Vol. 2 Iss. 2

…………………………………………………………………………….
In this issue:
…………………………………………………………………………….
• Women Missing in STEM Careers: A Critical Review through the Gender Lens
• How Preservice Elementary Teachers Develop Their Personal Philosophies About Science Teaching: The Role of Informal Science Approaches
• The Development and Validation of a 21st Century Skills Instrument: Measuring Secondary School Students’ Skills
• Indonesia Vocational High School Science Teachers’ Priorities Regarding 21st Century Learning Skills in Their Science Classrooms
…………………………………………………………………………….

Women Missing in STEM Careers: A Critical Review through the Gender Lens

Shamnaz Arifin Mim

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 235, size: 0, date: 06.Jan.2020

Abstract: Although the number of female science students has increased at secondary level in many countries since 1990, this has not translated into pursuing a STEM education at tertiary level and not even into STEM jobs. It is thus important to analyze this issue of female participation in STEM disciplines, since their inclusion would empower them by improving the economy, health, and infrastructure worldwide and help to fight poverty internationally with technological and scientific interventions. This narrative review article aims to analyze the reasons behind female underrepresentation in STEM careers using the “feminist research methodological” approach. Underlying the conceptualization of gendering science, two specific concepts, gender role and empowerment, have been used. Here I have analyzed the educational, attitudinal, socio-cultural, and socio-economic aspects of why there are so few women in STEM careers. This analysis introduces some important concerns that can be focused on during policy implication to ensure gender equality in STEM careers.  This article highlights the socialization process of young students (especially girls), who are expected to perform their stereotyped gender roles consciously or subconsciously both in the family and educational settings. These gendered ideologies are clearly interlinked to the career they become interested or influenced in. The analysis reflects and recommends that subject domains and job sectors should be gender neutral where life experiences and interests of individuals should be emphasized. Such important concerns raised in this article would help educators in policy implication to ensure gender equality in STEM careers.

Keywords: Gender role, Science Careers, STEM, Girls’ empowerment

Please Cite: Mim, S. A. (2019). Women Missing in STEM Careers: A Critical Review through the Gender Lens. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 59-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.221           

References

Agarwal, B. (1997). “Bargaining” and Gender Relations: Within and Beyond the Household, Feminist Economics, 3(1), 1-51.

Ali, M. S. & Awan, A.S. (2013). Attitude Towards Science and Its Relationship with Students’ Achievement in Science, Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(10), 707-718. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1324456533?pq-origsite=gscholar

Allgeier, E. R. & McCormick, N. (1983). The Intimate Relationship between Gender Roles and Sexuality. In E.R. Allgeier, & N. McCormick (Eds.), Changing Boundaries: Gender Roles and Sexual Behavior (pp. 1-15). Mayfield Publishing Company. 

Archer, L. et al. (2013). Adolescent Boys’ Science Aspirations: Masculinity, Capital and Power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 1-30. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/259543335_Adolescent_boys'_science_aspirations_Masculinity_capital_and_power

Blickenstaff, J. C. (2005). Women and Science Careers: Leaky Pipeline or Gender Filter? Gender and Education, 17(4), 369-386. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09540250500145072

Brainard, S.G. & Carlin, L. (1998). A six-year Longitudinal Study of Undergraduate Women in Engineering and Science. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 17-27.

Connell, R. W. (1999). The Social Organization of Masculinity. In R.W. Connell (Ed.), Masculinities (pp. 67-81). Berkeley: University of California Press. Retrieved from https://genderandmasculinities.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/robert-w-connell-masculinities-second-edition-3.pdf

Enloe, C. (2014). Women’s labour is Never Cheap: Gendering Global Blue Jeans and Bankers. In C. Enloe (Ed.), Bananas, Beaches and Bases. Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (pp. 250-304). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Ferrari, R. (2015). Writing Narrative Style Literature Review. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/Brac/Downloads/2047480615z2e000000000329.pdf

Girls inc. (2014). Girls Inc. Operation SMART: Science, Math and Relevant Technology. Retrieved from http://www.girlsinc.org/resources/programs/girls-inc-operation-smart.html

Herz, B. K. & Sperling, G. B. (2004). What Works in Girls’ Education: Evidence and Policies from the Developing World, Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7a0W_bqvzA0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=invest+on+girls+science+education&ots=UdGSuMkUVd&sig=eYM9Vf5w9MWHehQnIknJTMngDEQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Hill, C., Corbett, C. & Andresse, S.R. (2010). Why so few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, AAUW, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/resource/why-so-few-women-in-science-technology-engineering-mathematics/

Kabreer, N. (2010). Voice, Agency and the Sounds of Silence: A Comment on Jane L. Parpart’s Paper. Working Paper No. 297. Michigan State University, 206 International Center, East Lansing, MI 48824-1035.

Kabeer, N. (2005). Gender equality and women’s empowerment: A critical analysis of the third millennium development goal 1. Gender & Development, 13(1), 13-24. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332273

Kelly, A. (1985). The Construction of Masculine Science, British Council of Sociology of Education, 6(2), 133-154. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1393046?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

van de Werfhorst, H. G. et al. (2010). ‘Social Class, Ability and Choice of Subject in Secondary and Tertiary Education in Britain’, British Educational Research Journal 29 (1), 41-62. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0141192032000057366#.VXrl_fmqqko

Miller, P. H. et al. (2006). Gender Differences in High-school Students’ Views about Science. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 363-381. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09500690500277664

Mim, S. A. (2015) ‘Can Women Science Teachers Be Role Models? Challenging Gender Stereotypes of Science and Masculinity’, MA thesis, International Institute of Social Studies (ISS), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Hague, Netherlands. Accessed 12 June 2016 https://thesis.eur.nl/pub/33164/

Nasr, A. R. & Soltani, A. (2011). Attitude towards Biology and Its Effects on Student’s Achievement.  International Journal of Biology, 3(4), 100-104. Retrieved from http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijb/article/view/12442

Osborne, J. et al. (2003). Attitude towards Science: A Review of the Literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049-1079. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0950069032000032199

Shapiro, J.R. & Williams, A.M. (2011). The Role of Stereotype Threats in Undermining Girls’ and Women’s Performance and Interest in STEM, Feminist Forum: Sex Roles, 66,175-183. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/919688864?pq-origsite=gscholar

Sonnert, G. & Holton, G. (1995). Who Succeeds in Science? New Brunswick, NJ, Rutgers University Press.

Steinke, J. (1997). A Portrait of a Woman as a Scientist: Breaking Down Barriers Created by Gender-role Stereotypes, Public Understand Sci. 6, 409-428.

Tai, R. H. & Sadler, P. M. (2011). Gender Differences in Introductory Undergraduate Physics Performance: University Physics Versus College Physics in The USA, International Journal of Science Education, 23(10), 1017-1037.

TRIMUNC (2015). Educating Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM). The Triangle Model United Nations Conference for Middle School Students. Retrieved from http://trimunc.org/committeestopics/united-nations-childrens-fund/educating-girls-in-science-technology-engineering-and-math-stem/

UNESCO. (2007). Science, Technology and Gender: An International Report. Science and Technology for Development Series, UNESCO Publishing. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001540/154045e.pdf

Walford, G. (1981). Tracking Down Sexism in Physics Textbooks. Physics Education, 16, 261-265. Retrieved from http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/16/5/303

Warrington, M. & Younger, M. (2000). The Other Side of the Gender Gap, Gender and Education, 12(4): 493-508. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09540250020004126

Weinburgh, M. (1995). Gender differences in Student Attitude toward Science: A meta-analysis of the literature from 1970 to 1991, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 387-398. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tea.3660320407/pdf

Wickramasinghe, M. (2010). Feminist Research Methodology: Making meanings of meaning-making, London and New York: Routledge.

Whitelegg, L. (2001). Girls in Science Education: of Rice and Fruit Trees. In M. Lederman & I. Bartsch (Eds.), The Gender and Science Reader (pp. 373-382). New York, Routledge.

