THE ROLE OF RESEARCH-BASED CURRICULAR UNIT ON STUDENTS’ SYSTEMS UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Year 2017, Volume: 7 , 147 - 154, 08.09.2017

Narmin Ghalichi Gillian Roehrig

Abstract

The
research-based curricular unit presented in this proposal is a response to the new
tide of educational reforms in the United States.  This curricular unit represents an attempt to
frame K-12 science curriculum around three dimensions: crosscutting concepts,
disciplinary core ideas and scientific practices recently released in the report
on a Framework for New K-12 Science education (National Research Council,
2012).  Integration of three dimensions
into the development of agriculture-related curricular unit reflects complexity
and logic inherent in science education facilitating systems understanding of
environmental issues.  The development of
this learning unit takes place under the initiative of the National Science
Foundation (NSF) funded project to explore the efficacy of the agriculture-related
unit on high school students’ systems understanding of the human impact on
natural systems.  The presented unit
embodies characteristics that identify research-based curricular unit
(Clements, 2007).  Preliminary results
presented in this study demonstrate potential of close adherence to features
identifying research-based curriculum in supporting systems understanding of
environmental problems.  Mediation
results of this nature have larger implications on future efficacy of
curriculum intervention.

Keywords

Crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas

References

• Assaraf, O. B., & Orion, N. (2005). Development of system thinking skills in the context of earth system education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(5), 518-560. Clements, D. H. (2002). 23 linking research and curriculum development. Clements, D. H. (2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for “research-based curricula”. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35-70. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. Debarger, A. H., Penuel, W. R., Harris, C. J., & Kennedy, C. A. (2016). Building an assessment argument to design and use next generation science assessments in efficacy studies of curriculum interventions. American Journal of Evaluation, 37(2), 174-192. Fenstermacher, G. D. (1980). The nature of science and its uses for education: Remarks on the philosophical import of schwab's work. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(2), 191-197. Gudovitch, Y. (1997). The global Carbon cycle as a model for teaching ‘‘earth systems’’ in high school: Development, implementation, and evaluation. Unpublished master’s thesis, the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel [in Hebrew]. Gunckel, K. L., Covitt, B. A., Salinas, I., & Anderson, C. W. (2012). A learning progression for water in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(7), 843-868. Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, , 3-19. Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821. Kali, Y., Orion, N., & Eylon, B. (2003). Effect of knowledge integration activities on students' perception of the earth's crust as a cyclic system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(6), 545-565. Krajcik, J., McNeill, K. L., & Reiser, B. J. (2008). Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education, 92(1), 1-32. Krajcik, J., Codere, S., Dahsah, C., Bayer, R., & Mun, K. (2014). Planning instruction to meet the intent of the next generation science standards. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 157-175. Mohan, L., Chen, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socio-ecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. O’Connor, J., & McDermott, I. (1997). The art of system thinking: Essential skills for creativity and problem solving. San Francisco, CA: Thorsons Publish Co, Orion, N. (2002). An earth systems curriculum development model. Global Science Literacy, , 159-168. Osborne, J. (1996). Beyond constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 80(1), 53-82. Raia, F. (2008). Causality in complex dynamic systems: A challenge in earth systems science education. Journal of Geoscience Education, 56(1), 81-94. Remillard, J. T. (1999). Curriculum materials in mathematics education reform: A framework for examining teachers’ curriculum development. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(3), 315-342. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525-559. Schneider, R. M., & Krajcik, J. (2002). Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(3), 221-245. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform‐based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(3), 283-312. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761-784. Taylor, J. A., Getty, S. R., Kowalski, S. M., Wilson, C. D., Carlson, J., & Van Scotter, P. (2015). An efficacy trial of research-based curriculum materials with curriculum-based professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 984-1017. Terwel, J. (1999). Constructivism and its implications for curriculum theory and practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 195-199. Trey, L., & Khan, S. (2008). How science students can learn about unobservable phenomena using computer-based analogies. Computers & Education, 51(2), 519-529. Webb*, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implication for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705-735. Williamson, J. (2011). Mechanistic theories of causality part I. Philosophy Compass, 6(6), 421-432