The Design and Use of Educative Curricular Supports for Text-Based Discussions in Science

Journal of Education

Volumn 195, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 21-37

  Arias, Anna Maria ^a   Palincsar, Annemarie S ^a   Davis, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84986277683     PISSN: 00220574     EISSN: 25155741     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002205741519500105     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Abell, S. K. (2007). Research on science teacher knowledge. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 1105-1149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 685-730.
3. Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (in review). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials.
4. Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Arzi, H. J., & White, R. T. (2004). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter: A 17-year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221-251
6. 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 reforms? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8
7. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, L. (1997), Questioning the author_ An approach for enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
8. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2009), Using educative curriculum materials to support preservice elementary teachers’ curricular planning: A comparison between two different forms of support. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(5), 679-703.
9. Beyer, C. J., Delgado, C., Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2009). Investigating teachei 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.
10. Biggers, M., Forbes, CoryT., & Zangori, L. (2013). Elementary teachers’ curriculum design and pedagogical reasoning for supporting students’ comparison and evaluation of evidence-based explanations. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 48-72. doi: 10.1086/670738
11. Borko, H., Jacobs, j., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussions in mathematics professional development, leaching andTeacher Education, 24(2), 417-436.
12. Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herhel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 18-36). New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge.
13. Carney, M., & Indrisano, R. (2013). Disciplinary literacy and pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Education 193(3), 39-50.
14. Cervetti, G. N., Kulikowich, J. M., & Bravo, M. A. (2015). The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers’ use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 86-89.
15. Cervetti, G. N., Pearson, P. D., Bravo, M. A., & Barber, J. (2006). Reading and writing in the service of inquiry-based science. In R. Douglas, M. Klentschy, & K. Worth (Eds.), Linking science and literacy in the K S classroom (pp. 221-244). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.
16. Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality ofinstruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal ojCurriculum Studies, 44(4), 443-466.
17. Collopy, R. (2003), Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287-311.
18. Davis, E.A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
19. Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Arias, A. S., Bismack, A., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24-52.
20. Duncan, J. K., & Frymier, J. R. (1967). Explorations in the systematic study of curriculum. Theory into Practice, 6(4), 180-199.
21. Enfield, M., Smith, E. L., & Grueber, D. J. (2008). “A sketch is like a sentence”: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science Education, 92(4), 608-630. doi:10.1002/see.20252
22. Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347.
23. Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491-520.
24. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for teacher learning? Teaching andTeacher Education, 24(3), 2014-2026.
25. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal JOT Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344-369.
26. Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J. Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194-230.
27. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28. Kucan, L., & Palincsar, A. S. (2011). Text-based discussion: The case of reading. Teachers College Record, 111(9), 2055-2100.
29. Kucan, L. & Palincsar, A. S. (2013). Comprehension instruction through text- based discussion. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
30. Lee, B. O., & Buxton, C. (2008). Science curriculum and student diversity: A framework for equitable learning opportunities. The Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 123-137. doi: 10.1086/590522
31. Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., Friedkin, S., & Roth, J. R. (2012). Improving teaching does improve teachers: Evidence from lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(5), 368-375.
32. Lin, S.-F., Lieu, S.-C., Chen, S., Huang, M.-T., & Chang, W.-H. (2012). Affording explicit-reflective science teaching by using an educative teachers’ guide. International Journal of Science Education, 34(7), 999-1026.
33. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
34. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.).Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
35. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards, Reading. Washington, DC: Author
36. National Science Resources Center. (2005). Science technology and children ecosystems (2nd ed.). Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.
37. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, D.C.:The National Academies Press.
38. Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching °J English, 25(3), 261-290.
39. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching °f comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
40. Palincsar, A. S., & Magnusson, S. J. (2001). The interplay of first-hand and text-based investigations to model and support the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-Jive years oj progress (pp. 151-194). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
41. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 100(4), 331-350. doi: 10.2307/1002146
42. Remillard, J.T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211-246.
43. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning- Journalfor Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352-388.
44. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883-907.
45. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (2012), Interdisciplinary perspectives linking science and literacy in grades K-5: Implications for policy and practice. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1351-1373). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.
46. Rosebery, A. S., & Puttick, G. M, (1998). Teacher professional development as situated sense-making: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82(6), 649-677.
47. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning:The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245.
48. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform- based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 42(3), 283-312.
49. Sherin, M. G. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching andTeacher Education, 20, 163-183.
50. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
51. Slough, S.W., McTigue, E. M., Kim, S., & Jennings, S. K. (2010). Science textbooks’ use of graphical representation: A descriptive analysis of four sixth grade science texts. Reading Psychology, 31(3), 301-325.
52. Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachersfor a changing world. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
53. Stake, R. E. (2000), Case studies. In N. K. Denzen &Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435-454).Thousand Oaks. CA: Sag£'
54. Stylianides, G. J. (2007). Investigating the guidance offered to teachers in curriculum materials: The case of proof in mathematics. Internationa1 Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 6, 191-215.
55. van den Broek, P., Young, M., Tzeng, Y., & Linderholm, T. (1999). The landscape model of reading: Inferences and the online construction of a memory representation. In H. Oostendorp & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The construction of mental representations during reading (pp. 71-98). New York. NY: Taylor and Francis.
56. Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain specificity and instructional influences. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(6), 299-310.
57. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999).Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 173-209). Washington, DC: AERA.
58. Yore, L. D., Hand, B. M., & Florence, M. K. (2004), Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369.