Investigating Purposeful Science Curriculum Adaptation as a Strategy to Improve Teaching and Learning

Science Education

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 66-98

  Debarger, Angela Haydel ^a   Penuel, William R ^b   Moorthy, Savitha ^c   Beauvineau, Yves ^d   Kennedy, Cathleen A ^e   Boscardin, Christy Kim ^f  

^a George Lucas Educational Foundation   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^c SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

^d Culturally Responsive Science Pedagogies LLC   (United States)

^e KAC Group   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84984698935     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21249     Document Type: Article

References (112)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P., (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policy change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
3. Bell, P. (2002). Using argument map representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In T. Koschmann, R. Hall, & N. Miyake (Eds.), CSCL 2: Carrying forward the conversation (pp. 449–485). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1975). Federal programs supporting educational change, Volume 4: The findings in review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5. Bianchini, J. A., & Kelly, G. J. (2003). Challenges of standards-based reform: The example of California's science content standards and textbook adoption process. Science Education, 87(3), 378–389.
6. Blumenfeld, P., Fishman, B. J., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (2000). Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: Scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 149–164.
7. Borko, H., & Klingner, J. K. (2013). Supporting teachers in schools to improve their instructional practice. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds), Design-based implementation research. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 298–319.
8. Bricker, L. A., & Bell, P. (2008). Conceptualizations of argumentation from science studies and the learning sciences and their implications for practices of science education. Science Education, 92(3), 473–498.
9. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles and systems. In L. Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289–325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge, discourses and hybrid space. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73.
14. Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
15. 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.
16. Cheong, Y. F., Fotiu, R. P., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Efficiency and robustness of alternative estimators for two- and three-level models: The case of NAEP. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26, 411–429.
17. Cofer, C. (1952). Problems in the implementation of curriculum. In Study Group Supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Grant Foundation (Ed.), Improving undergraduate instruction in psychology (pp. 46–52). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
18. Coffey, J., 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. Conley, D. T. (2003). Who governs our schools? Changing roles and responsibilities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
20. Cromley, J. G., Newcombe, N. S., Wills, T. W., Wills, M., Karakus, M., & Batchelor, M. (2011). Teaching middle school students to reason with visual representations in science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
21. Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1880–1990 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. Retrieved from http://spot.colorado.edu/~otero/Driver_Norms.pdf
23. Duschl, R. A., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: A review and synthesis. Studies in Science Education, 47(2), 123–182.
24. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38(1), 39–72.
25. Eisenhart, M., Finkel, E., & Marion, S. (1996). Creating the conditions for scientific literacy: A re-examination. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 261–295.
26. Elby, A., Richards, J., Walkoe, J., Gupta, A., Russ, R. S., Luna, M.,.. van Es, E. (2014). Differing notions of responsive teaching across mathematics and science: Does the discipline matter? In J. L. Polman, E. Kyza, D. K. O'Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O'Connor, T. R. Lee, & L. D'Amico, & (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 1406–1415). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
27. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's argument pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
28. Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783–798). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
29. Furtak, E. M., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Shemwell, J. T., Ayala, C. C., Brandon, P. R., Shavelson, R. J., & Yin, Y. (2008). On the fidelity of implementing embedded formative assessment and its relation to student learning. Applied Measurement in Education, 21, 360–389.
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: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 405–434). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
31. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
32. Ghisletta, P., & Spini, D. (2004). An introduction to generalized estimating equations and an application to assess selectivity effects in a longitudinal study on very old individuals. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(4), 421–437.
33. Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Examining teachers’ instructional moves aimed at developing students' ideas and questions in learner-centered science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 768–788. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9237-0
34. Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2015). Conceptualizing relations between instructional guidance infrastructure (IGI) and teachers’ beliefs about mathematics instruction: Regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive considerations. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 431–450.
35. Jackson, K., & Cobb, P. (2013). Coordinating professional development across contexts and role group. In M. Evans (Ed.), Teacher education and pedagogy: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 80–99). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
36. Kastens, K. A., & Rivet, A. (2010). Using analogical mapping to assess the affordances of scale models used in Earth and environmental science education. In C. Holscher, T. E. Shipley, M. O. Blelardinelli, J. A. Bateman, & N. S. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial cognition VII (pp. 112–124). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
37. Kastens, K. A., Rivet, A., Lyons, C., & Miller, A. R. (2011). Bridging the gap between tabletop models and the earth system: Classroom-based research on how teachers teach and how students learn from physical models. Paper presented at the Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.
38. 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.
39. Lagemann, E. (2002). An elusive science: The troubling history of education research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
40. Levidow, B. B., Hunt, E., & McKee, C. (1991). The DIAGNOSER: A HyperCard tool for building theoretically based tutorials. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 23(2), 249–252.
41. Magnusson, S. J., Palincsar, A. S., & Templin, M. (2004). Community, culture, and conversation in inquiry-based science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 131–155). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
42. Marx, R. W., Freeman, J. G., & Krajcik, J. S. (1998). Professional development of science teachers. In B. J. Fraser & K. B. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 667–680). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
43. Massell, D., Kirst, M. W., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based reform in nine states. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education.
44. Masters, G. N. (1982). A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika, 47(2), 149–174.
45. McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Lockwood, J., Larsen, J., Rosenberg, M., & Hoover, M. (2006). Earth science by design: A handbook for professional developers. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
46. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27, 283–297.
47. Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2011). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
48. Minstrell, J., & Kraus, P. (2005). Guided inquiry in the science classroom. In National Research Council (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom (pp. 475–514). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
49. Minstrell, J., & van Zee, E. (2003). Using questioning to assess and foster student thinking. In J. M. Atkin & J. E. Coffey (Eds.), Everyday assessment in the science classroom. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press. Morrison.
50. Morozov, A., Herrenkohl, L., Shutt, K., Thummaphan, P., Vye, N., Abbott, R. D., & Scalone, G. (2014). Emotional engagement in agentive science environments. In J. L. Polman, E. Kyza, K. O'Neill, & I. Tabak (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1152–1156). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
51. National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, Achieve, Council of Great City Schools, & Education, National Association of State Boards of Education (2013). Publishers’ criteria for the common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.
52. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
53. National Research Council (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
55. National Research Council (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
56. National Research Council (2007a). Ready, set, SCIENCE: Putting research to work in K–8 science classrooms. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
57. National Research Council (2007b). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
58. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
59. National Research Council (2014). Developing assessments for the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
60. National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
61. O'Connor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (2011). Problematizing dialogic and authoritative discourse, their coding in classroom transcripts, and realization in the classroom. Paper presented at the ISCAR Congress, Rome, Italy.
62. O'Donnell, C. L. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84.
63. Ogborn, J. (2005). 40 years of curriculum development. In K. Boersma, M. Goedhart, O. de Jong, & H. Eijkelhof (Eds.), Research and the quality of science education. Dordrecht (pp. 57–65), The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag.
64. Oliveira, A. W. (2010). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 422–453.
65. Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V., & Oldfield, M. (2012). Environmental argumentation as sociocultural activity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 869–897.
66. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
67. 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.
68. Parker, J. M., de Los Santos, E. X., & Anderson, C. W. (2015). Learning progressions and climate change. The American Biology Teacher, 77(4), 232–238.
69. Pea, R. D., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
70. Penuel, W. R. (2015). Learning progressions as evolving tools in joint enterprises for educational improvement. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspectives, 13(2), 123–127. doi:10.1080/15366367.2015.1055145
71. Penuel, W. R., & DeBarger, A. H. (2016). A research-practice partnership to improve formative assessment in science. In A. J. Daly & K. S. Finnigan & (Eds.), Thinking systemically: Improving districts under pressure. Washington, DC: AERA.
72. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school earth science. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 461–508.
73. Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in earth science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025.
74. Penuel, W. R., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Benbow, A., Mably, C., & Hayden, M. M. (2009). Teaching for understanding in earth science: Comparing impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 415–436.
75. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.
76. Pierson, J. (2008). The relationship between patterns of classroom discourse and mathematics learning. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
77. Polikoff, M. S. (2010). Instructional sensitivity as a psychometric property of assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 29(4), 3–14.
78. Radinsky, J., Oliva, S., & Alamar, K. (2010). Camila, the earth, and the sun: Constructing an idea as a shared intellectual property. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 619–642.
79. Rasch, G. (1960). Studies in mathematical psychology: I. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Oxford, England: Nielsen & Lydiche.
80. Reiser, B. J. (2014). Designing coherent storylines aligned with NGSS for the K–12 classroom. Paper presented at the National Science Education Leadership Association Meeting. Boston, MA.
81. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.
82. Rivet, A., & Kastens, K. A. (2012). Developing a construct-based assessment to examine analogical reasoning around physical models in earth science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(6), 713–743.
83. Roschelle, J., Knudsen, J., & Hegedus, S. J. (2010). From new technological infrastructures to curricular activity systems: Advanced designs for teaching and learning. In M. J. Jacobson & P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 233–262). New York, NY: Springer.
84. Roth, K. J., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Garnier, H. E., Wickler, N. I. Z., Atkins, L. J.,.. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Coherence and science content storylines in science teaching: Evidence of neglect? Evidence of effect? Paper presented at the NARST Annual Conference. Garden Grove, CA.
85. Roth, K. J., Druker, S. L., Garnier, H. E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T.,.. Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching science in five countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
86. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2007). Exploring teachers' informal formative assessment practices and students' understanding in the context of scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 57–84.
87. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
88. Schunn, C. D., Merlino, F. J., Cromley, J. G., Massey, C., Newcombe, N. S., & Nokes, T. J. (2010). Translational science of cognitive science in middle school science curricula. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
89. Schunn, C. D., Richey, J. E., & Alfieri, L. (2011). Contrasting cases can facilitate hands-on middle school science learning at scale. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Convention of the Association for Psychological Science, Washington, DC.
90. Shayer, M. (1978). The analysis of science curricula for Piagetian level of demand. Studies in Science Education, 5(1), 115–130.
91. Shutt, K., Phillips, R. S., Vye, N., Van Horne, K., & Bransford, J. D. (2010). Developing science inquiry skills with challenge-based, student-directed learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
92. Shutt, K., Vye, N., & Bransford, J. D. (2011). The role of agency and authenticity in argumentation during science inquiry. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
93. Singer, J. E., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Clay-Chambers, J. (2000). Constructing extended inquiry projects: Curriculum materials for science education reform. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 165–179.
94. 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: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 4(1/2), 1–98.
95. Squire, K. D., MaKinster, J. G., Barnett, M., Luehmann, A. L., & Barab, S. (2003). Designed curriculum and local culture: Acknowledging the primacy of classroom culture. Science Education, 87(4), 467–489.
96. Stern, L., & Ahlgren, A. (2002). Analysis of students' assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 889–910.
97. Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Windschitl, M. (2009). Learning progressions as vision tools for advancing teachers' pedagogical performance. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science Conference, Iowa City, IA.
98. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
99. Tzou, C. T., & Bell, P. (2010). Micros and Me: Leveraging home and community practices in formal science instruction. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1135–1143). Chicago, IL: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
100. van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Kurose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159–190.
101. Warm, T. A. (1989). Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in the item response theory. Psychometrika, 54, 427–450.
102. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
103. Williams, I. W. (1978). The Implementation of Curricula adapted from Scottish Integrated Science. Paper presented to Bat Sheva Seminar on Curriculum Development and its Relationship to Curriculum Development in Science, Rechovot, Jerusalem.
104. 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(6), 941–967.
105. Wiser, M., Smith, C. L., & Doubler, S. (2012). Learning progressions as tools for curriculum development: Lessons from the Inquiry Project. In A. C. Alonzo & A. W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning progressions in science: Current challenges and future directions (pp. 359–404). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SensePublishers.
106. Wright, B. D., & Linacre, M. J. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
107. Wrightstone, J. W., Parke, M., & Bressler, M. (1944). Introducing child study practices in selected schools in New York City. The Journal of Educational Research, 37(7), 512–520.
108. Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Socio-mathematical norms, argumentation, and autonomy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458–477.
109. Yin, Y., Shavelson, R. J., Ayala, C. C., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., Brandon, P. R., Furtak, E. M.,.. Young, D. B. (2008). On the impact of formative assessment on student motivation, achievement, and conceptual change. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 335–359.
110. Zangori, L., Forbes, C. T., & Biggers, M. (2013). Fostering student sense making in elementary science learning environments: Elementary teachers' use of science curriculum materials to promote explanation construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(8), 989–1017.
111. Zeger, S. L., & Liang, K.-Y. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis for discrete and continuous outcomes. Biometrics, 42(1), 121–130.
112. Zubrzycki, J. (2014). Denver public schools "back to the drawing board" in search for common core-aligned curriculum. Chalkbeat Colorado. Retrieved from http://co.chalkbeat.org/2014/12/17/denver-public-schools-back-to-the-drawing-board-in-search-for-common-core-aligned-curriculum/