The Science House - How Research Guides What We Do

Below is a list of references that support the fundamental assertions behind the work of The Science House.

Inquiry based learning is an essential method by which students better learn ideas and facts and better establish their own agency in the learning process.

The use of technology in classrooms supports hands-on learning and thus promotes better learning.

Good teacher training and long-term support are necessary for productive and effective teaching.

The teacher training programs at The Science House support the National Science Education Standards and conform to most effective and supported practices in teacher professional development.

Inquiry-based learning and hands-on/minds-on activities help to improve achievement levels and helps with evaluations.

Inquiry based learning is an essential method by which students better learn ideas and facts and better establish their own agency in the learning process. Students who learn by inquiry have both more motivation to learn and better retention of the materials and concepts studied. Furthermore, they learn not only the science involved but also critical thinking skills that they can carry with them in other courses of study.

Bybee, Rodger W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2002.
Duschl, Richard A., Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse. Taking Science to School: Learning and TEaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press, 2007.
Department of Public Instruction. Science Framework for the Public Schools of North Carolina. 2003.
Fishman, Barry J. and Samuel F. O’Connor-Divebliss. International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Facing the Challenges of Real-World Settings. 14 June- 17 June. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
"Framing the Context.” ENC. 2003. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 9 June 2003. http://www.enc.org/topics/inquiry/context.
A webpage with links to three articles about inquiry: “Real World Learning: A Necessity for the Success of Current Reform Efforts” by Robert E. Yager; “Inquiry in the EverydayWorld of Schools” by Ronald D. Anderson; and “Who Are Classroom Innovators?” by Annette Thorson.
Haury, David L. "Teaching Science through Inquiry" An information analysis for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 1993.
A short article lauding inquiry-based learning in its many implementations.
Haury, David L. and Peter Rillero. "Hands-On Approaches to Science Teaching: Questions and Answers from the Field and Research.” A Teaching Guide for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 1992.
A series of FAQs and answers concerning hands-on learning with “Teacher’s Response,” “Developer’s Thoughts,” and “Notes from Literature” as some response categories.
“Inquiry Resources.” The Exploratorium: Institute for Inquiry. 2003. 9 June 2003. http://www.explortorium.edu/IFI/resources/index.html.
“Inquiry Thoughts, Views, and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom”. FOUNDATIONS: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education 2000. 9 June 2003. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/htmstart.htm.
Layman, John W., et al. Inquiry and Learning: Realizing Science Standards in the Classroom. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1996.
Linn, Marcia C., and Sherry Hsi. Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, P, 2000.
National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Bransford, J. et al. eds. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
Ibid. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002.
Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury, eds. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2001.
Roth, W.M., and A. Roychoudhury. “The Development of Scientific Process Skills in Authentic Contexts” Journal of Science Teaching. 30.2 (1993): 127-152.
Qualitative case studies supporting inquiry learning. Looks at 11th grade physics, 12th grade physics, and 8th grade general science.
Ruenzal, David. "Problem-based Learning." Thoughtful Teachers, Thoughtful Schools: Issues and Insights in Education Today, 2nd ed. By Editorial Projects in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996.
Russell, C. P., & French, D. P. "Factors affecting participation in traditional and inquiry-based laboratories." Research and Teaching. 31.4 (2001): 225–229.
Synopsis available at http://www.ascd.org/publications/researchbrief/volume2/v2n1.html
Siverstein, Mary Lewis. Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning Science: A Guide for Elementary Science Education. Guidebook for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.
Supports constructivism and hands-on/minds-on learning.
Shimizu, Kinya. "Teachers' Emphasis on Inquiry Science and Prevailing Instructional Method." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. March 21-24, Oak Brook, IL, 1997.
Supports inquiry. Discusses the importance of teacher guidance to allow hands-on/minds-on learning. Focuses on teacher implementation of inquiry learning.
Short, Kathy G. et al. Learning Together through Inquiry: From Columbus to Integrated Curriculum. York, Maine: Stenhouse P, 1996.
Steinberg, Shirley R., and Joe L. Kincheloe, eds. Students as Researchers: Creating Classrooms that Matter. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press, 1998.
Specifically, chapter 14: “Action Experiments: Are Students Learning Physical Science?” by Penny J. Gilmer and Paulette Ali. About student-teachers learning action research, hands-on methods, and teaching strategies.
Wells. Gordon, ed. Action, Talk, and Text: Learning and Teaching through Inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press, 2001.
Case studies of classes that succeed using inquiry and active learning. (not experiments, just case studies).
White, B. Y., and J.R. Fredrickson. The Thinker Tools Inquiry Project: Making Scientific Inquiry Accessible to Students. Princeton, New Jersey: Center for Performance Assessment, Educational Testing Service. 1997.
White, B. Y., and J.R. Fredrickson. "Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to all Students" Cognition and Instruction.16.1 (1998): 3-118.

The use of technology in classrooms supports hands-on learning and thus promotes better learning. By utilizing technologies, such as the computer and MCL and CBL probes, students can have opportunities to actively participate in their courses of study. Because active, hands-on learning is more effective than traditional, lecture-based classes, this kind of participation enhances the students’ learning experiences.

Bernhard, Jonte. "Can a Combination of Hands-on Experiments and Computers Facilitate Better Learning in Mechanics?" CAL-laborate. 2000. 13 June 2003. http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/callab/vol5/bernhard.html.
Butta, Judith L. "A Comparison of Traditional Science Instruction to Hands-On Science Instruction.” M.A. thesis from Salem-Teikyo University, 1998.
Cummings, Jim and Dennis Sayers. Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy through Global Learning Networks. New York: St. Martin's P, 1995.
Day, Barbara L, ed. Teaching and Learning in the New Millennium. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, 1995.
Dufresne, R.J., et al. “Classtalk: A Classroom Community System for Active Learning.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 7 (1996): 3-47.
Eylon, B-S. & Linn, M. Models and integration activities in science education: Designing intelligent learning environments. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co., 1991.
Evaluation of the Calculator-Based Laboratory System. Stanford University. 2000.13 June 2003. http://www.stanford.edu/~michali/cbl/home.html.
Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. Learning scientific reasoning skills in
Microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Ressearch in Science Teaching, 27.2 (1990): 173-191.
Friedrichsen, Patricia , et al. "Learning to Teach with Technology Model: Implementation in Secondary Science Teacher Education.” Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 20.4 (2001): 377-394. http://www.aace.org/dl/files/ JCMST/JCMST204377.pdf
Krajcik, Joseph S. and Layman, John W. "Microcomputer-Based Laboratories in the Science Classroom.” 1 July 2003. University of Michigan and University of Maryland. http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/publications/research/microcomputer.htm.
Layman, John W., et al. Inquiry and Learning: Realizing Science Standards in the Classroom. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1996.
Linn, M. C. “The Impact of Technology on Science Instruction: Historical Trends and Current Opportunities.” International Handbook of Science Education. Eds. B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobins. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998. 265-294.
Linn, M. C., Layman, J.W. & Nachmias, R. “Cognitive Consequences of
Microcomputer-Based Laboratories: Graphing Skills Development” Contemporary Educational Psychology 12.3 (1987): 244-253.
Linn, M. & Songer, N.B. How Do Students' Views of Science Influence Knowledge Integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28.9 (1991): 761-784.
Linn, M. C. & Songer, N.B. Cognitive research and instruction: Incorporating technology into science curriculum. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA. April 1988.
Linn, M., et al. “Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding” Advanced technologies in the teaching of mathematics and science, Ed. D. L. Ferguson. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,1991.
Mestre, JP, et al. "Promoting Active Learning in Large Classes Using a Classroom Communication System." The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1996. 1019-1036.
Mestre, J.P., Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., & Hardiman, P.T. “Promoting Skilled
Problem-Solving among Beginning Physics Students” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30.3 (1993):303-317.
Metcalf, Shari J. and Robert Tinker. “TEEMSS: Technology Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science.” From the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, March 23-26, 2003, Philadelphia, PA. Concord Consortium. http://www.concord.org/teemss.
Mokros, J. & Tinker, R. “The Impact of Microcomputer-Based Labs on Children’s
Ability to Interpret Graphs” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 24.4 (1987): 369-383.
National Educational Computing Conference. Conference Proceedings. San Diego, CA, June 22-24, 1998.
Norby, Rena Faye. "A Study of Changes in Attitude towards Science in a Technology Based K-8 Preservice Preparation Science Classroom." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. April 6-10, 2002. New Orleans, LA.
Redish, E.F. “The Implications of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics” American Journal of Physics, 62.6 (1994): 796-803.
Redish, Edward F., Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg. "On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories." American Journal of Physics. 65 (1997): 45-54.
Redish, Edward F., and Richard N. Steinberg. "Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works." Physics Today. January 1999. 24-30.
Russel, David, Keith B. Lucas, and Campbell J. McRobbie. "Microprocessor Based Laboratory Activities as Catalysts for Student Construction of Understanding in Physics.” Queensland University of Technology. 1999. 2 July 2003. http://www.aare.edu.au/ 99pap/luc99196.htm.
Sokoloff, David R. and Ronald K. Thornton. "Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create an Active Learning Environment.” The Physics Teacher. 35 (1997): 340-347.
Sokoloff, David R., Ronald K. Thornton, and P. W. Laws. Real Time Physics. Wiley, NY, 1998.
Stager, Gary S. "Empowering Young Mathematicians and Scientists Through Technology.” Curriculum Administrator. 1998. 2 July 2003. http://www.stager.org/ articles/Mathsciencecafeature.html.
Stein, J.S., Nachnias, R., and Friedler., Y. “An Experimental Comparison of Two Science Laboratory Environments: Traditional and Microcomputer-Based” Journal of Educational Computing Research. 6.2 (1990): 183-202.
Svec, Michael. "Improving Graphing Interpretation Skills and Understanding of Motion Using Micro-computer Based Laboratories." 1999. Furman University. 11 June 2003 http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/svec.html.
The Probeware Group. "Probeware: A Definition". The Concord Consortium.19 June 2003. http://www.concord.org/themes/probeware_overview.pdf.
Thornton, Ronald K. “Learning physics concepts in the introductory course:
microcomputer-based labs and interactive lecture demonstrations” Conference of the Introductory Physics Course. Ed. J. Wilson. New York, J. Wiley & Sons, 1997. 69-86.
Ibid. “Tools for Scientific Thinking: Microcomputer-Based Laboratories for Physics Teaching.” Physics Education. 22.4 (1987): 230-238.
Ibid. "Using the Results of Research in Science Education to Improve Science Learning.” Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, 1999. Tufts University. 18 June 2003.. http://probesight.concord.org/what/articles/thornton.pdf.
Thornton, Ronald K. and David R. Sokoloff. "Assessing Student Learning of Newton's Laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula." American Journal of Physics. 66 (1998): 338-352.
Ibid. “Learning Motion Concepts Using Real-time Microcomputer-based Laboratory Tools.” American Journal of Physics. 58 (1990): 858-867.
Tinker, Bob. “Computer-based Tools: Rhyme and Reason.” Computers in Physics Education. Eds. E.F. Redish and J.S. Risley. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.
Ibid. "Information Technologies in Science and Mathematics Education” Concord Consortium.1998. June 2003. www.concord.org.
Ibid., ed. Microcomputer-based Labs: Educational Research and Standards. NATO ASI Series F. 156. Springer, Berlin. 1996.
Tinker, Robert. & Papert, S. Tools for Science Education Information Technology & Science Education. Ed. J. Ellis. Columbus, OH, AETS, 1989.
Touger, J.S., Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Hardiman, P.T. & Mestre, J.P. “How
Novice Students Deal with Explanations” International Journal of Science Education. 17.2 (1995), 255-269.
US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Using Technology to Support Education Reform, 1993.
Weller, H.G. "Assessing the Impact of Computer-Based Learning." Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30.1 (1996): 18-38.
Woods, Peter, ed. Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Good teacher training and long-term support are necessary for productive and effective teaching. Moreover, this kind of extended and systematic training and support decreases teacher isolation and increases retention of good teachers. Establishing a network of educators, researchers, and educational administrators is key in creating a foundation for reform and for teacher support. This kind of teacher training allows teachers the opportunity to learn about and, in turn, to implement new and more effective teaching strategies and skills.

Atkin, J. Myron, et al, eds. Classroom Assessment and the National Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001.
Main claims: Long-term training is important. Continuous process leads to lasting change in classroom practice. Collaboration is important to reduce isolation.
Ball, D. L., and D.K. Cohen. "Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-Based Theory of Professional Education." Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. Eds. G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999.
Ball, D., and S. Rundquist. "Collaboration as a Contest for Joining Teacher Learning with Learning about Teaching." Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice Eds. D.K. Cohen, et al. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1993. 13-42.
Case study of two teachers who worked together. Finding: extended learning period promoted change in teaching. Focus on collaboration.
Barone, T. D., et al. "A Future for Teacher Education: Developing a Strong Sense of Professionalism." Handbook of Research in Teacher Education, 2nd ed. Ed. J. Silula. New York: Mac Millan, 1996. 1108-1149.
Bradley, Ann. "Schools within Schools" Thoughtful Teachers, Thoughtful Schools: Issues and Insights in Education, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. 152-156.
A success story of collaborative and ongoing teacher teamwork and development. Charter school and teacher collaboration seminars.
Bransford, John D., et al, eds. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
Burnaford, Gail, et al, eds. Teachers Doing Research: Practical Possibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, P, 1996.
Burnaford, Gail, et al, eds. Teachers Doing Research: The Power of Action through Inquiry, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, P, 2001.
Claims: Teachers are more apt to try new strategies because of collaborative teacher interaction. Sharing and community decrease teacher isolation.
Bybee, Rodger W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2002.
Claims: Ongoing professional development will help teachers to learn how to teach effectively and really change the way that they teach.
Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education "Improving Teacher Preparation and Credentialing Consistent with the National Science Education Standards: Report of a Symposium." National Research Council, 1997.
Clinchy, Evans, ed. Transforming Public Education: A New Course for America's Future. New York: Teachers College Press, 1997.
Specifically, “Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing Capacity for School Transformation” by L. Darling-Hammond on pages 38-55. Claim: Ongoing professional development is important. Focuses on peer coaching, team planning, and collaborative research.
Cochran-Smith M., and S. Little. "Teacher Learning in Communities." Review of Research in Education. Eds. A. Iran-Nejad and D. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. 24 (1999).
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1997.
About the Jasper Project for grades 5 and up. Chapter 6 is about teacher learning and an “important message” about the need for ongoing support for continued learning and feedback.
Darling-Hammond, L., and M. McLaughlin. "Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of School Reform." Phi Delta Kappan. 76.8 (1995): 597-604.
Claim: collaboration and networking is important. Suggests changes within schools. Suggests changes in educational policies.
Day, Barbara L, ed. Teaching and Learning in the New Millennium. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, 1995.
Specifically, “Back to the Future in Teacher Education” by Charles R. Coble. About teacher education partnerships with universities. Claims: preservice early on keeps teachers longer and makes more substantive changes. Extended development is crucial to creating and maintaining better teachers. Better teachers lead naturally to more effective teaching and better schools.
Department of Public Instruction. Science Framework for the Public Schools of North Carolina. (2003).
Feiman-Nemser, S. and P. J. Norman. "Teacher Education from Initial Preparation to Continuing Professional Development." Routledge International Companion to Education. Eds. Bob Moon et al. London: Routledge, 2000. 732-755.
Good source. Claims: good professional development improves teacher quality. University-school partnerships are beneficial. They help teachers change the way they teach. Beginning teachers’ induction and development retain and improve teachers.
Feldman, A. "Enhancing the Practice of Physics Teachers: Mechanisms for the Generation and Sharing of Knowledge and Understanding in Collaborative Action Research." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 33.5 (1996.): 513-540.
A study to examine and identify the ways that teachers grow when they are engaged collaboratively. Claims: collaboration action research is beneficial. Teachers learned by anecdote telling, trying new ideas, and systemic inquiry. Collaboration promotes teacher learning.
Feldman, A. and J. Atkin. "Embedding Action Research in Professional Practice." Educational Action Research: Becoming Practically Critical. Eds. S. Noffke and R. Stevenson. New York: Teachers College Press, 1995.
Firestone, W., and J. Pennell. "Teacher Commitment, Working Conditions, and Differential Incentive Policies." Review of Educational Research. 63 (1993): 489-525.
Claims: collaboration serves as an intrinsic reward and builds commitment to teaching. Teacher commitment is important to effective teaching. Article focuses on attaining teacher commitment. Lack of commitment leads to no change in teaching. Differential incentives and work environment contribute to commitment.
Guskey, T., and M. Huberman, eds. Professional Development in Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1995.
Focuses: ongoing teacher development and collaboration. A lot of chapters discuss what it takes for teacher development to be effective.
Hoffman, Nancy E. et al, eds. Lessons from Restructuring Experiences: Stories of Change in Professional Development Schools. Albany: State University of New York P, 1997.
Focus: relationships with universities. Promotes hands-on/ minds-on learning. Team approach promotes teacher ownership and thus change in classroom teaching practices.
Koppich, J.E., and M.S. Knapp. Federal Research Investment and the Improvement of Teaching: 1980-1997. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. 1998.
Lieberman, Ann. "Practices that Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning." Phi Delta Kappan 76.8 (1995): 591-96.
Focuses: professional development should be an integral part of schools. Teachers should: collaborate and learn from each other.. Construct a continuum of actual practices. Change from teaching to learning. Discuss partnerships. Article discusses the Foxfire Teacher Outreach Network that stemmed from collaborative work.
Lieberman, Ann and Lynne Miller. Teachers—Transforming their World and their Work. New York: College Teachers Press, 1999.
Focuses: Growth in practice. Teachers should develop a professional community as a way to avoid “burn out” and better learn and grow as teachers.
Ibid. "Teaching and Teacher Development: A New Synthesis for a New Century" Education for a New Era. Ed. Ronald S. Brendt. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2000. 47-66.
Claims: Teachers who are part of a professional community are challenged to do more. It helps to change the way they teach. Focus is on collaboration.
Lieberman, Ann and M Grolnick. "Networks and reform in American Education" Teachers College Record. 98.1 (1996): 7-45.
Focuses: Networks of teachers for development. Collaboration to produce results. Discusses leagues formed, etc.
Little, J. "Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15.2 (1993): 129-521.
Focuses: Professional teacher collaboration. Teacher inquiry and action research. Success story: teachers meet monthly, and this helps change teaching.
Lord, B. "Teachers' Professional Development: Critical Colleagueship and the Role of Professional Communities." The Future of Education: Perspectives on National Standards in America. Ed. N. Cobb. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1994. 175-204.
Loukes-Horsley, S. et al. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1998.
Claims: fundamental changes only occur over time. Ongoing help promotes effective change. Continuous self-assessment is beneficial. Community helps teachers.
Loukes-Horsley, S. et al. Principles of Effective Professional Development for Mathematics and Science Education: A Synthesis of Standards. Madison: U of Wisconsin at Madison, National Institute for Science Education, 1996.
Moon, Bob, et al, eds. Routledge International Companion to Education. London: Routledge, 2000.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996.
National Research Council. Educating Teacher of Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001.
Ibid. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Eds. Bransford, J. et al. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
Ibid. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
Ibid. National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
“Professional Development.” ENC. 2003. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 9 June 2003. http://www.enc.org/professional/learn.
Reichardt, Robert. "Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Teacher Quality" Policy Report for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, 2001.
Claims: good professional development (Inservice) helps improve the quality of teachers. Compensation and good working conditions will increase retention of good teachers.
Siverstein, Mary Lewis. Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning Science: A Guide for Elementary Science Education. Guidebook for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.
Smith, Robert G. "Teacher Study Teams: A Focused Approach to School Problem Solving." ERS Spectrum 12.3 (1994): 13-19.
Smith, Robert G. and Stephanie Knight. "Collaborative Inquiry: Teacher Leadership in the Practice of Creative Intelligence." Reaching and Teaching All Children: Grassroots Efforts that Work. Eds. Robert L. Sinclair and Ward J. Ghory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin P, 1997. 39-59.
Good source. Claims: collaborative work with teachers decreases isolation and improves teaching. It promotes real change in teaching practice. Partnerships with universities are beneficial.
Swann, Joanna and John Pratt, eds. Improving Education: Realist Approaches to Method and Research. New York: Cassell, 1999.
Sykes, G., and L. Darling-Hammond, eds. Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Quality: A report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, NCES 1999-080. Project Officers Lewis, L, et al. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1999.

The teacher training programs at The Science House support the National Science Education Standards and conform to most effective and supported practices in teacher professional development.

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford U Press, 1993.
Atkin, J. Myron, et al, eds. Classroom Assessment and the National Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001.
Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education "Improving Teacher Preparation and Credentialing Consistent with the National Science Education Standards: Report of a Symposium." National Research Council, 1997.
Cochran-Smith M., and S. Little. "Teacher Learning in Communities." Review of Research in Education. Eds. A. Iran-Nejad and D. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1999.
Bybee, Rodger W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2002.
Building Bridges: The Mission and Principles of Professional Development. 2000. US Department of Education. 2 June 2003. <http://www.ed.gov/G2K/bridge.html>.
Department of Public Instruction. Science Framework for the Public Schools of North Carolina. (2003).
National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002.
Ibid. National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996.
Ibid. Global Perspectives for Local Action: Using TIMSS to Improve U.S. Mathematics and Science Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Quality: A report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, NCES 1999-080. Project Officers Lewis, L, et al. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1999.

Inquiry-based learning and hands-on/minds-on activities helps to improve achievement levels and helps with evaluations.

Bottoms, Gene and Tom Feagin. “The 1998 High Schools that Work Assessment: Appalachian regional Commission (ARC) Sites are Improving.” Research Brief. Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA, 1999. ERIC ED461468.
Chang, Chun-Yen, and Song-Ling Mao. “ The Effects of an Inquiry-Based Instructional Method on Earth Science Students’ Achievements” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Diego, CA, April 19-22, 1998.
Hake, Richard R. “Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses” American Journal of Physics. 66.1 (1998): 64-73.
Hestenes, David, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. “Force Concept Inventory” The Physics Teacher. 30 (1992):141-158.
Hicks, Debbie Carter. “A Classroom Improvement Plan: Designed to Improve Middle School Students’ Science Scores through Hands-on Activities and Portfolio Assessment” Ed. D. Practicum



	How Education Research Guides What We Do Below is a list of references that support the fundamental assertions behind the work of The Science House. Inquiry based learning is an essential method by which students better learn ideas and facts and better establish their own agency in the learning process. The use of technology in classrooms supports hands-on learning and thus promotes better learning. Good teacher training and long-term support are necessary for productive and effective teaching. The teacher training programs at The Science House support the National Science Education Standards and conform to most effective and supported practices in teacher professional development. Inquiry-based learning and hands-on/minds-on activities help to improve achievement levels and helps with evaluations. Inquiry based learning is an essential method by which students better learn ideas and facts and better establish their own agency in the learning process. Students who learn by inquiry have both more motivation to learn and better retention of the materials and concepts studied. Furthermore, they learn not only the science involved but also critical thinking skills that they can carry with them in other courses of study. Bybee, Rodger W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2002. Duschl, Richard A., Heidi A. Schweingruber, and Andrew W. Shouse. Taking Science to School: Learning and TEaching Science in Grades K-8. National Academies Press, 2007. Department of Public Instruction. Science Framework for the Public Schools of North Carolina. 2003. Fishman, Barry J. and Samuel F. O’Connor-Divebliss. International Conference of the Learning Sciences: Facing the Challenges of Real-World Settings. 14 June- 17 June. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. "Framing the Context.” ENC. 2003. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 9 June 2003. http://www.enc.org/topics/inquiry/context. A webpage with links to three articles about inquiry: “Real World Learning: A Necessity for the Success of Current Reform Efforts” by Robert E. Yager; “Inquiry in the EverydayWorld of Schools” by Ronald D. Anderson; and “Who Are Classroom Innovators?” by Annette Thorson. Haury, David L. "Teaching Science through Inquiry" An information analysis for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 1993. A short article lauding inquiry-based learning in its many implementations. Haury, David L. and Peter Rillero. "Hands-On Approaches to Science Teaching: Questions and Answers from the Field and Research.” A Teaching Guide for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, 1992. A series of FAQs and answers concerning hands-on learning with “Teacher’s Response,” “Developer’s Thoughts,” and “Notes from Literature” as some response categories. “Inquiry Resources.” The Exploratorium: Institute for Inquiry. 2003. 9 June 2003. http://www.explortorium.edu/IFI/resources/index.html. “Inquiry Thoughts, Views, and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom”. FOUNDATIONS: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education 2000. 9 June 2003. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2000/nsf99148/htmstart.htm. Layman, John W., et al. Inquiry and Learning: Realizing Science Standards in the Classroom. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1996. Linn, Marcia C., and Sherry Hsi. Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, P, 2000. National Research Council. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Bransford, J. et al. eds. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Ibid. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002. Reason, Peter, and Hilary Bradbury, eds. Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2001. Roth, W.M., and A. Roychoudhury. “The Development of Scientific Process Skills in Authentic Contexts” Journal of Science Teaching. 30.2 (1993): 127-152. Qualitative case studies supporting inquiry learning. Looks at 11th grade physics, 12th grade physics, and 8th grade general science. Ruenzal, David. "Problem-based Learning." Thoughtful Teachers, Thoughtful Schools: Issues and Insights in Education Today, 2nd ed. By Editorial Projects in Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. Russell, C. P., & French, D. P. "Factors affecting participation in traditional and inquiry-based laboratories." Research and Teaching. 31.4 (2001): 225–229. Synopsis available at http://www.ascd.org/publications/researchbrief/volume2/v2n1.html Siverstein, Mary Lewis. Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning Science: A Guide for Elementary Science Education. Guidebook for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993. Supports constructivism and hands-on/minds-on learning. Shimizu, Kinya. "Teachers' Emphasis on Inquiry Science and Prevailing Instructional Method." A paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. March 21-24, Oak Brook, IL, 1997. Supports inquiry. Discusses the importance of teacher guidance to allow hands-on/minds-on learning. Focuses on teacher implementation of inquiry learning. Short, Kathy G. et al. Learning Together through Inquiry: From Columbus to Integrated Curriculum. York, Maine: Stenhouse P, 1996. Steinberg, Shirley R., and Joe L. Kincheloe, eds. Students as Researchers: Creating Classrooms that Matter. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press, 1998. Specifically, chapter 14: “Action Experiments: Are Students Learning Physical Science?” by Penny J. Gilmer and Paulette Ali. About student-teachers learning action research, hands-on methods, and teaching strategies. Wells. Gordon, ed. Action, Talk, and Text: Learning and Teaching through Inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press, 2001. Case studies of classes that succeed using inquiry and active learning. (not experiments, just case studies). White, B. Y., and J.R. Fredrickson. The Thinker Tools Inquiry Project: Making Scientific Inquiry Accessible to Students. Princeton, New Jersey: Center for Performance Assessment, Educational Testing Service. 1997. White, B. Y., and J.R. Fredrickson. "Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to all Students" Cognition and Instruction.16.1 (1998): 3-118. The use of technology in classrooms supports hands-on learning and thus promotes better learning. By utilizing technologies, such as the computer and MCL and CBL probes, students can have opportunities to actively participate in their courses of study. Because active, hands-on learning is more effective than traditional, lecture-based classes, this kind of participation enhances the students’ learning experiences. Bernhard, Jonte. "Can a Combination of Hands-on Experiments and Computers Facilitate Better Learning in Mechanics?" CAL-laborate. 2000. 13 June 2003. http://science.uniserve.edu.au/pubs/callab/vol5/bernhard.html. Butta, Judith L. "A Comparison of Traditional Science Instruction to Hands-On Science Instruction.” M.A. thesis from Salem-Teikyo University, 1998. Cummings, Jim and Dennis Sayers. Brave New Schools: Challenging Cultural Illiteracy through Global Learning Networks. New York: St. Martin's P, 1995. Day, Barbara L, ed. Teaching and Learning in the New Millennium. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, 1995. Dufresne, R.J., et al. “Classtalk: A Classroom Community System for Active Learning.” Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 7 (1996): 3-47. Eylon, B-S. & Linn, M. Models and integration activities in science education: Designing intelligent learning environments. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Co., 1991. Evaluation of the Calculator-Based Laboratory System. Stanford University. 2000.13 June 2003. http://www.stanford.edu/~michali/cbl/home.html. Friedler, Y., Nachmias, R., & Linn, M. C. Learning scientific reasoning skills in Microcomputer-based laboratories. Journal of Ressearch in Science Teaching, 27.2 (1990): 173-191. Friedrichsen, Patricia , et al. "Learning to Teach with Technology Model: Implementation in Secondary Science Teacher Education.” Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 20.4 (2001): 377-394. http://www.aace.org/dl/files/ JCMST/JCMST204377.pdf Krajcik, Joseph S. and Layman, John W. "Microcomputer-Based Laboratories in the Science Classroom.” 1 July 2003. University of Michigan and University of Maryland. http://www.educ.sfu.ca/narstsite/publications/research/microcomputer.htm. Layman, John W., et al. Inquiry and Learning: Realizing Science Standards in the Classroom. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1996. Linn, M. C. “The Impact of Technology on Science Instruction: Historical Trends and Current Opportunities.” International Handbook of Science Education. Eds. B.J. Fraser and K.G. Tobins. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1998. 265-294. Linn, M. C., Layman, J.W. & Nachmias, R. “Cognitive Consequences of Microcomputer-Based Laboratories: Graphing Skills Development” Contemporary Educational Psychology 12.3 (1987): 244-253. Linn, M. & Songer, N.B. How Do Students' Views of Science Influence Knowledge Integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28.9 (1991): 761-784. Linn, M. C. & Songer, N.B. Cognitive research and instruction: Incorporating technology into science curriculum. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, New Orleans, LA. April 1988. Linn, M., et al. “Using technology to teach thermodynamics: Achieving integrated understanding” Advanced technologies in the teaching of mathematics and science, Ed. D. L. Ferguson. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,1991. Mestre, JP, et al. "Promoting Active Learning in Large Classes Using a Classroom Communication System." The Changing Role of Physics Departments in Modern Universities: Proceedings of the International Conference on Undergraduate Physics Education. Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics, 1996. 1019-1036. Mestre, J.P., Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., & Hardiman, P.T. “Promoting Skilled Problem-Solving among Beginning Physics Students” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 30.3 (1993):303-317. Metcalf, Shari J. and Robert Tinker. “TEEMSS: Technology Enhanced Elementary and Middle School Science.” From the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, March 23-26, 2003, Philadelphia, PA. Concord Consortium. http://www.concord.org/teemss. Mokros, J. & Tinker, R. “The Impact of Microcomputer-Based Labs on Children’s Ability to Interpret Graphs” Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 24.4 (1987): 369-383. National Educational Computing Conference. Conference Proceedings. San Diego, CA, June 22-24, 1998. Norby, Rena Faye. "A Study of Changes in Attitude towards Science in a Technology Based K-8 Preservice Preparation Science Classroom." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. April 6-10, 2002. New Orleans, LA. Redish, E.F. “The Implications of Cognitive Studies for Teaching Physics” American Journal of Physics, 62.6 (1994): 796-803. Redish, Edward F., Jeffery M. Saul, and Richard N. Steinberg. "On the Effectiveness of Active-Engagement Microcomputer-Based Laboratories." American Journal of Physics. 65 (1997): 45-54. Redish, Edward F., and Richard N. Steinberg. "Teaching Physics: Figuring Out What Works." Physics Today. January 1999. 24-30. Russel, David, Keith B. Lucas, and Campbell J. McRobbie. "Microprocessor Based Laboratory Activities as Catalysts for Student Construction of Understanding in Physics.” Queensland University of Technology. 1999. 2 July 2003. http://www.aare.edu.au/ 99pap/luc99196.htm. Sokoloff, David R. and Ronald K. Thornton. "Using Interactive Lecture Demonstrations to Create an Active Learning Environment.” The Physics Teacher. 35 (1997): 340-347. Sokoloff, David R., Ronald K. Thornton, and P. W. Laws. Real Time Physics. Wiley, NY, 1998. Stager, Gary S. "Empowering Young Mathematicians and Scientists Through Technology.” Curriculum Administrator. 1998. 2 July 2003. http://www.stager.org/ articles/Mathsciencecafeature.html. Stein, J.S., Nachnias, R., and Friedler., Y. “An Experimental Comparison of Two Science Laboratory Environments: Traditional and Microcomputer-Based” Journal of Educational Computing Research. 6.2 (1990): 183-202. Svec, Michael. "Improving Graphing Interpretation Skills and Understanding of Motion Using Micro-computer Based Laboratories." 1999. Furman University. 11 June 2003 http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/svec.html. The Probeware Group. "Probeware: A Definition". The Concord Consortium.19 June 2003. http://www.concord.org/themes/probeware_overview.pdf. Thornton, Ronald K. “Learning physics concepts in the introductory course: microcomputer-based labs and interactive lecture demonstrations” Conference of the Introductory Physics Course. Ed. J. Wilson. New York, J. Wiley & Sons, 1997. 69-86. Ibid. “Tools for Scientific Thinking: Microcomputer-Based Laboratories for Physics Teaching.” Physics Education. 22.4 (1987): 230-238. Ibid. "Using the Results of Research in Science Education to Improve Science Learning.” Center for Science and Mathematics Teaching, 1999. Tufts University. 18 June 2003.. http://probesight.concord.org/what/articles/thornton.pdf. Thornton, Ronald K. and David R. Sokoloff. "Assessing Student Learning of Newton's Laws: The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation and the Evaluation of Active Learning Laboratory and Lecture Curricula." American Journal of Physics. 66 (1998): 338-352. Ibid. “Learning Motion Concepts Using Real-time Microcomputer-based Laboratory Tools.” American Journal of Physics. 58 (1990): 858-867. Tinker, Bob. “Computer-based Tools: Rhyme and Reason.” Computers in Physics Education. Eds. E.F. Redish and J.S. Risley. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1990. Ibid. "Information Technologies in Science and Mathematics Education” Concord Consortium.1998. June 2003. www.concord.org. Ibid., ed. Microcomputer-based Labs: Educational Research and Standards. NATO ASI Series F. 156. Springer, Berlin. 1996. Tinker, Robert. & Papert, S. Tools for Science Education Information Technology & Science Education. Ed. J. Ellis. Columbus, OH, AETS, 1989. Touger, J.S., Dufresne, R.J., Gerace, W.J., Hardiman, P.T. & Mestre, J.P. “How Novice Students Deal with Explanations” International Journal of Science Education. 17.2 (1995), 255-269. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Using Technology to Support Education Reform, 1993. Weller, H.G. "Assessing the Impact of Computer-Based Learning." Journal of Research on Computing in Education 30.1 (1996): 18-38. Woods, Peter, ed. Contemporary Issues in Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge, 1996. Good teacher training and long-term support are necessary for productive and effective teaching. Moreover, this kind of extended and systematic training and support decreases teacher isolation and increases retention of good teachers. Establishing a network of educators, researchers, and educational administrators is key in creating a foundation for reform and for teacher support. This kind of teacher training allows teachers the opportunity to learn about and, in turn, to implement new and more effective teaching strategies and skills. Atkin, J. Myron, et al, eds. Classroom Assessment and the National Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001. Main claims: Long-term training is important. Continuous process leads to lasting change in classroom practice. Collaboration is important to reduce isolation. Ball, D. L., and D.K. Cohen. "Developing Practice, Developing Practitioners: Toward a Practice-Based Theory of Professional Education." Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. Eds. G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999. Ball, D., and S. Rundquist. "Collaboration as a Contest for Joining Teacher Learning with Learning about Teaching." Teaching for Understanding: Challenges for Policy and Practice Eds. D.K. Cohen, et al. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1993. 13-42. Case study of two teachers who worked together. Finding: extended learning period promoted change in teaching. Focus on collaboration. Barone, T. D., et al. "A Future for Teacher Education: Developing a Strong Sense of Professionalism." Handbook of Research in Teacher Education, 2nd ed. Ed. J. Silula. New York: Mac Millan, 1996. 1108-1149. Bradley, Ann. "Schools within Schools" Thoughtful Teachers, Thoughtful Schools: Issues and Insights in Education, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1996. 152-156. A success story of collaborative and ongoing teacher teamwork and development. Charter school and teacher collaboration seminars. Bransford, John D., et al, eds. How People Learn: Bridging Research and Practice. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Burnaford, Gail, et al, eds. Teachers Doing Research: Practical Possibilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, P, 1996. Burnaford, Gail, et al, eds. Teachers Doing Research: The Power of Action through Inquiry, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates, P, 2001. Claims: Teachers are more apt to try new strategies because of collaborative teacher interaction. Sharing and community decrease teacher isolation. Bybee, Rodger W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2002. Claims: Ongoing professional development will help teachers to learn how to teach effectively and really change the way that they teach. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education "Improving Teacher Preparation and Credentialing Consistent with the National Science Education Standards: Report of a Symposium." National Research Council, 1997. Clinchy, Evans, ed. Transforming Public Education: A New Course for America's Future. New York: Teachers College Press, 1997. Specifically, “Reframing the School Reform Agenda: Developing Capacity for School Transformation” by L. Darling-Hammond on pages 38-55. Claim: Ongoing professional development is important. Focuses on peer coaching, team planning, and collaborative research. Cochran-Smith M., and S. Little. "Teacher Learning in Communities." Review of Research in Education. Eds. A. Iran-Nejad and D. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association. 24 (1999). Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. The Jasper Project: Lessons in Curriculum, Instruction, Assessment, and Professional Development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1997. About the Jasper Project for grades 5 and up. Chapter 6 is about teacher learning and an “important message” about the need for ongoing support for continued learning and feedback. Darling-Hammond, L., and M. McLaughlin. "Policies that Support Professional Development in an Era of School Reform." Phi Delta Kappan. 76.8 (1995): 597-604. Claim: collaboration and networking is important. Suggests changes within schools. Suggests changes in educational policies. Day, Barbara L, ed. Teaching and Learning in the New Millennium. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi, 1995. Specifically, “Back to the Future in Teacher Education” by Charles R. Coble. About teacher education partnerships with universities. Claims: preservice early on keeps teachers longer and makes more substantive changes. Extended development is crucial to creating and maintaining better teachers. Better teachers lead naturally to more effective teaching and better schools. Department of Public Instruction. Science Framework for the Public Schools of North Carolina. (2003). Feiman-Nemser, S. and P. J. Norman. "Teacher Education from Initial Preparation to Continuing Professional Development." Routledge International Companion to Education. Eds. Bob Moon et al. London: Routledge, 2000. 732-755. Good source. Claims: good professional development improves teacher quality. University-school partnerships are beneficial. They help teachers change the way they teach. Beginning teachers’ induction and development retain and improve teachers. Feldman, A. "Enhancing the Practice of Physics Teachers: Mechanisms for the Generation and Sharing of Knowledge and Understanding in Collaborative Action Research." Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 33.5 (1996.): 513-540. A study to examine and identify the ways that teachers grow when they are engaged collaboratively. Claims: collaboration action research is beneficial. Teachers learned by anecdote telling, trying new ideas, and systemic inquiry. Collaboration promotes teacher learning. Feldman, A. and J. Atkin. "Embedding Action Research in Professional Practice." Educational Action Research: Becoming Practically Critical. Eds. S. Noffke and R. Stevenson. New York: Teachers College Press, 1995. Firestone, W., and J. Pennell. "Teacher Commitment, Working Conditions, and Differential Incentive Policies." Review of Educational Research. 63 (1993): 489-525. Claims: collaboration serves as an intrinsic reward and builds commitment to teaching. Teacher commitment is important to effective teaching. Article focuses on attaining teacher commitment. Lack of commitment leads to no change in teaching. Differential incentives and work environment contribute to commitment. Guskey, T., and M. Huberman, eds. Professional Development in Education. New York: Teachers College Press, 1995. Focuses: ongoing teacher development and collaboration. A lot of chapters discuss what it takes for teacher development to be effective. Hoffman, Nancy E. et al, eds. Lessons from Restructuring Experiences: Stories of Change in Professional Development Schools. Albany: State University of New York P, 1997. Focus: relationships with universities. Promotes hands-on/ minds-on learning. Team approach promotes teacher ownership and thus change in classroom teaching practices. Koppich, J.E., and M.S. Knapp. Federal Research Investment and the Improvement of Teaching: 1980-1997. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy. 1998. Lieberman, Ann. "Practices that Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning." Phi Delta Kappan 76.8 (1995): 591-96. Focuses: professional development should be an integral part of schools. Teachers should: collaborate and learn from each other.. Construct a continuum of actual practices. Change from teaching to learning. Discuss partnerships. Article discusses the Foxfire Teacher Outreach Network that stemmed from collaborative work. Lieberman, Ann and Lynne Miller. Teachers—Transforming their World and their Work. New York: College Teachers Press, 1999. Focuses: Growth in practice. Teachers should develop a professional community as a way to avoid “burn out” and better learn and grow as teachers. Ibid. "Teaching and Teacher Development: A New Synthesis for a New Century" Education for a New Era. Ed. Ronald S. Brendt. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2000. 47-66. Claims: Teachers who are part of a professional community are challenged to do more. It helps to change the way they teach. Focus is on collaboration. Lieberman, Ann and M Grolnick. "Networks and reform in American Education" Teachers College Record. 98.1 (1996): 7-45. Focuses: Networks of teachers for development. Collaboration to produce results. Discusses leagues formed, etc. Little, J. "Teachers' Professional Development in a Climate of Educational Reform." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15.2 (1993): 129-521. Focuses: Professional teacher collaboration. Teacher inquiry and action research. Success story: teachers meet monthly, and this helps change teaching. Lord, B. "Teachers' Professional Development: Critical Colleagueship and the Role of Professional Communities." The Future of Education: Perspectives on National Standards in America. Ed. N. Cobb. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1994. 175-204. Loukes-Horsley, S. et al. Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 1998. Claims: fundamental changes only occur over time. Ongoing help promotes effective change. Continuous self-assessment is beneficial. Community helps teachers. Loukes-Horsley, S. et al. Principles of Effective Professional Development for Mathematics and Science Education: A Synthesis of Standards. Madison: U of Wisconsin at Madison, National Institute for Science Education, 1996. Moon, Bob, et al, eds. Routledge International Companion to Education. London: Routledge, 2000. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996. National Research Council. Educating Teacher of Science, Mathematics, and Technology. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2001. Ibid. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Eds. Bransford, J. et al. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Ibid. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002. Ibid. National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996. “Professional Development.” ENC. 2003. Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. 9 June 2003. http://www.enc.org/professional/learn. Reichardt, Robert. "Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Teacher Quality" Policy Report for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning, 2001. Claims: good professional development (Inservice) helps improve the quality of teachers. Compensation and good working conditions will increase retention of good teachers. Siverstein, Mary Lewis. Transforming Ideas for Teaching and Learning Science: A Guide for Elementary Science Education. Guidebook for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1993. Smith, Robert G. "Teacher Study Teams: A Focused Approach to School Problem Solving." ERS Spectrum 12.3 (1994): 13-19. Smith, Robert G. and Stephanie Knight. "Collaborative Inquiry: Teacher Leadership in the Practice of Creative Intelligence." Reaching and Teaching All Children: Grassroots Efforts that Work. Eds. Robert L. Sinclair and Ward J. Ghory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin P, 1997. 39-59. Good source. Claims: collaborative work with teachers decreases isolation and improves teaching. It promotes real change in teaching practice. Partnerships with universities are beneficial. Swann, Joanna and John Pratt, eds. Improving Education: Realist Approaches to Method and Research. New York: Cassell, 1999. Sykes, G., and L. Darling-Hammond, eds. Teaching as the Learning Profession: Handbook of Policy and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Quality: A report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, NCES 1999-080. Project Officers Lewis, L, et al. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1999. The teacher training programs at The Science House support the National Science Education Standards and conform to most effective and supported practices in teacher professional development. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford U Press, 1993. Atkin, J. Myron, et al, eds. Classroom Assessment and the National Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2001. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education "Improving Teacher Preparation and Credentialing Consistent with the National Science Education Standards: Report of a Symposium." National Research Council, 1997. Cochran-Smith M., and S. Little. "Teacher Learning in Communities." Review of Research in Education. Eds. A. Iran-Nejad and D. Pearson. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association, 1999. Bybee, Rodger W. Learning Science and the Science of Learning. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association, 2002. Building Bridges: The Mission and Principles of Professional Development. 2000. US Department of Education. 2 June 2003. <http://www.ed.gov/G2K/bridge.html>. Department of Public Instruction. Science Framework for the Public Schools of North Carolina. (2003). National Research Council. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A Guide for Teaching and Learning. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 2002. Ibid. National Science Education Standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1996. Ibid. Global Perspectives for Local Action: Using TIMSS to Improve U.S. Mathematics and Science Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Teacher Quality: A report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, NCES 1999-080. Project Officers Lewis, L, et al. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 1999. Inquiry-based learning and hands-on/minds-on activities helps to improve achievement levels and helps with evaluations. Bottoms, Gene and Tom Feagin. “The 1998 High Schools that Work Assessment: Appalachian regional Commission (ARC) Sites are Improving.” Research Brief. Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, GA, 1999. ERIC ED461468. Chang, Chun-Yen, and Song-Ling Mao. “ The Effects of an Inquiry-Based Instructional Method on Earth Science Students’ Achievements” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. San Diego, CA, April 19-22, 1998. Hake, Richard R. “Interactive-Engagement Versus Traditional Methods: A Six-Thousand-Student Survey of Mechanics Test Data for Introductory Physics Courses” American Journal of Physics. 66.1 (1998): 64-73. Hestenes, David, Malcolm Wells, and Gregg Swackhamer. “Force Concept Inventory” The Physics Teacher. 30 (1992):141-158. Hicks, Debbie Carter. “A Classroom Improvement Plan: Designed to Improve Middle School Students’ Science Scores through Hands-on Activities and Portfolio Assessment” Ed. D. Practicum

	Contact Us ____ Site Map____ Search____ Home _____Copyright 2006 The Science House