Abstract
Throughout the last 60 years the goals and objectives for science teaching and learning have undergone changes many times, often leading to reforms in the way the science curriculum was developed, taught, and learned. Five key factors influence a change in curriculum goals: The learners (target population), the teachers, the science content, the context of learning and teaching both in and out of school, as well as the assessment of students’ achievement and progress.
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
Basheer, S., & Hugerat, M. (2006). Two consecutive reactions in microscaled electrolysis. Chemical Educator, 11, 181-183
Beijaard, D., Maijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers‘ professional identity in professional development of beginning teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 107-128.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1994). Teacher development as professional, personal, and social development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, 483-497.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer.
Bennett, J., & Lubben, F. (2006). Context-based chemistry: The Salters approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 999-1015.
Bodzin, A. M., & Mamlok, R. (2000). STS issues-based approach simulations. The Science Teacher, 67, 36-39.
Bolte, C., Holbrook, J., & Rauch, F. (Eds.). (2012). Inquiry-based science education in Europe: First examples and reflections from the PROFILES project. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2013a). German Chemistry student teachers‘ and trainee teachers‘ understanding of sustainability and education for sustainable development. Science Education International, 24, 167-194.
Burmeister, M., & Eilks, I. (2013b). Using Participatory Action Research to develop a course module on Education for Sustainable Development in pre-service chemistry teacher education. Centre for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 3, 59-78.
Burmeister, M., Jokmin, S., & Eilks, I. (2011). Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung und Green Chemistry im Chemieunterricht [Education for sustainable development and green chemistry in chemistry education]. Chemie konkret, 18, 123-128.
Burmeister, M., Rauch, F., & Eilks, I. (2012). Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and secondary chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 13, 59-68.
Burmeister, M., Schmidt-Jacob, S., & Eilks, I. (2013). German chemistry teachers‘ understanding of sustainability and Education for Sustainable Development – An interview case study. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14, 169-176.
Burmeister, M., von Döhlen, J., & Eilks, I. (2013). Learning about the competing dimensions of sustainability by the product test method. In K. D. Thomas & H. E. Muga (Eds.), Handbook of research on pedagogical innovations for sustainable development (pp. 154-169). Hershey: IGI Global.
Coffey, M. (2013). Green chemistry: Classroom implementation of an educational board-game. In K. D. Thomas & H. E. Muga (Eds.), Handbook of research on pedagogical innovations for sustainable development (pp. 454-474). Hershey: IGI Global.
Eilks, I., & Hofstein, A. (2014). Combining the question of the relevance of science education with the idea of education for sustainable development. In I. Eilks, S. Markic, & B. Ralle (Eds.), Science education research and education for sustainable development (pp. 3-14). Aachen: Shaker.
Eilks, I., & Ralle, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research in chemical education. In B. Ralle & I. Eilks (Eds.), Research in chemical education – What does this mean? (pp. 87-98). Aachen: Shaker.
Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53, 5-26.
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.
Hugerat, M., Basheer, A., & Kortam, N. (2013). Usefulness of plastic Hoffmann apparatus in chemistry classes: A case study of its implementation with high school teachers. Creative Education, 4, 446-451.
Hugerat, M., & Basheer, S. (2001). Is every transparent liquid water? Journal of Chemical Education, 78, 1041.
Ketelaar, E., Beijaard, D., Henny, H. P. A., & Den Brok, P. J. (2012). Teachers‘ positioning towards an educational innovation in the light of ownership, sense making, and agency. Teaching and Teacher Education 28, 273-282.
Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P, W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (1998). Designing professional development for teaching of science and mathematics. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A. & Penick, J. (2007). Involving teachers in the STS curricular process: A long-term intensive support framework for science teachers. Journal of Science Teachers Education, 18, 497-524.
Marks, R., & Eilks, I. (2009). Promoting Scientific Literacy using a socio-critical and problem-oriented approach in chemistry education: Concept, examples, experiences. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 131-145.
Marshall, G. (2010). Student-centered, active learning pedagogies in chemistry education. In S. Basu-Dutt (Ed.), Making chemistry relevant: Strategies for including all students in a learner-sensitive classroom environment (pp. 107-124). Hoboken: Wiley.
NRC (National Research Council) (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy.
Ogborn, J. (2002). Ownership and transformation: Teachers using curriculum innovations. Physics Education, 37, 142–146.
Parchmann, I., Gräsel, C., Baer, A., Nentwig, P., Demuth, R., & Ralle, B. (2006). Chemie in Kontext: A symbiotic implementation of a context-based teaching and learning approach. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 1041-1062.
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. (2011). Socio-scientific issues in the classroom. Heidelberg: Springer.
Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1989). Five models of staff development for teachers. Journal of Staff Development, 10(4), 40-57.
Stuckey, M., Hofstein, A., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Eilks, I. (2013). The meaning of ‚relevance‘ in science education and its implications for the science curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 49, 1-34.
Van Veen, K., & Sleegers, P. (2006). How does it feel? Teachers‘ emotions in a context of change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38, 85-111.
Zidani, S., Kortam, N., & Hugerat, M. (2003). Teaching science through research. Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 35-38.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Sense Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hugerat, M., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Eilks, I., Hofstein, A. (2015). Professional Development of Chemistry Teachers for Relevant Chemistry Education. In: Eilks, I., Hofstein, A. (eds) Relevant Chemistry Education. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-175-5_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-175-5_20
Publisher Name: SensePublishers, Rotterdam
Online ISBN: 978-94-6300-175-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)