Exploring the influence of learning progressions in two teacher communities

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 51, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 982-1020

  Furtak, Erin Marie ^a   Heredia, Sara C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Biology; Formative assessment; Instructional planning; Learning progressions; Professional development; Secondary science; Teacher learning communities

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; RESEARCH;

FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT; INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING; LEARNING PROGRESSIONS; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; SECONDARY SCIENCE; TEACHER LEARNING;

EDUCATION;

EID: 84908031753     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21156     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved April 10, 2012, from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
2. Akkerman, S.F., &Bakker, A.(2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. ReviewofEducational Research, 81, 132-169.
3. Atkin, J. M., Coffey, J. E., Moorthy, S., Sato, M., & Thibeault, M. (2005). Designing everyday assessmentinthescienceclassroom. NewYork, NY:TeachersCollege Press.
4. Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-422.
5. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy&Practice, 18(1), 5-25.
6. Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., Wiliam, D., Delta, P., & Bloomington, K. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning inthe classroom. Delta, 1-15.
7. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journalof ResearchinScience Teaching, 27(5), 415-427.
8. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5-31.
10. Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussionsinmathematicsprofessionaldevelopment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417-436.
11. Brookhart, S. M., Moss, C. M., & Long, B. A. (2010). Teacher inquiry into formative assessment practices in remedial reading classrooms. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 17(1), 41-58. doi: 10.1080/09695940903565545
12. 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 ScienceAchievement.
13. Clare, L., Patthey-chavez, G.G., Valdés, R., Matsumura, L.C., Valdes, R., &Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students ' revision in lower-and higher-achieving urbanschools. The ElementarySchool Journal, 103(1), 3-25.
14. Cobb, P., McClain, K., De Silva Lamberg, T., & Dean, C. (2003). Situating teachers' instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13-24.
15. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145-170.
16. Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and theclassroom.SociologyofEducation, 77(3), 211-244.
17. Coffey, J. (2003). Involving students in assessment. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessmentinthe science classroom. (pp. 75-87). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
18. Coffey, J. E., Hammer, D., Levin, D. M., & Grant, T. (2011). The missing disciplinary substance of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(10), 1109-1136.
19. Coffey, J. E., Sato, M., & Thiebault, M. (2005). Up close and personal. Teacher Development, 9(2), 169-184.
20. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., & Rogat, A. (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy ResearchinEducation.
21. Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students' perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378-391.
22. David, J. L. (2008). Pacing guides. Educational Leadership, 66(2), 87-88.
23. Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and analysis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123-182.
24. Ferrari, M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1998). The nature of naive explanations of natural selection. International Journalof Science Education, 20(10), 1231-1256.
25. Furtak, E.M.(2009) Toward learning progressionsasteacher development tools. Learning Progressions in Science Conference. Iowa City, IA.
26. Furtak, E. M. (2012). Linking a learning progression for natural selection to teachers' enactment of formative assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1181-1210.
27. Furtak, E.M., &Heredia, S.(in press). Exploringthe InfluenceofLearning ProgressionsinTwo Teacher Communities. JournalofResearchinScience Teaching.
28. Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessments and its relation to student learning. Applied MeasurementinEducation, 21(4), 360-389.
29. Furtak, E.M., Morrison, D. M., Iverson, H., Ross, M., &Heredia, S. C. (2011)AConceptual Analysis of the Conceptual Inventory of Natural Selection: Improving diagnostic utility through within-item analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
30. Furtak, E.M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2012). Learning Progressions to Support Ambitious Teaching Practices. In A.C. Alonzo & A.W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions in Science (pp. 405-434). The Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
31. Gardner, J. (2010). Developing teacher assessment: An introduction. In J. Gardner W. Harlen L. Hayward G. Stobart & M. Montgomery (Eds.), Developing Teacher Assessment. (pp. 1-11). Berkshire, England: OpenUniversityPress.
32. Geraedts, C. L., & Boersma, K. T. (2006). Reinventing natural selection. International Journal of Science Education, 28(8), 843-870.
33. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp.79-96.). Cambridge, United Kingdom:Cambridge UniversityPress.
34. Grossman, P. L., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Tools for teaching English: A theoretical framework for research onlearning to teach. American JournalofEducation, 108(1), 1-29.
