An innovative model for collaborative reform in elementary school science teaching

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 151-168

  Shroyer, M Gail ^a   Wright, Emmett L ^a   Ramey Gassert, Linda ^b  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0043085385     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF00117030     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1970). Preservice science education of elementary school teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Burry-StockJ. (1993). The ESTEEM Manual. Tuskaloosa: University of Alabama.
4. Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy. (1986). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century. New York: Author.
5. Champagne, A., & Hornig, L. (1987). Practical application of theories about learning: Students and science learning. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
6. Clune, W. H. (1993). Systemic educational policy: A conceptual framework. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 125-140). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
7. Cooper, C. K. (1995). Qualitative analysis of preservice elementary teachers' scientific ways of thinking, attitudes, and perceptions during collaborative earth science field-based experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
8. Fuhrman, S. H., & Massell, D. (1992). Issues and strategies in systemic reform. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 250-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
9. Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
10. Govindarajan, G. (1993). Analysis of preservice elementary, school teachers' collaborative problem solving in a constructivist-based interdisciplinary science course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
11. Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow's teachers. East Lansing, MI: Author.
12. Holmes Group. (1990). Tomorrow's schools: Principles for design of professional development schools. East Lansing, MI: Author.
13. Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow's schools of education. East Lansing, MI: Author.
14. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: A national report on the Second International Mathematics Study. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
15. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. (1988). Science achievement in seventeen countries: A preliminary report. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
16. Jones, L., Mullis, I., Raizen, S., Weiss, I., & Weston, E. (1992). The 1990 science report card: NAEP's assessment of fourth, eight, and twelfth grades. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
17. Mathematical Association of America. (1991). A call for change: Recommendations for the mathematical preparation of teachers of mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
18. McKinney, K. (1993). Improving math and science teaching: A report on the secretary's second conference on mathematics and science. Washington. DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
19. Mullis, I., & Jenkins, L. (1988). The science report card, elements of risk and discovery: Trends and achievement based on the 1986 national assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
20. National Center for Improving Science Education. (1989). Science and technology education for the elementary years: Frameworks for curriculum and instruction. Andover, MA: The Network.
21. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
22. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for action. Recommendations for school mathematics of the 1980s. Reston, VA: Author.
23. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
25. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
26. National Research Council. (1988). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
27. National Science Board. (1983). Educating Americans for the 21st century: A report to the American people and the National Science Board. Washington, DC: Author.
28. National Science Teachers Association. (1988). Science education initiatives for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Author.
29. O'Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (1993). How the world of students and teachers challenges policy coherence. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy (pp. 250-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
30. Raizen, S. & Michelsohn, A. (1994). The future of science in elementary schools: Educating prospective teachers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
31. Ramey-Gassert, L. (1993). A qualitative analysis of factors that influence personal science teaching efficiency and outcome expectancy in elementary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
32. Richardson, S. W. (1994). The professional development school: A common sense approach to improving education. Fort Worth, TX: Sid W. Richardson Foundation.
33. Riggs, I. M., & Enochs, L. G. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teachers' science teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education, 74(6), 625-637.
34. Scharmann, L. C., & Holland, J. (1986). Development and partial validation of an instrument to examine preservice elementary teachers' process orientation to science. Science Education, 70(4), 375-387.
35. Shrigley, R. L. (1974). The attitude of preservice elementary teachers toward science. School Science and Mathematics, 74(3), 243-250.
36. Shrigley, R. L., & Johnson, T. M. (1974). The attitude of inservice teachers toward science. School Science and Mathematics, 74(5), 437-446.
37. Shroyer, M. G., Ramey-Gassert, L., Hancock, M., Moore, P., & Walker, M. (1995). Math, science, technology after school clubs and summer magnet school: Collaborative professional development opportunities for science educators. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 6(2), 112-119.
38. Shroyer, M. G., Ramey-Gassert, L., & Wright, E. L. (1995, January). Science education reform: The role of professional development schools. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Educators of Teachers of Science, Charleston, NC.
39. Shroyer, M. G., & Wright, E. L. (1995, April). Expertise in preservice elementary teaching in science, mathematics, and technology: Evaluation of an innovative model. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.
40. Shroyer, M. G., Wright, E. L., Kerr, S., & Weamer, D. K. (1996, March). Expertise in elementary science teaching: Evaluating an innovative preservice preparation program. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
41. Stalheim-Smith, A., & Scharmann, L. C. (1994). General biology: Creating a positive learning environment for elementary education majors. The American Biology Teacher, 56(4), 216-220.
42. US Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: Author.
43. von Glasserfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80(1), 121-140.
44. Wilhite, K. T. (1995). Changes in elementary science teachers during their participation in a science, mathematics, and technology teacher preparation project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
45. Wilson, J. (1993). An evaluation of the field experiences of the innovative model for the preparation of elementary school teachers for science, mathematics, and technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.
46. Wright, E. L. (1993, April). Restructuring elementary science teacher preparation: A constructivist collaborative model. Symposium presented at the meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA.
47. Wright, E. L. (1994). The development of an innovative model: The preservice preparation of elementary teachers for enhanced science, mathematics, and technology teaching [Summative Report to the National Science Foundation]. Manhattan, KS: College of Education.
48. Zollman, D. (1994). Preparing future science teachers. Physics Education, 29, 271-275.