Science education based on developing guided research

Science Education in Focus

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 173-201

  Guisasola, Jenaro ^a   Furió, Carlos ^b   Ceberio, Mikel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY UPV EHU   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VALENCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84891972269     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (93)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but... Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701
3. Almudí, J.M. (2002). Introducción del concepto de campo magnético en primer ciclo de Universidad: dificultades de aprendizaje y propuesta alternativa de orientación constructivista [Teaching the concept of magnetic field at university first level and alternative teaching approach]. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country.
4. Alster, B.J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39-55.
5. Azcona, R. (1997). Análisis crítico de la enseñanza-aprendizaje de los conceptos de 'cantidad de sustancia' y de mol. Una alternativa didáctica basada en el aprendizaje por investigación [Analysis of the teaching-learning of the 'substance quantity' and 'mol'concepts. An alternative teaching approach based on developing guided research'].Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country.
6. Becerra, C., Gras-Martí, A. & Martínez-Torregrosa J. (2007), La Física con una estructura problematizada: efectos sobre el aprendizaje conceptual, las actitudes y los intereses de los alumnos, Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física 29(1), 97-105.
7. Bell R., Abd-El-Khalick F., Lederman G., McComas W. & Matthews M. (2001). The nature of science and science education: A bibliography. Science & Education, 10, 187-204
8. Benseghir, A. & Closset, J.L. (1996). The electrostatics-electrokinetics transition: historical and educational difficulties. International Journal of Science Education, 18 (2), 179-191.
9. Black, P. & Harrison, C. (2000) Formative Assesment, in Monk, M. & Osborne, J. (eds.) Good Practice in Science Teaching. What research has to say, 25-40. Open University Press: Buckingham.
10. Borges A. T. & Gilbert, J.K. (1999). Mental models of electricity. International Journal of Science Education, 21 (1), 95-117.
11. Ceberio, M. (2004). La resolución de problemas de Física General en la Universidad: una propuesta didáctica basada en el planteamiento y resolución de situaciones problemáticas abiertas. [Physics problem solving at university level: didactical approach based on solving open problems]. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country.
12. Chabay R. & Serwood B. (2002). Matter & Interactions vol II. New York: John Willey &Sons
13. Chalmers, R. (1982). What is this thing called science? UK: Milton Keynes, Open University.
14. Cleminson, A. (1990). Establishing an epistemological base for science teaching in the light of contemporany notions of nature of science and of how children learns science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27 (5), 429-455.
15. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher 32 (1), 9-13.
16. Collins, S., Osborne, J.F., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., Duschl, R. (2003). What Ideas-about-Science should be thaught in School Science?: A Delphy study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40 (7), 692-720.
17. Driver, R. & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in Science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105-122
18. Driver R., Squires A., Rushworth P. & Word-Robinson V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science-research into children ideas. London: Routledge.
19. Duit, R. & Treagust, D.F. (1998). Learning in science-From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook on Science Education, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
20. Duit, R., Treagust, D. & Mansfield, H. (1996) Investigating students understanding as prerequisite to improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. In D.F.Treagust, R. Duit and B.J. Fraser (Eds.), Improving teaching and learning in science and mathematics. (pp. 17-31). New York: Teachers Press College
21. Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Duschl, R.A. (1994) Research on the history and philosophy of science. In D.L. Gabel, Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. (pp. 443-465). New York: MacMillan Publishing Company
23. Duschl, R.A. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leach and J.Osborne (eds.) Improving Science Education-The contribution of Research.Buckingham: Open University Press. 187-206
24. Duschl, R.A. & Gitomer, D. (1991). Epistemological perspectives on conceptual change: implications for educational practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (9), 839-858.
25. Duschl, R.A. & Hamilton, R.J. (1998). Conceptual change in science and the learning of science. In B.J. Fraser & K.G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook on Science Education, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
26. Fernández, I., Gil, D., Carrascosa, J., Cachapuz, A. & Praia J. (2002). Visiones deformadas de la ciencia transmitidas por la enseñanza. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 20 (3), 477-488.
27. Furió, C. & Carnicer, J. (2002). El desarrollo profesional del profesor de ciencias mediante tutorías de grupos cooperativos. Estudio de ocho casos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias 20 (1), 47-73.
28. Furió, C., Azcona R., Guisasola J. & Ratcliffe M. (2000). Difficulties in teaching the concepts of 'amount of substance' and 'mole'. International Journal of Science Education, 22 (12), 1285-1304.
29. Furió, C., Azcona R. & Guisasola J. (2002). The learning and teaching of the concepts of 'amount of substance' and 'mole'. A review of the literature. Chemistry Education: Research and practice in Europe, 3 (3), 277-292.
30. Furió, C., Azcona R. & Guisasola J. (2006). La enseñanza de los conceptos de 'cantidad de sustancia' y de 'mol' basada en un modelo de aprendizaje como investigación orientada. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 24 (1), 43-58.
31. Furió, C., Guisasola, J., Almudí, J.M. & Ceberio, M. (2003). Learning the electric field concept as oriented research activity. Science Education, 87 (6), 640-662.
32. Furió, C., Guisasola, J. & Almudí, J.M. (2004). Elementary electrostatic phenomena: Historical hindrances and students' difficulties. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 4 (3), 291-313.
33. Gallison, P. and Stump, D.J. (eds.) (1996). The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford university Press.
34. Glasson, G.E. & Benteley, M.L. (2000). 'Epistemological undercurrents in scientists'reporting of research to teachers'. Science Education, 84 (4), 469-485.
35. Gil, D. 2003, Constructivism in science education: the need for a clear line of demarcation. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, E. Hatzikraniotis, G. Fassoulopoulos & M. Kallery (eds.) Science Education in the knowledge-based society (Dordrecht: Kluwe Academic Publisher).
36. Gil-Pérez, D., Guisasola, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa De Carvalho, A., Martínez-Torregrosa, J., Salinas, J., Valdés, P., González, E., Gené, A., Dumas-Carré, A., Tricárico, H. & Gallego, R. (2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science and Education, 11, 557-571
37. Gil-Pérez D. & Carrascosa J. (1994) Bringing pupils' learning closer to a scientific construction of knowledge: A permanent feature in innovations in science teaching, Science Education 78 (3), 301-315.
38. Guisasola, J. (1999). . Enseñanza-aprendizaje de la teoría eléctrica que explica los fenómenos electrostáticos básicos, Alambique 19 (2), 9-18.
39. Guisasola, J. (1996). Análisis crítico de la enseñanza de la electrostática en el bachillerato y propuesta alternativa de orientación constructivista [Analysis of the usual teaching of Electrostatics and a educational approach based on constructivism]. ]. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country.
40. Guisasola, J., Pintos, M.E. & Santos, T. (2001). Formación continua del profesorado, investigación educativa e innovación en la enseñanza de las ciencias. Revista Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 41, 207-222
41. Guisasola, J., Amudi, J.M., Zubimendi, J.L. & Zuza K. (2005). . Campo magnético: Diseño y evaluación de estrategias de enseñanza basadas en el aprendizaje como investigación orientada, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 23 (3), 303-320.
42. Hempel, C. (1966) Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
43. Hewson, P.W. & Thorley, N.R. (1989). The conditions of conceptual change. European Journal of Science Education, 11, special issue, 541-543.
44. Hodson, D. (1992). Assesment of practical work. Some considerations in philosophy of science, Science Education, 24, 41-52
45. Izquierdo, M. & Aduriz-Bravo, A.. (2003). . Epistemological foundations of School Science, Science & Education 12 (1), 27-43.
46. Jimenez-Alexaindre, M.P., Rodriguez, A.B., Duschl, R.A., (2000). Doing the lesson or 'doing science': argument in high school genetics, Science Education,84(6), 757-792.
47. Koballa, T.R., Glynn, S.M., Upson, L. & Colleman, D.C. (2005). Conceptions of teaching science held by novice teachers in an alternative certification program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 287-308
48. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
49. Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I.Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. London: Cambridge: University Press. 91-196.
51. Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
52. Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
53. Leach, J. & Lewis, J. (2002). The role of students' epistemological knowledge in the process of conceptual change in science. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issue in theory and practice (pp. 259-290) Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
54. Leach, J. & Scott, P. (2002). Designing and evaluating and evaluating science teaching sequences: an approach drawing upon the concept of learning demand and a social constructivist perspective on learning, Studies in Science Education, 38, pp. 115-142
55. Lederman, N., Schwartz, R., Abd-el-Khalick, F., Bell, L. (2001) "Pre-Service teachers'understanding and teaching of Nature of Science: An intervention study" Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.
56. Lijnse, P. & Klaassen, K. (2004). . Didactical structures as an outcome of research on teachinglearning sequences? International Journal of Science Education, 26 (5), 537-554.
57. Losee, J. (1980). A historical introduction of the philosophy of science. New York: Oxford University Press.
58. Marton, F. (1981). Phenomenography-Describing conceptions of the world around us, Instructional Science, 10, 177-200.
59. Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
60. Mason, L. (2002) Developing epistemological thinking to foster conceptual change in different domains. In M. Limon & L. Mason (Eds.) Reconsidering conceptual change: Issue in theory and practice. (pp. 259-290). Dordrech: Kluwer Academic Publisher
61. Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: the role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Rontdlege.
62. McComas, W.F. (2000).The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths.In W.F. McComas (Ed.): The Nature of Science in Science Education. Rationales and strategies (pp. 53-70). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
63. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P. & Almazroa, H. (2000) The role and the character of the nature of science in science education. In W.F. McComas (Ed.): The Nature of Science in Science Education. Rationales and strategies. (pp. 3-39). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
64. McComas, W.F. & Olson, J.K. (2000) The nature of science in international science education standard documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.): The Nature of Science in Science Education. Rationales and strategies. (pp. 41-52). The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers
65. Mellado, V. (1998). The classroom practice of preservice teachers and their conceptions of teaching and learning science. Science Education, 82, 197-214
66. Millar, R. (2003). What can we reasonably expect of research in science education?. In D., Psillos, P., Kariotoglou, V., Tselfes, E., Hatzikraniotis, G., Fassoulopoulos & M., Kallery (Eds.) Science Education Research in the Knowledge-based Society. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
67. Millar, R. & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the future. London: KCL.
68. Mortimer, E.F. & Scott, P.H. (2003). Meaning making in secondary science classrooms.Buckingham: Open University Press.
69. Mulhall P., McKittrick B. & Gunstone R. (2001). A perspective on the resolution of confusions in the teaching of electricity, Research in Science Education 31, 575-587.
70. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standard., Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
71. Newton P., Driver, R. & Osborne J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education 21 (5), 553-76.
72. Oliva, J.M. (1999). Algunas reflexiones sobre las concepciones alternativas y el cambio conceptual. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17 (1), 93-107.
73. Osborne, J., Collins S., Ratcliffe M., Millar R. & Duschl R. (2002). Whar 'Ideas-about-Science' should be taught in school science? A delphy study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (7), 692-720.
74. Osuna, L., Martínez-Torregrosa, J., Carrascosa, J. & Verdú R. (2007) Planificando la enseñanza problematizada: El ejemplo de la óptica geométrica en la educación secundaria, Enseñanza de las Ciencias 25(2), 277-294.
75. Park, J., Kim, I., Kim, M. & Lee, M. (2001). Analysis of students̀processes of confirmation and falsification of their prior ideas about electrostatics. International Journal of Science Education, 23 (12), 1219-1236.
76. Posner G., Strike K., Hewson P. & Gertzog W. (1982). Accomodation of a scientific concepcion: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227
77. Pozo, J.I. (1999). Más allá del cambio conceptual: El aprendizaje de las ciencias como cambio representacional. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17 (3), 513-520.
78. Psillos, D. (1998). Teaching introductory electricity. In A. Tiberghien, E.L. Jossem & J.Barojas (Eds.) Conecting Reseach in Teaching in physics education with teacher education. International Commission on Physics Education. Published electronically at URL http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/jossem/ICPE/BOOKS.html
79. Roschelle, J. (1998). . Beyond romantic versus sceptic: a microanalysis of conceptual change in kinematics, International Journal of Science Education, 20 (9), 1025-1042.
80. Roth, W. (1998). Learning process studies: examples from physics. International Journal of Science Education 20 (9), 1019-1024.
81. Rubba, P.A., Schoneweg-Bradford, C. & Harkness, W.L. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the views on Science-Technology-Society Instrument. International Journal of Science Education 18, 387-400
82. Suppe, F. (1977). The structure of scientific theories. Champagne-Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
83. Strike, K.A. & Posner G.J. (1992) A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R.A. Duschl & R.J. Hamilton (Eds.) Phylosophy of science, cognitive psicology and educational theory and practice. (pp. 147-176). Albany: State University of New York Press
84. Turner, S. & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science educators confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology & Human Values, 24 (1), 5-30.
85. Vázquez, A., Acevedo J.A. y Manassero M.A. (2006). Consenso sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia: Evidencias y aplicaciones para su enseñanza. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación [http://www.rieoei.org/did_mat19.htm].
86. Verdú, R. & Martínez-Torregrosa, J. (2005) La estructura problematizada de los temas y cursos de Física y Química como instrumento de mejora de su enseñanza y aprendizaje.Alicante, Spain: CEE Limencop S.L.
87. Viennot, L. (1996). Raisonner en physique. La part du sens commun, París, France.:De Boeck Université. Translated to English in Kluwer Academic Publishers.
88. Vygoskky, L.S. (1989). El desarrollo de los procesos psicológicos superiores. Barcelona: Crítica.
89. Wandersee J.H., Mintzes J.J. & Novak J.D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in Science. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York: McMillan Publishing Company.
90. Welch, W., Klopper, L., Aikenhead, G. & Robinson, J. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65 (1), 33-50.
91. Wenham, M. (1993). The nature and the role of hypotheses in school science investigations. International Journal of Science Education, 15 (3), 231-240.
92. Whitaker, E. (1987). A history of the theories of aether and electricity. USA: American Institute of Physics.
93. Zubimendi, J.L. (2004) La enseñanza de la capacidad eléctrica en primer ciclo de universidad: análisis de dificultades y propuesta alternativa [Teaching the concept of electrical capacitance in Introductory Physics Courses: Analysis of difficulties and alternative approach]. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of the Basque Country.