The purpose of this study was to redefine and validate science education curricular goals for grades K-12 in the 1980s. Goals were obtained through a survey of recent educational literature. The goals were then compiled into an instrument, Science Education Curricular Goals for Validation, which was mailed to 100 science educators for validation by ranking each of the goals on a 1-7 scale (with 1 being the least important and 7 being the most important). The science educators were randomly selected from the membership of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, an organization dedicated to research in science education with a United States membership of 582 as of October 1980. The sample of 100 science educators represented 17% of the total United States membership. Medians and ranks for each of the 17 goals were calculated and the additional goals suggested by respondents, organized with minimal editing, were reported. The results of the study indicated that, although there was some agreement on the initial 17 goals in the instrument, there was also considerable disagreement as evidenced by the suggestions from respondents of 41 additional goals. The highest goal was one dealing with the processes, concepts, principles, and generalizations of sciences. The lowest ranked goal was one dealing with the integration of the humanities and the sciences. In the additional 41 goals suggested by respondents, there were several that were in direct opposition to those in the original 17 or to those additionally suggested by respondents. It was concluded that considerable further research is needed before a cohesive set of science education curricular goals can be established.

The defensibility of special classes and programs for gifted students is an issue with academic, social, and political ramifications. Critical components of programs for the gifted include the curriculum and service delivery model. This author examined the effect of two teaching/learning models, the Parnes Creative Problem Solving model and the Hilda Taba Teaching Strategies on the higher cognitive processes of gifted students in grades 5 through 8. Three service delivery models were included. The design of the study was the 3 x 3 x 2 analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last factor. The between subjects factors were experimental condition--Parnes, Taba, and Control--and service delivery model--Daily, One Day per Week, and Self-Contained. The within factor was the time of testing, the pre and posttest scores. Fourteen classes of gifted students in grades 5 through 8 were included: a total of 213 students took both the pretest and the posttest. The analysis of variance with repeated measures revealed two significant between subjects effects: interaction of treatment with service delivery model (p < .0001) and treatment effect (p < .02). The analysis of variance within factors indicated no significant effects (p < .05) except difference between the pretest and the posttest scores. Since the period of time between the pre and posttest was about seven months, this growth is expected and is not informative. Post hoc tests, using the Scheffe formula, showed significant (p < .10) differences in favor of both the Parnes and the Taba Daily groups when compared to the Control group, and a significant (p < .10) difference favoring the Taba Self-Contained when compared to the Taba One Day per Week group. The supporting data gathered indicated that three teachers did not implement their teaching/learning model effectively and two additional teachers used the model infrequently. The posttest cell means appear to be related not only to correct model implementation, but to frequency as well. Those cells with the highest frequencies of correct model use had the highest posttest mean scores. Therefore, it was concluded that process models offer a powerful method of teaching the higher cognitive processes to gifted students, but that such models must be used correctly and frequently.

No description available.

No description available.

The University of Arizona catalogs contain information regarding curricula, fees, university policies, and procedures.

The University of Arizona catalogs contain information regarding curricula, fees, university policies, and procedures.

The University of Arizona catalogs contain information regarding curricula, fees, university policies, and procedures.

The University of Arizona catalogs contain information regarding curricula, fees, university policies, and procedures.

The University of Arizona catalogs contain information regarding curricula, fees, university policies, and procedures.

The University of Arizona catalogs contain information regarding curricula, fees, university policies, and procedures.