    

Vol. 2 Iss. 2

How Preservice Elementary Teachers Develop Their Personal Philosophies About Science Teaching: The Role of Informal Science Approaches

Angela Skayia, Lucy Avraamidou, &Maria Evagorou

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 187, size: 0, date: 06.Jan.2020

Abstract: The purpose of this case study was to explore how (if in any way) three informal science approaches as part of a teacher preparation program could shape preservice teachers’ personal philosophies of science teaching and learning. Data were collected in a period of two academic semesters in the context of an elementary methods course through the following sources: science autobiographies, personal philosophies about science teaching, drawings about their most memorable and least memorable experiences of science, three reflective journals about the three informal science experiences (i.e., working with scientists, field, science festival), lesson plans, responses to final exam questions, observations, and semi-structured interviews. The participants were 16 preservice elementary teachers, seven males and nine females. Open coding techniques were used to analyse the data in order to construct categories and subcategories and eventually to identify emerging themes. The outcomes of the analysis showed that the inclusion of informal learning in teachers’ preparation has the potential to support preservice teachers’ in reconstructing their ideas about science and science teaching in ways that are aligned with reform efforts emphasizing student engagement, working with scientists, and utilizing out-of-school spaces for learning.

Keywords: Informal science; Teacher education; Science education

Please Cite: Skayia A., Avraamidou, L., & Evagorou, M. (2019). How preservice teachers develop their personal philosophies about science teaching: The role of informal science approaches. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 71-84.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.222               

References

Anderson, D., Lawson, B., Mayer-Smith, J. (2006). Investigating the Impact of a Practicum Experience in an Aquarium on Pre-service Teacher. Teacher Education, 17(4), 341-353.

Anderson, D., Lucas, K.B., Ginnis, I.S. (2003). Theoretical Perspectives on Learning in an Informal Setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 177-199.

Avraamidou, L. (2014). Developing a reform-minded science teaching identity: The role of informal science environments. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(7), 823-843.

Avraamidou, L. (2014). Reconceptualizing Elementary Teacher Preparation: A case for informal science education. International Journal of Science Education, 37(1), 108-135.

Avraamidou, L. (2015). Stories of self and science: preservice elementary teachers’ identity work through time and across contexts. Pedagogies: An international Journal, 11(1), 43-62.

Avraamidou, L. (2016). Intersections of life histories and science identities: the stories of three preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 38(5), 861-884.

Avraamidou, L. & Roth, W.-M. (2016). Intersections of formal and informal science. NY: Routledge.

Bevan, B., Dillon, J. (2010). Broadening views of learning: Developing educators for the 21st century through an international research partnership at the Exploratorium and King's College London. The New Educator, 6(3-4), 167-180.

Bevan, B., Dillon, J., Hein, G. E., Macdonald, M., Michalchik, V., Miller, D., Root, D., Kilkenny, L. R., Xanthoudaki, M., Yoon, S. (2010). Making Science Matter: Collaborations Between Informal Science Education Organizations and Schools. Advancement of Informal Science Education, Washington.

Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: Complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Education Development Center (2014). STEM Smart Briefs: Connecting Informal and Formal STEM Education. [Online] Available: http://successfulstemeducation.org/resources/connecting-informal-and-formal-stem- education [2014, 10/8].

Fallik, O., Rosenfeld, S., Eylon, B. S. (2013). School and out-of-school science: A model for bridging the gab. Studies in Science Education, 49(1), 69-91.

Fenichel, M., Schweingruber, H. A. (2010). Surrounded by Science: Learning in Informal Environments. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Science.

Hofstein, A., Rosenfeld, S. (1996). Bridging the Gap Between Formal and Informal Science Learning, Studies in Science Education, 28(1), 87-112.

Kisiel, J. (2013). Introducing science teachers to science beyond the classroom. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(1), 67-91.

Krishnamurthi, A., Rennie, L.J. (2013). Informal Science Learning and Education: Definition and Goals. [Online] Available: http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/stem/rennie_krishnamurthi.pdf [2014, 10/8].

McNally, J., Blake, A., Reid, A. (2009). The informal learning of new teachers in school. Journal of Workplace Learning, 21(4), 322-333.

Melber, L. M., Cox-Petersen, A. M. (2005). Teacher Professional Development and Informal Learning Environments: Investigating Partnerships and Possibilities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(2), 103-120.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murmann, M., Avraamidou, L. (2013). Animals, Emperors, Senses: Exploring a Story-based Learning Design in a Museum Setting. International Journal of Science Education, 4(1), 66-91.

Olson, J.K., Cox-Petersen, A. M., McComas, W.F. (2001). The Inclusion of Informal Environments in Science Teacher Preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 155-173..

Rennie, L.J. (2014). Learning science outside of school. In: Abell, S. K., Lederman, N. G. (eds): Handbook of research on science education (pp 120-144). New York: Routledge.

Riedinger, K., Marbach-Ad, G., Mc-Ginnins, J., Hestness, E., Pease, R. (2010). Transforming Elementary Science Teacher Education by Bridging Formal and Informal Course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(1), 51-64.

Stocklmayer, S. M., Rennie, L. J., Gilbert, J. K. (2010). The role of the formal and informal sectors in the provision of effective science education. Studies in Science Education, 46(1), 1-44.

Yin, K. R. (2003a). Case study research: Design and Methods. California: Sage Publications.
Vol. 2 Iss. 2

The Development and Validation of a 21st Century Skills Instrument: Measuring Secondary School Students’ Skills

Alpaslan Sahin, Mirim Kim, & Myeongsun Yoon

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 131, size: 0, date: 06.Jan.2020

Abstract: Due to the rapid change in technology and information dissemination, the qualities and skills employers and colleges demand in the 21st century have changed. To help higher education institutions and workforce to identify and measure their prospective students and employees’ skills respectively, we designed an instrument for secondary grade students to self-assess their 21st century skills. After successful piloting, validation of the final instrument was done with 282 high school students from a public high school in Texas. We utilized exploratory factor analysis and investigated construct validity for the instrument using principal axis factoring with Promax rotation and Kaiser normalization. We found that the original 48 items developed for the instrument were loading the four factors as theorized in our model. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models for four scales were separately investigated. Maximum likelihood estimation method was used for all analyses though Mplus8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017). We came up with 5 factors and 43 items. Researchers, K-12 educators, postsecondary educators, and employers may benefit from the development of this instrument.

Keywords: 21st century skills; Exploratory factor analysis; Instrument development; Principal axis factoring; Confirmatory factor analysis.

Please Cite: Sahin, A., Kim, M., & Yoon, M. (2019). The Development and Validation of a 21st Century Skills Instrument: Measuring Secondary School Students’ Skills. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 85-103.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.223               

References

Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., ... Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. New York. Longman Publishing.

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education & America's Promise. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/GlobalCentury_final.pdf

Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House83(2), 39–43.

Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., Miller-Ricci, M., & Rumble, M. (2012). Defining twenty-first century skills. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 17–66). New York: Springer.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1984). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Handbook 1: Cognitive domain). New York: Longman.

Brown, J. D. (2009). Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. JALT Testing and Evaluation SIG Newsletter, 13(3), 20–25.

Calvani, A., Cartelli, A., Fini, A., & Ranieri, M. (2009). Models and instruments for assessing digital competence at school. Journal of E-learning and Knowledge Society4(3), 183–193.

Churches, A. (2008). Bloom’s digital taxonomy. Retrieved from http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf

Dede, C. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In J. A. Bellanca & R. S. Brandt (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Dron, J., & Anderson, T. (2014). Teaching crowds: Learning and social media. Edmonton, Canada: Athabasca University Press.

Fan, S., & Le, Q. (2011). Developing a valid and reliable instrument to evaluate users’ perception of web-based learning in an Australian university contexts. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3), 366–379.

Greiff, S., & Kyllonen, P.C. (2016). Contemporary assessment challenges: The measurement of 21st century skills. Applied Measurement in Education, 29(4), 243–244.

Griffin, P., & Care, E. (Eds.). (2015). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach. New York: Springer.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2016). ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/

Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity 1. Personnel Psychology28(4), 563–575.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are changing the way we work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lombardi, M. M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. In D. G. Oblinger (Ed.), Educause Learning Initiative: Advancing learning through IT innovation (pp. 1–12). Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/resources/2007/1/authentic-learning-for-the-21st-century-an-overview

Mintz, S. (2014, March 5). Five ways that 21st and 20th century learning will differ: Proficiency, data, science, and more. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/five-ways-21st-and-20th-century-learning-will-differ

Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In M. Koehler & P. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings for the 22nd International Conference for the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (pp. 3301–3312). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

National Center on Education and the Economy. (2007). Tough choices or tough times: The report of the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Executive-Summary.pdf

North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, & Meriti Group. (2003). enGauge® 21st Century Skills: Literacy in the Digital Age.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Paris, France: OECD.

