Title:
Research on integrated models of science education
Date:
May 2013
Question:
>>
What does the research say regarding effectiveness of integrated
models for science instruction in middle school?
Response:
REL West was asked to identify research that addresses the following two questions: 1. What does the research say regarding effectiveness of integrated models (cross-‐
discipline) for science instruction?
2. What are other states and countries doing currently with science instruction — how many are integrated versus discipline-‐specific grade levels?
After the initial search, we found some publications and resources that may address this request, but most studies have primarily focused on the secondary or high school level. We then checked with the California Comprehensive Center (CA CC), and they suggested we include these studies, considering the limited literature on this issue at the middle school level. Throughout the project, REL West researchers worked with the CA CC to better understand and interpret the request, and to identify potential resources.
We also had a conversation with Achieve (http://www.achieve.org), one of the
organizations that developed the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We asked what research Achieve relied upon to recommend middle grades interdisciplinary pathways for NGSS, and they said that learning progression research was used to inform the development of the framework for NGSS, but that nothing specific from the research is being used to develop the suggested model.
With the input from CA CC and Achieve, we did another online search and developed the following reference list, with four components, to address the original request:
1. Literature on integrated science education, which focuses on two integrated models. 2. Literature on learning progressions in science education in middle school, on which
the NGSS framework is based.
3. Integrated models in science education used by other states, such as Louisiana, California (high school), and Ohio (high school).
4. An international benchmarking study of ten countries’ science standards.
Sources included government documents, peer-‐reviewed journal articles, and organization publications. We have not done an evaluation of the quality of these publications and organizations themselves, and provide them for your information only. Abstracts, summaries, and excerpts are written by the author, organization, or program featured.
Links to free, publicly available, full-‐text resources are provided when possible. REL West typically tries to provide only such resources, but we did include a number of other resources here that we determined may be of interest.
References
Part 1: Literature on two models of integrated science education: Scope Sequence and Coordination of Secondary School Science (SS&C) and the Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E Instructional Model.
Scope Sequence and Coordination of Secondary School Science (SS&C)
Background: The project on SS&C was initiated by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and recommends that all students study science every year and advocates carefully sequenced, well-‐coordinated instruction in biology, chemistry,
earth/space science, and physics. Projects are underway in California, North Carolina, Iowa, Puerto Rico, Texas, and Alaska. (Aldridge, 1992).
Studies/Findings related to SS&C. [Note that the research literature here is relatively old.] Aldridge, B. G. (1992). Project on scope, sequence, and coordination: A new synthesis for
improving science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1(1), 13– 21.
Abstract: The Project on Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science (SS&C) is a major national project designed to reform science education, K– 12. Based on research on learning science, the project includes provision for hands-‐ on experience, sequencing over time at successively higher levels of abstraction, and taking account of student pre-‐ conceptions. Associated with SS&C is a performance-‐ based student assessment project which incorporates compact-‐disc interactive (CD-‐ I) technology. The SS&C project and its assessment component were initiated by the author and have become projects of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education.
Liu, C., & Yager, R. E. (1997). The Iowa scope, sequence, and coordination project: A middle school science reform program approved by the National Diffusion Network.
Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 20(4), 77–105.
Abstract: Examined learning in science concepts, process, application, creativity, attitude, and world view of students participating in the Iowa-‐Scope, Sequence, and Coordination (SS&C) project, part of the national reform effort using the Science-‐
Technology-‐Society approach and Constructivist teaching practices. Found significant differences in learning outcomes between SS&C and non-‐SS&C middle-‐ school students.
Yager, R. E. (1995, April). Science/Technology/Society: A reform arising from learning theory and constructivist research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED382481.pdf
Abstract: The Iowa-‐Scope, Sequence, and Coordination (SS&C) Program assists schools with reform of their entire middle school programs, grades 6–8, and features the science, technology, and society (STS) instructional approach. This reform
translates to the creation of new frameworks for the school program and aims to produce “constructivist” teachers to implement the reform. One such program is evaluated by examining improvements in student learning in six learning domains: concept, process, application, creativity, attitude, and world view. Teachers were surveyed to determine changes in teacher confidence, exemplary use of certain teaching procedures, and changes in teacher perceptions of various student
attributes. Pre-‐ and posttests were administered to all students of 133 SS&C teachers during 1990–93. A comparison is made between SS&C classrooms and traditional classrooms. Statistically significant advantages were observed for female students as well as average and below average students. The evaluation reveals that the program successfully responds to calls for reform and restructuring of middle school
programs.
Yager, R. E., & Weld, J. D. (1999). Scope, sequence and coordination: The Iowa project, a national reform effort in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 21(2), 169–194. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERIC ExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ586668&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ58 6668
Abstract: Reports on the Iowa Project, a broad effort in 20 school districts where a Science-‐Technology-‐Society (STS) approach was emphasized through a
constructivist philosophy of teaching and learning. Results indicate the project’s success in four areas: strengthening teacher confidence and knowledge base, encouraging teachers’ use of innovative instructional methodologies, increasing student achievement, and meeting the needs of marginalized groups of learners.
The Biological Science Curriculum Study (BSCS) 5E Instructional Model
Background: The National Research Council (NRC) committee proposed the phrase integrated instructional units: “Integrated instructional units interweave laboratory
experiences with other types of science learning activities, including lectures, reading, and discussion. Students are engaged in forming research questions, designing and executing experiments, gathering and analyzing data, and constructing arguments and conclusions as they carry out investigations. Diagnostic, formative assessments are embedded into the
instructional sequence and can be used to gauge the students’ developing understanding and to promote their self-‐reflection on their thinking.” (p. 82, NRC, 2006)
According to Bybee et al. (2006), integrated instructional units have two key features: “First, laboratory and other experiences are carefully designed or selected on the basis of what students should learn from them. And second, the experience is explicitly linked to and integrated with other learning activities in the unit. The features of integrated instructional units map directly to the BSCS instructional model. Stated another way, the BSCS model is a specific example of integrated instructional units. According to the NRC committee’s report, integrated instructional units connect laboratory experience with other types of science learning activities including reading, discussions, and lectures.” (p17, Bybee et al., 2006)
The BSCS instructional model
(http://bscs.org/bscs-‐5e-‐instructional-‐model).
This website provides basic information about the BSCS 5E model, as follows: The BSCS 5E Instructional Model has its origins with the work of earlier science
educators, in particular the Karplus and Thier learning cycle developed for the Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS). The findings reported in the National Research Council research summary How People Learn (NRC, 2000) supports the design and sequence of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model. Since the late 1980s, BSCS has used the 5E Instructional Model extensively in the development of new curriculum materials and professional development experiences. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model also enjoys widespread use beyond BSCS: at least three states strongly endorse using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, including Connecticut, Maryland, and Texas. Other states, including Louisiana and Missouri, provide information about the 5E Instructional Model on the state’s Department of Education website.” (p59, Bybee et al, 2006)
What the BSCS 5E Instructional Model is/does:
•The five phases of the BSCS 5E Instructional Model are designed to facilitate the process of conceptual change.
•The use of this model is intended to bring coherence to different teaching strategies, provides connections among educational activities, and help science teachers make decisions about interactions with students.
•Each phase of the model and a short phrase to indicate its purpose from a student perspective are:
○ Engagement – students’ prior knowledge accessed and interest engaged in the phenomenon
○ Exploration – students participate in an activity that facilitates conceptual change
○Explanation – students generate an explanation of the phenomenon ○Elaboration – students’ understanding of the phenomenon challenged and
deepened through new experiences
○Evaluation – students assess their understanding of the phenomenon (Retrieved on May 15th from http://bscs.org/bscs-‐5e-‐instructional-‐model)
Studies/Findings related to the BSCS instructional model.
Bybee, R., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Carlson, J., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins and effectiveness. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Retrieved from
http://science.education.nih.gov/houseofreps.nsf/b82d55fa138783c2852572c9004f 5566/$FILE/Appendix%20D.pdf
Excerpt: This report summarizes recent research on the sequencing of science instruction, including laboratory experiences, in order to facilitate student learning. Specifically, the report provides a rationale and empirical support for the BSCS 5E Instructional Model.
……
The widespread use of the BSCS 5E model falls into three primary categories of use: 1) documents that frame larger pieces of work such as curriculum frameworks, assessment guidelines, or course outlines; 2) curriculum materials of various lengths and sizes; and 3) adaptations for teacher professional development, informal
education settings, and disciplines other than science. In spring 2006:
•more than 235,000 lesson plans developed and implemented using the BSCS 5E Instructional Model;
•more than 97,000 posted and discrete examples of universities using the 5E model in their course syllabi;
•more than 73,000 examples of curriculum materials developed using the 5E model;
•more than 131,000 posted and discrete examples of teacher education programs or resources that use the 5Es; and
•at least three states that strongly endorse the 5E model, including Texas, Connecticut, and Maryland.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. (Expanded Edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Summary: This book presents results of recent research about the mind, brain, and learning processes. It examines new findings in learning theory and their
implications for what is taught, how it is taught, and how learners are assessed. It also shows how theories and insights can translate into actions and practices. It examines research on human learning, including new developments from neuroscience; learning research that has implications for designing formal
instructional environments; and research that helps explore the possibility of helping individuals achieve their fullest potential.
National Research Council (NRC). (2005). How Students Learn: Science in the Classroom. M. S. Donovan and J. D. Bransford (Eds). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Summary: This book builds on the discoveries detailed in the best-‐selling "How People Learn." Now these findings are presented in a way that teachers can use immediately, to revitalize their work in the classroom for even greater effectiveness.
Organized for utility, the book explores how the principles of learning can be applied in science at three levels: elementary, middle, and high school. Leading educators explain in detail how they developed successful curricula and teaching approaches, presenting strategies that serve as models for curriculum development and
classroom instruction. Their recounting of personal teaching experiences lends strength and warmth to this volume. This book discusses how to build
straightforward science experiments into true understanding of scientific principles. It also features illustrated suggestions for classroom activities.
National Research Council (NRC). (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Committee on High School Science Laboratories: Role and Vision, S. R. Singer, M. L. Hilton, and H. A. Schweingruber, Editors. Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Excerpt: Over the past 10 years, a new body of research on the outcomes of laboratory experiences has been developing. Drawing on principles of learning derived from the cognitive sciences, researchers are investigating how to sequence science instruction, including laboratory experiences, in order to support students’ science learning. We propose the phrase “integrated instructional units” to describe these sequences of instruction. Integrated instructional units connect laboratory experiences with other types of science learning activities, including lectures,
reading, and discussion. Students are engaged in framing research questions, making observations, designing and executing experiments, gathering and analyzing data, and constructing scientific arguments and explanations…….The earlier body of research on typical laboratory experiences and the emerging research on integrated instructional units yield different findings about the effectiveness of laboratory experiences in advancing the goals identified by the committee. Research on typical laboratory experiences is methodologically weak and fragmented, making it difficult to draw precise conclusions. Research focused on the goal of student mastery of subject matter indicates that typical laboratory experiences are no more or less effective than other forms of science instruction (such as reading, lectures, or discussion).
Wilson, C. D., Taylor, J. A., Kowalski, S. M., & Carlson, J. (2010). The relative effects and equity of inquiry-‐based and commonplace science teaching on students’ knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(3), 276– 301.
Abstract: We conducted a laboratory-‐based randomized control study to examine the effectiveness of inquiry-‐based instruction. We also disaggregated the data by student demographic variables to examine if inquiry can provide equitable opportunities to learn. Fifty-‐eight students aged 14–16 years old were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Both groups of students were taught toward the same learning goals by the same teacher, with one group being taught from inquiry-‐based materials
organized around the BSCS 5E Instructional Model, and the other from materials organized around commonplace teaching strategies as defined by national teacher
survey data. Students in the inquiry-‐based group reached significantly higher levels of achievement than students experiencing commonplace instruction. This effect was consistent across a range of learning goals (knowledge, reasoning, and
argumentation) and time frames (immediately following the instruction and 4 weeks later). The commonplace science instruction resulted in a detectable achievement gap by race, whereas the inquiry-‐based materials instruction did not. We discuss the implications of these findings for the body of evidence on the effectiveness of
teaching science as inquiry; the role of instructional models and curriculum materials in science teaching; addressing achievement gaps; and the competing demands of reform and accountability.
Part 2: Literature on learning progressions in science education in middle school, on which the NGSS framework is based.
Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.
Abstract: Argumentation is a central goal of science education because it engages students in a complex scientific practice in which they construct and justify knowledge claims. Although there is a growing body of research around
argumentation, there has been little focus on developing a learning progression for this practice. We describe a learning progression to understand both students’ work in scientific argumentation and the ways in which the instructional environment can support students in that practice. This learning progression describes three
dimensions: (1) instructional context, (2) argumentative product, and (3)
argumentative process. In this paper, we compare four examples from elementary, middle, and high school science classrooms to explore the ways in which students’ arguments vary in complexity across grade level and instructional contexts. Our comparisons suggest that simplifying the instructional context may facilitate students in engaging in other aspects of argumentation in more complex ways. The instructional context may also be used as a tool to support students in argumentation in new content areas and to increase the complexity of their written arguments, which may be weaker than their oral arguments. Furthermore, classroom norms play an important role in supporting students of all ages, including elementary students, in argumentation.
Lee, H., & Liu, O. L. (2010). Assessing learning progression of energy concepts across middle school grades: The knowledge integration perspective. Science Education, 94(4), 665–688.
Abstract: We use a construct-‐based assessment approach to measure learning progression of energy concepts across physical, life, and earth science contexts in middle school grades. We model the knowledge integration construct in six levels in terms of the numbers of ideas and links used in student-‐generated explanations. For this study, we selected 10 items addressing energy source, transformation, and
conservation from published standardized tests and administered them to a status quo sample of 2,688 middle school students taught by 29 teachers in 12 schools across 5 states. Results based on a Rasch partial credit model analysis indicate that conservation items are associated with the highest knowledge integration levels, followed by transformation and source items. Comparisons across three middle school grades and across physical, life, and earth science contexts reveal that the mean knowledge integration level of eighth-‐grade students is significantly higher than that of sixth-‐ or seventh-‐grade students, and that the mean knowledge integration level of students who took a physical science course is significantly higher than that of students who took a life or earth science course. We discuss implications for research on learning progressions.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.
Abstract: Although the core work of science is oriented toward constructing, revising, applying, and defending models of the natural world, models appear only rarely in school science, and usually only as illustrations, rather than theory-‐building tools. We describe the rationale and structure for a learning progression to understand the development of modeling under supportive forms of instruction. In this case,
elementary and middle school students are modeling “big ideas” in the life sciences that hold the promise of serving as a conceptual foundation for reasoning about the theory of evolution later in their education. In this conceptual paper, we sketch changes from grades K through 6 in representational and modeling practices across three interlocking constructs that, considered collectively, comprise the
aforementioned conceptual foundation: Change (in individuals and populations), Variation, and Ecosystems. The paper closes by delineating pedagogical principles for supporting the development of modeling across grades of instruction.
Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512–529. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERIC ExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ819446&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ81 9446
Abstract: A sixth-‐grade class investigated the ecologies of two local retention ponds over the course of one school year. In this context, instruction assisted development as students designed models of the pond in one-‐gallon jars and attempted to stabilize these jars in sustainable ecosystems that could be used to study questions about the ponds. Unintended outcomes (e.g., algal blooms, bacteria colonies) became
opportunities to learn how aquatic systems function. Efforts to model aquatic
functioning were complemented by weekly research meetings that served as a forum for conjecture and test of relations between evidence and questions. At the end of the year students responded to individual interviews about their understandings of ecology and research design, along with their beliefs about the epistemology of inquiry. Results suggest that participation in carefully crafted, extended
of the nature of science.
Part 3: Integrated models in science education used by other states.
Louisiana: Integrated Science: A Model Course Guideline
Integrated Science Curricular Guidelines is a model designed to assist in developing a rigorous and relevant course of study for Integrated Science, a course approved in the Secondary Science Program of Study. The model includes a brief outline and more detailed course guidelines that embrace the core content essential skills and understandings
embodied in Compliance Handbook 308: Louisiana Science Framework. It also presents a discussion of standards-‐based curriculum, the use of technology, inquiry-‐based science, laboratory safety, assessment, and the concept of rigorous and relevant learning for all students. The model guideline is retrieved from
http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/1903.pdf
Ohio: An Integrated Approach to High School Science
Ohio’s integrated model engages students in the exploration of the nature of science and in learning science content using specific scientific processes and connections between foundational science concepts. The integrated approach in the grade 9 and 10 courses, Physical and Earth Sciences and Biological and Earth Sciences, form the foundation for further study by grounding students in fundamental science concepts and processes. This approach is extended in the 11th and 12th grades through chemistry and physics courses, which continue integrated and historical approaches.
