Who will teach an integrated program for science and technology in Israeli Junior High Schools?: A case study

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 1999, Pages 239-253

  Barak, Moshe ^a   Pearlman Avnion, Shiri ^a  

^a TECHNION ISRAEL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0004097815     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199902)36:2<239::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-L     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Barak, M., & Abrahami, M. (1996). Project based science-technology education in intermediate schools. In D. Mioduser & I. Zilberstein (Eds.), JISTEC '96: The Second Jerusalem International Science and Technology Education Conference on Technology Education for a Changing Future: Theory, Policy and Practice (CP-5-CP-6). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Centre for Educational Technology.
2. Barak, M., & Waks, S. (1997). An Israeli study of longitudinal in-service training of mathematics, science and technology teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 23, 179-190.
3. Barlex, D. (1994). Organizing project work. In F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 124-143). London: Routledge, in association with the Open University.
4. Childress, V.W. (1996). Does integrating technology, science, and mathematics improve technological problem solving? A quasi-experiment. Journal of Technology Education, 8, 16-26.
5. Cogan, M.L. (1973). Clinical supervision. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
6. Department for Education. (1995). Design and technology in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO.
7. de Vries, M.J. (1994). Technology education in Western Europe. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (vol. V, pp. 31-44). Paris: UNESCO.
8. Eisner, E.W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
9. Fay, G.M. (1991). The project plan. The Science Teacher, 58, 40-42.
10. Gardner, P. (1994). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24, 1-28.
11. Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
12. Hawkridge, D.G. (1976). Next year, Jerusalem! The rise of educational technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 7, 7-30.
13. Kanis, I. (1991). Ninth grade lab skills: An assessment. The Science Teacher, 58, 28-33.
14. Kimbell, R. (1994). Tasks in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4, 241-256.
15. Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10, 367-78.
16. Layton, D. (1995). Constructing and reconstructing school technology in England and Wales. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5, 89-118.
17. Lewis, T. (1996). Comparing technology education in the U.S. and U.K. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 6, 221-238.
18. Nevo, D. (1993). The evaluation-minded school: An application of perceptions from program evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 14, 39-47.
19. Raizen, S.A. (1997). Making way for technology education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6, 59-70.
20. Rennie, L.J., Treagust, D.F., & Kinnear, A. (1992). An evaluation of curriculum materials for teaching technology as a design process. Research in Science and Technological Education, 10, 203-217.
21. Sanders, J.R. (1992). Evaluating school programs: An educator's guide. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
22. Sanders, M. (1994). Technological problem-solving activities as a means of instruction: The TSM integration program. School Science and Mathematics, 94, 36-43.
23. Scarborough, J.D. (1993). PHYS-MA-TECH: Integrated models for teachers. The Technology Teacher, 52, 26-30.
24. Schell, J.W., & Wicklein, R.C. (1993). Integration of mathematics, science and technology education: A basis for thinking and problem solving. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 18, 49-76.
25. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
26. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
27. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28. Tamir, P. (1990). Characteristics of senior high school science teachers in Israel as related to their educational goals and their perception of the implemented curriculum. Science Education, 74, 53-67.
29. Tomorrow 98. (1994). Report of the superior committee on science, mathematics and technology education in Israel. Jerusalem: Publications Department, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport (English Edition).
30. Walberg, H.J. (1991). Improving school science in advanced and developing countries. Review of Educational Research, 61, 25-69.
31. Wilson, S.M., Shulman, L.S., & Richert, A. (1987). "150 different ways" of knowing: Representations of knowledge in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Exploring teachers' thinking (pp. 104-124). London: Cassell Educational.
32. Wright, M.D., & Foster, P.N. (1997). Multiple approaches to technology education: Which do our leaders believe are best? The Technology Teacher, 57, 31-35.
33. Yager, R.E. (1993). Make a difference with STS. The Science Teacher, 60, 45-48.
34. Yager, R.E., & Roy, R. (1993). STS: Most pervasive and most radical of reform approaches to science education. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, Vol. 7: The science, technology, society movement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
35. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.