Elementary teachers' curriculum design and pedagogical reasoning for supporting students' comparison and evaluation of evidence-based explanations

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 114, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 48-72

  Biggers, Mandy ^a   Forbes, Cory T ^a   Zangori, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84887307422     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: 15548279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/670738     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abell, S. K., & McDonald, J. T. (2004). Envisioning a curriculum of inquiry in the elementary school. Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science, 25, 249-261.
2. Appleton, K., & Kindt, I. (2002). Beginning elementary teachers' development as teachers of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 43-61.
3. Asay, L., & Orgill, M. (2010). Analysis of essential features of inquiry found in articles published in the science teacher, 1998-2007. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 57-79. doi:10.1007/ s10972-009-9152-9
4. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2008). Fostering second graders' scientific explanations: A beginning elementary teacher's knowledge, beliefs, and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 381-414.
5. Beyer, C., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Investigating high school biology texts as educative curriculum materials: Curriculum review process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977-998.
6. Biggers, M., & Forbes, C. T. (2012). Balancing teacher and student roles in elementary classrooms: Preservice elementary teachers' ideas about the inquiry continuum. International Journal of Science Education, 34(14), 2205-2229.
7. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 499-518.
8. Brown, M. (2009). Toward a theory of curriculum design and use: Understanding the teacher-tool relationship. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-37). New York: Routledge.
9. Bybee, R., Taylor, J., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson-Powell, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness. Report prepared for the Office of Science Education, NIH, Colorado Springs, CO.
10. Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199-218.
11. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49. Retrieved from http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tea.10113
12. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Collins, A. (1997). National science education standards: Looking backward and forward. Elementary School Journal, 97, 299-313.
14. Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers' learning. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287-311.
15. Davis, E. A. (2006). Preservice elementary teachers' critique of instructional materials for science. Science Education, 90(2), 348-375.
16. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
17. Davis, E. A., & Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745-770.
18. Enyedy, N., & Goldberg, J. (2004). Inquiry in interaction: How local adaptations of curricula shape classroom communities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(9), 905-935.
19. Eshach, H. (2003). Inquiry-events as a tool for changing science teaching efficacy belief of kindergarten and elementary school teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(4), 495-501.
20. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149-169. doi:10.1002/tea.20399
21. Forbes, C. T. (2011). Preservice elementary teachers' adaptation of science curriculum materials for inquiry-based elementary science. Science Education, 95(5), 1-29.
22. Forbes, C. T., Biggers, M., & Zangori, L. (2013). Investigating essential characteristics of scientific practices in elementary science learning environments: The Practices of Science Observation Protocol (P-SOP). School Science and Mathematics, 113(4).
23. Forbes, C. T., &Davis, E. A. (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 365-387.
24. Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Chapter 1: Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Educational Research, 30, 1-32.
25. Griffith, G., &Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35-48.
26. Haefner, L. A., & Zembal-Saul, C. (2004). Learning by doing? Prospective elementary teachers' developing understandings of scientific inquiry and science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 26(13), 1653-1674. doi:10.1080/0950069042000230709
27. Kang, N. H., Orgill, M., &Crippen, K. J. (2008). Understanding teachers' conceptions of classroom inquiry with a teaching scenario survey instrument. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 337-354.
28. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. (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.
29. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. (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.
30. Lee, C. A., & Houseal, A. (2003). Self-efficacy, standards, and benchmarks as factors in teaching elementary school science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(1), 37-56.
31. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635-679. doi:10.3102/00028312041003635
32. Littel, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W., Wolfinger, R. D., & Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
33. Marx, R., & Harris, C. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary School Journal, 106, 467-477.
34. McNeill, K. (2011). Elementary students' views of explanation, argumentation, and evidence, and their abilities to construct arguments over the school year. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 793-823.
35. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
36. Metz, K. E. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition & Instruction, 22(2), 219-290. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233928
37. Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109, 138-161.
38. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Early steps in analysis. In M. B. Miles & A.M. Huberman (Eds.), Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed., pp. 50-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction-what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984 to 2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474-496.
40. Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
41. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
42. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
43. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Leaning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
44. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
45. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
46. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100, 331-350.
47. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers' use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
48. Remillard, J. T., & Geist, P. K. (2002). Supporting teachers' professional learning by navigating openings in the curriculum. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 5(1), 7-34.
49. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
50. Roseman, J. E., & Koppal, M. (2008). Standards to improve K-8 science curriculum materials. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 104-122.
51. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283-312.
52. Schwarz, C., Gunckel, K., Smith, E., Covitt, B., Enfield, M., Bae, M., & Tsurusaki, B. (2009). Helping elementary pre-service teachers learn to use science curriculum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345-377.
53. Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., &Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternate conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching (pp. 177-210). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.
54. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
55. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument. Science Education, 93, 687-719.