An Efficacy Trial of Research-Based Curriculum Materials With Curriculum-Based Professional Development

American Educational Research Journal

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 984-1017

  Taylor, Joseph A ^a   Getty, Stephen R ^b   Kowalski, Susan M ^c   Wilson, Christopher D ^c   Carlson, Janet ^d   Van Scotter, Pamela ^c  

^a ABT ASSOCIATES   (United States)

^b University of Colorado College of Nursing   (United States)

^c Biological Sciences Curriculum Study   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

BSCS 5E Instructional Model; curriculum materials; curriculum based professional development; efficacy trial; high school science; inquiry

Indexed keywords

EID: 84941757272     PISSN: 00028312     EISSN: 19351011     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0002831215585962     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS and National Science Teachers Association.
2. J.M.Atkin (2002). Using assessment to help students learn. In R.W.Bybee (Ed.), Learning science and the science of learning book (pp. 97–103). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
3. D.AugustL.Branum-MartinE.Cardenas-HaganD.FrancisJ.PowellS.MooreE.Haynes (2014). Helping ELLs meet the Common Core State Standards for Literacy in Science: The impact of an instructional intervention focused on academic language. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7(1), 54–82.
4. D.P.AusubelJ.D.NovakH.Hanesian (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
5. D.L.BallD.K.Cohen (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. E.R.BanilowerP.S.SmithI.R.WeissK.A.MalzahnK.M.CampbellA.M.Weis (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.
7. C.J.BeyerE.A.Davis (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130–157.
8. C.J.BeyerC.DelgadoE.A.DavisJ.Krajcik (2009). Investigating teacher learning supports in high school biology curricular programs to inform the design of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 977–998.
9. P.BlackD.Wiliam (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
10. H.BloomP.ZhuR.JacobS.RaudenbushA.MartinezF.Lin (2008). Empirical issues in the design of group-randomized studies to measure the effects of interventions for children (MDRC Working Papers on Research Methodology). Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/publication/empirical-issues-design-group-randomized-studies-measure-effects-interventions-children
11. D.BriarsL.Resnick (2001). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Paper presented at the Local Systemic Change PI Meeting, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
12. BSCS. (2009). Fidelity of implementation protocol. Retrieved from www.bscs.org.
13. R.W.Bybee (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
14. R.BybeeN.Landes (1990). Science for life and living: An elementary school science program from Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. The American Biology Teacher, 52, 92–98.
15. J.CarlsonE.A.DavisC.Buxton (2014). Supporting the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) through research: Curriculum materials. Retrieved from https://narst.org/ngsspapers/curriculum.cfm
16. D.ClementsJ.Sarama (2008). Experimental evaluation of the effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 443–494.
17. L.Darling-Hammond (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
18. E.DavisJ.Krajcik (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
19. C.DomitrovichS.GestS.GillK.BiermanJ.WelshD.Jones (2009). Fostering high-quality teaching with an enriched curriculum and professional development support: The Head Start REDI program. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 567–597.
20. Education Testing Service. (2012) Washington Comprehensive Assessment Program Grades 3–8, High School Spring 2011 technical report. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/assessment/pubdocs/WCAP2011SpringAdministrationTechnicalReport.pdf
21. C.T.ForbesE.A.Davis (2010). Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers’ mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(7), 820–839.
22. M.Fullan (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23. G.E.HallS.M.Hord (2001). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
24. J.I.HellerK.R.DaehlerM.ShinoharaS.R.Kaskowitz (2004). Fostering pedagogical content knowledge about electric circuits through case-based professional development. Paper presented at the National Association for Research on Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting, Vancouver, WA.
25. C.J.HillH.S.BloomA.R.BlackM.W.Lipsey (2007). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Retrieved from http://www.mdrc.org/publicaitons/459/full.pdf
26. C.E.Hmelo-SilverR.G.DuncanC.A.Chinn (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.
27. Institute for Education Sciences. (2014). What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Topic.aspx?sid=14
28. Institute for Education Sciences and The National Science Foundation. (2013). Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/pdf/CommonGuidelines.pdf
29. D.H.Jonassen (2009). Reconciling a human cognitive architecture. In S.T.T.M.Duffy (Ed.), Constructivist theory applied to instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 13–33). New York, NY: Routledge.
30. S.KesidouJ.E.Roseman (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.
31. P.A.KirschnerJ.SwellerR.E.Clark (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
32. P.A.KirschnerJ.J.G.van Merriënboer (2013). Do learners really know best? Urban legends in education. Educational Psychologist, 48(3), 169–183.
