THE NATIONAL STUDENT RESEARCH CENTER
(NOTE: This file contains research data which demonstrates the
efficacy of the Student Research Center approach to instruction
as implemented at Mandeville Middle School's Student Research
Center.)
***************************************************************
Efficacy Research: Cognition
***************************************************************
TABLE OF CONTENT
I. Accountability For Educational Outcomes
II. Program Outcomes: Cognitive Abilities
***************************************************************
I. Accountability for Educational Outcomes:
The National Student Research Center continually monitors and
documents the efficacy of the Student Research Center approach
to instruction through action research in the classroom. The
Student Research Center approach to instruction has been
demonstrated to: 1) significantly increase the number of
scientific research projects completed during the school year,
2) significantly increase science and social studies
achievement, 3) significantly increase overall cognitive
abilities, and 4) significantly increase language arts
achievement.
The following research data demonstrates the efficacy of the
Student Research Center approach to instruction as implemented
at Mandeville Middle School's Student Research Center.
***************************************************************
II. NSRC Program Outcomes: Cognitive Abilities
Impact Of The Student Research Center Approach To Instruction
Upon Cognitive Abilities
by John I. Swang, Ph.D.
***************************************************************
A. Brief Abstract:
*
The Treatment Group of sixth grade gifted students receiving
the Student Research Center approach to instruction
demonstrated significantly larger (P=.01) increases in overall
cognitive abilities than the Control Group of sixth grade
gifted students. Cognitive growth was most pronounced in the
comprehension of knowledge including that of words, meanings,
operations, numbers, relationships, and patterns (P=.03) and
the ability to understand, apply, and transform mathematical
operations, principles, and information in order to solve
problems (P=.01).
*
It should be stressed that the Student Research Center
approach to instruction is used effectively with students
of all learning abilities and at all grade levels. The vast
majority of students studying under the instructional approach
are in the regular classroom in grades 1 through 12.
***************************************************************
B. Statement of Purpose:
The purpose of this research conducted during the 1991-1992
school year was to determine the effect of active student
involvement in the Student Research Center approach to
instruction upon overall cognitive abilities.
The Student Research Center approach to instruction emphasizes
the scientific research and publication process in which
students initiate and conduct research projects, utilizing one
of the scientific methods, in all subject areas of the
curriculum throughout the school year.
The year long immersion in the use of the scientific methods
requires students to utilize numerous higher order and critical
thinking skills. Each step of the research and publication
process using the scientific method affords meaningful
opportunities for students to utilize the following thinking
skills: comprehension, conceptualization, hypothesizing,
designing plans, observation of detail, measurement,
comparison, deriving relationships, analysis, evaluation,
assessment, synthesis, interpretation, drawing conclusions,
generalizing, application, composition, and abstracting (Swang,
1994).
***************************************************************
C. Hypothesis:
It was hypothesized that gifted students who master the
scientific methods and actively participate in the research and
publication process throughout the school year will have
significantly larger increases in overall cognitive abilities
than gifted students who do not.
***************************************************************
D. Methodology:
The methodology for testing the above hypothesis compared
thirty-nine sixth grade gifted students who participated in the
Student Research Center program at Mandeville Middle School
(Treatment Group) with a similar group of thirty gifted
students at comparable schools in the district who did not
participate in the instructional approach (Control Group).
***************************************************************
E. Measurement:
Pre and post measurement of selected cognitive abilities in the
Control and Treatment Groups were performed at the beginning
and end of the 1991-1992 school year. The Developing Cognitive
Abilities Tests published by American Testronics, 8600 W. Bryn
Mawr, Chicago, Ill. 60631 was used to measure cognitive
abilities of knowledge acquisition, comprehension, application,
analysis, and synthesis within the verbal, quantitative, and
spatial content areas.
***************************************************************
F. Sampling and Statistical Analysis:
Because of the small number of gifted students in the sixth
grade gifted program within the district, a random sampling of
the students for placement in the control and treatment groups
was not done. Therefore, an analysis of covariance was
performed on the pre and post measurements for both groups.
This statistical procedure equated the groups on their
cognitive abilities scores so that any differences found after
the study could be interpreted as a result of the instructional
approach rather than any original difference in cognitive
abilities which appeared due to the lack of a random sampling
procedure when composing the control and treatment groups
(Elzey, 1985).
***************************************************************
G. Student Study Populations:
All students are in a gifted program utilizing a curriculum
that is standardized by state and district requirements. All
teachers are certified in gifted education and possess an M.Ed.
in education.
All gifted students in the study attended schools with similar
populations, the majority of whom can be characterized as non-
minority from the middle SES classes (See: Table 1).
***************************************************************
Table 1
Student Study Populations
Treatment Control
(N=39) (N=30)
Boy 17 44% 17 57%
Girl 22 56% 13 43%
Minority 0 0% 2 7%
Middle SES 39 100% 30 100%
***************************************************************
The Treatment Group of gifted students participated in
Mandeville Middle School's Student Research Center program and
received the Student Research Center approach to instruction.
These students were actively involved in the student research
and publication process in all subject areas of the curriculum
and throughout the school year. These students conducted an
average of six scientific research projects during the year in
all subject areas of the curriculum. The Control Group of
gifted students did not experience the Student Research Center
approach to instruction. If a student in this group conducted
scientific research during the school year, it was in the
science area of the curriculum for the local Science Fair
program. On average, these students conducted less than one
research project during the year (See: Tables 2-3).
***************************************************************
Table 2
Number of Scientific Research Projects Completed
by
Treatment and Control Groups
Projects Students Total Mean
Per
Year
Control
0 16 0
1 14 14
---- ----
30 14 Average = .467
Treatment
3 1 3
4 17 68
5 4 20
6 5 30
8 3 24
10 7 70
11 2 22
---- ----
39 237 Average = 6.076
***************************************************************
Table 3
Number of Scientific Research Projects Completed
In Subject Areas
by
Treatment and Control Groups
Language Math Science Social Total
Arts Studies
Control 0 0 14 0 14
Treatment 63 67 55 52 237
***************************************************************
H. Analysis of Data:
DCAT Cognitive and Content Taxonomies: The DCAT Cognitive
Taxonomy measures three cognitive levels. The first cognitive
level is composed of the Basic Cognitive abilities of recall,
recognition, and comprehension of knowledge including that of
words, meanings, operations, numbers, relationships, and
patterns. The second cognitive level is composed of
Application abilities which require the use of previously
learned knowledge to solve problems. The third and highest
cognitive level is composed of Critical Thinking abilities
which include analysis and synthesis, and involves the
transformation and integration of previously learned knowledge.
These three cognitive levels are consistent with Bloom's
taxonomy of higher order thinking skills (Beggs, 1989).
The DCAT Content Taxonomy measures cognitive abilities in three
content areas: verbal, quantitative, and spatial. The Verbal
content area measures the understanding and use of words,
phrases and statements. The Quantitative content area measures
the ability to understand, apply, and transform mathematical
operations, principles, and information in order to solve
problems. The Spatial content area measures recognition,
retention, and manipulation of such object characteristics as
size, shape, symmetry, and pattern (Beggs, 1989).
***************************************************************
I. Pretest Group Scores:
With the exception of the Basic Cognitive Abilities subtest,
the Control Group consistently had larger pretest mean scores.
Differences between the Treatment and Control Groups' pretest
mean scores for all subtests were not statistically significant
with the exception of the Quantitative Abilities subtest. Here
the Control Group had a larger and statistically significant
(P=.05) difference in the pretest mean score (See: Table 4).
***************************************************************
Table 4
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
T-Test for Independent Means (EIS)
Control and Treatment Pretests Means
Control Treatment T P
Pretest Pretest
Mean Mean
(N=30) (N=39)
Total DCAT: EIS 587.800 575.949 1.372 .344
Basic: EIS 597.067 597.385 -0.070 .999
Application: EIS 591.733 578.513 1.702 .162
Critical: EIS 558.133 538.026 1.973 .100
Quantitative: EIS 532.400 510.615 2.277 .050
Verbal: EIS 661.000 653.949 0.638 .999
Spatial: EIS 561.233 558.128 0.267 .999
***************************************************************
J. Equal Interval Scores (EIS):
The Equal Interval Score is a continuous developmental score
that is represented by units of equal size throughout each
scale. It is useful to educators because student growth in
cognitive abilities can be documented (DCAT, 1991).
EIS scores indicate that growth in knowledge and comprehension,
application, synthesis and analysis, quantitative, and verbal
abilities was greater for the Treatment Group receiving the
Student Research Center approach to instruction than for the
Control Group. Growth in spatial abilities was greater for the
Control Group (See: Table 5).
