What are critical features of science curriculum materials that impact student and teacher outcomes

Large investments are made in curriculum materials with the goal of supporting science education reform. However, relatively little evidence is available about what features of curriculum materials really matter to impact student and teacher learning. To address this need, the current study examined curriculum features associated with student and teacher outcomes. We reviewed sample curriculum materials and documentation reporting on the instructional outcomes of 51 research-based K–12 science curriculum materials. Our findings reveal that teacher supports, rather than student supports, had positive impacts on both student and teacher outcomes. Specifically, positive student outcomes were associated with curriculum materials with a larger scope and with materials that provide teachers with information about students’ ideas and recommended instructional strategies. Positive teacher outcomes were associated with the presence of information about targeted standards and recommended instructional strategies. Relatively fewer studies reported on teacher outcomes, and evidence about other dimensions of curriculum materials impact (e.g., spread, sustainability) was difficult to find. Overall, these results reveal the broad importance of embedding teacher supports and ensuring sufficient scope of content across coordinated curriculum units to support the development of conceptual understanding over time. Implications for the design of new curriculum materials and further research are discussed.

[1]  Lawrence P. Gallagher,et al.  Impact of project-based curriculum materials on student learning in science: Results of a randomized controlled trial , 2015 .

[2]  David Fortus,et al.  Assessing the role of curriculum coherence in student learning about energy , 2015 .

[3]  Bethany R. Smith,et al.  Using Systematic Instruction and Graphic Organizers to Teach Science Concepts to Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders and Intellectual Disability , 2013 .

[4]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Synergy Between Teacher Practices and Curricular Scaffolds to Support Students in Using Domain-Specific and Domain-General Knowledge in Writing Arguments to Explain Phenomena , 2009 .

[5]  Leema K. Berland,et al.  Making sense of argumentation and explanation , 2009 .

[6]  J. Krajcik,et al.  The Benefits and Limitations of Educative Curriculum Materials , 2017 .

[7]  T. Guskey.  Professional Development and Teacher Change , 2002 .

[8]  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 .

[9]  David Fortus,et al.  Curriculum Materials for Next Generation Science Standards: What the Science Education Research Community Can Do , 2015 .

[10]  Ashok K. Goel,et al.  Conceptual representations for transfer: A case study tracing back and looking forward , 2013 .

[11]  James C. Lester,et al.  Designing game-based learning environments for elementary science education: A narrative-centered learning perspective , 2014, Inf. Sci..

[12]  Roberto Agodini,et al.  The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning , 2014 .

[13]  E. Quertemont,et al.  How to Statistically Show the Absence of an Effect , 2011 .

[14]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Nature of Science, Scientific Inquiry, and Socio-Scientific Issues Arising from Genetics: A Pathway to Developing a Scientifically Literate Citizenry , 2014 .

[15]  Ronald D. Anderson,et al.  Changing teachers' practice: curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA , 2002 .

[16]  William L. Romine,et al.  Learning Biology Through Innovative Curricula: A Comparison of Game- and Nongame-Based Approaches , 2015 .

[17]  Ngss Lead States.  Next generation science standards : for states, by states , 2013 .

[18]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Supporting Students' Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials , 2006 .

[19]  Shawn Y. Stevens,et al.  Developing a Hypothetical Multi-Dimensional Learning Progression for the Nature of Matter. , 2009 .

[20]  B. Means,et al.  The Effectiveness of Online and Blended Learning: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature , 2013, Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education.

[21]  Rebecca Schneider,et al.  Opportunities for Teacher Learning During Enactment of Inquiry Science Curriculum Materials: Exploring the Potential for Teacher Educative Materials , 2013 .

[22]  Pam Grossman,et al.  Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? ☆ , 2008 .

[23]  Soonhye Park,et al.  Is Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Necessary for Reformed Science Teaching?: Evidence from an Empirical Study , 2011 .

[24]  Barbara A. Crawford,et al.  Teaching science as a cultural way of knowing: merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicultural strategies , 2011 .

[25]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the Next Generation Science Standards , 2014 .

[26]  M. Hannafin,et al.  A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition , 2013, Educational psychologist.

[27]  Cathy P. Lachapelle,et al.  Engineering is Elementary: An Evaluation of Years 4 through 6 Field Testing , 2011 .

[28]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Examining the effect of teachers' adaptations of a middle school science inquiry-oriented curriculum unit on student learning , 2011 .

