Evaluation of school tasks in the light of sustainability education: textbook research in science education in Luxembourgish primary schools

References

• Aebli, H. 1976. Psychologische Didaktik: Didaktische Auswertung der Psychologie von Jean Piaget [Psycholgical Didactics: Didactic Evaluation of Jean Piaget’s Psychology]. 6th ed. Stuttgart: Klett.
   Google Scholar
• Aebli, H. 1980. Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns. Kognitive Aspekte der Handlungstheorie [Thinking: Ordering the Doing. Cognitive Aspects of Action Theory]. Bd. 1. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
   Google Scholar
• Aebli, H. 1981. Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns. Denkprozesse [Thinking: Ordering the Doing. Thinking Processes]. Bd. 2. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, K. N. 2010a. Lernumgebungen im Sachunterricht: Differenziertes Arbeiten – selbstgesteuertes Lernen [Learning Environments in Science Education: Differentiated Working – Self-directed Learning]. Seelze: Klett Kallmeyer.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, K. N. 2010b. “Methoden des Sachlernens: Werkstattarbeit versus Stationsbetrieb.” [Methods of Science Education: Workshop Task versus Learning Circle.] KiTa aktuell HRS 38 (5): 110–111.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, K. N. 2010c. Methodenpool Grundschule: Unterricht konstruktivistisch gestalten [Methods in Primary School: Structuring Teaching in a Constructivist Manner]. Weinheim: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, K. N. 2016. Spiel und Erkenntnis in der Grundschule: Theorie – Empirie – Konzeption [Play and Cognition in Primary School: Theory – Research – Concepts]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, K. N., C. Siry, and G Hengesch. 2015. “Naturwissenschaftlicher Unterricht an der Luxemburger École fondamentale.” [Science Education at the Luxembourgish Primary School.] In Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2015. Bd 2: Analysen und Befunde [Analysis and Reporting], edited by MENJE (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse) and Université du Luxembourg, 28–33. Luxembourg: MENJE/SCRIPT.
   Google Scholar
• Ashley, M. 2000. “Science: An Unreliable Friend to Environmental Education?” Environmental Education Research 6 (3): 269–280.10.1080/713664678
   Google Scholar
• Berger, P. L., and T. Luckmann. 2007. Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie [The Social Construction of Reality: A Theory of Sociology of Knowledge]. 21st ed. Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer.
   Google Scholar
• Bianchini, J. A., and G. J. Kelly. 2003. “Challenges of Standards-based Reform: The Example of California’s Science Content Standards and Textbook Adoption Process.” Science Education 87 (3): 378–389.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-237X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, K., and W. Scott. 1998. “Deconstructing Action Competence: Developing a Case for a More Scientifically-attentive Environmental Education.” Public Understanding of Science 7 (3): 225–236.10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bönsch, M. 1993. “Zweites Korrespondenzkonzept: Handlungsorientierter Unterricht – Bestimmungsmerkmale und Dimensionen.” [Second Concept of Correspondence: Action-oriented Teaching – Classification Criteria and Dimensions.] In Offener Unterricht in der Primar- und Sekundarstufe I, edited by M. Bönsch, 73–90. Hannover: Hahn.
   Google Scholar
• Bönsch, M. 2008. Variable Lernwege: Ein Lehrbuch der Unterrichtsmethoden [Variable Learning Pathways: A Textbook of Teaching Methods]. 4th ed. Sankt Augustin: Academia.
   Google Scholar
• Bos, W., M. Bonsen, J. Baumert, M. Prenzel, C. Selter, and G. Walther, eds. 2008. TIMMS 2007: Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich [Primary School Children’s Competencies in Mathematics and Science in Germany in International Comparison]. Münster: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Bos, W., I. Tarelli, A. Bremerich-Vos, and K. Schwippert. 2012. IGLU 2011: Lesekompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich [Primary School Children’s Literacy in Germany in International Comparison]. Münster: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Brophy, J. 2002. Social Constructivist Teaching: Affordances and Constraints. Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Bryce, N. 2011. “Meeting the Reading Challenges of Science Textbooks in the Primary Grades.” The Reading Teacher 64 (7): 474–485.10.1598/RT.64.7.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, J. M. 2008. “Human/Nature Discourse in Environmental Science Education Resources.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 13 (1): 107–121.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, S., D. Niyogi, D. P. Shepardson, and U. Charusombat. 2010. “Do Earth and Environmental Science Textbooks Promote Middle and High School Students' Conceptual Development about Climate Change? Textbooks’ consideration of students’ misconceptions” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 91: 889–898.10.1175/2009BAMS2625.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton, D., I. Bailey, M. F. Warren, and S. Bissell. 2009. “Revolutions and Second‐best Solutions: Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 34 (7): 719–733.10.1080/03075070802641552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cotton, D., and J. Winter. 2010. “It’s not Just Bits of Paper and Light Bulbs: A Review of Sustainability Pedagogies and Their Potential for use in Higher Education.” In Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice Across Higher Education, edited by P. Jones, D. Selby and S. Sterling, 39–54. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan ( Edition 1930).
   Google Scholar
• EUROSTAT (European Social Statistics). 2015. Population on 1 January by Five Year Age Group, Sex and Citizenship. https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_pop1ctz&lang=en.
   Google Scholar
• Foerster, H. V. 2007. “Das Konstruieren einer Wirklichkeit.” [Construction of a Reality.] In Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. Wie wissen wir, was wir zu wissen glauben? Beiträge zum Konstruktivismus [The Invented Reality. How Do We Know What We Believe to Know? Contributions to Constructivism]. 3rd ed., edited by P. Watzlawick, 39–60. München: Piper.
   Google Scholar
• Fulp, S. L. 2002. The 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education: Status of Elementary School Science Teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Glasersfeld, E. V. 2007. “Einführung in den radikalen Konstruktivismus.” [Introduction to Radical Constructivism.] In Die erfundene Wirklichkeit. Wie wissen wir, was wir zu wissen glauben? Beiträge zum Konstruktivismus [The Invented Reality. How Do We Know What We Believe to Know? Contributions to Constructivism]. 3rd ed., edited by P. Watzlawick, 16–38. München: Piper.
   Google Scholar
• Glöckel, H. 1996. Vom Unterricht [About Teaching]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Gudjons, H. 1986. Handlungsorientiert Lehren und Lernen [Action-oriented Teaching and Learning]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Hartinger, A. 1997. Interessenförderung: Eine Studie zum Sachunterricht [Support of Interests: A Study on Science Teaching]. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. 2009. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meat-analyses Relating to Achievement. Abington: Routeledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hus, V. 2013. “How Teachers Evaluate the Environmental Studies Subject Textbook Sets.” Education and Science 38 (167): 289–299.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IQSH (Institut für Qualitätsentwicklung an Schulen Schleswig-Holstein). 2008. Naturwissenschaften: Ich und die Luft [Natural Sciences: The Air and I]. Bd. 2. https://sinus-sh.lernnetz.de/sinus/materialien/naturwissenschaften/PING/MAPPEN56/ich-und-die-Luft.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jank, W., and H. Meyer. 2011. Didaktische Modelle [Didactic Models]. 11th ed. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, P., D. Selby, and S. Sterling, eds. 2010. Sustainability Education: Perspectives and Practice Across Higher Education. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Kahlert, J. 2010. “Das Schulbuch – ein Stiefkind der Erziehungswissenschaft?” [The Textbook – a Stepchild of Educational Science?] In Schulbuch konkret. Kontexte, Produktion, Unterricht [Textbook Concrete. Contexts, Production, Teaching], edited by E. Fuchs, J. Kahlert, and U. Sandfuchs, 41–56. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Kesidou, S., and J. E. Roseman. 2002. “How Well Do Middle School Science Programs Measure Up? Findings from Project 2061’s Curriculum Review.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (6): 522–549.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-2736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klieme, E., and K. Rakoczy. 2008. “Empirische Unterrichtsforschung und Fachdidaktik.” [Empirical Classroom Research and Teaching Methodology.] Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 54 (2): 222–237.
   Google Scholar
• Kloser, M. 2013. “Exploring High School Biology Students’ Engagement with More and Less Epistemologically Considerate Texts.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50 (10): 1232–1257.10.1002/tea.v50.10
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• König, A. 2015. “Changing Requisites to Universities in the 21st Century: Organizing for Transformative Sustainability Science for Systemic Change.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16: 105–111.10.1016/j.cosust.2015.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kösel, E., and H. Scherer. 1996. “Konstruktionen über Wissenserwerb und Lernwege bei Lernenden.” [Constructions of Knowledge Acquisition and Learning Pathways among Learners.] In Die Schule neu erfinden [Reinventing the School], edited by R. Voß, 105–128. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
   Google Scholar
• Krauthausen, G., and P. Scherer. 2010. “Umgang mit Heterogenität: Natürliche Differenzierung im Mathematikunterricht der Grundschule.” [Dealing with Heterogeneity: Natural Differentiation in Mathematics Instruction in Primary School.] In Handreichungen des Programms SINUS an Grundschulen, edited by Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik, 3–21. Kiel: IPN.
   Google Scholar
• Leuders, T., and L. Holzäpfel. 2011. “Kognitive Aktivierung im Mathematikunterricht.” [Cognitive Activation in Mathematics Instruction.] Unterrichtswissenschaft 39 (3): 213–230.
   Google Scholar
• Lijmbach, S., M. Margadant-van Arcken, C. S. A. Van Koppen, and A. E. J. Wals. 2002. “‘Your View of Nature is Not Mine!’: Learning about Pluralism in the Classroom.” Environmental Education Research 8 (2): 121–135.10.1080/13504620220128202
   Google Scholar
• Lotz-Sisitka, H., A. E. J. Wals, D. Kronlid, and D. McGarry. 2015. “Transformative, Transgressive Social Learning: Rethinking Higher Education Pedagogy in Times of Systemic Global Dysfunction.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 16: 73–80.10.1016/j.cosust.2015.07.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahler, E. 2006. Handlungsorientierter Geschichtsunterricht: Theorie – Praxis – Empirie [Action-oriented History Lessons: Theory – Practice – Empiricism]. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner.
   Google Scholar
• Margadant-van Arcken, M., and A. E. J. Wals, eds. 1998. Quick scan natuurbeelden in lesmethoden aardrijkskunde en biologie voor basis- en voortgezet onderwijs [Scan of Nature Images in Biology and Geography Textbooks for Elementary and Secondary Education]. Wageningen: Leerstoelgroep Agrarische Onderwijskunde-LUW.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, D. J. 2001. Constructing Early Childhood Science. New York: Delmar.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, M. O., and I. V. S. Mullis. 2013. TIMSS and PIRLS 2011: Relationships among Reading, Mathematics, and Science Achievement at the Fourth Grade – Implications for Early Learning. Boston, MA: IEA.
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E., and J. K. Gallini. 1990. “When is an Illustration Worth Ten Thousand Words?” Journal of Educational Psychology 82: 715–726.10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayring, P. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis: Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Klagenfurt: Psychopen.
   Google Scholar
• MEN (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale). 2005. Mensch und Natur: Begleitbuch zum “Sciences Naturelles”-Unterricht im 6. Schuljahr [Man and Nature: Accompanying Book About Science Teaching in the Sixth Grade]. Luxembourg: Imprimerie Graphic Press.
   Google Scholar
• MEN (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale). 2006a. Mir experimentéiere mat Elektrizitéit [We Experiment with Electricity]. Luxembourg: Imprimerie Centrale.
   Google Scholar
• MEN (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale). 2006b. Mir experimentéiere mat Waasser [We Experiment with Water]. Luxembourg: Imprimerie Centrale.
   Google Scholar
• MENFP (Ministère de l’Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle). 1994. Éveil aux sciences: Arbeitsmappe 3 [Science Education: Work Folder 3]. Luxembourg: Offset Moselle.
   Google Scholar
• MENFP (Ministère de l’Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle). 2011. Plan d’Études: École fondamentale. Luxembourg: MENFP.
   Google Scholar
• MENFP (Ministère de l’Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle). 2012. L’enseignement fondamental: Descriptif détaillé. Luxembourg: MENFP.
   Google Scholar
• MENFP (Ministère de l’Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle). 2013. Premier bilan de la mise en oeuvre de la réforme de l’enseignement fondamental. Luxembourg: MENFP.
   Google Scholar
• MENFP (Ministère de l’Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle) & Ministère des Sports. 2002. Éveil aux sciences: Arbeitsmappe 2 [Science Education: Work Folder 2]. Luxembourg: Imprerie Faber.
   Google Scholar
• MENFP (Ministère de l’Education nationale et de la Formation professionnelle) and Université du Luxembourg. 2014. PISA 2012: Nationaler Bericht Luxemburg [PISA 2012: National Report Luxembourg]. Luxembourg: MENFP.
   Google Scholar
• MENJE (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse). 2014. Les chiffres clés de l’éducation nationale. Statistiques et indicateurs. Luxembourg: MENFP: Service des Statistiques et Analyses.
   Google Scholar
• MENJE (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse). 2015. Enseignement fondamental: Cycles 1 à 4. Éducation différenciée. Année scolaire 2013/2014 [Education Report Luxembourg 2015. Vol. 1: Special Edition of the Chiffres Clés de L'Éducation Nationale 2013/2014]. Luxembourg. https://www.men.public.lu/catalogue-publications/fondamental/statistiques-analyses/statistiques-globales/2013-2014/fr.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• MENJE (Ministère de l’Éducation nationale, de l’Enfance et de la Jeunesse) & Université du Luxembourg. 2015. Bildungsbericht Luxemburg 2015. Bd 1: Sonderausgabe der Chiffres Clés de L’Éducation Nationale 2013/2014. Luxembourg: Service des Statistiques et Analyses.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, H. 1987. Unterrichtsmethoden [Teaching Methods]. II: Praxisband. Berlin: Cornelsen Verlag Scriptor.
   Google Scholar
• Mezirow, J. 1996. “Contemporary Paradigms of Learning.” Adult Education Quarterly 46 (3): 158–172.10.1177/074171369604600303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Möller, K. 2007. “Handlungsorientierung im Sachunterricht.” [Action Orientation in Science Education.] In Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts, edited by J. Kahlert, M. Fölling-Albers, M. Götz, and A. Hartinger, 411–416. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Moss, G. 2006. “Textbook Language, Teacher Mediation, Classroom Interaction and Learning Processes: The Case of Natural and Social Science Textbooks in Barranquilla, Colombia.” Proceedings of the 33rd International Systemic Functional Congress, Sao Paulo, 879–894.
   Google Scholar
• Nickel, J., and H. Seybold. 2006. “Editorial: Environmental Education in Three German-speaking Countries. Research Perspectives and Recent Developments.” Environmental Education Research 12 (1): 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Pauli, C., B. Drollinger-Vetter, I. Hugener, and F. Lipowsky. 2008. “Kognitive Aktivierung im Mathematikunterricht.” [Cognitive Activation in Mathematics Instruction.] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie 22 (2): 127–133.10.1024/1010-0652.22.2.127
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reich, K. 2010. Systemisch-konstruktivistische Pädagogik: Einführung in Grundlagen einer interaktionistisch-konstruktivistischen Pädagogik [Systemic-constructivist Pedagogy: Introduction to the Principles of Interactionist-constructivist Pedagogy]. 6th ed. Weinheim: Beltz.
