No abstract

This study describes the process of defining a hypothetical learning progression (LP) for astronomy around the big idea of Solar System formation. At the most sophisticated level, students can explain how the formation process led to the current Solar System by considering how the planets formed from the collapse of a rotating cloud of gas and dust. Development of this LP was conducted in 2 phases. First, we interviewed middle school, high school, and college students (N = 44), asking them to describe properties of the current Solar System and to explain how the Solar System was formed. Second, we interviewed 6th-grade students (N = 24) before and after a 15-week astronomy curriculum designed around the big idea. Our analysis provides evidence for potential levels of sophistication within the hypothetical LP, while also revealing common alternative conceptions or areas of limited understanding that could form barriers to progress if not addressed by instruction. For example, many students' understanding of Solar System phenomena was limited by either alternative ideas about gravity or limited application of momentum in their explanations. Few students approached a scientific-level explanation, but their responses revealed possible stepping stones that could be built upon with appropriate instruction.

The issue of integrated STEM curriculum design and evaluation requires a more consistent understanding and clarity among STEM educators. In this paper, we propose an instructional framework of STEM integration based on the theoretical notions of disciplinarity and problem-centred learning. The proposed S-T-E-M Quartet instructional framework utilises complex, persistent and extended problems at its core, and the problem solving process as the overarching frame. The key difference between the proposed S-T-E-M Quartet instructional framework and models such as the STEM road map and the Cubic model for STEAM education is the emphasis on the connections between different disciplines. Similar to the STEM road map, the application of the S-T-E-M Quartet framework begins with a single lead discipline as the focus and subsequently examines how knowledge and skills of the lead discipline are connected and related to the other three disciplines. As an instructional framework, the S-T-E-M Quartet requires description of learning outcomes for each discipline when students work with the problem. The learning outcomes within individual disciplines constitute the vertical learning within a discipline. Depending on the problem described, the learning outcomes for some disciplines might be more in-depth than others. As the S-T-E-M Quartet foregrounds connections between disciplines, attention is also paid to the strength of connections, whether they are weak, moderate or strong. A case example of application of the S-T-E-M Quartet instructional framework is presented as an illustration of how the S-T-E-M Quartet instructional framework can be used to design and reflect on STEM tasks.

We previously proposed a hypothetical learning progression around the disciplinary core idea of the Solar System and its formation as a first step in a research program to begin to fill this gap and address questions of student learning in this domain. In this study, we evaluate the effectiveness of two dimensions within the learning progression, dynamical properties and gravity, in describing change in how student reason in the domain across the course of their 14‐week astronomy unit. A sample of sixth‐grade students (N = 24) were interviewed before and after instruction. We compared changes in how students explained the dynamic properties of planets and the role of gravity in the Solar System to their experiences during instruction. Our findings provide evidence for the usefulness of this learning progression in describing how students' explanations may progress, offer insight into how instruction may support that progress, and highlight the challenges in drawing conclusions on how students' explanations may progress when limitations are identified in instructional experiences. We also discuss the connection between these two construct maps but also point out what appears to be a missing element in our original definition of the learning progression: inertia.

No abstract