Abstract
Science curriculum development can involve changes in what is taught (the content and its related applications), to whom (target audiences, namely the learners), and how (ways of teaching and learning, different instructional interventions).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
AAAS – American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 999–1015.
Eilks, I., Ralle, B., Rauch, F., & Hofstein, A. (2013). How to balance the chemistry curriculum between science and society. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry – A studybook (pp. 1–36). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Fensham, P. J. (1988). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new direction in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). London: Falmer.
Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of “context” in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957–976.
Haney, J. J., Czerniak, C. M., & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the implementation of science education reform strands. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 971–993.
Harms, N., & Yager, R. E. (1981). What Research says to the science teacher (Vol. 3). Washington, DC: NSTA.
Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: A pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9, 1459–1483.
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347–1362.
Holman, J. (1987). Resources or courses? Contrasting approaches to the introduction of industry and technology to the secondary curriculum. School Science Review, 68, 432–437.
Johnstone, A. H. (1981). Chemical education research-facts, findings and consequences. Chemistry in Britain, 17, 130–135.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2–10.
Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), scope (pp. 438–490). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting scientific literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach to chemistry teaching: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 231–245.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Newton, D. P. (1988b). Making science education relevant. London: Kogan Page.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
OECD. (2006). Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy. Paris: OECD.
Pilot, A., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). Special issue: Context based chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 953–1112.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans: The project 2061. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sadler, T. D. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research Science Teaching, 41, 513–536.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. (2009). Scientific literacy, PISA, and socioscientific discourse: Assessment for progressive aims of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 909–921.
Schreiner, C., & Sjøberg, S. (2004). Sowing the seeds of ROSE. Background, rationale, questionnaire development and data collection for ROSE (The Relevance of Science Education): A comparative study of students’ views of science and science education (Acta Didactica 4/2004). Oslo: University of Oslo.
Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (Eds.). (1994). STS education: International perspectives on reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stolz, M., Witteck, T., Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). Reflecting socio-scientific issues for science education coming from the case of curriculum development on doping in chemistry education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technological Education, 9, 273–282.
Stuckey, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‘relevance’ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1–34.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Eilks, I., Hofstein, A. (2017). Curriculum Development in Science Education. In: Taber, K.S., Akpan, B. (eds) Science Education. New Directions in Mathematics and Science Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-749-8_13
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-749-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)