Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science Teaching and Learning in Schools: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations for Investigating Classroom-Level Processes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Assessing Contexts of Learning

Part of the book series: Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment ((MEMA))

Abstract

In order to develop students’ scientific competencies systematically, educational experiences in school, especially high-quality classroom level processes, are crucial. The integration of educationally-relevant teaching variables in International Large-Scale Assessments provides an opportunity to analyze components of instructional quality within and between countries. This chapter outlines pivotal considerations and challenges in developing constructs in the field of science teaching and learning in schools that were implemented in the Field Trial student questionnaire of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). It aims to identify educationally relevant teaching variables based on the current theoretical and empirical background of research in science education. In addition, it proposes a framework for describing science teaching and learning in school, investigating country-specific profiles, and analyzing the relationship between science teaching and students’ cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. The constructs for the Field Trial presented at the end, consider both design-related limitations and trend issues concerning previous PISA cycles.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter expands on a technical paper that was presented to the PISA 2015 Questionnaire Expert Group (QEG) in May 2012 (Doc. QEG 2012−05 Doc 04).

References

  • Aebli, H. (2011). Zwölf Grundformen des Lehrens: Eine allgemeine Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage [Twelve basic forms of teaching. An approach to General Didactics founded on Cognitive Psychology; 1st ed.: 1983] (14th ed.). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson-Bakken, E., & Klette, K. (2016). Teachers’ use of questions and responses to students’ contributions during whole class discussions: Comparing language arts and science classrooms. In K. Klette, O. K. Bergem, & A. Roe (Eds.), Teaching and learning in lower secondary schools in the Era of PISA and TIMSS (pp. 63–85). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., Neubrand, M., & Tsai, Y.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanchard, M. R., Southerland, S. A., Osborne, J. W., Sampson, V. D., Annetta, L. A., & Granger, E. M. (2010). Is inquiry possible in light of accountability? A quantitative comparison of the relative effectiveness of guided inquiry and verification laboratory instruction. Science Education, 94(4), 577–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolhuis, S. (2003). Towards process-oriented teaching for self-directed lifelong learning: A multidimensional perspective. Learning and Instruction, 13(3), 327–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (2001). Teacher behavior and student outcomes. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 15450–15454). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J. (2010). Teacher effects research and teacher quality. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 45(1), 32–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brühwiler, C., & Blatchford, P. (2011). Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learning and Instruction, 21, 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teacher College Record, 64, 722–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. G. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. doi:10.1080/03057260701828101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice, and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B., & Kyriakides, L. (2015). Process-product research: A cornerstone in educational effectiveness research. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 50(2), 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Die Selbstbestimmungstheorie der Motivation und ihre Bedeutung für die Pädagogik [Self-Determination theory of motivation and its importance for pedagogy]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 39, 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decristan, J., Klieme, E., Kunter, M., Hochweber, J., Büttner, G., Fauth, B., Hondrich, L., Rieser, S., Hertel, S., & Hardy, I. (2015). Embedded formative assessment and classroom process quality: How do they interact in promoting students’ science understanding? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1133–1159. doi:10.3102/0002831215596412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (Eds.). (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2003). Assessment of inquiry. In J. M. Atkin & J. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom (pp. 41–59). Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291. doi:10.3102/0091732X07309371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J., Walberg, H. J., Welch, W. W., & Hattie, J. A. (1987). Syntheses of educational productivity research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 145–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Seidel, T., Iverson, H., & Briggs, D. C. (2012a). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. doi:10.3102/0034654312457206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furtak, E. M., Shavelson, R. J., Shemwell, J. T., & Figueroa, M. (2012b). To teach or not to teach through inquiry: Is that the question? In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 227–244). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haug, B. S., & Ødegaard, M. (2014). From words to concepts: Focusing on word knowledge when teaching for conceptual understanding within an inquiry-based science setting. Research in Science Education, 44(5), 777–800. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9402-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. B., MacPherson, A., Osborne, J., & Wild, A. (2015). Beyond construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1668–1697. doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1043598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugener, I., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2009). Teaching patterns and learning quality in Swiss and German mathematics lessons. Learning and Instruction, 19(1), 66–78. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: An overview (pp. 3–29). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Puig, B. (2012). Argumentation, evidence evaluation and critical thinking. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer international handbooks of education (Second international handbook of science education, Vol. 24, pp. 1001–1015). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Rodriguez, A. B., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 443–469). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjærnsli, M., & Lie, S. (2011). Students’ preference for science careers: International comparisons based on PISA 2006. International Journal of Science Education, 33(1), 121–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction. Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E. (2013). The role of large-scale assessments in research on educational effectiveness and school development. In M. von Davier, E. Gonzalez, I. Kirsch, & K. Yamamoto (Eds.), The role of international large-scale assessments: Perspectives from technology, economy, and educational research (pp. 115–148). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., & Kuger, S. (2014). PISA 2015 draft questionnaire framework. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., & Rakoczy, K. (2003). Unterrichtsqualität aus Schülerperspektive. In J. Baumert et al. (Eds.), PISA 2000. Ein differenzierter Blick auf die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 333–359). Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Schümer, G., & Knoll, S. (2001). Mathematikunterricht in der Sekundarstufe I: Aufgabenkultur und Unterrichtsgestaltung. In Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF) (Ed.), TIMSS-Impulse für Schule und Unterricht. Forschungsbefunde, Reforminitiativen, Praxisberichte und Video-Dokumente (pp. 43–57). Bonn: BMBF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., & Ratzka, N. (2006). Qualitatsdimensionen und Wirksamkeit von Mathematikunterricht: Theoretische Grundlagen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse des Projekts “Pythagoras” [Quality dimensions and effectiveness of mathematics instruction: Theoretical background and selected findings of the Pythagoras project]. In M. Prenzel & L. Allolio-Näcke (Eds.), Untersuchungen zur Bildungsqualität von Schule. Abschlussbericht des DFG-Schwerpunktprogramms (pp. 127–146). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In T. Janik & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–169). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kobarg, M., Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., Walker, M., McCrae, B., Cresswell, J., & Wittwer, J. (2011). An international comparison of science teaching and learning: Further results from PISA 2006. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuger, S. (2016). Curriculum and learning time in international school achievement Studies. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning: An international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuger, S., & Klieme, E. (2016). Dimensions of context assessment. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning: An international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuger, S., Jude, N., Klieme, E., & Kaplan, D. (2016). An introduction to the PISA 2015 field trial: Study design and analyses procedures. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning: An international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M. (2005). Multiple Ziele im Mathematikunterricht. Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environment Research, 9, 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Dubberke, T., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Brunner, M., et al. (2007). Linking aspects of teacher competence to their instruction. Results from the COACTIV project. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools (pp. 39–59). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., Tsai, Y.-M., Klusmann, U., Brunner, M., Krauss, S., & Baumert, J. (2008). Students’ and mathematics teachers’ perception of teacher enthusiasm and instruction. Learning and Instruction, 18, 468–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L., Christoforou, C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2013). What matters for student learning outcomes: A meta-analysis of studies exploring factors of effective teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 143–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavonen, J., & Laaksonen, S. (2009). Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(8), 922–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipowsky, F., Rakoczy, K., Pauli, C., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Klieme, E., & Reusser, K. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Kunter, M. (2009). Assessing the impact of learning environments: How to use student ratings of classroom or school characteristics in multilevel modeling. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(2), 120e131. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2008.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, K., Kauertz, A., & Fischer, H. E. (2012). Quality of instruction in science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 247–258). Amsterdam: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ødegaard, M., & Klette, K. (2012). Teaching activities and language use in science classrooms: Categories and levels of analysis as tools for interpretation. In D. Jorde & J. Dillon (Eds.), The world of science education handbook (pp. 182–202). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ødegaard, M., Haug, B., Mork, S., & Sørvik, G. O. (2014). Challenges and support when teaching science through an integrated inquiry and literacy approach. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 2997–3020. doi:10.1080/09500693.2014.942719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). Literacy skills for the world of tomorrow: Further results from PISA 2000. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What makes a school successful?—Resources, policies and practices (Vol. IV). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013a). PISA 2012 results: Ready to learn: Students’ engagement, drive and self-beliefs (Volume III), PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013b). PISA 2015 draft science framework. PISA. Paris: OECD Publishing

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2012). The role of argument: Learning how to learn in school science. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer international handbooks of education (Second international handbook of science education, Vol. 24, pp. 933–949). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oser, F. K., & Baeriswyl, F. J. (2001). Choreographies of teaching: Bridging instruction to learning. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. doi:10.3102/0013189X09332374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M. (2013). Research on PISA, with PISA, and for PISA. In M. Prenzel, M. Kobarg, K. Schöps, & S. Rönnebeck (Eds.), Research on PISA: Research outcomes of the PISA Research Conference 2009 (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M., & Drechsel, B. (1996). Ein Jahr kaufmännische Erstausbildung: Veränderungen in Lernmotivation und Interesse [One year vocational commercial training: Developments in learning motivation and interest]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 3, 217–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M., & Lankes, E.-M. (2013). Was können Schülerinnen und Schüler über ihren Unterricht sagen? Ein Blick in die Schülerfragebogen von internationalen Vergleichsstudien [What can students report on their classroom lessons? A glance at student questionnaires in international student assessments]. In N. McElvany & H. G. Holtappels (Eds.), Empirische Bildungsforschung: Theorien, Methoden, Befunde und Perspektiven. Festschrift für Wilfried Bos (pp. 93–107). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M., Kristen, A., Dengler, P., Ettle, R., & Beer, T. (1996). Selbstbestimmt motiviertes und interessiertes Lernen in der kaufmännischen Erstausbildung [Self-determined motivated and interested learning in vocational commercial training]. In Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik (Beiheft 13), 108–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., & Kobarg, M. (2012). Science teaching and learning: An international comparative perspective. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Springer international handbooks of education (Second international handbook of science education, Vol. 24, pp. 667–678). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purves, A. C. (1987). The evolution of the IEA: A memoir. Comparative Education Review, 31(1), 10–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Drollinger-Vetter, B., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2007). Structure as a quality feature in mathematics instruction: Cognitive and motivational effects of a structured organisation of the learning environment vs. a structured presentation of learning content. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools: The final report on the DFG Priority Programme (pp. 101–120). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H., Lemmens, M. Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., & Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study of eighth-grade science teaching: Statistical analysis report. (NCES 2006-011). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester: Rochester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness (1st ed.). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheerens, J., Seidel, T., Witziers, B., Hendriks, M., & Doornekamp, G. (2005). Positioning the supervision frameworks for primary and secondary education of the Dutch educational inspectorate in current educational discourse and validating core indicators against the knowledge base of educational effectiveness research. Kiel: University of Twente, Enschede, Institute for Science Education (IPN).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiepe-Tiska, A., Roczen, N., Müller, K., Prenzel, M., & Osborn, J. (2016). Science-related outcomes: Attitudes, motivation, value beliefs, strategies. In S. Kuger, E. Klieme, N. Jude, & D. Kaplan (Eds.), Assessing contexts of learning: An international perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ScSchmidt, W. H., & Maier, A. (2009). Opportunity to learn. In G. Sykes, B. L. Schneider, & D. N. Plank (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 541–559). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, C. M., Scott, T. P., Tolson, H., Huang, T.-Y., & Lee, Y.-H. (2007). A meta-analysis of national rfesearch: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T. (2014). Angebots-Nutzungs-Modelle in der Unterrichtspsychologie: Integration von Struktur- und Prozessparadigma. [Utilization of learning-opportunities models in the psychology of instruction: Integration of the paradigms of structure and process]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(6), 850–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006a). Teaching and learning of science. In ACER (Ed.), PISA 2006 conceptual framework. Camberwell: ACER.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Prenzel, M. (2006b). Stability of teaching patterns in physics instruction: Findings from a video study. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 454–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2003). Gelegenheitsstrukturen beim Klassengespräch und ihre Bedeutung für die Lernmotivation: Videoanalysen in Kombination mit Schülerselbsteinschätzungen. [The structure of opportunities during classroom discourse and their influence on motivation to learn: Video analyses in combination with self-evaluations]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 31(2), 142–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., Rimmele, R., & Prenzel, M. (2005). Clarity and coherence of learning goals as a scaffold for student learning. Learning and Instruction, 15, 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T., Prenzel, M., Rimmele, R., Herweg, C., Kobarg, M., Schwindt, K., & Dalehefte, I. M. (2007). Science teaching and learning in German physics classrooms: Findings from the IPN video study. In M. Prenzel (Ed.), Studies on the educational quality of schools. The final report on the DFG Priority Programme (pp. 79–99). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørvik, G. O., Blikstad-Balas, M., & Ødegaard, M. (2015). Do books like these have authors? New roles for text and new demands on students in integrated science-literacy instruction. Science Education, 99(1), 39–69. doi:10.1002/sce.21143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, F. I., Wiltz, L., & Bailey, M. (1998). Teachers’ evaluations of the sustainability of opportunity to learn (OTL) Assessment strategies: A national survey of classroom teachers in large urban school districts. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. A., Stuhlsatz, M. A. M., & Bybee, R. W. (2009). Windows into high-achieving science classrooms. In R. W. Bybee & B. McCrae (Eds.), PISA Science 2006: Implications for science teachers and teaching (pp. 123–13). Arlington: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieluf, S., Lee, J., & Kyllonen, P. (2009). The predictive power of variables from the PISA 2003 student questionnaire. QEG, paper presented at the QEG Meeting, Offenbach, Germany, 19–21 October.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Susanne-Klatten Endowed Chair for Empirical Educational Research, School of Education, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Katharina Müller & Manfred Prenzel

  2. Present Address: Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

    Katharina Müller

  3. Friedl Schöller Endowed Chair for Teaching and Learning Research, School of Education, Technical University Munich, München, Germany

    Tina Seidel

  4. Centre for International Student Assessment (ZIB), School of Education, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Anja Schiepe-Tiska

  5. Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Marit Kjærnsli

Authors
  1. Katharina Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manfred Prenzel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tina Seidel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anja Schiepe-Tiska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marit Kjærnsli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Müller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Educational Quality and Evaluation, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF) , Schloßstraße 29 60486, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Susanne Kuger

  2. Department for Educational Quality and Evaluation Schloßstraße 29 60486, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Schloßstraße 29 60486, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Eckhard Klieme

  3. Department for Educational Quality and Evaluation, German Institute for International Educational Research (DIPF), Schloßstraße 29 60486, Frankfurt, Hessen, Germany

    Nina Jude

  4. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison , 1025 West Johnson Street Madison, Wisconsin, USA

    David Kaplan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller, K., Prenzel, M., Seidel, T., Schiepe-Tiska, A., Kjærnsli, M. (2016). Science Teaching and Learning in Schools: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations for Investigating Classroom-Level Processes. In: Kuger, S., Klieme, E., Jude, N., Kaplan, D. (eds) Assessing Contexts of Learning. Methodology of Educational Measurement and Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_17

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45357-6_17

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45356-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45357-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation