A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 659-685

  Tekkumru Kisa, Miray ^a   Stein, Mary Kay ^a   Schunn, Christian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

cognitive demand; curricular tasks; instructional tasks; integrated instruction; scientific practices; task based framework

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; JOB ANALYSIS;

COGNITIVE DEMANDS; CURRICULAR TASKS; INSTRUCTIONAL TASKS; INTEGRATED INSTRUCTION; SCIENTIFIC PRACTICES; TASK-BASED;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84927688917     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21208     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., &, Le, A., (2008). Representation of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 835-855.
2. Achieve. (2010). Taking the lead in science education: Forging Next-Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://achieve.org/files/InternationalScienceBenchmarkingReport.pdf.
3. Anderson, L.W,., &, Krathwohl, D.R,. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
4. Arbaugh, F., &, Brown, C. A., (2005). Analyzing mathematical tasks: A catalyst for change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8 (6), 499-536.
5. Ball, D. L., &, Cohen, D. K., (1996). Reform by the Book: What is: or might be: The role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform. Educational Researcher, 25 (9), 6-14.
6. Bell, P., Bricker, L. A., Tzou, C., Lee, T., &, Van Horne, K., (2012). Engaging learners in scientific practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. The Science Teacher, 79 (8), 17-22.
7. Berland, L. K., &, Reiser, B. J., (2011). Classroom communities' adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95 (2), 191-216.
8. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., &, Palincsar, A., (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26 (3&4), 369-398.
9. Boaler, J, &, Staples, M., (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside school. Teachers' College Record, 110 (3), 608-645.
10. Boston, M., &, Wolf, M. K., (2004). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) Toolkit to assess academic rigor in mathematics lessons and assignments. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association Meeting, San Diago.
11. Boston, M. D., &, Smith, M. S., (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers' classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40 (2), 119-156.
12. Boston, M. D., &, Smith, M. S., (2011). A 'Task-centric approach' to professional development: Enhancing mathematics teachers' ability to implement cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43 (6-7), 965.
13. Calculating Speed. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www2.franciscan.edu/academic/mathsci/mathscienceintegation/MathScienceIntegation-827.htm.
14. Cell Organelle Crossword Puzzle. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://images.pcmac.org/SiSFiles/Schools/NC/OnslowCounty/NewBridge/Uploads/Forms/Cell%20Organelle%20Crossword%20Puzzle.pdf.
15. Chi, M. T., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., &, LaVancher, C., (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18 (3), 439-477.
16. Chinn, C. A., &, Malhotra, B. A., (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86 (2), 175-218.
17. Cobb, P., &, Jackson, K., (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 13 (1), 6-33.
18. Cohen, D. K., (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12 (3), 311-329.
19. Davis, E. A., &, Krajcik, J. S., (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 3.
20. Doyle, W., (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53 (2), 159.
21. Doyle, W., (1988). Work in mathematics classes: The context of students' thinking during instruction. Educational Psychologist, 23 (2), 167-180.
22. Educators Evaluating the Quality of Instructional Products (EQuIP) Rubric for Lessons and Units: Science (2014). Retrieved from: http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/EQuIP%20Rubric%20for%20Science%20October%202014-0.pdf.
23. Evagorou, M., &, Osborne, J., (2013). Exploring young students' collaborative argumentation within a socioscientific issue. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (2), 209-237.
24. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., &, Mamlok-Naaman, R., (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (10), 1081-1110.
25. Gallagher, J. J., &, Tobin, K., (1987). Teacher management and student egagement in high school science. Science Teacher Education, 71 (4), 535-555.
26. Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., &, Auls, S., (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science teaching, 33 (5), 475-499.
27. Henningsen, M., &, Stein, M. K., (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28 (5), 524-549.
28. Hiebert, J., &, Wearne, D., (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students' learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30 (2), 393-425.
29. Hodson, D., (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum studies, 28 (2), 115-135.
30. Hofstein, A., &, Lunetta, V. N., (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88 (1), 28-54.
31. How roller coasters work. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/roller-coaster4.htm ].
32. Jones, D. L., &, Tarr, J. E., (2007). An examination of the levels of cognitive demand required by probability tasks in middle grades mathematics textbooks. Statistics Education Research Journal, 6 (2), 4-27.
33. Kloser, M., (2014). Identifying a core set of science teaching practices: A delphi expert panel approach. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51 (9), 1185-1217.
34. 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 (6), 522-549.
35. Krajcik, J. S., &, Blumenfeld, P. C., (2006). Project-based learning. In, R. K. Sawyer, (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Krajcik, J., (2014). How to select and design materials that align to the Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://nstacommunities.org/blog/2014/04/25/equip/.
37. Krathwohl, D. R., (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice, 41 (4), 212-218.
38. Levin, D. M., (2008). What secondary science teachers pay attention to in the classroom: Situating teaching in institutional and social systems. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Maryland at College Park.
39. Levin, D. M., Hammer, D., &, Coffey, J. E., (2009). Novice teachers' attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60 (2), 142-154.
40. Levin, D., Hammer, D., Elby, A., &, Coffey, J., (2013). Becoming a responsive science teacher: Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, Virginia: NSTA Press.
41. Lewis, S. E., &, Lewis, J. E., (2005). Departing from lectures: An evalua- tion of a peer-led guided inquiry alternative. Journal of Chemical Education, 82 (1), 135-139.
42. Lord, M., (2014). Wind power for your home. Retrieved from http://teachers.egfi-k12.org/wind-power-for-home/.
43. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., &, Chrostowski, S. J., (2004). TIMSS 2003 international science report. Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
44. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J., Blunk, M., Crawford, B., Kelly, B., &, Meyer, K. M,. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. Elementary School Journal, 517-538.
45. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., &, Soloway, E., (1997). Enacting project-based science. The Elementary School Journal, 97 (4), 341-358.
46. Match the Terms. (n.d.) In School of Dragons. Retrieved from http://www.schoolofdragons.com/resources/match-the-terms-view.
47. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., &, Schunn, C. D., (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97 (1), 71-85.
48. 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.
49. Moog, R. S., &, Spencer, J. N., (2008). Process oriented guided inquiry learning (POGIL). New York: Oxford University Press.
50. National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
51. National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
52. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eight Grade.
53. National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
54. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS.
55. Observing Osmosis (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/observing-osmosis.html#.U5Hbo5RdVD4.
56. Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., &, Richardson, K., (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50 (3), 315-347.
57. Paas, F., Renkl, A., &, Sweller, J., (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 1-4.
58. Pickering, M., &, Monts, D. L., (1982). How students reconcile discordant data: A study of lab report discussions. Journal of Chemical Education, 59, 794-796.
59. Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., &, Smithson, J., (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48 (4), 965-995.
60. Porter, A. C., &, Smithson, J. L., (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. Yearbook-National Society For The Study Of Education, 2, 60-80.
61. Porter, A. C., (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31 (7), 3-14.
62. Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., Blank, R., &, Zeidner, T., (2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20 (1), 27-51.
63. Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., &, Kenyon, L., (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. Science and Children, 49 (8), 8-13.
64. Roth, W. M., (1995). Authentic science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
65. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., &, Gallimore, R., (2006). Highlights from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study of eighth-grade science teaching (NCES 2006-17). U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
66. Roth, K., &, Givvin, K. B., (2008). Implications for math and science instruction from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Principal Leadership, 8 (9), 22-27.
67. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., &, Soloway, E., (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39 (5), 410-422.
68. Schwarz, C. V., &, Gwekwerere, Y. N., (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91 (1), 158-186.
69. Scientific Processes-Tools and Measurements. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/scientific-processes.html.
70. Silver, E. A., Clark, L. M., Ghousseini, H. N., Charalambous, C. Y., &, Sealy, J., (2007). Where is the mathematics? Examining teachers' mathematical learning opportunities in practice-based professional learning tasks. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 10 (4-6), 261-277.
71. Simple Genetics Practice Problems. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/genetics-practice.html.
72. Smith, M. S., &, Stein, M. K., (1998). Selecting and creating mathematical tasks: From research to practice. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3 (5), 344-350.
73. Smith, M. S., (2000). Balancing old and new: An experienced middle school teacher's learning in the context of mathematics instructional reform. Elementary School Journal, 100 (4), 351-375.
74. Spillane, J. P., &, Zeuli, J. S., (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1), 1-27.
75. Stern, L., &, Roseman, J. E., (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41 (6), 538-568.
76. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., &, Henningsen, M., (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 33 (2), 455-488.
77. Stein, M. K., &, Lane, S., (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2 (1), 50-80.
78. Stein, M. K., &, Smith, M. S., (1998). Mathematical tasks as a framework for reflection. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3 (4), 268-275.
79. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., &, Silver, E. A., (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (First Edition). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
80. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., &, Silver, E. A., (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (Second Edition). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
81. Stein, M. K., &, Kaufman, J. H., (2010). Selecting and supporting mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47 (3), 663-693.
82. Stigler, J. W., &, Hiebert, J., (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61 (5), 12.
83. Sweller, J., (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12 (2), 257-285.
84. Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., &, Paas, F. G., (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10 (3), 251-296.
85. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., &, Osterlind, S., (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environments on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247-280.
86. Tekkumru-Kisa, M,. (2013). Science teachers' learning to notice from video cases of the enactment of cognitively demanding instructional tasks. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
87. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., &, Schunn, C., (2013). Teachers' learning to analyze cognitive demand of science tasks. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
88. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., &, Stein, M. K., (2015). Learning to see teaching in new ways a foundation for maintaining cognitive demand. American Educational Research Journal. 52 (1), 105-136.
89. Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., &, Schunn, C., (2015). Quality of science instruction during the enactment of NGSS-aligned, cognitively demanding science tasks. Paper to be presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) International Conference, Chicago, IL.
90. Ubuz, B., Erbas, A. K., Cetinkaya, B., &, Ozgeldi, M., (2010). Exploring the quality of the mathematical tasks in the new Turkish elementary school mathematics curriculum guidebook: The case of algebra. ZDM, 42 (5), 483-491.
91. Webb, N. L., (2007). Issues related to judging the alignment of curriculum standards and assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 20 (1), 7-25.
92. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., &, Heck, D. J., (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
93. Weiss, I. R., &, Pasley, J. D., (2004). What Is High-Quality Instruction? Educational Leadership, 61, 5.