Central to science education reform efforts in secondary schools for nearly a half century has been a focus on the content and concepts to be taught, on how teachers should teach, and, more recently, on issues of systemic approaches to science teaching and learning. This article highlights reform efforts and outlines their important implications for the secondary school principal in maintaining an effective school science program.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1989. Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
2.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 1998. Blueprints for reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
American Council on Education (ACE). 1999. To touch the future: Transforming the way teachers are taught. Washington, D.C.: ACE.
5.
Anderson, R.1998. The research on teaching as inquiry. Paper prepared for the Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
6.
Bybee, R. W. 1997. The Sputnik era: Why is this educational reform different from all other reforms. Paper presented at symposium, Reflecting on Sputnik: Linking the Past, Present, and Future of Educational Reform, 4 October, Washington, D.C.
7.
Bybee, R., and G. DeBoer. 1994. Research on goals for the science curriculum. In Handbook of research on science teaching and learning, edited by D. Gabel. New York: Macmillan.
8.
Darling-Hammond, L., and M. W. McLaughlin. 1995. Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan76: 595-604.
9.
DeBoer, G. 1997. What we have learned and where we are heading: Lessons learned from the Sputnik era. Paper presented at symposium, Reflecting on Sputnik: Linking the Past, Present, and Future of Education Reform. October 4, Washington, D.C.
10.
Druckman, D., J. E. Singer, and H. Van Cott, eds. 1997. Enhancing organizational performance. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
11.
Fullan, M., and A. Pomfret. 1977. Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Education Research47: 335-339.
12.
Loucks-Horsley, S., P. W. Hewson, N. Love, and K. E. Styles. 1998. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press.
13.
National Center for Improving Science Education (NCISE). 1991. The high stakes of high school science. Washington, D.C.: NCISE.
14.
National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). 1983. A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
15.
The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. 2000. Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
16.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 1989. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, Va.: NCTM.
17.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
18.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1996. The learning curve: What we are discovering about U.S. science and mathematics education. Washington, D.C.: NSF.
19.
National Science Foundation (NSF). 1997. The challenge and promise of K-8 science education reform. Vol. 1 of Foundations: A monograph for professional development in science, mathematics, and technology education. Arlington, Va.: NSF.
20.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 1992. The content core: A guide for curriculum developers. Vol. 1 of Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science. Arlington, Va.: NSTA Press.
21.
Nelson, B. S., and J. M. Hammerman. 1996. Reconceptualizing teaching: The teaching and research program of the Center for the Development of Teaching. In Professional development in the reform era, edited by M. W. McLaughlin and I. Oberman. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
Quick, S. 1978. Secondary impacts of the curriculum reform movement. A longitudinal study of the incorporation of innovations of the curriculum reform movement into commercially developed curriculum programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
23.
Raizen, S.1998. Increasing educational productivity through improving the science curriculum. Washington, D.C.: NCISE.
24.
Rhoton, J., and P. Bowers. 2001. Professional development and design. Arlington, Va.: NSTA Press.
25.
Rhoton, J., G. Madrazo, L. Motz, and E. Walton. 1999. Professional development: A major component in science teaching and learning. Science Educator8 (1): 1-8.
26.
Shymansky, J. A., L. Henriques, J. L. Chidsey, J. Dunkase, M. A. Jorgensen, and L. D. Yore. 1997. A professional development system as a catalyst for changing science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education8 (1): 29-42.
27.
Showers, B., and B. Joyce. 1996. The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership53 (6): 12-16.
28.
Smith, D. C., and D. C. Neal. 1991. The construction of subject-matter knowledge in primary science teaching. In Vol. 2 of Advances in research and teaching, edited by J. Brophy. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI.
29.
Smith, M. S., and J. A. O’Day. 1991. Systemic school reform. In The politics of curriculum and testing, edited by S. Fuhrman and B. Malen. Bristol, Pa.: Falmer Press.
30.
Sparks, D., and S. Loucks-Horsley. 1990. Models of staff development. In Handbook of research on teacher education, edited by W. R. Houston. New York: Macmillan.
31.
Sprinthall, N., A. J. Reiman, and L. Thies-Sprinthall. 1996. Teacher professional development. In Handbook of research on teacher education, 2nd ed., edited by J. Silula, T. J. Buttery, and E. Guyton. New York: Macmillan.
