Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools

Fru Vitalis Akuma; Ronel Callaghan

doi:10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

Full Text (PDF)

Fru Vitalis Akuma ¹ ^* , Ronel Callaghan ¹

More Detail

¹ University of Pretoria^* Corresponding Author

Abstract

The science education budget of many secondary schools has decreased, while shortages and environmental concerns linked to conventional Science Education Equipment and Materials (SEEMs) have emerged. Thus, in some schools, resourceful educators produce low-cost equipment from basic materials and use these so-called improvised SEEMs in practical work. However, scattered in the literature are diverse challenges linked to the production and/or use of improvised SEEMs. Thus, the purpose of the literature review presented here was to design a framework useful in the reduction of these challenges. In this regard, we systematically gathered, characterised and clarified the challenges, in addition to collecting and reflecting on ways of reducing them. This enabled us to design the framework which focuses on educator learning and practice in the improvisation of SEEMs under specified conditions. Regarding the implementation of the framework, we have discussed the role that stakeholders including professional development providers and researchers may play.

Keywords

educator learning
Framework
improvisation challenges
low-cost equipment
practical work

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Article Type: Research Article

EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed, Volume 12, Issue 10, October 2016, 2697-2717

https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

Publication date: 25 Jul 2016

Article Views: 3550

Article Downloads: 3162

Open Access References How to cite this article

References

Abrahamsa, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945-1969. doi: 10.1080/09500690701749305
Airasian, P. W., & Russell, M. K. (2008). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Al-Alwani, A. E. S. (2005). Barriers to integrating information technology in Saudi Arabia science education. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Kansas.
Alonge, E. I. (1979). The use of locally available materials for school chemistry in Nigeria. (Doctoral dissertation). University of East Anglia, Norwich.
Anderson, R. D. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In K. S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807-830). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Balta, N. (2015). A systematic planning for science laboratory instruction: Research-based evidence. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 957- 969. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2015.1366a
Barbara, S., & Sam, A. (1957). Improvised apparatus for the determination of specific heat. American Journal of Physics, 25(7), 494-494.
Bhukuvhani, C., Kusure, L., Munodawafa, V., Sana, A., & Gwizangwe, I. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ use of improvised and virtual laboratory experimentation in science teaching. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 6(4), 27-38.
Boyd, S. E., Banilower, E. R., Pasley, J. D., & Weiss, I. R. (2003). Progress and pitfalls: A crosssite look at local systemic change through teacher enhancement. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Bradley, J. D. (1999). Hands-on practical chemistry for all. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 71(5), 817-823. doi: 10.1351/pac199971050817
British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. (2004). A review of the research literature on barriers to the uptake of ICT by teachers. Becta. Retrieved 13/08/2008 from www.becta.org.uk.
Bybee, R. W. (1997). Achieving scientific literacy. Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann.
Bybee, R. W. (2009). The BSCS 5E instructional model and 21st century skills. Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, R., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., & Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins, effectiveness, and applications Colorado Springs, CO: Biological Sciences Curriculum Study.
Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(3), 291-318. doi: 10.1007/s10972-012-9275- 2
Childs, A., Tenzin, W., Johnson, D., & Ramachandran, K. (2012). Science education in Bhutan: Issues and challenges. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 375-400. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2011.626461
Chin, C. (2004). Students’ questions: Fostering a culture of inquisitiveness in science classrooms. School Science Review, 86(314), 107-112.
Chin, C., Goh, N. K., Chia, L. S., Lee, K. W. L., & Soh, K. C. (1994). Pre-service teachers‘ use of problem-solving in primary science teaching. Research in Science Education, 24(1), 41- 50.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students' questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. doi: 10.1080/03057260701828101
Chong, S., & Cheah, H. M. (2009). A values, skills and knowledge framework for initial teacher preparation programmes. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3). doi: 10.14221/ajte.2009v34n3.1
Collard, P., & Looney, J. (2014). Nurturing creativity in education. European Journal of Education, 49(3), 348-364. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12090
Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2001). Values and schooling. In J. Dillon & M. Maguire (Eds.), Becoming a teacher - Issues in secondary education. London: Open University Press.
Cuccio-Schirripa, S., & Steiner, H. E. (2000). Enhancement and analysis of science question level for middle school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 210-224. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(200002)37:2%3C210::AID-TEA7%3E3.0.CO;2-I
Daramola, S. O. (1987). Mathematics cognition and students’ choice of physics in Kwara State. In A. Abdullahi (Ed.), 28th Annual Conference of Science Teacher Association of Nigeria.
Davis, B. G. (1999). Cooperative learning: Students working in small groups. Speaking of Teaching, Stanford University Newsletter on Teaching, 10(2), 1-4.
Davis, T., Athey, S., Vandevender, M., Crihfield, C., Kolanko, C., Shao, S., . . . Holland, L. (2014). Electrolysis of water in the secondary school science laboratory with inexpensive microfluidics. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(1), 116-119. doi: 10.1021/ed400757m
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. doi: 10.1126/science.1230579
Department of Basic Education. (2011). Curriculum and assessment policy statement Senior phase Grades 7-9: Natural sciences. Pretoria: Government Printing Works.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181- 199. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112.
Di Fuccia, D., Witteck, T., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2012). Trends in practical work in German science education Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 59-72. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2012.817a
Dillon, J. T. (1988). The remedial status of student questioning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 197-210. doi: 10.1080/0022027880200301
DomNwachukwu, N. S., & DomNwachukwu, C. S. (2006). The effectiveness of substituting locally available materials in teaching chemistry in Nigeria: A case for science education in developing countries. School Science and Mathematics, 106(7), 296-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2006.tb17920.x
Eilks, I., Prins, G. T., & Lazarowitz, R. (2013). How to organize the classroom in a student-active mode. In I. Eilks & A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry - A studybook (pp. 183-212). Rotterdam: Sense.
Eniajeyu, A. (1983). Improvisation in integrated science: A practical demonstration. Paper presented at the 24th Annual Conference of the Science and Technology Association of Nigeria, Calabar, Nigeria.
Ens, S., Olson, A., Dudley, C., Ross, N., Siddiqi, A., Umoh, K., & Schneegurt, M. A. (2012). Inexpensive and safe DNA gel electrophoresis using household materials. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 40(3), 198-203. doi: 10.1002/bmb.20596
Ertmer, P. (1999). Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47- 61. doi: 10.1007/BF02299597
Ezeasor, M. E. N., Opara, M. F., Nnajiofor, F. N., & Chukwukere, C. G. (2012). Assessing teachers’ use of improvised instructional materials in science education. International Researchers, 1(3), 107-114.
Ezeliora, B. (1998). Chemistry improvisation. The Science Teacher, 65(8), 56,58,60.
Fagle, D. L. (1958). Improvisation of bacteriological equipment. The American Biology Teacher, 20(7), 252-252.
Fairbrother, R. (2000). Strategies for learning. In M. Monk & J. Osborne (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching (pp. 16-17). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Fernandez, C. (2002). Learning from Japanese approaches to professional development: The case of lesson study. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 393-405. doi: 10.1177/002248702237394
Fletcher, K., Rommel-Esham, K., Farthing, D., & Sheldon, A. (2011). Generating excitement: Build your own generator to study the transfer of energy. Science Scope, 35(4), 52-57.
Fraser, V., & Saunders, M. (1998). Communities in search of values: Articulated shared principles in initial teacher education. Paper presented at the BERA Conference, Belfast.
Fullan, M., & Steigelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gaible, E., & Burns, M. (2005). Using technology to train teachers: Appropriate uses of ICT for teacher professional development in developing countries. Washington, DC: infoDev/World Bank.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. doi: 10.3102/00028312038004915
Gilbert, J. K., Justice, R., & Arsela, M. (2003). The visualization of models: A meta-cognitive competence in the learning of chemistry. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the European Science Education Research Association Noodwijkerhout the Netherlands.
Grant, C. M. (1996). Professional development in a technological age: New definitions, old challenges, new resources. In A. Feldman (Ed.), Technonology infusion and school change: Perspectives and practices. Cambridge, M.A: TERC Research Monograph.
Griffin, G. A. (1983). Staff development. Eighty-second yearbook of the national society for the study of education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hakansson, C. S. (1983). The provision of equipment on a national scale. In N. K. Lowe (Ed.), New trends in school science equipment (pp. 23-28). Paris: UNESCO.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Abington: Routledge.
Hayes, D. (1997). In-service teacher development: International perspectives. Hemel Hampstead: Prentice Hall.
Hewson, P. (2007). Teacher professional development in science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook for research in science education (pp. 1179-1203). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Higgins. (2009). ISTA Questionnaire on Junior Certificate Science. Science, 45(1), 17-19.
Hodson, D. (1998). Mini‐Special Issue: Taking practical work beyond the laboratory. International Journal of Science Education, 20(6), 629-632.
Holman, J. S. (1986). Science and technology in society: A general guide for teachers. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M., & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers’ knowledge, practice, student outcomes & efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), Retrieved 15/12/2015 from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=professional_d ev.
Kadzera, C. M. (2006). Use of instructional technologies in teacher training colleges in Malawi. (PhD Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Kapanadze, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Supporting reform in science education in central and eastern Europe - Reflections and perspectives from the project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(1), 47-58. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a
Kerr, J. F. (1963). Practical work in school science. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Kidman, G. (2012). Australia at the crossroads: A review of school science practical work. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 8(1), 35-47. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2012.815a
KIE. (1992). Secondary school syllabus. Nairobi: Kenya Literature Bureau.
Kyle, W. C. (2006). The road from Rio to Johannesburg: Where are the footpaths to/from science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4, 1-18. doi: 10.1007/s10763-005-0856-9
Lee, K., Tan, L., Coh, N., Chia, L., & Chin, C. (2000). Science teachers and problem solving in elementary schools in Singapore. Research in Science and Technological Education, 18(1), 113-126. doi: 10.1080/713694953
Lee, Y., Guo, Y., & Ho, H. (2008). Explore effective use of computer simulations for physics education. The Journal for Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(4), 443- 466.
Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & O Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273-281. doi: 10.1177/003172170608800406
Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3-14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X035003003
Lynch, P. P. (1986). Laboratory work in schools and universities: Structures and strategies still largely unexplored. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 9, 51-60.
Magliaro, S. G., & Shambaugh, N. (2006). Student models of instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(1), 83-106. doi: 10.1007/s11423-006-6498-y
Mansour, N., EL-Deghaidy, H., Alshamrani, S., & Aldahmash, A. (2014). Rethinking the theory and practice of continuing professional development: Science teachers’ perspectives. Research in Science Education, 44, 949-973. doi: 10.1007/s11165-014-9409-y
Marx, R. W., & Harris, C. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and science education: Opportunities, challenges, and risks. The Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 467-477. doi: 10.1086/505441
McComas, W. F. (2005). Laboratory instruction in the service of science teaching and learning: Reinventing and reinvigorating the laboratory experience. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 24-29.
McGurr, M. (2008). Improving the flow of materials in a cataloging department: Using ADDIE for a project in the Ohio State University Libraries. Library Resources & Technical Services, 52(2), 54-60. doi: 10.5860/lrts.52n2.54
McIntyre, D. (2005). Bridging the gap between research and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 35, 357-382. doi: 10.1080/03057640500319065
Merril, M. D. (1996). Instructional transaction theory: An instructional design model based on knowledge objects. Educational Technology & Society, 36(3), 30-37.
Millar, R. (2011). Practical work. In J. Osborne & J. Dillon (Eds.), Good practice in science teaching: What research has to say (pp. 108-134). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Moor, H., Jones, M., Johnson, F., Martin, K., Cowell, E., & Bojke, C. (2006). Mathematics and science in secondary schools: The deployment of teachers and support staff to deliver the curriculum. Department for Education and Skills Research Report No 708. NFER Trading Limited.
Munby, H., Cunningham, M., & Lock, C. (2000). School science culture: A case study of barriers to developing professional knowledge. Science Education, 84(2), 193-211. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2%3C193::AID-SCE4%3E3.3.CO;2-B
Musar, A. (1993). Equipment for science education: Constraints and opportunities. The World Bank. Retrieved 28/12/2015 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.6171&rep=rep1&type =pdf.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide to teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association. (2006). NSTA position statement: Professional development in science education. NSTA. Retrieved 23/07/2014 from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/profdev.aspx.
NCERT. (2006). Position paper: National focus group on teaching science. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training.
Ndirangu, M., Kathuri, N. J., & Mungai, C. (2003). Improvisation as a strategy for providing science teaching resources: An experience from Kenya. International Journal of Educational Development Research and Development, 23(1), 75-84. doi: 10.1016/S0738-0593(01)00054-2
Newton, L. R. (2000). Data-logging in practical science: Research and reality. International Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(12), 1247-1259. doi: 10.1080/095006900750036244
Nivalainen, V., Asikainen, M. A., Sormunen, K., & Hirvonen, P. E. (2010). Preservice and inservice teachers’ challenges in the planning of practical work in physics. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(4), 393-409. doi: 10.010 7/10s 972-10 -918 6-z
Nyaumwe, L. J., & Mavhunga, F. Z. (2005). Why do mentors and lecturers assess mathematics and science student teachers on teaching practice differently? African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 135-146.
Ogoh, E. A. (2014). The need for the utilization of instructional materials on the teaching and learning of agricultural science education in developing countries. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Information, Business and Education Technology (ICIBET 2014), Beijing.
Oladejo, M. A., Olosunde, G. R., Ojebisi, A. O., & Isola, O. M. (2011). Instructional materials and students’ academic achievement in physics: Some policy implications. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1), 113-126.
Onwu, G. O. M., & Stoffels, N. (2005). Instructional functions in large, under-resourced science classes: Perspectives of South African teachers. Perspectives in Education, 23(3), 79-91.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Retrieved 07/07/2015 from http://www.oecd.org/berlin/43541636.pdf.
Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe: Critical reflections (Vol. 13). London: The Nuffield Foundation.
Palmer, D. H. (2009). Student interest generated during inquiry skills lesson. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching, 46, 147-165. doi: 10.1002/tea.20263
Pelgrum, W. J. (2001). Obstacles to the integration of ICT in education: Results of a worldwide educational assessment. Computers & Education, 37, 163-178. doi: 10.1016/S0360- 1315(01)00045-8
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921-958. doi: 10.3102/0002831207308221
Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Preparing teachers to design instruction for deep understanding in middle school earth science. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18, 461- 508. doi: 10.1080/10508400903191904
Perry, R. R., & Lewis, C. C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of lesson study in the US? Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 365-391. doi: 10.1007/s10833-008-9069-7
Peterson, C. (2003). Bringing ADDIE to life: Instructional design at its best. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 227-241.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Pimpro, P. K. (2005). Improvisation in science: Teaching of physics at low-cost with locally available materials. Retrieved on 12/01/2005 from www.sec.org.za/physics/pkpimpro.html.
Pintrick, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education theory, research and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merril.
Poppe, N., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2011). Low-cost-techniques for the science education: A guide for science teachers. Bremen: SALiS Project.
Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. A. (2007). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Rettich, T., & Battino, R. (1989). An inexpensive and easily constructed device for quantitative conductivity experiments. Journal of Chemical Education, 66(2), 168-169. doi: 10.1021/ed066p168
Richardson, J. (2004). Lesson study: Teachers learn how to improve instruction. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Tools For Schools. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Rocard, M. (2007). Science education now: A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Rogerson, A. C., & Cheney Jr, R. W. (1989). A physical model illustrating protein synthesis on the ribosome. The American Biology Teacher, 51(1), 29-31. Retreived 10/12/2015 from www.jstor.org/stable/4448834.
Royal Society (The), & Association For Science Education. (2001). Survey of Science Technicians in schools and colleges. London: The Royal Society.
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2011). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58, 136-153. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Schaffer, S., & Pfeifer, P. (2011). Ziele von Schülerexperimenten [Objectives of student experiments]. Natruwissenschaften im Unterricht Chemie, 32(126), 10-13.
Schmidt, S. M. (2003). Learning by doing: Teaching the process of inquiry. Science Scope, 27(1), 27-30.
Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2005). Enacting reform-based science materials: The range of teacher enactments in reform classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 283-312. doi: 10.1002/tea.20055
Schoepp, K. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2(1), 1-24.
Schön, D. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sedibe, M. (2011). Inequality of access to resources in previously disadvantaged South African high schools. Journal of Social Sciences, 28(2), 129-135.
Seng, S., Kita, M., & Sugihara, R. (2007). New analytical method for the determination of detergent concentration in water by fabric dyeing. Journal of Chemical Education, 84(11), 1803. doi: 10.1021/ed084p1803
Set, S., & Kita, M. (2014). Development of a handmade conductivity measurement apparatus and application to vegetables and fruits. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(6), 892-897. doi: 10.1021/ed400611q
Shanahan, M., & Nieswandt, M. (2009). Creative activities and their influence on identification in science: Three case studies. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(3), 63-79. doi: 10.1007/BF03174723
Sherry, L., & Gibson, D. (2002). The path to teacher leadership in educational technology. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 2(2), 178-203.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Research, 15(2), 4-14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X015002004
Singh, S. K., & Singh, R. J. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ reflections of South African science classrooms. South African Journal of Higher Education, 26(1), 168-180.
Stephen, U.-A. S. (2015). Problems of improvising instructional materials for the teaching and learning of physics in Akwa Ibom State Secondary Schools, Nigeria. British Journal of Education, 3(3), 27-35.
Steward, J. (1983). Locally produced science equipment: Potentialities and problems. In E. W. Thulstrup & D. Waddington (Eds.), Proceedings, Workshop on Locally Produced Laboratory Equipment for Chemical Education (pp. 268-272), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sussman, B. (2000). Making your science program work. Science Scope, 23(6), 26-27. Retrieved 02/15/2015 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43180080.
Tamir, P. (1991). Practical work in school science: An analysis of current practice. In B. E. Woolnough (Ed.), Practical science: The role and reality of practical work in school science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Tan, A. G. (2000). A review on the study of creativity in Singapore. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(4), 259-284. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01215.x
Tobon, R. (1988). Low-cost materials for science and technology education. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education, Vol. II (pp. 223-239). Paris: UNESCO.
Tran, T. Q., Scherpbier, A., Van Dalen, J., & Wright, P. E. (2012). Teacher-made models: The answer for medical skills training in developing countries? BMC Medical Education, 12, 98. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-12-98
Tsuma, O. G. K. (1998). Science education in African context. Nairobi: Jomo Kenyatta Foundation.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (1979). New UNESCO Sourcebook for Science Teaching. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2011). ICT competency framework for teachers (Version 2.0). Paris: UNESCO.
Urban-Woldron, H. (2009). Interactive simulations for the effective learning of physics. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 28(2), 163-176.
Van Driel, J. H., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachersʼ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 137-158. doi: 10.1002/1098-2736(200102)38:2%3C137::AIDTEA1001%3E3.0.CO;2-U
Von Borstel, G. (2009). Experimente mit ChemZ. Retrieved 13/02/2012 from http://ne.lonet2.de/gregor.vonborstel/download /FB/Handbuch_V_1_1.pdf.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Wilke, H.-J., & Tronicke, G. (2007). Experimente mit Kunststoffflaschen [Experiments with plastic bottles]. Stuttgart: Klett.
Wilke, H.-J., & Tronicke, G. (2008). Experimente mit Blechdosen [Experiments with tin cans]. Stuttgart: Klett.
Windschitl, M. (1999). The challenges of sustaining a constructivist classroom culture. Phi Delta Kappa, 80, 751-755.
Wood, C. G. (1990). Microchemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 67(7), 596-597. doi: 10.1021/ed067p596
Zuiker, S., & Whitaker, J. R. (2014). Refining inquiry with multi-form assessment: Formative and summative assessment functions for flexible inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 1037-1059. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2013.834489

How to cite this article

APA

Akuma, F. V., & Callaghan, R. (2016). Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(10), 2697-2717. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

Vancouver

Akuma FV, Callaghan R. Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(10):2697-717. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

AMA

Akuma FV, Callaghan R. Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2016;12(10), 2697-2717. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

Chicago

Akuma, Fru Vitalis, and Ronel Callaghan. "Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2016 12 no. 10 (2016): 2697-2717. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

Harvard

Akuma, F. V., and Callaghan, R. (2016). Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12(10), pp. 2697-2717. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a

MLA

Akuma, Fru Vitalis et al. "Framework for Reducing Teaching Challenges Relating to Improvisation of Science Education Equipment and Materials in Schools". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 12, no. 10, 2016, pp. 2697-2717. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2016.1305a