Theoretical foundations

   The hybrid narratives were produced from field and laboratory work, bibliographic research, projects, Master Thesis and work done in academic disciplines. To deep the theoretical foundations on hybridization/hybridism and the construction of this website, please access the paper published at Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências:

   Most of the YOUR OPINION questionnaire items are own, as the assertions in the activities 10 and 11, which were also based on references cited in the paper above or in “Literature Deconstruction”. Others were drawn from the following instruments: Constructivist Learning Environment Survey – CLES II and Students Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry – Sussi (Khishfe & Abd-El-Khalick, 2002; Liang et al, 2008 cited Kagumba, 2015), Science and Culture Nexus Survey (Aikenhead, 1997) and The Thinking about Science Survey Instrument – TSSI (Cobern, 2000). Some items suffered minor modifications or adaptations in their translations into Portuguese.

   The deconstructive readings were done based on Atkins (1983), Ellis (1989) and Martinengo (2012).

Theoretical references

Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.

Bhabha, H. (1998). The commitment to theory. New Formations, 5, 5-23.

Lund, J. (2006). The impure imagination: toward a critical hibridity on Latin America writing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Werbner, P. (2000). Introduction: the dialetics of cultural hibridity. In: Werbner, P. & Modooq, T. Debating Cultural Hybridity. London: Zed Books Ltd., 1-26.

Young, R.J.C. (1995). Colonial desire: hybridity in theory, culture and race. London: Routledge.

References of some statements (Activities 10 and 11)

Aikenhead, G.S. (1997). Science and Culture Nexus Survey. Available in: < 2>. Last access: June, 16, 2015.

Cobern, W. W. (2000). The Thinking about Science Survey Instrument (TSSI) – SLCSP 151. Kalamazoo, MI: Scientific Literacy and Cultural Studies Project.

Khishfe, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of Explicit and Reflective versus Implicit Inquiry-Oriented Instruction on Sixth Graders’ Views of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(37), 551-578.

Kagumba, R.E.M. (2015). Uganda Science Teacher Educator: a concurrent mixed methods of investigation of Nature of Science, Pedagogy and Classroom learning environments perspectives. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.

Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing Pre-service Elementary Teachers Views on the Nature of Scientific Knowledge: a dual Response Instrument Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9(1).

About the deconstruction of texts

Atkins, G.D. (1983). Reading Deconstruction Deconstructive Reading. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky.

Ellis, J.M. (1989). Against Deconstruction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Martinengo, A. (2012). Beyond deconstruction: from hermeneutics to reconstruction. Munchen, DEU: Walter de Gruyler.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *