IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/vjerxx/v111y2018i1p108-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A mixed methods comparison of teachers' lunar modeling lesson implementation and student learning outcomes

Author

Listed:
  • Mary F. Lamar
  • Jennifer Anne Wilhelm
  • Merryn Cole

Abstract

The authors compare three teachers' adaptations and implementation of a lunar modeling lesson to explain marked differences in student learning outcomes on a spatial-scientific lunar assessment. They used a modified version of the Practices of Science Observation Protocol (P-SOP; Forbes, Biggers, & Zangori, 2013) to identify ways in which features of inquiry were emphasized in each classroom. Additionally, classroom communities of practice were categorized as task-based or practice-based (Riel & Polin, 2004). The authors found that student learning outcomes were related to the fidelity with which the teachers implemented the lesson. Teachers with higher P-SOP scores fostered more of a practice-based learning community than task-based one, which also paralleled greater student learning gains. Although the students' scores did not differ by teacher on the preassessment, they did differ significantly on the postassessment, indicating that the curricular choices and learning communities developed by the teachers impacted what students were able to learn.

Suggested Citation

  • Mary F. Lamar & Jennifer Anne Wilhelm & Merryn Cole, 2018. "A mixed methods comparison of teachers' lunar modeling lesson implementation and student learning outcomes," The Journal of Educational Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 111(1), pages 108-123, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:vjerxx:v:111:y:2018:i:1:p:108-123
    DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2016.1220356
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220356
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220671.2016.1220356?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:vjerxx:v:111:y:2018:i:1:p:108-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/vjer20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.