Student Understanding, Attitude and Achievement

197 Pages·2014·0.88 MB·English

Science and Mathematics Education Centre

Student Understanding, Attitude and Achievement: Assessment
Comparisons in Genetics and Photosynthesis/Respiration

Serena McCalla

This thesis is presented for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
of
Curtin University

January 2014
DECLARATION

This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other
degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this
thesis contains no material previously published by any person except where due
acknowledgment has been made.

Date: January 2014

ii
ABSTRACT

Research evidence and student performance in science courses in New York State
after graduating from high school suggests that there is a distinct difference between
a students’ ability to memorize given areas of study versus the ability to understand
coursework which is presented to them. Many students have been taught to
memorize definitions, formulas, and historical facts as the mode of learning in
science class. This in turn has not enabled higher levels of understanding in the
sciences. This study compares a range of assessment tools to ascertain students’
understanding, attitude and achievement in two-selected science domains:
photosynthesis/respiration and genetics as impacted by constructivist teaching.
Administration of standardized questions from past New York State Regents
examinations and released Advanced Placement Biology items, followed by
administration of two-tier multiple choice diagnostic examinations, and cumulative
New York State Living Environment Regents examinations were used to identify
advanced student competence in the previously stated topics. Consequently, the
study focused on students’ ability to attain understanding of these two topics by way
of constructivist teaching methods and assessment of learning through concept maps
and student interviews. Student interviews and changes in teaching strategies
provided valuable information towards the effectiveness of standardized tests as a
means to measure understanding of two topics taught in the NYS Living
Environment curriculum. Students’ attitudes towards science (via TOSRA) and
constructivist teaching modalities were triangulated with outcomes of all
achievement measures including standardized tests using past New York State
Regents examinations and released AP Biology items, two-tier multiple choice
diagnostic examinations, and the New York State Living Environment Regents
examinations. This study concluded the Living Environment Regents examination
was not an adequate measure of advanced student understanding of
photosynthesis/respiration and genetics when triangulated against student opinion,
attitude outcomes, and scores on the two-tier diagnostic examinations.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank and acknowledge the following people, without their support the
completion of this work would not be possible.
Thank you to my supervisor Professor David F. Treagust, his patience and
encouragement were crucial in the completion of this thesis. I appreciate the
continued feedback, dedication to my success, and relentless support even when his
schedule was excessively demanding.
Dr. Chandrasegaran who assisted in the statistical analysis and table creations for this
work, I sincerely thank you. Again, your positive attitude, patience, and feedback are
very much appreciated. Thank you to Dr. Chi-Yan Tsui for the use of your
photosynthesis/respiration diagnostic instruments.
My students, you are my impetus for following my dreams and never settling for
less. Remember to never stop reaching for the stars.
In memory of my grandmother, Evelyn McCalla, thank you for being my rock and an
ear to listen and not hamper even when I took more responsibilities than I thought I
could handle. You will always be loved and remembered.
Finally, thank you to the staff of Curtin University (especially Petrina Beeton) who
has supported me through my many trials during the process of completing this