***************************************************************
Table 5
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
Cognitive & Content Taxonomies
Group EIS Means
EIS EIS
Subtests Control Treatment
(N=30) (N=39)
Basic: Pretest 597 597
Knowledge & Comprehension Posttest 630 657
Abilities Difference +33 +60
Application Abilities Pretest 592 579
Posttest 611 609
Difference +19 +30
Critical: Pretest 558 538
Analysis & Synthesis Posttest 586 584
Abilities Difference +28 +46
Quantitative Abilities Pretest 532 511
Posttest 563 583
Difference +31 +72
Verbal Abilities Pretest 661 654
Posttest 682 681
Difference +21 +27
Spatial Abilities Pretest 561 558
Posttest 599 594
Difference +38 +36
***************************************************************
There were statistically significant differences between the
adjusted posttest mean scores of the Control and Treatment
Groups on the Basic Cognitive Abilities (P=.03) and
Quantitative Abilities (P=.01) subtests. The Treatment Group's
growth in the ability to comprehend knowledge including that of
words, meaning, operations, numbers, relationships, and
patterns, and in the ability to understand, transform, and
apply mathematical operations, principles, and information in
order to solve problems was significantly greater than that of
the Control Group (See: Tables 6-7).
The Treatment Group's adjusted posttest mean scores on the
Application Abilities, Critical Thinking Abilities, and Verbal
Abilities subtests were also larger than the Control Group's.
These larger growth scores in application, analysis, synthesis,
and verbal abilities were not statistically significant. It
should be noted however, that the Treatment Group's pretest
scores on these three subtests were smaller than those of the
Control Group (See: Tables 6-7).
The Control Group's pretest and adjusted posttest mean scores
on the Spatial Abilities subtest were larger than the Treatment
Group's. This larger growth score in spatial abilities was not
statistically significant (See: Table 7).
***************************************************************
Table 6
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
Cognitive Taxonomy
Analysis of Covariance: EIS
Basic Cognitive Abilities:
(Knowledge & Comprehension)
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
Between Treatments 11719.684 1 11719.684 4.827 .03
Error 160248.899 66 2428.014
Total 171968.583 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 597.067 630.167 630.300
Treatment 597.385 656.692 656.950
---------------------------------------------------------------
Application Abilities:
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
Between Treatments 838.318 1 838.318 .648 1.00
Error 85445.050 66 1294.622
Total 86283.368 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 591.733 610.967 605.939
Treatment 578.513 609.256 613.124
---------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Thinking Abilities:
(Analysis & Synthesis)
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
Between Treatments 1407.013 1 1407.013 .943 1.00
Error 98437.025 66 1491.470
Total 99844.038 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 558.133 585.900 579.468
Treatment 538.026 583.897 588.845
***************************************************************
Table 7
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
Content Taxonomy
Analysis of Covariance: EIS
Quantitative Abilities:
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
Between Treatments 21817.372 1 21817.372 12.557 .01
Error 114673.997 66 1737.485
Total 136491.369 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 532.400 563.133 553.207
Treatment 510.615 582.821 590.456
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verbal Abilities:
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
Between Treatments 155.054 1 155.054 .073 1.00
Error 141034.588 66 2136.888
Total 141189.642 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 661.000 681.900 679.778
Treatment 653.949 681.179 682.811
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spatial Abilities:
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
Between Treatments 264.546 1 264.546 .137 1.00
Error 127530.447 66 1932.279
Total 127794.993 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 561.233 599.500 598.350
Treatment 558.128 593.513 594.398
***************************************************************
K. Total DCAT:
The differences between pretest and posttest scores on the
Total DCAT were statistically significant for both the Control
and Treatment Groups (See: Table 8).
***************************************************************
Table 8
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
T-Test for Related Measures
Comparison of Pretest and Posttest Mean Scores (EIS)
for
Control and Treatment Groups
Total DCAT Total DCAT T P
Pretest Posttest
Mean Mean
(N=30)
Control: EIS 587.800 614.367 -5.943 .01
(N=39)
Treatment: EIS 575.949 620.308 -9.885 .001
***************************************************************
Equal Interval Scores indicate that growth in overall cognitive
abilities on the total DCAT was greater for the Treatment Group
receiving the Student Research Center approach to instruction
than for the Control Group (See: Table 9).
***************************************************************
Table 9
Total DCAT
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
Group EIS Means
Control Treatment
Total DCAT EIS Pretest 588 576
EIS Posttest 614 620
EIS Difference +26 +44
***************************************************************
There was a statistically significant (P=.01) difference
between the adjusted posttest mean scores of the Control and
Treatment Groups on the total DCAT. The Treatment Group's
growth in overall cognitive abilities was significantly larger
than that of the Control Group. This is especially noteworthy
because the Treatment Group's pretest scores for the total DCAT
were smaller than those of the Control Group (See: Table 10).
***************************************************************
Table 10
Total
Developing Cognitive Abilities Test
Analysis of Covariance: EIS
Sum of df Mean F P
Squares Square
EIS Scores:
Between Treatments 4422.249 1 4422.249 6.274 .014
Error 46523.464 66 704.901
Total 50945.712 67
Mean of Mean of Adjusted Mean
Pretest Posttest Posttest
Control 587.800 614.367 608.409
Treatment 575.949 620.308 624.890
***************************************************************
L. Summary and Conclusion:
Basically, the pretest mean scores on the Total DCAT and all
subtests, with the exception of the Quantitative Abilities
subtest, were similar for the Control and Treatment Groups.
The Control Group had a significantly larger pretest mean score
on the Quantitative Abilities subtest at the beginning of the
study. This was not the case at the end of the study.
The growth in cognitive abilities for the Treatment Group
receiving the Student Research Center approach to instruction
was consistently greater than that of the Control Group. The
ANCOVA of Equal Interval Scores indicates that adjusted
posttest mean scores were significantly larger for the
Treatment Group on the Basic Cognitive Abilities (P=.03) and
the Quantitative Abilities (P=.01) subtests.
The adjusted posttest mean scores for the Treatment Group were
also larger than the Control Group on the Application
Abilities, the Critical Thinking Abilities, and the Verbal
Abilities subtests. The differences between these adjusted
posttest mean scores were not statistically significant, but
were educationally significant in view of the fact that the
Treatment Group's pretest mean scores were smaller than the
pretest mean scores of the Control Group.
The pretest and adjusted posttest mean scores for the Treatment
Group were smaller than the Control Group on the Spatial
Abilities subtest. The difference between the Treatment and
Control Group adjusted posttest mean scores was not
statistically significant.
Finally, there was significant overall cognitive growth for
both the Control and Treatment Groups during the study. The
posttest mean score on the total DCAT for the Treatment Group
was larger than the Control Group. The difference between the
adjusted posttest mean scores was statistically significant
(P=.01) indicating a growth for the Treatment Group in overall
cognitive abilities that was significantly larger than that of
the Control Group. Therefore, the hypothesis of this study was
accepted.
***************************************************************
M. Application:
In order to increase students' application abilities, the
student research process utilizing the scientific methods has
been expanded to include an Application step where students
must apply what they have learned to the world outside of the
classroom. Here students are asked to give substantial thought
to describing how their research findings will help people
solve problems in their community or make their world a better
place to live.
In order to increase analysis and synthesis abilities, the
student research process will place more emphasis upon
statistical analysis in the Analysis of Data step and encourage
greater elaboration in the Summary and Conclusions step of the
scientific methods.
In order to increase verbal abilities, students will be given
more responsibility for editing the final drafts of research
papers and abstracts published in the scientific journal of
student research. Also, a greater emphasis will be placed on
the mastery of editing skills by students.
Finally, the findings of this study will be submitted to the
United States Department of Education as part of an application
packet for membership in the National Diffusion Network.
***************************************************************
John I. Swang, Ph.D.
Teacher/Director
National Student Research Center
Mandeville Middle School
2525 Soult St.
Mandeville, Louisiana 70448
U.S.A.
Tele: 1-504-626-5980
Tele: 1-504-626-8778
FAX: 1-504-626-1640
America OnLine: NSRC MMS
Internet: nsrcmms@aol.com
This e-publication is made possible through grants provided by
the United States Department of Education, South Central Bell
Telephone, American Petroleum Institute, Intertel Foundation,
Springhouse Publishing Corporation, Graham Resources, Inc.,
Central Louisiana Electric Company, Louisiana State Department
of Education, National Science Foundation, Mandeville Middle
School Parent Teacher Association, Northern Life Insurance
Company, Gustav Ohaus Company, and Chevron Oil Company.
The National Student Research Center thanks these organizations
for their generous support of education.
© 1998 John I. Swang, Ph.D.