Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this Article Janssen, Rianne and Crauwels, Marion(2011) 'Content and student factors in mastering environmental
studies - nature in primary education: evidence from a national assessment in Flanders (Belgium)', Journal of Biological
Education, 45: 1, 20 28
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2011.537836
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2011.537836
20
Research paper
Content and student factors in
mastering environmental studies
nature in primary education: evidence
from a national assessment in
Flanders (Belgium)
Rianne Janssena and Marion Crauwelsb
Downloaded By: [informa internal users] At: 15:44 25 February 2011
Center for Educational Effectiveness and Evaluation and Research Group Quantitative Methods and
Individual Differences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; bDepartment of Biology, University of
Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
A large-scale paper-and-pencil assessment of the attainment targets of environmental studies with a focus on the
subject area nature was held in primary education in Flanders (Belgium). The tests on different subfields of nature,
i.e. the human body, healthcare, organisms, ecosystems, environmental care and non-living nature, were administered to a representative sample of 4556 pupils of the sixth grade from 145 different schools. The percentage of
students mastering the attainment targets differed clearly across the tested subfields. Moreover, gender differences
were found. Multilevel analyses revealed that 13% of the total variance of the performance on an overall scale could
be attributed to differences between schools. For 82%, these school differences were accounted for by factors
mainly referring to the language spoken at home and to the socio-economic background of the pupils. Differences
among pupils within schools were explained only to a small extent.
Keywords: large-scale assessment; environmental studies; nature; primary education; multilevel analyses
Introduction
Since 1998, the Flemish Parliament has issued attainment targets for primary education (for pupils from 6
to 12 years) and secondary education (for students
from 12 to 18 years). Attainment targets are minimum
educational objectives with regard to knowledge,
insight, skills and attitudes, which the society and the
educational authorities regard as necessary and attainable at the end of a certain level of education.
As part of a system of quality control of Flemish
education, the Flemish ministry of education started a
programme of national assessments of educational
progress in 2002. The purpose of these national assessments is twofold. First, an assessment has to give information about the percentage of pupils that actually reach
the different attainment targets of the domain that is
being tested. Before the national assessments, informa-
Corresponding author: M. Crauwels, Department of Biology, University of Leuven (Belgium), Naamsestraat 61 (PB 2102),
B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. Email marion.crauwels@bio.kuleuven.be, tel 32 16 32 42 90, fax 32 16 32 42 58
Journal of Biological Education ISSN 00219266 print/ISSN 21576009 online 2011 Society of Biology
http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2011.537836
RESEARCH PAPER
Attainment targetsa
MAN
Human body: structure and functioning, sexuality and development
6. The pupils are able to describe the function of the most important organs involved in mans
life processes and the function of the senses, the skeleton and the muscles.
7. The pupils are able to recognise physical changes which they observe in themselves and
their peers as normal aspects of their development.
Health care
14. The pupils are able to relate healthy habits to what they know about the functions of their
own body and are aware that certain symptoms of disease or handicaps cannot always be
avoided.
15. The pupils are aware that taking precautions can reduce or exclude the chance of infectious
diseases, parasites and fungal infections.c
NATURE AROUND US
Organisms
1. The pupils are able to discover similarities and differences in a limited collection of humans,
animals and plants, and are able to impose their own order and explain it on the basis of at
least one criterion.
3. The pupils are able to point out the characteristics of organisms, revealing how they are
adapted to their diet, protection against enemies and environmental influences.
Ecosystems
2. The pupils are familiar with a few biotopes in their environment and are able to identify and
name a number of common animals and plants in this.
5. The pupils are able to illustrate the law of eating and being eaten on the basis of the food
chain.
Environmental care
4. The pupils are able to illustrate that man influences the presence of plants and animals in his
environment.
19. The pupils are able to give concrete examples in their environment to illustrate how
peoples approach to the environment can be negative or positive, and that environmental
problems are often caused by conflicting interests.
NON-LIVING NATURE
8. The pupils are able to measure and describe the weather conditions at a particular moment
and over a limited period.
