What 'ideas-about-science' should be taught in school science? A chemistry teachers' perspective

Instructional Science

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 233-249

  Niaz, Mansoor ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE ORIENTE   (Venezuela)

Author keywords

Chemistry teachers; History, philosophy and epistemology of science; Nature of science; Science instruction

Indexed keywords

EID: 42149182945     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-007-9031-8     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. AAAS, American Association for Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington, D.C.: AAAS.
2. AAPT, American Association for Physics Teachers. (1999). What is science? American Journal of Physics, 67, 659.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N., Mamlok, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88, 397-419.
4. Auerbach, D. (2000). What is science-isn't there more to it? American Journal of Physics, 67, 305.
5. Bauer, H. H. (1994). Scientific literacy and the myth of the scientific method. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
6. Blanco, R., & Niaz, M. (1997). Epistemological beliefs of students and teachers about the nature of science: From 'baconian inductive ascent' to the 'irrelevance' of scientific laws. Instructional Science, 25, 203-231.
7. Campanario, J. M. (1999). La ciencia que no enseñamos. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17, 397-410.
8. Collins, H. (2000). On beyond 2000. Studies in Science Education, 35, 169-173.
9. Cushing, J. T. (1989). The justification and selection of scientific theories. Synthese, 78, 1-24.
10. Dobson, K. (2000). Is physics debatable? Physics Education, 35, 1.
11. Fernández, I., Gil, D., Carrascosa, J., Cachapuz, A., & Praia, J. (2002). Visiones deformadas de la ciencia transmitidas por la enseñanza. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 20, 477-488.
12. Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method. New York: Verso.
13. Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath. Educational Researcher, 18, 4-10.
14. Gallegos, J. A. (1996). Reflexiones sobre la ciencia y la epistemología científica. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17, 321-326.
15. Gil-Pérez, D., Guisáosla, J., Moreno, A., Cachapuz, A., Pessoa de Carvalho, A. M., Martínez Torregrosa, J., Salinas, J., Valdés, P., González, E., Gené Duch, A., Dumas-Carré, A., Tricárico, H., & Gallego, R. (2002). Defending constructivism in science education. Science and Education, 11, 557-571.
16. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18. Holton, G. (1978). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161-224.
19. Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die hard. Educational Researcher, 17, 10-16.
20. Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
21. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14-26.
22. Johnson, R. B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 297-319). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Lakatos, I. (1999). Lectures on scientific method. In M. Motterlini (Ed.), For and against method: Including Lakatos's lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence (pp. 19-109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (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.
27. 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.
28. Marín, N., Solano, I., & Jiménez, E. (1999). Tirando del hilo de la madeja constructivista. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17, 479-492.
29. Martínez, A. (1999). Constructivismo radical, marco teórico de investigación y enseñanza de las ciencias. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 17, 493-502.
30. Matthews, M. R. (2004). Thomas Kuhn's impact on science education: What lessons can be learned? Science Education, 88, 90-118.
31. 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.
32. McMullin, E. (1985). Galilean idealization. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16, 247-273.
33. Mellado, V. (2003). Cambio didáctico del profesorado de ciencias experimentales y filosofía de la ciencia. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 21, 343-358.
34. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
35. Moreno, L. E., & Waldegg, G. (1998). La epistemología constructivista y la didáctica de las ciencias: ¿Coincidencia o complementaridad? Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 16, 421-429.
36. NRC, National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
37. Niaz, M. (1998). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82, 527-552.
38. Niaz, M. (2000). The oil drop experiment: A rational reconstruction of the Millikan-Ehrenhaft controversy and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 480-508.
39. Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85, 684-690.
40. Niaz, M. (2004). Exploring alternative approaches to methodology in educational research. Interchange, 35, 155-184.
41. Niaz, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Benarroch, A., Cardellini, L., Laburú, C. E., Marín, N., Montes, L. A., Nola, R., Orlik, Y., Scharmann, L. C., Tsai, C., & Tsaparlis, G. (2003). Constructivism: Defense or a continual critical appraisal-A response to Gil-Pérez et al. Science and Education, 12, 787-797.
42. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). Taking the "Q" out of research: Teaching research methodology courses without the divide between quantitative and qualitative paradigms. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 39, 267-295.
43. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What 'ideas-about-science' should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692-720.
44. Petrucci, D., & Dibar, M. C. (2001). Imagen de la ciencia en alumnos universitarios: Una revisión y resultados. Enseñanza de las Ciencias, 19, 217-229.
45. Quine, W. V. O. (1953). From a logical point of view. New York: Harper & Row.
46. Sale, J. E. M., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality and Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 38, 351-365.
47. Scharmann, L. C., & Smith, M. U. (2001). Further thoughts on defining versus describing the nature of science: A response to Niaz. Science Education, 85, 691-693.
48. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
49. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching: A contemporary perspective. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan.
50. 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.