Curriculum coherence and learning progressions

Second International Handbook of Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 783-798

  Fortus, David ^a   Krajcik, Joseph ^b  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879695248     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_52     Document Type: Chapter

References (32)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2007). ATLAS of Science Literacy (Vols. 1 & 2). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association.
2. American Federation of Teachers. (2003). Setting strong standards. Washington, DC: Author.
3. 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.
4. Bamberger, Y. M., & Davis, E. A. (2011). Middle-school science students' scientific modelling performances across content areas and within a learning progression. International Journal of Science Education, iFirst Article, 1-26.
5. Bruner, J. (1995). On learning mathematics. Mathematics Teacher, 88 (4), 330-335.
6. Catley, K., Lehrer, R., & Reiser, B. J. (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. Retrieved 15 April, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/Evolution.pdf
7. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 3-14.
8. Directorate for Education and Human Resources. (2005). Instructional materials development: Program solicitation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
9. 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.
10. Fortus, D., Grueber, D., Nordine, J. C., Rozelle, J., Schwarz, C., & Weizman, A. (2006). Seeing the light: Can we believe our eyes? Unpublished curriculum materials, University of Michigan.
11. Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., & Rosenfeld, S. (2010). High school students' modeling knowledge. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
12. Friedman, T. L. (2007). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Picador.
13. Gagné, R. M. (1966). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
14. Gross, P. R., Goodenough, U., Haack, S., Lerner, L., Schwartz, M., & Schwartz, R. (2005). The state of state science standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
15. 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, 522-549.
16. Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 333-354). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & 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.
18. Krajcik, J., Reiser, B. J., Fortus, D., & Sutherland, L. (2001, 2004). Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology. Unpublished document, University of Michigan.
19. 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: John Wiley & Sons.
20. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B.-S. (2006). Science education: Integrating views of learning and instruction. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 511-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22. Merritt, J., Krajcik, J., & Shwartz, Y. (2008, August). Development of a learning progression for the particle model of matter. Paper presented at the BiAnnual International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
23. National Institute for Education Statistics. (2001). TIMSS 1999 results. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/results99_1.asp
24. Nersessian, N. (2005). Interpreting scientific and engineering practices: Integrating the cognitive, social, and cultural dimensions. In M. Gorman, R. Tweeny, D. Gooding, & A. Kincannon (Eds.), Scientific and technological thinking (pp. 17-56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools: Better thinking and learning for every child. New York: The Free Press.
26. Roseman, J. E., & Koppal, M. (2008). Using national standards to improve K-8 science curriculum materials. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 104-122.
27. 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.
28. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-559.
29. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B. J., Fortus, D., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., & Shwartz, Y. (2010). Developing a learning progression of scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-655.
30. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Coherence as a design principle. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 199-219.
31. 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.
32. Wilson, M., & Berenthal, M. W. (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.