   Google Scholar
• Reusser, K. 2006. “Konstruktivismus – vom epistemologischen Leitbegriff zur Erneuerung der didaktischen Kultur.” [Constructivism – from the Epistemological Concept to the Renewal of the Dicatic Culture.] In Didaktik auf psychologischer Grundlage. Von Hans Aeblis kognitionspsychologischer Didaktik zur modernen Lehr- und Lernforschung [Didactics Based on Psychology. From Hans Aebli's Didactics of Cognitive Psychology to Modern Teaching and Learning Research], edited by M. Baer, M. Fuchs, P. Füglister, K. Reusser and H. Wyss, 151–168. Bern: h.e.p.
   Google Scholar
• Román, D., and K. C. Busch. 2016. “Textbooks of Doubt: Using Systemic Functional Analysis to Explore the Framing of Climate Change in Middle-school Science Textbooks.” Environmental Education Research 22 (8): 1158–1180.10.1080/13504622.2015.1091878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roseman, J. E., S. Kesidou, L. Stern, and A. Caldwell. 1999. “Heavy Books Light on Learning: AAAS Project 2061 Evaluates Middle Grades Science Textbooks.” Science Books & Films 35 (6): 243–247.
   Google Scholar
• Sandfuchs, U. 2010. “Schulbücher und Unterrichtsqualität – historische und aktuelle Reflexionen.” [Textbooks and Quality of Teaching – Historical and Present Reflections.] In Schulbuch konkret. Kontexte, Produktion, Unterricht [Textbook Concrete. Contexts, Production, Teaching], edited by E. Fuchs, J. Kahlert and U. Sandfuchs, 11–24. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
   Google Scholar
• Schiepe-Tiska, A., K. Schöps, S. Rönnebeck, O. Köller, and M. Prenzel. 2013. “Naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenz in PISA 2012: Ergebnisse und Herausforderungen.” [Scientific Competence in PISA 2012: Results and Challenges.] In PISA 2012. Fortschritte und Herausforderungen in Deutschland [PISA 2012. Progress and Challenges in Germany], edited by M. Prenzel, C. Sälzer, E. Klieme and O. Köller, 189–215. Münster: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, P. 1987. “Commercial Reading Materials, a Technological Ideology, and the Deskilling of Teachers.” The Elementary School Journal 87 (3): 307–329.10.1086/461497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slough, S. W., E. M. McTigue, S. Kim, and S. K. Jennings. 2010. “Science Textbooks’ Use of Graphical Representation: A Descriptive Analysis of Four Sixth Grade Science Texts.” Reading Psychology 31 (3): 301–325.10.1080/02702710903256502
   Google Scholar
• STATEC (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques). 2014. Luxemburg in Zahlen: 2014 [Luxembourg in Numbers: 2014]. Troisvierges: Imprimerie exe s.a..
   Google Scholar
• Stetsenko, A., and I. Arievitch. 2014. “Vygotskian Collaborative Project of Social Transformation: History, Politics, and Practice in Knowledge Construction.” In Collaborative Projects, edited by A. Blunden, 217–238. Leiden: Brille.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, E. W. 2008. “Transformative Learning Theory.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 119: 5–15.10.1002/ace.v2008:119
   Google Scholar
• UN (United Nations). 1992. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992. SiSU. http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/environmental.development.rio.declaration.1992/portrait.letter.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• UN (United Nations). 2007. Framing Sustainable Development: The Brundtland Report – 20 Years On. April, Backgrounder. http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtland.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2009. Bonn Declaration. Bonn: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2012a. Education for Sustainable Development: Sourcebook. Paris: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2012. Shaping the Education of Tomorrow: 2012 Report on the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development, Abridged. Paris: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2016. Global Education Monitoring Report. Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All. Paris: UNESCO.
   Google Scholar
• Vogt, M. 2009. Empirische Studien zur subjektiven Verwendung unterrichtlich erworbener ökonomischer Modelle [Empirical Studies on the Subjective Application of Economic Models in School Education]. Kassel.
   Google Scholar
• Wals, A. E. J., and F. Lenglet. 2016. “Sustainability Citizens: Collaborative and Disruptive Social Learning.” In Sustainability Citizenship in Cities: Theory and Practice, edited by R. Horne, J. Fien, B. Beza and A. Nelson, 52–67. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar