This paper is Part I of a two-part report. The purpose of the complete report is threefold: 1) To describe the origins, evolution, details of, and rationale for an innovation developed by the author over a five year period at Jersey City State College. The Unit Box Experience, which is the principal assignment and major project in the author's elementary school science methods course, involves the preparation of a multimedia, multisensory, and multilevel package of instructional materials and strategies to implement a classroom tested published unit. Each Unit Box is a custom made kit prepared, used, and owned by the apprentice teacher. 2) To report the findings of a followup study on the Unit Box Experience conducted over a four year period. The followup study entailed three facets: a) brief telephone interviews with 94 per cent of the 704 graduates who completed Unit Boxes in the author's course; b) in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 77 or one out of nine graduates; c) 627 classroom visits to and observations of student teachers and graduates who completed Unit Boxes in the course. The findings of the followup study will be reported in Part II of this article. 3) To report on four serendipitous and significant ramifications of the Unit Box study to be dealt with in Part II of the report, to be published in a future issue of this journal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
VannanDonald A., The American elementary science methods teacher today, Science Education, LIV: 183–84, April, 1970.
2.
BennettLloyd M., Guidelines to aid the teacher in preparing science resource units, Science Education, LII: 332–37, October, 1968.
3.
BlancSam S., Planning a teaching unit for the primary grades, Science and Children, IX: 21–24, April, 1972.
4.
VictorEdward, Science for the Elementary School, pp. 115–87, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1970.
5.
VictorEdward, “The Unit,”Readings in Science Education for the Elementary School, Eds. VictorEdward and LernerMarjorie S., pp. 109–122, The Macmillan Co., New York, 1967.
6.
NewtonDavid E. and WatsonFletcher G., The Research on Science Education Survey (ROSES), The Status of Teacher Education Programs in the Sciences, pp. vii, 63–4, 72, 85, 115–16, 1965–67, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, 1968; also, telephone communication with Dr. Newton on 28 September, 1973, at Salem State College in Massachusetts, confirmed inferences drawn from text of ROSES Report.
7.
BruceMatthew, “A Study of Undergraduate Programs for Science Teachers,” unpublished report, Washington, D.C., USOE Project 7-C-001, Grant No. OEG-2-7-7001-3132; “Science Education for Elementary Teachers,” unpublished report, Washington, D.C., USOE Project 7-C-016, Grant No. OEG-2-7-07001-3132; telephone communication with Dr. Bruce on 28 September, 1973, from Temple University in Philadelphia, confirmed inferences drawn from reports cited and provided additional support for the author's statement relative to the prevalent practice of writing units in methods courses.
8.
JacobsonWillard J., “U.S.A.: Post-Sputnik Science Curricula.”Strategies for Curriculum Change: Cases from Thirteen Nations, Ed. ThomasMurray R.SandsLester B., and BrubakerDale L., pp. 116–35, International Textbook Co., Scranton, Pennsylvania, 1968.
9.
NovakJoseph D., A case study of curriculum change-science since PSSC, School Science and Mathematics, LXIX: 374–84, May, 1969.
10.
RockcastleVerne N.SalamonFrank R.SchmidtVictor E., and McKnightBetty J., Elementary School Science, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Massachusetts, 1973.
11.
BergerCarl F.BerkheimerGlennLewisLuther E.WoodElizabeth, and NeubergerHarold T., The Modular Activities Program in Science, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1974.
12.
DyerHenry S., The art of unwrapping curriculum packages or how to be an educational string saver, The Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary-School Principals, LII: 155–57, May, 1968.
13.
NayMarshall A., Avoid obsolescence: Build a curriculum resource information bank, The Crucible (Ontario, Canada), IV: 4–11, February, 1973.
14.
Elementary Science Study (ESS). Education Development Center, Inc., 55 Chapel Street, Newton, Massachusetts, 02160; Webster Division, McGraw-Hill, 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10020; McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 330 Progress Avenue, Scarborough, Ontario MIP 2Z5. French translations and adaptations of ESS Teacher's Guides available from McGraw-Hill, Editeurs, 750 Boul. Laurentien, Montréal 379, Québec, Canada.
15.
TannenbaumHarold E.TannenbaumBeulahStillmanNathan and StillmanMyra, Experiences in Science (EIS), Webster/McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1967; and Scarborough, Ontario; information on Spanish translations and adaptations available from Dr. Harold Tannenbaum, Hunter College, 695 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10021.
16.
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; Rand McNally and Co., Customer Service Department, P.O. Box 7600, Chicago, Illinois 60680; also Gage Educational Publishing Ltd., 1500 Birchmount Road, Scarborough, Ontario; the French translation and adaptation of the SCIS program was completed in the Spring of 1973. Further information on the International French edition is available from the Institute of Psychological Research, Inc., 34 ouest, rue Fleury, Montreal 357, Québec, Canada.
17.
MarshallStanley J.PodendorfIllaSwartzClifford, and ShoresmanPeter B., Sense and Tell Teacher's Guidebook: Unit One of Pre-Primary Science System, Scott, Foresman and Co., Glenview, Illinois, 1968; also Gage Educational Ltd. in Ontario.
18.
Minnesota Mathematics and Science Teaching Project (MINNEMAST), Minnesota School Mathematics and Science Center, University of Minnesota, 720 Washington Avenue, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414.
19.
McGavackJohnJr. and La SalleDonald P., Guppies, Bubbles and Vibrating Objects: A Creative Approach to the Teaching of Science to Very Young Children, The John Day Co., New York, 1969.
20.
BatoffMitchell E., Kitchen Photography on a Shoestring, Jersey City, New Jersey: By the Author, Jersey City State College, 2039 Kennedy Boulevard 07305, 1972.
21.
NovakJoseph D., “The Use of Audio-Tutorial Methods in Elementary School Instruction.”The Audio-Tutorial Approach to Learning Through Independent Study and Integrated Experiences. Third Edition by PostlethwaitS. N.NovakJ. D., and MurrayH. T.Jr.Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, 1972.
22.
NovakJoseph D., “Audio-Tutorial Techniques for Individualized Science Instruction in the Elementary School.”Individualized Science. Edited by TriezenbergHenry J.. National Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C., 1972.
23.
Elementary Science Curriculum Study (ESCS). Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada; McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 330 Progress Avenue, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada MIP 2Z5.
24.
WhitlaDean K. and PinckDan C., Essentially Elementary Science: A Report on the Status of Elementary Science in Massachusetts Schools, p. 47, (Submitted to the Massachusetts Advisory Council on Education), Office of Instructional Research and Evaluation in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, March 1973. The Harvard Report cited above [24] is a significant study which is relevant to the starting points, rationale and spirit behind hundreds of Unit Boxes assembled at Jersey City State College and in Ontario, 1969–1974.
25.
The Commission on Science Education of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Science—A Process Approach (S-APA), 1515 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005; Ginn and Company, 191 Spring Street, Lexington, Massachusetts 02173.
26.
KiddKenneth P.MyersShirley S., and CilleyDavid M., The Laboratory Approach to Mathematics, Science Research Associates, Inc., Chicago, 1970.
27.
BergerEmil J., editor. Instructional Aids in Mathematics. Thirty-fourth Yearbook. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1973.
28.
DavidsonPatricia S. and WalterMarion I., “A Laboratory Approach.”The Slow Learner in Mathematics. Thirty-fifth Yearbook. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, Virginia, 1972.
29.
YoungJ. W. A., The Teaching of Mathematics in the Elementary and Secondary Schools, Longmans, Green, New York, 1907.
30.
ArmstrongHenry E., Teaching Scientific Method and Other Papers on Education, pp. 236 and 255, Macmillan Co., London, 1913.
31.
ArmstrongHenry E., The heuristic method of teaching, School Science, 1: 395–401, January, 1902.
