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
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.
