Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 241
10
IMPLEMENTATION
Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and
Assessment
I
n this chapter, we consider the changes needed across the K-12 science educa-
tion system so that implementation of the framework and related standards
can more readily occur. Standards provide a vision for teaching and learning,
but the vision cannot be realized unless the standards permeate the education sys-
tem and guide curriculum, instruction, teacher preparation and professional devel-
opment, and student assessment.
By “system” we mean the institutions and mechanisms that shape and sup-
port science teaching and learning in the classroom. Thus the system includes
organization and administration at state, district, and school levels as well as
teacher education, certification requirements, curriculum and instructional
resources, assessment policies and practices, and professional development pro-
grams. Our use of the term “system,” however, does not necessarily imply that all
the components of the science education system are well aligned and work togeth-
er seamlessly. Rather, adopting the idea of a system (1) acknowledges the complex
and interacting forces that shape learning and teaching at the classroom level and
(2) provides an analytic tool for thinking about these various forces.
The next section is an overview of four major components of the K-12 sci-
ence education system, and in succeeding sections we consider each of them in
turn. For each component, we discuss what must be in place in order for it to
align with the framework’s vision.
These discussions do not include formal recommendations and are not
framed as standards for each component, because the committee was not asked
to undertake the kind of extensive review—of the research on teacher education,
241
OCR for page 242
curriculum, instruction, professional development, and assessment—that would
be required in order to make explicit recommendations for related sets of stan-
dards for each component. Indeed, the committee and the timeline for our work
would have required considerable expansion in order to give such an endeavor
adequate treatment.
The committee instead relied on a number of recent reports from the
National Research Council (NRC) that did examine research related to each of
the components discussed in this chapter. They include Knowing What Students
Know [1], Investigating the Influence of Standards [2], Systems for State Science
Assessment [3], America’s Lab Report [4], Taking Science to School [5], and
Preparing Teachers [6]. The discussions in the following sections are based primar-
ily on these reports.
Explicit standards for teaching, professional development, education pro-
grams, and the education system were included in the original National Science
Education Standards (NSES) published by the NRC in 1996 [7]. Although
many of these standards are still relevant to K-12 science education today, the
committee did not undertake a thorough review of these portions of the NSES.
Instead, given our charge, we focused on the NSES standards that describe sci-
ence content. For future efforts, we suggest that a review of the other NSES
standards, in light of the research and development that has taken place since
1996, would be very valuable; such a review could serve as an important com-
plement to the current effort.
KEY COMPONENTS OF K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION
The key components of science education that we consider in this chapter are
curriculum, instruction, teacher development, and assessment. It is difficult to
focus on any particular component without considering how it is influenced
by—and how it in turn influences—the other components. For example, what
students learn is clearly related to what they are taught, which itself depends
on many things: state science standards; the instructional materials available in
the commercial market and from organizations (such as state and federal agen-
cies) with science-related missions; the curriculum adopted by the local board
of education; teachers’ knowledge and practices for teaching; how teachers
elect to use the curriculum; the kinds of resources, time, and space that teachers
have for their instructional work; what the community values regarding student
learning; and how local, state, and national standards and assessments influ-
ence instructional practice.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
242
OCR for page 243
We are not attempting to provide a full discussion of all possible influ-
ences on science education; rather, we focus on four major components that have
critical roles to play and how they will need to evolve in order to implement the
kind of science education envisaged by this framework. Our discussion also does
not include detailed consideration of the process of gaining support for adoption
of standards—for example, developing public will and engaging with state and
local policy makers. We also do not discuss informal settings for science educa-
tion, which provide many opportunities for learning science that complement and
extend students’ experiences in school [8].
A Complex System
Much of the complexity of science education systems derives from the multiple
levels of control—classroom, school, school district, state, and national—across
which curriculum, instruction, teacher development, and assessment operate; thus
what ultimately happens in a classroom is significantly affected by decision mak-
ing distributed across the levels and multiple channels of influence.
Each teacher ultimately decides how and what to teach in his or her class-
room, but this decision is influenced by decisions at higher levels of the system.
First, there is the effect of decisions made at the school level, which include the
setting of expectations and sequences in certain content areas as well as the princi-
pal’s, department chairs’, or team leaders’ explicit and implicit signals about teach-
ing and learning priorities [9]. Leaders at the school level may also make decisions
about the time and resources [10] allocated to different subjects within guidelines
and requirements set by the state, teacher hiring and assignments, the usage of sci-
ence labs, and, in some cases, the presence of a school building’s laboratory space
in the first place. The school leaders’ expectations, priorities, and decisions estab-
lish a climate that encourages or discourages particular pedagogical approaches,
collegial interactions, or inservice programs [11, 12]. Furthermore, a school’s
degree of commitment to equity—to providing opportunities for all students to
learn the same core content—can influence how students are scheduled into class-
es, which teachers are hired, how they are assigned to teach particular classes, and
how instructional resources are identified and allocated [13, 14].
At the next level of the system, school districts are responsible for (1) ensur-
ing implementation of state and federal education policies; (2) formulating addi-
tional local education policies; and (3) creating processes for selecting curricula,
purchasing curriculum materials, and determining the availability of instructional
resources. District leaders develop local school budgets, set instructional priorities,
243
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 244
provide instructional guidance, create incentive structures, and influence the will-
ingness and capacity of schools and teachers to explore and implement different
instructional techniques. Teacher hiring and school assignment may also occur at
the district level. Districts may provide support structures and professional devel-
opment networks that enhance the capacity of schools and teachers to implement
effective science curriculum, instruction, and formative assessments.
The state level is a particularly important one for schools. States, being con-
stitutionally responsible for elementary and secondary education, play major roles
in regulating and funding education—they provide nearly half of all public school
revenues [15], with most of the remainder coming from local property taxes. Each
state must develop and administer its own policies on standards, curriculum,
materials selection and adoption, teacher licensure, student assessment, and edu-
cational accountability. Across states, the authority of schools and districts to for-
mulate policy varies considerably. Some states have relatively high “local control,”
with more power residing at the district level; others states have more centralized
control, with more influence exerted by the state.
Finally, although the federal gov-
ernment contributes less than 10 per-
cent of all funds invested by states and
local districts in education [16], it influ-
ences education at all levels through
a combination of regulations, public
advocacy, and monetary incentives. For
example, the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (No Child Left Behind
Act) requires the testing of students at
specific grade levels.
There are also influences from the
other stakeholders that have an interest
in science education, such as parents,
businesses, local communities, and professional societies. These stakeholders can
become engaged at all levels—national, state, local—and often have a significant
influence on what is taught and how it is taught.
Clearly, a science education system must be responsive to a variety of
influences—some that emanate from the top down, some from the bottom up, and
some laterally from outside formal channels. States and school districts generally
exert considerable influence over science curricula, and they set policies for time
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
244
OCR for page 245
❚ A science education system must be responsive to a variety of
influences—some that emanate from the top down, some from the
❚
bottom up, and some laterally from outside formal channels.
spent on science. However, classroom teachers in the lower grades may have some
latitude in how they use instructional time to meet district and state mandates. In
high school, by contrast, district and state graduation requirements affect the types
and numbers of science courses that all students are required to take. Beyond such
minimum requirements, students and their parents determine the overall science
course load that each student takes.
The Importance of Coherence in the System
The complexity of the system—with several components that are affected by or
operate at different levels—presents a challenge to implementation of the frame-
work and its related standards. Successful implementation requires that all of the
components across the levels cohere or work together in a harmonious or logical
way to support the new vision. This kind of system-wide coherence is difficult to
achieve, yet it is essential to the success of standards-based science education.
In the literature on education policy, the term “coherence” is often used
interchangeably with another term—“alignment” [17-19]—although others have
suggested that alignment alone is not sufficient to make a system coherent [20].
For example, not only would a coherent curriculum be well aligned across the
grades or across subjects, it would also be logically organized, integrated, and har-
monious in its internal structure. Here we treat coherence as the broader concept
and alignment as only one of its dimensions.
A standards-based system of science education should be coherent in a
variety of ways [3]. It should be horizontally coherent, in the sense that the
curriculum-, instruction-, and assessment-related policies and practices are all
aligned with the standards, target the same goals for learning, and work together
to support students’ development of the knowledge and understanding of science.
The system should be vertically coherent, in the sense that there is (a) a shared
understanding at all levels of the system (classroom, school, school district, state,
and national) of the goals for science education (and for the curriculum) that
underlie the standards and (b) that there is a consensus about the purposes and
245
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 246
uses of assessment. The system should also be developmentally coherent, in the
sense that there is a shared understanding across grade levels of what ideas are
important to teach and of how children’s understanding of these ideas should
develop across grade levels.
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS
Curriculum refers to the knowledge and practices in subject matter areas that
teachers teach and that students are supposed to learn. A curriculum gener-
ally consists of a scope, or breadth of content, in a given subject area and of a
sequence of concepts and activities for learning. While standards typically outline
the goals of learning, curricula set forth the more specific means—materials, tasks,
discussions, representations—to be used to achieve those goals.
Curriculum is collectively defined by teachers, curriculum coordinators (at
both the school and the district levels), state agencies, curriculum development
organizations, textbook publishers, and (in the case of science) curriculum kit
publishers. Although standards do not prescribe specific curricula, they do pro-
vide some criteria for designing curricula. And in order to realize the vision of the
framework and standards, it is necessary that aligned instructional materials, text-
books, and computer or other media-based materials be developed as well.
Curricula based on the framework and resulting standards should integrate
the three dimensions—scientific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts,
and disciplinary core ideas—and follow the progressions articulated in this
report. In order to support the vision of this framework, standards-based cur-
ricula in science need to be developed to provide clear guidance that helps teach-
ers support students engaging in scientific practices to develop explanations and
models [5, 21-24]. In addition, curriculum materials need to be developed as a
multiyear sequence that helps students develop increasingly sophisticated ideas
across grades K-12 [5, 25, 26]. Curriculum materials (including technology)
themselves are developed by a multicomponent system that includes for-profit
publishers as well as grant-funded work in the nonprofit sectors of the science
education community. The adoption of standards based on this framework by
multiple states may help drive publishers to align with it. Such alignment may
at first be superficial, but schools, districts, and states can influence publishers
if enough of them are asking for serious alignment with the framework and the
standards it engenders.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
246
OCR for page 247
❚ While standards typically outline the goals of learning, curricula
set forth the more specific means—materials, tasks, discussions,
❚
representations—to be used to achieve those goals.
Integration of the Three Dimensions
The framework’s vision is that students will acquire knowledge and skill in science
and engineering through a carefully designed sequence of learning experiences.
Each stage in the sequence will develop students’ understanding of particular sci-
entific and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas
while also deepening their insights into the ways in which people from all back-
grounds engage in scientific and engineering work to satisfy their curiosity, seek
explanations about the world, and improve the built world.
A major question confronting each curriculum developer will be which of
the practices and crosscutting concepts to feature in lessons or units around a
particular disciplinary core idea so that, across the curriculum, they all receive suf-
ficient attention [27].
Every science unit or engineering design project must have as one of its goals
the development of student understanding of at least one disciplinary core idea. In
addition, explicit reference to each crosscutting concept will recur frequently and
in varied contexts across disciplines and grades. These concepts need to become
part of the language of science that students use when framing questions or devel-
oping ways to observe, describe, and explain the world.
Similarly, the science and engineering practices delineated in this framework
should become familiar as well to students through increasingly sophisticated
experiences with them across grades K-8 [28, 29]. Although not every such prac-
tice will occur in every context, the curriculum should provide repeated oppor-
tunities across various contexts for students to develop their facility with these
practices and use them as a support for developing deep understanding of the con-
cepts in question and of the nature of science and of engineering. This will require
substantial redesign of current and future curricula [30, 31].
Important Aspects of Science Curriculum
In addition to alignment with the framework, there are many other aspects for
curriculum designers to consider that are not addressed in the framework. This
section highlights some that the committee considers important but decided would
247
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 248
❚ Through discussion and reflection, students can come to realize that
scientific inquiry embodies a set of values. These values include respect for
the importance of logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity,
skepticism, and a requirement for transparent research procedures and
❚
honest reporting of findings.
be better treated at the level of curriculum design than at the level of framework
and standards. Considerations of the historical, social, cultural, and ethical aspects
of science and its applications, as well as of engineering and the technologies it
develops, need a place in the natural science curriculum and classroom [32, 33].
The framework is designed to help students develop an understanding not only
that the various disciplines of science and engineering are interrelated but also that
they are human endeavors. As such, they may raise issues that are not solved by
scientific and engineering methods alone.
For example, because decisions about the use of a particular technology raise
issues of costs, risks, and benefits, the associated societal and environmental impacts
require a broader discussion. Perspectives from history and the social and behavioral
sciences can enlighten the consideration of such issues; indeed, many of them are
addressable either in the context of a social studies course, a science course, or both.
In either case, the importance of argument from evidence is critical.
It is also important that curricula provide opportunities for discussions
that help students recognize that some science- or engineering-related questions,
such as ethical decisions or legal codes for what should or should not be done
in a given situation, have moral and cultural underpinnings that vary across
cultures. Similarly, through discussion and reflection, students can come to real-
ize that scientific inquiry embodies a set of values. These values include respect
for the importance of logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity,
skepticism, and a requirement for transparent research procedures and honest
reporting of findings.
Students need opportunities, with increasing sophistication across the grade
levels, to consider not only the applications and implications of science and engi-
neering in society but also the nature of the human endeavor of science and
engineering themselves. They likewise need to develop an awareness of the careers
made possible through scientific and engineering capabilities.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
248
OCR for page 249
Discussions involving the history of scientific and engineering ideas, of
individual practitioners’ contributions, and of the applications of these endeav-
ors are important components of a science and engineering curriculum. For
many students, these aspects are the pathways that capture their interest in these
fields and build their identities as engaged and capable learners of science and
engineering [34, 35]. Teaching science and engineering without reference to
their rich variety of human stories, to the puzzles of the past and how they were
solved, and to the issues of today that science and engineering must help address
would be a major omission. It would isolate science and engineering from their
human roots, undervalue their intellectual and creative contributions, and dimin-
ish many students’ interest.
Finally, when considering how to integrate these aspects of learning into
the science and engineering curriculum, curriculum developers, as well as class-
room teachers, face many
further important questions.
For example, is a topic best
addressed by invoking its his-
torical development as a story
of scientific discovery? Is it
best addressed in the context
of a current problem or issue?
Or is it best conveyed through
an investigation? What tech-
nology or simulation tools
can aid student learning? In
addition, how are diverse stu-
dent backgrounds explicitly
engaged as resources in struc-
turing learning experiences
[36, 37]? And does the curric-
ulum offer sufficiently varied
examples and opportunities so
that all students may identify with scientific knowledge-building practices and
participate fully [38, 39]? These choices occur both in the development of cur-
riculum materials and, as we discuss in the following section, in decisions made
by the teacher in planning instruction.
249
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 250
LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION
Instruction refers to methods of teaching and the learning activities used to help
students master the content and objectives specified by a curriculum. Instruction
encompasses the activities of both teachers and students. It can be carried out by
a variety of pedagogical techniques, sequences of activities, and ordering of top-
ics. Although the framework does not specify a particular pedagogy, integration of
the three dimensions will require that students be actively involved in the kinds of
learning opportunities that classroom research suggests are important for (1) their
understanding of science concepts [5, 40-42], (2) their identities as learners of sci-
ence [43, 44], and (3) their appreciation of scientific practices and crosscutting
concepts [45, 46].
Several previous NRC committees working on topics related to science edu-
cation have independently concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to make
prescriptive recommendations about which approaches to science instruction are
most effective for achieving particular learning goals [3-5]. However, the recent
report Preparing Teachers noted that “there is a clear inferential link between
the nature of what is in the standards and the nature of classroom instruction.
Instruction throughout K-12 education is likely to develop science proficiency if it
provides students with opportunities for a range of scientific activities and scien-
tific thinking, including, but not limited to: inquiry and investigation, collection
and analysis of evidence, logical reasoning, and communication and application of
information” [6].
For example, researchers have studied classroom teaching interventions
involving curriculum structures that support epistemic practices (i.e., articulation
and evaluation of one’s own knowledge, coordination of theory and evidence)
[47]; instructional approaches for English language learners [48]; the effects of
project-based curricula and teaching practices [49]; the effects of instruction on
core ideas, such as the origin of species [50]; and the influence of multiple repre-
sentations of learning [51]. Others have investigated curricular approaches and
instructional practices that are matched to national standards [52] or are focused
on model-based inquiry [24]. In some work, there is a particular interest in the
role of students’ learning of scientific discourses, especially argumentation [33, 53,
54]. Taken together, this work suggests teachers need to develop the capacity to
use a variety of approaches in science education.
Much of this work has examined pedagogical issues related to the “strands”
of scientific proficiency outlined in Taking Science to School [5], and we next turn
to those strands.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
250
OCR for page 251
What It Means to Learn Science
The NRC report Taking Science to School [5] concluded that proficiency in sci-
ence is multifaceted and therefore requires a range of experiences to support
students’ learning. That report defined the following four strands of proficiency,
which it maintained are interwoven in successful science learning:
1. Knowing, using, and interpreting scientific explanations of the natural
world.
2. Generating and evaluating scientific evidence and explanations.
3. Understanding the nature and development of scientific knowledge.
4. Participating productively in scientific practices and discourse.
Strand 1 includes the acquisition of facts, laws, principles, theories, and
models of science; the development of conceptual structures that incorporate
them; and the productive use of these structures to understand the natural world.
Students grow in their understanding of particular phenomena as well as in their
appreciation of the ways in which the construction of models and refinement of
arguments contribute to the improvement of explanations [29, 55].
Strand 2 encompasses the knowledge and practices needed to build and
refine models and to provide explanations (conceptual, computational, and
mechanistic) based on scientific evidence. This strand includes designing empirical
investigations and measures for data collection, selecting representations and ways
of analyzing the resulting data (or data available from other sources), and using
empirical evidence to construct, critique, and defend scientific arguments [45, 56].
Strand 3 focuses on students’ understanding of science as a way of knowing.
Scientific knowledge is a particular kind of knowledge with its own sources, justi-
fications, ways of dealing with uncertainties [40], and agreed-on levels of certain-
ty. When students understand how scientific knowledge is developed over system-
atic observations across multiple investigations, how it is justified and critiqued on
the basis of evidence, and how it is validated by the larger scientific community,
the students then recognize that science entails the search for core explanatory
constructs and the connections between them [57]. They come to appreciate that
alternative interpretations of scientific evidence can occur, that such interpreta-
tions must be carefully scrutinized, and that the plausibility of the supporting
evidence must be considered. Thus students ultimately understand, regarding both
their own work and the historical record, that predictions or explanations can
251
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 266
REFERENCES
1. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing What Students Know: The Science and
Design of Education Assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. J.W.
Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment,
Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
2. National Research Council. (2002). Investigating the Influence of Standards: A
Framework for Research in Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education. I.R.
Weiss, M.S. Knapp, K.S. Hollweg, and G. Burrill (Eds.). Committee on Understanding
the Influence of Standards in K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education,
Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
3. National Research Council. (2006). Systems for State Science Assessment. Committee
on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. M.R. Wilson and M.W. Bertenthal
(Eds.). Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of
Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
4. National Research Council. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in
High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and
Vision, S.R. Singer, M.L. Hilton, and H.A. Schweingruber (Eds.). Board on Science
Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
5. National Research Council. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching
Science in Grades K-8. Committee on Science Learning, Kindergarten Through Eighth
Grade. R.A. Duschl, H.A. Schweingruber, and A.W. Shouse (Eds.). Board on Science
Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
6. National Research Council. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building Evidence for
Sound Policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the
United States, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
7. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. National
Committee for Science Education Standards and Assessment. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
8. National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments:
People, Places, and Pursuits. Committee on Learning Science in Informal
Environments. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.). Board on
Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
266
OCR for page 267
9. Shen, J., Gerard, L., and Bowyer, J. (2010). Getting from here to there: The roles of
policy makers and principals in increasing science teacher quality. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 21(3), 283-307.
10. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K.G., and Ritchie, S. (2008) Time and temporality as mediators
of science learning. Science Education, 92(1), 115-140.
11. McLaughlin, M.W., and Talbert, J.E. (1993). Contexts That Matter for Teaching
and Learning: Strategic Opportunities for Meeting the Nation’s Educational Goals.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary
School Teaching.
12. Little, J.W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
13. Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., and Seiler, G. (2005). Improving Urban Science Education:
New Roles for Teachers, Students, and Researchers. New York: Rowman &
Littlefield.
14. Lee, O., and Buxton, C. (2010). Diversity and Equity in Science Education: Theory,
Research, and Practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
15. National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Highlights from the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study-Repeat. NCES 2001-027. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
16. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). The Federal Role in Education. Washington,
DC: Author.
17. Smith, M.S., and O’Day, J. (1991). Putting the Pieces Together: Systemic School
Reform. CPRE Policy Brief, RB-06-4/91. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
18. Fuhrman, S. (1993). Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19. Penuel, W.R., Fishman, B., Gallagher, L., Korbak, C., and Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is
alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional develop-
ment on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93(4), 656-677.
20. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An
examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.
21. Osborne, J.F., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argument
in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1,020.
22. McNeill, K.L., and 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.
267
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 268
23. Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz,
Y., Hug, B., and Krajcik, J.S. (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.
24. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M. (2008). How novice science teachers
appropriate epistemic discourses around model-based inquiry for use in classrooms.
Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 310-378.
25. Duncan, R.G., Rogat, A.D., and Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deep-
ening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 655-674.
26. Stevens, S.Y., Delgado, C., and Krajcik, J.S. (2010). Developing a hypothetical multi-
dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(6), 687-715.
27. Bybee, R. (2009). K-12 Engineering Education Standards: Opportunities and Barriers.
Paper presented at the National Academy of Engineering Workshop on Standards for
K-12 Engineering Education, July 8, Washington, DC. Available: http://www.nae.edu/
Programs/TechLit1/K12stds/WorkshoponStandardsforK-12EngineeringEducation/
15165.aspx [January 2010].
28. Metz, K.E. (1997). On the complex relation between cognitive developmental
research and children’s science curricula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 151-
163.
29. Metz, K.E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualiza-
tion of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction,
22(2), 219-290.
30. Kesidou, S., and Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle schools science programs
measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s Curriculum Review. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
31. Enfield, M., Smith, E.L., and 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.
32. Kanter, D., and Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of project-based science on
minority student achievement, attitudes, and career plans: An examination of the
effects of teacher content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and inquiry-
based practices. Science Education, 94, 855-887.
33. Varelas, M., Pappas, C.C., Kane, J.M., Arsenault, A., Hankes, J., and Cowan, B.M.
(2008). Urban primary-grade children think and talk science: Curricular and instruc-
tional practices that nurture participation and argumentation. Science Education,
92(1), 65-95.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
268
OCR for page 269
34. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., and Wong, B. (2010).
“Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10- and 11-year-old school-
children’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education,
94(4), 617-639.
35. Tan, E., and Barton, A.C. (2010). Transforming science learning and student partici-
pation in sixth grade science: A case study of a low-income, urban, racial minority
classroom. Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(1), 38-55.
36. Banks, J.A., Au, K.H., Ball, A.F., Bell, P., Gordon, E.W., Gutiérrez, K., Heath, S.B.,
Lee, C.D., Lee, Y., Mahiri, J., Nasir, N.S., Valdes, G., and Zhou, M. (2007). Learning
In and Out of School in Diverse Environments: Lifelong, Life-wide, Life-deep.
Seattle: Center for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
37. Santau, A.O., Secada, W., Maerten-Rivera, J., Cone, N., and Lee, O. (2010). U.S.
urban elementary teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English
language learners: Results from the first year of a professional development interven-
tion. International Journal of Science Education, 32(15), 2,007-2,032.
38. Calabrese Barton, A., and Brickhouse, N.W. (2006). Engaging girls in science. In C.
Skelton, B. Francis, and L. Smulyan (Eds.), Handbook of Gender and Education (pp.
221-235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. Tan, E., and Barton, A. (2008). Unpacking science for all through the lens of
identities-in-practice: The stories of Amelia and Ginny. Cultural Studies of Science
Education, 3(1), 43-71.
40. Kirch, S. (2010). Identifying and resolving uncertainty as a mediated action in science:
A comparative analysis of the cultural tools used by scientists and elementary science
students at work. Science Education, 94(2), 308-335.
41. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2010). Seeding Evolutionary Thinking by Engaging
Children in Modeling Its Foundations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
42. Metz, K. (2006). The knowledge-building enterprises in science and elementary
school science classrooms. In L.B. Flick and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific Inquiry
and Nature of Science (pp. 105-130). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
43. Olitsky, S., Flohr, L.L., Gardner, J., and Billups, M. (2010). Coherence, contradic-
tion, and the development of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(10), 1,209-1,228.
44. Polman, J.L., and Miller, D. (2010). Changing stories: Trajectories of identifica-
tion among African American youth in a science outreach apprenticeship. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 879-918.
45. Akerson, V., and Donnelly, L.A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-12 students:
What understanding can they attain? International Journal of Science Education,
32(1), 97-124.
269
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 270
46. Berland, L.K., and McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argu-
mentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional con-
texts. Science Education, 94(1), 765-793.
47. Enfield, M., Smith, E.L., and Grueber, D. (2007). “A sketch is like a sentence”:
Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. Science
Education, 92(4), 608-630.
48. Lee, O., Lewis, S., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., and Secada, W. (2007). Urban
elementary school teachers’ knowledge and practices in teaching science to English
language learners. Science Education, 92(4), 733-758.
49. Kanter, D.E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-
based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525-
551.
50. Berti, A.E., Toneatti, L., and Rosati, V. (2010). Children’s conceptions about the ori-
gin of species: A study of Italian children’s conceptions with and without instruction.
Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 506-538.
51. Adadan, E., Irving, K.E., and Trundle, K.C. (2009). Impacts of multi-representational
instruction on high school students’ conceptual understandings of the particulate
nature of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1,743-1,775.
52. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K.L., and Reiser, B.J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design
model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incor-
porate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32.
53. Brown, B.A., and Spang, E. (2008). Double talk: Synthesizing everyday and science
language in the classroom. Science Education, 92(4), 708-732.
54. Kuhn, D. (2010). Teaching and learning science as argument. Science Education,
94(5), 810-824.
55. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of epistemol-
ogy of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.
56. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2002). Symbolic communication in mathematics
and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. In J. Byrnes and E. Amsel
(Eds.), Language, Literacy, and Cognitive Development: The Development and
Consequences of Symbolic Communication (pp. 167-192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
57. Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., and Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective
cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 18(1), 7-44.
58. Bowen, G., Roth, W-M, and McGinn, M. (1999). Interpretations of graphs by uni-
versity biology students and practicing scientists: Toward a social practice view of
scientific representation practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(9),
1,020-1,043.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
270
OCR for page 271
59. 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(1), 132-152.
60. Furtak, E.M., and Ruiz-Primo, M.A. (2008). Making students’ thinking explicit
in writing and discussion: An analysis of formative assessment prompts. Science
Education, 92(5), 798-824.
61. Zhang, M., Passalacqua, S., Lundeberg, M., Koehler, M.J., Eberhardt, J., Parker, J.,
Urban Lurain, M., Zhang, T., and Paik, S. (2010). “Science talks” in kindergarten
classrooms: Improving classroom practice through collaborative action research.
Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(2), 161-179.
62. Chin, C., and Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ ques-
tions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2),
230-284.
63. Bennett, J., Hogarth, S., Lubben, F., Campbell, B., and Robinson, A. (2010). Talking
science: The research evidence on the use of small group discussions in science teach-
ing. International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 69-95.
64. Oliveira, A. (2009). Improving teacher questioning in science inquiry discussions
through professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4),
422-453.
65. Simon, S., Erduran, S., and Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation:
Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science
Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.
66. Cavagnetto, A. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument
interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336-
371.
67. Hsu, Y-S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment:
The impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the
process of students’ conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320-344.
68. McDonald, S., and Songer, N.B. (2008). Enacting classroom inquiry: Theorizing
teachers’ conceptions of science teaching. Science Education, 92(6), 973-993.
