Douglas A. Roberts

Junior high school science transformed: analysing a science curriculum policy change

In response to a governmental initiative associated with expanding the technological infrastructure of its economy, the Canadian province of Alberta undertook extensive revision of its secondary school science programme, starting in 1986. This paper is about the junior high school programme (Grades 7‐9, ages about 12‐15). The subject matter configuration was changed from a ‘layer‐cake’ design to a ‘coordinated’ design. The objectives were broadened to include three mandated curriculum emphases, distributed evenly across the 18 units of the three‐year programme. The paper examines these and other features of the development and implementation of this reasonably successful curriculum policy.

As Science Students Become Science Teachers: A Perspective on Learning Orientation.

(1998). As Science Students Become Science Teachers: A Perspective on Learning Orientation. Journal of Science Teacher Education: Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 271-292.

What Counts as an Explanation for a Science Teaching Event

1Research support by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Research Grant #410–89–0984. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, April, 1990.

Scientific literacy: Around and about the globe

V.J. Mayer, Ed. (2002). Global Science Literacy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 1–4020–0514–8

Reasons for giving reasons: an expert‐expert clinical analysis of science teaching for non‐academic students 1

This paper concerns the importance of providing reasons and evidence when making claims as a teacher. Two teaching contexts are explored: a nonacademic science classroom and a clinical supervision setting. An expert teacher is seen at work in a nonacademic science classroom. This is an especially significant context in which to find “task‐reasons” and “science‐reasons” since students rarely appear to have access to reasons for what they do or say in such classrooms. The teacher and a colleague, both experts at clinical analysis of teaching, are observed examining and analysing the teaching. This is the setting for developing “interpretation‐reasons” regarding the conduct and events of teaching. The expert‐expert clinical supervision situation is seen as sharpening the requirement for sound, credible interpretation‐reasons beyond that of the more common expert‐novice interaction. 1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education at ...