Impact of a school district's science reform effort on the achievement and attitudes of third‐ and fourth‐grade students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article is about one school district's effort to reform its elementary science curriculum through a program of professional development called Science, Parents, Activities and Literature (Science PALs). The differential exposure of the district's K–6 teachers to Science PALs and differences in how well teachers implemented Science PALs‐type inquiry strategies allowed us to conduct a quasi‐experimental study of the impact of Science PALs on student achievement and attitudes. We measured achievement with an instrument based on items taken from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS; International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 1997 ) and selected attitudes about science with the Student Perceptions of Classroom Climate (SPOCC; Yore et al., 1998 ), an instrument that we designed. Our analyses of student attitude scores as a function of years of teacher participation in Science PALs and supervisor's rating of a teacher's implementation of the project's instructional approaches showed a significant overall positive impact on student attitudes toward school science. Student TIMSS scores on multiple‐choice items or constructed‐response items did not improve significantly when analyzed by the number of years a student's teacher was involved in the Science PALs effort or by the supervisor's rating of that implementation. We found no significant differences in attitude or achievement scores among students taught by a series of teachers rated high, medium, or low in quality of implementation by the district's science supervisor. We discuss possible explanations for the lack of clear and positive connections between Science PALs and student performance in light of the increased focus on accountability in reform projects. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 771–790, 2004
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".