Special Issue - (2016)
Special Issue - (2015)
Special Issue - (2012)
Losing the Lake: Simulations to Promote Gains in Student Knowledge and Interest about Climate Change
E. Michael Nussbaum, Marissa C. Owens, Gale M. Sinatra, Abeera P. Rehmat, Jacqueline R. Cordova, Sajjad Ahmad, Fred C. Harris, Jr. & Sergiu M. Dascalu
pp. 789-811 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.277a | Article Number: ijese.2015.031
Climate change literacy plays a key role in promoting sound political decisions and promoting sustainable consumption patterns. Based on evidence suggesting that student understanding and interest in climate change is best accomplished through studying local effects, we developed a simulation/game exploring the impact of climate change on the declining water levels in Lake Mead. Because there are few evaluations of educational games using true control groups, this study also presents a randomized field trial evaluating the game. We randomly assigned 119 seventh graders to either a game-based condition or control condition. Students in the experimental group played Losing the Lake; those in the control group viewed an earth science website. Students also completed pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest measures of their content understanding and interest in issues embodied in the game. We found that playing the game resulted in a significant increase in content knowledge, as measured by a 22-item assessment, especially on items related to household conservation and some basic concepts related to the greenhouse effect. The control group showed no effect. Playing the game also resulted in some increase in student interest. The Losing the Lake game illustrates how use of a water theme can be used to make climate change content more meaningful and relevant to students. Furthermore, the study shows, through a randomized control trial, that educational games can result in conceptual development, specifically on water flow (i.e., where drinking water comes from and where it goes once used), water conservation, and the difference between weather and climate. The Losing the Lake game can therefore be useful educationally in various locales as a case study in the nature of drought, climate change effects, and water conservation practices.
Keywords: simulations, sustainability, climate change education, water resource management, educational game
Anderson, A. (2012). Climate change education for mitigation and adaptation. Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 6, 191-206. doi:10.1177/0973408212475199
Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2009). An atom is known by the company it keeps: A constructionist learning environment for materials science using agent-based modeling. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 14(2), 81-119. doi:10.1007/s10758-009-9148-8f
Carrier, C., Kalra, A., & Ahmad, S. (2013). Using paleo reconstructions to improve streamflow forecast lead time in the western United States. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 49(6), 1351-1366. doi:10.1111/jawr.12088
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dawadi, S., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: implications for water resources management. Journal of Hydrology, 430, 127-141. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.02.010
Dawadi, S., & Ahmad, S. (2013). Evaluating the impact of demand-side management on water resources under changing climatic conditions and increasing population. Journal of Environmental Management, 114, 261-275. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.015
Duan, H., & Fortner, R. (2005). Chinese college students’ perceptions about global versus local environmental issues. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 23-58. doi:10.3200/JOEE.36.4.23-58
Forsee, W. J., & Ahmad, S. (2011). Evaluating urban storm-water infrastructure design in response to projected climate change. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 16(11), 865-873. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000383
Gowda, M. V. R., Fox, J. C., & Magelky, R. D. (1997). Students’ understanding of climate change: insights for scientists and educators. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, 2232–2240.
Holt Science and Technology (2006). Earth science. Austin, Texas: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. A contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. R. K. Pachauri, A. Reisinger, and the Core Writing Teams (Eds.). Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
Honey, M. A., & Hilton, M. (2012). Learning science through computer games and simulations. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Kalra, A., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Estimating annual precipitation for the Colorado River Basin using oceanic‐atmospheric oscillations. Water Resources Research, 48(6). doi:10.1029/2011WR010667
Kearney, M., Treagust, D. F., Yeo, S., & Zadnik, M. G. (2001). Student and teacher perceptions of the use of multimedia supported predict–observe– explain tasks to probe understanding. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 589-615. Retrieved from http://www.primaryaccess.org/community/IES%20Science%20Visualization/Visualization%20Articles/RKearneyTreagustYeoZadnik2001.pdf
Lombardi, D., & Sinatra, G. M. (2012). College students’ perceptions about the plausibility of human-induced climate change. Research in Science Education, 42, 201–217. doi:10.1007/s11165-010-9196-z
Messaris, P. (1997). Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. New York: Sage.
Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Watkins Jr, D., & Ahmad, S. (2012). Synthesis of system dynamics tools for holistic conceptualization of water resources problems. Water Resources Management, 26(9), 2421-2442. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11269-012-0024-2#page-1
Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21, 103-109. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
Moser, S. C., & Diller, L. (Eds.) (2007). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. New York: Cambridge University Press.
National Research Council (2011). Climate change education: Goals, audiences, and strategies. A workshop summary. S. Forrest & M. A. Felder, Rapporteurs. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (2012). Climate change education in formal settings, k-14: A workshop summary. A. Beatty, Rapporteur. Steering Committee on Climate Change Education in Formal Settings, K-14. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Niepold, F. D., Herring, D., & McConville, D. (2008). The role of narrative and geospatial communications visualization in fostering climate literate citizens. Physical Geography, 29(6), 529-544. doi:10.2747/0272-3618.104.22.1689
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., Cordova, J., Owens, M. C., & Rehmat, A. P. (2012). Losing the Lake: A simulation guide on Lake Mead, water resources, and climate change. Facilitator’s guide. University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Retrieved from http://22.214.171.124/Static/Documents/Education/Losing%20the%20Lake/LTLFacilitationGuide.pdf
Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M., & Owens, M. C. (2012). The two faces of scientific argumentation: Applications to global climate change. In D. Zeidler (Series Ed.), Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, M. Khine (Ed.),Perspectives on scientific argumentation: Theory, practice and research (pp. 17-37). The Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2470-9_2
O’Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). “Fear won’t do it.” Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Science Communication, 30(3), 355-379. doi:10.1177/1075547008329201
Owens, M. C, Rehmat, A. P., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2013, March). Implementing Losing the Lake in the K-5 science curricula. Poster session presented at the workshop Climate change science for effective resource management and public policy in the Western United States. EPSCoR, NV: Las Vegas, NV.
Papadimitriou, V. (2004). Prospective primary teachers’ understanding of climate change, greenhouse effect, and ozone layer depletion. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 299-307. doi:10.1023/B:JOST.0000031268.72848.6d
Plass, J. L., Milne, C., Homer, B. D., Schwartz, R. N., Hayward, E. O., Jordan, T.,…Barrientos, J. (2012). Investigating the effectiveness of computer simulations for chemistry learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 394 – 419. doi:10.1002/tea.21008
Reckien, D., & Eisenack, K. (2013). Climate change gaming on board and screen: A review. Simulations & Gaming, 44(2-3), 253-271. doi:10.1177/1046878113480867
Sagarika S., Kalra A., & Ahmad S., (2014). Evaluating the effect of persistence on long-term trends and analyzing step changes in streamflows of the continental United States, Journal of Hydrology, 517:36-53. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.002
Shepardson, D. P., Roychoudhury, A., Hirsch, A, Niyogi, D., & Top, S. M. (2014). When the atmosphere warms it rains and ice melts: Seventh grade students’ conceptions of a climate system. Environmental Education Research, 20(3), 333-353. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.803037
Sinatra, G. M., Kardash, C. M., Taasoobshirazi, G., & Lombardi, D. (2011). Promoting attitude change and expressed willingness to take action toward climate change in college students. Instructional Science, 40, 1-17. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9166-5
Songer, N. B. (2007). Digital resources versus cognitive tools: A discussion of learning science with technology. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 471 –491). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
Sterman, J., Fiddaman, T., Franck, T., Jones, A., McCauley, S., Rice, P.,…Siegel, L. (2012). Climate interactive: the C-ROADS climate policy model. System Dynamics Review, 28(3), 295-305. doi:10.1002/sdr.1474
Valkering, P., Van der Brugge, R., Offermans, A., Haasnoot, M., & Vreugdenhil, H. (2012). A perspective-based simulation game to explore future pathways of a water-society system under climate change. Simulation & Gaming, 44(2-3), 366-390. doi:10.1177/1046878112441693
Vesco, J. M., Gilgen, K., Paine, A., Owens, M., Nussbaum, E. M., Sinatra, G. M.,…Harris, F. C., Jr. (2012). Losing the Lake: Development and deployment of an educational game. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computers and Their Applications (pp. 101-107). Las Vegas, NV: ISCA. Retrieved from http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1123&context=fac_articles
Wise, S. (2010). Climate change in the classroom: Patterns, motivations and barriers to instruction among Colorado science teachers. Journal of Geoscience Education, 58(5), 297-309. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5408/1.3559695
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
The Analysis of High School Students’ Conceptions of Learning in Different Domains
pp. 813-827 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.278a | Article Number: ijese.2015.032
The purpose of this study is to investigate whether or not conceptions of learning diverge in different science domains by identifying high school students’ conceptions of learning in physics, chemistry and biology. The Conceptions of Learning Science (COLS) questionnaire was adapted for physics (Conceptions of Learning Physics, COLP), chemistry (Conceptions of Learning Chemistry, COLC) and biology (Conceptions of Learning Biology, COLB) firstly and they were separately administered to 361 high school students at the same time. The factor structures of each questionnaire were also analyzed by exploratory factor analysis. The differences between students’ conceptions of learning in each questionnaire factors of all three domains were analyzed with paired-samples t-test. The results indicated differences in high school students’ conceptions of learning physics, chemistry and biology which were identified for all seven factors except application. In general sense, it was found that students preferred higher-level conceptions of learning biology more when compared with physics and chemistry domains. Possible implications about how students prefer to view learning from a higher-level perspective rather than a lower-level perspective, especially the ones with a high mean score in physics and chemistry (such as memorizing, preparing for exam and calculating and practicing) are discussed.
Keywords: conceptions of learning, domain difference, culture, science domain, high school students
Asikainen, H., Virtanen, V., Parpala, A. & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2013). Understanding bioscience students' conceptions of learning in the 21th century. International Journal of Educational Research, 62, 36-427.
Bahcivan, E. & Kapucu, S. (2014). Turkish pre-service elementary science teachers’ conceptions of learning science and science teaching efficacy belief: Is there a relationship? International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(4), 429 4
Brooks, D. C. (2010). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42 (5), 719-726.
Buehl, M.M., & Alexander, P.A. (2001). Beliefs about academic knowledge. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 325-351.
Burnett, P. C., Pillay, H., & Dart, B. C. (2003). The influences of conceptions of learning and learner self-concept on high school students’ approaches to learning. School Psychology International, 24, 54–66.
Büyüköztürk, S. (2011). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı: İstatistik, araştırma deseni, SPSS uygulamaları ve yorum.[Manual data analysis for the social sciences: statistics, research design, SPSS application and interpretation]. Ankara, Pegem.
Cano, F. (2005). Epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning: Their change through secondary school and their influence on academic performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 203. doi: 10.1348/000709904X22683.
Chen, J. A.& Pajares, F. (2010). Implicit theories of ability of grade 6 science students: Relation to epistemological beliefs and academic motivation and achievement in science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(1), 75-87.
Chin, C., & Brown, D.E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface Approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 109–138.
Chiou, G-L., Lee, M-H. & Tsai, C-C. (2013). High school students’ approaches to learning physics with relationship to epistemic views on physics and conceptions of learning physics, Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(1), 1-15, doi: 10.1080/02635143.2013.794134.
Chiou, G-L., Liang, J-C. & Tsai, C-C., (2012). Undergraduate students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning biology: A study of their structural models and gender differences. International Journal of Science Education, 34(2), 167–195. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.558131.
Cokluk, Ö., Sekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, S. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik. tek ve çok değişkenli dağılımlar için sayıltıların analizi, lojistik regresyon analizi, diskriminant regresyon analizi, küme analizi, açımlayıcı faktör analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, yol analizi.[Multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Univariate and multivariate analysis of assumptions for distributions, logistic regression analysis, discriminant regression analysis, cluster analysis, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, path analysis]. Ankara, Pegem.
Dart, B. C., Burneet,P.C., Purdie, N., Boulton-Lewis,G., J. Campbell,J., & Smith,D. (2000). Students’ conceptions of learning, the classroom environment and approaches to learning. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 262–270.
Demir, R. ,Öztürk, N., & Dökme, İ. (2012). Investigation of 7th grade primary school students’ motivation towards science and technology course in terms of some variables. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University Journal of Education Faculty, 23, 1 - 2
Dikmenli, M., & Cardak, O. (2010). A study on biology student teachers’ conceptions of learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 933–937. doi: 10.1080/09500690701191425.
Duarte, A.M. (2007). Conceptions of learning and approaches to learning in Portuguese students. Higher Education, 54, 781-794.
Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Eklund-Myrskog, G. (1998). Students’ conceptions of learning in different educational contexts. Higher Education, 35 (3): 299–316. doi:10.1023/A:1003145613005.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for windows: Advanced techniques for the beginner. London: Sage.
Garnett, P., Garnett, P. & Hackling, M. (1995). Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 25, 69-95.
Hançer, A.H., Uludağ, N., &Yılmaz, A. (2007). The evaluation of the attitudes of science teacher candidates towards chemistry lesson. Hacettepe University Education Faculty Journal, 32, 100-109.
Hegarty-Hazel, E., & Prosser, M. (1991). Relationship between students‟ conceptual knowledge and study strategies. Part 1: Student learning in physics. International Journal of Science Education, 13, 303-312.
Henning, M. A., & Shulruf, B. (2011). Academic achievement: Changes in motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning strategies over time. Psychologia, 54 (3), 135-144.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
Karasar, N. (1999). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi Kavramlar,Teknikler,İlkeler [Research Methods Concepts, Techniques, Principles] Ankara, Nobel.
Kember, D., Biggs, J., & Leung, D. Y. P. (2004). Examining the multidimensionality of approaches to learning through the development of a revised version of the Learning Process Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74,261-280.
Lee, M-H., Johanson, R. E., & Tsai, C-C. (2008). Exploring Taiwanese high school students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning science through a structural equation modeling analysis. Science Education, 92(2), 191–220. doi: 10.1002/sce.20245.
Li, J. (2001). Chinese conceptualization of learning. Ethos, 29, 111–137. doi:10.1525/ eth.2001.29.2.111.
Li, J. (2003). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 258–267. doi:10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.1998.
Li, J., & Chun, C.K. (2012). Effects of learning strategies on student reading literacy performance. The Reading Matrix,12(1), 30-38.
Li, W. T., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). Relational analysis of college chemistry- major students’ conceptions of and approaches to learning chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 555–565. doi:10.1039/c3rp00034f.
Liang, J-C. & Tsai, C-C. (2010). Relational analysis of college science‐major students’ epistemological beliefs toward science and conceptions of learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2273-2289.
