Novice Teachers' Encounter with National Science Education Reform: Entanglements or Intelligent Interconnections?

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 3-17

  Lynch, Sharon ^a  

^a GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0008775856     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<3::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-Y     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anyon, J. (1995). Inner city school reform: Toward useful theory. Urban Education, 30, 56-70.
4. Bruckerhoff, C.E. (1990). Routines and mathematics curriculum reform (Report No. ED 317 420). Cleveland, OH.
5. Burstein, L., (1994, April). In S. Raizen, Validating national curriculum indicators. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
6. Dreyfus, J. (1994, April). How alignment of teachers' educational belief with a curriculum's conceptual framework affects their implementation of that curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, New Orleans, LA.
7. Fine, M. (1992). Chart[er]ing urban school reform: Philadelphia style. Philadelphia: CUNY Graduate Center/Philadelphia Schools Collaborative.
8. Giroux, H.A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Granby, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
9. Haney, J.J., & Lumpe, A. T. (1995). A teacher professional development framework guided by reform policies, teachers' needs and research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6, 187-196.
10. Hiebert, E.H. (1994). Reading recovery in the United States: What difference does it make to an age cohort? Educational Researcher, 23, 15-25.
11. Hiller, N.A. (1995). The battle to reform science education: Notes from the trenches. Theory into Practice, 34, 60-65.
12. Kyle, W.C., Jr. (1994). School reform and the reform of teacher education: Can we orchestrate harmony? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 785-786.
13. Little, J.W. (1993). Teacher professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2, 129-151.
14. Lynch, S. (1994, April). The implemented curriculum in the Project 2061 science education reform: Exploring the critical link. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, New Orleans, LA.
15. Millsap, M.A. (1995, April). Practical advice to potential adopters of various promising programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, San Francisco, CA.
16. National Center on Research for Teacher Learning. (1994). A blueprint for the education of Project 2061 science teachers. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
17. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. National Science Foundation. (1992). Indicators of science and mathematics education, 1992. Washington, DC: Author.
19. Newmann, F.M. (1993). Beyond common sense in educational restructuring: The issues of content and linkage. Educational Researcher, 22, 4-13.
20. Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21, 12-21.
21. Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
22. Porter, A.C., et al. (1994). Reform of high school mathematics and science and opportunity to learn. CPRE Policy Briefs, RB-13-9/94. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
23. Project 2061 staff. (1995). Comparison of NSES draft and Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Unpublished manuscript. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
24. Sanchez, R. (1996, March 26). Governors to address school reform slump. The Washington Post, p. A5.
25. Saranchuk, R. (1994, April). Implementing staff development plans: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, New Orleans, LA.
26. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, February, 4-14.
27. Sizer, T.R. (1992). Horace's School: Redesigning the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
28. Smith, G.G. (1994, April). How curriculum change affects teachers and students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, New Orleans, LA.
29. Taylor, D.L., & St. John, E. (1993, April). Limitations of district initiated reform: a study of a major urban reform initiative. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.
30. Weiss, I. (1995, April). Science teaching in the United States: Implications for implementing the national standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
31. Williams, L.S. (1994). The National Science Foundation's trilogy of systemic initiatives in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 599-601.