They seek wherever possible to clarify their developing thesis with visual tools that illustrate how their ideas can be practically applied in science education. The authors believe that this more integrated conception of nature of science in science education is both innovative and beneficial.
They discuss in detail the implications for curriculum content, pedagogy, and learning outcomes, deploy numerous real-life examples, and detail the links between their ideas and curriculum policy more generally.
Erduran and Dagher provide a refreshingly new and comprehensive view of the nature of science and highlight insightful and timely educational implications. Skip to main content Skip to table of contents.
Scientific Practices. Methods and Methodological Rules. Scientific Knowledge. Science as a Social-Institutional System. Back Matter Pages Domain-specificity in scientific inquiry Epistemic practices of science Family Resemblance Approach Generative images of science Heidegger family resemblance NOS Nature of science Philosophy of science Science studies Scientific knowledge Scientific practices science education science learning.
Dagher 2 1. Buy options.Why teach the nature of science? The short answer is that the curriculum requires it and research supports it. These are compelling reasons. Accurately conveying the nature of science is common to most science education curricula worldwide.
There is a clear message that understanding the nature of science is crucial for effective science teaching, for valuable science learning and for responsible participation in society.
Research shows that students often have significant misconceptions about science. Science is often misrepresented in the media, and classroom teaching can overemphasise what we know rather than how we know it.
Therefore, we need to include the nature of science in planning and teaching. We want our students to gain an understanding of the nature of science so that they can see how science is connected to their real world. Science education research over recent decades has also shown that teaching about the nature of science:. We live in an increasingly scientific and technological society in which many personal decisions involve scientific understanding.
Should I take vitamin supplements? Are sunbeds safe? Could my cell phone cause a brain tumour? Will eating organic vegetables make me live longer? Does the lower environmental impact of a hybrid car justify its price? Will smoking kill me really? To be able to make use of science in their daily lives, students need to have an understanding of the nature of science. They need to become critical consumers of science.
Many debates and controversies at all levels from the media to government relate to socio-scientific issues. Is genetic modification the future of medicines and global food supply?
How conclusive is DNA evidence in a murder trial? Is climate change really as big a threat as scientists tell us? Should I oppose or support the building of nuclear power stations? Should I protest against stem cell research? These are examples of typical socio-scientific issues that impact us all. A fundamental reason for teaching about the nature of science is to help our students to think for themselves and reach their own explanations and conclusions in ways that consider the scientific dimensions of socio scientific issues.
We want students to be able to make informed decisions about such issues, to voice their opinions, to take action and to participate in the decision-making process of a democratic society.Fast Download speed and ads Free! They seek wherever possible to clarify their developing thesis with visual tools that illustrate how their ideas can be practically applied in science education. The authors believe that this more integrated conception of nature of science in science education is both innovative and beneficial.
They discuss in detail the implications for curriculum content, pedagogy, and learning outcomes, deploy numerous real-life examples, and detail the links between their ideas and curriculum policy more generally.
It showcases a selection of the best papers by researchers and science teachers from the Asia-Pacific region, North America and the United Kingdom.
The chapters touch on various themes in science education that explore and investigate issues of scientific literacy, societal challenges and affect, and teacher professional development. It also appeals to pre-service and in-service teachers as a resource on innovative pedagogical practices and creative methods of professional development. With a selection that emphasises the research-practice nexus in education research, it serves as an introductory handbook for teachers to connect with the current issues facing science education.
This edited volume brings forth intriguing, novel and innovative research in the field of science education. The chapters in the book deal with a wide variety of topics and research approaches, conducted in various contexts and settings, all adding a strong contribution to knowledge on science teaching and learning. The ESERA science education research community consists of professionals with diverse disciplinary backgrounds from natural sciences to social sciences.
This diversity provides a rich understanding of cognitive and affective aspects of science teaching and learning in this volume. The studies in this book will invoke discussion and ignite further interest in finding new ways of doing and researching science education for the future and looking for international partners for both science education and science education research. The twenty-five chapters showcase current orientations of research in science education and are of interest to science teachers, teacher educators and science education researchers around the world with a commitment to evidence-based and forward-looking science teaching and learning.
This book reflects on science education in the first 20 years of the 21st century in order to promote academic dialogue on science education from various standpoints, and highlights emergent new issues, such as education in science education research. Featuring 21 thematically grouped chapters, it includes award-winning papers and other significant papers that address the theme of the International Science Education Conference.
This book synthesizes theoretical perspectives, empirical evidence and practical strategies for improving teacher education in chemistry.
Capitalising on traditionally disparate areas of research, the book investigates how to make chemistry education more meaningful for both students and teachers. It provides an example of how theory and practice in chemistry education can be bridged.
It reflects on the nature of knowledge in chemistry by referring to theoretical perspectives from philosophy of chemistry. It draws on empirical evidence from research on teacher education, and illustrates concrete strategies and resources that can be used by teacher educators. The book describes the design and implementation of an innovative teacher education project to show the impact of an intervention on pre-service teachers.
The book shows how, by making use of visual representations and analogies, the project makes some fairly abstract and complex ideas accessible to pre-service teachers. This ambitious text is the first of its kind to summarize the theory, research, and practice related to pedagogical content knowledge.
The audience is provided with a functional understanding of the basic tenets of the construct as well as its applications to research on science teacher education and the development of science teacher education programs. This book synthesizes current literature and research on scientific inquiry and the nature of science in K instruction. Its presentation of the distinctions and overlaps of inquiry and nature of science as instructional outcomes are unique in contemporary literature.
Researchers and teachers will find the text interesting as it carefully explores the subtleties and challenges of designing curriculum and instruction for integrating inquiry and nature of science.
Reflecting the very latest theory on diversity issues in science education, including new dialogic approaches, this volume explores the subject from a range of perspectives and draws on studies from around the world. The work discusses fundamental topics such as how we conceptualize diversity as well as examining the ways in which heterogeneous cultural constructs influence the teaching and learning of science in a range of contexts.An elaboration of the findings in the AAAS member survey.
New Pew Research Center surveys of citizens and a representative sample of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS show powerful crosscurrents that both recognize the achievements of scientists and expose stark fissures between scientists and citizens on a range of science, engineering and technology issues.
This report highlights these major findings:. The key data:. The survey of the general public was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Augustwith a representative sample of 2, adults nationwide. The margin of sampling error for results based on all adults is plus or minus 3. The survey of scientists is based on a representative sample of 3, U. Opinion differences occur on all 13 issues where a direct comparison is available.
A difference of less than 10 percentage points occurs on only two of the The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified GM foods. Both groups see U. The only aspect of American society rated more favorably is the U.
For more on public assessments of key institutions and industries, including the economy, health care, and the political system see Chapter 2.
Compared with the general public, scientists are even more positive about the place of U. Scientists also have largely positive views about the global standing of U. And when asked about four possible reasons for the public having limited science knowledge, three-quarters of AAAS scientists in the new survey say too little K STEM education is a major factor.
A number of the questions asked in these new surveys repeat questions that Pew Research Center asked citizens and scientists in In key areas, both the public and AAAS scientists are less upbeat today. Among the public, perceptions of the scientific enterprise and its contribution to society, while still largely positive, are a little less rosy than five years ago. Fewer citizens see U. And, while most adults see positive contributions of science on life overall and on the quality of health care, food and the environment, there is a slight rise in negative views in each area.
Similarly, most citizens say government investment in research pays off in the long run, but slightly more are skeptical about the benefits of government spending today than in While the change is modest on several of these measures, the share expressing negative views on each is slightly larger today than in Though scientists hold mostly positive assessments of the state of science and their scientific specialty today, they are less sanguine than they were in when Pew Research conducted a previous survey of AAAS members.