9. The pupils are able to illustrate the link between peoples habits and the climate they live in.
10. The pupils are able to demonstrate how the earth rotates around itself, and how the earth,
the sun and the moon move in relation to each other.
11. The pupils are able to indicate what materials and raw materials common objects in their
environment are made of.
Notes: a The numbers refer to the original numbering of the attainment targets in the official publications; b K = Knowledge, C = Comprehension, A = Application;
c
As explained in the text, this attainment target is officially also an attitude.
21
22
Research questions
In line with the two purposes of a national assessment,
the following research questions were asked:
(1) How many Flemish pupils master the attainment
targets on environmental studies nature and are
there differences in performance among the six
subfields? Detailed analyses of the results may
result in content factors that influence the mastery
and comprehension of biology by 12-year-olds.
Table 2.
Method
Test development
The tests used in the national assessment were
constructed in a previous research project, which was
also commissioned by the Department of Education of
the Flemish Government. Test construction consisted
of several phases: (1) description of the test design; (2)
formulation of the items while taking into account
both attainment targets and their operationalisation in
the curricula as defined by the educational authorities;
(3) piloting of the items with small samples of pupils;
(4) evaluation of the constructed items by experts; and
(5) a large-scale calibration study, in which for each of
the six tests a scale was constructed on the basis of item
response theory (IRT). IRT models are commonly
used in national assessment programmes, such as in the
American National Assessment of Educational
Progress (e.g. Mislevy et al. 1992), the Australian Basic
Skills Testing programme (Masters et al. 1989), or the
Dutch National Assessment Programme (e.g. Thijssen
et al. 2001). In order to determine the minimal test
RESEARCH PAPER
Table 2.
(Continued)
23
24
Table 2.
(Continued)
Notes: The percentage of students having chosen each response alternative is given in italics. For each item, the percentage of students who did not respond to it
varied between 1 and 2%.
Procedure
In each school, the research team was represented by a
test assistant, who distributed the test booklets to the
teachers of each class. The teachers administered the
paper-and-pencil tests to the children of their own
class, following detailed written instructions. The
pupils received 100 min to complete their test booklets. The test assistant controlled the test administration
and collected the test booklets at the end.
RESEARCH PAPER
Boys
Test booklet
Test
Non-living nature
Human body
Health care
Organisms
Ecosystems
Environmental care
N
758 766 768 742 756 766
3022
3046
3058
3034
3032
3032
Test
df p-value
Human body
Health care
Organisms
Ecosystems
Environmental
care
Non-living nature
82.0
84.4
52.4
82.5
64.9
1546
1535
1533
1526
1505
77.0
77.3
55.7
81.8
65.7
1499
1522
1501
1506
1526
11.85
24.91
3.36
0.25
0.22
1 0.001
1 <0.001
1 0.067
1 0.616
1 0.639
0.008
10% level. For the tests on ecosystems and environmental care there were no gender differences. Finally,
the boys performed significantly better than the girls
for the test on non-living nature.
Results
Performance on the different
attainment targets
Figure 1 shows the percentage of students reaching the
attainment targets of the six subfields. The best performances were found on the tests of ecosystems, healthcare and human body. For each of these subfields,
about 8 out of 10 pupils mastered the attainment
targets. The test measuring environmental care was
mastered by 65% of the students. The tests measuring
non-living nature and organisms were mastered the
worst, respectively, 56 and 54%.
Figure 1. Percentage of pupils reaching the standard for each of the six scales
Gender differences
Table 4 shows that for the two tests on man, the girls
clearly outperformed the boys in reaching the standards. For the tests on organisms, the boys scored
higher, but this difference was only significant at the
Figure 1.
Multilevel analyses
When analysing the performance of the students on
the common IRT scale, it was found that schools
differed in their average pupil performance. The
school level accounted for 12% of the total variance.
The classroom level accounted for only 2%. In fact,
the latter variance was not significantly different from
zero, implying that there were no systematic differences between the classes within schools. The remaining 87% of the variance referred to differences among
pupils within schools.
Table 5 presents the results of the final multilevel
model. Among the pupil variables the language spoken
with the mother has the largest effect. Pupils who
report that they speak another language than Dutch or
who speak Dutch in combination with another
language score on average lower than students who
speak only Dutch. Pupils who speak other languages
Percentage of pupils reaching the standard for each of the six scales
25
26
Discussion
Variablec
Pupil level (N=3319)
Language spoken with mother
Dutch
Other language
Dutch and other language(s)
Other languages
Age
At age (or before age)
1 year behind
2 or 3 years behind
Learning disabilities
None
Dyscalculia
Behavioural problems
Classroom level (N=234)
PC present in classroom
School level (N=115)
Educational network
Private subsidised schools
Municipal schools
Flemish-community schools
Percentage of low SES children
%d
SE()f
pg
Effecth
88.8
6.8
4.1
0.4
0.206
0.157
0.318
0.016
0.019
0.059
***
***
***
0.13
0.10
0.21
85.1
13.8
1.2
0.132
0.137
0.011
0.034
***
***
0.08
0.08
90.5
1.0
2.6
0.118
0.062
0.035
0.024
***
**
0.07
0.04
89.7
0.044
0.015
**
0.02
59.0
22.9
18.1
24.6
0.032
0.064
0.220
0.014
0.015
0.038
*
***
***
0.02
0.04
0.06b
Notes: aThe final model was estimated on 73% of the total sample as only for these pupils information on all variables was available. Happily, several analyses on
subsamples did not reveal a selection bias. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. bFor a percentage equal to 50%. cDifferent categories of the categorical variables.
d
Percentage of pupils for whom the reported effect holds; one category is chosen as the reference category. eRegression weight; in comparison with a reference
category. fStandard error of estimation. gLevel of significance. hEffect size; a pupil who is in the reference category for all variables is taken as a reference and has a
probability of 0.76 to answer an item of medium difficulty correctly.
RESEARCH PAPER
chips can be made of potatoes. Children had little difficulty with the items relating the lifestyle and habits of a
community of people to the climate of their habitat.
Gender differences
The reported gender differences on the different
subfields are in line with previous research. First, in
the present assessment girls outperformed boys on the
tests on the human body and on health education.
Studies in secondary education (Tunnicliffe 1997;
Uitto et al. 2006) showed that boys were more interested in basic processes in biology, while girls found
human biology and health education more interesting.
Second, the boys performed better on the test on nonliving nature, the attainment targets for which are
related to physics and chemistry. This is in line with
the study by Baram-Tsabari and Yarden (2008). Third,
in the present assessment there was a slight advantage
for the boys on the test on organisms. Huxham et al.
(2006) reported that in primary education boys had
greater wildlife knowledge than girls. Finally, as in
TIMSS or PISA, no gender differences were found on
the overall scale. Apparently, the gender differences in
different subfields cancel out when looking at an overall science performance.
27
28
Educational implications
In primary education, there is a shift towards an experience-based method of teaching biology, stressing the
importance to start from the observation and exploration of the childrens own environment. The results on
the different subfields provided by this research show
that primary school teachers need to be encouraged
and supported in giving particular emphasis to direct
interaction with local nature around the schools environment. Examples from local nature should be used to
draw pupils attention to link features of organisms and
their occurrence in biotopes. Concerning the subfield
of environmental care, one way to enhance pupils
performance is to introduce educational environmental
projects as in the subfield of health care in which all
actors are involved in an integrated and multidisciplinary way. For certain subfields, the level of abstraction negatively influenced pupils performances. For
more abstract topics, teaching by illustration may
improve childrens learning process.
With respect to gender differences, it seems important that teachers take into account that, on average,
boys and girls may be engaged in different contents and
contexts of biology, as Uitto et al. (2006) also noted.
Teachers should try to overcome these gender differences and not reinforce stereotypical gender roles.
