The DOI matches its Crossref record.
FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to suggest ways of using research on children's reasoning and learning to elaborate on existing national standards and to improve large-scale and classroom assessments. The authors suggest that learning progressions—descriptions of successively more sophisticated ways of reasoning within a content domain based on research syntheses and conceptual analyses—can be useful tools for using research on children's learning to improve assessments. Such learning progressions should be organized around central concepts and principles of a discipline (i.e., its big ideas) and show how those big ideas are elaborated, interrelated, and transformed with instruction. They should also specify how those big ideas are enacted in specific practices that allow students to use them in meaningful ways, enactments the authors describe as learning performances. Learning progressions thus can provide a basis for ongoing dialogue between science learning researchers and measurement specialists, leading to the development of assessments that use both standards documents and science learning research as resources and that will give teachers, curriculum developers, and policymakers more insight into students' scientific reasoning. The authors illustrate their argument by developing a learning progression for an important scientific topic—matter and atomic-molecular theory—and using it to generate sample learning performances and assessment items.
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
Cited by
“The Coat Traps All Your Body Heat”: Heterogeneity as Fundamental to Learning
Rosebery, A. S., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.491752 · Cited by 309
Challenges with graph interpretation: a review of the literature
Glazer, N. (2011) · Studies in Science Education · doi:10.1080/03057267.2011.605307 · Cited by 285
Rakoczy, K., Klieme, E., Bürgermeister, A., & Harks, B. (2008) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1027/0044-3409.216.2.111 · Cited by 76
Umar, A. M. A.-T. (2018) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n2p15 · Cited by 51
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J.
- Venue
- Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-04
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 1-98
- ISSN
- 1536-6359 (ISSN-L)
- 1536-6367
- OpenAlex
- W2046548170
- Cited by
- 407
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 56.76
- 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: FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
- The paper
- Smith, C. L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C. W., & Krajcik, J. (2006). FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2006.9678570
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.