View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'Adapting for a Local Space Can Be Tricky': Designing Units for Teachers to Localize through Phenomenon Adaptation

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'Adapting for a Local Space Can Be Tricky': Designing Units for Teachers to Localize through Phenomenon Adaptation
Language: English
Authors: Emily M. Harris (ORCID 0000-0002-9872-7675), Lindsey Mohan (ORCID 0000-0002-6636-470X), Adrienne A. Hanson, Katahdin A. Cook Whitt (ORCID 0000-0003-3227-149X), Candice Guy-Gaytán (ORCID 0000-0002-6918-8799), Lisa O. Kenyon
Source: Science Education. 2025 109(6):1551-1582.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 32
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: 2009613
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Science Education, Instructional Design, Science Instruction, Place Based Education, Instructional Materials, Elementary School Science, Teaching Methods, Story Telling, Student Interests, Relevance (Education)
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21978
ISSN: 0036-8326
1098-237X
Abstract: Learning science in the context of local phenomena and problems can be powerful for young people. Yet, designing place-based instructional materials is resource intensive, limiting broad access. This study investigates how instructional materials designed for widespread use can support teacher localization through phenomenon adaptation, whereby teachers add or swap phenomena relevant to students' interests, identities, and community. Using design-based research, we developed two upper elementary storyline units and professional learning to support teachers' pedagogical design capacity for phenomenon adaptation. We studied 12 teachers' adaptations during their first implementation of the units by analyzing teachers' interviews, reflections, and professional learning discussions. Findings from both units showed that all teachers added phenomena, with common adaptations including adding student-generated phenomena. In the unit anchored around one phenomenon, teachers extended exploration of existing phenomena, citing student interest and cross-curricular connections as rationale. In the unit motivated by multiple phenomena, teachers added new phenomena to support knowledge building and connect to students' lived experiences. Embedded curricular resources offered low-floor entry points for teachers new to the unit. Supplementary resources showed potential as high-ceiling options for more experienced teachers. Phenomenon adaptation requires teachers to coordinate their knowledge of curriculum, students, and community resources to incorporate meaningful phenomena while maintaining coherence. Challenges included time constraints, high quality of existing materials, limited knowledge of local phenomena, and limited confidence. Implications for curriculum and professional learning are discussed, highlighting the potential to turn curricula designed for widespread use into locally-relevant learning experiences.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486681
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEwAzWmnEYHq6wg_Q2yClesAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAyVoLlLFQOG5q_apgIBEICBmosNf_krZb34ujKw0JRWf7fDB0uT9BFJhmTphgMr8jvPne5Shpu1zbWBB3ZCG1l8kBlMmBEYFbHWaA1J3FyQhJ7j28sWVvTB15Uwvl1UfNsT3HrVCwGEW7ZT5X34URuiOBwrLPnTgPmtZsqKsmKaHpXYyTfdOuKEePFKekBHQibo6IHmoghCZx96BXgBKruxVOI-zWDXYrW5qVc=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188607204;sed01nov.25;2025Oct14.06:28;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188607204-1">"Adapting for a Local Space Can be Tricky": Designing Units for Teachers to Localize Through Phenomenon Adaptation </title> <p>Learning science in the context of local phenomena and problems can be powerful for young people. Yet, designing place‐based instructional materials is resource intensive, limiting broad access. This study investigates how instructional materials designed for widespread use can support teacher localization through phenomenon adaptation, whereby teachers add or swap phenomena relevant to students' interests, identities, and community. Using design‐based research, we developed two upper elementary storyline units and professional learning to support teachers' pedagogical design capacity for phenomenon adaptation. We studied 12 teachers' adaptations during their first implementation of the units by analyzing teachers' interviews, reflections, and professional learning discussions. Findings from both units showed that all teachers added phenomena, with common adaptations including adding student‐generated phenomena. In the unit anchored around one phenomenon, teachers extended exploration of existing phenomena, citing student interest and cross‐curricular connections as rationale. In the unit motivated by multiple phenomena, teachers added new phenomena to support knowledge building and connect to students' lived experiences. Embedded curricular resources offered low‐floor entry points for teachers new to the unit. Supplementary resources showed potential as high‐ceiling options for more experienced teachers. Phenomenon adaptation requires teachers to coordinate their knowledge of curriculum, students, and community resources to incorporate meaningful phenomena while maintaining coherence. Challenges included time constraints, high quality of existing materials, limited knowledge of local phenomena, and limited confidence. Implications for curriculum and professional learning are discussed, highlighting the potential to turn curricula designed for widespread use into locally‐relevant learning experiences.</p> <p>Keywords: curriculum adaptation; curriculum design; pedagogical design capacity; phenomenon‐driven learning; place‐based education</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Traditional approaches to science education, focused on mastery of science concepts, have led to inequities in which only some learners come to see science as relevant to their daily lives and future careers (Bell et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]; Bell [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref2">4</reflink>]; Calabrese Barton and Tan [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref3">18</reflink>]). In contrast, reform‐based approaches seek to address these inequities by making science learning relevant for all students, particularly those from communities historically marginalized in westernized science education (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref4">69</reflink>]). In this paper, we describe a new approach to make science learning relevant by leveraging two existing areas of science education: place‐based education (Gruenewald [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref5">44</reflink>]; Sobel [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref6">90</reflink>]) and meaningful phenomenon‐driven learning (Bell [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref7">4</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref8">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Place‐based education centers learning in the local community, incorporating students' interests, identities, cultural and family practices, as well as local land, waters, and community assets (Gruenewald [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>]; Gruenewald and Smith [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref10">45</reflink>]; Morales‐Doyle et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref11">68</reflink>]; Learning in Places Collaborative [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref12">52</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref13">53</reflink>]; Sobel [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref14">90</reflink>]; Suárez and Bell [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref15">93</reflink>]). Here, place and community serve as motivational contexts for disciplinary learning. This powerful approach can lead to gains in content knowledge (Buxton [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]), a redefined and/or deepened relationship with place (Semken and Freeman [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref17">85</reflink>]), increased student ownership and engagement (Chawla and Cushing [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref18">19</reflink>]), and enhanced student agency to create change in communities (Gruenewald and Smith [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref19">45</reflink>]; Smith and Sobel [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref20">89</reflink>]; Sobel [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref21">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>Meaningful phenomenon‐driven learning has gained prominence in the United States following the Framework for K‐12 Science Education (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref22">69</reflink>]) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref23">70</reflink>]). This approach shifts away from decontextualized science content learning, instead positioning students to develop and apply scientific ideas to investigate and act on phenomena that matter to them, their community, and society (Bell [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]). By positioning students to build knowledge as scientists do, it supports their epistemic agency (Cherbow and McNeill [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref25">20</reflink>]). Curriculum developers have implemented this approach in large‐scale instructional materials programs using storylines units, such as those in Next Generation Science Storylines, iHub, and OpenSciEd. In these storyline units, students investigate phenomena that are interesting and relevant across contexts (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref26">77</reflink>]). However, these programs are not place‐based, as they need broad appeal for educators and students. Development teams lack the community‐specific knowledge needed to deeply connect learning to particular places, as such knowledge typically resides locally.</p> <p>Situating phenomenon‐driven learning within place and community contexts enables educators to leverage the rich local geographies and cultures of youth, supporting meaningful science learning (Morales‐Doyle et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref27">68</reflink>]). This approach encourages students to ask questions about and investigate phenomena of consequence for them and their communities, which Lee and Grapin ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref28">55</reflink>]) argue is "especially crucial for students who do not see science as relevant to their everyday lives or future careers" (p. 3). By exploring locally and culturally significant phenomena, youth draw upon their lived experiences and rich funds of knowledge—encompassing cultural, social, historical, and political understandings of place—to make sense of scientific concepts (Buxton [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>]; Lee [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref30">54</reflink>]; Lim and Barton [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref31">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>One approach to designing place‐based, phenomenon‐driven learning experiences is participatory codesign, which involves creating curriculum with, rather than for, the community. This process brings together educators, families, youth, local experts, and community leaders, leveraging their deep knowledge of students and community assets (Bang and Vossoughi [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]; Ishimaru et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref33">47</reflink>]; McGowan and Bell [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref34">62</reflink>]; Morales‐Doyle et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref35">68</reflink>]). Participants contribute their expertise and perspectives to collaboratively select phenomena consequential for youth in their communities and design materials that teachers then implement with their students. This approach may offer benefits such as increased cultural relevance, enhanced community engagement, and integration of local knowledge into the curriculum. For instance, Morales‐Doyle et al. ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref36">68</reflink>]) reported on a participatory codesign process in which scientists, youth, educators, and community organizers convened for a 5‐day institute to develop a justice‐oriented curriculum on heavy metal contamination's impact on their community.</p> <p>Despite these affordances, implementing participatory codesign at scale presents significant barriers to access. The process demands substantial time for relationship‐building and collaboration to design materials that authentically represent the community and honor varied student identities. The resources necessary—including funding, time, and partnerships—are often beyond the reach of many schools and communities. As a result, access to materials developed using these processes remains limited for many educators and students, highlighting a persistent equity issue in educational design and implementation.</p> <p>Recognizing the benefits of situating phenomenon‐driven learning in the context of place, and the limitations to widespread reach, we sought to test an alternative approach. Drawing on curriculum adaptation scholarship (Adah Miller et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>]; Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref38">14</reflink>]; DeBarger et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref39">34</reflink>]; Fogleman et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref40">40</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref41">63</reflink>]; Penuel and Gallagher [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref42">74</reflink>]; Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref43">75</reflink>]; Remillard 1999 [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref44">80</reflink>]), we designed and tested phenomenon‐driven instructional materials intended for broad use across communities, incorporating features that facilitate local adaptation by teachers. We call this approach <emph>localization through curriculum adaptation</emph>. Localization positions educators as adapters of materials to meet the needs and priorities of their students and local classroom and community contexts. Educators may localize materials for varied reasons, such as to address local standards, connect to students' cultural worlds, leverage community assets, or to position students to act in their lives and communities. We narrowed our localization focus to <emph>phenomenon adaptation</emph>, where teachers add or swap phenomena or problems relevant to students' lives and local contexts in the designed materials. Adah Miller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]) describe these as "teacher‐driven adaptations" tailoring phenomena to local contexts.</p> <p>To study teacher adaptations, we developed two elementary science curriculum units (for ages 8–10 years) using a phenomenon‐driven storyline approach (Edelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref46">38</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref47">79</reflink>]) and our nascent models for designing units for phenomenon adaptation (Harris et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref48">46</reflink>]; Mohan et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref49">66</reflink>]; Mohan et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref50">67</reflink>]). These units, designed for widespread use across the United States, incorporated design features to support teachers' localization through phenomenon adaptation. We conducted design‐based research to study phenomenon adaptations by 12 teachers and how the design features of the materials afforded or constrained localization through phenomenon adaptation. The following questions guided this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. How and why do teachers adapt phenomena that matter to students in units designed for phenomena adaptation?</item> <p></p> <item> 2. What curriculum design features may support teachers with phenomena adaptation?</item> <p></p> <item> 3. What challenges do teachers encounter when trying to adapt phenomena?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188607204-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-4">Pedagogical Design Capacity for Phenomenon Adaptation</hd> <p>We view teachers as designers in their own right, not solely implementers of others' designs (Ben‐Peretz [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref51">6</reflink>]; DeBarger et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]) and share Torres Olave and Dillon's ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref53">94</reflink>]) perspective that teachers are well positioned to understand their students and communities' needs and make adaptations to support authentic learning experiences. Yet, we do not subscribe to the "good teacher doctrine" that good teachers always set aside instructional materials to create their own materials for the students in front of them (Remillard [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref54">81</reflink>], p. 35). Rather, teachers can be supported to use well‐designed instructional materials as a starting point for principled adaptations, or what Ben‐Peretz ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref55">6</reflink>]) described as "uncovering the potential of curriculum materials" (p. xiv). Therefore, we focused on creating the conditions for teachers to engage in the complex design work of adapting instructional materials to incorporate phenomena that matter to their students while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of a phenomenon‐driven storyline unit. We needed to create resources to support teachers' <emph>pedagogical design capacity</emph> (PDC) (Brown and Edelson [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref56">13</reflink>]; Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]) for localization through phenomenon adaptation.</p> <p>PDC is "a teacher's capacity to perceive and mobilize existing resources to craft instructional episodes" (Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref58">14</reflink>], p. 29). Brown, Edelson, and colleagues argued that teaching is design, where teachers continuously make decisions to balance constraints against their goals. The PDC framework they articulated emerged when there was renewed attention to the central role curriculum materials play in teacher decision‐making (e.g., Remillard [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref59">80</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref60">30</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref61">29</reflink>]; Drake and Sherin [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref62">37</reflink>]; Nicol and Crespo [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref63">71</reflink>]; Sherin and Drake [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref64">86</reflink>]). Similar to PDC, Remillard ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref65">80</reflink>]) described this as a participatory relationship between curriculum materials and teachers who bring their own resources to design and development. The PDC framework elaborates that as teachers participate with materials, they make decisions to offload, improvise, or adapt. Offloading involves using the curriculum as designed and improvising involves drawing on a teacher's personal resources to design instructional episodes. When teachers adapt, they maintain some aspects of the curriculum materials and introduce new components. In this paper, we add to this prior research by focusing on moments of adaptation to phenomenon‐driven instructional materials when teachers introduce new phenomena with potential for local or cultural relevance for students into the storyline.</p> <p>In the PDC framework, teachers leverage curricular resources to enact classroom instruction. Curricular resources can include physical objects (e.g., lab materials), representations of procedures (e.g., teacher guides, slides, handouts or readings), representations of key concepts (e.g., initial and revised models to explain a phenomenon), and the underlying goals through which materials should be understood (e.g., the instructional model, instructional routines, and design principles) (Otte [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref66">72</reflink>]; Remillard [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref67">80</reflink>]). These resources can be designed to be educative for teachers, supporting teacher learning through use (Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]; Davis and Krajcik [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]). Like Knight‐Bardsley and McNeill ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref71">49</reflink>]), we expand curricular resources to <bold>instructional resources</bold> to include professional learning (PL) that supports teachers in leveraging curricular resources to make adaptations (Figure 1). Research has shown that combining curriculum‐based PL with educative curriculum materials can yield greater teacher learning (Bismack et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref72">8</reflink>]; Arias et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>]; Short and Hirsh [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref74">87</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Pedagogical design capacity for phenomenon adaptation." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Teachers also leverage their own knowledge and skills in design work. <bold>Teacher resources</bold>, called personal resources in the original PDC framework, include teachers' beliefs about why they make instructional decisions, their subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and knowledge of their students. In our framework, we add knowledge of curriculum, which includes teachers' knowledge of curricular purposes, such as the values that underpin the curriculum (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref75">88</reflink>]), standards the curriculum addresses (Magnusson et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref76">60</reflink>]) and, in the United States, teachers' knowledge of phenomenon‐driven, practice‐oriented learning as called for by NGSS (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref77">69</reflink>]). It also includes teachers' knowledge of curricular structures, such as the instructional model and specific unit materials (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref78">73</reflink>]). This knowledge includes how teachers read and interpret curricular resources to help them plan and enact productive adaptations (Remillard and Kim [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref79">82</reflink>]) while maintaining integrity to the learning goals and structures of the curriculum (Bybee et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref80">17</reflink>]; McNeill et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref81">63</reflink>]). When teachers have more experience with a unit and thus more knowledge of the curriculum, teachers are generally more effective with the unit (Fogleman et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref82">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>PDC and similar research on principled adaptations (Penuel and Gallagher [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref83">74</reflink>]) has previously been applied in science education to consider how teachers modify instructional materials to support student engagement and sensemaking, such as argumentation (Knight‐Bardsley and McNeill [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref84">49</reflink>]), explanation (Biggers et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref85">7</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]) and productive classroom talk (DeBarger et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref87">34</reflink>]). Brown and Livstrom ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref88">12</reflink>]) applied PDC to explore how secondary science teachers design or modify lessons to make meaningful ethnic and cultural connections supporting multicultural education. While there is a broad literature base on supporting design capacity and curriculum adaptation, positioning teachers to adapt phenomena is distinct from prior studies. Teachers must undertake the complex task of selecting phenomena that are both relevant to students and their communities while maintaining alignment with the unit's science ideas and storyline approach.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-6">Design of Instructional Resources</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-7">Curriculum</hd> <p>We designed our units using a storyline instructional approach and included design features for phenomenon adaptation with attention to low floor, high ceiling, and wide walls.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-8">Storyline Units</hd> <p>Recent reform in the United States has resulted in a new generation of instructional units designed for students to investigate complex phenomena through which they engage in science practices to develop science ideas (National Research Council [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref89">69</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref90">56</reflink>]; Edelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref91">38</reflink>]). <emph>Storylines</emph> is a widespread instructional approach used in these units (Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref92">78</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref93">79</reflink>]). Storyline units have four characteristics that reframe students' role in the learning process and support students' epistemic agency because students are involved in, and often driving, their learning through a sense of shared intellectual responsibility (Damşa et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref94">27</reflink>]; Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref95">73</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref96">79</reflink>]; Stroupe [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref97">92</reflink>]).</p> <p>First, storyline units launch with a <emph>motivating context</emph> using a real phenomenon, called the anchoring phenomenon, to motivate student learning and drive students' science knowledge building throughout a unit (Edelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref99">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref100">79</reflink>]; Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref101">77</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref102">73</reflink>]). The anchoring phenomenon is a phenomenon or problem that is puzzling, complex, and challenging to explain, and motivates students to ask questions they want to investigate. This motivating context creates opportunities for students to connect to similar phenomena they experience in their own lives or know about, called related phenomena. In large‐scale instructional programs like OpenSciEd, iHub, and Next Generation Science Storylines, developers use surveys to gather students' interests about different phenomena (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref103">77</reflink>]) and use these data to select an anchoring phenomenon with widespread interest and perceived relevance to students.</p> <p>Second, storyline units engage students with science practices to incrementally build science knowledge as they make sense of phenomena (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref104">77</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref105">78</reflink>]). The questions students generate about the anchoring and related phenomena at the launch of a unit form the basis for subsequent investigations. As students investigate their questions, they gather evidence to help them make sense of phenomena. Students engage in <emph>knowledge building</emph> that mirrors the work of scientists through iterative revisions to models, explanations, and arguments that answer their questions about phenomena (Lee [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]; Stewart et al. [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref107">91</reflink>]). At key points in a storyline unit, students may move from a model to explain the specific anchoring phenomenon to a generalized model to explain many related phenomena.</p> <p>A third characteristic of storyline units is that once students have developed a generalized model, they <emph>apply knowledge</emph> that they have figured out in a transfer task (Lo et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref108">58</reflink>]). Transfer of learning involves applying knowledge to a novel context (e.g., Gick and Holyoak [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref109">43</reflink>]). In a storyline unit, a transfer task uses a novel phenomenon or problem context in which students apply their model to explain the phenomenon or design solutions through engineering application. Transfer tasks offer moments for teachers to assess students' progress toward developing disciplinary ideas and practices and/or contexts for student self‐assessment.</p> <p>Finally, a distinguishing characteristic of storyline units is maintaining <emph>coherence from the perspective of students</emph> as they investigate phenomena (Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref110">78</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref111">79</reflink>]; Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref112">73</reflink>]). Coherence from the student perspective involves using students' questions about a phenomenon to motivate a sequence of investigations in a way that makes sense to the learner. Reiser et al. ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref113">79</reflink>]) describe this as, "meaningful investigations in which students collaborate with the teacher and instructional materials in managing the trajectory of their knowledge building" (p. 807). They contrast coherence from the student perspective with disciplinary coherence which occurs when "the reason to work on a topic and undertake new investigations reflects the logic of building the science ideas as formulated by those who already understand them and their usefulness" (p. 806).</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-9">Low Floor, High Ceiling, Wide Walls for Phenomenon Adaptation</hd> <p>Localizing a storyline unit with new phenomena is a complex design task because these units are tightly crafted around explaining a specific phenomenon with particular science ideas (Ko and Krist [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref114">51</reflink>]). Any adaptation to the storyline has the potential to disrupt the coherence and incremental knowledge building of the unit story. Yet, adaptations can also leverage both teacher and student resources to improve coherence from the perspective of students, deepen knowledge building, and increase the relevance of students' science learning (Ko [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref115">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>We sought to create a curriculum that would allow teachers to easily adapt units during their first implementation, while also providing more complex options for experienced teachers or subsequent uses. The field of learning technologies describes this as designing for a low floor, high ceiling, and wide walls (Blake‐West and Bers [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref116">9</reflink>]; Resnick and Silverman [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref117">83</reflink>]). When programming digital learning environments, developers create a wide range of opportunities for users at different skill levels. Resnick and Silverman ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref118">83</reflink>]) describe how they designed the Logo programming language with a <emph>low floor</emph> for novices to easily get started while also maintaining a <emph>high ceiling</emph> for expert users to create increasingly complex projects. They added the concept of <emph>wide walls</emph>, as exemplified by their programmable LEGO bricks, that involves supporting a broad range of young people's interests and passions; children interested in music could use the bricks to create instruments, and children interested in art could make an interactive sculpture with the same construction kit. The goal of this design approach is twofold: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>) to make space for users to learn and grow over time regardless of their skill level in which they enter, similar to how a teacher might develop new understandings and gain new strategies as they learn and grow with curriculum materials over time (Forbes and Davis [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref120">41</reflink>]; Fogleman et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref121">40</reflink>]; Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref122">73</reflink>]) and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>) to create a diversity of outcomes such that no project will look the same and users can continually create new things with the same materials.</p> <p>In a similar spirit, we created different design features in the instructional materials that could help us study which features might provide a low floor for teachers to adapt phenomena in their first enactment of a unit, and which might allow for a high ceiling for more substantial adaptations with teachers bringing more expertise. We also included features we hoped would create wide walls to help teachers incorporate phenomena that mattered to their students for various reasons such as interest, cultural relevance, or everyday phenomena (Suarez and Bell [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref124">93</reflink>]). We designed these as educative features to help teachers learn how to adapt the units with local phenomena while staying congruent with the storyline. We envisioned teachers creating distinctly different localized units that would reflect their local setting and students, with the ability to create subsequent variations as their classrooms and communities changed over time.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-10">Professional Learning</hd> <p>The project used curriculum‐based PL to grow teachers' knowledge of the curriculum. To build teachers' PDC, the PL oriented teachers to specific aspects of the unit including the anchoring phenomenon(a), unit storyline, instructional model, and resources to support adaptations, such as the possible easy on‐ramps and more complex adaptation opportunities. It was important to emphasize the critical underlying features of the unit storyline so that introducing new meaningful phenomena into the unit would not disrupt coherence and knowledge building. We share further detail on PL design in the methods.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-11">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-12">Research Context</hd> <p>This study reports on curriculum adaptations by 12 elementary school teachers across the United States participating in the pilot phase of a 4‐year design‐based research (DBR) project (Cobb et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref125">22</reflink>]). The project aimed to study how curriculum materials designed for widespread use could support teacher‐driven phenomenon adaptation. During the 2021–2022 academic year, we designed and piloted two storyline units with supporting curriculum‐based PL materials. Both units––the 3rd grade Bison Unit (life science) and the 4th grade Slope Failure Unit (earth science)––included low floor, high ceiling, and wide wall and design features to help teachers localize through phenomena adaptation.</p> <p>We used DBR methodology, which involves iteratively testing and refining educational designs based on theoretical principles (Brown [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref126">11</reflink>]; Collins [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref127">23</reflink>]). Design research allowed for testing and refining designs while simultaneously building theory (Collins et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref128">24</reflink>]). Our process unfolded as follows: we initially designed and piloted the Bison Unit, collected and analyzed data from its implementation, and then used these insights to inform the design of the Slope Failure Unit. After implementing and studying the Slope Failure Unit, we selected it for additional refinement in a follow‐up study. This paper focuses on findings from the Bison and Slope Failure Unit pilots (Figure 2).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Study timeline for two rounds of design‐based research." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Our curriculum development team included science educators and researchers (all authors except the third), one elementary teacher, and one scientist. The team's expertise encompassed design for NGSS storyline units, place‐based education, elementary science, support for multilingual learners and unit‐specific science content. Team members had experience leading and writing for high‐quality units such as OpenSciEd as well as designing place‐based education programs focused on rural communities, interdisciplinary learning, and participatory science.</p> <p>Two advisory boards supported our design decisions: a Teacher Advisory Board of three elementary teachers and an Indigenous Advisory Board with three members from different tribal communities in the United States. Both boards provided feedback on potential anchoring phenomena and unit storylines. The Teacher Advisory Board also advised on design for elementary‐age learners, while the Indigenous Advisory Board offered insights on cultural relevance for Indigenous students in our study and expanded our understanding of the anchoring phenomena and Western science ideas embedded in the NGSS. Their guidance proved especially valuable for the Bison Unit. Next, we describe each unit's storyline and design features to support phenomenon adaptation.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-14">Curricular Context</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-15">Bison and Slope Failure Unit Storylines</hd> <p>We developed two units using a storyline design process (Edelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref129">38</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref130">79</reflink>]), carefully selecting phenomena relevant across diverse geographical and local contexts (Mohan et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref131">67</reflink>]). The 3rd grade Bison Unit covered animal adaptations, survival, environmental change, and design (NGSS standards 3‐LS2‐1, 3‐LS4‐3, 3‐LS4‐4, and 3‐5‐ETS1‐2). The 4th grade Slope Failure Unit explored weathering, erosion, deposition, and engineering design (NGSS standards 4‐ESS2‐1, 3‐5‐ETS1‐1, and 3‐5‐ETS1‐2). Both units included full teacher guides, student handouts, and presentation slides to support implementation. The storyline instructional model used in both units comprised three distinct lesson types:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Anchor lesson: This initial lesson sets up the unit's motivating context. Students explore one or more anchoring phenomena, attempt to explain them, and formulate questions.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Investigation lessons: These lessons focus on evidence gathering, sensemaking, and the revision of models or arguments and deepen understanding.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Synthesize lessons: In these culminating lessons, students use revised models to explain or construct arguments about the anchoring phenomenon(a). They apply their learning to new contexts, in transfer tasks and/or engineering applications.</item> </ulist> <p>This three‐part structure created a cohesive learning journey, guiding students from initial engagement through investigations to final synthesis and application. Figure 3 illustrates the structure of both units using this model, demonstrating how these lesson types interconnect to form a complete learning experience.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Bison and Slope Failure Unit structure." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The Bison Unit's anchoring phenomenon centers on a striking event: a herd of bison stampeding down a road in Yellowstone National Park. In anchor lesson 1, students explore this phenomenon and share related phenomena of animals interacting with human structures. Animals interacting with roads, as seen in the bison phenomena, is a phenomenon with potential widespread relevance to many communities. Students propose initial explanations for why bison use roads and consider whether roads pose problems for wildlife. Students then generate questions based on their uncertainties. Lessons 2 and 3 are investigation lessons where students gather evidence about bison adaptations and how bison interact within the Yellowstone ecosystem to meet their needs. In lesson 4, a synthesize lesson, students develop a model to explain part of the bison anchoring phenomenon and use research on their favorite animals to generalize this model. Lessons 5 and 6 return to investigation, with students gathering evidence on bison populations as the park developed, and potential problem areas with high car traffic and frequent animal sightings. Lesson 7, another synthesize lesson, has students revise their model for bison in Yellowstone and generalize it to other ecosystem contexts. In the final synthesize lesson 8, students design solutions for two locations in Yellowstone where animals come into conflict with people and roads. The unit concludes with students revisiting their initial questions and celebrating their learning. Though this unit centers on bison using roads in Yellowstone National Park, it exemplifies a universal challenge: the environmental disruption caused by roads and other human structures in communities everywhere.</p> <p>The Slope Failure Unit begins with lesson 0, a pre‐unit task in which students share drawings and stories of personally important places where they noticed changes in rocks, dirt, or hard materials. In lesson 1, the anchor lesson, students explore three slope failure events: rock breaking off a cliff in Yosemite National Park, a landslide that blocked a road in Feather River Canyon, California, and a mudflow carrying trees down a mountainside in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. Like the Bison Unit, these events have potential widespread relevance, as they can impact many communities. Students develop initial models to explain these events' causes and effects, identify uncertainties and questions that drive their subsequent investigations. Lessons 2, 3, and 4 are investigation lessons where students explore how rocks break apart (motivated by the rockfall and landslide events) and how rocks and dirt move (motivated by the landslide and mudflow events). In each of these lessons, students use evidence to develop part of a generalized model. Lesson 5, a synthesize lesson, has students using evidence to construct arguments about the causes and effects of the anchoring phenomena. Lesson 6 returns to investigation, broadening the scope to other weathering, erosion, and deposition cases to expand students' models. In Lesson 7, another synthesize lesson, students revise their model and use it alongside new evidence to create arguments about a schoolyard weathering and erosion case. The unit culminates in Lesson 8 where students become civil engineers investigating problems and designing solutions for weathering and erosion problems in their schoolyard. Finally, students return to their special places from the pre‐unit task, now ready to explain the changes they observed.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-17">Bison and Slope Failure Unit Design Features for Phenomenon Adaptation</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-18">Types of Curriculum Resources</hd> <p>To support teachers in adding or swapping phenomena in the storyline, we designed two types of curriculum resources: embedded and supplemental. <emph>Embedded resources</emph> were designed to occur within a lesson's main activities. They required teachers to adjust or change an activity based on their local context or student‐generated phenomena. <emph>Supplemental resources</emph> (see Supporting Information S2 for examples) required teachers to design minor to moderate adaptations through optional scaffolded activities with separate slides and handouts, and suggested ideas in teacher guides. The Bison Unit featured an adaptation planning tool for each lesson. At the unit level, supplemental resources were designed to help teachers see adaptation opportunities, through visual storylines showing places to add or swap phenomena and guidance documents offering examples of phenomena students might investigate at small and larger regional scales.</p> <p>The units shared some similar embedded and supplemental resources, but had some intentional differences to test how the features supported teacher adaptation. Next, we summarize those similarities and differences organized by features in the motivating context, to build knowledge across lessons, and to apply knowledge (Table 1).</p> <p>1 Table Design features to support adaptation in the motivating context, to build knowledge across lessons, and to apply knowledge.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Instructional moves</th><th>Bison Unit</th><th>Slope Failure Unit</th><th>Design feature</th><th>Type of resource</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>To set up a motivating context (Primarily Anchor lessons)</td><td>To elicit related phenomena from students lives and experiences</td><td>Students' experiences of animals interacting with human built structures</td><td>Small scale rockfalls and landslides from students lives</td><td>Related phenomena from students</td><td>Embedded</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Students share important places to them where rocks/dirt break apart or move</td><td>Identity‐linked phenomena from students</td><td>Embedded</td></tr><tr><td align="center">To directly observe related phenomena on the schoolyard</td><td>Observe animals interacting with human built structures</td><td>Small scale rockfalls and landslides on the schoolyard</td><td>Schoolyard exploration</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td align="center">To have a shared anchoring phenomenon</td><td>Add a local animal population interacting with human structures alongside bison using a road in Yellowstone National Park</td><td /><td>One high interest anchor with the ability to add a local case alongside it</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Yosemite rockfall, Idaho mudflow, California landslide case designed to swap</td><td>Three high interest anchoring phenomenawith ability to swap one</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td>To build knowledge across lessons (Investigation and Synthesize lessons)</td><td>To gather evidence through investigations</td><td>Local walks looking for animals interacting with the human built environment</td><td>Local walks looking for weathering and erosion (e.g., cracked sidewalks) or exploration of locally or regionally iconic cases (e.g., river carved canyons)</td><td>Examples of schoolyard, neighborhood, community, or regional cases</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Glacial erratics, sediment runoff, coastal erosion, sand dune movement</td><td>Teacher choice to select phenomena from a menu of options</td><td>Embedded</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Add a reading about a local animal in their environment</td><td>Replace glacial erratics, sediment runoff, coastal erosion, sand dune movement with a different local case</td><td>Add or swap a investigative phenomenon with local case</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td align="center">To build a generalized model using evidence from investigations</td><td>Revise the model to explain what bison need to survive in Yellowstone and how they are impacted by roads, then use students' favorite animals to generalize the model to explain what other animals need to survive in their environments</td><td /><td>Develop a specific model and then use related phenomena to generalize itQuestions frames to support generalizing the model</td><td>Embedded</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Develop a model to explain why rocks break apart (Yosemite, cracked sidewalks, potholes) and why soil moves and stops (Idaho mudflow, California landslide, small scale local erosion)</td><td>Use related phenomena to develop a generalized model lesson‐by‐lesson</td><td>Embedded</td></tr><tr><td>To apply knowledge (Synthesize lessons)</td><td>To apply or transfer knowledge to new cases</td><td>Apply generalized model to a local phenomena in a transfer task, replacing the arctic fox task</td><td>Apply generalized model to a local schoolyard phenomena in a transfer task, replacing the community park task</td><td>Swap a transfer task with a local case</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td align="center">To apply or transfer knowledge in engineering application</td><td>Add or swap design solutions to help a local animal with a human structures alongside/in lieu of bison, bear and wolves interacting with roads</td><td /><td>Add or swap the engineering design task with a local problem</td><td>Supplemental</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Design solutions to weathering and erosion problems on the schoolyard</td><td>Engineering design task for a local schoolyard problem</td><td>Embedded</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188607204-19">To Set Up a Motivating Context</hd> <p>Anchor lesson 1 set up the motivating context for both units, with both shared and distinct design features supporting adaptation. Both units provided embedded resources in lesson 1 to elicit phenomena from students' lives, with prompts for students to share related phenomena. The Slope Failure Unit took a step further by including a lesson 0 unit pre‐task where students shared personally significant related phenomena through drawings and words (Figure 4). We refer to these as students' identity‐linked phenomena. Both units also offered supplemental resources to guide teachers in having students explore and directly observe related phenomena in their schoolyard.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Slope Failure Unit lesson 0 pre‐task in which students share identity‐linked phenomena." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The units differed notably in their approach to anchoring phenomena. The Bison Unit centered on one phenomenon, chosen for its high interest on student surveys and potential to connect to prevalent related phenomena of wildlife interacting with human‐built structures. Supplemental resources supported teachers to incorporate a local phenomenon alongside the bison case. In contrast, the Slope Failure Unit presented three anchoring phenomena, each selected for high student interest on student surveys and each with aspects of relevance to related phenomena across communities. Supplemental resources were included to help teachers swap one of the cases, offering flexbility in adapting the content to local contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-21">To Build Knowledge Across Lessons</hd> <p>Knowledge building in both units began with sharing initial ideas in the anchor lesson and iteratively refining models and arguments across the investigation and synthesize lessons as students gathered evidence. Both units provided supplemental resources in investigation lessons, including templates to create materials (e.g., readings, slides, handouts) and guidance for students to explore related phenomena through schoolyard walks. A unique feature of the Slope Failure Unit was a new kind of investigation lesson that offered teachers flexibility to select two regionally relevant case studies from a menu of four options (Figure 5). Embedded resources included fully developed slides and handouts for each case. A sentence frame helped teachers create an appropriate lesson question and the teacher guide included guidance on the weathering and/or erosion ideas students would build based on their selected cases. In addition, a supplemental slide template helped teachers draft their own case relevant to their location.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Lesson 6 overview from the teacher guide showing menu of phenomena options." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The model revision process differed between units. In the Bison Unit, knowledge building progressed from developing a specific model to explain the bison phenomenon during investigation lessons to generalizing the model and applying it during synthesize lessons. In the first synthesize lesson, teachers used embedded resources to have students share related phenomena of animals and how they survived in their environments. Students used information they gathered about related phenomena to generalize the model. Sentence‐frame style questions supported the teachers in introducing the related phenomena and guided model generalization.</p> <p>The Slope Failure Unit adopted an approach to generalize the model from the outset. Students developed generalized models in each investigation lesson because they were explaining multiple phenomena in each lesson, including local ones. The investigation lessons included embedded resources to integrate local phenomena before students revised their models. For example, in lesson 2, students initially explored how and why rocks break apart motivated by the Yosemite rockfall event. They then explored related phenomena through reading about the causes of cracked sidewalks, potholes, and deteriorating buildings. With this evidence, they revised a generalized model to explain how and why rocks break apart.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-23">To Apply Knowledge</hd> <p>In synthesize lessons, both units included opportunities for students to apply their learning through transfer tasks and engineering design challenges. Embedded transfer tasks challenged students to apply their generalized models to explain or support a claim for a novel phenomenon. To facilitate adaptation, supplemental resources helped teachers swap the transfer task context with a local one in both units. Each unit culminated in an engineering application lesson, though the approach differed between the two. The Bison Unit engineering task had students evaluate solutions to protect bison and other Yellowstone wildlife from road traffic. Supplemental resources supported teachers to develop a challenge focused on a local animal population that could either complement or replace the bison‐specific task. In contrast, the Slope Failure built schoolyard engineering directly into its structure, providing embedded resources that guided students to identify problems on their schoolyard, develop evaluation criteria, and design and evaluate potential solutions (see Supporting Information S2).</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-24">Participants and Settings</hd> <p>Six third‐grade teachers piloted the Bison Unit and six fourth‐grade teachers piloted the Slope Failure Unit (Table 2). Teachers' teaching experience ranged from 2 to 25 years. Most Bison Unit teachers self‐reported minimal experience with the NGSS, teaching storyline units, and place‐based education. Half of the Slope Failure Unit teachers self‐reported experience teaching storyline units designed for NGSS, and two teachers had done some place‐based education. In both studies, one teacher taught in a rural Northeast school with the other five in urban settings across the United States. Student eligibility for free and reduced lunch ranged from 17% to 87%. Most of the schools had a majority of White students with four schools serving a majority of Hispanic students and one school serving a majority of Asian–American students. In the Bison Unit study, there were two pairs of 3rd grade teaching partners: Samantha and Lily at one school and Dana and Caelan at another. In the Slope Failure Unit study, Lucia, MacKenzie, and Carolina served on the teacher advisory board to advise on design so they had greater knowledge of the unit. Lucia and MacKenzie also advised on the design of both units and therefore had a deeper knowledge of the goals for phenomenon adaptation, instructional model and this Slope Failure Unit in particular. Because teachers taught the unit at the end of the school year, MacKenzie, Carolina, and Dawn ran out of time to complete the final engineering application lesson.</p> <p>2 Table Summary of teacher experience and characteristics of their school settings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Teacher</th><th>NGSS and storyline experience</th><th>Place‐based experience</th><th>Years of teaching</th><th>Geographic region</th><th>Percentage of students eligible for F&R lunch</th><th>Race/Ethnicity of students</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Bison Unit</td><td>Samantha<ext-link href="a" /></td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>15</td><td>Urban, Coastal West</td><td>28%</td><td>44% White, 19% Hispanic, two or more races 16%, Black 11%, Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 10%</td></tr><tr><td>Lilly<ext-link href="a" /></td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>25</td><td>Urban, Coastal West</td><td>28%</td><td>44% White, 19% Hispanic, two or more races 16%, Black 11%, Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander</td></tr><tr><td>Dana<ext-link href="b" /></td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>4</td><td>Urban, Coastal West</td><td>87%</td><td>70% Hispanic, 10% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 10% Black, Two or more races, 7%</td></tr><tr><td>Caelan<ext-link href="b" /></td><td>Minimal</td><td>Some</td><td>2</td><td>Urban, West</td><td>87%</td><td>70% Hispanic, 10% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 10% Black, Two or more races, 7%</td></tr><tr><td>Gwen</td><td>Some</td><td>Minimal</td><td>32</td><td>Urban, Midwest</td><td>72%</td><td>66% Hispanic, 21% White, 8% Black</td></tr><tr><td>Jocelyn</td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>14</td><td>Rural, Northeast</td><td>39%</td><td>93% White, English</td></tr><tr><td>Slope Failure Unit</td><td>Lucia</td><td>A great deal, including advising on 3rd grade unit</td><td>Some</td><td>23</td><td>Urban, Coastal West</td><td>17%</td><td>33% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 26.4% White, 22.9% Two or more races, 10.7% Hispanic, 6.8 Black</td></tr><tr><td>MacKenzie<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>A great deal, including advising on 3rd grade unit</td><td>Some</td><td>19</td><td>Urban, Mountain West</td><td>77%</td><td>55% White, 23% Hispanic, 13% Black, 5% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander</td></tr><tr><td>Carolina<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>18</td><td>Urban, Southwest</td><td>Not available</td><td>64% White, 18% Two or more races, 6% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 6% Black</td></tr><tr><td>Marina</td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>10</td><td>Urban, Coastal West</td><td>44%</td><td>45% Hispanic, 25% White, 10% Two or more races, 10% Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 9% Black</td></tr><tr><td>Sarah</td><td>A great deal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>2</td><td>Urban Northeast</td><td>Not available</td><td>93% White, 2.9 Asian or Asian/Pacific Islander, 2.9 Hispanic</td></tr><tr><td>Dawn<ext-link href="c" /></td><td>Minimal</td><td>Minimal</td><td>2</td><td>Rural, Northeast</td><td>50%</td><td>97% White, 3% Hispanic</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 a Team 1 of teachers collaborating in the same school.</p> <ulist> <item>2 b Team 2 of teachers collaborating in the same school.</item> <item>3 c Denotes teachers who did not complete the final engineering application lesson.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188607204-25">Professional Learning</hd> <p>To support teachers' PDC for phenomenon adaptation, specifically teacher resources, we designed a ~15‐h curriculum‐based PL course for each unit that consisted of weekly virtual meetings over 3 months. Teachers started teaching each unit midway through the PL. Using design features for high‐quality PL, we supported teachers' knowledge of the curriculum through "immersion" activities for teachers to participate as learners, peer discussions, and structures for preparing for and reflecting on lessons taught with colleagues (e.g., Darling‐Hammond et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref132">28</reflink>]; Garet et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref133">42</reflink>]; Loucks‐Horsley et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref134">59</reflink>]) (Table 3). The Slope Failure Unit also included specific strategies for fostering student‐to‐student discourse. These helped teachers develop understanding of the curricular purposes and structures and pedagogical content knowledge to facilitate phenomenon‐driven learning and sensemaking among students.</p> <p>3 Table Professional learning design features.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Purpose</th><th>Professional learning focus</th><th>Bison Unit</th><th>Slope Failure Unit</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Learning the unit structure</td><td>Introduction to the unit storyline</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Introduction to each lesson</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Support teacher facilitation of phenomenon‐driven learning and sensemaking</td><td>Lesson 0 pre‐task immersion as learners</td><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Anchor Lesson 1 immersion as learners</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Introduction to key sensemaking routines (driving question board, modeling and revision over time)</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Strategies for supporting student to student discourse</td><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Collaborative learning</td><td>Reflection on unit experiences, peer discussion and troubleshooting</td><td>X</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Supports to adapt phenomena</td><td>Three discussions identifying local phenomena examples</td><td>X</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Two discussions reviewing example phenomena in unit resources and brainstorming phenomena examples with a a unit‐specific tool</td><td /><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We also added components to support phenomenon adaptation. The Bison Unit PL included three sessions in which teachers brainstormed and discussed potential local phenomena to add or swap in lessons, such as ravens, butterflies, and snakes. The first discussion followed an immersion experience of Lesson 1. Teachers brainstormed related phenomena students might share during this lesson. The second discussion followed the overview of Lesson 4 in which students would be invited to share about their favorite animals and their adaptations. An optional third discussion was initiated by teachers who requested time to discuss how and where to add local cases. In the Slope Failure Unit PL, teachers engaged in two scaffolded brainstorming conversations. In the first discussion, before teaching the unit, they reviewed unit resources showing neighborhood and landscape‐scale phenomena examples (see Supporting Information S2). Teachers then used a tool (Figure 6) to brainstorm related phenomena ideas. In the second discussion, they revisited this tool after the overview of lesson 6 where teachers would select from the menu of options, and brainstorm additional new phenomenon ideas.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0006.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0006.jpg" title="6 Slope Failure Unit professional learning brainstorming scaffold. Some images have been removed or replaced with similar public domain images." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-27">Data Collection</hd> <p>We used qualitative methods (Merriam [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref135">64</reflink>]) to identify and characterize phenomena adaptations in instruction, teachers' rationale, design features that may have supported adaptation, and challenges encountered. In both units, teachers participated in one post‐unit semi‐structured interview (Esterberg [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref136">39</reflink>]) in which they reported on their experiences teaching the unit, adaptations they made, and rationale. We also observed and recorded weekly PL meetings. In PL conversations, teachers discussed their enactments, often describing the adaptations they made and rationale, and noticing and discussing patterns in successes and challenges. In the final PL session, teachers reflected on how they would adapt the unit if they taught it again and what support they would need. This prompt elicited additional rationale for why they had not made adaptations in their first time teaching the unit.</p> <p>In the Bison Unit, we collected written teacher reflections with open‐ended questions about enactment, phenomenon adaptations, and facilitating sensemaking (Creswell [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref137">26</reflink>]). These self‐reported data helped us understand the most salient adaptations teachers made when prompted to discuss them, and their rationale. In the Slope Failure Unit, instead of written reflections, we analyzed video journal reflections in which teachers submitted a short 3–5 min Flip video weekly in response to prompts about unit enactment. Given the challenges teachers reported with time completing the written reflections in the Bison Unit, verbal reflections were more efficient for teachers to share their thoughts.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-28">Data Analysis</hd> <p>To analyze the phenomenon adaptations teachers made, we first coded the interviews and developed a partially ordered meta matrix (Miles and Huberman [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref138">65</reflink>]) to document every adaptation teachers described. We documented each instance where a teacher reported initiating an adaptation or leveraging a student‐generated phenomenon. Some phenomena adaptations occurred briefly as part of individual classroom discussions while other adaptations motivated multiple days of instruction. These instances formed our unit of analysis for coding. We used predetermined codes (Merriam [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref139">64</reflink>]) to describe each adaptation, noting who brought in the new phenomenon, the teacher or students. The codes also captured whether the adaptation involved adding or swapping phenomena, the lesson in which the adaptation occurred, and whether the adaptation was supported by embedded or supplemental resources, or if it originated from the teacher without curriculum support. Because we did not know how or why teachers would make adaptations before coding, we developed emergent codes from the data (Corbin and Strauss [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref140">25</reflink>]) to describe their rationale for making adaptations (Table 4).</p> <p>4 Table Codebook for each instance of phenomenon adaptation including predetermined and emergent codes that describe adaptations teachers made, their rationale if the adaptation was teacher initiated, and their rationale for why they did not make phenomenon adaptations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Category</th><th>Code</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Predetermined codes</td></tr><tr><td>Nature of the adaptation</td><td>Add</td><td>Teacher and/or students add a phenomenon or problem to the unit.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Swap</td><td>Teacher swaps a phenomenon or problem in the designed unit for a novel phenomenon or problem.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Eliminate</td><td>Teacher removes a phenomenon or problem from the unit.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Future</td><td>Teacher reports on adaptations they would plan to make later in the unit or a future enactment.</td></tr><tr><td>Type of curriculum resource</td><td>Embedded</td><td>Adaptations made were designed for through embedded activities in the storyline with the goal of helping teachers or students bring in phenomena from their lives and communities.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Supplemental</td><td>Adaptations made were designed for but optional, and supported with supplemental resources such as designed scaffolds (slides, handouts) or ideas that a teacher could pursue in the unit or lesson overview materials.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Not in the curriculum</td><td>Adaptations made were not designed for in the unit and came from teachers.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Unclear</td><td>The lesson in which adaptations were made was not identified so we could not determine if resources were embedded, supplemental, or ideas from teachers.</td></tr><tr><td>Lesson</td><td>Individual lesson</td><td>Adaptations were made within a specific lesson. Teachers either reported the lesson or it was clear from unit design and data source what lesson it happened in.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Multiple lessons</td><td>Adaptations were made across more than one lesson in a coherent way.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Unclear</td><td>Teacher did not report which lesson a reported adaptation happened in and it was unclear from unit design and data source what lesson it happened in.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Emergent codes</td></tr><tr><td>Phenomenon adaptations</td><td>Add related phenomena from students</td><td>Teacher elicits related phenomena or problems from students.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Extend phenomena in the storyline</td><td>Teacher brings in additional materials (e.g., videos, readings) for students to further explore a phenomenon or problem already in the designed storyline.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Add local phenomenon across lessons</td><td>Teacher adds a new phenomenon or problem to serve as an additional example of similar phenomena to those in the designed unit that students explore across multiple lessons.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Add related phenomena to individual lessons to support knowledge building</td><td>Teacher adds a new phenomenon or problem to serve as an additional example of similar phenomena to those in the designed unit that students are exploring to support students' knowledge building in individual lessons.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Add phenomenon as a transfer task</td><td>Teacher adds in a new phenomenon or problem and has students apply what they have learned in the unit to try to explain it.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Add phenomena in engineering application</td><td>Teacher adds in a phenomenon or problem around which students design solutions in an engineering application lesson.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Add schoolyard fieldwork across lessons</td><td>Teacher adds a new phenomenon or problem on the schoolyard alongside phenomena in the designed unit that students explore across multiple lessons.</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher rationale for making phenomenon adaptations</td><td>Draw upon high interest</td><td>Teacher reports making an adaptation because the phenomenon or problem is of high interest and curiosity to students.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Connect to students prior lived experiences</td><td>Teacher reports making an adaptation to help students connect to their lived experiences––including daily experiences, families, and/or cultural worlds.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Raise new awareness of phenomena in communities</td><td>Teachers report wanting to help students develop new experiences and awareness of phenomena or problems they were not familiar with within or beyond their community.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Support sensemaking</td><td>Teacher reports making an adaptation help students figure out new science ideas or revise their existing ideas.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Assessment</td><td>Teacher reports making an adaptation to assess student understanding.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Connect to other units</td><td>Teacher reports making an adaptation because it was well connected to other science, social studies, or English language arts units they teach.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">No rationale</td><td>Teacher does not report specific rationale for why they made the adaptation.</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher rationale for why they did not make phenomenon adaptations</td><td>Limited planning time</td><td>Teacher reported insufficient time to plan for making adaptations.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Limited instructional time</td><td>Teacher reported insufficient instructional time to implement adaptations.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Well designed unit</td><td>Teacher reported the unit was coherent and easy to implement as designed and already of high interest to students or connected to their community.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Limited knowledge about appropriate local phenomena</td><td>Teacher expressed having a lack of knowledge of local phenomena that might fit into the unit or the resources they would need to assemble to explore a local phenomenon.</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Limited unit knowledge and confidence</td><td>Teacher expressed that they were not ready to adapt the unit during a first enactment or they did not feel confident to adapt the unit.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Once our meta matrix included instances of adaptation teachers reported in interviews, we then triangulated by coding transcripts from the PL meetings and teacher reflections (Denzin [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref141">35</reflink>]). If these data described an instance already reported in an interview, we updated the instance to include the new evidence. When teachers described instances not yet reported in their interviews, we added these as new instances to the meta matrix.</p> <p>For preliminary coding, three of the authors independently coded a subset of data, which included two interviews, four reflections, and two PL meetings. We met to discuss results and refined definitions for predetermined codes. We also discussed emergent codes and our interpretations to come to consensus for adding new codes with shared definitions for them. After revising our preliminary coding scheme, we returned to each code an additional selection of data and discussed results. Two authors then independently coded the remainder of the data. This iterative coding process helped us come to a shared understanding of our codebook and reach agreement on coding. Occasionally, a need for new codes arose. We kept track of these codes and met to share supporting data, discuss and revise our codebook, and determine what already coded data needed to be reviewed to incorporate new codes. Example coding of adaptations are in supplemental materials (see Supporting Information S1). We then sorted the meta matrix by how teachers used adapted phenomena to identify patterns in teacher rationale for making the adaptations and the types of curriculum resources that may have supported the adaptations.</p> <p>As we coded each instance of phenomenon adaptation in our meta matrix, we noticed that teachers not only reported adaptations they made, but also explained why they did not adapt the unit. To capture this rationale, we conducted a second review of the data sources and developed another set of emergent codes to characterize teachers' rationale for not adapting phenomena.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-29">Findings</hd> <p>We report first on how teachers made phenomenon adaptations across both the Bison and Slope Failure units, their rationale, and curriculum design features that may have supported those adaptations. We then present patterns about the curriculum design features teachers utilized across both units followed by an analysis of challenges teachers faced when trying to adapt.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-30">How and Why Teachers Adapted Phenomenon Across Both Units</hd> <p>All 12 teachers, six per unit, added phenomena, with none swapping. Their adaptations included three types within individual lessons: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref142">1</reflink>) adding phenomena from students, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref143">2</reflink>) adding phenomena from teachers to build knowledge, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref144">3</reflink>) adding phenomena from teachers to apply knowledge. A fourth type spanned multiple lessons: (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref145">4</reflink>) adding phenomena from teachers to set up a motivating context across lessons (Table 5). We identified patterns in how teachers made these adaptations and rationale when provided. We share curriculum design features supporting adaptations when evidence was present.</p> <p>5 Table Summary of the kinds of adaptations teachers made in both units, rationale, and curriculum design features that may have supported adaptations.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">How teachers adapted phenomena</th><th align="center">Why teachers adapted phenomena (prevalent rationale)</th><th>Curriculum design features that may have supported adaptation</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Bison</th><th>Slope Failure</th><th /><th>None</th><th>Cross‐curricular</th><th>Lived experience</th><th>New awareness</th><th>Interest</th><th>Sense‐making</th><th>Assessment</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Adding phenomena from studentsWithin a lesson</td><td>10</td><td /><td>Add related phenomena from students</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Develop a specific model and then use related phenomena to generalize it</p></list-item><list-item><p>Questions frames to support generalizing the model</p></list-item><list-item><p>Related phenomena from students</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td /><td>9</td><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Identity‐linked phenomena from students</p></list-item><list-item><p>Related phenomena from students</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Adding phenomena from teachers to build knowledgeWithin a lesson</td><td>15</td><td /><td>Extend phenomena in unit storyline</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>High interest phenomenon with cross‐curricular connections <ext-link href="a" /></p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td /><td>8</td><td>Add related phenomena to investigation lessons to build knowledge</td><td /><td /><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Use related phenomena to develop a generalized model lesson‐by‐lesson</p></list-item><list-item><p>Examples of schoolyard, neighborhood, community, or regional cases</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td /><td>4</td><td /><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Teacher choice to select phenomena from a menu of options</p></list-item><list-item><p>Add or swap a investigative phenomenon with local case</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Adding phenomena from teachers to apply knowledgeWithin a lesson</td><td /><td>6</td><td>Add phenomena in engineering application</td><td /><td /><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Engineering design task for a local schoolyard problem</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Add phenomenon as a transfer task</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>X</td><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Use related phenomena to develop a generalized model lesson‐by‐lesson</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Adding phenomena from teachers to set up a motivating contextAcross lessons</td><td>1</td><td /><td>Add local phenomenon across lessons</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Related phenomena from students</p></list-item><list-item><p>Add a local anchoring phenomenon case alongside the anchoring phenomenon</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td /><td>1</td><td>Add schoolyard fieldwork across lessons</td><td /><td /><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td align="left"><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Schoolyard exploration</p></list-item><list-item><p>Examples of schoolyard, neighborhood, community, or regional cases with templates to help add to investigation lessons</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 a indicates a design feature emerging from teacher adaptations.</p> <p>Each adaptation type manifested differently across the units. In the following sections, we detail these adaptations, starting with how teachers added phenomena from students, a common adaptation observed in both units. We then explore the most prevalent type of adaptation: teachers adding phenomena to build knowledge, which took distinct forms in each unit. Next, we discuss how teachers added phenomena to apply knowledge, observed only in the Slope Failure Unit. Finally, we examine the less common but more complex adaptation of adding phenomena to set up a motivating context across lessons. Throughout our analysis, we highlight the similarities and differences between teachers' rationales for their adaptations and the curriculum design features that may have influenced these decisions.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-31">Adding Phenomena From Students</hd> <p>Across both units, all but one teacher in the Bison Unit study reported adding phenomena from students. These adaptations coincided with lessons that had embedded resources prompting teachers to invite students to share related phenomena from their lives and communities. In the Bison Unit, these prompts occurred in the anchor lesson and synthesize lessons, while in the Slope Failure Unit, they appeared in the pre‐anchor lesson and the anchor lesson.</p> <p>In both units' anchor lesson, teachers used embedded resources to elicit students' experiences related to the anchoring phenomenon. For example, Samantha reported her students discussed "the butterflies in our school garden as well as student examples from home... [and] ravens on the schoolyard and the rats that come at night when there is food left on the yard."</p> <p>In the Bison Unit's synthesize lessons, embedded resources again cued teachers to elicit students' related phenomena. Lesson 4 prompted teachers to have students share about their favorite animal and its adaptations for survival. Alongside evidence about bison and their adaptations, this task helped students develop a generalized model to explain how animals survive in their environments. Lily reported, along with many other teachers, how "the kids begged me to keep going during the section where they thought of their own animals and adaptations." Classroom artifacts, including the generalized models (Figure 7), show the post‐its students created and sorted, suggesting that teachers used the embedded resources.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0007.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0007.jpg" title="7 Example Bison Unit lesson 4 generalized model that highlights related phenomena elicited from students." /> </p> <p></p> <p>In the Slope Failure Unit, several teachers described how they surfaced phenomena from students as part of the embedded pre‐anchor lesson activity. Carolina reflected that students drawing important places made her tap into phenomena that were meaningful to her students:</p> <p>When I first looked at [Lesson 0], I was like, man, this sounds more like a humanities kind of thing... I was skeptical... If it wasn't because the unit suggested giving them the chance to think about something personal, it would have never occurred to me.</p> <p>Without these embedded resources, she may not have elicited these identity‐linked phenomena from students. MacKenzie articulated how important this activity was for connecting to students' lived experiences and cultural worlds, sharing,</p> <p>Any question that ties child to family and place is really rewarding...[Lesson 0] was linked to family, it was camping, it was trips to the beach, it was my student who was adamant that the waterpark was going to be his place... if you can find a way to bridge it with their family experience... as we're starting to hear those stories...we can build some of those connections to their culture and their values more openly.</p> <p>This move helped MacKenzie consider how she might not only elicit these phenomena from students early in the unit, but also build connections to them later into the unit.</p> <p>In both units, teachers reported during the pilot meetings that they used the embedded unit resources to elicit phenomena from students during anchor lessons (lesson 1 in both units). However, they offered little rationale for how the resources helped and why they made the adaptation. Although these activities were embedded in the unit materials, we consider them adaptations because they required teachers to make intentional decisions about which student‐generated phenomena to highlight and if and how to incorporate them into the ongoing storyline, with the potential to personalize the learning experience for their specific students.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-33">Adding Phenomena From Teachers to Build Knowledge</hd> <p>Teachers most frequently added phenomena within individual lessons to help students build knowledge, but in different ways for each unit. In the Bison Unit, teachers extended students' exploration of phenomena already in the unit storyline. In contrast, in the Slope Failure Unit, teachers added new related phenomena to investigation lessons.