UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones May 2018 Exploring the Effectiveness of Model-Based Instruction to Improve Sixth-Grade Students’ Science Content Knowledge Scot D. Ewen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.edu/thesesdissertations Part of the Science and Mathematics Education Commons Repository Citation Ewen, Scot D., "Exploring the Effectiveness of Model-Based Instruction to Improve Sixth-Grade Students’ Science Content Knowledge" (2018). UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones.34917/13568455 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s).
You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact digitalscholarship@unlv.
EXPLORING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF MODEL-BASED INSTRUCTION TO IMPROVE SIXTH-GRADE STUDENTS’ SCIENCE CONTENT KNOWLEDGE By Scot Douglas Ewen Bachelor of Science – Health, Physical Education, and Recreation Evangel University 1994 Master of Education – Science Education University of Nevada, Las Vegas 2013 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy – Curriculum and Instruction Department of Teaching and Learning College of Education The Graduate College University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 2018 Dissertation Approval The Graduate College The University of Nevada, Las Vegas May 11, 2018 This dissertation prepared by Scot Douglas Ewen entitled Exploring the Effectiveness of Model-Based Instruction to Improve Sixth-Grade Students’ Science Content Knowledge is approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy – Curriculum and Instruction Department of Teaching and Learning Hasan Deniz, Ph.D Kathryn Hausbeck Korgan, Ph. Examination Committee Chair Graduate College Interim Dean David Vallett, Ph.D Examination Committee Member P.D Examination Committee Member Matthew Bernacki, Ph.D Graduate College Faculty Representative ii Abstract Exploring the Effectiveness of Model-Based Instruction to Improve Sixth-Grade Students’ Science Content Knowledge by Scot Douglas Ewen Dr. Hasan Deniz, Examination Committee Chair Associate Professor of Teaching and Learning University of Nevada, Las Vegas The economy of tomorrow is uncertain, so students today need to be prepared for the known and unknown careers that lie ahead. Currently, not all students are expected to have equal career opportunities based on evidence from dropout and testing data (Brown & Brown, 2007; Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007), so educators should consider different methods of helping all students reach their potential.
Modeling instruction is one method that might help diverse learners improve their scientific understandings and allow them to pursue careers in technology-oriented fields. A quasi-experimental study was conducted with 128 sixth grade students as participants. A multiple choice assessment and modeling prompts were used to explore the effects of modeling instruction on student’s science content knowledge. Findings from the study include (a) modeling instruction was effective in helping students of different abilities learn science content and (b) modeling instruction was more effective than regular instruction in helping students learn science content that was explicitly taught.
iii Acknowledgements I would like to express my gratitude to all who have contributed to my success. Thank you Lord for giving me the knowledge and perseverance to be able to complete this degree. Thank you to my committee chair, Dr. Hasan Deniz, for helping me throughout this process and for being a mentor for the past seven years.
Thank you Dr. Matthew Bernacki for the insight and guidance you provided throughout my dissertation. Thank you Dr. David Vallett and Dr.
Schrader for the guidance and feedback you provided as I planned and conducted the study. Thank you to my participants who were willing to share their knowledge and experiences with me. Finally, thank you to my wife, Elvie, my family, my friends, and my co-workers, for their unwavering support as I completed my dissertation. iv Table of Contents Abstract.
iv Table of Contents. v List of Tables. viii List of Figures. 1 Model-Based Instruction (Modeling).
8 Chapter 2: Theory and Literature. 12 Halloun’s Modeling Theory. 20 Clement & Rea-Ramirez’s Model Evolution. 23 Gilbert & Justi’s Model of Modeling.
25 Key Elements of Modeling Theory. Advance Scientific Understandings. 48 Complete SC and TM. 49 Partial SC and TM.
Iterative; Construction and Revision. 58 Construct and Revise. 69 Participants and Setting. 70 Design and Instruments.
70 Quantitative Data Collection. 71 Threats to Validity. 75 Quantitative Data Analysis. 85 Research Question 1 Findings.
98 Research Question 2 Findings. 108 Purpose of the Study Restated. 108 Question 1: Impact of Modeling Instruction on Students at Different Levels. 108 Question 2: Impact of Modleing Instruction in Contrast to Regular Instruction.
118 vi Suggestions for Further Research. 120 Appendix A Phases of Matter Assessment. 122 Appendix B Target Model. 128 Appendix C Modeling Prompt.
129 Appendix D Modeling Rubric. 132 Appendix E Example of Level 1 Model (Prompt 1). 133 Appendix F Example of Level 1 Model (Prompt 2). 134 Appendix G Example of Level 1 Model (Prompt 3).
135 Appendix H Example of Level 2 Model (Prompt 1). 136 Appendix I Example of Level 2 Model (Prompt 2). 137 Appendix J Example of Level 2 Model (Prompt 3). 138 Appendix K Example of Level 3 Model (Prompt 1).
139 Appendix L Example of Level 3 Model (Prompt 2). 140 Appendix M Example of Level 3 Model (Prompt 3). 141 Appendix N Example of Level 4 Model (Prompt 1). 142 Appendix O Example of Level 4 Model (Prompt 3).
143 Appendix P Student Journal. 144 Appendix Q UNLV IRB Approval Notice. 152 Appendix R CCSD IRB Approval Notice. 153 Appendix S Facility Authorization Letter.
168 vii List of Tables Table 1 Science and Engineering Practice: Developing and Using Models. 6 Table 2 Crosscutting Concept: Systems and System Models……………………. 7 Table 3 Number of Special Needs Students per Class …………………………… 70 Table 4 MS-PS1-4: Matter and its Interactions. 80 Table 5 Student Activities During the Intervention ……………………………… 81 Table 6 Learning Targets ………………………………………………………….
82 Table 7 Pre/Post AAAS Assessment Scores for the 3 Classes in the Treatment Group ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 87 Table 8 Pre/Post AAAS Assessment Explicit Scores for the 3 Classes in the Treatment Group ……………………………………………………………………………………. 89 Table 9 Pre/Post AAAS Assessment Implicit Scores for the 3 Classes in the Treatment Group ……………………………………………………………………………………. 91 Table 10 Pre/Post Modeling Prompt 1 Scores for the 3 Classes in the Treatment Group …………………………………………………………………………………………….
93 Table 11 Pre/Post Modeling Prompt 2 Scores for the 3 Classes in the Treatment Group ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 94 Table 12 Pre/Post Modeling Prompt 3 Scores for the 3 Classes in the Treatment Group ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 96 Table 13 Summary Table of Tests Addressing Research Question 1 ……………… 97 Table 14 Pre/Post AAAS Assessment Scores for the Treatment and Comparison Groups ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 99 viii Table 15 Pre/Post AAAS Assessment Explicit Scores for the Treatment and Comparison Groups …………………………………………………………………………………….
100 Table 16 Pre/Post AAAS Assessment Explicit Scores for the Treatment and Comparison Groups ……………………………………………………………………………………. 102 Table 17 Pre/Post Modeling Prompt 1 Scores for the Treatment and Comparison Groups ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 104 Table 18 Pre/Post Modeling Prompt 2 Scores for the Treatment and Comparison Groups ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 105 Table 19 Pre/Post Modeling Prompt 3 Scores for the Treatment and Comparison Groups …………………………………………………………………………………………….
106 Table 20 Summary Table of Tests Addressing Research Question 2 ……………… 107 ix List of Figures Figure 1 Testing procedures for Research Question 1 ……………………………. 77 Figure 2 Testing procedures for Research Question 2 ……………………………. 78 Figure 3 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on AAAS scores, for the accelerated, regular, and co-taught classes in the treatment group ……………………… 88 Figure 4 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on AAAS explicit scores, for the accelerated, regular, and co-taught classes in the treatment group …….…………… 90 Figure 5 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on AAAS implicit scores, for the accelerated, regular, and co-taught classes in the treatment group ………….……… 91 Figure 6 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on modeling prompt 1 scores, for the accelerated, regular, and co-taught classes in the treatment group ………. 93 Figure 7 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on modeling prompt 2 scores, for the accelerated, regular, and co-taught classes in the treatment group ……….
95 Figure 8 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on modeling prompt 3 scores, for the accelerated, regular, and co-taught classes in the treatment group ……. 96 Figure 9 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on AAAS scores, for the treatment and control group ……………………………………………………………… 99 Figure 10 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on AAAS explicit scores, for the treatment and control group ………………………………………………………… 101 Figure 11 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on AAAS implicit scores, for the treatment and control group …………………………………………………….… 102 Figure 12 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on modeling prompt 1 scores, for the treatment and control group ………………………………………………. 104 x Figure 13 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on modeling prompt 2 scores, for the treatment and control group ………………………………………………. 105 Figure 14 Change in students’ content knowledge, based on modeling prompt 3 scores, for the treatment and control group ……………………………………………….
106 xi Chapter 1: Introduction Today’s economy is becoming more technology-oriented, so students will need math and science skills to be competitive in the future workforce (Beede, Julian, Langdon, McKittrick, Khan, & Doms, 2011). There is some concern that students in the United States will not be competitive because of recent test score results. For example, results of the 2011 Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) showed that fourth-graders in the United States ranked seventh in the world in science and eighth-graders ranked ninth (Loveless, 2013). While some students (e., suburban) in the United States have science scores on the level of students in top countries like Singapore, there is a large gap amongst student scores in the United States when you consider socioeconomic status (Brown & Brown, 2007).
Also related to economy, approximately 30% of students did not graduate from high school in 2007, and for minority students of low socioeconomic status this number may be closer to 50% (Kirsch, Braun, Yamamoto, & Sum, 2007). As a result, a majority of dropouts end up in low-skilled jobs (e., service) which pay less than one-third the wages of higher-skilled jobs (e., knowledge experts, managers), so their freedom of career choice and income are restricted (Kirsch et al. Over the years, policy makers and educational leaders have searched for ways to address these equity issues (e., achievement gaps, dropout rates). At the center of these issues is the vision of science education that leaders have in the United States.
Scientific Literacy In a discussion of the vision of science education, Roberts and Bybee (2014) differentiated between science literacy (Vision I) and scientific literacy (Vision II). In Vision I, students are viewed as beginning scientists (science “looking in”) and in Vision II, students examine how science impacts society (“science for all,” science “looking out”). The authors note 1 that there has been a recent trend away from Vision II towards Vision I. For example, the Benchmarks (National Research Council, 2012) focus more on theory and technology and less on personal and social issues.
The authors argue that the definition of the two terms is important because policy and curriculum decisions are based on them. Over time, there have been shifts between the two visions, but both visions are important. To address both visions, the authors describe two ways to provide science education for students. The first way involves requiring a class for all students (Vision II), but allowing for additional classes for students who might seek professional careers in science (Vision I).