LEARNING PROGRESSIONS AS TOOLS FOR CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Lessons from the Inquiry Project

Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 359-404

  Wiser, Marianne ^a,b   Smith, Carol L ^c   Doubler, Susan J ^d,e  

^a CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^d TERC   (United States)

^e LESLEY UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85142062046     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (45)

1. Acher, A., and Arcà, M. (2006). Children’s representations in modeling scientific knowledge construction. In C. Andersen, M. N. Scheuer, M. P. Perez Echeveerria, and E. Teubal (Eds.), Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different fields of knowledge. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
2. Au, T. K-F. (1994). Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 71-111.
3. Baillargeon, R. (2002). The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy: A summary in eight lessons. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. London, UK: Blackwell Publishers.
4. Carey, S. (2008). The origin of concepts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5. Carraher, D., Schliemann, A., Brizuela, B., and Earnest, D. (2006). Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37, 87-115.
6. Carraher, D., Smith, C., Wiser, M., Schliemann, A., and Cayton-Hodges, G. (2009, June). Assessing students’ evolving understandings about matter. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
7. DeBarger, A., Ayala, C., Minstrell, J., Krauss, P., and Stanford, T. (2009, April). Facet-based progressions of student understanding of chemistry. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
8. Dickinson, D. K. (1987). The development of material kind. Science Education, 71, 615-628.
9. Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
10. Fauconnier, G., and Turner, M. (2003). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
11. Hart, B., and Risley, T. R. (1999). The social world of children: Learning to talk. Baltimore, MD: P. Brooks Publishing.
12. Imai, M., and Mazuka, R. (2007). Revisiting language universals and linguistic relativity: Language relative construal of individuation constrained byuniversal ontology. Cognitive Science, 31, 385-413.
13. Johnson, P. (1998). Progression in children’s understanding of a “basic” particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education, 20, 393-412.
14. Johnson, P., and Papageorgiou, G. (2010). Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substancebased framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 130-150.
15. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16. Lehrer, R., Jaslow, L., and Curtis, C. (2003). Developing understanding of measurement in elementary grades. In D. Clements and G. Bright (Eds.), The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Yearbook on learning and teaching measurement (pp. 100-121). Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
17. Lehrer, R., and Pritchard, C. (2002). Symbolizing space into being. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, B. van Oers, and L. Verschaffel (Eds.), Symbolization, modeling and tool use in mathematics education (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
18. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2000). Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21, 39-48.
19. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., and Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: Modeling material kind. In S. Carver and D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 39-74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Lucy, J. A., and Gaskins, S. (2003). Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow, (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 465-492). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., and Scherz, Z. (2008). A longitudinal study of junior high school students’ conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 132-152.
22. Merritt, J., and Krajcik, J. (2009, June). Developing a calibrated progress variable for the particle nature of matter. Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA.
23. Metz, K. E. (1993). Preschoolers’ developing knowledge of the pan balance: From new representation to transformed problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 11, 31-93.
24. Nussbaum, J. (1997). History and philosophy of science and the preparation for constructivist teaching: The case of particle theory. In J. Mintzes, J. H. Wandersee, and J. D. Novak (Eds.), Teaching science for understanding (pp. 165-194). Boston, MA: Academic Press.
25. Piaget, J., and Inhelder, B. (1974). The child’s construction of quantities: Conservation and atomism. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
26. Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York, NY:Penguin Group.
27. Schliemann, A., and Carraher, D. (2002). The evolution of mathematical understanding: Everyday vs. idealized reasoning. Developmental Review, 22, 242-266.
28. Shwartz, Y., Weizman, A., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., and Reiser, B. (2008). The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal, 109, 199-219.
29. Smith, C., Carey, S., and Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight and density. Cognition, 21, 177-237.
30. Smith, C., Grosslight, L., Davis, H., Unger, C., and Snir, J. (1994). Using conceptual models to teach inner city students about density: The promise and the prerequisites. Final report to the McDonnell Foundation.
31. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Grosslight, L., and Davis, H. (1997). Teaching for understanding: A comparison of two approaches to teaching students about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 317-393.
32. Smith, C., Snir, J., and Grosslight, L. (1992). Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight/density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 221-283.
33. Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., and Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomicmolecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 1-98.
34. Smith, C., Wiser, M., and Carraher, D. (2010, March). Using a comparative, longitudinal study with upper elementary school students to test some assumptions of a learning progression for matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
35. Snir, J., Smith, C. L., and Raz, G. (2003). Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education, 87, 794-830.
36. Spelke, E.S. (2000). Core knowledge. American Psychologist, 55, 1233-1243.
37. Stavy, R., and Stachel, D. (1985). Children’s conceptions of changes in the state of matter: From solid to liquid. Archives de Psychologie, 53, 331-344.
38. Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., and Krajcik, J.S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multidimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 687-715.
39. Uzgiris, I. (1964). Situational generality of conservation. Child Development, 35, 831-841.
40. Vergnaud, G. (1996). The theory of conceptual fields. In L. P. Steffe, P. Nesher, P. Cobb, G. Goldin, and B. Greer (Eds.), Theories of mathematical learning (pp. 219-239). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Wiser, M., Citrin, K., Drosos, A., and Hosek, S. (2008, June). Young children’s understanding of the relation between weight and material kind. Poster presented at the annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Quebec City, Canada.
42. Wiser, M., and Fox, V. (2010, November). Quantifying amount of material: A teaching intervention in pre-K and kindergarten. Paper presented at the International Science Education Symposium on the Particulate and Structural Concepts of Matter, University of Athens, Greece.
43. Wiser, M., and Smith, C. L. (2008). Teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomicmolecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205-239). New York, NY: Routledge.
44. Wiser, M., and Smith, C. L. (2009, August). How does cognitive development inform the choice of core ideas in the physical sciences? Commissioned paper presented at the National Research Council Conference on Core Ideas in Science, Washington, DC. Retrieved from the National Academies website: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Wiser_Smith_CommissionedPaper.pdf
45. Wiser, M., Smith, C., Asbell-Clarke, J., and Doubler, S. (2009, April). Developing and refining a learning progression for matter: The inquiry project (grades 3-5). In C. Smith (Chair), Developing and refining a learning progression for matter from pre-K to grade 12: Commonalities and contrasts among four current projects. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.