Natalie N. Pareja Roblin, C. Schunn, D. Bernstein, S. McKenney
{"title":"Exploring shifts in the characteristics of US government-funded science curriculum materials and their (unintended) consequences","authors":"Natalie N. Pareja Roblin, C. Schunn, D. Bernstein, S. McKenney","doi":"10.1080/03057267.2018.1441842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Grant-funded curriculum development efforts can substantially impact practice and research in science education. Therefore, understanding the sometimes-unintended consequences of changes in grant priorities is crucial. Using the case of two large funding agencies in the United States, the current portfolio review provides insight into these consequences by examining shifts in the characteristics of K-12 science curriculum materials funded during two time periods with differing funding priorities. Findings revealed a move away from comprehensive curricula, increased reliance on technology-based materials, a growing trend towards open access, but also a decrease in teacher supports. While these shifts may enhance teachers’ flexibility to shape curriculum, they also increase the challenge of ensuring curricular coherence. Recommendations are outlined for policymakers, science education researchers, and curriculum developers.","PeriodicalId":49262,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Science Education","volume":"54 1","pages":"1 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/03057267.2018.1441842","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Science Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2018.1441842","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Abstract Grant-funded curriculum development efforts can substantially impact practice and research in science education. Therefore, understanding the sometimes-unintended consequences of changes in grant priorities is crucial. Using the case of two large funding agencies in the United States, the current portfolio review provides insight into these consequences by examining shifts in the characteristics of K-12 science curriculum materials funded during two time periods with differing funding priorities. Findings revealed a move away from comprehensive curricula, increased reliance on technology-based materials, a growing trend towards open access, but also a decrease in teacher supports. While these shifts may enhance teachers’ flexibility to shape curriculum, they also increase the challenge of ensuring curricular coherence. Recommendations are outlined for policymakers, science education researchers, and curriculum developers.
期刊介绍:
The central aim of Studies in Science Education is to publish review articles of the highest quality which provide analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education. In addressing this aim, the Editor and Editorial Advisory Board, are guided by a commitment to:
maintaining and developing the highest standards of scholarship associated with the journal;
publishing articles from as wide a range of authors as possible, in relation both to professional background and country of origin;
publishing articles which serve both to consolidate and reflect upon existing fields of study and to promote new areas for research activity.
Studies in Science Education will be of interest to all those involved in science education including: science education researchers, doctoral and masters students; science teachers at elementary, high school and university levels; science education policy makers; science education curriculum developers and text book writers.
Articles featured in Studies in Science Education have been made available either following invitation from the Editor or through potential contributors offering pieces. Given the substantial nature of the review articles, the Editor is willing to give informal feedback on the suitability of proposals though all contributions, whether invited or not, are subject to full peer review. A limited number of books of special interest and concern to those involved in science education are normally reviewed in each volume.