From the National Academies: The challenges and opportunities for improving undergraduate science education through introductory courses

Cell Biology Education

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 212-214

  Labov, Jay B ^a  

^a NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION PROGRAM; HUMAN; LEARNING; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; SCHOOL; SHORT SURVEY; STUDENT; TEACHER; TEACHING;

CURRICULUM; FEEDBACK; HUMANS; LABORATORIES; LEARNING; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (U.S.); SCIENCE; STUDENTS; TEACHING; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 15744401010     PISSN: 15367509     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1187/cbe.04-07-0049     Document Type: Short Survey

References (11)

1. Brakke, D.F., and Brown, D.T. (2002). Assessment to improve student learning. In: Building Robust Learning Environments in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, ed. J.L. Narum and K. Conover. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 119-122. Available at http://www.pkal.org/template2.cfm? c_id=350.
2. Etkina, E., Mestre, J.P., and O'Donnell, A. (in press). The impact of the cognitive revolution on science learning and teaching. In: The Impact of the Cognitive Revolution on Educational Psychology, ed. J. Royer. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
3. Hake, R.R. (1999). Research, Development, and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: A Web Guide for Non-Biologists. http://www.physics.indiana. edu/∼redcube/redcube.pdf (accessed 23 September 2004).
4. MacNeal, A.P., and D'Avanzo, C., ed. (1997). Student Active Science: Models of Innovation in College Science Teaching. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
5. National Research Council. (1999). Transforming Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/catalog/6453.html (accessed 23 September 2004).
6. National Research Council. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Expanded Ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/catalog/9853.html (accessed 23 September 2004).
7. National Research Council. (2002). Learning and Understanding: Improving Advanced Study of Mathematics and Science in U.S. High Schools. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/catalog/10129.html (accessed 23 September 2004).
8. National Research Council. (2003a). Improving Undergraduate Instruction in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Report of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/catalog/10711.html.
9. National Research Council. (2003b). Evaluating and Improving Undergraduate Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://nap.edu/catalog/10024.html (accessed 23 September 2004).
10. Seymour and Hewitt. (1997). Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11. Venezia, A. (2002). A Student-Centered P-16 Accountability Model: Encouraging High Standards, Equitable Educational Opportunities and Outcomes, and Flexibility Within A Seamless System of Education. Issue Paper. Washington, DC: Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/40/04/ 4004.htm (accessed 23 September 2004).