The DOI matches its Crossref record; 102 of the 102 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis
Abstract
Our paper is an analytical review of the design, development and reporting of learning progressions and teaching sequences. Research questions are: (1) what criteria are being used to propose a ‘hypothetical learning progression/trajectory’ and (2) what measurements/evidence are being used to empirically define and refine a ‘hypothetical learning progression/trajectory’? Publications from five topic areas are examined: teaching sequences, teaching experiments, didaktiks, learning trajectories in mathematics education and learning progressions in science education. The reviewed publications are drawn from journal special issues, conference reports and monographs. The review is coordinated around four frameworks of Learning Progressions (LP): conceptual domain, disciplinary practices, assessment/measurement and theoretical/guiding conceptions. Our findings and analyses show there is a distinction between the preferred learning pathways that focus on ‘Evolutionary LP’ models and the less preferred but potentially good LP starting place curriculum coherence focused ‘Validation LP’ models. We report on the respective features and characteristics for each.
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 Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S., & Schlegel, R. (1963) · Physics Today · doi:10.1063/1.3050879 · Cited by 35,538
(1999) · Cited by 12,812
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 4×
“The recognition given to formative assessments reinforces the distinction between ‘assessment of learning’ and ‘assessment for learning’ (Black & Wiliam, 1998) that, respectively, differentiates achievement measures from diagnostic measures.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Kuhn, T. S. (1996) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001 · Cited by 7,281
Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.3730660207 · Cited by 5,187
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes
Lakatos, I. (1970) · Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139171434.009 · Cited by 4,649
The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences
(2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816833 · Cited by 4,601
(2000) · Cited by 4,106
Brown, A. L. (1992) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2 · Cited by 4,000
Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge
Knorr Cetina, K. (1999) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.4159/9780674039681 · Cited by 3,956
Cited by
Furtak, E. M., Kiemer, K., Circi, R. K., Swanson, R., de León, V., Morrison, D., & Heredia, S. C. (2016) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-016-9371-3 · Cited by 160
Fonger, N. L., Stephens, A., Blanton, M., Isler, I., Knuth, E., & Gardiner, A. M. (2018) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1080/07370008.2017.1392965 · Cited by 46
Investigating a learning progression of functional thinking for elementary students
Deng, X., Ding, R., & Huang, R. (2025) · Educational Studies in Mathematics · doi:10.1007/s10649-024-10376-8 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A.
- Venue
- Studies in Science Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 123-182
- ISSN
- 0305-7267 (ISSN-L)
- 1940-8412
- OpenAlex
- W2111064139
- Cited by
- 375
- References
- 102
- FWCI
- 82.28
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03057267.2011.604476
- The paper
- Duschl, R., Maeng, S., & Sezen, A. (2011). Learning progressions and teaching sequences: a review and analysis. Studies in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2011.604476
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.
