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