0.6 Gresham, g. (october 2011). a university/school partnership  (Page 8/10)

Researchers observed the teacher monthly beginning in September. After observations were completed, the researchers emailed the observation findings to the teacher. Then, once monthly through April, the researchers met with the teacher to review the observation findings, answer questions, and provide support.

Findings

Research question (1) what is the effect of the science planning model on fifth grade student science content gain on students receiving the treatment and those not receiving the treatment? was investigated by the researchers conducting a mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance to consider the impact of School 1 and School 2 across two time periods on student achievement. There was a significant interaction between the school and time, Wilks’ Lambda = .87, F (1, 96) = 8.13, p = .005, partial eta squared = .078. Table 1 illustrates these data. Due to the reality that there was a significant interaction, one knows that one variable was influenced by the level of the second variable. The researchers understood that any attempted interpretation of the main effects was difficult due to this significant interaction (Weiss, 2006). However, when one considered the between-subjects effect, the data suggested that the main effect for group was not significant anyway. The main effect comparing the two schools was not significant. Therefore, there was no difference in the scores of those in School 1 to those in School 2 over the period of time.

To study research question (2) what is the effect of the science planning model on fifth grade at-risk student science content gain and other fifth grade student science content gain when both groups receive the treatment? the researchers conducted a mixed between-within subjects analysis of variance to consider the impact of students at-risk and those not at-risk at one school (school 2) across two time periods on student achievement. There was no significant interaction between the at-risk students and those not at-risk the schools and time, Wilks’ Lambda = .99, F (1, 49) = .096, p = .758, partial eta squared = .002. There was a substantial main effect for time, Wilks Lambda = .29, F (1, 49) = 1.21, p <.0005, partial eta squared = .71, with both groups showing an improvement in test scores across the two time periods. Table 2 illustrates these data. The main effect comparing the two student groups was significant, F (1, 49) = 14.8, p <.0005, partial eta squared = .232, suggesting a difference in the effectiveness of the teaching in preparing the at-risk students to take the second assessment.

By analyzing the survey responses for themes and triangulating the responses with classroom observations and curriculum documents reviewed to answer research question (3) what kind of change occurs in instructional delivery when content experts collaborate with and coach a fifth grade classroom science teacher? data revealed the teacher’s understanding and implementation of the planning model and/or the teaching of science. Following were themes that emerged.