Block scheduled versus traditional biology teaching—an educational experiment using the water lily
Tóm tắt
In this study, we compared a traditional teaching sequence (four distinct lessons) with a block schedule dealing with the ecological adaptations of the water lily. The educational unit contained original plant material and both experimental groups received the same tasks and working sheets. Pupils worked together in groups of three to four pupils in a self-regulated manner, carrying out hands-on experiments. However, both groups differed in their time schedule (four distinct lessons of 45 min versus one block of 180 min). Pupils from the traditionally scheduled education performed significantly better in the immediate post-test while these differences merged in retention.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Adams, D. C., & Salvaterra, M. E. (1998). Structural and teacher changes: Necessities for successful block scheduling. High School Journal, 81, 98–106.
Bateson, D. J. (1990). Science achievement in semester and all-year courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 233–240.
Carroll, J. M. (1994) The Copernican plan evaluated: The evolution of a revolution. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 105–113.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior (3rd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.
Deuel, L. S. (1999). Block scheduling in large, urban high schools: Effects on academic achievement, student behavior, and staff perception. High School Journal, 83, 14–26.
Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Synthesis of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.
Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K., & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students’ emotions and achievement – instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.
Hoffmann, L., & Lehrke, M. (1986). Eine Untersuchung über Schülerinteresse an Physik und Technik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 32, 189–204.
Johnson, M. A., & Lawson, A. E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 89–103.
Khazzaka, J. (1997). Comparing the merits of a seven-period school day to those of a four-period school day. High School Journal, 81, 87–97.
Knight, S. L., & DeLeon, N. J. (1999). Using multiple data sources to evaluate an alternative scheduling model. High School Journal, 83, 1–13.
Lawrence, W. W., & McPherson, D. D. (2000). A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 178–182.
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.
Lewis, C. W., Cobb, R. B., Winokur, M., Leech, N., Viney, M., & White, W. (2003). The effects of full and alternative day block scheduling on language arts and science achievement in a junior high school. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(41), 1–25. http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n41/ accessed 21 December 2005.
Lockwood, S. (1995). Semesterizing the high school schedule: The impact on student achievement in algebra and geometry. NASSP Bulletin, 22(575), 102–110.
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.
Marchant, G. J., & Paulson, S. B. (2001). Differential school functioning in a block schedule: A comparison of academic profiles. High School Journal, 84, 12–20.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.
Morgan, J. M. (1992). A theoretical basis for evaluating wildlife-related education programs. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 153–157.
Musheno, B. V., & Lawson, A. E. (1999). Effects of a learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 23–37.
Nichols, J. D. (2005). Block-scheduled high schools: Impact on achievement in English and language arts. Journal of Educational Research, 98, 299–309.
O’Neill, J. (1995). Finding time to learn. Educational Leadership, 53, 11–15.
Queen, J. A. (2000). Block scheduling revisited. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 214–225.
Queen, J. A., & Gaskey, K. A. (1997). Steps for improving school climate in block scheduling. Phi Delta Kappan, 22, 158–161.
Queen, J. A., Algozzine, B., & Eaddy, M. (1998). Implementing a 4 × 4 block scheduling: Pitfalls promises, and provisos. High School Journal, 81, 107–114.
Randler, C. (2005). Die Seerose. Eine Modellart für die Angepasstheit von Pflanzen an das Wasserleben. Lernchancen, 8(47), 11–17.
Randler, C. (2006). Empirical evaluation of a dichotomous key for amphibian identification in pupils and students. Journal of Science Education, 7, 34–36.
Randler, C., & Bogner, F. (2002). Comparing methods of instruction using bird species identification skills as indicators. Journal of Biological Education, 36, 181–188.
Randler, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2004). Emotional and cognitive aspects of learning: The ecological unit Lake. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds) Quality in practice-oriented research in science education. Aachen: Shaker.
Randler, C., & Bogner, F. X. (2006). Cognitive achievements in identification skills. Journal of Biological Education, 40, 161–165.
Randler, C., Ilg, A., & Kern, J. (2005). Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 37, 43–52.
Rinkard, G. L., & Banville, D. (2005). High school physical education teacher perceptions of block scheduling. High School Journal, 26–34.
Roth, W. -M., McRobbie, C. J., Lucas, K. B., & Boutonne, S. (1997). Why may students fail to learn from demonstrations? A social practice perspective on learning in physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 509–533.
Salvaterra, M., & Adams, D. (1995). Departing from tradition: Two schools’ stories. Educational Leadership, 53, 28–31.
Schaal, S., & Randler, C. (2004). Konzeption und Evaluation eines computer unterstützten kooperativen Blockseminars zur Systematik der Blütenpflanzen. Zeitschrift für Hochschuldidaktik 2 [Beitrag 6]: 1–18. [www.zfhd.at].
von Secker, C. E., & Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1110–1126.
Shepardson, D. P. (2002). Bugs, butterflies, and spiders: Children’s understandings about insects. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 627–643.
Sherwood, K. P., Rallis, S., & Stone, J. (1989). Effects of live animals vs. presented specimens on student learning. Zoo Biology, 8, 99–104.
Slate, J. R., & Jones, C. H. (2000). Students’ perspectives on block scheduling: Reactions following a brief trial period. High School Journal, 83, 55–64.
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.
Terrazas, P., Slate, J. R., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). Traditional versus the block instructional schedule: A statewide study. Research in the Schools, 10, 1–9.
Thair, M., & Treagust, D. F. (1997). A review of teacher development reforms in Indonesian secondary science: The effectiveness of practical work in biology. Research in Science Education, 27, 581–597.
Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes towards science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970–1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–398.