Evaluating Science Education Reform in a Regional High School District

Thesis Abstract

The study investigates the effectiveness of recent science education reforms implemented in a regional high school district to determine how these changes influence student achievement, engagement, and teacher practice within a real-world setting. The problem addressed centers on persistent gaps in science achievement and unequal access to evidence-based instructional strategies despite reform initiatives, highlighting a need for rigorous, context-specific evaluation to inform policy and practice. The aim is to assess reform impact across instructional quality, learning environments, and outcomes, with objectives including (1) measuring changes in student achievement on standardized science assessments, (2) examining shifts in student engagement and attitudes toward science, (3) exploring teacher implementation fidelity and professional development uptake, (4) identifying contextual facilitators and barriers to reform, and (5) offering actionable recommendations for district decision-makers. The study is guided by the theoretical lenses of Self-Determination Theory to interpret student motivation, and Practice Theory to analyze how teachers integrate new pedagogies and curricular materials within established routines. A mixed-methods design is employed. The quantitative strand uses a quasi-experimental approach with a non-equivalent group design, comparing district-wide science achievement data from 2019–2024 with matched neighboring districts to isolate reform effects. The sample comprises approximately 18,000 student records across grades 9–12, with a sub-sample of 420 students participating in annual attitude and engagement surveys. Multivariate techniques, including hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) to account for nested data (students within classrooms), multiple regression to control for socio-economic status and prior achievement, and repeated-measures ANOVA to track changes over time, will be applied. The qualitative strand adopts a phenomenographic and explanatory case-study approach, focusing on 32 teachers and 12 science department teams across six high schools. Data collection instruments include (a) classroom observation checklists and lesson-structure rubrics to assess fidelity of reform implementation, (b) semi-structured interviews with teachers and administrators to capture perceptions of barriers and enablers, (c) student focus groups to explore engagement and motivation, (d) document analysis of curriculum guides, unit plans, and professional development records, and (e) a district-wide survey adapted from validated instruments measuring science attitudes and efficacy. Validity and reliability will be ensured through triangulation, pilot testing, member checking, and inter-rater reliability checks for observational coding. Data analysis integrates quantitative and qualitative strands through a convergent parallel design. Quantitative analysis will generate effect sizes and test statistical significance of reform-related changes in achievement and engagement, while controlling for covariates using propensity score matching to mitigate selection bias. Qualitative data will be analyzed thematically using a priori and emergent codes, with cross-case synthesis to identify patterns of practice and context that explain quantitative results. A conceptual model illustrating the relationships among reform inputs (professional development, curricular materials), processes (pedagogical change, classroom interaction), and outcomes (achievement, motivation, inquiry skills) will be developed and iteratively refined. Expected findings anticipate modest but meaningful improvements in standardized science achievement in reform-implementing schools relative to matched controls, with larger gains in schools exhibiting high implementation fidelity, robust professional development ecosystems, and supportive leadership. Student engagement and attitudes toward science are expected to rise in classrooms employing inquiry-based practices and formative assessment, moderated by prior interest and perceived autonomy. Qualitative insights are likely to reveal system-level determinants such as time allocation for science, alignment between assessments and new curricula, and the role of collaborative professional communities in sustaining reform. The study contributes to knowledge by offering a context-rich evaluation framework for large-scale science reform within regional districts, integrating Self-Determination Theory and Practice Theory to understand motivational and practitioner-centered mechanisms driving reform outcomes. It also provides empirically grounded recommendations for district policymakers, school leaders, and teacher educators regarding scalable implementation, monitoring, and continuous improvement of science education reform. The main conclusion posits that district-wide science reform yields positive, albeit uneven, outcomes dependent on fidelity of implementation, capacity for professional collaboration, and alignment of assessments with new instructional approaches. Recommendations include (1) strengthening ongoing, site-specific professional development with explicit coaching supports; (2) ensuring alignment among state standards, district curricula, and summative assessments; (3) enhancing time and resources for inquiry-based instruction and collaborative planning; and (4) establishing continuous feedback loops using timely data to guide instructional adjustments and leader support. Suggestions for future research include longitudinal tracking beyond five years to assess sustained impacts and the transferability of findings to similar regional districts with diverse demographics.