ARTICLE

INTERROGATIONS AND PROSPECTIVE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AT SECONDARY LEVEL IN PUNJAB PAKISTAN

  1. HOME
  2. ARTICLE

21 Pages : 182-191

http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2020(V-I).21      10.31703/gpr.2020(V-I).21      Published : Mar 2020

Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan

Abstract

    This research was designed to study the interrogation and prospective of science education at secondary level in Punjab, Pakistan. The present study was descriptive in nature and cross-sectional survey was conducted. Study was delimited to Punjab. All the science teachers of public secondary schools were the population. The sample was comprised of 495 secondary science teachers from the public schools of Lahore selected by proportionate sampling technique. The questionnaire was developed, piloted and validated before data collection. Main findings of the study indicated that secondary science teachers have challenges and prospects in science education related to classroom management, internal evaluation system, application of teaching methodologies. It is recommended to train teachers about application of modern teaching methodologies and strategies for motivating students to learn in effective environment and the science might get progress and emphasis on learning that contribute in the prosperity of the country in the field of science.

    Challenges, Science Education, Classroom Management, Evaluation, Teaching Methodology, Strategies

    (1) Muhammad Nisa Ul Haq
    Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Development, Karakoram International University, Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan.
    (2) Mumtaz Gul Khan
    Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Development, Khizer Campus, Karakoram International University, Gilgit Baltistan, Pakistan.
    (3) Muhammad Mahmood
    PhD Scholar, Department of Education, Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University, Nerian Sharif, AJK, Pakistan.
Fulltext PDF

References

  • Bailin, S. (2002). Critical Thinking and Science Education. Science & Education, 11, 361-375.
  • Bekalo, S., & Welford, G. (2000). Practical activity in Ethiopian secondary physical sciences: Implications for policy and practice of the match between the intended and implemented curriculum. Research Papers in Education, 15, 185-212.
  • Donnelly, J. F & Jenkins, E. W. (2001). Science education: Policy, professionalism and change. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
  • Ediger, M. (1999). Problems in Teaching Science. (ERIC) Document Reproduction.
  • Gallagher, J. (2000). Meeting challenges inherent in reform of science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 399-400.
  • Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. W. (2009). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis and applications (9th ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Merrill.
  • Government of Pakistan (2009). National Education Policy, 2009. Islamabad: Ministry of Education.
  • Government of Pakistan (2013). Country report of Pakistan regarding: Accelerating millennium development goals 2013-2015. Islamabad: Ministry of Education & Training.
  • Halai, N. (2008). Curriculum reform in science education in Pakistan. Science education in context: An international examination of the influence of context on science curricula development and implementation, 115-129. http://ecommons.aku.edu/book_chapters/109.
  • Hazen, R. M. (2002). Why should you be scientifically literate? American Institute of Biological Sciences.
  • Hill, J. C., &Tanveer, S. A. (1990). Developing a program to improve science education in Pakistan: A sixyear implementation cycle. Science Education, 74(2), pp. 241- 251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730740208.
  • Hussein, F., & Reid, N. (2006).'Working memory and difficulties in school chemistry'. Research in Science & Technological Education, 27(2), 161-185.
  • Jacques, H. & Poisson, M. (2001). Science Education for Contemporary Society: Problems, Issues and Dilemmas. Beijing, China: Retrieved from ERIC database.
  • Jessani, S. I. (2015). Science education: Issues, approaches and challenges. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 2(1),79 - 87.
  • Mathews, M. R. (2000). Times for science education. New York: Kluwer
  • Murphy, A., & Janeke, H. (2009). The relationship between thinking style profiles and emotional intelligence: an exploratory study. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(3), 357-375.
  • National Education Policy (1972-80). Grades IX-X, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Education.
  • National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Osborne, J., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils' views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focusgroup study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441-467.
  • Ribas,W. B. (2005). Instructional Practices that Maximise Student Achievement: For teachers, By teachers, Ribas Publications: USA
  • Rowlands, S. (2008). The crisis in science education and the need to enculturate all learners in science. In Petroselli, C. L. (Ed.), Science education issues and development (pp. 117-1). New York: Nova science publisher.
  • Sharma, R. A. (2004). Technological foundation of Education. Meerut, India: Surya Publication.
  • Shukla, R. (2014). Dictionary of Education. New Delhi: A.P.H. Publishing Corporation.
  • Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E., & Zhang, L. (2008). Styles of learning and thinking matter in instruction and assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(6), 486-506. doi:10.1111/j.1745- 6924.2008.00095. x.
  • Wallace, J., & Louden, W. (Eds.). (2002). Dilemmas of science teaching. London: Routledge, Falmer.
  • Wolf. A. (2004). Education and economic performance: Simplistic theories and their policy consequences. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20 (2), 315-333.
  • Zhang, L. (2008). Preferences for teaching styles matter in academic achievement: scientific and practical implications. Educational Psychology, 28(6), 615-625. doi:10.1080/01443410802004634.
  • Zin, S. M. S. (2003). Reforming the science and technology curriculum: The smart school initiative in Malaysia. Prospects, XXXIII, 39-50.

Cite this article

APA

    APA : Haq, M. N. U., Khan, M. G., & Mahmood, M. (2020). Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan. Global Political Review, V(I), 182-191. https://doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2020(V-I).21

CHICAGO

    CHICAGO : Haq, Muhammad Nisa Ul, Mumtaz Gul Khan, and Muhammad Mahmood. 2020. "Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan." Global Political Review, V (I): 182-191 doi: 10.31703/gpr.2020(V-I).21

HARVARD

    HARVARD : HAQ, M. N. U., KHAN, M. G. & MAHMOOD, M. 2020. Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan. Global Political Review, V, 182-191.

MHRA

    MHRA : Haq, Muhammad Nisa Ul, Mumtaz Gul Khan, and Muhammad Mahmood. 2020. "Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan." Global Political Review, V: 182-191

MLA

    MLA : Haq, Muhammad Nisa Ul, Mumtaz Gul Khan, and Muhammad Mahmood. "Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan." Global Political Review, V.I (2020): 182-191 Print.

OXFORD

    OXFORD : Haq, Muhammad Nisa Ul, Khan, Mumtaz Gul, and Mahmood, Muhammad (2020), "Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan", Global Political Review, V (I), 182-191

TURABIAN

    TURABIAN : Haq, Muhammad Nisa Ul, Mumtaz Gul Khan, and Muhammad Mahmood. "Interrogations and Prospective of Science Education at Secondary Level in Punjab, Pakistan." Global Political Review V, no. I (2020): 182-191. https://doi.org/10.31703/gpr.2020(V-I).21