Girls and science education in Mauritius: a study of science class practices and their effects on girls

References

• Abell, S. K., and N. G. Lederman. 2007. Handbook of research in science education. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Adamuti-Trache, M.. 2004. Equity in access and outcomes: succeeding along the science pipeline. In Student Affairs: Experiences in and through Canadian Post-secondary Education edited by L. Andres and F. Finlay, 32-68. Vancouver: UBC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1998. “Observational Techniques.” In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 79–110. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Aikenhead, G. S. 2003. “Review of Research on Humanistic Perspectives in Science Curricula.” Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Baram-Tsabari, A. 2009. “Asking Scientists: A Decade of Questions Analyzed by Age, Gender, and Country.” Science Education 93 (1): 131–160. doi:10.1002/sce.v93:1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, T., D. Urhahne, S. Schanze, and R. Ploetzner. 2010. “Collaborative Inquiry Learning: Models, tools, and challenges.” International Journal of Science Education 32 (3): 349–377. doi:10.1080/09500690802582241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaxter, L., C. Hughes, and M. Tight. 2001. How to Research. 2nd ed. London: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Blickenstaff, J. C. 2005. “Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter?” Gender and Education 17 (4): 369–386. doi:10.1080/09540250500145072.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brickhouse, N., P. Lowery, and K. Schultz. 2000. “What kind of a Girl does Science? The Construction of School Science Identities.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 441–458. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brotman, J. S., and F. Moore. 2008. “Girls and Science: A Review of Four Themes in the Science Education Literature.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (9): 971–1002. doi:10.1002/tea.v45:9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bystydzienski, J. (Ed.). 2004. “Re-Gendering Science Fields [special issue].” NWSA Journal 16 (1): 11–23.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carlone, H. 2004. “The Cultural Production of Science In Reform-Based Physics: Girls’ Access, Participation, and Resistance.” Journal of Research in Science Education 41: 392–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Central Statistical Office. 2010. Republic of Mauritius.
   Google Scholar
• Christidou, V. 2006. “Greek Students’ Science‐related Interests and Experiences: Gender differences and correlations.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (10): 1181–1199. doi:10.1080/09500690500439389.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, L., L. Manion, and K. Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. 6th ed. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Dalgety, J., and R. K. Coll. 2004. “The Influence of Normative Belief on Students’ Enrolment Choices.” Research in Science and Technological Education 22 (1): 59–80.
   Google Scholar
• Duveen, G. 2000. “Representations, Identities, Resistance.” In Social Representations: Introduction and Explanations, edited by K. Deaux and G. Philogene. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, D. J., N. W. Brickhouse, P. P. Lottero-Perdue, and J. Kittleson. 2006. “Elementary Girls’ Science Reading at Home and School.” Science Education 90: 270–288. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J., and S. Calvert. 2003. “Challenging Accepted Wisdom: Looking at the Gender and Science Education Question Through a Different Lens.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (7): 861–878. doi:10.1080/09500690305030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harding, J., and L. H. Parker. 1995. “Agents for Change: Policy and Practice Towards a more Gender-Inclusive Science Education.” International Journal of Science Education 17: 537–553. doi:10.1080/0950069950170412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haussler, P., and L. Hoffmann. 2002. “An Intervention Study to Enhance Girls’ Interest, Self-Concept, and Achievement in Physics Classes.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39: 870–888. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, T., and A. Pell. 2002a. “Effects of the Challenger Experience on Elementary Children’s Attitudes to Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (10): 979–1000. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, T., and A. Pell. 2002. “Changes in Primary Boys’ and Girls’ Attitudes to School and Science During a Two-Year Science in-service Programme.” Curriculum Journal 13 (1): 43–69. doi:10.1080/09585170110115268.
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, A., and D. Spelepeng. 2001. “A Language Problem Revisited.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice in Europe 2 (1): 19–29. doi:10.1039/b0rp90028a
   Google Scholar
• Kanhadilok, P., and Mike Watts. 2013. “Western Science and Local Thai Wisdom: Using Museum Toys to Develop Bi-Gnosis.” Canadian Journal for Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 13 (1): 33–48. doi:10.1080/14926156.2013.758330.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, E. F. 1985. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, A. 1987. Science for Girls. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, K. L., D. J. Lizotte, J. Krajcik, and R. W. Marx. 2006. “Supporting Students’ Construction of Scientific Explanations by Fading Scaffolds in Instructional Materials.” Journal of Learning Science 15 (2): 153–191. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. 2002. Qualitative Research in Practice Examples for discussion and Analysis. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, P.-B.,Slawiski, and S. Schwartz. 2006. “Gender differences in High- School students’ Views about Science.” International Journal of Science Education 28 (4): 363–381. doi:10.1080/09500690500277664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Women’s Rights, Child Development and Family Welfare. 2007. Statistics in Mauritius, 2007: A Gender Perspective. Republic of Mauritius.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, P. 2002. “Science education A gender perspective.” In Teaching Science in Secondary Schools, edited by S.Amosand and R. Boohan. London: Routledge Falmer, Open University Press, pp.189–200.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, P., and E. Whitelegg. 2006. Girls in Physics Classroom: A Review of the Research into the Participation of Girls in Physics. London: Institute of Physics.
   Google Scholar
• Naugah, J. and Y. Ramma. 2001. “A Study into Girls’ Attitude towards Science Teaching at Lower Secondary Level. A Case Study in the Mauritian Context.” GASAT 10 International Conference held at Copenhagen, Denmark 1-6 July.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., and S. Collins. 2001. “Pupils’ Views of the Role and Value of the Science Curriculum: A Focus Group Study.” International Journal of Science Education 23 (5): 441–467. doi:10.1080/09500690010006518.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., S. Simon, and S. Collins. 2003. “Attitudes towards Science: a review of the literature and its implications.” International Journal of Science Education 25: 1049–1079. doi:10.1080/0950069032000032199.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, L. H., and L. J. Rennie. 2002. “Teachers’ Implementation of Gender-Inclusive Instructional Strategies in Single-Sex and Mixed-Sex Science Classrooms.” International Journal of Science Education 24 (9): 881–897. doi:10.1080/09500690110078860.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reid, N., and E. A. Skryabina. 2003. “Gender and physics.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (4): 509–536. doi:10.1080/0950069022000017270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, M. 2000. Understanding Science Lessons, Five Years of Science Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robson, C. 2002. Real World Research. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rose, A. J.,R. L. Smith, Rubin., W. M.Bukowski and B. Laursen, eds. 2009. Sex Differences in Per Relationships: Handbook of Peer Interactions, Relationships and Groups, pp. 379–393. The Guilford Press, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Schreiner, C. 2006. Exploring a ROSE- GARDEN Norwegian youth’s orientations towards science-seen as signs of late modernities, PhD thesis. Oslo: Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Silverman, D. 2006. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Sjoberg, S. 2000. “Interesting All Children in ‘Science For All’.” In Improving Science Education, edited by R. Millar, J. Leach and J. Osborne, 165–186. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sjoberg and C. Schreiner. 2005. ROSE Project. Collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education, a comparative study of students’ views of Science and Science education (Acta Didactica) University of Oslo.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, M., and D. Bentley. 1993. “Humanizing and Feminizing School Science: Reviving Anthropomorphic and Animistic Thinking in Constructivist Science Education.” International Journal of Science Education 16 (1): 83–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitelaw, S., L. Milosevic, and S. Daniels. 2000. “Gender, Behaviour and Achievement: A Preliminary Study of Pupil Perceptions and Attitudes.” Gender and Education 12 (1): 87–113. doi:10.1080/09540250020427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitelegg, E. 2005. Girls and Physics: Dilemma and Tensions over the past Decade’, Institute of Physics Report, Girls in the Physics Classroom, A Teachers. Institute of Physics: Guide for Action.
   Google Scholar