Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among english language learners

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 46, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 836-859

  Lee, Okhee ^a   Penfield, Randall ^a   Maerten Rivera, Jaime ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

Author keywords

Diversity; Elementary; Teacher education practicing teachers; Urban education

Indexed keywords

DIVERSITY; EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTION; ELEMENTARY; ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS; ENGLISH LANGUAGES; FIRST YEAR; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; TEACHER EDUCATION-PRACTICING TEACHERS; URBAN EDUCATION; URBAN SCHOOLS;

BIOGRAPHIES; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; TEACHING;

STUDENTS;

EID: 69649106204     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20335     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., Kempler, T., Geier, R., Kam, R., &Gallagher, S. (2006, April). Opportunity to learn: Teacher instructional practices that account for variation in achievement in project-based science in urban middle schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
4. Dane, A.V., & Schneider, B.H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23-45.
5. Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W.B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237-256.
6. Ertle, B., Ginsburg, H.P., & Lewis, A.E. (2006, April). Measuring the efficacy of Big Math for Little Kids: A look at fidelity of implementation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
7. Hart, J., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve science and literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 475-501.
8. Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York: Pergamon Press.
9. Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., & Robey, J. (2003). Relationships among student, teacher, and observer perceptions of science classrooms and student achievement. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 409-420.
10. Lee, O. (2002). Science inquiry for elementary students from diverse backgrounds. In W.G. Secada (Ed.), Review of research in education, Vol.26 (pp. 23-69). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
11. Lee, O., Hart, J., Cuevas, P., &Enders, C. (2004). Professional development in inquiry-based science for elementary teachers of diverse student groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1021-1043.
12. Lee, O., LeRoy, K., Thornton, C., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., & Lewis, S. (2008). Teachers' perspectives on a professional development intervention to improve science instruction among English language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 41-67.
13. Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., &Secada, W.G. (2008). Urban elementary school teachers' knowledge and practices in teaching science to English language learners. Science Education, 92(4), 733-758.
14. Lee, O., Maerten-Rivera, J., Penfield, R., LeRoy, K., & Secada, W.G. (2008). Science achievement of English language learners in urban elementary schools: Results of a first-year professional development intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 31-52.
15. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2005). Dilemmas in scaling up innovations in science instruction with nonmainstream elementary students. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 411-438.
16. Lillehoj, C.J., Griffin, K.W., &Spoth, R. (2004). Program provider and observer ratings of school-based preventive intervention implementation: Agreement and relation to youth outcomes. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 242-257.
17. Lynch, S., & O'Donnell, C. (2005a, April)."Fidelity of implementation" in implementation and scaleup research designs: Applications from four studies of innovative science curriculum materials and diverse populations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
18. Lynch, S., & O'Donnell, C. (2005b, April). The evolving definition, measurement, and conceptualization of fidelity of implementation in scale-up of highly rated science curriculum units in diverse middle schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
19. Mihalic, S. (2002). The importance of implementation fidelity. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
20. Mowbray, C.T., Holter, M.C., Teague, G.B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315-340.
21. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
22. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23. Newmann, F.M., Secada, W.G., & Wehlage, G.G. (1995). A guide to authentic instruction and assessment: Vision, standards and scoring. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
24. O'Donnell, C. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33-84.
25. Raudenbush, S.W. (2007). Designing field trials of educational innovations. In B. Schneider & S. McDonald (Eds.), Scale up in education, Vol.2: Practice (pp. 23-40). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
26. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S., Cheong, Y., & Congdon, R.T. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
28. Schneider B. & McDonald S. (Eds.). (2007a). Scale up in education, Vol.2: Ideas in principle. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
29. Schneider B. & McDonald S. (Eds.). (2007b). Scale up in education, Vol.2: Practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
30. Schroeder, C.M., Scott, T.P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., &Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.
31. Secker, C.E., & Lissitz, R.W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1110-1126.
32. Shymansky, J.A., Yore, L.D., &Anderson, J.O. (2004). Impact of a school district's science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third- and fourth-grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(8), 771-790.
33. Songer, N.B., & Gotwals, A.W. (2005, April). Fidelity of implementation in three sequential curricular units. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
34. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (1997). ESL standards for pre-K-12 students. Alexandria, VA: Author.
35. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages. (2006). PreK-12 English language proficiency standards. Alexandra, VA: Author.
36. Wood, N.B., Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D., &Schultz, M. (2006). Viewing the school environment through multiple lenses: In search of school-level variables tied to student achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 237-254.