The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on December 18, 2009). Thesis advisor: Dr. Paul Bolls. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--George Mason University, 2008. / Vita: p. 369. Thesis director: Brenda Bannan-Ritland. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed July 8, 2008). Includes bibliographical references (p. 340-368). Also issued in print.

Thesis advisor: Katherine L. McNeill / Scientific arguments are used to persuade others for explanations that make sense of the natural world. Over time, through the accumulation of evidence, one explanation for a scientific phenomenon tends to take precedence. In science education, arguments make students' thinking and reasoning visible while also supporting the development of their conceptual, procedural, and epistemic knowledge. As such, argumentation has become a goal within recent policy documents, including the Next Generation Science Standards, which, in turn, presents a need for comprehensive, effective, and scalable assessments. This dissertation used assessments that measure students' abilities to critique scientific evidence, which is measured in terms of the form of justification and the support of empirical evidence, when reading and writing scientific arguments. Cognitive interviews were then conducted with a subset of the students to explore the criteria they used to critique scientific evidence. Specifically, the research investigated what characteristics of scientific evidence the students preferred, how they critiqued both forms of justification and empirical evidence, and whether the four constructs represented four separate abilities. Findings suggest that students' prioritized the type of empirical evidence to the form of justification, and most often selected relevant-supporting justifications. When writing scientific arguments, most students constructed a justified claim, but struggled to justify their claims with empirical evidence. In comparison, when reading scientific arguments, students had trouble locating a justification when it was not empirical data. Additionally, it was more difficult for students to critique than identify or locate empirical evidence, and it was more difficult for students to identify than locate empirical evidence. Findings from the cognitive interviews suggest that students with more specific criteria tended to have more knowledge of the construct. Lastly, dimensional analyses suggest that these may not be four distinct constructs, which has important implications for curriculum development and instructional practice. Namely, teachers should attend to the critique of scientific evidence separately when reading and writing scientific arguments. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2015. / Submitted to: Boston College. Lynch School of Education. / Discipline: Teacher Education, Special Education, Curriculum and Instruction.

Reading ability impacts “high stakes” standardized tests that science students need to graduate, to enter college or to enter the work force. As a result, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) require science teachers to implement vocabulary techniques amongst other reading strategies for improved content comprehension and test performance. Simple linear regression was applied to determine the effect of average ACT reading scores on average ACT science scores. Path analysis was utilized to explain the impact of science teacher self-efficacy (X1SEFF) and teaching of important terms/facts (N1TERMS) on average ACT reading scores (AVGACTREAD) and average ACT science scores (AVGACTSCI). Those students who have higher average ACT reading scores tend to have higher average ACT science scores. Path coefficients showed that for every standard deviation in X1SEFF, AVGAVTREAD scores increased by .25 standard deviation units. Also, for every standard deviation in X1SEFF, AVGACTSCI scores increased by .20 standard units. On the other hand, science teachers’ emphasis on important science terms produced a statistically nonsignificant negative relationship with students’ average ACT reading scores and average ACT science scores. Thus, for every standard deviation in N1TERMS, AVGACTREAD scores decrease by -.09 standard units. Additionally, for every standard deviation in N1TERMS, AVGACTSCI scores decrease by -.06 standard units. The results implied that when science teachers feel confident about their ability to teach science, there students’ standardized reading and science t est scores are higher. On the other hand, when science teachers placed moderate to heavy emphasis on teaching important science terms and facts, science students’ standardized test scores decreased. As a result, quality professional development on effective reading strategies particularly vocabulary could improve science teachers’ instructional practices on teaching science terms and facts to improve students’ standardized test scores.

Thesis (D. Ed.)--University of Oregon, 2007. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. "This study was conducted during the fall of 2006 in 22 schools in the Pacific Northwest. Participants included 868 students from 59 fifth-grade classrooms"--P. v. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 113-120). Also available for download via the World Wide Web; free to University of Oregon users.

Thesis (M.Ed.)--Bowling Green State University, 2009. / Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 118 p. Includes bibliographical references.

This study examines homeless student academic performance, types of temporary housing used among the homeless, degree of stability or instability for families with school-aged children, child needs for academic success, the importance of parental involvement in a child's academic growth, and other known factors in relations to child student academic performance, with a focus on grade level and racial differences. A multiple linear regression model is used to test the hypotheses while controlling confounding variables. Statistically significant relationships are reported between race and academic performance, and grade level and academic performance. Practical and policy implications are discussed, as well as limitations of the study and need for future research.