The development and analysis of a field project model curriculum and its impact on achievement and attitude toward science and the environment with at-risk eleventh and twelfth grade students

This study was an evaluation of a Field Project Model Curriculum and its impact on achievement, attitude toward science, attitude toward the environment, self-concept, and academic self-concept with at-risk eleventh and twelfth grade students. One hundred eight students were pretested and posttested on the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale, PHCSC (1985); the Self-Concept as a Learner Scale, SCAL (1978); the Marine Science Test, MST (1987); the Science Attitude Inventory, SAI (1970); and the Environmental Attitude Scale, EAS (1972). Using a stratified random design, three groups of students were randomly assigned according to sex and stanine level, to three treatment groups. Group one received the field project method, group two received the field study method, and group three received the field trip method. All three groups followed the marine biology course content as specified by Florida Student Performance Objectives and Frameworks. The intervention occurred for ten months with each group participating in outside-of-classroom activities on a trimonthly basis. Analysis of covariance procedures were used to determine treatment effects. F-ratios, p-levels and t-tests at p $<$.0062 (.05/8) indicated that a significant difference existed among the three treatment groups. Findings indicated that groups one and two were significantly different from group three with group one displaying significantly higher results than group two. There were no significant differences between males and females in performance on the five dependent variables. The tenets underlying environmental education are congruent with the recommendations toward the reform of science education. These include a value analysis approach, inquiry methods, and critical thinking strategies that are applied to environmental issues. ^

Risk -taking propensity of faculty, administrators, and academic department heads at a large, urban, multi -campus community college

This research was undertaken to explore dimensions of the risk construct, identify factors related to risk-taking in education, and study risk propensity among employees at a community college. Risk-taking propensity (RTP) was measured by the 12-item BCDQ, which consisted of personal and professional risk-related situations balanced for the money, reputation, and satisfaction dimensions of the risk construct. Scoring ranged from 1.00 (most cautious) to 6.00 (most risky).^ Surveys including the BCDQ and seven demographic questions relating to age, gender, professional status, length of service, academic discipline, highest degree, and campus location were sent to faculty, administrators, and academic department heads. A total of 325 surveys were returned, resulting in a 66.7% response rate. Subjects were relatively homogeneous for age, length of service, and highest degree.^ Subjects were also homogeneous for risk-taking propensity: no substantive differences in RTP scores were noted within and among demographic groups, with the possible exception of academic discipline. The mean RTP score for all subjects was 3.77, for faculty was 3.76, for administrators was 3.83, and for department heads was 3.64.^ The relationship between propensity to take personal risks and propensity to take professional risks was tested by computing Pearson r correlation coefficients. The relationships for the total sample, faculty, and administrator groups were statistically significant, but of limited practical significance. Subjects were placed into risk categories by dividing the response scale into thirds. A 3 x 3 factorial ANOVA revealed no interaction effects between professional status and risk category with regard to RTP score. A discriminant analysis showed that a seven-factor model was not effective in predicting risk category.^ The homogeneity of the study sample and the effect of a risk-encouraging environment were discussed in the context of the community college. Since very little data on risk-taking in education is available, risk propensity data from this study could serve as a basis for comparison to future research. Results could be used by institutions to plan professional development activities, designed to increase risk-taking and encourage active acceptance of change. ^

Risk-taking propensity of faculty, administrators and academic departament heads at large, urban, multicampus community college

This research was undertaken to explore dimensions of the risk construct, identify factors related to risk-taking in education, and study risk propensity among employees at a community college. Risk-taking propensity (RTP) was measured by the 12-item BCDQ, which consisted of personal and professional risk-related situations balanced for the money, reputation, and satisfaction dimensions of the risk construct. Scoring ranged from 1.00 (most cautious) to 6.00 (most risky). Surveys including the BCDQ and seven demographic questions relating to age, gender, professional status, length of service, academic discipline, highest degree, and campus location were sent to faculty, administrators, and academic department heads. A total of 325 surveys were returned, resulting in a 66.7% response rate. Subjects were relatively homogeneous for age, length of service, and highest degree. Subjects were also homogeneous for risk-taking propensity: no substantive differences in RTP scores were noted within and among demographic groups, with the possible exception of academic discipline. The mean RTP score for all subjects was 3.77, for faculty was 3.76, for administrators was 3.83, and for department heads was 3.64. The relationship between propensity to take personal risks and propensity to take professional risks was tested by computing Pearson r correlation coefficients. The relationships for the total sample, faculty, and administrator groups were statistically significant, but of limited practical significance. Subjects were placed into risk categories by dividing the response scale into thirds. A 3 X 3 factorial ANOVA revealed no interaction effects between professional status and risk category with regard to RTP score. A discriminant analysis showed that a seven-factor model was not effective in predicting risk category. The homogeneity of the study sample and the effect of a risk encouraging environment were discussed in the context of the community college. Since very little data on risk-taking in education is available, risk propensity data from this study could serve as a basis for comparison to future research. Results could be used by institutions to plan professional development activities, designed to increase risk-taking and encourage active acceptance of change.