
An electronic newsletter for the science
education community
May
2004
A
Jump-Start for New Science Textbook Development
Resources
for developing curriculum materials that promote science
literacy
Given the
major role that textbooks and other curriculum materials
play in science teaching and learning, the need to improve
their quality is critical. To help address this need,
Project 2061 developed and tested a set of criteria
and a procedure for analyzing science curriculum materials
for their alignment to a coherent set of learning goals
and for the quality of their support for students and
teachers. In a large-scale application of its criteria
and procedure, Project 2061 conducted a series
of evaluative studies of some of the most widely
used middle and high school science textbooks (American
Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2002).
Findings from these studies indicate that existing materials
have a long way to go in supporting the teaching and
learning of the ideas and skills recommended in state
content standards and in national documents such as
Project 2061’s own Benchmarks
for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National
Research Council’s National Science Education
Standards (1996).
Among the
most common textbook deficiencies found were (1) a lack
of attention to the well documented and predictable
difficulties that many students have in grasping some
key science concepts; (2) illustrations and other graphic
representations that are too abstract, complex, or inadequately
explained; (3) insufficient firsthand experiences with
natural phenomena that provide opportunities for exploring
the natural world and that help make scientific ideas
plausible to students; and (4) few efforts to guide
students in making sense of these experiences when they
do occur.
To help foster
a new generation of science curriculum materials that
attend to these deficiencies, Project 2061 is identifying,
developing, and making available a collection of resources
that can be used to create curriculum materials (and
lessons) that focus on some of the most important ideas
in science. Made possible by a grant from the National
Science Foundation, the collection includes reference
tools (e.g., summaries of research on how students think
about natural phenomena and ideas in science) that inform
the work of curriculum materials developers and teachers,
and building blocks (e.g., activities, photographs,
diagrams, sets of questions, and examples of natural
phenomena that demonstrate particular scientific ideas)
that can be incorporated into actual lessons, textbooks,
and other kinds of curriculum materials.
Expanding
the Knowledge Base
Our effort to build this collection is based
on a view of curriculum materials as tools that allow
teachers to do their best work with students (Ball &
Cohen, 1996). In particular, we view curriculum materials
as an important vehicle through which the knowledge
base in science education becomes available to teachers.
Our work is also guided by Shulman’s concept of
pedagogical content knowledge, which includes knowledge
of analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations,
and demonstrations that make the subject matter comprehensible
to others (Shulman, 1986). We are identifying or developing
resources for curriculum materials that embody these
ideas. Over time, we hope our work will be a catalyst
for further study of the implementation of curriculum
materials that incorporate this knowledge base, contributing
to the collective expertise of the field.
Topics covered
in the collection include:
- The solar system
- Changes in the Earth’s surface
- States of matter
- Conservation of matter
- Chemical reactions
- Laws of motion
- Waves
- Flow of matter in ecosystems
- Flow of energy in ecosystems
- Heredity—Variation in inherited characteristics
- Cell functions
- Biological evolution
- Natural selection
Working with
experts in the relevant content areas and in science
education, the Project 2061 staff is reviewing a broad
range of print and digital resources for possible inclusion
in the online collection. To define the topic areas to be covered (see sidebar), we are using
a set of 13 strand maps (drawn from Project 2061’s
popular publication Atlas
of Science Literacy) as the focus for selecting
and developing resources. Strand maps organize key science
ideas—along with prerequisite and related ideas—in
graphical form, linking them in a visual web to display
their interdependence and sequence from kindergarten
through 12th grade (AAAS, 2001). By organizing these
resources by content strands (rather than only by individual
science ideas), users can more easily see what kinds
of resources are needed and where in the learning progression
they are needed. Available online, the collection will
use strand maps as its main interface—users will
be able to click on the text of an idea displayed on
a map to access the various resources that are linked
to it. Extensive hyperlinks will relate resources to
each other.
To help guide
the design and content of the resources and of the collection
as a whole, Project 2061 has conducted a series of focus
groups with teachers, curriculum developers, and education
faculty. These groups were convened at regional meetings
of the National Science Teachers Association and at
meetings of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, and the Association for the Education
of Teachers of Science.
Resources
for Curriculum Materials Development
Some resources in the collection—such as the clarifications
of benchmark ideas and the descriptions of conceptual
connections among ideas—are being produced by
the Project 2061 staff. Others are drawn from a wide
variety of sources. For example, we are summarizing
research articles that discuss the ideas that many learners
have about specific science concepts and ways to help
learners move from these ideas to scientifically accepted
ones. Research articles are being identified through
searches of the ERIC database and bibliographies on
student learning in specific topic areas (Driver, Squires,
Rushworth, & Wood-Robinson, 1994; Duit, 2002). We
are also searching a variety of existing curriculum
materials and instructional tools (such as computer
simulations) that have been developed by research teams
in the U.S. and in other countries for examples of effective
phenomena and representations (e.g., Building Science
Concepts, 2001; Nuffield Primary Science, 1995;
PENNlincs, 2000). Each component is screened for content
and instructional quality based on the criteria used
in Project 2061’s textbook evaluation studies
(AAAS, 2002; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002). The
collection includes resources in the following categories:
Clarifications.
Understanding the intent of specific learning
goals is not as straightforward as it may first seem.
Educators may overestimate or underestimate the level
of sophistication of the ideas targeted by a goal, based
on their own experiences. For each benchmark on the
collection’s 13 strand maps, a “Clarification”
specifies its constituent key ideas and discusses the
level of sophistication intended for the benchmark (distinguishing
it from earlier grade or later grade benchmarks in the
same topic). It also identifies peripheral ideas and
terms that are not on target for a specific learning
goal.
Connections.
To fully grasp the key ideas targeted in a
learning goal, students often need to understand some
“prerequisite” ideas first. For example,
for students to learn about the spherical shape of the
Earth, it is important for them to have an early conception
of gravity to account for why people on the “bottom”
of the Earth do not fall off. Similarly, we know that
the useful knowledge people possess is richly interconnected
and students need to appreciate those conceptual relationships.
To help educators, researchers, and curriculum developers
to promote these kinds of understandings, a “Connections”
tool identifies prerequisite ideas and skills and appropriate
links from one idea to another for each of the learning
goals specified on relevant maps in Atlas
of Science Literacy (AAAS, 2001). This “Connections”
tool also takes into account conceptual links described
in Benchmarks for
Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and Science
for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), and in the
cognitive research literature.
Ideas
Students Have. Research shows that students
usually have ideas about how the world works even before
they have received formal science instruction. While
some of their ideas are in basic agreement with scientists’
views, others disagree or conflict with currently accepted
scientific theories. Because some of students’
erroneous ideas work fairly well in familiar contexts,
they are highly resistant to change. “Ideas Students
Have” are summaries of research that sheds light
on students’ commonly held ideas and on the likely
sources of these deep-rooted beliefs. These reference
tools will enable educators, researchers, and curriculum
developers to understand more fully the effect of students’
ideas on their learning. When available, the summaries
include descriptions not only of conceptual but also
of relevant cultural, epistemological, or ontological
prior knowledge that may influence student learning.
Diagnostic
Questions. Questions or tasks that can be
used to elicit students’ thinking and track their
understanding can be found in the research literature
on students’ commonly held ideas. We are selecting
questions and tasks that are likely to make sense to
students who have never studied a particular topic and
are not familiar with the scientific vocabulary. For
example, asking “What do you think will happen
if we let go of this ball? Why do you think this will
happen?” is more comprehensible to students who
have not studied gravity than asking “What is
the effect of gravity on this ball?” Typical resources
in the “Questions” category ask students
to predict, describe, and explain familiar phenomena;
represent their understandings in drawings; interpret
information in light of key ideas; and describe important
relationships between concepts.
Phenomena/Activities.
Scientists construct and use scientific knowledge to
describe, explain, predict, and design real-world objects,
systems, or events. Therefore, providing students with
opportunities to connect scientific ideas with real-world
phenomena can help them to view these often abstract
ideas as plausible or enhance their sense of the usefulness
of the ideas. Resources in the “Phenomena/Activities”
category include annotated lists of a variety of phenomena
for materials developers to incorporate into their new
products and for teachers to use as supplements to their
current materials. These lists of relevant phenomena
will also be valuable to college faculty designing science
courses for teachers and non-science majors. To supplement
the annotated lists of phenomena, we are also describing
in full detail some examples that provide
- procedures for hands-on or demonstration activities
that engage students with the phenomena.
- step-by-step explanations of the phenomena using
the key ideas.
- sequences of questions that are carefully structured
to lead students from one insight to another so that
they can make meaning of the phenomena.
- comments about some phenomena that are widely used
in science classrooms but not well aligned to ideas
that are central to science literacy.
- insights on how students are likely to respond
to various phenomena, pointing out features that are
likely to further students’ learning and those
that are not.
These examples
are intended to be useful in both teacher development
and curriculum development settings.
Representations/Activities.
Materials developers and educators also need a wide
variety of representations (i.e., drawings, diagrams,
graphs, images, analogies and metaphors, models and
simulations, analogies, and role-playing) to help make
abstract ideas intelligible to students with diverse
backgrounds, interests, and learning styles. Different
representations highlight different aspects of an idea
and provide a variety of opportunities for students
to connect ideas to each other and to embed these concepts
into their own knowledge system. Resources in this category
include annotated lists of representations, along with
more detailed descriptions that focus on particular
attributes or applications of selected representations.
Using
the Collection
By making this collection of resources easily
accessible online, our intent is to jump-start the process
of developing curriculum materials that incorporate
the knowledge base in science teaching and learning.
In addition, our work can contribute to new knowledge
about criteria for judging the appropriateness and value
of particular resources in helping students learn key
science ideas. For researchers and developers, this
collection of resources provides a starting point for
investigations that have the potential to improve materials
and classroom practice. For those responsible for teacher
education or professional development, the resources
can be deployed in ways that increase teachers’
understanding of science learning goals and their skills
in selecting, adapting, and using a variety of real-world
scientific phenomena and representations.
See a prototype
of the online interface and some examples from the
collection.
#
# #
This article
is based on papers presented at the recent annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching (Caldwell, Kesidou, & Wilson, 2004; Kesidou,
2004; Kurth, Willard, & Kesidou, 2004). To request
copies of the papers or for more information, please
contact:
Principal
Investigator: Dr.
Jo Ellen Roseman, (202) 326-6752
Program Director: Dr.
Sofia Kesidou
References
Alvermann, D. (1995). Effects
of interactive discussion and text type on learning
counterintuitive science concepts. Journal of
Educational Research, 88(3), 146-154.
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989).
Science for
all Americans. New York: Oxford University
Press.
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).
Benchmarks for
science literacy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001).
Atlas of science
literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (2002).
Middle grades science textbooks: A benchmarks-based
evaluation. [Online]. Retrieved on March 22,
2004, from http://www.project2061.org/tools/textbook/mgsci/
Arons, A.
(1990). A guide to introductory physics teaching.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Ball, D.
L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book:
What is—or might be—the role of curriculum
materials in teacher learning and instructional reform?
Educational Researcher, 25(9),
6-8, 14.
Black, P.,
& Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning
and marking: The science teacher’s role in formative
assessment. School Science Review, 82,
55-61.
Building
Science Concepts. (2001). Wellington, New Zealand:
Learning Media Limited.
Caldwell,
A., Kesidou, S., & Wilson, P. (2004, April). Creating
components for the next generation of curriculum materials
at the intersection of research and practice: Processes
that shape the Earth. Paper presented at the
meeting of the National Association for Research in
Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Carlsen,
W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic
perspective. Review of Educational Research,
61(2), 157-178.
Champagne,
A., Gunstone, R., & Klopfer, L. (1985). Instructional
consequences of students’ knowledge about physical
phenomena. In L. West & A. L. Pines (Eds.),
Cognitive structure and conceptual change
(pp. 61-90). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Dagher,
Z. (1995). Review of studies on the effectiveness
of instructional analogies in science education. Science
Education, 79(3), 295-312.
Driver,
R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson,
V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science:
Research into children’s ideas. New York:
Routledge.
Duit, R.
(2002). Bibliography – STCSE:
Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and
science education. Retrieved on March 29, 2004,
from
http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
Gentner,
D., & Holyoak, K. (1997). Reasoning and learning
by analogy. American Psychologist,
52(1), 32-34.
Hewson,
P. W., & Hennessey, M. G. (1992). Making status
explicit: A case study of conceptual change. In R.
Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research
in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical
studies (pp. 176-187). Kiel: IPN.
Jung, W.
(1992). Probing acceptance, a technique for investigating
learning difficulties. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, &
H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning:
Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp.
278-295). Kiel: IPN.
Kesidou,
S. (2004, April). Creating components for the
next generation of curriculum materials at the intersection
of research and practice: Light. Paper presented
at the meeting of the National Association for Research
in Science Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Kesidou,
S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle
school science programs measure up? Findings from
Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6),
522-549.
Kress, G.,
& van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading
images: The grammar of visual design. London:
Routledge.
Kurth, L.,
Willard, T., & Kesidou, S. (2004, April). Creating
components for the next generation of curriculum materials
at the intersection of research and practice: The
solar system. Paper presented at the meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
National
Research Council. (1996). National science education
standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National
Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain,
mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Nuffield
Primary Science. (1995). Science processes and
concept exploration. London: Collins Educational.
PENNlincs.
(2000). Science for developing minds. Philadelphia:
Institute for Research in Cognitive Science.
Pinto, R.,
& Ametller, J. (1992). Students’ difficulties
in reading images: Comparing results from four national
research groups. International Journal of Science
Education, 24(3), 333-341.
Shulman,
L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth
in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2),
4-14.
van Zee,
E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning
to guide student thinking. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 6(2), 227-269.
White,
R. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning.
International Journal of Science Education,
18(7), 761-774.
Wilensky, U., & Resnick, M. (1999).
Thinking in levels: A dynamic systems approach to
making sense of the world. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 8(1), 3-18.
[Table
of Contents]