Principled Improvement in Science: Forces and proportional relations in early secondary-school teaching

Abstract

In response to continuing concerns about student attainment and participation in science and mathematics, the epiSTEMe project took a novel approach to pedagogy in these two disciplines. Using principles identified as effective in the research literature (and combining these in a fashion not previously attempted), the project developed topic modules for early secondary-school teaching in the UK, arranged for their implementation in classrooms, and evaluated the results. This paper reports the development, implementation, and evaluation of one of the epiSTEMe science modules. Entitled Forces and Proportional Relations, the module covers standard curricular material in the domain of forces, while paying particular attention to the proportional nature of many key constructs. It was developed in collaboration with a small group of teachers; implemented subsequently in 16 classrooms, in all cases involving students from the first year of secondary school; and evaluated through comparison with first-year students in 13 control classrooms who were studying the topic using established methods. Evaluation addressed topic mastery and opinions about the topic and the manner in which it was taught. While further research is required before definite conclusions are warranted, results relating to topic mastery provide grounds for optimism about the epiSTEMe approach. Furthermore, student opinions about the module were positive.

Keywords:

• Science education
• Early secondary-school
• Dialogic teaching
• Forces
• Proportional reasoning

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Institute of Physics and the Economic and Social Research Council for funding, fellow members of the Targeted Initiative for feedback, James de Winter for comments on materials, Andy Tolmie and Anna Vignoles for statistical advice, Antonia Larrain for access to Chilean data, the participating students and teachers for enthusiastic engagement, and above all Stefanie Luthman, Ken Ruthven, and Keith Taber who as fellow members of the epiSTEMe team provided unstinting support at all stages of the project.

Notes

1. It is worth noting that under-estimation of between-conditions differences would also have been the consequence had residual gain scores been used rather than raw gain, even though the association between pre-test scores and gain would not then have been apparent (and therefore the interpretive challenges addressed in this paper harder to detect). There is in fact no statistical technique that avoids under-estimation when between-conditions differences are associated with variables that are also associated with outcome measures (Miller & Chapman, 2001).