Eli 044 292 DOCUMENT RESUME 24 SE 009 864 AUTHOR Ziener, George H.; And Others TITLE Educational Technology Project, Volume One. The Development of Materials for the Training of Science Education Personnel in Educational Technology. Final Report. INSTITUTION National Science Teachers AsL.Iciation, Washington, r. C. SPONS AGENCY Office of Educrfion (DHEW) , Washington, D.C. Bureau of Research. BUREAU NO BR-8-0427 PUB DATE Mar 70 GRANT OEG-3-8-080427-0052(010) NOTE 112p. EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$5.70 DESCRIPTORS *Audiovisual Instruction, *Educational Technology, *Inservice Education, Management Development, Science Education, *Supervisors, Supervisory Training, Systems Approach IDENTIFIERS Title IV ABSTRACT The planning, production, validation, and revision of learning materials designed for use in institutes for science supervisors is described in this first of five volutes. Four sets of packages, ("Role of the Science Supervisor," "Intr,duction to Educational Technology," "An Application of Educational Technology," and "Management Kits,") each using educational technology aethods to describe educational technology were produced. They need not be used in a linear Ratner, but were designed for flexible programing. The materials can be used for inservice development of supervisors, or by them to meet local training needs. Simple media, audio-tape, photographic slides, and written materials were used. "Educational technology" does not mean "use of machines for instruction" but is a "process approach to learning", utilizing learning theory, a systematized approach and various instructional tools to produce learning in individuals. Examples of feedback responses to progress reports aent to supervisors during project development, copies of pre- and posttests given to groups and individuals used for validation, summarized validation euults, and operations charts are appended. (AL)
Transcript
Eli 044 292
DOCUMENT RESUME
24 SE 009 864
AUTHOR Ziener, George H.; And OthersTITLE Educational Technology Project, Volume One. The
Development of Materials for the Training of ScienceEducation Personnel in Educational Technology. FinalReport.
INSTITUTION National Science Teachers AsL.Iciation, Washington,r. C.
*Inservice Education, Management Development,Science Education, *Supervisors, SupervisoryTraining, Systems Approach
IDENTIFIERS Title IV
ABSTRACTThe planning, production, validation, and revision
of learning materials designed for use in institutes for sciencesupervisors is described in this first of five volutes. Four sets ofpackages, ("Role of the Science Supervisor," "Intr,duction toEducational Technology," "An Application of Educational Technology,"and "Management Kits,") each using educational technology aethods todescribe educational technology were produced. They need not be usedin a linear Ratner, but were designed for flexible programing. Thematerials can be used for inservice development of supervisors, or bythem to meet local training needs. Simple media, audio-tape,photographic slides, and written materials were used. "Educationaltechnology" does not mean "use of machines for instruction" but is a"process approach to learning", utilizing learning theory, asystematized approach and various instructional tools to producelearning in individuals. Examples of feedback responses to progressreports aent to supervisors during project development, copies ofpre- and posttests given to groups and individuals used forvalidation, summarized validation euults, and operations charts areappended. (AL)
hi
US t1111,1$' .11tF ItititIr Gil Iilt1111
(ttlkl
r,l$5(64111 .IS tut iirot,v0; trio,' ticitlit,
rirc si cc.ik zr tit r..c II' 1011 i 144 C$
sumo to l t(ISIP Zlk It 0(1 Cr(
its1 Co CI 0- -
CVCT.ri.t FINAL REPORT..d Project No. 8-0427
Grant No. OEG -3-8-080427-0052 (010)CZLW
THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATERIALS FOR THE TRAINING OFSCIENCE EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Herbert A. SmithNational Science Teachers Association
SCIENCE EDUCATION PERSONNEL IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
HERBERT A. SMITH, PHD.
THE NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Washington, D.C.
March 1970
The research reported herein was performed pursuantto a grant with the Office of Education, U.S. Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare. Contractorsundertaking such projects under Government sponsor-ship are encouraged to express freely their profes-sional judgment in the conduct of the project.Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore,necessarily represent official Office of Educationposition or policy.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Office of EducationBureau of Research
HERBERT A. SMITH, PHD.PROJECT DIRECTOR
GAI3RIEL D. OFIESH, EDD.CHIEF' CONSULTANT
ALBERT P. EMS, PHD.NSTA LIAISON
GEORGE H. ZIENERPROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
VOLUME ONE
CONTENTS
PREFACE - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS / 1
SUMMARY / 4
INTRODUCTION / 6
METHODS / 9
RESULTS AND FINDINGS / 19
CONCLUSLONS & RECOMMENDATIONS / 19
APPENDIX A - Operation Charts / 22
Initial/Revised/Justification / 25
D - Progress Reports / 27Clippings / 37
C - Response Summaries on Progress Reports
D - Validation Questionnaires / 59
- Validation Summaries / 73
/ 3
VOLUME TWO
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION / 1
APPLICATION HANDBOOK - CURRICULUM REVISION / 4
Media Sheet / 7
Introduction / 8
Script / 9
Bibliography of Support Material / 29
Criterion Assessments / 32
APPLICATION HANDBOOK - EVALUATION / 39
Media Sheet / 42
Introduction / 43
Script / 44
Bibliography of Support Material / 55
Criterion Assessments / 59
APPLICATION HANDBOOK - MANAGEMENT / 63
Media Sheet / 66
Introduction / 67
Uoript / 68
bibliography of Support Material / 85
Criterion Assessments / 86
APPLICATION HANDBOOK - PUBLIC RELATIONS / 9
Media Sheet / 95
Introduction / 96
Script / 97
Bibliography of Support Material /111
Criterion Assessments /113
APPLICATION HANDBOOK - RESEARCH /121
Media Sheet /124
Introduction /125
Script /126
Bibliography of Support Material /143
Criterion Assessments /154
VOLUME THREE
CONTENTS
PREFACE / 1
OBJECTIVES / 3
CONTENT AND LEARNING DESIGN /
LEVEL ONE
9
Specific Procedural Activity / 11
Toward A Definition / 14pre-test / 27post-test / 30
The Individual Learner / 33pre-test / 54post-test / 63
Learning Pyramid / 65pre-test / 76post-test / 81
Closing The Loop / 85pre-test / 117post-test / 123
Production /125
LEVEL TWO
Procedural Activity /143
Criterion Referenced vs. Norm ReferencedTesting /145
Selection and Use of Programmed Materials /179(DAVI)
LEVEL THREE
Support Material /180
APPENDIX /197
VOLUME FOUR
CONTENTS
OVERVIEW
Behavioral Goals for Set III /1
Introduction to Procedures /3
PART ONE: INITIAL ACTIVITY /6
PART TWO-A: DESCRIPTION OF A SCIENTIFIC LITERACY CURRICULUM
Background Information /9
Nature of the Learner /10
Definition of Scientific Literacy /12
Philosophy of the Curriculum /15
General and Specific Coals /18
Content Outline /23
Continuing Student Evaluation Program /29
Devnlopment of Materials and Learning Strategy /31
Validation of Materials /33
PART TWO-B: OUTLINE OF MODEL TEACHERS' INSTI1UTE
Outline of Model Teachers' Institute /36
Institute Philosophy /38
Behavioral Objectives for the Institute /39
Pre-Institute Activities /40
Institute Structure and Management /44
Evaluation /48
PART THREE: CONCLUDING ACTIVITIES /51
APPENDIX 153
VOLUME rivE
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNIT I 3
INITIAL ACTIVITY 4
OPERATION 5
INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNIT II 9
INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNIT III 11
GROUP ACTIVITY 12
INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY 13. .
INSTRUCTIONS FOR UNIT IV 15
APPENDIX A, LIST OF SUPPLIES 17
APPENDIX B. LIST OF CHECKPOINT SQUARES 18
APPENDIX C, BIBLIOGRAPHY 25
APPENDIX D, CHARTS REQUIRED FOR UNIT III(Included only in Project Report)
APPENDIX E, SAMPLES OF ACTUAL KIT CON'.'ENTS(Included only in Project Report)
APPENDIX F, CRITERION LSSESSMENTS(Included only in Project Report)
1.
OM
Acknowledgments
This report would not be complete without acknowledg-ment of the efforts of the many individuals who contributedto the successful completion of this project. It would befutile to attempt to specify all their individual contribu-tions. However, certain people's performances were so out-standing that they must be named individually. This simplelisting serves solely as a public expression of personalgratitude for their efforts.
Dorothy Lutz, secretary, served from the start of theproject as a link between all of those involved. Shereminded and prodded when necessary and produced con-sistently and cheerfully throughout.
Clarice Kelley Lesj.ie not only handled identificationof all the support information, edited the full report,but also volunteered her time to help complete thefinal report.
Mary Harbeck reacted, consulted, suggested, and workedto provide considerable professional input as anexperienced and dedicated science supervisor entirelyon a volunteer basis.
Priscilla Ransohoff created the concepts for Set IVand spent many weekends working with supervisors inmaking the approach relevant to the supervisor's realworld needs. Her professional direction and insightswere invaluable.
Layton Mabrey made many creative contributions whichare evident in a number of Li; productions.
Others spent grueling hours of effort and frustrationto meet production deadlines, and they surpassed allexpectations: Mary McGovern examined and passed onevery visual produced, Doug Boyd narrated every tapeincluded in the materials.
1
Three key men provided conceptual and philosophicalcontinuity, served consistently, and at times courageously,bringing the Project to successful fruition:
Gabriel D. Ofiesh provided direction throughout onthe educational technology aspect and assumed re-sponsibility for the entire content input for Set II.
Albert F. Eiss maintained a consistent check onoperations and made continuous inputs. He also pro-vided the structure and content for Set III.
George H. Ziener had basic responsibility for theday to day project activities and provided much ofthe structure for Set IV. He also had basic respon-sibility for preparation of the final version of allinstructional materials and for drafting the finalreport to be submitted to the United Stales Officeof Education.
Herbert A. SmithProject Director
2
PROJECT PERSONNEL
SCIENCE SUPERVISORS
H. W. BerrymanEdward BuschkeMyrna CarterEthel HackneyHelen HaleMerriam JonesSusan MarkleLeonard MolotskyJames A. MooreCharlotte ParnellElizabeth A. Simendinger
CONSULTANTS
Gabriel D. OfieshDavid E. BarbeeAubrey BouckPriscilla B. RanaohoffFrederick R. Raycroft
WRITERS
Joseph DasbachLayton MabreyHarold J. MaloneyCamille MarkerEllen OuhlAnna Mae PattersonBertie RogersPeter ScottVirginia TrowbridgeBonnie Wiant
ARTISTS
Cieston B. CoffieldLouis M. CustodioPeter DankoDallas Dorse;:tMichael EissLee MarrsJack MartinelliE. Wayne Nobles
3
PRODUCTION
Douglas BoydCraig MabreyMary McGovern
ADMINISTRATIVE
Albert F. EissPeggy AhlbrandtJoanne AndersonDebora ClarkJanice Lynn CookeRita CountsAnne Marie deGoviaJean C. DietrichCaroline R. GillilandSister Therese LaclairClarice LeslieDavid LiddellBarbara LindnerDorothy LutzWalter H. LutzCynthia NelsonCarole PrusinowskiMaurecu SullivanGeorge H. Ziener
Summary
The National Science Teachers Associations EducationalTechnology Project developed and progressively defined anassortment of instructional material for use with sciencesupervisors.. Continuous revisions were made throughout thedevelopment process and all materials were validated to thedegree that time and funds permitted. These materials havethree major purposes:
1. to develop understanding and initial skills in,educationalitechnolOgy,
2. to provide learning techniques and materials thatcan be used by a supervisor to meet local needs,
3. and to utilize the process of educational technologyto teach a working concept of educational technology.
The materials produced are grouped into four sets:. _
I - Role of the Science SupervisorII - Introduction to Educational TechnologyIII - ,An Application of Educational TechnologyIV - Management
Hach of the first two sets is composed of a number ofinstructional packages with each package being an independentunit covering a specific aspect within the et. A completelist of titles included in these packages is at the end ofthis summary.
These materials have all been validated to some degreethrough use with science supervisors. The results of theseactivities provided feedback which formed the basis for ex-tensive revisions of all of the materials. Specific evalu-ative activities are covered in the body of this report.
These materials can be used on an individual basis,employing individual sets or parts of sets, or as an entireunit. However, the most l'enefit frOm use of the full set ofmaterials is anticipated in an institute setting managed onan individualized learning basis. Each supervisor attendingthe institute would then utilize the project material and
4
Lelect support materials in such a way as to meet his pro-fessional needs; and background. Interaction with peers isconsidered vital to the fullest exploitation of the materialsdeveloped.
This project produced learning materials. The resultsof the effort vill be successful only to the extent thatthese materials are utilized and proved to be effective.
The validation effort yielded evidence that the materialshave value to science supervisors and should be distributed.
Packages Produced
Set I
Set II
Role of the Science Supervisor1. Curriculum Revision - audio tape/slides
and workbook2. Evaluation - audio tape/slides and workbook3. Management - audio tape/slides and workbook4. Public Relations - audio tape/slides and
workbook5. Research - audio tape/slides and workbook
Introduction to Educational Technology1. Toward a Definition - Audio tape/slides
and criterion tests2. The Individual Learner - audio tape /slides
and criterion tests3. Learning Pyramid - audio tape and criterion
tests4. Closing the Loop - audio taps /elides and
criterion tests5. Produccion - audio tape6. Diagnostic Testing - audio tape and
criterion tests7. Criterion Referenced vs. Worm Referenced
Testing - audio tape and criterion tests
Set III - An application of Educational TechnologyTotal set is composed of a printed interactionworkbook.
Set IV - ManagementTotal set is composed of a Management Systems
Kit.
5
Introduction
This report is composed of five volumes of material.Volume one is the formal project report containing a history,methods of development and rationale, validation activitiesand results, and conclusions, along with support items asnecessary. Volume one, then, comprises the report submissionrequirements of the project.
Volumes two through five contain the products of theproject. Each volume contains one of the four sets ofmaterials developed by the project: instructions, criteriontests, learning content (scripts, simulation information, orkit material) and bibliographic extension material. Theproduction of materials generated during this project is in-corporated in these four volumes.
Briefly, this project evolved to meet two distinctsupervisory needs in science education:
First) A need for inservice training materialsfor science supervisors in the area ofeducational technology.
Second) Skill in utilization of educationaltechnology processes to improve scienceeducation programs.
The process of educational technology offers an effectivetool for the science supervisor, both in organizing to meethis professional responsibilities and in providing for theimprovement of science education programs. Educational tech-nology processes were used to a degree in the development ofproject materials to meet the above needs in order to providean exemplary approach to the development of instructionalmaterials. By utilizing educational technology processes, theproject produced all materials in a self-contained packageformat. This approach permits the use of individual packagesby the science supervisor to meet local needs. However, thematerial was developed as a total instructional unit for usein an institute for science supervisors and was grouped intofour sets of individual packages.
6
Set I - Role of the Science Supervisor(Volume two in this report)
The five packages in this set are designed to orientthe science supervisor to his job functions in a verybroad sense. They present for the new supervisor aspectrum of activities by which he may structure his ownrole. For the experienced supervisor they present newareas for his consideration and suggest a reevaluationof priorities, Science supervisors are not told what todo, but they will be given information and motivationfor expanding ant reorienting their own functions. Thepackages contained in Set I are:
These materials are all tape-slide presentations withpre-post assessments and utilization directions. Addi-tional bibliographic support material is included whichprovides for in-depth exploration of the various aspectspresented in the packages. As a result, each supervisoris presented with a broad spectrum of supervisory functionsalong with opportunity for detailee, exploration of areasof interest to him.
Set II - Introduction to Educational Technology(Volume three in this report)
This set consists of three levels of Inaterial. Levelone has five packages:
Toward a DefinitionThe Individual LearnerLearning PyramidClosing' the LoopProduction
All of the packages are tape-slide presentationsexcept "Learning Pyramid" and "Production" which areaudio-tape presentations without visuals. The materialson level one are all designed for motivation and initialeAposure to the educational technology process. Successof level one material in supplyiw, motivation is measuredby the degree of use of leveltwOand level three materials.
Level two consists of two audio-tape packagesdeveloped by the project: Criterion Referenced vs.Norm Referenced Testing, Diagnostic Testing, and fivecommercially available packages. All of the materialson this level are designed to develop initial basicskills and competencies in specific areas of educationaltechnology (formulation of objectives, criterion testing,learning materials design, media, and instructionalsystems). It is not intended to enable the sciencesupervisor to be a skilled educational t3chnologist;rather the intent is to provide a fairly extensive ex-posure and orientation to educational technology.
Level three includes additional bibliographicreferences providing more specific detail than the twoearlier levels. This provides the individual sciencesupervisor with in-depth material to meet his individualneeds and interests.
There is no claim made that anyone who is able 'tomeet the terminal behavior characteristics of Set II is,by that exercise, a highly qualified educational tech-nologist.
Sej III - Applications of Educational Technology(Volume four of this report).
This set consists entirely of printed material. Itprovides a structure for the science supervisor to usein developing an understanding of a systems approachfor the preparation of an inservice program in a localschool system. The supervisor is involved in threedistinct activities. First, he develops the structureof an inservice program for his own local needs accordingto the general outline provided. Second, he works throughthe structure and background of a model inservice in-stitute to provide for implementation of a curriculumstressing scientific literacy. All 'of the necessary in-formation, curriculum structure, information on par-ticipants, and institute structure are included. Third,the supervisor evaluates and revises his own inserviceprogram using the model as a guide.
This set provides the supervisor with practicalskins in applying educational technology to meet his owninservice needs. In addition, and perhaps more impor-tantly, the supervisor has a workable systems model whichhe can use for an inservice program of his own that can
8
be expanded and used in his local school context.
Set IV - Management (Volume five of this report)
This set consists entirely of a management kit.The kit provides the science superviSor with thedirection and materials necessary to develop operatingsystem diagrams of his own management activities. Assuch, it utilizes educational technology in a systemsapproach to the supervisor's management role. Threedistinct outcomes result from this set. First, thesupervisor is able to transfer the systems approach toareas other than those presented in Sets II and III.Second, the supervisor develops system diagrams of hisactual activities. For most supervisors, this becomesthe first visualization of their activities in anysystematic way. Third, the supervisor is provided withother systems and details with which he can interactin order to strengthen his own systems.
There is no rigid definable end to this set. Itis designed to be open-ended. The sul.arvisot leaveswith a series of revised system charts that meet hisreal needs, but he also has material and outlines forextendng the analysis of his charts to any desireddepth.
Although the sets are numbered I, II, III, and IV, theorder of utilization is flexible as well as the order anduse of individual packages within the sets. Developmenttook place in the order listed and the suggested sequencelisted represents a logical approach which may be utilized.Appendix A follows the initial operation sequencing and a
revised sequence developed as a result of the large groupvalidations,
Methods
The project utilized educational technology to a limiteddegree as a process in developing the materials. The pro-cedures outlined as follows were generally followed and willbn discussed in detail.
A. Specificatiot. of Objectives
9
B.
C.D.
E.
F.G.H.
Assessment Criteria for ObjectivesSpecification of Participant CharacteristicsDevelopment of Learning Sequences (to provide forindividual needs)Production of MaterialsValidation of MaterialsRevision of MaterialsDevelopment of a Management System for Utilizationof Material
Although this outline was the guide in material develop-ment, it must be admitted at the start that it was not alwaysrigidly followed. Variations in approach, however, were notmade without conscious decision on the part of the projectstaff, and were often made due to financial and resource con-straints. The process of an educational technology approachto production of materials is, by its very philosophy, aflexible approach that adapts to the needs of the learner.In the process of developing these materials, as much waslearned by the project staff as will be learne -d by thoseutilizing the material. Many of these ideas and methods willform a part of the conclusions section of this report.
A. Initial objectives for the project were determin3dthrough a small study funded by the Office of Education -Bureau of Research (USOE Project No. 7C006, Contract No. OEC-1-7-070006-3789, in 1967, The Use of Educational Technologyin Providing Knowledge of Educational Technology and Sugges-tionp for its Application to Science S.uperyisqrs). Thefirst step in the present project was the organization of theshove objectives into a workable hierarchy developed in termsof the specific backgrounds and needs of science supervisors.From this detailed analysis of objectives, the idea of loursets of materials incorporating the given objectives, alongwith additional objectives leading to the acceptance of changeand the transfer of skills, developed into a broad approachto provide the supervisory competencies required; Theeats developed and their basic terminal objectives are:(Objectives in parenthesis are mainly affective in nature.)
Set I - The science supervisor will oe able toidentify specific areas where his science super-visory activities should be modified or enlarged.The supervisor will seek information in areas wherehe is unfamiliar. (openness to change)
10
Set II - The science supervisor will be ableto define educational technology in processterms and identify areas within education whereit might be applied. (The supervisor will seekto develop skills in various areas of educationaltechnology.)
Set III - The science supervisor will apply theeducational technology process in developing aninsurvice program. (The supervisor will utilizethe inservice program he has developed.)
$et IV - The science supervisor will be ableto utilize educational technology in otheractivity areas through development of systemscharts for his management functions. (The super-visor will further evaluate and revise his owncharts without being required to do so by theproject staff.)
Within each set there are a number of specific interimobjectives and more expanded forms of the above terminalobjectives. These are prerented in detail as a part ofvolumes two chrough five. Initial objectives chosen at thebeginning were not fixed rigidly and the above objectivesrepresent the final produc- of many revisions throughout theproject life.
B. Assessment of the project objectival has and stillremains somewhat a source of controversy. Even the mostspecific objectives cannot always be fully assessed by apaper and pencil exam. This is especially true of affectiveobjectives. Project validation activity has led to signif-icant change° in staff approach to the use of criterion tests(or assessments). There are three different assessmentmethods for use with the project materials. If the project4aterials are used in their entirety, then the criterionassessment included in Appendix D should be used. Participantsgoing 0-)ugh all of the packages will complete a aumber ofspeci(l assessments.
The assessment above, however, represents a general totalassessmert in both attitude and specific understanding. Al-though all of the individual teats give a more completepicture of the learning produced by the individual packages,the validation activities' shoved that participant lotivation
11
is inversely proportional to the number and length of writtencriterion assessments given. This, however, in no wayvitiates the importance of these kinds of data in acquiringthe necessary developmental guidance needed. It seemedobvious that a learning system designed for mature andsophisticated participants concerned with high level pro-fessional performance requires some adaptation of generallyaccepted educational technology theory.
The second type of criterion assessments are the in-dividuql tests provided with each individual package withinthe sets. These tests were utilized in the validationactivities and during the development of the individual units.The final criterion assessments are not available in awritten format similar to the other t"o types since they dealwith affective objectives. Some of the attitudes developedwere identified through the individual assessment sheets,Appendix D, used during the validation activities. Fullattitude assessment requires a series of follow-up activitiesas well as implementation of the complete project materialsin the proposed institute.
C. Specifications 0: participant characteristics wereinitially outlined in the project proposal, i.e., scienceeducation personnel. Included within this very broad desig-nation are personnel whose major responsibilities involvethe science program, ite development and implementation,and the teaching staff necessary to carry out the scienceprogram. This activity may be carried out within individualschools, intermediate units, or on state levels. Titles forthis type of person range through Supervisor, Science Depart-ment Head, Science Advisor, Science Consultant to ScienceAdministrator. Although the materials are designed for thisgroup, by. their flexibility of application, many of thepackages produced will be applicable outside of the originalpopulation group. Certain background was assumed such as acollege education, experience in science education, awarenessof the general functinns of a science supervisor and knowledgeof the structure and operation of the existing scienceeducation program. Other student characteristics such asspecific background knowledge and skills are less criticalin the design activity since utilization of tie materialsproduced will vary according to the participant's experience,interests and learning needs.
D. Development of Learning Sequences began with Set I
12
and w a continuing process of feedback and revision be-tween tne initial terminal objectives and realistic contentpreparation. Set I was broken down into five basic sciencesupervisory responsibilities: "Curriculum Revision,""Evaluation," "Management," "Public Relations," "Research."These areas do not cover the entire scope of a sciencesupervisor's activity, but they do compriso the most impor-tant and time-consuming areas. Realistic limitations oftime, staff end funding necessitated compromises in idealizedobjectives. Similarly, Set II materials could (and possiblyshould) include many more aspects of the educational tech-nology process than are present in the final material. InSet II, in order to provide for certain areas that could notbe produced, commercially available materials are utilized.In Addition, due to project limitations in production,commercial materials were included for practical reasons- -both to provide adJitional depth and comprehensiveness andto avoid, unnecessary duplication. Where available materialscould be identified as effective means to the definedlearning ends, they were used. Sets III and IV requiredless use of commercial material because of their open-endedand self-initiating structure. In both cases it was decidedthat skill development necessary to meat the terminalobjectives would come most effectively (both cognitive andmotivational) from a discovery type of approach. The super-visor uses the coghitivo knowledge developed in Sets I andII to meet specific needs structured into Sets III and IV.The learning sequences for the last two sets were developedon this basis and, AS a result, are interactive rather thanpassive presentations. Although only a single lineavlearning strategy was developed for each set, individuallearning needs tend to be met in actual appilt.ation becauseof the built in flexibility and open-endednbss bad throughthe use of the available commercial materials that have beenidentified.
E. Production of materials was based on very realisticassumptions. It would be ideal to utilize a broad spectrumof mediated materials in order to expose the science super-visor to the best possible uses of media. However, localuse of the produced material would be limited to areas anddistricts where pore advanced media hardware is readilyavailable. In additiot. the cost per hour of production ofsophisticated media is quite high and does not really justifythe desired learning outcomes. Media were chosen for easeof utilization, applicability and ease of production. All
13
of the materials fall into ono or more of the following fourformats: audio tape and slides; audio tape alone; printedmaterial; and a manipulative kit (or game). In this way, avariety of easily usable material has been produced. Furthersophistication could be introduced through interaction orassessment materials produced in eight or sixteen millimeterfilm format or on video tape.
Another consideration for the choice of simple mediausage is the participant learning characteristics. Exotic,nonprint media may inhibit rather than enhance communicationwith more traditional science supervisors. As in the choiceof linear development for the learning sequences, variety ofimplementation is achieved through flexible utilization ofthe material.
F. Validation of Materials was the most importantActivity in the entire project. The materials were evaluatedand revised a number of times prior to production by theproject staff and by science supervisors brought in asconsultants. This activity eliminated some of the moreobvious problems in both content and style. After production,materials were presented as individual packages to individualsupervisors. Their responses to the pre-post tests as wellas their comments were used as the basis for further revisionsin b -th audio and visual content prior to the two large groupvalidations.
Two large group validations were held, one in West PalmBeach, Florida, (December 1-5) with twenty science supervisorsattending, and the second at Dickinson College, Carlisle,Pennsylvania, (January 5-9) with eleven science supervisorsand college faculty attending. In both sessions all of theproject material developed was presented without the use ofany of the commercially available items. The first session(Florida) received the material in numerical order--Sets I,II, III, IV--and were given pre-post tests for all itemspresented. The results were positive for the material andstrongly negative on both the testing ane order of presentation.As a result, the Pennsylvania session had a changed order ofpresentation and far fewer pre-post tests. Programs for bothsessions, sample response sheets, and a brief summary ofresults are included in Appendix E. Set II materials werealso presented as a unit to science supervisors in Boston onDecember 8, 1969. Various packages have also been presentedto science supervisors participating in a science education
14
seminar at the University of Maryland. Summaries of theFlorida and Pennsylvania sessions are included in Appendix E.
The amount of validation on individual units varieddepending upon the project production schedule. Some of thelater sections, as indicated on the chart on the followingpages, were not included in the large group validationsessions. The chart following,summarizes the validationactivities. All of the final products submitted with thisreport have been carefully revised on the basis of thovalidation information. However, the revised material hasnot been validated. It must bl emphasized that althoughfairly extensive validation has been carried out on most ofthe material, more rigorous validation and more extensivefield testing are necessary on both the pre-post tests andthe materials, especially as a complete unit including allperipheral materials. There is a limitation to this activity,especially in the assessment instruments, because of thepopulation using the materials. As relatively_ experiencedprofessionals, science supervisors do not react favorably tothe frequent and detailed assessment sessions necessary forrigorous validation. Individual reactions to single packagesor sets indicate atror-ly that large group utilization ofthe materials in an iudtitute would lead to attainment ofthe objectives, both cognitive and affective. Ultimatevalidation, of course, will only be realized when the fullarray of materials is used in an institu:t of the type forwhich the complete set of materials was designed. Feedbackfrom such an effort will suggest the degree of validity ofthe materials, and, perhaps more importantly, provide theinputs for further modifications and revisions.
G. The revision of material, as has already beenmentioned, was a continuing process responding to validationfeedback. Revision was based on responses to content andthe accompanying attitudinal posture. Failure in effectivecommunication of content leads to decreased learning; im-provement of learning outcomes was the major objective inrevision of project Materials. However, positive interestand motivation were also vital considerations for revision.If the affective response is so negative that the participantrejects the rest of the program, changes in content andapproach were obvioisly indicated. Cognitive and affectiveobjectives are conceived as basic components in all materialsproduced.
15
VALIDATION ACTIVITY
PACKAGE
1
INDIVIDUAL
STAFF
SCIENCE
REV/r7
SUPERVISORS
LARGE
GROUP
FLORIDA
LARGE
7
GROUP
PENNSYLVANIA
LARGE
GROUP
BOSTON
LARGE GROUP
UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND
Curriculum Revision
XX
XX
X
Evaluation
XX
XX .
X
Management
XX
XX
X
Public Relations
XX
XX
X
Research
XK
XX
X
Set I As a Unit
XX
XX
Toward a Definition
XX
XX
XX
The Individual Learner
XX
XX
XX
Learning Pyramid
KX
XX
Closing the Loop
XX
X
L
XX
X
PACICAGE
STAFF
REVIEW
INDIVIDUAL
SCIENCE
SUPERVISORS
LARGE
GROUP
FLORIDA
LARGE
GROUP
PENNSYLVANIA
LARGE
GROUP
BOSTON
LARGE GROUP
UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND
Production
-X
Diagnostic Testing
X
Criterion Referenced
vs. Norm Referenced
Testing
X
Sat II As a Unit
X
Set III - Part One
XX
XX
Set III - Part Two
1111111111
X X
XX X
X
Set III - Part Three
Set III As a Unit
XX
X
Set IV
XI
.
XX
XX
All of the material has been revised a minimum of twotimes after the f!.rst "final" production as a result ofstaff and individual supervisor evaluation. Revisions weremade aftur each validation activity shown on the chart onpages 11 and 12. Final revisions, both in content and style,were made just prior to this final report. These revisions,like validation, are not "final" in the ultimate sense.However, the materials do represent a finished productapplicable in their present form for use with science super-visors.
H. Development of a management system for utilizationof material is a key step in implementation in the educationaltechnology process. Until the large group validations, anymanagement plan was largely theoretical.
A basic; tenet of educational technology is that amanagement system focuses on the individual learner. Thesystem is structured to make full use of the materialsavailable in such a way that the individual attains thespecified objectives.
Knowledge of the learner characteristics involved enabledthe staff to develop an initial plan which utilized thematerials in sequential order supplemented by additionalperipheral material (chart in Appendix A, page 24).
After the first large group validation, serious problemsin regard to the appropriateness of the originally conceivedsequence were discovered. The utilization of material notonly needed to be more flexible, but most participants neededa better understanding of educational technology before usingany of the Set I material. This need for early understandingof educational technology as a process was re-emphasized inPennsylvania where everyone conceived of educational tea-nolegy as machine applications to learning. As a result,there was semantic confusion everytime the term was used.The final system proposed (Appendix A, page 25) incorporateschanges indicated by the validation experiences.
,To the best of available knowledge, the management systemused for implementing the project materials in an instituteprovidJs an optimum approach to meeting individual participantneeds within the licitations established by the amount ofboth project and commercial material available.
18
A fully complete validation of the system must waituntil it can be tested through actual use under conditionsbasic to the original conception of the project. As withthe materials produced during the project, the system doesrepresent a functional product based on a fairly high degreeof actual objective experience using the processes ofeducational technology.
Results and Findings.
The accompanying volumes, two through five, incorporatethe results of this project. In brief, the results are acomplete series of refined, mediated material usable for in-service training of science supervisors.
If the materials remain as they are in thin report, itemsto be read, rather than materials to be experienced andshared by intense interaction with peers, the project materialswill fail to achieve the intended objectives. These materialshave been developed and produced to be utilized with and byscience supervisors. The degree of utilization may varywith individual packages, but all of the packages must beused if the original objectives inherent in the project areto be realized.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Product!
1. The project was successful in producing a seriesof usable eaterials for science supervisors bothfor inservice development of the supervisors them-selves and for use by supervisors to meet localtraining needs.
2. The materials, although they have not been asrigorously validated as educational technologymight demand, do represent a high degree of sophis-tication as a result of revisions based on bothcognitive and affective changes in science super-visors who have used the material.
19
3. Prom the reactions of science supervisors, admin-istrators and others who have used the materials,the sets appear to have a general utility potentialto meet the needs of all supervisors and should berevised to enhance their interdisciplinary appli-cability.
4. The materials are of such a nature that finalvalidation requires implementation of all sets inan actual operating institute. Final revisions ofthe materials, tests, and management system shouldbe made on the objective results obtained from theoperation of such an institute.
5. Full capitalization from the effort, time, andmoney invested in this project will depend on theutilization of the materials produced. The projectV88 a practical activity leading to a usableproduct rather than a data gathering research in-vestigation.
Process:
1. A project staff consisting of science educators,educational technologists, artists, and technicianshad at the start characteristic and basic inter-disciplinary communication problems. The workingcombination with contrasting philosophies andskills resulted in personal development of allstaff members in addition to a successful develop-ment of materials. However, future projects in-volving a cross disciplinary team of this typecould profit from the inclusion of at least onegeneralist in all of the above fJelds in an admin-istrative capacity.
2. Use of science :vpervisors as consultants inter-acting with materials as they are developed providesvaluable revision information before presentationformats are fixed. It was found, however, that itis necessary to have evaluation based on the actualmediated material rather than in their printed formsince the results are significantly different.
20
1. The use of simple media provided a number ofunanticipated bonus factors: material could beeasily revised; supervisors were not conditionedto linking machines with educational technology;and production erste and time were considerablyless than with highly complex media allowing formore materials to be produced.
21
APPENDIXA
OPERATIONAL CHARTS
INITIAL/REVISED/JUSTIFICATION
INITIAL OPERATION CHART
REINFORCEMENT & ENRICHMENT
Role of the Science
Supervisor
Introduction to
Applications of
EduCational Technology
Educational Technology
Management
NOTE:
Critical Path Material consists of all packages within each set.
Support material (outside of the sets) is of two types:
a)
Reinforcement and Enrichment - expands and extends instructions'
areas within a particular set.
b)
Reinforcing - alternate material utilized to aid participants in
completion of a set.
ACTIVITY
INTRODUCTION/ORIENTATION
SET I
FLOW
CHART
SET II
TOWARD A'
DEFINITION
For Optimum
Learning System
REVISED OPERATION CHART
4 CURRICULUM REVISION
{EVALUATION 1
447---
[MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC RELATIONS
RESEARCH
i
SET I
SUPPORT
MATERIAL
NDIVIDUAL
CHOICE
OPEN
ENDED
The individual has the
option to choose any of
the di_ections indicated
including backwards.
JUSTIFICATION
During the first large group validation, it became
obvious that the sequential method shown in the initial
operation chart might result in cognitive learning gain
but might also result in negative affective change. There
are, however, two reasons, aside from the structure, that
caused this. First, the presentations were made on a group
basis. Second, the validation included use of the pre-
tests before each presentation and post-test after.
The presentation structure for the second large group
validation (Carlisle, Pa.) changed the structure in
directions requested by the first group (Florida)(chart not
shown). As a result of these two activities and the arrange-
ment of Set II's present structure (diagram was not completed
in time for the second large group validation) the chart
shown on the previous page represents the revised operation
chart.
Although each set and each package within a set is an
independent self-contained entity, the entire sequence of
sets comprises a gestalt which requires structure of an
operating system that will provide optimum affective as well
as cognitive gain. In addition, participants entering with
a concept of educational technology as machine application
25
found considerable difficulty until they were presented
with an operating definition based on process.
Introduction and orientation sequences were chosen with
the above needs in mind: The Set IV kit has received con-
sistent favorable response and represents, by its early use,
a unifying link through all of the sets, developing a
positive attitude. The choice of Toward a Definition as an
educational technology orientation was made because the
participant finishes that package with a working definition
of educational technology as a process.
The remainder of the diagram is a visual description of
a learner's progress through the materials. With the
guidance provided by the pre-post assessments, ant an under-
standing of his own needs, the participant is free to utilize
any or all of the material.
26
APPENDIX 3
PROGRESS REPORTS
CLIPPINGS
27
CONTINUING PROGRESS REPORT NO. 1
EDUCATIONALContinuing
Progress
TECHNOLOGY Report
PROJECTno. 1
Feb. 1969
NATIONAL. SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Woshington, D. C. 20036
Areo Code 202-223-9400
This is the first in a series of ContinuingProgress Reports on the National Science.Teachers Association Project officially titled
"The Development of Materials for theTraining of Science Education Personnelin Educational Technology."
but for convenience to be referred to as:Project in Educational Technology. Copies ofthis report and subsequent issues may beobtained from the project office. There willbe a charge for these reportsfeedback.Space is provided for comments reactions,
suggestions, and questions. Two copies will besent for each request so that one can be re-tun ^d with feedback for the project staff.
PURPOSE: This project has been desigred tomeet a number of needs centeringaround the interaction of science super-visory activities and Educational Tech-nology applications. The terminal
product will be a number of validated,selfinstructional packages in our areasdesigned to meet specific objectives forscience supervisors.
28
The material will be arranged in four setsof modules, two directed toward orienta-tion and two toward implementation.
Set A Functions of Science Super.visors(Problem Identification)
Set B Function of Educational Tech.nology(Learning Systems Theory)
'Set C System Applications
Set D Administrative Activity(M anagemen t)
Each module will contain a number ofself-instructional units based on specifi-cally stated objectives. As a part of theproject, each of these units will bestructured, produced, tested on super-visors, and revised. Continuing inter-action with science supervisors will hemaintained throughout each phase of theproject, as well as during the validationactivities.
OBJECTIVES:
1) To define the role of the sciencesupervisor.
2) To identify problems within thesefunctions that can be met throughthe application of Educational Tech-
nology.
3) To produce validated instructionalmaterial that will enable supervisors
FEEDBACK
1
to identify their own specific prob.!ems and to structure possible solu-tions.
4) To produce validated instructionalmaterial that will help supervisorsdevelop skills necessary, to utilizeEducational Technology in instruc-tion and management.
PLAN: The specific activities of the projecthave been projected using a PERT typeformat and may be outlined in thefollowing way:
1) Identifying specific Objectives formodules and structuring CriteriaTests to measure attainment of theObjceVves. (What outcomes are de-
sired and how can they be
measured?)
2) Development of Pre-Test and Asses-
sment. (What attitudes, back-
' grounds and concepts of their func-tions supervisors do have at thestart of a module)
3) Specify and sequence Enabling Ob-jectives for the module. (In detail,what steps must be taken to reachthe desired outcomes?)
4) Develop the instructional packages.
(Continue on other side if you need more space.) 5) Evaluate and revise the packages.
29
THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED UNDER ARESEARCH GRAM '1.0M TILE DEPART-
MENT OF !TALL EDUCATION AND
W E LEAR E OFFIC E OF EDUCATION.
TITLE Iv PROJ ECT #8-0.127.
DIRECTOR:
HERBERT A. SMITH, PHD.Associate Dean for EducationColorado State University
CHIEF CONSULTANT
GABRIEL D. OFIESII, ED.D.Director, Center for Educational Tech-
nology
Catholic University of America
NSTA REPRESENTATIVE
ALBERT F. EISS,Associatc. Executive Secretary
National Science Teachers Assoc.
30
11111111111111111111111I
O01-
OLr)
8
C
TEC I Cy Y
P Jeer
PURPOSE OF THE CONTINUING PROGRESS REPORT
CONTINUING
PROGRESS
REPORTno. 2
Jane 1969
The first report was prepared as a brief introduct-c2 ion to the NSTA Project in Educational Technology. Eache'successive report will try to fill three general purposes:"a
6We could call it a newsletter, but it is designed to
0 be more of a briefing and a report for those interested iniu the Project rather than a set of news articles. Each reportU :will contain a 'feedback' section which will fold into a pre-to 1paid, pre-addressed mailer. The information, reactions, and
'requests that are received have a very real purpose. They,show us the degree of interest in this project from a number
0 of areas and they also help to prevent our losing continuous'contact with the science personnel who are going to be the.ultimate users of the materials we are trying to produce.
N. The Progress Report is sent without charge, cost, orci obligation to anyone who indicates an interest in the project.s'The feedback section provides a place to indicate whether orpnot you want to continue receiving these reports and anothera, place for your name and address (with Zip Code).
3
z.Everyone receiving the Progress Reports either has an
i,interest in the project (at least to some degree) and readsg the report or couldn't care lest and dumps it in a circularffile. We would prefer to eliminate the latter from the mail-ing list - it win save paper.
a.
1. Expand in greater detail on some area of theproject.
2. Report on the progress of project activity.
3. Provide a response to the feedback received asa result of t1.9 previous report.
31
INVOLVEMENT
The only way the Project staff can keep from becoming isolatedin its own activity is to continuously interact with scienceeducation personnel. The Progress Reports provide the projectwith a means of talking about itself. The 'feedback' formprovides pvbple interested in the project with an easy methodof reactint, and requesting. In addition, as material is de-veloped, we hope to send out for trial and evaluation thesepackaged units. The only way to find ow, if the material worksis to try it out and on the basis of these trials revise andrefine it in order to better attain the project objectives.Some people have already offered to work with us on this leveland we intend making full use of this type of interaction.
Your interest is enough to keep you on the mailing list - furtherinteraction and participation is not necessary but will neverbe refused. As a side point - we need negative as well aspositive reactions, whether anonymous or signed, but we find itdifficult to send return letters to anonymous writers.
RESPONSE TO SUCGESTIONS
Reactions to the first of the Continuing Progress Reports wereon the whole - favorable. The 'feedback' provided did determinethe structure of this report which is designed to:
A. Provide in greater detail specific outcomes desired forfor the project.
B. Define some of the vague terms found in the first report -keeping 'pedantic jargon' to a minimum.
C. Specify in detail the purposes of the Progress Report.
D. Specify the role we would like those receiving the reportsto have in the project.
E. Present the present status of project activity.
STRUCTURE
The full title of this NSTA Educational Technology Project is"The Development of Materials for the Training of Science Edu-cation Personnel in Educational Technology." The general goalsof the project are well stated by the full title.
The materials being developed have been grouped into four oasicareas or Sets.
SET I - ROLE OF THE SCIENCE SUPERVISORPresentation of the broad activities of the ScienceSupervisor/Consultant seeking a positive attitudetoward reevaluation and possible extension of thesupervisors present activity.
SET II - INTRODUCTION TO EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYOffering an operating definition for EducationalTechnology and an exposure to the process and methods.
