The US biology education standards, new biology curricula and results

Journal of Biological Education

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 108-112

  Leonard, William H ^a,b,c,d  

^a CLEMSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Clemson University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^d LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Biology curricula; Education standards; USA

Indexed keywords

EID: 3042786560     PISSN: 00219266     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2004.9655916     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York. Oxford University Press.
2. American Chemical Society (1998) ChemCom: Chemistry in the Community. Dubuque, IA. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
3. Atkin M and Karplus R (1962) Discovery or Invention. The Science Teacher, 29 (2), 121-143.
4. BSCS (1997 and 2003) Biological Science: A Human Approach. Dubuque, IA. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
5. Bybee R (1997) Achieving scientific literacy - from purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann Press.
6. Chandler P (1999) Conveying the vision of science: Meta-lessons on inquiry found in a content analysis of two high school biology textbooks. PhD dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson SC.
7. Dreyfus A et al (1982) An approach to the assessment of teachers' concerns in the context of curriculum evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, 87-99.
8. Dougherty M J and Miller J S (1998) A human approach and insights in biology. The American Biology Teacher, 60 (2), 98-104.
9. Education Development Corporation (1998) Insights in Biology. Dubuque, IA. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.
10. Hasse E (2003) Reform in Biology Education: Teachers' Implementation of a New Biology Curriculum. PhD dissertation, North Carolina State University, URN etd-03262003-003854; www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-03262003-003854/
11. Lawson A (1988) A better way to teach biology. American Biology Teacher, 50 (5), 266-278.
12. Leonard W and Penick J (1998 and 2003) Biology: A Community Context. Columbus, OH. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
13. Leonard W H, McComas W F and Mason C L (2000) Why it's not a good time for science education in the once golden state of California. CSTA Journal, Winter 2000.
14. Leonard W, Penick J and Speziale B (2001) Performance assessment of a standards-based high school biology curriculum. The American Biology Teacher, 63, 310-315.
15. Leonard W, Penick J and Douglas R (2002) What does it mean to be standards-based? The Science Teacher, 69 (April), 36-39.
16. Morse M P (2001) A review of biological instructional materials for secondary schools. Washington, DC. American Institute of Biological Sciences.
17. Renner J and Lawson A (1973) Promoting intellectual development through science teaching. The Physics Teacher, 11 (5), 273-276.
18. National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. Washington DC. National Academy Press.
19. Project 2061 (2000) Project 2061 instructional analysis of biology textbooks. Washington, DC. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (also available at www.aaas.org)
20. Rutherford J (1990) Science for All Americans. New York and Oxford. Oxford University Press.
21. Shymansky J, Kile W and Alport J (1983) The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
22. Shymansky J, Hedges L and Woodworth G (1990) A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60's on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 127-144.
23. St John M (2002) The Status of science curricula recently developed through funds from the National Science Foundation. Presentation to the Instructional Material Development Principal Investigators Conference. February 2, Washington, DC.