wk 1 | wk 2 | wk 3 | wk 4 | wk 5 | wk 6 | wk 7 | wk 8 | wk 9 | wk 10 | wk 11 | wk 12 | wk 13 | wk 14 | wk 15 | wk 16

2nd Module


Week 1 October 25-29

{top}
Monday, October 25
  • week 1b discussion
  • Week 1 Readings:
    • Berliner, D. C. (2002).Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18-20.wk 1 - Berliner-Science.pdf
      • excellent paper:
    • Schoenfeld, A. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 4-14.wk 1 - Ahlberg Meaningful Learni.pdf
    • Ahlberg, M. (1993). Concept maps, vee diagrams and argumentation analysis as tools to make research on conceptions and misconceptions. In J. Novak (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University (distributed electronically).wk 1 - Schoenfeld.pd

entire reading list from syllabus
Week 2 November 1-5
{top}
Tuesday, November 2
  • week 2b discussion
  • Journal Articles
    • Sears, P., Kessen, W. (1964). Statement of purposes and objectives of science education in school: A statement from the AAAS Commission on Science Education. Jouranl of Research in Science Teaching, 2(1), 3-6. wk 2 - Sears.pdf
    • Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80-84. wk 2 - Rutherford.pdf
    • Kyle, W. C. J. (1980). The distinction between inquiry and scientific inquiry and why high school students should be cognizant of the distinction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17(2), 123-130. wk 2 - Kyle.pdf
    • Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E. , Raghavan, K. (1991). Students' transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882. wk 2 - Schauble.pdf
Week 3 November 8-12
{top}
Tuesday, November 7

  • week 3b discussion
  • Journal Articles
    • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L. , Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-736. wk 3 - Khalick.pdf
    • Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898-921. wk 3 - Keselman.pdf
    • Volkmann, M., Abell, S. (2003). Rethinking laboratories: Tools for converting cookbook labs into inquiry. The Science Teacher, 70(6), 38-41. wk 3 - Volkman_Abell.pdf
    • Lawrenz, F., Huffman, D. (2002). Science education reform: The impact of teacher enhancement and curriculum implementation on student performance 1995-2001. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. wk 3 - Lawrenz_Huffman_sm.pdf


Week 4 November 15-19

{top}
Tuesday, November 16
  • week 4b discussion
  • Roth, K. J. (1989). Science education: It's not enough to 'do' or 'relate'. The American Educator, 13(4), 16-22; 46-48. wk 4 - Roth.pdf
  • Palmer, D. H. (1999). Exploring the link between students' scientific and nonscientific conceptions. Science Education, 83(6), 639-653. wk 4 - Palmer.pdf.pdf
  • Grosslight, L., Unger, C. M. , Jay, E. , Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822. wk 4 - Gosslight.pdf
  • Kaminski, J., Sloutsky, V., and Heckler, A. The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320(5875), 454-455. wk 4 - Kaminski.pdf


Week 5 November 22-26

{top}
Tuesday, November 23
  • week 5b discussion
  • Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (5),415-427. wk 5 - Bishop_Anderson.pdf
  • Metz, K. E. (1991). Development of explanation: Incremental and fundamental change in children's physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 785-797. wk 5 - Metz.pdf
  • Taylor, J., Dana, T. (2003). Secondary school physics teachers' conceptions of scientific evidence: An exploratory case study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(8), 721-736. wk 5 - Taylor_Dana.pdf


Week 6 November 29-December 3

{top}
Tuesday, November 30
  • week 6b discussion
  • Chin, C., Brown, D.. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109-138. wk 6 - Chen_Brown_sm.pdf
  • Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., Unger, C.(1989). 'An experiment is when you try it and see if it works': A study of grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529. wk 6 - Carey.pdf
  • Driver, R., Asoko, H. , Leach, J. , Mortimer, E. , Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12. wk 6 - Driver.pdf


Week 7 December 6-10

{top}
Tuesday, December 7
  • week 7b discussion

  • Stavy, R. and Tirosh, D. (2000).How Children and Adults Use the Intuitive Rule "More A -- More B". In Stavy, R. and Tirosh, D., How Students (Mis-)Understand Science and Mathematics.(pp. 1-63). New York: Teachers College Press. wk7 - StavyTirosh.pdf
  • Stavy, R. and Tirosh, D. (2000).Using Knowledge About Intuitive Rules: Educational Implications. In Stavy, R. and Tirosh, D., How Students (Mis-)Understand Science and Mathematics.(pp. 89-106). New York: Teachers College Press. wk7 - StavyTirosh2.pdf

Week 8 December 13-17

{top}
Tuesday, December 14









Week 1 August 30-September 3

Monday, August 30
  • learning objectives: By the end of this week you will be able to:
    • a) Describe major developments in MEAP history
    • b) Define and use assessment terminology such as objective, goal, and benchmark
  • readings
    • Textbook
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1996). Michigan Curriculum Framework. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education. )
    • Other Readings
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1991). Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (K-12):New Directions for Science Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education.
      • Scientific Literacy for All Students, pp. 3-11
      • Yarroch, W. (2003) History of the MEAP Science Assessment&endash;Draft. Houghton, Michigan. Education Department, Michigan Technological University.
      • All

Tuesday, August 31

Wednesday, September 1

Week 2 September 6-10

{top}
Monday, September 7
  • learning objectives: By the end of this week you will be able to:
    • a) Describe major developments in MEAP history
    • b) Define and use assessment terminology such as objective, goal, and benchmark

  • readings
    • Textbook
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1996). Michigan Curriculum Framework. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education. )
    • Other Readings
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1991). Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (K-12):New Directions for Science Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education.
        • MEGOSE.pdf
        • Constructing New Scientific Knowledge, pp. 15-16
        • Constructing New Scientific Knowledge, pp. 33-37

Thursday, September 9

Week 3 September 13-17

{top}
Tuesday, September 14
  • learning objectives
    • By the end of this week you will be able to:
      • a) Be able to describe the intent of reflecting objectives.
      • b) Be able to design lessons that will meet reflecting objectives.
  • readings
    • Textbook
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1996). MichiganCurriculum Framework Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education. )
      • Michigan Department of Education. High school content expectations
    • Other Readings
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1991). Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (K-12):New Directions for Science Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education.
        • MEGOSE.pdf
        • Reflecting on Scientific Knowledge, pp. 17
        • Reflecting on Scientific Knowledge, pp. 41-44
Thursday, September 16

Week 4 September 20-24

{top}
Tuesday, September 21
  • Learning objectives: By the end of this week you will be able to:
    • a) Be able to describe the intent of use objectives in the Michigan Science and Mathematics Frameworks
    • b) Be able to write ILOs of the describe and predict nature
    • c) Be able to design lessons that will meet describe and predict benchmarks.
  • reading
    • Textbook
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1996). Michigan Curriculum Framework Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education. )
        • Week_4_MCF.pdf
        • Section Two: Science, pp. 71-79 (Use Scientific Knowledge from the Life Sciences in Real-World Contexts)
    • Other Readings
      • Education, M. S. B. o. (1991). Michigan Essential Goals and Objectives for Science Education (K-12):New Directions for Science Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education.
        • MEGOSE.pdf
        • Using Scientific Knowledge to Understand Life Science), pp. 48-78
Thursday, September 23


Week 5 September 27-October 1

{top}
Tuesday, September 28
  • Learning objectives: By the end of this week you will be able to:
    • a) Be able to describe the intent of use objectives in the Michigan Science Frameworks
    • b) Be able to write ILOs of the explain and design nature
    • c) Be able to design lessons that will meet explain and design benchmarks.
  • readings:
Thursday, September 30


Week 6 October 4-8

{top}
Tuesday, October 5
  • learning objectives
    • By the end of this week you will be able to:
    • a) Be able to state and provide examples of the intent of the National Science Education Standards.
    • b) Be able to describe similarities and differences between the national and state (Michigan) standards.
    • Textbook
      • National Research Council (1996). National Science Standards. National Research Council, National Research Council.
        • National_Standards.pdf
        • Chapter 2: Principles and Definitions, pp. 19-25
        • Chapter 6: Science Content Standards, pp. 103-113
    • Other Readings
Thursday, October 7
    • SCIENTIFIC LITERAC Y. Scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity. It also includes specific types of abilities. In the National Science Education Standards, the content standards define scientific literacy.
    • Scientific literacy means that a p erson can ask, find, or determine answers to questions derived from curiosity about e veryday experiences. It means that a person has the ability to describe, explain,and predict natural phenomena. Scientific literacy entails being able to read with understanding articles about science in the popular press and to engage in social conversation about the validity of the conclusions. Scientific literacy implies that a person can identify scientific issues underlying national and local decisions and express positions that are scientifically and technologically informed.A literate citizen should be able to evaluate the uality of scientific information on the basis of its source and the methods used to generate it. Scientific literacy also implies the capacity to pose and evaluate arguments based on evidence and to apply conclusions from such arguments appropriately. Individuals will display their scientific litracy in different ways, such as appropriately using technical terms, or applying scientific concepts and processes. And individuals often will have differences in literacy in different domains, such as more understanding of life-science concepts and words, and less understanding of physical-science concepts and words.
    • Scientific literacy has different degrees and forms; it expands and deepens over a lifetime, not just during the years in school. But the attitudes and values established toward science in the early years will shape a person’s development of scientific literacy as an adult.
  • week 6 discussion
  • week 6 presentation


Week 7 October 11-15

{top}
Tuesday, October 12
  • learning objectives
    • By the end of this week you will be able to:
      • a) Be able to describe the general structure of the National Science Education Standards
      • b) Be able to write ILOs that will achieve the intent of the National Standards
      • c) Be able to analyze points of relationship between the Michigan Standards and the National Standards
  • readings
    • Textbook
      • National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Research Council, National Research Councill
        • Chapter 6: Content Standards: K-12, pp. 115-119
        • Chapter 6: Content Standards: 9-12, pp. 173-207

  • Other Readings (optional)
    • National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Research Council, National Research Council.
      • Chapter 6: Content Standards: K-4, pp. 121-141
      • Chapter 6: Content Standards: 5-8, pp. 143-171

Thursday, October 14



==Week 8 October 18-22
==
{top}
Tuesday, October 19
  • x
Thursday, October 21