Inquiry as an Organizing Theme for Science Curricula

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 807-830

  Anderson, Ronald D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145512922     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-31     Document Type: Chapter

References (58)

1. Ahlgren, A., and Wheeler, S. (2002). Mapping the steps toward basic understanding of scientific inquiry. Science and Education, 11, 217-230.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.
3. Anderson, R. D. (1990). Policy decisions on improving science education: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(6), 553-574.
4. Anderson, R. D. (1992). Perspectives on complexity: An essay on curricular reform, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(8), 861-876.
5. Anderson, R. D. (1995). Curriculum reform: Dilemmas and promise. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 33-36.
6. Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. (Volume I of the final report of research conducted under contract no. RR91182001 with OERI, U.S. Department of Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
7. Anderson, R. D. (1998). The research on teaching as inquiry. A commissioned paper prepared for the Center for Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education at the National Research Council.
8. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
9. Anderson, R. D., and Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 3-16.
10. Anderson, R. D., et al. (1994). Issues of curriculum reform in science, mathematics and higher order thinking across the disciplines. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11. Berlin, B. M., and Jensen, K. (1989). Changing teachers. Education and urban society, 22(1), 115-120.
12. Bianchini, J. A., Cavazos, L. M., and Helms, J. V. (1999). From professional lives to inclusive practice:Science educators’ views of gender, ethnicity, and science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association conference in Montreal.
13. Blumenfeld, P. C. (1994). Lessons learned: How collaboration helped middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 539-551.
14. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. (Eds). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
15. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53-62.
16. Cartier, J. L., and Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science and Education, 9, 247-267.
17. Cuban, L. (1995). The hidden variable: How organizations influence teacher responses to secondary science curriculum reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 4-11.
18. Duschl, R., and Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467-501.
19. Eisner, E. W. (1992). Curriculum ideologies. In Philip W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 302-326). New York: Macmillan.
20. Fullan, M. G. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
21. Groarke, J., Ovens, P., and Hargreaves, M. (1986). Towards more open classrooms. In D. Hustler, A. Cassidy, and E. C. Cuff (Eds.), Action research in classrooms and schools. London: Allen and Unwin.
22. Grossman, P. L., and Stodolsky, S. S. (1995). Content as context: the role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24, 5-11.
23. Helms, J. V. (1995). Speaking of the subject: Science teachers reflect on the nature of science, science teaching, and themselves. Unpublished dissertation.
24. Huffman, D. (2002). Evaluating science inquiry: A mixed-method approach. In J. W. Altschuld and D. D. Kumar (Eds.), Evaluation of science and technology education at the dawn of a new millennium. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
25. Keys, C. W., and Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631-645.
26. Koulaidis, V., and Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers’ philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17, 273-283.
27. Krajcik, J. S., et al. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483-497.
28. Lambert, N. M., and McCombs, B. L. (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learnercentered education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
29. Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conception of the nature of science: A review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
30. Lederman, Norman G., and Niess, Margaret L. (2000). Problem solving and solving problems:Inquiry about inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(3), 113-116.
31. Little, J. (1993). Professional community in comprehensive high schools: The two worlds of academic and vocational teachers. In J. W. Little and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work:Individuals, colleagues, and contexts (pp. 137-163). New York: Teachers College Press
32. Magnusson, S. J., and Palincsar, A. S. (1995). The learning environment as a site of science education reform. Theory into Practice, 34(1), 43-50.
33. Marx, R. W., et al. (1994). Enacting project-based science: Experiences of four middle grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 517-538.
34. Mayer, R. E. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Vol. II. Teaching for meaningful learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
35. McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). What matters most in teachers’ workplace context? In J. W. Little and M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. (pp. 79-103). New York: Teachers College Press.
36. Miles, M. (1993). Forty years of change in schools: Some personal reflections. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29, 213-248.
37. Minstrell, J., and van Zee, E. (Eds.). (2000). Inquiry into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
38. Mitchener, C. P., and Anderson, R. D. (1989). Teachers’ perspective: Developing and implementing an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 351-369.
39. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
40. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. Noffke, S. E., and Zeichner, K. M. (1987). Action research and teacher thinking: The first phase of the AR project at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
42. Peressini, D. (1996). Parents, power, and the reform of mathematics education: An exploratory analysis of three urban high schools. Urban Education, 31, 3-28.
43. Powell, J. C., and Anderson, R. D. (2002). Changing teachers’ practices: Curriculum materials and science education reform in the USA. Studies in Science Education, 37, 107-136.
44. Prawat, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. American Journal of Education, 100, 354-395.
45. Project 2061. (2001). Atlas of science literacy. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
46. Richardson, V. (1994). Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S. Hollingsworth and H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 186-203). Ninety-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Romagnano, L. S. (1994). The dilemmas of change: A tale of two mathematics teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
48. Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87, 64-79.
49. Russell, T., and Munby, H. (1989). Science as a discipline, science as seen by students and teachers’ professional knowledge. In R. Millar (Ed.), Doing science: Images of science in science education (pp. 107-125). London: Falmer Press.
50. Sarason, S. B. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51. Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting “The culture of the school and the problem of change.” New York:Teachers College Press.
52. Sarther, C. M. (1991). Science curriculum and the BSCS revisited. Teaching Education, 3(2), 101-108.
53. Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspective, paradigm, and possibility. New York: Macmillan.
54. Talbert, J. (1994). Boundaries of teachers’ professional communities in U.S. high schools: power and precariousness of the subject department. Paper prepared for Leslie Santee Siskin and Judith Warren Little (Eds.), The High School Department: Perspectives on the Subject Organization of Secondary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
55. Thompson, C. L., and Zeuli, J. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry. In L. Darling-Hammond and G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56. Tikunoff, W. J., Ward, B., and Griffin, G. (1979). Interactive research and development on teaching study:Final report. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory.
57. Tyack, D., and Cuban, L. (1997). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Zuckerman, G. A., Chudinova, E. V., and Khavkin, E. E. (1998). Inquiry as a pivotal element of knowledge acquisition within the Vygotskian paradigm: Building a science curriculum for the elementary school. Cognition and Instruction, 16(2), 201-233.