physics in canadian secondary schools: intentions, perceptions, and achievement

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 25, NO. 4, PP. 293-315 (1988)

PHYSICS IN CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS: * INTENTIONS, PERCEPTIONS, AND ACHIEVEMENT

MENAHEM FINEGOLD

Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

DENNIS RAPHAEL The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Abstract

This article examines secondary-school physics teaching with respect to three levels of curriculum. These are the curriculum as designed by educational authorities and intended for school guidance, as perceived by teachers and translated into classroom practice, and as in- ternalized by students and expressed by achievement on physics tests. In keeping with international usage we refer to these levels of curriculum as the intended, the translated and the achieved. The article is based upon the analysis of curriculum documents and guidelines, teacher assessments of opportunity provided students to learn, and student achievement on a comprehensive physics test. The context for analysis is provided by an ongoing international study of science education in which some 30 participating countries analyze the three curriculum levels and attempt to draw conclusions concerning possible relationships among them. The article reports limited but nevertheless significant relationships found among intentions, translations, and achievement in the teaching of physics in Canadian secondary schools.

*The study on which this article i s based is funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The first stage of this study is reported in Connelly, F.M., Crocker, R.K., & Kass, H. (1985). Science Education in Canada: Policies, Pructices and Perceptions, Vol. 1. Toronto: OISE Press. The second stage will be repolted in Vol. 2 to be published in 1987.

Q 1988 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0022-4308/88/040293-23$04.00

294 FTNEGOLD AND RAPHAEL

Background

This article draws upon some of the findings of an extensive analysis of science education in Canada, carried out within the framework of the Second International Science Study (SISS). (See Keeves and Rosier, 1981, for a statement of guidelines to the study). Each country participating in SISS was required to carry out a case study of science education, which included a detailed analysis of the content and processes of its national science curricula. The combined national analyses of science curricula were used to prepare the ground for the development, administra- tion and analysis of international achievement tests.

Rosier & Couper (1981) outlined the design for the analysis of science curricula which was to be used in the SISS and which was based on an earlier international study reported by Comber & Keeves (1973). The purposes of the study were to test student achievement in science and to determine the relationships among three levels of curriculum; the “intended,” the “translated,” and the “achieved.” We summarize these three components of the science curriculum as follows:

The intended curriculum may consist of a detailed specification of content and processes or it may consist of more general guidelines. It is often directly associated with an explicit set of aims underlying the curricul um....

The most ambitious or thorough intended curriculum issued by educational authorities will have little effect on the education of students unless effectively trandafed into meaningful learning experiences by the science teachers. This occurs at the level of the individual science classroom, ...

... the achieved curriculum ... indicates the extent to which individual students in- ternalize the experiences that were planned and organized for them ... (Rosier and Couper, 1981, p. 22)

The analysis of the intended curriculum was to be based upon science curriculum documents and other statements of curricular intent. The analysis of the translated curriculum was to be based on teachers’ responses to questions about science curriculum and teaching practices. The analysis of the achieved curriculum was to be based on students’ scores on science achievement and attitude question- naires.

The Canadian research team was particularly interested in the nature of the translated curriculum, defining it as a function of teacher perception and interpreta- tion, conceptualized as containing two components. These are (1) teachers’ perceptions, beliefs, and opinions about science curriculum and science teaching, and (2) teachers’ actual practices in their own classrooms.

Relevant data were gathered both on teachers’ perceptions of science education and on teachers’ ratings of their students’ opportunity to learn the content of the SISS achievement test items.

For reasons carefully outlined and discussed by Connelly et al. (1985), the Canadian curriculum analysis differed from, and was far more extensive than, the analysis planned for the international study. As a result it is possible that the man-

PHYSICS IN CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 295

ner in which we analyze relationships among the three levels of curriculum will differ from the manner in which findings will be reported at the international level.

Aims

This article has three aims. The first is to present an overall report on achievement in physics of Canadian upper secondary school students. For the first time in the history of Canadian education a very large sample of upper secondary school students enrolled in final physics courses all over the country responded to a comprehensive test in physics. Our report of achievement is based upon the analysis of test outcomes. Our second aim is to search for relationships among the three levels of curriculum on the basis of our analysis of physics curricula, teacher assessments of student opportunity to learn, and student achievement on the physics test items. Our third aim is to develop and provide a practical example of a model for the analysis and evaluation of national curricula, from intentions, through perceptions and translations, to student achievement.

To meet these aims we first present selected test items together with comments on student responses, and report on student success on the test items as a whole. We then compare student test achievement with teachers’ ratings of their students’ opportunity-to-learn the content embodied in the test items. Next we examine and compare student test achievement with the intended curriculum. Finally, we attempt to draw conclusions with respect to all three curricular levels seen as a whole.

Achievement in Physics

The physics test for high school students taking physics in their final preter- tiary year comprised 35 items. Items 1 to 30 were internationally devised and selected on the basis of curriculum analyses carried out in each of the countries participating in the SISS. In accordance with the design of the international study, each country was also invited to add five items to provide for national research in- terests. In the Canadian study these are items 31 to 35.

The test was administered to 2,828 students enrolled in 181 schools across Canada. Of these schools, 66 were in the four western provinces and two territories, 67 were in Ontario, and 48 were in the four eastern provinces. We shall refer to these regions as western, central, and eastern. Quebec did not take part in the Canadian achievement testing.

For every item the percentage of correct responses within each school was calculated. These school averages were then averaged to produce regional means. Na- tional estimates were taken as the average of the regional means. Figure 1 presents the mean percentage of correct responses to each item, nationally and by region.

2%

90-

80.-

70-

60-

- 50-- F 0' 40'-

30- 8

20-

10-

0-

0

0

FINEGOLD AND RAPHAEL

CLASSICAL MECHANICS LEGEND = national

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 70 11 12 1332 33

HEAT & KINETIC THEORY LEGEND

national west centre east

Fig. 1. Mean correct responses to physics test items: National and Regional (five general content areas).

PHYSICS IN CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

LIGHT SOUND & WAVE PHENOMENA LEGEND

EB wesr national

centre

1; 50 F $ 4 0 8 30

20

10

E S east

I " 1'7 i;S 7 9 202'1 22 34 35 I

90

80

70

60

ELECTRICITY & MAGNETISM LEGEND

EZB west

ES east

national

centre

15 2324 25 26 27

297

Fig. 1 (continued)

298 FINEGOLD AND RAPHAEL

MODERN PHYSICS 1 9oT LEGEND

60

national

centre EZB west

tS3 east

Fig. 1. (continued)

The original numbering of items has been retained in Figure 1 in order to facilitate reference to the test. The order of items follows the same order of topics and their arrangement in five general content areas of physics, as was used in the curriculum analysis carried out in stage 1 of the study (see Finegold & Mac- Keracher, 1986). Responses to the seventh question have been omitted since a printer’s error made the item meaningless.

In the following, a number of selected representative test items are presented. Correct responses are asterisked, and mean percentages of students choosing each possible response are given. General comments are made on each item and in addition, for the second part of our analysis, we note significant correlations of achievement on each item with teachers’ assessments of opportunity to learn the topics tested in the item (OTL).

Secondary school achievement in physics, as outlined in Figure 1, seems both erratic and disappointing. Mean National scores on the five general content areas are: 42% on mechanics and on heat; 40% on light, sound, and waves; 32% on electricity & magnetism and on modern physics. The overall mean score is 38%.

The Canadian national mean of correct responses in mechanics, traditionally the backbone of high school instruction in physics, ranges from a high of 80% on item 3 dealing with vector addition to a low of 10% on item 13 dealing with gravitational potential energy (see Figure 2). This represents a difference of 70 percentage points.

In mechanics the strengths of Canadian physics students appear to lie, in des- cending order, in dealing with problems on vectors, kinematics, energy, forces, Newton’s laws, and gravity. Responses to two items in mechanics shown in Figure 3 are of particular interest. One indicates confusion between the natures of free


and constrained fall in a gravitational field. The other suggests that many students hold to the Aristotelian assumption that an impelling force continues to act upon a projectile (a ball) after it has left the source of the force (a spring).

Only two test items relate to heat and kinetic theory and we find that students are more successful with problems in heat transfer and expansion than with problems in kinetic theory.

In the third general content area, light, sound, and wave phenomena, students deal more effectively with geometrical optics than they do with waves and electromagnetic spectra. The range of scores in this general content area is from 28% for a rather difficult question on diffraction by a wedge-shaped slit (see Figure 4) to 46% for a question on refraction.

Scores are lower in the remaining two content areas, suggesting weakness in electricity and magnetism and in modern physics. Figure 5 presents the two topics in electricity and magnetism which caused most difficulty: resistances in parallel in a simple circuit and the force on an electric current in a magnetic field.

We may of course assume that items are not of equal difficulty, and eventual comparison with test scores in other countries will make it possible to check this. If other national means of correct response are similar to those shown in Figure 1, for example, if other countries report differences on items 3 and 13 like those reported here, this will support the view that Canadian student knowledge in the various topics in mechanics is not as erratic as suggested by our data analysis. If, however, other countries report greater stability in item scores across general content areas, this will suggest that items do not vary so greatly in difficulty and that an urgent need for review of physics curricula and teaching in Canada is indicated.

Data summarized in Figure 1 show regional as well as national means for each item, with the central region leading on 19 items, the west leading on 14 items, and the east on one. These regional differences are not significant for three items on mechanics (Nos. 4, 11, and 13), for the two items on heat, and for Items 21, 23, and 30 on waves, electrostatics, and nuclear physics, respectively. For all practical purposes, therefore, we may say that on these eight items the three regions did equally well. Of the remaining 26 items, the differences shown by the bar graph are significant at the 0.001 level for 13 items, at the 0.01 level for 5 items, and at the 0.05 level for 8 items.

It may be possible to account for regional differences in an number of ways. For example, there are regional differences in student enrollment in physics courses in previous years. Students taking the test were asked in a questionnaire to indicate the science subjects studied in the current and previous years. Table I shows that in the east and west, 85% of students took physics in the previous year too, while in the centre, 65% took physics two years before the final year. This may suggest that a high percentage of Ontario students benefited from a gestation period between physics courses. Again drawing upon data from the student questionnaire, we have found significant regional differences in the time spent by physics students on homework in science.

Other factors contributing to regional differences may be recent decisions such as that of a western province to reintroduce provincial examinations, recent chan- ges made in science curricula in an eastern province, and the fact that Ontario students who took the test were in grade 13, whereas in the other regions the students were in grade 12. These and other factors may be dealt with in future analyses.


3. A river flows due East at 1.5 mfs. A motor boat leaves the North bank and heads due South at 2.0 m/s.

BOAT 2.0 rn/s - RIVER 1.5 rn/s

W+E S

Which of the vectors below best represents the velocity of the boat relative to the river bank?

N 2.0 m/s 3.5 n#3

* A B C D E Omit 4 2 11 2 80 1 %

Correlation

OTL Achievement

Conceptual level -0.26 Expectation 0.29 Importance 0.26

C is most effective distractor, possibly showing students didn't calculate or measure.

13. In an imaginary situation a 1 kg block of ice at 0" C is dropped from such a height h that all of it is melted by the heat generated on impact with the ground.

From what height would a 25 kg block of ice have to be dropped to melt com- pletely? Assume that in both cases there is no air resistance during the fall and all of the heat generated is absorbed by the ice.

A 0.20 h B 0.040h C 1.0 h D 5.0h E 25 h

* A B C D E Omit 2 4 10 13 64 7 %

No significant OTL correlations

Not a standard question. Calls for analysis of an unfamiliar situation. Choice E by 64% is unfortunate but the reasoning is apparent. It is rather surprising that teachers do not seem to have appreciated the difficulty of the question.

Fig. 2. Test items 3 and 13: achievement and analysis.


8. A rope is attached to two blocks of equal mass m as shown in the diagram below. Block X is initially held at rest on a flat horizontal frictionless surface and the rope passes over a light frictionless pulley. The acceleration due to gravity is g.

Block X

When Block X is released, what is the acceleration of Block Y? A Zero B g/2 C g D dg E 2g

* A B C D E Omit 11 24 41 7 11 6 % No significant OTL correlations

Student difficulty in coping with this type of problem is well known. Remem- bering that g is constant, 41% confuse the notions of free and constrained fall. It is rather surprising that teacher perceptions do not correlate significantly with achievement.

11. The figure shows the respective positions which a small ball occupied every 0.1 secs after it had been shot up vertically by a spring. Assume that the spring is compressed to the point X and then released and that the ball leaves the spring at Y. The highest position that the ball reaches is Z. Assume that air resistance is neg- ligible and that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s2.

What is the acceleration of the ball at Y? * - - 2

A Zero B Less than 9.8 m/s2 C 9.8 m/s2 D Greater than 9.8 m/s2 E Impossible to say unless highest position the ball reaches is given.

* A B C D E Omit 7 10 19 37 23 4 %

302

Correlation


OTL Achievement

Content taught 0.27

Expectation 0.24 Importance 0.28

Conceptual level -0.25

Low percent choosing C and high percent choosing D arises from a common misunderstanding. Choice D suggests an Aristotelian assumption that the spring continues applying a force after the ball has left it. Significant OTL correlations suggest that teachers are well aware of difficulties.

Fig. 3. Test items 8 and 11: achievement and analysis.

20. A screen with a fine wedge-shaped slit as shown in the diagram is set up in a plane parallel to a photographic plate. A parallel beam of monochromatic light is sent through the slit and falls on the plate.

What is the size and shape of the exposed area of the plate?

A A wedge of the same size and shape as the wedge used. B A wedge widened uniformly by diffraction. C A wedge narrowed uniformly by diffraction. D A wedge widened most at the bottom by diffraction. E A wedge narrowed most at the bottom by diffraction.

* A B C D E Omit 15 37 8 28 6 6 %

No significant OTL correlations

A difficult question. Students have almost certainly had no school experience with such a question. Choice B indicates knowledge of diffraction phenomena but inability to apply knowledge about behavior of slits to the new situation.

Fig. 4. Test item 20: achievement and analysis.


25. The following diagram represents an electric circuit:

DC

Switch

When the switch S is open the reading on the ammeter is 2.0 A. When the

A It halves. B It decreases slightly. C It remains the same. D It increases slightly. E It doubles.

switch is closed, what happens to the reading on the ammeter?

* A B C D E Omit 12 19 26 22 11 10 %

Correlation

OTL Achievement

Expectation 0.3

An important question. Students found analysis difficult. Teachers do not usually encourage a qualitative approach to problem solving which would be use- ful here. However this problem is easily solved by a quantitative approach. Some teachers apparently knew what to expect.

27. A wire with an electric current passing through it is placed in a magnetic field between the two poles of a magnet as shown i the diagram.

In which direction will the wire move? A Toward the North pole. B Toward the South pole. C Vertically up. D Vertically down. E Toward point Y.


* A B C D E Omit 19 14 22 17 14 14 %

Correlation

OTL Achievement

Content taught 0.43 Conceptual level -0.37 Expectation 0.49 Importance 0.44

Given the manner in which this topic is usually taught, this is essentially a test of rote learning rather than of understanding. Teachers’ perceptions on all four issues correlate significantly with achievement.

Fig. 5. Test items 25 and 27; achievement and analysis.

We now proceed to meet our second aim, a search for relationships among the three curriculum levels.

Achievement and the Translated Curriculum

Simply stated, the translated curriculum is the curriculum as presented to the student. It derives from the teacher’s perceptions of what the education authorities wish to promulgate in the classroom, as set down in the documents which make up the intended curriculum. It is influenced by the teacher’s perceptions of students, subject matter, milieu, and self as a teacher (Schwab, 1973), and as such, varies in practice from classroom to classroom.

Now in order to examine the premise of causal linkage among the three curriculum levels, we wish to analyze and, if possible, to measure the translated curriculum. One well-established method of studying the translated curriculum by means of in-class case studies was employed as a component of an extensive study of science education carried out by the Science Council of Canada (Science for Every Student, 1984). A series of eight classroom case studies, four of which focused upon science in the senior school years, was carried out over a period of several months. These studies were to put the researchers “...in a better position to construct pictures of how science is being taught in the school context we studied, and how to appreciate why teachers act as they do in their clas~room~” (Olson & Russell, 1984, p. 16).

While this is a valid and meaningful approach to the curriculum as presented to the student, it does not lend itself to the needs of the Canadian SISS. Since the translated curriculum varies from class to class and since this study calls for infor- mation linking a large number of individual classes to their individual teachers, it was impracticable in a study of such scope to carry out the very large number of


Table I. Three-Year Enrollment Patterns of Canadian Students who Took SISS Physics Test

West Centre East

Number of students taking physics test 985 1209 699

Number of students responding to questionnaire 94 1 1203 655

% of students who took physics in 1982-83 85X 38% 8 6 %

% of students ,who took physics in 1981-82 33% 6 5 % 16%

% of students who took physics in 1980-81 8% 16% 6%

in-class case studies which would be required. The internationally agreed upon no- tion of OTL based upon teachers’ estimates of time devoted to a topic and the percentage of students to whom the topic was taught was also felt to be inadequate. It was therefore decided to ask every teacher to answer a series of questions on the opportunity given his or her class to learn the content on which each test item was based.

Opportunity-to-learn statements were made by the physics teachers on each test item while their students were taking the test. Teachers were asked to assess (1) The amount of time spent teaching the content needed to answer the question. (2) The conceptual level of the item compared with the level at which the topic was taught. (3) The percentage of students who were expected to answer correctly without guessing. (4) The importance of the item content with reference to the teacher’s course objectives. A fifth question, asking teachers to state when the content of each item was first taught to students, has been omitted from this analysis.

As well as informing with respect to the allocation of class time, teachers’ responses are expected to throw light on the validity of test items, on the conceptual level of physics teaching, on expectations of student achievement, and on the importance of selected content in the context of the physics curriculum as a whole. The reader should note that in the context of the intended, the translated, and the achieved curricula, the teacher’s assessment of opportunity to learn provides a sub- jective statement of curricular translation. This statement is nevertheless significant since it presents teacher perceptions of what goes on in physics classes.

In order to examine specifically the relationship of teacher reported OTL with student achievement, the following procedure was undertaken. For each test item the average percentage of correct responses was calculated for each class and cor- related with each of the four OTL responses made by the class physics teacher.

306 F”EGOLD AND RAPHAEL

Class averages rather than school averages were calculated, since the former relate more meaningfully to OTL ratings. Correlation coefficients of less than 0.22 are listed as not significant at the 0.01 level. (With 135 teachers responding to the OTL questionnaire, and two variables-achievement and each one of the four OTL items in turn-a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.22 is significant at the 0.01 level).

A significant correlation of achievement with, say, time spent on teaching a particular topic, is not to be seen as an indication that the national average class achievement should be high on an item which tests knowledge of that topic. For example, in item 27 on electricity and magnetism (Figure 5) the significant correlations of achievement with teacher perceptions of OTL may seem strange in view of the very low average level of achievement on this item. It should be borne in mind, however, that the significant correlations reported for this item suggest only that

1. Students of teachers who did teach the necessary content tended to do well.

2. As the conceptual level of the item was seen to be higher, students did less well (negative correlation).

3. Teachers were quite successful in predicting student success on this item. 4. Students whose teachers considered the item to be important did well, In Table I1 we present achievement and OTL correlations on those items for

which there is a correlation coefficient of at least 0.22 for at least one of the four OTL assessments. The table makes it very easy to compare teacher assessments on a number of topics. We find, for example, that teacher perceptions of all four aspects of opportunity to learn, that is to say, teacher perceptions of the translated curriculum, are supported by student achievement on eight of the 34 items or on 24% of the topics covered. Five of these items are in mechanics, two in electricity and magnetism, and one in light, sound, and wave phenomena. This means, of course, that on 76% of the topics covered the level of student achievement does not appear to support teacher perceptions of all four components of OTL.

We also find that student achievement supports teacher assessments of student ability to respond correctly for 59% of the items or topics tested. This is not surprising, since teachers have considerable experience in assessing ability, particularly with respect to test items. Teachers are probably not so experienced in assessing importance of content and conceptual level of test items, but their assessments of importance and conceptual level do correlate significantly with achievement on 44% and 35% of the items, respectively. It is rather surprising that a significant correlation of achievement with whether a topic is taught or not, is found only with 26% of the items.

A further comparison of achievement with OTL is presented in Figure 6. Here we compare the translated with the achieved curriculum in each of the three geographical regions for each of the five general content areas.

We note first that the West-Center-East “profile” of achievement in each of the five content areas follows the taught-not taught “profile” fairly closely. Next we see that teachers in the eastern provinces consistently assess the conceptual level of test items as higher than that at which the topics are taught, and consistently expect their students to succeed less than do their counterparts in the west. Both of

PHYSICS IN CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Table II. Correlation of Student Achievement with

Teacher Perceptions of Opportunity to h a m

Teacher P e r c e p t i o n s o f :

