‘Teaching What I Learned’: Exploring students’ Earth and Space Science learning experiences in secondary school with a particular focus on their comprehension of the concept of ‘geologic time’

References

• American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.5860/choice.32-0900
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved from: http://www.horizon-research.com/2012nssme/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-NSSME-Full-Report-updated-11--13--13.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Blank, R., & Langesen, D. (Eds.). (2005). State indicators of science and mathematics education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals—handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship: Theorizing the design and use of curriculum materials. In J. Remillard, B. Herbel-Eisenman, & G. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–37). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203884645
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455–472). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., Fetters, M. D., & Ivankova, N. V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(1), 7–12. Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, J., Anderson, S. W., & Libarkin, J. C. (2005). Digging into earth science: alternative conceptions held by K-12 teachers. Journal of Science Education, 12(2), 65–68.
   Google Scholar
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1–44. doi:10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003a). Cognitive factors affecting student understanding of geologic time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 415–442. doi:10.1002/tea.10083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003b). Measuring student understanding of geological time. Science Education, 87(5), 708–731. doi:10.1002/sce.1057
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farenga, S. J., & Joyce, B. A. (1998). Science-related attitudes and science course selection: A study of high-ability boys and girls. Roeper Review, 20(4), 247–251. doi:10.1080/02783199809553901
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. doi:10.2307/1163620 doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255
   Google Scholar
• Hashweh, M. Z. (1987). Effects of subject-matter knowledge in the teaching of biology and physics. Teaching and teacher education, 3(2), 109–120. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(87)90012-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, C. (2010). An analysis of misconceptions in science textbooks: Earth science in England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 32(5), 565–601. doi:10.1080/09500690902721681
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleinhans, M., Buskes, C., & de Regt, H. (2010). Philosophy of earth science. In F. Allhoff (Ed.), Philosophy of the special sciences (pp. 213–236). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krauss, S., Brunner, M., Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Neubrand, M., & Alexander, J. (2008). Pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge of secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 716–725. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, O. (1995). Subject matter knowledge, classroom management, and interactional practices in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 423–440. doi:10.1002/tea.3660320409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, E. B., & Baker, D. R. (2010). A call for a new geoscience education research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 121–129. doi:10.1002/tea.20320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lietz, P., Miller, L., & Kotte, D. (2002). On decreasing gender difference and attitudinal changes: Factors influencing Australian and English pupils’ choice of career in science. Psychology, Evolution and Gender, 4, 69–92. doi: 10.1080/1461666021000013670
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2000). U.S. department of education. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Educational Progress. http://nces.ed.gov/
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/
   Google Scholar
• Park, S., Jang, J.-Y., Chen, Y.-C., & Jung, J. (2010). Is Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) necessary for reformed science teaching? Evidence from an empirical study. Research in Science Education, 41, 245–260. doi:10.1007/s11165-009-9163-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. doi:10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter, W., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258–284. doi:10.1080/00909889909365539
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22. doi: 10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2016's curriculum evaluation study: Life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538–568. doi:10.1002/tea.20019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trend, R. D. (2001). Deep time framework: A preliminary study of U.K. primary teachers’ conceptions of geological time and perceptions of geoscience. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 191–221. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2%3c191::AID-TEA1003%3e3.3.CO;2-3 doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2<191::AID-TEA1003>3.0.CO;2-C
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, I. R. (2002). The 2000 national survey of science and mathematics education: Status of secondary school earth science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved from http://www.horizon-research.com/the-status-of-secondary-earth-science-teaching/
   Google Scholar