Impact of Additional Guidance in Science Education on Primary Students Conceptual Understanding

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 108, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 358-370

  Decristan, Jasmin ^a   Hondrich, A Lena ^a   Büttner, Gerhard ^b   Hertel, Silke ^c   Klieme, Eckhard ^b   Kunter, Mareike ^b   Lühken, Arnim ^a   Adl Amini, Katja ^b   Djakovic, Sanna K ^b   Mannel, Susanne ^b   Naumann, Alexander ^a   Hardy, Ilonca ^b  

^a GERMAN INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

conceptual understanding; formative assessment; peer assisted learning; primary science education; scaffolding instructional discourse

Indexed keywords

EID: 84939473262     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2014.899957     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Adl-Amini, K., Decristan, J., Hondrich, A. L., & Hardy, I. (2014). Umsetzung von peer-gestütztem Lernen durch Lehrkräfte im naturwissenschaftlichen Sachunterricht der Grundschule [Teachers' implementation of peer-assisted learning in primary science education]. Zeitschrift für Grundschulforschung, 7, 74-87.
2. Akerson, V. L., Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of primary children's ideas in science on teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 363-385. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200004)37:4<363::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-#
3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 1-12. doi: 10.1023/A:1015171124982
4. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. Science Teacher, 72, 30-33.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31. doi: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
6. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518. doi: 10.3102/00346543053004499
7. Caravita, S., & Hallden, O. (1994). Re-framing the problem of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4, 89-111. doi: 10.1016/0959-4752(94)90020-5
8. Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 13-19. doi: 10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00046-5
9. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick. (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Cronbach, J. L., & Snow, E. R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
11. Davis, E. A., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scaffolding students knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 819-837. doi: 10.1080/095006900412293
12. Davis, E., & Miyake, N. (2004). Explorations of scaffolding in complex classroom systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 265-272. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303-1
13. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291. doi: 10.3102/0091732×07309371
14. Elben, C. E., & Lohaus, A. (2001). Marburger Sprachverständnistest für Kinder ab 5 Jahren [ Marburger test of language comprehension for children 5 years of age and olde r ]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
15. Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121-138. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
16. Furtak, E. M., Hardy, I., Beinbrech, C., Shemwell, J. T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2010). A framework for analyzing evidence-based reasoning in science classroom discourse. Educational Assessment, 15, 175-197. doi: 10.1080/10627197.2010.530553
17. Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 360-389. doi: 10.1080/08957340802347852
18. Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300-329. doi: 10.3102/0034654312457206.
19. Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Rohrbeck, C. A., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). A meta-analytic review of social, self-concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 732-749. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732
20. Glück, C. W. (2011). Wortschatz-und Wortfindungstest für 6-bis 10-Jährige: WWT 6-10 [ Test of vocabulary of 6-to 10-year-old children ]. München, Germany: Elsevier, Urban & Fischer.
21. Hardy, I., Jonen, A., Möller, K., & Stern, E. (2006). Effects of instructional support within constructivist learning environments for elementary school students understanding of "floating and sinking ". Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 307-326. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.307
22. Hardy, I., Hertel, S., Kunter, M., Klieme, E., Warwas, J., Büttner, G., & Lühken, A. (2011). Adaptive Lerngelegenheiten in der Grundschule: Merkmale, methodisch-didaktische Schwerpunktsetzungen und erforderliche Lehrerkompetenzen [Adaptive learning environments in primary school]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 57, 819-833.
23. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
24. Hertel, S. (2009). Beratungskompetenz von Lehrern-Kompetenzdiagnostik, Kompetenzförderung, Kompetenzmodellierung [ Teachers parental counselling competency-diagnosis, support, and modelling of competency ]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
25. Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99-107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368
26. Hondrich, A. L., Hertel, S., Adl-Amini, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). Implementing curriculum-embedded formative assessment in primary school science classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27. Hugener, I., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2006). Teil 3. Videoanalysen [Part 3. Video analysis]. In E. Klieme., C. Pauli., & K. Reusser. (Eds.), Dokumentation der Erhebungs-und Auswertungsinstrumente zur schweizerisch-deutschen Videostudie Unterrichtsqualität, Lernverhalten und mathematisches Verständnis [ Documentation of the assessment and evaluation instruments of the Swiss-German video study "Instructional quality, learning behavior, and mathematical understanding "]. Frankfurt, Germany: GFPF.
28. Hughes, G. B. (2010). Formative assessment practices that maximize learning for students at risk. In H. L. Andrade. & G. J. Cizek. (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 212-232). New York, NY: Routledge.
29. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
30. Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x
31. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75-86. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102-1
32. Kleickmann, T., Hardy, I., Möller, K., Pollmeier, J., Tröbst, S., & Beinbrech, C. (2010). Die Modellierung naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenz im Grundschulalter: Theoretische Konzeption und Testkonstruktion [Modeling scientific competence of primary school children: Theoretical background and test construction]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 16, 263-281.
33. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27, 12-21. doi: 10.3102/0013189×027004012
34. Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 120-131. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001
35. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Nagengast, B. (2009). Doubly-latent models of school contextual effects: Integrating multilevel and structural equation approaches to control measurement and sampling error. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 764-802. doi: 10.1080/00273170903333665
36. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foy, P. (with Olson, J. F., Erberber, E., Preuschoff, C., & Galia, J.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 International Science Report: Findings from IEA's Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study at the Fourth and Eighth Grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
37. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2009). 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, 474-496. doi: 10.1002/tea.20347
38. Möller, K., & Jonen, A. (2005). Die KiNT-Boxen-Kinder lernen Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Paket 1: Schwimmen und Sinken [ The KiNT-boxes-children learn science and technology. Package 1: Floating and sinking ]. Essen, Germany: Spectra.
39. Möller, K., Jonen, A., Hardy, I., & Stern, E. (2002). Die Förderung von naturwissenschaftlichem Verständnis bei Grundschulkindern durch Strukturierung der Lernumgebung [Support of primary school students science understanding through the structuring of the learning environment]. In M. Prenzel. & J. Doll. (Eds.), Bildungsqualität von Schule: Schulische und außerschulische Bedingungen mathematischer, naturwissenschaftlicher und überfachlicher Kompetenzen (pp. 176-191). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
40. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer Software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
41. ODonnell, A. M., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
42. Osborne, J. F., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 994-1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
43. Petermann, F., Metz, D., & Fröhlich, L. P. (2010). SET 5-10. Sprachstandserhebungstest für Kinder im Alter zwischen 5 und 10 Jahren [ Test of language comprehension of 5-to 10-year-old children ]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
44. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660207
45. Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). The Brown legacy and the OConnor challenge: Transforming schools in the images of children's potential. Educational Researcher, 38, 169-180. doi: 10.3102/0013189×09334840
46. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47. Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273-304. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303-2
48. Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005). Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327-362. doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-8137-2
49. Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. (2003). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240-257. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.240
50. Shavelson, R. J., Young, D. B., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,. Yin, Y. (2008). On the impact of curriculum-embedded formative assessment on learning: A collaboration between curriculum and assessment developers. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 295-314. doi: 10.1080/08957340802347647
51. Tolmie, A., Howe, C., Mackenzie, M., & Greer, K. (1993). Task design as an influence on dialogue and learning: primary school group work with object flotation. Social Development, 2, 183-201. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1993.tb00013.x
52. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 361-645. doi: 10.1080/01443410500345172
53. Treagust, D., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3, 297-328. doi: 10.1007/s11422-008-9090-4
54. van Boxtel, C., van der Linden, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Collaborative learning tasks and the elaboration of conceptual knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 311-330. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00002-5
55. van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher-student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 271-296. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
56. Vosniadou, S., Ioannides, C., Dimitrakopoulou, A., & Papademetriou, E. (2001). Designing learning environments to promote conceptual change in science. Learning and Instruction, 11, 381-419. doi: 10.1016/S0959-4752(00)00038-4
57. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427-450. doi: 10.1007/BF02294627
58. Weiß, R. H. (2006). CFT 20-R. Grundintelligenztest Skala 2-Revision [ Culture Fair Test ]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
59. Webb, N. M. (1982). Peer interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 642-655. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.74.5.642
60. Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität [I nter-rater agreement and reliability ]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.