How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review

By S. Kesidou, J. Roseman. 2002

406 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/04cbb65da2865829485e006f98046d60c72dbbda

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

Citations in the corpus

FOCUS ARTICLE: Implications of Research on Children's Learning for Standards and Assessment: A Proposed Learning Progression for Matter and the Atomic-Molecular Theory (2006, background): “Current curricula are rarely designed to engage students in this kind of work (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002).”
Analysis of Five High School Biology Textbooks Used in the United States for Inclusion of the Nature of Science (2007, background): “Kesidou and Roseman ( 2002 ) examined nine middle school science textbook programs from a curricular perspective based, in part, on Project 2061 (AAAS, 1990 ).”
Depth versus Breadth: How Content Coverage in High School Science Courses Relates to Later Success in College Science Coursework. (2009, background): “In Kesidou and Roseman’s review of middle school science textbooks, the authors point out the failure of the most commonly used textbooks in achieving meaningful levels of in-depth understanding. They maintain that this problem extends to curricula supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF).”
Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2006-011. (2006, background): “teachers have been criticized as conducting lessons filled with activities that may be fun or engaging, but that have little or no meaningful connections to rich scientific content (Kesidou and Roseman 2002; Moscovici and Nelson, 1998; Roth 1984).”
Learning‐goals‐driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project‐based pedagogy (2008, methodology): “The Project 2061 analyses also found that curriculum materials did not build on student-learning research (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002) as materials failed to take into account students’ prior knowledge, lacked coherent explanations of phenomena, and failed to support students in developing…”
The Language Demands of Science Reading in Middle School (2006, background): “Despite criticisms of textbooks (e.g., Guzzetti, Hynd, Williams, & Skeels, 1995; Kesidou & Roseman, 2002) and concomitant popularity of trade books in science classrooms (e.g., Giorgis & Hartman, 2000; Moore & Binz, 2002), science textbooks have improved qualitatively over the years and remain a…”
The Impact of Science Knowledge, Reading Skill, and Reading Strategy Knowledge on More Traditional “High-Stakes” Measures of High School Students’ Science Achievement (2007, background): “The goal is to create a curriculum that focuses on deep conceptual understanding of science, as opposed to a collection of superficial fact-based concepts ( Kesidou & Roseman, 2002 ).”
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012, background): “Research suggests that personal interest, experience, and enthusiasm—critical to children’s learning of science at school or in other settings—may also be linked to later educational and career choices [27-30].”
Beginning teachers moving toward effective elementary science teaching (2009, background): “…criteria exist along which teachers might critique existing curriculum materials (e.g., the AAAS Project 2061 criteria for evaluating textbooks; see Kesidou & Roseman, 2002), beginning elementary teachers may struggle to select appropriate criteria to use, or they may simply focus on whether they…”
Science Textbooks' Use of Graphical Representation: A Descriptive Analysis of Four Sixth Grade Science Texts (2010, background): “Textbooks are of interest to us because although there are multiple resources available to teachers, middle school teachers tend to rely heavily on the textbooks ( Kesidou & Roseman, 2002 ).”
Preservice Elementary Teachers' Critique of Instructional Materials for Science. (2006, background): “In addition, recent reviews of science curriculum materials indicate that they may not help teachers much; many textbooks do a poor job of representing scientific content and inquiry (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002) and include numerous scientific inaccuracies (Hubisz, 2003).”
Analysis of students' assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at benchmarks and standards (2002, methodology): “…and cognitive researchers nationwide, AAAS’ Project 2061 has developed and field-tested a rigorous procedure for evaluating science and mathematics curriculum materials, including their assessments (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002; Roseman, Kesidou, & Stern, 1996; Kulm, 1999; www.project2061.org).”
Curriculum design for inquiry: Preservice elementary teachers' mobilization and adaptation of science curriculum materials (2010, methodology): “This scoring rubric is informed by existing rubrics for the evaluation of science curriculum materials (Kesidou & Roseman, 2002) and science teaching (Bodzin & Beerer, 2003; Luft, 1999).”