TEACHER INSTRUCTION PRACTICES AND ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AS PREDICTORS OF 8TH

GRADE SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT

Ying Hong Jiang (yjiang@apu.edu)

Jenny YauAzusa Pacific University

Victoria Wang Gretchen Whitney High School

Recent Public and Research Attention to Science Education in Middle-School Years

ACHIEVEMENT IN SCIENCEAchievement in science during the middle school years is critical for later access to advanced courses in high school, career aspirations, postsecondary education and occupational opportunities (Koke, 2005; Reynolds, 1991; Singh, Granville & Dika, 2002). Significant growth in achievement in biology, physical science and environmental science was found in a national sample of 3,116 seventh graders being followed for 6 years (Ma & Wilkins, 2002). Growth was rapid during middle school but slowed down in high school. Science education aims for students’ persistence in taking science courses.

GENDER DIFFERENCES IN SCIENCEACHIEVEMENT

Gender differences in middle grades science achievement extend into high school years (Lee & Burkam, 1996; Lee, Burkam & Smerdon, 1997):

The advantage for 8th-grade boys on the physical science tests increased by the 10th

grade.Gender differences in life science tests were not found in 8th graders but was evident in the 10th grade; higher ability males outperformed their female counterparts.

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

The Standards recommend student-centered orientation in science instruction since 1996 (National Research Council), aiming for:

students acquiring an adequate knowledge of thecontent and process of scientific inquiry;students developing scientific reasoning to engage in public discussions of social issues related to science;instructional approach shifting from lecturing and rote learning only; learning concepts, principles, rules, cognitive strategies, operations for problem solving and higher-order thinking (reflection, critical thinking).

EMPHASES OF THE SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY APPROACH

constructive learninghands-on-activitieslaboratory inquirymaking prediction, experimenting, analyzing data, testing hypothesis,, constructing explanationscollaborative discussionteacher functioning as a facilitator (Herrenkohl, Tasker & White, 2011; Minner, Levy & Century, 2010; Roth, 1994; Von Secker & Lissitz, 1999)

EMPHASES OF DIRECT INSTRUCTION

focused, explicit, direct form of teachingteachers providing cognitive scaffolding and structureshigh student involvement and mastery of contentparticipation in class as a communitystudents’ increasing ability to direct their own learning(Adams & Engelmann, 1996; Kozioff, LaNunziata, Cowardin & Bessellieu, 2001)

EMPHASES OF THE LITERACY-BASED SCIENCE INSTRUCTION

viewing science as a language-based processproviding active learning environments for reading writing, discussing, and expressing one’s understandings of science with academic or other textsrelating content concepts to ordinary lifepracticing higher-order thinking/reading skills

(Gee. 2004; Guzzetti & Bang, 2011; Hapgood & Palinscar, 2007; Wellington & Osborne, 2001)

Theoretical Framework of This Study

WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AREASSOCIATED WITH SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT?

Laboratory inquiry is a strong predictor, but it also indicates the need of the disadvantaged schools for lab facilities and supplies (Von Secker & Lissitz, 1999).

Active learning using the labs enhances student content knowledge and process learning (Taraban, Box, Myers, Pollard & Bowen, 2007).

All students, especially girls, benefit from regular laboratory activities (Burkam, Lee & Smerdon, 1997).

WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT?

A synthesis of 138 studies on inquiry-based science instruction shows that active student engagement (hands-on-activities) increases conceptual understanding (Minner, Levy & Century, 2010).In middle schools, increasing the use of group experiments to a near-daily group activity and reducing note-taking are associated with positive student achievement (Odom, Stoddard & LaNasa, 2007).Students spending more time on science homework have higher achievement in science (Singh, Granville & Dika, 2002).

WHAT INSTRUCTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT? ---Continued

Integrating literacy (print, digital, and media texts)into science has a positive effect on students’ inquiry skills; girls particularly show positive attitude towards choice of science careers (Guzzetti & Bang, 2011).

