Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Project Clarion, a Jacob K. Javits-funded project, focused on the scale-up of primary-grade science curricula. Curriculum units, based on an Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM), were developed for high-ability learners, but tried out with all students in Title I settings to study the efficacy of the units with all learners. The units focus on the development of students’ conceptual understanding to undergird science content attainment. Teaching and learning models, such as concept formation and concept mapping were used to scaffold science learning and reasoning for appropriate curriculum differentiation. Science content mastery was measured using the Metropolitan Achievement Tests. Reasoning skills were measured using the Test of Critical Thinking. Understanding of macro-concepts and content attainment were measured by curriculum-embedded performance-based assessments. Students with the ICM outperformed students without the specialized curriculum in science content and reasoning skills, and showed greater growth in both conceptual understanding and content attainment.

Keywords

concept development concept mapping critical thinking inquiry students with low SES performance-based assessment primary age/level problem-based learning science curriculum

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

C. M.

Callahan

C. M.

(1995). The reliability and validity of the performance task for evaluating science process skills. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 14-20.

Arbuckle

J. L.

(2008). AMOS software. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

Bollen

K. A.

Curran

P. J.

(2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Borman

G. D.

Hewes

G. M.

(2002). The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of success for all. Success for All, 24, 243-266.

Boyer

Bedoin

Honore

(2001). Relative contributions of kind- and domain-level concepts to expectations concerning unfamiliar exemplars: Developmental change and domain differences. Cognitive Development, 15, 457-479.

Bracken

B. A.

Bai

Fithian

Lamprecht

Little

Quek

(2004). Test of Critical Thinking. Williamsburg, VA: The Center for Gifted Education. Retrieved from http://cfge.wm.edu/publications.htm

Byrne

B. B.

(2010). Structural equation modeling using AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chi

M. T. H.

Hutchinson

J. E.

Robins

A. F.

(1989). How inferences about novel domain-related concepts can be constrained by structural knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 27-62.

Cooper

Baum

Neu

(2004). Developing scientific talent in students with special needs: An alternative model for identification, curriculum, and assessment. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 162-169.

10.

Duncan

T. E.

Duncan

S. C.

(2004). An introduction to latent-growth curve modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 333-363.

11.

Educate America Act, H.R. 1804, 103rd Cong. (1994). Retrieved from http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:h1804pp.txt.pdf

12.

Facione

P. A.

(1990). Critical thinking: A statement of expert consensus for purposes of educational assessment and instruction (Executive summary: “The Delphi Report”). Millbrae: California Academic Press. Retrieved from http://assessment.aas.duke.edu/documents/Delphi_Report.pdf.

13.

Feng

VanTassel-Baska

Quek

O’Neill

Bai

(2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students’ learning using the integrated curriculum model: Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27, 78-83.

14.

Fowler

(1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13, 32-34.

15.

Frayer

D. A.

Frederick

W. C.

Klausmeier

H. J.

(1969). A schema for testing the level of concept mastery (Tech. Rep. No. 16). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

16.

Gavin

M. K.

Casa

T. M.

Adelson

J. L.

Carroll

S. R.

Sheffield

L. J.

Spinelli

A. M.

(2007). Project M3: Mentoring mathematical minds: Challenging curriculum for talented elementary students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18, 566-585.

17.

Gonzales

Williams

Jocelyn

Roey

Kastberg

Brenwald

(2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001 Revised). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

18.

Grigg

Lauko

Brockway

(2006). The nation’s report card: Science 2005 (NCES 2006-466). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

19.

Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2001). The Metropolitan Achievement Tests–Eighth Edition (MAT-8). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

20.

Herberg-Davis

Callahan

C. M.

(2008). Gifted students’ perceptions of advanced placement and international baccalaureate programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 199-216.

21.

Kim

K. H.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

B. A.

Feng

Stambaugh

Bland

(2012). Project Clarion: Three years of science instruction in title I schools among K-Third grade students. Research in Science Education, 42, 813-829. doi:10.1007/s11165-011-9218-5

22.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

23.

Linn

M. C.

Songer

N. B.

(1991). Cognitive and conceptual change in adolescence. American Journal of Education, 99, 379-417.

24.

Little

C. A.

Feng

A. X.

VanTassel-Baska

(2007). A study of curriculum effectiveness in social studies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 272-284.

25.

Liu

Lee

Hofstetter

Linn

(2008). Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment, 13, 33-55. doi:10.1080/10627190801968224

26.

Lubinski

Benbow

C. P.

(2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 316-345.

27.

Mioduser

Betzer

(2008). The contribution of project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 59-77.

28.

Moon

T. R.

Brighton

C. M.

Callahan

C. M.

Robinson

(2005). Development of authentic assessments for the middle school classroom. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 119-133.

29.

Nafiz

(2008). A student-centered approach: Assessing the changes in prospective science teachers’ conceptual understanding by concept mapping in a general chemistry classroom laboratory research. Science Education, 38, 91-110.

30.

Naglieri

J. A.

(1997). Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

31.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Program for international student assessment (PISA): Overview. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/index.asp

32.

National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

33.

National Research Council. (2002). Learning and understanding: Improving advanced study of mathematics and science in U.S. high schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

34.

Novak

J. D.

(1998). Learning, creating, and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

35.

Paul

(1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Rohnert Park, CA: Center for Critical Thinking and Moral Critique, Sonoma State University.

36.

Pine

K. J.

Messer

D. J.

(2000). The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance. Cognition and Instruction, 18, 35-51.

37.

Quinn

P. C.

Eimas

P. D.

(1997). A reexamination of the perceptual-to-conceptual shift in mental representations. Review of General Psychology, 1, 271-287.

38.

Ramey

C. T.

Ramey

S. L.

(1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109-120.

39.

Rayneri

Gerber

Wiley

(2006). The relationship between classroom environment and the learning style preferences of gifted middle school students and the impact on levels of performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 104-118.

40.

Rutherford

F. J.

Ahlgren

(1991). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Salvalei

(2008). Is the ML chi-square ever robust to nonnormality? A cautionary note with missing data. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 1-22.

42.

Schappe

J. F.

(2005). Early childhood assessment: A correlational study of the relationships among student performance, student feelings, and teacher perceptions. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33, 187-193.

43.

Spektor-Levy

Eylon

Scherz

(2009). Teaching scientific communication skills in science studies: Does it make a difference? International Journal of Mathematics and Science Education, 7, 875-903.

44.

Swanson

J. D.

(2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11-25.

45.

Taba

(1962). Curriculum development, theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

46.

Taba

(1966). Teaching strategies and cognitive functioning in elementary school children. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State College. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED025448)

47.

Tali Tal

Miedijensky

(2005). A model of alternative embedded assessment in a pull-out enrichment program for the gifted. Gifted Education International, 20, 166-186.

48.

VanTassel-Baska

(1986). Effective curriculum and instructional models for the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 164-169.

49.

VanTassel-Baska

Avery

L. D.

Hughes

C. E.

Little

C. A.

(2000). An evaluation of the implementation of curriculum innovation: The impact of William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244-272.

50.

VanTassel-Baska

Bass

Ries

Poland

Avery

L. D.

(1998). A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.

51.

VanTassel-Baska

Bracken

(2004). Project Clarion: An integrative study of science teaching to young children. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

52.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

Brown

(2008). A study of differentiated instructional change over three years. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 297-312.

53.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

de Brux

(2007). A study of identification and achievement profiles of performance task-identified gifted students over six years. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31, 7-34.

54.

VanTassel-Baska

Feng

A. X.

Evans

B. L.

(2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 218-231.

55.

VanTassel-Baska

Johnson

Avery

L. D.

(2002). Using performance tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123.

56.

VanTassel-Baska

Little

(Eds.). (2003). Content-based curriculum for gifted learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

57.

VanTassel-Baska

Little

(Eds.). (2011). Content-based curriculum for gifted learner (2nd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

58.

VanTassel-Baska

Zuo

Avery

L. D.

Little

C. A.

(2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30-44.

59.

Zeigler

E. F.

(1995). Competency in critical thinking: A requirement for the “allied professional.” Quest, 47, 196-211.

Assessing Science Reasoning and Conceptual Understanding in the Primary Grades Using Standardized and Performance-Based Assessments

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References