Scope, sequence and coordination: The iowa project, a national reform effort in the USA

International Journal of Science Education

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 169-194

  Yager, Robert E ^a   Weld, Jeffrey D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0141938803     PISSN: 09500693     EISSN: 14645289     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/095006999290778     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. AIKEN, R. L. and AIKEN, D. R. (1969) Recent research on attitudes concerning science. Science Education, 53, 295-305.
2. Amibile, T. M. (1989) Growing Up Creative (New York: Crown).
3. Baird, W. E. and Borioh, G. D. (1987) Validity considerations for research on integrated science process skills and formal reasoning ability. Science Education, 71 (2), 259-269.
4. Brandt, R. S. (1986) On creativity and thinking skills: a conversation with David Perkins. Educational Leadership, 43, 12-18.
5. Bybee, R. W. (1996) The contemporary reform of science education. In J. Rhoton and P. Bowers (eds) Issues in Science Education (Arlington: NSTA), 1-14.
6. Cleminson, A. (1990) Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporary notions of the nature of science and of how children learn science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 429-445.
7. Combs, A. W. (1998) New assumptions for educational reform. Educational Leadership, 45(5), 38-40.
8. GLASS, L. W., and BRANDWEIN, P. F. (1991) A permanent agenda for science teachers. Science Teacher, 58(5), 22-25.
9. Haladyna, T. and Shaugenssey, J. (1982) Attitudes toward science: a quantitative synthesis. Science Education, 66(4), 547-563.
10. Harms, N. C. and Yager, R. E. (eds). (1981) What Research Says to the Science Teacher Vol. 3 (Washington, DC: NSTA).
11. Helgeson, S. L., Blosseh, P. E. and Howe, R. W. (1977) The Status of Pre-college Science, Mathematics and Social Science Education: 1995-1975 (Columbus: Center for Science and Mathematics Education, Ohio State University).
12. Hoffman, K. M. and Stage, E. K. (1993) Science for all: getting it right for the 21st century. Educational Leadership, 50(5) 27-31.
13. Huhd, P. D. (1993) Foreword. In R. W. Bybee (ed.), Reforming Science Education (New York: Teachers College Press), ix.
14. Ledehman, N. G. (1992) Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
15. Lu, Y. (1993) A study of the effectiveness of the Science-Technology-Society approach to science teaching in the elementary school (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City).
16. Lyon, M. A. and Gettingeh, M. (1985) Differences in student performance on knowledge, comprehension, and application tasks: implications for school learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 12-19.
17. Mahzano, R. J., Zaffhon, S., Zhaik, L., Robbins, S. L. and Yoon, L. (1995) A new paradigm for educational change. Education, 116(2), 162-173.
18. McComas, W. F. and Yageh, R. E. (eds) (1988) The Iowa Assessment Package for Evaluation in Five Domains of Science Education (Iowa City): The University of Iowa, Science Education Center).
19. Mitchell, D. E., Ohtiz, F. I. and Mitchell, T. K. (1987). Work Orientation and Job Performance: The Cultural Basis of Teaching Rewards and Incentives (Albany: SUNY Press).
20. Mohavcsik, M. J. (1981) Creativity in science education. Science Education, 65, 221-227.
21. National Reseahch Council (1996) National Science Education Standards (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
22. National Science Foundation (NSF). (1997) Foundations: The Challenge and Promise of K-8 Science Education Reform, vol. 1. NSF 97-76 (Arlington: NSF), 3-17.
23. National Science Teachehs Association (1992) Scope, Sequence, and Coordination of Secondary School Science: Vol. 1. The Content Core. A Guide for Curriculum Designers (Washington, DC: NSTA).
24. Padilla, M. G., Okey, J. R. and Dillashaw, F. (1983) The relationship between science process skills and formal thinking abilities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 239-246.
25. Pogge, A. F. and Yageh, R. E. (1987) Citizens groups perceived importance of the major goals for school science. Science Education, 71 (2), 221-227.
26. Ruthehfohd, F. J. and Ahlghen, A. (1989) Science for all Americans (New York: Oxford University Press).
27. Sehgiovanni, T. J. (1967) Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers. Journal of Educational Administration, 5, 66-82.
28. Shymansky, J. A., Kyle, W. C. Jh and Alpoht, J. M. (1983) The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387-404.
29. Simpson, R. D. and Oliveh, J. S. (1990) A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74(1), 1-10.
30. Spuck, D. W. (1974) Reward structures in the public high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 10, 18-34.
31. Stake, R. E. and Easley, J. (1978) Case Studies in Science Education, vols. 1 and 2 (Stock No. 038-000-00364) (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana).
32. Weiss, I. R. (1987) Report of the 1985-86 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education (Research Triangle Park, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation, Research Triangle Institute).
33. Wollman, W. (1983) Models and procedures: a classroom study of teaching and transfer. School Science and Mathematics, 83(2), 122-132.
34. United States Department of Education (1991) America 2000: An Education Strategy Sourcebook (Washington, DC: Department of Education).
35. Yager, R. E. (1991) The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science eduction. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
36. Yager, R. E., Blunck, S. M. and Ajam, M. (eds). (1990) The Iowa Assessment Package for Evaluation in Five Domains of Science Education (2nd edn) (Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center).
37. Yager, R. E., Kellerman, L. and Blunck, S. M. (1992) The Iowa Assessment Handbook (Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center).
38. Yager, R. E., Liu, C. and Blunck, S. M. (1993) The Iowa Chautauqua Program Annual Assessment Report 1992-93 (Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center).
39. Yager, R. E., Liu, C. and Varrella, G. F. (1993) The Iowa Scope, Sequence, and Coordination (Ss&C) Project Assessment Report 1990-93 (Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center).
40. Yager, R. E. and Roy, R. (1993) STS: most pervasive and radical of reform approaches to ‘science’ education. In R. E. Yager (ed.) Science, Technology, Society Movement (Washington, DC: NSTA), p. 7.