DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 064 108 SE 013 766
AUTHOR Krahm, BarbaraTITLE Attitudes and Opinions of Principals and Teachers
Involved in an Experimental Earth Science Program inNew York State.
PUB CATE Apr 72NOTE 280.; Paper presented at the National Science
Teachers Association Annual Meeting, New York City,April 1972
EDRs PRICEDESCRIPTORS
MF-,50.C5 HC-$3.29*Attitudes; Curriculum Development; *Earth Science;Educational Research; Experimental Programs; Geology;*Principals; *Secondary School Science; *TeacherAttitudes
ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study, a doctoral thesis project,
was to determine the attitudes of selected principals and teachersrelative to their open and closed belief systems, science commitmentlevels, and opinions as to the extent of agreement or disagreementre4arding the adoption and implementation of the "RegentsExperimental Earth Science Curriculum" in New York State. TheAttitudes, Perceptions and Process (APP) Theory was utilized as aconce-atu.l research framework. The median, t test for uncorrelatedmeans, non-pooled variance, double classification of analyses ofvariance, ard the Pearson product-moment coefficient of correlationwere used to analyze the data. Significant differences were foundbetween principals and teachers on only one of the seven itemsstadied--nature of the experimental program. Significantrelationships (.05) were found for principals between belief systemand three of the seven items studied. (Author/PR)
U.S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS EIEEH REPRO.DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIG-INATING IT POINTS
OF VIEW OR OPIN-IONS STATED GO NOT NECESfARILYREPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDU-CATION POSITION OR POLICY
CO
.t ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS OF PRINCIPALS AND TRAGHERS
CDrr.4
INVOLVED ni AN EXPERIMENTAL EARTH SG /ME%Co
Ca PROGRAM IN NEW YORN STATE161.1
PRESENTED BY
ilARBARA BRAM&SCIENCE TEACILER
JERICHO UN IOR HIGH SCI:1001JERICHO, NEW YORK
TO THE
20th ANNUAL MEET ING OF TO; NAT IONAL SC WOE TEAGISR3ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK CITY, NSW YORK, APRIL 10;1972 ,i0o)
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE C OPY
Table of Contents
PageI. INTRODUCTION 1.
Significance of study le
Research hypothesis le
Research paradigm - APP Theory 2.
II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3.
III. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, PROCEDURE 5.
Subjects 5.
Materials 6.
Procedure 6.
IV. FINDrNGS 7.
Distribution of educators' responses 7.
Comparison of Opinians of educators withdifferent belief systams 8.
Comparison of opinions of eduow nis withdifferent science commitments 9.
A Relationchips between educators' attitudesand opinions 90
Relationships between educators' attitudes,opinions and two variables 10.
V. CONCLUSIONS 11.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS 12,
VII. REFERENCES 15.
VIII. TABLES 17.
Attitudes and Opinions of principals and Teachers Involved
in an Experimental Earth Science Program in New York State
Barbara Araks, Fordkam University
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine the attitudes
of selected principals and teachers relative to their (1)
open and closed belief systems, t2) science commitment levels,
and opinions as to the extent of agreement or disagreement
regarding the adoption and implementation of the Regente
AWElmental Earth Science Crrriculum in New Ybrk State. The
An Theory 0%ttitudes, Perceptions and Prooes,) was utilised
as a conceptual research framework. The median, t toot for
uncorrelated means, non-poolee variance, double classification
of analyses of variance and, the Pearson product-moment
coefficient of correlation were used to analyse tin data.
Significant differences were found between principals and
teachers on only one of the seven items studied - nature of
the experimental program. Significant relationships (.05)
were found for principals between belief system and three
of the sevn items studied.
3
Pressures for science curriculum change will increase as
technological advances continuo in our society. Educators
must inquire as to the potential impact of the attitudinal
factors in relation to the adoption and implementation
of new science cur,riculum programs. Pre-service and
in-service education programs must prepare science educators
to meet the future needs of education. Perhaps, Eiss and
Harneck (b) assessed this need, when they recommended
that Schwirianso (19) Scince Support Scale be implemented
to assist in the evaluation cf teacher attitudes.
In 1967, New York State, endeavoring to keep pace with
societal change, developed and instituted a new earth
science curriculum program (4). It was predicated upon the
philosophy that student behaviors could be measured in terms
of learning skills, *tick would reflect the spocific attitudes
or open-mindedness and commitment to the value of science.
The participants involved in the experimental program.-
principeks and teachers-- were assumed to possess the same
kind of attitudes to be inculcated.
The implication of this lack of understanding of the
curriculum process chang and the attitudes cf the personnel
involved, demands an investigation of newly established
science education programs. To provide a conceptual research
model, the Ail' Theory was postulated, which involved
attitudes, perceptions and preoess. It proposed that
bclief system and science commitment attitudes tended to
vidence a positive relationihip in the degree of perceptions
of principals and teachers about the adoption and implementa-
tion of the experimental earth science program.
This hypothesis was based, in part, on related research
derived from Coleman (2), Neal (7)9 and Dutta(3). A composite
picture of their research revealed that : (1) social change
could be equated with curriculum change, a) attitudes
effected social change within the Catholic Church, and i3)
the inner s7stem of an individual was composed of attitudes
based on his values while his outer system ihvolved his
opinions about change principles.
The belief system was defined by Rokeach (9 57) as the
" extent toward which a person can receive, evaluate and act
on relevant information received from the outside on its
own intrinsic merits unencumbered by irrelevant factors aris-
ing from within the person or from the outside." The term,
science commitment, as defined by Schwirian (10 s i-45)9
ncompassed : rationalityus of reason to understand nature,
utilitarianismapplication of reason to understand tbe
natural world, universalismaoceptance of scientific ideas,
individualismdecisive individual action, progress and
meliorismacceptasioe of change in the name of progress and
better living.
Two other variablos--cost per pupil in the school die-
5
2.
3.
triet Wt.: a program success rating-- wore included in the
rosearoh a-tgn. Cost per pupil in the school district was a
statistic obtained from the Annual Education Summary (1 s 152-
75). The program svecess rating was formulated for this
study, by dividing the number of students passing the Regents
experimental earth scalene* examination on the raw score only,
by the total number of students taking the experimental
earth science examination. This score Was interpreted as a
raw score percentage and further as the program sweeps rating
criterion within a school. The raw score results were obtain-
ed from the malsAgELL22221.1 (8 : 1).
Statement of the Problem
This study sought to determine the attitudes of selented
principals and teachers relative to their (1) open and alosd
belief systems, (2) science commitment levels, and (3)
opinions as to the extent of agreement or disagreement regard-
ing the adoption and implementation of the BlEents Eustimental
Earth Science Curriculum in New York State. The study also
sought to determine what relationships, if any, existed
between these attitudes, opinions and the control variables :
(1) cost per pupil in the school district and (2) program
success rating.
Specifically, this study proposed to obtain data regard-
ing the following questions :
4.
1. What was the distribution of the extent of the belief
system, mcience commitment and opinions about the experimental
program ?
2. Did significant differences exist between the responses
of principals and teachers about b2lief systems, science
commitment and opinione about the experimental earth science
program ?
3. Did significant diffrences exist between the responses
of open and closed belief system educators concerning their
opinions about the experimental earth science program ?
4. Did a significant interaction exist between belief
system and educational role ?
b. Did significant differences exist between the respor,Als
of educators with high and low science commitmnt concerning
their opinions snout the experimental earth science program ?
6. Did a significant interaction exist between science
cOmmitment and educational role it
7. Did significant relationships exist between pallier systems,
science commitment and opinions about th xperimental
earth science program for teachers and principals ?
8. Did significant relationships exist between the responses
of principals concerning their belief systems, science
commitment, opinions about the experimental earth science
program and th variables of cost per pupil in the school
district and program success rating
5.
v. Did significant relationships exist betwen tao responses
of teacaers concerning their belief systems, science commit.
went, opinions about the experimental earth science program
and the variables of cost per pupil in the school district
and program success rating ?
Tne Subjects, The Materials and The Procedure
The Subjects
This study investigated 89 principals and 105 teachers,
who were participants in tbe 18 state-wide Experimental
Earth Science Try-out Centers in New York State, during the
1968-1969 school year. Usable responses from 44 principals
and 63 teachers, representing 55 per cent of the original
samp14, served as ths data for the study.
The Materials
Data were obtained in the study through the Opinionnatro.
This three-part instrument measured the revondnt's blief
system, level of science commitment and appraisal of the
experimental earth science program in New York State. The
Rokoach Dogmatism Scales Form E, was used to measure the
belief system, while the Schwirian Soisncs Scale
was used to measure science commitment. Tim reliebilities
of the Rokiach (9) aratism Scale& Form Et ranged from
.68 to .93, while the reliability of the Sckwiriaa (10)
6.
Science 4npport Seale was 8733 The third part of the
instrument was developed specifically for this study and it
pertained to the appraisal of seven major factors involved
in the adoption and implementaticn of the experimental
program : adoption as, (2) adoption influencs, (3
nature of the program, (4) student learning, (5) parent
reaction, (6) principal support, and (7) teacher qualifications.
The Procedure
A jury was included in the study to assist in the develqp-
ment of the instrument. Five administrators and 20 teachers
were involved in a pilot study to review the instrument for
the purpose of further refinement.
Data were analyzed according to the questions posed in
the studyis sub-problems. These included the number of
respondents, the extent of the responses, and the means,
standard deviationd and range of values as determined In
the three parts of the Opinionnaire. The median was mployed
to dichotomize subjects on the belief e continuum and
the ',fiance commitment continuum. The t test for uncorrelated
means, non-pooled variano, was used to determine whether
the responset of principals differed from teachers on belief
systems, science commitment and opinions ibout the experimental
program.
Double classification analyses of variance wore used
to analyze the eart ILL scores on the Ainionnaire. The
9
7.
main effects of educational role and belief system as well as
the main effects of educational 1-11e and science commitment,
were employed in the 2 x 2 design. T rearson product.
moment coefficient of correlation was utilized to determine
relationships betiveen the attitudes Ll) belief system, k2)
science commitment. and opinions about the experimental program,
as well as the relationships between these attitudes, opinions
and the variables : (1) cost per pupil in the school dislxict
and the (2) program success rating, for principals and
teacbers. Significant differences we*re accepted when the
level of confidence was at .05 or less. All computations
were performed on Honeywell Data rrocessing equipment.
The Findings
The findings, described in five sections, were related
as follows : tl) Distribution of Educators' Responses Concern..
ing their Attitudes and Opinions, (2) Comparison of Opinions
of Educators with Different Blif Systems, (3) Ga*,arisan or
Opinions of Educators with Different Science Commitments, (4)
Relationships between Educators' Attitudes and Opinions, and
(5) Relationships between Educators' Attitudes, Opinions and
Two Variables.
I. Distribution of Educators Responses Concerning their
Attitudes and Opinions
1. rrincipals as a group, tended to hav more Ivor belief
systems, as measured by the Esomtism Scale,
10
a.science commitment attitudes, as measured by the Science
SuEort Seale, than teachers; bu l. these differences were not
statistically significant (t = 1.39).
2. Principals tended to be in greater agreement than teachers
about adoption ease, principal support and teacher qualifica-
tions in the experimental program, as categorized on Part III
of the Opinionnaire (Table I, mean values - itema 81,86,87).
3. Teachers appeared to be In stronger agreement and more
perceptive than principals about adoption influences, nature
of the program, student learning and parent reaction to the
TIrogiam, as categorized on Part III of the Opinionnaire
(Table I, mean values 4, items 82,83,84,85).
4. Although principals and teachers appeared to differ in
their appraisal of the experimental program, significant
differences were indicated on only one of the seven items on
Part III of the gailionnaire - nature of tha program (Table II,
item 83, r ratio = 6.25).
II. Comparison of Opinions of Educators with
Different Belief Systeme
1. A closed belief system attitude, as measured by the
Dogmatism Scale, appeared to increase an educator's agreement
and perception about almost all of the seven opinion categor-
ies (Table II, mean values - items 81 to 87 ).
2. /dialysis of variance revealed that only one item 83 -
nature of the program - indicated that significant differences
ex4sted between the opinions of principals and teachers ,as
11
9.
well as open ahd closed educators (Table II,item 83, F ratio:
3.93).
3. Neither an educator's belief system attitude nor hitt edu-
cational role appeared to affect his appraisal of the other
items on Part III of the aulsalaire, when compared as single
or interacting factors (Table III).
III. Comparison of Opinions of Educators with Different
Science Commitment
1. High science commitment attitudes, as measured by the
al..snaitscale, appeared to increase an educator's
agreement and perception about almost all of the seven opinion
categories on Part III of the pin.tonnaire (Table IV ).
2. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences on
item 84- student learning. between the opinions of low and
high mcience commitment educators (Table 1/9 item 84, F ratio
=
3. Neildier an educator's science commitment nor his educational
role appeared to affect his appraisal of the other items on
Part III of the Opinionnaire, when compared as single or
interacting factors (Table V).
IV. Relationships between Educators' Attitudes awl Opinions
1. A principal's belief system attitude was related to his
appraisal of nly three of the seven items on Part III of the
Opinionnaire . nature of the program, student learning, and
teacher qualifications (Table VI, item 83-r = .340mitam 84
r isx .308, item 87 -r = .315). However, a teacher's belief
12
10.system attitude was not related to his appraisal of any of the
seven items on Part III of the Opinionnaire (Table VII).
2. A principal's science commitment attitude was related to
his appraisal of student learning (Table VIsitem 84-rw.397),
while a teacher's science commitment attitude was related to
his evaluation of the nature of the program (Table VII, item
83-r .304).
3. Belief system and science commitment attitudes were not
related for principals or for teachers.
V. Relationships between Educators' Attitudes, Opinions
and Two Variables
1. A principal's belief system, but not a teacher's was
related positively to the program's success rating (Table VIII).
2. Neither principals' nor teachers' science commitment
attitudes were related to the cost per pupil in the school
district.
3. A principal's 1;.praisal of only one of the seven items on
Part III of the Opinionnaire, parent reaction, was related
negatively to the. program's success rating (Table VIII, itmn
85, r * -.403). However, teachers' appraisals of the seven
items on Part III of the ORtnionnaire were not related to
program success rating at all (Table IX ).
4. A principal's evaluation of the seven items on Part III
of the ainionnaire was not related to cost per pupil in the
school district (1...ble VIII). However, a teacher's evaluation
of one of the seven items on Part III of the Opinionnaire
13
11.principal support, was negatively related to cost per pupil
in the school district (Table IX, item 86, r = -.346).
Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from the data :
1. Closed belief system educators, who are encumbered by
internal personal factors as well as external factors,
positively appraised (1) adoption ease, (2) adoption influen-
ces,(3) nature of the program, (4) student learning, (5)parent
reaction, (6) principal support, and (7) teacher qualifica-
tions higher than open belief system educators. This faot
appeared to indicate that creating stress within a system in
transition, may be a desirable educational goal to advanee
a new program, such as the experimental earth science program.
2. Ugh science cemmitment principals and teachers, whe
sunpert science, its produets and practitioners, positive1Y
appraised student learning and the nature of the program
higher than low science commitment educators. This fact
appeared to indicate that this strong science support attitude
may be important in the Promotion of better science education.
3. The closed belief system attitudes of principals were
related to their opinions about the nature of the program,
14
4
student learning and teacher qualifications. This fact
appeared to indicate that principals with closed belief
systems contrary to the converse phenomenon, appear to be the.
kind of educational leaders, who tend to experiment and
tare more risks with new curricula.
4. The principals/ blief systems were related to the
experimental earth science program's success rating, but
the teachersi belief systems were not so related. These
data pointed to the generalization that principals, as a
group, are more concerned with long range goals than teachers.
5. The principals and teachers involved in tie experimental
program were not in agreement about the nature of the
program, i.e. (1) classroom direction, (2 laboratory
activity time, i3) science materials, (4) independent
study, and i5) science ohavior. Either stronger lines of
communication were needed among educators, or tie investiga*
tion was limited naturally by the diverse perceptions of
the participants in the study.
Reoommendations
This study was intended to serve as an introduction to
needed investigations into the VelationsAlps of attitudes
and perceptions regarding processes in transition. The
following reoemmendations were formulated
1. Empirical studies to determine the relationships between
1.5
13.
belief system attitudes and the nature of curriculum change,
student learning and teacher qualifications snould be
ncouraged. These findings would nhance administrative
theory, as a basis for in.servic education for both
administrators and science educators.
2* The Science Support Scale provided discriminating data
as a research instrument. It cauld be used to plan 1w-service
ducation programs for bolich administrators and science
educators.
6. Another instrument, other than the Regmtissua,might be constructed for UAO in conjunction with the
Science Support Scale to measure openness and science
commitment. The implications of th research emanating from
the same proposition for administrative leadership and
secondary school science curriculum are numsrous.
