What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes?

Science Education

Volumn 102, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 260-282

  Roblin, Natalie Pareja ^a,b   Schunn, Christian ^a   McKenney, Susan ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

curriculum materials; science education; student learning; systematic review; teacher learning

Indexed keywords

EID: 85036590862     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21328     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Akerson, V., Nargund-Joshi, V., Weiland, I., Pongsanon, K., & Avsar, B. (2014). What third-grade students of differing ability levels learn about nature of science after a year of instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 244–276.
2. Arias, A. M., Smith, P. S., Davis, E. A., Marino, J. C., & Palincsar, A. S. (2017). Justifying predictions: connecting use of educative curriculum materials to students’ engagement in science argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 11–35.
3. Arias, A., Davis, E., Marino, J., Kademian, S., & Palincsar, A. (2016). Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices. International Journal of Science Education, 38(9), 1504–1526.
4. Ball, D., & Cohen, D. (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.
5. Belland, B., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270.
6. Belland, B., Walker, A., Olsen, M., & Leary, H. (2015). A pilot meta-analysis of computer-based scaffolding in STEM education. Educational Technology & Society, 18(1), 183–197.
7. Berland, L., & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.
8. Beyer, C., & Davis, E. (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.
9. Beyer, C., Delgado, C., Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (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.
10. Bismack, A., Arias, A., Davis, E., & Palincsar, A. (2015). Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(6), 816–846.
11. Brown, M. (2009). The teacher–tool relationship. Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge.
12. Carlson, J., & Anderson, R. (2002). Changing teachers' practice: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 107–135.
13. Carlson, J., Davis, E. A., & Buxton, C. (2014). Supporting the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) through research: Curriculum materials. Retrieved from https://narst.org/ngsspapers/curriculum.cfm
14. Cervetti, G., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631–658.
15. Cervetti, G., Kulikowich, J., & Bravo, M. (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, 86–98.
16. Clark, D., Touchman, S., Martinez-Garza, M., Ramirez-Marin, F., & Drews, T. (2012). Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments. Computers & Education, 58, 1207–1224.
17. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the River City curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.
18. Coburn, C. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
19. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Instruction, capacity and improvement (CPRE Research Report Series RR-43). Philadelphia, PA: CPRE Publications.
20. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
22. Dias, M., Eick, C., & Brantley-Dias, L. (2011). Practicing what we teach: A self-study in implementing an inquiry-based curriculum in a middle grades classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(1), 53–78.
23. Donna, J. D., & Hick, S. R. (2017). Developing elementary preservice teacher subject matter knowledge through the use of educative science curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 92–110.
24. Ellins, K., Ledley, T., Haddad, N., McNeal, K., Gold, A., Lynds, S., & Libarkin, J. (2014). EarthLabs: Supporting teacher professional development to facilitate effective teaching of climate science. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 330–342.
25. Fogleman, J., McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2011). Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 149–169.
26. 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.
27. Fortus, D., Sutherland Adams, L., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2015). Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1408–1425.
28. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
29. Gaydos, M. J., & Squire, K. D. (2012). Role playing games for scientific citizenship. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(4), 821–844.
30. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026.
31. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391.
32. Harris, C., Penuel, W., D'Angelo, C., DeBarger, A., Gallagher, L., Kennedy, C., … Krajcik, J. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385.
33. Häussler, P., & Hoffmann, L. (2002). An intervention study to enhance girls' interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 870–888.
34. Hayes, K., & Trexler, C. (2016). Testing predictors of instructional practice in elementary science education: The significant role of accountability. Science Education, 100(2), 266–289.
35. Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., Doyle, W., & Van Driel, J. (2013). How to make innovations practical. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–43.
36. 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.
37. Knight, V., Spooner, F., Browder, D., Smith, B., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Using systematic instruction and graphic organizers to teach science concepts to students with autism spectrum disorders and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 115–126.
38. Kowalski, S. M., Van Scotter, P., Stuhlsatz, M. A., & Taylor, J. A. (2010). Instructional materials, equity, and science achievement, Paper presented at the 2010 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
