Assessing High School Science Students' Abilities to Use Cross Cutting Literacy Skills and

356 Pages·2017·4.27 MB·English

WWeesstteerrnn MMiicchhiiggaann UUnniivveerrssiittyy
SScchhoollaarrWWoorrkkss aatt WWMMUU
Master's Theses Graduate College
8-2015
AAsssseessssiinngg HHiigghh SScchhooooll SScciieennccee SSttuuddeennttss’’ AAbbiilliittiieess ttoo UUssee CCrroossss
CCuuttttiinngg LLiitteerraaccyy SSkkiillllss aanndd SScciieennttiifificc AArrgguummeennttaattiivvee WWrriittiinngg SSkkiillllss
iinn aa MMiidd--WWeesstteerrnn SScchhooooll DDiissttrriicctt
Ellen M. Karel
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses
Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Methods
Commons, and the Science and Mathematics Education Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Karel, Ellen M., "Assessing High School Science Students’ Abilities to Use Cross Cutting Literacy Skills and
Scientific Argumentative Writing Skills in a Mid-Western School District" (2015). Master's Theses. 623.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/623
This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for
free and open access by the Graduate College at
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please
contact [email protected].
ASSESSING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE STUDENTS’ ABILITIES TO USE CROSS
CUTTING LITERACY SKILLS AND SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATIVE
WRITING SKILLS IN A MID-WESTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT

by

Ellen M. Karel

A thesis submitted to the Graduate College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Education Specialist
Educational Leadership, Research and Technology
Western Michigan University
August 2015

Thesis Committee:

Dennis McCrumb, Ed.D., Chair
Walter L. Burt, Ph.D.
William C. Skilling, Ph.D.
ASSESSING HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE STUDENTS’ ABILITIES TO USE CROSS
CUTTING LITERACY SKILLS AND SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATIVE
WRITING SKILLS IN A MID-WESTERN SCHOOL DISTRICT

Ellen M. Karel, Ed.S.

Western Michigan University, 2015

This study sought to determine to what extent a centrally focused initiative
concentrated on how to teach students to not just write, but how to think, read, and speak
about real world problems in a persuasive manner based on multiple sets of data related
to science concepts, increased scientific argumentative writing proficiencies among high
school students. A secondary area this study attempted to explore was the correlation
between the implemented processes in the initiative and high school students’ scientific
argumentative writing proficiencies. The study was conducted in a mid-western high
school, population 1,088, with a select group of students in 9th grade chemistry-physics
N = 98. The students experienced evidence-based cross cutting literacy strategies and
scientific argumentative writing strategies over the course of one academic year. The
quasi-experimental, empirical study was designed to see if there was any significant
difference in students argumentative writing proficiency based on the analysis of pre- and
post-assessment scores. The descriptive measures used in the study measured the
correlations between the results and the initiative. Findings in this study suggest that the
strategies implemented caused student scientific argumentative writing to increase
significantly at a 95% confidence level.
The outcome of this study shows promise that evidence-based skills can be
transferred to more advanced science classes and increase student proficiency on state
science assessments. It can also offer an explanation about how to implement the
initiative so that other high school science teachers can teach students the skills.
© 2015 Ellen M. Karel
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... vi
PART
I. INQUIRY PHASE: IDENTIFYING, CLARIFYING, AND
DOCUMENTING THE PROBLEM ...................................................................... 1

Problem Statement ......................................................................................... 3
Community and School Profiles .................................................................... 3
Comparison of High School and ISD MME-ACT Composite Scores .......... 7
Detailed Examination of MME Scores with a Focus on Science ................ 13
Contributing Factors .................................................................................... 16
Common Core, NGSS, and State Assessment Standards ................... 19
Differences Between Philosophy and Practice ................................... 23
Weak Instructional Planning and Practice .......................................... 25
Limited Use of Formative Data .......................................................... 27
Lack of Time Devoted to Student Reflection and Metacognition ...... 28
Lack of Professional Development ..................................................... 29
Reflection on the Problem and Contributing Factors .................................. 30
II. THE DESIGN PHASE: SEARCHING FOR AND DESIGNING A
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGIC RESPONSE INITIATIVE ........................... 32

