Further thoughts on defining versus describing the nature of science: A response to Niaz

Science Education

Volumn 85, Issue 6, 2001, Pages 691-693

  Scharmann, Lawrence C ^a   Smith, Mike U ^b  

^a KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MERCER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035618232     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.1033     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin's black box. New York: The Free Press.
3. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
4. Miller, K. R. (1999). Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins Press.
5. National Academy of Sciences (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding Nature of Science as Progressive Transitions in Heuristic Principles. Science Education, 85, 684-690.
7. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Schwab, J. J. (1973). The practical 3: Translation into curriculum. School Review, 81, 501-522.
9. Schwab, J. J. (1974). The concept of the structure of a discipline. In E. W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of the curriculum. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
10. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493-509.