The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to examine how well middle school programs support the attainment of key scientific ideas specified in national science standards, and to identify typical strengths and weaknesses of these programs using research‐based criteria. Nine widely used programs were examined by teams of teachers and specialists in research on teaching and learning. Reviewers found that whereas key ideas were generally present in the programs, they were typically buried between detailed or even unrelated ideas. Programs only rarely provided students with a sense of purpose for the units of study, took account of student beliefs that interfere with learning, engaged students with relevant phenomena to make abstract scientific ideas plausible, modeled the use of scientific knowledge so that students could apply what they learned in everyday situations, or scaffolded student efforts to make meaning of key phenomena and ideas presented in the programs. New middle school science programs that reflect findings from learning research are needed to support teachers better in helping students learn key ideas in science. The criteria and findings from this study on the inadequacies in existing programs could serve as guidelines in new curriculum development. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 522–549, 2002
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 1×
“Real competence comes only with extensive practice with feedback (Anderson & Roth, 1989; Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesche-Romer, 1993; National Table 5 Phenomena related to key idea ‘‘plants use energy from light to make energy-rich sugars’’”
BackgroundMotivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139 · Cited by 3,594
Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: making science accessible to all students
White, B. Y., & Frederiksen, J. R. (1998) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2 · Cited by 1,394 · cited 2×
“…Hynd, McWhorter, Phares, & Suttles, 1994), and content-specific instructional strategies and representations that support student learning (Chinn & Brewer, 1993; Guzzeti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas, 1993; Scott, Asoko, & Driver, 1992; Smith, Blakeslee, & Anderson, 1993; White & Frederiksen, 1998).”
BackgroundMcNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W. (1996) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 · Cited by 1,341
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993) · Reading Research Quarterly · doi:10.2307/747886 · Cited by 518 · cited 2×
“The student texts did not explicitly address student ideas (Guzzetti et al., 1993), nor did teacher’s guides suggest activities that could help students with their difficulties, such as challenging student ideas in appropriate ways (Chinn & Brewer, 1993); contrasting student ideas with the…”
BackgroundEquity and Science Education Reform
Lynch, S. J. (2000) · doi:10.4324/9781410605139 · Cited by 143
Cited by
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
(2011) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203839089 · Cited by 916
Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2005) · The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816833.020 · Cited by 608
Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21027 · Cited by 593
The Language Demands of Science Reading in Middle School
Fang, Z. (2006) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500690500339092 · Cited by 440
Developing a hypothetical multi‐dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter
Stevens, S. Y., Delgado, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010) · Journal of Research in Science Teaching · doi:10.1002/tea.20324 · Cited by 265
Metadata
- Authors
- Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 522-549
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2109518091
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 40.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
