Competing visions of scientific literacy: The influence of a science curriculum policy image

Exploring the Landscape of Scientific Literacy

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 11-27

  Roberts, Douglas A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921280328     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203843284     Document Type: Chapter

References (29)

1. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
4. Blades, D. (1997). Procedures of power and curriculum change: Foucault and the quest for possibilities in science education. New York: Peter Lang.
5. Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy: From purposes to practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6. Clandinin, D. J. (1986). Classroom practice: Teacher images in action. London: Falmer Press.
7. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge and the modes of knowing: Relevance for teaching and learning. In E. Eisner (Ed.), Learning and teaching the ways of knowing (pp. 174-198). Eighty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8. Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (1988). Teachers as curriculum planners: Narratives of Experience. New York: Teachers College Press.
9. Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: A case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 43-71.
10. Fensham, P. (1998). The politics of legitimating and marginalizing companion meanings: Three Australian case stories. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum(pp. 178-192). New York: Teachers College Press.
11. Fensham, P. (2009). The link between policy and practice in science education: The role of research. Science Education, 93, 1076-1095.
12. Gaskell, P. J. (2001). STS in a time of economic change: What’s love got to do with it? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(4), 385-398.
13. Gaskell, P. J. (2002). Of cabbages and kings: Opening the hard shell of science curriculum policy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(1), 59-66.
14. Gaskell, P. J. (2003). Perspectives and possibilities in the politics of science curriculum. In R. Cross (Ed.), A vision for science education: Responding to the work of Peter Fensham(pp. 139-152). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
15. Gaskell, P. J., & Hepburn, G. (1998). The course as token: A construction of/by networks. Research in Science Education, 28, 65-76.
16. Gauthier, D. P. (1963). Practical reasoning: The structure and foundations of prudential and moral arguments and their exemplification in discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
17. Layton, D. (1972). Science as general education. Trends in Education,25, 11-14.
18. Layton, D. (1973). Science for the people: The origins of the school science curriculum in England. London: George Allen & Unwin.
19. McEneaney, E. H. (2003). The worldwide cachet of scientific literacy. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 217-237.
20. Orpwood, G. (1998). The logic of advice and deliberation: Making sense of science curriculum talk. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum(pp. 133-149). New York: Teachers College Press.
21. Östman, L. (1998). How companion meanings are expressed by science education discourse. In D. A. Roberts & L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum(pp. 54-70). New York: Teachers College Press.
22. Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of “curriculum emphases” in science education. Science Education, 66(2), 243-260.
23. Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education(pp. 27-54). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
24. Roberts, D. A. (1995a). Junior high school science transformed: Analyzing a science curriculum policy change. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 493-504.
25. Roberts, D. A. (1995b). Building companion meanings into school science programs: Keeping the logic straight about curriculum emphases. Journal of Nordic Educational Research, 15(2), 108-124.
26. Roberts, D. A. (1998). Analyzing school science courses: The concept of companion meaning. In D. A. Roberts and L. Östman (Eds.), Problems of meaning in science curriculum(pp. 5-12). New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Roberts, D. A. (2007). Scientific literacy/Science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education(pp. 729-780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263-291.
29. Walker, D. F. (1971). A naturalistic model for curriculum development. School Review, 80(1), 51-65.