Using construct-centered design to align curriculum, instruction, and assessment development in emerging science

Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference, CSCL

Volumn , Issue PART 3, 2008, Pages 314-321

  Stevens, Shawn Y ^a   Krajcik, Joseph S ^a   Shin, Namsoo ^a   Pellegrino, James W ^b   Geier, Susan ^c   Swarat, Su ^d   Light, Greg ^d   Park, Eun Jung ^d   Delgado, César ^a   Drane, Denise ^d   Song, Minyoung ^a   Quintana, Chris ^a   Shipley, Emily ^b   Silva, Brenda Lopez ^b   Daly, Shanna ^b   Wischow, Emily ^c   Moher, Tom ^b   Cahill, Clara ^a   Szeto, Alan K ^c   Cahill, Clara S ^a   Unterman, Nathan A ^e   Lauhon, Lincoln J ^d   Light, Gregory ^d   Bodner, George M ^c   Hagedorn, Eric A ^f   more..

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e Glenbrook North High School   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING EDUCATION; NANOTECHNOLOGY; TEACHING;

ASSESSMENT DEVELOPMENT; CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; EMERGING SCIENCE; GOAL-DRIVEN; INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS; KNOWLEDGE DOMAINS; LEARNING AND TEACHINGS; LEARNING GOALS; NANOSCALE SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING; TEACHER EDUCATION;

CURRICULA;

EID: 84880399478     PISSN: 15734552     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington: National Academy Press.
3. Concord Consortium. (2004). Molecular Workbench. Retrieved 10/21/2007 from http://mw.concord.org/modeler/.
4. Drane, D., Swarat, S., Light, G., Hersam, M., & Mason, T. (in press). An evaluation of the efficacy and transferability of a nanoscience module. Journal of Nano Education.
5. Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.) (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
6. Dykstra, D. I., Boyle, C. F., & Monarch, I. A. (1992). Studying conceptual change in learning physics. Science Education, 76, 615-652.
7. Eames, C. & Eames, R. (1977). Powers of ten [Motion picture]. United States: IBM.
8. Gagné, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. C., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
9. Krajcik, J.S., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B.J. (2007). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
10. Kramer, G. (Ed.). (1994). Auditory display: Sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Light, G., Swarat, S., Park, E. J., Drane, D., Tevaarwerk, E., & Mason, T. (2007). Understanding undergraduate students' conceptions of a core nanoscience concept: Size and scale. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Research in Engineering Education. June, 2007, Honolulu, HI.
12. Light, G., Swarat, S., Drane, D., & Park, E. J. (2008). Exploring undergraduate students' understanding of size and scale in the context of nanoscience, The Cognitive Underpinnings of Engineering Education Conference, February, 2008, Lubbock, Texas.
13. Lindell, R.S., Peak, E., & Foster, TM. (2007). Are they all created equal? A comparison of different concept inventory development methodologies. In L. McCullough, L. Hsu, & P. Heron (Eds.), American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings, 883: 14-17. Melville, NY: American Institute of Physics.
14. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Mislevy R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Almond R. G., Haertel, G. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Leverage points for improving educational assessment (PADI Technical Report. No. 2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International [viewed electronically].
16. Pavelich, M., Jenkins, B. Birk, J., Bauer, R. & Krause, S. (2004, June). Development of a chemistry concept inventory for use in chemistry, materials, and other engineering courses. Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.
17. Pavio, A. (1990). Dual coding theory. In A. Pavio (Ed.), Mental representations: A dual coding approach (pp. 50-83). New York: Oxford University Press.
18. Pellegrino, J.W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
19. Schwartz, D. & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475-522.
20. Stevens, S. Y., Sutherland, L., Schank, P., & Krajcik, J. (draft, 2007). The big ideas of nanoscience. Retrieved June 2, 2007 from http://hi-ce.org/PDFs/Big-Ideas-of-Nanoscience-20feb07.pdf
21. Tretter, T.R., Jones, M.G., Andre, T., Negishi, A., & Minogue, J. (2006). Conceptual boundaries and distances: Students' and experts' concepts of the scale of scientific phenomena. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 43(3), 282-319.
22. Whitesides, G. M. & Grzybowski, B. (2002). Self-assembly at all scales, Science, 295, 2418-2421.
23. Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.