The impact of multimedia educative curriculum materials (MECMs) on teachers’ beliefs about 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
• Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, A. E., & Palincsar, A. (2016). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 422–449.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2012). The Australian Curriculum: Science (version 3.0). Sydney, NSW: Commonwealth of Australia.
   Google Scholar
• 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.
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., McNeill, K. L., Pelletier, P., & Krajcik, J. (2017). Engaging in scientific argumentation. In B. Reiser, C. Schwarz, & C. Passmore (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 229–258). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95, 191–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borko, H., Whitcomb, J., & Liston, D. (2009). Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 3–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan, L. A. (2012). Research on science teacher beliefs. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1. pp. 477–495). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311–329.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J., & Van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52, 127–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005) Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• Dede, C., Jass Ketelhut, D., Whitehouse, P., Breit, L., & McCloskey, E. M. (2009). A research agenda for online teacher professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 8–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, R. G., El-Moslimany, H., McDonnell, J., & Lichtenwalner, S. (2011). Supporting teachers’ use of a project-based learning environment in ocean science: Web-based educative curriculum materials. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 19, 449–472.
   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, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2012). A dialogic account of sensemaking in scientific argumentation and reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 30, 207–245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivers, N. M., Halpern, I. J., Barnsley, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Shah, B. R., Tu, K., … Zwarenstein, M. (2012). Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: A methodological review. Trials, 13(120), 1–9.
   PubMedGoogle 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
• Jones, M. G., & Leagon, M. (2014). Science teacher attitudes and beliefs: Reforming practice. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 830–847). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Katsh-Singer, R., McNeill, K. L., & Loper, S. (2016). Scientific argumentation for all? Comparing teacher beliefs about argumentation in high, mid, and low socioeconomic status schools. Science Education, 100, 410–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight-Bardsley, A. M., & McNeill, K. L. (2016). Teachers’ pedagogical design capacity for scientific argumentation. Science Education, 100, 645–672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). The benefits and limitations of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28, 1–10.
   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, 36–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loper, S., McNeill, K. L., Peck, P., Price, J., & Barber, J. (2014, June). Multimedia educative curriculum materials: Designing digital supports for learning to teach scientific argumentation. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Boulder, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Marco‐Bujosa, L. M., McNeill, K. L., González‐Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2017). An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform‐oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 141–168.
   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, 233–268.
   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, 261–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., González-Howard, M., Katsh-Singer, R. & Loper, S. (2017). Moving beyond pseudoargumentation: Teachers’ enactments of a science curriculum focused on argumentation. Science Education, 101, 426–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38, 2026–2046.
   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, 153–191.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., Marco-Bujosa, L. M., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2018). Teachers’ enactments of curriculum: Fidelity to Procedure versus Fidelity to Goal for scientific argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 40, 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states (appendix F). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 177–196.
   Google Scholar
• Pruitt, S. L. (2014). The next generation science standards: The features and challenges. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 145–156.
   Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 273–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiser, B. J., Michaels, S., Moon, J., Bell, T., Dyer, E., Edwards, K. D., … Park, A. (2017). Scaling up three-dimensional science learning through teacher-led study groups across a state. Journal of Teacher Education, 68, 280–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75, 211–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, K. J., Garnier, H. E., Chen, C., Lemmens, M., Schwille, K., & Wickler, N. I. Z. (2011). Videobased lesson analysis: Effective science PD for teacher and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 117–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views and practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 1122–1148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, B. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: Range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 283–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ ‘learning to notice’ in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar