Learning Progressions in Science: An Evidence-based Approach to Reform

Abstract

American education policy seems poised to escalate and shift its two decade long commitment to standards and outcome-based reform. That commitment has involved a set of "grand bargains", in which the federal government provides Title I (The "No Child Left Behind Act" or NCLB) disadvantaged education funds in return for the states' agreeing to set ambitious content standards, and define performance or "proficiency" standards associated with them that all students in the states' schools will be expected to meet by the 2013/ 2014 school year. The disadvantaged children targeted by Title I are expected to meet the same standards as all of the rest of the children in each state. In return for agreeing to hold their schools accountable for meeting these expectations, the states are left free to set their standards and their related measures of proficiency as they wish, within some broadly defined parameters. And the local school systems and schools in each state, in return for their share of the Title I/NCLB money are left free, for the most part, to choose their preferred approaches to instruction as long as they agree to be held accountable for ensuring that all their students are making adequate progress towards meeting the state's proficiency goals. So, the general form of each bargain is an agreement to reduce or forgo regulation of inputs in return for a commitment to define, and meet, outcome expectations.But, having agreed to do something they had never before tried to do-to succeed with essentially all students-schools and educators face the problem that they don't know how to meet their side of the bargain. Proponents and observers of reform claim to be shocked that some states are setting their performance standards in ways that minimize or disguise the degree to which their students are likely to fail to meet the hopes of reform. In addition, schools and teachers are resorting to approaches, such as relentless test preparation and focusing on students who are just at the edge of meeting proficiency requirements, that try to meet the letter of the bargains' requirements while leaving the more ambitious spirit of the reforms' hopes well behind, along with all too many children. Established in 1985, CPRE unites researchers from seven of the nation's leading research institutions in e orts to improve elementary and secondary education through practical research on policy, nance, school reform, and school governance. CPRE studies alternative approaches to education reform to determine how state and local policies can promote student learning. e Consortium's member institutions are the

Investigating a learning progression for energy ideas from upper elementary through high school

“…They describe a continuum of successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about a concept that develops over time (American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS], 2001[AAAS], , 2007Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009;NRC, 2007). The upper level, or "upper anchor," of a learning progression specifies the knowledge that instruction is ultimately building toward and that students are expected to have in order for them to be considered proficient in that area.…”

Modeling the Development of Vocational Competence: a Psychometric Model for Economic Domains

“…In quantitative terms, learning progressions can be validated with latent class analysis (Steedle and Shavelson 2009) or Rasch item difficulty estimates (Corcoran et al 2009;Johnson and Tymms 2011). However, only the latter approach locates the items in a developmental scale, such that it offers a potentially more powerful tool for exploring learning progressions (Pellegrino et al 2001).…”

Engaging learners in STEM education

“…Arengu käigus täiendavad ja seovad õpilased varasemaid teadmisi teadlikult uutega, et luua ajapikku mitmekesine seostatud teadmiste pagas (National Research Council, 2007). Nii arendatakse õpilaste teadmisi viisil, mis võimaldab neil mõista keerulisi teaduslikke ideid omavahel lõimitult (Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009;National Research Council, 2007). Samas ei ole teadmiste kasv arenguga kaasnev paratamatus, vaid see sõltub siiski õpetamisviisist ja peamistest õppimiskogemustest (sealhulgas hindamised) nii formaalses kui ka mitteformaalses keskkonnas, mis toetavad õpilasi, kui nad järk-järgult jõuavad üha keerulisemate ideede mõistmiseni ja nende omavahelise seostamiseni (Corcoran et al, 2009).…”

“…Nii arendatakse õpilaste teadmisi viisil, mis võimaldab neil mõista keerulisi teaduslikke ideid omavahel lõimitult (Corcoran, Mosher, & Rogat, 2009;National Research Council, 2007). Samas ei ole teadmiste kasv arenguga kaasnev paratamatus, vaid see sõltub siiski õpetamisviisist ja peamistest õppimiskogemustest (sealhulgas hindamised) nii formaalses kui ka mitteformaalses keskkonnas, mis toetavad õpilasi, kui nad järk-järgult jõuavad üha keerulisemate ideede mõistmiseni ja nende omavahelise seostamiseni (Corcoran et al, 2009). Kui me oleme midagi viimastel aastatel õppinud, siis on see mõistmine, kuivõrd oluline on ideede selge püstitamine ja hindamine, mis aitavad õppijatel luua olukorrast terviklikku arusaama (Roseman, Stern, & Koppal, 2010).…”