Bold Ventures pp 395-518 | Cite as

Science, Technology, and Story

Implementing the Voyage of the Mimi
  • Sally H. Middlebrooks
  • Michael Huberman
  • James W. Karlan

Abstract

For several years, educators in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have aimed to stimulate and improve work in science, mathematics, and technology. In the American context, an area of special interest has been the middle school curriculum (grades 5–8). Promising projects have been designed, field tested, and carried out—unfortunately, however, usually leaving few tracks for us to study closely in their wake. Although some of these projects are still in operation, the memory of their adoption and the keys to explain the success of some and the demise of others are missing.

Keywords

Middle School Science Teacher Science Curriculum Field Trip Sixth Grade 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berman, P., et al. 1975–77. Federal programs supporting educational change. 8 vols. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Google Scholar
  2. Brophy, J., and J. Alleman. 1991. Activities as instructional tools: A framework for analysis and evaluation. Educational Researcher 20(4): 9–23.Google Scholar
  3. Bussis, A. M., E. A. Chittenden, and M. Amarel. 1976. Beyond surface curriculum. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  4. Char, C, J. Hawkins, J. Wootten, K. Sheingold, and T. Roberts. 1983. Voyage of the Mimi: Classroom case studies of software, video, and print materials. Phase 1. New York: Bank Street College of Education. Google Scholar
  5. Char, C, and J. Hawkins. 1987. Charting the course: Involving teachers in the formative research and design of the Voyage of the Mimi. In Mirrors of minds: Patterns of experience in educational computing, ed. R. D. Pea and K. Sheingold, 211–22. Paper from the Center for Children and Technology, Bank Street College. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Google Scholar
  6. Cohn, M. and R. Kottcamp. 1993. Teachers: The Missing Voice in Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Crandall, D., et al. 1983. People, politics and practices: Examining the chain of school improvement. 10 vols. Andover, MA: The Network. Google Scholar
  8. Cuban, L. 1986. Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fullan, M. 1991. The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fullan, M. 1993. Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA:Falmer Press. Google Scholar
  11. Gibbon, S. 1985. The Voyage of the Mimi: Overview Guide. Scotts Valley, California: Wings for Learning, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Gibbon, S. 1989. The second Voyage of the Mimi: Overview Guide. Scotts Valley, California:Wings for Learning, Inc. Google Scholar
  13. Hall, G., and W Rutherford. 1976. Concerns of teachers about implementing team teaching. Educational Leadership 34(3): 227–33.Google Scholar
  14. Hall, G., and S. Loucks. 1977. A developmental model for determining whether the treatment is actually implemented. American Educational Research Journal 14(3): 263–76.Google Scholar
  15. Hall, G., S. Loucks, W. Rutherford, and B. Newlove. 1975. Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. Journal of Teacher Education 26(1): 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Havelock, R. 1969. Planning for innovation through dissemination and utilization of knowledge. Ann Arbor: CRUSK, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  17. Heaton, R., and M. Lampert. 1993. Learning to hear voices. In Teaching for understanding, ed. D. Cohen, M. McLaughlin, and J. Talbert, 43–83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  18. Huberman, M., and M. Miles. 1984. Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  19. King, G., R. Keiohane, and Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Louis, K.S., and M. Miles. 1990. Improving the urban high school: What works and why. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Louis, K.S., and S. Rosenblum. 1981. Linking R&D with schools: A program and its implications for dissemination and school improvement policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, L., et al. 1985. Interim report, mathematics, science and technology teacher project, Phase I: Evaluation of training. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Google Scholar
  23. Martin, L., et al. 1985. Progress report, Bank Street College of Education mathematics, science and technology teacher project. New York: Bank Street College of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Martin, L., J. Hawkins, S. Gibbon, and R. McCarthy. 1988. Integrating information technologies into instruction: The Voyage of the Mimi. 1988 AETS Yearbook: Information Technology and Science Education, 173–86. Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science: Mathematics and Environmental Education, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  25. Miles, M., and M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Pintrich, P. R., R. W. Marx., and R. A. Boyle. 1993. Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research 63(2): 167–99.Google Scholar
  27. Ragin, C. 1987. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, E. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  30. Yin, R., et al. 1978. The routinization of innovations. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sally H. Middlebrooks
    • 1
  • Michael Huberman
    • 1
  • James W. Karlan
    • 1
  1. 1.National Center for Improving Science EducationHarvard UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations