On Brain, Medicines & Drugs: A Module for the "Science for All" Program

American Biology Teacher

Volumn 66, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 9-19

  Cohen, Dvora ^a   Ben Zvi, Ruth ^a   Hofstein, Avi ^a   Rahamimoff, Rami ^b  

^a WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

^b HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0742306094     PISSN: 00027685     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/4451611     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 Report on Literacy Goals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Ben-Zvi, R. (1999). Non-science oriented students and the second law of thermodynamics. International Journal of Science Education, 21(12), 1251-1267.
3. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Meeting the challenges of defining science content for all students. In: B. Yi, H. Seo, D. Choi, K.J. Hong, Y. Kim, Y. Lee, S. Choe & R. Yager (Eds.), Globalization of Science Education (pp. 11-18). Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.
4. Bybee, R. W. & Ben-Zvi, N. (1998). Science curriculum: transforming goals to practice. In: B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 487-498). Durdrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5. Byrne, M. & Johnston, A. (1988). How to make science relevant. School Science Review, 70, 43-35.
6. Cohen, D. (1999). Brain Medicines and Drugs. (In Hebrew.) Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
7. Cohen, D. (2000). Development, Implementation and Assessment of the module Brain, Medicines, and Drugs: A New Module within the Framework of Science and Technology in Society. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation. (In Hebrew.) Rehovot, Israel: Weizmann Institute of Science.
8. Fensham, P. J. (1995). One step forward ... Australian Science Teacher Journal, 41, 24-29.
9. Hofstein, A. & Kempa, R. F. (1985). Motivating strategies in science education: attempt at analysis. European Journal of Science Education, 7, 221-229.
10. Hofstein, A. & Mamlok, R. (2001). From petroleum to tomatoes. The Science Teacher, 68, 46-48.
11. Hofstein, A. & Walberg, H.J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In: B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 70-89). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education.
12. Jensen, O. & Lisman, J.E. (1996). Novel lists of 7±2 known items can be reliably stored in an oscillatory short-term memory network: Interaction with long-term memory. Learning & Memory, 3(2-3), 257-263.
13. Kandel, E.R. & Squire, L.R. (2000). Breaking down scientific barriers to the study of brain and mind. Science, 290, 113-1120.
14. Kesner, M., Hofstein, A. & Ben-Zvi, R. (1997). Student and teacher perception of industrial chemistry case studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19(3), 565-576.
15. Mason, C.L. (1999). The TRIAD approach: A consensus for science teaching and learning In: J. Gess-Newsome & N.G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Durdrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16. R. Millar & J. Osborne (Eds.), (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King's College.
17. Milner, N., Ben-Zvi, R. & Hofstein, A. (1987). Variables that affect students' enrollment in science courses. Research in Science & Technological Education, 5, 201-207.
18. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
19. Novak, J. D. (1988). Learning science and the science of learning. Studies in Science Education, 15, 77-101.
20. Solomon, J. & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform. New York: Teachers College.
21. Sweller, J. & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 185-233.
22. Superior Committee on Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education in Israel. (1992). Tomorrow 98. (English version: 1994). Jerusalem, Israel: Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport.
23. van den Akker, J. (1998). The science curriculum: Between ideals and outcomes. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Durdrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
24. Yager, R.E. & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approaches: Reasons, intentions, accomplishments, and outcomes. Science Education, 77(6), 637-658.