A. The first of the three questions comes out of our research question about the students who take the course. In both surveys, the student population was examined for gender and racial/ethnic demographics, and which ages (grades) take the course. Now we asked the teacher to check one answer to the statement
My students are college bound. ( )Yes (67-100%) ( ) Mixed (34-66%). ( )No (0-33%)
'Yes' was reported 61% of the time, 35% said mixed and 4% 'No'. So in addition to the students being ethnically/racially generally representative of their schools and the national demographics, only slightly more male than female and mostly upperclassman, they are far more often college bound than not. Incidentally, if the Mixed numbers (essentially all those classes near 50% college bound and not) are split between the Yes and No tallies, the numbers become 78.5% college bound and 21.5% not, which is almost precisely the high school graduation rate of 74.3%, the latest available when the survey was done5,6.
B. In discussing the course, teachers had been asked about course content, whether solar system only, stellar only, both, other; the purpose the course supports; curriculum materials such as textbook, budget, planetarium and telescope usage, and more. In the Fall survey two more instructional questions were asked:
Define a 'traditional astronomy class' as one that teaches moon phases, causes of seasons, inventory of the solar system, history of astronomy, basic cosmology, naked eye astronomy, i.e. 'teaches what and back when.' A 'contemporary astronomy class' would be one that teaches about current topics such as cosmology and dark matter, exoplanets and current planetary missions, observational experiences and a 'teach how and now' class. Your general class could be described as: 1) All of mostly (80-100%) traditional 2) Largely traditional (60-79%) 3) Evenly split (40-59%) 4) Largely contemporary (20-39% traditional) 5) All or mostly contemporary (0-19% traditional)
This question comes from the debate between how much traditional and how much contemporary astronomy should be taught (largely at the college level) and is espoused in a 2002 article by Jay Pasachoff ,wherein lie more than two dozen other references in this controversy).
The results are, in order, 17%:42%:46%:5%:5%
Based upon this simple scale, high school teachers are still leaning more traditional than contemporary though some have designed courses that are wholly 'modern'.
C. The final new question was In the following continuum, my classroom teaching would be (Choose One): 1) Teacher-led with verification labs/activities 2) Structured inquiry (Teacher leads and specifies procedures but students use some critical thinking skills) 3) Guided inquiry (Teacher sets problem but students work out procedures) 4) Open, student-led inquiry.
These selections are based on an article by Bonnstetter and a host of webpages that unfortunately are no longer apparently available, such as www.convertingcookbooks.missouri.edu and www.learnnc.org. Overall, the four responses had proportions of 36%, 53%, 10% and 1%, respectively. Classes are still strongly teacher-led but with more and more including some form inquiry teaching. We can therefore claim that the high school astronomy class, especially since it is not usually a standardized course (in terms of state standards or end of course testing), is a less traditional (but not particularly contemporary) content area or classroom teaching style.
Both surveys investigated planetarium usage.
The larger Spring survey did not include an answer choice of "using planetarium software;" that information was derived out of teacher's Other comments. In the spring survey we estimated that planetarium software usage was about equal to that of portables, that is, about 3-4% of the schools each. In the Fall survey we explicitly gave them the answer choice about planetarium software. The Fall survey came up with 5% own portables, which is consistent but 38% using planetarium software! It is unlikely that any marketing effort by any company could have caused such a dramatic shift in six months or less. Additionally, the percentage of schools having or borrowing the use of a fixed dome dropped, from 24-26% to 15% each. Our earlier Spring numbers were useful and accurate in determining the number of fixed planetariums we should expect nationwide, a number that matched estimates using planetarium directories. We think the Fall values are an anomaly in that the percentage of software is the other extreme from some undetermined mean value. A weighted average would yield about 15% for planetarium software. We stand by the earlier fixed dome numbers but suspect they could be in reality a little lower, perhaps 20 or 21 percent. Usage information for all four main kinds of planetaria were estimated from teacher comments in the Spring survey. When a planetarium, fixed or portable, was owned by that school, it was used for 1-3 weeks of time, when borrowed or visited offsite it was estimated for just 1-3 visits/days. The Fall survey obtained much better, yet still consistent, usage rates for planetariums by explicitly asking for the data. The average when a fixed dome was at the school full time is 14 days, when using a fixed dome elsewhere, 1.6 days or visits, for owned portables 6.7 days, and when borrowed 1.25 days.
* There is some difference in Other choices in the Biggest Wishes or Problems between the surveys. The most pressing Fall Other are curricular based, as in needing more high school level materials, hand-on materials, texts. Some budget cutting and technology needs surfaced. In the Spring, the Other needs were balanced between Counselors and Scheduling, Student attitudes and abilities repeated, more technology desires and administration woes and professional development.
