Expectativas sobre un trabajo futuro y vocaciones científicas en estudiantes de educación secundaria

ABSTRACT This study features a diagnosis on the expectations and priorities of secondary education students relative to their working future in the Balearic Islands (Spain), by means of a questionnaire which appraises the importance of several features of a job. Features like helping others (of major importance for girls) and creativity (of major importance for boys) are the most appraised by young people, while craftsmanship (radically rejected by girls) and environmental aspects are considered of less importance. According to the questionnaire's factors structure, the self–updating related aspects have major importance, while the manual dimension is the least important. Debate of these results appeals directly to school science, while as long as the improvement and attention of job expectations defy education and science teaching in school, mainly for the development of science vocations.

Download full-text


Available from: María Antonia Manassero Mas, Jun 28, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined young students' perceptions of gender-appropriate science courses. The sample consisted of 427 students in grades 4, 5, and 6, between the ages of 9 and 13. Students completed the Course Selection Sheet (CSS) to choose courses for themselves and members of the opposite gender. A psychosocial framework was offered to explain the differential course selection patterns between young boys and girls. The study reveals a strong gender effect pointing toward stereotypical perceptions of selected science courses for oneself (p ≤ 0.01). When students selected science courses for the opposite gender, the evidence of gender-role stereotypes was even greater (p < 0.000). Course selection profiles imply that a reciprocal relationship exists in the number and kind of courses selected by girls and boys. A detailed analysis suggests that both boys and girls perceive physical science and technology-related courses as appropriate subjects for boys to study and life sciences as appropriate subjects for girls to study. Surprisingly, students' future science course selections resemble current enrollment data of master's and doctoral candidates. The students' perceptions of science are seen years prior to the actual encounter with the science courses listed on the course selection menu. These findings question the auspiciousness of programs designed to ameliorate gender differences in science during junior or senior high school years. Suggestions for school curriculum development and the importance of informal science experiences were examined. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:55–75, 1999.
    Science Education 01/1999; 83(1):55 - 75. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199901)83:1<55::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-O · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper argues that the diverse curriculum reform agendas associated with science education are strongly and critically associated with the educational characteristics of the humanities. The article begins with a survey of interpretations of the distinctive contribution which the humanities make to educational purposes. From this survey four general characteristics of the humanities are identified: an appeal to an autonomous self with the right and capacity to make independent judgements and interpretations; indeterminacy in the subject matter of these judgements and interpretations; a focus on meaning, in the context of human responses, actions, and relationships, and especially on the ethical, aesthetic, and purposive; and finally, the possibility of commonality in standards of judgement and interpretation, under conditions of indeterminacy. Inquiry and science technology and society (STS) orientated curriculum development agendas within science education are explored in the light of this analysis. It is argued that the four characteristics identified are central to the educational purposes of these and other less prominent modes of curriculum development in science, though not unproblematically so. In the light of this discussion the prognosis and challenges for science curriculum development are explored. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed88: 762–784, 2004
    Science Education 09/2004; 88(5):762 - 784. DOI:10.1002/sce.20004 · 2.92 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To provide insight into issues of gender and ethnicity in science education, we examine the views of approximately 60 secondary science teachers and university scientists from three different research projects. In each project, participants and researcher explored the intersection of professional and personal identities; views of the nature of science; beliefs related to students' experiences in science education; and kinds of curricular and instructional strategies used to promote access and equity for all students. Participants' interviews were analyzed qualitatively for patterns across these four dimensions of inclusive science education. Analysis of data revealed a wide range of beliefs and experiences along each dimension. From our findings, we argue for careful examination of the ways identities shape instructors' professional experiences and educational practices; critical, constructive conversations about feminist science studies scholarship between professional developers and science teachers or scientists; and reasoned reflection on how views of students can inform recommendations for inclusive content and instruction. We conclude with the call for increased sophistication in the conceptualization and implementation of solutions to the “problem” of women and ethnic minorities in science education, for balancing recognition of systematic gender and ethnic bias with sensitivity to instructors and students' diverse interests and experiences. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 37: 511–547, 2000
    Journal of Research in Science Teaching 01/2000; 37(6):511 - 547. DOI:10.1002/1098-2736(200008)37:6<511::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-3 · 2.64 Impact Factor