33. D.Klahr (2010). Coming up for air: But is it oxygen or phlogiston? A response to Taber’s review of Constructivist Instruction: Success or Failure?Education Review, 13(13). Retrieved from http://www.edrev.info/essays/v13n13.pdf
34. B.Ladewski (1994). A middle grade science teacher’s emerging understanding of project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 499–515.
35. J.R.LandisG.Koch (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
36. H.-T.LinB.J.Fishman (2006). Exploring the relationship between teachers’ curriculum enactment experience and their understanding of underlying unit structures. In S.A.BarabK.E.HayD.T.Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 432–438). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. S.Loucks-HorsleyP.W.HewsonN.LoveK.E.Stiles (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
38. S.Lynch (2001). “Science for all” is not equal to “one size fits all”: Linguistic and cultural diversity and science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 622–627.
39. S.J.LynchC.PykeB.H.Grafton (2012). A retrospective view of a study of middle school science curriculum materials: Implementation, scale-up, and sustainability in a changing policy environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 305–332.
40. D.P.MacKinnon (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. D.P.MacKinnonA.J.FairchildM.S.Fritz (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
42. R.Mayer (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.
43. K.L.McNeill (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93, 233–268.
44. K.L.McNeillJ.Krajcik (2007). Instructional strategies to support students writing scientific explanations. In J.LuftJ.Gess-NewsomeR.Bell (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
45. National Research Council. (1999). Designing mathematics or science curriculum programs: A guide for using mathematics and science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
46. National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. National Research Council. (2001). Classroom assessment and the national science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
48. National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
52. B.NyeS.KonstantopoulosL.Hedges (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.
53. J.W.PellegrinoN.ChudowskyR.Glaser (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
54. W.R.PenuelL.P.GallagherS.Moorthy (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth systems science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025.
55. M.PiburnD.SawadaK.FalconerJ.TurleyR.BenfordI.Bloom (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) (ACEPT Report no. IN-003). Retrieved from https://mathed.asu.edu/instruments/rtop/RTOP_Reference_Manual.pdf
56. K.A.PituchD.L.MurphyR.L.Tate (2010). Three-level models for indirect effects in school- and class-randomized experiments in education. The Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 60–95.
57. J.C.PowellR.D.Anderson (2002). Changing teachers’ practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107–135.
58. S.W.Raudenbush (1997). Statistical analysis and optimal design for cluster randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 2(2), 173–185.
59. S.W.RaudenbushJ.SpybrookR.CongdonX.LiuA.MartinezH.BloomC.Hill (2011). Optimal Design Plus Empirical Evidence (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Available from www.wtgrantfoundation.org
60. J.T.Remillard (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
61. F.J.Rutherford (2000). Coherence in high school science. Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS.
62. P.M.SadlerG.SonnertH.P.CoyleN.Cook-SmithJ.L.Miller (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.
63. D.SawadaM.D.PiburnE.JudsonJ.TurleyK.FalconerR.BenfordI.. Bloom (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.
64. W.SchmidtR.HouangL.Cogan (2002). A coherent curriculum: A case of mathematics. American Educator, 26(2), 10–26.
65. W.H.SchmidtC.McKnightR.HouangH.-C.WangD.WileyL.CoganR.Wolfe (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
66. W.SchmidtC.McKnightS.Raizen (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics. Boston, MA: Kluwer.
67. W.H.SchmidtH.C.WangC.C.McKnight (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559.
68. R.M.SchneiderJ.Krajcik (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
69. W.R.ShadishT.D.CookD.T.Campbell (2002). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
70. R.E.Slavin (2008). Perspectives on evidence-based research in education—What works? Issues in synthesizing educational program evaluations. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 5–14.
71. A.T.StullR.E.Mayer (2007). Learning by doing versus learning by viewing: Three experimental comparisons of learner-generated versus author-provided graphic organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 808–820.
72. S.TobiasT.Duffy (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?New York, NY: Routledge.
73. Z.Usiskin (1985). We need another revolution in secondary school mathematics. In C.R.Hersch (Ed.), The secondary school mathematics: 1985 yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 1–21). Reston, VA: NCTM.
74. L.S.Vygotsky (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
75. L.S.Vygotsky (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
76. G.WigginsJ.McTighe (2005). Understanding by design (Expanded 2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD).