Policy-making in science systemic reform

Research in Science Education

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 141-157

  Boydston, Theodore L ^a,b  

^a Sun City Centre   (United States)

^b MACC Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 53149106679     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/BF02461185     Document Type: Article

References (9)

1. Andersen, R. D. (1995). Studies of education reform: Study for curriculum reform. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
2. Clune, W. H. (1993). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralised or differentiated/decentralised? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 75(3), 233-254.
3. Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: Systemic reform. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
4. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
5. Cuba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, California: Sage.
6. Lilyquist, J. G. (1998). Are schools really like this? Factors affecting teacher attitude toward school improvement. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
7. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). ( 1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
9. Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organisation. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.