A Comparative Analysis of the Biological Parts of the National Curricula in Lower Secondary Education in the Czech Republic and Selected Post-Communist Countries

Jana Poupová; Vanda Janštová; Radim Kuba; Jan Mourek

doi:10.14712/18047106.1294

Vol. 10 No. 3 (2019): sciED Research Reports

A Comparative Analysis of the Biological Parts of the National Curricula in Lower Secondary Education in the Czech Republic and Selected Post-Communist Countries

Jana Poupová, Vanda Janštová, Radim Kuba, Jan Mourek, ¹

Katedra učitelství a didaktiky biologie, Přírodovedecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1294

pdf

How to Cite

Poupová, J., Janštová, V., Kuba, R., & Mourek, J. (2019). A Comparative Analysis of the Biological Parts of the National Curricula in Lower Secondary Education in the Czech Republic and Selected Post-Communist Countries. Scientia in Educatione, 10(3), 94-124. https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.1294

Download Citation

Abstract

In the Czech Republic, a revision of the national curricular documents for primary and secondary education is being prepared and intensively discussed. The aim of this paper is therefore to contribute to the ongoing professional discussion and to select the key aspects of foreign curricular documents that may be inspiring for the Czech curricular reform.
In our study, we compare the concept of the biological part of the valid national curricular documents for lower secondary education (from the 6th to the 9th grades), the second stage of basic school in the Czech Republic, with five selected post-communist European countries, namely Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. We focused on the following key aspects: a) the major characteristics of biology as a school subject (or the biological part of the subject “science”); b) specification and arrangement of subject matter; c) biology as a scientific discipline; d) didactic recommendations and requirements; e) the way of treating crucial biological disciplines; f) other criteria, such as emphasis on local regions or public engagement.
We consider the Estonian and Slovenian educational programmes to be the most inspiring ones, since they elaborate general educational objectives to the level of particular learning content and standards of knowledge. We also find the links to practical work and ICT and connections between biology and general competences very useful when using the documents in classroom practice. The Slovenian document offers an inspiring holistic approach to teaching of biological issues. The Estonian curriculum is a good example of incorporating local aspects, such as typical local ecosystems. The national curricula of both countries recognise biological knowledge and scientific literacy as being very important for the lives of the individual as well as for society.

References

Abrahams, I. (2007). An unrealistic image of science. School Science Review, 88(324), 119–122. Search in Google Scholar
Ayas, A., C¸ lepni, S. & Akdeniz, A.R. (1993). Development of the Turkish secondary science curriculum. Science Education, 77(4), 433–440. Search in Google Scholar
Bílek, M. (2008). Zájem žáků o přírodní vědy jako předmět výzkumných studií a problémy aplikace jejich výsledků v pedagogické praxi. Acta Didactica, 2008(2), 1–15. Search in Google Scholar
Bogner, F.X. & Sotiriou, S. (2014). Pathway towards a standard-based approach to teaching science by inquiry. In C.P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning (2579–2585). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar
Cimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289660 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Dvořák, D., Starý, K. & Urbánek, P. (2015). Malá škola po pěti letech: proměny školy v době reformy. Pedagogická orientace, 25(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2015-1-9 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Ebenezer, J.V. & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300205 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Erdogan, M., Kostova, Z. & Marcinkowski, T. (2009). Components of environmental literacy in elementary science education curriculum in Bulgaria and Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75253 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Fančovičová, J. & Prokop, P. (2017). Effects of hands-on activities on conservation, disgust and knowledge of woodlice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80817 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Folta, J. (1998) Dějiny vědy a techniky 5. 15. a 16. seminář pro vyučující dějinám věd a techniky. In J. Folta (Ed.), Rozpravy NTM 157 (69–74). Praha: NTM. Search in Google Scholar
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. J. & Hackling, M.W. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Search in Google Scholar
Government of the Republic of Estonia. (2014a). Appendix 4 of regulation no 2 of the government of the republic of 6 January 2011. National curriculum for upper secondary schools (last amendment 29 August 2014). Subject Field: Natural Science. Tallinn. Available at https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/est upper secondary nat cur 2014 appendix 4 final.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Government of the Republic of Estonia. (2014b). National curriculum for basic schools – regulation (last amendment 29 August 2014). Tallinn. Available at https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/est basic school nat cur 2014 general part 1.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Grajkowski, W., Ostrowska, B. & Poziomek, U. (2014). Core curriculum for science subjects in selected countries – study report. Warsaw: Educational Research Institute. Search in Google Scholar
Grant, D. M., Malloy, A. D. & Hollowell, G. P. (2013). Enhancing students’ interest in science and technology through cross-disciplinary collaboration and active learning techniques. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.28945/1782 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Hassan, G. (2011). Students’ views of science: A comparison between tertiary and secondary school students. Science Educator, 20(2), 54–61. Search in Google Scholar
Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology amongst 11–21 year olds. London: Nestle Social research Programme. Available at http://opus.bath.ac.uk/22269/ Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, M.T. & Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1008 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Holstermann, N., Grube, D. & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Hong, J.-L., Shim, K.-C. & Chang, N.-K. (1998). A study of Korean middle school students’ interests in biology and their implications for biology education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200806 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Horner, J.K. & Rubba, P. (1978). The myth of the absolute truth. The Science Teacher, 45(1), 29–30. Search in Google Scholar
Janík, T. (2013). Od reformy kurikula k produktivní kultuře vyučování a učení. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 634–663. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-634 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Janík, T., Janko, T., Knecht, P., Kubiatko, M., Najvar, P., Pavlas, T. & Vlčková, K. (2010). Kurikulární reforma na gymnáziích – výsledky dotazníkového šetření. Praha: Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze. Available at http://www.nuv.cz/file/170 Search in Google Scholar
Janštová, V. (2017). Invertebrate dissections can motivate pupils toward studying biology. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková & I. B. Metelková (Eds.), Project-based Education in Science Education XIV. (25–32). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education. Search in Google Scholar
Karpenko, V. (1997). Výuka dějin chemie na vysokých školách. In J. Folta (Ed.), Dějiny vědy a techniky 3. Rozpravy NTM, 145 (121–125). Praha: NTM. Search in Google Scholar
Kim, M., Lavonen, J. & Ogawa, M. (2009). Experts’ opinions on the high achievement of scientific literacy in PISA 2003: A comparative study in Finland and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75288 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Koul, R.B. & Fisher, D. (2002). Science classroom learning environments in India. In International Educational Research Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE). Brisbane, Australia. Available at https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2002/kou02003.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Kuřina, F. (2014). Kompetence a školní praxe. Rozpaky oborového didaktika nad kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 24(3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2014-3-433 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 196, 1–18. Available at https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/9599/1/gupea 2077 9599 1.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Lindner, M. (2014). Project learning for university students. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková (Eds.), Project-based Education in Science XI. (10–15). Praha: Pedagogická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze. Search in Google Scholar
Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339621 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Matthews, M.R. (2011). Teaching the philosophical and worldview components of science – some considerations. In P.V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa & A.A. Rizzaki (Eds.), Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (3–16). Rotterdam: Sense publishers. Search in Google Scholar
MNE (Ministry of National Education of Poland). (2018). Nowa podstawa programowa (zkola podstawowa IV–VIII). https://podstawaprogramowa.pl/Szkola-podstawowa-IV-VIII Search in Google Scholar
MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2011a). Program osnova šola. Biologija. Učni načrt. Ljubljana. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni UN/UN kemija.pdf Search in Google Scholar
MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2011b). Program osnovna šola. Geografija – Učni načrt. Ljubljana: MIZS. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni UN/UN geografija.pdf Search in Google Scholar
MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2011c) Program osnovna šola. Naravoslovje – Učni načrt. Ljubljana: MIZS. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni UN/UN naravoslovje.pdf Search in Google Scholar
MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2014). Predmetnik osnovne šole. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/devetletka/predmetniki/Pred 14 OS 4 12.pdf Search in Google Scholar
MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (undated) Predmetnik osnovne šole: Izbirni predmeti v osnovni šoli. Available athttp://www.mizs.gov.si/si/delovna podrocja/direktorat za predsolsko vzgojo in osnovno solstvo/osnovno solstvo/program/izbirni predmeti v osnovni soli/#c17861 Search in Google Scholar
MŠMT ČR (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky). (1997). Vzdělávací program Národní škola. Praha: SPN. Search in Google Scholar
MŠMT ČR (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky). (2003). Vzdělávací program Základní škola. Praha: Fortuna. Search in Google Scholar
MŠMT ČR (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky). (2017). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání. Praha: MŠMT ČR. Available at http://www.msmt.cz/file/43792/ Search in Google Scholar
OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006518 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
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/10.1080/0950069032000032199 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Papáček, M. (2010). Badatelsky orientované přírodovědné vyučování – cesta pro vzdělávání generací Y, Z a alfa? Scientia in educatione, 1(1), 33–49. Search in Google Scholar
Park, M., Park, D.Y. & Lee, R.E. (2009). A comparative analysis of Earth science curriculum using inquiry methodology between Korean and the US textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108533 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Pawilen, G. & Sumida, M. (2005). A comparative analysis of the elementary science curriculum of Philippines and Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education Ehime University, 52(1), 167–180. Search in Google Scholar
Poupová, J. (2018). Výuka o vědě a jejích dějinách: Česko versus Západ. Orbis scholae, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.281 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Prokop, P. & Fančovičová, J. (2017). The effect of hands-on activities on children’s knowledge and disgust for animals. Journal of Biological Education, 51(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1217910 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Radvanová, S., Čížková, V. & Martinková, P. (2018). Mění se pohled učitelů na badatelsky orientovanou výuku? Scientia in educatione, 9(1), 81–103. Search in Google Scholar
Randler, C., Hummel, E. & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853012X614369 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455–498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171905815 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Russell, C. B. & Weaver, G.C. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90008K Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, H., Machiels-Bongaerts, M., Hermans, H.H., Ten Cate, O., Venekamp, R. & Boshuizen, H.H. (1996). The development of diagnostic competence: comparison of a problem-based, an integrated and a conventional medical curriculum. Academic Medicine, 71(6), 658–664. Search in Google Scholar
Shirazi, S. (2017). Student experience of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 39(14), 1891–1912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1356943 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
da Silva, C. S. D. S., Prochnow, T.R. & Pellegrini, G. (2018). Z Generation youth and interest in science. Acta Scientiae, 20(6), 1056–1070. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.v20iss6id4775 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Stohr-Hunt, P.M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1%3C101::AID-TEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-Z Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Straková, J. (2013). Jak dál s kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 734–744. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-734 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Su, Z., Su, J. & Goldstein, S. (1994). Teaching and learning science in American and Chinese high schools: A comparative study. Comparative Education, 30(3), 255–270. Search in Google Scholar
Su, Z., Su, J. & Goldstein, S. (1995). Science education goals and curriculum designs in American and Chinese high schools. International Review of Education, 41(5), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103035 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Škoda, J. & Doulík, P. (2009). Vývoj paradigmat přírodovědného vzdělávání. Pedagogická orientace, 19(3), 24–44. Search in Google Scholar
ŠPÚ (Štátny pedagogický ústav). (2015). Štátny vzdelávací program. Nižšie stredné vzdelávanie – 2. stupeň základnej školy. Appendix Biológia. Bratislava: Štátny pedagogický ústav. Search in Google Scholar
Šorgo, A. (2012). Scientific creativity: The missing ingredient in Slovenian science education. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.1.2.127 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Šorgo, A. & Špernjak, A. (2009). Secondary school students’ perspectives on and attitudes towards laboratory work in biology. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 14, 123–134. Search in Google Scholar
Šorgo, A. & Špernjak, A. (2012). Practical work in biology, chemistry and physics at lower secondary and general upper secondary schools in Slovenia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 11–019. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.813a Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Štech, S. (2013). Když je kurikulární reforma evidence-less. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-615 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
The Government of Hungary. (2014). The government’s decree on the issue, introduction and implementation of the national core curriculum. Magyar Kölöny (official journal of Hungary). Available at http://regi.ofi.hu/download.php?docID=5846 Search in Google Scholar
Uitto, A. & Kärnä, P. (2014). Teaching methods enhancing grade nine students’ performance and attitudes towards biology. In C.P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning (315–321). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar
van den Berg, E. (2013). The PCK of laboratory teaching: Turning manipulation of equipment into manipulation of ideas. Scientia in educatione, 4(2), 74–92. Search in Google Scholar
Vařejka, P. (2006). Kabinet pro modernizaci výuky biologie? – Proč ne! Biologie Chemie Zeměpis, 15(5), 231. Search in Google Scholar
White Wolf Consulting. (2009). Důvody nezájmu žáků o přírodovědné a technické obory. Výzkumná zpráva. Available at http://vzdelavani.unas.cz/duvody nezajmu obory.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Zembylas, M. (2002) The global, the local, and the science curriculum: A struggle for balance in Cyprus. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095267 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Žoldošová, K. & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3–4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of the published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

[1] Abrahams, I. (2007). An unrealistic image of science. School Science Review, 88(324), 119–122. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Ayas, A., C¸ lepni, S. & Akdeniz, A.R. (1993). Development of the Turkish secondary science curriculum. Science Education, 77(4), 433–440. Search in Google Scholar

[3] Bílek, M. (2008). Zájem žáků o přírodní vědy jako předmět výzkumných studií a problémy aplikace jejich výsledků v pedagogické praxi. Acta Didactica, 2008(2), 1–15. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Bogner, F.X. & Sotiriou, S. (2014). Pathway towards a standard-based approach to teaching science by inquiry. In C.P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning (2579–2585). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Cimer, A. (2012). What makes biology learning difficult and effective: Students’ views. Educational Research and Reviews, 7(3), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR11.205 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[6] Dawson, C. (2000). Upper primary boys’ and girls’ interests in science: have they changed since 1980? International Journal of Science Education, 22(6), 557–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900289660 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[7] Dvořák, D., Starý, K. & Urbánek, P. (2015). Malá škola po pěti letech: proměny školy v době reformy. Pedagogická orientace, 25(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2015-1-9 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[8] Ebenezer, J.V. & Zoller, U. (1993). Grade 10 students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward science teaching and school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660300205 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[9] Erdogan, M., Kostova, Z. & Marcinkowski, T. (2009). Components of environmental literacy in elementary science education curriculum in Bulgaria and Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75253 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[10] Fančovičová, J. & Prokop, P. (2017). Effects of hands-on activities on conservation, disgust and knowledge of woodlice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 721–729. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80817 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[11] Folta, J. (1998) Dějiny vědy a techniky 5. 15. a 16. seminář pro vyučující dějinám věd a techniky. In J. Folta (Ed.), Rozpravy NTM 157 (69–74). Praha: NTM. Search in Google Scholar

[12] Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[13] Goodrum, D., Rennie, L. J. & Hackling, M.W. (2001). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools: A research report. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Government of the Republic of Estonia. (2014a). Appendix 4 of regulation no 2 of the government of the republic of 6 January 2011. National curriculum for upper secondary schools (last amendment 29 August 2014). Subject Field: Natural Science. Tallinn. Available at https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/est upper secondary nat cur 2014 appendix 4 final.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[15] Government of the Republic of Estonia. (2014b). National curriculum for basic schools – regulation (last amendment 29 August 2014). Tallinn. Available at https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/est basic school nat cur 2014 general part 1.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[16] Grajkowski, W., Ostrowska, B. & Poziomek, U. (2014). Core curriculum for science subjects in selected countries – study report. Warsaw: Educational Research Institute. Search in Google Scholar

[17] Grant, D. M., Malloy, A. D. & Hollowell, G. P. (2013). Enhancing students’ interest in science and technology through cross-disciplinary collaboration and active learning techniques. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 12, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.28945/1782 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[18] Hassan, G. (2011). Students’ views of science: A comparison between tertiary and secondary school students. Science Educator, 20(2), 54–61. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Haste, H. (2004). Science in my future: A study of values and beliefs in relation to science and technology amongst 11–21 year olds. London: Nestle Social research Programme. Available at http://opus.bath.ac.uk/22269/ Search in Google Scholar

[20] Hayes, M.T. & Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85(3), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1008 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[21] Holstermann, N., Grube, D. & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40(5), 743–757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9142-0 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[22] Hong, J.-L., Shim, K.-C. & Chang, N.-K. (1998). A study of Korean middle school students’ interests in biology and their implications for biology education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(8), 989–999. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200806 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[23] Horner, J.K. & Rubba, P. (1978). The myth of the absolute truth. The Science Teacher, 45(1), 29–30. Search in Google Scholar

[24] Janík, T. (2013). Od reformy kurikula k produktivní kultuře vyučování a učení. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 634–663. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-634 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[25] Janík, T., Janko, T., Knecht, P., Kubiatko, M., Najvar, P., Pavlas, T. & Vlčková, K. (2010). Kurikulární reforma na gymnáziích – výsledky dotazníkového šetření. Praha: Výzkumný ústav pedagogický v Praze. Available at http://www.nuv.cz/file/170 Search in Google Scholar

