Didaktický výzkum jako součást závěrečných prací studentů učitelství biologie

Vanda Janštová; Petr Novotný

doi:10.14712/18047106.629

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2017): sciED Research Reports

Pedagogical Research as a Part of Pre-service Biology Teachers’ Theses

Vanda Janštová, ¹ Petr Novotný, ²

Katedra učitelství a didaktiky biologie, Přírodovědecká fakulta, Univerzita Karlova
Katedra biologie a environmentálních studií, Pedagogická fakulta, Univerzita Karlova

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.629

PDF (Czech)

How to Cite

Janštová, V., & Novotný, P. (2017). Pedagogical Research as a Part of Pre-service Biology Teachers’ Theses. Scientia in Educatione, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.14712/18047106.629

Download Citation

Abstract

We are hearing many recomendations to teach critical thinking, work with different sources of information, inquiry based teaching and experiment planning. Because the teacher is supposed to transmit these skills to his/her students, it is crucial pre-service teachers should be able to recognize credible sources of information, be critical about information gained and have an idea how pedagogical research is conducted. Although it is not necessary that in-service teachers conduct research, they should know trends which help them to keep their teaching up to date and effective. We conducted a content analysis to find out the focus of pre-service biology teachers’ theses, because we believe such analysing is one of possible ways how to gain an idea about success of pre-service teachers’ preparation. We analysed all theses (n = 199) defended at our home departments in last three years and compared the theses of pre-service teachers from each faculty. Pedagogical research was a part of 60 theses, the most frequently used tool for acquiring data was a questionnaire. A number of theses failed to describe respondent selection. Pre-service teachers from the two departments differed e.g. in the extent of inductive statistics usage. Results are discussed and steps to improve suggested.

