Rethinking the Seventh-Grade Science Curriculum (Energy Topic) Based on Two Components of Intra-disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Structure and Coherence from the Perspective of the Big Ideas Framework
Subject Areas : Research in Curriculum Planning
shadi nosrati
1
,
Ebrahim talaee
2
*
,
Javad Hatami
3
,
محمود مهرمحمدی
4
1 - PhD Candidate in Curriculum Planning, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
4 - Professor, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: Big Ideas, Energy, Science Curriculum, Intra-disciplinary Coherence, Interdisciplinary Coherence,
Abstract :
The aim of this study is to examine the extent to which two key features—intra-disciplinary coherence and structure and interdisciplinary coherence and structure—are realized in the intended science curriculum for Grade 7 in the topic of energy. In the first phase, a systematic review and qualitative content analysis were conducted on 1,221 related studies. Following the PRISMA screening process, 30 methodologically sound articles were selected and analyzed. This analysis led to the identification of four major features of Big Ideas-based curricula, of which this article focuses on the two related to conceptual coherence. In the second phase, the directed qualitative content analysis method was used to examine the current intended curriculum. The data collection instrument was a checklist combining four curriculum elements and four core features of Big Ideas. The unit of analysis was defined as the smallest meaningful segment associated with these elements. The findings indicate that the energy curriculum in the 7th-grade science textbook and teacher guide is misaligned with the Big Ideas framework in terms of both intra- and interdisciplinary conceptual coherence. The analytical framework proposed in this study offers a potential model for redesigning science curricula toward more integrated and meaningful learning experiences.
Askew, M. (2013). Big ideas in primary mathematics: Issues and directions. Perspectives in Education, 31(3), 5–18.
Bell, T., Tymann, P., & Yehudai, A. (2018). The big ideas in computer science for K-12 curricula. Bulletin of EATCS, 1(124).
Bradley, J. D., & Moodley, K. (2017). Big ideas in school chemistry. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 21(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2017.1327239
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2018). Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 25(6), 551–575.
Charles, R. (2005). Big ideas and understandings as the foundation for elementary and middle school mathematics. Journal of Education Leadership, 7(3), 9–24. https://www.jaymctighe.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MATH-Big-Ideas_NCSM_Spr05v73p9-24.pdf
Chalmers, C., Carter, M., Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “Big Ideas” to Advance the Teaching and Learning of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25–43.
Clark, E. (1997). Designing and implementing an integrated curriculum: A student-centred approach. Brandon, Vermont: Holistic Education Press.
Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D. J., & Sullivan, P. (2012). Important ideas in mathematics: What are they and where do they come from? Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom, 17(3), 13–18.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 7(2), 9–33.
Harlen, W. (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Trieste: The Science Education Programme (SEP) of IAP.
Harlen, W., Devés, R., Garza, G. F., Léna, P., Millar, R., Reiss, M., Rowell, P., & Yu, W. (2010). Principles and big ideas of science education. Hartfield, Herts: Association for Science Education College Lane.
Harlen, W., Devés, R., Garza, G. F., Léna, P., Millar, R., Reiss, M., Rowell, P., & Yu, W. (2015). Working with big ideas of science education. Hartfield, Herts: Association for Science Education College Lane.
Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 65–97). Macmillan Publishing Co, Inc.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Kamali, A., et al. (1395). [منبع فارسی - ذکر در فهرست منابع فارسی]
King, C. (2001). Presenting the ‘Big Ideas’ of Science: Earth Science Examples. School Science Review, 83(303), 47–53.
Krajcik, J., & Delen, I. (2017). Engaging learners in STEM education. Estonian Journal of Education, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2017.5.1.02b
Kuntze, S., Lerman, S., Murphy, B., Kurz-Milcke, E., Sillar, S., & Winbourne, P. (2011). Professional knowledge related to big ideas in mathematics – An empirical study with pre-service teachers. In M. Pytlak, T. Rowland, & Swoboda, E. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 990–999). CERME.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Article 20. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-1.2.1089
Metz, S. (2012). The Big Ideas of Science. The Science Teacher, 79(5), 6.
Monroe, M. C., & Krasny, M. E. (2015). Across the spectrum: Resources for environmental educators. Washington, DC: North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE).
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Perkins, D. (2014). Future wise: Educating our children for a changing world. John Wiley & Sons.
Schifter, D., & Fosnot, C. (1993).
Siemon, D. (2008, December). Making connections: The ‘really big’ ideas in Number. Keynote presentation to the Annual Conference of the Mathematical Association of Victoria. Latrobe University.
Siemon, D. (2022). Teaching with the Big Ideas in Mathematics. In Issues in the Teaching of Mathematics. State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training).
Sullivan, P. (2011). Teaching mathematics: Using research-informed strategies. Australian Education Review No. 59. ACER.
Thuneberg, H., Salmi, H., Vainikainen, M. P., Hienonen, N., & Hautamäki, J. (2022). New curriculum towards big ideas in science education. Teachers and Teaching, 28(4), 440–460.
Toh, T. L., & Yeo, J. B. (Eds.). (2019). Big Ideas in Mathematics: Yearbook 2019, Association of Mathematics Educators. World Scientific.
Tsourlidaki, E., Sotiriou, S. A., & Doran, R. (2016). The “Big Ideas of Science” for the school classroom: Promoting interdisciplinary activities and the interconnection of the science subjects taught in primary and secondary education. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 2(2), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2016.23
Ulnicane, I. (2016). 'Grand Challenges' concept: A return of the 'big ideas' in science, technology and innovation policy? International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 11(1–3), 5–21.
Watson, A., Jones, K., & Pratt, D. (2013). Key ideas in teaching mathematics: Research-based guidance for ages 9–19. Oxford University Press.
Wintersgill, B., Brine, A., Cush, D., Francis, D., Freathy, R., Henchley, F., Holt, J., et al. (2017). Big Ideas for Religious Education. Exeter: University of Exeter.
Wiser, M., & Smith, C. L. (2008). How does cognitive development inform the choice of core ideas in the physical sciences? (Commissioned paper, National Research Council).
www.iea.nl