32
SET III - APPLICATION OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGYDevelopment of understanding and skills necessaryto utilize Educational Technology in preparationof a learning system.
SET IV - MANAGEMENTTransfer of the skills developed in the previousset to other supervisory areas such as budget pre-paration, proposal preparation, and other manage-ment ares44.
These areas or Sets are slightly different in wording from thefirst Progress Report and represent a refinement in our thinking.Greater expansion on what specifically is to be done in eachset will form the major content of the next progress report.
PLANNED OUTCOMES
Each of these sets will be composed of a number of self-containedinstructional packages containing specific (behavioral) objec-tives, criterion tests, learning materials (books, slides, audiotapes, or whatever format used), and instructions. In additionto the basic instructional packages being developed for eanh set,there are two types of supporting material being prepared. Forthe most part this supporting material represents alreadyavailable 'off-the-shelf' items which will serve to representdifferent content or to extend in greater depth specific contentareas within a set.
As far as possible, all material will be self-instructional innature and can be used by an individual or small group. Eachpackage as it is developed will be tried out (validated) onscience supervisors and revised on the basis of whether or notit accomplishes its stated objectives. Each package will bevalidated and revised individually - the entire set will bevalidated and revised as a unit.
These validated and revised materials are being designed specif-ically for the Science Supervisor/Consultant. Since eachindividual package is self-contained and meets specific objectives,there will be a considerable amount of material that s super-visor can use in work within his local area. For example: Apackage on evaluating and preparing instructional (behavioral)objectives, although it is written for the Supervisor, will mostlikely be useful for the teacher within a local school.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Science Education Personnel - We are preparing materials specif-ically for Science Supervisors. Within this very broad desig-nation, we include personnel whose major responsibilities in-volve the science program, its development and implementation,and the teaching staff necessary to carry out the science program.This activity may be carried out within individual schools,intermediate units, or on state levels. Titles for this typecf person range through Supervisor, Science Department Head,
33
Science Advisor, Science Consultant to Science Administrator.Although the materials are designed for this group, by theirvery nature many of the packages produced will be widely appli-cable outside of the original population group. In some of ourinitial validation activity, classroom teachers were involved.
Self-Instructional Packakes - These are complete learningpackages containing full implementation and evaluation infor-mation.and a multi-media learning presentation. They are de-signed to be used either by an individual or small group with-out the need for a leader or instructor being present.
Educational Technology - It is a process approach to learningthat utilizes learning theory, a systematized approach, andinstructional tools from human to machine developed to producespecified learning within an individual.
The above definition must be considered a general workingapproach for those who have requested it. Educational Technologyis a process whose product is learning. Presenting a conciseand brief definition would be similar to defining the chemical/physical process involved in the production of rayon.
A full definition will represent the content of a major portionof the Set II material.
PROJECT PkOGRESS
Set I - All of Lhe initial scripts and visual specificationshave been finished and initially validated with individualsupervisors. Revised scripts and a more finished form ofartwork are in preparation and should be complete withinthree weeks. The criteria tests and implementation handbooksure being developed and have the same target date for completion.
Set II - Initial scripts are almost finished and initial story-boarding is in process. As soon RS these are complete theywill be given to a number of supervisors for first validation.Within five or. six weeks the first revisions should be complete.
Sets III and IV are both in the process of being specified andspecific objectives (behavioral) are being revised. Scriptingshould begin within two weeks.
Support Materials are being identified. A crew of graduatestudents have been searching, reading and abstracting reports,catalogs, and research in every area that might provide supportto the program.
THIS PROJECT IS FUNDED UNDER A RESEARCH GRANT FROM THE DEPART-MENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE - OFFICE OF EDUCATION.
TITLE IV - PROJECT 18-0427
34
DIRECTOR
HERBERT A. SMITH, PHD.Associate Dean for EducationColorado State University
NSTA REPRESENTATIVE
ALBERT F. EISS, PHD.Associate Executive SecretaryNational Science Teachers Assoc.
CHIEF CONSULTANT
GABRIEL D.* OFIESH, ED.D.Director, Center for EducationalTechnology
Catholic University of America
PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR
GEORGE H. ZIENERNational Science Teachers Assoc.
PLEASE KEEP ME ON THE PROJECT MAILING LIST
NAME
SCHOOL/FIRM..
DVOP ME
TITLE
ADDRESS .HOMEOFFICEZIP
PHONE I OM mi II 111
I AM INTERESTED IN DOING SOME EVALUATION WORK,ANY PARTICULAR AREA ,
QUICK COMMENTSI
feebbath
35
BU
SIN
ESS
RE
PLY
MA
IL=
10C
LAM
S P
IKIII
NIS
T M
O. 1
0.10
-111
.W
AII1
4114
43T
OO
S. O
. C.
1111
INIP
PM
OM
IIN
INIM
ME
IM
MM
INIM
Ma.
NA
TIO
NA
L S
CIE
NC
E T
EA
CH
ER
S A
SSO
CIA
TIO
N01
10.1
11M
Mm
lIMO
MM
II
Nla
a12
01 S
ixte
enth
Str
eet,
Nor
thw
est
510-
700
Was
hing
ton,
D. C
.20
036
NSTA NEWSBULLETIN OCTOBER 1969
Educational Technology ProjectThe NSTA Educational Technology Project is developing instructional
packages for use with science supervisors. These instructional units aregrouped into four areas or sets of packages: a) Role of a ScienceSupervisor. b) Introduction to Educational Technology. c) Application ofEducational Technology, and d) Management.
Although the design of the entire project is to develop skills for theunderstanding Lnd implementation of Educational Technology in varioussupervisory areas, the material hils wider application. Each package withina set is a sellcontained unit.As a result material car be waited on a locallevel by supervisors for ioservice development programs and administrativebriefings.
All ol the Set i and hall of the Set 11 packages have been completed andare presently being reviewed by both supervisors and teachers. The resultsof these activities will provide the basis for revision ano final production olmaterials.
The project issues a periodic Continuing Progress Report which containsa feedback mailer used to allow an)'one interested to respond and toparticipate in project activity. Copies of this report are free and may beobtained by writing or calling the project office: George 11. 7,ener. ProjectAdministrator, NSTA, 1201 Sixteenth St., Washingro, D.C. .0036
31
NSTA NEWS - BULLETIN FEBRUARY 1970
ED TECH PROJECT
IS OVER; TWO
WORKSHOPS HELD
The Educational TechnologyProject, which NSTA conductedduring the past two years, willterminate February 28. Materials,have been produced which relate toproblems faced by the sciencesupervisor: his duties and how toplan his work effectively, the natureof educational technology and itspurpose in education, howeducational technology can beapplied to the tnpervisor'sproblems, and a simulated problemwhere the supervisor actuallyapplies the principles to analyze hismost impatient projects.
Two workshops have been heldwith science supervisors to rtYit Nthe NSTA educational technologymaterials and make suggestions forfuture use. The first workshop, inPalm Bach, Florida, on December14, attracted 16 supervisors fromvarious regions of the state. FloridaState Science Supervisor James A.Moore arranged the meeting.
In Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the siteof the second workshop, a smallgroup of supervisors renewed theeducational technology itaterialand visited the Dickinson Collegeobservatory and planetarium. Theworkshop, which also included ademonstration of computerprograming via telephone, wasarranged by James hIcbermoti, ascience consultant for Pennsylvania.
As the Educational TechnologyProject nears completion, USIA isconsidering the neat steps in findingways to matt the materials thathave been developed available to awide asthma of supervisors andothers involved in curriculumchange.
38
APPENDIXC
RESPONSE SUMMARIES ON PROGRESS REPORTS
31
The responses to the first Continuing Progress
Report totaled 85. Samples of some of the feedback
received are included in the following pages. In
general, response was favorable toward the project
and either neutral or negative toward the format
and presentation in the progress report.
Statistical Report
Number of replies: 85
Number of comments listedin this report:
Number of additional peopleinterested in doing someevaluation work:
40
32
28
COMMENTS OF PERSONS RESPONDING TO THE FIRST PROGRESS REPORT
A. FAVORABLE
Sounds good. Where can I obtain a copy of your originalproposal or other document that describes more precisely thekinds of Educational Technology to be employed. From myvantage point it appears that the local ''science supervisor"role varies from that of being a traveling science teacherto that of "director of science" with major administrativeresponsibilities. I hope this project effort will meet theneeds of this diverse group.
Larry McKown, Science ConsultantBattle Creek Public SchoolsBattle Creek, Mich. 49017
This looks like a very useful research study. One that couldbe of usa to new supervisors. I would like to review in moredetail the plan part of the program. Thank you for informingme.
Edward J. Flannery, Science SupervisorCouncil Bluffs Public Schools207 Scott Bluffs, Iowa 51501
Your project sounds tremendously exciting and I should verymuch like to participate. I am currently developing Audio-Tu,..orial Systems in biology and am keenly interested inedtcational technology.
Mrs. Jane AbbottScience Department ChairmanWaterville High SchoolWaterville, Maine 04901
Would be very much interested in purchasing copies of reportwhen available. Please keep me informed.
James K. Montague619 Washington Street #5Coventry, Rhode Island 02816
41
I am definitely interested and wish to participate in thecontinuing reports. if Set B and Objectives 2 and 3 togethermean that this project should develop insights and skills whichwill enable the supervisors to maintain flexibility and enablefilm to change with altering conditions so he can hopefullyattack and solve new problems or incorporate new techniques,then I feel the project goal is worthwhile. I do not feel adevelopment of solutions to presently known problems would haveany long-term values. This latter approach would make theproject self-perpetuating.
William R. Peterson, Science Supervisor2206 Grandview Blvd.Sioux City, Iowa 51104
As I read about the project it sounds great, but, I always endup wondering just what you mean by "Science Supervisor". I
taught science in he mid-west for 10 years, there we consideredthe state department men and the college specialists as the"Science Supervisors". Now here in Hass. we have a stateassociation of science supervisors - in reality it is made up ofhigh school science department chairman and interested collegescience educators. Perhaps there are other kinds of sciencesupervisors - who are you aiming at with these_ materials???
Dr. Donald Schmidt, Biology Dept.Fitchburg State CollegeFitchburg, Hass. 01420
An excellent idea that should prove beneficial to both myselfand to the department. A clearer definition of "EducationalTechnology" ahould be provided. Whet is the cost? Who is tobear the cost? How many tests? Hoy often are testo administered?How such time will be required of each participant? I am willingto participate.
Hr. Edward ThompsonCoordinator of ScienceBoard of EducationCity HallElisabeth, New Jersey
Reaction to the project - great. I want to be certain that Iremain in contact as it progresses. Will be quite happy toreact as it goes along.
Anthony BleeckerDean of Science InstructionPennabury School DistrictPennington, Penna. 19034
42
Is there to be a questionnaire requesting opinions on thevarious points? Or how is the information and the necessaryconclusion(s) to be decided? What is the definition of thescience supervisor for the purpose of this study? Does itinclude department heads, chairmen, consultAnts, ntc.?
Edmund F. FrankowskiMather Junior High SchoolDarien, Conn. 06820
This is a much needed project, and I shall be interested inreceiving all subsequent issues of reports on it. I agreethat science supervisors must be aware of the applications ofEducational Technology, because it is certainly onn answer tosome of the major problems in education today.
I am looking forward to receiving the next "issue" of thesereports. It looks to me like you have a good thing going.I wonder what role I can play, what contribution I can make.
David EnglesonDepartment of Public Instruction126 Langoon StreetMadison, Wisconsin 53172
1 am most heartened by your recent proposal aimed at solvingpresent or potential problems of the science supervisors. I
would be most pleased to become a member of your project andwould welcome any opportunity to assist 14 any way possible.Certainly the area of science supervision is a complex onewith its varied disciplines and laboratory techniques, and,in many ways one of the most demanding positions in the publicschool setting. 1 look forward to continued correspondence.
Thomas W. EastmanDirector of Science58 Hawthorn AvenueNeedham, Mass, 02192
43
The objectives sound great!' Exactly what do you mean by"self-instructional packages"? There seems to be a need forsuch a program. In defining the role of the science supervisor;at what level? State? District? Local? (Department Head?)Who is doing the identifying?
J. A. MooreConsultant - Science EducationDepartment of EducationTallahassee, Florida 32304
I will be very interested in the progress of this project. Itcovers an area which is of prime importance at this particulartime in view of the rapid changes which are occuring in scienceeducation. If there is anything we here in this school systemcan do to assist the project, please feel free to call on us.I will be most happy to help any way I can on an individual basis.
J. B. TuckScience SupervisorBolivar Public SchoolsBolivar, Missouri 65613
I am interested in the Project in Educatioal Technology. Dueto the increasing cost of education and the shortage of teachingplus the nerds for individualization the project is highlypertinent. We hope to be included in your distribution.
John HanepeakerSupervisor of ScienceCharles County Board of Education.La Plata, Harylend 20646
An excellent and needed program. On the basis of the widevariety of assignments in K - 12, and the segmented units ofresponsibilities, this could be a rather extensive program. I
sincerely hope that the format for "Feedback" is such that therespondent can conveniently place it in a typewriter no thetabulator of information does not have to read handwriting asbad as or even more like an H.D.'s than mine.
E. Stanley MeliaScience Department HeadShaker Heights Senior High school15911 Aldersyde DriveShaker Heights, Ohio 441,0
44
The basic idea is a good one and I am pleased that you areworking on it. Please send me copies of future reports.
Glenn D. Berkheimer2208 Heritage AvenueBriarwoodOkemos, Michigan 48864
This project will be followed willingly and closely. Thank you.Your first objective, if met, will give greater impetus toscience supervisors whose role definition is anything but clearin some instances. I feel the advent of the non-graded approachand other innovative procedures in the total educative endeavorhas created a need for knowledge of these methods and materials,sources of information, etc. on the part of supervisors which itis very difficult for them to obtain - given the fact that manyare occupied on a full time basis. Perhaps it is a worthlesssuggestion but I know that it is almost impossible to obtaingrants for supervisory institutes for elementary science super-visors. Is there some way in which technology can improve thissituation? How synonymous are these terms: (in regard to scienceeducators?) Specialists, Coordinator, Consultant, Supervisor,Teacher. A questionnaire would perhaps reveal some startlingnews. Thank you again.
Sister James Helena NadeauScience Supervisor, Title I Enrichment
Project160 Seabury StreetPall River, Hass. 02720
An excellent design for meeting a rather obvious need.
Da4id H. AshbyScience Supervisor3210 Campus DriveDayton, Ohio 0406
An ambitious and a necessary project. I am excited at thepossible outcomes. I would hope that more information and detailwould be made available soon. I volunteer to do anything I cando to help.
K. G. CampbellScience Department ChairmanWest Morris High SchoolChester, New Jersey 0 79 30
45
Please include me to receive future reports. At this point Ifeel so far behind in applications of Educational Technology tosupervising that I haven't anything to feedback. Will try toimprove as materials arrive and can be digested.
Dr. H. C. DonohoeChairman, BiologyMercer County Community CollegeTrenton, New Jersey
Comment on role of the Science Supervisor in Iowa IntermediateUnits (RESA) Regional Educational Service Agency. As a ScienceConsultant (not Supervisor), I see myself providing the followingservices to the 9 school districts in our merged County areasa) Promote in-service workshops. b) Share information concerningmaterial, methods and programs. c) Assist with the ar0.culationand development of K-12 Programs. d) Assist in developingresource units. e) Promote curriculum implementation andResearch for professional, exemplary curriculum practices. g)
Evaluate Instructional equipment and material. h) Investigateand assess major issues and trends in Science Education. 0Assist professional personnel, identify problen areas and suggestalternative proposals for solutions. My goal is to assistprofessionals in our local school districts, provide QUALITYScience Education for all students. I attempt to provide theleadership role so necessar) for the developing and maintainingof a top-flight science program. I feel that my particularpqsition is unique and a "step into the future" in dealing withEducational Services. Utilizing the merged area concept, suLtlityassistance can be as available to the smaller nchool 4istrict andas effective with the larger districts. I will forward a brochuredescribing our school district and my particular department.
Joe R. MooreSaillACO Consultant330 E. 4th StreetArea lx iNCDavenport, iota 52801
This appears to be a very ambitious but useful project and Iwould like to be informed on the progress of the project. Do Souhave any collateral readings or specific references which mightgive me a better basis for understanding the nature of the prolect?
Joseph P. Walsh, Jr.270 North Main StreetCohasset, Mass. 02025Science Supervisor
46
iB. OPPOSED TO FORMAT OF PROGRESS REPORT
Please omit the jargon, i.e. whets a module, PERT, packages, etc..Don't turn me off because I don't read your lingo. Now "whatoutcomes are desired and how they can be measured" - is plaintalk for a great void in our business - fancy talk really doesn'timpress people who work at this. To involve supervisors inextending their influence seems a worthwhile end to pursue - ifother educational ends (non-science) are kept in focus. If thesupervisor "interacts" with Ed Technology "applications" I readthat I become involved in taking a look at something I'm doing -yet there is interaction between me and someone else - who?Final comment When do I find time to become involved in tliis?Summers? I am a Jr. High chairman, a degree candidate, a fatherof 2, teach 3 classes and supervise 7 teachers. It's difficultfor me to underatand HOW you are doing what seems to be a needthing.
David I. Kronenberg156 - 11 Aguilar AvenueFlushing, New York 11307
,Perhaps this first Progress Report is deliberately vague. Howdo you define educational technology for the purposes of thisproject? Perhaps this would hei.p me. If we are to effect changefrom the "research" phase through to dissemination in less thanthe usual fifty years, this project should be most valuable. Bestwishes for your success. Call on me, please, if I can be helpful.
Max BerzofskyScience Department ChairmanLoch Raven jr. High8101 LaSalle RoadTowson, Maryland 21204
Sorry, this material is almost obsolete in terms of observablebehaviors. Cannot react in any meaningful way.
John G. ReadScience Supervisor17 Chestnut StreetSharon, Mass. 02067
47
So you want Feedback. Well, hero's some. Just what kind offeedback did you want on Report #1? You failed to identify theimmediate action, behavior, or performance you wantedat thispoint. Either you failed to analyze the first feedback loop inthis project and include proper input into it or you outdidyourselves in your analysis anticipating just this type of reaction.11 am not certain whether you wanted any feedback or not. But ifyou wanted feedback, on what did you want it? Do you want overallreactions? Do.you want a reaction to the Purpose? (I highlydoubt that since it was probably stated in the grant proposaland is not likely to be alterable under any circumstances untillater in the project.) Do you want reaction to the Objectives?(I doubt that also for the same reason.) Or do you want commentson the Plan? (I doubt that also as it would be nonsense to alterit before it is undertaken.) Or do you want help at this pointon step one? In the absence of specific behavioral programming,I will react generally, and say the project is needed and Iwant to be a part of it; so keep me on the mailing list. I hope.my above analysis is not too harassing and may provide you witha lighter moment during your traaing of sub-sub-system no, 1That at least, is its intent. I will try to be more helpfulon interaction of No. 2.
Jerry M. Colglazier925 S. Pasadena Street .
Indianapolis, Indiana 46219
The covering letter mentions that "the outcomes" of the projectshould be very useful to science supervisors, but nowhere doesthe booklet tell us exactly what those outcomes are or will be.What are "science education personnel?" ...students? teachers?supervisors? textbook writers? media developers? administrators?The term is too vague. Be specific. What needs? Again itwould help if you were specific. Is a module a package? Why notchoose a name and stick with it? What do these materials looklike? Booklets? Micro-fiche? Films? Will they be some sort ofprogrammed material? It would help if you were more specific.Does "specifically stated objectives" mean behavioral objectives?The objectives listed below are not of much use. They are notstated in behavioral terms and much too vague. It might be a.good idea if you asked science supervisors what the objectivesought to be. What do they need most? Should I assume that 1)refers to Set A, 2) refers to Set B, etc.? If not, what doesthe "functions" in 2) refer to? Those mentioned in Set A or thosein Set B? or to some other functions? Objective 1) eound like a.waste of time, but of course it is so vaguely stated that I amnot really sure what is meant. It sounds like something we haveall net in most of our deadly dull education courses. Objective2) sounds like it might by more interesting and useful, if only'I knew what functions you were talking about. Objectives 31 and4) sound great. Something like this is really needed. The plan
Continued next page48
Since some of the pedagese used thruout this brochure has beentranslated via parenthetical statements, a definition ofEducational Technology is necessary.
H. Lloyd BurghartScience SupervisorWainwright streetIpswich, Mass. 01938
it appears that this may develop into a valuable service forsupervisors. I trust that it will be concise, meaningful, andwill change behavior.
George N. CataldoScience Supervisor138 Walworth RoadOntario, New York 14519
Might not Set B and Cprecede Set A, so that the contemporarytheory and application Auld be used in problem identification?
Dr. Clarence W. GehrisDept. of Biological SciencesState University CollegeBrockport, New York 14420
I dor't understand everything you have written here. Will it beclarified? If your objectives are reached, and I can be a bettersuper:visor through using the materials which are developed, I'mall for it. Count me in.
Lawrence J. Bufordscience Supervisor6518 Laird DriveAustin, Texas 78757
I am interested in receiving reports of this project as itprogresses. You have not indicated the charge for these reports.Will a.subsequent issue contain this information?
Mrs Catharine Y. BonneyScience SupervisorNewark Special School DistrictNewark, Delaware 19711
49
Box 360
The responses to the second Continuing Progress
Report totaled 350. Samples of some of the feedback
are shown on the following pages. In general, the
response to both the project, its activities, and
the report ranged from favorable to enthusiastic.
Statistical Report
Number of replies:
Number of comments listedin this report:
Number of additional peopleinterested in doing someevaluation work:
50
350
32
185
COMMENTS OF PERSONS RESPONDING TO THE SECOND PROGRESS REPORT
Your second report must be commended for its organization andsimplicity. The firat report left me a little cold, perhapsbecause I thought that this project looked like one of thetypical ones that might never get off the ground and probablywould be of little value to many. I am happy to see that youare moving so rapidly on the project. Keep up the good work.I'll be interested in seeing the first Set.
Lloyd d. LundbergAssistant PrincipalProviso Fast High SchoolElmhurst, Illinois 60126
In my role as a consultant to the many school districts whichparticipate in ERCA I encounter many of the problems which the,Educational Technology Project was designed to clarify. Iwould be most anxious to see if either af these two sets couldease any burden with the supervisors in council schools and ofcourse.be delighted to provide feedback information for theproject.
Fred RasmussenResearch AssociateEducational Research Councilof America
Rockefeller BuildingCleveland, Ohio 44113
Are any of the materials availableto us now? If so, please sendSet I materials. They would prove helpful in reevaluating my rolein the local organizational structure.
Marjorie M. King (Miss)Science ConsultantJefferson Parish School Board519 Huey P. Long AvenueGretna, La. 70053
51
.
On August 30th I shall be moving to the University of SouthernMississippi at Hattiesburg to become an Assistant Professor ofScience Education. There we shall be in an ideal position'toconduct some evaluation work. Science Supervisors are new tothe State of Mississippi. Until recently, I was the only sciencesupervisor in the entire state; therefore, there needs to be amassive influx of information on the role of the supervisor.Your project can be the agency that does just that, and we needall the help possible. The University of Southern Mississippihas the only Department of Science Education in Mississippi andthis institution is doing much to promote science education inthis area. We shall be in a strategic position to conduct someof the research for the Educational Technology Project.
. .
Dr. Bob E. CravenSupervisor of ScienceLeflore County School DistrictRoute 1, Box 204Greenwood, Miss. 38930
Some of my students are "beginning" science supervisors and/oradministrators. I would like to try materials with this group.Also a new college course in Elementary School Science Supervisionis currently developing and would like to evaluate Sets with thisgroup as pre and in-service prograra.
John H. SettlageProfessor of Science EducationN.M.S.C.Kirksville, Miss. 63501
I am the president of the Association of Science Department Headsof Eastern Massachusetts. If we, as a group, can be of any helpto you, I wish you wouldinform me as to how we can aid you. Wemeet ten times a year starting in September. The Associationconsists .of 28 supervisors of science. Some of our members areDepartment Heads of High Schools, others are Directors of Sciencefrom K-12. All our members have supervisory duties ranging from.K-12, 7-12 to 9-12. I hope we will be able to assist you in somemanner.
Samuel F. GregoryDirector of ScienceStoughton Public Schools231 Pearl StreetStoughton, Mass. 02072
52
5
The University cf Wisconsin-Green Bay is making full use ofeducational technology where appropriate and where possible.We plan to include in our teacher preparation program instructionappropriate to develop competencies for the wise utilization forthe usual instructional aids and the computer as a managementtool. This latter area has particular relevance to area schools,and would be the basis for a very strong research project.Specifically, we would like to investigate techniques wherebyachievement in the sciences can be systematically monitored bythe classroom teacher and the resultant data cataloged by'computer. The creative aspect comes in the analysis of thesedata when various diagnostic statements can be produced for theteacher, to keep her alert to strengths an'd weaknesses in.achievement for each student in her class. We hope to see aproject of this sort develop, and hope to obtain some sort offunding within the neat year.
Dr: George T. O'HearnChairman, Division of EducationUniversity of Wisconsin-Green Bay1567 Dackner AvenueGreen Bay, Wisconsin 54302
We are principally a teacher-educating institution. At thepresent time we are involved in an NSF-COSIP Project aimed atimproving our preparations of science teachers, primarily forthe secondary schools. I am director of this modest Project,and would be glad to share with you any appropriate over-lap.
Dr. Charles E. WalkerChairman, 'Division of Science & MathValley City State CollegeValley City, North Dakota 53072
Continuing Progress Report 02 certainly brought this wholeproject into sharp focus and it's aims are realistic-Very.Whatever I can do to further the project I am willing to try.The developed "Sets" that will be developed could be of value.Presently, I am conducting a summer workshop using "Guide forInservice Instruction" by AAAS for "Science - A Process Approach"and find that introducing "The Process Approach" by actuallyhaving teachers "DO" the exercises provides meaningful and lastingsessions. Hopefully, the Educational Technology Project wouldturn to teacher involvement approaches.
Dr. Robert D. LittlefieldScience Curriculum Coordinat,)rOxford Hills High SchoolMain StreetSouth Paris, Maine 04281
53
7
The brief explanations and definitions are much appreciated.Further development in depth will throw more light on the projectfor those receiving the C.P.R. wonder whether persons in theScience Supervisor/Consultant category may in their own mindsthink that they are fairly-well-versed in the aspects of Sets I,II, III, IV. Front another point of view, however, well-planned"packages" can be most useful for ready reference and ready usewith professionals under the supervision of the Supervisor/Consultant. Good luck in this Project.
Robert N. NelsonChairman Secondary ScienceWest Islip Public Schools40 Alinda AvenueWest Islip, N.Y. 11795
I am also a part-time Educational Consultant to some Hospitalsfor in-service programs and am very interested in your Set II -Set III. For many reasons there has been a tremendous lag of"modern" educational methods, etc. and filtering into the medicalfield. I have been to several regional meetings, the work-shopin Las Vegas on Behavioral Objectives an-! continually share allthe material with my teaching colleagues.
Dr. Mary E. HeathermanBiological. ConsultantSan Francisco College for Women2002-36th AvenueSan Francisco, Calif. 94116
It seems your Set I materials would be beneficial to me in programplanning for this fall. I d.,n't know if your methods includeusing university level supervisors in pre-service teacher trainingcourses, but at any rate, 1 still am most interested in thematerials for self-educatioral purposes.
Vince MahoneyScience SupervisorUniversity of CaliforniaSchool of EducationBerkeley, Calif. 94720
54
How can a person get involved, trial and evaluation, only?Are you considering a set on Computer Based Instruction orComputer Assisted Instruction using teletype terminals and ashared time program?
Norbert J. KonzalScience ConsultantPhoenix Union High School System2839 W. Solono Drive N.Phoenix, Arizona 85017
Thank you for making Report #2 more readable. The "pedanticjargon" of the first report left me cold. Now I have a better"feel" fOr what you are trying to do. It might be of interestto know your tentative time schedule. Is this a fiva yearproject? Two year? Continuing indefinitely?
Robert G. GortonScience CoordinatorNew Providence High SchoolNew Providence, N.J. 07974
Report No. 2 was more 1.ntelligible than No. 1. Thank goodness!Keep it clear and intelligible. To reach a meaningful audiencethe material must make sense to the un-initiated. When and howmay the Sets be seen and studied?r
Nicholas SturmBiology DepartmentYoungstown State University140 BaldwinYoungstown, Ohio 44505
So far it seems that this project is geared to the High Schoollevel. I would like to see and hear more about collegiate feed-back - if any.
Miss Patricia GrzybekVilla Aerie College240 Pine Ridge RoadBuffalo, New York 14225
55
This project fhscinates me. The explanations in your "progressreports" are confusing and written in such language that I stillcan't determine what it is all about. The elapsed time (Januaryto July) of reports is no long that I forget about project. I
could find nothing in the NSTA annual convention program at Dallasabo.it this project and could find no one who knew ,Anything aboutit. I wish that just one "progress report" would state in simplelanguage what you plan to do and how you plan to do it -- some-thing concrete. Keep me posted.
Lawrence BufordCoordinator - Secondary JcienceAustin Independent School District6100 N. GmadolupeAustin, Texan 78752
The first page and one half of the Progress Report No. 2 was re-dundant and had much 'pedantic jargon'. The last two and one halfpages were specific and to the point.
Edward L. FrazierChairman, Biological Science Dept.Speedway High School5007 W 14th StreetSpeedway, Indiana 46224
The information in the Continuing Progress Report No. 2 wasessentially a vague series of catagorica/ statements. Ono has noidea of the content or significance of what is being done. Hopfps
the next report will be move specific' and informative.
Dr. John C. HarnettChairman, Biology DepartmentSt. Michael's CollegeWinooski, Vermont 05404
Definition of "educational technology' is weak. The part aboutit's being a "process approach to learning" is confusing. "Process"in science education, usually denotes a factor among t'e processesof science. no you mean "active" or "involvement of individual"?
Victor ShowalterResearch AssociateEducational Research CouncilRockefeller BuildingCleveland, Ohio 44113
56
Educational Technology Project as described could have a verydirect impact upon students. A learning system is a goal of allscience supervisors. Is the goal of the project to provide aframework that the supervisor can use to develop a learningsystem? Is the project designed to increase science supervisioninstructional development activities? Is the project itself amodel system?
Stephen Rituper, Jr.Curriculum CoordinatorBethlehem Area School District1330 Church Street - Education CenterBethlehem, Penna. 18015
I hope I understand correctly from your Progress Report 02 thatthe packaged set materials after they have been initially triedand evaluated will be available to people on the project mailinglist. I am looking forward to receiving the first package ofthese materials.
Robert J. LowAssociate Dean, Science & MathMilwaukee Area Technical College16760 Burleigh PlaceBrookfield, Wisconsin 53005
Cary over into the college relations committee of NSTA looksgood! Many collega science department heads and Deans could wellbenefit from these packets. Collegu instructors in GeneralEducation Science courses could benefit from evaluation of courseobjectives, since these courses provide training for elementaryeducation majors.
Glenn H. CrumbKansas State Teachers CollegeResearch F. Grants CenterEmporia, Kansas 66801
This appears to fit in very well with a 5-year program we'redeveloping with local school district cooperation, for elementaryscicnce personnel. Hopefully, with UPSTEP funding. An active,practical internship would be ur core around which classes andlaboratory would revolve after the first 2 years of liberal arts.
Dr. Clarence W. GehrisAssociate ProfessorState University CollegeBrockport, N.Y. 14410
57
I am very interested in an involvement in this work you are doing.I am particularly interested in behavioral objectives you haveindicated. We are working as usual on in-service training projectsand curriculum evaluation and changing. Your work seems to besomething which I can directly use to a great advantage.
Harry C. HewettHead, Science DepartmentGallup High SchoolBoardman AvenueGallup, New Mexico 87301
Definition, limitation, and execution of duties of science super-vision is long overdue. Bach school board, administrator andsupervisor has his own definition, etc. of what a supervisor isand how he should operate.
Robert L. SampsonHead, Science DepartmentCentral Grammar School207 Granite StreetRockport, Hass. 01966
The actual content of the materials included in each set isvague. Although all presons having anything to do with this areaof science education have ideas and/or responsibilities havingto do with their particular position your report is still vagueas to what you would define as the role of the science supervisor.A more complete outline of the content of each "Set" would bemost helpful. What you are attempting to accomplish is good andwill prove vital to us in the field. It will fill a much neededgap.
