The purpose of this project was to develop a valid and reliable science process skill test for middle and high school students. Multiple‐choice items were generated for each of five objectives. Following pilot testing and revision, the test was administered to middle and high school students in the northeastern United States. The 36‐item test can be completed in a normal class period. Results yielded a mean score of 19.14 and a total test reliability of 0.86. Mean difficulty and discrimination indices were 0.53 and 0.35, respectively. Split‐test correlations coefficients between TIPS II and the original TIPS items were 0.86 and 0.90. TIPS II provides another reliable instrument for measuring process skill achievement. Additionally, it increases the available item pool for measuring these skills.

This study is a meta‐analysis of the question “What are the effects on achievement of different teaching techniques?” Twelve categories of teaching techniques were specified. Among these are questioning, wait‐time, testing, focusing, manipulative, presentation approach, inquiry or discovery, audio‐visual, and teacher direction. A coding form was then developed to allow for the uniform examination and recording of 76 variables from each study. One or more effect sizes were calculated and coded for each study. Over 300 microfilmed dissertations covering the past 30 years were examined. Some 2000 ERIC science abstracts were reviewed and suitable studies obtained. Finally, journal articles were reviewed. A total of 400 effect sizes representing 160 studies were produced. The main effect size overall was 0.34. Thus, for all samples considered the experimental science teaching techniques on the average resulted in one‐third of a standard deviation improvement over traditional techniques. Mean effect sizes also were calculated for each technique. More than 20 other variables such as class size, community type, and science subject area were cross‐tabulated with effect size.

No abstract

No abstract

2 then shared, quality control features of the program are highlighted, and the lessons we learned about program development and implementation are detailed. Finally, thoughts about the future of this program and others of its type are shared based upon our experience.