[29]  Olejnik,et al.  Measures of Effect Size for Comparative Studies: Applications, Interpretations, and Limitations. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[30]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Investigating Teacher Learning Supports in High School Biology Curricular Programs to Inform the Design of Educative Curriculum Materials , 2009 .

[31]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Enacting Reform-Based Science Materials: The Range of Teacher Enactments in Reform Classrooms , 2005 .

[32]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Curriculum Coherence and Learning Progressions , 2012 .

[33]  B. Crawford,et al.  Multicultural Inquiry Toward Demystifying Scientific Culture and Learning Science , 2015 .

[34]  EarthLabs: Supporting Teacher Professional Development to Facilitate Effective Teaching of Climate Science , 2014 .

[35]  Janet F. Carlson,et al.  An Efficacy Trial of Research-Based Curriculum Materials With Curriculum-Based Professional Development , 2015 .

[36]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Supporting Science Teacher Learning: The Role of Educative Curriculum Materials , 2002 .

[37]  Douglas B. Clark,et al.  Bilingual language supports in online science inquiry environments , 2012, Comput. Educ..

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

[39]  J. Remillard.  Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers’ Use of Mathematics Curricula , 2005 .

[40]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students , 1998 .

[41]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform , 2004 .

[42]  Janine T. Remillard,et al.  The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials , 2009 .

[43]  Laurie Brantley-Dias,et al.  Practicing What We Teach: A Self-Study in Implementing an Inquiry-Based Curriculum in a Middle Grades Classroom , 2011 .

[44]  Deborah Loewenberg Ball,et al.  Instruction, Capacity, and Improvement , 1999 .

[45]  Brian R. Belland,et al.  A Pilot Meta-Analysis of Computer-Based Scaffolding in STEM Education , 2015, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[46]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[47]  Jody Clarke,et al.  Design for Scalability: A Case Study of the River City Curriculum , 2009 .

[48]  Laura M. Desimone,et al.  What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers , 2001 .

[49]  Gina N. Cervetti,et al.  The effects of educative curriculum materials on teachers' Use of instructional strategies for English language learners in science and on student learning , 2015 .

[50]  Kurt Squire,et al.  Role playing games for scientific citizenship , 2012 .

[51]  V. Akerson,et al.  What Third-Grade Students of Differing Ability Levels Learn about Nature of Science after a Year of Instruction , 2014 .

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

[53]  Elizabeth A. Davis,et al.  Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge , 2012 .

[54]  Kathryn N. Hayes,et al.  Testing Predictors of Instructional Practice in Elementary Science Education: The Significant Role of Accountability , 2016 .

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

[56]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  Teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials to engage students in science practices , 2016 .

[57]  Martin Reisslein,et al.  Learner Achievement and Attitudes under Different Paces of Transitioning to Independent Problem Solving , 2007 .

[58]  Brian J. Reiser,et al.  Scaffolding Complex Learning: The Mechanisms of Structuring and Problematizing Student Work , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[59]  L. Shulman.  Those who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 2013 .

[60]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Justifying Predictions: Connecting Use of Educative Curriculum Materials to Students’ Engagement in Science Argumentation , 2017 .

[61]  L. Hoffmann,et al.  An intervention study to enhance girls' interest, self-concept, and achievement in physics classes , 2002 .

[62]  Katherine L. McNeill,et al.  An exploration of teacher learning from an educative reform‐oriented science curriculum: Case studies of teacher curriculum use , 2017 .

[63]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  The Social and Technological Dimensions of Scaffolding and Related Theoretical Concepts for Learning, Education, and Human Activity , 2004, The Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[64]  Joseph Krajcik,et al.  Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project‐based science curriculum , 2004 .

[65]  Janet F. Carlson,et al.  Developing and Evaluating an Eighth Grade Curriculum Unit That Links Foundational Chemistry to Biological Growth: Designing Professional Development to Support Teaching. , 2013 .

[66]  C. Coburn,et al.  Rethinking Scale: Moving Beyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting Change , 2003 .

[67]  Y. Wyner.  The Impact of a Novel Curriculum on Secondary Biology Teachers’ Dispositions Toward Using Authentic Data and Media in Their Human Impact and Ecology Lessons , 2013 .

[68]  Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar,et al.  Examining student work for evidence of teacher uptake of educative curriculum materials , 2015 .

[69]  E. Skaalvik,et al.  Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations , 2010 .

[70]  J. Donna,et al.  Developing Elementary Preservice Teacher Subject Matter Knowledge Through the Use of Educative Science Curriculum Materials , 2017 .

[71]  P. David Pearson,et al.  The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms , 2012 .