Teaching students "ideas-about-science": Five dimensions of effective practice

Science Education

Volumn 88, Issue 5, 2004, Pages 655-682

  Bartholomew, Hannah ^a   Osborne, Jonathan ^a   Ratcliffe, Mary ^b  

^a KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 4644232612     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.10136     Document Type: Review

References (83)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Lederman, N. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417-436.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000a). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-702.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000b). The influence of the history of science courses on students' views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057-1095.
4. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy. Washington, DC: AAAS.
6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for reform: Science, mathematics and technology education. New York: Oxford University Press.
7. AQA. (1999). General certificate of education: Science for public understanding (Advanced subsidiary). Manchester, UK: Assessment and Qualifications Alliance.
8. Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (1977). 'Mock-ups and cock-ups': The stage management of guided discovery instruction. In P. Woods, & M. Hammersley (Eds.), School experience: Explorations in the sociology of education. London: Croom Helm.
9. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J. F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). Teaching the nature of science in schools: What makes a lesson effective? Paper presented at the British Educational Research Assocation, Exeter, UK.
10. Becker, B. (2000). Mindworks. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
11. 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(6), 563-581.
12. Brickhouse, N. (1991). Teachers' beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
13. Brush, S. G. (1989). History of science and science education. Interchange, 20(2), 60-70.
14. Bybee, R. W., Powell, J. C., Ellis, J. D., Giese, J. R., Parisi, L., & Singleton, L. (1991). Integrating the history and nature of science and technology in science and social studies curriculum. Science Education, 75(1), 143-155.
15. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The golem: What everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Cotham, J. C. (1979). The development, validation and application of an instrument to assess teachers' understanding of philosophic aspects of scientific theories. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Michigan State.
17. De Vos, W., & Reiding, J. (1999). Public understanding of science as a separate subject in secondary schools in the Netherlands. International Journal of Science Education, 21(7), 711-719.
18. Department for Education and Employment. (1999). Science in the national curriculum. London: HMSO.
19. Donnelly, J. (2001). Contested terrain or unified project? 'The nature of science' in the national curriculum for England and Wales, International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 181-195.
20. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159-199.
21. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
22. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
23. Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case study of high school teachers' decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467-501.
24. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
25. Efflin, J., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 197-116.
26. Eger, M. (1993). Hermeneutics as an approach to science-Part II, Science and Education: Contributions from History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science, 2, 303-328.
27. Feasey, R. (Ed.). (2001). Science is like a tub of ice cream: Cool and fun. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
28. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133.
29. Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2000). Developing understanding in scientific enquiry. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
30. Harland, J., & Kinder, K. (1997). Teachers' continuing professional development: Framing a model of outcomes. British Journal of In-service Education, 23(1), 71-84.
31. Harris, D., & Taylor, M. (1983). Discovery learning in school science: The myth and the reality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(3), 277-289.
32. Haywood, H. (1927). Fundamental laws of chemistry. School Science Review, 9(34), 92.
33. Herrenkohl, L., Palinscar, A., DeWater, L. S., & Kawasaki, K. (1999). Developing scientific communities in classrooms: A sociocognitive approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3/4), 451-493.
34. Heslop, D., Brodie, J., & Williams, J. (2000). Hodder science - Pupils' books and teachers' resource. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
35. Hierbet, J., Gallimore, R., & Stigler, J. W. (2002). A knowledge base for the teaching profession: What would it look like and how can we get one? Educational Researcher, 31(5), 3-15.
36. Hodson, D. (1988). Towards a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72(1), 19-40.
37. Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children's understanding of science. Interchange, 24(1/2), 41-52.
38. House of Commons Science & Technology Committee. (2002). Science education from 14 to 19. London: The House of Commons: Stationary Office.
39. House of Lords. (2000). Science and society. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.
40. Jenkins, E. (1996). The 'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 137-150.
41. Khisfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective views versus implicit 'inquiry orientated' instruction on sixth graders views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
42. Kouladis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of science: An empirical study of teachers' views. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 173-184.
43. Koulaidis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1995). Science teachers' philosophical assumptions: How well do we understand them? International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 273-282.
44. Lakin, S., & Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the 'nature of science'?: Teachers' views of science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 175-190.
45. 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.
46. Lederman, N. G. (1995). The influence of teacher's conceptions of the nature of science on classroom practice. Paper presented at the Third International History, Philosophy and Science Teaching Conference, Minneapolis, MN.
47. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers' understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
48. Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding the de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83-126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
49. 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(6), 497-521.
50. Lederman, N. G., & Zielder, D. L. (1987). Science teachers' conception of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behaviour? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.
51. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
52. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
53. McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
54. 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: Kluwer.
55. 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.
56. Mellado, V. (1998). Preservice teachers' classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. In B. J. Fraser, & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
57. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
58. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College London.
59. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405-424.
60. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. Naylor, S., & Keogh, B. (2000). Concept cartoons in education. Sandbach: Millgate House Publishers.
62. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
63. Osborne, J. F. (1998). Learning and teaching about the nature of science. In M. Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASE guide to secondary science education (pp. 100-108). Cheltenham, England: Stanley Thomes.
64. Osborne, J. F., Duschl, R., & Fairbrother, R. (2002). Breaking the mould: Teaching science for public understanding. London: Nuffleld Foundation.
65. Osborne, J. F., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). Developing effective methods of assessing ideas and evidence. School Science Review, 83(305), 113-123.
66. Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., 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(7), 692-720.
67. Osborne, J. F., & Simon, S. (1996). Primary science: Past and future directions. Studies in Science Education, 27, 99-147.
68. Peters, R. S. (1966). Ethics and education. London: George Allen and Unwin.
69. Ratcliffe, M. (1999). Evaluation of abilities in interpreting media reports of scientific research. International Journal of Science Education, 21(10), 1085-1999.
70. Ravetz, J. (2002). Reflections on the new tasks for science education. Unpublished Evidence submitted to the House of Commons Committee for Science and Technology.
71. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
72. Roth, W.-M., & Bowen, M. (2002). From science to epistemology and back. In W.-M. Roth, & J. D'esautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action (pp. 271-303). New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
73. Schwarz, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). "It's the nature of the beast": The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205-236.
74. Science Web. (2000). Science web readers - Biology, chemistry, physics. Cheltenham, England: Nelson.
75. Scott, P. (1998). Teacher talk and meaning making in science classrooms: A Vygotskian analysis and review. Studies in Science Education, 32, 45-80.
76. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
77. 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.
78. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
79. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
80. Sutton, C. (1995). The scientific model as a form of speech. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research n science education in Europe (pp. 143-152). London: Falmer Press.
81. The Charis Project. (2000). Charis science units (11-14). Nottingham: The Stapleford Centre.
82. Turner-Bissett, R. (1999). The knowledge bases of the expert teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 39-56.
83. Wellington, J. J. (1981). What's supposed to happen Sir? Some problems with discovery learning. School Science Review, 63, 167-173.