-
Effective Instructional Strategies in Science
RevisitedAuthor(s): David D. KumarSource: American Secondary
Education, Vol. 21, No. 3 (1993), pp. 9-14Published by: Dwight
Schar College of Education, Ashland UniversityStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41064032 .Accessed: 23/01/2015
01:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
.
Dwight Schar College of Education, Ashland University is
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to
American Secondary Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=scharashlandhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/41064032?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
Effective Instructional Strategies in Science
Revisited
David D.Kumar
Introduction Which instructional strategies constitute
effective teaching remain unresolved. In early times, teachers
were evaluated based on the personal opinions of students, the
ability to discipline, the choice of subject matter, and the
quality of instructional delivery.1 In other instances, teachers
were evaluated based on
Effective Instructional Strategies A review of the literature
yielded the
following nine categories of instructional behaviors in the
cognitive, affective and societal aspects of science education: 1)
scientifically correct content; 2) appropriateness of the lesson;
3) concreteness of the instruction; 4) questioning for conceptual
understanding;
subjective ratings by their superiors2 and the cognitive nature
of the content reflecting Piagetian concepts and experiments.3
Contemporary process-product
Teachers who use interesting and challenging science activities,
and relate
classroom science to contemporary societal issues improve
student
achievement and attitude towards science. V J
5) questioning for critical thinking and problem solv- ing; 6)
redirecting student questions; 7) wait-time; 8) developing better
attitudes toward science;
research since "Project Synthesis" has defined teacher
effectiveness in terms of cognitive, affective and societal aspects
of science education leading to student achievement.4
Teaching science for cognitive growth has implications for
students1 academic preparation and careers in science and
technology. In addition, higher cognitive skills benefit student's
decision making and problem solving skills in their personal lives.
Similarly, if teachers could develop a better student attitude
towards science then they could help to reduce student
misconceptions and "phobia" about science and scientists, and help
develop an appreciation for science. Finally, when teachers present
science lessons with relevant societal issues, it helps the
students see the role of science in their daily lives.
March, 1993
and 9) relating science to societal issues. The first seven
instructional behaviors are cognitive in nature whereas the latter
two behaviors are respectively affective and societal in
nature.
1. Scientifically correct content Effective teachers use
scientifically correct content in their explanations and
representations and examples in order to reduce student misconcep-
tions in science.5 Tobin and Fraser, in a large scale study, found
that effective teachers used scientifically correct explanations
and represen- tations reflective of their understanding of the
content they taught.6 Boulanger's meta- analysis, and studies
conducted by Minstrell, also showed effective teachers using
scientifi- cally correct explanations and representations,
including examples.7
2. Appropriateness of the lesson: Effective teachers organize
and sequence their instruc-
9
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
tion in small increments, and at appropriate difficulty levels.8
For example, at the primary level activities are used to acquaint
students with various phenomena, whereas at the middle level
students are expected to carry out the processes which lead to the
understanding of phenomena.9 Studies by Bonstetter, Penick and
Yager, Tobin and Capie, and Wise and Okey showed a positive
relationship between appro-priateness of lessons and various
learning outcomes including achievement.10
When teachers present science lessons with relevant societal
issuesf it helps the students see the role of science in their
daily lives.
3. Concreteness of the instruction: Students learn better when
the information presented in a lesson is linked to concrete
experiences.11 For example, cognitive psychology has shown that
students often create or attempt to create mental pictures of the
scientific concepts and their relationships while learning.12 The
mental representation of concepts will be considerably facilitated
if students create their own mental image through more concrete
learning materials.13 Therefore, one of the important aspects of
effective science teaching involves the use of sufficient materials
the students could visualize and preferably act upon in order to
gain a mental image of the scientific principles and relationships
they learn.14
Barron et al. ranked the concreteness of instructional methods
designed to enhance student understanding in the following
descending order: manipulatives, demonstra- tion, pictorial
stimuli, text material.15 A compa- rative study by Yager, Engen,
and Snider indicated that students who used a laboratory had
greater understanding of the science they learned than those who
were exposed to demonstrations.16 Hands-on approaches to learning
have been linked to positive student outcomes.17 In a survey,
Lawrenz found that 75% of science teachers agreed that "laboratory-
based science classes are more effective than non-laboratory
classes."18 Egelston determined that laboratory methods of teaching
biology
10
were more effective in terms of student outcomes than was
lecture-recitation.19 In another study Holliday found that
pictorial stimuli were more effective than verbal stimuli on
student's understanding.20
A study of exemplary science teachers by Tobin and Fraser
revealed that effective teachers used various learning materials to
help students gain a meaningful understanding of scientific
concepts.21 Yager et al. arrived at a similar conclusion after
studying 162 most effective and 159 least effective science
teachers.22 The meta-analyses of Boulanger and Wise and Okey also
revealed a positive correlation between teachers' use of manipula-
tives and student achievement in science.23
4. Questioning for conceptual understand- ing: Questioning is an
old but effective instructional strategy. According to Soar and
Soar, and Coker, Lorentz, and Coker, successful instructional
practices include questions which guide students through a process
and those which require specific explanations.24 As Barron et al.
explained, in the first category of questioning, the "teacher is
making a deliberate attempt to help students interpret what they
have learned and, apply the knowledge or concepts in other
contexts". The second category of questioning involves "the
utilization of scientific facts and concepts to describe a
particular phenomena," because students illustrate a more powerful
and observable understanding of scientific concepts when asked to
explain how something works or how it happens.25
. . . higher cognitive skills benefit students9 decision making
and problem solving skills in their personal lives.
Searles and Kudeki in a study of teacher and principal
perception, identified effective science teachers as those who make
efforts to encourage students to develop hypotheses and theories.26
According to Tobin and Fraser, exemplary science teachers used
questions to "prove for misunderstanding."27 Lawrenz found that
science teachers place moderate to very heavy emphasis on questions
that require
American Secondary Education, Vol. 21 #3
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
students to explain concepts in their own words.28 Boulanger and
Wise and Okey deter- mined that teacher questioning improved
student achievement in science.29
. . . effective science instruction involves presenting
scientifically correct content at the appropriate level of the
learner . . .
5. Questioning for critical thinking and problem solving:
Teachers could improve student achievement through the use of
questions requiring comprehension, applica- tion, or analysis
skills.30 For example, Tobin and Capie found that the cognitive
level of questioning contributed to better student achievement31
Wise and Okey assert that questions inserted in a film,
comprehension level questions at the start of a unit, and use of
high level questions all correlate with increased student
achievement.32
Boulanger found a positive relationship between teaching
scientific thinking and student achievement.33 Whimbey and Tobin
and Capie have noticed that teachers who developed students1
problem solving skills improved their learning also.34 For example,
teachers of successful students used purposeful questions to
facilitate the thinking appropriate for the learning task to be
accomplished, moti- vate inquiry, assist the students in defining
the problem, and suggest possible hypotheses.
6. Redirecting student questions: Effective teachers provided
cues and redirected students' questions in order to enable them to
arrive at their own answers.35 Helping students arrive at a correct
answer by asking simple questions, providing cues or rephrasing the
questions, and giving help with the process for obtaining the
correct solution were all related to student achievement.36 In a
teacher effectiveness study, Tobin and Fraser found that exemplary
teachers rephrased the original questions or asked supplementary
questions until the student could contribute.37
7. Wait-time: Sufficient wait-time has been found to be
important for improving the quality of student responses in
science.38 Wait-time refers to the duration of silent pauses
between
March, 1993
teachers' questions and students' answers.39 Research has shown
that student achievement and teacher-student interaction improved
when teachers extended the wait-time from 3 to 5 seconds.40
According to Boulanger and Rowe, an increased wait-time improved
the following: average length of student response, frequency of
unsolicited but appropriate student respons- es, incidents of
speculative responses, student to student comparison of data,
drawing infer- ences from information, and student initiated
questions.41
8. Developing better attitudes towards science: Considering the
role of science in everyday life, it is essential that effective
teaching develop better student attitudes towards science.42
According to Barron et al., "this category of behavior involves
opportu- nities provided for students to think about science in
ways that seem to be a departure from the ordinary.1143 For
example, teachers may use synetics-type activities, fantasy trips,
or creative writing to initiate metaphoric thinking.44
In a survey, Lawrenz found that 92% of science teachers believe
teaching science should "motivate students to study science."45
Searles and Kudeki identified that effective science teachers, in
fact, give room for "student inter- ests" in their instruction.46
Also, effective teachers used "safety nets" in order to involve all
students in science instruction.47 Students were not subjected to
embarrassment when they made mistakes; instead teachers treated
students and their responses with respect. According to Talton and
Simpson, providing room for hands-on learning in the science
curriculum not only improved students' attitudes toward science but
also enhanced achievements.48 Besides, Talton and Simpson noted
that teacher encouragement to learn science and fun activities in
science class are two of the other factors that affected student
attitude and achievement.
9. Relating science to societal issues: Rela- ting science to
contemporary societal issues is an effective way of enhancing
student unders- tanding of the role of science in society and the
future survival and prosperity of students.49 In a survey of 161
science teachers 95% placed moderate to very heavy emphasis on the
fact
11
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
that one of the objectives of teaching science is to make
students aware of the importance of science in daily life.50
Teaching science should help students "recognize that scientists
and technicians are people with personal and human characteris-
tics"51 and must promote career awareness.52 According to Yager,
science should make students understand and deal with real- world
issues and help them make career choices.53 Besides, teachers must
deviate from focusing on content and provide students with lessons
and activities which examine the role of science in relation to
societal problems such as acid rain, nuclear energy, and
landfills.54
Science is an exploration of the "real world" and it takes place
in the "real society."55 For example, the
Science-Technology-Society (STS) approach to science education
relates classroom science to its role and applications in the
society through discussions and projects which include open
discussion on STS issues such as acid rain, AIDS, and greenhouse
effect. Tobin and Fraser found that exemplary science teachers
encou- rage their students to participate in such non- traditional
instruction.56 Booth, Krockover and Woods and Finson and Enochs
have identified positive relationships between society-based
science instruction and student attitude to- wards science.57
Summary Effective science teaching involves
employing overt instructional strategies and addresses
cognitive, affective and societal aspects of learning. Based on the
studies reviewed, effective science instruction involves presenting
scientifically correct content at the appropriate level of the
learner, using concrete learning materials, using questioning
strategies that enhance conceptual understanding, and using
questioning strategies that develop critical thinking and problem
solving skills. Effective teachers help students to arrive at
answers by redirecting student questions and providing longer
wait-time. Effective science teachers use lessons and activities
suitable for developing better student attitudes towards science.
Teachers who use interesting and challenging science activities and
relate class- room science to contemporary societal issues
12
improve student achievement and attitudes towards science.
Implications As Glass once opined, "... in education, the
findings are fragile; they vary in confusing irregularity
across. . ." countless variables.58 Considering this fact, it may
not be possible to qualitatively synthesize a "myriad" of teacher
effectiveness studies completely. The findings of this qualitative
review should provide science educators with a guide for designing
experiments and comparing findings about which instructional
strategies relate well with effective teaching. The instructional
behaviors identified in this research might be useful for
researchers in developing classroom obser- vation instruments. Also
the findings should help science teacher educators to focus on the
effective instructional behaviors that need to be stressed in
preservice training.
Science teacher educators need to focus more directly on the
cause for these instructional strategies. For example, there may be
several reasons why effective teaching involves certain
instructional behaviors. Findings of Yager et al. indicated that
most effective teachers have had more inservice workshops than have
least effective teachers.59 Therefore, if what causes certain
teachers to use these instructional strategies can be clearly
identified, then the science educators' task of preparing effective
teachers will be easier.
NOTES 1. F.W. Hart, Teachers and Teaching: By Ten Thousand High
School Seniors (London: Macmillan, 1936); A.S. Barr, An
Introduction to Scientific Study of Classroom Supervision (New
York: Appleton, 1931). 2. T.L. Good, "Classroom Research: A Decade
of Progress/1 Educational Psychologist, 18, (1983): 127-144. 3.
W.S. Anthony, "Learning to Discover Rules by Discovery," Journal of
Educational Psychology, 64,3,(1973): 325-328. 4. N.C Harms & R.
RYager, eds., What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Volume 3
(Washington, DC National Science Teachers Association, 1981). 5.
CW. Anderson, "Strategic Teaching in Science," in B.F. Jones, A.S.
Palinscar, D.S. Ogle & E.G. Carr, eds., Strategic Teaching and
Learning: Cognitive Instruction in the Content Areas (Elmhurst, IL:
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1987); A.C. Porter
& J. Brophy, "Synthesis of Research on Good Teaching: Insights
from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching,"
Educational Leadership, 45, 8, (1988): 74-85. 6. K.G. Tobin &
B.J. Fraser, What Does it Mean to be an Exemplary Science Teacher?"
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 1, (1990): 3-25.
Amencan Secondary Education, Vol. 21 #3
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
7. F.D. Boulanger, 'Instruction and Science Learning: A
Quantitative Synthesis/' Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
18, 4, (1981): 311-327; J.A. Minstrell, 'Teaching Science for
Understanding," in L.B. Resnick & LE. Klopfer, eds., Toward the
Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research (1989 Yearbook of
the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1989).
8. N.L Gage, "When Does Research on Teaching Yield Implications for
Practice?" Elementary School Journal, 83, 4, (1983): 492-496; D.C.
Berliner, "Developing Conceptions of Classroom Environments: Some
Light on the in Classroom Studies of ATI," Educational
Psychologist, 18, 1, (1983): 1-13. 9. L. Barron, ES. Goldman, M.D.
Joesten, CA.Hofwolt, W.G. Holladay & R.D. Sherwood, Improving
Science Education: A Collaborative Approach to the Preparation of
Elementary School Teachers-Y ear-end Activity Report, May 22, 1990
(Year-end report submitted to the National Science Foundation,
Grant No. TPE- 8950310), (Nashville, TN: Vanderbt University,
1990). 10. RJ. Bonstetter, J.E Penick & R.E.Yager, Teachers in
Exemplary Programs: How Do They Compare? (Washington, DC: National
Science Teachers Association, 1983); K.G. Tobin & W. Capie,
"Relationships Between Classroom Process Variables and Middle
School Science Achieve-ment," Journal of Educational Psychology,
74,6,(1982): 441-454; K.C Wise & J.R. Okey, "A Meta-Analysis of
the Effect of Various Science Teaching Strategies on Achieve-
ment," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 5, (1983): 419-
435. 11. Minstrel. (1989). 12. M.T.H. Chi, PJ. Feltovich & R.
Glaser, "Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by
Experts and Novices," Cognitive Science, 5, (1981): 121-152; RM.
Heyworth, "Expert- Novice Differences in the Solving of a Basic
Problem in Chemistry," Chinese University Education Journal, 17,1,
(1989): 59- 71. 13. J.L Phillips, Jr., The Origins of Intellect
(San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Company, 1969). 14. D.R.
Cruickshank, Research that informs Teachers and Teacher Educators
(Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa, 1990); A.C. Porter & J.
Brophy, "Synthesis of Research on Good Teaching: Insights from the
work of the Institute for Research on Teaching," Educational
Leadership, 45, 8, (1988): 74-85. 15. Barron et al, (1990). 16.
R.E. Yager, H.B. Engen & B.C. Snider, "Effects of the
Laboratory and Demonstration Methods Upon the Outcomes of
Instruction in Secondary Biology," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 6, 1/1969): 76-86. 17. J. Shymansky, W. Kyle & J.
Allport, "The Effect of New Science Curricula on Student
Performance," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 5,
(1983): 387-404. 18. F. Lawrenz, "Science Teaching Techniques
Associated with Higher-order Thinking Skills," Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 27, 9, (1990): 835-847. 19. J. Egelston,
"Inductive Versus Traditional Methods of Teaching High School
Biology Laboratory Experiments," Science Education, 57, (1973):
467-477. 20. W.G. Holliday, The Effects of Verbal and Adjunct
Pictorial- verbal Information in Science/' Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 12, 1, (1975): 77-83. 21. Tobin & Fraser,
(1990). 22. R.E. Yager, E.H. Hidayat & J.E. Penick, "Features
Which Separate Least Effective from Most Effective Science
Teachers," journal of Research m Science Teaching, 25, 3, (1988):
165-177. 23. Boulanger, (1981); Wise & Okey, (1983). 24. R.S.
Soar & R.M. Soar, Classroom Behavior, Pupil Characteristics and
Pupu Growth for the School Year and the Summer (Gainesville, FL:
University of Florida Institute for Development of Human Resources,
1973); H. Coker, C.W. Lorentz & J. Coker, Teacher Behavior and
Student Outcomes in the Georgia Study, Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the American Educational Research Association,
Boston, (1980).
25. Barron et al, (1990). 26. W.E. Searles & N. Kudeki, "A
Comparison of Teacher and Principal Perception of an Outstanding
Science Teacher," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 1,
(1987): 1-13. 27. Tobin & Fraser, (1990). 28. Lawrenz, (1990).
29. Boulanger, (1981); Wise & Okey, (1983). 30. CA. Hof wolt,
"Instructional Strategies in Science Classrooms," in D. Holdzkom
& P.B. Lutz, eds., Research Within Reach: Science Education
(Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association,1984); S.L.
Helgeson, "Problem Solving in Middle Level Science," in D. Gabel,
ed., What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Volume 5
(Washington, DC National Science Teachers Association, 1989); J.K.
Lemlech, Curriculum and Instructional Methods for the Elementary
School (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1990); K.G. Tobin
& W. Capie, "Relationships Between Classroom Process Variables
and Middle School Science Achievement," Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74, 6,(1982): 441-454; L. Barron, E.S. Goldman, M.D.
Joesten, CA.Hofwolt, W.G. Holladay & R.D. Sherwood, Improving
Science Education: A Collaborative Approach to the Preparation of
Elementary School Teachers-Year-end Activity Report, May 22, 1990
(Year-end report submitted to the National Science Foundation,
Grant No. TPE-8950310), (Nashville, TN: Vanderbt University, 1990).
31. Tobin & Capie, (1982). 32. Wise & Okey, (1983). 33.
Boulanger, (1981). 34. A. Whimbey, "Students Can Learn to be Better
Problem Solvers," Educational Leadership, 37, (1980): 560-565;
Tobin & Capie, (1982). 35. E.J. Montague & R.M. Ward, "The
Development of Problem Solving Abilities in Secondary School
Chemistry," Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59, (1968):
13-18; Gj'. Perfetto, J.D. Bransford & J.J. Franks,
"Constraints on Access in a Problem Solving Context," Memory
andCognition, 11, (1983): 24-31. 36. J. Brophy & C Evertson,
Learning fromTeaching: A Developmental Perspective (Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon, 1976); CW. Fisher, D.C Berliner, N.N. Filby, R.
Maraliav, L Cahen & M.M. Dishaw, 'Teaching Behaviors, Academic
Learning Time, and Student Achievement: An Overview," in C Denhan
& A. lieberman, eds., Time To Learn (Washington, DC: National
Institute of Education, 1980). 37. Tobin & Fraser, (1990). 38.
M.B. Rowe, "Wait-time and Rewards as Instructional Variables, Their
Influence on Language, Logic, and Fate Control: Part
One-Wait-Time," Journal of Research m Science Teaching, 11, (1974):
81-94. 39. Rowe, (1974); K.G. Tobin, "The Effect of Extended
Wait-time on Science Achievement," Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 17, (1980): 469- 475. 40. P.E. Blosser & S.L.
Helgeson, eds., Investigations in Science Education,VolumelO,No.2
(Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and
Environ-mental Education, 1984); Rowe, (1974) Tobin, (1980);
Cruickshank, (1990) Tobin and Capie, (1982). 41. Boulanger, (1981);
Rowe, (1974). 42. J.S. Sorenson & A.M. Voelker, "Attitudes of
Selected Group of High School Seniors Towards The U. S. Space
Program," Science Education, 5, 4, (1972): 549-570; Harmes &
Yager, (1981). 43. Barron et al, (1990). 44. R. Samples, "Are You
Teaching One Side of The Brain?" Learning, 3, (1975): 25-28. 45.
Lawrez, (1990). 46. Searles & Kudeki, (1987). 47. D.F.
Treagust, "Exemplary Practice in High School Biology Classes," in
K. Tobin and B.J. Fraser, eds., Exemplary Practice in Science and
Mathematics Education (Perth: Curtin University of Technology,
1987). 48. E.L. Talton & R.D. Simpson, "Relationships of
Attitude
March, 1993 13
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
Toward Classroom Environment with Attitude Toward and
Achievement in Science Among Tenth Grade Biology Students/' journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 24, 6, (1987): 507-525. 49. K.D.
Finson & L.G. Enochs, "Student Attitudes Toward
Science-Technology-Society Resulting from Visitation to a
Science-Technology Museum/' Journal of Research in Science Teaching
24, 7, (1987): 593-609. 50. Lawrez, (1990). 51 Harms & Yager,
(1981). 52. R.E Yager, "Achieving Useful Science: Reforming the
Reforms of the 'Os," Educational Leadership, 46, 1, (1988): 53-54.
53. Ibid. 54. Barronetal,(1990).
55. R.E. Yager, "Problem Solving: The STS Advantage," Curriculum
Review, 26, 3, (1987): 19-21. 56. Tobin & Fraser, (1990). 57.
J.H. Booth, G.H. Krockover & P.R. Woods, Creatwe Museum Methods
and Educational Techniques (Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas
Publisher, 1982); Finson & Enochs, (1987). . 58. G.V. Glass,
"Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research," Educational
Researcher, 5, 3,(1976): 8. 59. Yager, et al (1988).
Acknowledgement: Thanks to Stanley Helgeson, Professor of
Science Education at The Ohio State University, for critiquing this
review.
David D Kumar is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the National Center
for Science Teaching and Learning at The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.
American Secondary Education seeks manuscripts and other
materials relating to the general field of secondary education.
Contributions addressing themselves to this are earnestly solicited
and will be acknowledged directly. Send manuscripts to:
Editor American Secondary Education Education Building - Room
531 Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSIONS The original manuscripts submitted
for publication in American Secondary Education must be typed on
one side of firm paper, double spaced, with margins of at least one
inch. When employed, heading and subheadings should be consistent.
Indentations or other special arrangements of the text should be
clearly indicated. It is essential that the entire manuscript be
double spaced, including footnotes, references, bibliography, and
tables. Campbell's footnote style is preferred for use in the
preparation of the manuscript. Footnotes should follow the entire
body of the article. Copies of manuscripts saved as an ASCII file
on a computer disk may be submitted, but must be accompanied by a
printed copy of the manuscript Disks must be compatible with either
Macintosh (preferred) or IBM comput- ers. Please label disks with
the title of the article, all authors1 names, and identify the
computer and word processor program used to create the file.
Drawings, photographs, and graphs, as well as all art work, should
be submitted on stiff, white paper in India ink. They should be
large enough to be legible when reduced for printing. Their
location in the text should be indicated precisely, and they should
be plainly numbered to correlate with the text.
When submitting a manuscript, please include your educational
affiliation, academic title, and /or other qualifica- tions or
experiences pertinent to your article. It is assumed that the
author of the article will include written permis- sion for any
quoted materials that require it. All manuscripts are submitted to
the Editorial Advisory Board for evaluation. The editors reserve
the right to make any editorial changes in manuscripts to achieve
greater clarity. Major revisions will be made only after
consultation with the author. Manuscripts will not be returned
unless specifically requested, and a stamped envelope is forwarded
to the editors. Authors must not submit any manu- script which is
under consideration by another publisher.
WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS
14 American Secondary Education, Vol 21 #3
This content downloaded from 196.255.240.116 on Fri, 23 Jan 2015
01:52:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
Article Contentsp. 9p. 10p. 11p. 12p. 13p. 14
Issue Table of ContentsAmerican Secondary Education, Vol. 21,
No. 3 (1993), pp. 1-32Front MatterWhy Are Educational Trends So
Short Lived? [pp. 2-4]Is Your Teacher Entry-Year Program
Worthwhile? [pp. 5-8]Effective Instructional Strategies in Science
Revisited [pp. 9-14]Fresh Fish or More Shakespeare? [pp.
15-18]Staff Development for Mid-Career Teachers [pp. 19-24]In the
SchoolsAn Alternative Summer Remediation Approach for LD Students
[pp. 25-27]Student Assessment of an Alternative Public High School
Program for At-Risk Students [pp. 28-32]
Back Matter