Conceptions of Science Achievement in Major Reform Documents

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 100, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 16-26

  Lee, Okhee ^a   Paik, Seoung hey ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI   (United States)

^b Korea National University of Education   (South Korea)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011969908     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17316.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

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. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1996). Summary comparison of content between National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Science Literacy and Science for All Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1997). Resources for science literacy: Professional development. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. American Federation of Teachers. (1997). Making standards matter 1997: An annual fifty-state report on efforts to raise academic standards. Washington, DC: Author.
6. Atwater, M. M. (1994). Research on cultural diversity in the classroom. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 558–576). New York: Macmillan.
7. Clune, W. H. (1998). The “standards wars” in perspective. Teachers College Record, 100, 144–149.
8. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform Educational Researcher, 24, 11–17.
9. Collins, A. (1998). National Science Education Standards: A political document. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 711–727.
10. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1997). A state-by-state look at content standards and benchmarks: Examples of mathematics and science standards. Washington, DC: Author.
11. Donmoyer, R. (1995). The rhetoric and reality of systemic reform: A critique of the proposed National Science Education Standards. Theory into Practice, 34, 30–34.
12. Elmore, R.F. (1995). Structural reform in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 24, 23–26.
13. Elmore, R. F., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1994). Education professionals and curriculum governance. In R. F. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 210–215). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14. Glaser, R., & Linn, R. (1997). Assessment in transition: Monitoring the nation's educational progress. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Academy of Education.
15. Jones, L. V. (1996). A history of the National Assessment of Educational Progress and some questions about its future. Educational Researcher, 25, 15–22.
16. Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 249–263.
17. Kirst, M. W., & Bird, R. (1997, April). The politics of developing and maintaining math and science curriculum standards (Research Monograph #2). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.
18. Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 227–266.
19. Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1998). Science for all, including students from non-English language backgrounds. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 12–21.
20. Lee, O., Fradd, S. H., & Sutman, F. X. (1995). Science knowledge and cognitive strategy use among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 797–816.
21. Martin, M. O., & Kelly, D. L. (Eds.). (1996). Third International Mathematics and Science Study technical report, Vol. 1: Design and development. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation, and Educational Policy.
22. Massell, D. (1994). Three challenges for national content standards. Education and Urban Society, 26, 185–195.
23. McKnight, C. C., Schmidt, W. H., & Raizen, S. A. (1993). Test blueprints: A description of the TIMSS achievement test content and design (Doc. Ref. ICC797/NRC357). Document prepared for the Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
24. McLaughlin, M. W., Shepard, L. A., & O'Day, J. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform: A report by the National Academy of Education panel on standards-based education reform. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Academy of Education.
25. National Assessment Governing Board. (1994). Science assessment and exercise specifications for the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author.
26. National Assessment Governing Board. (1996). Science framework for the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress: NAEP Science Consensus Project. Washington, DC: Author.
27. National Center on Education and the Economy. (1997a). Performance standards: English language arts, mathematics, science, applied learning. Vol. 1. Elementary school. Washington, DC: Author.
28. National Center on Education and the Economy. (1997b). Performance standards: English language arts, mathematics, science, applied learning. Vol. 2. Middle school. Washington, DC: Author.
29. National Center on Education and the Economy. (1997c). Performance standards: English language arts, mathematics, science, applied learning. Vol. 3. High school. Washington, DC: Author.
30. National Center on Education and the Economy. (1998). New Standards science reference exam: Release package, 4th grade spring pilot 1997. Washington, DC: Author.
31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
32. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. National Science Teachers Association. (1992). Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science. Vol. 1. The content core: A guide for curriculum designers. Washington, DC: Author.
34. National Science Teachers Association. (1995). Scope, sequence, and coordination of national science education content standards: An addendum to the Content core based on the 1994 draft National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
35. National Science Teachers Association. (1996). Scope, sequence, and coordination: A framework for high school science education, 1996 edition, based on the National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: Author.
36. Olson, S. (1998, September 30). Science friction. Education Week, pp. 25–29.
37. O'Sullivan, C. Y., Reese, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (1997). NAEP 1996 science report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
38. Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & Osthoff, E. (1994). Standards setting as a strategy for upgrading high school mathematics and science. In R. F. Elmore, & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 138–166). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39. Ralzen, S. A. (1998). Standards for science education. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 66–121.
40. Raizen, S. A., Sellwood, P., Todd, R. D., & Vickers, M. (1995). Technology education in the classroom: Understanding the designed world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
41. Robitallie, D. F., McKnight C., Schmidt, W. H., Britton, E., Raizen, S., & Nicol, C. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science, TIMSS Monograph No. 1. Vancouver, CA: Pacific Educational Press.
42. Rodríguez, A. J. (1998). Busting open the meritocracy myth: Rethinking equity and student achievement in science education [Special Issue on Evaluating Equity Programs]. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 195–216.
43. Romberg, T. A. (1998). Comments: NCTM's curriculum and evaluation standards. Teachers College Record, 100(1), 8–21.
44. Roth, W-M. (Eds.). (1998). Science and technology studies and science education [Special Issue]. Research in Science Education, 28(1).
45. Roth, W-M., & McGinn, M. K. (1998). Inscriptions: Toward a theory of representing as social practice. Review of Educational Research, 68(1), 35–59.
46. Secada, W. G. (1997). Understanding in mathematics and science. Principled Practice in Mathematics and Science Education, 1(1), 8–9. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.
47. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman, & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–268). Briston, PA: The Falmer Press.
48. Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80(2), 223–241.
49. Webb, N. (1997). Criteria for alignment of frameworks/standards and student assessments for mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.