This article describes the findings of a review of existing K-8 science curriculum materials that was carried out under the National Science Curriculum Project for High-Ability Learners. Twenty-seven sets of materials were reviewed using criteria developed and refined by project staff. The purpose of the review was to ascertain whether currently available materials met the new standards in the teaching of science and the needs of gifted learners. The review findings suggest that existing basal textbooks fail to meet new science curriculum standards for all students, but particularly for high-ability learners. Modular programs and supplementary materials were found to be superior to basal textbooks on most dimensions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
America 2000: An education strategy. (1991). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
Apple, M.W. (1991). The culture and commerce of the textbook. In M. W. Apple & L. K. Christian-Smith (Eds.), The politics of the textbook (pp. 22-40). New York: Routledge.
4.
Boyce, L., Bailey. J., Sher, B., Johnson, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Gallagher, S. (1993). Curriculum assessment guide. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education.
5.
Boyce, L., Johnson, D., Sher. B., Bailey, J., Gallagher, S., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (1993). Consumer's guide to science curriculum. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, Center for Gifted Education.
6.
Brandwein, P. P., & Passow, A. (Eds.). (1988). Gifted young in science: Potential through performance. Washington, DC : National Science Teachers Association.
7.
Bredderman. T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A quantitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53, 499-518.
8.
Goldberg, H., & Wagreich, P. (1989). Evaluation of a model integrated mathematics science program for the elementary school. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(2), 193-214.
JEFFCO Life Science Program. (1989). [Submission to the Program Effectiveness Panel at the U. S. Department of Education]. Golden, CO: Jefferson County Public Schools .
11.
Kelly, P. (1991). Perceptions and performance: An impact assessment of CEPUP in schools. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
12.
Krajcik, J.S., & Berg, C. (1987). Exemplary software for the science classroom. School Science and Mathernatics, 87, 494-500.
13.
Lockwood. A. (1992). Whose knowledge do we teach? Focus on Change, 6, 3-7.
14.
Maker, C.J. (1982). Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: ProEd.
15.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1988). Science learning matters. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
16.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
17.
National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. (1993). National science education standards: An enhanced sampler. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
18.
O'Day, J.A., & Smith, M.S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Passow, A.H. (1982). Differentiating curriculum for gifted students. Ventura. CA: National StateLeadership Training Institute .
20.
Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., & Woodward, G. (1990). A reassessment of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula of the 60s on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teochiny, 27, 127-144.
21.
Shymansky, J.A., Kyle. W.C., & Alport, J.M. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
22.
Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
23.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted learners . Denver. CO: Love.
24.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1994). Comprehensive curriculum forgifted learners (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
25.
Walberg, H.J. (1991). Improving school science in advanced and developing countries. Review of Educational Research, 61, 25-69.
