Assessing the quality of science teachers' lesson plans: Evaluation and application of a novel instrument

IF 3.1 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Science & Education Pub Date : 2023-08-30 DOI:10.1002/sce.21832
Leroy Großmann, Dirk Krüger
{"title":"Assessing the quality of science teachers' lesson plans: Evaluation and application of a novel instrument","authors":"Leroy Großmann,&nbsp;Dirk Krüger","doi":"10.1002/sce.21832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Lesson planning is a core part of teachers' professional competence. Written lesson plans play a significant role in science teacher education as a preparation for demonstration lessons during the final teacher certification exam. However, the few existing scoring rubrics on lesson plans are not particularly theoretically sound and are barely tested for the validity of score interpretations. In response to the demand for transparent and applicable criteria, we developed the <i>rubric to assess science lesson plans</i> (RALP) to assess science teachers' lesson plan quality. We employed a mixed-methods approach: First, we present multiple sources of validity evidence (based on <i>test content</i>, <i>internal structure</i>, <i>relations to other variables</i>, and <i>consequences of testing</i>) as mainly quantitative indicators for the quality of the RALP. Based upon that, we applied the RALP to lesson plans written by preservice and trainee science teachers (<i>N</i> = 100) and provided a qualitative analysis of six cases to illustrate common patterns in these lesson plans. Results indicate that teacher educators consider the RALP criteria (<i>N</i> = 24) relevant and objectively applicable. Correlation analyses of the scores and two teacher educators' holistic quality assessment of all lesson plans provide convincing evidence that the RALP can discriminate lesson plan quality levels. Moreover, comparisons between preservice science teachers and trainee science teachers reveal that trainee teachers score significantly higher than preservice teachers, indicating that the RALP is sensitive to differences in teaching and planning experience. The application and in-depth analysis of three criteria of the RALP illustrate these differences in levels of planning quality. We discuss possible applications of the RALP in science teacher education and research in science teaching.</p>","PeriodicalId":771,"journal":{"name":"Science & Education","volume":"108 1","pages":"153-189"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/sce.21832","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.21832","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lesson planning is a core part of teachers' professional competence. Written lesson plans play a significant role in science teacher education as a preparation for demonstration lessons during the final teacher certification exam. However, the few existing scoring rubrics on lesson plans are not particularly theoretically sound and are barely tested for the validity of score interpretations. In response to the demand for transparent and applicable criteria, we developed the rubric to assess science lesson plans (RALP) to assess science teachers' lesson plan quality. We employed a mixed-methods approach: First, we present multiple sources of validity evidence (based on test content, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences of testing) as mainly quantitative indicators for the quality of the RALP. Based upon that, we applied the RALP to lesson plans written by preservice and trainee science teachers (N = 100) and provided a qualitative analysis of six cases to illustrate common patterns in these lesson plans. Results indicate that teacher educators consider the RALP criteria (N = 24) relevant and objectively applicable. Correlation analyses of the scores and two teacher educators' holistic quality assessment of all lesson plans provide convincing evidence that the RALP can discriminate lesson plan quality levels. Moreover, comparisons between preservice science teachers and trainee science teachers reveal that trainee teachers score significantly higher than preservice teachers, indicating that the RALP is sensitive to differences in teaching and planning experience. The application and in-depth analysis of three criteria of the RALP illustrate these differences in levels of planning quality. We discuss possible applications of the RALP in science teacher education and research in science teaching.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估科学教师课程计划的质量:一种新工具的评估和应用
课程计划是教师专业能力的核心组成部分。书面课程计划在科学教师教育中发挥着重要作用,为教师资格证书期末考试中的示范课做准备。然而,现有的少数课程计划评分标准在理论上并不健全,几乎没有经过分数解释的有效性测试。为了满足对透明和适用标准的需求,我们开发了科学课程计划评估准则(RALP),以评估科学教师的课程计划质量。我们采用了混合方法:首先,我们提出了多种有效性证据来源(基于测试内容、内部结构、与其他变量的关系以及测试结果),作为RALP质量的主要定量指标。在此基础上,我们将RALP应用于职前和实习科学教师编写的课程计划(N = 100),并对六个案例进行了定性分析,以说明这些课程计划中的常见模式。结果表明,教师教育者考虑RALP标准(N = 24)相关且客观适用。分数的相关性分析和两位教师教育工作者对所有课程计划的整体质量评估提供了令人信服的证据,证明RALP可以区分课程计划质量水平。此外,职前科学教师和实习科学教师之间的比较显示,实习教师的得分明显高于职前教师,这表明RALP对教学和规划经验的差异很敏感。RALP三个标准的应用和深入分析说明了规划质量水平的这些差异。我们讨论了RALP在科学教师教育和科学教学研究中的可能应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Science & Education
Science & Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
14.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice. In addition to original articles, the journal features the following special sections: -Learning : consisting of theoretical and empirical research studies on learning of science. We invite manuscripts that investigate learning and its change and growth from various lenses, including psychological, social, cognitive, sociohistorical, and affective. Studies examining the relationship of learning to teaching, the science knowledge and practices, the learners themselves, and the contexts (social, political, physical, ideological, institutional, epistemological, and cultural) are similarly welcome. -Issues and Trends : consisting primarily of analytical, interpretive, or persuasive essays on current educational, social, or philosophical issues and trends relevant to the teaching of science. This special section particularly seeks to promote informed dialogues about current issues in science education, and carefully reasoned papers representing disparate viewpoints are welcomed. Manuscripts submitted for this section may be in the form of a position paper, a polemical piece, or a creative commentary. -Science Learning in Everyday Life : consisting of analytical, interpretative, or philosophical papers regarding learning science outside of the formal classroom. Papers should investigate experiences in settings such as community, home, the Internet, after school settings, museums, and other opportunities that develop science interest, knowledge or practices across the life span. Attention to issues and factors relating to equity in science learning are especially encouraged.. -Science Teacher Education [...]
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Sustainability as Living Architecture Issue Information “On Mars, we will speak Arabic”: Negotiating identity in upper secondary physics in Denmark Critical climate awareness as a science education outcome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1