Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategies for Learning Nature of Science Knowledge: A Perspective from Educational Psychology

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
History, Philosophy and Science Teaching

Part of the book series: Science: Philosophy, History and Education ((SPHE))

  • 1274 Accesses

Abstract

Learning about the nature of science is a crucial part of being a scientifically literate citizen in the modern age. This paper examines parallels between nature of science instruction and the processes explained by self-regulated learning theory, with a particular emphasis on the extension of effective strategies for learners which can be enhanced by the use of self-regulated learning cycles in classrooms. Explicit and reflective approaches to teaching the nature of science are examined and analyzed in terms of self-regulated learning theory, demonstrating learning processes that are addressed and those that are ignored by current explicit and reflective approaches. Results from emerging research on the use of self-regulated learning to teach nature of science knowledge, inquiry, and science practices are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hofer and Pintritch (2002), King and Kitchener (1994), Kuhn (1999), Tsai (2000).

  2. 2.

    Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Meichtry (1992), Sandoval and Morrison (2003).

  3. 3.

    Akerson and Volrich (2006), Bell et al. (2011), Khishfe (2012), McDonald (2010).

  4. 4.

    Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000), Akerson and Hanuscin (2007), Hanuscin et al. (2006), Khishfe (2008), Scharmann et al. (2005), Schwartz et al. (2004).

  5. 5.

    Abd-El-Khalick (2005), Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2004), Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998).

  6. 6.

    Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998), Abd-El-Khalick and Akerson (2004), Akerson et al. (2000).

  7. 7.

    Cleary (2009), Cleary and Zimmerman (2006), Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education (2006), Grigal et al. (2003), Wehmeyer et al. (2000).

  8. 8.

    Earley et al. (1990), Muis (2004), Shute (2008), Wood and Bandura (1989).

  9. 9.

    Akerson et al. (2000), Akerson and Volrich (2006), Akindehin (1988), Khishfe (2008, 2014), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002).

  10. 10.

    Akerson and Volrich (2006), Bell et al. (2011), Khishfe (2012), Matthews (2014), McDonald (2010).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 15–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. S., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88, 785–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 44, 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first grade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & Gansneder, B. M. (2011). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 414–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12, 209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J. (2009). School-based motivation and self-regulation assessments: An examination of school psychologist beliefs and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J. (2011). Shifting towards self-regulation microanalytic assessment: Historical overview, essential features, and implications for research and practice. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 329–345). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Labuhn, A. S. (2013). Application of cyclical self-regulation interventions in science-based contexts. In H. Bembenutty, T. J. Cleary, & A. Kitasantas (Eds.), Applications of self-regulated learning across diverse disciplines: A tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman (pp. 89–124). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Platten, P. (2013). Examining the correspondence between self-regulated learning and academic achievement: A case study analysis [Special issue]. Educational Research International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2006). Teachers’ perceived usefulness of strategy microanalyic assessment information. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 149–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleary, T. J., Callan, G., & Zimmerman, B. J. (2012). Assessing self-regulation as a cyclical, context-specific phenomenon: Overview and analysis of SRL microanalytic protocols [Special issue]. Education Research International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M.P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto forum, issue 25, January, http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/front25.htm. Republished (2008) in California Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 31–40.

  • Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2006). Report on the teacher needs survey. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, Center for Psychology in Schools and Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corno, L. (1993). The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Educational Researcher, 22(2), 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunbar, K. (1993). Concept discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive Science, 17, 397–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012, Online first). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education. DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4

  • Earley, P. C., Northcraft, G. B., Lee, C., & Lituchy, T. R. (1990). Impact of process and outcome feedback on the relation of goal setting to task performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational application (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Williams, C. (2009). An attributional approach to motivation in school. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 11–34). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigal, M., Neubart, D. A., Moon, S. M., & Graham, S. (2003). Self-determination for students with disabilities: Views of parents and teachers. Exceptional Children, 70, 97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D., Akerson, V., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90, 912–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R. W. (1986). Self-regulated learning: Implications for the design of instructional media. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1&2), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. R. (Eds.). (2002). Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions in nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy, and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungwirth, E. (1970). An evaluation of the attained development of the intellectual skills needed for understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry by BSCS pupils in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 141–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, C. S. (2009). The need to emphasize epistemology in teaching and research. Science & Education, 18, 325–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, C. S., & Aulls, M. (2003). Can an analysis of the contrast between pre-Galilean and Newtonian theoretical frameworks help students develop a scientific mindset? Science & Education, 12, 761–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 45, 470–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, P., & Kitchener, K. (1994). Developing reflective judgment: Understanding and promoting intellectual growth and critical thinking in adolescents and adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28, 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, J. T., Hind, A. J., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971–997). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2014). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2/3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Lee, C. K., & Sweeney, S. (2009). The comprehensiveness and completeness of nature of science content in the U.S. state science standards. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching International Conference, Garden Grove, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 1137–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 389–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monk, M., & Osbourne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81, 405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 46, 384–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, K. R. (2004). Personal epistemology and mathematics: A critical review and synthesis of research. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 317–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogunnivi, M. B. (1983). Relative effects of a history/philosophy of science course on student teachers’ performance on two models of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1, 193–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about science” should be taught in school? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. E. (2012). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science and Education, 21(6), 881–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E. E. (2012). Using metacognition to develop understanding of the role of evidence in science. Science Scope, 35(9), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E.E. (2013, April). Microanalysis of self-regulatory processes of elementary teachers learning to teach earth science through inquiry. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American education research association, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E. E. (2015a, January). Incorporation of scientific argumentation into instruction: Results from a professional development for high school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Education, Portland, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E. E. (2015b). Outcomes of a self-regulatory curriculum model: Network analysis of middle school students’ views of nature of science. Science & Education, 24, 855–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010a). Self-regulation of student epistemic thinking in science: The role of metacognitive prompts. Educational Psychology, 30(1), 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010b). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110, 382–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). Sickle cell disease and malaria: An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18, 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 345–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16, 27–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Crippen, K. J., & Hartley, K. (2006). Promoting self-regulation in science education: Metacognition as part of a broader perspective on learning. Research in Science Education, 36, 111–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1982). Verbal self-regulation as a facilitator of children’s achievement and self-efficacy. Human Learning, 1, 265–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinatra, G. M., & Taasoobshirazi, G. (2011). Intentional conceptual change: The self-regulation of science. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 203–216). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17, 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 239–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 224–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, C. C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42, 193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. A. (2000). National survey of teachers’ promotion of self-determination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93, 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social-cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Kinsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Perceptions of efficacy and strategy use in the self-regulation of learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 185–207). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Erin E. Peters-Burton

Authors
  1. Erin E. Peters-Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erin E. Peters-Burton .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peters-Burton, E.E. (2018). Strategies for Learning Nature of Science Knowledge: A Perspective from Educational Psychology. In: Matthews, M. (eds) History, Philosophy and Science Teaching. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62616-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62614-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62616-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation