Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Application of a Primary Science Delivery Evaluation Questionnaire

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to apply a validated curriculum evaluation instrument, the Science Curriculum Implementation Questionnaire (SCIQ), in an educational context in which a science curriculum review had recently been completed and, by so doing, ascertain the accuracy and potential value of the instrument as a curriculum delivery evaluative tool. The study begins by exploring the themes generated from an extensive case study attempting to identify the broad and complex factors influencing science program delivery at a large urban intermediate (Years 7 and 8) school in New Zealand. Following this, the results of the subsequent application of the SCIQ in the case study school are discussed. Responses to the SCIQ reaffirmed the themes identified in the case study and, by way of standard deviation analysis, gave a similar description of the variability in the staff perceptions pertaining to the factors influencing science program delivery. Limitations and recent practical applications of the SCIQ are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (1999). Why teach primary science? Influences on be-ginning teachers' practice. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 155-168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appleton, K., & Symington D. (1996). Changes in primary science: Implications for the research community. Research in Science Education, 26(3), 299-316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. (1994). Teaching science in schools: What knowledge do teacher's need? Research in Science Education, 24(3), 31-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds, G., & Lewthwaite, B. E. (2002). Science program delivery evaluation: A principal's journey in school self-review. In R. K. Coll <nt>(Ed.)</nt>, STERpapers 2002 (pp. 132-149). Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, Waikato University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel <nt>(Ed.)</nt>, Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493-541). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin <nt>(Eds.)</nt>, International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J., & Tobin, K. (1998). Qualitative and quantitative landscapes of class-room learning environments. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin <nt>(Eds.)</nt>, International handbook of science education (pp. 527-564). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1992). Successful school improvement. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garden, R. A. <nt>(Ed.)</nt>. (1996). Science performance of New Zealand Form 2 and Form 3 students <nt>(Research and International Section)</nt>. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for accuracy and application. Upper Saddle River, NY: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrum, D., Rennie, L., & Hackling, M. (2001). Science in Australian primary schools. Investigating, 17(4), 5-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1978). Does content matter in primary science? School Science Review, 5, 614-625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1988). Teaching and learning primary science. London: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W. (1997). Primary teachers' understandings in science and its impact in the classroom. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 323-337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harlen, W., Holroyd, C., & Byrne, M. (1995). Confidence and understanding in teaching science and technology in primary schools. Edinburgh, UK: The Scottish Council for Research in Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, G., & Meyer, D. (1996). Critical factors in the implementation of the new mathematics curriculum: A research report. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Massey University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, B. E. (2000a). Temporary or permanent changes: Training science teacher perceptions and reflections. In R. K. Coll <nt>(Ed.)</nt>, SAMEpapers 2001 (pp. 111-128). Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, Waikato University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, B. E. (2000b). Teaching primary science-how teachers see the problems. In G.Haisman<nt>(Ed.)</nt>, Exploring issues in science education (pp. 11-22). Wellington, New Zealand: Research & Curriculum Divisions, Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, B. E. (2001). The development, validation and application of a primary science school curriculum implementation questionnaire. Unpublished ScEdD Thesis, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, B. E, Stableford, J., & Fisher, D. L. (2001). Enlarging the focus on primary science education in New Zealand. In R. K. Coll <nt>(Ed.)</nt>, SAMEpapers 2001 (pp. 213-237). Hamilton, New Zealand: Centre for Science and Technology Education Research, Waikato University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullholland, J., & Wallace, J. (1996). Breaking the cycle: Preparing elementary teachers to teach science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 8(1), 17-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, R. G. (1995). Organisational behaviour in education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne, K., & Lewthwaite, B. E. (2002). Systematic curriculum review: A procedure for analysis. New Zealand Principal-Te Temuaki O Aotearoa, 18(2), 30-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, T., & Prebble, T. (1985). Making it happen: A school development process. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D., & Prebble, T. (1993). The reflective principal: School development within a learning community. Palmerston North, New Zealand: ERDC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tilgner, P. G. (1990). Avoiding science in the elementary school. Science Education, 74(4), 421-431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I., Matti, M., & Smith, P. (1994). Report of the 1993 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manitoba, Canada

    Brian Lewthwaite

  2. Curtin University of Technology, Australia

    Darrell Fisher

Authors
  1. Brian Lewthwaite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darrell Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewthwaite, B., Fisher, D. The Application of a Primary Science Delivery Evaluation Questionnaire. Research in Science Education 34, 55–70 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000020899.42419.1c

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000020899.42419.1c

Search

Navigation