The student voice and school science education

Studies in Science Education

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 48-88

  Jenkins, Edgar W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85012487990     PISSN: 03057267     EISSN: 19408412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03057260608560220     Document Type: Note

References (188)

1. ADEY, K. & BIDDULPH, M. (2001). The influence of pupil perceptions on subject choices at 14+ in geography and history. Educational Studies, 27(4), 439-450.
2. AITKEN, H.G. (1985). Syntony and spark. The origins of radio, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
3. AIKENHEAD, G.S. (2005). Science-based occupations and the science curriculum: concepts of evidence. Science Education, 89(2), 242-75.
4. ALONSO, A.V. & MAS, M.A.M. (2004). Young pupils’ views on the environmental challenges from the Spanish ROSE data. Paper presented to the IOSTE XI Conference, Lublin, July, 2004 (available at http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/rose)
5. ANGELL, C., GUTTERSRUD, O., HENRIKSEN, E.K. & ANDERS, I. (2004). Physics: frightful but fun. Pupils’ and teachers’ view of physics and physics teaching. Science Education, 88 (5), 683-706.
6. ARNOT, M., MCINTYRE, D., PEDDER, D. & REAY, D.,. (2003)). Consultation in the classroom; developing dialogue about teaching and learning. Cambridge, Pearson Publishing.
7. ARY, D, JACOBS, L.C. & RAZAVIEH, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education. Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace.
8. BACKMAN, P. (1997). Flickor, pojkar och naturvetenskap. Unpublished dissertation, Midthogskolan, Harnonsand, Sweden.
9. BARAM-TSABARI, A. & YARDEN, A. (2005). Characterizing children’s spontaneous interests in science and technology, International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 803-26.
10. BARAM-TSABARI, A., SETHI, R.J., BRY, L. & YARDEN, A. (2005). Students’ spontaneous and school-related interests in science and technology. Paper presented at the ESERA conference, Barcelona, August, 2005.
11. BARMAN, C.R. (1996). How do students really view science and scientists? Science and Children, September, 30-33.
12. BARTON, A.C. (2002). Urban science education studies: a commitment to equity, social justice and a sense of place. Studies in Science Education, 38, 1-38.
13. BAUMAN, Z. (1995). Life in fragments. Essays in postmodern morality. Oxford, Blackwell.
14. BAUMAN Z. (1998). Work, consumerism and the new poor. Buckingham, Open University Press.
15. BENNETT, J. (2001). Science with attitude: the perennial issues of pupils’ responses to science. School Science Review, 82(300), 59-67.
16. BLATCHFORD, P. (1992). Children's attitudes to work at 11 years. Educational Studies, 18, 107¬18.
17. BOUD, D.J. (1973). The laboratory aims questionnaire-a new method for course improvement? Higher Education, 2, 81-94.
18. BOUD, D.J., DUNN, J., KENNEDY, T. & THORLEY, R. (1980). The aims of science laboratory courses: a survey of students, graduates and practising scientists. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 415-28.
19. BOYER, R. & TIBERGHIEN, A. (1989). The aims of science laboratory courses: a survey of students, graduates and practising scientists. European Journal of Science Education, 11, 297-308.
20. BRANSCOMBE, A., GOSWAMI, J. & SCHWARTZ, J. (1992). Students teaching, teachers learning. Portsmouth NH, Boynton/Cook.
21. BRICKHOUSE, N.W., LOWERY, P. & SCHULTZ, K. (2000). What kind of girl does science? The construction of school science identities. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 444-58.
22. BURKE, C. & GROSVENOR, I. (2003). The school I’d like. London, Routledge-Falmer.
23. BUSCH, H. (2005). Is science education relevant? Europhysics News, 5, September/October, 192¬7.
24. CAMPBELL, R. (2001). Pupils’ perceptions of science education at primary and secondary school. In: H. Berendt, Dahncke, H., Duit, R., W.Graber, M. Komorek & A. Kross (Eds.), Research in science education—past, present and future, (pp. 125-30) Dordrecht, Kluwer.
25. CHAMBERS, D.W. (1983). Stereotypic images of scientists: the Draw-a-Scientist- Test. Science Education, 67, 255-65.
26. CHARRON, E.H. (1991). Classroom and community influences on youths’ perceptions of science in a rural county school system. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 671-87.
27. CHAWLA, L. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited. A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity, Journal of Environmental Education 29(3) 11-21.
28. CHRISTENSEN, C (1991). Views of nature in environmental education, ENSI-NEWS, 2, Paris, OECD/CERI, 10-15.
29. CHUNAWALA, S. & LAD AGE, S. (1998). Students’ ideas about science and scientists. Mumbai, India, Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education.
30. CLEAVES, A. (2005). The formation of science choices in secondary school. International Journal of Science Education, 27(4), 471-86.
31. COHEN, L., MANION, L. & MORRISON, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London, RoutledgeFalmer.
32. COOK-SATHER, A. (2005). Authorizing students’ perspectives: toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Available through GoogleScholar
33. CROSS, R. T. & PRICE, R.F. (1992). Teaching science for social responsibility. Sydney, St. Louis Press.
34. CUREE (Centre for the Use of Research and Evidence in Education) (2006). Pupil voice: what might we learn from our students? Bulletin No. 5, http://www.nerf-uk.org/bulletin (accessed January 21, 2006).
35. DAWSON, C., 1981. What science would Year 7 students like to study? Some questions, answers and differences. South Australian Science Teachers’ Journal, December, 13-17.
36. DAWSON, C., 2000. Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: Have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 557-70.
37. DAWSON, C. & BENNETT, N. (1981). What do they say they want? Year 7 students’ preferences in science, Research in Science Education, 11, 193-201.
38. DEMBSKI, W.A. (1999). Intelligent design: the bridge between science and theology. Downers Grove, ILL., Intervarsity Press.
39. DENNY, M. & CHENNELL, F. (1986). Science practicals: what do pupils think Europ ean Journal of Science Education, 8, 325-36.
40. DIERKING, L.D., FALK, J.D., RENNIE, L., ANDERSON, D. & ELLENBOGEN, K. (2003). Policy statement of the "Informal Science Education" Ad Hoc Committee, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 108-11.
41. DONNELLY, J.F. (2005). Reforming science in the school curriculum: a critical analysis. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2), 293-309.
42. DONNELLY, J.F. & JENKINS, E.W. (1999). The expertise and deployment of science teachers at Key Stage 4. Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
43. DRIVER, R., ASOKO, H., LEACH, J., MORTIMER, E. & SCOTT, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 5-12.
44. DRIVER, R., LEACH, J., MILLAR, R, & SCOTT, P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science, Buckingham, Open University Press.
45. DUIT, R. (2004). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education: a bibliography. Available at http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
46. DUSCHL, R.A. & OSBORNE, J. (2002). Supporting & promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
47. EER (1999). Critical commentaries on significant life experience. Environmental Education Research, Special Issue, 5(4) passim.
48. ESRC (2004) Consulting pupils about teaching & learning: an ESRC network project (http://consultingpupils.co.uk accessed 21 January 2006)
49. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2004). Europe needs more scientists: report by the High Level Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. Brussels, European Commission, Directorate C.
50. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2005a). The attitude of European Citizens towards the Environment, Brussels, Directorate for General Research, Special Eurobarometer, 217.
51. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2005b). Europeans, science and technology. Brussels, Directorate for General Research, Special Eurobarometer no. 224.
52. EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2005c). Social values, science and technology. Brussels, Directorate for General Research, Special Eurobarometer no. 225.
53. FALCHETTI, E., CARAVITA, S. & SPERDUTI, A. (2003). What lay people want to know from scientists: An analysis of the data base of ‘Scienzaonline’. Paper presented at the 4th ESERA Conference, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, 19- 23rd August.
54. FALK, J.H. (Ed.) (2001). Free-choice science education. How we learn science outside of school. New York, Teachers College Press.
55. FENSHAM, P.J. (1998). Students’ response to the TIMSS tests. Research in Science Education, 28(4), 481-9.
56. FENSHAM, P.J. (2000). Providing suitable content in the ‘science for all’ curriculum. In R. Millar et al. (Eds.) Improving science education; the contribution of research (147-65). Buckingham, Open University Press,.
57. FIELDING, M. (2001). Students as radical agents of change. Journal of Educational Change, 2(2) 123-41.
58. FIELDING, M. (2004a). Transformative approaches to student voice: theoretical underpinnings, recalcitrant realities. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 295-311.
59. FIELDING, M. (2004b). ‘New Wave’ student voice and the renewal of civic society. London Review of Education, 2(3), 197-217.
60. FLETCHER, A. (2003). Meaningful student involvement: resource guide. Available at www.soundout.org (accessed 21 January 2006).
61. FLUTTER, J. & RUDDUCK, J. (2004). Consulting pupils: what’s in it for schools? London, RoutledgeFalmer.
62. FRASER, J. & TOBIN, K.G. (Eds.) (1998). International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
63. GALLAS, K. (1995). Talking their way into science: hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York, Teachers College Press.
64. GOODRUM, D., HACKLING, M. & RENNIE, L. (2000). The status and quality of the teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: a research report., Canberra, Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
65. GROSS, P.R. & LEVITT, N. (1994). Higher superstition. The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
66. HABERMAS, J. (1981). Modernity versus postmodernity. New German Critique, 26, 13-30.
67. HARDING, S. (1991). Whose sciencef Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press.
68. HARGITTAI, I. (2000). Conversations with famous chemists. London, Imperial College Press.
69. HART, P. & NOLAN, K. (1999). A critical analysis of research in environmental education. Studies in Science Education, 34, 1-69.
70. HASTE, H. (2004). Science in my future: a study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology among 11-21 year olds. London, Nestle Social Research programme.
71. HAUSSLER, P. (1987). Measuring students’ interest in physics design and results of a cross¬sectional study in the Federal Republic of Germany. International Journal of Science Education, 9(1) 79-92.
72. HAUSSLER, P., HOFFMANN, L., LANGEHEINE, R., ROST, J., SIEVERS, K. (1998). A typology of students’ interest in physics and the distribution of gender and age within each type. International Journal of Science Education, 20 2), 223-38.
73. HAUSSLER, R & HOFFMANN, L. (2000). A curricular frame for physics education: development, comparison with students’ interests, and impact on students’ achievement and self-concept. Science Education, 84(6), 689-705.
74. HJARTARDOTTIR, G. & ARNADOTTIR, M. (1998). Visindi og visindinmenn - kynin og isindin. Unpublished dissertation, University of Akueyri, Akueyri, Iceland
75. HODSON, D. (1993). Rethinking old ways: towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22, 85-142.
76. HOFSTEIN, A., MANDLER, V., BEN-ZVI, R. & SAMUEL, D. (1980). Teaching objectives in chemistry: a comparison of teachers’ and students’ priorities. European Journal of Science Education, 2, 61-66.
77. HONGLADAROM, S. (2005). The science war in Thailand: clashes between traditional and modernized belief systems in the Thai media. Pantaneto Forum 21 (http://www.Pantaneto.co.uk/ accessed 21 January 2006).
78. HOUSE OF COMMONS SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (2002). Science education from 14-19: third report of session, 2001-02. Volume 1: Report and Proceedings of the Committee. London, The Stationery Office.
79. HUNT, A. (2003). 21st century science: a new flexible model for GCSE science School Science Review, 85(310), 27-34.
80. IOSTE (2005). Newsletter, 8(2), December, 2005, 9-10.
81. IRWIN, A. (1995). Citizen science. A study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London, Routledge.
82. IRWIN A. & WYNNE, B. (Eds.) (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
83. JARMAN, R. & MCALEESE, L. (1996). A survey of children’s reported use of school science in their everyday lives. Research in Education, 55, 1-16.
84. JENKINS, E.W. (1997). Scientific and technological literacy for citizenship: What can we learn from research and other evidence? In: S. Sjoberg and E. Kallerud (Eds.), Science, technology and citizenship. The public understanding of science and technology in science education and research policy (pp.29-50). Oslo, Norsk Institut for studier av forskningog utdanning.
85. JENKINS, E.W. & NELSON, N.W. (2005). Important but not for me: students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science and Technological Education, 23(1) 41-57.
86. JENKINS, E.W. & PELL, R.G. (2006). Me and the environmental challenges: a survey of English secondary school students’ attitudes towards the environment, International Journal of Science Education (forthcoming)
87. JONES, M.G., HOWE, A. & RUA, M.J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests and attitudes towards science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2) 180-192.
88. KANG, S., SCHARMANN, L.C. & NOH, T. (2004). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th and 10th graders. Science Education, 89, 314-44.
89. KERR, J.F. (1963). Practical work in school science: An account of an inquiry sponsored by the Gulbenkian Foundation into the nature and purpose of practical work in school science in England and Wales. Leicester, Leicester University Press.
90. KINCHIN, I. (2004). Investigating students’ beliefs about their preferred role as learners. Educational Research, 46(3), 301-12.
91. KINCHIN, I. (2005). Personal opinion: let’s agree on some basic definitions. School Science Review, 8(318), 6-8.
92. KUSHMAN, J. (Ed.) (1997). Look who’s talking now: student views of learning in estructuring schools. Portland OR, North West Regional Laboratory.
93. LASH, S. (2001). Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture and Society, 18(1), 105-20.
94. LAVONEN, J., JUUTI, K., UITTO, A., MEISALO, V. & BYMAN, R. (2005). Attractiveness of science education in the Finnish comprehensive school, Helsinki, Department of Applied Sciences of Education, University of Helsinki.
95. LAYTON, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: the relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19, 43-79.
96. LAYTON, D. (1993). Science education and praxis: the relationship of school science to practical action. In E.W.Jenkins (Ed.), School science and technology: some issues and perspectives (pp. 118-159). Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, University of Leeds.
97. LAYTON, D., JENKINS, E.W., MACGILL, S. & DAVEY, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the public understanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield, Studies in Education.
98. LEDERMAN, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review f research, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4) 331-359.
99. LEGGETT, M., KINNEAR, A., BOYCE, M. & BENNETT, I. (2004). Student and staff perceptions of the importance of generic skills in science. Higher Education Research and Development, 23(3), 295-312.
100. LEMKE, J. (1990). Talking science: language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ, Ablex.
101. LENSMIRE, T.J. (1998). Rewriting student voice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 30(3), 261-91.
102. LEVY, J., WUBBELS, T., BREKELMAN, M. & MORGANFIELD, B. (1997). Language and cultural factors in students’ perceptions of teacher communication style. Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1), 29-55.
103. LIE, S. & SJOBERG, S. (1984). I "Myke" jenter i "harde" fag? (Soft girls in hard science?). Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.
104. LINDAHL, B. (2001). Feeling for science? About pupils’ attitudes to science. In D. Psillos, P. Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society: Proceedings of the Third ESERA Conference, 2 vols. (pp.733-5). Thessaloniki, ESERA/University of Thessaloniki.
105. LINDAHL, B. (2005). A longitudinal study about students’ attitudes to science. Paper presented to the ESERA Conference, Barcelona, August-September, 2005.
106. LLOYD, D. & WALLACE, J. (2004). Imaging the future of science education: the case for making futures studies explicit in student learning. Studies in Science Education, 40, 139-78.
107. LLOYD-SMITH & TARR, J. (2000). Researching children’s perspectives: A sociological dimension. In A. Lewis & G. Lindsay (Eds.), Researching Children’s Perspectives (pp.59- 70). Buckingham, Open University Press.
108. LYNCH, P.P. & NDYETABURA, V.L. (1983). Practical work in schools: an examination of achers’ stated aims and the influence of practical work according to students. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 20, 663-71.
109. LYONS, T. (2003). Decisions by science proficient Year 10 students about post-compulsory high school science enrolment, a socio-cultural exploration. Ph.D. thesis, University of New England, Australia.
110. LYONS, T. (in press). The puzzle of falling enrolment in physics and chemistry courses: Putting some pieces together. Research in Education.
