The Cross-Case Analyses of Elementary Students' Engagement in the Strands of Science Proficiency

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 559-587

  Minogue, James ^a   Madden, Lauren ^a   Bedward, John ^a   Wiebe, Eric ^a   Carter, Mike ^a  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Case study research; Elementary science teaching; Inquiry based instruction; Science notebooks

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954423657     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-010-9195-y     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30, 1945-1969.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993, 2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. NY: Oxford University Press.
3. Aschbacher, P., & Alonzo, A. (2006). Examining the utility of elementary science notebooks for formative assessment purposes. Educational Assessment, 11, 179-203.
4. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
5. Chesbro, R. (2006). The name assigned to the document by the author. This field may also contain sub-titles, series names, and report numbers. Using interactive science notebooks for inquiry-based science. Science Scope, 29(7), 30-34.
6. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8. Cunningham, J. B. (1997). Case study principles for different cases. Quality and Quantity, 31, 401-423.
9. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
10. Denzin, N. K. (1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500-515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
13. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
15. Glasson, G. E. (1989). The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 121-131.
16. Glynn, R. J., & Buring, J. E. (1996). Ways of measuring rates of recurrent events. British Medical Journal, 312, 364-367.
17. Grigg, W. S., Lauko, M. A., & Brockway, D. M. (2006). The nation's report card: Science 2005. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http://nces. ed. gov/nationsreportcard/science/.
18. Horizon Research, Inc. (1999). Local systemic change through teacher enhancement Classroom Observation Protocol (COP). Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from www. horizon-research. com/instruments/clas/cop. php.
19. Klentschy, M. P. (2008). Using science notebooks in the elementary classroom. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
20. Klentschy, M. P., & Molina-De La Torre, E. (2003). Students' science notebooks and the inquiry process. In W. Saul (Ed.), Border crossings: Essays on literacy and science (pp. 340-354). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
21. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lehrer, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
22. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23. Lindberg, D. H. (1990). What goes 'round comes 'round doing science. Childhood Education, 67, 79-81.
24. McCutcheon, D. M., & Meredith, J. R. (1993). Conducting case study research in operations management. Journal of Operational Management, 11, 239-256.
25. Michaels, S., Shouse, A. W., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2007). Ready, set, science!: Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A source book for new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
27. National Academy of Science. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
28. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Retrieved September 2007, from http://www. nap. edu/readingroom/books/nses/.
29. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
30. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2004). Standard course of study-science. Retrieved December 2007, from http://www. dpi. state. nc. us/curriculum/science/.
31. Piburn, M., Sawada, D., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Board of Regents.
32. Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., et al. (2006). Fifth graders' science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 467-484.
33. Project Inquiry. (2000). Project Inquiry Classroom Observation Protocol. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from www. ccsdschools. com/administration/assessment/APPENDIXC. pdf.
34. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Li, M., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Looking into students' science notebooks: What do teachers do with them?. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, UCLA.
35. Saul, W., & Reardon, J. (1996). Beyond the science kit. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
36. Schauble, L. (2007). Three questions about development. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Establishing a consensus agenda for K-12 science inquiry (pp. 50-56). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
37. Shepardson, D. P., & Britsch, S. J. (2001). The role of children's journals in elementary school science activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 43-69.
38. Shymansky, J. A., Hedges, L. V., & Woodworth, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60 s on student performance. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.
39. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C., Jr., & Alport, J. M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
40. Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., Zeidner, T. L., Dunn, A. C., Bhatt, M., & Rumyantseva, N. L. (2007). Inquiry-oriented instruction: Who teaches that way? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 169-199.
41. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
42. U. S. Department of Education. (2005). National assessment of educational progress (NAEP). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2005 Science Assessment.
43. Yin, R. (1981a). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58-65.
44. Yin, R. (1981b). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge, 3, 97-114.
45. Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.
46. Yin, R. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.