What Makes the Finnish Different in Science? Assessing and Comparing Students' Science Learning in Three Countries

Geller, Cornelia; Neumann, Knut; Boone, William J.; Fischer, Hans E.

doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.950185

Cited by 18 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Item difficulty was constrained to 0, suggesting that the test was slightly more difficult than students were able both at T1 (mean value ¼ À0.35) and T2 (mean value ¼ À0.22). Still an overall increase of students' ability from T1 to T2 could be observed (for further information, see Geller et al, 2014). Students exhibited a moderate interest in physics (mean values ¼ 3.45 and ¼ 3.43 for T1 and T2, respectively, out of a scale from 1 to 6).…”

Section: Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines students' achievement and interest and the extent to which they are predicted by teacher knowledge and motivation. Student achievement and interest are both considered desirable outcomes of school instruction. Teacher pedagogical content knowledge has been identified a major predictor of student achievement in previous research, whereas teacher motivation is considered a decisive factor influencing students' interest. So far, however, most research either focused on knowledge or motivation (both on the students' as well as the teachers' side), rarely investigating them together or examining the instructional mechanisms through which the supposed effects of teacher knowledge and motivation are facilitated. In the present study, N ¼ 77 physics teachers and their classes in Germany and Switzerland are investigated utilizing a multi-method approach in combining data obtained from testinstruments (teacher pedagogical content knowledge, student achievement) and questionnaires (teacher motivation, student interest, student perceived enthusiastic teaching) as well as videotaped instruction (cognitive activation rated by observers). Multi-level structural equation modeling was used to support the assumptions that teacher pedagogical content knowledge positively predicted students' achievement; the effect was mediated by cognitive activation. Teachers' motivation predicted students' interest which was mediated by enthusiastic teaching as perceived by students. Neither did teacher pedagogical content knowledge predict students' interest, nor teacher motivation students' achievement. This implies that in order to improve students' cognitive as well as affective outcomes, both teachers' knowledge but also their motivation need to be considered. motivation need to be considered.

show abstract

Section: Descriptive Resultsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…For the present study analyses, estimates for student ability as obtained from the Rasch analysis are utilized. Further details on the development, validation, and additional psychometric properties of the student achievement test are provided elsewhere (Geller, Neumann, Boone, & Fischer, 2014). Student Interest.…”

Section: Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Krajcik et al, ). In terms of the idea that understanding corresponds to an increasingly complex knowledge structure (Bernholt & Parchmann, ; Geller, Neumann, Boone, & Fischer, ; Neumann et al, ; see also Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, ), these findings might be interpreted as while students develop knowledge about each of the four ideas individually, there is a particular overlap in the knowledge elements and connections between them. That is, in order to understand aspects of chemical reactions (e.g., covalent bonding), some knowledge about the structure and composition of matter is needed (e.g., the structure of atoms and behavior of electrons) whereas no immediate knowledge is needed about physical properties and change (e.g., phase state changes).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents our attempt to elicit students' progression in understanding the matter concept. Past work has identified the big ideas about matter students need to understand, the many everyday understandings students hold about these ideas, and levels of understanding through which students progress in developing understanding of the big ideas, or the matter concept as a whole. None of this research, however, has investigated whether the hypothesized big ideas represent distinct ideas and if so, how students' progression in developing understanding of the big ideas compares across them. With our study, we aim to provide a more comprehensive picture about students' progression in understanding matter by investigating students' progression in developing understanding of four big ideas about matter (structure and composition, physical properties and change, chemical reaction, and conservation). Based on a framework developed from a systematic review of the literature that identifies five levels of understanding for each of the four big ideas, an instrument based on Ordered-Multiple-Choice (OMC) items was developed to assess students' level of understanding about each idea. This instrument was administered to N ¼ 1,388 students from grades 6 to 13. Multi-dimensional Rasch analysis was used to analyze the data collected. Our analyses confirm that the four big ideas represent distinct ideas although our examination of students' progression in understanding these ideas suggests that three of them develop in parallel. A detailed comparison of students' progression suggests that the hypothesized levels mark a hierarchical series of levels through which all students progress in the same order although not necessarily at the same pace. Together with the instrument developed which provides an efficient and reliable way to assess students' understanding our work may help to inform future efforts in optimizing instruction about matter and investigating students' trajectories in developing an understanding of the matter concept. #

show abstract

“…of knowledge integration (e.g. Geller, Neumann, Boone, & Fischer, 2014;Liu, Ryoo, Linn, Sato, & Svihla, 2015). Hailikari et al (2007) explicitly point out that in "the model it is assumed that operating on the higher levels of knowledge subsumes the lower levels of knowledge" (p. 324).…”

Section: Knowledge Types As Predictors Of Academic Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing prior knowledge types as predictors of academic achievement in the introductory phase of biology and physics study programmes using logistic regression

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Increasingly, high dropout rates in science courses at colleges and universities have led to discussions of causes and potential support measures of students. Students' prior knowledge is repeatedly mentioned as the best predictor of academic achievement. Theory describes four hierarchically ordered types of prior knowledge, from declarative knowledge of facts to procedural application of knowledge. This study explores the relevance of these four prior knowledge types to academic achievement in the introductory phase of the two science subjects, biology and physics. Results: We assessed the knowledge types at the beginning and student achievement (measured by course completion) at the end of the first study year. We applied logistic regression models to evaluate the relationship between the knowledge types and academic achievement. First, we controlled for a well-established predictor of academic achievement (high school grade point average). Second, we added the knowledge types as predictors. For biology, we found that only knowledge about principles and concepts was a significant predictor in the first year. For physics, knowledge about concepts and principles as well as the ability to apply knowledge to problems was related to academic achievement. Conclusion: Our results concerning the knowledge types, which are of special relevance in biology and physics studies, could lead to effective measures, e.g. for identifying at-risk students and course guidance. Furthermore, the results provide a profound starting point for controlled intervention studies that systematically foster the identified relevant knowledge types in each subject and aim at a theory-and empirical-based optimization of pre-and introductory courses.

show abstract

What Makes the Finnish Different in Science? Assessing and Comparing Students' Science Learning in Three Countries

Cited by 18 publications

References 41 publications

The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest

The impact of physics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and motivation on students’ achievement and interest

Students’ progression in understanding the matter concept

Assessing prior knowledge types as predictors of academic achievement in the introductory phase of biology and physics study programmes using logistic regression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About