ARTICLES
The Meta Lesson Plan (continued)
Table 1
The contribution of cognitive predictors to SC Science exam achievement
Step Predictor Postconventional
R2
ΔR2, p(DF) Step 1 Trial .69 .69, <.001 .83 <.001 Trial .81
Step 2 Trial .75 .05, <.01 .57 <.001 Trial .88
.35 <.01 Reading .47 <.001 Trial Literacy .27 <.05 Numeracy .22 Reading Writing
Literacy
Step 3
Excluded
Trial
.77
.02, <.05
β p Predictor R2 Postmeta
Δ R2, p(DF)
β p
.81, <.001 .90 <.001
.066, <.001 .60 <.001
.40 <.001
.54 <.001
Reading .30 <.001
<.05 Numeracy .18 <.05
.144 >.05 Writing .05 >.05
-.19 >.05 Literacy .02 >.05
Table 2 shows the magnitude of each contributor to learning in
response to the different lesson plans. The f2 effect size of the trial
was significant in both cases but was almost three times greater
in response to the meta lesson plan than in response to the
conventional lesson plan (.85 vs. .3 respectively). Likewise, the
f2 effect size of reading was three times greater than was literacy
(.1 vs. .03 respectively). However, the literacy effect size was
not a significant contributor, p(DF) >.05, suggesting that literacy
does not coevolve with the conventional classroom learning of
science. Alternatively, reading was a significant contributor,
p(DF)<.05, suggesting that this cognitive skill coevolved with the
classroom learning of science. Finally, the comparable f 2 effect
sizes of numeracy suggests it is a cognitive skill unaffected by
either lesson plan, indicating that the other f 2 effects observed in
response to the meta lesson plan are specifically attributable to
that lesson plan.
.88
Table 3 shows that all split regression of the multivariate
models fell to within 5% of their parental models. However, the
Postconventional splits failed to identify the same combination
of variables (trial & numeracy vs. trial & literacy), suggesting that
the conventional lesson plan is somewhat arbitrary in its influence
on the development of students’ cognitive skills. Alternatively, the
Postmeta splits identified the same combination of variables (trial
& reading vs. trial & reading), suggesting that the meta lesson
plan specifically developed reading skills. This indicates that
reading skills contribute significantly to the formation of memory
during classroom learning in preparation for the trial science
exam and subsequently, the contribution of that learning in the
SC science exam.
Table 3
Split regression validity of the stepwise regressions
Table 2
Regression
f effect sizes in response to conventional and meta lesson
plans
2
Split 1 (R 2 , p)
Lesson plan
Trial
0, <.05
Postconventional Postmeta
f 2 , p(DF) f 2 , p(DF)
.3, <.001 .85, <.001
Reading
Split 1 variables
Split 2 (R 2 , p)
Split 2 variables
Whole model (R 2 +/-
5%)
.1, <.05
Literacy .03, >.05
Numeracy .09, <.05
.06, <.05
30
SCIENCE EDUCATIONAL NEWS VOL 67 NO 1
Postconventional Postmeta
.77, <.01 .86, <.001
Trial, Numeracy Trial, Reading
.79, <.01 .9, <.01
Trial, Literacy Trial, Reading
.73<77>.8 .84<.88>.93