@article {513,
	title = {KOREAN SCIENCE TEACHERS{\textquoteright} PERCEPTIONS AND ACTUAL USAGE OF EDUCATIONAL THEORIES/TEACHING STRATEGIES IN THEIR TEACHING},
	journal = {Journal of Baltic Science Education},
	volume = {15},
	year = {2016},
	month = {August/2016},
	pages = {Continuous},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {411{\textendash}423},
	abstract = {Many researchers have reported that there is a significant gap between theory and practice in education. This research sought to contribute to this work by examining the theory/practice gap in secondary school science teaching in South Korea. To do this, a questionnaire was developed to investigate the gap between Korean science teachers{\textquoteright} knowledge about Educational Theories and Teaching Strategies (ETTS) and the usage of it in their science classroom. The questionnaire was administered to 87 science teachers and results showed that even though participants were knowledgeable about many ETTS, only 26\% of the teachers reported using it in their teaching. Major reasons reported for this gap in theory and practice were restrictive educational environments that did not support the use of ETTS, irrelevancy and difficulties of ETTS, and students{\textquoteright} low interest in learning science. However, teachers{\textquoteright} perception of the importance of ETTS positively affected their usage of ETTS. Implications of the results are discussed, and alternative in-service training program is suggested to activate science teachers{\textquoteright} ETTS what they already know and to guide them to use ETTS in their actual science teaching.},
	keywords = {science teacher education, secondary science teacher, teaching strategy, theory-practice gap},
	issn = {1648-3898},
	doi = {https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/16.15.411},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1482423597.pdf},
	author = {Jongwon Park and Youngmin Kim and Jongseok Park and Jin-Su Jeong and Young-Shin Park}
}
@article {123,
	title = {TRENDS IN WESTERN SCIENCE CURRICULA AND SCIENCE EDUCATION RESEARCH: A BIRD{\textquoteright}S EYE VIEW},
	journal = {Journal of Baltic Science Education},
	volume = {6},
	year = {2007},
	month = {March/2007},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {15-22},
	abstract = {The present article starts with a concise report of three important waves of innovation in Western science education, one in the 1960s, one in the 1980s, and one in the 2000s. The background of each wave is concisely explicated in terms of dissatisfaction with the foregoing curriculum and the rise of new general theories on teaching and learning. The reported innovations have influenced the agenda of research in science education in the Western world. In the second part of the article, the main trends in topics and methods of this research are reported. Finally, some main trends in science teacher education are concisely addressed. 
        The present overview indicates a number of important developments in science curricula and research in science education. In the last 50 years, a growing interest in research topics related to students and their learning and teachers and their teaching can be indicated. Recently, an important upcoming research topic is focused on the development of science teachers{\textquoteright} knowledge base (cf. De Jong, Veal \& Van Driel, 2002). Trends in science curricula and courses will come and go, and {\textquoteleft}hot topics{\textquoteright} in science education research will rise and fall. So far, so good. However, in my opinion, it is time to pay much more attention to an old issue: the relationship between science education research and science teaching practice. In the last half century, this relationship has been problematic. Several attempts have been made to improve this relationship, for instance, by publishing a growing number of books that would inform and support the practice of science teaching (see e.g. De Jong, Kortland, Waarlo \& Buddingh{\textquoteright}, 1999; Monk \& Osborne, 2000). Nevertheless, for many years, researchers have also pointed out the poor effects of their efforts; for example, they complain that the outcomes of research often do not find their ways into the practice of teaching of science (Shymansky \& Kyle, 1992). On the other hand, practising science teachers consider personal experiences, common sense, and official documents as much more important sources of their professional knowledge than results of research (Costa, Marques \& Kempa, 2000). In conclusion, one of the biggest challenges of the near future of science education is to bridge the gap between science education research outcomes and science teaching practices in the classroom. },
	keywords = {educational theories, research topics and methods, science curriculum innovations, science teacher education, trends},
	issn = {1648-3898},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1404286727.pdf},
	author = {Onno De Jong}
}
@article {89,
	title = {THE COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PROSPECTIVE SCIENCE TEACHERS{\textquoteright} SKILLS OF WRITTEN EXPLANATION},
	journal = {Journal of Baltic Science Education},
	volume = {4},
	year = {2005},
	month = {March/2005},
	type = {Original article},
	chapter = {40-50},
	abstract = {A comparative study of prospective teachers{\textquoteright} pedagogical skills of written communication in science is presented. Russian and Swedish students were asked to give detailed explanations of two simple physical phenomena (how and why the shadow from a tree appears and why the bulb lights in a torch) to a hypothetical Grade 7 pupil. The results of the questionnaire revealed the evident gap between the students{\textquoteright} knowledge per se and their abilities to express didactically their knowledge in written form and in pictures. Undoubtedly this is one of the challenges to teacher educators. The study also revealed the differences between forms and qualities of explanations given by Russian and Swedish students as the result of different pedagogical traditions and communication cultures. 
    The analysis of the findings from this study shows that the Russian prospective teachers had more problems with seeing themselves in the role of teacher than did the Swedish students. Russian participants of the study tended to answer the questions just as if they were students on a science course. Their explanations tended to be more academic and formalised than is appropriate for a Grade 7 pupil. In our opinion, this reflects the strict and formal style of teaching / learning which still dominates in Russian teacher education. For Russian students and teacher trainers, a correct answer is valued more highly than a good pedagogical form of presentation. Apparently, the skills of reworking knowledge and communication at the appropriate for children level are not systematically practiced in Russian teacher education.
     In contrast, in Swedish teacher education, students frequently work in small groups, often practising presentations at the children{\textquoteright}s level. They generally feel quite comfortable in acting out different social roles and responsibilities. This reflects the conviction of Swedish teacher educators that learning about science should reflect a participatory and collaborative knowledge generating process. Thus, science education in Sweden is seen as a participatory activity in which teachers and learners share responsibility for learning. },
	keywords = {communication skills, comparative study, science teacher education, sociocultural context},
	issn = {1648-3898},
	url = {http://oaji.net/articles/2016/987-1481049750.pdf},
	author = {Oleg Popov and Sergey Bogdanov}
}