39. 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.
40. Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). The benefits and limitations of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 1–10.
41. Kruse, R., Howes, E. V., Carlson, J., Roth, K., & Bourdélat-Parks, B. (2013). Developing and evaluating an eighth grade curriculum unit that links foundational chemistry to biological growth: Designing professional development to support teaching, Paper presented at the NARST Annual International Conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
42. Lachapelle, C. P., Cunningham, C. M., Jocz, J., Kay, A. E., Phadnis, P., & Sullivan, S. (2011). Engineering is elementary: An evaluation of year 6 field testing. Paper presented at the NARST Annual International Conference, Orlando, FL (Vol. 2011).
43. Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.
44. Lester, J. C., Spires, H. A., Nietfeld, J. L., Minogue, J., Mott, B. W., & Lobene, E. V. (2014). Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: A narrative-centered learning perspective. Information Sciences, 264, 4–18.
45. Marco-Bujosa, L., McNeill, K., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform-oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(2), 141–168.
46. Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080.
47. McNeill, K., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Synergy between teacher practices and curricular scaffolds to support students in using domain-specific and domain-general knowledge in writing arguments to explain phenomena. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(3), 416–460.
48. McNeill, K., Lizotte, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2006). Supporting students' construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191.
49. Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. A. (2011). Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: Merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(3), 525–547.
50. Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. (2015). Multicultural inquiry toward demystifying scientific culture and learning science. Science Education, 99(4), 617–637.
51. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
52. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
53. Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 241–286.
54. Park, S., Jang, J. Y., Chen, Y. C., & Jung, J. (2011). Is pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching?: Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 245–260.
55. Pea, R. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
56. Quertemont, E. (2011). How to statistically show the absence of an effect. Psychologica Belgica, 51(2), pp. 109–127.
57. Reiser, B. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.
58. Reisslein, J., Sullivan, H., & Reisslein, M. (2007). Learner achievement and attitudes under different paces of transitioning to independent problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 45–56.
59. Remillard, J. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.
60. Remillard, J., Harris, B., & Agodini, R. (2014). The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46(5), 735–749.
61. Rivet, A., & Krajcik, J. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.
62. Roseman, J. E., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. J. (2015). Curriculum materials for Next Generation Science Standards: What the science education research community can do. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, Chicago, IL.
63. Sadler, T., Romine, W., Menon, D., Ferdig, R., & Annetta, L. (2015). Learning biology through innovative curricula: A comparison of game-and nongame-based approaches. Science Education, 99(4), 696–720.
64. Schneider, R. (2013). Opportunities for teacher learning during enactment of inquiry science curriculum materials: Exploring the potential for teacher educative materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(2), 323–346.
65. Schneider, R., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221–245.
66. Schneider, R., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283–312.
67. Schwarz, C., Reiser, B., Davis, E., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., … Krajcik, J. (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.
68. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
69. Sinha, S., Gray, S., Hmelo-Silver, C., Jordan, R., Eberbach, C., Goel, A., & Rugaber, S. (2013). Conceptual representations for transfer: A case study tracing back and looking forward. Frontline Learning Research, 1(1), 3–23.
70. Skaalvik, E., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069.
71. Stevens, S., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(6), 687–715.
72. Taylor, J. A., Getty, S. R., Kowalski, S. M., Wilson, C. D., Carlson, J., & Van Scotter, P. (2015). An efficacy trial of research-based curriculum materials with curriculum-based professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 984–1017.
73. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modelling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), 3–118.
74. White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (2000). Metacognitive facilitation: An approach to making scientific inquiry accessible to all. In J. Minstrell & E. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 331–370). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
75. Wyner, Y. (2013). The impact of a novel curriculum on secondary biology teachers’ dispositions toward using authentic data and media in their human impact and ecology lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(5), 833–857.