part III of the Opinionnaire

(Table I, mean values 4, items 82,83,84,85).

4. Although principals and teachers appeared to differ in

their appraisal of the experimental program, significant

differences were indicated on only one of the seven items on

Part III of the gailionnaire - nature of tha program (Table II,

item 83, r ratio = 6.25).

II. Comparison of Opinions of Educators with

Different Belief Systeme

1. A closed belief system attitude, as measured by the

Dogmatism Scale, appeared to increase an educator's agreement

and perception about almost all of the seven opinion categor-

ies (Table II, mean values - items 81 to 87 ).

2. /dialysis of variance revealed that only one item 83 -

nature of the program - indicated that significant differences

ex4sted between the opinions of principals and teachers ,as

11

9.

well as open ahd closed educators (Table II,item 83, F ratio:

3.93).

3. Neither an educator's belief system attitude nor hitt edu-

cational role appeared to affect his appraisal of the other

items on Part III of the aulsalaire, when compared as single

or interacting factors (Table III).

III. Comparison of Opinions of Educators with Different

Science Commitment

1. High science commitment attitudes, as measured by the

al..snaitscale, appeared to increase an educator's

agreement and perception about almost all of the seven opinion

categories on Part III of the pin.tonnaire (Table IV ).

2. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences on

item 84- student learning. between the opinions of low and

high mcience commitment educators (Table 1/9 item 84, F ratio

=

3. Neildier an educator's science commitment nor his educational

role appeared to affect his appraisal of the other items on

Part III of the Opinionnaire, when compared as single or

interacting factors (Table V).

IV. Relationships between Educators' Attitudes awl Opinions

1. A principal's belief system attitude was related to his

appraisal of nly three of the seven items on Part III of the

Opinionnaire . nature of the program, student learning, and

teacher qualifications (Table VI, item 83-r = .340mitam 84

r isx .308, item 87 -r = .315). However, a teacher's belief

12

10.system attitude was not related to his appraisal of any of the

seven items on Part III of the Opinionnaire (Table VII).

2. A principal's science commitment attitude was related to

his appraisal of student learning (Table VIsitem 84-rw.397),

while a teacher's science commitment attitude was related to

his evaluation of the nature of the program (Table VII, item

83-r .304).

3. Belief system and science commitment attitudes were not

related for principals or for teachers.

V. Relationships between Educators' Attitudes, Opinions

and Two Variables

1. A principal's belief system, but not a teacher's was

related positively to the program's success rating (Table VIII).

2. Neither principals' nor teachers' science commitment

attitudes were related to the cost per pupil in the school

district.

3. A principal's 1;.praisal of only one of the seven items on

Part III of the Opinionnaire, parent reaction, was related

negatively to the. program's success rating (Table VIII, itmn

85, r * -.403). However, teachers' appraisals of the seven

items on Part III of the ORtnionnaire were not related to

program success rating at all (Table IX ).

4. A principal's evaluation of the seven items on Part III

of the ainionnaire was not related to cost per pupil in the

school district (1...ble VIII). However, a teacher's evaluation

of one of the seven items on Part III of the Opinionnaire

13

11.principal support, was negatively related to cost per pupil

in the school district (Table IX, item 86, r = -.346).

Conclusions

The following conclusions were drawn from the data :

1. Closed belief system educators, who are encumbered by

internal personal factors as well as external factors,

positively appraised (1) adoption ease, (2) adoption influen-

ces,(3) nature of the program, (4) student learning, (5)parent

reaction, (6) principal support, and (7) teacher qualifica-

tions higher than open belief system educators. This faot

appeared to indicate that creating stress within a system in

transition, may be a desirable educational goal to advanee

a new program, such as the experimental earth science program.

2. Ugh science cemmitment principals and teachers, whe

sunpert science, its produets and practitioners, positive1Y

appraised student learning and the nature of the program

higher than low science commitment educators. This fact

appeared to indicate that this strong science support attitude

may be important in the Promotion of better science education.

3. The closed belief system attitudes of principals were

related to their opinions about the nature of the program,

14

4

student learning and teacher qualifications. This fact

appeared to indicate that principals with closed belief

systems contrary to the converse phenomenon, appear to be the.

kind of educational leaders, who tend to experiment and

tare more risks with new curricula.

4. The principals/ blief systems were related to the

experimental earth science program's success rating, but

the teachersi belief systems were not so related. These

data pointed to the generalization that principals, as a

group, are more concerned with long range goals than teachers.

5. The principals and teachers involved in tie experimental

program were not in agreement about the nature of the

program, i.e. (1) classroom direction, (2 laboratory

activity time, i3) science materials, (4) independent

study, and i5) science ohavior. Either stronger lines of

communication were needed among educators, or tie investiga*

tion was limited naturally by the diverse perceptions of

the participants in the study.

Reoommendations

This study was intended to serve as an introduction to

needed investigations into the VelationsAlps of attitudes

and perceptions regarding processes in transition. The

following reoemmendations were formulated

1. Empirical studies to determine the relationships between

1.5

13.

belief system attitudes and the nature of curriculum change,

student learning and teacher qualifications snould be

ncouraged. These findings would nhance administrative

theory, as a basis for in.servic education for both

administrators and science educators.

2* The Science Support Scale provided discriminating data

as a research instrument. It cauld be used to plan 1w-service

ducation programs for bolich administrators and science

educators.

6. Another instrument, other than the Regmtissua,might be constructed for UAO in conjunction with the

Science Support Scale to measure openness and science

commitment. The implications of th research emanating from

the same proposition for administrative leadership and

secondary school science curriculum are numsrous.

4. Additional studies should be patterned replicating the

Attitudes, Perceptions and Process Theory, by tmodepeeinis

othsr relevant variables such as : (l) team teaching, (2)

parent support, (3) special curricula, (4) principal's

preparation, etc.

5. A study should be made to ascertain why principals'

belief system attitudes were related to the SUOCOOO of the

xperimental program; while teachers' belief system attitudes

were not related.

6. To continue to test the APP Theory, various propositions

16,

14.

may be investigated

(1) Closed attitudes of educators are positively related to

their perceptions and receptivity of new programa in science,

as well as other curricular areas.

(2) The more positive the attitude, the greater the appraisal

ability of educators regarding programs and processes in

transition.

(3) The greater the appraisal ability of the ducator, the

higher the value that be will place on curriculum change.

(4) As the conditions in (2) and (3) increase, greater

experimentation and risk taking will tend to occur with

new curriculum offerings.

5) AS the conditions in (2) and (3) decrease, the greater

the probability that the opposing conditiona will tenet to

MOW.

17

REVERENCES

1. Annual Education Summar Nineteen Sixt Six-Stxt

Seven. New lork : The University of th State of New

York, The State Education Department, Information Center

on Education, 1V69.

2. Coleman, Robert William. "Kurt Lewin's Theory of Social

Change Applied to Curriculum Change." Unpublished Doctor-

al Dissertation, University of Illinois, Illinois, 1964.

3. Dutta, Ratna. "Role or Values in the rrocess of Moderni.

satins as Conceptualized in Sociological Literature."

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Atte.

burgh, renneylvania, 16'/.

4. EarthSciencesAL...2_,g.talSllabusltEdition

Albany, New York : The Univ6rsity of the State of New

York, The State Education Department, Bureau of Secondary

Curriculum Development, 1968.

5. Else, Albert and Mary Blatt Narbeck. Behavioral OVectives

in the Affective Domain. Washington, D.C. : National

Science Teachers' Associsition, 1:010.

6. Guilford, J.P. Fundateseholozand Education. New York t MaGraw-Bill Book Company, 11065.

Y. Neal, Sister Marie Augusta, S.N.D. Values and 40erests

in Social qmange. PrenticeHall Contemporary rroblems

in Sociology Series, Edited by John Donovan. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey : rrentice-Hall, Inc., 1W6b.

18

8, 13.1.3.niaain2L.L.E...orti. Zi* 1i6 : Regents Experimental,

Earth 3010AA0 Examination Sheets. New Yoric ; The

University or the State of New Yorke The State Education

Department, Bureau of Scince Educationa l0100.

mimeographed)

v. Rokeaeh Milton. amanc.....Niintl. lwoO,

New York : Basic Books, Duo, kublisnors, 1964.

lus Schwirian, ratricia Millard. "Construction and Validation

of a Science Support Scale." Unpublished Doctoral

Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio, lftrio

* Krahms Barbara. "Attitudes and Opinions of Principalsand Teachers Involved in on Experimental Earth ScienceProgram in New York State." Unpublished DoctoralDissertation, Fordham University, New Ybrk, 1970.

commasmaxam:..a.?...u.-

4.101PAPP}OPWW41........d.

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

TAM-

TH7 1 r3OL(.744;1r3 O PR1ICIAW:1 AND I

A

714Ncv c7RI! i n Intl Er frr. 1.174.P sSC.P.Ncr COM VISTiTS A= OP1NTC NS

A Nr. TH:r: riTHITOGRAN

MINCIPAL3

Alr; N

Balefnyste:301onoct

PIMA,clYln.tart3

aboatprozram

14i4.;

-I-4

t:bW

Z".

1'1,14 V.

/ 1444z

f.:10

44i

I,..154.,7=,.. v-rVIt'Ve

4,4

Itrx===tzpam-=%trriamn--z=sionTVACIPTS

t IOD .1i 4S.4

wor183125 93 2W2 .4.4Y1t. 133 14 25.00

129..181 159.20 10.6k 01134-P178 157.60i MO

!,

i

i1i

;

1

h4.19 14.34 241,7..2 h 63; 50.19 / 13.691 3.09

12.97 2.66 63! 8-20 t 134612! 2.36

10-23 18.04 i 2.55 cf 63! 13.025 i 1.9.01 2.501

?

7d'20 25.68 1 203 631 90.20 ; 15.92i 2.47i

6-20 1 11;4,0,0 22- 631 1 2.24

10.02 1.54 63p 6-141 104411 1.77

&NIG 13.141

a.15

i8-20 14#47f

2.13 63 10018 14.12 1,94

e,otet Cpiniona about proe,ram81 a adoption ;mato62 'a adoption influences83 nature of proram84 a tudent learning85 es parent reaation86 a principnl support87 teacher qualifications

204.

'7':=2.* VitIrtf.-17.e,tote.

TitiLn 11

MAN RESPONSES OP EDUCATORS WITH D11FEEINT3rLIT77 TYSTrtll RFOARPINO THrIR OPIRIMIS

Amir THE EXPeRIMENTAL EARTHism= MORAN

PRINCIPALS TrACNERS Ai:JL FDUCATORS*...................e.lo nui.ssij ~10.4111110,..01..

01161101.16 111%* Men .........me Of..44. .-1,04.,rn

cpinioneaboutprowram

31

32

83

84

85

86

mrra3

neb....

Opon_tClose Total Open

I

4

I U0°4114063 I 14.34.

1 12.72,13,22 1 12.97, i

1,

1 17.19 1(3.90 1 18.04

1 15.40i 15,95 i 150631

I

1 9.86j 10.13 I 10.02

1 13#45414.54 1 14.00

i ,

124.04 14090 14.41,

13.Ei 14.0o

12.931 13.37I

0

1

19.0619.SO 1 19.2

15,61 16.31 i 15.9

10.4 1007A

1

1 13031 13.00 1311I.3Z 14.031 14011

13.7

13.1

Open Ir1o.aod

13.72114.25

12.05113.31

18.29 19025

15.55116.16

10.18110.29

13.37113.62

11k.22114.38

="41=X3OU=IIS

Note: open belief system 0 low wan scoreclosed belief systm high moan score

81 adoption ease82 - adoption influences83 nature of program84 as student learning85 0 parent reaction06 0 principal support87 a teacher qualifications

21

TABLF III

^

ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN RESPONSES OF EDUCATORSWITH DIFFERENT BELIEF SY3TE18 REGARDING THEIR

OPINIONS ABOUT THE EXPERIMENTALPARTH SCIENCE PROGRAM

cnA 0u4 ci)1:14 m

A gH VI I Z2 61 re, co) 1....,

PI 4::4 C:5, ° H1^.4 A =4 i:t1 0 0 Ri E-1

ili 44 E-4 0 t., (A n IVI

MEAN SQPARES

Ey)

Opinionsaboutprogram

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

9.11 7.78 .06 9.21

.83 5.78 .03 6.38 .13 .90

39.82 25.03 10.08 6.35 6.25* 3.93*

2.38 10.08 .08 6.06 .39 1.66

3.53 .34 .79 2.91 1.21 .11

18.56 1.80 12.85 5.13 3.61 .35

2.19 74 9.02 4.25 .54 .17

-

.00

.00

1.70

.01

.27

2.50

2.11

Note: F ratio in ani'kysis of variance, doubleacisification

dfbetween 3principals and teachers 1open and closed educators 1interaction 1within 104total 107

* significant at .05 level

-

2":.

TABler Iv

NEM RFSPOINE3 OF EDUCAT0e3 ATH DIPPERMITSCIFC, COM1ITMNT3 MAARDIMOPIN1003 ABOUT Tilt: EXPIMENTAL

FARM r,CIUJa MORAN

Am. - .40 ..V.110.-

opinionsaboutpro6rava

re,444

gh Total

13.C1111,36 14034

12.77i13.13 12.97

33 17.66118.40113.04

114.54116.0115.66

110.00110.04110.02

06 113.8104.18/14.00

Fl 111i.09114.86 14.47

rztazv

pr

'FFANS.. 11r....%".Low Vigh Total

S.Low. flih

160.0

14.21113.

13.03 13.

13.81119.

15.62116,,

10.15' 10.

134000 13.

14.00 14.

26!13.751

28113.15;

75119.281

311.115.981i

021 10.391i

31113.1511

371 14.1811

a4===

1405 13.92

12.92 13.24

1805 19.20

15.18 16.53

10.09' 10.38

13.33113.66

14.03134.57

.4xenr=162

weak aoience co..;unitmeut = low moan scorestron6 science commitment m high mean score

opinions about program81 al adoption ease32 a adoption influences83 nature cot proeram84 10 student lsarnine85 le parent reaction36 = principal support87 a teacher qualifications

23

1.41NWA.a0-4- F..

1.1.

2A8Lis Ai

ANALYSIS CP VAANCE OF OW; RESpOtiV$ Or EDUCATOfisDIreefi NT 3CIF CCtr

THrir OrINIONz; AnTr IAPITIMENTALrkRIT p7iIORAM

.......A.A .............A.A.A4A..4.4A.A. *4A-AAA.A.momorAWSMAIM.......00.01twertA., ...........0.00..00-.000NAVAAw.90~0..........0000.001100100..00000..m.....00 .0.00..... IA A - .A. - 00.t.- 0 0 ..000010000.00.0100.. 0............4 au. .........- AA-AA. . 0 elANAMOOMAIM ad -.011.1.44.4.1111Ammia 01140041441414.14........111=

1 ....

4.t ,

fle

1

A 4::"1 ..te)

Ce":

1:4 cs,

rlcr:

ill.%4'

i-4 a

6C1Z

1..1 t;,;# #

V,

ft, ciF.44100t.

WAN *c:JAel-':-..7)........10.444-404014100 AA .. ., AA t ...M. .....*4 1.1~.....w. ... *AA MAAMIN

44allone I 1

t

pro6ram

.115'1

2.63i 9.03

about

,

9.11 1

321

.83 1 2.671 1

,

139.62 1 19.59 i .26 1 650;

49.34 I 15.76 i 5.33;,

1

fle., 3.53 2.37 1.17 2.69

i36 16.56 3.00 *01 5.41

7 2.19 7.18 J 1.04 4.26

1.'43

A 004 ilbApon041.AAMI4ORM

P VAT/I)S-.AA 040004 00.4001.414. 0404.4.0100.01010.

1.00 .05

.12 .41

6.11* 3.00

.43

1.22 41C2

3.53 .57

.53 1.82

2.83

.02

.04

2.84

Plower A.A.

oto: ratio an analysis of variance, doubleolassification

dfbetwean 3principals and teadbers 1law and high science commitment educatorsinteraotion 1uithin 104total 107

* significant at .05 levelsignificant at .01 level

24

et,,,4144N.Viljaa,if

,..; ' 1-.

. ;

TAME VI

irLATIONIRIPS 3RIV773 tiFLIPF SYMMS.COMITN2NTS i.im crinioNs Alr2Trit

rXiTPTMriCIAL PPMPAM ropNINCIPALS

....111114.11.1~0.a. 0*..1. ......n.-- . - ,I.popy.g...ffne.

n

oliofsystem

131-..LIN?

,...aopp.....p.ohogre...11011116.~014.110.1..,

oionocommitment

Mel.-

.-%**t~ ...am . &

pntonaboutpro6rmin

COMMITWNTne.A.0111.0. ......11..fdt.10KAMIllk~~1111140".

r Values

1.000

.029

.mmurnwNorota*. oc.orainWasheiPawie

1.000

1 skeoption ease) .279

82 tttloption influences) .1814

i1.3 (nature of program) .340* .100

OL t7stuOont learning) 4,303i1, .397-

qlaront roaction) *.130 .094t

36 (principal support) *-th9 40.059

37 (teacher qualifications) .315'4. 4124z

, && wom.111.41~r4.011.411111111.1ft

Onwair,O. ibliMO ,... .1* 01~~1PIOW,~11~PW.M.F.11110.10~..41WO*41148,1MAIVOIbaMuMINIO.MIIMY

:Jota: r Pearson product-nomont coefficientof correlation

significant at .05 level

significant at .01 level

N-2 is 42

"'; ,. A

TABLE VII

grLATIONSHIPS BETWEN Mar nanny SCIENCECOMMTTMEan AND OPINIONS ABOUT THE

murprwTAL PRWRAM POTvACHREM

4.4.1144.4111414.MIN114.1.04,... NoneMemr.

tvstom

scIrnECOMMITIVITT

IMMOININ..../.41.41.4.Mov......44111........""m4MNININ 414141011NOMM.MINC.14400..

...NM. ...Or 4

r Values........40440M.MMIMMIMM.M.MOMMINO4MM.ON 'MA

:cie!lcocommiUmnt 1.000

IMIONNIN.O111/161.01111.,eNtirdoNWN. + o." yr Rau.

Opinionsabout7L-oraN

fa (adoption ease) .066 4.4,165

tr (adoption influences) .061 ft.048

83 (nature or pro6rer0 .208 .304 *

3h (atudont learning) .159 .226

85 fpnrent reaction) 044.076

86 (principal support) 043 .101

4 (teacher qualifications) .P.026

:43141: r Pearson productftmoment coofficiontof correlation

significant at .05 level

tift.2 is 61

26

-7. 2,-7,17-7-,-,Ar-. ^,t. -"" .*-- --""""-1""r"-rrr-.:-....k.e* cu .,, , ' -

TABLE VIII

VIATIONSHIP3 BETWErg Warr SYSTEM, SCIPNerCOMNITMENT, OPIU/ONS Al2On TNE rUTRIMENTAL

PriO(ium Aar) TLE VARIAnlq; cosT prm puTILIt; ''rr czoor rIZTRICT AND PROGNAII

sUccrs3 RAZ= Fon PRINCIPALS

-) .0110,4011.0.4,11041111....401.1da ".111011111111*.~1.040.1 a - .S.~.}1bIrliAf .011.1104.* 4040.0.0. .......4/0.*06 P*41.1,111. /0 ear` dAl.

CO6T ?EP PPM:RpmPUPIL 3ICCF-3

.4101010. ,..0... .giormo. 0110144.46 .......~0/140*40......4111.1~ ell..111.11014.10 .1.114.110......d0641010.d...."110...

sycitemWO/WM ....o....~11.1MOMIP^......-- ....*y -+

!;cicinco

commitment4.11.. ..... e .....1, L`

GpinionaaboutlrOvranCJ,

r Values

ONIKS

100.0.1.0.. 110.40.14.......**011111141%141.100 1111

4poilo .309*..,.....-41110.461M

aw.214.1...~1/11011.4401.

ftutt4N,

P4 (adoption Paso) '&002 .261

82 (adoption influenoes) .016 0-48

- 1)-? 3 (nature or pro8ram 04167) .097 -%

0$

37

(student learning) .170

TInr;.:It reaction) 0311

fpric!clpfal support) 033

(toucher qualifications) .121

::;:°08:".

I

.164

rfMr

Notet r Pearson product*momont coeficiantof correlation

siwn4tieant at .05 level

simirioant at .01 level

Iliw2 in 12

st

IX

MATION39IP3 373711P11 3ELIEP SYSTEM. 8CIENCFCCIVITITIVra opi.to ArlouT T1V EXPPRIKENTAL

PriOGRMI AND THE VP,RIABUZ CCST PIH KIM,rN THE 3C11:01%.t1I3TRIC7 MID PROGRAM

SUCCE3S RATING PM TACtirRS

T..tsr,APAJ

woo....a.tamono son a fahaa6arna lagaaa ulatnu

*moo

PROOVAMPPIL SUCCF

r %aimsoaor....- no. v... 4101,00-6 ~1.11. *MO.

;Jeliefsxstem 40068 40.031

amamanaa.....- ga-, alMaba,.,,agaroaalaaa,a-mataa.a.a.,WaballanaiillailWainakallka....., a.* Pa raoaayatea~.10.04...~/dallab

aciencecoYmitment *036 0.206

110141a.aanwraaaa03*. !Oa.- aft,. nalaa*Waa.(le a aar-***1, 41.04 . 41.11.440.1..-.1,..14110F.M.K.M11.40.........110b10014.1411.14. 41,1/111.4141

c.pinionsabLout:.moc,ra;11

81 (adoption enee)

12

i37

Ictortion influences)

(anture of pre4r8m)

atudent learning)

(pnrcnt reaction)

(principal sup-..)ort)

t-clier qualifications)

*087

044*6'15

0 37

0,046 *4

400070

.159

d.4.035

taa, . a ... ,arolaa way.aafta., . ,,...4....,,,../-aar. aft aa -0410. MI- ...........~Arial ,pala.4,0a ag& 3ea,......ertalaaa.fl1

;ote: r Pearson productwmoment coefficient ofcorrelation

sioliticant at .01 level

D-2 is 61