Osman, K., Soh, T. M. T., & Arsad, N. M. (2010). Development and validation of the Malaysian 21st century skills instrument (M-21CSI) for science students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences9, 599–603.

Pacific Policy Research Center. (2010). 21st century skills for students and teachers. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools. Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/_assets/spi/pdfs/21_century_skills_full.pdf

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2009). Results that matter: 21st Century skills and high school reform. Tucson, AZ: Author.

Partnership for 21st Century Learning. (2016). Framework for 21st century learning. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.p21.org

Piaget, J. (1950). The psychology of intelligence. Routledge.

Rich, E. (2010). How do you define 21st-century skills? One question. Eleven answers. Education Week, 4(1), 32–35.

Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2010). “21st-Century” Skills. American Educator17.

Saavedra, A. R., & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta Kappan94(2), 8–13.

Saettler, P. (2004). The evolution of American educational technology. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Schmidt, D. A., Baran, E., Thompson, A. D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Shin, T. S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) the development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education42(2), 123–149.

Schneider, S. (1997). Defining environmental literacy. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 12(11), 457.

Silva, E. (2008). Measuring skills for the 21st century (Education Sector Reports). Washington, DC: Education Sector.

Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan90(9), 630–634.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. Retrieved from http://21stcenturyskillsbook.com/blog/q-a/

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A comparative analysis of international frameworks for 21st century competences: Implications for national curriculum policies. Journal of Curriculum Studies44(3), 299–321.
Vol. 2 Iss. 2

Indonesia Vocational High School Science Teachers’ Priorities Regarding 21st Century Learning Skills in Their Science Classrooms

Esty Haryani, William W. Cobern, & Brandy A-S. Pleasants

Download: FULL TEXT PDF
Download: 749, size: 0, date: 06.Jan.2020

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to examine vocational high school science teachers’ instructional prioritizing the 21st Century Skills mandated in the Indonesian National Curriculum 2013 revision. The Indonesian government implemented this curriculum in 2017 to support students’ career readiness, which was inadequately addressed in previous curriculum documents. Survey data was obtained from the population of vocational high school science teachers in the city of Pontianak, West Kalimantan province, Indonesia. The study contrasted the prioritizing of 21st Century Skills objectives with previous curriculum objectives, in order to determine if teachers give priority to current curriculum requirements or are still focusing on previous requirements. The study furthermore examined whether teacher demographic data are associated with their teaching priorities. Results indicate teachers do prioritize the 21st Century Learning Skills over previous curriculum objectives. Novice teachers report higher priority on communication skills and male teachers give higher priority to problem solving. Future research includes determining how these priorities translate into classroom practice.

Keywords: 21st Century Learning Skills; Science content; Scientific process; Teaching priority; Quantitative study.

Please Cite: Haryani, E., Cobern, W. W. & Pleasants, B. A-S. (2019). Indonesia Vocational High School Science Teachers’ Priorities Regarding 21st Century Learning Skills in Their Science Classrooms. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(2), 105-133.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31756/jrsmte.224             

References

Ahmad, D. (2014). Understanding the 2013 curriculum of English teaching through the teachers’ and policy makers’ perspectives. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Educational Development, 2, 4. 6-15.

Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science Education, 96, 4. 453-457.

Babbie, E. R. (1990). Survey research methods. 2nd Ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Badley, G. (1986). The teacher as change agent. British Journal of In Service Education, 12, 3. 151-158. doi: 10.1080/0305763860120305

Banner, I, Ryder, J. & Donnelly, J.  (2009, September). The role of teachers’ priorities for science education in the enactment of science curriculum reform. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association conference, Istanbul.

Czerniak, C. M. & Lumpe, A. T. (1996). Relation between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7(4), 247-266.

Dam, M. Janssen, F. J. J. M. & van Driel, J. H. (2018) Attention to intentions- How to stimulate strong intentions to change. Research in Science Education, 48, 369-387. doi: 10.1007/s11165-016-9572-4.

Dahar, R. W. (1996). Teori-teori belajar. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Darsih, E. (2014). Indonesia EFL teachers’ perception on the implementation of 2013 English curriculum. English Review: Journal of English Education, 2(2), 192-199.

David, J.G. (2018). A study of K-12 teachers’ perceptions of teacher self-efficacy in relation to instruction of 21st century skills. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (AAT 10820891)

Davies, L. M., Newton, L. D., & Newton, D. P. (2017). Creativity as a twenty-first-century competence: An exploratory study of provision and reality. Education. 3-13. doi: 10. 1080/03004279.2017.1385641.

DiBenedetto, C. A. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions of their proficiency and responsibility to teach the knowledge, skills, and dispositions required of high school students to be career ready in the 21st century. Retrieved from: ProQuest Digital Dissertation. (3729140)

di Gropello, E., Kruse, A. & Tandon, P. (2011). Skill for the labor market in Indonesia: Trends in demand, gaps, and supply. Direction in development. World Bank © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2282 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys. The Tailored Design Method 4th edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Son.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publication Inc.

Friis, R. H. & Sellers, T. A. (2009). Epidemiology for public health practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change 4th ed. New York: Teacher College Press.

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(9), 971-993.

Happ, D. W. (2013). Results of a survey of 21st century skills of communication,

Collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity. Retrieved from ProQuest Digital Dissertations. (AAT 3575592)

Hertzog, M.A. (2008). Consideration in determining sample size for pilot studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 180–191.

Hill, R. (1998). What sample size is “enough” in internet survey research? Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal for the 21st Century, 6(3-4). Retrieved July 12, 2008, from http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1998/n3-4/hill.html

Indonesia’s Ministry of Education and Culture Regulation number 21 of 2016: The core standard for elementary and secondary education (Permendikbud no. 21 tahun 2016 tentang standard isi pendidikan dasar dan menengah). Retrieved from: https://luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/atur/bsnp/Permendikbud21-2016SIDikdasmen.pdf

Indonesia’s Ministry of Education and Culture Regulation number 22 of 2016: The process standards for elementary and secondary education (Permendikbud no. 22 tahun 2016 tentang standard proses pendidikan dasar dan menengah). Retrieved from:  http://bsnp-indonesia.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Permendikbud_Tahun2016_Nomor022_Lampiran.pdf

Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.          

Kirk, D. & MacDonald, D. (2001). Teacher voice and ownership of curriculum change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 33(5), 551-567. doi: 10. 1080/00220270010016874.

Larson, L. C. & Miller, T. N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 121-123. doi: 10. 1080/00228958.2011. 10516575.

Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E. & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scale. Methodology journal, 4, 73-79. doi: 10.1027. 1614-2241.4.2.73

Machali, I. (2014). Kebijakan perubahan kurikulum 2013 dalam menyongsong Indonesia emas tahun 2045. Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, 3, 1. 71-94. 

Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 4(1). 25-48.

National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st century skills: Summary of a workshop. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13215

Newton, L. D. (2012). Creativity for a new curriculum. New York: Routledge.

Odger, S., Symons, A., & Mitchell, I. (2000). Differentiating the curriculum through the use of problem solving. Research in Science Education, 30(3), 289-300.

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

 Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). A. framework for 21st century learning. Tucson:

AZ: P21. Available at: http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework

Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2009). 21st Century skills: the challenges ahead. Educational Leadership, 67(1), 16-21.

Satten, G. A. and Grummer-Strawn, L. (2014). Cross-Sectional Study. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. Retrieved from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05138/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). Toward professional development for teachers grounded in a theory of decision making. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43,457–469 doi: 10.1007/s11858-011-0307-8

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2015, February). How we think: A theory of human decision-making, with focus on teaching. Paper presented at the 12th International Congress on Mathematical Education pp 229-24, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12688-3_16

Skourdoumbis, A. (2016). Articulating of teaching practice: A case study of teachers and “general capabilities”. Asia Pacific Education Rev. 17, 545-554. doi: 10.1007/s 12564-016-94607.

Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: the mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143-175.

Tok, N. K., Tok, S.  & Dolapçıoğlu, S. D. (2014). The perception levels of novice teachers’ problem solving skills. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 412-420.

Trilling, B. & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development

  

 

Vol. 2 Iss. 2