Advertisement

Do Teachers’ Instructional Practices Moderate Equity in Mathematical and Scientific Literacy?: an Investigation of the PISA 2012 and 2015

  • Jihyun Hwang
  • Kyong Mi Choi
  • Yejun Bae
  • Dong Hoon Shin
Article

Abstract

Many efforts have been made to reach educational equity, especially to reduce mathematics and science achievement gaps by students’ socioeconomic status. Across countries, educators strive to reform traditional teacher-centered instructional approaches to more student-centered/inquiry-based instruction to improve equity in education. In this context, this study examines whether relationships between socioeconomic status and scientific or mathematical literacy are moderated by student-centered instruction. Ten countries covering a wide range of achievement levels as well as equity in education are selected for an international comparison. A linear regression analysis is applied to student achievement, equity, and frequency of student-centered instruction data from the PISA 2012 and PISA 2015. We find mixed results: As student-centered instruction is offered more frequently, the gap in mathematical and scientific literacy between low and high socioeconomic status is generally narrowed or maintained. In most countries, students’ mathematical and scientific literacy scores are expected to decrease across all socioeconomic status as student-centered instruction is given more frequently. The findings necessitate further scrutiny of how teachers implement student-centered instruction in various educational systems. This further research need to consider the complexity of implementation related to sociological and pedagogical aspects.

Keywords

Equity in mathematics and science education Inquiry-based instruction International comparison study PISA Student-centered instruction 

References

  1. Acar, O. (2015). Examination of science learning equity through argumentation and traditional instruction noting differences in socio-economic status. Science Education International, 26(1), 24–41.Google Scholar
  2. Akkus, R., Gunel, M., & Hand, B. (2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Library Association (2014). Equality and equity of access: What’s the difference. Retrieved April, 25, 2014 from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/equalityequity.
  4. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Artigue, M. l., & Blomhøj, M. (2013). Conceptualizing inquiry-based education in mathematics. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 797–810.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0506-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(8), 821–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atwater, M. M. (2000). Equity for Black Americans in precollege science. Science Education, 84(2), 154–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, and scientific argumentation: Science talk in bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11(1), 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500789708666715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Barba, R. H. (1995). Science in the multicultural classroom: A guide to teaching and learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  11. Bos, K., & Kuiper, W. (1999). Modelling TIMSS data in a European comparative perspective: Exploring influencing factors on achievement in mathematics in grade 8. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(2), 157–179.  https://doi.org/10.1076/edre.5.2.157.6946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bulkley, K. E. (2013). Conceptions of equity: How influential actors view a contested concept. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 10–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2013.752309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavagnetto, A. R., & Hand, B. (2012). The importance of embedding argument within science classrooms. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 39–53). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Unequal opportunity: Race and education. The Brookings Review, 16(2), 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foy, P., Brossman, B., & Galia, J. (Eds.). (2012). Scaling the TIMSS and PIRLS 2011 achievement data. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College and International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).Google Scholar
  18. Fraser, B. (2015). Encyclopedia of science education. In R. Gunstone (Ed.), Classroom learning environments (pp. 154–157). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1998). Cultural contexts of schooling revisited: A review of “the learning gap” from a cultural psychology perspective. In S. G. Paris & H. M. Wellman (Eds.), Global prospects for education: Development, culture, and schooling (pp. 79–104). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heckman, J. J. (2011). The economics of inequality: The value of early childhood education. American Educator, 35(1), 31–35.Google Scholar
  21. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 613–645.  https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Laukaityte, I., & Wiberg, M. (2017). Using plausible values in secondary analysis in large-scale assessments. Communications in Statistics - Theory and Methods, 46(22), 11341–11357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610926.2016.1267764.
  24. Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, O., & Luykx, A. (2007). Science education and student diversity: Race/ethnicity, language, culture, and socioeconomic status. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 1, pp. 171–197). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70(2), 128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lefstein, A. (2008). Changing classroom practice through the English National Literacy Strategy: A micro-interactional perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 701–737.  https://doi.org/10.3102/000283120831625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loughran, J. (1994). Bridging the gap: An analysis of the needs of second-year science teachers. Science Education, 78(4), 365–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690121307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lynch, S. J. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Maaß, K., & Artigue, M. l. (2013). Implementation of inquiry-based learning in day-to-day teaching: A synthesis. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45, 779–795.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-013-0528-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maerten-Rivera, J., Ahn, S., Lanier, K., Diaz, J., & Lee, O. (2016). Effect of a multiyear intervention on science achievement of all students including English language learners. Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 600–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Marshall, J. C. (2009). The creation, validation, and reliability associated with the EQUIP (Electronic Quality of Inquiry Protocol): A measure of inquiry-based instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of National Association of Researchers of Science Teaching (NARST), Garden Grove, CA.Google Scholar
  34. Magnusson, S., & Palincsar, A. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary school level. In J. Bransford & S. Donovan (Eds.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 421–474). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/10126.
  35. Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Record, 111(2), 295–338.Google Scholar
  36. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.  https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mercer, N. (2008). Changing our minds: A commentary on ‘conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education’. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(2), 351-362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mistler-Jackson, M., & Songer, N. B. (2000). Student motivation and internet technology: Are students empowered to learn science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M. M., & Maczuga, S. (2009). Risk factors for learning-related behavior problems at 24 months of age: Population-based estimates. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(3), 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Research Council [NRC]. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. Newman Jr., W. J., Abell, S. K., Hubbard, P. D., McDonald, J., Otaala, J., & Martini, M. (2004). Dilemmas of teaching inquiry in elementary science methods. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 15(4), 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  43. OECD. (2009). Highlights from ‘education at a glance 2008’. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background–equity in learning opportunities and outcomes (Vol. 2). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091504-en.Google Scholar
  45. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity giving every student the chance to succeed (Vol. 2). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  47. OECD. (2016a). PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic and Financial Literacy. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD. (2016b). PISA 2015 results in focus. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. OECD. (2016c). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  50. OECD. (2016d). PISA 2015 results (volume II): Policies and practices for successful schools. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  51. OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 technical report. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. OECD. (2008). Ten steps to equity in education. Paris, France: OECD Policy Brief. Retrieved November 3, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/39989494.pdf.
  53. Richardson, T. (1996). Foucauldian discourse: Power and truth in urban and regional policy making. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Busting open the meritocracy myth: Rethinking equity and student achievement in science education. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4(2–3), 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Roth, W. M. (1996). Teacher questioning in an open-inquiry learning environment: Interactions of context, content, and student responses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(7), 709–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schütz, G., West, M. R., & Wöbmann, L. (2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the equity of student achievement international evidence from PISA 2003 (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 14). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/246374511832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Townley, B. (1993). Foucault, power/knowledge, and its relevance for human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 18(3), 518–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. von Secker, C. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151–160.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yore, L., Bisanz, G. L., & Hand, B. M. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations