DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 065 361. 24. SE 014 464. AUTHOR TITLE. INSTITUTION....

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 065 361 24 SE 014 464

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

REPOTI NOBUREAU NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

Sherman, Jack E.The Relative Effectiveness of Two Methods ofUtilizing Laboratory-Type Activities in TeachingIntroductory Physical Science.Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive Learning.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington, D.C. Bureauof Research.TR-65BR-5-0216Nov 68OEC-5-10-15436p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Critical Thinking; InstructiOn; *Laboratory

Experiments; *Physical Sciences; *Science CourseImprovement Project; *Secondary School Science; SkillDevelopment; Student Science Interests

IDENTIFIERS *Introductory Physical Science

ABSTRACTIn the study, one of each of pairs of average and

high ability eighth-grade classes was designated, by random means, asthe experimental class. Students in the experimental classes viewedprojected 2 x 2 colored slides which represented sequences of thesame laboratory activities as those performed by the manipulativegroup. All other instructional procedures were constant for bothgroups. No significant differences resulted from the employment ofeither method in the laboratory activities in the IntroductoryPhysical Science (IPS) course, when judged in terms of studentprogress as reflected in test scores related to: (1) criticalthinking skills, CO understanding of science, (3) academicachievement of knowledge and concepts presented in IPS, and (4)development and expression of interest in science. The manipulativemethod was significantly superior to the nonmanipulative method forthe development of selected laboratory skills. Academic achievementand performance of the students in the nonmAnipulative group did notsupport the view expressed by the teachers that the manipulatorymethod of labcratory instruction is necessary for motivation andsatisfactory learning of science as defined by the IPS course. TheIPS course did not appear to stimulate student interest in scienceafter one semester of instruction. (Author/CP)

Gs

A II A

MM.

Z

Ink

U S DEPARTMENT DF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE DF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRD-DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FRDMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPIN.IONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION DR POLICY

A

Technical Report No. 65

THE RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TWO METHODS OF UTILIZING

LABORATORY-TYPE ACTIVITIES IN TEACHING INTRODUCTORY PHYSICAL SCIENCE

By Jack E. Sherman

Report from the Science Concept Learning ProjectMilton 0. Pella , Principal Investigator

Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive LearningThe University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

November 1968

The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract with the United States Office ofEducation, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, under the provisions of the Cooperative

Research Program.

Center No. C-03 / Contract OE 5-10-154

PREFACE

Contributing to an understanding of cognitive learning by children andyouthand improving related educational practices is the goal of theWisconsin R & D Center. Activities of the Center stem from three majorresearch and development programs, one of which, Processes and Programsof Instruction, is directed toward the development of instructional programsbased on research on teaching and learning and on the evaluation of conceptsin subject fields. The staff of the science project, initiated in the first yearof the Center, has developed and tested instructional programs dealing withmajor conceptual schemes in science to determine the level of understandingchildren of varying experience and ability can attain.

Laboratory experiences have been considered necessary to scienceinstruction, not only for learning of specific skills but also for developingthe ability to formulate conclusions based on observations and data and forlearning the nature of scientific activity. The exploratory study reported inthis Technical Report was an attempt to compare the effectiveness of non-manipulative laboratory experiences with the traditional manipulative typelaboratory experiences in terms of commonly accepted objectives. Eighth-grade classes using nonmanipulative laboratory exercises performed as wellon tests of critical thinking and understanding of and achievement in scienceas similar classes who carried out the experiments in a traditional manner.It was suggested that laboratory experiences seem necessary for some manipu-lative skills; however, it does not seem that the traditional,laboratory activi-ties are as effective as believed.

Herbert J. KlausmeierDirector

iii

eV

CONTENTS

List of Tables and Figures

Abstract

I. The ProblemIntroductionThe ProblemSignificance of the Study

II. Related LiteratureStudies of the Use of Motion PicturesStudies of the Use of Still PicturesSummary

III. ProcedureIntroductionSubject MatterLevel of Maturity of LearnerTime of DayAcademic Level of LearnersTeachers and FacilitiesDesign of StudyExperimental ProcedureEvaluation

IV. ResultsIntelligence Quotients of the GroupsAnalysis ofAnalysis ofAnalysis ofAnalysis ofAnalysis ofSummary o fSummary ofSummary

the Critical Thinking Test DataUnderstanding of Science Test DataLaboratory Skills Test DataIPS Unit I Achievement Datathe Kuder General Interest Survey DataMultivariate AnalysisTeacher Evaluation Form

V. Conclusions and ImplicationsConclusionsImplications

r 11.

Page

vii

ix

1

1

3

4

5

5

8

9

10101010101111111112

15151516161718181919

212121

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table Page

1 Re liabilities of Tests 13

2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of theIntelligence Quotients of Pupils in Manipulativeand Nonmanipulative Groups 15

3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Gain Scores of theWatson-Glaser Pretest and Posttest Scores Earnedby Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 16

4 Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Gain Scoreson the Watson-Glaser Pretest and Posttest 16

5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Gain Scores of theTOUS Pretest and Posttest Scores Earned byManipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 17

6 Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Gain Scoreson the TOUS Pretest and Posttest 17

7 Means, Standard Deviations, and Gain Scores of theLaboratory Skill Pretest and Posttest Scores Earnedby Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 17

8 Summary of Analysis of Variance of the Gain Scoreson the Laboratory Skill Pretest and Posttest 18

9 Means, Standard Deviations, and Gain Scores of theIPS Pretest and Posttest Scores Earned byManipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 18

10 Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the Gain Scoreson the IPS Pretest and Posttest 18

11 Means, Standard Deviations, and Losses of KuderInterest Survey Pretest and Posttest Scores Earnedby Boys of Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 19

12 Means, Standard Deviations, and Losses of the KuderInterest Survey Pretest and Posttest Scores Earnedby Girls of Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 19

vii

Table Page

13 Means, Standard Deviations, and Losses of theKuder Interest Survey Pretest and Posttest ScoresEarned by Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups 20

14 Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the Losses forthe Kuder General Interest Survey Pretest and Posttest 20

15 Tests of Significance (Multivariate Analysis) 20

Figure

1 Frequency Distribution of Intelligence Quotients of50 Pupils in Manipulative and 50 Pupils inNonmanipulative Groups

2 Frequency Distribution of Watson-Glaser CriticalThinking Pretest Scores of 50 Pupils inManipulative and 50 Pupils in NonmanipulativeGroups

3 Frequency Distribution of Watson-Glaser CriticalThinking Posttest Scores of 50 Pupils inManipulative and 50 Pupils in NonmanipulativeGroups

4 Frequency Distribution of TOUS Posttest Scores of50 Pupils in Manipulative and 50 Pupils inNonmanipulative Groups

viii

15

16

16

17

ABSTRACT

This study was concerned with determining the relative effectivenessof a direct manipulative and an indirect nonmanipulative method of utilizinglaboratory-type activities in teaching the course Introductory Physical Sci-ence (IPS) The hypothesis to be tested was that pere is no significantdifference due to method in the (1) attainment of critical thinking skills,(2) understanding of science, (3) development of specified laboratory skills ,

(4) attainment of knowledge and concepts presented in IPS, and (5) expres-sion of interest in science.

The design, which allowed for the testing of each main effect as wellas two- and three-factor interactions , was a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, with thefactors being treatment, IQ, and sex.

One of each of the two pairs of average and high ability eighth-gradeclasses was designated by random means as the experimental class, andthe other as the control class. The students in the experimental classesviewed projected 2 x 2 colored slides which represented sequences of thesame laboratory activities as those performed by the manipulative group.The group that did not manipulate equipment was designated as the non-manipulative group. All other instructional procedures were constant forboth groups.

Five instruments were administered as pretests in early September1967, and as posttest in late January 1968; the Kuhlmann-Anderson Test,Form G, was administered at the beginning of the fall term to determine theIQ of the students .

Conclusions

1. No. significant differences resulted from the employment of themanipulative or nonmanipulative methods in the laboratory activities pro-vided in the IPS course when judged in terms nf student progress as reflectedin test scores related to: (a) critical thinking skills, (b) understanding ofscience, (c) academic achievement of knowledge and concepts presented inIPS, and (d) the development and expression of interertt in science.

2. The manipulative method was significantly superior to the nonmanipu-lative method for the development of selected laboratory skills.

3. Students in both groups with high IQ's earned higher test scores thanstudents with low IQ's.

4. Achievement using the IPS course is not related to sex.5. There were no significant interactions.6. The academic achievement and performance of the students in the

nonmanipulative group did not support the view expressed by the teachers thatthe manipulatory method of laboratory instruction is necessary for motivationand satisfactory learning of science as defined by the IPS course.

7. The IPS course does not appear to stimulate student interest in scienceafter one semester of instruction.

ix

'

THE PROBLEM

INTRODUCTION

Many investigations of learning utilizing dif-ferent methods of instruction in elementary andsecondary school science have been completedduring the past several decades. Perhaps oneof the most researched topics related to theteaching of science in the secondary school hasbeen the relative effectiveness of the laboratoryas an instructional tool in the achievement ofthe desired objectives. Curtis (1939) indicatedthat more research was devoted to this than toany other problem dealing with the teaching ofscience. This was particularly true n the periodfrom 1900 to 1935 when the secondary schoolpopulation doubled each decade and the growthof the schools resulted in heavy public financialburdens. The science laboratory with its highcost of material, furniture, apparatus and equip-ment was thus open to criticism. The suggestedalternative to the laboratory was the use ofclassroom demonstrations. Extensive reviewsof the literature by Cunningham (1946), Curtis(1926, 1931, 1939) and Reidel (1927) revealedthat the research suggested that the lecture-demonstration method was as effective as theindividual laboratory method. However, manyof the research studies were not without criti-cism. Cunningham (1946) stated;

No absolute decision on the generalproblem for all cases and for all timecan ever be made. It should be as-sumed that we are going to continueusing several methods in the teachingof science and that much more analyti-cal work will be necessary to decidethe circumstances under which, andthe kind of experiments and exerciseswith which, each method will be foundsuccessful.

It is worth noting that the Fifty-ninth Year-book of the National Society for Study of Educa-tion (NSSE), Rethinking Science Education (1960),

did not include debate of the problem of thelaboratory versus demonstRitions in secondaryscience education. It was stated that:

every classroom where science istaught should be a place for experi-mentation. The laboratory shouldcreate opportunities wherein thestudent predicts events of circum-stances and then designs experi-ments to test the accuracy of hispredictions.

