National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (2012)

Chapter: Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning

« Previous: Appendix A: Summary of Public Feedback and Subsequent Revisions
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

B

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES CONSULTED ON TEACHING AND LEARNING

The committee consulted a variety of references throughout the development of the framework, not all of which are cited explicitly in the report itself. This appendix lists some of the additional references the committee used to develop the practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas and to construct the grade band endpoints. This is certainly not an exhaustive list of all of the references relevant to teaching and learning in science. Rather, it is intended to provide a sense of the range of research literature the committee considered.

REFERENCES FOR PRACTICES

In addition to those references cited in Chapter 3, the following references were consulted to inform the committee’s selection of practices, the definitions for what the practices can look like in the classroom, and the committee’s arguments about the feasibility of young learners engaging in scientific practices.

Berland, L.K., and McNeill, K.L. (2010). A learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765-793.

Berland, L.K., and Reiser, B.J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.

Berland, L.K., and Reiser, B.J. (2011). Classroom communities’ adaptations of the practice of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 95(2), 191-216.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific thinking and science literacy: Supporting development in learning in contexts. In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner, K.A. Renninger, and I.E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Sixth Edition (vol. 4). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.

Metz, K.E. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290.

Metz, K.E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school science classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138-161.

Osborne, J., Erduran, S., and Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1,020.

Sampson, V., and Clark, D. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92, 447-472.

Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Davis, E.A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., and Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632-654.

Schwarz, C.V., Reiser, B.J., Kenyon, L.O., Acher, A., and Fortus, D. (in press). Issues and challenges in defining a learning progression for scientific modeling. In A. Alonzo and A.W. Gotwals (Eds.), Learning Progressions for Science. Boston, MA: Sense.

Simon, S., Erduran, S., and Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2-3), 235-260.

Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., and Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92(5), 941-967.

REFERENCES FOR DISCIPLINARY CORE IDEAS

The committee consulted the references below to inform the development of the core ideas and their components and to develop the grade band endpoints. The research evidence was considered to determine which ideas students might be able to engage with at a given grade band given appropriate instructional support, as well as where they might have difficulty or hold preconceptions that conflict with scientific explanations. The committee also reviewed draft documents from the Massachusetts Department of Education compiled to support science standards that are informed by research on learning progressions.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Physical Sciences

Ashbrook, P. (2008). Air is a substance. Science and Children, 46(4), 12-13.

Feher, E., and Rice, K. (2006). Shadows and anti-images: Children’s conceptions of light and vision II. Science Education, 72(5), 637-649.

Haupt, G.W. (2006). Concepts of magnetism held by elementary school children. Science Education, 36(3), 162-168.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., Strom, D., and Pligge, M. (2001). Similarity of form and substance: From inscriptions to models. In D. Klahr and S. Carver (Eds.), Cognition and Instruction: 25 Years of Progress (pp. 39-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Palmeri, A., Cole, A., DeLisle, S., Erickson, S., and Janes, J. (2008). What’s the matter with teaching children about matter? Science and Children, 46(4), 20-23.

Smith, C.L., Solomon, G.E.A., and Carey, S. (2005). Never getting to zero: Elementary school students’ understanding of the infinite divisibility of number and matter. Cognitive Psychology, 51, 101-140.

Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., and Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 4, 1-98.

Stevens, S.Y., Delgado, C., and Krajcik, J.S. (2009). Developing a hypothetical multi-dimensional learning progression for the nature of matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 687-715.

Life Sciences

Barrett, J.E., and Clements, D.H. (2003). Quantifying path length: Fourth-grade children’s developing abstractions for linear measurement. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 475-520.

Carey, S. (1986). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., Levi, L., and Empson, S.B. (1999). Children’s Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Catley, K., Lehrer, R., and Reiser, B. (2005). Tracing a Prospective Learning Progression for Developing Understanding of Evolution. Paper commissioned by the National Academies Committee on Test Design for K-12 Science Achievement. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/BOTA/Evolution.pdf [June 2011]. Cobb, P., McClain, K., and Gravemeijer, K. (2003). Learning about statistical covariation. Cognition and Instruction, 21(1), 1-78.

Demastes, S.S., Good, R.G., and Peebles, P. (1995). Students’ conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79(6), 637-666.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Evans, E.M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 217-266.

Freyberg, P., and Osborne, R. (1985). Learning in Science: The Implications of Children’s Science. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Gelman, S.A., Coley, J.D., and Gottfried, G.M. (1994). Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories. In L.A. Hirschfield and S.A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Psychology Reader (pp. 222-244). New York: New York University Press.

Golan Duncan, R., Rogat, A., and Yarden, A. (2009). A learning progression for deepening students’ understandings of modern genetics across the 5th-10th grades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 655-674.

Kanter, D.E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525-551.

Kelemen, D., Widdowson, D., Posner, T., Brown, A.L., and Casler, K. (2003). Teleo-functional constraints on preschool children’s reasoning about living things. Developmental Science, 6(3), 329-345.

Kyza, E.A. (2009). Middle-school students’ reasoning about alternative hypotheses in a scaffolded, software-based inquiry investigation. Cognition and Instruction, 27(4), 277-311.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., and Wood-Robinson, C. (1995). Children’s ideas about ecology 1: Theoretical background, design, and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 721-732.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., and Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecology 2: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 19-34.

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational purposes: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(1&2), 51-74.

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635-679.

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2010a). Seeding Evolutionary Thinking by Engaging Children in Modeling Its Foundations. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for Research on Science Teaching.

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2010b). What kind of explanation is a model? In M.K. Stein and L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 9-22). New York: Springer.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Lehrer, R., Carpenter, S., Schauble, L., and Putz, A. (2000). The inter-related development of inscriptions and conceptual understanding. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, and K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and Communicating in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives on Discourse, Tools, and Instructional Design (pp. 325-360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lehrer, R., Jaslow, L., and Curtis, C. (2003). Developing an understanding of measurement in the elementary grades. In D.H. Clements and G. Bright (Eds.), Learning and Teaching Measurement: 2003 Yearbook (pp. 100-121). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Manz, E. (2010, March). Representational Work in Classrooms: Negotiating Material Redescription, Amplification, and Explanation. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia.

Metz, K.E. (2000). Young children’s inquiry in biology: Building the knowledge bases to empower independent inquiry. In J. Minstrell and E.H. van Zee (Eds.), Inquiring into Inquiry Learning and Teaching in Science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Metz, K.E., Sisk-Hilton, S., Berson, E., and Ly, U. (2010). Scaffolding Children’s Understanding of the Fit Between Organisms and Their Environment in the Context of the Practices of Science. Paper presented at the 9th International Conference of the Learning Sciences, June 29-July 2, Chicago.

Mohan, L., Chen, J., and Anderson, C.W. (2009). Developing a multi-year learning progression for carbon cycling in socioecological systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 675-698. (This reference also informed the earth and space sciences ideas.)

Passmore, C., and Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 185-204.

Sandoval, W.A., and Reiser, B.J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.

Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 170-194.

Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., and Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1&2), 1-98.

Tabak, I., and Reiser, B.J. (2008). Software-realized inquiry support for cultivating a disciplinary stance. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(2), 307-355.

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.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Earth and Space Sciences

Anderson, C.W. (March, 2010). Learning Progressions for Environmental Science Literacy.

Paper prepared for the National Research Council Committee to Develop a Conceptual Framework to Guide K-12 Science Education Standards. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Anderson_Framework_Paper.pdf [June 2011].

Harris, P. (2000). On not falling down to Earth: Children’s metaphysical questions. In K. Rosengren, C. Johnson, and P. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the Impossible: The Development of Scientific and Religious Thinking in Contemporary Society (pp. 157-178). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hogan, K., and Fisherkeller, J. (1996). Representing students’ thinking about nutrient cycling in ecosystems: Bio-dimensional coding of a complex topic. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 941-970.

Leach, J., Driver, R., Scott, P., and Wood-Robinson, C. (1996). Children’s ideas about ecology 2: Ideas found in children aged 5-16 about the cycling of matter. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 19-34.

Lehrer, R., and Pritchard, C. (2003). Symbolizing space into being. In K. Gravemeijer, R.

Lehrer, L. Verschaffel, and B. Van Oers (Eds.), Symbolizing, Modeling, and Tool Use in Mathematics Education (pp. 59-86). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

Lehrer, R., and Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children’s data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 69-108.

Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., and Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23(4), 512-529.

Liben, L.S. (2009). The road to understanding maps. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 310-315.

Panagiotaki, G., Nobes, G., and Banerjee, R. (2006). Is the world round or flat? Children’s understanding of the Earth. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 3, 124-141.

Rapp, D., and Uttal, D.H. (2006). Understanding and enhancing visualizations: Two modes of collaboration between earth science and cognitive science. In C. Manduca and D. Mogk (Eds.), Earth and Mind: How Geologists Think and Learn about the Earth. Denver, CO: Geological Society of America.

Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R., Schulze, S., and John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166.

Uttal, D.H. (2005). Spatial symbols and spatial thought: Cross-cultural, developmental, and historical perspectives on the relation between map use and spatial cognition. In L. Namy (Ed.), Symbol Use and Symbolic Representation: Developmental and Comparative Perspectives (pp. 3-23). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Uttal, D.H., Fisher, J.A., and Taylor, H.A. (2006). Words and maps: Children’s mental models of spatial information acquired from maps and from descriptions. Developmental Science, 9(2), 221-235.

Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W. (1994). Mental models of the day and night cycle. Cognitive Science, 18, 123-183.

Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., and Ikospentaki, K. (2004). Modes of knowing and ways of reasoning in elementary astronomy. Cognitive Development, 19, 203-222.

Vosniadou, S., Skopeliti, I., and Ikospentaki, K. (2005). Reconsidering the role of artifacts in reasoning: Children’s understanding of the globe as a model of the Earth. Learning and Instruction, 15, 333-351.

Windschitl, M., and Thompson, J. (2006). Transcending simple forms of school science investigation: Can pre-service instruction foster teachers’ understandings of model-based inquiry? American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 783-835.

Wiser, M. (1988). The differentiation of heat and temperature: History of science and novice-expert shift. In S. Strauss (Ed.), Ontogeny, Phylogeny, and Historical Development (pp. 28-48). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Wiser, M., and Amin, T.G. (2001). Is heat hot? Inducing conceptual change by integrating everyday and scientific perspectives on thermal phenomena. Learning and Instruction, 11(4&5), 331-355.

Engineering, Technology, and Applications of Science

Bolger, M., Kobiela, M., Weinberg, P., and Lehrer, R. (2009). Analysis of Children’s Mechanistic Reasoning about Linkages and Levers in the Context of Engineering Design. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Annual Conference and Exposition, June, Austin, TX.

Kolodner, J.L. (2009). Learning by Design’s Framework for Promoting Learning of 21st Century Skills. Presentation to the National Research Council Workshop on Exploring the Intersection of Science Education and the Development of 21st Century Skills. Available: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/Kolodner_21st_Century_Presentation.pdf [June 2011].

Kolodner, J.L., Camp, P.J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B.B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., and Ra, M. (2003). Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in Learning by Design classrooms. In N.M. Seel (Ed.), Instructional Design: International Perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). Reasoning about structure and function: Children’s conceptions of gears. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(1), 3-25.

Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (2000). Inventing data structures for representational purposes: Elementary grade students’ classification models. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 2(1&2), 51-74.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×

Penner, D., Giles, N.D., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125-143.

Penner, D.E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanical systems: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 429-449.

Petrosino, A.J. (2004). Integrating curriculum, instruction, and assessment in project-based instruction: A case study of an experienced teacher. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(4), 447-460.

Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 31-57.

Schauble, L., Klopfer, L.E., and Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 347
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 348
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 349
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 350
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 351
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 352
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 353
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of References Consulted on Teaching and Learning." National Research Council. 2012. A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13165.
×
Page 354
Next: Appendix C: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff »
A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $39.95 Buy Ebook | $31.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Science, engineering, and technology permeate nearly every facet of modern life and hold the key to solving many of humanity's most pressing current and future challenges. The United States' position in the global economy is declining, in part because U.S. workers lack fundamental knowledge in these fields. To address the critical issues of U.S. competitiveness and to better prepare the workforce, A Framework for K-12 Science Education proposes a new approach to K-12 science education that will capture students' interest and provide them with the necessary foundational knowledge in the field.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education outlines a broad set of expectations for students in science and engineering in grades K-12. These expectations will inform the development of new standards for K-12 science education and, subsequently, revisions to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development for educators. This book identifies three dimensions that convey the core ideas and practices around which science and engineering education in these grades should be built. These three dimensions are: crosscutting concepts that unify the study of science through their common application across science and engineering; scientific and engineering practices; and disciplinary core ideas in the physical sciences, life sciences, and earth and space sciences and for engineering, technology, and the applications of science. The overarching goal is for all high school graduates to have sufficient knowledge of science and engineering to engage in public discussions on science-related issues, be careful consumers of scientific and technical information, and enter the careers of their choice.

A Framework for K-12 Science Education is the first step in a process that can inform state-level decisions and achieve a research-grounded basis for improving science instruction and learning across the country. The book will guide standards developers, teachers, curriculum designers, assessment developers, state and district science administrators, and educators who teach science in informal environments.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!