Your search found 242156 results.

Descriptors:
Science Achievement; Academic Achievement; Science Tests; National Competency Tests; Scoring; Scientific Literacy; Science Education; Educational Assessment; Student Evaluation; National Standards; State Standards; Educational Research; Scientific Research; Scientific Concepts; Competition; Instructional Program Divisions; Inquiry; Governing Boards; Scientific Principles; Test Construction; Guidelines; Elementary Secondary Education

Abstract:
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and its reports are a key measure in informing the nation on how well the goal of scientific literacy for all students is being met. The "Science Framework for the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress" sets forth the design of the NAEP Science Assessment. The 2011 NAEP Science Assessment will use the same framework used in 2009. The 2009 NAEP Science Assessment started a new NAEP science trend (i.e., measure of student progress in science), and the 2011 NAEP Science Report Card will include student performance trends from 2009 to 2011. Trends in student science achievement were reported from 1996 to 2005 as well. However, the trend from 1996 to 2005 was not continued due to major differences between the 2005 and 2009 frameworks. The new framework represents a unique opportunity to build on key developments in science standards, assessments, and research. This document is intended to inform the general public, educators, policymakers, and others about what students are expected to know and be able to do in science as part of The Nation's Report Card, a program of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that reports on NAEP findings. This report contains the following chapters: (1) Overview; (2) Science Content; (3) Science Practices; and (4) Overview of the Assessment Design. Appendices include: (1) Steering Committee Guidelines; (2) NAEP Science Achievement Level Descriptions; (3) Sample Items and Scoring Guides; and (4) Group 2 Small-Scale Special Studies. A bibliography is included. (Contains 21 exhibits.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (9103K)

Descriptors:
Public Schools; Science Tests; National Competency Tests; Measures (Individuals); Governing Boards; Grade 8; Grade 4; Urban Schools; School Districts; Academic Achievement; Science Achievement; Academic Standards; National Standards; Student Evaluation; Scores; Comparative Analysis; Student Characteristics; Racial Differences; Ethnicity; Low Income Groups; Urban Areas

Abstract:
This report from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) presents results from the Trial Urban District Assessment in science. Science results are based on representative samples of fourth- and eighth-grade public school students from the 17 urban districts that volunteered to participate in the 2009 assessment. Between 900 and 2,200 students were assessed at each grade in each of the participating districts. Student performance is reported in terms of average scale scores on the NAEP science scale and the percentages of students who attained the achievement levels set by the National Assessment Governing Board. District results are compared to results for public school students in the nation, large cities nationally, and their home states. Student performance is reported by race/ethnicity and eligibility for free/reduced-price school lunch. At grade 4, the average score in large cities overall and the average scores in 14 of the 17 participating districts were lower than the average score for the nation. Scores for Austin, Charlotte, and Jefferson County were not significantly different from the score for the nation. At grade 8, the average score in large cities overall and the average scores in 16 of the 17 districts were lower than the average score for the nation. The score for Austin was not significantly different from the score for the nation. Among the 17 urban districts that participated in the 2009 science assessment, scores for both fourth- and eighth-graders in 4 districts were higher than the scores for their respective peers attending public schools in large cities overall. Scores for both grades in 8 districts were lower than the scores for large cities nationally. (Contains 2 footnotes and 10 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (11603K)

Descriptors:
Outcomes of Education; Public Schools; Federal State Relationship; English Language Learners; Low Income; Disadvantaged; Grade 4; Grade 8; National Competency Tests; Governing Boards; Educational Assessment; Reading Achievement; Science Achievement; Mathematics Achievement; Achievement Gains; Comparative Analysis; Statistical Significance; Academic Achievement

Abstract:
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas enroll close to 40 percent of the nation's public school students. The importance of these "Mega-States" goes beyond the sheer size of their population. They now serve more than half of the nation's English language learners (ELL), as well as some of the largest concentrations of children from lower-income families. As policymakers and educators look at the nation's changing demographics and explore ways to close achievement gaps, the educational progress of children in these states is of interest far beyond their state borders. That's why the National Center for Education Statistics and the National Assessment Governing Board focused this special report on educational outcomes in the five largest states. This report provides a more in-depth look into the performance of specific student groups and performance by subject, including: (1) recent assessments; (2) comparisons to the nation and among the five states; (3) highlights of gains for student groups, including those that performed higher than their peers in the nation; and (4) student performance at or above the NAEP "Proficient level." The results presented by each subject area are for public school students only. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports results using widely accepted statistical standards; findings are reported based on a statistical significance level set at 0.05 with appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons. Readers should note that writing results were not included in this report because the 2011 writing framework begins a new trend line. In addition, the 2011 computer-based writing assessment was not administered at the state level. Technical Notes are included. (Contains 19 figures, 7 tables, and 2 footnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (3890K)

Descriptors:
Case Studies; Science Tests; Science Education; State Standards; Stakeholders; Earth Science; Core Curriculum; Federal Legislation; Academic Standards; Educational Assessment; Alignment (Education); National Standards; Science Curriculum; Statistical Analysis

Abstract:
In a standards-based system, it is important for all components of the system to align in order to achieve the intended goals. No Child Left Behind law mandates that assessments be fully aligned with state standards, be valid, reliable and fair, be reported to all stakeholders, and provide evidence that all students in the state are meeting the standards. This study reports an analysis of the alignment between the "National Science Education Standards" (NSES), New York State "Physical Setting/Earth Science Core Curriculum" (Core Curriculum) and New York State "Physical Setting/Earth Science Regents Examination" (Regents Exam)--the sources teachers use for creating Earth Science curricula in New York State. The NSES were found to have a 49% overlap with the Core Curriculum and a 27% overlap with the Regents Exam. The Core Curriculum and Regents Exam, represented by matrices consisting of performance indicators and cognitive demands, were compared using the Porter Alignment Index. The alignment was 0.35, categorized as slightly aligned, due to the different emphases on cognitive levels. The Core focused on cognitive skills of Understand and Apply while the Regents concentrated more on Apply followed by Understand and Remember. It is suggested that the NSES be revised and the Core updated to include quantifiable emphasis on the major understandings such as percentage of time. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Reading Achievement; National Competency Tests; Reading Comprehension; Grade 4; Vocabulary Development; Grade 8; Grade 12; Academic Achievement; Test Construction; Reading Processes; Reading Tests; State Standards; Multiple Choice Tests; Reading Research; Educational Indicators; Educational Assessment; Test Content; Abstract Reasoning; Reading Skills; Student Evaluation; Elementary Secondary Education; Cognitive Processes; Educational Legislation; Federal Legislation

Abstract:
As the ongoing national indicator of what American students know and can do, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Reading regularly collects achievement information on representative samples of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. Through The Nation's Report Card, the NAEP Reading Assessment reports how well students perform in reading various texts and responding to those texts by answering multiple-choice and instructed-response questions. The information NAEP provides about student achievement helps the public, educators, and policymakers understand strengths and weaknesses in student performance and make informed decisions about education. The 2013 NAEP Reading Assessment will measure national, regional, state, and sub-group achievement in reading but is not designed to report individual student or school performance. The assessment will measure students' reading comprehension and their ability to apply vocabulary knowledge to assist them in comprehending what they read. The reading assessment will use the same framework used in 2009. This document, the "Reading Framework for the 2013 National Assessment of Educational Progress," presents the conceptual base for, and discusses the content of, the assessment. It is intended for a broad audience. A more detailed technical document, the "Reading Assessment and Item Specifications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress," is available on the Web. The specifications will provide information to guide passage selection, item development, and other aspects of test development. The Governing Board, the policymaking body for NAEP, has stated that the NAEP Reading Assessment will measure reading comprehension by asking students to read passages written in English and to answer questions about what they have read. The NAEP Reading Framework results from the work of many individuals and organizations involved in reading and reading education, including researchers, policymakers, educators, and other members of the public. Their work was guided by scientifically based literacy research that conceptualizes reading as a dynamic cognitive process as reflected in the following definition of reading. Appended are: (1) Glossary of terms; (2) NAEP Reading Achievement Level Definitions; and (3) Special Studies: NAEP Reading Framework. A bibliography is included. (Contains 7 footnotes and 12 exhibits.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (1342K)

Descriptors:
Elementary Secondary Education; State Standards; Academic Standards; Science Education; Academic Achievement; Science Curriculum; Educational Improvement; National Competency Tests; Evolution; Science Tests; Educational Assessment

Abstract:
A solid science education program begins by clearly establishing what well-educated youngsters need to learn about this multifaceted domain of human knowledge. The first crucial step is setting clear academic standards for the schools--standards that not only articulate the critical science content students need to learn, but that also properly sequence and prioritize that content. In the light of such standards, teachers at each grade level can clearly see where they should focus their time and attention to ensure that their pupils are on track toward college and career readiness. Thomas B. Fordham Institute, publisher of "The State of State Science Standards 2012," has a long-standing interest in science standards and a history of reviewing them with care and rigor. This article provides analyses of the K-12 science standards currently in place in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as the framework that undergirds the NAEP science assessment. The results of this rigorous analysis paint a fresh--but still bleak--picture. In 27 jurisdictions, the science standards earn a D or below. Yet this very weakness in what states expect of their schools, teachers, and students in science suggests that a purposeful focus on improving--or replacing--today's standards could be a key part of a comprehensive effort to boost science performance. (Contains 3 endnotes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (128K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Investigations; Student Evaluation; Science Tests; National Competency Tests; Science Education; Comparative Analysis; Statistical Analysis; Hands on Science; Grade 4; Grade 8; Grade 12; Academic Achievement; Science Experiments; Science Activities; Science Instruction; Ethnic Groups; Gender Differences; Low Income Groups; Elementary Secondary Education; Racial Differences; Test Results; Lunch Programs; Educational Assessment; National Programs; Achievement Gap

Abstract:
Science education is not just about learning facts in a classroom--it's about doing activities where students put their understanding of science principles into action. That's why two unique types of activity-based tasks were administered as part of the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) science assessment. In addition to the paper-and-pencil questions, fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth-graders also completed hands-on and interactive computer tasks. These tasks help stakeholders understand not only what students know, but how well they are able to reason through complex problems and apply science to real-life situations. While performing the interactive computer and hands-on tasks, students manipulate objects and perform actual experiments, offering us richer data on how students respond to scientific challenges. This paper reports the following findings on student performance across the tasks: (1) Students were successful on parts of investigations that involved limited sets of data and making straightforward observations of that data; (2) Students were challenged by parts of investigations that contained more variables to manipulate or involved strategic decision making to collect appropriate data; and (3) The percentage of students who could select correct conclusions from an investigation was higher than for those students who could select correct conclusions and also explain their results. Technical notes are included. (Contains 9 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (2411K)

Descriptors:
Science Tests; Engineering; Standardized Tests; Technology Education; Problem Solving; Work Environment; Transfer of Training; Scientific Concepts; Science Achievement; STEM Education; Engineering Education; Mathematics Education; Science Education; Mathematics Tests; Problem Based Learning; Learner Engagement