35. Harrison, C. (2005). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Mapping teacher change. Teacher Development, 9(2), 255-263.doi:10.1080/13664530500200251
36. Heritage, M. (2008). Learning progressions: Supporting instruction and formative assessment. (p. 31). Washington, DC: Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/LearningProgressionsSupportingInstructionandFormativeAssessment.html
37. Heritage, M., Kim, J., Vendlinski, T., & Herman, J. (2009). From evidence to action: A seamless process in formative assessment? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28(3), 24-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00151.x
38. Huberman, M.(1993).The livesofteachers.New York, NY: Teachers CollegePress.
39. Kazemi, E., & Hubbard, A. (2008). New directions for the design and study of professional development: Attending to the coevolution of teachers' participation across contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 428-441.doi:10.1177/0022487108324330
40. Keys, C. W., & Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
41. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UnitedKingdom: Cambridge University Press.
42. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724.
43. Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: Developing ways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 370-391.
44. Luft, J. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2007). Capturing science teachers' epistemological beliefs: The development of the teacher beliefs interview. Electronic Journal ofScience Education, 11(2), 38-63.
45. Mayr, E. (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA:The Belknap PressofHarvard University Press.
46. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies toimprove student achievement. New York, NY: Teachers' College Press.
47. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
48. Metz, K. E., Sisk-Hilton, S., Berson, E., & Ly, U. (2010). Scaffolding children's understanding of the fit between organisms and their environment in the context of the practices of science. In Proceedings of the International Conferenceof the Learning Sciences. (Vol1, pp. 396-403).
49. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
50. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC:NationalAcademy Press.
51. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52. National Research Council. (2001). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC:National AcademyPress.
53. National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth Grade. R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. Shouse, (Eds.). Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral andSocial SciencesandEducation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
54. Pellegrino, J. W. (2012). Assessment of science learning: Living in interesting times. Journal of ResearchinScienceTeaching, 49(6), 831-841.
55. Penuel, W.R., & Fishman, B.J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. JournalofResearch in Science Teaching, 49(3), 281-304.
56. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook ofresearchonteacher education (2nd ed., pp.102-118). NewYork, NY:MacMillan.
57. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & A. Avarez, (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of the mind.New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.
58. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
59. Shavelson, R. J. (2009) Reflections on learning progressions. Learning Progressions in Science Conference.Iowa City, IA.
60. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naive and scientific theories of evolution. CognitivePsychology, 52, 170-194.
61. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Charles, 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.
62. Songer, N. B., Kelcey, B., & Gotwals, A. W. (2009). How and when does complex reasoning occur? Empirically driven development of a learning progression focused on complex reasoning about biodiversity. Journalof ResearchinScience Teaching, 46(6), 610-631.
63. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. ReviewofEducational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
64. Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology&Human Values, 35(5), 601-617.
65. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, 'translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
66. van Es, E. A. (2009). Journal of the learning participants 'roles in the context of avideo club. Education, October 2011, 37-41.
67. Wallace, C. S., & Kang, N.-H. (2004). An investigation of experienced secondary science teachers' beliefs about inquiry: An examination of competing belief sets. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 936-960.
68. Wenger, E.(1998). Communitiesofpractice.New York, NY: CambridgeUniversityPress.
69. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2007). Integrating assessment with learning: Will it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning. (pp. 53-82). New York, NY: Routledge.
70. Wiser, M., Smith, C. L., Doubler, S, & Asbell-Clarke, J., (2009). Learning progressions as tools for curriculum development: Lessons from the Inquiry Project. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, June 2009, Iowa City, IA.
71. Yin, R.K.(2003). Casestudyresearch: Design andmethods. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.
72. Yerrick, R. K., Parke, H., & Nugent, J. (1997). Struggling to promote deeply rooted change: The "filtering effect" of teachers' beliefs on understanding transformational views of teaching science. Science Education, 81, 137-159.