The Advantages of an Inquiry Approach for Science Instruction in Middle Grades

School Science and Mathematics

Volumn 110, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 5-12

  Yager, Robert E ^a   Akcay, Hakan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b MARMARA UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84863101608     PISSN: 00366803     EISSN: 19498594     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.00002.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2000). STS science in Canada from policy to student evaluation. In D. D. Kumar & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science technology and society: A sourcebook on research and practice (pp. 49-89). New York: Kluwer.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
4. Bybee, R. W. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry. In J. Minstrell & E. H. Van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
5. Dass, P. M., & Yager, R. E. (1999). The Iowa Chautauqua program: Advancing reforms in K-12 science education. Science Education International, 10(2), 33-38.
6. Enger, S. K., & Yager, R. E. (2001). Assessing student understanding in science. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
7. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. Simpson, G. G. (1963). Biology and the nature of science. Science, 139(3550), 81-88.
10. Torrance, P. E. (1966). Torrance test of creative thinking. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
11. Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
12. Yager, R. E., Abd-Hamid, N. H., & Akcay, H. (2005). The effect of varied inquiry experiences on teacher and student questions and actions in STS classrooms. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 25, 426-434.
13. Yager, R. E., & Akcay, H. (2007). What results indicate concerning the successes with STS instruction. Science Educator, 16(1), 13-21.
14. Yager, R. E., Blunck, S. M., & Ajam, M. (1990). The Iowa assessment package for evaluation in five domains of science education (2nd ed.). Iowa City: The University of Iowa, Science Education Center.
15. Wee, B., Shepardson, D., Fast, J., & Harbor, J. (2007). Teaching and learning about inquiry: Insights and challenges in professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 63-91.
16. Windschitl, M. (2004). Folk theories of “inquiry”: How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an a theoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512.