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
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 (this information is current as of
The following resources related to this article are available online at
version of this article at: including high-resolution figures, can be found in the onlineUpdated information and services,
can be found at: Supporting Online Material
, 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
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
7. P. G. Okubo, J. H. Dieterich, Geophys. Res. Lett. 8, 887
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
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
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
Materials and Methods
Supplementary Text
Figs. S1 to S10
Tables S1 to S4
References (2236)
28 February 2012; accepted 14 August 2012
The Efficacy of Student-Centered
Instruction in Supporting
Science Learning
E. M. Granger,
*T. H. Bevis,
Y. Saka,
S. A. Southerland,
V. Sampson,
R. L. Tate
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).
Office of Science Teaching Activities, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, FL 323064295, USA.
lent Ecevit Üniversitesi
Ereğli Eğitim Fakültesi, Turkey.
FSU-Teach/School of Teacher
Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 323064459,
Educational Evaluation and Research, Florida State Uni-
versity (retired), 415 Castleton Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32312, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed: E-mail: SCIENCE VOL 338 5 OCTOBER 2012 105
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
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
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
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
- 0.067 (NS)
TSE p re TSE p os t
ME p re ME p os t CK post
CK pre
5 OCTOBER 2012 VOL 338 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org106
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
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
VOSI postME post
ME pre
VOSI pre
0.584* SCIENCE VOL 338 5 OCTOBER 2012 107
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-
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,
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
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
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,
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
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
Supplementary Materials
Materials and Methods
Fig. S1
Tables S1 and S2
References (2937)
Student Data Archive
23 April 2012; accepted 16 August 2012
Wnt5a Potentiates TGF-bSignaling
to Promote Colonic Crypt Regeneration
After Tissue Injury
Hiroyuki Miyoshi,
Rieko Ajima,
*Christine T. Luo,
Terry P. Yamaguchi,
Thaddeus S. Stappenbeck
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
on October 5, 2012www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
... In the context of interactive classrooms, dialogic pedagogy as an approach increases learner engagement and classroom interactions, which enables teachers to value learners' voices and promotes reflective learning (Lyle, 2008). Empirical studies and theoretical summaries on dialogic teaching and learning, dialogic interactions, and dialogic classroom have shown significant impacts on fostering students' engagement in learning and teaching practice (Granger et al., 2012;Haneda, 2016;Lyle, 2008;Mercer & Littleton, 2007). ...
... However, systematic research by Howe and Abedin (2013) on classroom dialogue indicates that classroom dialogues are mainly teacher-student interactions around traditional information-response-feedback, and pedagogic teaching style is also the major factor in determining the student participation and dialogic patterns of group work activities. Other studies on different forms of dialogue such as student-teacher interactions emphasised students' learning through lectures, textbooks, and classroom activities (Granger et al., 2012), and Gillies (2016Gillies ( , 2019 highlights the teacher's role in dialogic teaching, which can be used to develop students' learning proficiency. In scaffolding children's learning and understanding processes, Rojas-Drummond et al. (2013) analysed the dialogic interactions among teachers and students for comprehending teaching and learning in classroom settings. ...
Full-text available
The study aims to explore students’ learning in the vocational classroom learning environment and the teaching practices of vocation-oriented subjects in Chinese higher vocational institutions. Based on sixty lesson observations, four selected videotaped lessons were used to conduct in-depth dialogic interaction analysis of teacher-led (the teacher to students), student-led (students to the teacher), students to students, and students to the course content according to ICALT and CETIT dimensions of effective teaching. Vocational collaborative learning and adaptive instructions were analysed through the in-class activities of the learning processes that students were engaged in within the classroom. Findings suggest that dialogic teaching in classrooms enhanced practical understanding in specialised vocational subjects and students’ learning engagement, for example, classroom practices such as small group teaching of vocational skills and lesson activities connected to work-related learning situations. The study also reveals that a built-in flexible teaching arrangement stimulates vocational students’ involvement in collaborative learning and promotes interactions between students’ classroom-based training activities. The study implies that effective dialogic classroom learning environments should integrate vocational students’ career learning and work-based instructions.
... After all, effectiveness studies become difficult without a clear consensus on definitions and shared as well as different characteristics, as the risk for comparing apples and oranges becomes substantial. Given additional, more methodological issues associated with effectiveness research (e.g., lack of control group and lack of information on fidelity to the instructional approach; Granger et al., 2012), providing conceptual clarity seems to be a first step in the desired direction. ...
... Although this chapter dealt with the conceptualizations of student-centered instruction, an inevitable follow-up question is how effective these methods are in fostering learning. The majority of studies deal with experiences of teachers and students with these methods, while there is a paucity of controlled effect studies (Granger et al., 2012;Loyens et al., 2012). Effect studies should not serve the sole purpose of answering questions such as "Which method is better than the other?"; ...
The present chapter provides conceptual clarity on four different student-centered approaches commonly found in the research literature. Inquiry-based learning, problem-based learning, project-based learning, and case-based learning are successively discussed. Each of the instructional approaches is discussed in the light of the factors that Barrows (1986) put forward: 1) the design of the problem, project, case, question, 2) the level of student/teacher centeredness, and 3) the sequence in which information is acquired. In addition, Team-based and Challenge-based learning are briefly touched upon. Finally, directions for future research are discussed.
... As Schultz [6] puts it, "Achieving a sustainable lifestyle depends on establishing a balance between the consumption of individuals, and the capacity of the natural environment for renewal" (p. 61). Political measures such as prohibitions, taxes, or penalties alone are insufficient for creating commitment for sustainability and environmental protection [5]. ...
... A recent review of research on nature-based education concludes that there is strong empirical evidence that nature-based instruction is more effective than traditional classroom instruction [59]. However, even in classroom settings, traditional teaching approaches based on teachercentered direct instruction have also shown to fall behind student-centered, hands-on learning (e.g., [60,61]). Kuo et al. ([59], p. 5) claim that "the frequency of positive findings on nature-based instruction likely reflects the combination of a better pedagogy and a better educational setting". ...
... Findings persisting across diverse study designs strengthen the case for causality NBI may be more effective than TI not just because of a focus on nature, but because of differences in setting and pedagogy Previous reviews drew only upon studies examining the effects of nature-centered instruction on learning. In this review, we expanded our reach to include studies on the pedagogies associated with NBI-even where nature was not involved; specifically, educational psychologists working in the classroom have found that active, hands-on,student-centered, and collaborative forms of instruction outperform more traditional instructional approaches (Freeman et al., 2014;Granger et al., 2012;Kontra et al., 2015). Similarly, this review included studies examining the impacts of learning environments even when the settings were incidental to instruction; specifically, environmental psychologists have found better learning in 'greener' settings-even when the instruction does not incorporate the nature (Benfield et al., 2015;. ...
... Interestingly, both the pedagogy and setting of nature-based instruction may contribute to its effects. Hands-on, student-centered, activity-and discussion-based instruction are often, although not necessarily, used in nature-based instructionand each of these pedagogical approaches has been found to outperform traditional instruction even when conducted indoors (Freeman et al., 2014;Granger et al., 2012;Kontra et al., 2015). And simply conducting traditional instruction in a more natural setting may boost outcomes. ...
Full-text available
Do experiences with nature—from wilderness backpacking, to plants in a preschool, to a wetland lesson on frogs, promote learning? Until recently, claims outstripped evidence on this question. But the field has matured, not only substantiating previously unwarranted claims but also deepening our understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between nature and learning. Hundreds of studies now bear on this question, and converging evidence strongly suggests that experiences of nature boost academic learning, personal development, and environmental stewardship. This brief integrative review summarizes recent advances and the current state of our understanding. The research on personal development and environmental stewardship is compelling although not quantitative. Report after report—from independent observers as well as participants themselves—indicate shifts in perseverance, problem solving, critical thinking, leadership, teamwork, and resilience after time in nature. Similarly, over fifty studies point to nature playing a key role in the development of pro-environmental behavior, particularly by fostering an emotional connection to nature. In academic contexts, nature-based instruction outperforms traditional instruction. The evidence here is particularly strong, including experimental evidence; evidence across a wide range of samples and instructional approaches; outcomes such as standardized test scores and graduation rates; and evidence for specific explanatory mechanisms and ‘active ingredients’. Nature may promote learning by improving learners’ attention, levels of stress, self-discipline, interest and enjoyment in learning, and physical activity and fitness. Nature also appears to provide a calmer, quieter, safer context for learning; a warmer, more cooperative context for learning; and a combination of “loose parts” and autonomy that fosters developmentally beneficial forms of play. It is time to take nature seriously as a resource for learning—particularly for students not effectively reached by traditional instruction.
... Findings persisting across diverse study designs strengthen the case for causality NBI may be more effective than TI not just because of a focus on nature, but because of differences in setting and pedagogy Previous reviews drew only upon studies examining the effects of nature-centered instruction on learning. In this review, we expanded our reach to include studies on the pedagogies associated with NBI-even where nature was not involved; specifically, educational psychologists working in the classroom have found that active, hands-on,student-centered, and collaborative forms of instruction outperform more traditional instructional approaches (Freeman et al., 2014;Granger et al., 2012;Kontra et al., 2015). Similarly, this review included studies examining the impacts of learning environments even when the settings were incidental to instruction; specifically, environmental psychologists have found better learning in 'greener' settings-even when the instruction does not incorporate the nature (Benfield et al., 2015;. ...
... Interestingly, both the pedagogy and setting of nature-based instruction may contribute to its effects. Hands-on, student-centered, activity-and discussion-based instruction are often, although not necessarily, used in nature-based instructionand each of these pedagogical approaches has been found to outperform traditional instruction even when conducted indoors (Freeman et al., 2014;Granger et al., 2012;Kontra et al., 2015). And simply conducting traditional instruction in a more natural setting may boost outcomes. ...
Full-text available
In a Danish context regular (weekly or biweekly) education outside the classroom (EOtC), school-based outdoor learning or learning outside the classroom (LOtC) is called udeskole and aims to enhance both health and education. The purpose of this chapter is to present two Danish research projects; the Søndermark School and TEACHOUT studies. It highlights the impact and potentials of physical activity (PA) in primary school based on results from pupils (grade 3–6 grade—year 9–12), taught weekly outside the classroom and school buildings. The chapter summarises how teaching in nature, green areas or using cultural institutions like museums, factories, cemeteries etc. has an impact on PA levels. The Søndermark School study in Copenhagen investigated whether udeskole in urban nature or cultural institutions helps to increase children’s PA in four classes. 44 girls and 40 boys (grade 4–6) participated in this study, where the PA was measured for seven consecutive days. For all 84 pupils, the average PA was significantly higher on udeskole days compared to traditional school days without PE lessons. The average PA levels among boys were significantly higher than among girls in all mentioned settings, except on days with PE lessons, where both sexes’ PA levels were equal. As part of the TEACHOUT research project, PA of 663 children was measured 24 h a day for 9–10 consecutive days. Udeskole classes were compared with control classes, i.e. their parallel classes, from 12 schools located in different parts of Denmark, in a quasi-experimental design. A gender comparison was made on a weekly basis, i.e. days with more than 150 min of udeskole were compared with traditional school days and days with physical education (PE) classes. Measured over a whole week, boys having udeskole were more physically active than boys in control classes and girls in both settings. No difference was found between girls in udeskole and the comparison classes during a week, but girls on udeskole days were associated with a greater proportion of PA at light intensity than on traditional school days and days with PE lessons. In general, the children were far less sedentary during udeskole compared to traditional classroom teaching.
... Findings persisting across diverse study designs strengthen the case for causality NBI may be more effective than TI not just because of a focus on nature, but because of differences in setting and pedagogy Previous reviews drew only upon studies examining the effects of nature-centered instruction on learning. In this review, we expanded our reach to include studies on the pedagogies associated with NBI-even where nature was not involved; specifically, educational psychologists working in the classroom have found that active, hands-on,student-centered, and collaborative forms of instruction outperform more traditional instructional approaches (Freeman et al., 2014;Granger et al., 2012;Kontra et al., 2015). Similarly, this review included studies examining the impacts of learning environments even when the settings were incidental to instruction; specifically, environmental psychologists have found better learning in 'greener' settings-even when the instruction does not incorporate the nature (Benfield et al., 2015;. ...
... Interestingly, both the pedagogy and setting of nature-based instruction may contribute to its effects. Hands-on, student-centered, activity-and discussion-based instruction are often, although not necessarily, used in nature-based instructionand each of these pedagogical approaches has been found to outperform traditional instruction even when conducted indoors (Freeman et al., 2014;Granger et al., 2012;Kontra et al., 2015). And simply conducting traditional instruction in a more natural setting may boost outcomes. ...
