Author(s): Thompson, Carla J.
Published: May 2009 in Research in Education
URL to article
Research Focus Area: Grading systems that work and are meaningful in the 21st century especially for colleges and employeers, and for topics like PE, arts, and health
Abstract:
Historically math and science education reform efforts have consistently advocated specific classroom practices as substantial influences in instruction and learning. However, there are few research efforts available that have empirically connected specific reform-driven instructional strategies with student learning (NCTM, 1989; NRC, 1996). The political community and general public were awakened to the need for math and science educational reform by the announcement of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS, 2005). The 2002 US ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act has also raised public consciousness of the importance of Standards-based Instruction (SBI) in reform efforts (ESEA, 2002). However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to identify which specific math and science SBI strategies significantly influence student learning; the specific influences of non-reform instructional strategies (non-SBI) on students’ math and science learning are also unclear. The present study seeks to add to this research base. Specific reform strategies known as Standards-based Instruction consist of classroom activities that encourage participatory student-centred classrooms rather than teacher-directed (lecture-based) classrooms. SBI classroom strategies include student self-assessment, inquiry-based activities, group-based projects, hands-on experiences, use of computer technologies, and the use of calculators. The use of Standards-based Instruction in the retraining and preparation of teachers and in the teaching of math and science (grades 6 to 12) has been the focus of the Oklahoma City Public Schools, Oklahoma, Urban Systemic Program (OK USP) since 1999. The OK USP SBI approaches emphasise hands-on, inquiry, connections, communications, problem solving, real-world applications, and co-operative learning approaches to math and science learning. Examples of SBI strategies that illustrate the student-centred focus of Standards-based Instruction include the following: (1) using manipulatives or hands-on materials such as Styrofoam balls and toothpicks for building molecular models, dominoes, base ten blocks, tangrams, spinners, rulers, fraction bars, algebra tiles, coins, and geometric solids; (2) incorporating inquiry, discovery, and problem-solving approaches such as making binoculars out of recycled materials, using scenarios from nature and everyday life events for groups of students to research and investigate using math and science concepts; (3) applying math and science concepts to real-world contexts such as banking, energy concerns, environmental issues, and timelines; (4) connecting mathematics and science preparation skills to specific careers and occupations; (5) using calculators and technologies for capturing and analysing original data from original math and science experiments; and (6) communicating math and science concepts through journal writing, small-group discussions, and laboratory/technical reporting of experiments and results. These SBI practices are delivered to teachers in the form of summer professional development academies, informal professional development (individual teacher consultations) and formal professional development (lesson modelling). Non-SBI practices utilised in math and science classrooms include activities such as teacher lecture, individual student drill and practice worksheets, and computer drill and practice programmes. Data for this study were collected from a standards-based Preparation, Practice, and Performance (P[sup3] model) data-driven framework. Through quantitative analysis the study seeks empirical connections between reform strategies (Standards-based Instruction: SBI) or non-reform instructional strategies (non-Standards-based Instruction: non-SBI) and student learning (achievement).
Research Question(s):
Which Standards-based Instruction (SBI) practices are significant contributors to students’ math and science achievement?
Methods:
Classroom Observation
Setting:
Approximately 10,000 Oklahoma City public-school students and 408 teachers in grades 6 to 9 (204 math and 204 science teachers) during the 2000-01 and 2001-02 school years from randomly selected math and science classrooms The Oklahoma City Public School District serves approximately 40,000 students in grades pre-K12, with over 85 per cent of the students qualifying for free lunch services and with the following racial/ethnic composition: white (29 per cent), black (36 per cent), Hispanic (27 per cent), Indian (5 per cent), and Asian (3 per cent).
Key Findings:
- The 408 math and secondary teachers in the study have each received over 200 hours of informal (consultation and lesson modeling) training in SBI and over 160 hours of formal training in SBI from 2000 to 2002.
- SBI practices that were found to be significant contributors to students’ math achievement include
- the use of manipulatives
- self-assessment
- co-operative group projects
- computer technology
- use of hands-on materials
- SBI practices that were found to be significant contributors to students’ science achievement include
- the use of inquiry
- self-assessment
- co-operative group projects
- computer technology
- None of the identified SBI practices was found to be a significant contributor to student math or science achievement by gender or ethnic groupings.
- Virtually none of the observed non-SBI practices was found to be a significant contributor to student math or science achievement by gender or ethnic groupings.
- There is one exception: teacher lecture was found to contribute significantly to white students’ science achievement.
- Although substantially more non-SBI activities than SBI activities were observed in the secondary math and science classrooms participating in the study, none of the non-SBI practices observed in the classrooms was found to significantly contribute to math or science achievement.
Implications:
- The findings of this study support the views of reform organizations regarding the need for a re-examination of non-standards-based practices currently still dominating many math and science classrooms in American schools.
- Educators should turn away from “traditional” non-standards-based practices such as lecture, independent seat work, quizzes, and text homework that still preponderates in many math and science classrooms.
- Math and science educators should instead favor the SBI practices of standards-based practices such as inquiry, problem solving, co-operative learning, and use of hands-on and technology.
- Results of this study asuggest the P[sup3] model Preparation, Practice, and Performance as a viable framework for empirically validating the effectiveness of Standards-based Instruction as a successful reform effort for systemic change in math and science education.
Limitations:
-