Empirical; Contextual Research Strand; Title: Elementary Science Specialists and Classroom Generalists: Are There Differences in Science Instruction, Student Achievement, and Cost?

AbstractIntellectual MeritThis proposal侧重于科学教学在小学阶段，很少有研究存在有效的模式，科学教学。 本研究的目标是确定在何种程度上有意义的差异，在数量和质量的科学教学提供的通才，专家，或混合模型的课堂教学;教学差异是否与学生的成绩;以及哪种模式是最具成本效益的基础上的财政和人力资源。 这项研究将针对波士顿公立学区42所学校的80名四年级和五年级学生的教师。 马萨诸塞州科学技术工程课程框架中的指导原则将作为高质量科学教学的操作定义和指导课堂观察的理论框架。有和没有雇用理科专家的学校有什么特点？ 科学专家和课堂通才的特征是什么？2.科学专家、课堂通才和专家/通才的组合提供的科学教学质量有何不同？科学专家，课堂通才和专家/通才的组合提供的科学教学的数量有何不同？3.如果教学模式之间存在差异，在何种程度上和以何种方式与学生的学习？4.与每种模式相关的财务和人力资源成本是多少？将采用混合方法，通过调查、三次面对面访谈和三次课堂观察收集数据。 数据将在2.5年的时间内从校长和教师那里收集。 调查工具和协议是由地平线研究公司开发的，并将进行修改以满足本研究的特定需求。 来自马萨诸塞州综合评估系统、该州的评估工具和基于工具包的测试的四年级和五年级学生考试成绩将被用来确定不同模式对学生成绩的影响。 该研究包括一种经过深思熟虑的方法，用于使用一系列定量和定性方法（例如一般描述性统计，分层线性建模，逻辑回归模型，单向MANOVA估计，编码和编码方案以及atlas.it）分析数据。 更广泛的影响本研究的更广泛的影响在于结果对地区决策者的意义和重要性。 虽然在美国，只有不到30%的小学生除了常规的课堂教师外，还接受专家或科学专家的科学指导，但很少有研究描述这种方法对科学教学和学生成绩的影响。 通过这项研究可能解决的基本问题包括三种模式（通才，专家，或混合）是更好的教学和学习科学，在什么成本。 这些信息将有助于决策者在小学阶段做出更好的科学教育决策。 将通过与决策者相关的多种渠道和途径，向主要教育利益攸关方传播经验教训。因此，该项目增加了在这一领域的有限的研究，推进科学教学的知识，突出了对学生成绩的影响，揭示了成本效益，并提供了一个工具，在小学水平的科学教学测量。

AbstractIntellectual MeritThis proposal focuses on science instruction at the elementary level where few research studies exist about effective models for teaching science. The goal of this study is to determine the degree to which there are meaningful differences in the quantity and quality of science instruction provided by a generalist, specialist, or blended model for classroom instruction; whether differences in instruction are associated with student outcomes; and which model is the most cost-effective based on financial and human resources. The study will target 80 teachers of fourth and fifth grade students in 42 schools in the Boston Public School District. The guiding principles detailed in the Massachusetts Science and Technology Engineering Curriculum Framework will serve as the operating definition of high-quality science instruction and the theoretical framework to guide classroom observations.The four research questions that will guide this study include:1. What are the characteristics of schools that do and do not employ science specialists? What are the characteristics of science specialists and classroom generalists? 2. How does the quality of science instruction provided by a science specialist, a classroom generalist, and a combination of specialist/generalist differ? How does the quantity of science instruction provided by a science specialist, a classroom generalist, and a combination of specialist/generalist differ?3. If differences in instruction exist between the models, to what extent and in what ways are they associated with student learning?4. What are the financial and human-resource costs associated with each model?A mixed methods approach will be used to collect data through surveys, three face-to face interviews and three classroom observations. Data will be collected from both principals and teachers over a 2.5 year period. The survey instruments and protocols were developed by Horizon Research, Inc., and will be modified to meet the specific needs of this study. Fourth and fifth grade student test scores from the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System, the state's assessment instrument, and kit-based tests will be used to determine the impact of the different models on student achievement. The study includes a well thought-out approach for analyzing data using an array of quantitative and qualitative methods (e.g. general descriptive statistics, hierarchical linear modeling, logistic regression models, one-way MANOVA estimations, coding and coding schemes, and atlas.it). Broader ImpactsThe boarder impacts of this study reside in the significance and importance of results to district policymakers. While less that 30% of elementary students in the United States receive science instruction from specialists or a science specialist in addition to their regular classroom teachers, few studies exist that describe the effect of this approach on science teaching and student achievement. The fundamental issue that might be resolved through this study include which of three models (generalist, specialist, or blended) is the better one for teaching and learning science and at what cost. This information will help policymakers make better decisions about science instruction at the elementary level. Ways to disseminate lessons-learned to key education stakeholders will be distributed through multiple channels and pathways relevant to policymakers. Thus, this project adds to the limited research in this area, advances knowledge about science instruction, highlights the impact on student achievement, sheds light on cost effectiveness, and provides a tool for measuring science instruction at the elementary level.