Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education

• AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/resources/science-all-americans
• Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H.-l. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118
• Adamson, B., & Morris, P. (2014). Comparing curricula. In M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.), Comparative education research (pp. 309-332). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05594-7_11
• Adelman, C. (2015). To imagine a verb: The language and syntax of learning outcomes statements. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED555528
• Aguiar, O. G., Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. (2010). Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 174-193. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20315
• Alonzo, A. (2013). What can be learned from current large-scale assessment programs to inform assessment of the next generation science standards? In Proceedings of the Invitational Research Symposium on Science Assessment.
• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
• Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
• Becker, N. M., Rupp, C. A., & Brandriet, A. (2017). Engaging students in analyzing and interpreting data to construct mathematical models: An analysis of students’ reasoning in a method of initial rates task. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 798-810. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00205F
• Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900412284
• Bell, P., Bricker, L., Tzou, C., Lee, T., & Van Horne, K. (2012). Exploring the science framework: Engaging learners in scientific practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Science Scope, 36(3), 17.
• Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082-1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21257
• Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. (1998). Text analysis. In H. R. Bernard, & C. C. Gravlee (Eds.), Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Brewer, W. F. (2001). Models in science and mental models in scientists and nonscientists. Mind & Society, 2(2), 33-48. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02512358
• Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10.
• Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475
• Chabalengula, V. M., & Mumba, F. (2017). Engineering design skills coverage in K-12 engineering program curriculum materials in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 39(16), 2209-2225. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1367862
• Chen, H.-L. S., & Huang, H.-Y. (2017). Advancing 21st century competencies in Taiwan. https://asiasociety.org/files/21st-century-competencies-taiwan.pdf
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260701828101
• Chiu, M.-H. (2007). Standards for science education in Taiwan. In S. Schanze (Ed.), Making it comparable: Standards in science education (pp. 303-346). Waxmann Verlag.
• Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education. Routledge.
• Crujeiras-Pérez, B., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2017). High school students’ engagement in planning investigations: Findings from a longitudinal study in Spain. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6rp00185h
• DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education. Teachers College Press.
• DeBoer, G. E. (2011). The globalization of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(6), 567-591. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20421
• Duschl, R. A. (2019). Learning progressions: Framing and designing coherent sequences for STEM education. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1, 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0005-x
• Duschl, R. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Planning and carrying out investigations: An entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices. International Journal of STEM Education, 1, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6
• Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109-2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
• Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
• Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing nature of science for science education. In S. Erduran, & Z. R. Dagher (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (pp. 1-18). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4
• Evagorou, M., Erduran, S., & Mäntylä, T. (2015). The role of visual representations in scientific practices: from conceptual understanding and knowledge generation to ‘seeing’ how science works. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0024-x
• Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078
• Ford, M. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404-423. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20263
• Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041-1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188
• Ford, M. J., & Forman, E. A. (2006). Redefining disciplinary learning in classroom contexts. Review of Research in Education, 30(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x030001001
• Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2005). Design‐based science and real‐world problem‐solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
• Fulmer, G., Tanas, J., & Weiss, K. (2018). The challenges of alignment for the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55, 1076-1100. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21481
• Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315819679
• Glynn, S. M., Yeany, R. H., & Britton, B. K. (1991). A constructive view of learning science. In S. M. Glynn, R. H. Yeany, & B. K. Britton (Eds.), The psychology of learning science (pp. 3-19). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
• Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (2003). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Taylor & Francis.
• Hằng, N. V. T., Meijer, M. R., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2015). The implementation of a social constructivist approach in primary science education in Confucian heritage culture: The case of Vietnam. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(3), 665-693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-014-9634-8
• Jin, H., Wei, X., Duan, P., Guo, Y., & Wang, W. (2016). Promoting cognitive and social aspects of inquiry through classroom discourse. International Journal of Science Education, 38(2), 319-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1154998
• Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2002). Models and modelling in chemical education. In J. K. Gilbert, O. Jong, R. Justi, D. F. Treagust, & J. H. Driel (Eds.), Chemical education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 47-68). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47977-X_3
• Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE.
• Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355
• Lee, J., & Chiu, M.-H. (2019). Comparison and analysis of inquiry, practice and modeling in NGSS and year 12 national basic education. Science Education Monthly, 421, 19-31
• Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., & Yoon, H.-G. (2015). The intellectual demands of the intended primary science curriculum in Korea and Singapore: An analysis based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science Education, 37(13), 2193-2213. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1072290
• Lee, Y.-J., Kim, M., Jin, Q., Yoon, H.-G., & Matsubara, K. (2017). Revised Bloom’s taxonomy–The Swiss army knife in curriculum research. In East-Asian primary science curricula (pp. 11-16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2690-4_2
• Lertdechapat, K., & Faikhamta, C. (2018). Science and engineering practices in a revised Thai science curriculum. In Proceedings of the 6^th International Conference for Science Educators and Teachers.
• Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the classroom science investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148-1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21625
• McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006). Supporting students’ construction of scientific explanations by fading scaffolds in instructional materials. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), 153-191. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1
• Meda, L., & Swart, A. J. (2018). Analyzing learning outcomes in an Electrical Engineering curriculum using illustrative verbs derived from Bloom’s taxonomy. European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(3), 399-412. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2017.1378169
• Ministry of Education (New Zealand). (2014). The New Zealand curriculum. MOE. https://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum
• MOET. (2018). General education curriculum: Natural science. Ministry of Education and Training (Vietnam).
• Molina, J., Hai, N. V., Cheng, P. H., & Chang, C. Y. (2021). SDG’s quality education approach: Comparative analysis of natural sciences curriculum guidelines between Taiwan and Colombia. Sustainability, 13(6), 3352. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063352
• NAER. (2018). Curriculum guidelines of 12-year basic education: Natural sciences. National Academy for Educational Research.
• NGSS Lead States. (2013). Appendix F–Science and engineering practices in the NGSS. In Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
• NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Research Council. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
• NRC. (2014). Literacy for science: Exploring the intersection of the next generation science standards and common core for ELA standards: A workshop summary. National Academies Press.
• O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406919899220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
• OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I). Excellence and equity in education. OECD Publishing.
• OECD. (2019). PISA 2018 science framework. In PISA 2018 assessment and analytical framework. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/b25efab8-en
• Ornek, F. (2008). Models in science education: Applications of models in learning and teaching science. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 3(2), 35-45.
• Osborne, J. (2014). Teaching scientific practices: Meeting the challenge of change. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 177-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1
• Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280-1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21543
• Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20035
• Packer, M. (2001). The problem of transfer, and the sociocultural critique of schooling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1004new_4
• Pea, R., & Collins, A. (2008). Learning how to do science education: Four waves of reform. In Y. Kali, M. C. Linn, & J. E. Roseman (Eds.), Designing coherent science education: Implications for curriculum, instruction, and policy (pp. 1-23).
• Qablan, A. (2018). Comparison of science and engineering concepts in next generation science standards with Jordan science standards. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(6), 2693-2709. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/90267
• Reiser, B. J., Berland, L. K., & Kenyon, L. (2012). Engaging students in the scientific practices of explanation and argumentation. The Science Teacher, 79(4), 34.
• Roth, W.-M. (1994). Experimenting in a constructivist high school physics laboratory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 197-223. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310209
• Rouse, J. (2007). Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 37(1), 46-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393106296542
• Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students’ use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23-55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2301_2
• Schwartz, M. (2006). For whom do we write the curriculum? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 449-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500296606
• Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x027002004
• Sothayapetch, P., Lavonen, J., & Juuti, K. (2013). A comparative analysis of PISA scientific literacy framework in Finnish and Thai science curricula. Science Education International, 24(1), 78-97.
• Stemler, S. (2001). An introduction to content analysis. Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
• Stern, D. G. (2003). The practical turn. In S. P. Turner, & P. A. Roth (Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 185-206). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756485.ch8
• Stroupe, D. (2015). Describing “science practice” in learning settings. Science Education, 99(6), 1033-1040. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21191
• Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Stein, M. K., & Schunn, C. (2015). A framework for analyzing cognitive demand and content-practices integration: Task analysis guide in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(5), 659-685. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21208
• Tippett, C. (2009). Argumentation: The language of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21(1), 17-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174713
• Tsai, C.-Y. (2015). Improving students’ PISA scientific competencies through online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 37(2), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.987712
• Waddington, D., Nentwig, P., & Schanze, S. (2007). Making it comparable: Standards in science education. Waxmann Verlag.
• Wei, B., & Ou, Y. (2018). A comparative analysis of junior high school science curriculum standards in mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao: Based on revised Bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(8), 1459-1474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-9935-6
• Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
• Wenger, E. (2011). Communities of practice: A brief introduction. https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/11736/A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20CoP.pdf
• Wilkerson, M. H., & Fenwick, M. (2017). Using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. Schwarz (Ed.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 181-204). NSTA.
• World Meteorological Organization. (2020). United in science 2020: A multi-organization high-level compilation of the latest climate science information. http://www.undrr.org/publication/united-science-2022-multi-organization-high-level-compilation-latest-climate-science
• Yarden, A. (2009). Reading scientific texts: Adapting primary literature for promoting scientific literacy. Research in Science Education, 39(3), 307-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9124-2
• Yaz, O. V., & Kurnaz, M. A. (2020). Comparative analysis of the science teaching curricula in Turkey. SAGE Open, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899432
• Yeh, Y.-F., Erduran, S., & Hsu, Y.-S. (2019). Investigating coherence about nature of science in science curriculum documents. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 291-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00053-1
• Zheng, K.-H., & Lee, S.-T. (2018). When science literacy and reading literacy meet: Experimental study of science news reading strategy for high school students. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(4), 157-192. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201812_63(4).0006

APA

Nguyen, V.-H., Cheng, P.-H., Chien, Y.-H., & Chang, C.-Y. (2023). The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(11), em2355. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13753

Vancouver

Nguyen VH, Cheng PH, Chien YH, Chang CY. The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(11):em2355. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13753

AMA

Nguyen VH, Cheng PH, Chien YH, Chang CY. The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2023;19(11), em2355. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13753

Chicago

Nguyen, Viet-Hai, Ping-Han Cheng, Yu-Hsuan Chien, and Chun-Yen Chang. "The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2023 19 no. 11 (2023): em2355. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13753

Harvard

Nguyen, V.-H., Cheng, P.-H., Chien, Y.-H., and Chang, C.-Y. (2023). The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(11), em2355. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13753

MLA

Nguyen, Viet-Hai et al. "The scientist’s ways in national science curricula: A comparative study between Taiwan and Vietnam". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 19, no. 11, 2023, em2355. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/13753