Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 149-169

  Fogleman, Jay ^a   McNeill, Katherine L ^b   Krajcik, Joseph ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

curriculum development; inquiry; science education; teacher beliefs

Indexed keywords

ACTIVITY STRUCTURE; CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; DATA SOURCE; HIERARCHICAL LINEAR MODELING; INNOVATIVE CURRICULA; INQUIRY; LEARNING GAIN; MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE; SCIENCE CURRICULUM; SCIENCE EDUCATION; SELF EFFICACY; STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT; STUDENT LEARNING; TEACHER BELIEFS;

CURRICULA; SCHOOL BUILDINGS; STUDENTS;

TEACHING;

EID: 79251520687     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.20399     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. USA: Oxford University Press.
2. Bean, J.A., (2001). Teaching in middle schools. In, V. Richardson, (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 432-463). Washington: AERA.
3. Blumenfeld, P.C., Fishman, B.J., Krajcik, J.S., Marx, R.W., &, Soloway, E., (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35 (3), 149-164.
4. Bransford, J., (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5. Brown, M., &, Edelson, D.C., (2001). Teaching by design: Curriculum design as a lens on instructional practice. In Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
6. Cazden, C.B., (1986). Classroom discourse. In, M.C. Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432-463). New York: Macmillan.
7. Clark, D., &, Linn, M.C., (2003). Designing for knowledge integration: The impact of instructional time. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12 (4), 451. DOI: 10.1207/S15327809JLS12041
8. Cohen, D.K., &, Ball, D.L., (1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement (CPRE Research Report No. RR-043) (No. RR-43). CPRE Research Report Series. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9. Cotton, K., (1989). School improvement research series: Educational time factors. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved August 12, 2008, from.
10. 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: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 94-122). New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
11. Duschl, R.A., Schweingruber, H.A., &, Shouse, A.W., (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from.
12. Edelson, D.C., Gordin, D.N., &, Pea, R.D., (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8 (3&4), 391-450.
13. Fishman, B.J., Best, S., Foster, J., &, Marx, R.W., (2000). Fostering teacher learning in systemic reform: A design proposal for developing professional development. Presented at the Annual meeting of the National Association of Research on Science Teaching.
14. Fishman, B.J., Best, S., Marx, R.W., &, Tal, R., (2001). Fostering teacher learning in systemic reform: Linking professional development to teacher and student learning. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research on Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
15. 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 (6), 643-658.
16. Fullan, M., (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Fuson, K., &, Smith, S., (1998). The chalkboard activity structure as a facilitator of helping, understanding, discussing, and reflecting. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, San Diego, CA.
18. Geier, R.R., (2005). Student achievement outcomes in a scaling urban standards-based science reform. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
19. Haberman, M., (1991). The pedagogy of poverty. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 (4), 290-294.
20. Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., &, Scantlebury, K., (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference ? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37 (9), 1019-1041.
21. 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.
22. Krajcik, J.S., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., &, Soloway, E., (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project based instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94 (5), 483-497.
23. Krajcik, J.S., McNeill, K.L., &, Reiser, B.L., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92 (1), 1-32.
24. Kubitskey, M.E., (2006). Extended professional development for systemic curriculum reform. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
25. Kubitskey, M.E., Fishman, B.J., &, Marx, R.W., (2003). The Relationship Between Professional Development and Student Learning: Exploring the Link through Design Research. Presented at the Annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.
26. Margerum-Leys, J., Fishman, B.J., &, Peek-Brown, D., (2004). Lab partners: Research University and Urban District Join Forces to Promote Standards-Based Student Learning in Science. Journal of Staff Development, 25 (4), 5.
27. Mayer, D.P., (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data ? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1), 29-45.
28. McNeill, K.L., Harris, C.J., Heitzman, M., Lizotte, D.J., &, Sutherland, L.M., (2004). How can I make new stuff from old stuff? In, J.S. Krajcik, B.J. Reiser, &, J.S. Krajcik, (Eds.), IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
29. McNeill, K.L., &, Krajcik, J.S., (2007). Middle school students' use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In, M. Lovett, &, P. Shah, (Eds.), Thinking with data (pp. 233-266). New York: Routledge.
30. McNeill, K.L., Lizotte, D.J., Harris, C.J., Scott, L.A., Krajcik, J.S., &, Marx, R.W., (2003). Using backward design to create standards-based middle-school inquiry-oriented chemistry curriculum and assessment materials. Presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
31. Mehan, H., (1978). Structuring school structure. Harvard Educational Review, 48 (1), 32-64.
32. Mehan, H., (1979). Learning lessons. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Cambridge.
33. Mowbray, C.T., Holter, M.C., Teague, G.B., &, Bybee, D., (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (3), 315.
34. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35. 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.
36. Pinto, R., (2005). Introducing curriculum innovations in science: Identifying teachers' transformations and the design of related teacher education. Science Education, 89 (1), 1-12.
37. Polman, J.L., (2004). Dialogic activity structures for project-based learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 22 (4), 431-466.
38. Powell, J.C., &, Anderson, R.D., (2002). Changing teachers' practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107-135. DOI: Article.
39. Putnam, R.T., &, Borko, H., (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In, B.J. Biddle, T. Good, &, I. Goodson, (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching. (1st ed). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
40. Raudenbush, S.W., &, Bryk, A.S., (2001). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Publications, Inc.
41. Remillard, J.T., (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75 (2), 211.
42. 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. 13-38). New York: Teachers College Press.
43. Schneider, R.M., Krajcik, J.S., &, Blumenfeld, P.C., (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42 (3), 283-312. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20055.
44. 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. The Elementary School Journal, 109 (2), 199-219.
45. Simon, H.A., (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). The MIT Press.
46. 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.
47. Songer, N.B., &, Gotwals, A.W., (2005). Fidelity of implementation in three sequential curricular units. In Unpublished manuscript. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, Montreal, CA.
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. Squire, K.D., MaKinster, J.G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A.L., &, Barab, S.L., (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87 (4), 468-489. DOI: 10.1002/sce.10084. (Pubitemid 36767650)
50. Stigler, J.W., &, Hiebert, J., (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom (reprint). New York: Free Press.
51. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A.W., &, Hoy, W.K., (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 (2), 202.
52. Van den Akker, J., (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In, B.J. Fraser, &, G. Tobin, (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 421-447). Great Britain: Springer.