Curriculum Coherence and Learning Progressions

Curriculum materials that support learners in building and linking ideas are essential in developing integrated understanding. We refer to such materials as coherent. There are several types of curricular coherence – content standard, learning goal, intra-unit, and interunit coherence. Learning progressions, which are descriptions of successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about how learners develop understanding of key disciplinary concepts and practices within and across multiple grades, can help designers build coherent curriculum. Learning progressions can align standards, curriculum, and assessments across grades and grade bands. This chapter describes the different types of coherence and discusses the role that learning progressions play in the design and development of coherent curriculum materials, and why coherent materials are critical in supporting students in building integrated understanding.

[1]  I. Sigel,et al.  HANDBOOK OF CHILD PSYCHOLOGY , 2006 .

[2]  R. Gagne.  Conditions of Learning , 1965 .

[3]  H. Longino.  Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry , 1990 .

[4]  D. Ball,et al.  Reform by the Book: What Is—or Might Be—the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform? , 1996 .

[5]  Jo Ellen Roseman,et al.  How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review , 2002 .

[6]  L. Mosley,et al.  The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , 2005 .

[7]  P. Gross.  The State of State Science Standards, 2005. , 2005 .

[8]  R. Sawyer.  The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences: Introduction , 2014 .

[9]  W. Schmidt,et al.  Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective , 2005 .

[10]  Meryl W. Bertenthal,et al.  Systems for state science assessment , 2005 .

[11]  Richard Lehrer,et al.  Tracing a Prospective Learning Progression for Developing Understanding of Evolution , 2005 .

[12]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning , 2005 .

[13]  C. W. Anderson,et al.  FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory , 2006 .

[14]  Marcia C. Linn,et al.  Science Education: Integrating Views of Learning and Instruction , 2006 .

[15]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Scientific and Technological Thinking , 2006 .

[16]  H. Schweingruber,et al.  TAKING SCIENCE TO SCHOOL: LEARNING AND TEACHING SCIENCE IN GRADES K-8 , 2007 .

[17]  Yael Kali,et al.  Designing coherent science education : implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy , 2008 .

[18]  David Fortus,et al.  The IQWST Experience: Using Coherence as a Design Principle for a Middle School Science Curriculum , 2008, The Elementary School Journal.

[19]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Development of a learning progression for the particle model of matter , 2008, ICLS.

[20]  David Perkins,et al.  Smart Schools:: Better thinking and learning for every child , 2008 .

[21]  J. Roseman,et al.  Using National Standards to Improve K–8 Science Curriculum Materials , 2008, The Elementary School Journal.

[22]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy , 2008 .

[23]  B. Reiser,et al.  Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners , 2009 .

[24]  Yael M. Bamberger,et al.  Middle-School Science Students’ Scientific Modelling Performances Across Content Areas and Within a Learning Progression , 2013 .

[25]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Project-based learning , 2014 .