The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 199-219

  Shwartz, Yael ^e   Weizman, Ayelet ^a   Fortus, David ^b   Krajcik, Joe ^c   Reiser, Brian ^d  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54949090064     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/590526     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association.
4. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1992). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
5. Blumenfeld, P. C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 333-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539-551.
7. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369-398.
8. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CTGV). (1992). The Jasper series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291-315.
9. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2004, April). Supporting inquiry-oriented science teaching with curriculum: Design heuristics for educative curriculum materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.
10. DeBoer, G. E., Herrmann, C. A., & Gogos, A. (2007, April). Assessment linked to science learning goals: Probing student thinking during item development. Paper presented at Project 2061 Symposium on assessment, National Association for Research on Science Teaching Annual Conference, New Orleans.
11. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.
12. Drago, K., Shwartz, Y., & Krajcik, J. (2007, July). Driving question development: A joint effort between curriculum designers and students. Poster presented at the fifth CCMS Knowledge Sharing Institution (KSI), Center for Curriculum Materials in Science, Washington, DC.
13. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
14. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
15. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for integrating content and process learning in the design of inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 355-385.
16. Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8, 391-450.
17. Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 9-24.
18. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1964). The Feynman lectures on physics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
19. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-Based Science (DBS) and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
20. Fortus, D., Hug, B., Krajcik, J., Kuhn, L., McNeill, K., Reiser, B., Rivet, A., et al. (2006, April). Sequencing and supporting complex scientific inquiry practices in instructional materials for middle school students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco.
21. Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2002, October). Students' scientific practices using a scaffolded inquiry sequence. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Seattle.
22. Institute of Educational Sciences. (2005). The nations' report card: Science 2005 [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ science/
23. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
24. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-548.
25. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313-350.
26. Krajcik, J. S., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (2003). Teaching children science in elementary and middle school classrooms: A project-based approach. New York: McGraw-Hill College.
27. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1-32.
28. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
29. Margel, H., Eylon, B., & Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students' conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 132-152.
30. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97(4), 341-358.
31. McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J. S., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191.
32. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
33. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297-321.
35. Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1978). Junior high school pupils' understanding of the particulate nature of matter: An interview study. Science Education, 62, 273-281.
36. Nussbaum, J. (1985). The particulate nature of matter. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, & A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 124-144). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
37. O'Sullivan, C. Y., Lauko, M. A., Grigg, W. S., Qian, J., & Zhang, J. (2003). NCES - the nation's report card: Science 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
38. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
39. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: Free Press.
40. Reiser, B. J., Krajcik, J. S., Moje, E. B., & Marx, R. W. (2003, March). Design strategies for developing science instructional materials. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.
41. Roseman, J. E., Linn, M. C., & Koppal, M. (2008). Characterizing curriculum coherence. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 13-36). New York: Teachers College Press.
42. Schmidt, W. H. (2003). Too little too late: American high schools. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), An international context: Brookings papers on educational policy (pp. 253-308). Washington DC: Brookings Institute.
43. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.
44. Sherin, B. L., Edelson, D., & Brown, M. (2004). On the content of task-structured curricula. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 221-248). Boston: Kluwer.
45. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
46. Singer, J., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., & Chambers, J. C. (2000, April). Designing curriculum to meet national standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
47. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic-molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4(1, 2), 1-98.
48. Songer, N. B., Lee, H.-S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(2), 128-150.
49. Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538-568.
50. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2d ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
51. Yager, R. E., & Weld, J. D. (1999). Scope, sequence, and coordination: The Iowa Project: A national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169-194.