An Analysis of Frequency of Hands-On Experience and Science Achievement

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 101-109

  Stohr Hunt, Patricia M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0010508160     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1<101::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-Z     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Atash, M.N., & Dawson, G.O. (1986). Some effects of the ISCS program: A meta analysis Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 377-385.
2. Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
3. Davis, T., Raymond, A., MacRawls, C., & Jordan, J. (1976). A comparison of achievement and creativity of elementary school students using project vs. textbook programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13, 205-212.
4. Dunfee, M. (1967). Elementary school science: A guide to current research. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
5. Gagne, R.M. (1967). The AAAS project: Science - A process approach. In E. Victor & M.S. Lerner (Eds.), Readings in science education for the elementary school. New York: Collier-Macmillan Limited.
6. Glasson, G.E. (1989) The effects of hands-on and teacher demonstration laboratory methods on science achievement in relation to reasoning ability and prior knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 121-131.
7. Jacobson, W.J., Doran, R.L., Humrich, E., & Kanis, I.B. (1988). International science report card Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
8. Kessen, W. (1964). Statement of purposes and objectives of science education in school. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 4-6.
9. Klopfer, L.E., & Champagne, A.B. (1990). Ghosts of crisis past. Science Education, 74, 133-154.
10. Koballa, T.R. (1984). Goals of science education. In D. Holdzkom & P.B. Lutz (Eds.), Research within reach: Science education (p. 31). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
11. Kyle, W.C., Jr., Shymansky, J.A., & Alport, J.M. (1982). Alphabet soup science. The Science Teacher, 49, 49-53.
12. Lawson, A.E. (1990). Science education in Japan and the United States: Are the Japanese beating us at our own game? Science Education, 74, 495-501.
13. Lee, E.C. (1967). New developments in science teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
14. National Center for Education Statistics. (1989). National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988: A User's manual (Contract No. 90-464). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
15. National Center for Education Statistics. (1991). Psychometric Report for the NELS:88 Base Year Test Battery (Contract No. 300-86-0010). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
16. Shaw, T.J. (1983). The defect of a process-oriented science curriculum upon problem-solving ability. Science Education, 67, 615-623.
17. Shymansky, J.A. (1989). What research says about ESS, SCIS, and SAPA. Science and Children, 26, 33-35.
18. Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., Jr., & Alport, J.M. (1982). How effective were the hands-on science programs of yesterday? Science and Children, 20, 14-15.
19. Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., Jr., & Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
20. Siegel, B.D., & Raven, R. (1971). The effects of manipulation on the acquisition of the compensatory concepts of speed, force, and work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8, 373-378.
21. Vanek, E.P., & Montean, J.J. (1977). The effect of two science programs (ESS and Laidlaw) on student classification skills, science achievement, and attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 57-62.
22. Washton, N.S. (1974). Teaching science in elementary and middle schools. New York: David McKay Company.
23. Wideen, M.F. (1975) Comparison of student outcomes for Science - A process approach and traditional teaching for third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade classes: A product evaluation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 31-39.