Abstract:
A concern of many educators and managers is students' ability to transfer concepts and procedures learned in school to the work environment. When children are taught a skill, such as solving a mathematical problem, they often fail to recognize that their new skill can be used to solve a similar problem outside of school. In other cases, students who are skilled with certain tasks outside of school often have difficulty transferring concepts learned from these experiences to the solving of well-structured problems in schools, such as those often found on mathematics and science tests. These findings demonstrate the inability of students to recognize the transferability of concepts learned from solving well-structured problems in the classroom to ill-structured problems faced outside of the classroom and also the transferability of concepts learned from solving ill-structured problems, similar to those encountered in the real world, to the solving of well-structured problems encountered in the classroom. Various curricula and outreach programs, such as Design, Technology, and Engineering for All Children, Engineering by Design[TM], Project Lead the Way, Engineering is Elementary[R], LEGO[R] Engineering, and others, offer various types of problem-based and project-based experiences, which engage students in authentic problem solving. These learning initiatives help to improve students' ability to transfer knowledge, concepts, and skills learned in schools to real-life contexts. This study focuses on one such curriculum--Project Lead the Way (PLTW)--a multi-year, problem-based/project-based pre-engineering curriculum that is used by some schools in their engineering and technology education program. Since a large portion of the PLTW objectives emphasize content from mathematics and/or science standards, it is the authors' view that students should be able to demonstrate the ability to connect concepts learned from engaging in PLTW curriculum activities to the solving of mathematics and science test problems in the classroom. The purpose of this study is to determine if PLTW students are able to better transfer mathematics, science, and design concepts from one situation to another than students who have not taken the PLTW courses and the extent to which students are able to make connections to concepts learned in the PLTW courses to concepts that they are required to use when solving standardized test problems. The authors found significant relationships between the number of PLTW courses students took and students' performance in design score and total score. Also, there was no significant difference in mathematics and science performance between PLTW and non-PLTW students. PLTW students, however, performed significantly better on the design component of the test. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (370K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Preservice Teachers; Undergraduate Students; Elementary School Teachers; Inquiry; Scientific Research; Scientific Principles; Student Attitudes; Scientific Concepts; Science Instruction; Education Courses; Preservice Teacher Education; Outcomes of Education; Curriculum Development; Curriculum Implementation

Abstract:
While some researchers have argued for science classrooms that embrace open-inquiry by engaging students in doing science as scientists do (cf. National Research Council [NRC] 1996; Driver et al. in "Sci Educ" 84:287-312, 2000; Windschitl et al. in "Sci Educ" 87(1):112-143, 2008), others have argued that open-inquiry is impractical, ineffective, and perhaps even counter-productive towards promoting normative scientific ideas (cf. Kirschner et al. in "Educ Psychol" 41(2):75-86, 2006; Settlage in "J Sci Teach Educ" 18:461-467, 2007). One of the challenges in informing the debate on this issue is the scarcity of well-documented courses that engage students in open-inquiry characteristic of scientific research. This paper describes the design, implementation, and outcomes of such a course for undergraduates planning on becoming elementary teachers. The goal of the class was to immerse future teachers in authentic, open-inquiry (without specific learning goals related to scientific concepts) in hopes that students would come away with a deeper understanding of the nature of science (NOS) and improved attitudes towards science. Data collected from a variety of sources indicate that an authentic, open-inquiry experience is feasible to implement in an undergraduate setting, gives students a more sophisticated NOS understanding, improves students' attitudes towards science and open-inquiry, and changes the way they intend to teach science in their future classrooms. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Ecology; Ethics; Evolution; Biology; Epistemology; Educational Philosophy; Biological Sciences; Scientific Concepts; Performance Factors; Scientific Methodology; Scientific Principles; Scientific Research; Scientific Literacy; Inquiry; Essays; Literature Reviews; Meta Analysis; Science Education History; Intellectual History

Abstract:
The philosophy of biology today is one of the most exciting areas of philosophy. It looks critically across the life sciences, teasing out conceptual issues and difficulties bringing to bear the tools of philosophical analysis to achieve clarification and understanding. This essay surveys work in all of the major directions of research: evolutionary theory and the units/levels of selection; evolutionary developmental biology; reductionism; ecology; the species problem; teleology; evolutionary epistemology; evolutionary ethics; and progress. There is a comprehensive bibliography. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website