Teachers focusing on students’ progressive learning of central concepts and principles understand better students’ scientific reasoning (Smith, Wiser, Anderson & Krajcik, 2006).

Mixed results about the effect of the Scientific Inquiry Approach and Direct Instruction on gender differences.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS STUDY

Identifying the essential components of instructional practices in 8th grade science classes;Providing the subgroup-specific (gender, ethnicity) information for potential attempts to reduce academic gaps (Lynch, 2000);Enhancing teachers’ understanding of the curricular aims (Popham, Keller, Moulding, Pellegrino, & Sandifer, 2005);

Addressing to the need of validating the relationship between instructional practices and motivating learning (Perry, Turner & Meyer, 2006).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

To investigate if teacher instructional practices and student engagement can predict 8th grade science achievementTo compare the predictors of 8th grade science achievement among the general population and students with different ethnic backgrounds

DATA SOURCE & SAMPLEExtracted from the database of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K), sponsored by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES).Focuses on children's early school experiences beginning with kindergarten and following children through the 8th grade.Includes a wide range of family, school, community, and individual factors associated with school performance.Information was collected in the fall and the spring of kindergarten (1998-99) and 1st grade (1999-2000) and the spring of 3rd grade (2002), 5th grade (2004), and 8th grade (2007)The database includes 21,049 students.

VARIABLESInstructional practices were represented by two sets of predictors:

- Teacher instructional objectives (teachers’ responses to Science Teacher Survey Question #12: Think about your science instruction during the entire year. About how much emphasis did you give to each of the following objectives for this student?)-Types of student engagement ( teachers’ responses to #19: How often do the students in this class engage in the following?)

SES is controlled8th grade science IRT (Item Response Theory) score was used as an indicator of science achievement

TABLE 1: DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH VARIABLES IN THE STUDYVariables from ECLS 8th Grade Database Measurement Scale Internal

Consistency Science Teacher Survey Question 12: Think about your science instruction during the entire year. About how much emphasis did you give to each of the following objectives for this student?

a) Knowing science and terminology,

b) Understanding key science concepts,

c) Developing science problem-solving skills,

d) Learning about the relevance of science to society and technology,

e) Developing laboratory skills and techniques,

f) Developing students’ interest in science,

g) Developing data analysis skills.

(1) Very heavy emphasis,

(2) Heavy emphasis,

(3) Moderate emphasis,

(4) Little emphasis,

(5) No emphasis.

Note: Variables are reversely coded before further analysis.

α = .71

Science Teacher Survey Question 19: How often do the students in this class engage in the following?

a) Work with other students on a science activity or project,

b) Engage in hands-on activities or investigations in science,

c) Take quizzes or tests,

d) Have assigned homework,

e) Generate and test hypothesis about particular phenomena,

f) Discuss science in the news,

g) Give an oral science report,

h) Prepare a written science report,

i) Use computers for science (e.g., science software, telecommunications),

j) Read a science textbook, or a book or a magazine about science.

1) Almost every,

2) Once or twice a week,

3) Once or twice a month,

4) Never or hardly ever.

Note: Variables are reversely coded before further analysis.

α = .59

SES continuous measureScience IRT Score

DATA ANALYSIS

Multiple regressions were conducted to examine the effects of teacher instructional practices (indicated by Teacher Instructional Objectives and Types of Student Engagement) on 8th grade science IRT scores. Effects were compared between genders, among general population and students from different ethnic backgrounds.

TABLE 2: REGRESSION FINDINGS FOR TEACHERINSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES

FINDINGS : RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERINSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES AND 8TH GRADE SCIENCEACHIEVEMENT

SES is a significant predictor of 8th grade science IRT scores for general population and different ethnic groups .Regression results indicated that for the general population, the predictors together significantly accounted for 22% of variance in science IRT achievement, p<.001. Three of the variables significantly contributed to the model, namely, understanding science concepts, developing science problem solving and learning science relevance.Emphasis on understanding science concepts positively significantly predict 8th

science IRT score for the general population, male and White students.Emphasis on developing science problem solving skills is a significant predictor for the general population, male, female, White, and Hispanic (race specified) students’ science achievement.Emphasis on learning science relevance, however, significantly negatively predicts the 8th grade science IRT scores for the general population, female and White students.Emphasis on developing science lab skills positively predicts the 8th grade science IRT scores for the African American students only.

TABLE 3:REGRESSION FINDINGS FOR STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

FINDINGS: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TYPES OF STUDENTENGAGEMENT AND SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENTRegression results indicated that for the general population, the predictors together significantly accounted for 22% of variance in science IRT achievement, p<.001. Frequent science homework and frequent use of computer science positively predict science achievement while frequent reading science text does so negatively. Frequently engaging students in doing science homework significantly positively predicts the 8th grade science IRT scores for general population, male, female,White, and Hispanic (race not specified) students. Frequently engaging students in using computer science significantly positively predicts 8th grade science IRT scores for general population and female students. Frequently engaging students in reading science text significantly negatively predicts 8th

grade science IRT scores for general population, female, and Hispanic (race not specified) students. Frequently engaging students in discussing science news significantly negatively predicts 8th grade science IRT scores for Asian students., while giving an oral science report does so for male students.Frequently engaging students in hands- on science activity significantly positively predicts 8th grade science IRT scores for African American students only.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Q: What do the significant predictors of 8th grade science achievement tell us about the instructional practices for middle grade students?

Suggestions for instructional practices:Emphasizing

- understanding science concepts- developing science problem solving skills- engaging students frequently in using computer science- engaging students frequently in science homework

Deemphasizing- learning science relevance- reading science texts

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS---CONTINUED

Some practices are useful for some subgroups only, e.g.:- Emphases on developing science lab skills and frequent engagement in hands-on-activities are particularly effective for African American students only. -Frequent engaging students in discussing science news does not help Asian students’ science achievement.Our findings do not support literacy-based science instruction, e.g., frequent engagement in oral science report negatively predicts male students’ achievement and frequent reading science text negatively predicts female students’ and Hispanic (Race not specified) students’ achievement.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS---CONTINUED

Q: How come girls did not benefit from the literacy-based science instruction?They liked learning science in an interactive social context but might not benefit from independent reading or writing. Also improved attitude may not be a significant predictor of science achievement (Baker & Leary, 2003).

Q: How can we explain for the significant effect of doing homework and the insignificant effect of hands-on-activities for the general population?

CONCLUSIONInstead of supporting one particular instructional model for science teaching, teachers use rich, equitable instructional practices in class, incorporating the above components.It is essential to help students relate activities to understanding concepts. Explanation (McNeill & Krajcik, 2008) and demonstration (Lavonen & Seppo, 2009) have found to be essential strategies.Our investigation of teachers’ instructional practices was limited by the survey items in the database.

REFERENCES

Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational

Achievement Systems.

Baker, D. and R. Leary (2003). "Letting Girls Speak Out about Science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40(Suppl):

S176-S200.

Bianchini, J. A. and M. E. Brenner (2010). "The role of induction in learning to teach toward equity: A study of beginning science

and mathematics teachers." Science Education 94(1): 164-195.

Burkam, D. T., V. E. Lee, et al. (1997). "Gender and science learning early in high school: Subject matter and laboratory

experiences." American Educational Research Journal 34(2): 297-331.

DiGisi, L. L. and J. B. Willett (1995). "What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: A descriptive study."

Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32(2): 123-142.

Gee. J. (2004). “Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy.” Crossing

borders in literacy and science instruction (pp.10-32). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Guzzetti, B. J. and E. Bang (2011). "The influence of literacy-based science instruction on adolescents' interest, participation, and

achievement in science." Literacy Research and Instruction 50(1): 44-67.

Hapgood, S., & Palinscar, A.(2007). “Where literacy and science intersect.” Educational Leadership, 84(4). 58-60.

Herrenkohl, L. R., T. Tasker, et al. (2011). "Pedagogical practices to support classroom cultures of scientific inquiry." Cognition

and Instruction 29(1): 1-44.

REFERENCES

Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. (2002). “How well do middle school science programs measure up?

Findings from Project 2061’s curricular review.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39:522–549.

Koke, J. (2005). “Barriers to chocice: How adolescent girls view science careers. Dimensions: Crossing the gap:

reaching female audiences in science centers.” Bi-Monthly Journal of the Association of Science Technology

Centers, 5-7.

Kozioff, M. A., L. LaNunziata, et al. (2000). "Direct instruction: Its contributions to high school achievement." The

High School Journal 84(2): 54-71.

Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T., (1996). “Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: Subject domain,

ability level, and course emphasis.” Science Education, 80(6), 613-650.

Lee, V., Chen, X., & Smerdon, B. (1996). “The influence of school climate on gender differences in the achievement

and engagement of young adolescents.” Washington, DC: American Association of University Women Educational

Foundation. Chicago, IL: Saint Xaviar University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED407077)

Liu, M., P. Hsieh, et al. (2006). "Middle School Students' Self-Efficacy, Attitudes, and Achievement in a Computer-

Enhanced Problem-Based Learning Environment." Journal of Interactive Learning Research 17(3): 225-242.

Lynch, S. (2000). Equity & science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ma, X. and J. L. M. Wilkins (2002). "The development of science achievement in middle and high school: Individual

differences and school effects." Evaluation Review 26(4): 395-417.

REFERENCESManning, M. (1998). “Gender differences in young adolescents’ mathematics and science achievement.” Childhood

Education, 74(3), 168–171.

Marion, S., & Coladarci, T. (1993). “Gender differences in science course-taking patterns among college

undergraduates.” Atlanta, GA: American Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED363512)

McNeill, K. L. and J. Krajcik (2008). "Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers'

instructional practices on student learning." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(1): 53-78.

Minner, D. D., A. J. Levy, et al. (2010). "Inquiry-based science instruction—What is it and does it matter? Results

from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47(4): 474-496.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Odom, A. L., Stoddard, E. R., & LaNasa, S. M. (2007). “Teacher Practices and middle-school science achievements.”

International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1329-1346.

Perry, N. E., Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2006). “Classrooms as contexts for motivating learning.” Handbook of

education psychology (pp. 327-348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Popham, W. J., Keller, T., Moulding, B., Pellegrino, J., & Sandifer, P., (2005). “Instructionally supportive

accountability tests in science: a viable assessment option?” Measurement, 3(3), 121-179.

REFERENCESPuntambekar, S., A. Stylianou, et al. (2007). "Comparing classroom enactments of an inquiry curriculum: Lessons

learned from two teachers." Journal of the Learning Sciences 16(1): 81-130.

Reynolds, A. J. & Walberg, H.J. (1991). “A structural model of science achievement.” Journal of Educational

Psychology, 83(2), 97-107.

Rohrer, D. and H. Pashler (2010). "Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional

strategies." Educational Researcher 39(5): 406-412.

Roth, W. (1994). “Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory.” Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 31(197-223).

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). “Why schools

matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning.” San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Singh, K., M. Granville, et al. (2002). "Mathematics and science achievement: Effects of motivation, interest, and

academic engagement." Journal of Educational Research 95(6): 323-332.

Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). “Implications of research on children’s learning for

standards and assessment: a proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory.”

Measurement, 14(1&2), 1-98.

Taraban, R., C. Box, et al. (2007). "Effects of active-learning experiences on achievement, attitudes, and behaviors in

high school biology." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 44(7): 960-979.

Von Secker, C. E. and R. W. Lissitz (1999). "Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in

science." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36(10): 1110-1126.

Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. (2001). “Language and literacy in science education.” Buckingham, England: Open

University Press.