The benefits and limitations of educative curriculum materials

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 1-10

  Krajcik, Joe ^a   Delen, Ibrahim ^b  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b USAK UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85028657205     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1046560X.2017.1279470     Document Type: Editorial

References (37)

1. 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), 6–8, 14.
2. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
3. Bell, R. L., & Trundle, K. C. (2008). The use of a computer simulation to promote scientific conceptions of moon phases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 346–372.
4. Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2015). Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 816–846. doi:10.1002/tea.21220
5. Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 613–637.
6. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
7. Davis, E., Palincsar, A., Arias, A., Bismack, A., Marulis, L., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretical and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 24–52.
8. Delen, I., & Krajcik, J. (2016). Synergy and students’ explanations: Exploring the role of generic and content-specific scaffolds. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10763-016-9767-1
9. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12.
10. 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, 915–933.
11. Finnish National Board of Education. (2015). National core curriculum for general upper secondary schools 2015. Retrieved from http://www.oph.fi/saadokset_ja_ohjeet/opetussuunnitelmien_ja_tutkintojen_perusteet/lukiokoulutus/lops2016/103/0/lukion_opetussuunnitelman_perusteet_2015
12. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391.
13. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., & Fredericks, J. (1998). Inquiry in project based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 77, 317–337.
14. Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157–175. doi:10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2
15. Krajcik, J. S., & Mun, K. (2014). Promises and challenges of using learning technologies to promote student learning of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), The handbook of research on science education (pp. 337–360). New York, NY: Routledge.
16. Kuhn, A., McNally, B., Schmoll, S., Cahill, C., Lo, W. T., Quintana, C., & Delen, I. (2012). How students find, evaluate and utilize peer-collected annotated multimedia data in science inquiry with Zydeco. In J. A. Konstan, E. Chi, & K. Höök (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3061– 3070). Austin, TX: ACM.
17. Kulgemeyer, C., & Schecker, H. (2014). Research on educational standards in German science education—Towards a model of student competences. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(4), 257–269.
18. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J. S., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95– 132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
19. Maldonado, H., & Pea, R. D. (2010). LET’s GO! to the creek: Co-design of water quality inquiry using mobile science collaboratories. In U. Hoppe, R. Pea, & C. Liu (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international IEEE conference on wireless, mobile and ubiquitous technologies in education. Kaohsiung, Taiwan (pp. 81–87). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
20. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 233–265). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
21. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2008). Scientific explanations: Characterizing and evaluating the effects of teachers’ instructional practices on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 53–78.
22. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Bridging research and practice. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
23. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
25. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
26. Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
27. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic supports for science inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345–372.
28. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.). (2014). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005a). Bildungsstandards im Fach Biologie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Biology Standards for Middle School Graduation. Resolution of Dec 16, 2004]. Muenchen, Germany: Luchterhand.
30. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005b). Bildungsstandards im Fach Chemie für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Chemistry Standards for Middle School Graduation. Resolution of Dec 16, 2004]. Muenchen, Germany: Luchterhand.
31. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [KMK]. (2005c). Bildungsstandards im Fach Physik für den Mittleren Schulabschluss [Physics Standards for Middle School Graduation. Resolution of Dec 16, 2004]. Muenchen, Germany: Luchterhand.
32. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
33. Songer, N. B. (2006). BioKIDS: An animated conversation on the development of curricular activity structures for inquiry science. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 355–369). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34. Suthers, D. (1998, April). Representations for scaffolding collaborative inquiry on ill-structured problems. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
35. Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335.
36. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010.pdf
37. Williams, M., Linn, M. C., Ammon, P., & Gearhart, M. (2004). Learning to teach inquiry science in a technology-based environment: A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 189–206.