thesis.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables viii
List of Figures xi
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Overview of Chapter and Introduction to Study 1
1.2 Research Problems 1
1.3 General Study Context 2
1.4 Rationale and Theoretical Orientation 4
1.5 Research Questions 7
1.6 Research Design 11
1.7 Constructivist Practices and Assessment Measures 12
1.8 TOSRA (Test of Science Related Attitude) and Interviews 15
1.9 Significance 15
1.10 Limitations 17
1.11 Research Overview 18
Chapter 2 Literature Review – Constructivism and Assessment Tools 20
2.1 Overview of Chapter (Theoretical Orientation) 20
2.2 Teaching Approaches: Constructivist Informed Teaching 20
2.2.1 Definition of Constructivism 21
2.2.2 Constructivist Science Classroom 21
2.2.3 Teachers role in a constructivist living environment classroom 24
2.2.4 Conceptual Change 27
2.2.5 Understanding by Design (UbD) 29
2.3 Gifted/Advanced Students 30
2.4 Assessment Instruments: Standardized, Concept Maps & Diagnostic 32
2.4.1 Standardized testing and statewide mandated examinations 32
2.4.2 New York State Science Assessments (Regents examinations) 34
2.4.3 New York State Living Environment Regents 35
2.4.4 Concept maps 37
2.4.5 Constructing concept maps 38
v
2.4.6 Assessment use and scoring concept maps 39
2.4.7 Two-tiered multiple choice diagnostic tests 40
2.5 “Limitations” of Statewide Assessments 42
2.5.1 Interpretation of statewide test scores 44
2.5.2 Teacher pressures/expectations for students to pass state
examinations 46
2.5.3 Teacher scoring and rating of NYS Regent’s Examinations 47
2.6 Student Learning of Genetics 47
2.7 Student Learning of Photosynthesis/Respiration 49
2.8 Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA) 50
2.9 Overview of Chapter 52
Chapter 3 Research Methods 55
3.1 Introduction 55
3.2 Study Context 55
3.3 Study Design 56
3.4 The Intervention: Constructivist Teaching in a NYS Living Environment
Classroom 57
3.4.1 Technology in the classroom (PowerPoint’s) 59
3.5 Research Questions 60
3.6 Student Sample/High School Demographics 64
3.7 Data Collection Procedures 65
3.8 Instruments Used to Collect Data 66
3.8.1 Administration of TOSRA 67
3.8.2 Living environments photosynthesis/respiration curriculum 70
3.8.3 Living Environments Genetics Curriculum 73
3.8.4 Concept maps assessments and achievements 73
3.8.5 Past-standardized test questions 74
3.8.6 Two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instruments
(photosynthesis & respiration) 76
3.8.7 Two-tier multiple choice diagnostic instruments (genetics) 78
3.8.8 New York State Living Environment Regents
Examinations – June 2006 79
3.8.9 New York State Regents Examinations –June 2007 Questions 80
3.8.10 Interviews 81
vi
3.9 Data Entry 83
3.10 Data Entry Issues 83
3.10.1 Typographical errors 83
3.10.2 Students not completing survey or examinations 84
3.10.3 Student Errors 84
3.10.4 Constructivist teaching issues 84
3.11 Data Analysis 85
3.11.1 Descriptive statistics 85
3.11.2 Inferential statistics and correlations between variables 86
3.11.3 Triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data 86
3.12 Summary 88
Chapter 4 Research Findings 89
4.1 Introductions and Overview of Chapter 89
4.2 Descriptive and Inferential Statistics for all Tests 90
4.3 Influence of Gender on Conceptual Understanding via Achievement
Scores 108
4.4 Qualitative and Quantitative Data Triangulation to Measure
Understanding 113
4.5 Chapter Summary 124
Chapter 5 Summary, Conclusions, Limitations, and Implications 128
5.1 Overview of Chapter 128
5.2 Summary of Results/Major Findings for Chapter 4 128
5.2.1 Constructivist teaching 130
5.2.2 Standardized test questions 131
5.2.3 Two-tier diagnostic examinations 132
5.2.4 New York State Living Environment Regents Examination 133
5.3 Limitations, Implications, and Significance of the Study 133
5.3.1 Limitations 134
5.3.2 Implications 137
5.3.3 Significance 139
5.4 Recommendations for Future Investigations 140
5.5 Summary of Chapter 141
References 143
Appendices 155
vii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Constructs of research questions and data analysis 9
Table 2.1: Comparison between Klopfer and Fraser scales used in the
development of the TOSRA (Fraser, 1981) 51
Table 3.1: Scale Description and Sample Item for each TOSRA scale used 68
Table 3.2: Sample Items from Past Standardized Regents.
Items in Photosynthesis/Respiration
(Items 1, 11, and 38, respectively; Year 1) 75
Table 3.3: Sample Items from Past Standardized Regents.
Items in Genetics (Items 1, 7, and 29, respectively; Year 1) 76
Table 3.4: Sample Items from Two-Tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic
Examinations in Photosynthesis/Respiration.
Items 4 and 15; Year 1 & 2 77
Table 3.5 Sample Items from Two-Tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic
Examinations in Genetics. Items 4 and 15; Year 1 & 2 78
Table 3.6: Sample Items from June 2006 New York State Living
Environment Regents Examinations. Genetics
and Photosynthesis/Respiration items 4, 7, and 21, respectively;
Year 1 80
Table 3.7: Sample Items from June 2007 New York State
Regents Examinations. Genetics and Photosynthesis/Respiration
items 6, 7, and 20, respectively; Year 2 80
Table 3.8: Sample Interview Questions. Interviews were
post-assessment in Photosynthesis/Respiration and Genetics. 82
Table 4.1: Key for Abridged Terminology. 90
Table 4.2: TOSRA Internal Consistency Reliability
(Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient) and Discriminant Validity
(Mean Correlation with Other Scales) for Year 1 (N = 75) &
Year 2 (N = 80) Pretest and Posttest Scales Means. 92
Table 4.3: TOSRA Year 1 (N = 75) and Year 2 (N = 80) Scales Means. 95
Table 4.4: TOSRA Scales Means Pretest and Posttest Gender Comparison-
Year 1 (N=75) 97
viii
Table 4.5: TOSRA Scales Means Pretest-Posttest Gender Comparisons –
Year 2 (N = 80) 99
Table 4.6: Overview of TOSRA Consistencies or Variations between
Year 1 and Year 2 via gender. M= Male; F=Female 100
Table 4.7: Summary of Descriptive Statistics for all comparison of
Tests- Year 1 (N=81) 103
Table 4.8: Summary of Descriptive Statistics for all comparison of
Tests- Year 2 (N=82) 103
Table 4.9: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Year 1 Students’
Performance for Photosynthesis and Respiration
Concepts (N = 81). Correlating Living Environment
Regents items, two-tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic test items
and Past- Standardized test items. 105
Table 4.10: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Year 1 Students’
Performance for Genetics Concepts (N = 81).
Correlating Living Environment Regents items, two-tier
Multiple Choice Diagnostic test items, concept maps and
Past- Standardized test items. 106
Table 4.11: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Year 2 Students’
Performance for Photosynthesis/Respiration
Concepts (N = 82). Correlating Living Environment Regents
items, two-tier Multiple Choice Diagnostic test items and
Past- Standardized test items. 107
Table 4.12: Pearson Correlation Coefficients for Year 2 Students’
Performance for Genetics Concepts (N = 82). Correlating
Living Environment Regents items, two-tier Multiple
Choice Diagnostic test items, concept maps and
Past- Standardized test items. 107
Table 4.13: Year 1 Students’ Performance in Assessments.
Differences between Males (N = 43) and Females (N = 38) 109
Table 4.14: Year 2 Students’ Performance in Assessments.
Differences between Males (N = 43) and Females (N = 39) 110

ix
Table 4.15: Percentage (%) of Correct Responses to Year 1
Photosynthesis and Respiration Two-tier Multiple-choice
Items (N = 81) 111
Table 4.16: Percentage (%) of Correct Responses to Year 2 Photosynthesis
and Respiration Two-tier Multiple-choice Items (N = 82) 111
Table 4.17 Percentage (%) of Correct Responses to Year 1 Genetics Two-tier
Multiple-choice Items (N = 81) 112
Table 4.18 Percentage (%) of Correct Responses to Year 2 Genetics Two-tier
Multiple-choice Items (N = 82) 112
Table 4.19 Number of students per ranking delineation for use of P/R/G
instructional tools (N=10) 118

x