Today most science educators agree that thelaboratory has important functions in scienceinstruction and recognize the influence of thescience curriculum studies of the sixties withtheir emphasis on laboratory experiences. Hurd(1964), in an attempt to formulate a theory ofscience education, stated that the laboratoryis central to the teaching ci science. Murdock(1959) pointed out;

Most of us feel that a science coursewithout a laboratory phase is notwortny of the name science. The verynature of science explains this devo-tion to the laboratory. Interwoven inthe history of science is the experi-ment, so it is only natural that theopportunity for experiment be part ofthe process of learning a science.If a person is to understand fully andcontinue in science, he must be famil-iar with the methods and techniques ofthe scientific laboratory. You cannoteffectively teach a mechanic by booksalone; by the same token, a scientistmust be able to manipulate his handsas well as his mind.

The Joint Commission on the Education ofTeachers of Science and Mathematics expressedthe view that "laboratory work should fi.rm thecore of instructional programs. .... It shouldhave for the student the same primary value it

. 9 1

offers the scientist as a method of finding an-swers to fundamental questions [1960]."

Given that laboratory experiences comprisean essential ingredient of a science curriculum,what specific contributions can be attributed totheir use? Richardson (1957) suggested thatlaboratory experiences should (1) provide asource of problems for students to solve , (2)

provide for the solution of problems, (3) pro-mote understanding of the scientist's role, (4)provide illustrations of phenomena, (5) teachprinciples and concepts, and (6) contribute tothe development of skills, habits and attitudes.An analysis by Pella (1961) of high school text-books and laboratory workbooks as well as inter-views with 140 teachers of science revealed thefollowing contributions of laboratory activities:

1. A means of securing information2. A means of determining cause and effect

relationships3. A means of verifying certain factors or

phenomena4. A means of applying what is known5. A means of developing skill6. A means of providing drill7. A means of helping pupils learn to use

scientific methods of solving problems8. A means of carrying on individual research.

Stollberg (1953) pointed out that, as a resultof laboratory experiences in science, studentsshould

1. increase their ability to do criticalthinking

2. increase their powers of observatior.3. develop keenness of initiative4. gain a deeper insight into the work of

the scientist and the role of scienceand the scientist

5. acquire improved understanding of basicconcepts, principles and facts of science

6. increase their proficiency in generallyuseful skills and useful skills directlyrelated to the science laboratory

7. develop an interest in and a curiosityabout principles and processes relatedto science

Glass (1967) contended that through the per-formance of challenging laboratory experiencesstudents can become familiar with processes ofscience such as measurement, data collection,prediction, hypothesis formation, analysis andinterpretation. Students then can learn to rec-ognize the spirit of science and appreciate itsmethods.

The interest in this study is with severalpredicted outcomes of laboratory experiences:critical thinking, understanding of productsand processes of science, laboratory skills,

2

knowledge of certain concepts and principles ,and interest in science.

As a result of investigations by Mason (1963),Rickert (1967), George (1965), Yager and Wick(1966) and Kastrinos (1963), one can concludethat critical thinking can be taught. Dressel(1954), stated that work in the laboratory cre-ates the opportunity wherein the student canobtain firsthand acquaintance with the appro-priate activities that encourage critical thinking.

Glaser (1941), defined critical thinking as:(1) an attitude of being disposed toconsider in a thoughtful way theproblems and subjects that comewithin the range of one's experi-ences, (2) knowledge of the methodsof logical inquiry and reasoning, and(3) some skill in applying thosemethods. Critical thinking calls fora persistent effort to examine anybelief or supposed form of knowledgein the light of the evidence that sup-ports it, and the further conclusionsto which it tends. It also generallyrequires ability to recognize prob-lems, to find workable means formeeting those problems, to gatherand marshal pertinent information,to recognize unstated assumptionsand values, to comprehend and uselanguage with accuracy, clarity, anddiscrimination; to interpret data, toappraise evidence and evaluate argu-ments, to recognize the existence(or non-existence) of logical rela-tionships between propositions, todraw warranted conclusions and gen-eralizations, to put to test the con-clusions and generalizations at whichone arrives , to reconstruct one's pat-terns of beliefs on the basis of widerexperience, and to render accuratejudgments about specific things andqualities in everyday life.

The NSSE in its Fifty-ninth Yearbook (1960)listed as one of the aims of better science teach-ing "to develop an understanding and appreciationof science and scientists which may last usefullythrough life." A review of the studies reportedby Crumb (1965), Trent (1965), Jerkins (1968),Cooley and Klopfer (1963a, 1963b, 1964), andMcCann (1968), supports the conclusion that itis possible to measure a student's "understand-ing of science and scientists." Crumb (1965),in discussing results of a study, concluded thattest scores on "The Test on Understanding Sci-ence" of students using a laboratory-centeredapproach were significantly higher than the testscores of students using a text-centered approach.

Wynn and Bledsoe (1967), investigated thegain and loss of scientific interest during highschool and concluded "that the extreme empha-sis which has been placed upon science andscience education during recent years has notresulted in greater interest in science." Areview of the literature by Wynn and Bledsoerelated to the development of science interestrevealed that one of the factors most oftencredited for the stimulation of interest inscience was science courses and laboratoryexperiences. Norton (1963), suggested that awell organized junior high school science andlaboratory program can promote and encouragean interest in science.

Mathewson (1967) , in discussing the func-tions of student laboratories, stated, "Weshould not slight the teaching of skills in ourconcern for getting students to think. Scienceis one of the last refuges of true craftmanship;manipulative skill and imagination should berewarded."

In an evaluation of science laboratory instruc-tion Jeffrey (1967), suggested that the manipu-lative competence of the student is an importantconsideration. Jeffrey stated that:

A manifest deficiency of high schoolgraduates is a lack of competence insuch elementary laboratory operationsas pouring liquids, filtering solids,using a balance, adjusting a burner,using a pipet, using a buret, etc.

Nedelsky (1965), also listed the teaching ofspecific laboratory skills and techniques as acommon objective. He suggested that perform-ance tests should be given to measure directlythe attainment of laboratory skills and techniques.

Historically, there have been attempts toidentify and to evaluate specific selected out-comes resulting from laboratory experiences.However, Pella (1961), in an article on thelaboratory and science teaching, pointed outthat the regults achieved in the laboratory de-pend upon the way the laboratory is used andthe particular steps performed by the teacheror the students. He suggested that in the pro-cess of obtaining information the following com-mon steps be given for scientific problem solving:

1. Statement of problem2. Formulation of hypotheses3. Developing a working plan4. Performing the activity5. Gathering the data6. Formulation of conclusions

One related reference to laboratory work inscience teaching from a point of view basic tothe NSTA Theory Into Action is (1964):

To achieve its greatest educationalvalue, work in laboratory must pro-vide opportunities for the student tointerpret observations and data.Here [in the laboratory] meaning isgiven to observations and data. Thedata from an experiment remain inertfacts until rational thinking makessomething more of them. It is at thispoint that work in the laboratory hasits greatest educational value. ...Expei'iments solely for the purpose ofgathering data, even though the dataare carefully described and summa-rized, represent merely a preliminarystep for understanding science. Tocollect experimental data is notenough. The student must learn toformulate statements dgainst theory....There are other factors associatedwith making the best use of laboratoryprocedures in schools. These include...a wider use of mental experiments.

This expressed point of view implies thatone of the most important values of the labora-tory is the thinking a student does about thedata and observations from an experiment; thecollection of data contributes little to the under-standing of science. In a report by the StateAdvisory Committee on Science Instruction inCalifornia High Schools (1965) on the role ofthe laboratory, it is stated, "The necessity forlaboratory investigation goes beyond the needfor manipulative experience." These statementsand others as well as experience in teaching ledto the formulation of the problem studied here.

Within the structure of many of the morerecent science courses, like Introductory Physi-cal Science, considerable emphasis is placedon the laboratory as a teaching tool to realizethe desired skill and concept outcomes. Theskills are the physical manipulations involvedin generating and collecting data and the con-cepts are to be developed as a consequence ofthe analysis and synthesis of these data. Sincemanipulation of apparatus requires large amountsof time, a question related to the economy ofthe learner's time utilizing the laboratorymethod may be asked. Does the manipulativeaspect of the laboratory exercise contribute tothe learning?

THE PROBLEM

To determine the relative effective-ness of two methods of utilizinglaboratory-type activities in teach-ing the course Introductory Physical

3

Science (IPS), the direct manipu-lative approach and the indirectnonmanipulative approach.

The manipulative approach use of the labora-tory is here defined to include direct pupilcontact with apparatus and the nonmanipula-tive approach to omit the direct pupil contactwith apparatus.

In pursuance of this problem the hypothesistested was that there is no significant differ-ence due to method in the (1) attainment ofcritical thinking skill, (2) understanding ofscience, (3) development of specified labora-tory skills, (4) attainment of knowledge andconcepts presented in IPS, and (5) expres-sion of interest. Sex and IQ were investi-gated for main effects as well as interactions.

4

s'

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Since the utilization of the best and most ef-ficient known methods of instruction is a respon-sibility of all educators , it is obligatory that if,in the study of the use of the laboratory in ateaching procedure, it is found that students whodid not manipulate equipment performed as wellon selected valid test instruments as studentswho manipulated apparatus, there would be needto consider other approaches to the use of thelaboratory in teaching science. Exercises thatare mainly designed to verify, to repeat classicalexperiments, or to teach thcts might be utilizedwithout the direct manipulation of equipment. Itis possible that thboratory exercises involvingapparatus manipulation could be used for morespecific purposes as individual research problemsand a better understanding of and/or interest inscience.

12

II

RELATED LITERATURE

STUDIES OF THE USEOF MOTION PICTURES

It was Avert!! (1915) who expressed one ofthe first concerns for the use and preparationof visual materials designed for teaching in theclassroom. This article apparently served asthe stimulus for others. Sumstine (1918), asa result of an empirical study in which he com-pared the achievement of pupils taught using avisual-auditory method with those taught usingan auditory method, reported that audiovisualmaterials did contribute to learning.

Davis (1923), while discussing the teachingof general science, expressed the opinion thatmotion pictures could be used to set up problem-solving situations.

We can set up a problem, give themind facts to work with, and then bythe use ca these facts, solve theproblem. The pupils could solve theproblem from the material presentedin a film. There are scores of prob-lems that could be solved by the useof a film.

Davis suggested another use for a type of filmthat he called the contrast film:

It will be possible to present allthe data on both sides of any prob-lem and let the pupils decide forthemselves what the correct solutionmight be. this array offacts, I am quite ccrtain that pupilswill not only arrive at more saneconclusions, but also their conclu-sions will be more permanent. Theimpressions created by the filmswill be more realistic to the pupilsand the conclusions reached will bemore apt to become a part of theirdaily life, than if the same resultshad been obtained by reading a text-

A

book or listening to the teacher tel-ling them what to do.

The apparent perception Davis held in rela-tion to the research needs in the use ofaudiovisual aids in teaching is evident in thefollowing statement:

Many types of problems can bepresented by the use of a film in amuch shorter time than they can bedemonstrated in the laboratory.There is a film on the telephonethat pruzitints most of the facts inless than ten minutes. It presentsall of the facts and principles thatare ordinarily demonstrated in thelaboratory. Very little demonstra-tion could be done in the laboratoryin less than one hour. Even thoughwe have saved time, we ought toquestion ourselves as to whether apupil would gain as much by seeingthe film demonstration of the tele-phone as he would by actuallyhandling the apparatus and materuilshe uses in the laboratory. As far asI know, no one has worked out thisproblem. ...lt would be an inter-esting problem to decide what valueeach method has.

In essence Davis is indicating the need toanswer a very basic question: What distinctcontributions can audiovisual materials maketo the teaching of science? Although the num-ber of research studies related to the utili-zation of audiovisual material in the teachingof science is limited, research activity con-cerned with audiovisual materials and schoolsubjects has been noted. The outcomes formu-lated by Dale (19S4), based on 120 "signifi-cant" studies reported In the cvolovedia of

irdagligne jimarsb, dro the following:1. They supply a concrete basIs for

conceptual thinking and heace reducemeaningless word-responses of students.

2, They have a high degree of interest forstudents.

3, They make learning more permanent.4, They offer a reality of experience which

stimulates self-activity on the pan ofthe pupils.

S. They develop a continuity of thought:this it especially true of motion pictures.

6. They contribute to growth of meaning andhence to vocabulary development.

7. They provide experiences not easily ob-tainel through other materials and con-tribute to the efficiency, depth, andvariety of learning.

These seven points constitute general conclu-sions: however, it is necessary to considerseveral of the srecific studies, especially inscience.

The value of visual materials and techniquesin science teaching was suggested in the Thirty-first Yearbook of the NSSC (1932):

Glass slides, home-made slides,film-slides, micro-slides, opaqueprojection, and motion pictures allhave a valuable place in scienceteaching. They can provide experi-ences as real to the pupil as aremany of the demonstrations and lab-oratory exercises. Often they sur-pass the latter in variety, clarity,and pertinency. When properly usedthey supplement other exercises, fillin gape, and tie together ideas whichbelong together. Occasionally ascreen experience may well supplanta somewhat fragmentary demonstra-tion or laboratory experience.

One of the most extensive and complete earlystudies was completed by Wood and Preeman(1929), who conducted an experiment involvingtore than MO pupils studying general science.The desire was to determine the contribution ofmotion picture films when used at an integralpart of classroom teaching procedure in moti-vated interest, increasing learning, improvingdescriptive processes, and promoting under-standing. \Ithough the results wore not asdefinitive for science as for the other subjectsconsidered, it was concluded that, on descrip-tive type questions, the gain by the film-usinggroup exceeded that of the non-film-using groupby a statistically signifizant amount. However,bated on scores on tests made up of abstract-type questions, the level of achievement ofthe two groups was about equal, These re-sults were interereted to mean that studentsreadily learned facts from the use of films

but the films did not significantly improvetheir ability to reason.

In a study by Rulon (1933), designed todetermine the effectiveness of sound motionpictures in teaching ninth grade general sci-ence, it is reported that:

In terms of immediate stud.-eitachievement, our Tesults 1-..dicatedthat the teaching technique employ-ing the motion picture was 20.5percent more effective, from theinstructional standpoint, than wasthe usual unaided presentation.

Rulon concluded that students who were taughtusing procedures that involved motion pictures(I) learned a larger quantity of factual informa-tion and also (2) improved their thinking ability.During the same period in time Arnspiger (1933)compated the results of teaching natural sci-ence with and without the use of sound motionpictures to fifth-grade pupils. His findingswere that the test gain scores of the film-usinggroup were significantly higher than those ofthe group receiving the usual methods of class-room instruction and that the low and high IQfilm-using groups earned higher average scoreson the final tests than the comparable groupsnot using films. In summary he stated, "Itappears that talking pictures used in this experi-ment made marked and !astute contributions tolearning in natural science units."

A summary by Wittich and Yowlkes (1946) ofthe research conducted by Clark and Hansenprovides further evidence that the motion pic-ture made a positive contribution to the learningof science. Clark concluded that at the collegelevel sound and silent films are as effective asidentical lecture-demonstrations in conveyingspecific information in the field of physicalscience and in developing ability to think andreason. In his study of the sound film usedwith students in tenth grade studying biology,llansen detected a higher level of retention ofknowledge among children in the experimentalgroup.

Maneval (1940), in a study to determine therelative value of sound and silent motion pic-tures in science teaching, found that pupils ofhigher mental ability tend to learn more whentaught by a method involving the Use Of thesilent film and those of lower mental abilitytend to benefit more (MI a method employingthe sound film, In this study the silent filmsinvolved having the learner read the captionsassociated with the films. It has been sug-gested that reading difficulties were overcomepartially by the use of the sound films.

The relative effectiveness of sound motionpictures and equivalent teacher demonstrations

in teaching general science in the ninth gradewas questioned by Smith (1949). His expressedintent was to consider the comparative meritsOf these two methods of visual presentation.The experimental instructional methods usedare described in the following paragraph.

The film method sectioh was taughtusing the educational sound motionpicture in lieu of teacher demonstra-tions of any kind. In the demonstra-tion section, no films were used.Demonstrations corresponded asexactly as possible to those shownin the film. Both the film and teacherdemonstrations were used in the thirdsections; thus, students in this sec-tion had the benefit of both instruc-tional techniques.

The results he found Indicated that there wereno real methods differences; studmts performedconsistently regardless of the metlIod employed,and the gains made by the students in bothgroups were positively related to intelligence.In another study involving a comparison of theeffectiveness of films and demonstrations,Tendam (1961) concluded that students whoviewed demonstrations on film earned signifi-cantly high quiz scores than did the studentswho viewed the live demonstrations.

Anderson, Montgomery, and Ridgeway (1951)posed a question similar to that studied bySmith; however, they extended their study tothe relative values of various multisensorymethods in the teaching of high school biology.The control group performed a minimum numberof laboratory activities, witnessed only a fewdemonstrations, and viewed no instructionalfilms.

The film group viewed 18 films, performedno laboratory activities, and witnessed infre-quent demonstrations. The laboratory groupperformed a considerable number of laboratoryactivities but viewed no films. Thc film-laboratory group performed a considerable num-ber of laboratory activities and viewed theinstructional films. The investigators concludedthat the students who received instruction utiliz-ing both films and the laboratory activitiesearned scores on thc Minnesota State BoardCxaminat:on in Biology that were significantlyhigher than those earned by students in the con-trol, film, and laboratory groups. When scoresearned by ather groups were compared, no sig-nificant differences in achievement on the cri-terion instrument resulted, This suggests thatlearning with films compares favorably withlearning with laboratory instruction.

Iluffman (1959) conducted a similar studyinvolving four groups of eighth-grade students

in eeneral science classes where each classreceived four weeks of instruction employinga different method: a film group, a lecturegroup, a demce,stration group, and a combina-tion group. The conclusion, based on studentachievement was that "there was no significantdifference in achievement due to the tour instruc-tional methods." In another study involving theuse of films as instructional aids in biology,Anderson, Montgomery, Smith, and Anderson(1956) concluded that understanding and appli-cation of princIples were superior when thespecific principles covered in the film receiveddefinite emphasis, and that students who viewedthe films but did not have the principles stressedwere somewhat superior to the ccrarol group thatdid not view the films. The researchers sug-gested that the results imply that MAXIMUMlearning can take place when the principlesemphasized in the films receive definite con-sideration.

For a period of time in the late 1950's andearly 1960's research in the use of audiovisualmethods shifted from the consideration of sup-plementary and correlational use of audiovisualtechniques to the feasibility of presenting com-plete high schcol science courses by means ofmotion picture film. The following studies weremainly stimulated by the production of theHarvey White physics films. In general thebasic research question involved testing whichmethod produced superior achievement duringone school year of instruction, the conventionalmethod or the film method of instruction. Pella,Stanley, Wedemeyer, and Wittich (1962) con-ducted a study to determine the effect of theHarvey White physics films on high schoolstudents' knowledge of physics and on the highschool teachers' knowledge of physics, and tocompare the expressed interest in science ofthe film-using group and the group not usingthe films. The investigators concluded that(1) the non-film-using and film-using groupsshowed no significant difference in the amountof physics learned v.hen the test items measuredcontent that was presented in both the films andtextbooks; (2) from the standpoint of retentionthe non-film-using group retained more informa-tion than the film-using group after a period ofthree months; (3) the teachers who saw the filmslearned a significant amount of physics informa-tion above that learned by the non-film-usingteachers. On the question of interest, the non-film-using students expressed a significantlyhigher irterest in science than did the film-using students.

Anderson and Montgomery (1959) completeda study similar to the study by Pella et al. andconcluded that no difference in achievementexisted between the film-using classes and the

7

classes taught by conventional means. Theyfurther concluded that "students with aboveaverage, average and below average intelligencequotients of the experimental classes did notachieve significantly more than their counter-parts in control classes." However, for thosestudents with an IQ of 124 and above the filmmethod was not superior to the conventionalmethod. An evaluation of an introductory chem-istry course on film was completed by Anderson,Montgomery, and Moore (1961). The chemistrycourse consisted of a textbook supplemented bya series of 160 lectures and demonstrations con-ducted by Professor John Baxter. The study com-pared the conventional method of instructionwith the film method of instruction. The re-searchers concluded that only 3 of the 17 dif-ferences noted were significant and in favor ofthe film groups. This was especially true whenthe conclusions were based upon scores earnedon the A.C.S.-N.S.T.A. Chemistry Examination.The investigators suggested that films shouldnot replace the regular mode of instruction.Sadnavitch, Popham, and Black (1962), in dis-cussing the results of their study of the reten-tion value of filmed science courses, concludedthat no statistically significant differences inthe amount of retained information existed be-tween the film-taught and conventionally-taughtstudents in physics and chemistry after a 12-month interval had elapsed.

