References
- Bagoly-Simó, P. (2018). Science and Geography textbooks in light of subject-specific education. In E. Fuchs & A. Bock (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of textbook studies (pp. 141–155). Palgrave MacMillan.
- Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
- Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS). (2000). Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
- Bybee, R. W., & Gardner, A. L. (2006). High school biology & the physics first movement. The American Biology Teacher, 68(3), 134–138. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/4451950
- Chen, M., & Luo, M. (2009, July 15). Why is the science curriculum reform so tough? China Education Newspaper, 3. (in Chinese).
- Curriculum and Teaching Materials Research Institute. (2001). A collection of curriculum standards and syllabus of primary and secondary schools in the 20th century in China: Teaching programs. People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
- Czerniak, C. M., & Johnson, C. C. (2014). Interdisciplinary science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. 2, pp. 395–411). Routledge.
- Davis, E. A., Janssen, J. J. M. F., & van Driel, J. H. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 52(2), 127–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1161701
- Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076004607
- DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<582::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-L
- Devetak, I., & Vogrinc, J. (2013). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks: Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 3–15). Springer.
- Duschl, R. A. (2019). Learning progressions: Framing and designing coherent sequences for STEM education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0005-x
- Fang, H. (2006). Structural design and analysis of science textbook (Grades 7–9) of Zhejiang education press. Jichu Education Curriculum, 27(3), 34–36. (in Chinese).
- Fortus, D., & Krajcik, J. (2012). Curriculum coherence and learning progressions. In B. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 783–798). Springer.
- Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Student-teacher relationships. In G. G. Bear & K. M. Minke (Eds.), Children’s needs III: Development, prevention, and intervention (pp. 59–71). National Association of School Psychologists.
- Hansen, K.-H. (1999M Lang, J Olson, K.-H Hansen & W Bünder (Eds.), Changing practices/changing schools: Recent research on teachers' professionalism (pp. 134–148). Garant.
- Harrell, P. E. (2010). Teaching an integrated science curriculum: Linking teacher knowledge and teaching assignments. Issues in Teacher Education, 19(1), 145–165.
- Huang, F. (2010). Curriculum coherence: A comparative analysis of elementary science content standard in People’s Republic of China and the USA [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Western Michigan University.
- Huang, X., & Chen, W. (2014). Issues and reflection on promotion of Zhejiang integrated science curriculum––Based on empirical research on the status of the Zhejiang integrated science curriculum implementation. Teacher Education Research, 26(2), 13–19. (in Chinese).
- Ireland, J., & Mouthaan, M. (2020). Perspectives on curriculum design: Comparing the spiral and the network models. Research Matters, A Cambridge Assessment Publication, 30, 7–12.
- Jenkins, E., & Nelson, N. W. (2005). Important but not for me: Students’ attitudes towards secondary school science in England. Research in Science & Technological Education, 23(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140500068435
- Kali, Y., Linn, M. C., & Roseman, J. E. (Eds.). (2008). Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy. Teachers College Columbia University.
- Kim, Y., Chu, H.-Y., & Lim, G. (2015). Science curriculum changes and STEM education in East Asia. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Science education in East Asia: Pedagogical innovations and research-informed practices (pp. 149–226). Springer.
- Lang, M., & Olson, J. (2000). Integrated science teaching as a challenge for teachers to develop new conceptual structures. Research in Science Education, 30(2), 213–224. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461629
- Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., Jin, Q., Yoon, H.-G., & Matsubara, K. (2017). East-Asian primary science curricula: An overview using revised bloom’s taxonomy. Springer.
- Lombardi, D. (2019). Thinking scientifically in a changing world. Psychological Science Agenda, 33(1). https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2019/01/changing-world.aspx
- McDonald, C. V. (2016). Evaluating Junior Secondary science textbook usage in Australian schools. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 481–509. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9468-8
- Mills, R., Bourke, T., & Siostrom, E. (2020). Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 89(10), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103010
- Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023004297
- Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000032199
- Polikoff, M., Wang, E., & Kaufman, J. (2021). The overlooked support teachers are missing: A coherent curriculum. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-the-overlooked-support-teachers-are-missing-a-coherent-curriculum/2021/03
- Posner, G. J. (2004). Analyzing the curriculum. McGraw-Hill.
- Reigeluth, C. W. (2007). Order, first step to master: An introduction to sequencing in instructional design. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, E. Lehtinen, & T. O’Shea (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics influences learning (pp. 19–40). Oxford University Press.
- Reiss, M. (2020). Biology education – progress or retreat? Journal of Biological Education, 54(5), 461–462. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2020.1829441
- Roth, K., & Garnier, H. E. (2007). What science teaching looks like: An international perspective. Educational Leadership, 64(4), 16–23.
- Rutherford, F. J. (2000). Coherence in high school. In Making sense of integrated science: A guide for high schools (pp. 21–30). Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
- Schmidt, W., McKnight, C., Houang, R., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D., Cogan, L., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and teaching. Jossey-Bass.
- Schmidt, W. H., & Houng, R. T. (2012). Curricular coherence and the common core state standards for mathematics. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 294–308. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12464517
- Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. C., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(5), 525–559. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027042000294682
- Shernoff, D. J., Sinha, S., Bressler, D. M., & Ginsburg, L. (2017). Assessing teacher education and professional development needs for the implementation of integrated approaches to STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0068-1
- Shin, Y., & Kwak, Y. (2019). Analysis of realities of organization and implementation of integrated science of the 2015 revised curriculum. Journal of Science Education, 43(1), 64–78. (In Korean). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21796/jse.2019.43.1.64
- Sikorski, T.-R., & Hammer, D. (2017). Looking for coherence in science curriculum. Science Education, 101(6), 929–943. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21299
- Sun, D., & Wang, Z. (2012). On the integrative science textbooks in China from the viewpoint of contents. Journal of Hebei Normal University (Education Science Edition), 14(2), 78–82. (in Chinese).
- Sun, D., Wang, Z. H., Xie, W. T., & Boon, C. C. (2014). Status of integrated science instruction in junior secondary schools of China: An exploratory study. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 808–838. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.829254
- Twining, P., Butler, D., Fisser, P., Leahy, M., Shelton, C., Forget-Dubois, N., & Lacasse, M. (2021). Developing a quality curriculum in a technological era. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(4), 2285–2308. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09857-3
- Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Springer.
- Venville, G. J., Wallace, J., Rennie, L. J., & Malone, J. A. (2002). Curriculum integration: Eroding the high ground of science as a school subject? Studies in Science Education, 37(1), 43–83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260208560177
- Vojíř, K., & Rusek, M. (2019). Science education textbook research trends: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science Education, 41(11), 1496–1516. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613584
- Wan, D., & Lee, Y.-J. (2021). The intellectual demands and coherency of topics of reformed primary science curricula from three East-Asian regions. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(6), 1125–1144. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10115-4
- Wan, D., & Lee, Y.-J. (in press). Coherence of topics from middle-school integrated science textbooks from Taiwan and Korea. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10187-w
- Wang, Y. (2017). Discussion of the implementation of junior secondary school science curriculum (Volume II). Zhejiang Education Press. (in Chinese).
- Wang, Y. (2018). Achievements, problems and prospects of the reform of integrated science curriculum in Zhejiang over the past 30 years. Curriculum Teaching Material and Method, 38(12), 47–53. (in Chinese).
- Wang, Y. (2019). The reform of science curriculum for developing students’ scientific literacy. Peoples’ Education, 1, 62–65. (in Chinese).
- Wang, Z., & McDougall, D. (2019). Curriculum matters: What we teach and what students gain. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(6), 1129–1149. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9915-x
- Wei, B. (2009). In search of meaningful integration: The experiences of developing integrated science curricula in junior secondary schools in China. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 259–277. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701687430
- Wei, B. (2020). An exploratory study of teacher development in the implementation of integrated science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 50(6), 2189–2206. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9768-x
- Zhang, H., & Wan, D. (2016). Status of Chinese science education reforms: Policies and development framework. In L. Liang, X. F. Liu, & G. W. Fulmer (Eds.), Chinese science education in the 21st century: Policy, practice, and research (pp. 5–30). Springer.