Understanding aims and values of science: developments in the junior cycle specifications on nature of science and pre-service science teachers’ views in Ireland

References

• Abd-El-Khalick, F. 2012. “Examining the Sources for our Understandings About Science: Enduring Conflations and Critical Issues in Research on Nature of Science in Science Education.” International Journal of Science Education 34 (3): 353–374. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abd-El-Khalick, F., L. R. Bell, and N. G. Lederman. 1998. “The Nature of Science and Instructional Practice: Making the Unnatural Natural.” Science Education 82 (4): 417–436. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allchin, D. 1999. “Values in Science.” Science & Education 8 (1): 1–12. doi: 10.1023/A:1008600230536
   Google Scholar
• Allchin, D. 2011. “Evaluating Knowledge of the Nature of (Whole) Science.” Science Education 95 (3): 518–542. doi: 10.1002/sce.20432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1994. “Self-efficacy.” In Encyclopaedia of Human Behaviour, edited by V. Ramachandran, 71–81. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, R., N. Lederman, and F. Abd-El-Khalick. 2000. “Developing and Acting upon One's Conception of the Nature of Science: A Follow-up Study.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37 (6): 563–581. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<563::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boujaoude, S., Z. Dagher, and S. Refai. 2017. "The Portrayal of Nature of Science in Lebanese 9th Grade Science Textbooks." In Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks – A Global Perspective, edited by C. McDonald, and F. Abd-El-Khalick, 79–97. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. 2009. "Document Analysis as a Qualitative Research Method." Qualitative Research Journal 9 (2): 27–40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027
   Google Scholar
• Bruce, C., and J. Ross. 2008. “A Model for Increasing Reform Implementation and Teacher Efficacy: Teacher Peer Coaching in Grades 3 and 6 Mathematics.” Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne De L'éducation 31 (2): 346–370.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, Y., C. Chang, and Y. Tseng. 2010. “Trends of Science Education Research: An Automatic Content Analysis.” Journal of Science Education and Technology 19 (4): 315–331. doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9202-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dagher, Z. R., and S. Erduran. 2016. “Reconceptualising the Nature of Science: Why Does It Matter?” Science & Education 25 (1): 147–164. doi: 10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DES (Department of Education). 2008. Junior Certificate Science Syllabus. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/7deb12f9-0031-44e3-a7ae-482465572fcf/jc_science_03sy_rev_2008.
   Google Scholar
• DES (Department of Education). 2015. Junior Cycle Science Curriculum Specification. http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Junior-cycle/Junior-Cycle-Subjects/Science.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, R., J. Leach, R. Millar, and P. Scott. 1996. Young People’s Images of Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eflin, J. T., S. Glennan, and G. Reisch. 1999. “The Nature of Science: A Perspective from the Philosophy of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (1): 107–116. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199901)36:1<107::AID-TEA7>3.0.CO;2-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., and Z. Dagher. 2014a. Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Erduran, S., and Z. Dagher. 2014b. “Regaining Focus in Irish Junior Cycle Science: Potential new Directions for Curriculum Development on Nature of Science.” Irish Educational Studies 33 (4): 335–350. doi: 10.1080/03323315.2014.984386
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gore, J. M. 1995. “On the Continuity of Power Relations in Pedagogy.” International Studies in Sociology of Education 5 (2): 165–188. doi: 10.1080/0962021950050203
   Google Scholar
• Grandy, R., and R. Duschl. 2008. “Consensus: Expanding the Scientific Method and School Science.” In Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for Research and Implementation, edited by R. Duschl and R. Grandy, 304–325. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, B. L. 1981. “Participatory Research, Popular Knowledge and Power: A Personal Reflection.” Convergence 14 (3): 6.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., and S. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi: 10.1177/1049732305276687
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irzik, G., and R. Nola. 2011a. “A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science.” Science & Education 20 (7–8): 591–607. doi: 10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irzik, G., and R. Nola. 2011b. “A Family Resemblance Approach.” Plenary Presentation Session with N. Lederman Titled: Current Philosophical and Educational Issues in Nature of Science (NOS) Research, and Possible Future Directions. Presented at the International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference, Thessaloniki.
   Google Scholar
• Irzik, G., and R. Nola. 2014. “New Directions for Nature of Science Research.” In International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, edited by M. Matthews, 999–1021. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Kaya, E., and S. Erduran. 2016. “From FRA to RFN, or How the Family Resemblance Approach Can Be Transformed for Science Curriculum Analysis on Nature of Science.” Science & Education 25 (9): 1–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapan, S. D., M. T. Quartaroli, and F. J. Riemer, eds. 2012. Qualitative Research: An Introduction to Methods and Designs (Vol. 37). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lederman, N. 1992. “Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29 (4): 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lederman, N., F. Abd-El-Khalick, R. Bell, and R. Schwartz. 2002. “Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Conceptions of Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (6): 497–521. doi: 10.1002/tea.10034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longino, H. 1995. “Gender, Politics and the Theoretical Virtues.” Synthese 104: 383–397. doi: 10.1007/BF01064506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthews, M. 2012. “Changing the Focus: From Nature of Science (NOS) to Features of Science (FOS).” In Advances in Nature of Science Research, edited by M. S. Khine, 3–26. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McComas, W. F. 1998. The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McComas, W. F., M. P. Clough, and H. Almazroa. 1998. “The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education.” Science & Education 7 (6): 511–532. doi: 10.1023/A:1008642510402
   Google Scholar
• McComas, W. F., and J. K. Olson. 1998. “The Nature of Science in International Science Education Standards Documents.” In The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, edited by W. F. McComas, 41–52. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, C. V. 2017. "Exploring Representations of Nature of Science in Australian Junior Secondary School Science Textbooks: A Case Study of Genetics." In Representations of Nature of Science in School Science Textbooks – A Global Perspective, edited by C. V. McDonald, and F. Abd-El-Khalick, 79–97. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. [1942] 1972. “The Institutional Imperatives in Science.” In Sociology of Science – Sociology Readings, edited by B. Barnes, 65–79. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Next Generation Standards. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pajares. 2002. Self-efficacy Beliefs in Academic Contexts: An Outline. http://des.emory.edu/mfp/efftalk.
   Google Scholar
• Rubba, P., and H. Anderson. 1978. “Development of an Instrument to Assess Secondary Students’ Understanding of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge.” Science Education 62 (4): 449–458. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730620404
   Google Scholar
• Sargeant, J. 2012. “Qualitative Research Part II: Participants, Analysis, and Quality Assurance.” Journal of Graduate Medical Education 4 (1): 1–3. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-00307.1.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Savasci-Acikalin, F. 2009. “Teacher Beliefs and Practice in Science Education.” Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching 10: 1–14, Article 12. Edited by M. F. Tasarand and G. Cakmakci, Contemporary Science Education Research: International Perspectives. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, R., and N. Lederman. 2002. “It's the Nature of the Beast: The Influence of Knowledge and Intentions on Learning and Teaching Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (3): 205–236. doi: 10.1002/tea.10021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. U., N. G. Lederman, R. L. Bell, W. F. McComas, and M. P. Clough. 1997. “How Great is the Disagreement About the Nature of Science: A Response to Alters.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (10): 1101–1103. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199712)34:10<1101::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-V
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tesch, R. 1990. Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, S., H. Schweingruber, and N. Nielsen. 2015. Science Teachers’ Learning: Enhancing Opportunities, Creative Supportive Contexts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar