Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The InTeGrate Materials Development Rubric: A Framework and Process for Developing Curricular Materials that Meet Ambitious Goals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Interdisciplinary Teaching About Earth and the Environment for a Sustainable Future

Abstract

We designed and tested a curriculum development and auditing methodology for the Interdisciplinary Teaching about Earth for a Sustainable Future (InTeGrate) project. That process was driven and facilitated by a written rubric for curriculum development. Materials developers participated in workshops to prepare them to write and revise their materials in accordance with the rubric and were guided by an assessment consultant. Other assessment team members independently audited (reviewed) the materials before they could be tested with students. Curriculum developers encountered the most difficulty meeting criteria related to metacognition, grading rubrics, writing learning outcomes and objectives, and linking and aligning materials across the curriculum. Changes to the professional development program improved teams’ abilities to meet those standards. We found the development rubric and process to be an effective methodology for developing materials addressing grand challenges facing society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009) Benchmarks for science literacy. http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php. Accessed 12 Feb 2014

  • Anderson L, Krathwohl D (eds) (2001) A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: a revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelo T, Cross P (1993) Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for college teachers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Assaraf O, Orion N (2005) Development of systems thinking skills in the context of earth system education. J Res Sci Teach 42(5):518–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ault C, Dodick J (2010) Tracking the footprints puzzle: the problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Sci Educ 94(6):1092–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharyya P, Branlund J, Joseph L (2014) Humans’ dependence on earth’s mineral resources. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/mineral_resources/index.html. Accessed 25 June 2018

  • Bell R (2004) Perusing Pandora’s Box: exploring the what, when and how of nature of science instruction. In: Flick L, Lederman N (eds) Scientific inquiry and the nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 427–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs J (1996) Enhanced teaching through constructive alignment. High Educ 32:347–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs J (2003) Aligning teaching and assessing to course objectives. In: Teaching and learning in higher education: new trends and innovations. University of Aveiro, Aveiro, pp 13–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assess Educ 5(1):7–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • blackboard.com (2012) Exemplary course program [online]. Available at http://www.blackboard.com/resources/getdocs/7deaf501-4674-41b9-b2f2-554441ba099b_bbexemplarycourserubric_nov12final.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2018

  • Boyle B, Charles M (2014) Formative assessment for teaching and learning. Sage, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford J (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford J, Schwartz D (1999) Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. In: Iran-Nejad A, Pearson P (eds) Review of research in education, vol 24. American Educational Research Association (AERA), Washington, DC, pp 61–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruck L, Towns M, Bretz S (2008) Characterizing the level of inquiry in the undergraduate laboratory. J Col Sci Teach 38(1):52–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Higher Education Forum (2011) Creating the workforce of the future: the STEM interest and proficiency challenge. Business-Higher Education Forum, Washington, DC. http://www.bhef.com/sites/g/files/g829556/f/brief_2011_stem_inerest_proficiency.pdf

  • Cabrera D, Colosi L, Lobdell C (2008) Systems thinking. Eval Prog Plan 31(3):299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi M, Deleeuw N, Chiu M et al (1994) Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cogn Sci 18:439–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford V, Schlager M, Penuel W et al (2008) Supporting the art of teaching in a data-rich, high performance learning environment. In: Mandinach E, Honey M (eds) Linking data and learning. Teachers College Press, New York, pp p109–p129

    Google Scholar 

  • CSU – Exemplary Online Instruction (2009) The rubric [online]. Available at http://www.csuchico.edu/eoi/documents/rubricpdf. Accessed 18 May 2018

  • Cullen R, Harris M, Hill R (2012) The learner-centered curriculum: design and implementation. Jossey-Bass, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily G, Ehrlich P (1999) Managing earth’s ecosystem: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2:277–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBari S, Gray K, Monet J (2015) Interactions between water, earth’s surface, and human activity. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/energy_and_processes/index.html. Accessed 25 June 2018

