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 347
B BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES CONSULTED ON TEACHING AND LEARNING T he committee consulted a variety of references throughout the development of the framework, not all of which are cited explicitly in the report itself. This appendix lists some of the additional references the committee used to develop the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas and to construct the grade band endpoints. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of all of the refer- ences relevant to teaching and learning in science. Rather, it is intended to provide a sense of the range of research literature the committee considered. REFERENCES FOR PRACTICES In addition to those references cited in Chapter 3, the following references were consulted to inform the committee’s selection of practices, the definitions for what the practices can look like in the classroom, and the committee’s arguments about the feasibility of young learners engaging in scientific practices. Berland, L.K., and McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumenta- tion: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793. Berland, L.K., and Reiser, B.J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55. Berland, L.K., and Reiser, B.J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216. 347
OCR for page 348
Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner, K.A. Renninger, and I.E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Sixth Edition (vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529. Metz, K.E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290. Metz, K.E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138-161. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1,020. Sampson, V., and Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472. Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., and Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific model- ing: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654. Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Kenyon, L.O., Acher, A., and Fortus, D. (in press). Issues and challenges in defining a learning progression for scientific modeling. In A. Alonzo and A.W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions for Science. Boston, MA: Sense. 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. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investiga- tions. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967. REFERENCES FOR DISCIPLINARY CORE IDEAS The committee consulted the references below to inform the development of the core ideas and their components and to develop the grade band endpoints. The research evidence was considered to determine which ideas students might be able to engage with at a given grade band given appropriate instructional support, as well as where they might have difficulty or hold preconceptions that conflict with scientific explanations. The committee also reviewed draft documents from the Massachusetts Department of Education compiled to support science standards that are informed by research on learning progressions. A Framework for K-12 Science Education 348
OCR for page 349
Physical Sciences Ashbrook, P. (2008). Air is a substance. Science and Children, 46(4), 12-13. Feher, E., and Rice, K. (2006). Shadows and anti-images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision II. Science Education, 72(5), 637-649. Haupt, G.W. (2006). Concepts of magnetism held by elementary school children. Science Education, 36(3), 162-168. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., and Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and sub- stance: From inscriptions to models. In D. Klahr and S. Carver (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: 25 Years of Progress (pp. 39-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palmeri, A., Cole, A., DeLisle, S., Erickson, S., and Janes, J. (2008). What’s the matter with teaching children about matter? Science and Children, 46(4), 20-23. Smith, C.L., Solomon, G.E.A., and Carey, S. (2005). Never getting to zero: Elementary school students’ understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 101-140. 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 atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 1-98. Stevens, S.Y., Delgado, C., and Krajcik, J.S. (2009). Developing a hypothetical multi- dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 687-715. Life Sciences Barrett, J.E., and Clements, D.H. (2003). Quantifying path length: Fourth-grade children’s developing abstractions for linear measurement. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 475-520. Carey, S. (1986). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., and Empson, S.B. (1999). Children’s Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Catley, K., Lehrer, R., and Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a Prospective Learning Progression for Developing Understanding of Evolution. Paper commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Available: http:// www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Evolution.pdf [June 2011]. Cobb, P., McClain, K., and Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21(1), 1-78. Demastes, S.S., Good, R.G., and Peebles, P. (1995). Students’ conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79(6), 637-666. 349 Appendix B
OCR for page 350
Evans, E.M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief sys- tems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217-266. Freyberg, P., and Osborne, R. (1985). Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gelman, S.A., Coley, J.D., and Gottfried, G.M. (1994). Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories. In L.A. Hirschfield and S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Psychology Reader (pp. 222-244). New York: New York University Press. Golan Duncan, R., Rogat, A., 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. 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. Kelemen, D., Widdowson, D., Posner, T., Brown, A.L., and Casler, K. (2003). Teleo- functional constraints on preschool children’s reasoning about living things. Developmental Science, 6(3), 329-345. Kyza, E.A. (2009). Middle-school students’ reasoning about alternative hypotheses in a scaf- folded, software-based inquiry investigation. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 277- 311. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., and Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecol- ogy 1: Theoretical background, design, and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 721-732. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., and Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecol- ogy 2: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 19-34. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational pur- poses: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(1&2), 51-74. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635-679. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2010a). Seeding Evolutionary Thinking by Engaging Children in Modeling Its Foundations. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2010b). What kind of explanation is a model? In M.K. Stein and L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 9-22). New York: Springer. A Framework for K-12 Science Education 350
OCR for page 351
Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., and Putz, A. (2000). The inter-related development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, and K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design (pp. 325-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lehrer, R., Jaslow, L., and Curtis, C. (2003). Developing an understanding of measure- ment in the elementary grades. In D.H. Clements and G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and Teaching Measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 100-121). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Manz, E. (2010, March). Representational Work in Classrooms: Negotiating Material Redescription, Amplification, and Explanation. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia. Metz, K.E. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell and E.H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Metz, K.E., Sisk-Hilton, S., Berson, E., and Ly, U. (2010). Scaffolding Children’s Understanding of the Fit Between Organisms and Their Environment in the Context of the Practices of Science. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, June 29-July 2, Chicago. Mohan, L., Chen, J., and Anderson, C.W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progres- sion for carbon cycling in socioecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698. (This reference also informed the earth and space sciences ideas.) Passmore, C., and Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204. Sandoval, W.A., and Reiser, B.J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolu- tion. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170-194. 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 atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1-98. Tabak, I., and Reiser, B.J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disci- plinary stance. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(2), 307-355. Zuckerman, G.A., Chudinova, E.V., and Khavkin, E.E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: Building a science curricu- lum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 201-233. 351 Appendix B
OCR for page 352
Earth and Space Sciences Anderson, C.W. (March, 2010). Learning Progressions for Environmental Science Literacy. Paper prepared for the National Research Council Committee to Develop a Conceptual Framework to Guide K-12 Science Education Standards. Available: http:// www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Anderson_Framework_Paper.pdf [June 2011]. Harris, P. (2000). On not falling down to Earth: Children’s metaphysical questions. In K. Rosengren, C. Johnson, and P. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the Impossible: The Development of Scientific and Religious Thinking in Contemporary Society (pp. 157- 178). New York: Cambridge University Press. Hogan, K., and Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutri- ent cycling in ecosystems: Bio-dimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 941-970. Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., and Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecol- ogy 2: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 19-34. Lehrer, R., and Pritchard, C. (2003). Symbolizing space into being. In K. Gravemeijer, R. Lehrer, L. Verschaffel, and B. Van Oers (Eds.), Symbolizing, Modeling, and Tool Use in Mathematics Education (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer. Lehrer, R., and Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 69-108. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529. Liben, L.S. (2009). The road to understanding maps. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 310-315. Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., and Banerjee, R. (2006). Is the world round or flat? Children’s understanding of the Earth. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 124- 141. Rapp, D., and Uttal, D.H. (2006). Understanding and enhancing visualizations: Two modes of collaboration between earth science and cognitive science. In C. Manduca and D. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth. Denver, CO: Geological Society of America. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., and John, J. (1995). Students’ understand- ing of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166. Uttal, D.H. (2005). Spatial symbols and spatial thought: Cross-cultural, developmental, and historical perspectives on the relation between map use and spatial cognition. In L. Namy (Ed.), Symbol Use and Symbolic Representation: Developmental and Comparative Perspectives (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. A Framework for K-12 Science Education 352
OCR for page 353
Uttal, D.H., Fisher, J.A., and Taylor, H.A. (2006). Words and maps: Children’s mental mod- els of spatial information acquired from maps and from descriptions. Developmental Science, 9(2), 221-235. Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W. (1994). Mental models of the day and night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183. Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., and Ikospentaki, K. (2004). Modes of knowing and ways of rea- soning in elementary astronomy. Cognitive Development, 19, 203-222. Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., and Ikospentaki, K. (2005). Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: Children’s understanding of the globe as a model of the Earth. Learning and Instruction, 15, 333-351. Windschitl, M., and Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: Can pre-service instruction foster teachers’ understandings of model- based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835. Wiser, M. (1988). The differentiation of heat and temperature: History of science and novice-expert shift. In S. Strauss (Ed.), Ontogeny, Phylogeny, and Historical Development (pp. 28-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Wiser, M., and Amin, T.G. (2001). Is heat hot? Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11(4&5), 331-355. Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science Bolger, M., Kobiela, M., Weinberg, P., and Lehrer, R. (2009). Analysis of Children’s Mechanistic Reasoning about Linkages and Levers in the Context of Engineering Design. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, June, Austin, TX. Kolodner, J.L. (2009). Learning by Design’s Framework for Promoting Learning of 21st Century Skills. Presentation to the National Research Council Workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and the Development of 21st Century Skills. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Kolodner_21st_Century_ Presentation.pdf [June 2011]. Kolodner, J.L., Camp, P.J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B.B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., and Ra, M. (2003). Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in Learning by Design classrooms. In N.M. Seel (Ed.), Instructional Design: International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children’s con- ceptions of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 3-25. Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational pur- poses: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(1&2), 51-74. 353 Appendix B
OCR for page 354
Penner, D., Giles, N.D., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125-143. Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechani- cal systems: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 429-449. Petrosino, A.J. (2004). Integrating curriculum, instruction, and assessment in project-based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 447-460. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 31-57. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L.E., and Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineer- ing to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882. A Framework for K-12 Science Education 354
Marking the culmination of a three-year, multiphase process, on April 10th, 2013, a 26-state consortium released the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), a detailed description of the key scientific ideas and practices that all students should learn by the time they graduate from high school.
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.