IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine whether the school use of the Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS) Level One corresponded to specific aspects of the stated rationale and philosophy of the ISCS program (1970). The ISCS program has made certain claims for its materials and their effect upon the teacher, student, and classroom. ISCS materials are supposed t o allow the teacher time to interact personally with each student in guiding him through the self-paced material. This new role for the teacher should change the image of both the teacher and classroom activities as perceived by the student. The processes and the concepts of science are given as the organizational themes for the ISCS program. In this context one should ask what changes occur in student attitudes toward science as a result of instruction in ISCS.Three previous studies have dealt with classroom use of the ISCS program. Vickery (1 968) reported significant differences between the teaching strategies of ISCS teachers and non-ISCS teachers in the direction of increased use of individualized and laboratory-centered instruction. Giese (1970) reported that knowledge of the processes of science and of ISCS content were useful predictors of whether or not prospective ISCS teachers would later exhibit the classroom behaviors advocated by the ISCS model. Gentry (1969) noted a consensus of opinion among ISCS teachers in his study that the program enabled students to be more self-reliant, and that the program contributed to the development of scientific attitudes of students.Several ISCS studies have investigated the differential impact of the program on students at different ability levels. In a formative study reported in the ISCS News Report (1970), students were grouped into high-, medium-, and low-ability levels according to intelligence, reading, and arithmetic tests. The high-ability group in each of the three areas of testing had the largest percentage gains on the ISCS achievement test. Gentry (1969, pp. 32-33) contrasted the shift in ISCS student interest in science among student of low, average and high ability. Gentry reported that boys and low-ability students tended to lose interest in science to a greater extent than girls or average-and high-ability students.
Providing feedback to preservice teachers about their teaching style is an important component of most performance-based teacher education models. In these models it is assumed that if preservice teachers are provided a critique of their ability to perform a certain teaching behavior in a specific microteaching setting, then the teachers will be able to improve their ability to perform that behavior in subsequent teaching assignments. Interest has been shown by a number of researchers about whether the source of feedback criticism (i.e., feedback from self, peer, pupil, or supervisor) has an effect on the preservice teachers' ability to perform the teaching behavior of interest. Research results relative to this issue have been conflicting and no definitive conclusions about the effect of feedback source have been made. The present article explores whether the feedback source (i.e., self, peer, or supervisor) has any effect on the attitudes and on the ability of preservice teachers to employ three specific teacher behaviors.The source of feedback to the preservice teacher constituted the independent variable for the study. Subjects received feedback criticism about their lesson either from themselves, a peer, or a supervisor. A fourth group of subjects served as a control group and observed pupil behaviors which were not related to the teaching behaviors of interest.Five dependent variables were chosen as representative of important behaviors and attitudes of preservice teachers. The first variable was the proportion of high inquiry teacher questions to all teacher questions. This was considered important since Ladd and Andersen[ 13 and others[2, 31 had shown or claimed a relationship between frequency of high inquiry teacher questions and pupil performance. The second dependent variable was the proportion of teacher probing questions to all teacher questions. The value of asking probing questions, which cause students to clarify, extend, focus, justify, or apply their previous responses, has been claimed and included as a part of the inquiry teaching method by several authors (e.g., Renner et a1.[4]). The third dependent variable, wait time species two, is defined as the period of silence following a student's response and preceding a teacher's or another student's verbalization, and its value has been shown by Rowe [S] . The final dependent variables were the attitude of preservice teachers toward the way in which feedback was given to them and their attitude toward science teaching.Science Education 62(2): 209-214 (1978) (2):81-94 (1974).
The continuing crisis in the supply and demand for high school physics and chemistry teachers has been documented by a series of national surveys. There is a need, however, to augment these surveys with accurate longitudinal data which identifies the age‐specific variables of science teacher survival rates, incoming number of new teachers, and the rate at which science teachers change age cohorts. These three variables were used in a five year longitudinal study of all the physics and chemistry teachers in Kansas to project the need for teachers in 1985 and in 1990. The study indicated that the teachers 40 years and older comprised 33.5% of the physics/ chemistry teacher population in 1979–1980 and the percentage will steadily increase to 60.8 by 1990. The high turnover rate of science teachers 29 years old and younger is also contributing to the shortage of qualified physics and chemistry teachers. The cohort component population projection method outlined in this study is recommended for use in other states to document the age specific characteristics of the science teacher population.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.