The Meta Lesson Plan ( continued )
ARTICLES
The Meta Lesson Plan ( continued )
Correlational Data :
In comparing the difference of the correlation between the trial science and SC science exam scores in response to different lesson plans , figure 3 shows that the 95 % confidence intervals of the difference in r of all Postmeta comparisons did not cross zero . This finding was sustained in the comparison of the Postmeta vs . Postconventional multivariate regressions . Together , these results indicate that the meta lesson plan resulted in students developing a distinctly different learning response to the common science program than that of their peers . Alternatively , all of the conventional comparisons crossed zero , indicating that students developed the same learning response to the common science program across the seven year time frame of the study . As no difference existed between the conventional correlations , the conceptual foundation of the lesson plan has a major influence on the classroom learning response of students and is reliably enacted by teachers .
Figure 3 The difference in correlation between different lesson plans lesson plan accounts an average of 65 % of existing classroom diversity , with the meta lesson plan accounting for 85 % of existing classroom variance , i . e . an additional 16 % of classroom diversity was incorporated into classroom learning .
The split regressions showed that only the Postmeta model was internally coherent . The total variance accounted for by each split fell to within 5 % of the parental model at p <. 05 , being 81 % and 81 % ( 77 % < 81 %> 85 %). Alternatively , all three conventional models generated significant splits but fell outside the 5 % range of their parental models . In general , this suggests that the conventional lesson plan did not exert a coherent influence upon on the minds of students as they engage with their classroom learning whereas the meta lesson plan did . Additionally , irrespective of whether the conventional lesson plan was enacted by one teacher ( Premeta ) or a composite of teachers ( Preconventional or Postconventional , each with four teachers and only one common teacher to both groups ), the learning response was uniform . Hence , it is to the lesson plan that students respond more so than the teacher oneself . Finally , the independence of the teacher from the data suggests that the lack of a coherent learning response is an explicit consequence of the conventional lesson plan . By that fact , the cognitive view of diversity provides a clearer lens through which to perceive and engage student learning needs .
Multivariate models
Similar results existed within the multivariate models . The Postconventional model , F ( 3 , 61 ) = 67 at p <. 05 , accounted for 77 % of variance and the Postmeta model , F ( 3 , 68 ) = 173 at p <. 05 , accounted for 88 % of variance .
Bivariate models
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Prem ., 2 Prec ., 3 Postc ., vs . Postm ., 4 Prem . vs . Prec ., 5 Prec ., 6 Prem . vs . Postc ., 7 Postm . vs . Postc . ( Multivariate )
Individually , all regressions were statistically significant at p <. 001 . For the bivariate regressions , the Preconventional model accounted for 62 % of variance , F ( 1 , 80 ) = 134 , the Postconventional model accounted for 66 % of variance , F ( 1 , 72 ) = 139 and the Premeta model accounted for 66 % variance , F ( 1 , 88 ) = 168 . Alternatively , the Postmeta model accounted for 81 % of the variance , F ( 1 , 77 ) = 320 . This indicates that the conventional
Table 1 lists those cognitive factors identified as being significant contributors to learning in response to each type of lesson plan . Both models logically identified the prior learning of the trial science exam as being the single largest contributor to the SC science exam . At the second step , the models diverged with literacy entering the Postconventional model and reading entering the Postmeta model . Both models then converged to identify numeracy as the common step 3 contributors . In general , the multivariate regressions indicate that different cognitive skills ( reading vs . literacy ) were brought to the forefront of student learning in response to the different lesson plans ( meta vs . conventional respectively ).
29 SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 67 NO 1