• Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 (1), 1-12.
• Abrahams, I. (2011). Practical work in secondary science education. London: Continuum.
• Anderson, R., & Helms, J. V. (2001). The ideal of standards and the reality of schools: Needed Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 3-16.
• Blosser, P. E. (1983). What research says: The role of the laboratory in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 83, 165-169.
• Bodner, G. M. (1986). Constructivism: A theory of knowledge. Journal of Chemical Education, 63, 873-878.
• Bushkanets, M. G., & Leukhin, B. D. (1976). Khrestomatia po pedagogike, Moscow: Prosveshchenie.
• Bybee, R. (2000). Teaching science as inquiry, In J. Minstrel and E.H. Van Zee (eds), Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science (pp. 20-46). Washington: AAAS.
• Byers, B. & Eilks, I. (2009). The need for innovation in higher chemistry education – A pedagogical justification. In I. Eilks and B. Byers (eds.), Innovative methods for teaching and learning chemistry in higher education (pp. 5-22). London, RSC Publishing.
• De Jong O., Blonder R., & Oversby J. (2013). How to balance chemistry education between observing phenomena and thinking in models. In I. Eilks and A. Hofstein (eds.), Teaching chemistry – A studybook (pp. 97-126). Rotterdam, Sense.
• Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development. Studies in Science Education, 13, 22-105.
• Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
• Eilks, I. (2012). Student Active Learning in Science (SALiS) – From a theoretical justification to implications for science teaching, Chemistry in Action, 97, 8-12.
• Eilks, I., Prins, G. T., & Lazarowitz R. (2013). How to organize the classroom in a student-active mode. In I. Eilks and A. Hofstein (eds.), Teaching chemistry – A studybook (pp. 183-212). Rotterdam: Sense.
• Elmose, S., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Allgemeinbildung: Readiness for living in a risk society. Journal of Curriculim Studies, 37, 11-34.
• Epitropova, A., & Dimova Y. (2012). SALiS project – summary of the internal evaluation. Chemistry in Action, 97, 46-47
• European Commission (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Brussels: European Commission.
• European Commission (2007). Science education now. A renewed pedagogy for the future of Europe. Brussels: Directorate General for Research, Science and Economy.
• Fernandez, C., Holbrook, J., Mamlok-Naaman, R., & Coll, R. K. (2013). How to teach science in emerging and developing environments, In I. Eilks and A. Hofstein (eds.), Teaching chemistry – A studybook (pp. 299-326). Rotterdam: Sense.
• Gilbert, J. K. (2006). On the nature of context in chemical education. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 957-976.
• Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychology, 53, 5-26.
• Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. London: Routledge.
• Hodson, D., & Hodson, J. (1998). From constructivism to social constructivism: A Vygotskyan perspective on teaching and learning science, School Science Review, 79 (289), 33-41.
• Hofstein, A. (2004). The laboratory in chemistry education: Thirty years of experience with developments, implementation, and research. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 5, 247-264.
• Hofstein, A., Eilks, I., & Bybee, R. (2011). Societal issues and their importance for contemporary science education: a pedagogical justification and the state of the art in Israel, Germany and the USA. International Journal of Science Mathematics Education, 9, 1459-1483.
• Hofstein, A., Kipnis, M., & Abrahams I. (2013). How to learn in from the chemistry laboratory. In I. Eilks and A. Hofstein (Eds.), Teaching chemistry – A studybook (pp. 153-182). Rotterdam: Sense.
• Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2003). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88, 28-53.
• Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2008). Learning and teaching in inquiry-type chemistry laboratories, In B. Ralle and I. Eilks (Eds.). Promoting Successful Science Education – The Worth of Science Education Research (pp. 47- 62). Aachen: Shaker.
• Holbrook, J. (2008). Introduction. In P. Reiska, J. Holbrook & M. Rannikmae (Eds.), The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-soviet societies. Frankfurt: P. Lang.
• Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). The nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1347-1362.
• Janiuk R.M., & Mazur P. (2010). Poland. In B. Risch (ed.), Teaching chemistry around the world (pp. 291-309). Münster: Waxmann.
• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
• Kapanadze, M., Janashia, S., & Eilks, I. (2010). From science education in the soviet time, via national reform initiatives, towards an international network to support inquiry-based science education – The case of Georgia and the project SALiS. In I. Eilks & B. Ralle (Eds.) Contemporary science education (pp. 237-242). Aachen: Shaker.
• Kask, K., Rannikmäe, M., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2008). A paradigm shift in science teaching - Teacher development for inquiry teaching. In P. Reiska, J. Holbrook, & M. Rannikmae (Eds.), The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-Soviet societies: Research and practice (Estonian Example) (pp. 47-66), Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
• Kharlamov, I. F. (1990). Pedagigika, Moscow: Visschaia Shkola.
• Kipnis, M., & Hofstein, A. (2007). The inquiry laboratory as a source for development of metacognitive skills. International Journal of Science Mathematics Education, 6, 601- 627.
• McFadden, C. P. (1982). Science education in the USSR. Science Education, 66, 123-137.
• Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle: Pear.
• Nakleh, M. B., Polles J., & Malina, K. (2002). Learning chemistry in a laboratory environment. In J. K. Gilbert, O. De Jong, R. S. Justi, D. F. Treagust & J. H. Van Driel (Eds.), Chemical Education: Towards research-based practice (pp. 69-94). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
• Osborne, J. F. (2003). Attitude towards science: a review of the literature and its implications, International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049-1079.
• Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structures. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Pilot, A., Bulte, A. M. W. (2006). The use of “contexts” as a challenge for the chemistry curriculum: Its successes and the need for further development and understanding. International Journal of Science. Education, 28, 1087-1112.
• Poppe, N., Markic, S., & Eilks, I. (2011). Low-Cost-lab techniques for the science classroom. Bremen: SALiS Project.
• Reiska, P., Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (Eds.) (2008). The need for a paradigm shift in science education for post-soviet societies. Frankfurt: P. Lang.
• Roth, W.-M., & Lee. S. (2004). Science education as/for participation in the community. Science Education, 88, 263-291.
• Slovinsky, E. (2012). SALiS and educational policy in Georgia. Proceedings of the Student Active learning in Science final conference, Tbilisi, August 2012.
• Teacher‟s Professional Development Center (2012). Science teacher‟s standards. Tbilisi: TPDC.
• Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 403-418.
• Ushinsky, K. D. (1975). Selected eorks. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
• Van Aalsvoort, J. (2004). Activity theory as a tool to address the problem of chemistry‟s lack of relevance in secondary school chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 1635-1651.
• Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychology, 24, 325-344.
• Witteck, T., Most B., Kienast S., & Eilks, I. (2007). A lesson plan on separating matter based on the learning company approach – A motivating frame for selfregulated and open lab-work in introductory chemistry lessons. Chemistry Education Research Practice, 7, 108-119.
• Zhilin, D. (2010). Russia. In B. Risch (ed.), Teaching chemistry around the world (pp. 333-342). Münster: Waxmann.

APA

Kapanadze, M., & Eilks, I. (2014). Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a

Vancouver

Kapanadze M, Eilks I. Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(1):47-58. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a

AMA

Kapanadze M, Eilks I. Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS. EURASIA J Math Sci Tech Ed. 2014;10(1), 47-58. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a

Chicago

Kapanadze, Marika, and Ingo Eilks. "Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2014 10 no. 1 (2014): 47-58. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a

Harvard

Kapanadze, M., and Eilks, I. (2014). Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 10(1), pp. 47-58. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a

MLA

Kapanadze, Marika et al. "Supporting Reform in Science Education in Central and Eastern Europe - Reflections and Perspectives from the Project TEMPUS-SALiS". Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 10, no. 1, 2014, pp. 47-58. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1016a