Phillip A. PopplrtonChairman, Science DepartmentEnumclaw Senior High SchoolRoute 2 - Box 610Enumclaw, Washington 98022
58
APPENDIXD
VALIDATION QUESTIONAIRES
There are three separate validationforms included in this appnndix.These assessments wero used inaddition to the pre-post testa forthe individual packages.
The first form was used with in-Jividual science supervisors onindividual packages prior to thelarge group validations.
The second and third forms wereused for the two large group val-idations that included all of thepackages complete up to that time.
EDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGYPROJECT
NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION1201 Sixteenth Si. N.W., Washington. D.C. 20036
10
criterion assessmentsFOR SINGLE PACKAGE EVALUATION:
INDIVIDUAL VALIDATION
PRESENTATIO1LAUESTIONAIRE
CONTENT:
1. Write (discuss) the content of the presentation you
just received, including comment on the following
specifics:
A. Amount - was there enough information, to much,
not enough (too specific, to general)?
B. Organization - did the content follow a logical
sequence, was it clear, was it confuseI?
C. Relevance - did it convey an understanding of
your responsibilities as a science supervisor,
was the information presentee useful?
MEDIA:
1. Comment (write or discuss) the media of the pre-
sentation you just received with specific reference
to the following:
A. Type (slide-tape) - would you use the same media
in conveying the content, or othet media? If
you would use other media, for instance, video-
tape movie, what kind would you use?
61
B. Effectiveness - was the media used effective
in conveying the content? Indicate points you
thought most effective, least effece.ve. Did
the media used lend weight and impact to the
content?
APPLICATION:
1. Evaluate the method used in this presentation in-
cluding the following:
A. The sequence of events - pre-test, post-test,
media presentation, post presentation activities.
B. How would you describe this presentation in
talking with another science supervisor?
C. What strengths and weaknesses would you point
out in writing an annotated bibliography which
included this package?
D. Would you use this package to present the
material to other science supervisors? Why or
why not? What would be your expectations in
using this package?
B. Would you use this package to present the material
to science teachers? Why or why not? What would
be your expectations in using this package?
62
F. What additional material and/or activity
would you add to increase the effectiveness
of the package?
G. Indicate a few other methods you think would
be equal or more effective ia presenting this
package?
63
Method Used:
The same procedure was used with each person although
some of the questions differed depending on reactions. The
draft of the presentation questionnaire was used as a dis-
cussion guide. Rather than tape the comments, which could
easily have been done due to the equipment arrangement, notes
were kept and thest. be summarized by the material covered
rather than individual interviewed.
A. Each person was separately briefed on the project:
(Background, goals, activities)
B. The Applications Handbook for the Research Section
was shown and discussed as an example of the approach
being taken in packaging the modules. The term
module was not used - 13 appears to be a rather use-
less tjargenese' term. Instead, 'package' or
'instructional package' was used.
C. A statement as to the objectives of the package was
given in lieu of an application handbook. The package
was then presented without comment and the viewer
given a few miwites to make notes and think about
the presentation.
D. The package was then extensively discussed. No limit
was placed on time an! supervisors were encouraged
to be both frank and honest.
64
EDUCATIONALTECHNOLOGYPROJECT
NATIONAL SCIENCE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION1201 Sixtoenth St.. kW., Washington. D.C. 20036
criterion assessmentsPRE/POST TEST FOR LARGE
GROUP VALIDATIONS
The following pages represent an attezpt on the part
of the project staff to determine some of your attitudes
prier to the program. Put your name on the booklet and
turn it in after you' have compleLed it.
The responses entered here will provide much needed
information if we are to improve the project material.
Your honest reactions are vital if the project is to be
successful. We have made every effort to keep the responses
as brief as possible.
Complete this assessment before starting any of the
project materials. At the end of the entire program, you
will be given a second assessment. If you need more space
at any time use the back of the page.
Hark any questions or comments you would like to have
us answer in detail and we will respond.
Thank you for your help. It
will make things even better
for future participants.
66
VALIDATION QUESTIONNAIRE
Attitudes
A. Circle the number that indicates your attitude towardEducational Technology.
C. Circle the number that indicates your attitude towardScientific Literacy.
1) Vague 2 1 0 1 2 Well Defined
2) Effective 2 1 0 1 2 Ineffective
3) Pure Science 2 1 0 1 2 Technology
4) Facts 2 1 0 1 2 Ideas
5) Suitable 2 1 0 1 2 Unsuitable
6) Applications 2 1 C 1 2 Theory
7) Unwise 2 1 0 1 2 Wise
8) Exploiting 2 1 0 1 2 Conserving
9) Attitudes 2 1 0 1 2 Knowledge
10) S.)ciety 2 1 0 1 2 Individual
D. Circle the number that indicates how you feel aboutyour role as Science Supervisor.
1) Difficult 2 1 0 1 2 Easy
2) Well Defined 2 1 0 1 2 Vague
3) Informed 2 1 0 1 2 Ignorant
4) Professional 2 1 0 1 2 Political
5) Rigid 2 1 0 1 2 Flexible
6) Rewarding 2 1 0 1 2. Frustrating
7) Unimaginative 2 1 0 1 2 Creative
8) Status Quo 2 1 0 1 2 Change
9) Challenging 2 *1 0 1 2 Routine
10) Sad 2 1 0 1 2 HAPPY
68
II.
E. Circle the number that indicates how you feel aboutScience.
1) Facts 2 1 0 1 2 Concepts
2) Outcomes 2 1 0 1 2 Discoveries
3) Philosophy 2 1 0 1 2 Action
4) Society 2 1 0 1 2 Individual
5) Personal 2 1 0 1 2 Impersonal
6) Disciplines 2 1 0 1 2 Humanism
7) Uncertain 2 1 0 1 2 Established
8) Amoral 2 1 0 1 2 Moral
9) Routine 2 1 0 1 2 Creative
A. What are your interests as a supervisor?
R. What do you feel are your major skills?
C. What do you feel are your major deficiencies?
69
III. Indicate how you feel about your knowledge and skills asa supervisor in the following areas and whether you feelthat it is a necessary area of interest for the ScienceSupervisor.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
(3)
9)
10)
11)
12)
4.)M0ce0
V<4
.2)4,
oWC)
VM
gH
,m00elU0
1,4
s.
m
00U0aa
Public Relations
Personnel
Management
Curriculum Development
Media Equipment
Budgeting
Inventory
Inservice Training
Systems Applications
Individualized Applications
Educational Technology
.
Evaluation of Teachers
70
III. Continued.
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
0V00co0.0.4
0V00W0.000H
kP0Cl)
Cl)
0U0Z
1>+
P00Cl)
0U0000
Evaluation of Curriculum
Report Preparation
Laboratory Equipment
Unions
Science Fairs
Student Assessment
National Science EducationPrograms
Scientific Literacy
71
SINGLE PACKAGE VALIDATION*
NAME OF PACKAGE
EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PROJECT EVALUATION
1. Would these materials be worthwhile for each of thefollowing groups? Rate probable value for each
NoUse Low
VALUE
High
Supervisors 0 1 2 3 4 5
Teachers 0 1 2 3 4 5
Administrators 0 1 2 3 4 5
2. Rate the quality of the presentation.
QUALITY
Poor Fair Good Excellent
Sound
Photography
3. Comment and General Impression: (Note here any specialpoints as to authenticity, bias, or attitude: also a briefstatement of how the material affects you.)
4. Is there any particular portion(s) of the visual or audiomaterial you feel should be changed? (List and give reason)
5. If you had a copy of this material would you use it?How?
One of these was given for each package presented.
72
APPENDIX E
VALIDATION SUMMARIES
2-11 of the large group validations were heldoutside of theWashington/ D.C. area. In bothcases the state paid almost all
expenses forthe sciencesupervisors and the
supervisorsassumed any additionalpersonal expenses. The
project assumed the cost offacilities - ifany - materials
and operating staff.
LARGE GROUP VALIDATION HELD AT HOLIDAY INN, WESTPALM BEACH, FLORIDA, DECEMBER 1 -5, 1969
John Arena, DirectorIMS Project,NOVA Educational ComplexFt. Lauderdale, Florida 33314
Joe W. StantonSupervisor of scienceOkaloosa County School BoardBay Area Office201 Marilyb AvenueFt. Walton Beach, Florida 32548
H. W. (Dick) BerrymanProgram Specialist I - SciencePalm Beach County School Board3323 Belvedere RoadP.O. Box 2469West Palm Beach, Florida 33402
.john Thurber, DirectorIn-Step AAAS ScienceI.T.V. Center 505 S. Congress,Boynton Beach, Florida
Carl Combs'Irv-Step AAAS Science
I.T.V. Center 505 S. CongressBoynton Beach, Florida
Anatole B. KowalchukScience Resource TeacherScience Museum and Planetarium'P.O. Box 6537.West Palm Beach, Florida 33405
John BeakleyResource Teacher for Marine science3323 Belvedere RoadP.O. Box 2469West Palm Beach, Floride 33402
74
Harvey CaseyScience SupervisorBay County School Board Staff Office3918 Liddon RoadPanama City, Florida 32402
Robert ListonSecondary Science CoordinatorDuval County School Board1011 Gilmore StreetJacksonville, Florida 32204
Malcolm W. MoserScience CoordinatorHardee County School BoardBox 757Wauchula, Florida 3%73
Guy T. CacciatoreSupervibor of Elementary Science
TrainingHillsborough. County School BoardInstructional Services Center707. East Columbus Drive.Tampa, Florida 33602
William D. ThomasScience ConsultantEtcambia County School BoardP.O. Drawer 1470Pensacola, Florida 32520
Robert KitzmillerConsultant in ScienceManatee County School BoardP.O. Box 2069Bradenton, Florida
Wiley KerlinMath/Science CoordinatorMarion County School BoardP.O. Box 670Ocala, Florida 32670
Dr. Carl Zweig.Supervisor, science EducationSarasota County School Board24) _atton StreetSarasota, Florida
Mrs. Bettie PalmerCoordinatolof Science EducationSeminole County School Board202 Commercial AvenueSanford, Florida 32771
J. A. MooreConsultant, Science EducationDepartment of EducationRoom 311 Knott BuildingTallahassee, Florida 32304
.Jack M. Hopper:Consultant, Science EducationDepartment of Education:Room 311 Knott BuildingTallahassee, Florida 32304
FY'ank Miller
Curriculum Writer.Jupiter ProjectJupiter High SchoolJupiter, Florida
Mrs. Jane HartCurriculum WriterJupiter Project.Jupiter High School
Jupiter, Florida
Mrs. Mary HarbeckScience Teaching CenterUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland
George H. Ziener.Project AdministratorEducational Technology ProjectNational Science Teachers Association1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W.Washington, Y).C. 20036
Dr. Albert F. EissAssociate Executive SecretaryNational Science Teachers Association1201 Sixteenth Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036