111. MACBEATH, J., DEMETRIOU, H., RUDDUCK, J. & MYERS, K. (2003). Consulting pupils: a toolkit for teachers. Cambridge, Pearson Publishing.
112. MCINTYRE, D., PEDDER, D. & RUDDUCK, J. (2005). Pupil voice: comfortable and uncomfortable learnings for teachers. Research Papers in Education, 20(2), 149-68.
113. MARTIN, M.O. & MULLIS, I.V.S. (2000). Perspectives from the TIMSS International Study Center. In D. Shorrocks-Taylor & E.W. Jenkins (Eds.) Learning from others: international comparisons in education (pp.29-47). Dordrecht, Kluwer.
114. MASON, C.L., KAHLE, J.B. & GARDNER, A.L. (1991). Draw a Scientist Test: future implications, School Science and Mathematics, 91, 193-8.
115. MATTHEWS, B. (1996). Drawing scientists. Gender and Education, 8, 231-43.
116. MATTHEWS, M.R. (1998). Constructivism in science education: a philosophical examination. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
117. MEAD, M. & METRAUX, R. (1962). The image of the scientist among high-school students: a pilot study. In B. Barber & W. Hirsch (Eds.), The sociology of science (pp.230-46). New York, Free Press.
118. MILLAR, R. & OSBORNE, J. (eds.) (1998). Beyond 2000: science education for the future, London, King’s College London.
119. MIRTA, D.L. (2004). The significance of students: can increasing ‘Student Voice’ in schools lead to gains in youth development? Teachers College Record, 106(4) 651-88.
120. MORTIMER, E. & SCOTT, P. (2003). Making meaning in secondary science classrooms. Buckingham, Open University Press.
121. MUNRO, M. & ELSOM, D. (2000). Choosing science at 16: the influence of science teachers and careers advisers on students’ decisions about science subjects and science and technological careers. Cambridge, National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling/Careers Research and Advisory Centre.
122. MURPHY, C. & BEGGS, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84(308), 109-15.
123. MURRAY, I. & REISS, M. (2005). The student review of the science curriculum. School Science Review, 87(318), 83-93.
124. MUSGROVE, F. & BATCOCK, A. (1969). Aspects of the swing from science. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 39, 320-25.
125. MYRLAND, K. (1997). Vitenskap og forskere Norske 13-aringers oppfatninger om naturfag og forskere innen naturfagi. Master’s thesis, Oslo, University of Oslo.
126. NANDA, M. (2003). Prophets facing backward: post-modern critiques of science and Hindu nationalism. Piscataway, NJ, Rutgers University Press.
127. NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators, 2 vols., Arlington, VA, National Science Foundation.
128. NESTLE SOCIAL RESEARCH PROGRAMME (2004). Press Release, 14 July (2004).
129. NEWTON, D.P. (1988). Making science education relevant. London, Kogan Page.
130. NFER/DfES (2004). Where England stands in the Trends in the International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), National Report for England, Slough/London, National Foundation for Educational Research/ Department for Education and Skills.
131. NIXON, J., MARTIN, J., MCKEOWN, P. & RANSON, S. (1996). Encouraging learning: towards a theory of the learning school. Buckingham, Open University Press.
132. OCR (2005). Pupils’ perceptions of science. Report from research carried out on behalf of OCR. Leeds, RBA research Ltd.
133. OGAWA, M. & SHIMODE, S. (2004). Three distinctive groups among Japanese students in terms of their school science preference: from preliminary analysis of Japanese data of an international survey, ‘The Relevance of Science Education Project’ (ROSE). Journal of Science Education in Japan, 28(4) 279-91.
134. OGURA, Y. (2003). Informal Science education for promoting children’s science learning in Japan. Students’ Science Achievement and attitude through Informal Science Education, Korea, December 5-6, 2003.
135. ORMEROD, M. & DUCKWORTH, D. (1975). Pupils' attitudes to science. Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research.
136. OSBORNE, J. & COLLINS, S. (2000). Pupils’ and parents’ views of the school science curriculum. London, King’s College London.
137. OSLER, A. (1994).The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: some implications for teacher education. Educational Review, 46(2), 141-50.
138. PALMER, J. (1998). Environmental education in the 21st century: theory; practice, progress and promise. London, Routledge.
139. PELL, A. & JARVIS, T. (2001). Developing attitude to science scales for use with children of ages from five to eleven years. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 847-62.
140. PISA (2004) Learning for tomorrow’s world: first results from PISA, 2003. Paris, OECD (summary available at http://www.pisa.oecd.org. accessed 21 January 2006).
141. PLANET SCIENCE, INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE MUSEUM, (2003). Student review of the science curriculum: major findings. London, Planet Science.
142. POLMAN, J.L. & PEA, R.D. (2001). Transformative communication as a cultural tool for guiding inquiry science. Science Education, 85, 223-38.
143. PSILLOS, D. & NIEDDERER, H (Eds.) (2002). Teaching and learning in the science laboratory. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
144. QUALTER, A. (1993). I would like to know more about that. A study of the interest shown by girls and boys in scientific topics. International Journal of Science Education, 15(3) 307-17.
145. RAY, J.J. (1980). How many answer categories should attitude and personality scales use? South African Journal of Psychology, 10, 53-4.
146. REID, N. (2003). Gender and physics. International Journal of Science Education, 25(4), 509-36.
147. REISS, M. (2000). Understanding science lessons: five years of science teaching, Buckingham, Open University Press.
148. RENNIE, L.J., GOODRUM, D. & HACKLING, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455-98.
149. RENNIE, R. & EDWARDS, K. 2005. The science classroom of tomorrow? In S.Alsop, L.Bencze and E. Pedretti, Analysing exemplary science teaching (pp.32-7). Maidenhead, Open University Press.
150. ROBSON, C. (2002). Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner- researchers, Oxford, Blackwell.
151. ROCHE, J. (1999). Children: rights, participation and citizenship, Childhood, 6(4), 475-93.
152. ROSE, H. (1994). The two-way street: reforming science education and transforming masculine science. In: J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS Education: International perspectives on reform (chapter 16). New York, Teachers College Press.
153. ROTH W-M. & DESAUTELS J. (Eds.) (2002). Science education as/for socio-political action. New York, Peter Lang.
154. RUDDUCK, J. & FLUTTER, J. (2004). How to improve your school: giving pupils a voice. London, Continuum.
155. RYDER, J., LEACH, J. & DRIVER, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2) 201-19
156. SCHIBECI, R.A. (1984). Attitudes to science: an update. Studies in Science Education,11, 25-69.
157. SCHLEICHER, A. (2000). The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. In D. Shorrocks-Taylor & E.W. Jenkins (Eds.) Learning from others: international comparisons in education (pp.63-77). Dordrecht, Kluwer.
158. SCHMIDT, W.H., MCKNIGHT, C.C., COGAN, L.S., JAKWERTH, P.M., & HOUANG, R.T. (1999). Facing the consequences: using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
159. SCHREINER, C. (2006). Exploring a ROSE-garden: Norwegian youths’ orientations towards science-seen as signs of late modern identities, Doctor Scientiarum thesis, University of Oslo.
160. SCHREINER, C. & SJOBERG, S. (2003). Optimists or pessimistsf How do young people relate to environmental challenges? Paper presented to the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Netherlands, August, 2003.
161. SCHREINER, C. & SJ OBERG, S. (2004). ROSE: The Relevance of Science Education. Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE-a comparative study of students’ views of science and science education. Oslo, Department of Teacher Education and School Development, University of Oslo. Also available at http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/rose (accessed 21 January 2006).
162. SCHREINER, C. & SJ OBERG, S. (in press) Empowered for action? How do young people relate to environmental challenges? In S. Alsop (Ed.), Beyond Cartesian Dualism: Encountering affect in the teaching and learning of science. Dordrecht, Springer.
163. SCHREINER, C., HENRIKSEN, E.K. & HANSEN RJ.K. (2005). Climate education: empowering today’s youth to meet tomorrow’s challenges. Studies in Science Education, 41, 3-50.
164. SCHULTZ, J. & COOK-SATHER, A. (Eds.) (2001). In our own words: student perspectives on school. Lanham MD, Rowman Sc Littlefield.
165. SHANKS, N. (2004). God, the Devil and Darwin: a critique of intelligent design theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
166. SHORROCKS-TAYLOR, D. & JENKINS, E.W. (Eds.) (2000). Learning from others: international comparisons in education. Dordrecht, Kluwer.
167. SIEMENS PLC (2006).http://www.siemens.co.uk/index.jsp. accessed 14 February 2006.
168. SIMPSON, R.D., KOBALLA, T.R., OLIVER, J.S. & CRAWLEY, F.E. (1994). Research on the affective dimension of science learning. In D.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (chap. 6). New York, Macmillan.
169. SJOBERG, S., 2000. Science and scientists: the SAS study. Cross-cultural evidence and perspectives on pupils’ interests, experiences and perceptions. Background, development and selected results. Oslo, Department of Teacher Education and School Development.
170. SJOBERG, S. & SCHREINER, C., 2005. Young people and science: attitudes, values and priorities: evidence from the ROSE project. Keynote presentation at the European Union Science and Society Forum, Brussels, March, 2005. Also available at http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/rose
171. SOKAL, A. & BRICMONT, J. (1999). Fashionable nonsense: postmodern intellectuals’ abuse of science New York: Picador.
172. SOLOMON, J. & AIKENHEAD, G. (Eds.) (1994). STS Education: international perspectives on reform. New York, Teachers College Press.
173. STARK, R. & GRAY, D. (1999). Gender preferences in learning science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(6), 633-43.
174. SYMINGTON, D. & SPURLING, H. (1990). The Draw-a-Scientist Test: Interpreting the data. Research in Science and Technology Education, 8, 75-7.
175. TAMIR, P. & GARDNER, P.L. (1989). The structure of interest in high school biology. Research in Science and Technology Education, 1, 113-79.
176. TEPPO, M. & RANNIKMAE, M. (2004). Relevant science education in the eyes of Grade Nine students. Paper presented at the IOSTE XI Conference, Lublin, July, 2004 (available at http://www.ils.uio.no/forskning/rose)
177. TOUSSAINT, R.M.J., BOUCHER F., MARCHILDON, L., ARBOUR, C. & CUILLERE, J-C. (2001). Students’ perception of science and technology in the Maurice-Centre-du-Quebec region, in: D.Psillos, P.Kariotoglou, V. Tselfes, G. Bisdikian, G. Fassoulopoulos, E. Hatzikraniotis & M. Kallery (Eds.), Science Education Research in the Knowledge Based Society: Proceedings of the Third ESERA Conference, 2 vols. (Thessaloniki, ESERA/University of Thessaloniki), 664-67.
178. TRUMPER, R. (2004) Israeli students’ interest in physics and its relation to their attitudes towards science and technology and to their own science classes. Paper presented to the IOSTE XI conference, Lublin, July, 2004.
179. VAN BERKEL, B. (2005). The structure of current school chemistry: a quest for conditions for escape. Utrecht, CD-E Press.
180. VASQUEZ, A. & MANASSERO, M (1997). Escribir sobre ciencia: La imagen de la ciencia y de los cietinificos entre adolescentes, Cultura y Education, 6/7 cited in M.G.
181. Jones, A. Howe, A. & M.J. Rua (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests and attitudes towards science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2) 180-192.
182. VINCENTI, W.G. (1993). What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies form aeronautical history. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
183. WELLINGTON, J.J. (Ed.) (1998). Practical work in school science: which way now? London, Routledge.
184. WENG L-J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories on coefficient alpha and test- retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(6), 956-72.
185. WHYTE, J. (1986). Girls into Science and Technology: The story of a project, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
186. WHYTE, J., KELLY, A. & SMAIL, B. (1987). Girls into Science and Technology: Final report of Science for Girls. Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
187. ZEMBYLAS, M. (2005). Three perspectives on linking the cognitive and the emotional in science learning: conceptual change, socio-constructivism and poststructuralism. Studies in Science Education, 41, 91-116.
188. ZOHAR, A. & SELA, D. (2003). Her physics, his physics: gender issues in Israeli advanced placement physics classes. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 245-68.