References

Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E. & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. Search in Google Scholar
Barlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. & Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organizational research: Search in Google Scholar
Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal; Morehead, 19(1), 43–50. 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, FPV UKF Nitra, 2008(2), nestránkováno. Search in Google Scholar
Bukáčková, A. (2016). Efektivita výuky poznávání organismů na příkladu krytosemenných rostlin [Diplomová práce]. Praha: Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Search in Google Scholar
Bukáčková, A. & Janštová, V. (2017). Methods of teaching organism recognition. How recommendation and practice differ. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková, I. B. Metelková (Eds.), Project-based education in science education XIV. (155–160). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education. Search in Google Scholar
Dostupné z http://pages.pedf.cuni.cz/pvch/files/2011/11/PBE XIV final.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding 2: Transformation — a key to ecological understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 701–715. Search in Google Scholar
Cumming, R.G. (1990). Is probability sampling always better? A comparison of results from a quota and a probability sample survey. Community Health Studies, 14(2), 132–137. Search in Google Scholar
Česká školní inspekce. (2015). Česká školní inspekce ČR – Národní zpráva PISA 2015. Search in Google Scholar
Dostupné z http://www.csicr.cz/Prave-menu/Mezinarodni-setreni/PISA/ Search in Google Scholar
Narodni-zpravy/Narodni-zprava-PISA-2015. (cit. 17. 12. 2016) Search in Google Scholar
Čížková, V. (2002). Příspěvek k teorii a praxi problémového vyučování. Pedagogika, 52(4), 415–430. Search in Google Scholar
Ertl, H. (2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: the reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619–634. Search in Google Scholar
Florianová, A. (2015). Rostlinné invaze v povědomí studentů vybraných gymnázií. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 74–103. Search in Google Scholar
Fueyo, V. & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336–344. 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. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Canberra. Search in Google Scholar
Hine, G. S.C. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151–163. Search in Google Scholar
Hlaváčová, L. (2015). Výuka evoluční biologie na základních a středních školách. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 104–120. Search in Google Scholar
Hopfenbeck, T.N., Lenkeit, J., Masri, Y. E., Cantrell, K., Ryan, J. & Baird, J.-A. (2017). Lessons learned from PISA: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on the programme for international student assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 0(0), 1–21. Search in Google Scholar
Hultsch, D. F., MacDonald, S.W. S., Hunter, M.A., Maitland, S. B. & Dixon, R.A. (2002). Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 345–359. Search in Google Scholar
Hybšová, A. (2017). Analýza statistické gramotnosti studentů učitelství biologie v České republice [rukopis Disertační práce]. Praha: Pedagogická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Search in Google Scholar
Chalupková, S. & Demkanin, P. (2011). Vyučovanie fyziky v kontexte záľub študentov. Scientia in educatione, 2(1), 15–22. Search in Google Scholar
Chráska, M. (2007). Metody pedagogického výzkumu. Praha.: Grada Publishing, a. s. Search in Google Scholar
Chudá, J. (2007). Postoje žiakov a učiteľov prírodopisu k predmetu prírodopis. e-Pedagogium, (2), 52–70. Search in Google Scholar
Janštová, V., Jáč, M. & Dvořáková, R. (2015). Faktory motivující žáky středních škol k zájmu o obor biologie a účasti v předmětových soutěžích s biologickou tematikou. e-Pedagogium, 15(1), 56–71. Search in Google Scholar
Janštová, V. & Jáč, M. (2015). Výuka molekulární biologie na gymnáziích: analýza současného stavu a možnosti její podpory. Scientia in Educatione, 6(1), 14–39. Search in Google Scholar
Kane, M. (2002). Inferences about variance components and reliability-generalizability coefficients in the absence of random sampling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(2), 165–181. Search in Google Scholar
Koenig, K., Schen, M. & Bao, L. (2012). Explicitly targeting pre-service teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator; Johnson City, 21(2), 1–9. Search in Google Scholar
Koršňáková, P. (2005). Prírodovedná gramotnosť slovenských žiakov a študentov. In B. Matejovičová, A. Sandanusová (Eds.), Metodologické aspekty a výskum v oblasti didaktík prírodovedných, poľnohospodárskych a príbuzných odborov (34–39). Nitra, FPV UKF: Prírodovedec. Search in Google Scholar
Kroufek, R. (2016). Environmentální výzkumná témata v závěrečných pracích studentů učitelství pro mateřské školy na PF UJEP – trendy, překážky, výsledky. In Trendy a perspektivy předškolního vzdělávání (52–57). Ústí nad Labem: PF UJEP. Search in Google Scholar
Lamanauskas, V. & AugienËe, D. (2016). Scientific research activity of students preservice teachers of sciences at university: Significance, readiness, effectiveness and career aspects. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(6), 746–758. Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, J., Leach, J. & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Chromosomes: the missing link - young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 189–199. Search in Google Scholar
Lewis, J. & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance — do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195. Search in Google Scholar
Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297–306. 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. Search in Google Scholar
Mayoh, K. & Knutton, S. (1997). Using out-of-school experience in science lessons: reality or rhetoric? International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 849–867. Search in Google Scholar
Müllerová, L. (2012). Pojem evoluce a jeho vnímání žáky základních a středních škol. Scientia in educatione, 3(2), 33–64. Search in Google Scholar
Odcházelová, T. (2014). Role multimédií ve výuce přírodních věd. Scientia in educatione, 5(2), 2–12. 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
Papáček, M., Čížková, V., Kubiatko, M., Petr, J. & Závodská, R. (2015). Didaktika biologie: didaktika v rekonstrukci. In Oborové didaktiky: vývoj – stav – perspektivy (225–257). Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Search in Google Scholar
Pavlasová, L. (2015). Disertační práce se zaměřením na didaktiku biologie v České republice v letech 2004–2013. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 4–15. 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. Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Search in Google Scholar
Dostupné z http://www.R-project.org/. Search in Google Scholar
Randler, C. & Bogner, F.X. (2009). Efficacy of two different instructional methods involving complex ecological content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 315–337. Search in Google Scholar
Rasch, D., Teuscher, F. & Guiard, V. (2007). How robust are tests for two independent samples? Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 137(8), 2706–2720. 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. Search in Google Scholar
Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701. Search in Google Scholar
Rusek, M. (2015). Analýza disertačních prací z didaktiky chemie obhájených v České republice v letech 2003–2014. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 16–34. Search in Google Scholar
Scharfenberg, F.-J. & Bogner, F.X. (2011). A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students’ activities during experimentation in an outreach gene technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 505–523. Search in Google Scholar
Schatz, M., Popovic, A. & Dervin, F. (2017). From PISA to national branding: exploring Finnish education R . Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 172–184. Search in Google Scholar
Soukup, P. (2016). Užívání statistické a věcné významnosti v časopise Pedagogická orientace a Pedagogika v posledních deseti letech: pohled statistika. Pedagogická orientace, 26(2), 182–201. Search in Google Scholar
Soukup, P. & Kočvarová, I. (2016). Velikost a reprezentativita výběrového souboru v kvantitativně orientovaném pedagogickém výzkumu. Pedagogická orientace, 26(3), 512–536. Search in Google Scholar
Soukup, P. & Rabušic, L. (2007). Několik poznámek k jedné obsesi českých sociálních věd – statistické významnosti. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 43(02), 379–395. Search in Google Scholar
Šorgo, A. & Šiling, R. (2017). Fragmented knowledge and missing connections between knowledge from different hierarchical organisational levels of reproduction among adolescents and young adults. CEPS Journal, 7(1), 69–91. Search in Google Scholar
špatný odkaz, je to kapitola v knize. Search in Google Scholar
Tedy: Search in Google Scholar
Taber, K. S. (2010). Preparing teachers for a research-based profession. In M. V. Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating Search in Google Scholar
effective student learning through teacher research and innovation (19-48). Slovenia: Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. Dostupné z https://www.pef.uni-lj.si/fileadmin/Datoteke/Zalozba/pdf/Zuljan_Vogrinc_Facilitating.pdf Search in Google Scholar
Tan, C. (2017). PISA and education reform in Shanghai. Critical Studies in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1285336 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar
Tasaki, N. (2017). The impact of OECD-PISA results on Japanese educational policy. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 145–153. Search in Google Scholar
Uitto, A. (2014). Interest, attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs explaining upper-secondary school students’ orientation towards biology-related careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(6), 1425–1444. Search in Google Scholar
Vohra, C. F. (2000). Changing trends in biology education. In BioEd International Symposium on Biology Education, UNESCO and IUBS (15–18). Search in Google Scholar
Wake, M.H. (2008). Integrative biology: Science for the 21st Century. BioScience, 58(4), 349–353. Search in Google Scholar
Youn`es, T. (2000). Biological education: Challenges of the 21 st Century. Biology International, 39, 8–13. Search in Google Scholar
Žák, V. (2015). Disertační práce z didaktiky fyziky obhájené v České republice v letech 2004 až 2013 – přehled a analýza. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 35–50. Search in Google Scholar
Žák, V. (2016). Metody sběru dat využívané didaktikou fyziky v mezinárodním prostředí. Scientia in educatione, 7(2), 18–33. 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] Armbruster, P., Patel, M., Johnson, E. & Weiss, M. (2009). Active learning and student-centered pedagogy improve student attitudes and performance in introductory biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 8(3), 203–213. Search in Google Scholar

