This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Bredderman, T. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Effects of Activity-based Elementary Science on Student Outcomes: A Quantitative Synthesis

State University of New York at Albany

In this study, meta-analysis techniques were used to synthesize research on the effectiveness of three major activity-based elementary science programs (ESS, SAPA, and SCIS), which were developed with federal support. In 57 controlled studies, outcomes were measured in over 900 classrooms; the overall mean effect size for all outcome areas was .35. The mean effect size was .52 for science process tests, .16 for science content, and .28 for affective outcomes. On the average, gains also were realized in creativity, intelligence, language, and mathematics. Only 3 of 14 coded study features were related to reported effects: Disadvantaged students derived greater benefits than other students; tests not biased in favor of the activity-based programs resulted in positive but lower effects than those favoring the activity-based approach; and published reports had higher effects than unpublished reports. The effects of particular programs reflect their relative curricular emphases. In three followup studies, student groups that had had activity-based programs in elementary school and had later experienced traditional science programs during middle school years could not be consistently distinguished from control groups.

Review of Educational Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, 499-518 (1983)
DOI: 10.3102/00346543053004499


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. T. Brownell and C. W. Thomas Margo Mastropieri: Quality Science Instruction for Students with Disabilities Intervention in School and Clinic, November 1, 1998; 34(2): 118 - 122. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. VanTassel-Baska, G. Bass, R. Ries, D. Poland, and L. D. Avery A National Study of Science Curriculum Effectiveness With High Ability Students Gifted Child Quarterly, October 1, 1998; 42(4): 200 - 211. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. A. Mastropieri, T. E. Scruggs, and K. Butcher HOW EFFECTIVE IS INQUIRY LEARNING FOR STUDENTS WITH MILD DISABILITIES? Journal of Special Education, January 1, 1997; 31(2): 199 - 211. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. T. Johnson, L. N. Boyce, and J. VanTassel-Baska Science Curriculum Review: Evaluating Materials for High-Ability Learners Gifted Child Quarterly, January 1, 1995; 39(1): 36 - 42. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. J. Walberg Improving School Science in Advanced and Developing Countries Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1991; 61(1): 25 - 69. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Showers Aiming for Superior Classroom Instruction for All Children: A Comprehensive Staff Development Model Remedial and Special Education, May 1, 1990; 11(3): 35 - 39. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Oakes Chapter 3: Opportunities, Achievement, and Choice: Women and Minority Students in Science and Mathematics Review of Research in Education, January 1, 1990; 16(1): 153 - 222. [PDF]

				J. A. Ross Controlling Variables: A Meta-Analysis of Training Studies Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1988; 58(4): 405 - 437. [Abstract] [PDF]