SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2000). Designs for science literacy [Project 61]. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Atweh, B., Kemmis, S., & Weeks, P. (Eds.) (1998). Action research in practice: Partnerships for social justice in education. London: Routledge.
  • Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse. Vol. IV: Class, codes and control. London: Routledge.
  • Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press.
  • Blades, D. W. (1997). Procedures of power and curriculum change: Foucault and the quest for possibilities in science education. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Bourdieu, P. (1974). The school as a conservative force: Scholastic and cultural inequalities. In J.Eggleston (Ed.), Contemporary research in the sociology of education (pp. 3246). London: Methuen.
  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. London: Harvard University Press.
  • Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Routledge.
  • Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Eggings, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. Londer: Pinter.
  • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
  • Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
  • Fensham, P. (1985). Science for all. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 415435.
  • Fensham, P. J. (1998). The politics of legitimating and marginalising companion meanings. In D.Roberts & L.Ostman (Eds.), The many meanings of science curriculum (pp. 178192). New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Fensham, P. J. (2002). Time to change drivers for scientific literacy. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 2, 924.
  • Gee, J. P. (1993). Postmodernism and literacies. In C.Lankshear & P. L.McLaren (Eds.), Critical literacy: Politics, praxis and the postmodern (pp. 271295). New York: State University of New York.
  • Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1989, July). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. Paper presented to the SPELT (Society of Pakistani English Language Teachers) Symposium on Language in Education, Karachi. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 330 203).
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer.
  • Hanrahan, M. U. (1994). Student beliefs and learning environments: Developing a survey of factors related to conceptual change. Research in Science Education, 24, 156165.
  • Hanrahan, M. (1998). The effect of learning environment factors on students' motivation and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 737753.
  • Hanrahan, M. (1999a). Conceptual change and changes of heart: A reflexive study of research in science literacy in the classroom. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
  • Hanrahan, M. (1999b). Rethinking science literacy: Enhancing communication and participation in school science through affirmational dialogue journal writing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(6), 699717.
  • Hanrahan, M. (2003). Savvy science teachers for a smart state: Some initial feedback on the EMS project. Queensland Science Teacher, 28 (2), 1617.
  • Ladson-Billings, G. (2003, March). “I used to love science, but then I went to schoo”: African-American students and science achievement. Keynote address at the Annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
  • Lankshear, C. (1994). Literacy and empowerment: Discourse, power, critique. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 29, 5972.
  • Lankshear, C. (1997). Language and cultural process. In C.Lankshear (Ed.), Changing literacies (pp. 1139). Philadelphia, PA: OUP.
  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Lingard, B., Mills, M., & Hayes, D. (2000). Teachers, school reform and social justice: Challenging research and practice. Australian Educational Researcher, 27(3), 99115.
  • Lloyd, C. V. (1990). The enactment of literacy in high school biology classrooms: Two case studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 337 747).
  • Luke, A. (2002). Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 96110.
  • Lyons, T. (2003). Decisions by science proficient Year 10 students about post-compulsory high school science enrolment: A sociocultural exploration. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of New England, Australia.
  • Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  • Martin, J. R. (1997). Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In F.Christie & J. R.Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 319). Washington, DC: Cassell.
  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College, School of Education.
  • The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 6092.
  • O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 791820.
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Student engagement at school—A sense of belonging and participation. Paris: OECD. Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/13/0,2340,en_2649_201185_16407181_119690_1_1_1,00.html.
  • Roth, K. J. (1992). The role of writing in creating a science learning community (Elementary Subjects Center Series No. 56). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Centre for the Learning and Teaching of Elementary Subjects. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 352 259)
  • Science Council of Canada. (1984). Science for every student: Educating Canadians for tomorrow's world (Report No. 36). Ottawa: The Science Council of Canada.
  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414.
  • Taylor, P. C. (1996). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, special issue on sociocultural approaches to mathematics learning, 31, 151173.
  • Tobin, K. (2000). Becoming an urban science educator. Research in Science Education, 30, 89106.
  • Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science curriculum. Science Education, 80, 223241.
  • Wubbels, T. (1993). Teacher–student relationships in science and mathematics classes. In B. J.Fraser (Ed.), Research implications for science and mathematics teachers (Vol. 1, pp. 6572) Perth: Key Centre for School Science and Mathematics, Curtin University of Technology.