Matching Items (3)
153846-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
This teacher research study examined the effects of utilizing an intervention of Science Writing Heuristics (SWH) as a tool to increase learning during laboratory activities. Five of my eighth grade general science classes participated in this study. Two classes utilized SWH during their laboratory activities (the treatment group)

This teacher research study examined the effects of utilizing an intervention of Science Writing Heuristics (SWH) as a tool to increase learning during laboratory activities. Five of my eighth grade general science classes participated in this study. Two classes utilized SWH during their laboratory activities (the treatment group) and three classes performed and wrote up their labs in the more traditional, teacher-directed approach (the control group). The assessment scores of the students in the treatment group were compared to the assessment scores of the students in the control group. The post-assessments were analyzed utilizing a t-test. I was teacher in this study and the teacher of all five classes. Data from 41 students were analyzed in this study. A pre-assessment, six laboratory activities, instruction, and a post-assessment occurred within three weeks. The assessments were generated by myself and I performed a t-test using a two-sample analysis, assuming unequal variances (n=16 for treatment group, n=25 for control group) to compare the post-assessments from each group. Results indicated that there was no significant difference between the post-assessment scores of the treatment group with the post-assessment scores of control group (p=0.25). However, the t-test results revealed that when the pre- and post-assessments were compared, there was a significant difference (p=<0.05 for treatment group, p=<0.05 for control group). Each group showed considerable cognitive improvement between pre-assessment (mean scores: 52%-treatment group and 53%-control group) and the post-assessment (mean scores: 72%-treatment group and 80%-control group). This suggests that the presentation of the curriculum lacked a clear distinction between the treatment group and the control group yet benefited most students. Due to circumstances described in the limitations, further research is warranted.
ContributorsDrobitsky, Tamara (Author) / Luft, Julie (Thesis advisor) / Marsh, Josephine (Committee member) / Baker, Dale (Committee member) / Lyon, Edward (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
152811-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Efforts to privilege STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines, initiatives, and industries in American discourse are arguably the foremost expressions of scientific authority in contemporary educational policy. Citing a diverse body of STEM literature, I discuss the histories and rationales that sustain the promotion of STEM. In doing so,

Efforts to privilege STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) disciplines, initiatives, and industries in American discourse are arguably the foremost expressions of scientific authority in contemporary educational policy. Citing a diverse body of STEM literature, I discuss the histories and rationales that sustain the promotion of STEM. In doing so, I appropriate two concepts -Michel Foucault's Regime of Truth and Hayden White's Emplotment- for the purpose of analyzing the complex interests embodied by STEM discourse. I argue that the Sputnik Narrative is the prevailing story in STEM advocacy discourse. I claim that STEM advocates typically emplot this history as a Romance. Furthermore, I classify two major bases of appeal (rationales) that appear within this literature to justify STEM projects and proposals, "competition" and "equity." Throughout my writing, I cite discursive strategies for challenging and reimagining STEM history. My goal in indicating these sites of narrative possibilities is broaden the discursive field to new, perhaps liberating possibilities.
ContributorsGeldis, Christopher (Author) / Harris, Lauren M (Thesis advisor) / Lyon, Edward (Committee member) / Greenes, Carole (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
128730-Thumbnail Image.png
Description

One way to view ‘equitable pedagogy’ is through an opportunity to learn (OTL) lens, meaning that regardless of race, class, or culture, a student has access to rigorous and meaningful content, as well as appropriate resources and instruction necessary to learn and demonstrate understanding of that content. Assessment holds a

One way to view ‘equitable pedagogy’ is through an opportunity to learn (OTL) lens, meaning that regardless of race, class, or culture, a student has access to rigorous and meaningful content, as well as appropriate resources and instruction necessary to learn and demonstrate understanding of that content. Assessment holds a unique position in the classroom in that it can both uncover whether inequitable conditions exist (i.e., performance gaps, denied OTL) and provide an OTL by mediating communication between teacher and students regarding learning progress and what is important to learn. Nevertheless, individuals entering teacher education programs often hold deficit views toward marginalized students, such as Language Minorities (LMs), believe that assessment strictly serves to evaluate learning, and do not do consider how language and culture influence student thinking–views supplanting assessment’s role at supporting an equitable pedagogy for LMs. Through surveys, interviews, program artifacts, and classroom observation, I report on a case study of one pre-service physics teacher, Dean, to depict how his expertise at assessing science did evolve throughout his yearlong teacher education program in terms of (a) becoming more knowledgeable of the role of language and (b) developing a belief in incorporating ‘discourse’ while assessing science. Within the case study, I analyze one particular episode from Dean’s teaching practicum to highlight remaining challenges for pre-service teachers to integrate science and language in classroom assessment—namely, interpreting students’ use of language along with their understanding of core science ideas. The findings underscore the need for connecting language and equity issues to content-area assessment in teacher preparation.

ContributorsLyon, Edward (Author) / Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College (Contributor)
Created2013-07-19