69. Urhahne, D., Schanze, S., Bell, T., Mansfield, A., and Holmes, J. (2010). Role of the
teacher in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. International Journal of
Science Education, 32(2), 221-243.
70. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An
examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international
perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559.
71. Rivet, A.E., and Krajcik, J.S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging stu-
dents’ prior knowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school sci-
ence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 79-100.
271
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 272
72. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching.
Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
73. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Education Review, 57, 1-22.
74. Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., and Richert, A. (1987). 150 different ways of knowing:
Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring Teacher
Thinking (pp. 104-124). Sussex, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
75. Schwarz, C.V. (2009). Developing preservice elementary teachers’ knowledge and
practices through modeling-centered scientific inquiry. Science Education, 93(4), 720-
744.
76. National Science Teachers Association. (2008). Science as Inquiry in the Secondary
Setting. J. Gess-Newsome, J. Luft, and R.L. Bell (Eds.). Washington, DC: Author.
77. Luft, J.A., Roehrig, G.H., and Patterson, N.C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A
comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning secondary
science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(1), 77-97.
78. Abell, S.K., and Lederman, N.G. (2007). Handbook of Research on Science
Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
79. Buck, G.A., Trauth-Nare, A., and Kaftan, J. (2010). Making formative assessment
discernable to preservice teachers of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
47(4), 402-421.
80. Taylor, J.A., and Dana, T.M. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers’ concep-
tions of scientific evidence: An exploratory case study. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 40(8), 721-736.
81. De Jong, O., and van Driel, J.H. (2001). Developing Preservice Teachers’ Content
Knowledge and PCK of Models and Modelling. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
82. Kelly, G. (2007). Discourse in science classrooms. In S. Abell and N. Lederman (Eds.),
Handbook of Research on Science Teaching (pp. 443-470). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
83. Davis, E.A., and Smithey, J. (2009). Beginning teachers moving toward effective ele-
mentary science teaching. Science Education, 93(4), 745-770.
84. Saka, Y., Southerland, S.A., and Brooks, J.S., (2009). Becoming a member of a school
community while working toward science education reform: Teacher induction from
a Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) perspective. Science Education, 93(6),
996-1,025.
85. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K.E., Mundry, S., and Hewson, P.W. (2003).
Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
272
OCR for page 273
86. Hewson, P.W. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S.K. Abell and
N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
87. Metz, K. (2009). Elementary school teachers as “targets and agents of change”:
Teachers’ learning in interaction with reform science curriculum. Science Education,
93(5), 915-954.
88. Penuell, W., Fishman, B., Gallagher, L., Korbak, C., and Lopez-Prado, B. (2009). Is
alignment enough? Investigating the effects of state policies and professional develop-
ment on science curriculum implementation. Science Education, 93(4), 656-677.
89. Rogers, M.A., Abell, S.K., Marra, R.M., Arbaugh, F., Hutchins, K.L., and Cole, J.S.
(2010). Orientations to science teacher professional development: An exploratory
study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 309-328.
90. Supovitz, J.M., and Turner, H.M. (2000). The effects of professional development
on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
91. Weiss, I.R., Pasley, J.D., Smith, P.S., Banilower, E.R., and Heck, D.J. (2003). Looking
Inside the Classroom: A Study of K-12 Mathematics and Science Education in the
United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
92. Garet, M., Birman, B.F., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Herman, R., and Yoon, K.S.
(1999). Does Professional Development Change Teaching Practice? Results from
a Three-Year Study. Prepared by American Institutes for Research for the U.S.
Department of Education Office of the Under Secretary. Available: http://www.ed.gov/
rschstat/eval/teaching/epdp/index.html [June 2011].
93. National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC Standards for Staff
Development. Available: http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm [June 2011].
94. De Jong, O., and Taber, K.S. (2007). Teaching and learning the many faces of chem-
istry. In S.K. Abell and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science
Education (pp. 631-652). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
95. Duit, R., Niedderer, H., and Schecker, H. (2007). Teaching physics. In S.K. Abell and
N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 599-629).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
96. Lazarowitz, R. (2007). High school biology curricula development: Implementation,
teaching, and evaluation from the 20th to the 21st century. In S.K. Abell and N.G.
Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Science Education (Part III: Science
Teaching). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
97. Akcay, H., and Yager R.E. (2010). The impact of a science/technology/society teach-
ing approach on student learning in five domains. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 19(6), 602-611.
98. Arzi, H.J., and White R.T. (2008). Change in teachers’ knowledge of subject matter:
A 17-year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92(2), 221-251.
273
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 274
99. Mikeska, J.N., Anderson, C.W., and Schwarz, C.V. (2009). Principled reasoning
about problems of practice. Science Education, 93(4), 678-686.
100. Van Rens, L., Pilot, A., and Van der Schee, J. (2010). A framework for teaching sci-
entific inquiry in upper secondary school chemistry. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 47(7), 788-806.
101. Luft, J.A. (2009). Beginning secondary science teachers in different induction pro-
grammes: The first year of teaching. International Journal of Science Education,
31(17), 2,355-2,384.
102. Zembal-Saul, C. (2009). Learning to teach elementary school science as argument.
Science Education, 93(4), 687-719.
103. Plummer, J.D., and Krajcik, J.S. (2010). Building a learning progression for celestial
motion: Elementary levels from an earth-based perspective. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 47(7), 768-787.
104. Lunetta, V.N., Hofstein, A., and Clough, M.P. (2007). Learning and teaching in the
school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S.K. Abell
and N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 393-
441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
105. Duncan, R.G., Pilitsis, V., and Piegaro, M. (2010). Development of preservice teach-
ers’ ability to critique and adapt inquiry-based instructional materials. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 21(1), 81-102.
106. Schwarz, C.V., Gunckel, K.L., Smith, E.L., Covitt, B.A., Bae, M., Enfield, M., and
Tsurusaki, B.K. (2008). Helping elementary preservice teachers learn to use curricu-
lum materials for effective science teaching. Science Education, 92(2), 345-377.
107. Carlsen, W.S. (1991). Subject-matter knowledge and science teaching: A pragmatic
perspective. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching: Volume 2.
Teachers’ Knowledge of Subject Matter as It Relates to Their Teaching Practice (pp.
115-143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
108. Rosebery, A.S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., and Warren, B. (2010). “The coat
traps all your body heat”: Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322-357.
109. Roychoudhury, A., and Rice, D. (2010). Discourse of making sense of data:
Implications for elementary teachers’ science education. Journal of Science Teacher
Education, 21(2), 181-203.
110. Danusso, L., Testa, I., and Vicentini, M. (2010). Improving prospective teachers’
knowledge about scientific models and modelling: Design and evaluation of a teacher
education intervention. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 871-905.
111. Lee, V. (2010). How different variants of orbit diagrams influence student explana-
tions of the seasons. Science Education, 94(6), 985-1,007.
112. Donnelly, L.A., and Sadler, T.D. (2009). High school science teachers’ views of stan-
dards and accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 1,050-1,075.
A Framework for K-12 Science Education
274
OCR for page 275
113. Smith, D.C., and Neale, D.C. (1991). The construction of subject-matter knowledge
in primary science teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in Research on Teaching:
Volume 2. Teachers Subject Matter Knowledge and Classroom Instruction. New
York: JAI Press.
114. Howes, E.V., Lim, M., and Campos, J. (2009). Journeys into inquiry-based elemen-
tary science: Literacy practices, questioning, and empirical study. Science Education,
93(2), 189-217.
115. Kokkotas, P., Vlachos, I., and Koulaidis V. (1998), Teaching the topic of the particu-
late nature of matter in prospective teachers’ training courses. International Journal
of Science Education, 20(3), 291-303.
116. Krall, R.M., Lott, K.H., and Wymer, C.L. (2009). Inservice elementary and middle
school teachers’ conceptions of photosynthesis and respiration. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 20(1), 41-55.
117. Wee, B., Shepardson, B., Fast, J., and Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about
inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 18(1), 63-89.
118. van Es, E.A. (2009). Participants’ roles in the context of a video club. Journal of the
Learning Sciences, 18(1), 100-137.
119. Trautmann, N.M., and MaKinster, J.G. (2010). Flexibly adaptive professional devel-
opment in support of teaching science with geospatial technology. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 21(3), 351-370.
120. Shaw, J.M., Bunch, G.C., and Geaney, E.R. (2010). Analyzing language demands
facing English learners on science performance assessments: The SALD framework.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 909-928.
121. National Research Council. (2003). Assessment in Support of Instruction and
Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Large-Scale and Classroom Assessment.
Committee on Assessment in Support of Instruction and Learning. Board on Testing
and Assessment, Committee on Science Education K-12, Mathematical Sciences
Education Board. Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences
and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
122. Quellmalz, E., Timms, M., and Buckley, B. (2005). Using Science Simulations
to Support Powerful Formative Assessments of Complex Science Learning. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.
123. Quellmalz, E., Timms, M.J., and Scheider, S. (2009). Assessment of Student Learning
in Science Simulations and Games. Paper prepared for the National Research
Council’s Science Learning: Computer Games, Simulations, and Education Workshop,
October, Washington, DC.
124. Quellmalz, E.S., and Pellegrino, J.W. (2009). Technology and testing. Science, 323,
75-79.
275
Implementation: Curriculum, Instruction, Teacher Development, and Assessment
OCR for page 276
Print copies of the Next Generation Science Standards are available for pre-order now or you can view the online version at nextgenscience.org
The standards are based largely on the 2011 National Research Council report A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas.
