10. ja 11. klassi õpilaste bioloogia-alase kirjaoskuse kognitiivsete komponentide hindamine

Basadur, M., Gelade, G., & Basadur, T. (2014). Creative problem-solving process styles, cognitive work demands, and organizational adaptability. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(1), 80–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313508433

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2009.01.002

Beier, Y. (2014). The collaborative advantage. The rewards of a collaborative culture are significant, but so is the effort to get there. Communication World, 33(1), 22–25.

Brown, B. A., Reveles, J. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2005). Scientific literacy and discursive identity: A theoretical framework for understanding science learning. Science Education, 89(5), 779–802. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20069

Bybee, R. W., & Fuchs, B. (2006). Preparing the 21st century workforce: A new reform in science and technology education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20147

Cliff, W. H., & Curtin, L. N. (2000). The directed case method: Teaching concept and process in a content-rich course. Journal of College Science Teaching, 30(1), 64–66.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: Harper Collins.

Demastes, S., & Wandersee, J. H. (1992). Biological literacy in a college biology classroom. BioScience, 42(1), 63–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311631

Demir, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Assessment of open-ended questions directed to prospective science teachers in terms of scientific creativity. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 692–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.264

Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Sherwood, R. D., & Schlegel, W. M. (2013). Students’ participation in an interdisciplinary, socio-scientific issues based undergraduate human biology major and their understanding of scientific inquiry. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1051–1078. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9298-x

European Commission (2010). Special Eurobarometer 340: Science and technology. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_340_en.pdf.

Fensham, P. J. (2004). Increasing the relevance of science and technology education for all students in the 21st century. Science Education International, 15(1), 7–26.

Furnham, A., Batey, M., Booth, T. W., Patel, V., & Lozinskaya, D. (2011). Individual difference predictors of creativity in Art and Science. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2011.01.006

Greiff, S., & Neubert, J. C. (2014). On the relation of complex problem solving, personality, fluid intelligence, and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 36, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.08.003

Griffin, P., McGaw, B., & Care, E. (Eds.) (2012). Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills. Dordrecht: Springer.

Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava (2011). Riigi Teataja I, 29.08.2014, 21. Külastatud aadressil https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/129082014021.

Gürses, A., Açıkyıldız, M., Doğar, Ç., & Sözbilir, M. (2007). An investigation into the effectiveness of problem-based learning at physical chemistry laboratory. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140601053641

Happonen, P., Holopainen, M., Sariola, H., Sotkas, P., Tenhunen, A., Tihtarinen-Ulmanen, M., … & Sepp, T. (2013). Bioloogia õpik gümnaasiumile, IV kursus. Evolutsioon. Ökoloogia. Keskkonnakaitse. Tallinn: Avita.

Heller, K. A. (2007). Scientific ability and creativity. High Ability Studies, 18(2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130701709541

Holbrook, J. (2014). A context-based approach to science teaching. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(2), 152–154.

Ida-Tallinna Keskhaigla (2009). Laktoositalumatus. Külastatud aadressil http://www.itk.ee/upload/files/Patsiendi-infomaterjal/ITK528_Laktoositalumatus.pdf.

Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547

Kim, M. K., Roh, I. S., & Cho, M. K. (2016). Creativity of gifted students in an integrated math-science instruction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.07.004

Kokassaar, U., Martin, M., & Relve, K. (2013). Bioloogia õpik 9. klassile, II osa. Tallinn: Avita.

Kokassaar, U., & Relve, K. (2013). Bioloogia õpik 9. klassile, I osa. Tallinn: Avita.

Kübarsepp, J. (2006). Üldhariduskool kõrgkooli pilguga. Haridus, 9–10, 33–36.

Laius, A., Post, A., & Rannikmäe, M. (2015a). Identifying Estonian stakeholder views as the bases for designing science teachers’ in-service course which support promotion of competence based curriculum goals. Science Education International, 26(1), 62–71.

Laius, A., Post, A., & Rannikmäe, M. (2016). Determining support of Estonian stakeholders for a new competence-based science education curriculum. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 10, 14–24.

Laius, A., Valdmann, A., & Rannikmäe, M. (2015b). A comparison of transferable skills development in Estonian school biology at gymnasium level. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 177, 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.349

Lavonen, J., Gedrovics, J., Byman, R., Meisalo, V., Juuti, K., & Uitto, A. (2008). Students’ motivational orientations and career choice in science and technology: A comparative investigation in Finland and Latvia. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 7(2), 86–102.

Lember, M., Torniainen, S., Kull, M., Saadla, P., Rajasalu, T., Lepiksoo, M., & Järvelä, I. (2007). Pärilik primaarne hüpolaktaasia – genotüübid ja nende seos piimatalumatusega. Eesti Arst, 86(6), 383–386.

Lile, R., & Bran, C. (2014). The assessment of learning outcomes. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 163, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.297

Loewenthal, K. M. (2004). An introduction to psychological tests and scales (2nd ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.

Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium (2013). Eesti ettevõtluse kasvustrateegia 2014–2020. Külastatud aadressil http://kasvustrateegia.mkm.ee/.

Martin, M., Toom, M., & Kokassaar, U. (2002). Bioloogia põhikoolile II. Tallinn: Avita.

Mumford, M. D., Hester, K. S., & Robledo, I. C. (2010). Scientific creativity: Idealism versus pragmatism. Gifted and Talented International, 25(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2010.11673550

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 results: Creative problem solving: Student’s skills in tackling real-life problems (Vol. 5). Paris: OECD.

OECD (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD Publishing.

Papadouris, N., & Constantinou, C. P. (2010). Approaches employed by sixth-graders to compare rival solutions in socio-scientific decision-making tasks. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.022

PISA 2006 Eesti tulemused (2008). Tartu: Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. Külastatud aadressil https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/pisa_2006_esti_tulemused.pdf.

PISA 2015 Eesti tulemused: Eesti 15-aastaste õpilaste teadmised ja oskused matemaatikas, funktsionaalses lugemises ja loodusteadustes (2016). Tallinn: Innove. Külastatud aadressil https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/pisa_2015_final_veebivaatamiseks_0.pdf.

Post, A., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2011). Stakeholder views on attributes of scientific literacy important for future citizens and employees – a Delphi study. Science Education International, 22(3), 202–217.

Quinn, H., Schweingruber, H., & Keller, T. (Eds.) (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards; National Research Council.

Ravenscroft, A., Lindstaedt, S., Kloos, C. D., & Hernández-Leo, D. (Eds.) (2012). 21st century learning for 21st century skills. 7th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, EC-TEL2012 Saarbrücken, Germany, September 2012, Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33263-0

Relve, K., Kirk, A., Tuvikene, A., Pappel, P., Hain, E., Mägi, E., … & Kollist, Ü. (2011). Bioloogia 7. klassile. Tallinn: Avita.

Relve, K., Kokassaar, U., Martin, M., Vanatoa, A., Rammul, Ü., Rammul, I., … & Kollist, Ü. (2012). Bioloogia õpik 8. klassile, II osa. Tallinn: Avita.

Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023

Sarapuu, T. (2003). Bioloogia gümnaasiumile. I osa. Tartu: Eesti Loodusfoto.

Sarapuu, T., Viikmaa, M., & Puura, I. (2006). Bioloogia gümnaasiumile. II osa 4. kursus. Tartu: Eesti Loodusfoto.

Schleicher, A. (2014). A plan for education. OECD Forum. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/a-plan-for-education.htm.

Şenocak, E., Taşkesenligil, Y., & Sözbilir, M. (2007). A study on teaching gases to prospective primary science teachers through problem-based learning. Research in Science Education, 37(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-006-9026-5

Soobard, R., & Rannikmäe, M. (2014). Upper secondary students’ self-perceptions of both their competence in problem solving, decision making and reasoning within science subjects and their future careers. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 13(4), 544–558.

Steffen, B., & Hößle, C. (2016). Assessing students’ performances in decision-making: Coping strategies of biology teachers. Journal of Biological Education, 51(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1156012

Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2002). The creativity conundrum: A propulsion model of kinds of creative contributions. New York: Psychology Press.

Tehnunen, A., Hain, E., Venäläinen, J., Tihtarinen-Ulmanen, M., Holopainen, M., Sotkas, P., … & Tsaro, K. (2012). Bioloogia gümnaasiumile, II. Tallinn: Avita.

Teichmann, M., & Kübarsepp, J. (2008). Students’ preparation for, and coping with, tertiary level science and engineering education. In J. Holbrook, M. Rannikmäe, P. Reiska, & P. Ilsley (Eds.), The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-Soviet societies (pp. 184–198). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Tenson, T., Kaldalu, N., Tehnunen, A., Hain, E., Venäläinen, J., Tihtarinen-Ulmanen, M., … & Happonen, P. (2013). Bioloogia gümnaasiumile, III. Tallinn: Avita.

Tervise Arengu Instituut (2016). Laktoositalumatus. Külastatud aadressil http://toitumine.ee/toitumine-ja-haigused/toidutalumatus/laktoositalumatus.

Toom, M., Tedersoo, L., & Relve, K. (2012). Bioloogia 8. klassile. 1. osa. Tallinn: Avita.

Tsakanikos, E., & Claridge, G. (2005). Less words, more words: Psychometric schizotypy and verbal fluency. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(4), 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.019

Uno, G. E., & Bybee, R. W. (1994). Understanding the dimensions of biological literacy. BioScience, 44(8), 553–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312283

Usta, E., & Akkanat, Ç. (2015). Investigating scientific creativity level of seventh grade students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.643

Venäläinen, J., Tenhunen, A., Hain, E., Tihtarinen-Ulmanen, M., Sotkas, P., Happonen, P., & Holopainen, M. (2012). Bioloogia õpik gümnaasiumile, 1. kursus. Bioloogia kui teadus. Organismid. Rakuõpetus. Tallinn: Avita.