Files in this item
|(no description provided)|
|Title:||An Exploration of Some Dimensions of the Valuing Behavior of Two Beginning Teachers of Science|
|Author(s):||Carleton, John Charles|
|Department / Program:||Education|
|Degree Granting Institution:||University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign|
|Subject(s):||Education, Teacher Training|
|Abstract:||The research objective was to explore the valuing behavior of two beginning teachers of science and develop a scheme for describing that behavior as observed in the classroom. The research also looked into the relationship between development in moral value reasoning as assessed by the Rest (1974), Defining Issues Test (DIT) and the valuing behavior of the teachers.
Data for the study consisted of tape recordings of the experiences of the two teachers in a secondary science methods class at the University of Illinois. The subjects were selected by using their "P" scores on the DIT which were at opposite extremes of development. The results of the study are reported through transcribed episodes from the classroom experiences of the teachers.
The scheme developed consists of coherent themes of valuing behavior generated utilizing a model for values analysis devised by Milton Meux. These themes, called values frameworks, represent pervasive dispositions for related valuing behavior characterized by either a dominate values criterion or cluster of interdependent value criteria. A values framework is composed of one or more values dimensions which are sub-themes of valuing behavior within a framework also based upon a particular criterion or small group of interdependent criteria. The study found the subjects to have values frameworks related to the teaching process and their view of science.
One subject's valuing behavior was characterized by clear, consistent, and open expression of criteria. In his values framework for the teaching process he revealed one major values dimension involving criteria for evaluation of student performance. His values framework for science was a view of science teaching as a transferring of knowledge. This transfer had a passive and an active facet. In the passive facet the subject would apply criteria from his values dimension in science to determine that some information can simply be transferred to the student via a handout or reading. In the active facet the subject applied criteria for inquiry into science which were characterized by values dimensions for experiments. The researcher had included a values dilemma involving water rationing as a part of the methods materials. This subject spent little time on the dilemma and approached it from his science framework by de-emphasizing the issues involved and concentrated instead on the students' data for home water usage.
The other subject revealed several values dimensions for the teaching process and it was not always clear which dimension had priority at any one time in his teaching. His values framework for science was characterized by a qualitative values dimension which deemphasized conventional science. He emphasized the values dilemma through class discussions using his values framework for the teaching process.
In addition, the study examines three situations in which the students were found to be challenging the value dimensions of the beginning teachers. These situations exemplify the relationship between problems experienced by the beginning teachers in the classroom and their valuing behavior.
The low "P" score of the first subject on the DIT was found to be consistent with his valuing behavior which typified role models for teacher and scientist as characterized by Kohlberg's third stage of development. The high "P" score of the other subject was also consistent with his valuing behavior in which values and rules were treated as relative to the group as characterized by Kohlberg's fifth stage of moral development.
The information provided by this research on the valuing behavior of beginning science teachers suggests areas for further research and will aide science educators in the design of future methods experiences.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1981.
|Date Available in IDEALS:||2014-12-12|