* Suffice to say that nearly half of all high school astronomy teachers teach earth science or physics (no surprise, astronomy has aspects of both and homes in both kinds of college science departments). Physical Science, Other courses and Chemistry more or less divide up the remainder fairly evenly, Physical Science slightly more than equal.
* Keeping up with astronomy education and teaching pedagogy shows some large differences between the two surveys. The Spring survey had NASA Web pages and Educational Programs and various conferences in a virtual tie for the top three spots. In the Fall survey, Science and Education Organization Magazines and Newsletters led with non-NASA websites, NASA workshops and non-NASA conferences evenly splitting the rest of the major tallying. In both surveys, Astronomy Education Review and astronomy education programs like Hands-On Astronomy get low counts. The only consistent other resource for astronomy pedagogy are NSTA magazines and conferences and NASA workshops at NSTA conferences. Similar percentages of "I don't keep up", above a quarter of the teachers of both surveys, were noted.
" The number of teachers in the Fall survey with just terminal Bachelor's degrees, as a percentage, is double that of the larger Spring survey. The number of doctorates dropped to half that of the Spring. Why this subset went to graduate school fewer times is not understood. What this means doesn't change-high school astronomy teachers generally are well educated, with the majority getting graduate degrees. The undergraduate degrees are more science than education, the graduate degree these are reversed.
* Only 5% of the Fall teachers teach astronomy full time. This is opposed to an estimated 15% for the Spring teachers but in that survey we estimated the proportion ourselves using the number of class sections they appeared to teach whereas in the Fall we specifically asked the question on their full time status. We may have overestimated the Spring values so we feel the real number is probably closer to 10% or less.
* Additionally, the male/female ratio is 79:21 here, versus 67:33 in the spring survey. If combined it is more like 71:29. This, too, may be more an influence of small numbers. . We could settle for a probable 70:30 mix which isn't too far off from the Spring survey results
* In the larger Spring survey, there were nearly twice as many schools reporting decreasing enrollments as increasing, 42 (+), 72 steady and 73 (-). The Fall schools' tallies indicate a virtual statistical dead heat between increasing, steady and decreasing, with counts of 37 (+), 35 steady and 38(-). We do not know a reason for the difference. Because of the higher number in the Spring survey and the teacher comments given about course enrollments and number of sections dropping with time, we go with a decreasing number conclusion and discount the Fall survey here as due to low number statistics.
Table 1. Common Survey Analyses in Spring and Fall Surveys
Analysis Fall Survey Result Spring Survey Result
Sections per instructor,
1, 2, 3 sections 51%, 26%, 13% 55%, 25%, 14%
Teachers per school 1.32 1.31
Male/Female students 53:47 53:47
White/Afr-Am/Asian/Hisp 71%, 9%, 3%, 16% 77%, 8%, 4%, 8%
Proportion Teachers with
Advanced Degrees 73% 70%
Astro Courses took when
Undergrad/grad; 1.66 1.24 1.89 1.96
if took >=1 course 2.38 2.12 2.65 3.50
Public:Private schools ratio 85:15 87:13
AYP proportions: Pass,N.I.
Fail 73%, 24%, 3% 77%, 20%, 3%
Top ten survey responding
states in top 10 population
And NRT Pop: 8 NRT: 8 Pop.: 7 NRT: 6
Top 4 purposes for a course:
Appreciation, mental
discipline, multidisciplin-
-ary, literacy 44%, 18%, 19%, 7% 38%, 17%, 16%, 10%
Block, Periods, other 35%, 62%, 3% 41%, 51%, 8%
Year-long, semester-long,
other 37%, 52%, 11% 37%, 55%, 7%
Section sizes: public, private 21.4, s.d.= 8.0; 15.1, s.d.=6.4 22.7, s.d= 6.9; 16.6, s.d.= 6.8
(t-test p values = .50, .45)
Upperclass, lowerclassmen,
median classes, all classes 76%, 5%, 15%, 4% 75%, 4%, 16%, 5%
High Minority, Minority,
Representative, Low Min-
-ority Schools 18%, 8%, 25%, 50% 13%, 7%, 29%, 52%
Budget 200-300, 2nd peak at $500 $200-500
NCLB influences (none,
positive, negative) 66%, 9%, 25% 60%, 7%, 33%
Teachers degree areas:
BA science; education,
Other 70%, 18%, 12% 65%, 16%, 19%
MA science, education,
Other 32%, 66%, 2% 36%, 57%, 7%