Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 123-182

  Duschl, Richard ^a   Maeng, Seungho ^a   Sezen, Asli ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TOWSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Assessment; Didaktiks; Mathematics learning trajectories; Science learning progressions; Teaching experiments; Teaching sequences

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052601229     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057267.2011.604476     Document Type: Review

References (138)

1. Alonzo, A., & Gotwals, A. (in press). Learning progressions in science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
2. Alonzo, A.C., & Steedle, J.T. (2009). Developing and assessing a force and motion learning progression. Science Education, 93, 389-421.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy: Mapping K-12 learning and goals(2nd ed.). Washington: Author.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2006). Atlas of science literacy: Mapping K-12 learning and goals. Washington: Author.
5. Bell, B., & Cowie, B. (2001). Formative assessment and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
6. Berland, L.K., & McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94, 765-793.
7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
8. Blumenfeld, P.C., Kempler, T.M., & Krajcik, J.S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 475-488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Briggs, D.C., & Alonzo, A.C. (2009, June). The psychometric modelling of ordered multiplechoice item responses for diagnostic assessment with a learning progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA
10. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
11. Brown, A. (1997). Transforming schools in to communities of thinking and learning about serious matters. American Psychologist, 52, 399-413.
12. Carnegie Corporation of New York & Institute for Advanced Study. (2009). The opportunity equations: Transforming mathematics and science education for citizenship and the global economy. Report of Commission on Mathematics and Science Education. www.opportunityequation.org, New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
13. Carraher, D., Smith, C., Wiser, M., Schliemann, A., & Cayton-Hodges, G. (2009, June). Assessing students' evolving understandings about matter. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
14. Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, Washington, DCNational Academies.
16. Clements, D. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for 'Research-based Curricula'. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 38, 35-70.
17. Clements, D.H., & Sarama, J. (2004). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 81-89.
18. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 9-13.
19. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2002). Supporting students' learning of significant mathematical ideas. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in tewenty-first century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education(pp. 154-166). Oxford: Blackwell.
20. College Board. (2009). Science: College Board standards for college success. http://professionals. collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbscs-science-standards-2009.pdf. New York: The College Board.
21. Confrey, J. (2008, July). A synthesis of the research on rational number reasoning: A learning progressions approach to synthesis. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress of Mathematics Instruction, Monterrey, Mexico.
22. Confrey, J., & Maloney, A. (2010, June). The construction, refinement, and early validation of the equi-partitioning learning trajectory. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Science, Chicago, IL, USA.
23. Confrey, J., Maloney, A., Nguyen, K.H., Mojica, G., & Myers, M. (2009). Equipartitioning/splitting as a foundation of rational number reasoning using learning trajectories. Paper presented at the 33rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Thessaloniki, Greece.
24. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F.A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidencebased approach to reform. Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-63. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
25. Corcoran, T., & Silander, M. (2009). Instruction in high schools: The evidence and the challenge. The Future of Children: America's High Schools, 19, 157-183. Retrieved from http://www. futureofchildren.org.
26. Daro, P., Mosher, F.A., & Corcoran, T. (2011). Learning trajectories in mathematics: A foundation for standards, curriculum, assessment, and instruction(Consortium for Policy Research in Education Report #RR-68). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
27. di Sessa, A., & Minstrell, J. (1998). Cultivating conceptual change with benchmark lessons. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices(pp. 155-187). Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Draney, K. (2009, June). Designing learning progressions with the BEAR assessment system. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Lowa City, IA, USA.
29. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
30. Driver, R., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1994). Young people's understanding of science concepts: Implications of cross-age studies for curriculum planning. Studies in Science Education, 24, 75-100.
31. Duit, R., Gropengieber, H., & Kattman, U. (2005). Towards science education research that is relevant for improving practice: The model of educational reconstruction. In H. Fisher (Ed.), Developing standards in research on science education: The ESERA Summer School 2004. New York: Taylor & Francis.
32. Duncan, R.G., & Hmelo-Silver, C.E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 606-609.
33. Duncan, R.G., Rogat, A.D., & Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students' understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655-674.
34. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
35. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2011). Demarcation in science education: Toward an enhanced view of scientific method. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy(pp. 3-19). New York: Routledge.
36. Duschl, R., & Hamilton, J. (2011). Learning science. In R.E. Mayer & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction(pp. 78-107). New York: Routledge.
37. Duschl, R., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M.P. (in press). Epistemic foundations for conceptual change. In J. Shrager & S. Carver (Eds.), The Journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and education sciences. Washington: APA.
38. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
39. Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologist. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40. Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research. New York: Springer.
41. Furtak, E.M. (2009, June). Toward learning progressions as teacher development tools. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
42. Furtak, E.M., Morrison, D., & Henson, K. (2010, June). Centering a professional learning community on a learning progression for natural selection: Transforming community, language, and instructional practice. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Science, Chicago, IL.
43. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
44. Gopnik, A. (1996). The scientist as child. Philosophy of Science, 63, 485-514.
45. Gotwals, A.W., Songer, N.B., & Bullard, L. (2009, June). Assessing students' progressing abilities to construct scientific explanation. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
46. Gravemeijer, K.P.E. (1994). Developing realistic mathematics instruction. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freundenthal Institute.
47. Gunckel, K.L., Covitt, B.A., & Anderson, C.W. (2009, June). Learning a secondary discourse: Shifts from force-dynamic to model-based reasoning in understanding water in socio-ecological systems. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA
48. Hambleton, R.K., & Jones, R.W. (1993). An NCME instructional module on comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 38-47.
49. Harlen, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
50. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. Paper prepared for the Formative Assessment for Teachers and Students, State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards of the Council of Chief State School Officers.
51. Hopmann, S. (2007). Restrained teaching: The common core of Didaktik. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 109-124.
52. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environment. In S. Erduran & M.P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research(pp. 91-115). New York: Springer.
53. Jin, H., Choi, J, & Anderson, C.W. (2009). Development and validation of assessments for a learning progression on carbon cycling in socio-ecological system. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
54. Kaput, J. (1994). Democratizing access to calculus: New routes using old roots. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking and problem solving(pp. 77-156). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
55. Kelly, G.J., Wickman, P.O., & McDonald, S. (in press). Personal epistemology and science learning: A review of empirical studies. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education. New York: Springer.
56. Kennedy, C.A. (2005). The BEAR Assessment System: A brief summary for the classroom context. BEAR Report Series. Retrieved December 7, 2010, from http://bearcenter.berkeley.edu.
57. Klette, K. (2007). Trends in research on teaching and learning in schools: Didactics meets classroom studies. European Educational Research Journal, 6, 147-160.
58. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How science makes knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
59. Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
60. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge(pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. Lee, H-S., & Liu, O.L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94, 665-688.
62. Lee, M-H., Johanson, R.E., & Tsai, C-C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students' conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92, 191-220.
63. Lehrer, R., & Kim, M. (2009). Structuring variability by negotiating its measure. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 21, 116-133.
64. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (Eds.). (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children's understanding of math and science. New York: Teachers College Press.
65. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 635-679.
66. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences(pp. 371-388). New York: Cambridge University Press.
67. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2007). Contrasting emerging conceptions of distribution in contexts of error and natural variation. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data(pp. 149-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2009). Images of learning, images of progress. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 731-735.
69. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (under review). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education.
70. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512-529.
71. LeMahieu, P.G., & Reilly, E.C. (2004). Systems of coherence and resonance: Assessment for education and assessment of education. In M. Wilson (Ed.), Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability(pp. 189-202). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
72. Lijnse, P. (1995). 'Developmental Research' as a way to an empirically based 'Didactical Structure' of science. Science Education, 79, 189-199.
73. Lijnse, P., & Klaassen, K. (2004). Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teachinglearning sequences? International Journal of Science Education, 26, 537-554.
74. Linn, M.C., & Eylon, B-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
75. Masters, G.N., Adams, R.J., & Wilson, M. (1990). Charting of student progress. In R. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies(Vol. 2, suppl., pp. 628-634). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
76. Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 219-290.
77. Metz, K. (2009). Rethinking what is 'developmentally appropriate' from a learning progression perspective: The power and the challenge. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 3, 5-22.
78. Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109, 138-161.
79. Metz, K. (2011, April). Teaching and learning of evolution in the primary grades. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
80. Michaels, S., Shouse, A.W., & Schweingruber, H.A. (2008). Ready, set, science! Putting research to work in K-8 science classrooms. Washington: The National Academy Press.
81. Mislevy, R.J., & Riconscente, M. (2005). Evidence-centered assessment design: Layers, structures, and terminology. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
82. Mohan, L., & Anderson, C.W. (2009, June). Teaching experiments and the carbon cycle learning progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
83. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C.W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 675-698.
84. Mortimer, E.F., & Scott, P. (Eds.). (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
85. National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). (2008). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
86. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. (J.D. Bransford, A.L. Brown, & R.R. Cocking Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
87. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. (J.W. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, & R. Glaser, Eds.). Washington: National Academy Press.
88. National Research Council. (2005). Systems for state science assessment. (M.R. Wilson & M.W. Bertenthal, Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
89. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. (R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, & A.W. Shouse, Eds.). Washington: The National Academies Press.
90. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New k-12 Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
91. Novak, J.D. (1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
92. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils' and parents' views of the school science curriculum. London: King's College London.
93. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science: The implications of children's science. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
94. Penuel, W.R., Beatty, I., Remold, J., Harris, C., Bienkowski, M., & DeBarger, A.H. (under review). Pedagogical patterns to support interactive formative assessment with classroom response systems. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment.
95. Plummer, J.D., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial motion: Elementary levels from an Earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 768-787.
96. Plummer, J.D., & Slagle, C. (2009, June). A learning progression approach to teacher professional development in astronomy. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
97. Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
98. Reinhold, R. (2000). Open experimenting: A framework for structuring science teaching and learning. In I. Westbury, S. Hopmann, & K. Riquarts (Eds.), Teaching as a reflective practice: The German didaktik tradition(pp. 295-318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
99. Rochelle, J., & Kaput, J. (1995). SimCalc MathWorlds: Composable components for calculus learning. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://www.kaputcenter.umassd.edu/downloads/products/publications/cacm.pdf.
100. Roseman, J.E., Caldwell, A., Gogos, A., & Kuth, L. (2006). Mapping a coherent learning progression for the molecular basis of heredity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
101. 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.
102. Rupp, A., Choi, Y., Gushta, M., Mislevy, R., Thies, M.C., & Bagley, E. (2009, June). Modeling learning progressions in epistemic games with epistemic network analysis: Principles for data analysis and generation. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
103. Ruthven, K., Laborde, C., Leach, J., & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Design tools in didactical research: Instrumenting the epistemological and cognitive aspects of the design of teaching sequences. Educational Researcher, 38, 329-342.
104. Salinas, I. (2009, June). Learning progressions in science education: Two approaches for development. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
105. Schauble, L. (2008). Commentary: Three questions about development. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation(pp. 50-56). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
106. Schmidt, W., Wang, H.C., & McKnight, C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559.
107. Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 632-654.
108. Sezen, A. (2011). From the teacher's eyes: An etnographic-case study on developing models of informal formative assessments (IFA) and understanding the challenges to effective implementation in science classrooms(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved June 25, 2011, from http://etda. libraries.psu.edu/
109. Shapere, D. (1982). The concept of observation in science and philosophy. Philosophy of Science, 59, 485-525.
110. Shin, N., Stevens, S.Y., Short, H., & Krajcik, J. (2009, June). Learning progressions to support coherence curricula in instructional material, instruction, and assessment design. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
111. Sikorski, T-R., & Hammer, D. (2010, June). A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Science, Chicago, IL.
112. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145.
113. Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237.
114. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's Learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 11-98.
115. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., Krajcik, J., & Copolla, B. (2004). Implications of research on children's Learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement, Washington, DCNational Academies.
116. Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., & Carraher, D.W. (2010, March). Using a comparative, longitudinal study with upper elementary school students to test some assumptions of a learning progression for matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Philadelphia
117. PA. Songer, N.B. (2011, April). An intimate intertwining of content and practices: A learning progression for climate change biology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching, Orlando, FL.
118. Songer, N.B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A.W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progressions focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 610-631.
119. Steedle, J.T., 2008. Latent class analysis of diagnostic science assessment date using Bayesian networks. Unpublished doctoral dedissertation, Stanford University.
120. Steedle, J.T., & Shavelson, R.J. (2009). Supporting valid interpretations of learning progression level diagnoses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 699-715.
121. Steffe, L.P., Thompson, P.W., & Glasersfeld, E.V. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A.E. Kelly & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education(pp. 267-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
122. Stevens, S., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J.S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 687-715.
123. Stevens, S.Y., Shin, N., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Towards a model for the development of an empirically tested learning progression. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
124. Talanquer, V. (2009). On cognitive constraints and learning progressions: The case of 'structure of matter'. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 2123-2136.
125. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
126. Treagust, D.F., & Duit, R. (2008). Conceptual change: A discussion of theoretical, methodological and practical challenges for science education. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 3, 297-328.
127. von Aufschnaiter, C. (2009, August). Misconceptions or missing conceptions? Keynote speech at the biannual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Istanbul, Turkey.
128. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 101-131.
129. von Aufschnaiter, C., & Rogge, C. (2010). Misconceptions or missing conceptions? Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science & Technology Education, 6, 3-18.
130. West, P., Rutstein, D.W., Mislevy, R.J., Liu, J., Levy, R., DiCerbo, K.E., Behrens, J.T. (2009, June). A bayes net approach to modeling learning progressions and task performances. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
131. Westbury, I., Hopmann, S., & Riquarts, K. (Eds.). (2000). Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktik tradition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
132. Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track: Classroom assessment and the regulation of learning. In F.K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning(pp. 1053-1098). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
133. Wilson, M. (1990). Measurement of developmental levels. In T. Husen & T.N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education: Research and studies. Supplementary(Vol. 2, pp. 152-158). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
134. Wilson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Towards coherence between classroom assessment and accountability. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
135. Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
136. Wilson, M. (2009a). The structured concepts model (SCM): A family of statistical models related to learning progressions. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPs) Conference, Lowa City, IA, USA.
137. Wilson, M. (2009b). Measuring Progressions: Assessment structures underlying a learning progression. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 716-730.
138. Wiser, M., Smith, C., Doubler, S., & Asbell-Clark, J. (2009). Learning progressions as a tool for curriculum development: Lessons from the inquiry project. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.