Learning of Core Disciplinary Ideas: Efficacy Comparison of Two Contrasting Modes of Science Instruction
Learning of Core Disciplinary Ideas: Efficacy Comparison of Two Contrasting Modes of Science Instruction
David Schuster 0 1 2
William W. Cobern 0 1 2
Betty AJ Adams 0 1 2
Adriana Undreiu 0 1 2
Brandy Pleasants 0 1 2
0 University of Virginia's College at Wise , Wise, VA 24293 , USA
1 Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University , Kalamazoo, MI , USA
2 Physics Department and Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University , Kalamazoo, MI 49008 , USA
Science curricula and teaching methods vary greatly, depending in part on which facets of science are emphasized, e.g., core disciplinary ideas or science practices and process skills, and perspectives differ considerably on desirable pedagogies. Given the multi-faceted nature of science and the variety of teaching methods found in practice, it is no simple task to determine what teaching approaches might be most effective and for what purposes. Research into relative efficacy faces considerable challenges, with confounding factors, ambiguities, conflations, and lack of controls being threats to validity. We provide a conceptual framework characterizing the many teaching strategies found in practice as being variants of two fundamental contrasting epistemic modes, and we disentangle conflations of terms and confusions of constructs in both teaching practice and research. Instructional units for two science topics were developed in parallel in the alternative epistemic modes, differing in concept learning paths but otherwise equivalent. We conducted a randomized controlled study of the comparative efficacy of the two modes for learning core disciplinary ideas, using operationally defined active-direct and guided-inquiry teaching methods. Five middle school teachers taught each unit in both modes over 4 years of classroom trials in an 8-day summer program for eighth grade students. Student understanding of core ideas was assessed using pre- and post-tests, and learning gains were analyzed by mode, teacher, topic, and trial year. Although routes to concept understanding were very different in the two modes, eventual student learning gains were similar, within statistical variation. Efficacy variations between and within teachers were greater than between modes, indicating the importance of teacher effects on student achievement. Findings suggest that teachers need not be bound to one mode throughout and can flexibly decide on the pedagogical approach for each concept and situation, on several grounds other than efficacy of core content acquisition alone.
-
Science education standards, curricula, teaching methods, and assessments have varied
considerably over time and across countries, at both policy level and in actual teacher practice. Some
countries have national curricula and others decentralize to the state or even school district level.
Some standards specify science content alone, others also include science practices and the nature
of science, and some may advocate specific teaching approaches. Notwithstanding formal
standards, documents, curricula, and approaches are often defined de facto by textbooks, teaching
resources, and assessment systems. There are also issues of what facets of science are taught or
not, for example, science as a product or body of knowledge (facts, concepts, principles, models,
theories); science as a process or creative endeavor (practices, process skills, experimenting,
scientific inquiry, etc.); or science as problem solving and application (practical uses, devices,
engineering, technology). Correspondingly, science curricula and instruction may emphasize or
privilege one or another of these facets. In the past, the emphasis was mostly toward the content
side, certainly as commonly assessed.
In recent decades, however, the goals for science education have come to include much in
addition to content knowledge. Over 40 years ago, West and Fensham (1974) commented on
the rising interest in teaching science through what we now call hands-on laboratory activities
and practices — the process side of science. In the USA, this expansion of goals is now
explicit in science education policy and standards documents such as A Framework for K-12
Science Education (NRC 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NRC
2013). These explicitly emphasize both content and process aspects of science by referring to
Core Disciplinary Ideas, Science Practices, and Cross-Cutting Concepts. Still, West and
Fensham argued that even with broadened science education scope, it remained crucial that
students learn science’s Bhighly developed content of knowledge^ (p. 61). However, recent
national assessments of student science knowledge show that inadequate concept
understanding in science remains a persistent problem. For example, on National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) tests, only a third of eighth grade students were rated
Bproficient^ in science in 2011 (Fleming 2012; NCES 2011; (...truncated)