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.