THE POTENTIAL OF LEARNING PROGRESSION RESEARCH TO INFORM THE DESIGN OF STATE SCIENCE STANDARDS

Learning Progressions in Science: Current Challenges and Future Directions

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 435-460

  Foster, Jacob ^a   Wiser, Marianne ^b,c  

^a Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education   (United States)

^b CLARK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85142078879     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001, 2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vols. 1-2). Washington, DC: Author.
4. Anderson, L., and Krathwohl, D. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
5. Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer and G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics (pp. 201-236). New York, NY: Academic Press.
6. College Board. (2009). Science College Board Standards for College Success™. New York, NY: Author.
7. Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Corcoran, T., Mosher, F. A., and Rogat, A. D. (2009, May). Learning progressions in science: An evidence-based approach to reform. (CPRE Research Report #RR-63). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9. Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
10. Driver, D., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., and Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Living things. In Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas (pp. 17-26). London, UK: Routledge.
11. Duncan, R. D., Rogat, A. D., and Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655-674.
12. Gunstone, R., and Watts, M. (1985). Force and motion. In R. Driver, E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghien (Eds.), Children’s ideas in science (pp. 85-104). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
13. Hazen, R. M., and Trefil, J. (1991). Science matters: Achieving scientific literacy. New York, NY: Doubleday.
14. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., and Swackhamer, G. (1992). Force concept inventory. The Physics Teacher 30, 141-58.
15. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (2007). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 assessment frameworks. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS and PIRLS International Study Center.
16. International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
17. Jin, H., and Anderson, C. W. (2007, July). Developing a learning progression for energy in socioecological systems. Paper presented at the Knowledge Sharing Institute of the Center for Curriculum Studies in Science, Washington, DC. Retrieved from Environmental Literacy website: http://edr1.educ.msu.edu/environmentallit/publicsite/files/Energy/En%20ResearchPaper/EnergyPaper.doc
18. Lacy, S., Wiser, M., and Doubler, S. (2010). Rethinking how to teach energy: Laying the foundations in elementary school. National Science Foundation award #1020013.
19. Lee, H.-S. and Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94, 665-688.
20. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2006). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 371-388). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
21. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved from www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf
22. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2010). Science and technology/engineering concept and skill progresssions. Retrieved from www.doe.mass.edu/omste/ste/default.html
23. Metz, K. E. (2011). Disentangling robust developmental constraints from the instructionally mutable: Young children’s epistemic reasoning about a study of their own design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20, 1-50.
24. Michael, J., Modell, H., McFarland, J. and Cliff, W. (2009). The “core principles” of physiology: What should students understand? Advances in Physiology Education, 22, 10-16.
25. Minstrell, J. (1991). Facets of students’ knowledge and relevant instruction. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, and H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 110-128). Kiel, Germany: IPN/Institute for Science Education.
26. Mohan, L., Chen, J., and Anderson, C. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 675-698.
27. National Assessment Governing Board. (2008, September). Science framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/publications/frameworks/science-09.pdf
28. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.
29. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
31. National Research Council. (2009). Organizing K-12 science education around core ideas. Retrieved from the National Academies website: www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Core_Ideas_Homepage.htm
32. National Research Council. (2010, July). A framework for science education: Preliminary public draft. Retrieved from the National Academies website: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Standards_Framework_Homepage.html
33. Novak, J. D. (1993). Proceedings of the third international seminar: Misconceptions and educational strategies in science and mathematics. Vol. III. Ithaca, NY: Department of Education, Cornell University.
34. Pfundt, H., and Duit, R. (1994). Bibliography: Students’ alternative frameworks and science education (4th ed.). Kiel, Germany: IPN/Institute for Science Education.
35. Rogat, A. (2010). Developing learning progressions in support of the implementation of new science standards: A RAPID workshop series proposal. National Science Foundation award #1051144.
36. 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.
37. 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 the atomicmolecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 1-98.
38. Wiser, M., and Smith, C. L. (2008). Learning and teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic-molecular theory be introduced? In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 205-239). New York: Routledge.
39. 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
40. Wiser, M., Tobin, R., and Lacy, S. (2011). Looking at physical phenomena through the energy lens: A proposal for structuring an energy learning progression. Manuscript in preparation.