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-34">Bison Unit: Extending Phenomena in the Storyline</hd> <p>All six Bison Unit teachers extended phenomena in the unit storyline at least once, with some doing so up to three times. They primarily added readings, photographs, and videos of bison, wolves, bears, and arctic foxes to individual lessons. Teachers cited two main reasons for these adaptations: high student interest in the unit's phenomena and strong connections to other disciplinary units.</p> <p>For example, two teachers incorporated a Scholastic news article about solutions to help other animals cross dangerous highways, which aligned with their English Language Arts (ELA) curriculum and connected to the unit's focus on designing solutions for bison. Lily adapted lesson 5 which explored historical human‐animal interactions in Yellowstone, to deepen students' understanding of Indigenous peoples' history. She explained, "I did a ton of supplementing because the kids were really interested in it. It also coincided with our focus on Indigenous people. We read a historical fiction read‐aloud and we did a couple of other picture book read‐alouds." Caelan reported making adaptations to connect with ELA, noting, "How well the curriculum is linking up with our ELA curriculum" and that it was great to "have students do similar work, but with a topic that they're just getting so excited... a bunch of my kids were searching up bison books on their own."</p> <p>Notably, we did not intentionally include a design feature to support extensions to the phenomena in the storyline. The emergence of this as a common adaptation prompted us to add a new design feature that could support adaptation: using a high interest anchoring phenomenon with cross‐curricular connections. Teachers used their own expertise and resources to make these connections to ELA and social studies, extending phenomena in ways that resonated with their students' interests and connected to other subject areas.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-35">Slope Failure Unit: Adding New Phenomena to Build Knowledge</hd> <p>In the Slope Failure Unit, all six teachers added new phenomena to two different types of investigation lessons as students built knowledge: those motivated by both anchoring and related phenomena in which students generalized their models, and the new kind of investigation lesson offering teacher choice from a menu of options. Teachers added phenomena through various means, including images, videos, stories, and firsthand schoolyard observations. Their rationale for these adaptations included raising awareness of phenomena, making connections to students' lived experiences, and supporting student sensemaking.</p> <p>As students generalized the model lesson‐by‐lesson, teachers found various ways to incorporate related local phenomena. MacKenzie, for instance, sought to help students see everyday phenomena anew. She had students explore the schoolyard to observe evidence of weathering and erosion, and watch a news video about a months‐long local road closure due to multiple landslides, sharing that she "[made] local connections and showed different videos... supports that tie into our community." Carolina focused on drawing connections to students' daily experiences, explaining, "the personal connection for them makes a huge difference... we always have construction...why are they always fixing the roads here?... and [students are] like... I really never noticed that but my ride is a very bumpy ride."</p> <p>Some teachers stated that they adapted lessons to support student sensemaking. For example, after revising their generalized model, Carolina prompted students to consider potholes in Florida to challenge their assumptions about rock weathering mechanisms, encouraging them to think beyond just water freezing and expanding. She explained,</p> <p>When [students] had the readings about the sidewalk, the building and the potholes... they [shared] with the class their explanation...for every single explanation, [students said] it was always water freezing and expanding...I said I lived in Florida. There are plenty of potholes in Florida. We don't have freezing temperatures. How did that happen?... There could be something else besides just water freezing and expanding.</p> <p>The embedded resources, which included readings about everyday phenomena like potholes, cracked sidewalks, and deteriorating buildings, provided a foundation for Carolina's students to generalize science ideas. Recognizing the need to push students' thinking further, she introduced the Florida potholes example as a new phenomenon. This addition served to problematize students' current reasoning and encouraged them to consider alternative explanations beyond the typical freeze‐thaw cycle they had initially focused on.</p> <p>The PL discussion before teaching the unit helped teachers identify these relevant phenomena. After reviewing the unit examples showing common weathering and erosion phenomena, teachers brainstormed phenomena in their own communities. This is when Carolina began thinking how weather contributed to cracked pavement. She reported during the PL discussion, "1 min the sun is out and it is 70 degrees. The next thing you know it is 30 degrees...how do you build a city to prepare for that?...the roads here are always under construction." This PL discussion generated many of the ideas that teachers later incorporated.</p> <p>In the investigation lesson 6, which offered teacher choice, three of the six teachers reported making adaptations supported by the menu of case options and PL discussion about them. These teachers sought to draw on students' lived experiences and support sensemaking. Dawn selected the glacial erratics case and added an iconic local example. She shared,</p> <p>I brought up [a local glacial erratic] because a lot of the kids have been there with their families. I was able to bring up a picture...they were like 'I climbed on top of that'. then they were able to tell me on the other side of it is a whole bunch of dirt...we talked about why is there dirt on that side?...they liked that one...they could make a connection.</p> <p>MacKenzie made a substantial adaptation by reframing a planned field trip to engage students in sensemaking, as suggested in supplemental resources. She explained,</p> <p>We were going to [a local park]...I knew that [students] were going to see depositions, the size of cars in the middle of a field... I front‐loaded the [park guide] that was doing our tour...if you could not just give [the explanation] right away, please if you could let them try to figure out like what is happening there...That was a fun local connection that was really engaging to them... they could see just the grandeur.</p> <p>Importantly, she positioned students to make sense of this new phenomenon rather than the tour guide. Sarah added a local glacial erratic example and a local sediment pollution case, reporting,</p> <p>I was definitely not sure what to do for this lesson... I did want to use something that the kids were more familiar with... I was actually looking at the supporting readings, the student handouts...I almost worked backwards...what can I connect to one of the readings? I'm like, well, giant rocks in the field... I think there's some boulders in [a local city] park that moved from glaciers moving...I almost worked backwards and saw the reading and then thought of the phenomenon.</p> <p>The need to choose phenomena from the menu of options prompted her to consider local cases and the embedded readings helped her decide what local examples to add.</p> <p>Along with the lesson resources, the PL session in which teachers reviewed the case options and then brainstormed local examples supported these adaptations. During PL, teachers talked about which two cases they might select and why. Many teachers wanted to select examples similar to what students could see in their own communities. Carolina explained, "I'm actually thinking that the sand dunes [case] is the one that I want to do because we do have them here." MacKenzie shared in the PL discussion about her planned field trip, "they have those massive boulders outside of the state park... that's why the glacial erratics would be connected through local phenomena here...I want to help support kids to connect that to what we're already talking about." The need to select phenomena for this lesson helped teachers be purposeful in their selection and the scaffolded brainstorming gave them ideas about related local phenomena, which many later added to their units.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-36">Adding Phenomena From Teachers to Apply Knowledge</hd> <p>In the Slope Failure Unit, teachers added phenomena in two application contexts: as transfer tasks for formative assessment and in engineering applications. No such adaptations were observed in the Bison Unit.</p> <p>Three teachers added phenomena as transfer tasks for formative assessment. Marina's adaptation exemplifies this approach. Midway through the unit, she used Google Earth images of storm damage to a family property to assess students' understanding. Marina explained,</p> <p>I wanted to see if they could transfer their understanding to a event that...didn't look like anything that we had learned...I kind of used it as an assessment to see, how are we getting this. And for them to understand to start explain...there was a little slope. And so if it's a little slope, then this happened...it was really exciting.</p> <p>She used this novel transfer context as a mid‐unit formative assessment. She noted that the unit's structure supported this adaptation sharing, "the learning just builds on itself. For [students] to be able to go back and question and go back and revisit and go back and then practice it through a lab. I think it's definitely a testament to the way that this lesson is written."</p> <p>Though the unit included embedded transfer tasks in other lessons, teachers incorporated their own phenomena in places and ways that were not intentionally designed for in the curriculum. The unit routines around presenting a phenomenon and asking students to explain it modeled how teachers could present and have students explain novel phenomena.</p> <p>The three teachers who completed the full unit added phenomena in the final engineering application lesson. They used this to raise students' awareness of everyday phenomena and assess conceptual understanding. Marina described how students explored the schoolyard:</p> <p>Drawing cracks with grass coming up and...where the water comes down and just sits.... they finally are getting it that [weathering and erosion are] everywhere. One of the students said, 'I pay attention to potholes now'...we talked about...Why do we have potholes? Why is it after the rain? They were able to make those connections.</p> <p>Teachers found it important for students to see for the first time local phenomena they were not previously aware of and used this as a way to assess students' conceptual understanding.</p> <p>Classroom artifacts indicate that teachers utilized embedded resources to guide students in defining problems, identifying constraints, and designing solutions. For example, Marina made a classroom chart following an exploration of the schoolyard that was structured in the same way that was suggested in the lesson materials (Figure 8).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0008.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0008.jpg" title="8 Marina's classroom chart that mirrors the structure of embedded lesson 8 resources." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-38">Adding Phenomena From Teachers to Set Up a Motivating Context Across Lessons</hd> <p>While uncommon, in each unit, one teacher added a local phenomenon across multiple lessons. Lily in the Bison Unit leveraged a cross‐curricular connection with a gardening unit, while Lucia in the Slope Failure Unit implemented ongoing schoolyard fieldwork.</p> <p>Lily integrated a study of Monarch butterflies alongside bison, including an exploration of monarch adaptations to survive in their environments and how habitat loss disrupted their life cycles. This adaptation drew more from her knowledge of a concurrent unit she was teaching with the gardening teacher than from the designed support resources. She shared how her class "talked about [their] previous investigation of the Monarch Butterfly and its adaptations." She later had students do "a little bit of work with what's their entire life cycle and [watch] a few videos...and then I think [do] some diagraming in our science notebooks."</p> <p>PL experiences and embedded unit resources prompted Lily to consider such local phenomena. Following the lesson 1 immersion experience in PL, Lily considered focusing on coyotes or crows. She decided to focus on monarchs because "[students] see them all the time in the garden" and then suggested that "we can present [both monarchs and coyotes] to [students and see which one they're more into." Later, as her students brainstormed related phenomena as part of Lesson 1, they also brought up monarch butterflies, showing evidence of their interest.</p> <p>She looked to the bison examples to create monarch‐focused materials, explaining, "the videos [of bison] really got the kids excited about the unit. It was a great kickoff," later sharing how she mirrored this and, "put together really nice slides on monarch butterflies and found videos." She wanted to also use the supplemental templates to create readings about monarchs similar to those around bison, explaining,</p> <p>I really loved the way [the curriculum] condensed the information onto a single page for [bison, wolves, and bears] so far... That is on my to do list for the localization piece. As a working teacher it's hard to find that time to devote to that kind of prep but it's a really cool resource.</p> <p>However, time constraints limited her ability to utilize supplemental templates.</p> <p>In the Slope Failure Unit, Lucia had students regularly visit their own special schoolyard "sit spot" to observe and document changes over time, connecting unit concepts to their immediate environment. She described the task and her rationale,</p> <p>[students found] a spot where they saw some evidence of cracking or movement of dirt and soil and rocks. They're now going back and looking at that spot every week...What's been really fun and different about this unit has been sort of connecting some of our local experiences to the phenomenon that we are studying...doing it side by side is actually valuable the kids...having a chance to learn about some events and then look for similar events within their own neighborhood.</p> <p>Lucia drew on her prior experience, explaining how the idea for sit spots came from her past experience facilitating them when, "my kids were participating in this virtual outdoor education experience because [they could not go in person due to COVID‐19], they would use [a piece of string] to circle a space and to do some observations." While supplemental resources were available to support this kind of adaptation, she instead drew from her experience teaching a different science unit.</p> <p>While both teachers added localized anchoring experiences across lessons, their approaches differed. Lily capitalized on an existing cross‐curricular connection, supported by unit resources. Lucia intentionally designed her adaptation as part of the unit, drawing primarily on her prior experience rather than unit resources. Both teachers drew heavily on experience from teaching other units and activities that were synergistic to design their adaptations.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-39">Curriculum Feature Use Across Units</hd> <p>Most teachers consistently used embedded resources across both units to adapt phenomena for motivating context and knowledge building purposes (Table 6). All 12 teachers used embedded prompts designed to elicit phenomena from students, specifically prompts to elicit related phenomena in both units and identity‐linked phenomena in the Slope Failure Unit. Teachers also readily used embedded features to build knowledge. In the Bison Unit, all six teachers made use of the high interest anchoring phenomenon as well as embedded activities and question frames to help students use related phenomena to generalize models. In the Slope Failure Unit, teachers utilized embedded supports to integrate related phenomena as students generalized their models lesson‐by‐lesson. All six teachers also selected phenomena from a menu of options in Lesson 6. Three teachers who reached the end of the Slope Failure Unit also used embedded resources to apply knowledge in the local schoolyard engineering task.</p> <p>6 Table Teachers use of curriculum design features in first enactment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Type of resource</th><th>Design feature</th><th>Instructional moves</th><th>Bison Unit</th><th>Slope Failure Unit</th><th align="center">Frequency of teacher use</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>Many teachers</th><th>Some teachers</th><th>Not used</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Embedded</td><td>Related phenomena from students</td><td>Motivating context</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Identity‐linked phenomena from students</td><td>Motivating context</td><td /><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>High interest anchoring phenomenon that lends itself to cross‐curricular connections<ext-link href="b" /></td><td>Motivating context</td><td>X</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Develop a specific model and then use related phenomena to generalize itQuestions frames to support generalizing the model</td><td>Knowledge building</td><td>X</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Use related phenomena to develop a generalized model lesson‐by‐lesson</td><td>Knowledge building</td><td /><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Teacher choice to select phenomena from a menu of options</td><td>Knowledge building</td><td /><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Engineering design task for a local schoolyard problem</td><td>Apply knowledge</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td>X<ext-link href="a" /></td><td /></tr><tr><td>Supplemental</td><td>Examples of schoolyard, neighborhood, community, or regional cases</td><td>Knowledge building</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td>X (Slope)</td><td /><td>X (Bison)</td></tr><tr><td>Schoolyard exploration</td><td>Motivating context</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td>X (Slope)</td><td>X (Bison)</td></tr><tr><td>Add or swap a investigative phenomenon with local case</td><td>Knowledge building</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td>X (Slope)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>One high interest anchor with the ability to add a local case alongside it</td><td>Motivating context</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td>X (1 in Bison)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Three high interest anchoring phenomena with the ability to swap one</td><td>Motivating context</td><td /><td>X</td><td /><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Swap a transfer task with a local case</td><td>Apply knowledge</td><td>X</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Add or swap the engineering design task with a local problem</td><td>Apply knowledge</td><td>X</td><td /><td /><td /><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 a all teachers who finished the unit storyline.</item> <item>6 b design feature emerging from teacher adaptations.</item> </ulist> <p>The use of supplemental resources was less common than embedded resources and varied between units. All six Slope Failure Unit teachers drew upon supplemental resources to add schoolyard, neighborhood, or community cases to build knowledge. In addition, three teachers also added schoolyard exploration (two within individual lessons and one across lessons) and three teachers added a local case alongside their chosen phenomenon in Lesson 6, which as previously described, were supported in PL. In contrast, in the Bison Unit, only one teacher added a local case alongside the Bison phenomenon, capitalizing on both embedded and supplemental resources as well as a concurrent monarch unit. No teachers localized the Bison Unit engineering task. Across both units, several supplemental features went unused. No teachers in either unit swapped phenomena in transfer tasks nor an anchoring phenomenon case in the Slope Failure Unit, despite designed supplemental resources to support such adaptations.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-40">Challenges Teachers Faced in Making Adaptations</hd> <p>While all teachers made adaptations to add phenomena to the unit storylines, all but three teachers reported struggles. All Bison Unit teachers reported facing challenges, particularly with localizing phenomena. Only three teachers in the Slope Failure Unit articulated struggles, likely because many of these teachers added phenomena they thought were locally or culturally relevant to their students. Teachers reported five difficulties in making adaptations: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref146">1</reflink>) they had limited planning time, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref147">2</reflink>) they had limited instructional time, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref148">3</reflink>) the unit was well designed and of high interest, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref149">4</reflink>) they did not feel they had sufficient knowledge of local phenomena, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref150">5</reflink>) they did not feel they understood the unit yet and/or lacked confidence to adapt.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-41">Limited Planning Time</hd> <p>Six Bison Unit teachers reported insufficient time to plan for adaptation. Jocelyn described this time pressure when she shared, "in reality of timing and planning... every other subject that we're responsible for, and life in general... it would just be a huge take on to do." Samantha also described limited time to assemble investigative materials, explaining, "the localization piece, to go from Yellowstone to the desert to let's think about [my city] now...just time like putting this together, find some old pictures of [my city]." Making adaptations to curriculum takes time that elementary teachers in this study report they do not have.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-42">Limited Instructional Time</hd> <p>Three Bison Unit teachers reported insufficient time for instruction. When asked in her interview why she didn't make more adaptations, Lily shared, "we're getting a lot of pushback from the district to spend more time teaching other subjects, which makes it harder to teach science and kind of follow the passion that the kids have." Since the unit required 2–3 science blocks weekly—already exceeding typical elementary science time allocations—teachers felt they could not feasibly add more phenomena explorations to their instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-43">Already Well Designed</hd> <p>Four Bison Unit and two Slope Failure Unit teachers expressed that they did not want to make adaptations because the unit storyline was already well designed. Teachers, such as Gwen, reported that phenomena and problems in the storyline were already of high interest, explaining how students "didn't necessarily need and have other interests because [the bison, grizzly bears, and wolves] were so interesting to them." MacKenzie similarly shared how the anchoring phenomena were interesting and important, explaining in her interview,</p> <p>"Yosemite...the mountain cracking apart and falling down...the awesome nature of the [Feather River] slide...[watching] the Idaho slide...it's just high stakes...[students are] able to see like, yes, this is how it would impact the people...the kids really were drawn to the grandeur of it of like how on this large scale did things like that happened?"</p> <p>She also explained that some local phenomena were not as interesting to her students, sharing</p> <p>"I don't know if [student] interest was ever as high to talk about the roots pushing up the sidewalk...The kids were able to make connections, I just...didn't feel like it had that hook of like, this is high stakes. Like this is really important."</p> <p>Because students were already so interested in the anchoring phenomena cases, these teachers reported that adaptations were not necessary.</p> <p>Other teachers expressed how the materials were coherent and easy to use. When prompted about why she did not make more adaptations, Samantha explained not only the importance of the high interest phenomenon, but also unit coherence. She explained,</p> <p>It was really engaging. The bison in general is a great animal to choose. And the kids didn't know a lot about them already...animals in general are always exciting...[the unit] was laid out and built upon each lesson built nicely. It flowed really well. And I know it was long, but it was also pretty cool to have it extended over time, because it allowed them time to process things and then find information on their own and...share it.</p> <p>Some teachers did not perceive adaptation as necessary in a unit with a coherent story that already contained high interest phenomena for students.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-44">Limited Knowledge of Appropriate Local Phenomena and the Resources to Investigate Them</hd> <p>Five Bison Unit and Two Slope Failure Unit teachers reported that phenomena adaptations were challenging due to their limited knowledge of local phenomena that would fit into the unit and assembling the resources students would need to explore the phenomena.</p> <p>Some teachers expressed how they needed more examples to identify and select phenomena from communities similar to their own. Lily wanted more examples sharing how it would help "to have some examples that are focused on really urban examples, because, you know, the Yellowstone example is so interesting. But it's so different, or even a suburban example is so different than our kids', very urban experience." Jocelyn concurred explaining, "if [regional] material was provided...it would definitely be a dream scenario...then we'd have at least a jumping point...if there was more for our area provided to then it wouldn't be so overwhelming."</p> <p>While the Bison Unit did offer examples in supplemental resources (e.g., see supplemental materials for a selection of suggested examples) teachers may not have been ready to make use of these resources in their first enactment of the unit. Teachers in the Slope Failure Unit explored related examples in the unit resources during PL, so they may have experienced less challenges here. MacKenzie explained that how not all phenomena might be present in her community,</p> <p>Adapting for a local space can be tricky... if you're just trying to adapt if you don't have those things readily available...if you're talking about rivers and waterways, and maybe you're in an area that doesn't have it...there may not be certain ecosystems or certain phenomena that are readily available for kids to see and connect with.</p> <p>This challenge raises two possibilities: first, appropriate local phenomena may or may not actually be present in a teacher's community and second, they may be present but teachers need time and support to build knowledge of the phenomena, which may be present at different scales (i.e., schoolyard vs. regional cases). Finding the investigative resources was a challenge for some teachers. Dana explained,</p> <p>It just takes resources to find expert articles that are written at a third grade level about these things...What lesson would you do in place of lesson 3, when it's like trail camera footage?...how do you adapt that necessarily?... Is there trail camera footage of the parks in the [our city]? Probably there are.... it would just be finding them...that would take some time, but I would be excited about it.</p> <p>This challenge dovetailed with teachers' limited time for planning.</p> <p>A final challenge was assessing if a local phenomenon was caused by the same mechanisms as phenomena in the unit. Sarah's reflection exemplified this as she tried to understand how boulders in a local park ended up there. She shared, "I'm not confident that [the boulders] were put there by glaciers...that's my understanding, but...I never learned this, I don't know... I think some of the hesitation is the lack of my content knowledge in local adaptations." Identifying a potential local phenomenon was not the issue; rather she struggled knowing if the scientific explanation aligned with the unit science ideas.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-45">Limited Unit Knowledge and Confidence</hd> <p>Three Bison Unit teachers explained that teaching the unit for the first time made it difficult to adapt the unit with confidence. Samantha explained in her interview how,</p> <p>The first time running through a unit like this I was treading water. Next time... I'll have that confidence to know where do I need to dig a little deeper and stew with the kids a little more? And then what can I go a little faster with and plug in that adaptation.</p> <p>Jocelyn shared a feeling of limited confidence, explaining if she made adaptations she would be, "questioning myself the whole way... am I doing this correctly?...all the materials are fantastic...it's provided for me...I don't know if I would have the confidence enough to find everything and do it on my own that way." While teachers did not understand the unit well enough in their first enactment, they anticipated greater confidence to adapt with more knowledge of the curriculum in future enactments.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-46">Discussion</hd> <p>Our study's findings contribute to understanding how to design storyline units for teachers to localize through phenomenon adaptation and how and why teachers do and do not adapt phenomena in such units. We discuss the phenomenon adaptations teachers made and then low floor, high ceiling, and wide wall (Resnick and Silverman [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref151">83</reflink>]) curriculum design features that may have influenced teachers' decision‐making. We then explore the challenges teachers face and implications for educative curriculum and PL to support teachers' PDC for phenomenon adaptation.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-47">How and Why Teachers Adapt Phenomena</hd> <p>We found that all 12 teachers added phenomena to their units, while none attempted to swap or eliminate existing phenomena. This tendency toward addition aligns with prior research showing that teachers often choose to add rather than replace existing curriculum elements (Drake and Sherin [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref152">37</reflink>]) and tend to make adaptations that maintain the core structure of curriculum materials (Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref153">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>While teachers across both units used embedded prompts to elicit related phenomena from students, a feature typical in storyline units (Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref154">78</reflink>]), their other adaptations approaches and rationale differed notably between units. Bison Unit teachers primarily extended exploration of existing unit phenomena, citing high student interest and cross‐curricular connections as key rationale. Students' high interest aligns with research showing that children prefer charismatic megafauna like Yellowstone's bison over local wildlife (Schuttler et al. [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref155">84</reflink>]). The prevalence for cross‐curricular connections may reflect how elementary teachers take advantage of contexts they perceive as multidisciplinary. In contrast, Slope Failure Unit teachers more frequently incorporated new phenomena into individual lessons, citing goals of connecting to students' lived experiences and raising awareness of phenomena in their communities, which align with core principles of place‐based education (Gruenewald and Smith [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref156">45</reflink>]; Sobel [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref157">90</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our findings extend prior research in important ways. While previous work has shown teachers adapt materials to redistribute epistemic agency (Ko and Krist [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref158">51</reflink>]) and leverage student resources for sensemaking (Ko [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref159">50</reflink>]), our study demonstrates specifically how and why teachers adapt the phenomena themselves. Our study also provides empirical evidence for theoretical work on the kinds of phenomena that matter to students (Lee and Grapin [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref160">55</reflink>]; Suarez and Bell [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref161">93</reflink>]) by revealing how teachers consider multiple dimensions of what makes phenomena meaningful to students—from high student interest to connections with lived experiences and communities. If teachers are indeed privy to what matters to students, phenomenon adaptation could offer a pathway for increasing the relevance of science learning for learners by tapping into a variety of ways to cultivate meaningfulness.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-48">Curriculum Design Features for Phenomenon Adaptation in Storyline Units</hd> <p>Educative features are a way to support teacher learning through curriculum use (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref162">32</reflink>]; Davis and Krajcik [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref163">31</reflink>]). Building on this study, our findings identify specific design features that may support teachers to adapt phenomena in storyline units. Using Resnick and Silverman ([<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref164">83</reflink>]) framework of low floor, high ceiling, and wide walls, we designed a variety of features and examined which features teachers readily used in their first enactment and those that may require more experience to utilize.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-49">Low Floor Features Support Initial Adaptations</hd> <p>Embedded resources consistently supported phenomenon adaptation across both units, suggesting that they may provide a low floor in a first enactment (see Table 6). Embedded resources were included in the lesson's main activities with guidance to teachers how to adjust the activity for local context and students. All teachers in our study used these resources in both units and across the different instructional moves. This aligns with prior research showing that teachers readily use educative features that are situated within lesson materials (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref165">32</reflink>]). While these adaptations might appear as curriculum offloading (Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref166">14</reflink>]), we argue that they may scaffold teachers' decision‐making to incorporate local phenomena and phenomena from students in small but significant ways.</p> <p>Lily's monarch adaptation exemplifies how embedded resources might scaffold decision‐making. She initially considered several local animals during PL, but student interest in garden monarchs, surfaced through embedded lesson 1 prompts, helped her identify butterflies as a meaningful phenomenon to develop further.</p> <p>A second low floor feature was the Slope Failure Unit new investigation lesson that offered a menu of phenomenon options. All teachers selected from provided options and half went further to incorporate additional local cases, indicating this feature has potential to invite adaptation. This feature may have supported tinkering in a first implementation because it demonstrated that phenomena in the storyline were changeable, offered multiple viable examples, and focused adaptation on a single lesson rather than more complex adaptations across lessons. PL discussions focused on this design feature likely also supported teachers to select appropriate cases for their students and make connections to similar local phenomena.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-50">Potential for High Ceiling Features to Enable More Complex Adaptations</hd> <p>Several supplementary resources showed potential to support more complex adaptations, but saw limited use in teachers' first enactment. Because we do not know if these resources were unhelpful or require greater curricular knowledge or PL support, we argue that they have potential to be high ceiling features.</p> <p>Resources for incorporating schoolyard exploration and local cases were available in both units, but only used in the Slope Failure Unit, where PL explicitly scaffolded their use through structured brainstorming, planning tools, and discussions. PL is important to support teachers' uptake of educative curriculum features when implementing new materials (Davis and Krajcik [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref167">31</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref168">32</reflink>]) so that might explain their greater use in one unit over the other.</p> <p>Resources to support phenomenon adaptation across lessons represent another potential high ceiling feature. Adapting across lessons is a complex design task, as weaving new phenomena through multiple lessons while maintaining coherence requires deep knowledge of phenomena and the unit structure. Only two teachers attempted such adaptations suggesting that cross‐lesson adaptations may be better suited for teachers who have developed deeper understanding of the curriculum through experience teaching it or more targeted PL support.</p> <p>While no teachers attempted to swap phenomena, despite explicit design features, we see this as another potential high ceiling feature. Swapping phenomena is a complex design task because teachers must ensure replacement phenomena support the same knowledge building as the original phenomenon. We saw initial evidence for this potential in the Slope Failure Unit's lesson with a menu of options; while teachers did not swap phenomena outright, they did consider the mechanistic fit of the local cases that they added alongside chosen phenomena. Given elementary science instructional time constraints (Dorph et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref169">36</reflink>]), phenomenon swapping represents an important adaptation approach when science class time is limited. However, it may require targeted guidance and tools to help teachers evaluate the alignment between new phenomena and the existing unit phenomena and learning goals.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-51">Wide Walls Shape Adaptation Possibilities</hd> <p>How we designed phenomena to be investigated throughout each unit may have enabled or constrained the variety of adaptations teachers made as evidenced by the variation in adaptations and teacher rationale between the two units. The Bison Unit followed a more typical storyline anchored in a single high interest anchoring phenomenon in which a specific model to explain the phenomenon is developed over time and generalized later in the unit (Edelson et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref170">38</reflink>]; Reiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref171">79</reflink>]). Finding the unit well‐designed and engaging for students, teachers saw little need for substantial adaptation. Most teachers made two kinds of adaptations: adding related phenomena from students and extending exploration of the high‐interest anchoring phenomena (see Table 5). For this reason, the resulting adapted units looked very similar. Despite many ways to make learning meaningful for students, the Bison Unit appeared to focus teachers singularly on student interest, neglecting other possible avenues to cultivate relevance. The limited variation in adaptations and teachers rationale reflects how features of the Bison Unit design and PL may have narrowed the walls.</p> <p>In contrast, the Slope Failure Unit design and PL appeared to support a wider variety of adaptations and more varied teachers' rationale. Beyond adding phenomena from students, teachers also incorporated phenomena to build knowledge and apply knowledge—in investigation lessons, transfer tasks, and engineering application (see Table 5)—resulting in units that looked more distinctly localized. They also reported a broader range of rationale such as connecting to students' lived experiences, raising students' awareness of new phenomena, supporting sensemaking, and for assessment purposes. Having multiple anchoring and investigative phenomena may have created more opportunities for teachers to incorporate different kinds of related cases for different purposes. Moreover, the incremental development of generalized models lesson‐by‐lesson may have encouraged teachers to bring in a wider variety of local examples to support generalization. Identity‐linked phenomena activities, such as the pre‐anchor task where students shared personally meaningful places, may have helped teachers tap into a wider set of phenomena with different avenues for cultivating relevance, ranging from connecting to students' prior meaningful experiences, everyday experiences, and interests (Bell [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref172">4</reflink>]; Lee [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref173">54</reflink>]; Suarez and Bell [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref174">93</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-52">Refining the Construct of Pedagogical Design Capacity to Account for Phenomenon Adaptation</hd> <p>Our findings shed light on important aspects of pedagogical design capacity (PDC) for phenomenon adaptation. PDC and related frameworks conceptualize teaching as design in which teachers participate with materials to mobilize their own resources alongside instructional resources (Brown [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref175">14</reflink>]; Remillard [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref176">80</reflink>]). Our analysis suggests that building teacher capacity for phenomenon adaptation requires (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref177">1</reflink>) expanding these frameworks to account for an additional category of resources teachers draw upon, community resources (Figures 9), and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref178">2</reflink>) supporting teachers to grow and coordinate their teacher resources to effectively engage in phenomenon adaptation (Figure 10).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0009.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0009.jpg" title="9 Expanded pedagogical design capacity model for phenomenon adaptation." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607204-54">Community Resources Are Critical for Design</hd> <p>Community resources are foundational in place‐based education approaches (Gruenewald [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref179">44</reflink>]; Sobel [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref180">90</reflink>]). These resources include people with relevant experience to the phenomena under study, such as community members or local scientists. They include physical places like schoolyards, neighborhoods, and local parks where phenomena can be observed. Community resources also include investigative resources to help students observe and gather evidence about phenomena, including data sets, images and videos, or stories and other texts. When localizing curriculum through phenomenon adaptation, community resources play a central role that teachers can draw upon as they adapt materials.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-55">New Teacher Resources for Phenomena Adaptation</hd> <p>Teachers' rationale for adaptation and the challenges they faced offer insight into two new teacher resources that we added to our PDC for phenomenon adaptation framework: knowledge of community resources and experience of enactment.</p> <p>Alongside our addition of community resources to the PDC framework, teachers need to develop knowledge of those community resources to effectively identify and utilize them as they adapt curriculum. Teachers' knowledge of local phenomena, community members to connect with, and investigative resources was crucial to adaptation for both units. Some teachers reported struggling to identify relevant local phenomena or know with certainty the causal mechanisms for those local phenomena. Others noted difficulty finding the resources students would use to investigate local phenomena––such as data, images, or readings as Lo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref181">58</reflink>]) similarly documented. Teachers who did not report challenges appeared to be able to successfully identify and draw on community assets. For example, in MacKenzie's field trip to visit glacial erratics, she identified a phenomena for students to investigate firsthand (e.g., the local glacial erratics) and connected with people in her community (e.g., the tour guide) to turn the local phenomenon into something students could investigate.</p> <p>A second addition to teacher resources in our PDC framework is experience of enactment, which is the practical knowledge teachers accumulate through implementing, reflecting on, and adapting curriculum (Clarke and Hollingsworth [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref182">21</reflink>]; Kazemi and Hubbard [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref183">48</reflink>]). Some teachers reported using their experience of other curricula to interpret curricular purposes and structures and adapt these new materials (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref184">76</reflink>]). Some teachers shared that they drew on experiences of other disciplinary units and materials to extend phenomena (e.g., Scholastic news articles) and other science units to thread new phenomena across lessons (e.g., Lily and the monarchs and Lucia and sit spots). Teachers' experiences enacting other units may have constituted an important teacher resource for adaptation.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-56">Complex Teacher Resource Coordination</hd> <p>Teachers were particularly attentive to coordinating their knowledge of community, students, and curriculum resources in their design decisions. Such knowledge coordination represents a complex design task. As Lo et al. ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref185">58</reflink>]) found, designing tasks rooted in authentic data that align with learning goals and leverage student interest is challenging. Teachers must identify phenomena within their community (knowledge of community) that are relevant to students (knowledge of students) while ensuring alignment with unit science ideas (knowledge of curriculum). They also need to plan how students will investigate these phenomena and prepare materials accordingly. Figure 10 illustrates this complex coordination.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/SED/01nov25/sce21978-fig-0010.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNHX8kSepq84v%2bvlOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="sce21978-fig-0010.jpg" title="10 Knowledges teachers coordinate as they plan for phenomenon adaptation." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Teacher knowledge of community resources is foundational for phenomena adaptation. In our sample, some teachers used this knowledge to identify possible phenomena and made adaptations with confidence, as exemplified by MacKenzie's field trip for students to observe glacial erratics. Conversely, Sarah's uncertainty about whether local park boulders were glacial erratics limited her confidence in using them in her adapted materials. Our unit materials and PL minimally supported teachers' growth in knowledge of community resource knowledge, despite its centrality to phenomenon adaptation. If localization is the goal, PL could support this knowledge through teachers engaging in community asset mapping to identify local experts, phenomena, and resources. More intensive strategies for teachers new to communities, such as placement in community organizations (McDonald et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref186">61</reflink>]) or providing community mentors (Zeichner et al. [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref187">96</reflink>]), may also help. Thoughtful integration of activities to develop knowledge of community resources could be one way to enhance teachers' PDC for phenomena adaptation.</p> <p>Teachers also evaluated how local phenomena connected with students' interests and experiences. Sarah, for example, knew her students were familiar with the boulders in the local park and could bring these experiences to their learning. Using knowledge of students (Shulman [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref188">88</reflink>]) was common as teachers described adaptation decisions. Teachers cited knowledge of students' interests, daily lives, and lived experiences as rationale for adaptations. While teachers in our study readily demonstrated knowledge of students, PL focusing on building teachers' knowledge of students' interests, identities, and experiences could still support phenomena adaptation. Teachers can use phenomena surveys and discussions to probe student interest and elicit prior experiences with phenomena (Buck‐Bracey et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref189">15</reflink>]; Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref190">77</reflink>]). PL could also help teachers build a "library of related phenomena" (Whitt and Hallowell [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref191">95</reflink>]) centered on phenomena meaningful for students.</p> <p>Finally, teachers needed to coordinate knowledge of community and students with curriculum knowledge (Penuel et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref192">73</reflink>]; Shulman [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref193">88</reflink>]) to assess how local phenomena fit the unit storyline. This coordination challenged teachers who expressed a need for more curricular knowledge. Teachers, particularly those teaching the Bison Unit, made limited adaptations in a first enactment, but envisioned making more adaptations when teaching the unit a second time. In contrast, Lucia and MacKenzie, having advised on the design of both units, had more experience with the storyline instructional model and knowledge of the Slope Failure Unit specifically. This curricular knowledge may have supported them in making more significant adaptations, adding schoolyard fieldwork across lessons and re‐framing a field trip. These findings suggest that limited adaptations in a first enactment may be expected as teachers build curricular knowledge. Research shows that teachers can build this knowledge through enactment experience (Clarke and Hollingsworth [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref194">21</reflink>]; Kazemi and Hubbard [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref195">48</reflink>]) which helps them to better utilize innovative features with experience (Blumenfeld et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref196">10</reflink>]; Fogleman et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref197">40</reflink>]). PL can also help teachers grow knowledge of curriculum. For phenomenon adaptation specifically, discussing adaptation features and making time to use adaptation tools during PL is essential. Our Slope Failure Unit PL included these components, and no teacher cited limited curriculum knowledge as a barrier in their first enactment.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-58">Limitations</hd> <p>We consider our findings in light of study limitations. First, this study explored the phenomenon adaptations of 12 teachers. While our data captured adaptations and teacher rationale, our data did not fully document the range of teacher resources utilized to make adaptations, nor the unit design features or aspects of PL that most supported adaptations. Future research is needed to explore how teachers draw upon and coordinate resources as they adapt phenomena and how PL can support this process. Second, this study explored phenomenon adaptations during teachers' first unit implementation. As teachers deepen their curricular knowledge through enactment, we would expect more substantial adaptations (e.g., Blumenfeld et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref198">10</reflink>]) and could be more certain about features that support a high ceiling and wide walls. Further research should examine adaptations teachers make across multiple rounds of enactment and how teachers coordinate their resources in more complex adaptation work. Third, we explored curricular features that may support elementary teachers with phenomenon adaptation. The applicability to middle and high school settings is an important future area of research. Finally, having explored phenomenon adaptation in just two content areas, we cannot yet determine which areas might benefit most from this approach, though it may be particularly valuable for areas connected to societal issues where learners can use science to problem‐solve. Other areas may fascinate and inspire learners because the context is novel, inherently interesting, or expands what students know about the world, even if it does not directly tap into local or cultural relevance for students.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-59">Conclusion</hd> <p>Our study highlights the promise of phenomena adaptation to help teachers localize curriculum materials designed for widespread use. While this approach may not achieve the same depth of community integration as as traditional place‐based education (Gruenewald [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref199">44</reflink>]; Sobel [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref200">90</reflink>]) or units designed through participatory codesign (Bang and Vossoughi [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref201">3</reflink>]; Morales‐Doyle et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref202">68</reflink>]), it may enable teachers to incorporate phenomena that matter to students and thus position students to use science to make changes in their lives and communities. By maintaining the benefits of phenomenon‐driven learning while making science learning relevant, phenomenon adaptation may offer a scalable approach to addressing inequities in science education, making localized learning accessible to more teachers and students.</p> <p>Phenomenon adaptation is not without challenges. Elementary teachers face practical constraints on planning and instructional time, along with the complex task of coordinating various forms of knowledge. Additionally, when teachers perceive that existing materials adequately meet learning goals and captivate students, they may not see a need for adaptation, potentially missing opportunities to connect science learning to students' experiences, identities, and communities outside the classroom (Lee and Grapin [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref203">55</reflink>]). Despite these challenges, our exploration reveals the potential of phenomenon adaptation to transform standardized curricula into dynamic learning experiences customized to students' lived realities. By positioning teachers as designers capable of making science learning meaningful, this approach offers a promising pathway for localizing science education.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-60">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank members of the PeBLES2 project team for their contributions to unit design, professional learning, instrument design, data collection, and project administration that supported the development of this paper: Alexandria Brasili, Leonard Kenyon, Brigid Neptune, Brittany Nickerson, Lucy Parker, Darryl Reano, Cindy Soule, Rhonda Tate, Brooke Teller, Seth Van Doren, Katie Van Horne, and members of our teacher advisory board. We value the thoughtful feedback from Drs. Heidi Cian, Chaim Gingold, and two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions greatly improved this manuscript. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the students and teachers for their time and contributions to this study. This project is funded by the National Science Foundation, grant #2009613. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.</p> <hd id="AN0188607204-61">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supplemental materials Example of coded data.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supplemental materials_Examples from Bison and Slope Failure Units.</p> <ref id="AN0188607204-62"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref37" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adah Miller, E., H. Makori, S. Akgun, C. Miller, T. Li, and S. Codere. 2022. " Including Teachers in the Social Justice Equation of Project‐Based Learning: A Response to Lee & Grapin." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 59, no. 9 : 1726 – 1732. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref73" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Arias, A. M., A. S. Bismack, E. A. Davis, and A. S. Palincsar. 2016. " Interacting With a Suite of Educative Features: Elementary Science Teachers' Use of Educative Curriculum Materials." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 53, no. 3 : 422 – 449.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref32" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bang, M., and S. Vossoughi. 2016. " Participatory Design Research and Educational Justice: Studying Learning and Relations Within Social Change Making." Cognition & Instruction 34, no. 3 : 173 – 193.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref2" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, P. 2019. " Infrastructuring Teacher Learning About Equitable Science Instruction." Journal of Science Teacher Education 30, no. 7 : 681 – 690. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1668218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, P., C. Tzou, L. Bricker, and A. D. Baines. 2012. " Learning in Diversities of Structures of Social Practice: Accounting for How, Why and Where People Learn Science." Human Development 55, no. 5–6 : 269 – 284. https://doi.org/10.1159/000345315.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref51" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Ben‐Peretz, M. 1990. The Teacher‐Curriculum Encounter: Freeing Teachers From the Tyranny of Texts. SUNY Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref85" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Biggers, M., C. T. Forbes, and L. Zangori. 2013. " Elementary Teachers' Curriculum Design and Pedagogical Reasoning for Supporting Students' Comparison and Evaluation of Evidence‐Based Explanations." Elementary School Journal 114, no. 1 : 48 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1086/670738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref72" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bismack, A. S., A. M. Arias, E. A. Davis, and A. S. Palincsar. 2015. " Examining Student Work for Evidence of Teacher Uptake of Educative Curriculum Materials." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 52, no. 6 : 816 – 846.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref116" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Blake‐West, J. C., and M. U. Bers. 2023. " ScratchJr Design in Practice: Low Floor, High Ceiling." International Journal of Child‐Computer Interaction 37 : 100601.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Blumenfeld, P., B. J. Fishman, J. Krajcik, R. W. Marx, and E. Soloway. 2000. " Creating Usable Innovations in Systemic Reform: Scaling Up Technology‐Embedded Project‐Based Science in Urban Schools." Educational Psychologist 35, no. 3 : 149 – 164.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, A. L. 1992. " Design Experiments: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges in Creating Complex Interventions in Classroom Settings." Journal of the Learning Sciences 2, no. 2 : 141 – 178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, J. C., and I. C. Livstrom. 2020. " Secondary Science Teachers' Pedagogical Design Capacities for Multicultural Curriculum Design." Journal of Science Teacher Education 31, no. 8 : 821 – 840.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, M., and D. C. Edelson. 2003. Teaching as Design: Can We Better Understand the Ways in Which Teachers Use Materials so We Can Better Design Materials to Support Their Changes in Practice? The Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, M. W. 2009. " The Teacher‐Tool Relationship: Theorizing the Design and Use of Curriculum Materials." In Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, edited by J. Remillard, B. A. Herbel‐Eisenmann, and G. M. Lloyd, 17 – 36. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buck‐Bracey, Z., L. Mohan, and J. Noll, 2022. " Addressing Tensions Inherent in Using Student Surveys to Make Equitable Decisions About Phenomenon Selection." [Conference presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Vancouver, BC, Canada. https://narst.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/Conference-Program-FINAL.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buxton, C. A. 2010. " Social Problem Solving Through Science: An Approach to Critical, Place‐Based, Science Teaching and Learning." Equity & Excellence in Education 43, no. 1 : 120 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680903408932.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bybee, R. W., J. A. Taylor, A. Gardner, et al. 2006. The BSCS 5E Instructional Model: Origins, Effectiveness, and Applications: Full Report. BSCS Science Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calabrese Barton, A., and E. Tan. 2019. " Designing for Rightful Presence in STEM: The Role of Making Present Practices." Journal of the Learning Sciences 28, no. 4–5 : 616 – 658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1591411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chawla, L., and D. F. Cushing. 2007. " Education for Strategic Environmental Behavior." Environmental Education Research 13, no. 4 : 437 – 452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cherbow, K., and K. L. McNeill. 2022. " Planning for Student‐Driven Discussions: A Revelatory Case of Curricular Sensemaking for Epistemic Agency." Journal of the Learning Sciences 31, no. 3 : 408 – 457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clarke, D., and H. Hollingsworth. 2002. " Elaborating a Model of Teacher Professional Growth." Teaching and Teacher Education 18, no. 8 : 947 – 967.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cobb, P., J. Confrey, A. diSessa, R. Lehrer, and L. Schauble. 2003. " Design Experiments in Educational Research." Educational Researcher 32, no. 1 : 9 – 13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, A. 1992. " Toward a Design Science of Education." In New Directions in Educational Technology. NATO ASI Series, edited by E. Scanlon and T. O'Shea, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77750-9_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins, A., D. Joseph, and K. Bielaczyc. 2004. " Design Research: Theoretical and Methodological Issues." Journal of the Learning Sciences 13, no. 1 : 15 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbin, J., and A. Strauss. 2014. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damşa, C. I., P. A. Kirschner, J. E. B. Andriessen, G. Erkens, and P. H. M. Sins. 2010. " Shared Epistemic Agency: An Empirical Study of an Emergent Construct." Journal of the Learning Sciences 19, no. 2 : 143 – 186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Darling‐Hammond, L., M. E. Hyler, and M. Gardner. 2017. Effective Teacher Professional Development. Learning Policy Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, E. A., C. Beyer, C. T. Forbes, and S. Stevens. 2011. " Understanding Pedagogical Design Capacity Through Teachers' Narratives." Teaching and Teacher Education 27 : 797 – 810.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, E. A., F. J. J. M. Janssen, and J. H. Van Driel. 2016. " Teachers and Science Curriculum Materials: Where We Are and Where We Need to Go." Studies in Science Education 52, no. 2 : 127 – 160.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, E. A., and J. S. Krajcik. 2005. " Designing Educative Curriculum Materials to Promote Teacher Learning." Educational Researcher 34, no. 3 : 3 – 14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, E. A., A. S. Palincsar, P. S. Smith, A. M. Arias, and S. M. Kademian. 2017. " Educative Curriculum Materials: Uptake, Impact, and Implications for Research and Design." Educational Researcher 46, no. 6 : 293 – 304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeBarger, A. H., J. Choppin, Y. Beauvineau, and S. Moorthy. 2013. " Designing for Productive Adaptations of Curriculum Interventions." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 115 : 298 – 319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeBarger, A. H., W. R. Penuel, S. Moorthy, Y. Beauvineau, C. A. Kennedy, and C. K. Boscardin. 2017. " Investigating Purposeful Science Curriculum Adaptation as a Strategy to Improve Teaching and Learning." Science Education 101, no. 1 : 66 – 98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denzin, N. K. 1978. " Triangulation: A Case for Methodological Evaluation and Combination." In Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook, edited by N. K. Denzin, 339 – 357. McGraw‐Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorph, R., P. Shields, J. Tiffany‐Morales, A. Hartry, and T. McCaffrey. 2011. High Hopes‐Few Opportunities: The Status of Elementary Science Education in California. Strengthening Science Education in California. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning at WestEd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Drake, C., and M. G. Sherin. 2006. " Practicing Change: Curriculum Adaptation and Teacher Narrative in the Context of Mathematics Education Reform." Curriculum Inquiry 36, no. 2 : 153 – 187.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edelson, D. C., B. J. Reiser, K. L. McNeill, et al. 2021. " Developing Research‐Based Instructional Materials to Support Large‐Scale Transformation of Science Teaching and Learning: The Approach of the OpenSciEd Middle School Program." Journal of Science Teacher Education 32, no. 7 : 780 – 804.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Esterberg, K. 2002. Qualitative Methods in Social Research. McGraw Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fogleman, J., K. L. McNeill, and J. Krajcik. 2011. " Examining the Effect of Teachers' Adaptations of a Middle School Science Inquiry‐Oriented Curriculum Unit on Student Learning." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48, no. 2 : 149 – 169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forbes, C. T., and E. A. Davis 2007. " Beginning Elementary Teachers' Learning Through the Use of Science Curriculum Materials: A Longitudinal Study." Presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garet, M. S., A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon. 2001. " What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers." American Educational Research Journal 38, no. 4 : 915 – 945.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gick, M. L., and K. J. Holyoak. 1987. " The Cognitive Basis of Knowledge Transfer." In Transfer of Learning: Contemporary Research and Applications, edited by S. M. Cormier and J. D. Hagman, 9 – 46. Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruenewald, D. A. 2003. " Foundations of Place: A Multidisciplinary Framework for Place‐Conscious Education." American Educational Research Journal 40, no. 3 : 619 – 654. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003619.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gruenewald, D. A., and G. A. Smith. 2008. Place‐Based Education in the Global Age: Local Diversity. Psychology Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, E., L. Mohan, and K. C. Whitt. 2020. " A Design Framework for National Place‐Independent Science Instructional Materials to Incorporate Local Phenomena." In The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, 14th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2020, edited by M. Gresalfi and I. S. Horn, Vol. 3, 1765 – 1766. International Society of the Learning Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ishimaru, A. M., A. Rajendran, C. M. Nolan, and M. Bang. 2018. " Community Design Circles: Codesigning Justice and Wellbeing in Family‐Community‐Research Partnerships." Journal of Family Diversity in Education 3, no. 2 : 38 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazemi, E., and A. Hubbard. 2008. " New Directions for the Design and Study of Professional Development: Attending to the Coevolution of Teachers' Participation Across Contexts." Journal of Teacher Education 59, no. 5 : 428 – 441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight‐Bardsley, A., and K. L. McNeill. 2016. " Teachers' Pedagogical Design Capacity for Scientific Argumentation." Science Education 100, no. 4 : 645 – 672.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ko, M. L. M. 2021. " Leveraging Curricular and Students' Resources to Instigate and Sustain Problematizing." Science Education 105, no. 6 : 1315 – 1342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ko, M. L. M., and C. Krist. 2019. " Opening Up Curricula to Redistribute Epistemic Agency: A Framework for Supporting Science Teaching." Science Education 103, no. 4 : 979 – 1010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Learning in Places Collaborative. 2020. Framework: Culture, Learning, and Identity. Learning in Places.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Learning in Places Collaborative. 2021. Family and Community Framework for Engagement and Collaboration. Learning in Places.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O. 2020. " Start With Phenomena: Making Everyday Phenomena Phenomenal." Science and Children 58, no. 1 : 56 – 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O., and S. E. Grapin. 2022. " The Role of Phenomena and Problems in Science and STEM Education: Traditional, Contemporary, and Future Approaches." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 59, no. 7 : 1301 – 1309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, O., L. Llosa, S. Grapin, A. Haas, and M. Goggins. 2019. " Science and Language Integration With English Learners: A Conceptual Framework Guiding Instructional Materials Development." Science Education 103, no. 2 : 317 – 337.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lim, M., and A. C. Barton. 2006. " Science Learning and a Sense of Place in a Urban Middle School." Cultural Studies of Science Education 1 : 107 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-005-9002-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lo, A. S., L. Glidewell, and K. O'connor, et al. 2022. " Promoting Shifts in Teachers' Understanding and Use of Phenomena in Instruction and Assessment." In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences‐ICLS 2022, 1145 – 1148. International Society of the Learning Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loucks‐Horsley, S., K. E. Stiles, S. Mundry, N. Love, and P. W. Hewson. 2009. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Corwin Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnusson, S. J., J. Krajcik, and H. Borko. 1999. " Nature, Sources and Development of Pedagogical Content Knowledge." In Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge, edited by J. Gess‐Newsome and N. G. Lederman, 95 – 132. Springer Netherlands.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, M., K. Tyson, K. Brayko, M. Bowman, J. Delport, and F. Shimomura. 2011. " Innovation and Impact in Teacher Education: Community‐Based Organizations as Field Placements for Preservice Teachers." Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 113, no. 8 : 1668 – 1700. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811111300803.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGowan, V. C., and P. Bell. 2022. " 'I Now Deeply Care About the Effects Humans Are Having on the World': Cultivating Ecological Care and Responsibility Through Complex Systems Modelling and Investigations." Educational and Developmental Psychologist 39, no. 1 : 116 – 131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeill, K. L., L. M. Marco‐Bujosa, M. González‐Howard, and S. Loper. 2018. " Teachers' Enactments of Curriculum: Fidelity to Procedure Versus Fidelity to Goal for Scientific Argumentation." International Journal of Science Education 40, no. 12 : 1455 – 1475.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriam, S. 2009. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. 3rd ed. Jossey‐Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohan, L., K. W. Cook, E. M. Harris, and A. Mohan. 2020. Leveraging Environmental Learning in the Design of NGSS Units. North American Association of Environmental Education Research Symposium, Virtual.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mohan, L., K. Cook Whitt, and E. M. Harris 2021. A National‐Scale Curriculum Adaptation Model to Incorporate Local Phenomena. National Association of Research in Science Teaching Conference, Virtual.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morales‐Doyle, D., T. Childress Price, and M. J. Chappell. 2019. " Chemicals Are Contaminants, Too: Teaching Appreciation and Critique of Science in the Era of Next Generation Science Standards." Science Education 103, no. 6 : 1347 – 1366. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21546.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K‐12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by states. The National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, C. C., and S. M. Crespo. 2006. " Learning to Teach With Mathematics Textbooks: How Preservice Teachers Interpret and Use Curriculum Materials." Educational Studies in Mathematics 62 : 331 – 355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otte, M. 1986. " What Is a text? " In Perspectives on Math Education, edited by B. Christiansen, A. G. Howsen, and M. Otte, 173 – 202. Kluwer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., A. R. Allen, C. Deverel‐Rico, C. Singleton, and C. Pazera. 2023. " How Teachers' Knowledge of Curriculum Supports Partnering With Students in Their Science Learning." Journal of Science Teacher Education 34, no. 8 : 861 – 882. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2023.2167508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., and L. P. Gallagher. 2009. " Preparing Teachers to Design Instruction for Deep Understanding in Middle School Earth Science." Journal of the Learning Sciences 18, no. 4 : 461 – 508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., H. McWilliams, C. McAuliffe, A. E. Benbow, C. Mably, and M. M. Hayden. 2009. " Teaching for Understanding in Earth Science: Comparing Impacts on Planning and Instruction in Three Professional Development Designs for Middle School Science Teachers." Journal of Science Teacher Education 20 : 415 – 436.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., R. S. Phillips, and C. J. Harris. 2014. " Analysing Teachers' Curriculum Implementation From Integrity and Actor‐Oriented Perspectives." Journal of Curriculum Studies 46, no. 6 : 751 – 777.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Penuel, W. R., B. J. Reiser, T. A. McGill, M. Novak, K. Van Horne, and A. Orwig. 2022. " Connecting Student Interests and Questions With Science Learning Goals Through Project‐Based Storylines. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary." Science Education Research 4, no. 1 : 1 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiser, B. J., M. Novak, and T. A. McGill 2017. "Coherence From the Students' Perspective: Why the Vision of the Framework for K‐12 Science Requires More Than Simply 'Combining' Three Dimensions of Science Learning." In Board on Science Education Workshop Instructional Materials for the Next Generation Science Standards, Vol. 6, 2017.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reiser, B. J., M. Novak, T. A. W. McGill, and W. R. Penuel. 2021. " Storyline Units: An Instructional Model to Support Coherence From the Students' Perspective." Journal of Science Teacher Education 32, no. 7 : 805 – 829.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J. T. 2005. " Examining Key Concepts in Research on Teachers' Use of Mathematics Curricula." Review of Educational Research 75, no. 2 : 211 – 246.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J. T. 2016. " How to Partner With Your Curriculum." Educational Leadership 74, no. 2 : 34 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Remillard, J., and O. K. Kim. 2017. " Knowledge of Curriculum Embedded Mathematics: Exploring a Critical Domain of Teaching." Educational Studies in Mathematics 96 : 65 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Resnick, M., and B. Silverman 2005. "Some Reflections on Designing Construction Kits for Kids." In Proceedings of the 2005 Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 117 – 122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schuttler, S. G., K. Stevenson, R. Kays, and R. R. Dunn. 2019. " Children's Attitudes Towards Animals Are Similar Across Suburban, Exurban, and Rural Areas." PeerJ 7 : e7328.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Semken, S., and C. B. Freeman. 2008. " Sense of Place in the Practice and Assessment of Place‐Based Science Teaching." Science Education 92, no. 6 : 1042 – 1057.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sherin, M. G., and C. Drake. 2009. " Curriculum Strategy Framework: Investigating Patterns in Teachers' Use of a Reform‐Based Elementary Mathematics Curriculum." Journal of Curriculum Studies 41, no. 4 : 467 – 500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Short, J., and S. Hirsh. 2020. Transforming Teaching Through Curriculum‐Based Professional Learning. Carnegie Corporation of New York.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shulman, L. 1987. " Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform." Harvard Educational Review 57, no. 1 : 1 – 23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, G., and D. Sobel. 2010. " Bring It on Home." Educational Leadership 68, no. 1 : 38 – 43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sobel, D. 2004. Place‐Based Education: Connecting Classroom and Community. The Orion Society.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stewart, J., J. L. Cartier, and C. M. Passmore. 2005. " Developing Understanding Through Model‐Based Inquiry." In How Students Learn, edited by M. S. Donovan and J. D. Bransford, 515 – 565. The National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stroupe, D. 2014. " Examining Classroom Science Practice Communities: How Teachers and Students Negotiate Epistemic Agency and Learn Science‐as‐Practice." Science Education 98, no. 3 : 487 – 516.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suarez, E., and P. Bell 2019. "Supporting Expansive Science Learning Through Different Classes of Investigative Phenomena." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the National Association of Research in ScienceTeaching. Baltimore, MD.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torres Olave, B., and J. Dillon. 2022. " Chilean Physics Teacher Educators. Hybrid Identities and Border Crossings as Opportunities for Agency Within School and University." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 59 : 1795 – 1821. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21774.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitt, K. C., and B. Hallowell. 2024. " Making Space for Local Science." Science and Children 61, no. 5 : 41 – 50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368148.2024.2385179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeichner, K., M. Bowman, L. Guillen, and K. Napolitan. 2016. " Engaging and Working in Solidarity With Local Communities in Preparing the Teachers of Their Children." Journal of Teacher Education 67, no. 4 : 277 – 290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116660623.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Emily M. Harris; Lindsey Mohan; Adrienne A. Hanson; Katahdin A. Cook Whitt; Candice Guy‐Gaytán and Lisa O. Kenyon</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref141"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref169"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref182"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref183"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref184"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref186"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref189"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref196"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486681
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'Adapting for a Local Space Can Be Tricky': Designing Units for Teachers to Localize through Phenomenon Adaptation
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+M%2E+Harris%22">Emily M. Harris</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9872-7675">0000-0002-9872-7675</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lindsey+Mohan%22">Lindsey Mohan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6636-470X">0000-0002-6636-470X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adrienne+A%2E+Hanson%22">Adrienne A. Hanson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katahdin+A%2E+Cook+Whitt%22">Katahdin A. Cook Whitt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3227-149X">0000-0003-3227-149X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Candice+Guy-Gaytán%22">Candice Guy-Gaytán</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6918-8799">0000-0002-6918-8799</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lisa+O%2E+Kenyon%22">Lisa O. Kenyon</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Science+Education%22"><i>Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 109(6):1551-1582.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 32
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: 2009613
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Design%22">Instructional Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Place+Based+Education%22">Place Based Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Science%22">Elementary School Science</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Story+Telling%22">Story Telling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Interests%22">Student Interests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Relevance+%28Education%29%22">Relevance (Education)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/sce.21978
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0036-8326<br />1098-237X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Learning science in the context of local phenomena and problems can be powerful for young people. Yet, designing place-based instructional materials is resource intensive, limiting broad access. This study investigates how instructional materials designed for widespread use can support teacher localization through phenomenon adaptation, whereby teachers add or swap phenomena relevant to students' interests, identities, and community. Using design-based research, we developed two upper elementary storyline units and professional learning to support teachers' pedagogical design capacity for phenomenon adaptation. We studied 12 teachers' adaptations during their first implementation of the units by analyzing teachers' interviews, reflections, and professional learning discussions. Findings from both units showed that all teachers added phenomena, with common adaptations including adding student-generated phenomena. In the unit anchored around one phenomenon, teachers extended exploration of existing phenomena, citing student interest and cross-curricular connections as rationale. In the unit motivated by multiple phenomena, teachers added new phenomena to support knowledge building and connect to students' lived experiences. Embedded curricular resources offered low-floor entry points for teachers new to the unit. Supplementary resources showed potential as high-ceiling options for more experienced teachers. Phenomenon adaptation requires teachers to coordinate their knowledge of curriculum, students, and community resources to incorporate meaningful phenomena while maintaining coherence. Challenges included time constraints, high quality of existing materials, limited knowledge of local phenomena, and limited confidence. Implications for curriculum and professional learning are discussed, highlighting the potential to turn curricula designed for widespread use into locally-relevant learning experiences.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486681
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486681
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/sce.21978
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 32
        StartPage: 1551
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Place Based Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Science
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Story Telling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Interests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Relevance (Education)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'Adapting for a Local Space Can Be Tricky': Designing Units for Teachers to Localize through Phenomenon Adaptation
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily M. Harris
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lindsey Mohan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adrienne A. Hanson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katahdin A. Cook Whitt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Candice Guy-Gaytán
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lisa O. Kenyon
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0036-8326
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1098-237X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 109
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1