A call to action: A response to Osborne, Rafanelli, and Kind (2018)

Saleh, Asmalina; Weiser, Gary; Rehmat, Abeera P.; Housh, Karyn; Cisterna, Dante; Лю, Лэй; Hmelo‐Silver, Cindy E.

doi:10.1002/tea.21537

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their argument blurs the lines between DCIs and CCCs in the discipline of engineering. Despite this challenge, several nonempirical articles discussed the importance of CCCs in developing a deep understanding of particular DCIs (Cooper & Klymkowsky, 2013; Cunningham & Carlsen, 2014; Freire et al, 2019) or for deep knowledge of all DCIs (Fick & Arias, 2019; Saleh et al, 2019). Moreover, Lee et al (2014) see opportunities to use CCCs as a question of equitable access to scientific sensemaking.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors argued that systems are often implicitly used in modeling. Saleh et al (2019) echoed this argument, claiming, that SF , as well as SSM , play important roles in simulation‐based assessments. Fick (2018) found an association between the CCC of systems and the highest quality models developed by middle school students that showed how watersheds work.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, most of the articles pointed to the need for future research in the area of CCCs as a bridge across disciplines as they discuss potential implications of their studies for the use of the CCCs in science learning. Two theoretical articles, Fick and Arias (2019) and Saleh et al (2019), suggest the need for more exemplars of explicit, coherent teaching of the CCCs and support for developing teachers' practice and knowledge. Areas of promise for supporting students' learning about and application of the CCCs across disciplines include the development and use of common language and representations as well as the consideration of coherences across units and courses.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A review of literature that uses the lens of the next generation science crosscutting concepts: 2012–2019

Fick

Arias

2022

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New reforms in science education call for threedimensional learning by integrating disciplinary core ideas, science and engineering practices, and crosscutting concepts (CCCs). These reforms defined the new term, crosscutting concept (CCC), as a lens that has explanatory power across disciplines. To describe how researchers are examining and using the CCCs related to science teaching and learning, a literature review was conducted to identify articles that included the term "crosscutting concept" since its introduction in 2012. The articles were narrowed to those that use the term CCC as a component of the framing, analysis, findings, or discussion of their empirical or nonempirical article. A subset of the identified papers elaborated on the CCCs beyond existing policy documents and references. These papers were open-coded to identify themes in how the CCCs were used. The identified themes suggest that the CCCs are useful for science teaching, learning, and research in terms of creating opportunities to learn, connecting to the big idea, linking to practice, drawing on funds of knowledge, and connecting across topics and disciplines. These themes were analyzed to identify areas of existing focus and those in need of additional research. This synthesis of the literature has implications for using and studying

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A review of literature that uses the lens of the next generation science crosscutting concepts: 2012–2019

Fick

Arias

2022

J Res Sci Teach

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their response to our article, Saleh et al () argue that “more research is necessary to unpack the PEs in relation to the CCCs.” However, this argument ignores the basic premise of our article––that the CCCs have no scholarly foundation in the considerable body of work that has been done in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science (HPSS). Asking the research community to investigate a set of constructs which have no theoretical justification, let alone asking the teaching community to teach it, is akin to asking an explorer to set forth into uncharted territory without a map.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%