Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science

Science Education

Volumn 89, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 803-821

  Rudolph, John L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 25444436203     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.20071     Document Type: Review

References (98)

1. Allspaw, K. M. (2004). Engaging the public in the regulation of xenotransplantation: Would the Canadian model of public consultation be effective in the US? Public Understanding of Science, 13, 417-428.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4. Barren, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Bransford, J. D., & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.
5. Barton, A. M. (2001). The moon also rises. The Science Teacher, 68(6), 34-39.
6. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students' understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 487-509.
7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8. Burnham, J. C. (1987). How superstition won and science lost: Popularization of science and health in the United States. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
9. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 715-729.
10. Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19-32). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Cartier, J. L., & Stewart, J. (2000). Teaching the nature of inquiry: Further developments in a high school genetics curriculum. Science & Education, 9, 247-267.
12. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
14. Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining "science" in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50-67.
15. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The golem: What you should know about science (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Congressional Budget Office. (2001). Congressional Budget Office cost estimate: H.R. 1, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 - As ordered by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on May 9, 2001.
17. DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
18. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 582-601.
19. Dewey, J. (1903). Thought and its subject matter: The content and object of thought. In J. Dewey (Ed.), Studies in logical theory (pp. 65-85). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
21. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: A theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
22. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.
23. Einsiedel, E. F. (2000). Understanding "publics" in the public understanding of science. In M. Dierkes & C. Von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 205-215). New York: Routledge.
24. Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia. Public Understanding of Science, 10, 83-98.
25. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. New York: Routledge.
26. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, 226-243.
27. Forman, P. (1987). Behind quantum electronics: National security as basis for physical research in the United States, 1940-1960. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 18, 149-229.
28. Fuller, S. (2000). The governance of science: Ideology and the future of the open society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
29. Galison, P., & Stump, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
31. Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2002). Dewey on naturalism, realism, and science. Philosophy of Science, 69, S25-S35.
33. Greenberg, D. C. (2001). Science, money, and politics: Political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first U.S. consensus conference: The impact of the citizens' panel on telecommunication and the future of democracy. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 24, 451-482.
35. Guston, D. H. (2000). Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36. Hagendijk, R. P. (2004). The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva, 42, 41-59.
37. Hoff, D. J. (2004, February 4). Debate grows on true costs of school law. Education Week, 23, pp. 1, 22.
38. Hollinger, D. A. (1990). Free enterprise and free inquiry: The emergence of laissez-faire communitarianism in the ideology of science in the United States. New Literary History, 21, 897-919.
39. Holt Science & Technology. (2001). Physical science. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
40. Jackson, K. T. (1985). Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
41. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.
43. Jewett, A. (2003). Science & the promise of democracy in America. Deadalus, 132(4), 64-70.
44. Kevles, D. (1997). Big science and big politics in the United States: Reflections on the death of the SSC and the life of the Human Genome Project. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 27, 269-297.
45. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
46. Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison, MI: University of Wisconsin Press.
47. Kliebard, H. M. (2004). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893-1958 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge-Falmer.
48. Kolodner, J. L. (2003). From the editor. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 1-3.
49. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-548.
50. Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Middle school students' initial attempts at inquiry in project-based science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 313-350.
51. LaFollette, M. C. (1990). Making science our own: Public images of science, 1910-1955. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2002). Investigating real data in the classroom: Expanding children's understanding of math and science. New York: Teachers College Press.
53. Leslie, S. W. (1993). The Cold War and American science: The military-industrial-academic complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia University Press.
54. Linn, M. C., Clark, D., & Slotta, J. D. (2003). WISE design for knowledge integration. Science Education, 87, 517-538.
55. Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. Miller, J. D. (2004). Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research: What we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 273-294.
57. Minstrell, J., & Van Zee, E. H. (2000). Inquiring into inquiry learning and teaching in science. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
58. Mirowski, P. (2004). The scientific dimensions of social knowledge and their distant echoes in 20th-century American philosophy of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 35, 283-326.
59. Montgomery, S. L. (1994). Minds for the making: The role of science in American education, 1750-1990. New York: Guilford Press.
60. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
62. National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Statistics. (2004). Federal funds for research and development: Fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003. NSF 04-310. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
63. Noble, D. F. (1984). Forces of production: A social history of industrial automation. New York: Oxford University Press.
64. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
65. Passmore, C., & Stewart, J. (2002). A modeling approach to teaching evolutionary biology in high schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 185-204.
66. Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society: Towards a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41, 245-261.
67. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68. Reiser, B., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 263-305). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69. Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 768-790.
70. Roth, W. M., & Barton, A. C. (2004). Rethinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
71. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 25, 3-29.
72. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the "nature of science" as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403-419.
73. Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The Cold War reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
74. Rudolph, J. L. (2003a). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87, 64-79.
75. Rudolph, J. L. (2003b, October). The importance of place: Chicago and the origin of general science, 1904-1919. Paper presented at the meeting of the History of Education Society, Evanston, IL.
76. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of "the scientific method" in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45.
77. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 299-327.
78. Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 345-372.
79. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131-166.
80. Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., and Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 410-422.
81. Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14, 374-379.
82. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P. F. Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 3-103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83. Shaffer, D.W., & Resnick, M. (1999). Thick authenticity: New media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195-215.
84. Shaw, A. (2002). "It just goes against the grain." Public understandings of genetically modified (GM) food in the UK. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 273-291.
85. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers. Science Education, 83, 493-509.
86. Songer, N. B., Lee, H. S., & Kam, R. (2002). Technology-rich inquiry science in urban classrooms: What are the barriers to inquiry pedagogy? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 128-150.
87. Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9, 289-307.
88. Spaulding, N. E., & Namowitz, S. N. (2003). Earth science. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell.
89. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. L., & Passmore, C. M. (2005). Developing understanding through model-based inquiry. In Committee on How People Learn, M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn: Science in the classroom (pp. 515-565). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
90. Tourney, C. (1996). Conjuring science: Scientific symbols and cultural meanings in American life. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
91. U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development. (1945). Science, the endless frontier: A report to the President on a program of postwar scientific research. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
92. Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
93. White, B. Y., & Frederikson, J. R. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 3-118.
94. Windschitl, M. (2004). Fold theories of "inquiry:" How preservice teachers reproduce the discourse and practices of an atheoretical scientific method. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 481-512.
95. Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
96. Winner, L. (1995). Citizen virtues in a technological order. In A. Feenberg & A. Hannay (Eds.), Technology and the politics of knowledge (pp. 65-82). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
97. Wysession, M., Frank, D., & Yancopoulos, S. (2004). Physical science: Concepts in action. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
98. Yearly, S. (2000). What does science mean in the "public understanding of science"? In M. Dierkes & C. Von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: The public, science and technology (pp. 217-236). New York: Routledge.