<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tamirirofa Chirikure</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PRE-SERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ EXPERIENCES OF HOME-BASED PRACTICAL WORK UNDER EMERGENCY REMOTE TEACHING</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">emergency remote teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">home-based practical work</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">laboratory-based practical work</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">pre-service science teachers</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">student-teacher interactions</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">December/2021</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2021/987-1639222068.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">20</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Practical work is ubiquitous in science education, but its enactment is challenging in remote teaching contexts. The situation was exacerbated due to a moratorium on contact classes induced by the COVID-19 pandemic that necessitated strict health protocols. Home-based practical work (HBPW) became a significant option as academic institutions shifted to emergency remote teaching. The question is whether HBPW provides equivalent learning experiences in comparison to laboratory-based practical work (LBPW). This research therefore explored pre-service science teachers’ experiences of HBPW implemented at a particular South African university. Eighty-four preservice science teachers, who engaged in HBPW in a chemistry module, were purposively selected as the participants. The data were generated through individual reflections at the end of the semester. An adaption of the equivalence theory was ideal in analysing and interpreting the results. Results show that HBPW was flexible, empowering, contextualised, and enhanced active learning. New forms of interaction emerged in the absence of physical student-teacher and student-student interactions. Concerns over its ability to develop practical skills are expressed. Recommendations are made with a view to optimising HBPW. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">894-905</style></section></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tamirirofa Chirikure</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">UPPER-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS’ APPROACHES TO SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS IN AN EXAMINATION DRIVEN CURRICULUM CONTEXT</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Baltic Science Education</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">divergent approach</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">iterative approach</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">linear approach</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">mixed methods</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science experiments</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">August/2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2020/987-1597214143.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">19</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Continuous</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This research explored upper-secondary school students’ approaches when they engage in planning and conducting science experiments. Approaches to science experiments are important because they provide insight into students’ scientific reasoning and their enactment of scientific methods. An explanatory mixed-methods design was employed to determine and explain students’ approaches to science experiments. Data were generated by administering a 15-item Approaches to Science Experiments Questionnaire (ASEQ) on 211 participants and interviewing a smaller sample of 33. The linear approach was predominant while the divergent approach was least adopted by the participants. The teaching-learning context, substantive and procedural knowledge lead to specific approaches and the emergence of subcategories of the three broad approaches. Capable students engaged in a self-directed iterative approach while external help resulted in an assisted iterative approach. Rigid and contrived linear approaches were a result of time constraints, substantive and procedural shortcomings. Scattergun and blanking divergent approaches emerged from extreme weaknesses in substantive and procedural knowledge. Assessing practical skills through long-term projects is recommended to focus more on developing students’ scientific reasoning and process skills. Research with the ASEQ in other teaching-learning cultures, observing students in action and analysing their write-ups could provide deeper insights into approaches to science experiments.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">523-535</style></section></record></records></xml>