SuchmanJ. R.“Inquiry Training: Building Skills for Autonomous Discovery”. Merrill-Palmer Quart. of Behaviour and Development, 1961, 7, 147–169.
2.
CohenD.O'NeillB.Science Through Activity. Melbourne: Cheshire, 1966.
3.
BrandweinP. F.“Creativity and Personality in the Scientist”. HenryN. B. (Ed.) Rethinking Science Education. N.S.S.E. Yearbook, LIX, Part I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960, 64, 67.
4.
NilssonN.“The Concept of Creativity”. Paper read to the Australian College of Education, Adelaide, May 1969. Quoting, respectively, AldenDowAndersonH. H. (Ed.), Creativity and its Cultivation, New York: Harper and Row, 1959. 30, and Burnett, J. R., “Whitehead's Concept of Creativity and Some of Its Educational Implications”, Harvard Educ. Rev., XXVII, Summer 1957, 220–234, 222.
5.
BrandweinP. F.op. cit., 67.
6.
Nilsson, op. cit., quoting from Rogers, Carl R. “Toward a Theory of Creativity.”ParnesS. J.HardingH. F. (Eds.) A Source Book for Creative Thinking. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962, 65.
7.
HaddonF. A.LyttonH.“Teaching Approach and the Development of Divergent Thinking Abilities in Primary Schools.”Brit. J. Educ. Psychol., xxxviii, 1968, 171–180, 171.
8.
GagnéR. M.“Psychological issues in Science—A Process Approach”. AAAS Commission on Science Education. The Psychological Bases of Science—A Process Approach. 1965, 4.
9.
ShackelD. S. J.LawrenceP. J.“Improving Creativity Through Programmed Instruction”. New Zealand J. Educ. Studies, 4, 1969, 41–56, 41, 42.
10.
AusubelD. P.“Some Psychological and Educational Limitations of Learning by Discovery.”The Arithmetic Teacher, 11, May 1964, 290–302, 301.
11.
YeomanG. D.“Creative Thinking and the Teaching of Science.”Educ. Rev.21, 1968, 13–24, 20.
12.
ButtsD. P.JonesH. L.“Inquiry Training and Problem Solving in Elementary School Children”. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 4, 1966, 21–27, 22.
13.
MorganD. G. (Ed.) Teacher's Guide to Biological Science: The Web of Life. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science, 1969, 186f.
14.
GrobmanA. B.The Changing Classroom: The Role of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. BSCS Bulletin Number 4. New York: Doubleday, 1969, 291.
15.
GrobmanA. B.The Changing Classroom: The Role of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. BSCS Bulletin Number 4. New York: Doubleday, 1969, 291.
16.
SchwabJ. J.“Enquiry, the Science Teacher and the Educator.”The Science Teacher, 27, Oct. 1960, 6–11. Reprinted in Andersen, H. O., Readings in Science Education for the Secondary School. New York: Macmillan, 1969, 183.
17.
SchwabJ. J.“Enquiry, the Science Teacher and the Educator.”The Science Teacher, 27, Oct. 1960, 6–11. Reprinted in Andersen, H. O., Readings in Science Education for the Secondary School. New York: Macmillan, 1969, 184.
18.
SchwabJ. J.“Enquiry, the Science Teacher and the Educator.”The Science Teacher, 27, Oct. 1960, 6–11. Reprinted in Andersen, H. O., Readings in Science Education for the Secondary School. New York: Macmillan, 1969, 187.
19.
KessenW.“Statement of Purposes and Objectives of Science Education in School”. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 2, 1964, 3–6, 4.
20.
NovakA.“Scientific Inquiry in the Laboratory”. In Andersen, H. O., op. cit., 246, 252.
21.
BrunerJ. S.“The Act of Discovery”. In RomeyW. D., Inquiry Techniques for Teaching Science. Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, 169. Originally published in Harvard Educ. Rev., 31, 1961, 21–32.
22.
FishA. S.GoldmarkB.“Inquiry Method: Three Interpretations”. The Science Teacher, 33, 2, Feb. 1966, 13–15. 13. (A report of a statement by Costa on Suchman's position at a conference of the National Science Teachers' Association, Arizona, 1965).
23.
FishA. S.GoldmarkB.“Inquiry Method: Three Interpretations”. The Science Teacher, 33, 2, Feb. 1966, 14.
24.
FishA. S.GoldmarkB.“Inquiry Method: Three Interpretations”. The Science Teacher, 33, 2, Feb. 1966, 15, chart 3.
25.
RutherfordF. J.“The Role of Inquiry in Science Teaching”. J. Res. Sci. Teaching, 2, 1964, 80–84, 80–81.
26.
AusubelD. P.op. cit., 290.
27.
BrunerJ. S.op. cit., 164.
28.
BrunerJ. S.op. cit., 160.
29.
BrunerJ. S.The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books, 1960, 21.
30.
GlaserR.“Variables in Discovery Learning”. In ShulmanL. S.KeislarE. R. (Eds.) Learning by Discovery: A Critical Appraisal. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966, 14–15.
31.
Beberman, M. Quoted in HendersonK. B.“Research on Teaching Secondary School Mathematics”. In GageN. L. ((Ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963, 1020.
32.
HawkinsD.“Learning the Unteachable”. Shulman, L. S., and Keislar, E. R., op. cit., 11.
33.
BrunerJ. S.1961, op. cit., 168.
34.
BrunerJ. S.1961, op. cit., 169.
35.
WittrockM. C.“The Learning by Discovery Hypothesis.” Shulman, L. S., and Keislar, E. R., op. cit., 42.
36.
WittrockM. C.“The Learning by Discovery Hypothesis.” Shulman, L. S., and Keislar, E. R., op. cit., 73.