Content Item Content Conceptua l Expected Importance Area No. Taught L e v e l S tudent of Content

o r not of Item S u c c e s s

1 - . 3 1 . 2 5 2

C l a s s i c a l 3 Mechanics 5

6 9

1 0 11 1 2 3 2

. 3 2 - . 2 6 . 2 9 . 2 6

e 2 6 - . 2 4 . 3 2 . 3 8 . 2 9 - . 2 9 . 48 . 3 7 . 3 1 - . 3 8 . 4 1 . 3 7

. 2 8 . 2 7 - . 2 5 . 2 4 . 2 8 . 2 4 - . 3 2 - 52 . 2 8

. 3 3 . 2 6

Heat & Kin. Theory 1 6 - . 2 8

L i g h t , 1 8 . 3 9 Sound 2 2 . 3 4 - . 2 7 . 54 . 2 5 and Wave 3 4 Phenomena 3 5 . 2 4

. 2 9

. 2 8

1 5 .. 3 5 . 2 7 E l e c t r i c - 2 3 . 2 5 . 2 4 i t y and 2 4 . 3 1 , - . 2 6 . 3 8 . 2 6 n a g n e t i s m 2 5 -30

2 6 - 3 6 . 3 0 2 7 . 4 3 - . 3 7 . 4 9 . 4 4

Modern 29 * 2 9 P h y s i c s 3 1 - . 3 1 . 4 1

% of t e s t i tems on which c o r r e - 2 6 % 3 5 % 5 9 % 4 4 % l a t i o n is s i g n i f .

Items with correlation coefficients of less than 0.22 @>0.05) for all four OTL are omitted."


these findings may have bearing upon achievement in the east relative to that in the west and center.

We now proceed to an examination of relationships between the intended and the achieved curricula. This is based upon analysis of the intended physics curriculum (Finegold & MacKeracher, 1985) carried out as part of the Canadian case study of science education, and analysis of student achievement on the physics test.

Achievement and the Intended Curriculum

The conceptual framework of the Canadian analysis of science curricula called for the scrutiny of goal statements in curriculum documents at all political, ad- ministrative, and educational levels, in every one of the ten provinces and two territories. These statements provided a philosophical/political basis for the analysis of the intended curriculum. Curriculum guides published by the twelve educational jurisdictions were analyzed for all topics and subtopics in each of the four dis- ciplines: biology, chemistry, physics, and earth sciences, and each subtopic was listed in one of the four categories: required, suggested, optional, and not men- tioned. (See Connelly et al., 1985, Reference Section E). In physics, for example, 424 subtopics, within 22 topics, and five general-content areas were identified in guideline documents across Canada. Curriculum matrices were then constructed showing required, suggested, or optional subtopics listed by each jurisdiction, for each discipline, at each of the upper elementary, lower secondary, and upper secondary school levels. These matrices (to be found in Connelly et al., 1985) show the emphases placed on science topics across Canada. Finegold and MacKeracher (1985) comment that

h ACHIEVEMENT v

mech. h.&k.th. l.s.&w. e.&m. modern

~~

E B west

LTZI centrr

R3 e w t


3.0'

2.5.-

2.0~-

1.5 -

LO-.

.5--

OL

OTL -- TAUGHT/NOT TAUGHT 100-

90.- €ZZl west

80.-

70- 5, 60- >

! 50- 9

4 0.-

30.-

20.-

10.-

centre east

rnech. h.&k.th. I.s.&w. e.&rn. modern

OTL --- CONCEPTUAL LEVEL

E B west

E3 east centre

3. higher than taught

2.sarne as taught

1 less than taught

mech. h.&k.th. I.s.&w. 4

e.&.m. modern __

...in Canada, a heavy emphasis is placed upon the general content area, classical mechanics. At the upper secondary level, topics in classical mechanics account for 34% of those listed as part of the overall physics curriculum. The general content area light, sound and wave phenomena, accounts for 21%; electricity and magnetism for 17%; heat and kinetic theory for 16%; and modem physics for 12%. Two-thirds of the topics in the common curriculum are in the area of classical mechanics. The emphasis on this general content area and the

3 10

4.0-

3.5.-

3.0..

2.5.-

2.0 -

15

1.0

.5

0-


-

.-

--

-_

I OTL -- EXPECTED SUCCESS

rne'ch. b.& k. t h.

EZl west EZI centre

5.above 75% 4 50 to 75% 3.25 to 50% 2. I to 25%

I.s.&w. e.&m. modern ____ --

OTL -- IMPORTANCE I 3.OT

mech. h. 8, k. t h e. &i m. modern

west

EZI centre ES3 east

4. very important

3. quite imp.

2. slightly imp.

1. not imp. - Fig, 6. Student achievement and teacher assessment of opportunity to leam: five general concept areas by region.

relative lack of emphasis on topics in modem physics, the nature of science, and societal issues, suggests that Canadian science educators are very enthusiastic about helping students leam physics as a basic discipline in science but are somewhat less enthusiastic about examining modem scientific themes and societal concerns.


To simplify visual scanning of the data, Finegold and Mackeracher (1986) developed a series of bar graphs, which are shown in part in Figure 7. The vertical scale of the diagram presents content areas such as static electricity, divided into topics and subtopics such as electrostatic charge, the behavior of charged bodies, Coulomb’s law, electric fields, etc. One bar for each subtopic shows the number of jurisdictions in which the topic is mandated at the three school levels. We see that 17 static-electricity subtopics are mandated at the upper secondary level (US), but only two are mandated by all twelve jurisdictions. Also, we see that one subtopic of static electricity is mandated by seven jurisdictions at the upper elementary level (UE), by six at the lower secondary level (LS), and by ten at the upper secondary level (US).

We now use the composite physics curriculum bar graph at the upper secondary level only, in order to examine student achievement. Figure 8 juxtaposes data on achievement with the curriculum bar graph. National means of mean class correct responses are given for each item, adjoining the appropriate section of the curriculum graph. This makes it possible to examine achievement with reference to the mandating of related learning content across Canada. If, for example, it were the case that national achievement levels were higher on topics which were more extensively mandated, we would expect Figure 8 to show high levels of achievement (long bars on the right) for high levels of curricular intention (heavily black- ed on the left).

In order to simplify comparison of achievement with curricular intentions we quantify the extent to which topics are mandated in the classroom. For any given topic we calculate

Here Ni is the number of jurisdictions mandating the teaching of subtopic i, n is the number of subtopics in the topic, and 12 is the number of educational jurisdictions in Canada. An R value provides an indication of how extensively a topic is taught to Canadian high school physics students. We can now compare the R value for a given topic with national student achievement on an item testing knowledge of the topic. Referring again to Figure 8 we see that the teaching of scalars and vectors is extensively mandated across Canada, since one subtopic of scalars and vectors is mandated by ten jurisdictions and the other subtopics are mandated by all twelve (R = 0.98). The national average class scores on the three items testing knowledge about vectors are 65,48, and 80, respectively. In contrast, the R value for theoretical physics is 0.33 and the national average class score on item 28 which tests knowledge about this topic is 34.

Examination of the relationship between the degree to which physics topics are mandated in Canada (R values) and mean student scores for items associated with these topics gives a correlation coefficient r = 0.33. The magnitude of this correlation indicates that approximately 10% of the variation in achievement on topics can be accounted for by difference in overall emphasis of topics.

Num

ber

of j

uris

dict

ions

in w

hich

top

ic i

s re

quir

ed -

- - -

+

Con

tent

A

rea

Upp

er E

krne

nhry

(ULl

Lo

wer

sec

onda

ry(L

S)

Um

r S

econ

dary

(US.

J

Sta

tic E

lect

rici

ty:

17 to

pics

& s

ubto

pics

6

taug

ht a

t U

.E.

8 ta

ught

at

L.S.

1

1 t

augh

t at

U.S

.

Cur

rent

Ele

ctri

city

:

30

to

pic

s& s

ubto

pics

18

tau

ght

at U

.E.

21

taug

ht a

t L.

S.

29

tau

ght at U.S.

Mag

netis

m :

17

topi

cs &

sub

topi

cs

8

raug

mat

UE

11

ta

ug

hta

t LS

. 17

ta

ught

at Us.

Ele

ctro

nics

7

top

ics&

sub

topi

cs

Fig.

7.

Req

uire

d ph

yr si

cs to

pics

: pro

vinc

ial a

nd te

mto

rial

cur

ricu

la (f

rom

Fin

egol

d an

d M

acke

rach

er. 1

986,

Fig

. 1)

PHYSICS IN CANADIAN SECOM>ARY SCHOOLS 3 13

CONTt'NT I CURRICULUM I ACHIEVEMENT ON TESTS number of juridictiom in which topic h muired R

Hydrostatics Hydrodynamics

HEAT Thermal energy

Transfer of heat Exmnsion S. contraction

CHANGE OF STATE

Partick theory

Gas laws

KINETI tnetic THEORY theor

rs3 -I

Fig. 8. Student achievement and the mandated (required) physics cumculum.

What Can We Say About the Three Levels of Curriculum?

We have noted above the basic premise of the SISS that the three curriculum levels are causally linked, and we have stated that it is one of our aims to search for relationships among the three levels. Our inquiry has been based upon curriculum analysis, teacher assessments of opportunity to learn, and student achievement on a physics test. It follows that in order to place our search for relationships in the proper context we must first ask if the three sources of data are valid agents of the three curricula.

The analysis of the intended curriculum, carried out in the first stage of the Canadian SISS, was carefully examined and validated by recognized experts in the field. It was found to describe science curricula across Canada accurately and in an easily accessible manner. However, as reported by Connelly et al. (1985), the


CONTENT CURRICULUM ACHIEVEMENT ON TESTS

.69 1 23

number of jurisdlctione in which topic is required R

I 53 I 15 42

A h ) 8 $ Q ? Q T V I 0 . l item p 0 0 no. %correc t

Fig. 8. (continued). Student achievement and the mandated (required) physics curriculum.

analysis differed in principle from the style of analysis advocated by the SISS and described by Rosier & Couper (1981).

The OTL assessments are teacher perceptions of what goes on in the classroom and are not objective reports by observers. Nevertheless, since each teacher reports on his or her own classroom, and since our analysis links each teacher's assessments to the test achievement of his or her own students, they do provide for the examination of possible connections between teacher perceptions on the one hand and learning outcomes on the other. Strictly speaking, therefore, we examine the perceived curriculum and its relationship to achievement.

Items 1 to 30 of the international test were planned, written, and validated on the basis of curriculum analyses carried out by the participating countries. The last five items were reserved as national options. It was intended in this way to ensure that the test items would examine, insofar as this was possible with 30 items, knowledge of content matter taught in all or most of the SISS countries.

Table I1 shows that for 35% of the test items, student achievement was sig-

PHYSICS IN CANADIAN SECONDARY SCHOOLS 3 15

nificantly related to teacher perceptions of the conceptual level of the questions. Items that tended to be more difficult for students were those rated as being at higher conceptual levels than the perceived levels of instruction. For 44% of test items student achievement was found to be significantly related to teachers' perceptions of importance of item content with respect to course objectives.

Unexpectedly, the relationship of student achievement to whether item content was covered or not was significant in only 9 of the 34 items (see Table 11). However, one factor which could give rise to such a weak relationship between achievement and this OTL measure was the limited variation among teachers in coverage of some items. For example, for eight items with respect to which no relationship was seen, over 85% of teachers reported covering the item content. Since almost all teachers in this group covered the content, little association of this OTL measure with achievement could be expected.

The finding (see Table 11) that for 59% of the items teachers' projections of levels of success were significantly related to achievement, merely confirms that teachers were able to judge how difficult their students would find these items.

Results indicate the existence of interrelationships among the three curriculum levels. Not surprisingly, items on which students demonstrated higher achievement tested knowledge on topics which were more extensively mandated. Though the nature of the study necessarily precludes the identification of causal relationships, it does not seem unreasonable that the pattern of achievement reflects the patterns of the intended and the translated curricula.

References

Science f o r every student (1984). Ottawa, Ontario: Science Council of Canada, Report 36.

Comber, L.C., & Keeves, J.R. (1973) Science education in nineteen countries: International studies in evaluation 1 . Stockholm: Almqvist and Wik- sell.

Connelly, EM., Crocker, R.K., & Kass, H. (1985). Science education in Canada: Policies, practices and perceptions, Vol. I . Toronto: OISE Press.

Finegold, M., & MacKeracher, D. (1985). The Canadian science curriculum, Chapter 7 in Connelly et al. (1985) (pp. 150-172).

Finegold, M., & MacKeracher, D. (1986). Meaning from curriculum analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23,353-364.

Keeves, J.R., & Rosier, M. (1981). Guidelines for the second IEA science study. Document IEAISISSM. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Council for Educa- tional Research.

Olson, J., & Russell, T., Eds. (1984). Science education in Canadian schools. Vol. 3: Case studies of science teaching. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.

Rosier, M., & Couper, D. (1981). The analysis of science curricula. Document IEAISISSI3.5. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Schwab, J.J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation in curriculum. School Review, 81(4).

Manuscript accepted September 9,1987

physics in canadian secondary schools: intentions, perceptions, and achievement

Documents