Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigated the long-term impact of the science writing heuristic (SWH) approach on students’ science achievement, focusing on differences between low and high socioeconomic status (SES) groups. Through a longitudinal design, students were divided into control and treatment (at least 1 year of SWH) groups. Polynomial growth mixed modeling analyzed longitudinal data from Grades 4 to 11 using Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores. Results showed that younger students in the SWH approach had better achievement growth, and the SWH experience affected science achievement differently for students from low and high SES backgrounds. The findings support the importance of early intervention for disadvantaged groups, such as students from low SES backgrounds.

Keywords

achievement achievement gap disadvantage gap early intervention longitudinal studies low socioeconomic status students polynomial growth mixed modeling science education science writing heuristic

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akkus

Gunel

Hand

(2007). Comparing an inquiry-based approach known as the science writing heuristic to traditional science teaching practices: Are there differences? International Journal of Science Education, 29(14), 1745–1765.

American Psychological Association, Task Force on Socioeconomic Status. (2007). Report of the APA task force on socioeconomic status. https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/task-force-2006.pdf

Asterhan

C. S. C.

Schwarz

B. B.

(2016). Argumentation for learning: Well-trodden paths and unexplored territories. Education Psychologist, 51(2), 164–187.

Brown

J. A.

Jimerson

S. R.

Dowdy

Gonzalez

Stewart

(2012). Assessing the effects of school-wide second step implementation in a predominately English language learner, low SES, Latino sample. Psychology in the Schools, 49(9), 864–875. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21639

Buckingham

Wheldall

Beaman-Wheldall

(2013). Why poor children are more likely to become poor readers: The school years. Australian Journal of Education, 57(3), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944113495500.

Caro

D. H.

McDonald

J. T.

Willms

J. D.

(2009). Socio-economic status and academic achievement trajectories from childhood to adolescence. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 558–590.

Chanlen

(2013). Longitudinal analysis of standardized test scores of students in the science writing heuristic approach (Publication No. 3608206) [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Chevalier

Lanot

(2002). The relative effect of family characteristics and financial situation on educational achievement. Education Economics, 10(2), 165–181.

Cikmaz

Fulmer

Yaman

Hand

(2021). Examining the interdependence in the growth of students’ language and argument competencies in replicative and generative learning environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58(10), 1457–1488. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21715

10.

Diamond

Lee

(2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529

11.

Dolean

Melby-Lervåg

Tincas

Damsa

Lervåg

(2019). Achievement gap: Socioeconomic status affects reading development beyond language and cognition in children facing poverty. Learning and Instruction, 63, Article 101218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101218

12.

Entwisle

D. R.

Astone

N. M.

(1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65(6), 1521–1540. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131278

13.

Furtak

E. M.

Seidel

Iverson

Briggs

D. C.

(2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 300–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312457206

14.

Greenfield

E. A.

Moorman

S. M.

(2019). Childhood socioeconomic status and later life cognition: Evidence from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study. Journal of Aging and Health, 31(9), 1589–1615. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264318783489

15.

Grusky

(2001). Social stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological perspective. Westview Press.

16.

Gutman

L. M.

Sameroff

A. J.

Cole

(2003). Academic growth curve trajectories from 1st grade to 12th grade: Effects of multiple social risk factors and preschool child factors. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 777–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.4.777

17.

Hand

Cavagnetto

(2023). Brian’s life is not just another brick in the wall: Reframing the metaphor of science teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2023.2284711

18.

Hand

Chen

Y. C.

Suh

J. K.

(2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33(2), 535–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0

19.

Herbers

J. E.

Cutuli

J. J.

Supkoff

L. M.

Heistad

Chan

C. K.

Hinz

Masten

A. S.

(2012). Early reading skills and academic achievement trajectories of students facing poverty, homelessness, and high residential mobility. Educational Researcher, 41(9), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12445320

20.

Iowa Assessments. (2015). Research and development guide: Forms E and F. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

21.

Karaer

Hand

French

B. F.

(2024). Examining the impact of science writing heuristic (SWH) approach on development of critical thinking, science and language skills of students with and without disabilities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, Article 101443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101443

22.

Lamb

R. L.

Etopio

(2019). Virtual reality simulations and writing: A neuroimaging study in science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 542–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09785-9

23.

Liu

Peng

Zhao

Luo

(2022). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement in primary and secondary education: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 2867–2896 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09689-y

24.

Long

Pang

(2016). Family socioeconomic status, parental expectations, and adolescents’ academic achievements: A case of China. Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2016.1237369

25.

Lucas

S. R.

Byrne

(2017). Effectively maintained inequality in education: An introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(1), 3–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764216682992

26.

Moje

E. B.

(2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07300046001

27.

Pungello

E. P.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

Burchinal

M. R.

Patterson

C. J.

(1996). Environmental risk factors and children’s achievement from middle childhood to early adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 755–767.

28.

Reardon

S. F.

(2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

R. J.

(Eds.), Whither opportunity (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage.

29.

Rodríguez-Hernández

C. F.

Cascallar

Kyndt

(2020). Socio-economic status and academic performance in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 29, Article 100305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100305

30.

Scherrer

Preckel

Schmidt

Elliot

A. J.

(2020). Development of achievement goals and their relation to academic interest and achievement in adolescence: A review of the literature and two longitudinal studies. Developmental Psychology, 56(4), 795–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000898

31.

Schmitt

Kleine

(2010). The influence of family-school relations on academic success. Journal for Educational Research Online, 2(1), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:4571

32.

Secker

C. V.

(2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596585

33.

Tomul

Önder

Taslidere

(2021). The relative effect of student, family and school-related factors on math achievement by location of the school. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 9, Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-021-00117-1

34.

Tourangeau

Nord

Lê

Pollack

J. M.

Atkins-Burnett

(2006). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), combined user’s manual for the ECLS-K fifth-grade data files and electronic codebooks (NCES 2006–032). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

35.

Waters

N. E.

Ahmed

S. F.

Tang

Morrison

F. J.

Davis-Kean

P. E.

(2021). Pathways from socio-economic status to early academic achievement: The role of specific executive functions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.09.008

36.

Westrick

P. A.

Robbins

S. B.

Radunzel

J. M.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2015). College performance and retention: A meta-analysis of the predictive validities of ACT® scores, high school grades, and SES. Educational Assessment, 20(1), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2015.997614

Addressing the Disadvantage Gap Through Generative Learning: A Case for the Science Writing Heuristic Approach

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References