FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENTIFIC, MATHEMATICAL, AND TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACIES-COMMON THEMES AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS

Pacific CRYSTAL Centre for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Literacy: Lessons Learned

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 23-44

  Yore, Larry D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85139959418     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (49)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Anderson, J. O., Chiu, M.-H., and Yore, L. D. (2010). First cycle of PISA (2000-2006)-International perspectives on successes and challenges: Research and policy directions [Special issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(3), 373-388.
4. Bell, T., Witten, I. H., Fellows, M., Adams, R., and McKenzie, J. (2006). Computer science unplugged. An enrichment and extension programme for primary-aged children (teacher ed.). Retrieved from http://www.csunplugged.org/
5. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (2000). Teaching relevant activities for concepts and skills (TRACS) [Series]. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
6. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1995). Technology education 8 to 10: Integrated resource package 1995. Victoria, BC, Canada: Author.
7. British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1996). Information technology K-7: Integrated resource package 1996. Victoria, BC, Canada: Author.
8. Bybee, R. W. (2010). K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. In Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education (Ed.), Standards for K-12 engineering education? (pp. 55-66). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
9. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes, K to 12: Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Retrieved from http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/
10. Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J. L., and Meyer, J. P. (2010). Formulating the conceptual base for secondary level engineering education: A review and synthesis. In Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education (Ed.), Standards for K-12 engineering education? (pp. 67-80). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
11. Ford, C. L., Yore, L. D., and Anthony, R. J. (1997, March). Reforms, visions, and standards: A crosscurricular view from an elementary school perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Oak Brook, IL, USA. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED406168)
12. Good, R. G., Shymansky, J. A., and Yore, L. D. (1999). Censorship in science and science education. In E. H. Brinkley (Ed.), Caught off guard: Teachers rethinking censorship and controversy (pp. 101-121). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
13. Hand, B., Prain, V., and Yore, L. D. (2001). Sequential writing tasks’ influence on science learning. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) and P. Tynjälä, L. Mason and K. Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (Vol. 7 of Studies in Writing, pp. 105-129). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer/Springer.
14. Hurd, P. D. (1958). Science literacy: Its meaning for American schools. Educational Leadership, 16, 13-16 and 52.
15. Illinois State University Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (n.d.). Integrated mathematics, science, and technology (IMaST) curriculum [Series]. Carrollton, TX: Hewell.
16. International Technology Education Association. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
17. International Technology Education Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.
18. International Technology Education Association. (2006). Technological literacy for all: A rationale and structure for the study of technology (2nd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.
19. International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.
20. Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley. (2003). Full option science system (FOSS) [Series]. Hudson, NH: Delta Education.
21. McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217-237.
22. Moje, E. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(2), 96-107.
23. National Science Resources Center. (2009). Science and technology concepts (STC) program [Series]. Burlington, NC: Carolina Biological Supply Company.
24. Norris, S. P., and Phillips, L. M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224-240.
25. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). The PISA 2003 assessment framework: Mathematics, reading, science and problem solving knowledge and skills. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/46/14/33694881.pdf
26. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004a). Homepage. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/
27. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2004b). ICT literacy maps. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/index.php?option=com_contentandtask=viewandid=504andItemid=185#ict
28. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Rose, L. C., and Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2002). ITEA/Gallup poll reveals what Americans think about technology: A report of the survey conducted by the Gallup organization for the International Technology Education Association. The Technology Teacher, 61(6), (insert).
30. Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., Jr., and Starkweather, K. N. (2004). The second installment of the ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology: A report of the second survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the International Technology Education Association. The Technology Teacher, 64(1), (insert).
31. Shanahan, T., and Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking contentarea literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
32. Shen, B. S. P. (1975). Science literacy: The public understanding of science. In S. B. Day (Ed.), Communication of scientific information (pp. 44-52). New York: S. Karger.
33. Sneider, C. (2010). A vision of engineering standards in terms of big ideas. In Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education (Ed.), Standards for K-12 engineering education? (pp. 136-141). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
34. United States National Academy of Engineering. (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology (G. Pearson and A. T. Young, Eds.). Committee on Technological Literacy, National Academy of Engineeering, and National Research Council. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
35. United States National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
36. United States National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
37. United States National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
38. United States National Research Council. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39. United States National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning (S. Olson and S. Loucks-Horsley, Eds.). Committee on Development of an Addendum to the National Science Education Standards on Scientific Inquiry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40. United States National Research Council. (2010). A framework for science education (H. Quinn and H. A. Schweingruber, Eds.) [Preliminary public draft]. Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
41. Western and Northern Canadian Protocol for Collaboration in Education. (2006). The common curriculum framework for K-9 mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.wncp.ca/english/subjectarea/mathematics/ccf.aspx
42. Woollacott, L. C. (2009). Taxonomies of engineering competencies and quality assurance in engineering education. In A. Patil and P. Gray (Eds.), Engineering education quality assurance (pp. 257-295). New York: Springer.
43. Yore, L. D. (2008). Science literacy for all students: Language, culture, and knowledge about nature and naturally occurring events [Special issue]. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 8(1), 5-21. Retrieved from http://l1.publication-archive.com/show?repository=1andarticle=213
44. Yore, L. D. (2009). Science literacy for all: More than a logo or rally flag! [Keynote address]. Proceedings of the international science education conference 2009 (pp. 2393-2427). Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.nsse.nie.edu.sg/isec2009/downloads/
45. Yore, L. D. (2010, January 31). Technology literacy [Invited lecture]. Paper presented to the Academic Development Workshop at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
46. Yore, L. D., Bisanz, G. L., and Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.
47. Yore, L. D., and Hand, B. (2010). Epilogue: Plotting a research agenda for multiple representations, multiple modality, and multimodal representational competency [Special issue]. Research in Science Education, 40(1), 93-101.
48. Yore, L. D., Hand, B., and Florence, M. K. (2004). Scientists’ views of science, models of writing, and science writing practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 338-369.
49. Yore, L. D., Pimm, D., and Tuan, H.-L. (Eds.). (2007). Language-An end and a means to mathematical literacy and scientific literacy [Special issue]. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 557-769.