Calabrese Barton, A., and Brickhouse, N.W. International Journal of Science Education, 31(13), 1,743-1,775. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151. Given that prospective teachers often rely heavily on curricular materials to guide their preparation and teaching, they will also need experiences in analyzing and revising curricular materials using standards- and research-based criteria [105, 106]. Clearly, a science education system must be responsive to a variety of influences—some that emanate from the top down, some from the bottom up, and some laterally from outside formal channels. (2006). Every assessment has to be specifically designed to serve its intended purpose and context of use. Shouse, and M.A. Singer, M.L. Little, J.W. Symbolic communication in mathematics and science: Co-constituting inscription and thought. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching. The curriculum framework serves todisplay meaningful curriculumexperiences and activities as well asidentified constraints. 106. Table 10-1 summarizes how the strands of scientific literacy guided the design of the dimensions in the framework. These discussions do not include formal recommendations and are not framed as standards for each component, because the committee was not asked to undertake the kind of extensive review—of the research on teacher education. Assessment for program evaluation, used in making comparisons across classrooms, schools, districts, states, or nations. (2010). Hsu, Y-S. (2008). Science Education, 94(5), 810-824. Tobin, K., Elmesky, R., and Seiler, G. (2005). Science Education, 92(2), 320-344. This framework will also inform policy makers to formulate appropriate legislation as 110. The impact of a science/technology/society teaching approach on student learning in five domains. As the report Taking Science to School concludes, “a range of instructional approaches is necessary as part of a full development of the four strands of proficiency. This perspective stresses how conceptual understanding is linked to the ability to develop explanations of phenomena and to carry out empirical investigations in order to develop or evaluate those knowledge claims. 74. In J. Byrnes and E. Amsel (Eds. While standards typically outline the goals of learning, curricula set forth the more specific means—materials, tasks, discussions, representations—to be used to achieve those goals. Our use of the term “system,” however, does not necessarily imply that all the components of the science education system are well aligned and work together seamlessly. Details about the design of assessments for any given purpose or context are beyond the scope of the framework, as are the principles for designing systems of assessments that operate across the classroom, district, and state levels. Pellegrino, N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser (Eds.). Danusso, L., Testa, I., and Vicentini, M. (2010). Beyond such minimum requirements, students and their parents determine the overall science course load that each student takes. Margel, H., Eylon, B.-S., and Scherz, Z. Lee, V. (2010). College science departments will need to attend to the needs of prospective science teachers. 120. Schmidt, W.H., Wang, H.C., and McKnight, C.C. Strand 1 includes the acquisition of facts, laws, principles, theories, and models of science; the development of conceptual structures that incorporate them; and the productive use of these structures to understand the natural world. 98. “A sketch is like a sentence”: Curriculum structures that support teaching epistemic practices of science. 221-235). Furtak, E.M., and Ruiz-Primo, M.A. Science Education, 93(4), 656-677. 75. Olitsky, S., Flohr, L.L., Gardner, J., and Billups, M. (2010).