Using national standards to improve K-8 science curriculum materials

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 104-122

  Roseman, Jo Ellen ^a   Koppal, Mary ^a  

^a AAAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 54949117210     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/590521     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2002). Staying on course: Standards-based reform in America's schools: Progress and prospects [On-line]. Available: http://www.achieve.org/files/5YearReportfinal.pdf, p. 6.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2002). Middle grades science textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation [On-line]. Available: http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/mgsci/report/index. htm
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2005). High school biology textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation [On-line]. Available: http://www.project2061.org/publications/textbook/hsbio/report/crit- used.htm
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Author.
8. American Federation of Teachers. (2003, June). Setting strong standards (Item No. 39-0175). Washington, DC: Author.
9. Anderson, C. W., & Smith, E. (1987). Teaching science. In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), The educator's handbook: A research perspective (pp. 84-111). New York: Longman.
10. Arkansas Department of Education. (2005). Science curriculum framework: Physical science: Matter: Properties and changes 5-8 [On-line]. Available: http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/pdf/science_framework_k-8_011006.pdf
11. Association of American Publishers, Advisory Committee for Textbook Specifications. (2003, June). Report to the Advisory Committee for Textbook Specifications: Analysis of the overweight backpack phenomena [On-line]. Available: http://www.publishers.org/SchoolDiv/issues/issues_06_SizeWeight/ LGOverweightBackPhenom.pdf
12. Bruner, J. S. (1995). Retrospective: On learning mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 8(4), 330-335.
13. (Reprinted from Mathematics Teacher, 53, 610-619, December 1960).
14. Center for Highly Interactive Classrooms, Curricula and Computing in Education. (2007). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology (IQWST). Manuscript in preparation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
15. Center on Education Policy. (2006, November). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Washington, DC: Author.
16. Champagne, A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1985). Instructional consequences of students' knowledge about physical phenomena. In L. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 61-90). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
17. Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Sciences, 5, 121-152.
18. Copley, J. V., & Padrón, Y. (1999). Preparing teachers of young learners: Professional development of early childhood teachers in mathematics and Science. In Dialogue on early childhood science, mathematics, and technology education (pp. 117-129). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
19. DeBoer, G. E. (2008). Assessment linked to science learning goals: Probing student thinking through assessment. In J. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing learning: Perspectives from research and practice. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
20. Goldberg, F., Bendall, S., Heller, P., & Poel, R. (2005). Interactions in physical science. Armonk, NY: It's About Time.
21. Gross, P., Goodenough, U., Haack, S., Lerner, L., Schwartz, M., & Schwartz, R. (2005). The state of state science standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
22. Heller, P. (2001, February). Lessons learned in the CIPS (Constructing Ideas in Physical Science) curriculum project. Paper presented at the AAAS Conference on Developing Textbooks That Promote Science Literacy, Washington, DC [On-line]. Available: http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/textbook/ literacy/heller.htm
23. Herrmann Abell, C. (2006). [How science standards in 19 states treat the topic of the particle nature of matter]. Unpublished raw data.
24. Kesidou, S., Kurth, L., Willard, S., Caldwell, A., & Wilson, P. (2004, April). Creating components for the next generation of curriculum materials at the intersection of research and practice. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Vancouver.
25. 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.
26. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K., & Reiser, B. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1-32.
27. Kurth, L. A., & Roseman, J. E. (2001, March). Findings from the high school biology curriculum study: Molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis.
28. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
30. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators 2004 (Vol. 1, NSB 04-1; Vol. 2, NSB 04-1A). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
32. 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.
33. Olson, L., & Hoff, D. (2006, December 13). Framing the debate. Education Week, p. 22.
34. Roseman, J. E. (2003, June 11). [Chemistry unit content analysis findings]. Unpublished data.
35. Roseman, J. E., & Caldwell, A. (2001, March). Findings from the high-school biology curriculum study: matter and energy transformations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis.
36. Roseman, J. E., Kesidou, S., & Stern, L. (1997, November). Identifying curriculum materials for science literacy: A Project 2061 evaluation tool. Paper presented at a colloquium of the National Research Council on Using the National Science Education Standards to Guide the Evaluation, Selection, and Adaptation of Instructional Materials, Washington, DC.
37. Roseman, J. E., Stern, L., & Koppal, M. (2008). A method for analyzing the coherence of biology textbooks: A study of its application to the topic of matter and energy in four textbooks. Manuscript submitted for publication.
38. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of the U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
40. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. Elementary School Journal, 109, 000-000.
41. Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students' assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889-910.
42. 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.
43. Strike, K., & Posner, G. S. (1985). A conceptual change view of learning and understanding. In L. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.), Cognitive structure and conceptual change (pp. 211-231). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
44. Weiss, I. R., Banilower, E. R., McMahon, K. C., & Smith, P. S. (2001, December). Report of the 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.