Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school Earth science

Journal of the Learning Sciences

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 461-508

  Penuel, William R ^a   Gallagher, Lawrence P ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951248358     PISSN: 10508406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508400903191904     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policy change. New York: Teachers College Press.
2. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 26(9), 6-8, 14.
3. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 57, 289-300.
4. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany: State University of New York Press.
5. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
6. Borko, H., Mayfield, V., Marion, S., Flexer, R., & Cumbo, K. (1997). Teachers' developing ideas and practices about mathematics performance assessment: Successes, stumbling blocks, and implications for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 259-278.
7. Borko, H., Stecher, B. M., Martinez, F., Kuffner, K. L., Barnes, D., Arnold, S. C., et al. (2006). Using classroom artifacts to measure instructional practice in middle school science: A two-state field test. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
8. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Brown, M. W. (2002). Teaching by design: Understanding the intersection between teacher practice and the design of curricular innovations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
10. Brown, M. W. (2008). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, G. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-36). New York: Routledge.
11. Brown, M. W., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design: Can we better understand the ways teachers use materials so we can better design materials to support their changes in practice. Evanston, IL: Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.
12. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Bullough, R. (1992). Beginning teacher curriculum decision making, personal teaching metaphors, and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 239-252.
14. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
15. Camburn, E., & Barnes, C. (2004). Assessing the validity of a language arts instruction log through triangulation. Elementary School Journal, 105, 49-74.
16. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Effects of new biology teachers' subject-matter knowledge on curricular planning. Science Education, 75, 631-647.
17. Carlsen, W. S. (1993). Teacher knowledge and discourse control: Quantitative evidence from novice biology teachers' classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 417-481.
18. Clare, L., & Aschbacher, P. R. (2001). Exploring the technical quality of using assignments and student work as indicators of classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 7(1), 39-59.
19. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
20. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal, 103, 227-311.
21. Connelly, F. M., & Ben-Peretz, M. (1980). Teachers' roles in the using and doing of research and curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 12(2), 95-107.
22. Connelly, F. M., & Clandin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. Toronto and New York: OISE Press and Teachers College Press.
23. Crawford, B. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: New roles for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 916-937.
24. Crawford, V., Korbak, C., & Gong, B. (2003). Earth Science by Design evaluation: Summer institute evaluation report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
25. Davis, E. A. (2008, March). Beginning elementary teachers' ideas about inquiry and effective science teaching: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
26. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
27. Davis, E. A., & Varma, K. (2008). Supporting teachers in productive adaptation. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education (pp. 94-122). New York: Teachers College Press.
28. Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
29. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153-187.
30. Edelson, D. C. (2001). Learning-for-use: A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 355-385.
31. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643-658.
32. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 43-76.
33. Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness, and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151-175.
34. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915-945.
35. Glascow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don't we see more translation of health promotion research into practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1261-1267.
36. Hunt, E., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2002). Issues, examples, and challenges in formative assessment. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 89, 73-85.
37. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers' work? Power and accountability in America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Johnson, C. C. (2007). Whole-school collaborative sustained professional development and science teacher change: Signs of progress. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 629-661.
39. Judson, E., & Lawson, A. E. (2007). What is the role of constructivist teachers within faculty communication networks? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 490-505.
40. Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. New York: Teachers College Press.
41. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 631-645.
42. Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). IQWST: Investigating and Questioning our World Through Science and Technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
43. Lang, M., Drake, S., & Olson, J. (2006). Discourse and the new didactics of scientific literacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(2), 177-188.
44. Li, J., Klahr, D., & Siler, S. (2006). What lies beneath the science achievement gap: The challenges of aligning science instruction with standards and tests. Science Educator, 15(1), 1-12.
45. Lin, H.-T. (2008). Exploring the role of showing design intent in supporting curriculum modifications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
46. Lin, H.-T., & Fishman, B. J. (2004). Supporting the scaling of innovations: Guiding teacher adaptation of materials by making implicit structures explicit. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 617-618). Santa Monica, CA: Erlbaum.
47. Linacre, J. M. (1989). Many-facet Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.
48. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Matsumoto, C. (1999). Research on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science and Mathematics, 99(5), 258-271.
49. Marton, F., Tsui, A. B. M., Chik, P. P. M., Ko, P. Y., Lo, M. L., & Mok, A. I. C. (2004). Classroom discourse and the space of learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1998). New technologies for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 33-52.
51. Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106, 467-477.
52. Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdez, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103, 3-25.
53. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. Elementary School Journal, 81, 4-23.
54. McLaughlin, M. W. (1976). Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. Teachers College Record, 77, 339-351.
55. McMunn, N., McColskey, W., & Butler, S. (2004). Building teacher capacity in classroom assessment to improve student learning. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, & Practice, 4(4), 25-48.
56. Meyer, H.-D., & Rowan, B. (2006). Institutional analysis and the study of education. In H.-D. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 1-13). Albany: State University of New York Press.
57. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
58. Newman, F. M., Lopez, E., & Bryk, A. S. (1998). The quality of intellectual work in Chicago schools: A baseline report. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
59. O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33-84.
60. Parke, H. M., & Coble, C. R. (1997). Teachers designing curriculum as professional development: A model for transformational science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 773-789.
61. Pea, R. D., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education (pp. 3-12). New York: Teachers College Press.
62. Penuel, W. R., Benbow, A., Mably, C., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., & Hayden, M. M. (2009). Teaching for understanding in Earth science: Comparing impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 415-436.
63. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Gallagher, L. P., Korbak, C., & Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional development on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93(4), 656-677.
64. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 921-958.
65. Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., & Krause, A. (2006). The distribution of resources and expertise and the implementation of schoolwide reform initiatives. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 522-528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
66. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2006). Brief report on TIDES sample. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
67. Penuel, W. R., & Means, B. (2004). Implementation variation and fidelity in an inquiry science program: Ananalysis of GLOBE data reporting patterns. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,41,294-315.
68. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). The WHIRL co-design process: Participant experiences. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51-74.
69. Penuel, W. R., & Yarnall, L. (2005). Designing handheld software to support classroom assessment: An analysis of conditions for teacher adoption. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(5). Retrieved September 20, 2009, from www.jtla.org
70. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
71. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (1997). Teachers as innovators. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), The international handbook of teachers and teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1163-1221). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
72. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73. Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., Steinmuler, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers' design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O'Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 342-349). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
74. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers' curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342.
75. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
76. Rivet, A. (2006). Using transformative research to explore congruencies between science reform and urban schools. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 578-584). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Contextualizing instruction in project-based science: Activating students' prior knowledge and experiences to support learning. In Y. B. Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon, & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 435-442). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
78. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 105, 75-102.
79. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 57-84.
80. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Henry, J. J. (1998). Network of influences in an implementation of a mathematics curriculum innovation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3(2), 113-148.
81. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13, 221-245.
82. Schwartz, N. (1999). How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93-105.
83. Schwartz, N., & Oyserman, D. (2001). Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 127-160.
84. Schwarz, C. V., Gunckel, K. L., Smith, E. L., Covitt, B. A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., et al. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92, 345-377.
85. Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91, 158-186.
86. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
87. Shepard, L. (1997). Insights gained from a classroom-based assessment project (CSE Technical Report No. 451). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
88. Sherin, M. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119-150.
89. Shkolnik, J., Song, M., Mitchell, K. J., Uekawa, K., Knudson, J., & Murphy, R. (2007). Changes in rigor, relevance, and student learning in redesigned high schools. Palo Alto and Menlo Park, CA: American Institutes for Research and SRI International.
90. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
91. Singer, J. E., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended injury projects:Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165-179.
92. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.
93. 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, 128-150.
94. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers' efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers' zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 143-175.
95. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449-481.
96. Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87, 467-489.
97. Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 963-980.
98. Tushnet, N. C., Millsap, M. A., Abdullah-Welsh, N., Brigham, N., Cooley, E., Elliott, J., et al. (2000). Final report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Instructional Materials Development Program. San Francisco: WestEd.
99. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
100. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
101. van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158.
102. Wartofsky, M. (1973). Models. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
103. Wayne, A. J., Yoon, K. S., Zhu, P., Cronen, S., & Garet, M. S. (2008). Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, 469-479.
104. Wehlage, G. G., Newmann, F. M., & Secada, W. G. (1996). Standards for authentic achievement and pedagogy. In F. M. Newmann & Associates (Eds.), Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 21-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
105. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
106. Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
107. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
108. Yarnall, L., Shechtman, N., & Penuel, W. R. (2006). Using handheld computers to support improved classroom assessment in science: Results from a field trial. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(2), 142-158.