|
|
|
Pinchas Tamir
Pinchas Tamir, 22 Hagdud Haivri, Jerusalem 92345, Israel, is Professor of Science Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research has focused on curriculum, teacher education, science education, and evaluation.
CS invites comments on this paper for publication on the journal's web site. Address comments to Ian Westbury, General editor of JCS. All such comments on this paper, and on other papers in the journal, can be accessed at the JCS website.
© 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd. ISSN 0022-0272. Copies may be made under the normal terms of copyright law.
In 1978 more than 100 science educators from Israel and about 50 leading science educators and researchers representing 13 countries convened at the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot (July 23-28) and The Hebrew University, Jerusalem (July 30-August 2) to discuss problems and issues of curriculum development and curriculum implementation in science.1 Forty years ago, when the revolutionary reform in science education emerged, many of these issues were new. Before that time curricula had been developed locally, by those who planned to teach them; as a consequence, terms like dissemination, diffusion, utilization, and implementation were rarely used. The importance of such terms became evident as the movement of curriculum development at the national level gained prominence, especially in science.
Today, drawing on the experiences of the last 30 years, we are not only able to specify what curriculum developers have to consider in terms of implementation, but we can also draw some significant conclusions from our experiences with implementation for curriculum development in the future. The most important general conclusion is that curriculum development and implementation should not be viewed as two separate processes, but rather as one interactive process. The purpose of this paper is to describe the nature of this interaction and the factors which may influence it.
Processes and frameworks
When the curriculum reform movement started, the term 'curriculum studies' was used to define a group of scholars, scientists, and teachers who undertook the task of Research, Development, and Diffusion (RD&D) of specific programmes. Research referred to the study of the needs of society, the needs of students, and the structure of the discipline, as well as the quality of classroom experiences and instructional strategies. Development referred to the actual process of designing instructional materials and packages, and diffusion dealt with trials, first in a few classes and later in a growing number of classes, culminating with commercial publication. Most curriculum study groups terminated at that point, leaving the rest of diffusion to commercial publishers. Some managed to continue their work in curriculum development and maintained some diffusion activities, such as the publication of a newsletter, lectures, in-service courses, and publication of special materials for teachers, e.g. the Biology Teacher's Handbook (Schwab 1963).
In the UK the term 'curriculum development project' was used. But the major activity of the British projects was the development of materials. Research and diffusion, although recognized, were usually performed by others outside the projects and, as a rule, all projects in the UK lasted no more than 5 years.
A different approach was developed in other countries, especially those with a centralized educational system. Rather than creating new organizations every 3 or 5 years, more permanent organizations were established, and designed as curriculum development centres or science teaching centres. The permanent nature of these centres allowed for many activities related to curriculum development and implementation on a continuous, long-term basis, thereby overcoming some of the major shortcomings found in the US and the UK. It is ironic that the countries that launched the whole curriculum reform movement, and spent enormous sums of money on curriculum development, have suffered most from deficiencies in implementation, mainly because of their reluctance to created the necessary frameworks for effective dissemination, diffusion, and utilization.
I have used a number of terms, some of which are self-explanatory, some I have already explained, but others may need more precise definitions:
Dissemination involves specific strategies and actions planned by the curriculum development group for distributing their materials and ideas.Diffusion is the process by which a curricular innovation is distributed. It is a product of the interaction between dissemination and the complex influences in the social and political contexts in which it occurs. Invariably it involves:
a. Communication: passage of information through printed materials, media, personal contacts, etc.;b. Translocation: movement of people and materials, e.g. in-service courses, visits to schools, distribution of books and supplies;
c. Motivation: the provision of stimuli for change, either externally induced or self-generated; and
d. Re-education: the development of considerable understanding and commitment required for the effective implementation.
Two levels of re-education have been identified:
d1) familiarity with the programme and its strategies on the required operational level, combined with readiness to teach the programme;
d2) meta-level of commitment, identifying with the philosophy and the spirit of the programme.
(I would like to stress the utmost importance of d2 for the teaching of science as inquiry and by means of inquiry. D2 is perhaps the single most important determinant of successful classroom implementation of enquiry-oriented curricula.)
Utilization refers to the actual use of the innovation in the classroom. It may be designated also as implementation at the classroom level.
Implementation is the process of putting ideas and materials into practice. I have used this term to describe the entire process, beginning with dissemination and ending with utilization and evaluation. Implementation in its general sense involves two additional processes, namely adoption and adaptation.
Adoption refers to the decision to use a particular innovation. This decision is followed by actual utilization of the materials in the classroom. The utilization may be seen in terms of two modes:
a) fidelity: using a particular innovation in a way which corresponds to the intentions of the developers;b) adaptive: modifying and further developing of the innovation to meet special local needs.
Adaptation is the process of modifying and further developing a programme by those adopting it.2
Thinking about the success of curriculum implementation?
In spite of the widespread documentation stating that the 'new' science curricula failed in their mission to upgrade science learning and to change the conventional textbook-lecture-demonstration approach which prevailed in most science classrooms, there are many examples of successful implementation of curricular innovations in every country. It may be useful to study such successful examples and draw conclusions and implications from their experiences.
At
present Expected in
future I. Format Textbook Module II. Structure Scope and
sequence Core and
options III. Purpose Specialized
education General education IV. Content Theoretical Descriptive/applied V. Approach Innovation Revision VI. Teacher
adaptations Low degree Higher degree VII. Teacher
priorities Subject matter Classroom control VIII. Student
involvement Laboratory Demonstration/deskwork IX. Learning
environment Formal
education Formal/informal X. Related
research Fundamental Developmental/applied
One way to approach this issue is to identify trends. Table 1 presents a list of 10 trends for the US, as suggested by Gardner (1979) at the First Bat-Sheva Seminar. Based on the literature and my own experience, I subsequently identified 10 additional trends related to curriculum development in the mid-1970s. These are (with the Roman numerals continuing Gardner's list):
XI. Time for science, especially in elementary and lower secondary grades, would be limited as a result of a cry for 'back to the basics'. This trend required special consideration of possible interactions between science and language as well as between science and mathematics.XII. Individualization of instruction would be integrated with small-group learning. This would serve to counteract the negative outcomes of programmes solely based on individualized learning. These characteristics would develop and enhance the opportunity to use computers.
XIII. Examinations in science would be changed in order to increase their validity vis-à-vis many important, but inadequately represented curricular objectives.
XIV. Fewer high school students would elect to study physical science (physics and chemistry) and more students would enroll in courses in the life sciences, in both high school and universities.
XV. Science curricula would deal more with the interface between science and society, and would attempt to build in students an image of science more congruent with current conceptions of historians and philosophers of science.
XVI. Developing nations and people of lower SES would continue to view the study of science as a major vehicle for meeting the challenge of living in a rapidly growing technological society.
XVII. Teacher education would become increasingly concentrated in colleges and less in universities. Teachers colleges would become more academic and award baccalaureate degrees. Most teacher education for secondary teachers would be carried out in such colleges.
XVIII. Teacher education would de-emphasize training for specific teaching competencies in favour of more experience in planning curriculum development and adaptation. Teacher education materials, such as those produced in Britain (Science Teacher Education Project, Match Mismatch), Israel (Israel Science Teacher Education Project&endash;STEP), and the US (Iowa UPSTEP), would become more widely used, thereby upgrading the levels of pre- and in-service education.
XIX. The use of computers would increase in all areas of teaching and learning.
XX. Values and ethics would be integrated with the study of science.
Realization of the predicted trends
Twenty-three years have passed since these trends were envisaged by participants in the first Bat Sheva Seminar. It is interesting to think about which trends have been realized. The ways in which the curriculum situation has played itself out in one country (Israel) may serve as a model for countries where curriculum implementation has not been as successful. I will use an example from the Israel High-school Biology Program (IHBP) which I directed from 1968 to 1996, as well as my experiences elsewhere, as the focus of an analysis of the extent to which the trends have actually been realized. This description and analysis relies on my close contact and familiarity with the initiation, implementation, and evaluation of IHBP.
Based on my observations and experiences during the last 25 years, five of these trends have clearly come to pass. Regarding the Format (I) of learning materials, Gardner predicted a shift from textbooks to modules. In the USA it has been customary to use one 'fat' textbook, hard-covered and meant to represent the facts, concepts, and processes of a one-year course. This tradition still prevails in most classrooms using the BSCS (i.e. Biological Sciences Curriculum Project) textbook in the USA. In Israel, we adopted the Yellow version of the BSCS textbooks, An Inquiry into Life. The original text was broken down into eight soft-covered volumes. The first year is devoted to 'Unity', the second year to 'Diversity', and the third to 'Continuity'.
In the beginning of the preparation of the Israeli version of the book, it was assumed that one complete textbook would be produced. However, it turned out that the team that translated and adapted the textbook could not complete the work on time. Hence, while the classes studied 'Unity', the team was working on 'Diversity', and similarly when the classes studied 'Diversity', the team worked on 'Continuity'. In this way, 'Unity' was published in 1965, and 'Continuity' in 1967. Although it had not been intended, it was eventually found that there are certain advantages to the modules over a thick textbook. First, they are easier to carry, especially from home to school. Large texts may prevent students from doing homework and from reading a textbook for their own pleasure. Second, teachers can begin to teach the available topics of a programme, while preparation of the remaining parts continues. And, third, if revision is necessary in one or another topic, there is no need to change and revise other topics. The main disadvantages are that it is easier to look for information in one volume. A second disadvantage is that in some places approval of a textbook requires a book with a hard cover.
With regard to Content (IV), the projected de-emphasis on the theoretical in favour of the descriptive has been true for chemistry, but not for physics and biology. There has been, however, a definite trend in all sciences towards more application.
The projection for Teacher priorities (VII) may be true for the US and other countries which avoid the use of final external examinations. I suspect that even in the US a better description of this category would be:
Subject-matter/skills &endash;> subject matterConcepts/processes &endash;> concepts/facts.
It was predicted that this trend would not occur in countries which had established appropriate support mechanisms for teachers and which were able to influence school transactions by innovative external examinations (see table 2).
Similarly, Gardner's prediction of a trend away from the laboratory (VIII) may have been counteracted by providing teachers with adequate assistance (e.g. laboratory technicians) and including practical laboratory examinations as a routine evaluation procedure. In some countries, i.e. Israel, UK, and Australia, there has been a positive trend of the substitution of part of the indoor laboratory work by outdoor field-work.
As to structure (II), where Gardner predicted a shift from a curriculum with a firm scope and sequence to a core-plus-options framework, we saw the teachers working with the adaptation of BSCS in Israel starting by strictly following the scope and sequence dictated by the textbook. But a major revision took place in 1991 and the new syllabus included 9 basic and extension topics. The teacher had to choose 6 of the 9 basic and two of the extension topics across grades 10, 11, and 12.3
The purpose of biology education up to and including grade 10 has been general education for all students. Biology is offered as a specialized course in grades 11 and 12. Here again, the specific topics are chosen by the teacher and have applied perspectives. However, there has been no trend towards the descriptive instead of the theoretical (IV).
Gardner (1979) also predicted a trend from innovation to revision (V). The IHBP was revised in 1977, in 1991, and again in 2001. (The initiation of the IHBP took place in 1965 with the adaptation of the BSCS programme.) The three revisions related mainly to content, whereas the inquiry approach that was the hallmark of the initial programme has been maintained, and developed further. Teacher adaptation was slow and careful not to deviate from the rationale and the inquiry orientation characterizing the original rationale for IHBP.
As predicted by Gardner (VIII), students' work in the laboratory has often been replaced by demonstrations, either in the classroom or with computers. Demonstration and computers should be used, but not to replace direct laboratory and outdoor experiences.
Up to this point we have discussed the 10 predictions suggested by Gardner. Now I turn to my additional predictions. I explore the extent to which these trends have been realized by the IHBP.
XI. Time for science has not changed. Biology is studied in grade 10 by all students. In grades 11 and 12 students specialize in one of the sciences; those who specialize in biology have 5--6 periods every week.XII. There is no change---some teachers work in small groups, some do not. Individualization takes place as a result of the requirement of an individual research project in ecology.
XIII. There is no need to change; the present assessment procedures are very effective.
XIV. There has been a gradual increase in the number of specialists in biology.
XV. There has been an increasing interest in integrating original biology research articles and promoting outdoor experiment inquiry.
XVI. Biology serves as a vehicle to achieve success and to promote attitudes towards science. This is important since low-SES students tend to have more success in biology while finding chemistry and physics difficult.
XVII. Academic colleges increasingly serve as major suppliers of high school teachers.
XVIII. This change has been taking place for the past 10 years.
XIX. The use of computers is increasing, but not as much as was expected 25 years ago. However, the 'practical', laboratory-based matriculation examination in biology has a task that requires the use of computers in the investigation.
XX. There is an increasing interest in teaching values and ethics dealing with sensitive topics such as genetic engineering, family life, and gender difference.
Curriculum reform and student assessment
We turn now to the characteristics of IHBP. IHBP has a reputation as a curriculum rich in investigations in the laboratory as well as outdoors (e.g. Doran et al. 1994). The major determinant of the extent to which laboratories have been used has been the heavy weight given to the 'practical mode' in the biology matriculation examination, which is a high-stakes test.
One of my major conclusions from this experience with IHBP is that there is a need to match the assessment of goals and experiences. Fseveral decades, assessment has acted as a barrier to many innovations. There are at least two major reasons for this. First, teachers and students work towards success in tests; innovations that compete with tests are bound to fail. Second, tests that do not match an innovation fail to reveal the impact of the innovation. The commonly heard statement that the 'new' curricula of the 1960s failed to achieve their goals is based on results from paper-and-pencil multiple-choice questions that favoured rote learning and memorization and, consequently, could reveal gains in higher-order thinking.4
Ideally, an assessment programme should reflect the goals and experiences of the curriculum to such an extent that when students work towards the tests, they will be doing what they are intended to do in their school studies. Israeli high school students, for example, who specialize in biology are assessed on their graduation from school by a series of external examinations as well as by their teachers. Their final grade is the mean of the two grades, namely the school's final and the matriculation examinations. Table 2 outlines the assessment programme: work towards the various components of the assessment programme is likely to result in an in-depth, comprehensive and balanced operational curriculum.
Table 2. Assessment components for high school students in Israel who specialize in biology.
Teacher-made
tests Paper-and-pencil Grade
points Homework 30-items:
multiple-choice 30 Participation in
class 3 items: multiple-choice
with justifications 6 Individual ecological
project 3 data-based and/or
essay 39 Other 1 unseen passage of
research to be analyzed with planning for a next
step 25 Total 100 Practical Planning and carrying out
an investigation in the laboratory 50 Oral examination on
individual ecological project 38 Identifying unknown plant
with a dichotomous key 12 Total 100
My conclusions from this analysis are that:
• There is a need to adjust science programmes to different kinds of students, often in the same classroom.• The renewed emphasis on 'back to the basics' requires that science courses give adequate consideration to language and mathematics. The potential contribution of science to the development of language and mathematics skills should be explored, and the findings implemented in practice.
• The realization that teachers are the key to successful curriculum implementation requires the design and implementation of adequate teacher-training materials and strategies, as well as the promotion of research aiming at identifying the important variables in this area and the effective ways to deal with them.
• Curriculum implementation needs adequate organizational facilities operating in units which promote proximity, linkage, and synergy. Such facilities, which should be built around on high level of co-operation and involvement of teachers, should be created.
• Innovative and non-routine approaches to students and curriculum evaluation are needed to counteract the dominance of standardized and similar tests. Such new tests would provide more valid evidence of achievement in science, would contribute directly to the quality of science teaching, and would help in maintaining standards and ascertaining scientific literacy.
• The need to emphasize the value of science for general education and to highlight the social and cultural aspects of science requires revisions and reorganization of materials and programmes. In this context it is important to give adequate consideration to the potential contribution of the history and philosophy of science to science teaching.
• Laboratory and field-work have always been problematic. Ways and means to utilize these two important components of science education to their full potential have to be explored and implemented.
• Better mechanisms for communication among researchers and curriculum developers from different countries who work in science education and related areas should be established. Pooling of diverse experiences may offer better solutions to certain problems.
It is interesting to apply Havelock's (1971) factors to an analysis of IHBP.
Factors associated with curriculum implementation
Various delivery systems, i.e. channels, are used to transfer knowledge. The typical channels in the implementation of science curricula included, in the 1960s and 1970s---and I add today---workshops, pre-service teacher training, summer institutes, textbooks, publishers' brochures, graduate school courses, and professional conferences (Welch 1979). Havelock (1971) identified 7 factors pertaining to users which may serve as facilitators, or barriers, to the effectiveness of such chanels in implementation of innovations:5
• Linkage: collaboration with other users and resources.• Structure: systematic planning; effective execution and organization.
• Openness: desire to change; willingness to be helped by outside resources.
• Capacity: ability to assemble and activate internal resources.
• Reward: perceived relative advantage and utility.
• Proximity: closeness and ready access to resources and other users.
• Synergy: repeated inputs from a variety of resources.
What do such sources of facilitation and limitation mean as we assess curriculum implementation in Israel?
Using Havelock's (1971) factors, we may observe that since Israel is a small country with excellent communication facilities, high levels of linkage and proximity were easily achieved. Many science teachers in the early 1960s were dissatisfied with existing programmes which lagged far behind progress in other fields such as science, agriculture, and technology. Many of these teachers possessed a high level of openness and a great desire for change. When new programmes were tried on a small scale by a few teachers, there have always been many others attempting to obtain information and get access to the new materials.
Proximity and linkage were important in this process. When the three user-features of openness, proximity, and linkage were combined with the efficient educational system developed by the Israel Science Teaching Center in collaboration with various departments in the Ministry of Education (i.e. synergy), implementation was achieved. Continuous support to teachers by way of in-service courses, direct help and guidance in schools, organized supplies for laboratory work free of charge, special examinations for new programmes---all these, when handled by enthusiastic and effective leaders, resulted in successful implementation.
What do we mean by 'successful'? In my opinion a programme that is welcomed and actually used in the classroom, is attractive to students and teachers, and exhibits the real nature of science as well as STS (Science, Technology and Society) may be regarded as successful. Based on this Israeli experience as well as experience of other places in which implementation has been successful, i.e. Australia, Thailand, as well as experience in places which have less successful, I would propose the following:
• The unit of implementation should not be too large. Countries like the U.S., Britain, or Mexico would benefit by organizing their dissemination activities in manageable units such as states (e.g. Delaware) or districts (e.g. Los Angeles) in order to optimize factors such as proximity, linkage, and synergy.• Implementation should be regarded as an integral part of the curriculum development process. Thus, the establishment of curriculum centres or similar units, such as teacher centres which can provide training, guidance, supplies and assistance on a long-term, continuous basis, is highly desirable.
• Often adaptation of existing programmes and materials may save time and money and enhance the implementation of desirable changes.
The following factors have proved to exert decisive effects on the success of implementation of innovative curricula:
• The personality of leaders and interpersonal relations among the different agents involved in the process.
• Effective evaluation which provides feedback on a continuous basis.
• The congruence and compatibility of external examinations (such as matriculation examinations or entry examinations to universities) with objectives and experiences of the innovative programmes.
• Maintaining a high level of prestige and recognition to the programme and the teachers who use it.
• Ascertaining that students who study the new programmes will not be at any disadvantage compared with students of conventional programmes regarding transfer from one school to another, promotion from lower to higher grade-levels, admission to universities, success in studies in universities, competing for jobs.
• Ascertaining that teachers get some reward, such as recognition, support, satisfaction, and better salaries.
• Educating and guiding teachers in curriculum implementation by involving them in a variety of activities that characterize the work of curriculum developers.
• Designing curricula in ways which allow for flexible, adaptive utilization by teachers with different orientations, different preferences and a variety of students.
The following ways to improve the quality of science education through new curricula emerge from these reflections:
• Prepare teachers for selecting and adapting materials from different available resources.• Design teachers' guides which direct teachers to available high-quality resources which may be used for designing local programmes. Special attention must be paid to the use of computers.
• Establish curriculum implementation centres or utilizing existing teacher centres as places for curriculum development and implementation.
• Help universities and colleges in designing and implementing teacher education programmes which meet the needs of the present better than most existing programmes.
• Establish mechanisms for continuous long-term in-service education and support for science teachers interested in upgrading their teaching and in implementing new curricula as well as other innovations.
• Promote research on curriculum implementation and on various aspects of teachers' behaviour which may have implications for curriculum development and implementation.
• Apply findings of evaluation studies in modifying and developing curricula in a way that will improve their quality.
• Promote international co-operation in research, development and evaluation of curriculum.
X in Gardner's list predicted a shift from fundamental to applied research. But there is, and continues to be, a need for both theory and practice. One may predict, however, that research designs and modes of research will continue to depart from the dominance of psychological approaches and methods into a search for more fruitful qualitative research strategies. Shulman's (1979) plea for research with practising teachers in order to learn from the practitioner's wisdom is one example for urgently needed fundamental research. There will be fewer studies related to Piaget or Gagné and more studies related to curriculum development, curriculum implementation, concept learning, planning of teaching, the relationship between learning and evaluation, the transition from one stage of education (i.e. high school) to a later stage (i.e. college and university) and the potential contribution of science programmes for general education. These are all fundamental questions which require fundamental research.
Let me conclude with a reflection on science education in Israel to make the topical shift transparent. Israel has been conceived by many as an example of a country which, along with some unavoidable failures, may be credited with some examples of successful curriculum implementation on a national scale. What have been the major factors which contributed to this success? Different answers to this question may be given by different people. My own version is given below:
Israel is a new country, serving as a melting pot for Jews from all over the world. It faces enormous problems---social, cultural, and political. It is determined to pool together all its resources and use any known technological and scientific developments to help in its progress. Thus, it may be characterized by a high level of openness to innovation and unusual readiness to experiment with new ideas in many areas of life. Well-known examples are the tremendous progress made in agriculture and the innovative social structure known as the kibbutz. This general readiness for innovations has certainly influenced the entire educational system. The Ministry of Education has not only welcomed innovative ideas but it has initiated and promoted such ideas and helped to implement them in schools. Lacking long-established traditions in science education, both curriculum developers and teachers have been ready to learn from experiences of other countries and consequently welcomed adaptations of programmes from abroad, thereby greatly facilitating the process of change in the teaching of science.
Final comment
The reform of the 1960s has succeeded in shaking up science education. They stimulated unprecedented dialogue among science educators, and to set the stage for real changes in the teaching of science in school. If many of the expectations have not been fully fulfilled, the reasons lie in part in the naïveté of the enthusiasts of the 1960s who failed to comprehend the complexity and difficulty of the task they had undertaken; and in part in the failure to fully conceptualize the critical role of implementation, namely dissemination, teacher education and monitoring, and supporting utilization at the classroom level. If we continue the efforts to learn from our past experiences, implement adequate strategies and promote the necessary research, the quality of science teaching and its contribution to general education, literacy and progress, can be significantly enhanced.
1. The conference was supported by the Bat Sheva Foundation and is referred to here as the First Bat Sheva Seminar. Of the 71 presenters, 30 were Israeli while the remaining 41 were from other countries, as follows: USA--15; UK--14; Canada--5; Germany--4; Australia--3.The presentations were classified under seven categories:
1. Conceptualization;2. Instructional materials and the learner;
3. Curriculum instruction and the teacher;
4. Implementation and the social context;
5. Adaptation and implementation;
6. Case studies; and
7. Evaluation of curriculum implementation.
The presentations are included in Tamir et al. (1979).
2. Adaptation has been carried out on a much larger scale when programmes developed in one country are adopted and modified for use in other countries. As a rule, direct adoption of programmes from one country to another has not been successful.
No one best answer can be provided regarding the superiority of the fidelity or the adaptive mode at the classroom level. It may be useful to look upon these modes as extremes of a continuum. It is up to the classroom teacher to decide which point on this continuum will best meet his or her particular needs and preferences. As a rule, beginning and less experienced teachers may profit by using a high level of fidelity. More experience is generally associated with a higher level of success in employing modifications.
3. In a recent study, it was found that teachers were consistent in choosing the topics they teach. For example, the three most popular topics chosen by 73% of the teachers were ecology, the cell, and the blood-transportation system. The two least popular topics were evolution and regulation (Agrest and Tamir 2002).
4. Finally, quite often the implementation of innovations has not been actualized even when the class was using the 'new' text. In these cases the teachers continued to teach in their traditional manner with the new text. Consequently, the intended opportunities to learn have not taken place. Under these circumstances no wonder that the intended has not been attained.
5. Havelock's model has been used in the development of a model implementation system in Israel (Eden 1979), in the development of a curriculum adaptation scheme (Blum 1979), and as a basis for designing an instrument for estimating the degree of receptiveness of teachers to curriculum innovations. This instrument, the Curriculum Attitude Survey (CAS) was described by Welch (1979).
Agrest, B. and Tamir, P (2002) A curriculum that has no compulsory topics---all is open to choice (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center).Blum, A. (1979) Adaptations in curriculum implementation. In P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, and N. Sabar (eds), Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to Curriculum Development in Science (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center), 285--294.
Doran, R. L., Laurenz, F., and Helgeson, S. (1994) Research on assessment in science. In D. Gabel (ed.), Handbook of Research in Science Learning and Teaching (New York: Macmillan), 388--442.
Eden, S. (1979) Curriculum implementation---retrospect and prospect. In P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, and N. Sabar (eds), Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to Curriculum Development in Science (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center), 449--460.
Fullan, M. and Pomfret, A. (1977) Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47 (2): 335--397.
Gardner, M. (1979) Trends in development of science curriculum in the US. In P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, and N. Sabar (eds), Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to Curriculum Development in Science (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center), 271--275.
Havelock, R. G. (1971) Planning of Innovation Through Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge (Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Research on Utilization of Scientific Knowledge, University of Michigan).
Schwab, J. J. (1963) The Biology Teachers Handbook (New York: Wiley).
Shulman, L. S. (1979) Research on teaching: the missing link in curriculum implementation. In P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, and N. Sabar (eds), Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to Curriculum Development in Science (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center), 77--84.
Tamir, P. (1972) The practical mode---a distinct mode of performance in biology. Journal of Biological Education, 6 (3), 175--182.
Tamir, P. (1975) Nurturing the practical mode in schools. School Review, 83 (3), 499--506.
Welch, W. W. (1979) Measuring teacher attitude towards innovation in the evaluation of implementation. In P. Tamir, A. Blum, A. Hofstein, and N. Sabar (eds), Curriculum Implementation and its Relationship to Curriculum Development in Science (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel Science Teaching Center), 389--396.
| Other Op-eds and
Commentary