Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Direct Instruction for K-8 Science in California - PART 2



PART 2

REFERENCES
AAAS. 1993. American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Benchmarks for Science Literacy - Project 2061," (Oxford Univ.
Press, 1993); see at
<http://project2061.aaas.org/tools/benchol/bolframe.html>.

APS. 1999. "Joint Statement on the Education of Future Teachers and
list of physics departments that have endorsed it," online at
<http://www.aps.org/educ/joint.html>.

Becker, J.P. and B. Jacob. 2000. "The Politics of California School
Mathematics: The Anti-Reform of 1997-99,"Phi Delta Kappan, March;
online at <http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbec0003.htm>. "The authors
tell the story of a powerful group of parents and mathematicians in
California who manipulated information and played off of the public's
perception of our "failing schools" to acquire political clout.
Through this telling, they hope that other states will be able to
adopt a more rational course as they reconsider their policies."

Bracey, G.W. 2000. "Response to The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
Report 'The State Of State Standards' "; online at
< http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/peer_reviews/cerai-00-07.htm >:
"The problem with the [Fordham] evaluations is a simple one: the
states' rankings for quality of standards are inverse to their
performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
and on the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
That is, the same states that have done the best job in the eyes of
the Fordham report's authors in implementing high standards have
shown the poorest performance on widely accepted national tests for
student achievement, and vice versa. These states have also performed
poorly when compared to other nations."

Bransford, J.D., A.L. Brown, R.R. Cocking, eds. 1999. "How people
learn: brain, mind, experience, and school." (Nat. Acad. Press);
online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6160.html>.

Carnine, D. 2000. "Why Education Experts Resist Effective Practices
(And What It Would Take to Make Education More Like Medicine),"
online as a 52kB pdf at
<http://www.edexcellence.net/foundation/global/found.cfm?author=72&keyword=&submit=Search>.
The Fordham Foundation's Chester Finn introduces Carnine's paper by
stating that: "After describing assorted hijinks in math and reading
instruction, Doug devotes considerable space to examining what
educators did with the results of "Project Follow Through," one of
the largest education experiments ever undertaken. This study
compared constructivist education models with those based on direct
instruction. One might have expected that, when the results showed
that direct instruction models produced better outcomes, these models
would have been embraced by the profession. Instead, many education
experts discouraged their use."

CCCSC. 2003a. "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional
Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption - December Version";
online at <http://www.cde.ca.gov/cfir/science> / "DRAFT Criteria For
Evaluating Science Instructional Materials for Kindergarten through
Grade Eight - 2006 Primary Adoption (PDF)" where "/" means "click
on." This is essentially the same as CCCSC (2003b).

CCCSC. 2003b. "Criteria For Evaluating K-8 Science Instructional
Materials In Preparation for the 2006 Adoption - November Version,"
California Curriculum Commission Science Committee (CCCSC). Outlined
from
CCCSC's serial listing by R.R. Hake on 10 November 2003; online as
ref. 33 at <http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.

CSBE. 1998. California State Board of Education, "K-12 Science
Standards," (Adopted 10/98) <http://www.cde.ca.gov/standards/> "K-12
Science Standards" (Draft of 7/2000)
<http://www.cde.ca.gov/cilbranch/cfir/drscfw.pdf>.

Dawson, J. 2003. "Antievolutionists Lose Critical Fight in Texas
Textbook Decision," Physics Today 56(12): 36-38; online (for APS
members) at <http://www.physicstoday.org/>: "I think this is very
good, not just for Texas children but for schoolchildren in general,
because textbook publishers don't like to put out books that can't be
adopted in Texas and California," said physicist Steven Weinberg of
the University of Texas at Austin."

Feder, T. 1998. "California's Science Standards Slammed for Demanding
Too Much, Too Early," Physics Today 51(11): 54.

Finn & M.J. Petrilli. 2000. "The State of the State Standards 2000"
(SOSS2000),
<http://www.edexcellence.net/fordham/foreports.html#anchorStds> , a
7.8 MB pdf version is available. But see the criticism of SOSS2000 by
G.W. Bracey (2000). The evaluation of science standards was directed
by Lawrence Lerner, an Emeritus Professor in the College of Natural
Sciences and Mathematics at California State University, Long Beach.
SOSS2000 places California FIRST (with an A) among all the states in
the quality of State Science Standards. According to SOSS2000:
"Overall, the document. . .[1998 Science Content Standards, Grades
K-12, CSBE (1998)]. . . .is superbly done. It is scientifically
correct, written in clear language, and well organized. . . . The
physical sciences are dealt with carefully and systematically. In the
upper grades, the fact that these sciences are essentially
quantitative is made explicit. . . . All in all, California now
boasts one of the best science standards presently available."
Contrast Lerner's rosy appraisal with the dour views of (a) research
scientists Woolf (1999, 2003) amd Langer et al. (1999), and (b) the
330 Californians who signed Woolf's (1999) petition.

Hake, R.R. 2002. "Lessons from the physics education reform effort."
Conservation Ecology 5(2): 28; online at
<http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art28>. "Conservation Ecology," is
a FREE "peer-reviewed journal of integrative science and fundamental
policy research" with about 11,000 subscribers in about 108 countries.

Hake, R.R. 2003. "The Arons-Advocated Method"; online as ref. 31 at
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>.

Langer, J.S., A. Sessler, and R. Lopez. 1999. "Teachers Groups, APS
Debate New California Science Standards," response Layton et al.,
Physics Today 52(4): 95-96.

Layton, B., N. Rodriguez, W. Gekelman, S. Cooperman. 1999. "Teachers
Groups, APS Debate New California Science Standards," response to
Feder (1998), Physics Today 52(4): 94-95.

Lopez, R.E. & T. Schultz. 2001. "Two Revolutions in K-8 Science
Education." Physics Today 54(9): 44-49; online at
<http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-54/iss-9/p44.html>.

Mathemetically Correct. 2003; online at
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mathman/>, especially the
"Science Corner" at <http://mathematicallycorrect.com/science.htm>.
This "back to basics" group played an influential role in the
adoption of the current California math and science standards. [See
Becker & Jacob (2000), Finn & Petrilli (2001), Feder (1998).]

McDermott, L.C. & E.F. Redish. 1999. RL-PER1: Resource letter on
physics education research. Am. J. Phys. 67(9): 755-767; online at
<http://www.physics.umd.edu/rgroups/ripe/perg/cpt.html>.

NSTA. 1990. Position Statemen on Laboratory Science; online at
<http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=16>.

NSTA. 1998. Position Statemen on National Science Education
Standards; online at <http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=24>.

NSTA. 2002. Postion Statemen on Elementary School Science; online at
<http://www.nsta.org/159&psid=8>.

NRC. 1996. National Research Council. "National Science Education
Standards" (Nat. Acad. Press); online at
<http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html>.

Sowder, J.T. 1998. "What are the 'Math Wars' in California All About?
Reasons and Perspectives" Phi Beta Kappa Invited Lecture; online at
<http://mathematicallysane.com/analysis/mathwars.asp>.

Woolf. L. 1999. "Science Education Petition" of 22 December; online at
<http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/standards/petition.html>. The petition is
signed by 330 Californians, among them: Andrew Sessler, past
President of the APS; James Langer, current president of the APS;
Jerry Pine, co-director of the Cal Tech Precollege Science Institute;
Wendell Potter, vice chair of the Physics Dept., Univ. of California
at Davis; Helen Quinn of the Stanford Linear Accelerator. . .
.[current president of the APS]. . .; Richard Shavelsohn, Professor
of Education and Psychology at Stanford; J.M. Atkin, Chair of the
Committee on Science Education K-12 at the National Research Council;
Fred Goldberg, Professor of Physics, San Diego State University;
Angelica Stacy, Professor of Chemistry, Univ. of California-Berkeley;
and many California science teachers and educators from elementary,
middle, and high schools; colleges; and universities. For some
commentary on the "California Science Standards War" see T. Feder
(1998).

Woolf, L. 2003. "California Science Framework," Phys-L post of 5 Mar
2003 13:17:12-0800; online at
<http://lists.nau.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0303&L=phys-l&D=0&P=3588>.

THE END !