Lin, T.C., Liang, J.C., & Tsai. C-C. (2015). Conceptions of memorizing and understanding in learning, and self-efficacy held by university biology majors. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3), 446-468, doi: 10.1080/09500693.2014.992057
Lin, T-J. & Tsai, C-C. (2013). An investigation of Taiwanese high school students’ science learning self-efficacy in relation to their conceptions of learning science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 308-323, doi:10.1080/02635143.2013.841673.
Marton, F., & Säljö, R. (1984) The experience of learning, in Marton, F., Hounsell, D. & Entwistle, N. (eds.), Approaches to Learning, Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 36-55.
Marton, F., Dall’Alba, G., & Beaty,E. (1993). Conceptions of learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 19,277–299.
Marton, F., Wen, Q., & Nagle, A. (1996). Views on learning in different cultures. Comparing patterns in China and Uruguay.Anales de Psicologia, 12(2), 123-32.
Nalçacı, İ.Ö., Akarsu, B., & Kariper, A.İ. (2011). Bilimin Doğası ve Bilim Tarihi Dersinin Fen Bilgisi Öğretmen Adaylarının Bilimin Dogası Hakkındaki Bilgi ve Görüşlerine
Etkisi [Effects Of The Nature Of Science Course On Science Prospective Teachers’ Knowledge And Opinions]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [Selcuk University Ahmet Kelesoglu Education Faculty Journal], 32, 337-352.
Norton, L.S. & Crowley, C.M. (1995) Can students be helped to learn how to learn? An evaluation of an approach to learning programme for first year degree students. Higher Education, 29, 307-328.
Ozdamar, K. (1999). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. [Statistical data analysis with the package program].Eskisehir, Kaan.
Pillay, H., Purdie, N. & Boulton-Lewis, G. (2000). Investigating cross-cultural variations in conceptions of learning and the use of self-regulated strategies. Education Journal 28(1), 65–84.
Purdie, N., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996). Student conceptions of learning and their use of self-regulated learning strategies: a cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 87–100.
Reyes, M.R., Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom emotional climate, student engagement and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. doi: 10.1037/a0027268.
Rivkin, Steven G., Eric A. Hanushek., & John F., Kain. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica,73(2), 417-458.
Rowden Quince, B. (2013). The effects of self-regulated learning strategy instruction and structured-diary use on students' self- regulated learning conduct and academic success in online community-college general education courses. Doctoral Dissertations. Paper 68. University of San Francisco.
Sadi,Ö., & Dağyar, M. (2015). High school students’ epistemological beliefs, conceptions of learning and self-efficacy for learning biology: A Study of Their Structural Models. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(5), 1061-1079 (doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1375a)
Sadi,Ö., & Lee, M.H. (2015). The Conceptions of learning science for science-mathematics groups and literature-mathematics groups in Turkey. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33 (2) 182-196 (doi: 10.1080/02635143.2014.996543)
Sadi,Ö., & Uyar, M. (2014). The Turkish adaptation of the conceptions of learning science questionnaire: The study of validity and reliability. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 4(2), 73-82.
Sadi,Ö., & Uyar, M. (2013). Relationship between self-efficacy, self-regulated learning strategies and achievement: A path model. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(1):21-33.
Saljo, R. (1979). Learning in the learner’s perspective I: Some commonsense conceptions. Gothenburg, Sweden: Institute of Education, University of Gothenburg.
Schommer, M. (1998). The influence of age and education on epistemological beliefs. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 551–562.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2004). Explaining the epistemological belief system: Introducing the embedded systemic model and coordinated research approach. Educational Psychologist, 39, 19-29. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3901_3
Sinatra, G.M. (2001). Knowledge, beliefs, and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 321-323.
Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 321-351.
Stevenson, H. W. & Lee, S.Y. (1990). Contexts of achievement: a study of American, Chinese and Japanese children.Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 55(1-2), 1-123.
Stevenson, H.W., & Stigler, J.W. (1992). The learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese education. New York: Summit Books.
Tekbıyık, A.& Akdeniz, A.R. (2010). Bağlam Temelli ve Geleneksel Fizik Problemlerinin Karşılaştırılması Üzerine Bir İnceleme [An Investigation on the Comparison of
Context Based and Traditional Physics Problems]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi [Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science and Mathematics Education], 4(1), 123-140.
Tsai, C. C., & Kuo, Pi-Chu. (2008). Cram school students’ conceptions of learning and learning science in Taiwan.International Journal of Science Education, 30(3), 353-375.
Tsai, C-C. (2004). Conceptions of learning science among high school students in Taiwan: A phenomenographic analysis.International Journal of Science Education, 26(14), 1733–1750. doi: 10.1080/0950069042000230776.
Tsai, C-C., Ho, H. N. J., Liang, J.C., & Lin, H.M. (2011). Scientific epistemic beliefs, conceptions of learning science and self-efficacy of learning science among high school students. Learning and Instruction, 21, 757-769.
Tweed, R. G., & Lehman, D. R. (2002). Learning considered within a cultural context: Confucian and Socratic approaches.American Psychologist, 57, 89-99.
Vermunt, J. D., & Vermetten., Y. J. (2004). Patterns in student learning: Relationships between learning strategies, conceptions of learning, and learning orientations. Educational Psychology Review, 16 (4), 359–384.
Watkins, D., & Regmi, M. (1992). How universal are student conceptions of learning? A Nepalese investigation: Psychologia. An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 35(2), 101-110.
Yang, Y. F. & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 72-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.003
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
How Do Turkish Middle School Science Coursebooks Present the Science Process Skills?
pp. 829-843 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.279a | Article Number: ijese.2015.033
An important objective in science education is the acquisition of science process skills (SPS) by the students. Therefore, science coursebooks, among the main resources of elementary science curricula, are to convey accurate SPS. This study is a qualitative study based on the content analysis of the science coursebooks used at middle schools. In the present study, 653 science activities presented in 10 Turkish science coursebooks used for teaching science at the 5th to 8th grade were analyzed. The findings show that activities in the coursebooks are in the planning and starting skill level of SPS. The overall investigation of the science coursebooks revealed that the SPS recommended in science curriculums are not reflected in the science coursebooks used in middle schools. Skills like variables determination and controlling-changing variables are either included at the lowest rates or not at all in the science coursebooks employed. In addition, the representation of each skill varies according to the grade, publisher, and unit.
Keywords: science process skills, science coursebooks, science activities, middle school
Ağgül Yalçın, F. (2011). İlköğretim 8. sınıf fen ve teknoloji öğretmen kılavuzu “maddenin yapısı ve özellikleri” ünitesinin bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından değerlendirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 10(1), 378-388.
Aktamış, H., & Ergin, Ö. (2008). The Effect of scientific process skills education on students’ scientific creativity, science attitudes and academic achievements. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 1-21.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: what research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1-12.
Ango, M. L. (2002). Mastery of science process skills and their effective use in the teaching of science: An educology of science education in the Nigerian context. International Journal of Educology, 16(1), 11–30.
Aslan Efe, H., Efe, R., & Yücel, S. (2012). Ortaöğretim biyoloji ders kitaplarında yer alan etkinliklerin bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(24), 1-20.
Aziz, M. S., & Zain, A. N. Md. (2010). The inclusion of science process skills in Yemeni secondary school physics textbooks.European Journal of Physics Education, 1(1), 44-50.
Bağcı Kılıç, G. (2003). Üçüncü uluslararası matematik ve fen araştırması (TIMSS): Fen öğretimi, bilimsel araştırma ve bilimin doğası. İlköğretim Online, 2(1), 42-51.
Bağcı Kılıç, G., Haymana, F., & Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi öğretim programının bilim okuryazarlığı ve bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından analizi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 33(150), 52-63.
Beaumont-Walters, Y., & Soyibo, K. (2001) An analysis of high school students' performance on five integrated science process skills. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(2), 133-145.
Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W-M. (1999). "Do-able" questions, covariation and graphical representation: do we adequately prepare preservice science teachers to teach inquiry? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Boston.
Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Data and graph interpretation practices among preservice science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1063-1088.
Brotherton, P. N., & Preece, P. F. W. (1995). Science process skills: their nature and interrelationships. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 5-11.
Bybee, R. W., & DeBoer, C. E. (1993). Research on goals for the science curriculum. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 357-387). New York: National Science Teachers Association.
Chabalengula, V. M., Mumba, F., & Mbewe, S. (2012). How pre-service teachers’ understand and perform science process skills. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education,8(3), 167-176.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the united states for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847-1868.
Colvill, M., & Pattie, I. (2002). Science skills: the building blocks for scientific literacy. Investigating: Australian Primary & Junior Science, 18(3), 20-22.
Dökme, İ. (2005). Milli eğitim bakanlığı (MEB) ilköğretim 6. sınıf fen bilgisi ders kitabının bilimsel süreç becerileri yönünden değerlendirilmesi. İlköğretim Online, 4(1), 7-17.
Germann, J. P, Aram, R., & Burke, G. (1996). Identifiying patterns and relationships among the responses of seventh grade students to the science process skills of designing experiments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33 (1), 79-99.
Güneş, M. H., Çeliker, D., & Gökalp, M. (2009). İlköğretim I. Kademedeki Yeni Fen ve Teknoloji Ders Kitapları Konusunda Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Görüşleri. Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17 (3), 193-210.
Harlen, W. (1999). Purposes and procedures for assessing science process skills. Assessment in education. Principles, Policy & Practice, 6 (1), 129-146.
Hazır, A., & Türkmen, L. (2008). İlköğretim 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç beceri düzeyleri. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 26, 81-96.
Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students' cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 803-821.
Kahveci, A. (2010). Quantitative analysis of science and chemistry textbooks for indicators of
reform: a complementary perspective. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1495-1519.
Koray, Ö., Bahadır, H., & Köksal, M. S. (2007). Bilimsel süreç becerilerinin 10. ve 11. sınıf kimya ders kitapları ve kimya ders müfredatında temsil edilme durumları. SAÜ Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14, 59-68.
Lumbantobing, R. (2004). Comparative study on process skills in the elementary science curriculum and textbooks between Indonesia and Japan. Bulletin of the Graduate School of Education, Hiroshima University. Part. II, Arts and Science Education, 53, 31-38.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Martin, D. J. (1997). Elementary science methods: A constructivist approach. (Eds: Erin J. O’conner & Timothy Coleman). Delmar Publishers: New York.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2005). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (4. ve 5. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
Ministry of National Education, (MoNE). (2006). İlköğretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı. Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2012). 12 Yıl zorunlu eğitim sorular cevaplar.
http://www.meb.gov.tr/duyurular/ duyurular2012/12yil_soru_cevaplar.pdf (Retrieved February 15, 2014)
Ministry of National Education (MoNE). (2013). İlköğretim kurumları (İlkokullar ve Ortaokullar) fen bilimleri dersi (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. sınıflar) öğretim programı, Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı, Ankara.
Monhardt L., & Monhardt, R. (2006). Creating a context for the learning of science process skills through picture books.Early Childhood Education Journal, 34(1), 67-71.
Ogan-Bekiroğlu, F. (2007). To what degree do the currently used physics textbooks meet the expectations? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 599-628.
Ongowo, R. O., & Indoshi, F. C. (2013). Science process skills in the Kenya certificate of secondary education biology practical examinations. Creative Education, 4(11), 713-717.
Özgelen, S. (2012). Students’ science process skills within a cognitive domain framework. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(4), 283-292.
Padilla, M.J. (1990). The science process skills (Research matters-to the science teacher No. 9004). Retrieved from National Association of Research in Science Teaching. http://www.narst.org/publications/research/skill.cfm. 03.06.2015
Rezba, R. J., Sprague, C. R. , McDonnough, J. T. & Matkins, J. J. (2007). Learning and assessing science process skills. Kendall, Hunt Publishing Company: Iova.
Rillero, P. (1998). Process skills and content knowledge. Science activities. Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 35(3), 3-4.
Saat, R. M. (2004).The acquisition of integrated science process skills in a web‐based learning environment. Research in Science & Technological Education, 22(1), 23-40.
Saban, Y., Aydoğdu, B., & Elmas, R. (2014). 2005 ve 2013 fen Bilgisi öğretim programlarının 4. ve 5. sınıf düzeylerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından karşılaştırılması. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 32, 62-85.
Scharmann, L. C. (1989). Development of science process skill instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(8), 715-726.
Settlage, J. & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Teaching science to every child: using culture as a starting point. New York: Routledge.
Soyibo, K. (1998). An assessment of Caribbean integrated science textbooks’ practical tasks.
Research in Science & Technological Education, 16(1), 31–41.
Şen, A. Z., & Nakiboğlu, C. (2014). 9. Sınıf kimya, fizik, biyoloji ders kitaplarının bilimsel süreç becerileri açısından karşılaştırılması. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(4), 63-80.
Tan, M., & Temiz, B. K. (2003). Fen öğretiminde bilimsel süreç becerilerinin yeri ve önemi. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 1(13), 89-101.
Temiz, B. K. (2001). Lise 1.sınıf fizik dersi öğretim programının öğrencilerin bilimsel süreç becerilerini geliştirmeye uygunluğunun incelenmesi. Unpublished master dissertation, Gazi University, Ankara.
Tyson, H. (1997). Overcoming structural barriers to good textbooks. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Education Goals Panel, retrieved June 4, 2015 from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/tyson.htm
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (6. Baskı). Ankara: Seçkin Kitabevi.
Yıldız Feyzioğlu, E., & Tatar, N. (2012). Fen ve teknoloji ders kitaplarındaki etkinliklerin bilimsel süreç becerilerine ve yapısal özelliklerine göre incelenmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 108-125.
Yılmaz Senem, B. (2013). Content analysis of 9th grade physics curriculum, textbook, lessons with respect to science process skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Middle East Technical University, Ankara.
Zeitler, W. R. (1981). The influence of the type of practice in acquiring process skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(3), 189–197.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
Investigating High School Students’ Understanding of Chemical Equilibrium Concepts
Mageswary Karpudewan, David F. Treagust, Mauro Mocerino, Mihye Won & A. L. Chandrasegaran
pp. 845-863 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.280a | Article Number: ijese.2015.034
This study investigated the year 12 students’ (N = 56) understanding of chemical equilibrium concepts after instruction using two conceptual tests, the Chemical Equilibrium Conceptual Test 1(CECT-1) consisting of nine two-tier multiple-choice items and the Chemical Equilibrium Conceptual Test 2(CECT-2) consisting of four structured questions. Both these tests were administered before and after the intervention. Students’ responses to the items in both the instruments indicated limited understanding of the various concepts related to chemical equilibrium. Less than 50% of the students provided correct responses to four of the nine items in the CECT-1. The total scores in the CECT-1 ranged from 0 to 8 with a mean score of 4.14 (out of a maximum of 9). In the CECT-2 the total scores ranged from 7 to 17 with a mean score of 11.0 out of a maximum score of 22. Almost half the number of students (44.6%) scored less than 50% of the total marks in the CECT-2; only 0% to 42.9% of students scored the maximum possible marks for each of the four items while achievement in all four items of the CECT-2 was below 50%. The findings will be valuable and assist teachers in planning their instruction on chemical equilibrium by taking into consideration students’ preconceptions about the topic.
Keywords: chemical equilibrium, dynamic equilibrium, Le Chatelier’s Principle, reversible reactions
Banerjee, A.C. (1991). Misconceptions of students and teachers in chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 13(4), 487-494.
Bergquist, W., & Heikkinen, H. (1990). Student ideas regarding chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(12), 1000-1003.
Canagaratna, S. G. (2003). Approaches to the treatment of equilibrium perturbations. Journal of Chemical Education,80(10), 1211-1219.
Cheung, D. (2009). The adverse effects of Le Chatelier’s principle on teacher understanding of chemical equilibrium.Journal of Chemical Education,, 86(4), 514-518.
Cheung, D., Ma H.-J, & Yang, J. (2009). Teachers’ misconceptions about the effects of addition of more reactants or products on chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 7(6), 1111-1133.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th edn.). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
Finley, F.N., Stewart, J., & Yarroch, W. L. (1982). Teachers’ perceptions of important and difficult science content. Science Education, 66(4), 531-538.
Hackling, M. W., & Garnett, P.J. (1985). Misconceptions of chemical equilibrium. European Journal of Science Education,7(2), 205-214.
Khan, S. (2011). New pedagogies on teaching science with computer simulations. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 20(3), 215-232.
Khatri, S. S. (2013). Qatar’s education system grapples with language challenges. http://www.al-fanarmedia.org/2013/10/zig-zagging-education-policies-leave-qatari-studetns-behind/ Accessed 4 January 2014.
Kousathana, M., & Tsaparlis, G. (2002). Students’ errors in solving numerical chemical equilibrium problems. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 3(1), 5-17.
Liu, H. C., Andre, T., & Greenbowe, T. (2008). The impact of learners’ prior knowledge on their use of chemistry computer simulations: A case study. Journal of Science Education & Technology, 17(5), 466-482.
Loh, Y. L., & Sivaneson, N. (2004). STPM Physical Chemistry (Volume 2). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Penerbitan Pelangi Sdn. Bhd.
Malaysian Examinations Council. (2003). Teaching courseware chemistry Lower 6. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Author.
Malaysian Examinations Council. (2011). Malaysian Higher School Certificate Chemistry Syllabus 2012/2013. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Author.
Nunally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd. edn.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Özmen, H. (2008). Determination of students’ alternative conceptions about chemical equilibrium: A review of research and the case of Turkey. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 9(3), 225-223.
Pedrosa, M. A., & Dias, M. H. (2000). Chemistry textbook approaches to chemical equilibrium and student alternative conceptions. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 1(2), 227-236.
Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R.W., & Boyle, R. A. (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), 167-199.
Piquette, J.S., & Heikkinen, H. W. (2005). Strategies reported used by instructors to address student alternative conceptions in chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(10), 1112-1134.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
Quílez, J. (2004). Changes in concentration and partial pressure in chemical equilibria: Students’ and teachers’ misunderstandings. Chemistry Education Research & Practice, 5(3), 281-300.
Quilez-Pardo, J., & Solaz-Portoles, J. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ misapplications of Le Chatelier’s Principle: Implications for the teaching of chemical equilibrium. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(9), 939-957.
Russo, S., & Silver, M. E. (2010). Introduction to chemistry (4th edn.). San Francisco, CA: Prentice Hall.
Tan, Y. T. (2012). Chemistry first term. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Oxford Fajar Sdn. Bhd.
Thomas, P. L., & Schwenz, R. W. (1998). College physical chemistry students’ conceptions of equilibrium and fundamental thermodynamics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1151-1160.
Torres, E. M. (2007). Effect of a perturbation on the chemical equilibrium: Comparison with Le Chatelier’s Principle. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(3), 516 -519.
Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’ misconceptions in science.International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159-169.
Treagust, D. F. (2006). Diagnostic assessment in science as a means to improving teaching, learning and retention. In UniServe science – symposium proceedings: Assessment in science teaching and learning (pp. 1–9). Sydney, NSW: Uniserve Science.
Tyson, L., Treagust, D. F., & Bucat, R. (1999). The complexity of teaching and learning chemical equilibrium. Journal of Chemical Education, 76(4), 554-558.
Van Driel, J. H., De Vos, W., Verloop, N., & Dekkers, H. (1998). Developing secondary students’ conceptions of chemical reactions: The introduction of chemical equilibrium. International Journal of Science Education, 20(4), 379-392.
Voska, K. W., & Heikinnen, H. W. (2000). Identification and analysis of student conceptions used to solve chemical equilibrium problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 160-176.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
Cooperative Learning about Nature of Science with a Case from the History of Science
Balz Wolfensberger & Claudia Canella
pp. 865-889 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.281a | Article Number: ijese.2015.035
This paper reports a predominantly qualitative classroom study on cooperative learning about nature of science (NOS) using a case from the history of science. The purpose of the research was to gain insight into how students worked with the historical case study during cooperative group work, how students and teachers assessed the teaching unit, and in what ways students’ ideas about selected aspects of NOS changed as a result of the teaching unit. In cooperation with two biology teachers, a four-lesson teaching unit about NOS and the early research on Archaeopteryx was developed, field-tested, modified, and tested again. Altogether, five classes of 10th and 11th grade students from two Swiss schools participated. Data were collected by videotaping group work, interviews with student groups and teachers, questionnaires, and pre- and post-tests about NOS conceptions. Results show that group work was mostly of good quality, both with regard to students’ cooperation and understanding of the case study. Second, both the topic and the instructional design of the unit were judged very positively. Third, students showed more informed views on the selected target NOS aspects after the teaching unit. The paper ends with conclusions regarding teaching and learning about NOS, cooperative learning and questions for future research.
Keywords: nature of science, history of science, Archaeopteryx, classroom-based research, Cooperative Learning
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 389–426). Dordrecht: Springer.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.
Akerson, V. L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(10), 1025–1049.
Allchin, D. (2012). The Minnesota Case Study Collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21, 1263–1281.
Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students ‘ideas-about-science’: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.
Bell, R. L. (2006). Perusing Pandora’s box. Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education(pp. 427–446). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2012). Beyond understanding: Process skills as a context for nature of science instruction. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 225–245). Dordrecht: Springer.
Bennett, J., Lubben, F., Hogarth, S., & Campbell, B. (2004). A systematic review of the use of small-group discussions in science teaching with students aged 11-18, and their effects on students’ understanding in science or attitude to science. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.
Clough, M. P. (1997). Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure on students’ naive views concerning the nature of science. Interchange, 28(2–3), 191–204.
Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20, 701–717.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davidson, N., & Worsham, T. (Eds.). (1992). Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning. New York: Teacher's College Press.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design-research: What we can learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.
Erduran, S., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: Developments in the application of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915–933.
Guerra, A., Braga, M., & Reis, J. C. (2012). History, philosophy, and science in a social perspective: A pedagogical project.Science & Education, online first, DOI: 10.1007/s11191-012-9501-5.
Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, online first; DOI: 10.1007/s10972-013-9341-4.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Miller, N. (Eds.). (1992). Interaction in cooperative groups. The theoretical anatomy of group learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hofheinz, V. (2008). Erwerb von Wissen über ‘Nature of Science’. Eine Fallstudie zum Potenzial impliziter Aneignungsprozesse in geöffneten Lehr-Lern-Arrangements am Beispiel von Chemieunterricht. Dissertation, Universität Siegen, Siegen.
Hogan, K. (1999). Sociocognitive roles in science group discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 21(8), 855–882.
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–432.
Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2012). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education, 21, 1233–1261.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.
Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.-P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). ‘Doing the lesson’ or ‘doing science’: Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84, 747–792.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). Encouraging thinking through constructive controversy. In N. Davidson & T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp. 120–137). New York: Teacher's College Press.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Laugksch, R. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94.
Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848.
Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science whithin inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301–318). Dordrecht: Springer.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ/London: Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lin, H.-S., & Chen, C.-C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.
McRobbie, C., & Tobin, K. (1997). A social constructivist perspective on learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 193–208.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook (2. ed.). Thousand Oaks / London / New Delhi: Sage.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: School of Education, King’s College.
Nussbaum, E. M. (2008). Collaborative discourse, argumentation, and learning: Preface and literature review.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 345–359.
Oliveira, A. W., Akerson, V. L., Colak, H., Pongsanon, K., & Genel, A. (2012). The implicit communication of nature of science and epistemology during inquiry discussion. Science Education, 96(4), 652–684.
Oliveira, A. W., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student collaborations in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(5), 634–658.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘ideas-about-science’ should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.
Ozgelen, S., Yilmaz-Tuzun, O., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Exploring the development of preservice science teachers’ views on the nature of science in inquiry-based laboratory instruction. Research in Science Education, 43, 1551–1570.
Paraskevopoulou, E., & Koliopoulos, D. (2011). Teaching the nature of science through the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute.Science & Education, 20(10), 943–960.
Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.
Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346.
Schaake, S. (2011). Die Natur der Naturwissenschaften verstehen lernen: Historische, gesellschaftliche und kulturell relevante Stationen für den Chemieunterricht (Reihe Studium und Forschung; Bd. 17). Kassel: kassel university press.
Schwartz, R. S., & Crawford, B. A. (2006). Authentic scientific inquiry as context for teaching nature of science: Identifying critical elements for success. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 331–356). Dordrecht: Springer.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ‘It’s the nature of the beast’: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.
Schweizerische Konferenz der kantonalen Erziehungsdirektoren (1994). Rahmenlehrplan für die Maturitätsschulen. Bern: EDK.
Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: A perspective on research and practice. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning. Theory and research (pp. 285–300). New York: Praeger.
Shaver, J. P. (1993). What statistical significance testing is, and what it is not. The Journal of Experimental Education, 61(4), 293–316.
Shipman, H. L. (2006). Inquiry learning in college classrooms: For the times, they are, a changing. In L. B. Flick, & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science. Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 357–387). Dordrecht: Springer.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219–248.
Tao, P.-K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147–171.
Teixeira, E. S., Greca, I. M., & Freire Jr, O. (2012). The history and philosophy of science in physics teaching: A research synthesis of didactic interventions. Science & Education, 21, 771–796.
Wells, G., Chang, G. L. M., & Maher, A. (1990). Creating classroom communities of literate thinkers. In S. Sharan (Ed.),Cooperative learning. Theory and research (pp. 95–121). New York: Praeger.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3ed., Applied Social research Methods Series; 5). Thousand Oaks / London / New Delhi: Sage.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.
|View Abstract References|
Secondary School Students’ and Their Parents’ Knowledge and Interest in Crop Plants: Why Should We Care?
Eva-Maria Fritsch & Daniel C. Dreesmann
pp. 891-904 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.282a | Article Number: ijese.2015.036
While there is increasing world-wide discussion of the importance of renewable biological resources and a bio-based economy, science educators around the world have become aware of a declining general interest in plants and agriculture and of little knowledge of plants among the public. Recently, there have been few systematic investigations on the knowledge of crops. To address this observation, we initiated a questionnaire survey with secondary school students based on the assumption that students should acquire a fundamental knowledge of agriculture and crop-plant biology during compulsory education. As home is a source of information, parents were also questioned. On the whole, 926 German secondary school students aged nine to 18 years and 314 parents participated in our questionnaire survey. The data suggest an unsatisfactory level of knowledge about crop plants among students. Girls have greater knowledge and claim to be interested in crops more often than do boys. While knowledge of species was independent of grade and age, knowledge of crop use did increase with increased years of schooling. Parents showed an overall better performance than the students’ on items involving plant recognition and their use.
Keywords: knowledge of crops, staple foods, crop plant recognition, interest in crop plants
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009). Benchmarks online: 5. The Living Environment. Retrieved from http://www.project2061.org/publications/bsl/online/index.php?chapter=5
Ammer, U., & Gössinger, L. (2010). Was wissen bayerische Schulkinder über den Wald? [What do Bavarian pupils know about the forest?] Waldpädagogik. Unser Wald, 1, 10–12.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2009). Trends in household work. Retrieved from http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/LookupAttach/4102.0Publication 25.03.095/$File/41020_Householdwork.pdf
Bebbington, A. (2005). The ability of A-level students to name plants. Journal of Biological Education, 39(2), 63–67. Doi 10.1080/00219266.2005.9655963
Berck, K. H. (2009). Artenkenntnis wozu – Naturbegegnung was ist das? Ein Abgesang für den Biologieunterricht? [Why knowledge of species? – What does encounter with nature mean?]. MNU, 62(2), 68–71.
Berck, K. H., & Graf, D. (2010). Biologiedidaktik: Grundlagen und Methoden [Didactics of biology: Basics and methods]. Wiebelsheim, Germany: Quelle&Meyer Verlag.
Berck, K. H., & Klee, R. (1992). Interesse an Tier- und Pflanzenarten und Handeln im Natur-Umweltschutz. Eine empirische Untersuchung an Erwachsenen und ihre Konsequenzen für die Umweltbildung [Interest in animal and plant species and action in environmental protection. An empirical survey on adults and its consequences for environmental education]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.
Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. (2000). Is anyone doing the household? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1), 191–228.
Bickel, M., & Bögeholz, S. (2013). Schülerinteressen an landwirtschaftlichen Themen [Students´ interest in agricultural topics]. In J. Friedrich, A. Halsband, & L. Minkmar (Eds.). Biodiversität und Gesellschaft. Gesellschaftliche Dımension von Schutz und Nutzung biologischer Vielfalt. Beiträge der Fachtagung, Göttingen [Biodiversity and society. Societal dimensions of the conservation and utilisation of biological diversity. Conference proceedings]. (pp. 59-72). Göttingen, Germany: Goettingen University Press.
Bigler, A. M., & Hanegan, N. L. (2011). Student content knowledge increases after participation in a hands-on biotechnology intervention. Journal of Science Education Technology, 20, 246–257. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-010-9250-7
BMBF. (2010). Nationale Forschungsstrategie BioÖkonomie 2030. Unser Weg zu einer bio-basierten Wirtschaft [National research strategies BioEconomy 2030. Our way to a biobased economy]. Berlin, Germany.
Brämer, R. (2006). Natur obskur. Wie Jugendliche heute Natur erfahren [Obscure nature. How teenagers experience nature today].Munich, Germany: Oekom Verlag.
Burrows, G. E. (2012). Recognising differences in weed and crop species: Recognition skills of agriculture students.Bioscience Education, 19.
Cooper, C. L. (2008). Botanical knowledge of a group of South Carolina elementary school students. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 6, 121–127.
Fančovičová, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Children’s ability to recognise toxic and non-toxic fruits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 7(2), 115–120.
FAO-Stat. (n. d.). Retrieved from http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx
Hands-on Crops! How Long-term Activities Improve Students´ Knowledge of Crop Species. A Pretest-Posttest Study of the Greenhouse Project. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 10(5), 737-755.
Fritsch, E.-M., & Dreesmann, D. C. (2014). Nutzpflanzen und Landwirtschaft in Schulbüchern. Eine Untersuchung zur Alltagsrelevanz von Biologieunterricht [Crops plants and agriculture in high school biology textbooks. An analysis of textbook contents and their relevance to everyday life]. Journal für die Didaktik der Biologie (F), 5, 58–71.
Gatt, S., Tunnicliffe, S. D., Borg, K., & Lautier, K. (2007). Young Maltese children’s ideas about plants. Journal of Biological Education, 41(3), 117–122. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2007.9656080
Goller, H. (2001). Kontextabhängiger Erwerb von Arten- und Formenkenntnissen im Biologieunterricht des Gymnasiums[Context-based acquisition of knowledge of species in biology lessons of secondary schools] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Regensburg, Germany.
Hamann, S. (2004). Schülervorstellungen zur Landwirtschaft im Kontext einer Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung[Students’ conceptions on agriculture concerning an education of sustainable development] (Doctoral dissertation). University of Education Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Hesse, M. (2000). Erinnerungen an die Schulzeit – Ein Rückblick auf den erlebten Biologieunterricht junger Erwachsener [Memories of young adults on school time – A review on experienced biology lessons]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 6, 187–201.
Hesse, M. (2002). Eine neue Methode zur Überprüfung von Artenkenntnissen bei Schülern. Frühblüher: Benennen – Selbsteinschätzen – Wiedererkennen [A new method to test students’ knowledge of species. Early bloomers: Naming – self-assessment – recognizing]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 8, 53–67.
Hesse, M., & Lumer, J. (2000). Was bleibt von der Schule? Basiskenntnisse aus dem Biologieunterricht bei Erwachsenen [What remains of school? Adults´ basic knowledge gained in biology class]. Berichte des Instituts für Didaktik der Biologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 9, 27–40.
Holstermann, N., & Bögeholz, S. (2007). Interesse von Jungen und Mädchen an naturwissenschaftlichen Themen am Ende der Sekundarstufe I [Boys’ and girls’ interest in science at the end of middle school]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften, 13, 71–86.
Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757.
Hummel, E., Glück, M., Jürgens, R., Weisshaar, J., & Randler, C. (2012). Interesse, Wohlbefinden und Langeweile im naturwissenschaftlichen Unterricht mit lebenden Organismen [Interest, wellbeing and boredom in science class with living organisms]. Zeitschrift für Didaktik der Naturwissenschaften,18, 99-116.
Jäkel, L., & Schaer, A. (2004). Sind Namen nur Schall und Rauch? Wie sicher sind Pflanzenkenntnisse von Schülerinnen und Schülern? [Are names hollow words? How certain is students’ knowledge of plants?]. Berichte des Instituts für Didaktik der Biologie der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität Münster, 13, 1–24.
Jewell, N. (2002). Examining children’s models of seed. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 116–122.
Killermann, W., Hiering, P., & Starosta, B. (2009). Biologieunterricht heute. Eine moderne Fachdidaktik [Biology class today. A modern didactic]. Donauwörth, Germany: Auer Verlag.
Kinchin, I. M. (1999). Investigating secondary-school girls’ preferences for animals or plants: A simple ‘head-to-head’ comparison using two unfamiliar organisms. Journal of Biological Education, 33(2), 95–99.
Lindemann‐Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: How children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., & Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2), 99–109.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Junge, X., & Matthies, D. (2010). The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biological Conservation, 143(1), 195–202.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Marty, T. (2013). Does ecological gardening increase species richness and aesthetic quality of a garden?. Biological Conservation, 159, 37–44.
Lineberger, S. E., & Zajicek, J. M. (2000). School gardens: Can a hands-on teaching tool affect students’ attitudes and behavior regarding fruit and vegetables?. Hort Technology, 10(3), 593–597.
Löwe, B. (1987). Interessenverfall im Biologieunterricht [Loss of interest in biology class].Unterricht Biologie, 124(11), 62–65.
Löwe, B. (1992). Biologieunterricht und Schülerinteresse an Biologie [Biology class and students’ interest in biology]. Weinheim, Germany: Deutscher Studien Verlag.
Meusch, D. (2013). Iss was, Deutschland? – TK-Studie zum Ernährungsverhalten der Menschen in Deutschland [Eat something, Germany? TK-survey on peoples´ nutritional behavior in Germany]. Hamburg, Germany. https://www.tk.de/centaurus/servlet/contentblob/498464/Datei/64173/TK_Studienband_zur_Ernaehrungsumfrage.pdf
Ministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Jugend und Kultur (2014). Lehrpläne für die naturwissenschaftlichen Fächer für die weiterführenden Schulen in Rheinland-Pfalz.
Biologie Chemie Physik. Klassenstufen 7 bis 9/10 [Science curriculum for secondary school in Rheinland-Pfalz. Biology – Chemistry – Physics. 7th–9/10th grade]. Mainz, Germany.
Murphy, P. (1991). Gender differences in students’ reaction to practical work. In R. Levinson (Ed.). Teaching science (pp. 131–144). London, UK: Routledge.
Nadeau, R., & Niemi, R. G. (1995). Educated guess: The process of answering factual knowledge questions in surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(3), 323–346.
Natarajan, C., Chunawala, S., Apte, S., & Ramadas, J. (2002). Lessons for teaching botany: What middle school students know about plants. http://www.modelab.ufes.br/xioste/papers/xioste_paper010.pdf
Nott, M., & Wellington J. (1999). The state we’re in: Issues in key stage 3 and 4 science. School Science Review, 81(294), 13–18.
OECD. (2009). The bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a policy agenda. Paris, France: OECD
Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students’ name? Where do they see them?. Journal of Science Education Technology, 20(5), 630–642. DOI: 10.1007/s10956-011-9290-7
Prokop, P., Tuncer, G., & Chudá, J. (2007). Slovakian student’ attitudes towards biology. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(4), 287–295.
Schussler, E. E., & Olzak, L. A. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Student recall of plant and animal images. Journal of Biological Education, 42(3), 112–119.
Strgar, J. (2007). Increasing the interest of students in plants. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 19–23.
Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2001). Talking about plants: Comments of primary school groups looking at plant exhibits in a botanical garden. Journal of Biological Education, 36(1), 27–34. DOI:10.1080/002/00219266.2001.9655792
Tunnicliffe, S. D., & Reiss, M. J. (2000). Building a model of the environment: How do children see plants? Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 172–177.
Wagner, G. E. (2008). Botanical knowledge of a group of college students in South Carolina, U.S.A. Ethnobotany Research & Application, 6, 443–458.
Wandersee, J. H., & Schussler, E. E. (1999). Preventing plant blindness. The American Biology Teacher, 61(2), 82, 84, 86.
Zubke, G., & Mayer, J. (2003). Ökologisches Verständnis und Umwelthandeln im schulischen und außerschulischen Kontext [Ecological Understanding and environmental action in school and out of school contexts]. In A. Bauer et al. (Eds.).Entwicklung von Wissen und Kompetenzen im Biologieunterricht. Internationale Tagung der Sektion Biologiedidaktik im VDBiol 14.09. – 19.09.2003. [Development of knowledge and competences in biology class. Conference proceedings]. (pp.67-70). Berlin, IPN.
Zucchi, H. (2007). Zur Bedeutung und zum Erwerb von Artenkenntnissen [Meaning and acquisition of knowledge of species].Unterricht Biologie, 324, 44–45.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|
“Public-based-Learning”: The Place of Publics in Exploring Environmental Controversies for Pedagogical Purposes
François Mélard, Dorothée Denayer & Nathalie Semal
pp. 905-920 | DOI: 10.12973/ijese.2015.283a | Article Number: ijese.2015.037
This article examines a 15 year-old master level seminar dedicated to the exploration of local and complex environmental issues marked by scientific or technological uncertainties. Following a pragmatic learning approach, we focus our discussion on a triadic relationship between supervisors, students and various concerned publics. A local flood management controversy in Belgium will help to illustrate our approach and point to some learning outcomes. On the basis of this pedagogical experience, we propose to shift from Problem-based-learning towards Public-based-learning that rests on the comparison of the various ways a problem is defined by publics. This comparative approach allows us to deduce a plurality of modes of involvement mobilized in the management of the environmental problems.
Keywords: Public-based-Learning, pragmatic learning approach, higher education, environmental controversies, posture, symmetry
Albe, Virginie. 2008. "Students’ Positions and Considerations of Scientific Evidence about a Controversial Socioscientific Issue." Science & Education 17(8-9):805-27.
Anderson, John R, Lynne M Reder and Herbert A Simon. 1996. "Situated Learning and Education." Educational researcher25(4):5-11.
Béchard, Jean-Pierre. 2001. "L’enseignement supérieur et les innovations pédagogiques: Une recension des écrits." Revue des sciences de l’éducation 27(2):257-81.
Callon, Michel, Pierre Lascoumes and Yannick Barthe. 2011. Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy. Boston: The MIT Press.
Checkland, Peter. 1985. "From Optimizing to Learning: A Development of Systems Thinking for the 1990s." The Journal of the Operational Research Society 36(9):757-67. doi: 10.2307/2582164.
Dahlgren, Madeleine Abrandt, Reinhold Castensson and Lars Owe Dahlgren. 1998. "PBL from the Teachers' Perspective."Higher Education 36(4):437-47.
Daniels, Steven E. and Gregg B. Walker. 1996. "Collaborative Learning: Improving Public Deliberation in Ecosystem-Based Management." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16(2):71-102. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(96)00003-0.
Dewey, Johh, 1927. The Public and its Problems: An Essay in Political Inquiry. In The Later Works of John Dewey, 1925-1953, Jo Ann Boysdston (Ed.), Vol. 2, 1925-1927, pp. 235-372 (Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 1988).
DuPuis, E Melanie and Tamara Ball. 2013. "How Not What: Teaching Sustainability as Process." Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 9(1):64-75.
Fabre, Michel. 2007. "Des savoirs scolaires sans problèmes et sans enjeux. La faute à qui?". Revue française de pédagogie:69-78.
Hatchuel, Armand. 2000. "Quel horizon pour les sciences de gestion ? Vers une théorie de l’action collective." pp. 7-43 inLes Nouvelles Fondations Des Sciences De Gestion. Eléments D'épistémologie De La Recherche En Management, Fnege. Paris: Vuibert.
Hervé, Nicolas, Patrice Venturini and Virginie Albe. 2013. "Enseigner un savoir stabilisé et une controverse socioscientifique, quelles différences et similitudes? Exemple d’une pratique ordinaire d’enseignement en physique." Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation (29):45-66.
Jimenez-Aleixandre, M Pilar, Anxela Bugallo Rodriguez and Richard A Duschl. 2000. "’ Doing the Lesson’ or ‘Doing Science’: Argument in High School Genetics." Science Education 84(6):757-92.
Jonassen, David H. 1997. "Instructional Design Models for Well-Structured and Ill-Structured Problem-solving Learning Outcomes." Educational Technology Research and Development 45(1):65-94.
Karl, H. A., Susskind, L. E., & Wallace, K. H. (2007). A Dialogue not a Diatribe. Effective Integration of Science and Policy through Joint Fact Finding. Environment, 49(1), 20-34.
Melville, W., & Pilot, J. (2014). Storylines and the Acceptance of Uncertainty in Science Education. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 9(4), 353-368.
Kittleson, Julie M and Sherry A Southerland. 2004. "The Role of Discourse in Group Knowledge Construction: A Case Study of Engineering Students." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(3):267-93.
Larochelle, Marie and Jacques Désautels. 2007. "On Ernst Von Glasersfeld’s Contribution to Education: One Interpretation, One Example." Constructivist Foundations 2(2-3):90-97.
Lemaître, Denis. 2007. "Mobilisations De La Forme 'Problème' Dans Les Pédagogies De L'enseignement Supérieur." Pp. 12 in Congrès international AREF 2007, Actualité de la recherche en éducation et en formation. Strasbourg: Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe.
Lewis, Jenny and John Leach. 2006. "Discussion of Socio‐scientific Issues: The Role of Science Knowledge." International Journal of Science Education 28(11):1267-87.
Masciotra, Domenico. 2007. “L’agir Compétent: Une approche situationnelle.” Consulted on the internet the 3.02.2010:http://www.ore.uqam.ca/Documentation/Masciorta/Masciorta04.pdf.
Melville, Wayne and Jason Pilot. 2014. "Storylines and the Acceptance of Uncertainty in Science Education." International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 9(4):353-68.
Pedretti, Erminia. 1999. "Decision Making and STS Education: Exploring Scientific Knowledge and Social Responsibility in Schools and Science Centers through an Issues‐based Approach." School Science and Mathematics 99(4):174-81.
Pouliot, Chantal. 2008. "Students' Inventory of Social Actors Concerned by the Controversy Surrounding Cellular Telephones: A Case Study." Science education 92(3):543-59.
Sadler, Troy D, Sasha A Barab and Brianna Scott. 2007. "What Do Students Gain by Engaging in Socioscientific Inquiry?".Research in Science Education 37(4):371-91.
Salomon, Gavriel and David N. Perkins. 1998. "Individual and Social Aspects of Learning." Review of Research in Education(23):1-24.
Sauvé, Lucie. 1999. "Environmental Education between Modernity and Postmodernity: Searching for an Integrating Educational Framework." Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE) 4(1):pp. 9-35.
Savery, John R. 2006. "Overview of Problem-based Learning: Deﬁnitions and Distinctions." Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 1(1):3.
Savin-Baden, Maggi. 2000. Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories: McGraw-Hill International.
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein, E Roy Weintraub, John Law and Annemarie Mol. 2002. Complexities: Social Studies of Knowledge Practices: Duke University Press.
Tan, Oon-Seng. 2007. "Problem-based Learning Pedagogies: Psychological Processes and Enhancement of Intelligences."Educational Research for Policy and Practice 6(2):101-14.
Trepos, Jean-Yves. 1996. La Sociologie de L'expertise., Vol. 3119. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Voß, Reinhard. 2007. "To Find a Daisy in December: Impressions of Ernst Von Glasersfeld and an Interview with Him about Constructivism and Education." Constructivist Foundations 2(2-3):85-89.
Wynne, Brian. 2002. "Risk and Environment as Legitimatory Discourses of Technology: Reflexivity Inside Out?". Current Sociology 50(3):459-77.
|View Abstract References Full text PDF|