Content uploaded by Brian Drayton
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Brian Drayton on Jan 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://bul.sagepub.com
NASSP Bulletin
DOI: 10.1177/019263650108562304
2001; 85; 24 NASSP Bulletin
Brian Drayton and Joni Falk
Tell-Tale Signs of the Inquiry-Oriented Classroom
http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/85/623/24
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association of Secondary School Principals
can be found at:NASSP Bulletin Additional services and information for
http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://bul.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://bul.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/85/623/24
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
(this article cites 2 articles hosted on the Citations
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
24 NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001
SPECIAL SECTION
MATH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Tell-Tale Signs of the Inquiry-Oriented
Classroom
Brian Drayton and Joni Falk
The rapid expansion of knowledge in all science domains, and the provi-
sional nature of much new knowledge, present the science curriculum with
several important challenges. The inquiry-based classroom approach is
designed to struggle with the difficulties of the subject in a way that reflects
best current understanding about teaching and learning. This article
describes the features that characterize student and teacher roles and tasks
in a classroom that is representative of a culture of inquiry. Suggestions for
principals are included.
Science education is bedeviled by three characteristics of its subject
matter: the growth in the quantity of information; the quality, that is,
the provisional nature of scientific understanding; and the diversity of sci-
ence. It is commonly noted that scientific knowledge is expanding exponen-
tially. Science news provides regular coverage of developments in areas of
immediate concern (climate change, medicine and health, genetic engineer-
ing) and of perennial fascination (human origins, dinosaurs). Does this
mean that each year the science curriculum developers must ensure an expo-
nential increase in the amount of science learned per pupil-hour? The
choice of what to teach when is made more painful by the information explo-
sion.
If one thinks of science as a body of indisputable facts about the world,
then it is troubling indeed to see facts shifting about from week to week: Are
eggs healthful or not? How about low-frequency radio waves? Do Martian
fossils exist or not? Why can’t scientists concur on the causes and effects of
global warming? However, science is not about right answers. Medawar
(1984) argued that science is only a method for the systematic approxima-
Brian Drayton and Joni Falk are principal investigators on the NSF-funded Inquiry in Context at TERC in
Cambridge, Mass. Brian Drayton, an ecologist and linguist, and Joni Falk, an educational researcher,
have directed several teacher professional development projects. Correspondence concerning this arti-
cle may be sent to
brian_drayton@terc.edu.
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001 25
tion of truth, and quotes Peirce: “The conclusions of science make no pre-
tence to being more than probable” (41). Scientific knowledge does not
reside in facts but in the shifting webs of explanatory theories that provide
meaning to humanity’s endless questions. When Robinson Crusoe saw
Friday’s footprint on the beach of his island, it was not the presence of a
human footprint but the implications Crusoe could draw from its presence
that caused revolutionary change in his world. The bare phenomenon of a
bare foot was turned by Crusoe’s interpretation into data, evidence for a
new interpretation of the state of his world.
Finally, science is not one field but many, each with its own growing
edges, problems, investigative techniques, and claims to central importance
in the curriculum. Any science teacher or other science enthusiast passion-
ate about her favorite subject believes that four years of her subject is better
than one or that her science specialty is best approached and appreciated
after a thorough grounding in all the other science subjects. In fact, there is
no one cumulative curricular plan that is ideal.
These three truths about science—exponential growth in scientific
knowledge, the central role in science of theory and evidence, and the
diversity of the subject matter—present those who develop the science cur-
riculum with agonizing choices. The inquiry-based approach to science edu-
cation is a response to these three characteristics of science and also takes
into account an increasingly clear understanding about the nature of learn-
ing and the classroom culture that supports it. It introduces students to the
content of science, including the processes of investigation, in the context
of the reasoning that gives science its dynamic character and provides the
logical framework that enables one to understand scientific innovation and
evaluate scientific claims. Inquiry is not process versus content; rather, it is a
way of learning content. It places an additional demand on the curriculum
on top of teaching students about the results of science (facts or content).
The approach requires students to learn something about how science is
done—they must learn how to pose questions and seek answers based on
observation, experiment, evaluate results, present and analyze data, and dia-
logue with their peers. Only in this way can a learner build durable under-
standing that is flexible and sophisticated enough to respond intelligently,
over a lifetime, to the science-rich culture and the world it tries to compre-
hend. The science learner’s task and the nature of science have observable
consequences for the classroom, the student, the teacher, and the school.
Elements of an Inquiry-Based Classroom
A recent publication from the National Research Council (NRC) summa-
rizes “essential features of classroom inquiry” in the following five points
(NRC 2000b, 25):
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
26 NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001
1. Learners are engaged by scientifically oriented questions.
2. Learners give priority to evidence, which allows them to develop and
evaluate explanations that address scientifically oriented questions.
3. Learners formulate explanations from evidence to address scientifi-
cally oriented questions.
4. Learners evaluate their explanations in light of alternative explana-
tions, particularly those reflecting scientific understanding.
5. Learners communicate and justify their proposed explanations.
This approach emphasizes that science is the process of gaining knowl-
edge (especially of the natural world), and that gaining knowledge is not
the accumulation of facts but the development and enrichment of theories,
explanations, and rigorous stories about how the world works.
Thus the mission of the science class is the careful, data-rich building of
understanding within a content area. The teacher and the students gain
valuable insights from students’ questions and from the process of finding
answers to those questions. Also, the students see and hear the teacher ask-
ing questions about the material (not of the students) and seeking answers
for herself.
The teacher in the inquiry-oriented classroom makes room as a natural
part of the curriculum for the design of investigations and the practice and
critique of reasoning and use of evidence, along with lecture, discussion,
reading, calculation, and demonstration. It is the growth of reasoning power
that motivates the acquisition and valuation of factual information (Driver,
Newton, and Osborne 2000; NRC 2000a).
The teacher’s goals for student learning include retaining content in
usable form, acquiring skills in data gathering and analysis that are widely
applicable, and building an understanding of the fundamental ways that
knowledge of the year’s subject is created. Learning goals, rubrics, and stan-
dards for the year and for specific tasks are explicit, and in fact assessment
should be cooperative and continual: formative feedback is crucial to the
development of rigorous standards in a culture of inquiry. Assessment is also
part of the content of science class, because students need to become accus-
tomed to and adept at the ways that scientists ensure quality control, expli-
cating, validating, and improving results to date.
Participants in the inquiry-oriented classroom take collaboration among
the students for granted, and the layout of the class likely reflects the prac-
tice of frequent consultation. Each student, however, is responsible for
acquiring a level of mastery for him/herself as well, and the teacher must
make sure that facilitated learning does not mask individual incompetence
or confusion. Each student must have opportunities for sense-making, knowl-
edge use and representation, peer review, and feedback from the teacher.
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001 27
Explaining and recounting are essential paths to learning, so the stu-
dents are asked to partake in these activities. Multiple ways of presenting
information are encouraged, but classic methods are essential to make sense
of current and past science: graphical presentations, data tables, or other
quantitative and qualitative methods of data representation should be regu-
larly constructed and consulted.
The content covered will be dictated in part by curriculum require-
ments, by teacher interest, and by student interest and questions. All studied
content is considered important enough to be included on assessments.
Student questions are taken seriously and attempts are made to address
these questions in relation to the other learning in the classroom.
Our work during the past eight years has taken us into classrooms from
elementary school through high school, and we have talked with many of
the teachers in these schools about pedagogy and the science classroom
(Falk and Drayton 2000a, 2000b). Although no teacher’s practice is easily
characterized, we have found that it is particularly hard to “see” inquiry on a
single visit; indeed, inquiry may not be evident on any one particular day.
An inquiry-oriented classroom is in some sense a culture. If you were study-
ing the culture of a scientific laboratory, you would see only some of the ele-
ments in it on any one day, and in fact some of the most important and
characteristic features of the culture would be visible only on relatively rare
occasions (Latour and Woolgar 1986). So it is in an inquiry-oriented class-
room: a single visit can give the wrong impression. For example, if you
arrive to observe a traditional class on the day when students are working on
science fair projects, you may see more student initiative, data analysis, and
collaboration than is typical for that class, which for the rest of the year may
be founded on the lecture-text-lab triad. By contrast, an observer visiting a
very inquiry-oriented class may nevertheless encounter a teacher lecture on
the structure of the periodic table. A class cannot be judged on the observa-
tion of a single lesson.
Indications of an Inquiry Approach
Classroom Appearance
Some of the look of an inquiry-oriented classroom is related to the focus on
student learning, which affects the classroom environment regardless of the
subject (see “What to look for in a classroom,” in Kohn 1999, 235–37). Does
the classroom reflect an interest in student thinking and products? Is stu-
dent work displayed? Is real individual variation evident? Are there lists of
questions, project ideas, or samples from previous years’ work? Is there any
evidence that the teacher has particular interests or passions in science?
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
28 NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001
This is important because the teacher is among other things a model for sci-
ence learning and inquiry.
Does the classroom reflect a focus on the teacher as broadcaster to stu-
dent receivers, or is it a work area in which the teacher is supporting stu-
dents’ hard intellectual work? For example, if in a middle-school class the
desks are all arranged in rows facing the same direction, then the teacher
may be the primary source of and target for science talk in this classroom. Of
course, the unoccupied room may be deceptive—what happens when the
class is in session? Does the furniture sometimes get moved and reoriented to
facilitate the development of multiple foci (e.g., small-group writing or col-
laboration)? In a high-school class, the arrangement of the desks may be less
informative than the proportion of time spent sitting and looking forward
compared with time spent investigating at benches or work areas.
The inquiry-oriented classroom has many tools and instruments
around—some in current use, some used a few times during the year, and
some used only when need or interest arises. A hand lens or an atlas may be
used often, a Bunsen burner or telescope used for a few units, and a plant
press used only when there is some botanical or ecological study under way.
Any of these instruments may serve as an incitement to investigation for the
student who happens to notice and wonder about them.
The classroom has books and journals available for reference and also
for interest. The teacher makes use of them as she works, and she will expect
the students to follow her example. She will show students how to make use
of these resources and also help them become aware of other sources of gen-
eral and specialized knowledge, such as online data sets and bibliographies.
Student Activity
The student’s experience should include an acquaintance with the key phe-
nomena, basic techniques, common questions, and major assumptions of a
field. Sometimes this means referring to an authoritative source (book, jour-
nal, teacher), but it also must include trial and error, data collection, and
analysis. Actual scientists learn in many modes—by reading, in conversation,
at professional meetings, and from their research. Science as a habit of
mind should be represented by all these modes in the science classroom.
The answers to the following three questions can be very revealing of the
presence or absence of inquiry in the classroom.
Who is doing the intellectual work? At what points do students have the free-
dom of and responsibility for their own learning? Participant patterns in
classrooms—who sets the topic for discussion, who asks most of the ques-
tions, what kinds of questions and answers are privileged—have hardly
changed at all in American practice in the past century (Rothstein 1998;
Sarason 1996). The typical teacher-centered pattern reinforces the focus on
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001 29
facts rather than on thinking. We have found that there are classes in which
the teacher weaves a coherent story about a subject area, such as force and
motion, but the students’ participation consists largely of filling blanks in
response to the teacher’s leading questions. A rationale or theory has been
woven—but who was the weaver? A clear and effective lecture can be a pow-
erful stimulus to learning, but teachers must ensure that students learn how
to build rationales and marshal evidence for themselves. In considering the
state of inquiry in a class, therefore, one must ask: Do class sessions include
a substantial proportion of time for student-to-student talk? Are some activi-
ties structured in such a way that the students need each other’s results in
order to make sense of their own tasks? Are there times when the students
are required to test arguments, evaluate methodologies, and compare theo-
ries? Rigorously comparing theories produces insight; it is the very stuff of
scientific reasoning.
What purposes do the labs and hands-on activities serve? We have found
that many teachers equate inquiry with hands-on activities (Falk and
Drayton 2000b). Yet we have observed classrooms over an extended period,
and we have come to see how hands-on or laboratory activities can involve
very little inquiry; indeed, there are often times when hands-on activities do
not engage the students with real phenomena at all. In evaluating the mean-
ing of lab activities as an indicator of classroom culture, one must ask: What
purpose is the lab or activity serving? Our work with middle- and high-
school teachers shows that labs and hands-on activities fall into one of three
general categories (Altobell, Falk, and Drayton 2001):
1. Lab or activity to illustrate or confirm content otherwise delivered.
This is perhaps the most common purpose for a lab activity. The conceptual
core of the lesson has been delivered by lecture or text; the lab provides a
concrete illustration or application, or perhaps teaches a technique. The lab
is usually short (i.e., one class session or less in length). The topic is chosen
by the teacher, the method is determined by teacher or text, there is essen-
tially one right answer, and the data are to be represented in a canonical or
prescribed form.
2. Lab or activity used to engage attention, raise topics, or change pace.
Many teachers use hands-on activities as motivators to generate interest in a
topic or to inspire students by means of a change of pace or of a reward.
Such activities may be less quantitative and serve as a “Baconian experi-
ment”: to gain some familiarity with a topic or phenomenon, perhaps raise
questions, and excite interest. In this case, the experience is likely to be rela-
tively short, and teacher expectations of student outcomes are not as high as
for types 1 or 3.
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
30 NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001
3. Lab or activity to convey content. This is the most unusual form of
activity, and yet if science education is about sense-making and disciplined
question-asking, then it should be a regular feature of any science course.
This kind of lab or activity provides a context within which some of the core
curricular material is actually learned. Such an activity may last more than
one session or may be a project spread out over a time period as a kind of
background process. In this type of activity, either the teacher or the student
may choose the question; often the teacher will set the general theme and
then require the students to develop and refine researchable questions. The
methods of data collection, representation, and analysis will be to a degree a
negotiation between students, with coaching or scaffolding from the
teacher. Outcomes may well be undetermined, but the whole is structured
to bring evidence to a hypothesis or conjecture. Experiences from these labs
or projects provide content for lecture or reading as well as for discussion
and debate.
What does success look like? How does the class (teacher and students)
extract meaning from the activity? Very often students and teachers collect
data, but much less often do they analyze and relate the data to conceptual
work done ahead of time (e.g., hypothesis or conjecture to test an aspect of
a theory) so that the outcome of the data collection produces insights that
help them understand theory. This then suggests that classroom assessment
should be continual and use a variety of methods. The goal should be to
help students and teachers measure themselves against the learning goals
for the unit or the year. To do so students must be aware of the goals of the
learning unit and of the rubrics and criteria the teacher will use to assess
student learning. Students should also be able to articulate teacher expecta-
tions for good work: not just complete answers, but the kinds of evidence
expected, the explanations of terms that contribute to the argument, the
context of the topic, and so on. There should be an emphasis on written
products and qualitative explanations of phenomena as well as on quantita-
tive evidence. Students should also expect that they will revise and refine
their work to meet the teacher’s expectations.
If your observation notes reflect a tone similar to that found in the fol-
lowing quote from a report by an observer in a chemistry class, you have
some evidence that you are visiting a reflective, thinking science culture:
[T]he kids measured, weighed, heated, stirred, and had to make
decisions about timing, amounts, good procedure, etc. They
were interested and focused, and the talk was science talk (with
a lot of adolescent banter, bawdy and otherwise scattered in). I
was struck by how the whole period was peppered with science
questions, and not just procedural—a lot of what, how, why….
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001 31
The teacher used her knowledge of the field to very good effect,
both responding to the questions and helping the students see
how the activity fits into a larger picture.
Teacher Activity
Teachers in this era of high-stakes tests feel tremendous pressure to cover all
the bases specified in the curriculum. Unfortunately, many teachers respond
to this pressure by focusing on “coverage.” Translated, this means, “The
topic was mentioned in a lecture, reading assignment, or a lab we did last
week,” with little or no exploration by the teacher of student understanding.
The professional climate of the school plays an important role in discourag-
ing this response, which is shortsighted at best.
It is our experience that checking for student understanding should be
less a matter of removing misconceptions; rather, it is a matter of taking the
time necessary for students to explain their thinking and to improve their
understanding where necessary by engagement with evidence from their
own experience or from work reported in the literature of the field—which
may or may not be found in the basal text. In this way, the teacher gains
greater insight into the conceptual structures that the students are develop-
ing and can use this information to help students advance to the next level
of knowledge and understanding.
Principals can determine if they are observing the inquiry approach in
action in a classroom by seeking answers to several questions. Does the
teacher show an interest in the material being covered, the growth of the
field, new discoveries, and the implications of those discoveries for an area
of knowledge? Is the teacher engaged with the field as an adult learner and
practitioner (for example, working on a research project with a scientist)?
Speaking from an authentic experience of science, the teacher will gain in
understanding, confidence, and credibility with students (Drayton and Falk
2000; Falk and Drayton 1997, 1998).
Does the teacher show an interest in students’ understanding? This inter-
est includes welcoming and working with student questions and interests and
using a wide variety of classroom configurations. Teachers should also use for-
mative assessment strategies, the goal of which is to help students and teach-
ers monitor conceptual understanding as a way to direct future learning.
Does the teacher frame the class’s work to make clear the context of the
subject matter within lines of inquiry in the science, thus framing students’
learning within the field as a whole? Does the teacher ensure that students
have time to make sense of the content and the investigations they are
doing? Do students participate in both whole-class and small-group work
that involves the discussion, representation, and interpretation of data—that
is, sense-making about phenomena?
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
32 NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001
School Activity
Aside from providing adequate resources (space and materials), there are
actions school administrators can take to create an atmosphere supportive
of a culture of inquiry. In fact, the school and district administrations’ prac-
tices and policies can make or break the depth and durability of real science
education reform (Falk and Drayton 2000a). The following are actions sug-
gested by research (e.g., Raizen and Britton 1997, Sarason 1996).
Make time for open pedagogical talk among the teachers. Inquiry-oriented
teaching is demanding on the teacher. Not only does it require continual
engagement with the content matter of the course, it also requires the
teacher to develop expertise in understanding student learning. In both
subject-matter knowledge and in pedagogy, the teacher’s growth is experi-
mental, is often dependent on trial and error, and takes place through dia-
logue with students and peers (Huberman 1993). There is no substitute for
collegial conversations about the science content, student understanding,
and teacher investment in the content. This means that principals must
make time available for teacher collaboration and study, not only in the
form of inservice workshops but as part of the regular workweek.
Provide supportive materials. These materials should go beyond helping
teachers answer the question, “What do I do on Monday?” They must also
support teacher exploration of inquiry-based pedagogy and assessment.
Buffer the teachers against the pressure of high-stakes tests and coordinate
innovations. In most school districts, there is more than one change being
implemented at any one time. The kaleidoscope of changes can lead to seri-
ous collisions, as different mandates make important and conflicting
demands on teachers’ energies and time and make it hard for the district to
evaluate any one of their experiments (Drayton and Falk 2001; Falk and
Drayton 2001; Knapp et al. 1998; Raizen and Britton 1997).
Give teachers some flexibility in scheduling. This flexibility allows teachers
to collaborate on interdisciplinary units and to extend the time for labs and
other activities for which the allotted time should be determined by the
nature of the activity rather than by the school structure.
Support contacts outside the school walls. Field trips are too rare. Teachers
are isolated from other teachers and from the scientists and people who cre-
ate and use the knowledge that students are studying. Students are often iso-
lated, discussing science with (or explaining it to) people their own age.
The only adults that they discuss science with are their teachers, who are
often seen as mere conduits from the science world “out there.” This rein-
forces the image of science as what is written in the textbook or happens in
the confines of the classroom.
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001 33
Ensure professional development. This training must go beyond good
school- or district-based programs (Little 1990). Because science teachers
need to represent a field’s thought processes as well as its results to the stu-
dents, the more opportunities there are for a science teacher to connect
with the wider community of scientists in a field as well as with other science
teachers, the more authenticity and confidence they will bring to the class-
room (Drayton and Falk 2000; Falk and Drayton 1997, 1998).
Summary
Implementing an inquiry-based science classroom that includes scientific
reasoning, content knowledge, authentic assessment, and teacher and stu-
dent learning is a lofty but achievable goal—as long as it is not seen as the
individual teacher’s sole responsibility. The science inquiry will develop
most reliably in a school culture that values learning first and foremost and
commits to a rich definition of what that learning should look like. The
intelligent involvement and support of administrators is key to the imple-
mentation of inquiry-based science education—turning an apparently
impossible ideal into an exciting, everyday reality for students.
References
Altobell, C., J. Falk, and B. Drayton. 2001. Three models of hands-on activities
and their relation to the inquiry-based classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: TERC, Inc.
Drayton, B., and J. Falk. 2000. Dimensions that shape teacher-scientist col-
laborations for inquiry-based teacher enhancement. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
24–28 April, New Orleans, La.
———. 2001. Reforms in collision: Overlapping mandates and systemic
strategies in six Massachusetts districts. Paper to be presented at the annu-
al meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 10–14
April, Seattle, Wash.
Driver, R., P. Newton, and J. Osborne. 2000. Establishing the norms of scien-
tific argumentation in classrooms.
Science Education 84: 287–312.
Falk, J., and B. Drayton. 2000a. Cultivating a culture of inquiry.
Hands on! 23
(2): 1, 16–19.
———. 2000b. The inquiry-based classroom in context: Bridging the gap
between teacher’s practice and policy mandates. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 24–28
April, New Orleans, La.
———. 2001. High stakes accountability and the inquiry based classroom:
Complementary of colliding visions of reform. Paper to be presented at
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
34 NASSP Bulletin
■
Vol. 85 No. 623 March 2001
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
10–14 April, Seattle, Wash.
Falk, J. K., and B. Drayton. 1997. Dynamics of the relationships between
teachers and scientists in an innovative mentorship collaboration. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, 24–28 March, Chicago, Ill.
———. 1998. Before the innovation hits the classroom: Teachers’ self-image
as an element of teacher enhancement. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 13–17 April,
San Diego, Calif.
Huberman, M. 1993. The model of the independent artisan in teachers’ pro-
fessional relations. In
Teachers’ work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts, edit-
ed by J. W. Little and M. W. McLaughlin. New York: Teachers College Press.
Knapp, M. S., J. D. Bamburg, M. C. Ferguson, and P. T. Hill. 1998.
Converging reforms and the working lives of frontline professionals in
school.
Educational Policy 12: 397–418.
Kohn, A. 1999.
The schools our children deserve. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986.
Laboratory life. 2nd ed. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Little, J. W. 1990. Conditions of professional development in secondary
schools. In
The contexts of teaching in secondary schools: Teachers’ realities, edit-
ed by M. W. McLaughlin, J. E. Talbert, and N. Bascia. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Medawar, P. 1984.
The limits of science. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.
National Research Council (NRC). 2000a.
How people learn: Brain, mind, experi-
ence, and school. Expanded edition. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
———. 2000b.
Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Raizen, S., and R. D. Britton. 1997.
Bold ventures. Vols. 1, 2. Boston: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Rothstein, R. 1998.
The way we were? New York: The Century Foundation.
Sarason, S. 1996.
Revisiting ‘the culture of the school and the problem of change.’
New York: Teachers College Press.
unauthorized distribution.
© 2001 National Association of Secondary School Principals. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or
at SAGE Publications - Full-Text Collections on April 11, 2008 http://bul.sagepub.comDownloaded from
