Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 52, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 1408-1425

  Fortus, David ^a   Sutherland Adams, Leeann M ^b   Krajcik, Joseph ^c   Reiser, Brian ^d  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b Activate Learning   (United States)

^c MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

cross cutting concepts; curriculum coherence; energy; middle school

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA;

CROSS-CUTTING; ENERGY; MIDDLE SCHOOL; PRIOR KNOWLEDGE; STAND -ALONE; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING; STUDENT LEARNING; STUDENT PERFORMANCE;

STUDENTS;

EID: 84945434931     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: 10982736     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.21261     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. AAAS., (2007). ATLAS of Science Literacy (Vol. 1& 2). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science and National Science Teachers Association.
2. Bennett, J., &, Lubben, F., (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28 (9), 999-1015. doi: 10.1080/09500690600702496
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., Cocking, R. R., Donovan, S. M., &, Pellegrino, J. W., (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
4. Bransford, J. D., &, Schwartz, D. L., (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24, 61-100.
5. Bruner, J. S,. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Bruner, J. S,. (1995). On learning mathematics: What places do discovery, intuition, and translation have in the learning of mathematics? Are our present activity and efforts to improve mathematics teaching the beginning of an educational renaissance? The Mathematics Teacher, 88 (4), 330-335. doi: 10.2307/27969334
7. Carrahar, D., &, Schliemann, A. D., (2002). The transfer dilemma. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11 (1), 1-24.
8. Catley, K. M., Lehrer, R., Reiser, B. J., (2005). Tracing a prospective learning progression for developing understanding of evolution. Paper Commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement.
9. Chen, R. F., Eisenkraft, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. S., Neumann, K., Nordine, J. C., &, Scheff, A,. (Eds.). (2014). Teaching and learning of energy in K-12 education. The Netherlands: Springer.
10. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., &, Rogat, A., (2009). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform: cpre research report no. RR-63. Consortium for policy research in education. University of Pennsylvania.
11. Davis, E. A., &, Krajcik, J. S., (2005). Designing educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning. Educational Researcher, 34 (3), 3-14.
12. Detterman, D. K., (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as epiphenomenon. In, D. K. Detterman, &, R. J. Sternberg, (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1-24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13. Fabrigar, L. R., &, Wegener, D. T., (2011). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
14. Fortus, D., &, Krajcik, J. S., (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In, B. J. Fraser, C. McRobbie, &, K. G. Tobin, (Eds.), International handbook of science education (2nd ed., pp. 783-798). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
15. 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. doi: 10.1002/tea.21054
16. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., &, Mullen, M. R., (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6 (1), 53-60.
17. Karabenick, S. A., Woolley, M. E., Friedel, J. M., Ammon, B. V., Blazevski, J., &, Bonney, C. R., (2007). Cognitive processing of self-report items in educational research: Do they think what we mean? Educational Psychologist, 42 (3), 139-151.
18. 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.
19. Kline, R. B,. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
20. Krajcik, J. S., McNeill, K. L., &, Reiser, B. J., (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92, 1-32.
21. Krajcik, J. S., Reiser, B. J., Sutherland, L. M., Fortus, D., (2012). IQWST: Investigating and questioning our world through science and technology, (Middle School Science Curriculum Materials). USA: Sangari Global Education/Active Science.
22. Lehrer, R., &, Schauble, L., (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In, W. Damon, R. M. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, &, I. E. Sigel, (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (vol. 4, 6th ed., pp. 153-196). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
23. Lehrer, R., &, Schauble, L., (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96 (4), 701-724. doi: 10.1002/sce.20475
24. Linn, M. C., Eylon, B.-S., &, Davis, E. A., (2004). The knowledge integration perspective on learning. In, M. C. Linn, E. A. Davis, &, P. Bell, (Eds.), Internet environments for science education (pp. 29-46). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Millar, R., &, Osborne, J. F., (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
26. Mohan, L., Chen, J., &, Anderson, C. W., (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 675-698.
27. National Research Council,. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. National Research Council,. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29. Nordine, J. C., Krajcik, J. S., &, Fortus, D., (2011). Transforming energy instruction in middle school to support integrated understanding and future learning. Science Education, 95 (4), 670-699.
30. NRC,. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
31. Passmore, C. M., &, Svoboda, J., (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34 (10), 1535-1554. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.577842
32. Roseman, J. E., &, Koppal, M., (2008). Using national standards to improve K-8 science curriculum materials. Elementary School Journal, 109 (2), 104-122.
33. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., &, Raizen, S. A,. (Eds.). (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Bostson: Kluwer.
34. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., &, McKnight, C. C., (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (5), 525-559.
35. Schwartz, D. L., Bransford, J. D., &, Sears, D., (2005). Efficiency and innovation in transfer. In, J. P. Mestre, (Ed.), Transfer of learning: From a modern multidisciplinary perspective (pp. 1-52). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
36. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., &, Krajcik, J. S, (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-654. doi: 10.1002/tea.20311
37. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Fortus, D., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., &, Shwartz, Y., (2009). Developing a learning progression of scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46 (6), 632-655.
38. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J. S., &, Reiser, B. J., (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. Elementary School Journal, 109 (2), 199-219.
39. Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., &, Hennessey, M. G., (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 349-422.
40. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. 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, 4 (1-2), 1-98.
41. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., &, Braaten, M., (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92 (5), 941-967.