Networking for leadership, inquiry, and systemic thinking: A new approach to inquiry-based learning

Journal of Science Education and Technology

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 81-91

  Byers, Al ^a,c   Fitzgerald, Mary Ann ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^c NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Inquiry; Science education; Systemic change

Indexed keywords

EID: 17744386195     PISSN: 10590145     EISSN: 15731839     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1013951531841     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. American Academy for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061, Oxford University Press, New York.
2. Anderson, C. W., and Smith, E. L. (1987). Teaching science. In Richardson-Koehler, V. (Ed.), Educators' Handbook: A Research Perspective, Longman, New York, pp. 84-111.
3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
4. Costenson, K., and Lawson, A. E. (1986). Why isn't inquiry used in more classrooms? American Biology Teacher 48: 150-158.
5. Fullan, M. (1993). Change Forces: Probing the Depths of Educational Reform, Falmer, New York.
6. Gallagher, J. J., and Tobin, K. (1987). Teacher management and student engagement in high school science. Science Education 71: 535-555.
7. Haury, D. L. (1993). Teaching science through inquiry. ERIC CSMEE Digest. (ERIC Document No. ED 359048).
8. Jenlink, P. M. (1995). Systemic Change: Touchstones for the Future School, IRI/Skylight, Palantine, IL.
9. Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms and the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional learning. Review of Educational Research 67: 227-266.
10. Lazarowitz, R., and Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. In Gabel, D. L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, Macmillan, New York, pp. 94-128.
11. National Center for Education Statistics (2000). Pursuing excellence: Comparisons of international eighth-grade mathematics and science achievement from a U.S. perspective, 1995 and 1999 (Government Document NCES 2001-028). Available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001028.pdf.
12. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment (1996). National Science Education Standards: 1996, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
13. National Research Council (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
14. Ponder, G., and Kelly, I (1997). Evolution, chaos, or perpetual motion? A retrospective trend analysis of secondary science urriculum advocacy, 1955-1994. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision 12: 228-245.
15. Sánchez, G., and Valcárcel, M. V. (1999). Science teachers' views and practices in planning for teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 493-513.
16. Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, Random House, New York.
17. Von Seeker, C. E., and Lissitz, R. W. (1999). Estimating the impact of instructional practices on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36: 1110-1126.
18. Wise, K. C. (1996). Strategies for teaching science: What works? The Clearing House 69: 337-338.
19. Yager, R. E. (1997). Invited Paper. The Science Teacher 64: 8.
20. Yager, R. E. (2000). The history and future of science education reform. The Clearing House 74: 51-54.