The downturn is shared widely among AAAS scientists regardless of discipline and employment sector. Of the seven aspects of American society rated, only one was seen more favorably: the U.
Compared withhowever, the share saying that U. More now see U. Perceptions of some other key sectors, including U. See Chapter 2 for details.
Partisan groups tend to hold similar views of U. When it comes to policy prescriptions, however, a partisan divide emerges. Younger adults are also more likely than their elders to say supporting scientific research should be a top priority for the President and the new Congress. Similarly, a majority of adults says the effect of science on the quality of U. The share saying that science has had a negative effect in each area has increased slightly.
The order of ratings for each of the 10 groups was roughly the same in as inthough there were modest declines in public appreciation for several occupations. Adults under age 50 and college graduates tended to be more upbeat in their assessments of scientists, engineers and medical doctors.
Partisan and ideological differences were found in views about the contribution of scientists and engineers but not in views about medical doctors.One of the four Master's degree programs at the Institute for Creation Research leads to a degree in science education.
Science education is a broad amorphous field of study with little agreement among the experts as to exactly what comprises the field. Because of its diverse nature, it is important that a science education student be able to integrate ideas, concepts, and principles from many different disciplines. For example, a person trained as a secondary biology teacher should also take courses in chemistry and physics. Yet the educational literature shows that course work in a discipline such as chemistry or physics does not usually enable the student to integrate and apply that knowledge to other disciplines.
Thus training Master's level educators in principles of integration is of vital importance. Integration can be defined in many ways. In dealing with science education and faith issues, integration can be defined as putting them together into a synthetic whole under a Biblical umbrella.
Because the study of science and origins is multidisciplinary in nature, this suggested process of integration allows for the blending together of ideas from many different scientific disciplines.
This encourages thinking to expand beyond the narrow focus found in many of today's science disciplines. Because God did not create the world in a compartmentalized fashion, one must have at least some knowledge in many disciplines in order to synthesize the big picture of the world.
In order for individuals to obtain the ability to accomplish this type of higher order thinking, some basic guidelines are needed. Among these are: 1 a model which guides thinking in terms of integration; 2 knowledge of what should be integrated; 3 time to practice the application of the ideas, concepts, and principles that are to be integrated; and 4 most importantly, a personal relationship with the Creator, Jesus Christ.
In reference to point number one, the writer proposes the following model as a basis for integration. As students progress through a particular course in science education, they should use the model to help integrate the concepts and principles being studied.
This process is described below. The model components provide a framework for a graduate school science education learning environment and setting. Communication and learning-problem areas can be addressed and identified, using the model as a base.
The components of the model deal with the issue of the source of knowledge and how it is obtained. The four components are centered around a creationist world view which focuses on the Creator, Jesus Christ. When the mind is set on Jesus Christ as the Creator and Author of all truth, false traditions of man fade into the background, and one tries to live according to the principles of Christ Acts ; I Thessalonians ; and II Corinthians ,5.
The need for this approach grows out of the fact that the five commonly relied upon sources of knowledge—experience, authority, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and the scientific approach—all have limitations and deficiencies, whereas, the creationist world view is based upon a foundation which is truth.
That foundation is the person of Jesus Christ, who is the truth John A person's world view is the core which impacts his life and influences it in four key areas.
World view: The presuppositions, orientations, and beliefs that act as a filter or screen through which to interpret life. The other four components of the model see Diagram A flow out of this Biblical Creationist view and perspective.
The four world-view components of the model are listed and discussed below. Nature of man: Personality, character, motivational traits, spiritual maturity, as well as developmental levels of the learner that influence learning. Our model focuses on the learner's present characteristics as well as who he or she is in Jesus Christ the Creator.
This also entails a vision for the eternal state which goes beyond the present characteristics of mankind. A comprehensive secular account of how the "nature of man" component affects learning and instruction in the area of science education has already been developed.Over the course of human history, people have developed many interconnected and validated ideas about the physical, biological, psychological, and social worlds.
Those ideas have enabled successive generations to achieve an increasingly comprehensive and reliable understanding of the human species and its environment. The means used to develop these ideas are particular ways of observing, thinking, experimenting, and validating.
These ways represent a fundamental aspect of the nature of science and reflect how science tends to differ from other modes of knowing. It is the union of science, mathematics, and technology that forms the scientific endeavor and that makes it so successful. Although each of these human enterprises has a character and history of its own, each is dependent on and reinforces the others. Accordingly, the first three chapters of recommendations draw portraits of science, mathematics, and technology that emphasize their roles in the scientific endeavor and reveal some of the similarities and connections among them.
This chapter lays out recommendations for what knowledge of the way science works is requisite for scientific literacy. The chapter focuses on three principal subjects: the scientific world view, scientific methods of inquiry, and the nature of the scientific enterprise.
Chapters 2 and 3 consider ways in which mathematics and technology differ from science in general. Chapters 4 through 9 present views of the world as depicted by current science; Chapter 10, Historical Perspectives, covers key episodes in the development of science; and Chapter 11, Common Themes, pulls together ideas that cut across all these views of the world.
Scientists share certain basic beliefs and attitudes about what they do and how they view their work. These have to do with the nature of the world and what can be learned about it. Science presumes that the things and events in the universe occur in consistent patterns that are comprehensible through careful, systematic study. Scientists believe that through the use of the intellect, and with the aid of instruments that extend the senses, people can discover patterns in all of nature.
Science also assumes that the universe is, as its name implies, a vast single system in which the basic rules are everywhere the same. Knowledge gained from studying one part of the universe is applicable to other parts. For instance, the same principles of motion and gravitation that explain the motion of falling objects on the surface of the earth also explain the motion of the moon and the planets. Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations.
Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations.
In science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, go on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works. Although scientists reject the notion of attaining absolute truth and accept some uncertainty as part of nature, most scientific knowledge is durable.What is science and how it progresses is an important part of understanding the nature of science.
Science educators have shown interest in understanding the nature of science, and there is considerable controversy with respect to its conceptualization and implementation in the classroom. Some science educators consider that there are two ways of understanding the nature of science: a domain-general based on explicit references to the following consensus-based heuristic principles: empirical nature of science, competition among rival theories, different interpretations of the same experimental data, theory-laden nature of observations, tentative nature of scientific knowledge, social and historical milieu, and others and b domain-specific cognitive, epistemic, and social practices, such as model building, observing, arguing from evidence, and explaining based on a specific context of the science curriculum.
I have argued in this chapter that domain-general heuristic principles are themselves derived by philosophers of science from an in-depth, domain-specific historical reconstruction of particular episodes. Consequently, understanding the nature of science as domain-general or domain-specific is a false dichotomy. Instead, I have shown with various examples from the history of science that both the domain-general and the domain-specific aspects of the nature of science complement each other, and hence we need an integrated view.
For example, if the Michelson—Morley experiment had been done at the time of Copernicus one of the reviewers had some reservations with respect to this example, and hence it is important to note that this is a hypothetical scenario and not in the late nineteenth century, its result would have had no significance for the astronomers, as they considered the earth to stand still and at the center of the universe.
Consequently, the historical and social milieu is an important aspect of the nature of science if we want students to understand how the ideas evolved. A study designed to introduce the integrated view of the nature of science to in-service teachers is also presented in this chapter. Results obtained show that given the necessary experience domain-specific historical episodesin-service teachers are quite receptive and willing to give up some of their well-ingrained aspects of an empiricist epistemology.
Chapter First Online: 24 December This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access. Abd-El-Khalick, F.
Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society
International Journal of Science Education, 2715— CrossRef Google Scholar. Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education.
International Journal of Science Education, 34 3— Representation of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45— Achinstein, P.