Can science pedagogy in English schools inform educational reform in Turkey?

Journal of Turkish Science Education

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 66-80

  Bektaş, Oktay ^a   Taber, Keith S ^b  

^a ERCIYES UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Constructivism; Observation; Science education; Traditional teaching

Indexed keywords

EID: 77953338408     PISSN: 13046020     EISSN: 13046020     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of Education. New York: Vintage Books.
2. Cerini, B., Murray, I., & Reiss, M. (2003). Student Review of the Science Curriculum: Major Findings. London: Planet Science/Institute of Education/Science Museumo. Document Number)
3. th Edition, London and New York-Routledge Falmer.
4. Crawford, R. (2000). Information technology in secondary schools and its impact on training information technology teachers. Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(2), 183-198.
5. Department for Education and Employment. (1998). Requirements for Courses of Initial Teacher Education: Annexe H - Initial Teacher Training National Curriculum for Secondary Science.
6. DfEE/QCA. (1999). Science: The National Curriculum for England, key stages 1-4. London: Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
7. Dorion, K. R. (2007). Science through drama: a multiple case exploration of the characteristics of drama activities in secondary science lessons. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
8. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing Scientific Knowledge in the Classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5-12.
9. Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122.
10. Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an Identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
11. Fensham, P. J., Gunstone, R. F., & White, R. T. (1994). The Content of Science: a constructivist approach to its teaching and learning. London: Falmer Press.
12. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. (2006). Science Teaching in Schools: Report with Evidence (Vol. HL Paper 257). London: The Stationery Office Limited.
13. Jenkins, E. W. (2000). Constructivism in school science education: Powerful model or the most dangerous intellectual tendency?, Science & Education 9, 599-610.
14. Jenkins, E. W. (2004). From option to compulsion: school science teaching, 1954-2004. School Science Review, 85(313), 33-40.
15. Kaymaz, Z. (2007). A case study on an English science teacher's views and practice in relation to constructivism University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
16. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2002a). Framework for teaching science: years 7, 8 and 9. London: Department for Education and Skills.
17. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2002b). Misconceptions in Key Stage 3 science: Resource pack for participants DfES 0289/2002: Department for Education and Skills.
18. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2003a). Strengthening teaching and learning of energy in Key Stage 3 science: Notes for participants. No place of publication given: Department for Education and Skills.
19. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2003b). Strengthening teaching and learning of particles in Key Stage 3 science: Notes for participants. No place of publication given: Department for Education and Skills.
20. Key Stage 3 National Strategy. (2004). Strengthening teaching and learning in science through using different pedagogies: Science subject leaders' guide. Norwich: Department for Education and Skills.
21. Matthews, M. R. (1993). Constructivism and science education: Some epistemological problems, Journal of Science Education and Technology, (2)l, 359-370.
22. Millar, R. (1989). Constructive criticisms. International Journal of Science Education, 11(special issue), 587-596.
23. Mintzes, J.J., Wandersee, J.H., & Novak, J.D. (Eds.) (1998). Teaching Science for Understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
24. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2003). Meaning Making in Secondary Science Classrooms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
25. Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils' and parents' views of the school science curriculum. School Science Review, 82(298), 23-31.
26. Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: SAGE Publications.
27. QCA. (2007a). Science: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
28. QCA. (2007b). Science: Programme of study for key stage 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
29. QCA. (n.d.-a). Summary of the key findings from the 2000-2001 National Curriculum (NC) and Post-16 Science Monitoring Exercise [Electronic Version], from http://www.qca.org.uk/11799.html
30. QCA. (n.d.-b). Summary of the key findings from the 2001-2002 National Curriculum (NC) and Post-16 Science Monitoring Exercise, London [Electronic Version], from http://www.qca.org.uk/11798.html
31. Russell, T., & Osborne, J. (1993). Constructivist Research, Curriculum Development and Practice in Primary Classrooms: Reflections on Five Years of Activity in the Science Processes and Concept Exploration (SPACE) Project. Paper presented at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions in the Learning of Science and Mathematics.
32. Scerri, E. R. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(20), 468-474.
33. Scott, P., Dyson, T., & Gater, S. (1987). A constructivist view of learning and teaching in science. Leeds: Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education.
34. Solomon, J. (1994). The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education, 23, 1-19.
35. Taber, K. S. (1994). Student reaction on being introduced to concept mapping. Physics Education, 29(5), 276-281.
36. Taber, K. S. (2003). Responding to alternative conceptions in the classroom. School Science Review, 84(308), 99-108.
37. Taber, K. S. (2007). Enriching School Science for the Gifted Learner. London: Gatsby Science Enhancement Programme.
38. Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science and Education, 17, 179-218.
39. Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
40. The Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989, (1989)
41. URL-1, http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/Values-aims-and-purposes/aboutthe-primary-curriculum/index.aspx, 2009
42. URL-2,http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-1-and-2/Values-aims-andpurposes/primary-curriculum-review/index.aspx, 2009
43. URL-3, http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/aims/index.aspx, 2009
44. URL-4, http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/key-stages-3-and-4/subjects/index.aspx, 2009