| In January of 2002, President Brush signed the "No Child Left Behind Act" (NCLB) into law (NCLB, 2002). This law has changed public education and affected how teachers instruct. Teachers may now teach more for coverage than understanding of concepts in order to prepare students for the state achievement tests. Students need to become scientifically literate in order to make informed decisions based on factual evidence. Being able to make informed decisions requires an understanding and ability to apply a wide range of scientific knowledge and skills, as well as the ability to use language clearly and concisely to comprehend and articulate science ideas and issues.;The purpose of this study was to compare how two methods of structuring science notebooks and classroom science activities affect student achievement as measured by reading, mathematics, language, science content, science process skills, cognitive development, and changes in the understanding specific concepts throughout the semester formative assessments. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed on data collected from two groups of seventh grade students taking life science during the spring semester of 2008. Each group was taught using either a more teacher-centered and teacher-structured notebook or a more student-centered, inquiry-based approach. An Analysis of Covariance was used for most of the comparisons between the two treatment groups. Using a more teacher-centered and teacher-structured notebooks represents a more traditional method for coverage of concepts, while using a more student-centered, inquiry-based approach represents teaching for understanding.;According to the results of this study, there were no statistical differences in student achievement as measured by reading, mathematics, language usage, and science state standardized test scores, science process skills (total integrated process skills, TIPS II), cognitive development (group assessment of logical thinking, GALT), conceptual understanding (based on formative assessments of specific concepts for each unit of study), and life science content (end of course exam) between the two treatment groups. There were some statistical differences between the pre- and posttest achievement scores when the data was analyzed using a paired t-test to determine if instruction, regardless of treatment, affected student achievement. Statistical differences were found between pre- and posttest scores for reading and mathematics state achievement scores (effect size of 0.62 and 0.59, respectively), cognitive development (effect size = 0.40), conceptual understanding of controlled experiments (effect size = 1.04), conceptual understanding of plant characteristics (effect size = 0.55), and life science content knowledge (effect size = 2.7). |
