Andrew McConney

Bio: Andrew McConney is an academic researcher from Murdoch University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Teacher education & Science education. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 80 publications receiving 2013 citations. Previous affiliations of Andrew McConney include Florida Institute of Technology & University of Western Australia.

An investigation of the effectiveness of concept mapping as an instructional tool

Abstract: The study of concept mapping as a research topic evolved from work conducted at Cornell University under the auspices of Novak (Novak and Gowin, 1984). Most recently reported is a 12-year longitudinal study of science concept learning in which Novak and his colleagues developed concept maps as a tool to represent knowledge structures (Novak and Musonda, 1991). Predicated on Ausubel’s assimilation theory of cognitive learning, these maps depicted the hierarchy and relationships among concepts. Data gathered from clinical interviews given before and after instruction were transformed from their raw, propositional form to concept maps. These “before and after” maps, which represented specific pre- and postinstruction concept meanings held by students, were then analyzed for changes in students’ cognitive structure. In summarizing the results of this study, Novak and Musonda reported that experimental students showed “many more valid conceptions and many fewer invalid conceptions” (p. 148) when compared to a similar sample of students who received no formal instruction in basic science concepts. In the research done since Novak developed this tool, concept mapping has become a viable educational medium. For example, there is evidence that concept maps can help teachers become more effective (Beyerbach and Smith, 1990; Hoz et al., 1990), and can serve as a heuristic for curriculum development (Starr and Krajcik, 1990). Perhaps most importantly, concept maps have been reported to be a potent instructional tool for promoting what Ausubel has described as meaningful learning. Meaningful learning refers to anchoring new ideas or concepts with previously acquired knowledge in a nonarbitrary way (Novak, 1977). It is this latter role of concept maps that is the focus of this study.

Does the SES of the School Matter? An Examination of Socioeconomic Status and Student Achievement Using PISA 2003

Abstract: Background/Context: It is well established in the research literature that socioeconomically disadvantaged students and schools do less well on standardized measures of academic achievement compared with their more advantaged peers. Although studies in numerous countries have shown that the socioeconomic profile of a school is strongly correlated with student outcomes, less is understood about how the relationship may vary if both individual student and school socioeconomic status (SES) are disaggregated. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This study examines the relationship between school SES and student outcomes in more detail by asking two research questions. First, how does the association vary for students of different socioeconomic backgrounds? In other words, is the association stronger for students from lower SES backgrounds than for students from higher SES backgrounds ? Second, how does the association vary across schools with different socioeconomic compositions? In other words, are increases in school socioeconomic composition consistently associated with increases in student academic achievement? Population/Participants/Subjects: This study uses data from the Australian 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The sample includes over 320 secondary schools and more than 12,000 students from Australia. Research Design: This study is a secondary analysis of data from the Australian 2003 PISA. Descriptive statistics are used to compare the average reading mathematics, and science achievement of secondary school students from different SES backgrounds in a variety of school SES contexts. Conclusions: The two main findings of the study are that increases in the mean SES of a school are associated with consistent increases in students' academic achievement, and that this relationship is similar for all students regardless of their individual SES. In the Australian case, the socio-economic composition of the school matters greatly in terms of students' academic performance.

School Socio-Economic Composition and Student Outcomes in Australia: Implications for Educational Policy

Abstract: It is established that the socio-economic status (SES) of individual students is strongly associated with academic achievement but less is known about this relationship when both student and school socio-economic status are considered. To examine these associations at a finer grain, with the intent of informing educational funding policy, we subjected Australia's 2003 PISA data set to secondary analysis to better understand the reading and mathematics achievement of students with varying SES, across a range of school SES groupings. Our descriptive analyses show that increases in school SES are consistently associated with increases in students' academic performance, and that this relationship holds regardless of individual students' SES. In Australia, the socio-economic profile of the school matters substantially in terms of academic achievement We discuss the implications of these findings in the context of the current discussion around federal school funding policies, with particular attention given to the association of school composition with student achievement.

Inquiry, Engagement, and Literacy in Science: A Retrospective, Cross-National Analysis Using PISA 2006

Abstract: In this study, we examine patterns of students’ literacy and engagement in science associated with different levels of “inquiry-oriented” learning reported by students in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. To achieve this, we analyzed data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's 2006 Programme for International Student Assessment, which had science as its focus. Consistently, our findings show that science students who report experiencing low levels of inquiry-oriented learning activities are found to have above-average levels of science literacy, but below-average levels of interest in science, and below-average levels on six variables that reflect students’ engagement in science. Our findings show that the corollary is also true. Across the three countries, students who report high levels of inquiry-oriented learning activities in science are observed to have below-average levels of science literacy, but above-average levels of interest in learning science, and above-average engagement in science. These findings appear to run counter to science education orthodoxy that the more students experience inquiry-oriented teaching and learning, the more likely they are to have stronger science literacy, as well as more positive affect toward science. We discuss the implications of these findings for science educators and researchers.

미국 NCTM의 Principles and Standards for School Mathematics에 나타난 수학과 교수,학습의 이론

Abstract: 미국의 “전국 수학 교사 협의회”(National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, NCTM)는 1989년부터 〈학교 수학의 교육과정과 평가 규준〉(1989), 〈수학 가르침(교수)의 전문성 규준〉(1991), 〈학교 수학의 평가(시험) 규준〉(NCTM, 1995), 〈학교 수학의 원리와 규준〉(2000)을 출판하여 미국의 수학 교육 의 전망(목표, 나아갈 길)과 규준(실행 지침)을 제시하였다. 수학 교사들로 구성된 미국의 NCTM은 학생, 학부모, 학교 행정가 등 많은 사람들과 힘을 합하여 모든 학생들에게 수준 높은 수학 교육을 받을 수 있는 여건(환경, 기회)을 조성하는 데 구심점의 역할을 하였다. 한편 많은 관련 단체들은 여러 배경과 능력을 가진 학생들이 전문성을 지닌 교사(특수 교사를 일컫는 밀이 아니다. 수학 교과를 이해하고 수학의 전문성과 특수성을 가르칠 수 있는 일반 교사를 일컫는 말이다.)로부터 미래를 대비해 평등하고, 진취적이며, 지원이 잘 이루어지고, 공학 도구(IT)가 잘 갖춰진 환경에서 중요한 수학적 아이디어를 이해하면서 학습할 수 있는 수학 교실(미국에서는 우리나라처럼 수학 교사가 수학 시간에 학생의 방(교실: Homeroom)에 찾아가지 않고 학생들이 선생의 방(수학 교실: Classroom)을 찾아온다. 전형적인 수학 교실의 사진은 2쪽에 나와 있다.)을 만들기 위해 함께 힘썼다. NCTM에서 출간한 여러 규준들은 우리나라의 제6차와 제7차 교육과정에도 큰 영향을 미쳤다. 이 글에서는 NCTM(2000)에서 제시한 학습 원리를 간단히 살펴본 다음 이를 중심으로 현재 미국 수학 교육의 교수ㆍ학습 이론의 동향을 살펴본다.

تقويم البرنامج : طرق بديلة و إرشادات عملية = Program evaluation Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines

Abstract: I. INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION. 1. Evaluation's Basic Purpose, Uses, and Conceptual Distinctions. 2. Origins of Modern Program Evaluation. 3. Recent Developments and Trends in Evaluation. II. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO PROGRAM EVALUATION. 4. Alternative Views of Evaluation. 5. Objectives-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 6. Management-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 7. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 8. Expertise-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 9. Adversary-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 10. Participant-Oriented Evaluation Approaches. 11. Alternative Evaluation Approaches: A Summary and Comparative Analysis. III. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING EVALUATION. 12. Clarifying the Evaluation Request and Responsibilities. 13. Setting Boundaries and Analyzing the Evaluation Context. 14. Identifying and Selecting the Evaluative Questions and Criteria. 15. Planning How to Conduct the Evaluation. IV. PRACTICAL GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING AND USING EVALUATIONS. 16. Dealing with Political, Ethical, and Interpersonal Aspects of Evaluation. 17. Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Quantitative Information. 18. Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Qualitative Information. 19. Reporting and Using Evaluation Information. 20. Evaluating Evaluations. V. EMERGING AND FUTURE SETTINGS FOR PROGRAM EVALUATION. 21. Conducting Multiple-Site Evaluation Studies. 22. Conducting Evaluations of Organizations Renewal and Training in Corporate and Nonprofit Settings. 23. The Future of Evaluation. Appendix: Some General Areas of Competence Important in Education Evaluation.

The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes.

Abstract: This article describes the ICAP framework that defines cognitive engagement activities on the basis of students’ overt behaviors and proposes that engagement behaviors can be categorized and differentiated into one of four modes: Interactive, Constructive, Active, and Passive. The ICAP hypothesis predicts that as students become more engaged with the learning materials, from passive to active to constructive to interactive, their learning will increase. We suggest possible knowledge-change processes that support the ICAP hypothesis and address the limitations and caveats of the hypothesis. In addition, empirical validation for the hypothesis is provided by examining laboratory and classroom studies that focus on three specific engagement activities: note taking, concept mapping and self-explaining. We also consider how ICAP can be used as a tool for explaining discrepant findings, dictate the proper choice of a control condition, and evaluate students’ outputs. Finally, we briefly compare ICAP to existing...