Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant

This article reports on the results of a planning grant studying the effects of a highly rated curriculum unit on a diverse student population. The treatment was introduced to 1500 eighth grade students in five middle schools selected for their ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic diversity. Students were given pre-, post-, and delayed posttests on a Conservation of Matter Assessment and measures of motivation and engagement. This quasi-experiment found statistically significant posttest results for achievement, basic learning engagement, and goal orientation. Analyses of disaggregated data showed that subgroups of students in the treatment condition outscored their comparison group peers (n = 1500) in achievement in all cases, except for students currently enrolled in ESOL. Analysis of video data of a diverse group of four students as the unit was enacted suggests that students entered a learning environment that permitted them to function in different, but consistent ways over time; that is, the frequency of students' manipulation of objects showed a different pattern of engagement for each of the four students compared with patterns of verbal responses such as the use of scientific terms. The results of this planning grant paved the way for a large study of the scale-up of highly rated curriculum units. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 912–946, 2005

[1]  Luli Stern,et al.  Analysis of students' assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards , 2002 .

[2]  J. B. Kahle,et al.  The implementation of equitable teaching strategies by high school biology student teachers , 1993 .

[3]  G. Solano-Flores,et al.  On the cultural validity of science assessments , 2001 .

[4]  Ronald W. Marx,et al.  “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science , 2001 .

[5]  Randy Yerrick,et al.  Same school, separate worlds: A sociocultural study of identity, resistance, and negotiation in a rural, lower track science classroom , 2001 .

[6]  J. Gumperz.  Discourse strategies: Subject index , 1982 .

[7]  Donald E. Riechard.  National Science-Education Standards: Around the Reform Bush...Again?. , 1994 .

[8]  P. Hewson,et al.  Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change , 1982 .

[9]  T. Pica.  Second-language Acquisition, Social Interaction, and the Classroom. , 1987 .

[10]  Dell Hymes,et al.  Language in Education: Ethnolinguistic Essays. Language and Ethnography Series. , 1980 .

[11]  J. Woodward,et al.  The Effects of an Innovative Approach to Mathematics on Academically Low-Achieving Students in Inclusive Settings , 1997 .

[12]  H. M. Marks,et al.  Student Engagement in Instructional Activity: Patterns in the Elementary, Middle, and High School Years , 2000 .

[13]  S. Engel.  Thought and Language , 1964 .

[14]  Larry E. Suter,et al.  Guiding Principles for Mathematics and Science Education Research Methods: Report of a Workshop , 2000 .

[15]  Jeannett Martin,et al.  Writing Science: Literacy And Discursive Power , 1993 .

[16]  B. Tabachnick,et al.  Using Multivariate Statistics , 1983 .

[17]  Gail Jefferson,et al.  On “Trouble‐Premonitory” Response to Inquiry , 1980 .

[18]  Michael Silverstein,et al.  Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function , 1993 .

[19]  Robert W. Lissitz,et al.  Estimating the Impact of Instructional Practices on Student Achievement in Science , 1999 .

[20]  Olugbemiro J. Jegede,et al.  Cross‐cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon , 1999 .

[21]  Robert Donmoyer.  Rhetoric and Reality of Systemic Reform: A Critique of the Proposed National Science Education Standards. , 1995 .

[22]  Harold H. Wenglinsky.  How Teaching Matters: Bringing the Classroom Back into Discussions of Teacher Quality. , 2000 .

[23]  Sharon J. Lynch.  Equity and Science Education Reform , 2000 .

[24]  J. Lemke.  Talking Science: Language, Learning, and Values , 1990 .

[25]  Sousan Arafeh,et al.  Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995-1999. Initial Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study--Repeat. Statistical Analysis Report. , 2001 .

[26]  Ann Rosebery,et al.  Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense‐making , 2001 .

[27]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[28]  Kenneth A. Strike,et al.  A revisionist theory of conceptual change , 1992 .

[29]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  Task Engagement and Conceptual Change in Middle School Science Classrooms , 1993 .

[30]  William H. Schmidt,et al.  A splintered vision : an investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education , 1997 .

[31]  Carole A. Ames,et al.  Goal Structures and Motivation , 1984, The Elementary School Journal.

[32]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[33]  Kathryn Scantlebury,et al.  Urban african-american middle school science students : Does standards-based teaching make a difference? , 2000 .

[34]  P. Pintrich,et al.  Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Beliefs and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change , 1993 .

[35]  P. Pintrich.  Multiple Goals, Multiple Pathways: The Role of Goal Orientation in Learning and Achievement. , 2000 .

[36]  W. Holliday.  Comment: Methodological concerns about AAAS's Project 2061 study of science textbooks , 2003 .

[37]  Ann L. Darling.  Signalling non‐comprehensions in the classroom: Toward a descriptive typology , 1989 .

[38]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[39]  Sharon J. Lynch.  Novice teachers' encounter with national science education reform: Entanglements or intelligent interconnections? , 1997 .

[40]  Robert L. Bangert-Drowns,et al.  A Taxonomy of Student Engagement with Educational Software: An Exploration of Literate Thinking with Electronic Text , 2001 .

[41]  Jo Ellen Roseman,et al.  How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review , 2002 .

[42]  C. Morris.  Signs, Language and Behavior , 1947 .

[43]  Charles E. Bruckerhoff.  Lessons Learned in the Evaluation of Statewide Systemic Initiatives. , 1997 .

[44]  S. Heath.  Ways with Words: Language, Life and Work in Communities and Classrooms , 1983 .

[45]  Courtney B. Cazden,et al.  Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Second Edition. , 2001 .

[46]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Perspectives on activity theory: Play, learning, and instruction , 1999 .

[47]  Jo Ellen Roseman,et al.  Project 2061 analyses of middle-school science textbooks: A response to holliday , 2003 .

[48]  D. Hymes.  Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach , 1974 .

[49]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[50]  Atau Tanaka.  Performance program , 2006 .