  • Deleeuw N, Chi M (2003) Self-explanation: enriching a situation model or repairing a domain model? In: Sinatra G, Pintrich P (eds) Internationalconceptual change. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 55–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodick J, Argamon S, Chase P (2009) Understanding scientific methodology in the historical and experimental sciences via language analysis. Sci Educ 18(8):985–1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson D (2001) Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 38(3):355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle R, Nguyen P, Mendelson A (2011) The influence of framing on transfer: initial evidence from a tutoring experiment. Instr Sci 39(5):603–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English F (1988) Curriculum auditing. Technomic Publishing, Lancaster

    Google Scholar 

  • Fadem C, Shellito C, Walker B (2014) Climate of change: interactions and feedbacks between water, air, and ice. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/climate_change/index.html. Accessed 25 June 2018

  • Flavell J (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive-development inquiry. Am Psychol 34(10):906–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford A (2009) Modeling the environment: an introduction to system dynamics. Island Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortner S, Murphy M, Scherer H (2014) A growing concern: sustaining soil resources through local decision making. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/sustain_agriculture/index.html. Accessed 25 June 2018

  • Foshay A (2000) The curriculum: purpose, substance, practice. Teachers College Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox B, Rosen J, Crawford M (2008) Distractions, distractions: does instant messaging affect college students’ performance on a concurrent reading comprehension task. CyberPsych Behav 12(1):51–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne R, Wager W, Golas K et al (2004) Principles of instructional design, 5th edn. Thomson/Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • GETSI (2018) GETSI teaching materials. http://serc.carleton.edu/getsi/teaching_materials. Accessed 7 June 2018

  • Gilbert L (1998) Disciplinary breadth and interdisciplinary knowledge production. Knowledge Technol Policy 11(1–2):4–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glatthorn A (1994) Developing a quality curriculum. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Handelsman J, Ebert-May D, Beichner R et al (2004) Scientific teaching. Science 304:521–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hatano G, Oura Y (2003) Commentary: reconceptualizing school learning using insight from expertise research. Educ Res 3(8):26–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington J (1970) Ontology of geologic reasoning with a rationale for evaluating historical contributions. Am J Sci 269(3):295–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honebein P (1996) Seven goals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In: Wilson B (ed) Constructivist learning environments: case studies in instructional design. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurd J (2000) The transformation of scientific communication: a model for 2020. J Am Soc Inf Sci 51(14):1279–1283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ivanitskaya L, Clark D, Montgomery G et al (2002) Interdisciplinary learning: process and outcomes. Innov High Educ 27(2):95–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastens K, Rivet A (2008) Multiple modes of inquiry in earth science. Sci Teach 75(1):26–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastens K, Manduca C, Cervato C et al (2009) How geoscientists think and learn. Eos Trans AGU 90:31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik J, McNeill K, Reiser B (2008) Learning-goals-driven design model: developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Sci Educ 92(1):1–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman N (2007) Nature of science: past, present and future. In: Abell S, Lederman N (eds) Handbook of research in science education. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 831–879

    Google Scholar 

  • Libarkin J, Kurdziel J (2006) Ontology and the teaching of earth system science. J Geosci Educ 54(3):408–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkens G (1999) The science of nature, the nature of science; long-term ecological studies at Hubbard Brook. Proc Am Philos Soc 143(4):558–572

    Google Scholar 

  • Manduca C, Kastens K (2012a) Geoscience and geoscientists: uniquely equipped to study the earth. In: Earth and mind II: a synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences, Special paper 486. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp 1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Manduca C, Kastens K (2012b) Mapping the domain of complex earth systems in the geosciences. In: Earth and mind II: A synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences, Special paper 486. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp 91–96

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Manduca C, Mogk D (2002) Using data in undergraduate science classrooms: final report on an interdisciplinary workshop at Carleton College. Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, Northfield, MN. Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/usingdata/report.html

  • Midgley G (2008) Response to paper “Systems thinking” by D. Cabrera et al.: the unification of systems thinking: is there gold at the end of the rainbow? Eval Prog Plan 31(3):317–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience and school. National Academy Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2001) Grand challenges in environmental sciences. National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012) Discipline-based education research: understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAA (2005) Ocean literacy: the essential principals of ocean sciences K-12, National Geographic Society. National Academies Press, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez A, Schneiderman J, Stewart M, et al (2018) Environmental justice and freshwater resources. https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/freshwater/index.html. Accessed 25 June 2018

  • Popham W (1997) What’s wrong-and what’s right-with rubrics. Educ Lead 55(2):72–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Popham W (1999) Where large scale assessment is heading and why it shouldn’t. Educ Meas Issues Pract 18(3):13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popham W (2008) Transformative assessment. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley M, Borkowski J, Schneider W (1989) Good information processing: what is it and what education can do to promote it? J Exp Child Psychol 43(2):194–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pyle E, Brunkhorst B (2009) Developing and applying the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for effective earth science teaching. In: Collins A, Gillespie N (eds) The continuum of secondary science teacher preparation. Sense Publishers, Boston, pp 103–128

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Qualitymatters.org (2014) Course design standards [online]. Available at https://www.qualitymatters.org/qa-resources/rubric-standards/higher-ed-rubric. Accessed 18 May 2018

  • Ruddiman W (2001) Earth’s climate: past and future. W.H Freeman and Co, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayle A (1981) Management audits. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw G, Moshman D (1995) Metacognitive theories. Educ Psychol Rev 7(4):351–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw G, Crippen K, Hartley K (2006) Promoting self-regulation in science education: metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Res Sci Educ 36:111–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillings N (2012) Complex systems in the geosciences and in geoscience learning. In: In earth and mind II: a synthesis of research on thinking and learning in the geosciences, Special paper 486. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp 97–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Taber M, Ledley T, Lynds S et al (2012) Geoscience data for educational use: recommendations from scientific/technical and educational communities. J Geosci Educ 60:249–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trigwell K, Prosser M (1991) Improving the quality of student learning: the influence of learning context and student approaches to learning with learning outcomes. J High Educ 22:251–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UCAR and CIRES (2008) Essential principles and fundamental concepts for atmospheric science literacy. UCAR, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program) (2009) Climate literacy: essential principles and fundamental concepts. NSF, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Virgili C (2007) Charles Lyell and scientific thinking in geology. C R Geosci 339(8):572–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigold M (2001) Communicating science: a review of the literature. Sci Commun 23(2):164–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggens G, McTighe J (2005) Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1991) Knowledges in context. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(1):111–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wysession M, Taber J, Budd D et al (2009) Earth science literacy: the big ideas and supporting concepts of earth science. NSF, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Young A, Fry J (2008) Metacognitive awareness and academic achievement in college. J Scholarsh Teach Learn 8(2):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeegers P (2001) Approaches to learning in science: A longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol 71(1):115–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) collaboration between the Directorates for Education and Human Resources (EHR) and Geosciences (GEO) under grant DUE-1125331.

Disclaimer: Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors thank the InTeGrate module development teams and the InTeGrate Assessment Team members for their hard work and patience in pioneering a new system of peer-supported materials development.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geosciences, The University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA

    David Steer

  2. Science Education Resource Center, Carleton College, Northfield, MN, USA

    Ellen R. Iverson & Cathryn A. Manduca

  3. Geological Sciences and Science Education, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, USA

    Anne E. Egger

  4. Marine Geology and Geophysics, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Kim A. Kastens

  5. Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    David McConnell

Authors
  1. David Steer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ellen R. Iverson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne E. Egger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kim A. Kastens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cathryn A. Manduca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David McConnell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Steer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Studies and School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    David C. Gosselin

  2. Geological Sciences and Science Education, Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA, USA

    Anne E. Egger

  3. Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, Washington, DC, USA

    J. John Taber

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Steer, D., Iverson, E.R., Egger, A.E., Kastens, K.A., Manduca, C.A., McConnell, D. (2019). The InTeGrate Materials Development Rubric: A Framework and Process for Developing Curricular Materials that Meet Ambitious Goals. In: Gosselin, D., Egger, A., Taber, J. (eds) Interdisciplinary Teaching About Earth and the Environment for a Sustainable Future. AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03273-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation