Advertisement

Learning Progressions as Tools For Curriculum Development

Lessons from the Inquiry Project
  • Marianne Wiser
  • Carol L. Smith
  • Sue Doubler

Abstract

Cognitively-based curricula may take into account research on students’ difficulties with a particular topic (e.g., weight and density, inertia, the role of environment in natural selection) or domain-general learning principles (e.g., the importance of revisiting basic ideas across grades). Learning progressions (LPs) integrate and enrich those approaches by organizing students’ beliefs around core ideas in that domain, giving a rich characterization of what makes students’ initial ideas profoundly different from those of scientists, and specifying how to revisit those ideas within and across grades so that young children’s ideas can be progressively elaborated on and reconceptualized toward genuine scientific understanding.

Keywords

Conceptual Change Curriculum Development Particulate Model Step Stone Core Concept 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acher A, Arcà M. Children's representations in modeling scientific knowledge construction. In: Andersen C, Scheuer MN, Perez Echeveerria MP, Teubal E, editors. Representational systems and practices as learning tools in different fields of knowledge. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers; 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Au TK-F. Developing an intuitive understanding of substance kinds. Cognitive Psychology. 1994;27:71–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baillargeon R. The acquisition of physical knowledge in infancy: A summary in eight lessons. In: Goswami U, editor. Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitive development. London, UK: Blackwell Publishers; 2002.Google Scholar
  4. Carey S. The origin of concepts. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  5. Carraher D, Schliemann A, Brizuela B, Earnest D. Arithmetic and algebra in early mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2006;37:87–115.Google Scholar
  6. Carraher D, Smith C, Wiser M, Schliemann A, Cayton-Hodges G. June). Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA: Assessing students' evolving understandings about matter; 2009.Google Scholar
  7. DeBarger A, Ayala C, Minstrell J, Krauss P, Stanford T. April). Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA: Facet-based progressions of student understanding of chemistry; 2009.Google Scholar
  8. Dickinson DK. The development of material kind. Science Education. 1987;71:615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Driver R, Guesne E, Tiberghien A. Children's ideas in science. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press; 1985.Google Scholar
  10. Fauconnier G, Turner M. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2003.Google Scholar
  11. Hart B, Risley TR. The social world of children: Learning to talk. Baltimore, MD: P. Brooks Publishing; 1999.Google Scholar
  12. Imai, M.,& Mazuka, R. (2007). Revisiting language universals and linguistic relativity: Language relative construal of individuation constrained byuniversal ontology. Cognitive Science, 31, 385-413.Google Scholar
  13. Johnson P. Progression in children's understanding of a "basic" particle theory: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Science Education. 1998;20:393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson P, Papageorgiou G. Rethinking the introduction of particle theory: A substance- based framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010;47:130–150.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1962.Google Scholar
  16. Lehrer R, Jaslow L, Curtis C. Developing understanding of measurement in elementary grades. In: Clements D, Bright G, editors. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Yearbook on learning and teaching measurement. Reston, VA: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; 2003. p. 100–121.Google Scholar
  17. Lehrer R, Pritchard C. Symbolizing space into being. In: Gravemeijer K, Lehrer R, van Oers B, Verschaffel L, editors. Symbolization, modeling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press; 2002. p. 59–86.Google Scholar
  18. Lehrer R, Schauble L. Developing model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 2000;21:39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lehrer R, Schauble L, Strom D, Pligge M. Similarity of form and substance: Modeling material kind. In: Carver S, Klahr D, editors. Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001. p. 39–74.Google Scholar
  20. Lucy JA, Gaskins S. Interaction of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In: Gentner D, Goldin-Meadow S, editors. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003. p. 465–492.Google Scholar
  21. Margel H, Eylon B-S, Scherz Z. A longitudinal study of junior high school students' conceptions of the structure of materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2008;45:132–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merritt J, Krajcik J. June). Paper presented at the Learning Progressions in Science (LeaPS) Conference, Iowa City, IA: Developing a calibrated progress variable for the particle nature of matter; 2009.Google Scholar
  23. Metz KE. Preschoolers' developing knowledge of the pan balance: From new representation to transformed problem solving. Cognition and Instruction. 1993;11:31–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nussbaum J. History and philosophy of science and the preparation for constructivist teaching: The case of particle theory. In: Mintzes J, Wandersee JH, Novak JD, editors. Teaching science for understanding. Boston, MA: Academic Press; 1997. p. 165–194.Google Scholar
  25. Piaget J, Inhelder B. The child's construction of quantities: Conservation and atomism. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1974.Google Scholar
  26. Pinker S. The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. New York, NY: Penguin Group; 2007.Google Scholar
  27. Schliemann, A., & Carraher, D. (2002). The evolution of mathematical understanding: Everyday vs. idealized reasoning. Developmental Review, 22, 242-266.Google Scholar
  28. Shwartz Y, Weizman A, Fortus D, Krajcik J, Reiser B. The IQWST experience: Using coherence as a design principle for a middle school science curriculum. The Elementary School Journal. 2008;109:199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith C, Carey S, Wiser M. On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight and density. Cognition. 1985;21:177–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith C, Grosslight L, Davis H, Unger C. & Snir, J. Using conceptual models to teach inner city students about density: The promise and the prerequisites. Final report to the McDonnell Foundation; 1994.Google Scholar
  31. Smith C, Maclin D, Grosslight L, Davis H. Teaching for understanding: A comparison of two approaches to teaching students about matter and density. Cognition and Instruction. 1997;15:317–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith C, Snir J, Grosslight L. Using conceptual models to facilitate conceptual change: The case of weight/density differentiation. Cognition and Instruction. 1992;9:221–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith CL, Wiser M, Anderson CW, Krajcik J. Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic- molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2006;4:1–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, C., Wiser, M., & Carraher, D. (2010, March). Using a comparative, longitudinal study with upper elementary school students to test some assumptions of a learning progression for matter. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  35. Snir J, Smith CL, Raz G. Linking phenomena with competing underlying models: A software tool for introducing students to the particulate model of matter. Science Education. 2003;87:794–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spelke ES. Core knowledge. American Psychologist. 2000;55:1233–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stavy R, Stachel D. Children's conceptions of changes in the state of matter: From solid to liquid. Archives de Psychologie. 1985;53:331–344.Google Scholar
  38. Stevens SY, Delgado C, Krajcik JS. Developing a hypothetical multidimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2010;47:687–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Uzgiris I. Situational generality of conservation. Child Development. 1964;35:831–841.Google Scholar
  40. Vergnaud G. The theory of conceptual fields. In: Steffe LP, Nesher P, Cobb P, Goldin G, Greer B, editors. Theories of mathematical learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996. p. 219–239.Google Scholar
  41. Wiser M, Citrin K, Drosos A, Hosek S. June). Poster presented at the annual Meeting of the Jean Piaget Society, Quebec City, Canada: Young children's understanding of the relation between weight and material kind; 2008.Google Scholar
  42. Wiser M, Fox V. November). Quantifying amount of material: A teaching intervention in pre-K and kindergarten. Paper presented at the International Science Education Symposium on the Particulate and Structural Concepts of Matter, University of Athens, Greece; 2010.Google Scholar
  43. Wiser M, Smith CL. Teaching about matter in grades K-8: When should the atomic- molecular theory be introduced? In: Vosniadou S, editor. International handbook of research on conceptual change. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008. p. 205–239.Google Scholar
  44. Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2009, August). How does cognitive development inform the choice of core ideas in the physical sciences? Commissioned paper presented at the National Research Council Conference on Core Ideas in Science, Washington, DC. Retrieved from the National Academies website: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Wiser_Smith_CommissionedPaper.pdf
  45. Wiser, M., Smith, C., Asbell-Clarke, J., & Doubler, S. (2009, April). Developing and refining a learning progression for matter: The inquiry project (grades 3-5). In C. Smith (Chair), Developing and refining a learning progression for matter from pre-K to grade 12: Commonalities and contrasts among four current projects. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Wiser
  • Carol L. Smith
  • Sue Doubler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations