ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Puzzling Through Gravity Much of the excitement of scientific discovery seems to get lost when science is taught as facts by lectures. Granger et al. (p. 105 ) present a large study of outcomes comparing inquiry-based teaching with more traditional teaching methods. Over 2000 students were involved, in 125 classrooms of 4th- and 5th-graders. The classes studied space-science with a curriculum that uses models and evidence to entice students into improving their own understanding of the science. Students who were encouraged to use evidence to support their models seemed to develop improved knowledge of content.
Content may be subject to copyright.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1223709
, 105 (2012);338 Science et al.E. M. Granger
Learning
The Efficacy of Student-Centered Instruction in Supporting Science
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.
clicking here.colleagues, clients, or customers by , you can order high-quality copies for yourIf you wish to distribute this article to others
here.following the guidelines can be obtained byPermission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles
): October 5, 2012 www.sciencemag.org (this information is current as of
The following resources related to this article are available online at
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/105.full.html
version of this article at: including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2012/10/03/338.6103.105.DC1.html
can be found at: Supporting Online Material
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6103/105.full.html#ref-list-1
, 2 of which can be accessed free:cites 16 articlesThis article
registered trademark of AAAS. is aScience2012 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved. The title CopyrightAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
(print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by theScience
on October 5, 2012www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
tally demonstrated that slip acceleration quickens
fault weakening, and, in light of the transient na-
ture of earthquake slip (13), we propose that slip
acceleration controls seismic weakening in addi-
tion to slip distance and slip velocity.
References and Notes
1. T. H. Heaton, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 64, 1 (1990).
2. E. Tinti, P. Spudich, M. Cocco, J. Geophys. Res. 110,
B12303 (2005).
3. M. Ohnaka, T. Yamashita, J. Geophys. Res. 94, 4089
(1989).
4. H. Kanamori, L. Rivera, in Earthquakes: Radiated
Energy and the Physics of Faulting, R. E. Abercrombie,
A. McGarr, G. Di Toro, H. Kanamori, Eds. (AGU,
Washington, DC, 2006), pp. 313.
5. D. J. Andrews, J. Geophys. Res. 110, B01307 (2005).
6. D. A. Lockner, P. G. Okubo, J. Geophys. Res. 88, 4313
(1983).
7. P. G. Okubo, J. H. Dieterich, Geophys. Res. Lett. 8, 887
(1981).
8. Z. Reches, D. A. Lockner, Nature 467, 452 (2010).
9. Materials and methods are available on Science Online.
10. H. Sone, T. Shimamoto, Nat. Geosci. 2, 705 (2009).
11. D. L. Wells, K. J. Coppersmith, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84,
974 (1994).
12. D. L. Olgaard, W. F. Brace, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
20, 11 (1983).
13. B. Wilson, T. A. Dewers, Z. Reches, J. Brune, Nature 434,
749 (2005).
14. R. Han, T. Hirose, T. Shimamoto, J. Geophys. Res. 115,
B03412 (2010).
15. A. Niemeijer, G. DiToro, S. Nielsen, F. Di Felice,
J. Geophys. Res. 116, B07404 (2011).
16. D. L. Goldsby, T. E. Tullis, Science 334, 216 (2011).
17. E. Fukuyama, K. Mizoguchi, Int. J. Fract. 163,15
(2010).
18. M. Ohnaka, J. Geophys. Res. 108, 2080 (2003).
19. D. E. Grady, M. E. Kipp, J. Appl. Phys. 58, 1210 (1985).
20. Z. Reches, T. A. Dewers, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 235, 361
(2005).
21. E. Y. A. Wornyoh, V. K. Jasti, C. F. Higgs III, J. Tribol. 129,
438 (2007).
Acknowledgments: We thank J. Young, J. Fineberg, and
E. Aharonov, and T. Shimamoto and two anonymous reviewers
for their thoughtful reviews. This work was supported by
NSF Geosciences awards 0732715 and 1045414 and
NEHRP2011 award G11AP20008.
Supplementary Materials
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/338/6103/101/DC1
Materials and Methods
Supplementary Text
Figs. S1 to S10
Tables S1 to S4
References (2236)
28 February 2012; accepted 14 August 2012
10.1126/science.1221195
The Efficacy of Student-Centered
Instruction in Supporting
Science Learning
E. M. Granger,
1
*T. H. Bevis,
1
Y. Saka,
2
S. A. Southerland,
3
V. Sampson,
3
R. L. Tate
4
Transforming science learning through student-centered instruction that engages students in a
variety of scientific practices is central to national science-teaching reform efforts. Our study
employed a large-scale, randomized-cluster experimental design to compare the effects of
student-centered and teacher-centered approaches on elementary school studentsunderstanding
of space-science concepts. Data included measures of student characteristics and learning and
teacher characteristics and fidelity to the instructional approach. Results reveal that learning
outcomes were higher for students enrolled in classrooms engaging in scientific practices through
a student-centered approach; two moderators were identified. A statistical search for potential
causal mechanisms for the observed outcomes uncovered two potential mediators: students
understanding of models and evidence and the self-efficacy of teachers.
The need for a different approach to science
teaching and learning has been the focus
of several recent policy and economic re-
ports (1,2). Research as synthesized by the Na-
tional Research Council suggests that the goal of
science instruction should be to help students
develop four aspects of scientific proficiency, the
ability to (i) know, use, and interpret scientific
explanations of the natural world; (ii) generate
and evaluate scientific evidence and explanations;
(iii) understand the nature and development of
scientific knowledge; and (iv) participate produc-
tively in scientific practices and discourse (35).
This approach to science teaching will require a
shift from the teacher-centered instruction com-
mon in science classrooms to more student-centered
methods of instruction. The defining feature of
these instructional methods is who is doing the
sense-making. In teacher-centered instruction,
the sense-making is accomplished by the teacher
and transmitted to students through lecture, text-
books, and confirmatory activities in which each
step is specified by the teacher. In these class-
rooms, the instructional goal is to help students
know scientific explanations, which is only part
of the first aspect of scientific proficiency. In
student-centered instruction, the sense-making rests
with students, and the teacher acts as a facilitator
to support the learning as students engage in sci-
entific practices (3).
The effectiveness of student-centered instruc-
tion in helping students develop scientific pro-
ficiency is supported by a number of largely
small-scale, narrowly focused studies (3,5). De-
spite accumulating support for a student-centered
approach, few large-scale studies have evaluated
the effectiveness of such instruction, and their
results, taken as a whole, are contradictory and
inconclusive (613).Thesameistrueofonly
randomized-cluster or quasi-randomized studies
examined separately (6,11,14,15). Many factors
may contribute to the varied results, because
tightly controlling potentially influential variables
is difficult in classroom settings. One central fac-
tor is that the comparison condition (i.e., control
group) is often undefined or assumed to be
traditional’” (14). Likewise, possible contami-
nation of the untreated teachersand cases where
investigators did not vigorously guardagainst
special resource materials may have influenced
results (13). Indeed, many studies described in
the literature do not discuss how fidelity to the
curriculum or instructional approach was mea-
sured or whether it was assessed.
We therefore compared the effectiveness of
student-centered with teacher-centered instruc-
tion using a randomized-cluster experimental de-
sign, intended to control as many variables as
possible given the inherent differences between
the two instructional approaches. Specifically, the
effectiveness of the student-centered Great Ex-
plorations in Math and Science Space Science
Curriculum Sequence (SSCS) (16) and profes-
sional development of teachers focused on these
materials (treatment group) was compared with
that of a teacher-centered curriculum (district-
adopted textbook) enacted with a teacher-centered
approach (control group). For details of each cur-
riculum, teacher professional development, and
instructional approach, see the supplementary ma-
terials. Mindful of limits on securing meaningful
data imposed by testing the age group for whom
SSCS is appropriate (fourth and fifth grades), we
selected four student outcomes aligned with the
four aspects of scientific proficiency for this re-
search: space science content knowledge, knowl-
edge about models and evidence in science, views
of scientific inquiry, and attitude toward science.
The research was designed to (i) compare the
effectiveness of the two instructional approaches
in supporting elementary studentsscience learn-
ing; (ii) identify teacher characteristics (teacher
moderating variables) that might influence the
learning; (iii) identify those for whom this instruc-
tional approach might work (student moderating
variables); and (iv) identify how the treatment
might indirectly affect student outcomes (mediat-
ing variables).
1
Office of Science Teaching Activities, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL 323064295, USA.
2
lent Ecevit Üniversitesi
Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi, Turkey.
3
FSU-Teach/School of Teacher
Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 323064459,
USA.
4
Educational Evaluation and Research, Florida State Uni-
versity (retired), 415 Castleton Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail:
granger@bio.fsu.edu
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 338 5 OCTOBER 2012 105
REPORTS
on October 5, 2012www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
Data were collected from 125 fourth- and
fifth-grade classrooms. Randomization occurred
at the level of assignment of teachers to treatment
or control group; control and treatment groups
werematchedaccordingtogradelevel,socio-
economic status (SES), school statewide assess-
ment performance, and student ethnic diversity.
Student demographics were collected (table S1).
Contexts included urban, suburban, and rural
and high- and low-SES schools; 2594 students
participated1418 in the classrooms of 66 treat-
ment teachers and 1176 in the classrooms of 59
control teachers (for details, see the supplemen-
tary materials). Student conceptual development
and affective dimensions were assessed by means
of four instruments: (i) Space Science Content
Tes t (17); (ii) Homerton Science Attitudes Sur-
vey (18); (iii) Models and Evidence Question-
naire (19); (iv) Views of Scientific Inquiry (VOSI)
Elementary Version Questionnaire (20). Both
groups were assessed immediately before the
unit, immediately after the unit, and 5 months T
2 weeks after the unit (see the supplementary ma-
terials for test and scoring details). Each teachers
fidelity to the assigned teaching approach was
assessed with the Reformed Teacher Observa-
tion Protocol (RTOP) (21) two to three times dur-
ing the unit. RTOP is a measure of the degree to
which lesson enactment is aligned with student-
centered science instruction. To help identify
potential teacher moderators, we also assessed
teachersspace-science content knowledge, sci-
ence attitudes, views of scientific inquiry, self-
efficacy, and beliefs about science teaching before
and after their participation in the project.
Multilevel (hierarchical linear) modeling was
used to estimate the SSCSseffectswithmoder-
ation and to account for interdependencies of
student outcomes within teachers (22,23). Each
student outcome was reflected in two measures,
the postmeasure and delayed postmeasure. Po-
tential explanatory variables for each outcome
included (i) pretest measure; (ii) treatment vari-
able (SSCS or control); (iii) teacher cohort (year
1 or 2); (iv) grade level (4 or 5); (v) interactions
among the treatment, cohort, and grade variables;
(vi) teacher years of experience; (vii) preassess-
ments of teacher outcomes; (viii) student ethnic-
ity; (ix) student SES, based on participation in the
free or reduced lunch program (FRL); (x) student
gender; and (xi) primary language of the student.
Inspection of bivariate correlations and backward
elimination processes produced the final models.
Special attention was given to the possibility of
interactions involving student and teacher mod-
erators. Multilevel mediation models addressed
the question of how the treatment might indi-
rectly affect student outcomes (mediating varia-
bles) by two analytic approaches: an application
of multilevel modeling based on separate models
for each of the variables explained by the model
and a simultaneous solution by multilevel path
analysis (24). Positive mediation results should
be considered as evidence that the data are con-
sistent with the hypothesized mediation. To com-
pare effect sizes for outcomes with different scales,
we also present effects in standardized form [0.2 is
small, 0.5 medium, and 0.8 large (25)] but note
that a small effect should not be interpreted as
trivial (15,25). The VOSI outcome could not be
similarly standardized, because it is an ordered
binary variable with two levels. For VOSI, a non-
linear version of multilevel modeling describes
effects as an odds ratio (i.e., the odds of SSCS
students giving a response coded as transitional/
informedrather than naïvedivided by the odds
of control students doing so); a ratio of 1.1 is at the
threshold of practical importance. (See the supple-
mentary materials for details of statistical analysis.)
Average RTOP scores for SSCS teachers were
27.3 points (out of 100) higher than those of con-
trol teachers, a statistically significant difference
(P= 0.001); groups overlapped only modestly,
indicating that the two instructional approaches
were implemented with fidelity. To examine within-
group RTOP effects, we transformed total RTOP
scores to within-group deviation scores. For each
student outcome for which the SSCS effect was
statistically significant (content knowledge, mod-
els and evidence, and VOSI) (see Table 1), the
effect of the RTOP deviation score was positive
and statistically significant (P= 0.002 to 0.017).
That is, after the SSCS treatment effect was con-
trolled for, the RTOP deviation score could be
considered as a dosagevariable within each
group resulting in an increase in student outcomes.
This finding suggests that student engagement in
Table 1. SSCS total effects for student outcomes. OR, odds ratio.
Outcome Unstandardized
effect PStandardized
effect
Posttest outcome
Content knowledge0.488* 0.002 0.171*
VOSI§ 0.464* 0.002 OR = 1.59
Models and evidence
No FRL 0.354* <0.001 0.682*
FRL 0.261* <0.001 0.503*
Attitude toward science 0.009 0.753 0.014
Delayed posttest outcome
Content knowledge0.187 0.193 0.067
VOSI0.333* 0.015 OR = 1.40
Models and evidence 0.285* <0.001 0.573*
Attitude toward science 0.020 0.530 0.029
*Statistically significant, with a family-wise error rate of 0.10 (i.e., for a test family of four post-outcomes or four delayed post-
outcomes, P< 0.10/4 = 0.025). For all outcomesexcept VOSI, standardized effects were obtained by division of raw-score SSCS
coefficients by the outcome standard deviations. Results are from a sample from which one extreme outlier was
removed. The student variable of VOSI is dichotomous. The associated unstandardized SSCS effect is the SSCS coefficient
in a model for the log odds (logit) of the outcome, and the standardized SSCS effect is the OR for the transitional/informed
outcome.
Fig. 1. Mediation model
for student posttest con-
tent knowledge, with path
coefficients indicated. *,
significant at the 0.05 lev-
el; NS, not significant; TSE
pre, teacher pretest self-
efficacy; TSE post, teacher
posttest self-efficacy; ME
pre, student pretest mod-
els and evidence; ME post,
student posttest models
and evidence; CK pre, pre-
test student content knowl-
edge; CK post, posttest
student content knowledge.
Teacher Level
Student Level
0.767* - 0.799*SSCS
3.27* - 0.799*TSE pre
0.355*
- 0.067 (NS)
0.332*
0.534*
0.591*
1.190*
TSE p re TSE p os t
ME p re ME p os t CK post
CK pre
SSCS
5 OCTOBER 2012 VOL 338 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org106
REPORTS
on October 5, 2012www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
learning (student-centeredness), as indicated by
RTOP scores, is a feature of more effective teaching.
Table 1 summarizes estimated total effects of
the SSCS curriculum on student post- and delayed
posttest outcomes, including student-level mod-
erators. When a family-wise error rate of 0.10
was controlled for, students in the SSCS group
scored significantly higher than control studen ts
on content-knowledge, models-and-evidence, and
VOSI posttest outcomes. For delayed posttests,
the SSCS group remained significantly higher for
VOSI and models and evidence. For content-
knowledge and models-and-evidence outcomes,
the standardized effect magnitudes were ~0.2 and
0.7, respectively. The odds ratio representing the
SSCS effect for the VOSI outcome was 1.59; that
is, the odds of SSCS students giving transitional/
informed responses were 1.59 times greater than
those for control students. Interpreting the results
of the content-knowledge delayed posttest requires
accounting for factors potentially affecting it; fore-
most is the timing, which placed these assessments
within about 2 weeks of statewide assessments
and all their concomitant drill and practice in
both treatment and control classrooms. The large
size (25) and persistence of the models-and-
evidence and VOSI outcomes are notable.
Only one student characteristic, SES, mod-
erated the SSCS effect on one posttest outcome,
models and evidence (Table 1). Although the two
SES groups differed in achievement, both high-
and low-SES students in the treatment group
performed better than did students in the control
group. This difference between the groups in the
SES achievement gap disappeared by delayed
posttesting. This result is consistent with a wide
body of research that indicates that students from
low-SES groups initially need more support to
participate in the practices of science (here, using
models and evidence) (6,11,26).
Only one teacher characteristic, pretest self-
efficacy, moderated one student posttest outcome,
content knowledge. Self-efficacy, a well-researched
construct (see the supplementary materials for more
details), is defined as a teachersjudgement of
his or her capabilities to bring about desired
outcomes of student engagement and learning
(27). The SSCS effect was positive and large
for low values of teacher pretest self-efficacy
but decreased as teacher pretest self-efficacy in-
creased (table S2). That is, students in classrooms
of teachers who had low teaching self-efficacy
at the outset of the study showed a statistically
significant increase in their posttest content-
knowledge scores, whereas students in classrooms
with teachers who had high initial self-efficacy
did not. Much research has examined how teach-
ersknowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about their
abilities shape and are shaped by their classroom
experiences [e.g., (28)]; our results suggest that
teachersunderlying beliefs, such as self-efficacy,
might influence the overall effectiveness of a
student-centered curriculum. No teacher modera-
tors were apparent in the delayed posttest results.
A search for possible indirect mechanisms by
which the treatment produced its effects on post-
test student outcomes resulted in two mediation
models. In the first (Fig. 1), both teacher self-
efficacy and student models-and-evidence varia-
bles mediate the SSCS effect on the student
posttest content-knowledge outcome. Indices in-
dicated a good fit of this model to the data. The
indirect effect mediated by the teacher posttest
self-efficacy measure varied with the level of its
pretest measure, being positive and large for low
values of teacher pretest self-efficacy but decreas-
ing with increasing levels of the teacher pretest
self-efficacy. The indirect effect mediated by student
posttest models and evidence was positive, con-
stant, and relatively strong. In this model, the es-
timated direct effect of the SSCS treatment on
student achievement was not statistically signif-
icant, so the total effect consisted entirely of the
indirect effects of teacher self-efficacy and student
understanding of models and evidence. The re-
sults of this analysis therefore suggest that the
two mediators influence the student content-
knowledge outcome somewhat equally in class-
rooms taught by teachers with lower self-efficacy
at the beginning of the project, but the posttest
models-and-evidence outcome was the only sig-
nificant mediator in classrooms taught by teach-
ers who began the project with relatively high
levels of self-efficacy (Fig. 2). (See the supple-
mentary materials for more details.)
These results suggest that an emphasis on
models and evidence supports studentslearning
about space-science content. The models-and-
evidence instrument was not designed to assess
knowledge about models separately from knowl-
edge about evidence, so their individual influ-
ences cannot be separated. SSCS students explicitly
learned about the nature of both models and
evidence in science, as did control-group students,
but SSCS students further engaged in activities in
TSE pre
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
SSCS effects
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Total effect = Total indirect effect (both paths)
Indirect through TSE post
Indirect through ME post
Fig. 2. Standardized effects of SSCS on the student posttest content knowledge outcome. Abbreviations
as in Fig. 1.
Fig. 3. Mediation model
for posttest VOSI, with path
coefficients indicated. Mod-
el is for the log odds (logit)
of student posttest VOSI. *,
significant at the 0.05 level;
VOSI pre, pretest student
VOSI; VOSI post, posttest
student VOSI; other abbre-
viations as in Fig. 1.
Teacher Level
Student Level
SSCS
VOSI postME post
ME pre
VOSI pre
0.341*
0.874*
0.329*
0.590*
0.584*
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 338 5 OCTOBER 2012 107
REPORTS
on October 5, 2012www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
which they used and evaluated models. They also
were required to provide explicit evidence that
supported new science concepts throughout the
curriculum, including activities in which they used
evidence to support their arguments about sci-
entific explanations. Experience with models and
evidence is therefore supported as underpinning
content-knowledge learning.
In the second mediation model, the models-
and-evidence outcome mediates the SSCS effect
on views of scientific inquiry (Fig. 3). This indi-
rect effect was somewhat smaller than the direct
effect of SSCS, but the odds ratio of 1.21 for the
indirect path was nevertheless large enough to be
of practical importance. The results of this anal-
ysis suggest that the emphasis on models and
evidence supports studentslearning about the
endeavor of science.
These findings should also be considered in
light of the contradictory results of the previous
large-scale studies on the effects of student-
centered instruction. In contrast to the common
research practice of comparing the treatment group
to a control group in which the instructional ap-
proach is not specified (i.e., to whatever else is
present in schools), our research design tightly
controlled the curriculum and instructional approach
employed by the treatment and control groups.
Further, fidelity was monitored through classroom
observations and assessed with RTOP. We argue
that this attention to the control group and our ef-
fortstomonitorfidelitywithinbothgroupssetsour
study apart from others, and the failure to identify
central components of the control group may ac-
count for the contradictory nature of previous results.
The increased outcomes of the treatment group
in comparison with the control group in content
knowledge, models and evidence, and VOSI and
the size and persistence of the latter two indicate
that student-centered instruction supports the de-
velopment of students who are more proficient in
the four strands of scientific proficiency. More
specifically, the mediation models suggest that
student-centered instruction that engages students
in scientific practices such as using models and
evidence is important for developing more scientif-
ically proficient students. Taken together, the results
of our study lend empirical support to the view
put forth by the National Research Council that
teaching content alone is not likely to lead to
proficiency in science, nor is engaging in inquiry
experiences devoid of meaningful science content.
In current practice, content and an oversimplified
view of scientific processes are often the primary
or even sole foci of instruction[and] leads to a
very impoverished understanding of science and
masks the complex process involved in developing
scientific evidence and explanations[(3), p. 335)].
References and Notes
1. Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited, National
Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine (National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2010).
2. U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, STEM
Education: Preparing for the Jobs of the Future
(U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, Washington,
DC, April 2012).
3. R. Duschl, H. Schweingruber, A. Shouse, Eds., Taking
Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in
Grades K-8 (National Academies Press, Washington, DC,
2007).
4. S. Michaels, A. Shouse, H. Schweinberger, Ready, Set,
Science: Putting Research to Work in K-8 Science Classrooms
(National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2008).
5. M. S. Donovan, J. Bransford, Eds., How Students Learn:
Science in the Classroom (National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, 2005).
6. M. Blanchard et al., Sci. Ed. 94, 577 (2010).
7. P. A. Kirschner, J. Sweller, R. Clark, Educ. Psychol. 41,75
(2006).
8. D. Klahr, M. Nigam, Psychol. Sci. 15, 661 (2004).
9. W. H. Leonard, G. R. Cavana, L. F. Lowery, J. Res. Sci.
Teach. 18, 497 (1981).
10. W. H. Leonard, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 20, 807 (1983).
11. S. Lynch, J. Kuipers, C. Pyke, M. Szesze, J. Res. Sci. Teach.
42, 912 (2005).
12. R. W. Marx et al., J. Res. Sci. Teach. 41, 1063 (2004).
13. J. A. Shymansky, L. Yore, J. Anderson, J. Res. Sci. Teach.
41, 771 (2004).
14. S. Lynch et al., Whats up with the comparison group?
How a large quasi-experimental study of high rated
science curriculum units came to grips with unexpected
results, in Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association (American Educational Research
Association, San Francisco, 2006).
15. D. Viadero, Educ. Week 28, 14 (2009).
16. Lawrence Hall of Science, Great Explorations in Math and
Science: Space Science Curriculum Sequence (Univ. of
California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2007).
17. P. Sadler et al., Misconception-Oriented, Standards-
Based Assessment Resources for Teachers (MOSART)
(Harvard College, Cambridge, MA, 2007).
18. M. Warrington, M. Younger, J. Williams, Br. Educ. Res. J.
26, 393 (2000).
19. E. Granger, Y. Saka, T. H. Bevis, Models and Evidence
Questionnaire (2007); available from http://ret.fsu.edu.
20. R. S. Schwartz, N. Lederman, J. S. Lederman, An instrument
to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire,
International Conference of the National Association for
Research in Science Teaching (National Association for
Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, 2008).
21. D. Sawada et al., Sch. Sci. Math. 102, 245 (2002).
22. S. Raudenbush, A. Bryk, Hierarchical Linear Models:
Applications and Data Analysis Methods (Sage, Newbury
Park, CA, ed. 2, 2002).
23. S. Raudenbush et al., HLM 6: Hierarchical Linear and
Nonlinear Modeling (SSI Scientific Software International,
Lincolnwood, IL, 2004).
24. L. K. Muthen, B. O. Muthen, Mplus Users Guide (Muthen
& Muthen, Los Angeles, CA, ed. 5, 2007).
25. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, revised ed. (Academic Press, New York,
1977).
26. O. Lee, A. Luykx, Science Education and Student Diversity
(Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2006).
27. M. Tschannen-Moran, A. W. Hoy, Teach. Teach. Educ. 17,
783 (2001).
28. L. K. Smith, S. A. Southerland, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 44, 396
(2007).
