Science educators face constant tradeoffs between allocating time to important topics and including more topics in the curriculum. We study 3,000 students experiencing 4 increasingly streamlined versions of a computer-enhanced middle school thermodynamics curriculum to investigate the impact of instructional time on knowledge integration. Knowledge integration refers to the process of adding new ideas and sorting through connections to develop a cohesive account of scientific phenomena. Our analyses contrast performance on inquiry assessments that require knowledge integration with performance on multiple-choice items. The results show that decreasing instructional time is strongly and significantly related to diminishing student knowledge integration around complex concepts. Whereas the inquiry assessments capture the impact of decreasing instructional time on knowledge integration, the multiple-choice assessments are relatively insensitive to these decreases. To explore further the process of knowledge integration, we follow 50 students through the full curriculum. We then analyze the performance of 1 representative student from middle school through high school. These case studies show why packing the curriculum with many science topics results in superficial understanding for many students. We show why deep understanding of science requires sustained study of carefully designed materials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AronsonE (1978). The jigsaw classroom.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
AronsonJ., ZimmermanJ., & CarlosL. (1998). Improving student achievement by extending school: Is it just a matter of time?San Francisco: WestEd.
3.
BeatonA. E., MullisI. V. S., MartinM. O., GonzalesE. J., KelleyD. L., & SmithT. A. (1996). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years: IEA's third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS).Chestnut Hill, MA, USA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
4.
BellP., & LinnM. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–818.
5.
BerlinerD. C. (1992). Redesigning classroom activities for the future. Educational Technology, 32(10), 7–13.
6.
BerlinerD. C., & CasanovaU. (1989). Effective schools: Teachers make the difference. Instructor, 99(3), 14–15.
7.
ClarkD. B. (2000). Scaffolding knowledge integration through curricular depth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Available at http://courses.ed.asu.edu/clark/.
8.
ClarkD. B. (2003). Analyzing Student Knowledge Interaction: Theories or pieces? In Proceedings of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
9.
ClarkD. B. (in press). Building hands-on labs in Internet environments: Making thinking visible through iterative refinement and design. In LinnM. C., DavisE. A., & BellP. (Eds.), Internet environments for science education.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
10.
ClarkD. B., & JordeD. (in press). Helping students revise disruptive experientially-supported ideas about thermodynamics: Computer visualizations and tactile models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
11.
ClarkH. C. (1996). Design of performance based assessments as contributors to student knowledge integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
12.
CottonF. A. (1980). Depth versus breadth or, you can't cover it all in one year. Journal of Chemical Education, 57(11), 52–55.
13.
CottonK., & WikelundK. (1990). Educational time factors.Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from, http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/4/cu8.html
14.
CuthbertA. J., ClarkD. B., & LinnM. C. (2002). WISE learning communities: Design considerations. In RenningerK. A., & ShumarW. (Eds.), Building virtual communities: Learning and change in cyberspace (pp. 215–246). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DavisE. A., & LinnM. C. (2000). Scaffolding students'knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–838.
16.
diSessaA. A., & SherinB. L. (1998). What changes in conceptual change?International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1155–1191.
17.
DunbarK (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In DavidsonJ., & SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Mechanisms of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
DunbarK (1996). How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In SmithS. M., WardT. B., & ValidS. (Eds.), Conceptual structures and processes: Emergence, discovery, and change (pp. 461–493). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association Press.
19.
EricksonG., & TiberghienA. (1985). Heat and temperature. In DriverR., GuesneE., & TiberghienA. (Eds.), Children's ideas in science (pp. 52–83). Philadelphia: Open University Press.
20.
FoleyB (2000). Visualization tools: Models, representations and knowledge integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
21.
GallagherS. A., & StepienW. J. (1996). Content acquisition in problem-based learning: Depth versus breadth in American studies. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 257–275.
22.
HannafinR. D., & SullivanH. (1995). Learner control in full and lean CAI programs. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 19–30.
23.
HoadleyC. M., & LinnM. C. (2000). Teaching science through online, peer discussions: SpeakEasy in the Knowledge Integration Environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 839–858.
24.
HosslerC., StageF., & GallagherK. (1988, March). The relationship of increased instructional time to student achievemen [Policy bulletin].Bloomington, IN: Consortiumon Educational Policy Studies.
25.
KyleW. C., & ShymanskyJ. A. (1982). Alphabet soup science: A second look at the NSF-funded science curricula. The Science Teacher, 42(8), 49–53.
26.
LatourB., & WoolgarS. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
LewisC (1995). Educating hearts and minds: Reflections on Japanese preschool and elementary education.New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LewisC., & TsuchidaI. (1998, Winter). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, 14–17, 50–52.
29.
LewisE. L. (1996). Conceptual change among middle school students studying elementary thermodynamics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 5(1), 3–31.
30.
LewisE. L., SternJ., & LinnM. C. (1993). The effect of computer simulations on introductory thermodynamics understanding. Educational Technology, 33(1), 45–58.
31.
LinnM. C. (2000). Designing the knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 781–796.
32.
LinnM. C. (in press). WISE design for lifelong learning-pivotal cases. In GärdenforsP., & JohannssonP. (Eds.), Cognition, education and communication technology.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
33.
LinnM. C., DavisE. A., & BellP. (Eds.). (in press). Internet environments for science education.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
34.
LinnM. C., & HsiS. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
35.
LinnM. C., LewisC., TsuchidaI., & SongerN. B. (2000). Beyond fourth grade science: Why do U.S. and Japanese students diverge?Educational Researcher, 29(3), 4–14.
36.
LinnM. C., & MuilenburgL. (1996). Creating lifelong science learners: What models form a firm foundation?Educational Researcher, 25(5), 18–24.
37.
LinnM. C., & SongerN. B. (1991). Teaching thermodynamics to middle school students: What are appropriate cognitive demands?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 885–918.
38.
McMullenM (1996). Taking stock of a school reform effort.Providence, RI: Brown University, Annenberg Institute for School Reform.
39.
MeierD (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem.Boston: Beacon.
40.
MelmedA (1994). A learning infrastructure for all Americans: Summary of a report to the national science foundation. Machine-Mediated Learning, 4(4), 377–397.
41.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
42.
NewmannF. M., & WehlageG. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring.Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research, Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.
43.
O'SullivanC. Y., ReeseC. M., & MazzeoJ. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states.Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
44.
SchmidtW. H., McKnightC. C., & RaizenS. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
45.
ShymanskyJ. A., & KyleW. C. (1982). How effective were the hands-on science programs of yesterday?Science and Children, 20(3), 14–15.
46.
ShymanskyJ. A., & KyleW. C. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387–404.
47.
SizerT. R. (1996). New hope for high schools. American School Board Journal, 183(9), 37–40.
48.
SongerN. B., & LinnM. C. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration?Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761–784.
49.
WasleyP., HampelR., & ClarkR. (1997). Kids and school reform.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50.
WiserM (1988). The differentiation of heat and temperature: History of science and novice-expert shift. In StraussS. (Ed.), Ontogeny, phylogeny, and historical development (pp. 28–48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
51.
WiserM (1995). Use of history to understand and remedy students' misconceptions about heat and temperature. In PerkinsD., SchwartzJ., WestM., & WiskeM. (Eds.), Software goes to school (pp. 23–38). New York: Oxford University Press.
52.
WiserM., & CareyS. (1983). When heat and temperature were one. In GentnerD., & StevensA. (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 267–298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
