Search

This study describes the development of an instrument to investigate the extent to which technology is integrated in science instruction in ways aligned to science reform outlined in standards documents. The instrument was developed by: (a) creating items consistent with the five dimensions identified in science education literature, (b) establishing content validity with both national and international content experts, (c) refining the item pool based on content expert feedback, (d) piloting testing of the instrument, (e) checking statistical reliability and item analysis, and (f) subsequently refining and finalization of the instrument. The TUSI was administered in a field test across eleven classrooms by three observers, with a total of 33 TUSI ratings completed. The finalized instrument was found to have acceptable inter-rater intraclass correlation reliability estimates. After the final stage of development, the TUSI instrument consisted of 26-items separated into the original five categories, which aligned with the exploratory factor analysis clustering of the items. Additionally, concurrent validity of the TUSI was established with the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. Finally, a subsequent set of 17 different classrooms were observed during the spring of 2011, and for the 9 classrooms where technology integration was observed, an overall Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.913 was found. Based on the analyses completed, the TUSI appears to be a useful instrument for measuring how technology is integrated into science classrooms and is seen as one mechanism for measuring the intersection of technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge in science classrooms.

This study describes the development of an instrument to investigate the extent to which student-centered actions are occurring in science classrooms. The instrument was developed through the following five stages: (1) student action identification, (2) use of both national and international content experts to establish content validity, (3) refinement of the item pool based on reviewer comments, (4) pilot testing of the instrument, and (5) statistical reliability and item analysis leading to additional refinement and finalization of the instrument. In the field test, the instrument consisted of 26 items separated into four categories originally derived from student-centered instruction literature and used by the authors to sort student actions in previous research. The SACS was administered across 22 Grade 6-8 classrooms by 22 groups of observers, with a total of 67 SACS ratings completed. The finalized instrument was found to be internally consistent, with acceptable estimates from inter-rater intraclass correlation reliability coefficients at the p less than 0.01 level. After the final stage of development, the SACS instrument consisted of 24 items separated into three categories, which aligned with the factor analysis clustering of the items. Additionally, concurrent validity of the SACS was established with the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol. Based on the analyses completed, the SACS appears to be a useful instrument for inclusion in comprehensive assessment packages for illuminating the extent to which student-centered actions are occurring in science classrooms. (Contains 5 tables and 1 figure.)

This study describes the development of two instruments to investigate the extent to which students are engaged in scientific inquiry. As a result of the instrument development process employed, each finalized instrument consisted of 20-items separated into five categories. Both instruments were found to be internally consistent, with high reliability estimates. Factor analysis showed two factors for each instrument that, while not clustering the items into the five categories, did show item clustering that is consistent with research literature about students' engagement in inquiry experiences. Based on the analyses completed, the instruments appear to be useful instruments for use in comprehensive assessment packages for assessing the extent to which students are experiencing inquiry in science classrooms.

The purpose of this study was to examine how different inquiry experiences affect in-service science teachers' performance in terms of their questions and classroom actions. Teachers in a workshop experience proceeded through structured, guided, and full inquiry stations where materials to make foam were provided. Participants were 26 in-service science teachers who were enrolled in an 8-day workshop learning about science-technology-society (STS) approaches to teaching. Those who experienced full inquiry first resulted in more curiosity, more questions, and more unique experiments than at the other two stations. Success in guided inquiry was observed when the guidance was provided by more open-ended questions posed by the leader teachers. The study raises questions concerning the limitations on student thinking when in structured and guided laboratories that characterize traditional science teaching. An analysis of this study may contribute important direction and information for science teaching and learning and encourage more moves for STS successes.

This study presents the circuitous route taken in an attempt to identify an assessment mechanism for evaluating the impact of STS courses. After initially developing a survey that faculty felt only allowed for the measurement of student opinions about the impact of required STS general education courses, the faculty at Clemson University identified Aikenhead and Ryan's Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS) as an instrument that, when used with the scoring guide created in this project, might be able to assess the sophistication of students views about science and technology in society. The results from administering the pre- and post-VOSTS surveys in one STS course revealed no significant differences when comparing the sophistication of students' views about STS before and after the course. These findings demonstrate that, among other considerations discussed in the manuscript, it will be difficult to find a way of assessing STS courses that can be used for the diverse courses meeting the requirement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]