Each course is organized into units or “quests” that include: (1) enduring understandings and sample essential question(s), (2) a suggested historical perspective, and (3) examples of guiding questions. Benchmarks and indicators for Scientific Inquiry, Scientific Ways of Knowing, and Science and Technology are embedded in each quest. In Quest 2 (Forces, Motion and Energy) of the 9th grade course, students could design a roller coaster and analyze changes in potential and kinetic energy to understand the conservation of energy. In Quest 1 (Cells) of the 10th grade course, students could identify the ethical issues involved in stem cell research. This quest engages students in the Scientific Ways of Knowing and specifically addresses the benchmark on ethical scientific practices. Further, in several of the real-‐world applications, students have opportunities to connect science with technology and to gain an understanding of the dependency of scientific
breakthroughs on technological advances. For more information, please go to
http://www.ohiorc.org/pm/science/sciintegrateddesc.aspx
California: Integrated Science Instructional Sequences
In 2003, the California State Board of Education established sets of standards for each of four levels of high school integrated science. These standards are identical to the grade 9–
12 content standards in biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, and investigation and experimentation.
California Science Teachers Association (CSTA), in collaboration with CDE, has developed sets of instructional sequences for each of the four levels of integrated science, which provide examples of how high school instruction in integrated science might be organized. There are clearly alternative ways in which an integrated science curriculum might be organized and, therefore, this document does not represent a mandate for instruction but is meant as an assist to teachers and districts in organizing an integrated science curriculum aligned to the state-‐approved blueprints for integrated science. For more details of
Integrated Science level 1–4, see http://www.cascience.org/csta/pub_ismodels.asp
REL West note:
In Part 1, we cited that “at least three states strongly endorse using the BSCS 5E
Instructional Model, including Connecticut, Maryland, and Texas. Other states, including Louisiana and Missouri, provide information about the 5E Instructional Model on the state’s Department of Education website.” (p59, Bybee et al, 2006). We have checked these states’ websites but have not found any current information that is related to the BSCS 5E model in science education. Below is the original description of the application of BSCS 5E in Connecticut and Texas from Bybee et al. (2006). We include it here for your information:
Example A: Connecticut
In Connecticut, the state department of education’s BEST program recommends the BSCS 5E Instructional Model as a way to organize teaching and lesson and unit development. The 5Es are found in Lesson 3, Building a Science Learning Community. The online science seminar series is part of the BEST induction program for beginning science teachers. The program was designed to support the work of beginning science teachers and their schools’ mentors, and it has three major goals:
(1) To provide information relevant to meeting the BEST portfolio-‐based licensure performance standards
(2) To provide teaching ideas and concrete examples to improve daily instructional practices
(3) To provide ideas for mentors on how to facilitate the work of beginning teachers”
[http://www.state.ct.us/sde/dtl/t-‐
/best/seminarseries/online_seminars/science/3/print.htm]
Example B: Texas
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) encourages teachers to develop lessons using a 5E format and to help colleagues understand and apply the 5Es. The TEA Web site includes a section titled “Directions for a 5E Instructional Model Lesson,” as well as a survey of teachers assessing how well they feel they can use and teach the 5E lesson approach. (http://www.tea.state.tx.us)
(p.59, Bybee, et al., 2006)
Part 4: International benchmarking study of ten countries’ science standards.
Achieve. (2010). International science benchmarking report: Taking the lead in science education—Forging next-generation science standards. Washington, DC: Achieve. Retrieved from
http://www.achieve.org/files/InternationalScienceBenchmarkingReport.pdf
Excerpt: National efforts in science education are focusing on two key issues: scientific literacy for all students and STEM preparedness to increase the STEM pipeline. Leaders have called for U.S. standards to be internationally benchmarked— reflective of the expectations that other leading nations have set for their students. To that end, Achieve examined 10 sets of international standards (i.e., Canada,
Chinese Taipei, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea), with the intent of informing the development of both the conceptual framework and new U.S. science standards. Achieve selected countries based on their strong performance on international assessments and/or their economic, political, or cultural importance to the United States. Achieve’s analysis has both a quantitative and qualitative component. The quantitative analysis identifies the specific content and performance expectations the ten high-‐performing countries have established for each science discipline for Primary through Lower Secondary and for Upper Secondary (subject-‐specific courses). The qualitative examination complements the quantitative analysis by identifying noteworthy practices and weaknesses among the countries’ standards. The major key findings include:
Finding #1 – All countries require participation in integrated science instruction through Lower Secondary and 7 of 10 countries continue that instruction through grade 10, providing a strong foundation in scientific literacy.
Finding #2 – Physical science content standards (physics and chemistry content taken together) receive far more attention in lower primary through lower secondary. Other countries dedicate the greatest proportion of their standards to biology and physics content and the least to earth and space science.
Finding #3 – Other countries’ standards focus life science instruction strongly on human biology, and relationships among living things in a way that highlights the personal and social significance of life science for students and citizens.
Finding #4 – Cross-‐cutting content common to all of the sciences such as the nature of science, nature of technology and engineering receives considerable attention. Inquiry skills in Primary are stressed more than in Lower Secondary. However, advanced inquiry skills receive increasing attention in Lower Secondary.
In addition, Achieve identified exemplary features in the country’s standards worthy of emulation. These include:
•Using unifying ideas to provide focus and coherence and a way to pare content •Providing multiple examples to make expectations for students concrete and
•Making meaningful connections to assessment to maintain focus on raising student achievement (Click on the following hyperlink to read the report, Connecting Science Standards with Assessment: A Snapshot of Three Countries’ Approaches – England, Hong Kong and Canada (Ontario))
•Attending to organization and format has a significant effect on the clarity and accessibility of standards
•Developing students’ ability in planning and carrying out investigations to nurture scientific habits of mind and engagement
•Making science accessible to all student populations by providing specific guidance for sub-‐populations
Achieve concluded that conditions are right for the United States to take the lead internationally in forging a new conceptual framework for science, and next generation science standards. The NRC framework and aligned science standards will create a fresh vision for science education and new directions for teaching, learning, and assessment that could contribute significantly to improving student understanding and achievement. Seizing the opportunity that this moment presents will bring us a step closer to moving the United States into the vanguard of
international science education reform.
13
WestEd — a national nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency — works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults.
………...
REL West at WestEd • 730 Harrison Street • San Francisco, CA 94107 • 866.853.1831 • [email protected] • http://relwest.wested.org
Methods
Keywords and Search Strings Used in the Search
(“Integrated model” or “learning progression”) AND “science education” AND (“middle school” OR “secondary school”).
Databases That Were Searched
ERIC, EBSCO, JSTOR, ProQuest, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Google, and Google Scholar.
Criteria for Inclusion
When REL West staff review resources, they consider—among other things—four factors:
• Date of the Publication: The most current information is included, except in the case
of nationally known seminal resources.
• Source and Funder of the Report/Study/Brief/Article: Priority is given to IES,
nationally funded, and certain other vetted sources known for strict attention to research protocols.
• Methodology: Sources include randomized controlled trial studies, surveys, self-‐
assessments, literature reviews, and policy briefs. Priority for inclusion generally is given to randomized controlled trial study findings if they exist. In examining the research reports, the reader should note at least the following factors when basing decisions on these resources: numbers of participants (Just a few? Thousands?); selection (Did the participants volunteer for the study or were they chosen?);
representation (Were findings generalized from a homogeneous or a diverse pool of participants? Is the sample similar to the reader’s own context?).
• Existing Knowledge Base: Although we strive to include vetted resources, there are
times when the research base is limited or nonexistent. In these cases, we have included the best resources we could find, which may include newspaper articles, interviews with content specialists, organization websites, and other sources.
This memorandum is one in a series of quick-‐turnaround responses to specific questions posed by educators and policymakers in the Western region (Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah), which is served by the Regional Educational Laboratory West (REL West) at WestEd. This memorandum was prepared by REL West under a contract with the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Contract ED-‐IES-‐12-‐C-‐ 0002, administered by WestEd. Its content does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.