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by a grant
from the Florida Center for Research in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
(FL DOE 371-96700-7SF01, 371-96700-8SS01, and
371-96700-9SF01). Data are archived in the supplementary
materials.
Supplementary Materials
www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/338/6103/105/DC1
Materials and Methods
Fig. S1
Tables S1 and S2
References (2937)
Student Data Archive
23 April 2012; accepted 16 August 2012
10.1126/science.1223709
Wnt5a Potentiates TGF-bSignaling
to Promote Colonic Crypt Regeneration
After Tissue Injury
Hiroyuki Miyoshi,
1
Rieko Ajima,
2
*Christine T. Luo,
1
Terry P. Yamaguchi,
2
Thaddeus S. Stappenbeck
1
Reestablishing homeostasis after tissue damage depends on the proper organization of stem
cells and their progeny, though the repair mechanisms are unclear. The mammalian intestinal
epithelium is well suited to approach this problem, as it is composed of well-delineated units called
crypts of Lieberkühn. We found that Wnt5a, a noncanonical Wnt ligand, was required for crypt
regeneration after injury in mice. Unlike controls, Wnt5a-deficient mice maintained an expanded
population of proliferative epithelial cells in the wound. We used an in vitro system to enrich
for intestinal epithelial stem cells to discover that Wnt5a inhibited proliferation of these cells.
Surprisingly, the effects of Wnt5a were mediated by activation of transforming growth factorb
(TGF-b) signaling. These findings suggest a Wnt5a-dependent mechanism for forming new crypt
units to reestablish homeostasis.
Tissue regeneration requires proper spa-
tial allocation and organization of stem
cells for efficient return to homeostasis
(1,2). Crypts of Lieberkühn are subunits that
house intestinal stem cells and are lost in re-
sponse to a variety of insults, including ischemia,
infection, irradiation, and inflammatory bowel
disease (3). Although individual crypts undergo
fission to replicate during homeostasis (fig. S1A)
(4,5), the mechanism of their regeneration is un-
known. Thus, crypt regeneration is a proxy for
proper stem cell organization and provides an ex-
cellent system to uncover the principles underlying
stem cell replacement and/or organization in vivo.
To model crypt/epithelial stem cell loss, we
previously developed an injury system to focally
5 OCTOBER 2012 VOL 338 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
108
REPORTS
on October 5, 2012www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
... This shift is not merely a change in methodology, but rather a fundamental evolution in educational philosophy. It emphasizes the importance and uniqueness of students as the central subjects of education, while teachers play a supporting and guiding role in the learning process (Granger et al., 2012). This shift has been accompanied by the adoption of innovative teaching methods across various disciplines, including PBL, team-based learning (TBL) (Burgess et al., 2020), case-based learning (CBL) (Donkin et al., 2023), research-based learning (RBL) (Jiang et al., 2021), outcome-based education (OBE) (Yang et al., 2023), and the flipped classroom (FC) (Cheng et al., 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
Medical education plays a critical role in preparing future doctors, responsible for the well-being and health of individual patients. Given its unique significance, understanding how to enhance the intrinsic motivation of clinical medical undergraduates for a 5-year program is a key research focus in China. Based on this purpose, the transformation of higher education in the major of clinical medicine has been conducted worldwide. To evaluate the attitude of clinical medical undergraduates on the transformation of education, this study investigates the impact of different teaching models on the learning attitudes of students at Shantou University Medical School, aiming to provide insights into effective educational strategies. Within the set-up of different teaching models, involving active-learning classes, English-medium instruction classes, and conventional clinical classes, we employed a comprehensive survey targeting undergraduates enrolled in three distinct teaching models. The survey explored multiple dimensions of learning behaviors, including classroom engagement, study time, and overall motivation. Results indicated that students participating in active learning classes exhibited superior classroom engagement and devoted more time to their studies than those in English-medium instruction classes and conventional clinical classes, while the difference between English-medium instruction classes and conventional clinical classes was not significant. These students reported a higher intrinsic motivation towards their learning experience, suitable to apply self-directed learning methods. In conclusion, this study underscores the importance of adopting diverse and adaptive teaching strategies to cater to the varied learning attitudes of clinical medical undergraduates, suggesting conducting self-evaluation or pre-evaluation of the students for adapting to different clinical teaching methods. Meanwhile, enhancing teacher guidance and support throughout the learning process is essential. By implementing different educational approaches, medical schools can effectively enhance student motivation and educational outcomes, contributing to the advancement of medical education.
... Existen varios estudios (Geier et al., 2008;Granger et al. 2012) que ponen de manifiesto la mejora en el rendimiento académico en las disciplinas científicas cuando la metodología se centra en el alumnado y en las destrezas del proceso científico. Diversos autores definen las prácticas científicas en: indagación (Rönnebeck, Bernholt y Ropohl 2016;Bevins y Price, 2016), argumentación (Duschl y Osborne 2002;Jiménez-Aleixandre 2002) y modelización (Gilbert y Justi 2016;Oliva 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Las destrezas en los procesos de la ciencia forman parte de la alfabetización científica. Sin embargo, existen escasos estudios que determinen cómo cambian factores claves en la alfabetización científica a lo largo del proceso educativo. En este trabajo se analiza cómo evoluciona la familiaridad y el interés en los procesos de la ciencia a lo largo de la educación de los futuros docentes. Participaron 200 alumnos de las diferentes etapas educativas y procedentes de varios centros educativos de la Comunidad Valenciana. Como instrumentos de recogida de datos se emplearon un cuestionario validado, así como un grupo de discusión a un grupo representativo de alumnos con el objetivo de entender mejor los datos cuantitativos. En conjunto, se detecta que la familiaridad y el interés en los procesos de las ciencias mejoran a lo largo de las etapas educativas sugiriendo la necesidad de mejorar la compresión y la contextualización en la enseñanza de las ciencias desde edades tempranas.
... In an experimental study by Granger et al. (2012), school students have been found to achieve more learning outcomes in a science classroom that is student-centred compared to teacher-centred. Dwiyanti (2017) reported that students who participated in knowledge sharing with peers through asking, explaining, elaboration, and posing problem regarding science topics were found to exhibit higher abilities of metacognition and learning. ...
... By employing innovative instructional strategies, fostering active student engagement, and creating a supportive learning environment, teachers can stimulate students' curiosity, enhance their motivation, and ultimately increase their interest in active participation and involvement in the class (Kamran et al., 2022). Research has shown that teachers who adopt student-centered instructional practices, encourage critical thinking and problem-solving, and provide opportunities for hands-on experiments and discussion-based instruction tend to foster greater science learning outcomes among their students (Granger et al., 2012). Additionally, teachers' classroom management abilities have an impact on teacher-student interactions and the amount of academic learning time. ...
... Numerous studies [9,10] demonstrate enhanced academic performance in scientific disciplines when instructional methodologies prioritize these scientific process skills. Scholars like Bybee [11] delineate key scientific practices as: inquiring about natural phenomena, constructing scientific models, investigating, interpreting results, employing mathematical reasoning, developing explanations, substantiating arguments with evidence, and communicating findings. ...
Article
Full-text available
Skills in scientific processes are part of scientific literacy and constitute a very important component of science teaching. However, there are few studies that determine how key factors in scientific literacy change throughout the educational process. This research examines how familiarity and interest in science processes evolve throughout the education of future teachers. The study involved 200 students from different educational stages: 41 students from secondary education; 67 students from high school; 69 students from bachelor’s degree in education; and 23 students from the secondary education master’s program from different educational centers in the Valencian community. Data collection instruments included a validated closed-question questionnaire, as well as a discussion group with a representative group of students aimed at better understanding the quantitative data, thus combining quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis. Overall, it is observed that familiarity and interest in science processes improve throughout the educational stages. Based on these results, the need for a change in science education from an early age is suggested to improve students’ understanding and contextualization of science in their daily lives.
... Concepts in chemistry are better understood and appreciated if practical works are conducted in a well-equipped laboratory. It focuses more on student-centered teaching approach, which is more effective in the mastery of skills and deep understanding of concepts in science than the teachercentered approach (Granger et al. 2012). In the Philippines, the lack of science equipment and facilities (Marinas undated) has been a serious concern for public school teachers, particularly in rural areas. ...
Article
Distillation is an important concept in chemistry as it involves separation techniques which are widely used in various industries. However, despite its significance, it is hardly understood and appreciated because it is rarely performed in laboratory experiments. Distillation requires expensive apparatus to conduct which most schools cannot afford. Hence, an improvised convertible distillation apparatus for simple, fractional and steam distillation was developed using common household and recyclable materials. Improvised measuring devices were also fabricated to determine the purity of the distillates. The performance of improvised apparatus was assessed and compared with the standard apparatus using real samples. The improvised apparatus, using fractional distillation set-up, produced 91.3% alcohol from alcoholic beverage while the simple/steam distillation setup, yielded distilled water from the salt-water sample and essential oil from pomelo (Citrus maxima) peel with percentage yield of 0.56%, respectively. The improvised apparatus for fractional distillation yielded a higher alcohol content (x̅=91.3%; 95%CI=91.0, 91.6) than the standard apparatus (x̅=85.7%; 95%CI=85.3, 86.1) while the efficiency of separation of the improvised apparatus for simple/steam distillation was comparable with standard apparatus. Thus, the improvised apparatus offers a cheaper alternative for conducting distillation process in chemistry experiments. The cost of performing distillation process is further reduced by using improvised measuring devices to measure the purity of the distillates in lieu of chemicals and reagents. Aside from being cost-effective, the improvised apparatus is easy to construct, durable, user-friendly and safe to use.
... Furthermore, the psychosocial impact of medical conditions, such as human papillomavirus infections, highlights the interconnectedness of health and well-being with educational practices (Miyashita et al., 2009;Buenconsejo et al., 2019). Research on student engagement and learning outcomes in various educational settings has demonstrated the significance of deliberate reflection and student-centered instruction in promoting engagement and improving learning outcomes (Granger et al., 2012;Ribeiro et al., 2019;Foster & Carboni, 2008;Tadesse & Edo, 2020). Moreover, the role of passion and cognitive engagement in problem-solving and online learning has been identified as crucial factors in shaping the learning experiences of students (Kartinah & Prasetyowati, 2022;Chang, 2023). ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to examine students' perceptions of the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into educational settings as well as its impact on learning outcomes. Students are positive about their potential for personalized learning experiences and adaptive feedback despite limited exposure to AI-driven tools. An analysis of pre-test and post-test data demonstrates a significant improvement in academic performance, particularly among female students. Students should be educated about AI tools and receive enhanced training to be able to effectively use them in future educational initiatives. To address gender-based differences in intervention effectiveness, tailored approaches are necessary. Student engagement and fostering a conducive learning environment can be enhanced through continuous evaluation of AI-integrated programs. It highlights the potential of AI to revolutionize education, emphasizing the need for ongoing assessment and targeted support to ensure optimal implementation.
Article
Full-text available
The achievement gaps in science and the under-representation of minorities in science-related fields have long been a concern of the nation. This book examines the roots of this problem by providing a comprehensive, ‘state of the field’ analysis and synthesis of current research on science education for minority students. Research from a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives is brought to bear on the question of how and why our nation's schools have failed to provide equitable learning opportunities with all students in science education. From this wealth of investigative data, the authors propose a research agenda for the field of science education - identifying strengths and weaknesses in the literature to date as well as the most urgent priorities for those committed to the goals of equity and excellence in science education.
Article
Full-text available
Because teachers and students are to develop sound epistemological views of science (nature of science (NOS) and nature of scientific inquiry (NOS I)), assessments are needed to understand these views and how they develop. Much attention has focused on developing knowledge and pedagogical expertise in teaching NOS. The VNOS instrument has been paramount in advancing our understanding and needs of teachers and student s. Currently, we lack similar understanding about views and needs regarding NOSI. If teachers a re to teach about scientific inquiry, what is their knowledge base? What are students' views? How do we know if instruction is effective in advancing desired conceptions about what scientists do? In response to these questions, we have developed a valid, open-ended instrument that asses ses views of scientific inquiry (VOSI). The purpose of this paper is to describe the framework upon which the VOSI instrument is grounded, present a pool of items with rationale, describe ad ministration and analysis procedures, and describe typical responses we have received that pr ovide insights into views of NOSI.
Article
Full-text available
Summary Engagement The teacher or a curriculum task accesses the learners' prior knowledge and helps them become engaged in a new concept through the use of short activities that promote curiosity and elicit prior knowledge. The activity should make connections between past and present learning experiences, expose prior conceptions, and organize students' thinking toward the learning outcomes of current activities. Exploration Exploration experiences provide students with a common base of activities within which current concepts (i.e., misconceptions), processes, and skills are identified and conceptual change is facilitated. Learners may complete lab activities that help them use prior knowledge to generate new ideas, explore questions and possibilities, and design and conduct a preliminary investigation. Explanation The explanation phase focuses students' attention on a particular aspect of their engagement and exploration experiences and provides opportunities to demonstrate their conceptual understanding, process skills, or behaviors. This phase also provides opportunities for teachers to directly introduce a concept, process, or skill. Learners explain their understanding of the concept. An explanation from the teacher or the curriculum may guide them toward a deeper understanding, which is a critical part of this phase. Elaboration Teachers challenge and extend students' conceptual understanding and skills. Through new experiences, the students develop deeper and broader understanding, more information, and adequate skills. Students apply their understanding of the concept by conducting additional activities. Evaluation The evaluation phase encourages students to assess their understanding and abilities and provides opportunities for teachers to evaluate student progress toward achieving the educational objectives. Since the late 1980s this instructional model has been used in the design of BSCS curriculum materials. The model describes a teaching sequence that can be used for entire programs, specific units, and individual lessons. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model plays a significant role in the curriculum development process as well as the enactment of curricular materials in science classrooms.
Article
Comparisons of student achievement effect sizes suggest that systems in which student performance in math and reading is rapidly assessed between 2 and 5 times per week are 4 times as effective as a 10% increase in per pupil expenditure, 6 times as effective as voucher programs, 64 times as effective as charter schools, and 6 times as effective as increased accountability. Achievement gains per dollar from rapid assessment are even greater—193 times the gains that accrue from increasing preexisting patterns of educational expenditures, 2,424 times the gains from vouchers, 23,166 times the gains from charter schools, and 57 times the gains from increased accountability. Two sensitivity analyses suggest that the relative advantage for rapid assessment is not sensitive to the particular parameter estimates.
Article
This article, based on a 3 year study in East Anglian schools, draws on a range of evidence pointing to different attitudes of girls and boys to General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) work. Suggestions are made to account for these differences, with particular emphasis being placed on peer pressure, image and social groupings. Although these are relevant to both sexes, it was found to be more acceptable for girls to work hard and still be part of the ‘in crowd’, whilst boys were under greater pressure to conform to a ‘cool’, masculine image, and were more likely to be ridiculed for working hard. The article concludes by suggesting that one approach to closing the current gender gap may be to enable boys in school to move beyond the stereotypical image of the macho male.