The present study examines science education policies in three selected developed countries and compares them with science education policies in Lebanon in order to identify their potential reform policies and practices applicable to Lebanon. The selection of the three countries, the U.S.A., U.K., and Japan, was based on the amount of time and effort devoted in these countries to improving and modernizing their science education policies and curricula. Three aspects of secondary science curriculum policy in the chosen countries were analyzed and compared with those of Lebanon. These were: aims and objectives; pattern of science program including the science curriculum, the amount of time allotted to the study of science and the content of school science subjects; and the organization of school science including science requirement for graduation from high school, teaching strategies and mode of examinations. The data collected for analysis from the three chosen countries showed that, unlike Lebanon, in the three developed countries: education is compulsory up to at least the age of 16; aims and objectives are stated clearly and carefully; science is an integrated subject in the first year of secondary level, then it becomes separated into chemistry, physics and biology. The content of science subjects emphasizes the method and process of science and its application to the society. Examinations are designed to evaluate students' learning in science in contrast to Lebanon where examinations are designed to discriminate among students.

Originally presented as the author's Thesis (doctoral--Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 2006). / Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (p. 301-316).

Thesis (M.A.). / Written for the Dept. of Art History and Communication Studies. Title from title page of PDF (viewed 2008/03/12). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--School of Advanced Airpower Studies, 1994. / Shipping list no.: 1998-0921-M. "October 1995." Includes bibliographical references. Also available via Internet from the Air University Press web site. Address as of 11/5/03: http://aupress.au.af.mil/SAAS%5FTheses/Schow/schow.pdf; current access is available via PURL.

Thesis (M.A.)--West Virginia University, 2001. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains iv, 95 p. : col. map. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 93-95).

No description available.

No description available.

While most of the teachers of English around the world are non-native speakers, numerous cases of discrimination against non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) have been reported in the literature (Braine, 1999). The present study examines the perceptions of students, native English speaking teachers (NESTs), and non-native English speaking teachers towards NESTs and NNESTs in three Intensive English Programs (IEPs) from three universities in the Bekaa governorate of Lebanon. The study examines the similarities and differences between the perceptions of teachers and students and those of NESTs and NNESTs towards the definition of the labels NEST and NNEST, learning with NESTs and NNESTs, strengths and weaknesses of each of the two groups, and classroom behavior and responsibility. Finally, the study examines students’ and teachers’ perceptions regarding NESTs’ and NNESTs’ personal interactions with their students. The study administered Likert-scale questionnaires and semi-structured interviews for teachers and students. The findings revealed that for both groups, teachers are considered native if they grew up in a native speaking country and if they carry any of the accents of the countries of the “middle” (Kachru, 1982).The findings also showed that NESTs are better teachers of oral skills, such as pronunciation, listening, and speaking whereas NNESTs are perceived as better teachers of grammar and culture, more capable of predicting students’ difficulties, and more empathetic to the needs of students. Both groups also agreed that NESTs vary their use of materials more than NNESTs do and that NNESTs communicate better with students because they share their culture and first language and because they are more empathetic with them.

No description available.

No description available.