A recent study completed by Fowler andBrosius (1968) indicated that films can be sat-isfactorily substituted for actual dissectionactivities in tenth-grade biology. The investi-gators evaluated the relative achievement inlearning facts, developing problem-solvingskills, understanding science, developing atti-tudes and skill in dissection between a groupof students who performed the dissections anda group of students who viewed the dissectionson film. The film-using group achieved a higherlevel of factual knowledge and development ofproblem-solving skills than the dissection-using group. In the other areas of considera-tion there were no significant differences inachievement noted.

The majority of the studies reviewed supportthe position that the use of motion pictures canproduce significant results in the learning ofscience. Several of the studies suggest thatthe motion picture is as effective as the con-ventional methods of teaching science.

STUDIES OF THE USEOF STILL PICTURES

The review of related literature thus far hasbeen concerned with the use of motion picturesas a supplement in teaching a science course

8.fJU

' 1"O

and as tho media of communication for tho entirescience course. Another group of visual aidsto consider is still pictures in the form of aslide film or lantern slide.

Although the motion picture may be valuablein teaching concepts where motion is involvedor where continuity of action is important, thismedia is rather inflexible in that the presenta-tion of the scenes is fixed and cannot be easilycontrolled by the teacher. With the use ofslide film the teacher can devote any amountof time to each frame depending upon its rela-tive importance or complexity. Another advan-tage to using the slide film is the opportunityfor active participation on the part of the stu-dents and the teacher. Blanc (1953), discus-sing the use of audiovisuals in the classroom,stated:

Slides are one of the first typesof projected materials to have beenused for science instruction and thedevelopment of newer types of mate-rials has not diminished the valueof this important teaching aid. Thepossibilities for making and usingslides as visual aids in a unit aregreat, and the resourceful teachershould capitalize on these values.

Although the slide film is a valuable teach-ing tool, little research on its use in the teach-ing of science has been reported. Brown (1928),completed a study in 1928 in which a comparisonwas made of the relative effectiveness of themotion picture and slide film in teaching thetopic of how we hear. He concluded that theslide film was superior to the motion pictureas a learning aid. He also stated that theslide film allowed for more opportunities forthe teacher and the student to exchange com-ments. Goodman (1942) completed a studycomparing effectiveness of motion pictures andldntern slides in teaching certain concepts inbiology. He concluded that the general achieve-ment of the slide-using group exceeded that ofthe film-using group. The same investigator,in a study involving sixth-grade students,studied the relative effectiveness of a soundmotion picture, a silent motion picture, silentfilm slides, and sound film slides in the teach-ing of concepts in safety (1943). In this studythe silent motion picture group earned the largestgains in test scores for both immediate anddelayed recall in all groups. For the high IQgroup the silent film slide produced the largestgain in terms of test scores, for both immediateand delayed recall. The silent film slide wasalso effective with the low IQ group, but thesilent motion picture was more effective. Inall cases Goodman concluded that the sound

motion picture was least effective. On thebasis of his research he stated that more atten-tion and recognition should be given to the filmslide as a teaching tool. One of the majorfactors to consider, according to Goodman, isthe high cost of motion picture film rental andproduction and the low cost and ease of produc-tion of the film slide.

A study comparing the effectiveness ofselected filmstrips and sound motion picturesin teaching soil conservation conducted byOrtgiesen (1954) revealed that Mmstrips weresignificantly more effective than sound motionpictures and both were more effective thanprinted material alone.

Slides were used by Graham (1944) in theteaching of an astronomy unit in general sci-ence. He concluded that the group that receivedinstruction including the use of slides achievedmore than the group receiving instruction notincluding slides.

Romano (1957) used slide films and motionpictures in combination to effectively improvethe science vocabulary learning of students inGrades 5, 6, and 7. Students that receivedscience instruction utilizing the slide film andmotion picture combination showed larger gainsin the science vocabulary acquired than thegroup that did not receive the combination in-struction.

Two separate studies, not directly involvingscience instruction but having direct relation-ship to the use of slides in instruction, werecompleted by Heidgerken and Laner. Heidgerken(1948), found that:

On the basis of evidence it seemslogical to infer that no significantdifference in achievement existedbetween the groups who used thernoth n pictures and slide films to-gether, the motion pictures alone,the slide films alone, or neitherthe motion pictures nor the slidefilms, and any difference whichdid exist could be attributed torandom sampling variation.

Laner (1954) concluded that there was no sig-nificant difference between the results of in-struction using motion pictures and instructionutilizing filmstrips in the learning and perform-ance of certain skills.

SUMMARY

Few research studies have been reported thatanswer the question, Can audiovisual materialsact as an effective substitute for the laboratoryor laboratory activities? The Thirty-first Year-book of the NSSE (1932) stated that audiovisual

material "can provide experiences as real tothe pupil as many of the laboratory exercises."The results of the study conducted by Anderson,Montgomery, and Ridgeway (1951) supportedthe position that direct laboratory work is notessential for achievement in biology. Studentswho experienced instruction without the benefitof films achieved as well as the laboratorygroup. One can conclude from the studies byPella, Stanley, Wedemeyer, and Wittich (1962)and Anderson and Montgomery (1959) that directinvolvement in laboratory activity is not nec-essary for successful achievement in physics.Students who viewed laboratory activities anddemonstrations on films achieved as well asstudents who were directly involved in labora-tory activity. According to the study bySadnavitch, Popham, and Black (1962), directlaboratory experience did not increase theretention value of the learned material. Stu-dents who did not have direct experience in thelaboratory retained information in physics andchemistry as well as students who had directlaboratory experience. These studies shouldbe given careful consideration since the resultswere based on the effect of a film course usedfor an entire school year. Although the resultsobtained by Fowler and Brosius (1968) werebased only on a particular segment of instruc-tion, laboratory dissection, they revealed thatstudents who saw dissection on film achievedas well as, if not better than, students whoactually performed the dissection.

Evidence from a number of studies has beenpresented which indicates that audiovisualmaterial can lead to successful achievementin high school science. It seems that the re-search studies in which slides were used sup-port the proposition that slide films can be usedeffectively to teach science and are at least aseffective, if not more effective, than instruc-tion utilizing motion pictures. Except for asmall number of the studies reviewed, the majoremphasis and use of motion pictures and slidefilms were for supplementary purposes; theaudiovisual material was used as an aid inlearning rather than as a substitute for a par-ticular learning activity.

The present study is concerned with visualmaterial serving as a replacement for a particu-lar phase of laboratory work, that is, as a sub-stitute for the manipulation phase of laboratoryactivity. Results of several studies suggestthat direct laboratory experience does not seemto be essential for satisfactory achievement inhigh school science. It is the intent of thispaper to determine whether direct.manipulationof laboratory equipment is essential to satisfac-tory learning in science.

179

In

PROCEDURE

INTRODUCTION

The p.urpose of this study was to comparetwo methods of laboratory instruction: themanipulative and the nonmanipulative.

Important to the success of this experimentwas the control of as many factors as possible,such as the nature of the subject matter to belearned, level of maturity of the learners , timeof day when instrdction of the experimental andcontrol groups took place, predicted academicachievement level of the learners , competenceof the teachers, and adequacy of the learningenvironment. The single variable was thepresence or absence of the manipulative phasein the laboratory activities used in teaching.

SUBJECT MATTER

The subject matter with claimed reliance onlaboratory activities as a tool for learning wasthat included in the Introductory Physical Sci-ence (IPS) course. In the IPS Progress Report(1965), Uri lquber Schaim stated:

The purposes of the IPS courseare two: on the one hand to be asound foundation for future physics,chemistry and perhaps biologycourses; and on the other hand tofurnish sufficient nourishment in theessence, the spirit and the substanceof physical science to be a goodterminal course for those who willnot study physical science later on...

There are certain values and skillsthat can and should be taught injunior high science. First we wantto give a feeling for the kind of humaneffort that is involved in the develop-ment of science. We want to putacross the point that the root of allscience is phenomena and that namescome later. We should like the stu-dent to get his information from the

10

original source, from nature itself.This calls for real investigation inthe laboratory.

It is stated in the preface of the Student's book(IPS, 1967) that

the method employed to achieve thestated goals is one of student experi-mentation and guided reasoning onthe results of such experimentation.Thus , the laboratory experiments arecontained in the body of the text andmust be carried out by the studentsfor proper understanding of the course.

The central theme of the IPS course is thestudy of matter, the development of evidencebasic to the development of an atomic model ofmatter. The emphases in the first three chapters,that require about one semester to complete,are on quantity of matter and the characteristicproperties of matter. Specifically the purposesof the IPS course are to provide students withbasic laboratory skills , experience in observa-tion, knowledge of how to apply elementaryresults , and the ability to develop an abstractidea from a concrete situation.

LEVEL OF MATURITY OF LEARNER

The midwestern city school selected as thesite for the study offered IPS at the eighth-grade level, therefore this became the maturitylevel of the population involved. One reasonfor selecting this school was the fact that thestudents attending had not been enrolled inscience classes in Grade 7 because sciencewas not a part of the seventh-grade curriculumin this city. The science experiences providedin the elementary schools attended by thispopulation are a matter of conjecture.

TIME OF DAY

The criterion that "there must be two IPSclasses meeting simultaneously during the hours

selected for instruction" was satisfied by usingthe 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. class hours. A50-minute period of instruction was employedfor all classes.

ACADEMIC LEVEL OF LEARNERS

The students in the eighth grade of thisschool were homogeneously grouped accordingto IQ, performance in Grade 7, and teachers'recommendations as low, average, and aboveaverage. Because of the nature of the curricu-lum offered to the "low" groups, these wereexcluded from the experiment.

The assignment of the pupils from averageand high groups to classes depended in partupon administrative facility and the nature ofthe electives of the pupils; however, the assign-ment to science classes was essentially randomwithin the respective groups. The two averagegroups meeting at 10:00 a.m. and the two aboveaverage groups meeting at 11:00 a.m. wereselected for the study.

TEACHERS AND FACILITIES

The two male teachers selected had previousexperience teaching this IPS course and bothhad attended a six-week summer institute de-voted to the special techniques and skills nec-essary for teaching the course.

The facilities for teaching included two wellequipped classroom-laboratories with dark cur-tains and audiovisual equipment and the nec-essary special apparatus in adequate quantitiesfor performing all of the suggested IPS experi-ments.

DESIGN OF STUDY 6The design of this study was a 2 x 2 x 2

factorial, with the factors being treatment, IQ,and sex. The design allowed for the testing ofeach main effect as well as the two and threefactor interactions.

Multiple dependent measures resulted fromtest scores on the evaluation instruments.These were treated statistically utilizing mul-tivariate, and subsequently, univariate analy-ses of variance. These analyses were performedby means of Multivariance: FORTRAN Programfor Univariate and Multivariate Analysis ofVariance and Covariance (Finn, 1967).

This program performs univariateand multivariate linear estimationsand tests of hypotheses for anycrossed and/or nested design, withor without concomitant variables.The number of observations may beequal, proportional, the latter in-

cluding missing observation andincomplete design.

The program offers a large number of optionsfor calculating and displaying information. Inthis study only the standard routines for cal-culating univariate and multivariate analysesof variance were performed.

Item statistics and reliability of pretest andposttest data were determined through the useof the Generalized Item and Test Analysis Pro-gram (Baker, 1966).

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

One of each of the pairs of average and highability classes was designated by random meansas the experimental class, and the other as thecontrol class.

The students in the control classes performedthe laboratory activities as designed and des-cribed by the developers of the IPS course inthe teacher's manual. These classes made uptho manipulative group.

The students in the experimental classesviewed projected 2 by 2 colored slides whichrepresented sequences of the same laboratoryactivities as those performed by the manipula-tive group. At no time did this group manipu-late equipment. It was designated as the non-manipulative group. All other instructionalprocedures were constant for both groups.

The slides were prepared outside of the classby photographing what were believed by theinvestigator and the teachers to be the importantphases of each laboratory activity. Particularcare was taken to insure that each slide cor-rectly represented the activity as it would beseen by the student if he were the performer.To assure the validity of the contents of theslides, the teachers of the course assisted intheir preparation by performing the laboratoryactivities being photographed and suggestingthe specific phases to be photographed.

The students in the experimental classes(nonmanipulative group) viewed the pictures ofthe laboratory sequences and collected datafrom the slides as projected.

The titles of the experiments completed bythe experimental and control groups are:

1. Measurement2. Distillation of Wood3. Measuring Volume by Displacement of

Water4. Equal-arm Balance5. The Precision of the Balance6. The Mass of Dissolved Salt7. The Mass of Ice and Water8. The Mass of Mixed Solutions

fia9

11

9. The Mass of Copper and Sulfur10. The Mass of Gas11. The Density of Solids12. The Density of Liquids13. The Density of a Gas14. Thermal Expansion of Solids15. Thermal Expansion of Liquids16. Elasticity of Solids17. Freezing and Melting18. Micro-melting Point19. Boiling Point

The effect of teacher bias was minimized byhaving the two teachers exchange classes atthe completion of nine laboratory activities.Teacher A first taught the average ability non-manipulative class and the high ability manipu-lative class. Teacher B first taught the averageability manipulative class and the high abilitynonmanipulative class.

Teacher's guides were prepared to supplementthe IPS prepared teacher's materials (Appendix Ain Sherman, 1968). These guides were designedto assist the teacher in pursuing a logical se-quence in the presentation of the slides, indeveloping a dialog with the students, and ininsuring a reasonable degree of uniformity be-tween classes.

Since the data collected by the students inthe experimental classes represented, in effect,the data collected by one team, charts to stimu-late class data were included in the teacher'sguide. The charts were displayed by means ofan overhead projector.

EVALUATION

Introduction

The outcomes possibly attributable to thedirect participation in the manipulative phaseof the activities were discussed in the introduc-tion (see pages 1 4). It will be recalled thatthe following outcomes were suggested:

1, An improvement in the student's abilityto think critically.

2. An increased understanding of the prod-ucts and processes of science.

3. An increased interest in science.4. An increase in achievement related to the

knowledge and application of the coursecontent.

5. An increase in the ability to performspecific laboratory skills and techniques.

Instruments were selected on the basic ofthese five possible outcomes and it was assumedthat the student's score on each was an indica-tion of his level of achievement of that particu-lar objective. All instruments were administeredboth before and after instruction.

12

20

Instruments Selected

I. Critical Thinking The scores on Watsonand Glaser's Critical Thinking Appraisal, FormZm, (1964b) are proported to indicate levels ofcritical thinking ability related to:

1. the definition of problems2. the selection of pertinent information

for the solution of a problem3. the recognition of stated and unstated

assumptions4. the formulation and selection of rele-

vant and promising hypotheses5. the drawing of valid conclusions and

judging the validity of inferences.Judgments of qualified persons

and results of research studies sup-port the authors' belief that the itemsin the Critical Thinking Appraisal rep-resent an adequate sample of theabove five abilities and that the totalscore yielded by the test representsa valid estimate of the proficiencyof individuals with respect to theseaspects of critical thinking.

The Watson-Glaser instrument is made upof five subtests: (1) inference, (2) recognitionof assumptions, (3) deduction, (4) interpreta-tion, (5) evaluation of arguments. Although thetest is designed for individuals who have com-pleted the ninth grade or its equivalent, it hasbeen reported as being successfully used witheighth-grade students (cf. Yager and Wick,1966).

2. Understanding Science. The Test on Under-standing Science (TOUS), Form Jx, was used tomeasure the understanding of science possessedby the students. This instrument consists of45 items of the multiple-choice type, designedto sample student understanding of the scien-tific enterprise, scientists, and the methodsand aims of science (Carrier and Klopfer, 1964).Although TOUS, Form Jx, is an experimentaltest, extensive standardization operations havebeen conducted. The authors of TOUS suggestthat it has possible application in teachingexperiments where these understandings arecompared. TOUS, Form Jx, was modified forjunior high school students by Carrier andKlopfer from the high school form developed byCooley and Klopfer.

3. Interest in Science. The expression of inter-est of individuals depends upon many things,such as age, the interval between testings,what happens to the student during the interval,and particularly how strong his interests are,(Kuder, 1964). For the purpose of this studyonly the scores on the science part of the Kuder

General Interest Survey, Form E, (1964) wererecorded although the student responded to theentire test of 10 categories. An individual'sscore on the Scientific Scale of the Kuder Gen-eral Interest Survey was derived from his fixed-choice response to 33 triads and had a maximumpossible raw score value of 62.

4. Achievement Test. The IPS Achievement Test(Chapter I-III) 1964 was employed to determinethe degree to which the students achieved theacademic objectives of the course as viewed bythe developer. Although the course is designedprimarily for the ninth grade, results of previousstudies revealed that it has also been used witheighth-grade students with about equal success(IPS 1965).

The Unit I Test included 26 items of themultiple-choice type that pertained directly tothe first three chapters.

Since the purpose of the test wasto assess student attainment of thecourse objectives, a crucial require-ment was that the test questionsappraise student possession of thesame understanding and abilitiesthat the couse is designed to instill.This crucial requirement was metsimply but effectively; the personswho developed the course materialsalso developed the tests DPS, 1965].

The test reflected the plan that laboratory activi-ties are an integral part of the text and of equalimportance with the other phases.

5. Laboratory Skill Test.. A laboratory skill test(Appendix A) was developed in cooperation withthe teachers who were teaching both groups.Several skills were identified as being neces-sary for the successful completion of the des-ignated laboratory exercises. These skillswere: (1) the use of linear metric measure,(2) the use of the bead balance and the triplebeam balance, (3) the ability to read a graduatedcylinder, (4) the ability to determine volume bywater displacement, (5) and the ability to reada Celsius thermometer.

The test consisted of seven items that in-cluded 16 separate skills with a total pointvalue of 41. The relative point value for eachitem was determined by considering the relativeemphasis on each skill in the performance ofthe laboratory exercises. Using this method,it was determined that 15% of the exercisesused linear metric measure, 45% of the exer-cises required correct use of a balance, 15%of the exercises involved correct reading of athermometer, and 25% of the exercises requiredthe correct determination of volume.

The test was of the performance type andwas administered in the laboratory. In orderto make it possible for all students to completethe seven items on the test in one class period,fout sets of the items for each station wereavailable. Students had a timed period of five'minutes to complete the designated skill at eachstation.

6. IQ Test. The Kuhlmann-Anderson Test,Form G (1960), was administered at the begin-ning of the fall term to determine the IQ of thestudents.

Evaluation Instruments Summary

The evaluation instruments used in this studyare listed in Table 1. It should be noted that,except for the Laboratory Skill Test, the instru-ments used are commercially available. Exceptfor the Kuder General Interest Survey, the relia-bilities reported were determined from the testdata accumulated in this study. The LaboratorySkill Test consisted of only a very few items,contributing in part to the low reliability; itmay be noted that a test of 100 similar itemswould have an estimated reliability of .85(Spearman-Brown formula from Cronbach, 1960).

Table 1

Re liabilities of Tests

TestNumber

of Items Reliability 1

Watson-GlaserCritical Thinking 100 .77

Test on Under-standing Science 45 .67

IPS AchievementTest (Ch. I-III) 26 .74

Laboratory SkillTest (41 points) 16 .48

Kuder GeneralInterest Survey(62 points) 33 .882

1 Reliability reported is based on test datafrom this study unless noted otherwise.

2Reliability stated in the manual.

Administration of Instruments

The five instruments utilized were adminis-tered to the 100 students as pretests inearly September 1967, and as posttests in late

2113

January 1968. Because of the lapse of time be-tween testing, no attempt was made to changetest forms.

Teacher Evaluation Form

A Teacher Evaluation Form (Appendix B) wasprepared for use during each laboratory activityas a means of determining teacher Judgments

14

conce'rning whether or not the slides and les-sons accurately represented the laboratoryexperiment in the course and how the stu-dents reacted to the lesson and slides . Theteachers were requested to complete the formindependently at the completion of each ac-tivity. In addition to this specific informationthere were opportunities for the teachers tomake related comments.

IV

RESULTS

The analyses of the data related to thisproblem are presented under the six headingsof intelligence quotients, critical thinking,understanding science, laboratory skills ,

achievement, and interest. Also presented aresummaries of the multivariate analysis-and theTeacher Evaluation Forms.

INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTSOF THE GROUPS

With the exception of the presence of alarger number of high ability students in themanipulative group than the nonmanipulativegroup, the student IQ's within the two groupswere similar (Figure 1). The number of stu-dents with higher IQ's in the manipulative groupmay account for the fact that the mean IQ ofthis group is significantly higher than that ofthe nonmanipulative group (Table 2). The cor-relation of the IQ of each group with test scoreson each of the five test instruments reveals thatthe IQ is not a source of variance.

ANALYSIS OF THE CRITICALTHINKING TEST DATA

It is noted from the frequency distributionsand means of pretest scores given in Figure 2and Table 3 that the two groups were similar interms of critical thinking ability prior to theperiod of instruction.

Following the period of instruction, themean gain score of the manipulative group ex-ceeded that of the nonmanipulative group by1.9 points, a difference that is not signicant(Table 4). Although the posttest score frequencydistributions were similar (Figure 3), the gainbetween pre- and posttest administrations withinthe manipulative group was significant whereasthe gain for the nonmanipulative group was notsignificant (Table 3).

0 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 140

INTELLIGENCE QUOTIENTS

MonipulatIve

Nonmonipulotive

Figure 1. Frequency Distribution of IntelligenceQuotients of 50 Pupils in Manipulative and 50Pupils in Nonmanipulative Groups .

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges ofthe Intelligence Quotients of Pupils in

Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups

Manipulative NonmanipulativeGroup Group

R. S.D. R. S.D.

IQ 113.2 13.6 107.9 12.5

Range 79-136 75-136

Significanceof IQ differ-ence betweenmeans F=4.09 (Significant at

p < .05) *

Significant valuefor p < .05 F (1,48) (.05) > 4.04 *

15

16

12

10

8

6

4

2

33 38 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 83Scores

Manipulative ----

Nonmanipulative

Figure 2. Frequency Distribution of Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Pretest Scores of 50Pupils in Manipulative and 50 Pupils in Non-manipulative Groups.

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Gain Scoresof the Watson-Glaser Pretest and Posttest

Scores Earned by Manipulativeand Nonmanipulative Groups

(Total Possible Score 100)


Pretest

Posttest

Gains

Significanceof the gains

)7 S.D.7.8

9.954.2

59.0

4.8

F=7.21(Significant,p < .01) *

53.0

55.9

2.9

S.D.

8.0

8.7

F=2.11(Not significant) *

Significance level F(1,48) (.01) > 7.19 *

0 33 38 43 48 53 58 63

Scores

Manipulative

Nonmonlpulallve

68 73 78 83 88

Figure 3. Frequency Distribution of Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Posttest Scores of 50Pupils in Manipulative and 50 Pupils in Non-manipulative Groups.

ANALYSIS OF UNDERSTANDINGOF SCIENCE TEST DATA

The pretest revealed little difference betweenthe manipulative and nonmanipulative groupsprior to instruction. Although the manipulativegroup included more students in the upper rangeof scores, it can be seen in Table 5 that a dif-ference of only 1.4 test points existed betweenthe pretest means.

From Figure 4 and Table 5 it can also benoted that the frequency distributions and meanscores after instruction were similar. Examina-tion of Table 5 reveals that both groups madesignificant gains; however, the gains of thetwo groups were not significantly different(Table 6).

ANALYSIS OF LABORATORYSKILLS TEST DATA

Before the period of instruction the two groupsperformed at similar levels on the laboratoryskills test (Table 7).

Table 4

Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Gain Scores on theWatson-Glaser Pretest and Posttest (Alpha .05)

Variable MS(Between) df (Univariate) (Critical)

P Less Than

Watson- 108.1210 1,92GlaserDifference

2.40.14, 3.92 0.1247

16

4-

Table 5

Means, Standard Deviations, and Cain Scoresof the TOIJS Pretest and Posttest Scores

Earned by Manipulative andNonmanipulative Croups


Manipulative NonmanipulativeCroups Groups

Pretest

Posttest

Gains

Significanceof the Gains

X

22.7

25.0

2.3

S.D.5.7

5,2

X

21.3

24.1

2.8

S.D.

6.1

5.0

F=6.17 F=5,94(Significant (Significantp < .05) * p < .05) *


0 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38

Scores

Manipulative -----

NonmanipulatIve

Figure 4. Frequency Distribution of TOUS Post-test Scores of 50 Pupils in Manipulative and 50Pupils in Nonnianipulative Groups.

Table 7

Means, Standard Deviations, and Cain Scoresof the Laboratory Skin Pretest and Posttest

Scores Earned by Manipulative andNonmanipulative Croups

(Tota) Possible Score 40

'Manipulative NonmanipulativeGroup Croup

Pretest

Posttest

Gains

Significanceof the Gains Fail95.0 Fa99.87

(Significant (Significantp < .01) * P < .01)

S.D.4.87.5

9.9

22.7

12.8

6.0

8.0

Significance level 111,48) (.01) > 7.19

Comparisons of the two posttest means andfrequency distributions of the posttest scores(Table 7) reveal that the posttest performanceby the manipulative group exceeded that of thenonmanipulative group by 4.3 test points. Itshould be noted that even though the nonmanipu-lative group did not directly perform any of thetasks represented in the laboratory skill test,they were able to make a significant improve-ment (Table 7).

The gain scores on the laboratory skills testearned by the manipulative group were signifi-cantly greater than those of the nonmanipulativegroup (Table 8).

ANALYSIS OF IPS UNIT IACHIEVEMENT TEST DATA

The similarities of the two groups in termsof academic knowledge as defined by IPS, priorto instruction, aro apparent from Table 9.

Following instruction both groups earnedscores indicating significant average gains in

Table 6

Summary of the Analysis of Variance of Gain Scores on theTOUS Pretest and Posttest (Alpha .05)

Variable MS(Between)

df(Univariate) (Critical)

P Less Than

TOUSDifference

7.9485 1,92 . 0.3262 3.92 0.5693

17

Table 8

Summary of Analysis of Variance of the Gain Scores on theLaboratory Skill Pretest and Posttest (Alpha .05)

Variable MS(Between) df (Univariate) (Critical)

P Less Than

LaboratorySkillDifference

315.6768 1.92 6.6438 3.92 0.0116

Table 9

Means, Standard Deviations, and Gain Scoresof the IPS Pretest and Posttest Scores Earnedby Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups


Manipulative NonmanipulativeCroup Group

Pretest

Posttest

Gains

Significanceof the Gains

7.6

13.3

5.7

S.D.

3.2

4.6

F.50.48(Significantbeyondp < .01)

7.1

12.3

5.2

Fo30.99(Significantbeyondp < .01) *

MB/

S.D.

3.0

4.3

mmumm..n.mmw

Significance level 111,48) (.01) > 7.19 *

achievement (Table 9): however, a definitesimilarity remained In the frequency distribu-tions and means for the two groups. From Table10 it can be seen that the gain scores earnedby the students in the two groups were not sig-nificantly different.

ANALYSIS OF THE RUDERGENERAL INTEREST SURVEY DATA

When the scores earned by the two groups onthe science interest section prior to instruction

are compared, it is found that the manipulativegroup registered a significantly greater interestin science (Table 13). Comparison of Tablesii and 12 reveals that this pretest differencein interest may be attributable to the highermeasured interest of the boys in the manipula-tive group. A significant difference existedbetween the pretest .nean scores of the boysin the manipulative and nonmanipulative groupsbut not of the girls.

Note from Table 11 that the boys in themanipulative group also had a higher level ofinterest than the boys in the nonmanipulativegroup following instruction and that these scoreswere again significantly different. Also theposttest mean scores earned by the girls in thetwo groups were again not significantly different(Table 12).

An examination of the mean scores given inTable 13 reveals that both the manipulative andnonmanipulative groups experienced a decreasein mean scores earned following Instruction:however, this loss was not statistically sig-nificant (Table 14).

SUMMARY OFMULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

A multivariate analysis using treatment gainscores, IQ, and sex was completed in order toprovide a comprehensive simultaneous treatmentof all of the variables. An examination of Table15 discloses that (1) the only significant differ-ence that existed within the data was for IQwith students of the high ability group perform-ing significantly better than students of the

Table 10

Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the Gain Scores on theIPS Pretest and Posttest (Alpha .05)

Variable

IPSDifference

MS(Between)

3.6702

df (Univariate) (Critical)P Less Than

1,92 0.2627 3.92 0.6095

18

Table 11

Means, Standard Deviations, and Losses ofthe Kuder Interest Survey Pretest and PosttestScores Earned by Boys of Manipulative and

Nonmanipulative Groups

(total Possible Score 62)


S.D. S.D.

Pretest 48.6a 7.7 42.0a 9.4

Posttost 45.7b 10.5 39.6 b H.0Losses 2.4 2.9

Significanceof the Losses F=2.83

(Not sig-nificant) *

F=.03(Not sig-nificant) *


Significance of pre- and posttest means forboys of manipulative and nonmanipulative

groups

a. Pretest r=ss.1

b. Posttest r=54.0

(Significant,P < .01)v(Significant,p < .01)V

Significance level F(1,50) (.01)

average ability group; (2) the sex of the studentdid not appear to be related to the performance;(3) there was no significant difference betweengain scores earned by pupils receiving differenttreatments; and (4) there were no significantinteractions.

SUMMARY OF TEACHEREVALUATION FORM

No attempt was made to treat the results ofthe Teacher Evaluation Form in a statisticalmanner since the data obtained were purelysubjective in nature. Although the forms werecompleted independently, there was a high levelof agreement between the two teachers. Exceptin a few specific situations the teachers agreedthat (I) the slides and lessons accurately rep-resented the activities, (2) the use of the slidesapparently did not interfere with the day-to-dayroutine oi disrupt the class in any way, (3) thestudents were able to follow the activities usingthe slides, and (4) students were able to ade-quately complete their laboratory notebooks aswell as any homework related to the activities.

Table 12

Means, Standard Deviations, and Losses ofthe Kuder Interest Survey Pretest and PosttestScores Earned by Girls of Manipulative and

Nonmanipulative Groups



Protect

Posttest

Losses

Significanceof the Losses

297a

270b

2.7

S.D.

12.0

11.9

r=.41(Not sig-nificant)

30.9a

305b

.4

F=2.36

(=Ciairgij) *

S. D .

13.2

12.3

Significance level r(1,21) (.05) >4.32 *

Significance of pre- and posttest means forgirls of manipulative and nonmanipulative

groups

a. Pretest F=.41

b. Posttest F=2.36

(Not signifi-cant) V(Not signifi-cant) V

Significance level F(1,46) (.05) > 4.05V

The opinions expressed by the teachers withregard to the individual lessons were; (I) thestudents who viewed the slides exhibited alower level of interest in the activities and thisresulted in a lack of interest in the course;(2) the viewing of the slides did not. allow thestudents to actually manipulate the equipment,and therefore one of the important objectivesof the course could not be realized; (3) theopportunity was missing for students to exhibitsome creativity by trying out new ideas thatwere stimulated by the laboratory activities;and (4) their own interest was much lower inthe teaching of the slide-viewing group.

SUMMARY

The results of analyses of effects and inter-actions obtained through the application of uni-variate and multivariate analysis of variancetechniques on the five criterion scores were;

1. The students in the manipulative groupearned significantly higher gain scores on theLaboratory Skill Test than students in the non-manipulative group.

19

Table 1 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Losses of the Kuder Interest SurveyPretest and Posttest Scores Earned by Manipulative and Nonmanipulative Groups

Manipulative Group Nonmanipulative Group

PretestPosttestLossesSignificance of the Losses

a40'3b37.5

2.8F=2.31(Not significant) *

S.D.

13.614.5

S.D.

36. 2a 12.734.9b 12.5

1.3F=0.1

(Not significant) *

Significance of pre- and posttest means for manipulative and nonmanipulative groups.

a. Pretest F=13.1 (Significant, p < .01)vb. Posttest F= 2. 0 (Not significant) *

Significance F(1,80) (.05) > 3.96 *levels F(1,80) (.01) > 6.96v

Table 14

Summary of the Analysis of Variance of the Losses for theKuder General Interest Survey Pretest and Posttest (Alpha .05)

Variable

KuderInterestDifference

MS(Between)

51 .047 2

df (Univariate) (Critical)P Less Than

1,92 0.7571 3.92 0.3866

Table 15

Tests of Significance (Multivariate Analysis)

Source df Probability

TreatmentSexIQInteraction

Treatment x SexTreatment x IQSex x IQTreatment x Sex x IQ

1.88781.59336.2201 *

1.08311.17041.36601.4707

5,885,885,88

5,885,885,885,88

p < .1045p < .1704p < .0001

p < .3754p < .3302p < .2449p < .2075

* Significant at the indicated level

2. The gain scores earned on the Watson-Glaser Test of Critical Thinking, IPS Achieve-ment Test, Test on Understanding Science, andthe losses on the Kuder General Interest Surveyby the manipulative and nonmanipulative groupswere not significantly different.

20

3. Students with high IQ's performed at asignificantly higher level on all instrumentsthan did students with average IQ's, regardlessof treatment.

4. There were no significant differencesdue to interactions, sex or treatment.

V

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the criteria and ex-perimental design employed in this investigation,evidence is provided to support the followingconclusions:

1. No significant differences in studentachievement resulted from the treatmentmanipu-lative or nonmanipulative laboratory instructionas shown by test scores in the following areas:

a. critical thinking skillsb. understanding of sciencec. academic achievement of knowledge

and concepts presented in IPSd. the development and expression of

the interest in science2. The manipulative method was significantly

superior to the nonmanipulative method of utiliz-ing the laboratory for the development of selectedlaboratory skills.

3. Students with high IQ's learned more thanstudents with low IQ's as a result of studying theIPS course as reflected by all test scores earned.

4. Achievement using the IPS course is notrelated to sex.

5. There were no significant interactionsbetween:

a. method of instruction and sexb. IQ and sexc. method of instruction and IQd. method of instruction, sex, and IQ

6. The academic achievement and performanceof the students in the nonmanipulative group didnot support the view expressed by the teachersthat the manipulatory method of laboratory instruc-tion is necessary for motivation and satisfactorylearning of science as defined by the IPS course.

7. The IPS course does not appear to stimu-late student interest in science after onesemester of instruction,

IMPLICATIONS

The purpose of this investigation was notto reflect upon the importance of the laboratoryas an instructional tool in the teaching ofscience but rather to determine whether themanipulative aspect contributes in the commonlyhypothesized ways. The results appear to sup-port the view that certain learning behaviorsthat have in the past been more specificallyassociated with the direct manipulatory phaseof the laboratory can be attained without themanipulative phase being present. This raisesthe age-old question, "What must the studentexperience directly in order for the desiredlearning to take place?" Although results fromthis study do not answer this question com-pletely, they do suggest that further experi-mentation in this direction is necessary.

In the present investigation, each classacted as a team, thinking and analyzing to-gether, under the direction and encouragementof the teacher. What would the results havebeen if each student or each pair of studentshad been taught using the indirect nonmanipu-latory method using individualized instructionaltechniques ? The answer to this question in-vades the realm of independent study, computerassisted instruction for the laboratory, and theautotutorial approach to learning. It may betrue that many of the facts, concepts, andprinciples in science can be learned withoutdirect participation in the laboratory. In theplace of laboratory exercises, several realinvestigative laboratory experiences could becompleted. Further research needs to be com-pleted before these questions can be answered.

2 1122

APPENDIX A

LABORATORY SKILL AND TECHNIQUE TEST

Test IEquipment: A 1/2 meter stick, rectangular

piece of wood, a cube.Instructions: You are to measure the length

of each object accurately tothe nearest tenth of a meter,the nearest whole centimeter,and the nearest whole milli-meter.

Criteria: Accuracy of measuring and cor-rect measuring technique.

Test IIEquipment: Equal arm-balance with all

riders at zero, box of beads ,two objects .

Instructions: Determine the mass of eachobject to the nearest wholebead.

Criteria: Accuracy of determining mass.

Test IIIEquipment: 10 cm3 graduate, 50 cm 3 gradu-

ate, two different quantities ofcolored water.

Instructions: Determine the volume in cubiccentimeters of water in eachcontainer to the nearest wholecubic centimeter.

Criteria: Correct measurement of volumeof each liquid.

Test IVEquipment: A triple beam single pan bal-

ance with all riders at zero,two objects.

Instructions: Determine the mass of eachobject to the nearest gram.

Criteria: Correct determination of mass.

Test VEquipment: Two centigrade thermometers,

three materials of differenttemperatures.

Instructions: Determine the temperature ofeach material to the nearestwhole degree centigrade.

Criteria: Accurate reading of thermometers.

Test VIEquipment: Triple beam balance with all

riders at zero, a paper cup-cake container, , sand.

Instructions: Using the proper techniquefind the mass of this sand tothe nearest whole gram.

Criteria: Accurate determination of massas well as proper technique ofusing the balance.

Test VIIEquipment: 50 cm3 graduated cylinder with

water, a stone.Instructions: Determine the vclume of this

stone to the nearest wholecubic centimeter.

Criteria: Correct determination of thevolume.

ANSWER FORM

Name

Period and Teacher

A BC DTest group (circle)

Test Ilength of object A in meterslength of object A in centimeterslength of obj ect A in millimeterslength of object B in meterslength of obj ect B in centimeterslength of object B in millimeters

Test II

30

mass of object A in beadsmass of object B in beads

23

Name

Period and Teacher

Test V

degrees for thermometer Adegrees for thermometer B

AB CD Test VITest group (circle)

Test IIIcubic centimeters of liquid Acubic centimeters of liquid B

..aorPftTest VII

mass of sand in gramscorrect technique (have teachercheck and initial)

Test IVvolume of stone in cubic centi-mass of object A in grams metersmass of object B in grams

24-.0

APPENDIX 13

TEACHER EVALUATION FORM

EXPERIMENT TITLE

EXPERIMENT NUMBER

Dates experiment performed with test classes(include introduction to completion):

Dates experiment performed with regular classes(include introduction to completion):

SLIDES:

Do they represent theexperiment?

If no, why not?

Are they complete?If no, what ismissing?

Does the technique ofworking with the pro-jector interfere withyour teaching the class?

If yes, why?

Do you feel that throughthe use of the slides yourobjectives for the experi-ment were attained as wellas with the actual experi-ment?

If no, why not?

STUDENTS:

Were the studentsable to follow theexperiment usingthe slides?

If no, why not?

Did use of the slidescreate or cause anyadditional disciplineproblems?

If yes, of whatYes No nature?

Yes No

Yes No

Did the students whoused the slides reactsatisfactorily in dis-cussion?

Do you feel that thestudents who used theslides were less inter-ested in the experiment?

Were students who usedthe slides able to satis-factorily record the dataand write up the experi-ment?

If no, why not?

Were students who usedthe slides able to satis-factorily complete nnyhomework associated with

Yes No the experiment?If no, why not?

44.1

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

25

LESSON:

Did the lesson satis-factorily represent theexperiment?

If no, where did itfail?

Was the lesson completeenough to allow you tosatisfactorily fulfill theobjectives of the experi-ment ?

If no, what wasmissing?

Did the lesson correlatewell with the slides?

If no, where didthe correlationbreak down?

26

Yes No

Did you feel that thelesson restricted yourteaching of this experi-ment ?

If yes, how?

GENERAL:

Do you feel that theexperiment as presentedby the lesson and slidessatisfactorily reached

Yes No the objective that youestablished for this ex-periment?

If no, which didit fail to meet?

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND/OR IRREGU-LARITIES: (e.g. fire drills, improper functioning

of projector)

33

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Kenneth E. , and Montgomery, Fred S. ,

"An Evaluation of the Introductory PhysicalCourse on Film" Science Education,43:pp. 386-393, December, 1959.

Anderson, Kenneth E., Montgomery, Fred S.,and Moore, S. F. , "An Evaluation of theIntroductory Chemistry Course on Film,"Science Education,45: pp. 254-267, 1961.

Anderson, Kenneth E., Montgomery, Fred S.,and Ridgeway, Robert W., "A Pilot Studyof Various Methods of Teaching Biology,"Science Education,35: pp. 295-298, Decem-ber, 1951.

Anderson, Kenneth E. , Montgomery, Fred S.,and Smith, Herbert A., "Toward a MoreEffective Use of Sound Motion Pictures inHigh School Biology," Science Education,40: pp. 43-54, February, 1956.

Arnspiger, Varney C. , Measuring the Effec-tiveness of Sound Pictures as Teaching Aids,Teachers College, Columbia University,New York, 1933, p. 83.

Averill, L. A., "Educational Possibilities ofthe Motion Picture," Educational Review,L:p. 39 2, November, 1915.

Baker, Frank B., Test Analysis Package: AProgram for the CDC 1604-3600 Computers,Madison: University of Wisconsin, Labora-tory of Experimental Design, 1966.

Blanc, Sam S., "Vitalizing the ClassroomSlides, Filmstrip and Films," School Sci-ence and Mathematics,53: pp. 255-25 8,April, 1953.

Brown, H. E., "Motion Pictures or Film Slide,"School Science and Mathematics ,28: pp.517-526, 1928.

Carrier, E. 0., and Klopfer, L. E., Test OnUndersthnding Science (TOUS, Form Jx),Produced at the Graduate School of Educa-tion, The University of Chicago, 1964.

Cooley, W. W. and Klopfer, L. E., "TheHistory of Science Cases for High Schoolsin the Development of Student Understandingof Science and Scientists," Journd of

Research in Science Teaching ,1: pp. 33-47, 1963. (a)

Cooley, W. W. , and Klopfer, L. E., "TheEvaluation of Specific Educational Innova-tions," Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching,1: pp. 73-80, 1963. (b)

Cooley, W. W. , and Klopfer, L. E., Test onUnderstanding Science Manual, (TOUS),Office of Special Tests , Educational TestingService, Princeton, New Jersey, 1964.

Cronbach, Lee J., Essentials of PsychologicalTesting, New York: Harper-Row Publishers,1960, pp. 130-131.

Crumb, Glenn H., "Understanding of Sciencein High School Physics ," Journal of Researchin Science Teaching,3: pp. 246-250, 1965.

Cunningham, Harry., "Lecture DemonstrationVersus Individual Laboratory Method in Sci-ence Teaching," Science Education,30:pp. 70-82, March, 1946.

Curtis, Francis D., A Digest of the Investiga-tions in the Teaching of Science, Philadelphia:P. Blakiston's Sons and Company, 1926.

., Second Digest of the Investigationsin the Teaching of Science, Philadelphia:P. Blakiston's Sons and Company, 1931.

., Third Digest of Investigations in theTeaching of Science, Philadelphia:P. Blakiston's Sons and Company, 1939.

Dale, Edgar., Audio-Visual Methods in Teach-ing, Revised edition, New York: The DrydenPress, 1954, p. 65.

Davis, Ira C. , "The Use of Motion Picturesin Teaching General Science," School Sci-ence and Mathematics , 23: pp. 425-433,1923.

Dressel, Paul. , (Directr,-) General Education:Explorations in Evaluation, Final Report ofthe Cooperative Study of Evaluation in Gen-eral Education, Washington, D.C.: AmericanCouncil on Education, 1954.

Finn, Jeremy D. , Multivariance: Fortran Pro-gram for Univariate and Multivariate Analysisof Variance and Covariance, Bufthlo: State

34

27

University of New York , School of Education,1967.

Fowler, H. S. and Brosius, E. J., "A ResearchStudy on the Values Gained from Dissectionof Animals in Secondary School Biology,"Science Education,52:53-57, February, 1968.

George, Kenneth D., "The Effect of BSCS andConventional Biology on Critical Thinking,"journal of Research in Science Teaching,3:pp. 293-299, 1965.

Glaser, Edward M., An Experiment in the Devel-opment of Critical Thinking, New York:Sureau of Publications, Teachers College,1941, pp. 5-6.

Glass, Bently H., "The Most Critical Aspectof Science Teaching," The Science Teacher,34; pp. 19-23, May, 1967.

Goodman, David. , "Experimental Research inAudio-Visual Education," The EducationalScreen, pp. 21-22; pp. 30-31, January,1942.

.1 "Comparative Effectiveness of Pic-torial Teaching Aids ," Journal of ExperimentalEducation, pp. 11-12; pp. 20-25, September,1943.

Graham, Charles C., "Visual Instruction in theTeaching of the Secondary Sciences," ScienceEducation, pp. 28-29: pp. 25-29, February,1944.

Joint Commission on the Education of Teachersof Sciencs and Mathematics., ImprovingScience and Mathematics, American Asso-ciation for the Advancement of Science andAmerican Association of Colleges for TeacherEducation, Washington: American Associa-tion for the Advancement of Science, 1960.

Kastrinos, William., "Teaching for CriticalThinking in High School Biology," Journal.of Research in Science Teaching,1: pp.341-350, 1963.

Kuder, G. Frederic. (Developer), Kuder EGeneral Interest Survey, Chicago; ScienceResearch Associares, Inc., 1964.

Kuder E General Interest SurveyManual, Chicago; Science Research Asso-ciates, Inc., 1964, p. 2.

Kuhlmann-Anderson Test, Seventh Edition,Booklet G, Princeton, New Jersey; PersonnelPress, Inc. (A Division of Ginn and Company),1960.

Laner, S., "The Impact of Visual Aids DisplaysShowing a Manipulative Task," QuarterlyJournal of Experimental Psychology, 6: pp.95-106, 1954.

Maneval, Roy V., "The Relative Value of Soundand Silent Motion Pictures in Science Teach-ing," Science Education,24: pp. 361-364,1940.

Heidgerken, Loretta E., "An Expeximental Study Mason, John M., "The Direct Teaching ofto Measure the Contribution of Motion Pic- Critical Thinking in Grades Four Through Six,"tures and Slide-Films to Learning Certain Journal of Research in Science Teaching ,1;Units in the Course Introduction to Nursing pp. 319-328, :1963.Arts," Journal of Experimental Education,17: Mathewson, James H., "Student Laboratories;pp. 261-261, December, 1948. An Underdeveloped Educational Resource,"

Huffman, Stanley Ausburn Jr., "A Comparative Science Education,51; pp. 133-137, March,Analysis of Four Instructional Methods in 1967.Eighth-Grade Science," Dissertation Abstracts, McCann, Donald C., "Evaluation in Unified19; p. 2294, 1959. Science; Measuring the Effectiveness of the

Hurd, Paul DeHart., Theory Into Action, Natural Science Course at the University ofWashington, D.C.: NSTA, 1964, pp. 5-15. Chicago High School," Summary of a paper

Introductory Physical Science Study Committee., presented at the Forty-first Annual Meeting,Introductory Physical Science, Achievement National Association for Research in ScienceTest for Chapters I-III, Watcatown, Massa- Teaching, Chicago, Illinois, February 9,chusetts; Educational Services Incorporated, 1968.1964. Murdock, Arthur C., "Evaluation of Experiments

Intr d st ts e e . , in High School Science," The Science Teacher,26: p. 543, December, 1959.

National Science Teachers Association, TheoryPrentice-Hall, Incorporated, pp. 1-2; p. 24, Into Action, Washington, D.C. 1964.1965. National Society for the Study of Education, A

Jeffrey, jack C., "Evaluation of Science Labora- Program for Teaching Science, Thirty-firsttory Instruction," Science Education ,51; Yearbook, 1932, Part I, University of Chicagopp. 186-194, March, 1967. Press, p. 294.

Jerkins, Kenneth F., "Measurement of 'Under- ., Rethinking Scilnce Education, Fifty-standing Science and Scientists' in Selected ninth Yearbook, 1960, Part I, Chicago:Junior High School Classes ," Summary of a University of Chicago Press, p. 24 '; pp.paper presented at the Forty-first Annual 42-45.Meeting, National Association for Research Nedelsky, Leo., Science Teaching and Testing,in Science Tcaching, Chicago, Illinois, Feb- Chicago; Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.,ruary 9, 1968. 1965, p. 73; p. 347.

28

35

Norton, Jerry L., "The Need for an ActivityCentered Science Program," Science Edu-cation,47: pp. 285-291, April, 1963.

Ortgiesen, Leroy., "Relative Effectiveness ofSelected Filmstrips and Sound Motion Picturesin Teaching Soil Conservation in Ninth-gradeSocial Studies Classes," DissertationAbstracts,14: p. 642, 1954.

Pella, Milton 0. , "The Laboratory and ScienceTeaching," The Science Teacher, 28: pp.29-31, September, 1961.

Pella, Milton 0. , Stanley, julian., Wedemeyer,C. A., Ind Wittich, W. A., "The Use ofthe White Films in the Teaching of Physics,"Science Education,46: pp. 6-21, February,1962.

., Introductory Physical Science, Stu-dent's Book, Preliminary Edition, EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Incor-porated, 1967, preface, V.

Reidel, F. A., "What, If Anything, Has ReallyBeen Proved as to the Relative Effectivenessof Demonstration and Laboratory Methods inScience?" School Science and Mathematics,27: pp. 51 2-519; pp. 620-631, May-June,1927.

Richardson, John S., Science Teaching inSecondary Schools, Englewood Cliffs, NewJersey: Prentice-Hall, Incorporated, 1957,pp. 70-73.

Rickert, Russel., "Developing Critical Thinking,"Science Education,51: pp. 24-27, February,1967.

Romano, Louis. , "The Role of Sixteen Milli-meter Motion Pictures and Projected StillPictures in Science Unit Vocabulary Learn-ings at Grades Five, Six and Sevi-n," A-VCommunication Review,5: pp, 551-55 2, 1957.

Rulon, Philip J. , The Sound Motion Picture inScience Teaching, Harvard University Press,1933, p. 98.

Sadnavitch, J. M., Popham, W. J. , and Black,W. A., "Retention Value of Filmed ScienceCourses," Science Education,46: pp. 22-26, February, 1962.

Sherman, Jack E., "The Relative Effectivenessof Two Methods of Utilizing Laboratory-TypeActivities in Teaching Introductory PhysicalScience," Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Wisconsin, 1968.

Smith, Herbert A., "A Determination of theRelative Effectiveness of Sound MotionPictures and Equivalent Teacher Demonstra-tions in Ninth Grade General Science,"Science Education,33: pp. 214-220, April,1949.

State Advisory Committee on Science Instructionin the High Schools. , Science CurriculumDevelonment in the Secondary Schools,State of California Department of EducationPublications, p. 21, 1965.

Stollberg, Robert., "Learning in thu Laboratory,"The Bulletin of the National Association ofSecondary School Principals,37: pp. 10 2-103, January, 1953.

Sumstine, David R., "A Comparative Study ofVisual Instruction in the High School,"Educational Research and Statistics,7:number 165, pp. 235-238, February 23, 1918.

Tendam, D. J., "Preparation and Evaluation inUse of a Series of Brief Films of SelectedDemonstrations from the Introductory CollegePhysics Course," USDE Research Report,Grant Number 7-1 2-027.11, Purdue ResearchFoundation, August 31, 1961.

Trent, John., "The Attainment of the Concept'Understanding Science' Using ContrastingPhysics Courses," Journal of Research inScience Teaching,3: pp. 224-229, 1965.

Watson, Goodwin and Glaser, Edward M.,Manual for Forms Ym and Zm, Watson-GlaserCritical Thinking Appraisal, Harcourt, Braceand World, New York, 1964a, 1.

Watson, Goodwin and Glaser, Edward M.,Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal,New York: Harcourt, Flrace and World, 1964b.

Wittich, Walter A., and Fowlkes, John Guy.,Audio-Visual Paths to Learning, New York:Harper and Brothers, pp. 6-21, 1946.

Wood, Ben D., and Freeman, Frank N., MotionPictures in the Classroom, Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company, p. 386, 1929.

Wynn, Dan C., and Bledsoe, Joseph C.,"Factors Related to Gain and Loss of Sci-entific Interest During High School," ScienceEducation,51: pp. 67-74, February, 1967.

Yager, Robert and Wick, John., "Three Emphasesin Teaching BiologyA Statistical Comparisonof Results," Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching,4: pp. 1 6-20, 1966.

29

Date post:	24-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 065 361. 24. SE 014 464. AUTHOR TITLE. INSTITUTION....

Documents