Advertisement

Efficacy of Two Different Instructional Methods Involving Complex Ecological Content

  • Christoph RandlerEmail author
  • Franz X. Bogner
Article

Abstract

Teaching and learning approaches in ecology very often follow linear conceptions of ecosystems. Empirical studies with an ecological focus consistent with existing syllabi and focusing on cognitive achievement are scarce. Consequently, we concentrated on a classroom unit that offers learning materials and highlights the existing complexity rather than following linear conceptions. We developed an educational unit consisting of 14 individual lessons (”ecosystem lake”) with the aim of increasing pupils’ cognitive achievement in 8th and 9th grade secondary schools. To evaluate our approach, we chose a quasi-experimental design and five teachers with ten classes participated in our study. A matched-pair tandem-design was provided by five German teachers using first his/her conventional approach in one class (instruction-1; control group) and second, our modern ecological approach in their second class (instruction-2). Pupils subjected to the latter performed better, i.e., achieved higher scores, especially in the delayed post-test. Further, we found a teacher effect and an interaction between treatment (i.e., whether treatment or control class) and the teacher regarding the class test. Teachers had a significant influence on the learning outcome irrespective of the educational unit, i.e., some teachers generally produced higher achievement than others. Further, the interaction showed that some teachers coped better with their traditional teaching. Nevertheless, in retention (delayed post-test) all classes of the modern approach scored higher than the traditionally taught ones. Boys and girls benefited equally from our program and pupils from the modern approach rated the educational unit better.

Figure 1

Overview over the educational unit “ecosystem lake”

Key words

biology education ecological niche concept ecosystem gender group-based learning hands-on science role play simulation game 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, P.A., Jetton, T.L. & Kulikowich, J.M. (1995). Interrelationship of knowledge, interest and recall: assessing a model of domain learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey, S. & Watson, R. (1998). Establishing basic ecological understanding in younger pupils: a pilot evaluation of a strategy based on drama/role play. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berck, K.-H. (1999). Biologiedidaktik. Didactics of Biology. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
  4. Bleicher, M., Fix, M., Fuß, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Laukenmann, M., Mayring, P., Melenk, H. & v. Rhöneck, C. (2001). Einfluss emotionaler Faktoren auf das Lernen in den Fächern Physik und Deutsch - erste Ergebnisse des Forschungsprojektes. Influence of emotional factors on learning in physics and German language - first results of the research project. In: Schnaitmann, G.W. & Finkbeiner, C. (Hrsg.), Lehren und Lernen im Kontext empirischer Forschung und Fachdidaktik (pp. 518–546). Donauwörth: Auer.Google Scholar
  5. Bohl, T. (2001). Wie verbreitet sind offene Unterrichtsmethoden? How common are modern forms of instruction? Pädagogische Rundschau, 55, 217–287.Google Scholar
  6. Bogner, F. (1998). The influence of short-term outdoor ecology education on long-term variables of environmental perspectives. Journal of Environmental Education, 29, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding 2: transformation - a key to ecological understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 701–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clarke, G.M. (1969). Statistics and experimental design. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  9. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press. 3.ed.Google Scholar
  10. Duckworth, A.L. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2005). Self-Discipline outdoes IQ in predicting academic performance of adolescents. Psychological Science, 16, 939–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einsiedler, W. & Treinies, G. (1997). Effects of teaching methods, class effects, and patterns of cognitive teacher-pupil interactions in an experimental study in primary school classes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8, 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finke, E. (1998). Interesse an Humanbiologie und Umweltschutz in der Sekundarstufe I: empirische Untersuchung zu altersbezogenen Veränderungen und Anregungsfaktoren. Interest in human biology and environmental protection in secondary schools: empirical study of age-related changes. Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  13. Fraser, B.J., Walberg, H.J., Welch, W.W. & Hattie, J.A. (1987). Synthesis of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giaconia, R.M. & Hedges, L.V. (1982). Identifying features of open education. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. Gläser-Zikuda, M., Fuß, S., Laukenmann, M., Metz, K. & Randler, C. (2005). Promoting students‘ emotions and achievement - Instructional design and evaluation of the ECOLE approach. Learning and Instruction, 15, 481–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gribbons, B. & Herman, J. (1997). True and quasi-experimental designs. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 5(14), http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=5&n=14. ISSN: 1531–7714.
  17. Guzzetti, B.J. (1993). Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 117–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedges, L.V., Giaconia, R.M. & Gage, N.L. (1981). Meta-analysis of the effect of open and traditional instruction. Stanford University programme on teaching effectiveness. Stanford University: California.Google Scholar
  19. Hidi, S. & Renninger, A.K. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffmann, L. (2002). Promoting girls‘ interest and achievement in physics classes for beginners. Learning and Instruction, 12, 447–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hoffmann, L. & Lehrke, M. (1986). Eine Untersuchung über Schülerinteresse an Physik und Technik. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 32, 189–204.Google Scholar
  22. Johnson, M.A. & Lawson, A.E. (1998). What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeves, J.P. (1998). Methods and processes in research in science education. In: Fraser, J.B. & Tobin, K.G. (Ed.). International handbook of Science education. Part II. Kluwer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Kelly, A. (1988). The customer is always right girls’ and boys’ reactions to science lessons. School Science Review, 69, 662–676.Google Scholar
  25. Kelly, G.J., Brown, C. & Crawford, T. (2000). Experiments, contingencies, and curriculum: Providing opportunities for learning through improvisation in science teaching. Journal of Science Education, 84, 624–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Killermann, W. (1996). Biology education in Germany: research into the effectiveness of different methods. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Killermann, W. & Rieger, W. (1996). Unterricht mit Video oder Mikroskop? Vergleichende empirische Untersuchungen zur Effizienz dieser Verfahren. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 2, 15–20.Google Scholar
  28. Laukenmann, M., Bleicher, M., Fuß, S., Gläser-Zikuda, M., Mayring, P. & v. Rhoeneck, C. (2003). An investigation of the influence of emotional factors on learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lazarowitz, R. (1981). Correlations of Junior High School Students’ age, gender, and intelligence with ability in construct classification in biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leach, J., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology 1: theoretical background, design and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 721–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leach, J., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996a). Children’s ideas about ecology 2: ideas found in children aged 5–16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leach, J., Scott, P. & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996b). Children’s ideas about ecology 3: ideas found in children aged 5–16 about the interdependency of organisms. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, V.E. & Burkam, D.T. (1996). Gender differences in middle grade science achievement: subject domain, ability level, and course emphasis. Science Education, 80, 613–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lord, T.R. (1997). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21, 197–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lord, T. (1998). Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-based activities to challenge student teams. American Biology Teacher, 60/8, 580–588.Google Scholar
  36. Lou, V., Abrami, P.C., Spence, J.C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B. & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class Grouping: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 423–458.Google Scholar
  37. Meece, J.L. & Jones, M.G. (1996). Gender differences in motivation and strategy use in science: are girls rote learners? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller, S. (1984). Experimental design and statistics. London & New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, D.C. (1999). Cooperative learning in the community college biology classroom. Issues of education at community colleges: Essays by fellows in the mid-career fellowship programme at Princeton University. Princeton: University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Musheno, B.V. & Lawson, A.E. (1999). Effects of learning cycle and traditional text on comprehension of science concepts by students at differing reasoning levels. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36/1, 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mwangi, W. & Sweller, J. (1998). Learning to solve complex word problems: The effect of example format and generating self-explanations. Cognition & Instruction, 16, 173–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pintrich, P.R., Marx, R.W. & Boyie, R.A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change. The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63, 167–199.Google Scholar
  43. Randler, C. & Bogner, F.X. (2002). Comparing methods of instruction using bird species identification skills as indicators. Journal of Biological Education, 36/4, 2–9.Google Scholar
  44. Randler, C. & Bogner, F.X. (2006). Cognitive achievements in identification skills. Journal of Biological Education, 40, 161–165.Google Scholar
  45. Randler, C. & Hulde, M. (2007). Hands-on versus teacher-centred experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Randler, C., Ilg, A. & Kern, J. (2005). Cognitive and emotional evaluation of an amphibian conservation program for elementary school students. Journal of Environmental Education, 37, 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schibeci, R.A. (1984). Attitudes to science: an update. Studies in Science Education, 11, 26–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schiefele, U. & Rheinberg, F. (1997). Motivation and knowledge acquisition: Searching for mediating processes. Motivation and Achievement, 10, 251–301.Google Scholar
  49. von Secker, C.E. & Lissitz, R.W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 1110–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shepardson, D.P. (2002). Bugs, butterflies, and spiders: children’s understandings about insects. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slavin, R.E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50, 315–342.Google Scholar
  52. Slavin, R.E. (1993). Kooperatives Lernen und Leistung: Eine empirisch fundierte Theorie. Cooperative learning and achievement: a theory based on empirical research. In G.L. Huber (Ed.), Neue Perspektiven der Kooperation. Schneider-Verlag: Hohengehren.Google Scholar
  53. Stohr-Hunt, P.M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J.J.G. & Paas, F.G.W. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10/3, 251–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thair, M. & Treagust, D.F. (1997). A review of teacher development reforms in Indonesian secondary science: the effectiveness of practical work in biology. Research in Science Education, 27, 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tobin, K., Tippins, D.J. & Gallard, A.J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies for teaching science. In: Gabel, D.L. (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Vernon, D.T.A. & Blake, R.L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Watson, S.B. (1991). Cooperative learning and group educational modules: effects on cognitive achievement of high school biology students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in student attitudes toward science: a meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wise, K.C. & Okey, J.R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 419–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wittrock, M.C. (1986). Handbook of research on teaching. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Younger, M. & Warrington, M. (1996). Differential achievement of girls and boys at GCSE: some observations from the perspective of one school. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 17, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Science Council, Taiwan 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Biology I, Didactics of BiologyUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Centre of Science Education, Lehrstuhl für Didaktik der BiologieUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany

Personalised recommendations