Finally, with respect to the influence of background
variables, the assessment revealed a prominent role of
language. Therefore, educators in teaching training
programmes should pay special attention to language as
part of didactics in science. Vikstrom (2008) showed that
even complex understanding in biology is possible when
the opportunities to learn are adequate. Collaborative
learning class environments may overcome language
barriers as well as the maintaining of misconceptions
(Pallincsar 1989; Marinopoulos and Stavidrou 2002).
Acknowledgements
The research was carried out using grants from the
Flemish Ministry of Education. We would like to
thank Frank Habermann, Barbara Luyten, May Van
Hulle, Danil Van Nijlen, Cecile Van der Schaeve and
Bartel Volckaert, who were part of the research team.
References
Baram-Tsabari, A., and A. Yarden. 2008. Girls biology, boys physics:
Evidence from free-choice science learning settings. Research in Science and
Technological Education 26, no. 1: 7592.
Bloom, B. 1968. Taxonomy of educational objectives. The classification of educational
goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay Company.
Brown, B.A. and K. Ryoo. 2008. Teaching science as a language: A contentfirst approach to science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45,
no. 5: 52953.
Cakici, Y. 2005. Exploring Turkish upper primary level pupils understanding
of digestion. International Journal of Science Education 27, no. 1: 79100.
Crauwels, M., C. Vanderschaeve, M. Van Hulle, and R. Janssen. In preparation. A large-scale performance assessment of observation and scientific
reasoning skills at the end of elementary education.
Dimoupoulos, K., V. Koulaidis, and S. Sklaveniti. 2005. Towards a framework of socio-linguistic analysis of science textbooks: The Greek case.
Research in Science Education 35, nos. 23: 17395.
Duran, B.J., T. Dugan, and R. Weffer. 1998. Language minority students in
high school: The role of language in learning biology concepts. Science
Education 82, no. 3: 31141.
Gilmour, M. and C. McGregor (Eds). 1985. Sub-Arctic land animals. A language
development unit for science. Life and the environment: living/non-living things.
Grade One. Northwest Territories: School Programmes Department of
Education Northwest Territories.
Goldstein, H. 2003. Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
Hipkins, R., A. Bull, and C. Joyce. 2008. The interplay of context and
concepts in primary school childrens systems thinking. Journal of Biological
Education 42, no. 2: 737.
Huxham, M., A. Welsh, A. Berry, and S. Templeton. 2006. Factors influencing primary school childrens knowledge of wildlife. Journal of Biological
Education 41, no. 1: 912.
Marinopoulos, D. and H. Stavridou. 2002. The influence of a collaborative
learning environment on primary students conceptions about acid rain.
Journal of Biological Education 37, no. 1: 1824.
Masters, G., J. Lokan, B. Doig, K.S. Toon, J. Lindsey, L. Robinson, and
S. Zammit. 1990. Profiles of learning: The Basic Skills Testing Program in
New South Wales 1989. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Council for
Educational Research.
Mislevy, R.J., E.G. Johnson, and E. Muraki. 1992. Scaling procedures in
NAEP. Journal of Educational Statistics 17, no. 2: 13154.
Mitzel, H.C., D.M. Lewis, R.J. Patz, and D.R. Green. 2001. The bookmark
procedure: Psychological perspectives. In: Setting performance standards:
Concepts, methods and perspectives, ed. G.J. Cizek, 24981. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pallincsar, A.S. 1989. Structured dialogues among communities of first grade
learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, 27 March1
April.
Thijssen, J., F. van der Schoot, and B. Hemker. 2003. Balans van het
biologieonderwijs aan het einde van de basischool 3. Uitkomsten van de
derde peiling in 2001 [Report of biology education at the end of elementary
school 3: Results of the third national assessment in 2001]. Arhnem: Citogroep.
Tunnicliffe, S.D. 1997. Birds, bees and babies. Primary Science 49: 169.
Uitto, A., K. Juuti, J. Lavonen, and V. Meisalo. 2006. Students interest in
biology and their out-of-school experiences. Journal of Biological Education
40, no. 3: 1249.
Vikstrom, A. 2008. What is intended, what is realized, and what is learned?
Teaching and learning biology in the primary school classroom. Journal of
Science Teacher Education 19, no. 3: 21133.