Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: Fidelity to Procedure versus Fidelity to Goal for scientific argumentation

References

• Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94, 395–427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191–216. doi: 10.1002/sce.20420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research In Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112. doi: 10.1002/tea.21257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bismack, A. S., Arias, A. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2014). Connecting curriulum materials and teachers: Elementary science teachers’ enactment of a reform-based curricular unit. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 489–512. doi: 10.1007/s10972-013-9372-x
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Sisenham, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17-37). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Buxton, C. A., Allexsaht-Snider, M., Kayumova, S., Aghasaleh, R., Choi, Y. J., & Cohen, A. (2015). Teacher agency and professional learning: Rethinking fidelity of implementation as multiplicities of enactment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 489–502. doi: 10.1002/tea.21223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–218. doi: 10.1177/1098214010366173
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, J. (1998, April). Rethinking curriculum implementation: Paradigms, models, and teachers’ work. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, San Diego,CA.
   Google Scholar
• Crippen, K. J. (2012). Argument as professional development: Impacting teacher knowledge and beliefs about science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(8), 847–866. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9282-3
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X034003003
   Google Scholar
• Debarger, A. H., Penuel, W. R., Moorthy, S., Beauvineau, Y., Kennedy, C., & Boscaddin, C. K. (2017). Investigating purposeful science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101, 66–98. doi: 10.1002/sce.21249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desimone, L. M., & Hill, K. L. (2017). Inside the black box: Examining mediators and moderators of a middle school science invention. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 511–536. doi: 10.3102/0162373717697842
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Evagorou, M., & Dillon, J. (2011). Argumentation in the teaching of science. In D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds.), The professional knowledge base of science teaching (pp. 189–204). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sense-making in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30(3), 207–245. doi: 10.1080/07370008.2012.689383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González-Howard, M., McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M., & Proctor, C. P. (2017). Does it answer the question or is it French fries?: An exploration of language supports for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 39(5), 528–547. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2017.1294785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 6(1), 51–72.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, C. J., Penuel, W. R., D’Angelo, C. M., DeBarger, A. H., Gallagher, L. P., Kennedy, C. A., … Krajcik, J. S. (2015). Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(10), 1362–1385. doi: 10.1002/tea.21263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrenkohl, L. R., & Cornelius, L. (2013). Investigating elementary students’ scientific and historical argumentation. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22, 413–461. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.799475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Education Sciences and National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. https://ies.ed.gov/pdf/CommonGuidelines.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–28). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-J., & Chue, S. (2013). The value of fidelity of implementation criteria to evaluate school-based science curriculum innovations. International Journal of Science Education, 35(15), 2508–2537. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.609189
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, O., Penfield, R., & Maerten-Rivera, J. (2009). Effects of fidelity of implementation on science achievement gains among English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(7), 836–859. doi: 10.1002/tea.20335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, O., Quinn, H., & Valdés, G. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to next generation science standards and with implications for common core state standards for English language arts and mathematics. Educational Researcher, 42, 223–233. doi: 10.3102/0013189X13480524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loper, S., McNeill, K. L., & González-Howard, M. (2017). Multimedia educative curriculum materials (MECMs): Teachers’ use of MECMs to support argumentation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(1), 36–56. doi: 10.1080/1046560X.2016.1277600
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L. (2009). Teachers’ use of curriculum to support students in writing scientific arguments to explain phenomena. Science Education, 93(2), 233–268. doi: 10.1002/sce.20294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge of argumentation: Using classroom contexts to assess high quality PCK rather than pseudoargumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(2), 261–290. doi: 10.1002/tea.21252
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R., & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of an educative science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101(3), 426–457. doi: 10.1002/sce.21274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., & Knight, A. M. (2013). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of scientific argumentation: The impact of professional development on k-12 teachers. Science Education, 97(6), 936–972. doi: 10.1002/sce.21081
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153–191. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods source book (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315–340. doi: 10.1177/109821400302400303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2005). Advancing scientific research in education. Committee on Research in Education. Lisa Towne. Lauress L. Wise and Tina M. Winters, Editors. Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. Committee on Guidance on Implementing the Next Generation Science Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Donnell, C. (2008). Defining, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K-12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 33–84. doi: 10.3102/0034654307313793
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. doi: 10.1126/science.1183944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. doi: 10.1002/tea.20035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463. doi: 10.1126/science.1182595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regents of the University of California. (2013a). Metabolism: Filed trial version of middle school science unit developed by the learning design group. Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Regents of the University of California. (2013b). Microbiome: Filed trial version of middle school science unit developed by the learning design group. Berkeley: Lawrence Hall of Science.
   Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. doi: 10.3102/00346543075002211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in view and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122–1148. doi: 10.1002/tea.21037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447–472. doi: 10.1002/sce.20276
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seraphin, K. D., Harrison, G. M., Philippoff, J., Brandon, P. R., Nguyen, T. T. T., Lawton, B. E., & Vallin, L. M. (2017). Teaching aquatic science as inquiry through professional development: Teacher characteristics and student outcomes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(9), 1219–1245. doi: 10.1002/tea.21403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. (1990). Foreward. In M. Ben-Peretz (Ed.), The teacher–curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts (pp. vii–vix). Albany: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. doi: 10.1080/09500690500336957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 435–453). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar