Relationships Between Inquiry-Based Teaching and Physical Science Standardized Test Scores

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 103, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 345-350

  Tretter, Thomas R ^a   Jones, M Gail ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22944442048     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2003.tb18211.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Chang, C.-Y., & Mao, S.-L. (1998, April). The effects of an inquiry-based instructional method on earth science students' achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 418 858).
2. Clinton, W. J. (1999, January 19). State of the Union address [Online]. Available: http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19990119-2656.html.
3. Costenson, K., & Lawson, A. E. (1986). Why isn't inquiry used in more classrooms The American Biology Teacher, 48(3), 150–158.
4. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). State education accountability reports and indicator reports: Status of reports across the States – 2002. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Also available online: http://www.publications.ccsso.org/ccsso/publication_list.cfm.
5. Flick, L. B., Keys, C. W., Westbrook, S. L., Crawford, B. A., & Carnes, N. G. (1997, March). Perspectives on inquiry-oriented teaching practice: Conflict and clarification. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 255).
6. Henson, K. (1986). Inquiry learning: A new look. Contemporary Education, 57(4), 181–183.
7. Jones, M. G., Jones, B., Gardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199–203.
8. Kaiser, B. (1996, December). Teachers, research, and reform: Improving teaching and learning in high school science courses. Paper presented at the Global Summit on Science and Science Education, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 191).
9. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999). Standard course of study, revised 1999. Raleigh, NC: Author.
11. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1994). Standard course of study, revised 1994. Raleigh, NC: Author.
12. O'Sullivan, C., Jerry, L., Ballator, N., & Herr, F., (1997). NAEP 1996 science state report for North Carolina. Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 413 226).
13. Shymansky, J., Kyle, W. Jr., & Alport, J. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 387–404.
14. Smith, P., Hounshell, P., Copolo, C., & Wilkerson, S. (1992). The impact of end-of-course testing in chemistry on curriculum and instruction. Science Education, 76(5), 523–530.
15. Stohr-Hunt, P. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101–109.
16. Wideen, M., O'Shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the teaching of science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428–444.