Why TeacherGeek - References

The following are references for the Why TeacherGeek page:

 

  • Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, (4), 963-970.
  • Bass, K. M., Yumol, D., & Hazer, J. (2011). The effect of RAFT hands-on activities on student learning, engagement, and 21st century skills. RAFT Student Impact Study. Rockman et al: San Francisco. http://www.raft.net/public/pdfs/Rockman-RAFT-Report.pdf
  • Benbow, C. P. (2012). Identifying and nurturing future innovators in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: A review of findings from the study of mathematically precocious youth. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 16-25.
  • Bredderman, T. (1983). Effects of activity-based elementary science on student outcomes: A qualitative synthesis. Review of Educational Research. 53 (4), 499-518.
  • Casner-Lotto, J. & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21st century U.S. workforce. The Conference Board, Inc., the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, Corporate Voices for Working Families, and the Society for Human Resources Management http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09-29-06.pdf
  • Charyton, C.,  Jagacinski, R.J. & Merrill, J.A.  (2008). CEDA:  A research instrument for creative engineering design assessment. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2(3), 147-154.
  • Fredricks, J., McColskey, W., Meli, J., Montrosse, B., Mordica, J. & Mooney, K. (2011).  Measuring student engagement in upper elementary through high school: A description of 21 instruments. United States Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education Laboratory Southeast. http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/eric/eric-toc.htm
  • Haury, D. L. & Rillero, P. (1994). Perspectives on hands-on science teaching.  Pathways to School Improvement. The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education, Columbus, OH http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/content/cntareas/science/eric/eric-toc.htm
  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review. 16 (3), 235-266 
  • Jackson, J & Ash, G. (2012). Science achievement for all: Improving science performance and closing achievement gaps. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23 (7), 723-277.
  • Kaufman, J.C., & and Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m creative–but not in mathematics! Self-reported creativity in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts 22, 143-155.
  • Minner, D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction—what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis, 1984 to 2002. J. of Res. In Sci. Teaching, 47 (4), 474-496.
  • Lara-Alecio,  R., Tong, H., Irby, B. Guerrero, C, Huerta, M, & Fan, Y. (2012). The effect of an instructional intervention on middle school English learners’ science and English reading achievement. J. of Res. In Sci. Teaching, 49, 8, 978-1011.
  • Robertson, K. F., Smeets, S., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2010). Beyond the threshold hypothesis: Even among the gifted and top math/science graduate students, cognitive abilities, vocational, and lifestyle preferences matter for career choice, performance, and persistence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3-6.
  • Schoerning, E. & Hand, B. (2013). Using language positively. Science and Children, Summer, 42-45.
  • Scott, R. K. (1995). Creative employees: A challenge to managers. Journal of Creative Behavior, (29), 64-71.
  • Small, M. Y. & Morton, M. E. (1983). Research in college science teaching: Spatial visualization training improves performance in organic chemistry. Journal of College Science Teaching, 13, 41-43.
  • Strobel, J., Wang, J., Weber, N., Dyehouse, M. (2013).  The role of authenticity in design-based learning environments: The case of Engineering Education. Computers & Education 64, 143-152
  • Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. J. of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835.
  • West, R. E. & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Learning to design collaboratively: Participation of student designers in a community of innovation. Instructional Science 39, 821-841.