Developing Research-Based Instructional Materials to Support Large-Scale Transformation of Science Teaching and Learning: The Approach of the OpenSciEd Middle School Program

References

• Abraham, M. R. (1998). The learning cycle approach as a strategy for instruction in science. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 513–524). Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Achieve. (2016). EQuIP rubric for lessons & units: Science (Version 3.0). Achieve. https://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/default/files/EQuIPRubricforSciencev3.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Achieve. (n.d.). Science peer review panel. Retrieved July 14, 2020, from https://www.nextgenscience.org/peer-review-panel/science-peer-review-panel
   Google Scholar
• Bell, P., Bang, M. E., Buxton, C., Heinz, M., Lee, O., Morrison, D., Rodriguez, A., Tesoriero, G., & Tzou, C. T. (2018). Equitable science instruction for all students. In D. C. Edelson & A. M. Mohan (Eds.), OpenSciEd design specifications (pp. 12–24). OpenSciEd. https://www.openscied.org/design-specifications/
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. In J. T. Remillard, G. Lloyd, & B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, R. (2015). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Creating teachable moments. NSTA Press, National Science Teachers Association.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, R., & Chopyak, C. (2017). Instructional materials and implementation of NGSS: Demand, supply, and strategic opportunities (Report). Carnegie Corporation of New York.
   Google Scholar
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
   Google Scholar
• D’Amico, L. (2010). The center for learning technologies in urban schools: Evolving relationships in design-based research. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 37–53). Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., & McNeill, K. L. (2018). Designing educative features. In D. C. Edelson & A. M. Mohan (Eds.), OpenSciEd design specifications (pp. 31–37). OpenSciEd. https://www.openscied.org/design-specifications/
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293–304. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17727502
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edelson, D. C., & Mohan, A. M. (Eds.). (2018). OpenSciEd design specifications. OpenSciEd. https://www.openscied.org/design-specifications/
   Google Scholar
• Eisenkraft, A. (2003). Expanding the 5E model. Science Teacher, 70(6), 56–59. https://my.nsta.org/resource/3471/expanding-the-5e-model-a-proposed-7e-model-emphasizes-transfer-of-learning-and
   Google Scholar
• Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2009). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, K., Hill, H. C., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2019). Strengthening the research base that informs STEM instructional improvement efforts: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 260–293. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719849044
   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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Science teachers’ learning: Enhancing opportunities, creating supportive contexts. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/21836
   Google Scholar
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Design, selection, and implementation of instructional materials for the next generation science standards: Proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17226/25001
   Google Scholar
• National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Authors.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2015). Guide to implementing the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• NSTA. (n.d.). About the next generation science standards. National Science Teachers Association. Retrieved January 3, 2021, from https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx
   Google Scholar
• OpenSciEd. (2018). OpenSciEd professional learning design principles.
   Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamagushi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penuel, W. R., Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T., Frumin, K., Van Horne, K., Sumner, T., & Watkins, D. A. (2018, April). Using co-design to test and refine a model for three-dimensional science curriculum that connects to students’ interests and experiences. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., McGill, T. A. W., & Penuel, W. R. (this issue). Storyline units: An instructional model to support coherence from the students’ perspective. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(7), 805–829. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2021.1884784
   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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Video based lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20408
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, S. M. (2013). Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340(6130), 310–313. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230725
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar