<?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%">Todar Lakhvich</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SCIENCE EDUCATION: REGARDING TRENDS AND MAIN PRINCIPLES</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%">science education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">societal oriented teaching</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">trends</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2010</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">September/2010</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1405171766.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">9</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">When the authors propose the article for publication they are on the top stair after having planned and providing their research projects. On the initial stage it’s very important to choose the relevant topic and methodology. Discussing trends and main principle of Education we can model constituents which include Institutional, Socio-cultural and Psychological and finally, Disciplinary categories. The first and the latter are of great importance both for practicing teachers and education explorers. And both are of special interest of JBSE editorial policy.
Institutional category can be presented as three-dimensional matrix with the core plane consist of lines presenting different points of horizontal and vertical diversification, and complementary third-dimension lines presenting variation in each point.
The other problem discussed is the role of the subject and societal oriented teaching, and as the result main trends in educational researches. The subject focusing researches are contrasted with the societal thrust being considered in other research studies. The latter are concerned about teaching em¬phasis and student learning climate, and thus demanding to reduce subject-related content in favour of context oriented studies. But we can teach nothing about when have no a subject. Just it’s a rationale even more important when we say about Science Education. We need Subject-oriented studies, which show us the relevance of disciplinary category in promoting the teaching-learning process. We need to investigate the relevance of content to know better what context we need to motivate students (and educators as well!). 
Science is integrative force and Science Education can help to understand the changing world. Science Education does so and there are many examples strengthening the point. It is one more and may be the most exciting issue demonstrating the unity of knowledge and necessity for cooperation. The latter can help to develop the core model for more effective Education based on all traditions and contemporary trends.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Editorial</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">164-166 </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%">Onno De Jong</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">TRENDS IN WESTERN SCIENCE CURRICULA AND SCIENCE EDUCATION RESEARCH: A BIRD’S EYE VIEW</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%">educational theories</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research topics and methods</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science curriculum innovations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">science teacher education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">trends</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2007</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">March/2007</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://oaji.net/articles/2014/987-1404286727.pdf</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">6</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">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’ knowledge base (cf. De Jong, Veal &amp; Van Driel, 2002). Trends in science curricula and courses will come and go, and ‘hot topics’ 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 &amp; Buddingh’, 1999; Monk &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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. </style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Original article</style></work-type><section><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">15-22</style></section></record></records></xml>