[2] Barlett, J.E., Kotrlik, J.W. & Higgins, C.C. (2001). Organizational research: Search in Google Scholar

[3] Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal; Morehead, 19(1), 43–50. Search in Google Scholar

[4] Bílek, M. (2008). Zájem žáků o přírodní vědy jako předmět výzkumných studií a problémy aplikace jejich výsledků v pedagogické praxi. Acta Didactica, FPV UKF Nitra, 2008(2), nestránkováno. Search in Google Scholar

[5] Bukáčková, A. (2016). Efektivita výuky poznávání organismů na příkladu krytosemenných rostlin [Diplomová práce]. Praha: Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Search in Google Scholar

[6] Bukáčková, A. & Janštová, V. (2017). Methods of teaching organism recognition. How recommendation and practice differ. In M. Rusek, D. Stárková, I. B. Metelková (Eds.), Project-based education in science education XIV. (155–160). Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Education. Search in Google Scholar

[7] Dostupné z http://pages.pedf.cuni.cz/pvch/files/2011/11/PBE XIV final.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[8] Carlsson, B. (2002). Ecological understanding 2: Transformation — a key to ecological understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 24(7), 701–715. Search in Google Scholar

[9] Cumming, R.G. (1990). Is probability sampling always better? A comparison of results from a quota and a probability sample survey. Community Health Studies, 14(2), 132–137. Search in Google Scholar

[10] Česká školní inspekce. (2015). Česká školní inspekce ČR – Národní zpráva PISA 2015. Search in Google Scholar

[11] Dostupné z http://www.csicr.cz/Prave-menu/Mezinarodni-setreni/PISA/ Search in Google Scholar

[12] Narodni-zpravy/Narodni-zprava-PISA-2015. (cit. 17. 12. 2016) Search in Google Scholar

[13] Čížková, V. (2002). Příspěvek k teorii a praxi problémového vyučování. Pedagogika, 52(4), 415–430. Search in Google Scholar

[14] Ertl, H. (2006). Educational standards and the changing discourse on education: the reception and consequences of the PISA study in Germany. Oxford Review of Education, 32(5), 619–634. Search in Google Scholar

[15] Florianová, A. (2015). Rostlinné invaze v povědomí studentů vybraných gymnázií. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 74–103. Search in Google Scholar

[16] Fueyo, V. & Koorland, M. A. (1997). Teacher as researcher: A synonym for professionalism. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5), 336–344. Search in Google Scholar

[17] 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. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs Canberra. Search in Google Scholar

[18] Hine, G. S.C. (2013). The importance of action research in teacher education programs. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 151–163. Search in Google Scholar

[19] Hlaváčová, L. (2015). Výuka evoluční biologie na základních a středních školách. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 104–120. Search in Google Scholar

[20] Hopfenbeck, T.N., Lenkeit, J., Masri, Y. E., Cantrell, K., Ryan, J. & Baird, J.-A. (2017). Lessons learned from PISA: A systematic review of peer-reviewed articles on the programme for international student assessment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 0(0), 1–21. Search in Google Scholar

[21] Hultsch, D. F., MacDonald, S.W. S., Hunter, M.A., Maitland, S. B. & Dixon, R.A. (2002). Sampling and generalisability in developmental research: Comparison of random and convenience samples of older adults. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26(4), 345–359. Search in Google Scholar

[22] Hybšová, A. (2017). Analýza statistické gramotnosti studentů učitelství biologie v České republice [rukopis Disertační práce]. Praha: Pedagogická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy. Search in Google Scholar

[23] Chalupková, S. & Demkanin, P. (2011). Vyučovanie fyziky v kontexte záľub študentov. Scientia in educatione, 2(1), 15–22. Search in Google Scholar

[24] Chráska, M. (2007). Metody pedagogického výzkumu. Praha.: Grada Publishing, a. s. Search in Google Scholar

[25] Chudá, J. (2007). Postoje žiakov a učiteľov prírodopisu k predmetu prírodopis. e-Pedagogium, (2), 52–70. Search in Google Scholar

[26] Janštová, V., Jáč, M. & Dvořáková, R. (2015). Faktory motivující žáky středních škol k zájmu o obor biologie a účasti v předmětových soutěžích s biologickou tematikou. e-Pedagogium, 15(1), 56–71. Search in Google Scholar

[27] Janštová, V. & Jáč, M. (2015). Výuka molekulární biologie na gymnáziích: analýza současného stavu a možnosti její podpory. Scientia in Educatione, 6(1), 14–39. Search in Google Scholar

[28] Kane, M. (2002). Inferences about variance components and reliability-generalizability coefficients in the absence of random sampling. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39(2), 165–181. Search in Google Scholar

[29] Koenig, K., Schen, M. & Bao, L. (2012). Explicitly targeting pre-service teacher scientific reasoning abilities and understanding of nature of science through an introductory science course. Science Educator; Johnson City, 21(2), 1–9. Search in Google Scholar

[30] Koršňáková, P. (2005). Prírodovedná gramotnosť slovenských žiakov a študentov. In B. Matejovičová, A. Sandanusová (Eds.), Metodologické aspekty a výskum v oblasti didaktík prírodovedných, poľnohospodárskych a príbuzných odborov (34–39). Nitra, FPV UKF: Prírodovedec. Search in Google Scholar

[31] Kroufek, R. (2016). Environmentální výzkumná témata v závěrečných pracích studentů učitelství pro mateřské školy na PF UJEP – trendy, překážky, výsledky. In Trendy a perspektivy předškolního vzdělávání (52–57). Ústí nad Labem: PF UJEP. Search in Google Scholar

[32] Lamanauskas, V. & AugienËe, D. (2016). Scientific research activity of students preservice teachers of sciences at university: Significance, readiness, effectiveness and career aspects. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(6), 746–758. Search in Google Scholar

[33] Lewis, J., Leach, J. & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Chromosomes: the missing link - young people’s understanding of mitosis, meiosis, and fertilisation. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 189–199. Search in Google Scholar

[34] Lewis, J. & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance — do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195. Search in Google Scholar

[35] Lopatto, D. (2007). Undergraduate research experiences support science career decisions and active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 6(4), 297–306. Search in Google Scholar

[36] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[37] Mayoh, K. & Knutton, S. (1997). Using out-of-school experience in science lessons: reality or rhetoric? International Journal of Science Education, 19(7), 849–867. Search in Google Scholar

[38] Müllerová, L. (2012). Pojem evoluce a jeho vnímání žáky základních a středních škol. Scientia in educatione, 3(2), 33–64. Search in Google Scholar

[39] Odcházelová, T. (2014). Role multimédií ve výuce přírodních věd. Scientia in educatione, 5(2), 2–12. Search in Google Scholar

[40] 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

[41] Papáček, M., Čížková, V., Kubiatko, M., Petr, J. & Závodská, R. (2015). Didaktika biologie: didaktika v rekonstrukci. In Oborové didaktiky: vývoj – stav – perspektivy (225–257). Brno: Masarykova univerzita. Search in Google Scholar

[42] Pavlasová, L. (2015). Disertační práce se zaměřením na didaktiku biologie v České republice v letech 2004–2013. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 4–15. Search in Google Scholar

[43] Prokop, P., Prokop, M. & Tunnicliffe, S.D. (2007). Is biology boring? Student attitudes toward biology. Journal of Biological Education, 42(1), 36–39. Search in Google Scholar

[44] R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Search in Google Scholar

[45] Dostupné z http://www.R-project.org/. Search in Google Scholar

[46] Randler, C. & Bogner, F.X. (2009). Efficacy of two different instructional methods involving complex ecological content. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(2), 315–337. Search in Google Scholar

[47] Rasch, D., Teuscher, F. & Guiard, V. (2007). How robust are tests for two independent samples? Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 137(8), 2706–2720. Search in Google Scholar

[48] 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. Search in Google Scholar

[49] Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66(5), 688–701. Search in Google Scholar

[50] Rusek, M. (2015). Analýza disertačních prací z didaktiky chemie obhájených v České republice v letech 2003–2014. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 16–34. Search in Google Scholar

[51] Scharfenberg, F.-J. & Bogner, F.X. (2011). A new two-step approach for hands-on teaching of gene technology: Effects on students’ activities during experimentation in an outreach gene technology lab. Research in Science Education, 41(4), 505–523. Search in Google Scholar

[52] Schatz, M., Popovic, A. & Dervin, F. (2017). From PISA to national branding: exploring Finnish education R . Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 38(2), 172–184. Search in Google Scholar

[53] Soukup, P. (2016). Užívání statistické a věcné významnosti v časopise Pedagogická orientace a Pedagogika v posledních deseti letech: pohled statistika. Pedagogická orientace, 26(2), 182–201. Search in Google Scholar

[54] Soukup, P. & Kočvarová, I. (2016). Velikost a reprezentativita výběrového souboru v kvantitativně orientovaném pedagogickém výzkumu. Pedagogická orientace, 26(3), 512–536. Search in Google Scholar

[55] Soukup, P. & Rabušic, L. (2007). Několik poznámek k jedné obsesi českých sociálních věd – statistické významnosti. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 43(02), 379–395. Search in Google Scholar

[56] Šorgo, A. & Šiling, R. (2017). Fragmented knowledge and missing connections between knowledge from different hierarchical organisational levels of reproduction among adolescents and young adults. CEPS Journal, 7(1), 69–91. Search in Google Scholar

[57] špatný odkaz, je to kapitola v knize. Search in Google Scholar

[58] Tedy: Search in Google Scholar

[59] Taber, K. S. (2010). Preparing teachers for a research-based profession. In M. V. Zuljan & J. Vogrinc (Eds.), Facilitating Search in Google Scholar

[60] effective student learning through teacher research and innovation (19-48). Slovenia: Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana. Dostupné z https://www.pef.uni-lj.si/fileadmin/Datoteke/Zalozba/pdf/Zuljan_Vogrinc_Facilitating.pdf Search in Google Scholar

[61] Tan, C. (2017). PISA and education reform in Shanghai. Critical Studies in Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1285336 Open DOI Search in Google Scholar

[62] Tasaki, N. (2017). The impact of OECD-PISA results on Japanese educational policy. European Journal of Education, 52(2), 145–153. Search in Google Scholar

[63] Uitto, A. (2014). Interest, attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs explaining upper-secondary school students’ orientation towards biology-related careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(6), 1425–1444. Search in Google Scholar

[64] Vohra, C. F. (2000). Changing trends in biology education. In BioEd International Symposium on Biology Education, UNESCO and IUBS (15–18). Search in Google Scholar

[65] Wake, M.H. (2008). Integrative biology: Science for the 21st Century. BioScience, 58(4), 349–353. Search in Google Scholar

[66] Youn`es, T. (2000). Biological education: Challenges of the 21 st Century. Biology International, 39, 8–13. Search in Google Scholar

[67] Žák, V. (2015). Disertační práce z didaktiky fyziky obhájené v České republice v letech 2004 až 2013 – přehled a analýza. Scientia in educatione, 6(2), 35–50. Search in Google Scholar

[68] Žák, V. (2016). Metody sběru dat využívané didaktikou fyziky v mezinárodním prostředí. Scientia in educatione, 7(2), 18–33. Search in Google Scholar

Scientia in educatione

Abstract

References

Downloads

License