Full-text available
This chapter presents the five-year national research and development project ‘Enabling outdoor-based teaching’ (EOT), focusing on the actual integration and practice of outdoor teaching in teacher education in Switzerland. Teachers’ own outdoor learning experiences are an essential condition for practicing outdoor teaching, as professional life history is a major factor influencing teachers’ decisions on whether and how to implement outdoor sequences in their teaching. There is a current trend for professional development in outdoor education, yet the majority of teachers, experienced and novice, use it rarely. Positive effects of outdoor learning on children’s skill development are widely confirmed by research.While the number of case studies that describe and analyze aspects of outdoor teaching increases, the importance of it for Swiss teacher education is still unknown. Documenting the practice of outdoor teaching and investigating the attitudes of pre-service teachers and teacher educators towards outdoor teaching provide a basis for deeper knowledge on its essence, methods and practice. Furthermore, results from the project can be transferred directly into the practice of participating universities and lead to recommendations on the holistic integration of outdoor learning and teaching in teacher education.
... 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. ...
The Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 has increased emphasis on learning using projects and group work to support 21 st century education goals in Malaysian secondary schools. In response to that, the current lower secondary science textbooks following the Integrated Curriculum for Secondary School (KSSM) have been revamped to include a majority of learning activities in the form of projects and group works. Since these activities are collaborative in nature, this study explores teachers' views in conducting science projects and group works using the collaborative learning approach. Twelve teachers teaching lower secondary science subject in Malaysian national schools were interviewed using a semi-structured interview protocol and their responses were analysed using the conventions of thematic analysis. Findings include revelations on teachers' understanding of collaborative learning, why teachers prefer collaborative learning activities for the lower secondary level, and classroom and instructional challenges in this matter. Recommendations have been made to better support teachers to deliver 21st century science education goals at the school level in similar contexts.
... This is a similar scenario with DepEd Samar Division, although the division has no NAT results in the last three years their Mean Percentage Score although above passing percentage which of 75%, their MPS are relatively at low mastery level. It was 74.24 for the 2017-2018 academic year, 77.14 for the 2018-2019 academic year, and 79.11 for the 2019-2020 academic year (DepEd Samar, 2020).There is a need to make Science learning more engaging through student-centered instructions (Granger et al., 2012). ...
Full-text available
Although the integration of field-based instruction was a successful teaching method for increasing students' knowledge of the subject, few practitioners use it as a method for the science teaching and learning process due to the dearth of studies demonstrating its efficacy. With this, the study aimed to utilize field-based laboratory instruction (FBLI) to increase the students' performance in science, especially in force, motion, and energy. The study used a descriptive, quasi-experimental research design supported by a phenomenological and narrative research method to enable the description of the performances of the student-respondents before and after exposure to Field-Based Laboratory Instruction (FBLI) in teaching physics concepts. Before being exposed to the FBLI, the mean percentages of students were 69.30; SD = 2.24, indicating that they did not meet expectations in the areas of force, motion, and energy. However, upon utilizing FBLI, there is an increase in the mean performance of students that is fairly satisfactory. Results implied that there was a shift in performance with the use of FBLI. The FBLI is a useful tool to help improve the performance of students and provides learning through conducting actual or concrete activities. It is suited to junior high school learners because it was good and enjoyable. Further, getting involved in the activities aligned with FBLI makes students excited to learn new things in a unique way. A well-planned lesson is necessary to deliver meaningful experiences using FBLI, from the preparation of instructional materials and classroom management up to the precautionary measures to be considered in conducting field instruction.
Full-text available
Secondary (grades 6th-12th), mathematics and science teachers participated in a two-year inquiry-based professional development (PD) program focused on inquiry-based instruction. This study draws from surveys and classroom observations to assess potential changes in teacher beliefs (Teaching Philosophy, Openness to Change, Job Satisfaction, Professional Commitment, and Inquiry) and instructional practices using the electronic quality of inquiry protocol (EQUIP). Results of a one-way repeated-measures ANOVA found significant increases in participating teachers’ Teaching Philosophy, Openness to Change, Confidence toward Inquiry, and Intentions toward Inquiry. Findings also indicate significant changes in teachers’ instructional practice with teachers participating in the PD implementing higher levels of inquiry instruction in their classroom. Finally, a two-way repeated-measures ANOVA found statistically significant differences in participating teachers’ Teaching Philosophy, Openness to Change, Confidence toward Inquiry, and Intentions toward Inquiry when evaluated with a comparison group of teachers. Overall, results indicate changes in teachers’ beliefs and use of inquiry in their classroom due to their participation in the PD.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.