A Student-Centered Approach to Teaching General Biology That Really Works: Lord's Constructivist Model Put to a TEST

American Biology Teacher

Volumn 65, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 491-501

  Burrowes, Patricia A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO   (Puerto Rico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141430004     PISSN: 00027685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/4451548     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Adams, J. P. & Slater, T. F. (1998). Using action research to bring the large class down to size. Journal of College Science Teaching, November 1998.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1994). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Anderson, E. (1997). Active learning in the lecture hall. Journal of College Science Teaching, 26(6), 428-429.
5. Burrowes, P. A. & Nazario, G. M. (2001). Preparing students for the transition from a teacher-centered to a student-centered environment: Active exercises that work at the university level. Pedagogía, 35, 135-141.
6. Bybee, R. (1993). Instructional Model for Science Education, in Developing Biological Literacy. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Studies.
7. Crow, L. W. (1989), The nature of critical thinking. Journal of College Science Teaching, 19, 114-116.
8. Lawson, A. E. (1992). The development of reasoning among college biology students - a review of research. Journal of College Science Teaching, 21, 338-344.
9. Lawson, A. E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 401-411.
10. Leonard, W. H., Speziale, B. J. & Penick, J. (2001). Performance assessment of a standards-based high school biology curriculum. The American Biology Teacher, 63(5), 310-316.
11. Lord, T. (1994). Using constructivism to enhance student learning in college biology. Journal of College Science Teaching, 5, 346-348.
12. Lord, T. (1997). Comparing traditional and constructivist teaching in college biology. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 197-217.
13. Lord, T. (1998). Cooperative learning that really works in biology teaching. Using constructivist-based activities to challenge student teams. The American Biology Teacher, 60(8), 580-588.
14. Lord, T. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22-28.
15. Lord, T. (2001). 101 reasons for using cooperative learning in biology teaching. The American Biology Teacher, 63(1), 30-38.
16. Marbach-Ad, G. & Claassen, L.A. (2001). Improving students' questions in inquiry labs. The American Biology Teacher, 63(6), 410-419.
17. Minitab. (1998). Statistical Software for Windows. Release 12.
18. Modell, H. I. (1996). Preparing students to participate in an active learning environment. Advances in Physiology Education, 15(1), S69-S77.
19. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20. Pheeney, P. (1997). Hands on, minds on. Activities to engage our students. Science Scope, September 1997, 30-33.
21. Rice, R. E. (1996). Making a Place for the New American Scholar. Washington DC: American Association for Higher Education.
22. Sundberg, M.D., Armstrong, J.E., Dini, M.L. & Wischusen, E.W, (2000). Some practical ways for instituting investigative biology laboratories. Journal of College Science Teaching, March/April 2000, 353-359.
23. Yager, R. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Toward real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, September, 53-57.