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 support@jstor.org.

.

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