4. Additional studies should be patterned replicating the
Attitudes, Perceptions and Process Theory, by tmodepeeinis
othsr relevant variables such as : (l) team teaching, (2)
parent support, (3) special curricula, (4) principal's
preparation, etc.
5. A study should be made to ascertain why principals'
belief system attitudes were related to the SUOCOOO of the
xperimental program; while teachers' belief system attitudes
were not related.
6. To continue to test the APP Theory, various propositions
16,
14.
may be investigated
(1) Closed attitudes of educators are positively related to
their perceptions and receptivity of new programa in science,
as well as other curricular areas.
(2) The more positive the attitude, the greater the appraisal
ability of educators regarding programs and processes in
transition.
(3) The greater the appraisal ability of the ducator, the
higher the value that be will place on curriculum change.
(4) As the conditions in (2) and (3) increase, greater
experimentation and risk taking will tend to occur with
new curriculum offerings.
5) AS the conditions in (2) and (3) decrease, the greater
the probability that the opposing conditiona will tenet to
MOW.
17
REVERENCES
1. Annual Education Summar Nineteen Sixt Six-Stxt
Seven. New lork : The University of th State of New
York, The State Education Department, Information Center
on Education, 1V69.
2. Coleman, Robert William. "Kurt Lewin's Theory of Social
Change Applied to Curriculum Change." Unpublished Doctor-
al Dissertation, University of Illinois, Illinois, 1964.
3. Dutta, Ratna. "Role or Values in the rrocess of Moderni.
satins as Conceptualized in Sociological Literature."
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Atte.
burgh, renneylvania, 16'/.
4. EarthSciencesAL...2_,g.talSllabusltEdition
Albany, New York : The Univ6rsity of the State of New
York, The State Education Department, Bureau of Secondary
Curriculum Development, 1968.
5. Else, Albert and Mary Blatt Narbeck. Behavioral OVectives
in the Affective Domain. Washington, D.C. : National
Science Teachers' Associsition, 1:010.
6. Guilford, J.P. Fundateseholozand Education. New York t MaGraw-Bill Book Company, 11065.
Y. Neal, Sister Marie Augusta, S.N.D. Values and 40erests
in Social qmange. PrenticeHall Contemporary rroblems
in Sociology Series, Edited by John Donovan. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey : rrentice-Hall, Inc., 1W6b.
18
8, 13.1.3.niaain2L.L.E...orti. Zi* 1i6 : Regents Experimental,
Earth 3010AA0 Examination Sheets. New Yoric ; The
University or the State of New Yorke The State Education
Department, Bureau of Scince Educationa l0100.
mimeographed)
v. Rokeaeh Milton. amanc.....Niintl. lwoO,
New York : Basic Books, Duo, kublisnors, 1964.
lus Schwirian, ratricia Millard. "Construction and Validation
of a Science Support Scale." Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Ohio, lftrio
* Krahms Barbara. "Attitudes and Opinions of Principalsand Teachers Involved in on Experimental Earth ScienceProgram in New York State." Unpublished DoctoralDissertation, Fordham University, New Ybrk, 1970.
commasmaxam:..a.?...u.-
4.101PAPP}OPWW41........d.
FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY
TAM-
TH7 1 r3OL(.744;1r3 O PR1ICIAW:1 AND I
A
714Ncv c7RI! i n Intl Er frr. 1.174.P sSC.P.Ncr COM VISTiTS A= OP1NTC NS
A Nr. TH:r: riTHITOGRAN
MINCIPAL3
Alr; N
Balefnyste:301onoct
PIMA,clYln.tart3
aboatprozram
14i4.;
-I-4
t:bW
Z".
1'1,14 V.
/ 1444z
f.:10
44i
I,..154.,7=,.. v-rVIt'Ve
4,4
Itrx===tzpam-=%trriamn--z=sionTVACIPTS
t IOD .1i 4S.4
wor183125 93 2W2 .4.4Y1t. 133 14 25.00
129..181 159.20 10.6k 01134-P178 157.60i MO
!,
i
i1i
;
1
h4.19 14.34 241,7..2 h 63; 50.19 / 13.691 3.09
12.97 2.66 63! 8-20 t 134612! 2.36
10-23 18.04 i 2.55 cf 63! 13.025 i 1.9.01 2.501
?
7d'20 25.68 1 203 631 90.20 ; 15.92i 2.47i
6-20 1 11;4,0,0 22- 631 1 2.24
10.02 1.54 63p 6-141 104411 1.77
&NIG 13.141
a.15
i8-20 14#47f
2.13 63 10018 14.12 1,94
e,otet Cpiniona about proe,ram81 a adoption ;mato62 'a adoption influences83 nature of proram84 a tudent learning85 es parent reaation86 a principnl support87 teacher qualifications
204.
'7':=2.* VitIrtf.-17.e,tote.
TitiLn 11
MAN RESPONSES OP EDUCATORS WITH D11FEEINT3rLIT77 TYSTrtll RFOARPINO THrIR OPIRIMIS
Amir THE EXPeRIMENTAL EARTHism= MORAN
PRINCIPALS TrACNERS Ai:JL FDUCATORS*...................e.lo nui.ssij ~10.4111110,..01..
01161101.16 111%* Men .........me Of..44. .-1,04.,rn
cpinioneaboutprowram
31
32
83
84
85
86
mrra3
neb....
Opon_tClose Total Open
I
4
I U0°4114063 I 14.34.
1 12.72,13,22 1 12.97, i
1,
1 17.19 1(3.90 1 18.04
1 15.40i 15,95 i 150631
I
1 9.86j 10.13 I 10.02
1 13#45414.54 1 14.00
i ,
124.04 14090 14.41,
13.Ei 14.0o
12.931 13.37I
0
1
19.0619.SO 1 19.2
15,61 16.31 i 15.9
10.4 1007A
1
1 13031 13.00 1311I.3Z 14.031 14011
13.7
13.1
Open Ir1o.aod
13.72114.25
12.05113.31
18.29 19025
15.55116.16
10.18110.29
13.37113.62
11k.22114.38
="41=X3OU=IIS
Note: open belief system 0 low wan scoreclosed belief systm high moan score
81 adoption ease82 - adoption influences83 nature of program84 as student learning85 0 parent reaction06 0 principal support87 a teacher qualifications
21
TABLF III
^
ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OP MEAN RESPONSES OF EDUCATORSWITH DIFFERENT BELIEF SY3TE18 REGARDING THEIR
OPINIONS ABOUT THE EXPERIMENTALPARTH SCIENCE PROGRAM
cnA 0u4 ci)1:14 m
A gH VI I Z2 61 re, co) 1....,
PI 4::4 C:5, ° H1^.4 A =4 i:t1 0 0 Ri E-1
ili 44 E-4 0 t., (A n IVI
MEAN SQPARES
Ey)
Opinionsaboutprogram
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
9.11 7.78 .06 9.21
.83 5.78 .03 6.38 .13 .90
39.82 25.03 10.08 6.35 6.25* 3.93*
2.38 10.08 .08 6.06 .39 1.66
3.53 .34 .79 2.91 1.21 .11
18.56 1.80 12.85 5.13 3.61 .35
2.19 74 9.02 4.25 .54 .17
-
.00
.00
1.70
.01
.27
2.50
2.11
Note: F ratio in ani'kysis of variance, doubleacisification
dfbetween 3principals and teachers 1open and closed educators 1interaction 1within 104total 107
* significant at .05 level
-
2":.
TABler Iv
NEM RFSPOINE3 OF EDUCAT0e3 ATH DIPPERMITSCIFC, COM1ITMNT3 MAARDIMOPIN1003 ABOUT Tilt: EXPIMENTAL
FARM r,CIUJa MORAN
Am. - .40 ..V.110.-
opinionsaboutpro6rava
re,444
gh Total
13.C1111,36 14034
12.77i13.13 12.97
33 17.66118.40113.04
114.54116.0115.66
110.00110.04110.02
06 113.8104.18/14.00
Fl 111i.09114.86 14.47
rztazv
pr
'FFANS.. 11r....%".Low Vigh Total
S.Low. flih
160.0
14.21113.
13.03 13.
13.81119.
15.62116,,
10.15' 10.
134000 13.
14.00 14.
26!13.751
28113.15;
75119.281
311.115.981i
021 10.391i
31113.1511
371 14.1811
a4===
1405 13.92
12.92 13.24
1805 19.20
15.18 16.53
10.09' 10.38
13.33113.66
14.03134.57
.4xenr=162
weak aoience co..;unitmeut = low moan scorestron6 science commitment m high mean score
opinions about program81 al adoption ease32 a adoption influences83 nature cot proeram84 10 student lsarnine85 le parent reaction36 = principal support87 a teacher qualifications
23
1.41NWA.a0-4- F..
1.1.
2A8Lis Ai
ANALYSIS CP VAANCE OF OW; RESpOtiV$ Or EDUCATOfisDIreefi NT 3CIF CCtr
THrir OrINIONz; AnTr IAPITIMENTALrkRIT p7iIORAM
.......A.A .............A.A.A4A..4.4A.A. *4A-AAA.A.momorAWSMAIM.......00.01twertA., ...........0.00..00-.000NAVAAw.90~0..........0000.001100100..00000..m.....00 .0.00..... IA A - .A. - 00.t.- 0 0 ..000010000.00.0100.. 0............4 au. .........- AA-AA. . 0 elANAMOOMAIM ad -.011.1.44.4.1111Ammia 01140041441414.14........111=
1 ....
4.t ,
fle
1
A 4::"1 ..te)
Ce":
1:4 cs,
rlcr:
ill.%4'
i-4 a
6C1Z
1..1 t;,;# #
V,
ft, ciF.44100t.
WAN *c:JAel-':-..7)........10.444-404014100 AA .. ., AA t ...M. .....*4 1.1~.....w. ... *AA MAAMIN
44allone I 1
t
pro6ram
.115'1
2.63i 9.03
about
,
9.11 1
321
.83 1 2.671 1
,
139.62 1 19.59 i .26 1 650;
49.34 I 15.76 i 5.33;,
1
fle., 3.53 2.37 1.17 2.69
i36 16.56 3.00 *01 5.41
7 2.19 7.18 J 1.04 4.26
1.'43
A 004 ilbApon041.AAMI4ORM
P VAT/I)S-.AA 040004 00.4001.414. 0404.4.0100.01010.
1.00 .05
.12 .41
6.11* 3.00
.43
1.22 41C2
3.53 .57
.53 1.82
2.83
.02
.04
2.84
Plower A.A.
oto: ratio an analysis of variance, doubleolassification
dfbetwean 3principals and teadbers 1law and high science commitment educatorsinteraotion 1uithin 104total 107
* significant at .05 levelsignificant at .01 level
24
et,,,4144N.Viljaa,if
,..; ' 1-.
. ;
TAME VI
irLATIONIRIPS 3RIV773 tiFLIPF SYMMS.COMITN2NTS i.im crinioNs Alr2Trit
rXiTPTMriCIAL PPMPAM ropNINCIPALS
....111114.11.1~0.a. 0*..1. ......n.-- . - ,I.popy.g...ffne.
n
oliofsystem
131-..LIN?
,...aopp.....p.ohogre...11011116.~014.110.1..,
oionocommitment
Mel.-
.-%**t~ ...am . &
pntonaboutpro6rmin
COMMITWNTne.A.0111.0. ......11..fdt.10KAMIllk~~1111140".
r Values
1.000
.029
.mmurnwNorota*. oc.orainWasheiPawie
1.000
1 skeoption ease) .279
82 tttloption influences) .1814
i1.3 (nature of program) .340* .100
OL t7stuOont learning) 4,303i1, .397-
qlaront roaction) *.130 .094t
36 (principal support) *-th9 40.059
37 (teacher qualifications) .315'4. 4124z
, && wom.111.41~r4.011.411111111.1ft
Onwair,O. ibliMO ,... .1* 01~~1PIOW,~11~PW.M.F.11110.10~..41WO*41148,1MAIVOIbaMuMINIO.MIIMY
:Jota: r Pearson product-nomont coefficientof correlation
significant at .05 level
significant at .01 level
N-2 is 42
"'; ,. A
TABLE VII
grLATIONSHIPS BETWEN Mar nanny SCIENCECOMMTTMEan AND OPINIONS ABOUT THE
murprwTAL PRWRAM POTvACHREM
4.4.1144.4111414.MIN114.1.04,... NoneMemr.
tvstom
scIrnECOMMITIVITT
IMMOININ..../.41.41.4.Mov......44111........""m4MNININ 414141011NOMM.MINC.14400..
...NM. ...Or 4
r Values........40440M.MMIMMIMM.M.MOMMINO4MM.ON 'MA
:cie!lcocommiUmnt 1.000
IMIONNIN.O111/161.01111.,eNtirdoNWN. + o." yr Rau.
Opinionsabout7L-oraN
fa (adoption ease) .066 4.4,165
tr (adoption influences) .061 ft.048
83 (nature or pro6rer0 .208 .304 *
3h (atudont learning) .159 .226
85 fpnrent reaction) 044.076
86 (principal support) 043 .101
4 (teacher qualifications) .P.026
:43141: r Pearson productftmoment coofficiontof correlation
significant at .05 level
tift.2 is 61
26
-7. 2,-7,17-7-,-,Ar-. ^,t. -"" .*-- --""""-1""r"-rrr-.:-....k.e* cu .,, , ' -
TABLE VIII
VIATIONSHIP3 BETWErg Warr SYSTEM, SCIPNerCOMNITMENT, OPIU/ONS Al2On TNE rUTRIMENTAL
PriO(ium Aar) TLE VARIAnlq; cosT prm puTILIt; ''rr czoor rIZTRICT AND PROGNAII
sUccrs3 RAZ= Fon PRINCIPALS
-) .0110,4011.0.4,11041111....401.1da ".111011111111*.~1.040.1 a - .S.~.}1bIrliAf .011.1104.* 4040.0.0. .......4/0.*06 P*41.1,111. /0 ear` dAl.
CO6T ?EP PPM:RpmPUPIL 3ICCF-3
.4101010. ,..0... .giormo. 0110144.46 .......~0/140*40......4111.1~ ell..111.11014.10 .1.114.110......d0641010.d...."110...
sycitemWO/WM ....o....~11.1MOMIP^......-- ....*y -+
!;cicinco
commitment4.11.. ..... e .....1, L`
GpinionaaboutlrOvranCJ,
r Values
ONIKS
100.0.1.0.. 110.40.14.......**011111141%141.100 1111
4poilo .309*..,.....-41110.461M
aw.214.1...~1/11011.4401.
ftutt4N,
P4 (adoption Paso) '&002 .261
82 (adoption influenoes) .016 0-48
- 1)-? 3 (nature or pro8ram 04167) .097 -%
0$
37
(student learning) .170
TInr;.:It reaction) 0311
fpric!clpfal support) 033
(toucher qualifications) .121
::;:°08:".
I
.164
rfMr
Notet r Pearson product*momont coeficiantof correlation
siwn4tieant at .05 level
simirioant at .01 level
Iliw2 in 12
st
IX
MATION39IP3 373711P11 3ELIEP SYSTEM. 8CIENCFCCIVITITIVra opi.to ArlouT T1V EXPPRIKENTAL
PriOGRMI AND THE VP,RIABUZ CCST PIH KIM,rN THE 3C11:01%.t1I3TRIC7 MID PROGRAM
SUCCE3S RATING PM TACtirRS
T..tsr,APAJ
woo....a.tamono son a fahaa6arna lagaaa ulatnu
*moo
PROOVAMPPIL SUCCF
r %aimsoaor....- no. v... 4101,00-6 ~1.11. *MO.
;Jeliefsxstem 40068 40.031
amamanaa.....- ga-, alMaba,.,,agaroaalaaa,a-mataa.a.a.,WaballanaiillailWainakallka....., a.* Pa raoaayatea~.10.04...~/dallab
aciencecoYmitment *036 0.206
110141a.aanwraaaa03*. !Oa.- aft,. nalaa*Waa.(le a aar-***1, 41.04 . 41.11.440.1..-.1,..14110F.M.K.M11.40.........110b10014.1411.14. 41,1/111.4141
c.pinionsabLout:.moc,ra;11
81 (adoption enee)
12
i37
Ictortion influences)
(anture of pre4r8m)
atudent learning)
(pnrcnt reaction)
(principal sup-..)ort)
t-clier qualifications)
*087
044*6'15
0 37
0,046 *4
400070
.159
d.4.035
taa, . a ... ,arolaa way.aafta., . ,,...4....,,,../-aar. aft aa -0410. MI- ...........~Arial ,pala.4,0a ag& 3ea,......ertalaaa.fl1
;ote: r Pearson productwmoment coefficient ofcorrelation
sioliticant at .01 level
D-2 is 61