Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Hong Kong Libraries]On: 11 October 2014, At: 12:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Research in Science & TechnologicalEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/crst20
Hands‐on versus teacher‐centredexperiments in soil ecologyChristoph Randler a & Madeleine Hulde aa University of Leipzig , GermanyPublished online: 20 Sep 2007.
To cite this article: Christoph Randler & Madeleine Hulde (2007) Hands‐on versus teacher‐centredexperiments in soil ecology, Research in Science & Technological Education, 25:3, 329-338, DOI:10.1080/02635140701535091
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535091
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Research in Science & Technological EducationVol. 25, No. 3, November 2007, pp. 329–338
ISSN 0263-5143 (print)/ISSN 1470-1138 (online)/07/030329–10© 2007 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02635140701535091
Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments in soil ecologyChristoph Randler* and Madeleine HuldeUniversity of Leipzig, GermanyTaylor and Francis LtdCRST_A_253372.sgm10.1080/02635140701535091Research in Science & Technological Education0263-5143 (print)/1470-1138 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis253000000November 2007Prof. Dr. [email protected]
This study focused on differences between teacher-centred and learner-centred experiments in soilecology. After a pilot study, we selected three experiments simple enough to be carried out bypupils even with little experience in self-determined learning and hands-on practice. The samplecomprised 123 fifth and sixth graders from a middle school (four classes). We found a significantinfluence of treatment on achievement and pupils enrolled in a learner-centred environmentscored higher. Girls scored higher than boys in both treatments. We found no differences in well-being, boredom or difficulty of the tasks, but pupils of the learner-centred group expressed ahigher interest.
Introduction
Recent studies in science education highlighted the benefits of learner-centred envi-ronments during which the teachers’ activities are reduced and the students’ activitiesare increased (see Johnson & Lawson, 1998; Lord, 1998; Musheno & Lawson, 1999;von Secker & Lissitz, 1999). Such learner-centred approaches seem to cope betterwith the need of pupils to autonomously explore new fields of knowledge, experiencecompetence and social relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1990). Also, experiments and lab-work tasks provide an opportunity to apply hands-on science approaches. Hands-on,learner-centred approaches are considered to enhance learning success and retention(Fraser et al., 1987; Stohr-Hunt, 1996; Thair & Treagust, 1997; von Secker & Lissitz,1999; Hart et al., 2000). Most of these approaches also include cooperative learningenvironments such as peer-based lab-work tasks. Apart from increasing cognitiveachievement, social learning skills and social competence are fostered as well (Slavin,1980; Fraser et al., 1987; Watson, 1991; Tobin et al., 1994; Lou et al., 1996; Lord,1998).
*Corresponding author. University of Leipzig, Institute of Biology I, Didactics of Biology,Johannisallee 21-23, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
330 C. Randler and M. Hulde
On the contrary, many studies based on a comparison of two different treatmentsrevealed just weak effects and some even found the opposite (see Fraser et al., 1987,for a thorough discussion). Here, we used an educational setting that compared twodifferent approaches but the content of the lessons was equivalent. Using experimentsmay include some kind of ‘novelty’ (comparably to the novelty effect in environmen-tal education; Falk, 1983), namely that pupils of both treatment groups may haverarely encountered experiments either by a teacher demonstration or by carrying outthese experiments themselves. However, we think this could be neglected in thepresent study because both experimental groups experience a similar kind of novelty.
Further, it is difficult to conduct controlled experiments in typical classroomsettings because many other confounding variables are present (Schwarz-Bloom &Halpin, 2003). Nevertheless, these classroom experiments using typical educationalsettings are needed to evaluate effective teaching, instruction and learning (Gläser-Zikuda et al., 2005).
In a meta-analysis, Guzetti et al. (1993) criticised the testing of ‘mixed packages’in many science education studies, and suggested that only one variable in questionshould be altered to extract the responsible effects. Nevertheless, negligible effects intreatment–control group comparisons appeared when just one variable was surveyed(Giaconia & Hedges, 1982; Wittrock, 1986), leading to a suggestion of Palincsar andBrown (1984) to first obtain a sizeable and durable effect, and the focusing on thesub-components that were responsible for this effect (see also Gläser-Zikuda et al.,2005). Here, we focused on one variable, and compared teacher-centred and learner-centred experiments with each other while the experiments themselves were similar.One reason for these contrasting results concerning teacher- versus learner-centredexperiments may lie in the difficulty of the experiments itself. Egelston (1973) alreadyshowed a significant improvement in an experimental group compared to a controlgroup after 10 experimental lessons have been applied. Hence, simple experimentsshould be given preference in such studies until pupils cope with more difficult tasks.We, therefore, selected different experiments of soil ecology and pre-tested them in apilot study and subsequently selected those experiments that could be applied evenby less experienced pupils. This avoids some kind of ‘cognitive load’ (Sweller et al.,1998), e.g., when the experiments were too difficult to understand for pupils.
Research questions
1. Are there significant differences in achievement immediately after the educa-tional treatment?
2. Are there significant differences in achievement, measured by a retention testapplied with a delay of four weeks?
3. Were there any significant differences between the treatments in the emotionalvariables well-being, boredom and interest?
4. Did pupils enrolled in a learner-centred environment experience a higher difficultyof their tasks?
5. Where there any differences between boys and girls in general?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments 331
Research design
Didactical field studies are never completely randomised and rarely consistent with astrict experimental design. A strict randomised design would request grouping pupilsfrom different classes into new clusters by a random procedure. We chose to useintact classes rather than grouping pupils into new clusters, which is considered aquasi-experimental design. Four different classes (two fifth and two sixth graders)from the same school were chosen to control for environmental variables, such ashometown size and ecological environments (Keeves, 1998). The study design isconsidered ecologically valid (Keeves, 1998), i.e., the different treatment groups(teacher-centred vs. learner-centred) did not differ, e.g., with regard to the grade ofurbanisation (rural vs. urban) because they visited the very same school, or for afurther example, both experienced the same school environment.
Sample
The study subjects were 123 fifth and sixth graders aged between 10- and 12-years-old of a German middle school (labelled ‘Realschule’ in Germany). Sixty-three pupilswere fifth graders and 60 pupils were sixth graders. 61 of them were boys and 62 weregirls. The four treatment groups comprised 33, 31, 30 and 29 pupils respectively.Two classes each (one fifth one sixth grade) received one of the two treatments. Thesetreatments were assigned randomly (62 learner-centred, 61 teacher-centred).
Instrumentation and procedure
Achievement test
We developed an achievement test devoted specifically to the contents of the lessons.The pre-test comprised five questions (maximum of five points), the post-test andretention test repeated these five questions, additionally two further questions wereformulated (both maximum scorings of seven points). The test covered differentlevels of Bloom’s taxonomy (reproduction (2[2]), comprehension (2[3]) application(1[2]), [post-test and retention test in brackets]), and the questions dealt exactly withthe content of the lessons. For example, one experiment dealt with the water holdingcapacity of the moss. Here, the pupils weigh a dry moss, then put it into a glass ofwater and, after three minutes, weigh it again and compare the difference. The differ-ence itself is often striking because the weight may increase fivefold. The questiondealing with this fact was ‘Which specific characteristic is especially related to themoss?’ (See Appendix for further questions.)
Emotional variables
Additionally, measurements of emotional variables were applied immediately after thelessons to measure state–emotions. These emotions are detailed in Laukenmann et al.(2004) and Gläser-Zikuda et al. (2005). The concept behind these state–emotional
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
332 C. Randler and M. Hulde
variables is to assess the immediate response of the pupils. For example, a pupil mightbe uninterested in biology in general (which would provide a trait–component of inter-est), but if asked immediately after a specific lesson, this lesson could have been ratherinteresting (state–component) for the same pupil despite their lack of interest inbiology in general. We chose four question items from these different emotionalconstructs: well-being (‘The lessons were pleasant to me’), interest (‘The topic wasinteresting’), boredom (‘I was bored’) and difficulty of the task (‘The tasks weredifficult’). Further, we asked the pupils to grade the lesson according to the Germangrading system (1 = best, 6 = worst).
Educational programme
The educational programme contained three different ecological experiments dealingwith soil ecology. As there are many suggestions for experiments in teaching hand-books and practicals, we pre-tested many different experiments in a pilot study (alsosixth graders of another school). During this pilot study, four additional pre-serviceteacher students were also present in the classroom to aid the pupils in their learner-centred lab-work. Afterwards we discussed our experience regarding these differentexperiments. In a second part of this pilot study, the materials and experiments weredisplayed to students during a regular seminar course at the University of EducationLudwigsburg and the pre-service teacher students themselves carried out these exper-iments, protocols and observations. As a result, three experiments remained that wereeasy to apply in a group-based and learner-centred environment (NB: Data from thispilot study were not used in the statistical comparison; see below). This step is neces-sary to identify experiments that are suitable for group-based learning. However,exactly the same experiments were used in the teacher-centred group to avoid differ-ences between both groups. These experiments were:
1. Water holding capacity of the moss (small green plants, Bryophyta).2. Erosion of grassland (covered by plants) versus agricultural land (not covered by
plants).3. Water cleaning capacity of soil.
Teaching prior to the experiments (introduction) and immediately after the exper-iments (comparing and discussing results) was similar to minimise bias provoked bydifferent instructional strategies apart from the one in question. All teaching was doneby the same teacher. Further, only this teacher was present during the educationalexperiments to avoid the effect of other teachers on learning and retention. This exper-imental design is considered to be ecologically valid (Keeves, 1998; see above). In theteacher-centred group the teacher carried out the experiments and in the learner-centred group the pupils carried out the experiments. For an example, one experimentdealt with the water holding capacity of the moss. Here, the pupils weighed a dry moss,then put it into a glass of water and, after three minutes, weighed it again andcompared the difference. This is carried out in groups of three–four pupils. In theteacher-centred approach, exactly the same experiment was carried out by the teacher.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments 333
Procedure
The pre-test was applied immediately prior to teaching, the immediate post-test andthe emotional variables were applied immediately after the educational treatment toassess short-term learning effects and to assess the emotional variables related directlyto the lesson. The retention test was applied with a delay of four weeks.
Results
First we compared achievement scores by a t-test. Pupils of both treatment groups didnot differ in their prior knowledge (t = −0.227; p = 0.821), and also obtained similarscores immediately after the educational treatment (t = −0.588; p = 0.557; Table 1).
After a delay of four weeks, pupils of the learner-centred group scored significantlyhigher in the retention test (t = 2.579; p = 0.011). A generalised multivariate modelused pretest scores as co-variate, gender, treatment and class (fifth vs. sixth graders)as fixed factors, and post-test and retention test as dependent variable. Treatmentshowed a general significant influence (Table 2) mainly based on the results of theretention test.
The explained variance (partial eta2) was high (approx 20%). Additionally, wefound a significant influence of gender: girls scored higher than boys. This suggeststhat girls performed better in both treatments, because we found no interactionbetween gender and treatment. Further, class grade (fifth or sixth graders) showed noinfluence. With regard to the emotional variables, there was no significant differencebetween both groups in boredom and well-being (Table 3), but pupils of the learner-centred group expressed a significantly higher interest (Table 3).
Nevertheless, the emotional variables show a very high interest and well-being anda rather low boredom in both treatments, suggesting that the topic soil ecology and/or the experiments per se are interesting and less boring. Pupils from both treatmentsexperienced the experiments as equally difficult (Table 3) and, generally, gave goodmarks for the lesson (Table 3). In general, differences between boys and girls existedwith regard to boredom and difficulty. Boys felt more bored and scored the difficultyof the tasks higher (boredom: boys: 1.30 ± 0.059, girls: 1.10 ± 0.038; t = 2.843; p =0.005; difficulty: boys: 1.95 ± 0.098; girls: 1.65 ± 0.077; t = 2.468; p = 0.015).
Table 1. Comparison of the three different achievement tests. Means, standard deviations of both experimental groups (teacher-centred vs. learner-centred) in soil ecology. Maximum score of the
pre-test was five of post-test and retention test seven points
Mean SD t-value P
Pre-test Learner-centred 1.37 0.89 −0.227 0.821Teacher-centred 1.40 1.00
Post-test Learner-centred 5.50 0.91 −0.588 0.557Teacher-centred 5.60 1.08
Retention Learner-centred 5.38 0.94 2.579 0.011Teacher-centred 4.91 1.06
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
334 C. Randler and M. Hulde
Discussion
The results presented here suggest that learner-centred experiments and lab-worktasks may provide a better retention compared to a teacher-centred presentation ofexperiments. As we used the same three experiments and the same materials in bothteaching approaches, we suppose that this difference is mainly based on the self-regulated work of pupils in groups. Further aspects strengthen our conclusion:
1. The pupils were taught by the same teacher. This is necessary because the personof the teachers has a significant influence on learning and retention (Gläser-Zikuda et al., 2005).
2. Based on our pilot study, we chose experiments that did not put an excessivedemand on the practical skills and competence of the pupils. It is necessary toidentify in pilot studies teaching methods, materials and content of the lessons.Assume, perhaps, one considers experiments that are too difficult to be carriedout by pupils themselves, then the comparison is by no means fair and pupils willfail to learn anything from doing hands-on science.
Table 2. General linear model (GLM)
Effect Wilks-Lambda F P Partial eta2
Constant 0.097 524.457 <0.001 0.90Pre-test 0.959 2.445 0.09 0.04Grade 0.982 1.049 0.35 0.01Gender 0.926 4.496 0.01 0.07Instructional strategy 0.798 14.318 <0.001 0.20
Notes: All two-way and the three-way interactions were not significant (p > 0.1) and removed from the table.
Post-test: R2 = 0.106 (corrected R2 = 0.043). Retention test: R2 = 0.155 (corrected R2 = 0.096).
Table 3. Comparison of the emotional variables, difficulty of the task and grading. Means, standard deviations of both experimental groups (teacher-centred vs. learner-centred) in soil ecology. Maximum score of the pre-test was five; of post-test and retention test seven points
Mean SD t-value P
Well-being Learner-centred 4.56 0.56 −0.79 0.43Teacher-centred 4.63 0.48
Interest Learner-centred 4.65 0.54 2.14 0.03Teacher-centred 4.44 0.50
Boredom Learner-centred 1.15 0.35 −1.40 0.16Teacher-centred 1.25 0.43
Difficulty Learner-centred 1.74 0.67 −0.87 0.38Teacher-centred 1.85 0.72
Grading Learner-centred 1.54 0.33 0.84 0.40Teacher-centred 1.49 0.35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments 335
3. The teacher-centred group was taught exactly the same experiments and theexperiments were performed by the teacher. Therefore, we did not compare anoral presentation of the teacher with experiments done by the pupils, but practi-cal experiments were carried out during both approaches, either by the teacherdemonstration or by the pupils, always using the same materials.
4. Further, we used an elaborated statistical procedure (general linear modelling) totest all hypotheses (age group, gender, and instructional strategy) simulta-neously. This procedure is superior to simple t-test comparisons because thesecomparisons are violated by a high number of tests which often lead to significantresults by chance alone. The GLM procedure further looks at interactionsbetween variables, e.g., whether girls would cope better with the one approachand boys better with the other instructional strategy. As we found no interactionbetween gender and instructional strategy, we can conclude that both boys andgirls benefited equally from doing hands-on experiments.
Other studies found contrasting results, and pupils enrolled in hands-on classes didnot always perform better compared to teacher-centred classes (Fraser at al., 1987).However, most studies that compared treatment groups with a control group (thatdid not receive any treatment) found significant effects (Leeming et al., 1997). Here,we aimed for the ‘best practice’ to do these experiments and we suggest that thehands-on, learner-centred group performed better. Paris et al. (1998) demonstrateda significant increase in students’ interest in science and significant improvements intheir problem-solving skills at all grade levels (third through fifth graders) during asix-week extracurricular science program. In contrast, during a program in academicmedicine, students that received a problem-based programme scored lower thanstudents receiving a traditional teaching programme (Vernon & Blake, 1993).Although this seems counter-intuitive, other variables may influence learning andretention to a large extent (Wise & Okey, 1983; Lee & Burkam, 1996). In computer-assisted learning, for example, the theory of ‘cognitive load’ (Mwangi & Sweller,1998; Sweller et al., 1998) is often vividly discussed. Such a cognitive load may arisewhen students are confronted simultaneously with different tasks. In terms of hands-on experiments this means (apart from the new learning content) a differentclassroom setting because pupils work together in groups compared to the ratherfamiliar teacher-centered classroom setting where pupils were confronted with onlythe teacher. Further, they have to carry out the experiments themselves, whileotherwise the experiments were conducted by the teacher.
As one suggestion from our results, hands-on experiments should be introduced ina stepwise manner in school settings, first starting with simple experiments that donot put an excessive cognitive load on the pupils, and then widening the scope andusing more complex materials, instruments or experiments. This means that teachersshould start with easy experiments in fifth and sixth graders, and subsequently usemore complex experiments as pupils become more experienced. However, there arefew studies dealing with such long-term effects. Experience with hands-on experi-ments and practical skills of pupils improved during longer educational treatments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
336 C. Randler and M. Hulde
(e.g., after 10 experimental lessons, see Egelston, 1971). Stohr-Hunt (1996) reportedsimilar results. However, at least to our knowledge, no study has described andobserved pupils during their maturation from fifth grade to tenth grade.
The pupils of both treatment groups highly appreciated the lessons, in terms ofexperiencing low boredom and high well-being and interest. As a consequence, wepropose that the experiments per se are highly appreciated whether these were appliedin small groups and in a hands-on manner or whether they were demonstrated by theteacher.
Concerning gender differences, girls scored higher than to boys. This is not unex-pected since many studies found girls scoring better in biology (Lee & Burkham,1996). Interestingly, there was no interaction between treatment and gender, suggest-ing that boys and girls equally benefited from the hands-on experiments. This resultis supported by Harvey and Wareham (1984) who also found no differences betweenboys and girls. Girls took the same amount of time to do experiments as boys andperformed equally on a written test (Harvey & Wareham, 1984). General differencesin emotional variables revealed boys feeling more bored and experiencing their taskas more difficult. Both these differences might have an influence on their worseperformance compared to girls.
Conclusions and implications
Experiments in biology education are interesting, because they enhance learningand understanding and further provide educational tools fostering methodologicalskills. Experiments should be applied in the school curriculum, even if the materi-als available at the schools may only support a teacher demonstration. Although wefound a higher retention rate in the learner-centred, hands-on group, we wouldencourage teachers to use experiments even if the materials allow only a teacher-centred demonstration experiment. Teacher-centred demonstrations also lead to asignificant improvement in knowledge and both methods were very highly appreci-ated by pupils. This was also supported by the emotional ratings. Pupils gave goodmarks for both approaches, felt less bored and highly interested and expressed ahigh well-being. Nevertheless, the hands-on and learner-centred approach wasrated as more interesting, reflecting the interest of pupils in doing experiments ontheir own. Gender differences suggest that boys may be at a disadvantage inbiology teaching (which does not seem to be the case, e.g., in physics education).Therefore, programs may be needed to foster learning and instruction especiallyfor boys.
Acknowledgements
This study was partly funded by the University of Education, PH Ludwigsburg by agrant # 1430 5771 ‘Biodiversität lehren und lernen’, by the University of Leipzig, andby a grant from the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Germany (JPC.R.). The educational treatment and data input was carried out by Madeleine
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments 337
Hulde. We are extremely grateful to all the pupils and teachers that participated in thestudy, and for the comments provided by an anonymous referee. These commentshelped us to clarify the manuscript.
References
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1990) Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior (NewYork, Plenum Press).
Egelston, J. (1973) Inductive vs. traditional methods of teaching high school biology laboratoryexperiments, International Journal of Science Education, 4, 467–477.
Falk, J. H. (1983) Field trips: a look at environmental effects on learning, Journal of BiologicalEducation, 17, 137–142.
Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W. & Hattie, J. A. (1987) Synthesis of educationalproductivity research, International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.
Giaconia, R. M. & Hedges, L. V. (1982) Identifying features of effective open education, Review ofEducational Research, 52, 579–602.
Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K. & Randler, C. (2005) Promotingstudents’ emotions and achievement—instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLEapproach, Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.
Guzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V. & Gamas, W. S. (1993) Promoting conceptual changein science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading educationand science education, Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.
Hart, C., Mulhall, A., Berry, A., Loughran, J. & Gunstone, R. (2000) What is the purpose of thisexperiment? Or can students learn something from doing experiments?, Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 37, 655–675.
Harvey T. J. U. & Wareham, M. (1984) An investigation into sex differences in certain aspects ofscience practical work with first-year secondary school pupils in single sex and mixed teachinggroups, Research in Science and Technological Education, 2, 187–195.
Johnson, M. A. & Lawson, A. E. (1998) What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and priorknowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes?, Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 35, 89–103.
Keeves, J. P. (1998) Methods and processes in research in science education, in: B. J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Ed.) International handbook of science education. Part 2 (Dordrecht, Kluwer AcademicPublishers), 1127–1153.
Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuß, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P. & v.Rhoeneck, C.(2003) An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics, Interna-tional Journal of Science Education, 25, 489–507.
Lee, V. E. & Burkam, D. T. (1996) Gender differences in middle grade science achievement:subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis, Science Education, 80, 613–650.
Leeming, C. L., Porter, B. E., Dwyer, W. O., Cobern, M. K. & Oliver, D. P. (1997) Effects ofparticipation in class activities on children’s environmental attitudes and knowledge, Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 28, 33–42.
Lord, T. (1998) Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-based activities to challenge student teams, American Biology Teacher, 60, 580–588.
Lou, V., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B. & d’Apollonia, S. (1996)Within-class grouping: a meta-analysis, Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.
Musheno, B. V. & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of a learning cycle and traditional text oncomprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels, Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 36, 23–37.
Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve complex word problems. The effect ofexample format and generating self-explanations, Cognition and Instruction, 16, 173–199.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
338 C. Randler and M. Hulde
Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984) Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering andcomprehension-monitoring activities, Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.
Paris, S. G., Yambor, K. M. & Packard, B. W.-L. (1998) Hands-on biology: a museum–school–university partnership for enhancing students’ interest and learning in science, ElementarySchool Journal, 98, 267–288.
Schwarz-Bloom, R. D. & Halpin, M. C. (2003) Integrating pharmacology topics in high schoolbiology and chemistry classes improves performances, Journal of Research in Science Teaching,40, 922–938.
Slavin, R. E. (1980) Cooperative learning, Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.Stohr-Hunt, P. M. (1996) An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science
achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101–109.Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. J. G. & Paas, F. G. W. (1998) Cognitive architecture and
instructional design, Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.Thair, M. & Treagust, D. F. (1997) A review of teacher developement reforms in Indonesian
secondary science: the effectiveness of practical work in biology, Research in Science Education,27, 581–597.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J. & Gallard, A. J. (1994) Research on instructional strategies for teachingscience, in: D. L. Gabel (Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (New York,Macmillan), 45–93.
Vernon, D. T. A. & Blake, R. L. (1993) Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis ofevaluative research, Academic Medicine, 68, 550–563.
von Secker, C. E. & Lissitz, R. W. (1999) Estimating the impact of instructional practices onstudent achievement in science, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1110–1126.
Watson, S. B. (1991) Cooperative learning and group educational modules: effects on cognitiveachievement of high school biology students, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 41–46.
Wise, K. C. & Okey, J. R. (1983) A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teachingstrategies on achievement, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 419–435.
Wittrock, M. C. (1986) Handbook of research on teaching (New York, Macmillan).
Appendix. Example items of the achievement tests
● Which specific characteristic is especially related to the moss? – Water holdingcapacity (Reproduction)
● What specific material from everyday life has a similar characteristic? – Sponge(Comprehension)
● Water above the ground is often dirty, ground water is nearly clear. Explain. –Plants, and soil material filter dirty water (Reproduction)
● Steep slopes often are planted with grass. What is the advantage? – Provides soilfrom erosion (Application)
● What would happen if the soil is bare (without plants) – Erosion would take awaythe soil (Comprehension)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f H
ong
Kon
g L
ibra
ries
] at
12:
46 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