Action Plan: Goals, Strategies, Progress Monitoring, and Activities .......... 33

ii
Table of Contents—Continued

PART

Implementation Procedures April 2012-2013.............................................. 37
III. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PHASE: IMPLEMENTING
AND ADAPTING THE ACTION PLAN AS NEEDED FOR HIGH
FIDELITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................. 42

Implementation Procedures: School Year 2013-2014 ................................. 42
Budget Considerations ................................................................................. 46
IV. RESULTS PHASE: ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING RESULTS ............ 47
Problem and Research Question .................................................................. 47
Study Design ................................................................................................ 47
Participants................................................................................................... 48
Instrumentation and Results......................................................................... 48
Pre-Assessment ................................................................................... 48
Post-Assessment ................................................................................. 50
Average Difference between the Pre- and Post-Assessments ............ 52
Statistical Analysis of Pre-Post Difference......................................... 53
Conclusion ................................................................................................... 56
Final Conclusion .......................................................................................... 56
Limitations ................................................................................................... 58
Recommendations for Further Study ........................................................... 59
Action Steps to Meet the Goals: School Year 2014-2015 ........................... 59
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 61
iii
Table of Contents—Continued

APPENDICES

A. Professional Development Activities .................................................................... 69
B. Gradual Release Instructional Model .................................................................... 80
C. Common Definitions of Scientific Argumentative Writing.................................. 84
D. Planning Template, Writing Prompts, and Supporting Documentation ............... 86
E. Rubrics ................................................................................................................ 130
F. Evidence Based Cross Cutting Analytical Literacy Strategies and
Scientific Argument Writing, Read, Write, Discuss ........................................... 147

G. Feedback and Reflection ..................................................................................... 244
H. Ninth-Grade Science Sample Units: Evidence Based Cross Cutting
Analytical Literacy Strategies and Scientific Argument
Writing Strategies ............................................................................................... 264

I. Pre- and Post-Assessment Writing Prompts and Student Exemplars ................. 330
J. Statistics for Project ............................................................................................ 339
K. Protocol Clearance Letter WMU……………………………………………….345

iv
LIST OF TABLES

1. Community Profile..................................................................................................... 4
2. School Profile............................................................................................................. 5
3. Comparison of High School and ISD MME-ACT Composite
Scores 2010-2013....................................................................................................... 8

4. Difference in MME-ACT Science Scores Between the Whole and
Free/Reduced Subgroup ........................................................................................... 13

5. MME-MEAP Greatest Area of Need by Standard 2009-2013 Math,
Reading, Writing ...................................................................................................... 17

6. MME-MEAP Greatest Area of Need by Science Standard 2009-2013 ................... 18
7. Cost of Scientific Analytical Literacy Initiative 2012-2014 .................................... 46
8. Subcategory Argumentative Writing “States of Matter”
Pre-Assessment Scores ............................................................................................ 50

9. Argumentative Writing “States of Matter” Pre-Assessment Statistics .................... 50
10. Subcategory Argumentative Writing “Wave Speed” Post-Assessment .................. 52
11. Argumentative Writing “Wave Speed” Post-Assessment Statistics ........................ 52
12. Average Difference between Subcategories for Argumentative Writing
Pre- and Post-Assessments ...................................................................................... 53

13. Average Difference Statistics for Argumentative Writing Pre- and
Post-Assessments ..................................................................................................... 53

14. Paired-Samples Statistics ......................................................................................... 54
15. Paired-Samples t-Test .............................................................................................. 55
16. Paired-Samples Correlation between Pre- and Post-Assessment Scores ................. 56
v
LIST OF FIGURES

1. MME cut score comparison for 11th grade science district, ISD, and state. ................ 9
2. Percent of 11th graders meeting college readiness on the MME-ACT,
Spring 2010, Spring 2011, Spring 2012, Spring 2013 ................................................ 10

3. Percent of 11th graders meeting college readiness science on the MME-ACT,
Spring 2010, Spring 2011, Spring 2012, Spring 2013. ............................................... 11

4. Mid-western high school 11th grade MME-ACT subgroups Spring 2010................. 11
5. Mid-western high school 11th grade MME-ACT subgroups Spring 2011................. 11
6. Mid-western high school 11th grade MME-ACT subgroups Spring 2012................. 12
7. Mid-western high school 11th grade MME-ACT subgroups Spring 2013................. 12
8. Gradual release instructional model ............................................................................ 39
vi