[26] Janštová, V. (2017). Invertebrate dissections can motivate pupils toward studying biology. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková & I. B. Metelková (Eds.), Project-based Education in Science Education XIV. (25–32). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education. Search in Google Scholar

[27] Karpenko, V. (1997). Výuka dějin chemie na vysokých školách. In J. Folta (Ed.), Dějiny vědy a techniky 3. Rozpravy NTM, 145 (121–125). Praha: NTM. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Kim, M., Lavonen, J. & Ogawa, M. (2009). Experts’ opinions on the high achievement of scientific literacy in PISA 2003: A comparative study in Finland and Korea. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 379–393. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/75288 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[29] Koul, R.B. & Fisher, D. (2002). Science classroom learning environments in India. In International Educational Research Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE). Brisbane, Australia. Available at https://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2002/kou02003.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[30] Kuřina, F. (2014). Kompetence a školní praxe. Rozpaky oborového didaktika nad kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 24(3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2014-3-433 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[31] Lindahl, B. (2003). Pupils’ responses to school science and technology? A longitudinal study of pathways to upper secondary school. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 196, 1–18. Available at https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/9599/1/gupea 2077 9599 1.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[32] Lindner, M. (2014). Project learning for university students. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková (Eds.), Project-based Education in Science XI. (10–15). Praha: Pedagogická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500339621 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[34] Matthews, M.R. (2011). Teaching the philosophical and worldview components of science – some considerations. In P.V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa & A.A. Rizzaki (Eds.), Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (3–16). Rotterdam: Sense publishers. Search in Google Scholar

[35] MNE (Ministry of National Education of Poland). (2018). Nowa podstawa programowa (zkola podstawowa IV–VIII). https://podstawaprogramowa.pl/Szkola-podstawowa-IV-VIII Search in Google Scholar

[36] MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2011a). Program osnova šola. Biologija. Učni načrt. Ljubljana. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni UN/UN kemija.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[37] MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2011b). Program osnovna šola. Geografija – Učni načrt. Ljubljana: MIZS. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni UN/UN geografija.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[38] MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2011c) Program osnovna šola. Naravoslovje – Učni načrt. Ljubljana: MIZS. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/prenovljeni UN/UN naravoslovje.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[39] MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (2014). Predmetnik osnovne šole. Available at http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/os/devetletka/predmetniki/Pred 14 OS 4 12.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[40] MIZS (Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia). (undated) Predmetnik osnovne šole: Izbirni predmeti v osnovni šoli. Available athttp://www.mizs.gov.si/si/delovna podrocja/direktorat za predsolsko vzgojo in osnovno solstvo/osnovno solstvo/program/izbirni predmeti v osnovni soli/#c17861 Search in Google Scholar

[41] MŠMT ČR (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky). (1997). Vzdělávací program Národní škola. Praha: SPN. Search in Google Scholar

[42] MŠMT ČR (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky). (2003). Vzdělávací program Základní škola. Praha: Fortuna. Search in Google Scholar

[43] MŠMT ČR (Ministerstvo školství, mládeže a tělovýchovy České republiky). (2017). Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání. Praha: MŠMT ČR. Available at http://www.msmt.cz/file/43792/ Search in Google Scholar

[44] OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education. Paris: PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[45] Osborne, J. & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010006518 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[46] 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/10.1080/0950069032000032199 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[47] Papáček, M. (2010). Badatelsky orientované přírodovědné vyučování – cesta pro vzdělávání generací Y, Z a alfa? Scientia in educatione, 1(1), 33–49. Search in Google Scholar

[48] Park, M., Park, D.Y. & Lee, R.E. (2009). A comparative analysis of Earth science curriculum using inquiry methodology between Korean and the US textbooks. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 5(4), 395–411. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108533 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[49] Pawilen, G. & Sumida, M. (2005). A comparative analysis of the elementary science curriculum of Philippines and Japan. Bulletin of the Faculty of Education Ehime University, 52(1), 167–180. Search in Google Scholar

[50] Poupová, J. (2018). Výuka o vědě a jejích dějinách: Česko versus Západ. Orbis scholae, 12(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.14712/23363177.2018.281 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[51] Prokop, P. & Fančovičová, J. (2017). The effect of hands-on activities on children’s knowledge and disgust for animals. Journal of Biological Education, 51(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1217910 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[52] Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2007.9656105 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[53] Radvanová, S., Čížková, V. & Martinková, P. (2018). Mění se pohled učitelů na badatelsky orientovanou výuku? Scientia in educatione, 9(1), 81–103. Search in Google Scholar

[54] Randler, C., Hummel, E. & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853012X614369 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[55] Rennie, L. J., Goodrum, D. & Hackling, M. (2001). Science teaching and learning in Australian schools: Results of a national study. Research in Science Education, 31(4), 455–498. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013171905815 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[56] Russell, C. B. & Weaver, G.C. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1039/C1RP90008K Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[57] Schmidt, H., Machiels-Bongaerts, M., Hermans, H.H., Ten Cate, O., Venekamp, R. & Boshuizen, H.H. (1996). The development of diagnostic competence: comparison of a problem-based, an integrated and a conventional medical curriculum. Academic Medicine, 71(6), 658–664. Search in Google Scholar

[58] Shirazi, S. (2017). Student experience of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 39(14), 1891–1912. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1356943 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[59] da Silva, C. S. D. S., Prochnow, T.R. & Pellegrini, G. (2018). Z Generation youth and interest in science. Acta Scientiae, 20(6), 1056–1070. https://doi.org/10.17648/acta.scientiae.v20iss6id4775 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[60] Stohr-Hunt, P.M. (1996). An analysis of frequency of hands-on experience and science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199601)33:1%3C101::AID-TEA6%3E3.0.CO;2-Z Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[61] Straková, J. (2013). Jak dál s kurikulární reformou. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 734–744. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-734 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[62] Su, Z., Su, J. & Goldstein, S. (1994). Teaching and learning science in American and Chinese high schools: A comparative study. Comparative Education, 30(3), 255–270. Search in Google Scholar

[63] Su, Z., Su, J. & Goldstein, S. (1995). Science education goals and curriculum designs in American and Chinese high schools. International Review of Education, 41(5), 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01103035 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[64] Škoda, J. & Doulík, P. (2009). Vývoj paradigmat přírodovědného vzdělávání. Pedagogická orientace, 19(3), 24–44. Search in Google Scholar

[65] ŠPÚ (Štátny pedagogický ústav). (2015). Štátny vzdelávací program. Nižšie stredné vzdelávanie – 2. stupeň základnej školy. Appendix Biológia. Bratislava: Štátny pedagogický ústav. Search in Google Scholar

[66] Šorgo, A. (2012). Scientific creativity: The missing ingredient in Slovenian science education. European Journal of Educational Research, 1(2), 127–141. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.1.2.127 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[67] Šorgo, A. & Špernjak, A. (2009). Secondary school students’ perspectives on and attitudes towards laboratory work in biology. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 14, 123–134. Search in Google Scholar

[68] Šorgo, A. & Špernjak, A. (2012). Practical work in biology, chemistry and physics at lower secondary and general upper secondary schools in Slovenia. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 11–019. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2012.813a Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[69] Štech, S. (2013). Když je kurikulární reforma evidence-less. Pedagogická orientace, 23(5), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.5817/PedOr2013-5-615 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[70] The Government of Hungary. (2014). The government’s decree on the issue, introduction and implementation of the national core curriculum. Magyar Kölöny (official journal of Hungary). Available at http://regi.ofi.hu/download.php?docID=5846 Search in Google Scholar

[71] Uitto, A. & Kärnä, P. (2014). Teaching methods enhancing grade nine students’ performance and attitudes towards biology. In C.P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science education research for evidence-based teaching and coherence in learning (315–321). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association. Search in Google Scholar

[72] van den Berg, E. (2013). The PCK of laboratory teaching: Turning manipulation of equipment into manipulation of ideas. Scientia in educatione, 4(2), 74–92. Search in Google Scholar

[73] Vařejka, P. (2006). Kabinet pro modernizaci výuky biologie? – Proč ne! Biologie Chemie Zeměpis, 15(5), 231. Search in Google Scholar

[74] White Wolf Consulting. (2009). Důvody nezájmu žáků o přírodovědné a technické obory. Výzkumná zpráva. Available at http://vzdelavani.unas.cz/duvody nezajmu obory.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[75] Zembylas, M. (2002) The global, the local, and the science curriculum: A struggle for balance in Cyprus. International Journal of Science Education, 24(5), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110095267 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[76] Žoldošová, K. & Prokop, P. (2006). Education in the field influences children’s ideas and interest toward science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 15(3–4), 304–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-9017-3 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

Scientia in educatione

Abstract

References

Downloads

License