Comment: Methodological concerns about AAAS's Project 2061 study of science textbooks

Abstract

Journal of Research in Science TeachingVolume 40, Issue 5 p. 529-534 Comments & CriticismFree Access Comment: Methodological concerns about AAAS's Project 2061 study of science textbooks William G. Holliday, Corresponding Author William G. Holliday [email protected] Science Teaching Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742Science Teaching Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.Search for more papers by this author William G. Holliday, Corresponding Author William G. Holliday [email protected] Science Teaching Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742Science Teaching Center, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742.Search for more papers by this author First published: 17 April 2003 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10094Citations: 8AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. New York: Oxford University Press. AAAS. (1999, Fall). Heavy texts: Light on learning. 2061 Today, 9, 1, 3. AAAS. (2001, Spring/Summer). Collaborating to create better texts: Project 2061 host conference on science textbooks. 2061 Today, 11, 3, 5. Downey, M.T. & Levstik, L. S. (1991). Teaching and learning history. In J.P. Shaver (Ed.), Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning: A project of the National Council for the Social Studies (pp. 400– 410). New York: Macmillan. Editorial. (1989, February 28). Still no beef. The Washington Post, A22. Hilts, P.J. (1989, February 24). Science-study reform sought; Aim is to broaden all students' skills. The Washington Post, A1, A6. Kesidou, S. & Roseman, J.E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522– 549. Kulm, G. (1999). Evaluating mathematics textbooks. Basic Education, 43, 6– 8. National Research Council. (1990). Fulfilling the promise: Biology education in the nation's schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1999, December). Project 2061 rates middle level science texts. NSTA Reports, 11, 1, 6– 7, 15. Nelson, G. (2001). Biology teachers deserve better textbooks. American Biology Teacher, 63, 146– 147. Roseman, J.E., Kesidou, S., Stern, L., & Caldwell, S. (n.d.). Heavy books: Light on learning: AAAS Project 2061 evaluates middles grades science textbooks. AAAS website. (http://www.project2061.org/newsinfo/research/textbook/articles/heavy.htm) Stern, L. & Ahlgren, A. (2002) Analysis of students' assessments in middle school curriculum materials: Aiming precisely at Benchmarks and Standards . Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 889– 910. Stern, L. & Roseman, J.E. (2001, October). Textbook alignment. The Science Teacher, 68, 52– 56. Weiss, I.R. (2001). Report of the 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Citing Literature Volume40, Issue5May 2003Pages 529-534 ReferencesRelatedInformation