Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 193
Chapter I 1. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (Washing ton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), p. 23. H. l. Hausman, Choosing a Science Program for the Elementary School (Wash ington, D.C.: Council for Basic Education, Occasional Papers No. 24, 1972),p.5. Excerpted from the keynote address given by Philip and Phylis Morrison at the Summer 1989 Naiional Science Resources Center's Elementary Sci ence Leadership Institute. J. Elstgeest, 'beaching Science by Posing Problems," Prospects 1 (1970~: 2. K R. Mechling and D. L. Oliver, Handbook IV: What Research Says About Ele mentary Science (Washington, D.C.: National Science Teachers Association, 1983), p. 8. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Benchmarks for Sci ence Literacy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 4. National Research Council, Standards, p. 20. Elstgeest, "Teaching Science by Posing Problems," p. 2. H. Gardner, The Unschooled Mind: How Children Think and How Schools Should Teach (New York: BasicBooks, 1993), p. 13. 10. L. B. Resnick, Education and Learning to Think (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987), p. 47. 11. Ibid, pp. 35-36. 12. A. J. Reynolds, T. Hoffer, and J. D. Miller, "Investigating the Effects of In- quiry-Based Elementary Science Programs," paper presented at the 1991 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Sci- ence, Washington, D.C. 13. T. Bredderman, "Activicy Science-The Evidence Shows It Matters," Science and Children 1 (fall): 3941. Chapter 2 1. Piaget's seminal work, published in 1926, is The Language and Thought of the Child (London: Routledge). The Psychology of the Child, written with B. In- helder, provides a good introduction to Piaget's ideas (New York: Basic- Books, 1969~. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. Notes 193
OCR for page 193
Notes 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 2. L. B. Resnick, "Mathematics and Science Learning: A New Conception, Science (April 29, 1983~: 478. Among the researchers who believed in a combination of "discovery" learning and traditional instruction was Jerome Bruner. His pivotal work is Studies in Cognitive Growth, by I. Bruner and M. I. Kenny (New York: John Wiley, 1965~. David Ausubel, an educational psychologist, also espoused this view. His pivotal work is Educational Psychology: A Cognitive View, by D. P. Ausubel et al. (New York: Molt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1978~. L. F. Lowery, The Biological Basis of Thinking and Learning (Berkeley: Uni versity of California, 1992), p. 5. I. M. FIealy, Endangered Minds: Why Our Children Don 't Think (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), pp. 72-73. H. Gardner, The Unschooled Mind (New York: BasicBooks, 1991), p. 5. Resnick, Mathematics and Science Learning, pp. 477-78. This example is from an article by Bruce Watson and Richard Konicke: "Teaching for Conceptual Change: Confronting Children's Experience," Phi Delta Kappa (May 1990~: 683-85. S. Sprague, "Beyond Explicit Standards for Science Education," in Re designing the Science Curriculum, R. W. Bybee and I. D. McInerney, eds. (Col orado Springs: BSCS, 1995), p. 92. 10. Resnick, Mathematics and Science Learning, pp. 477-78. 11. See Lowery, The Biological Basis of Thinking and Learning for a more de- tailed discussion of this model. Chapter 3 1. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), p. 33. Chapter 4 1. 3. R. Evans, "The Human Face of Reform," Educational Leadership 51 (1993~: 19. S. M. Hord, W L. Rutherford, L. Huling-Austin, and G. E. Hall, Taking Charge of Change (Alexandria, Va.: Association of Supervision and Curricu- lum Development, 1987~. W. Bennis and B. Nanus, Leaders: The Strategies for Taking Charge (New York: HarperPerennial, 1985), p. 28. Chapter 5 1. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), p. 23. Chapter 6 1. The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, Continuing to Learn: A Guidebook for Teacher Development (An 194
OCR for page 193
Notes 2. 3. 4 . dover, Mass.: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, 1987), p. 13. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), p. 58. Research by D. C. Berliner found that teachers can fit into the following five categories: novice, advanced beginner, competent, proficient, and ex- pert ("In Pursuit of the Expert Pedagogue," Educational Researcher 15~9, 1986~: 5-13~. In this chapter, we focus on three of these categories: novice, competent, and expert. National Research Council, Standards, p. 33. Chapter 7 1. G. Hein, C. Baldassari, and L. Hudson, "Developing Inquiry-Centered Ele mentary School Science: Community Elementary Science Reform after At tendance at Summer Leadership Institutes 1989-1994, Third Year Evalua tion Report" (Cambridge, Mass.: Lesley College, 1995), pp. 49-50. This quote is from an unpublished white paper by Larry Small, former sci ence supervisor for Schaumburg, Illinois, "Science Materials Support," 1992,p. 1. Chapter ~ 1. National Research Council, National Science Education Standards (Washing- ton, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996), pp. 76, 82. Chapter 9 1. National Science Resources Center, "Corporate America's Impact on Ele- mentary Science Education" (Washington, D.C.: National Science Re- sources Center, 1994), p. 5. 195