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

REFERENCES

• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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-#
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. Science Teacher, 72, 30–33.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. (2000). Science education as conceptual change. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 13–19. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(99)00046-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach, J. L., & Snow, E. R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 older]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. S. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hertel, S. (2009). Beratungskompetenz von Lehrern - Kompetenzdiagnostik, Kompetenzförderung, Kompetenzmodellierung [Teachers’ parental counselling competency—-diagnosis, support, and modelling of competency]. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus (Version 7) [Computer Software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, A. M., & King, A. (1999). Cognitive perspectives on peer learning. Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). The Brown legacy and the O’Connor challenge: Transforming schools in the images of children's potential. Educational Researcher, 38, 169–180. doi:10.3102/0013189×09334840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 361–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427–450. doi:10.1007/BF02294627
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiß, R. H. (2006). CFT 20-R. Grundintelligenztest Skala 2 – Revision [Culture Fair Test]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar
• 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirtz, M., & Caspar, F. (2002). Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität [Inter-rater agreement and reliability]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
   Google Scholar