How teaching practices are connected to student intention to enrol in upper secondary school physics courses

References

• Anderhag, P., P. Emanuelsson, P. O. Wickman, and K. M. Hamza. 2013. “Students’ Choice of Post-Compulsory Science: In Search of Schools That Compensate for the Socioeconomic Background of Their Students.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (18): 3141–3160.10.1080/09500693.2012.696738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, R. D. 2007. “Inquiry as an Organizing Theme for Science Curricula.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 807–830. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., and D. R. Krathwohl, eds. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2005). Students’ reasons to choose or to reject physics. In E. Mecholová (Ed.), Teaching and learning physics in new contexts. Proceedings of the selected papers of the GIREP 2004 Conference (pp. 185–186). Ostrava, Czech Republic: University of Ostrava.
   Google Scholar
• Juuti, K., Lavonen, J., Uitto, A., Byman, R., & Meisalo, V. (2010). Science teaching methods preferred by Grade 9 students in Finland. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(4), 611–632.
   Google Scholar
• Lavonen, J., C. Angell, R. Byman, E. Henriksen, and I. Koponen. 2007. “Social interaction in upper secondary physics classrooms in Finland and Norway: A survey of students’ expectations.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 51 (1): 81–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavonen, J., and S. Laaksonen. 2009. “Context of teaching and learning school science in Finland: Reflections on PISA 2006 results.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46 (8): 922–944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lavonen, J. M. J., H. Krzywacki, and L. Koistinen. 2012. “Item construction for Finnish national level assessment in school physics without pre-defined learning outcomes.” In Making it tangible: Learning outcomes in science education, edited by S. Bernhold, K. Neumann and P. Nentwig, 444–477. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., F. Lubben, S. Hogarth, and B. Campbell. 2004. “A Systematic Review of the Use of Small-Group Discussions in Science Teaching with Students Aged 11–18, and Their Effects on Students’ Understanding in Science or Attitude to Science.” In Research Evidence in Education Library. London, England: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., F. Lubben, and G. Hampden-Thompson. 2013. “Schools That Make a Difference to Post-Compulsory Uptake of Physical Science Subjects: Some Comparative Case Studies in England.” International Journal of Science Education 35 (4): 663–689.10.1080/09500693.2011.641131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EU (European Union). 2004. Europe Needs More Scientists! Brussels: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research, High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. www.tekes.fi/EU/fin/6po/tutkijaliikkuvuus/gago_report_final_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Fennema, E., and J. A. Sherman. 1976. “Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales: Instruments Designed to Measure Attitudes toward the Learning of Mathematics by Females and Males.” Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 7 (5): 324–326.10.2307/748467
   Google Scholar
• FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). 2004. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
   Google Scholar
• FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). 2014. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Gorard, S. 2010. “School Experience as a Potential Determinant of Post-Compulsory Participation.” Evaluation & Research in Education 23 (1): 3–17.
   Google Scholar
• Gorard, S., and B. H. See. 2009. “The Impact of Socio-Economic Status on Participation and Attainment in Science.” Studies in Science Education 45 (1): 93–129.10.1080/03057260802681821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homer, M., J. Ryder, and I. Banner. 2014. “Measuring Determinants of Post-Compulsory Participation in Science: A Comparative Study Using National Data.” British Educational Research Journal 40: 610–636. doi:10.1002/berj.3106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins, E. W. 2006. “Student Opinion in England about Science and Technology.” Research in Science & Technological Education 24 (1): 59–68. doi:10.1080/02635140500485365.
   Google Scholar
• Kärnä, P., and J. Rautopuro. 2013. ”Mitä on Oppimistulosten Taustalla [In Finnish].” In Oppimisen Arvioinnin Monet Käytännöt. Raportit Ja Selvitykset 3/2013, edited by A. Räsänen, 87–211. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Kärnä, P., R. Hakonen, and J. Kuusela (2012). Luonontieteellinen Osaaminen Perusopetuksen 9. Luokalla [In Finnish]. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Koballa Jr, T. R., and S. M. Glynn. 2007. “Attidudinal and Motitivational Constructs in Science Learning.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, edited by S. K. Abell and N. G. Lederman, 75–102. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Leach, J., and P. Scott. 2000. “Children’s Thinking, Learning, Teaching and Constructivism.” In Good Practice in Science Teaching: What Research Has to Say, edited by M. Monk and J. Osborne, 41–54. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Minner, D. D., A. J. Levy, and J. Century. 2010. “Inquiry-Based Science Instruction – What is It and Does It Matter? Results from a Research Synthesis Years 1984 to 2002.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 47 (4): 474–496.10.1002/tea.v47:4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Achieve, Inc. on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS. http://www.nextgenscience.org
   Google Scholar
• Niemi, H., A. Toom, and A. Kallioniemi. 2012. Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practices of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-94-6091-811-7
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2006. Assessing Scientific, Reading and Mathematical Literacy: A Framework for PISA 2006. Paris, France: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2007. PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World Executive Summary. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/13/39725224.pdf
   Google Scholar
• OECD Global Science Forum. 2005, November. Papers Presented at the Declining Enrolment in Science and Technology Conference. Amsterdam Koepelkerk Convention Centre, The Netherlands 14–15 November 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Oon, P.-T., and R. Subramaniam. 2010. “Views of Physics Teachers on How to Address the Declining Enrolment in Physics at the University Level.” Research in Science & Technological Education 28 (3): 277–289. doi:10.1080/02635143.2010.501749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J., S. Simon, and S. Collins. 2003. “Attitude towards Science: A Review of the Literature and Its Implications.” International Journal of Science Education 25 (9): 1049–1079.10.1080/0950069032000032199
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oser, F. K., and F. J. Baeriswyl 2001. “Choreographies of Teaching: Bridging Instruction to Learning.” In AERA’s Handbook of Research on Teaching, edited by V. Richardson, 1031–1065. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Owen, S., D. Dickson, M. Stanisstreet, and E. Boyes. 2008. “Teaching Physics: Students’ Attitudes towards Different Learning Activities.” Research in Science & Technological Education 26 (2): 113–128. doi:10.1080/02635140802036734.
   Google Scholar
• Telli, S., P. den Brok, and J. Cakiroglu. 2010. “The Importance of Teacher–Student Interpersonal Relationships for Turkish Students’ Attitudes towards Science.” Research in Science & Technological Education 28 (3): 261–276. doi:10.1080/02635143.2010.501750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tynjälä, P. 1999. “Towards Expert Knowledge? A Comparison between a Constructivist and a Traditional Learning Environment in the University.” International Journal of Educational Research 31 (5): 357–442.10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00012-9
   Google Scholar
• Tytler, R. 2014. Attitudes, Identity, and Aspirations toward Science. Lederman: In N. G.
   Google Scholar
• Wellington, J. 1998. “Practical Work in Science.” In Practical Work in School Science: Which Way Now?, edited by J. Wellington, 3–15. London, England: Routledge.10.4324/9780203267059
   Google Scholar
• Wigfield, A., and J. S. Eccles. 2000. “Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 68–81.10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar