Addressing the nature of science in preservice science teacher preparation programs: Science educator perceptions

Journal of Science Teacher Education

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 65-81

  Backhus, Dewayne A ^a   Thompson, Kenneth Wayne ^a  

^a EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746786004     PISSN: 1046560X     EISSN: 15731847     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10972-006-9012-9     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but.. .Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 215-233.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000a). Improving science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students ' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057-1095.
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Lederman, N.G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
5. Akerson, V.L., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Teaching elements of nature of science: A yearlong case study of a fourth-grade teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 1025-1049.
6. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers' understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of sciencerelated attitudes. Science Education, 72, 73-82.
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1928). On the place of science education. School Science and Mathematics, 28, 640-664.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: Author.
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). The liberal art of science. Washington, DC: Author.
10. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
11. Backhus, DeW.A. (2002). It's NOT just a theory. The Science Teacher, 69(4), 44-47.
12. Bauer, H.H. (1992). Scientific literacy and the myth of scientific method. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
13. 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.
14. Bell, R.L., Lederman, N.G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one's conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563-581.
15. Bianchini, J.A., Cavazos, L.M., & Rivas, M. (2003). At the intersection of contemporary descriptions of science and issues of equity and diversity: Student teachers' conceptions, rationales, and instructional practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 14(4), 259-285.
16. Bodinar, N.J. (1995). Staking a claim with the standards. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 35-37.
17. Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. (1989). Educational Research: An Introduction (5th ed.) New York: Longman.
18. Bybee, R.W. (2000). Evolution: Don't debate, educate. The Science Teacher, 67(7), 30-35.
19. Bybee, R.W., & Champagne, A.B. (1995). The national science education standards. The Science Teacher, 62(1), 40-45.
20. Bybee, R.W., Ellis, J.D., & Matthews, M.R. (1992). Teaching about the history and nature of science and technology: An introduction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 327-329.
21. Caprio, M.W. (1999/2000). Navigating the standards. Journal of College Science Teaching, 29, 165-168.
22. Czerniak, C.M., & Lumpe, A.T. (1996). Relationship between teacher beliefs and science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 7, 247-266.
23. Duncan, D.B. (1955). Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 11, 1-42.
24. Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education: The Importance of Theories and Their Development. New York: Teachers College Press.
25. Educational Policies Commission (1966) Education and the spirit of science. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
26. Flick, L., & Lederman, N.G. (Eds) (2004). Scientific inquiry and nature of science. New York: Springer.
27. Hackett, J. (1998). Inquiry: Both means and ends. The Science Teacher, 65(6), 34-37.
28. Hinman, R.L. (1998). Content and science inquiry. The Science Teacher, 65(7), 25-27.
29. Holton, G., & Roller, D.H.D. (1958). Foundations of modern physical science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
30. 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, 39, 551-578.
31. Klapper, M.H. (1995). Beyond the scientific method. The Science Teacher, 62(6), 36-40.
32. Lawson, A.E. (1999). What should students learn about the nature of science and how should we teach it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 28, 401-411.
33. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
34. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R.L. (2001). If we want to talk the talk, we must also walk the walk: The nature of science, professional development, and educational reform. In J Rhoton and P Bowers (Eds.), Issues in science education: Professional development planning and design (pp. 25-42). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
35. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497-521.
36. Lederman, N.G., Wade, P., & Bell, R. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science: A historical perspective. Science and Education, 7, 595-615.
37. Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721-734.
38. Lin, H., & Chen, C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers' understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 773-792.
39. Loucks-Horsley, S., & Bybee, R.W. (1998). Implementing the national science education standards. The Science Teacher, 65(6), 22-26.
40. Loving, C.C. (1991). The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 823-838.
41. Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
42. Matthews, M.R. (1998). Foreword and introduction. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. xi-xxi). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
43. McComas, W.F. (Ed.) (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44. McComas, W.F. (2004a). Keys to teaching the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71 (9), 24-27.
45. McComas, W.F. (Ed.) (2004b). The history and nature of science [Special issue]. The Science Teacher, 71(9).
46. McComas, W.F., Clough, M.P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3-39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
47. 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 education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
48. Mulvey, P.J., & Nicholson, S. (2002). Physics and astronomy senior report: Classes of 1999 and 2000 (AIP Pub. No. R-211.31). College Park, MD: American Institute of Physics.
49. National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. National Academy of Sciences (1999). Science and creationism. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
51. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
52. National Society for the Study of Education (1960). Rethinking science education (59th yearbook, Part I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What "ideasabout-science" should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
54. Pratt, H. (1995). A look at the program standards. The Science Teacher, 62(7), 22-27.
55. Raphael, J., Tobias, S., & Greenberg, R. (1999). Research experience as a component of science and mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12, 147-158.
56. Ridgeway, V.G., & Padilla, M.J. (1998). Guided thinking. The Science Teacher, 65(8), 18-21.
57. Schwartz, R.S, & Lederman, N.G. (2002). "It's the nature of the beast": The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
58. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
59. 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.
60. Southerland, S.A., Gess-Newsome, J., & Johnston, A. (2003). Portraying science in the classroom: The manifestation of scientists' beliefs in classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 669-691.
61. Steel, R.G.D., & Torrie, J.H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.