A critique of how learning progressions research conceptualizes sophistication and progress

Researchers in science education have moved quickly to pursue "learning progressions," defined by the NRC (2007) as "descriptions of the successively more sophisticated ways of thinking about a topic" (p. 219). Given the speed of its adoption, it is not surprising there are variations in how the notion is understood, regarding how to assess sophistication as well as how to conceptualize progress. We examine learning progressions by three leading groups, to challenge assumptions that (1) ideas are "more sophisticated" insofar as they align more closely with end-state canonical knowledge, and (2) student progress can be characterized as a sequence of levels. These assumptions conflict with advances in science education research toward views of learners' knowledge and reasoning as complex, dynamic ecologies. By moving quickly to embrace learning progressions as an organizing concept for research, the community risks surrendering its own hard-won progress.