What "ideas-about-science" should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community

Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Volumn 40, Issue 7, 2003, Pages 692-720

  Osborne, Jonathan ^a   Collins, Sue ^d   Ratcliffe, Mary ^b   Millar, Robin ^c   Duschl, Rick ^a  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULA; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; STUDENTS; TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE; SCHOOL SCIENCE CURRICULUM; SCIENCE EDUCATION;

EDUCATION;

EID: 0141844450     PISSN: 00224308     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/tea.10105     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Alters, B.J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39-55.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.
3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.
4. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science, mathematics and technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J.F., & Rutcliffe, M. (2002, April). Teaching pupils "ideas-about-science": Case studies from the classroom. Paper presented at the 75th International Conference of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans. Available on-line: http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/Publications.html
6. Brooks, K.W. (1979). Delphi techniques: Expanding applications. North Central Association Quarterly, 53, 377-385.
7. Glaxton, G. (1991). Educating the enquiring mind: The challenge for school science. London: Harvester.
8. Cochran, S.W. (1983). The Delphi method: Formulating and refining group judgements. Journal of the Human Sciences, 2, 111-117.
9. Collins, H. (2000). On Beyond 2000. Studies in Science Education, 35, 169-173.
10. Collins, H. & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Cotham, J.C. (1979). The development, validation and application of an instrument to assess teachers' understanding of philosophic aspects of scientific theories. Unpublished dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
12. Cyphert, F.R. & Gant, W. (1971). The Delphi technique: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan, 52, 272-273.
13. Dailey, A.L. & Holmberg, J.C. (1990). Delphi: A catalytic strategy for motivating curriculum revision by faculty. Community/Junior College Review, 14, 129-136.
14. Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D.H. (1975). Group techniques for program planning. Glenview, IL: Scott Foreman.
15. Department for Education and Employment. (1999). Science in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.
16. Doyle, C.S. (1993). The Delphi Method as a qualitative assessment tool for development of outcome measures for information literacy. School Library Media Annual, 11, 132-144.
17. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
18. Duschl, R., Hamilton, R., & Grandy, R. (1990). Psychology and epistemology: Match or mismatch when applied to science education? International Journal of Science Education, 12, 230-243.
19. Fish S. (1996, May 23) Professor Sokal's bad joke. New York Times, p. 23.
20. Fuller, S. (1997) Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
21. Gaon S. & Norris S. (2001) The undecideable grounds of scientific expertise: Science education and the limits of intellectual independence. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35, 187-201.
22. Giere, R. (1991) Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.
23. Gott R. & Johnson P. (1996, April). Children's use of evidence in science investigations: What are the implications for science education? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
24. Gregory, B. (1988) Inventing reality: Physics as language. New York: Wiley.
25. Gross A. G. (1996) The rhetoric of science. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press.
26. Gross P. & Levitt, N. (1994) Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
27. Hacking, I. (2001) The social construction of what? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Haraway D. (1989) Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.
29. Harding S (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
30. Häussler P., Frey K., Hoffman L., Rost, J., & Spada H. (1980) Education in physics for today and tomorrow. Kiel: IPN.
31. Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) Force Concept Inventory. The Physics Teacher, 30, 141-157
32. Irwin A. (199) Citizen science. London: Routledge.
33. Jenkins E. (1997) Towards a functional public understanding of science. J. Thomas (Eds.), Science today: Problem or crisis? (pp. 137-150). London: Routledge.
34. Judd, R.C. (1971) Delphi decision methods in higher education administration. Paper presented at the 12th American Meeting of the Institute of Management Sciences, Detroit.
35. Kimball M. E. (1967-1968) Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120
36. Kuhn, T. E. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37. Labinger, J. A. & Collins, H. (Eds.) (2001) The one culture? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Latour, B. (1985) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Latour, B. & Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40. laudan, L. (1990) Science and relativism: Some key controversies in the philosophy of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., Thagard, P., & Wykstra, S. (1986) Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research. Synthese, 69, 141-223
42. Lederman, N., Abd-el-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002) Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521
43. Lederman, N., Wade, P.D., & Bell, R.L. (1998) Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
44. Longino, H. (1990) Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. Lubben, F. & Millar, R. (1996) Children's ideas about the reliability of experimental data. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 955-968.
46. Martorella, P. (1991) Consensus building among social educators: A Delphi study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 19, 83-94.
47. Matthews, M. (1995). Constructivism and New Zealand science education. Auckland: Dunmore Press.
48. McComas, W.F., & Olson, J.K. (1998) The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
49. Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77, 7-18.
50. Millar, R. & Osborne, J.F. (Eds.). (1998) Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
51. Montgomery, S.L. (1996) The scientific voice. New York: Guilford Press.
52. Murray, J.W. Jr. & Hammons, J. O. (1995) Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Review of Higher Education, 18, 423-436.
53. National Academy of Science. (1995) National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54. Osborne, J.F. (1996) Beyond constructivism. Science Education, 80, 53-82.
55. Osborne, J.F. & Collins, S. (2000) Pupils' and parents' views of the school science curriculum. London: King's College London.
56. Osborne, J.F., Driver, R., & Simon, S. (1996) Attitudes to science: A review of research and proposals for studies to inform policy relating to uptake of science. London: King's College London.
57. Osborne, J.F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2001) What should we teach about science? A Delphi study. London: King's College.
58. Phillips, D.C. (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24, 5-12.
59. Rudolph, J.L. (2000) Reconsidering the "nature of science" as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403-419.
60. Ruse, M. (1999) Mystery of mysteries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Scientific Literacy Research Center. (1967). Wisconsin Inventory of Science Processes. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
62. Shapin, S. (2001) How to be antiscientific. In J.A. Labinger & H. Collins (Eds.), The one culture (pp. 99-115). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
63. Smith, K.S. & Simpson, R.D. (1995) Validating teacher competencies for faculty members in higher education: A national study using Delphi study methods. Innovative Higher Education, 19, 223-234.
64. Smith, M., Lederman, N.G., Bell, R., McComas, W.F., & Clough, M. (1997) How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1101-1103.
65. Sokal, A. & Bricmont, J. (1998) Intellectual impostures: Postmodern philosophers' abuse of science. London: Profile.
66. Sokal, A.D. (1996) Transgressing the boundaries-towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text, 14, 46-47, 217-252.
67. Stanley, W.B. & Brickhouse, N.W. (2001) Teaching science: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85, 35-49.
68. Taylor, C. (1996) Defining science: A rhetoric of demarcation. Madison: WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
69. Tobin, K. & Tippins, D. (1993) Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3-21). Washington: AAAS Press.
70. Uhl, N.P. (1983) Using the Delphi technique in institutional planning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 37, 81-94.
71. von Glaserfeld, E. (1995) Radical constructivism: A way of knowing and learning. London: Falmer.
72. Watson, R. & Wood-Robinson, V. (1998) Learning to investigate. In M. Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education (pp. 84-91). Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
73. Welch, W.W. & Pella, M.O. (1967-1968) The development of an instrument for inventoring the knowledge of the processes of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 64.
74. Whiteman, N.I. (1990) The Delphi technique as an alternative for committee meetings. Journal of Nursing Education, 29, 377-379.
75. Ziman, J. (2000) Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.