SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCE

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417436.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlock, R., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2001, March). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. An ICASE symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MI.
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665701.
  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295317.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Anderson, R. D. (1996). Study of curriculum reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
  • Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 112.
  • Ben-Zvi, R., & Silberstein, J. (1985). Chemistry: A challenge. Rehovot, Israel: The Weizmann Institute of Science. (In Hebrew)
  • BouJaoude, S. (2002). Balance of scientific literacy themes in science curricula: The case of Lebanon. International Journal of Science Education, 24(2), 139156.
  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  • Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for kindergarten to year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Author.
  • di Sessa, A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning and literacy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Durkee, P. (1974). An analysis of the appropriateness and utilization of TOUS with special reference to high-ability students studying physics. Science Education, 58(3), 343356.
  • Duschl, R. A., Ellenbogen, K. M., & Erduran, S. (1999, April). Understanding dialogic argumentation among middle school science students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Gitomer, D. H. (1997). Strategies and challenges to changing the focus of assessment and instruction in science classrooms. Educational Assessment, 4(1), 3773.
  • Duschl, R. A., & Hamilton, R. J. (1998). Conceptual change in science and in the learning of science. In B. J.Fraser, & K. G.Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 10471065). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
  • Esté, A. (2000, April 17). La construcción de Laura y la reforma educativa. El Nacional, Caracas, Venezuela.
  • Giere, R. (1999). Science without laws. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Goodrun, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
  • Gurfinkel, L. C. (1999, April 19). Incorporar en la constitución conceptos educativos controvertibles? El Nacional, Caracas, Venezuela.
  • Hahn, L. L., & Gilmer, P. J. (2000, Oct.). Transforming pre-service teacher education programs with science research experiences for prospective science teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southeastern Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Auburn, AL.
  • Hofstein, A., Levi Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environment Research, 4, 193207.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 201217.
  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 2854.
  • Hofstein, A., & Walberg, H. J. (1995). Instructional strategies. In B. J.Fraser, & H. J.Walberg (Eds.), Improving science education: An international perspective (pp. 120). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
  • Jimenez Aleixandre, M. P., Pereiro Munoz, C., & Aznar Cuadrado, V. (2000). Promoting reasoning and argument about environmental issues. In G.Hellden (Ed.), Research in didactics of biology (pp. 215229). Proceedings of the second conference of ERIDOB (European Researchers in the Didactics of Biology), Sweden: Goteborgs Universitet.
  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). The influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551578.
  • Koertge, N. (2000). “New ag” philosophies of science: Constructivism, feminism and postmodernism. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 51, 667683.
  • Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education, 80(6), 673689.
  • Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., & Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative model for helping middle grade science teachers learn project-based instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 94(5), 483497.
  • Krajcik, J., Czerniak, C., & Berger, C. (1998). Teaching children science: A project-based approach. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
  • Krajcik, J., Mamlok, R., & Hug, B. (2001). Learning science through inquiry. In L.Corno (Ed.), Education across a century: The centennial volume (pp. 205238). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and methodology of scientific research programmes. In I.Lakatos, & A.Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on the use of laboratory instruction in science. In D. L.Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 94128). New York: McMillan.
  • Lijnse, P. (1995). “Developmental research” as a way to an empirically based “didactical structure” of science. Science Education, 79(2), 189199.
  • Linn, M., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, teachers, peers: Science learning partners. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Matthews, M. R. (2000). Time for science education. New York: Plenum.
  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
  • Ministry of Education. (1990). Programa de articulación. Caracas. Programa de Articulación. Venezuela: Author.
  • Ministry of Education. (1999). Curriculum outline for “Nature science and living technology.” Taipei: Ministry of Education. (In Taiwanese)
  • Morin, E. (1995). Introducción al pensamiento complejo. Barcelona, Spain: Gedisa.
  • National Center for Educational Research and Development. (1994). Khotat al'nohoud al'tarbawi [National educational plan]. Beirut, Lebanon: Author.
  • National Center for Educational Research and Development. (1997). Manahej al-ta'alim al-a'am wa ahdafaha [Public educational curricula and goals]. Beirut, Lebanon: Author.
  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82, 527552.
  • Niaz, M. (2000). The oil drop experiment: A rational reconstruction of the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 480508.
  • Oregon Department of Education. (2001). Science content standards. Retrieved Aug. 22, 2002, from http://www.ode.state.or.us/cifs/science/contentstandards.pdf
  • Osman, E. H. (1995). Cognitive analysis of the biology examinations of the Lebanese baccalaureate and their alignment with the curriculum. Unpublished Master's thesis, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
  • Pellegrino, J., Baxter, G., & Glaser, R. (1999). Addressing the two disciplines problem: Linking theories of cognition and learning with assessment and instructional practice. In A.Iran-Nejad, & P. D.Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 309355). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
  • Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 8084.
  • Tafoya, E., Sunal, D., & Knecht, P. (1980). Assessing inquiry potential: A tool for curriculum decision makers. School Science and Mathematics, 80, 4348.
  • Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9(3), 239245.
  • Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R.Millar, J.Leach, & J.Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  • Tomorrow 98. (1992). Report of the superior committee on science, mathematics and technology in Israel. Jerusalem: Ministry of Education and Culture. (English edition: 1994)
  • Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(3), 224229.
  • van Fraassen, B. C. (2000). The false hopes of traditional epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LX(2), 253280.
  • von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121140.
  • Welch, W. W., Klopfer, L. E., Aikenhead, G. S., & Robinson, J. T. (1981). The role of inquiry in science education: Analysis and recommendations. Science Education, 65, 3350.
  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • White, B., & Frederickson, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3118.