Toward clarity on Whole Science and KNOWS

Science Education

Volumn 96, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 693-700

  Allchin, Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862264734     PISSN: 00368326     EISSN: 1098237X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sce.21017     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Alberts, B. (2011). Retraction. Science, 334, 1636.
2. Allchin, D. (2001). Kettlewell's missing evidence, a study in black and white. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31, 240-245.
3. Allchin, D. (2002). How not to teach history in science. The Pantaneto Forum, 7 (July). Retrieved January 6, 2012, from.
4. Allchin, D. (2003a). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87, 329-351.
5. Allchin, D. (2003b). Lawson's shoehorn, or should the philosophy of science be rated "X"? Science & Education, 12, 315-329.
6. Allchin, D. (2007). Teaching science lawlessly. In P. Heering & D. Osewold (Eds.), Constructing scientific understanding through contextual teaching (pp. 13-31). Berlin: Frank & Timme.
7. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95, 918-942.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2009). Benchmarks for scientific literacy (revised). Retrieved September 20, 2010, from.
9. Associated Press. (2011, December 9). EPA suggests fracking-pollution link. Star Tribune, p. A2.
10. Board on Science Education, U.S. National Academies of Sciences. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from.
11. Brownlee, S., & Lenzer, J. (2011, October 9). The bitter fight over prostate screening-And why it might be better not to know. New York Times Magazine, pp. 40-43, 57.
12. Chen, S. (2006). Development of an instrument to assess views on nature of science and attitudes towards teaching science. Science Education, 90, 803-819.
13. Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets, The Pantaneto Forum, 25(January). Retrieved September 20, 2010, from.
14. Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17, 143-145.
15. Cohen, J., & Enserink, M. (2011, September 23) False positive. Science, 333, 1694-1701.
16. Crease, R. P. (1993). The play of nature: Experimentation as performance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17. Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Tsai, C. S. (2011). Students' views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961-999.
18. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85, 554-567.
19. Ford, M. (2008). "Grasp of practice" as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147-177.
20. Glynn, S. M., & Muth, K. D. (1994). Reading and writing to learn science: Achieving scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9, 1057-1069.
21. Goodnough, A. (2011, December 10). Scientists say cod are scant; nets say otherwise. New York Times, pp. A20, A27.
22. Griswold, E. (2011, November 17). The fracturing of Pennsylvania: Situation normal all fracked up. New York Times Magazine, pp. 44-52.
23. Harris, G. (2011, October 9). Some doctors launch fight against advice on prostate cancer testing. Star Tribune, p. A21.
24. Johnson, S. (2011, April 5). Vaccinations: Evolving assertions can lead to distrust. Star Tribune, p. A20.
25. Juel, R. (2011, August 27). Don't be so certain on scientific assumptions. Star Tribune, p. A14.
26. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291-300.
27. Korpan, C. A., Binsanz, G. L., Bisanz, J., & Henderson, J. M. (1997). Assessing literacy of science: Evaluation of scientific news briefs. Science Education, 81, 515-532.
28. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
29. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30. 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, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
31. Millar, R. (2000). Science for public understanding: Developing a new course for 16-18 year old students. Critical Studies in Education, 41, 201-214.
32. Murcia, K., & Schibeci, R. (1999). Primary student teachers' conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 1123-1140.
33. National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34. Newmann, F.M. (Ed.). (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
36. Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). Interpreting pragmatic meaning when reading popular reports of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 947-967.
37. Norris, S. P., Phillips, L. M., & Korpan, C. A. (2003). University students' interpretation of media reports of science and its relationship to background knowledge, interest, and reading difficulty. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 123-145.
38. OECD. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment framework. Paris: Author. Retrieved October 6, 2010, from http://www.oecd.org/document/44/0,3343,en264935845621444552761111,00.html.
39. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
40. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
41. Phillips, L. M., & Norris, S. P. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the reader's world meets the world on paper? International Journal of Science Education, 21, 317-327.
42. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Rheinburger, H. J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
44. Rheinburger, H. J. (2010). An epistemology of the concrete. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45. Ritter, M. (2011, December 22). Journal retracts fatigue finding. Star Tribune, A2.
46. Rosenberg, S. A. (2011, December 11). Scientists say cod still overfished. Boston Globe. Retrieved May 11, 2012, from.
47. Rothbart, D., & Slayden, S. W. (1994). The epistemology of a spectrophotometer. Philosophy of Science, 61, 25-38.
48. Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
49. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). A study on using the history of industrial melanism to teach the nature of science. Paper presented at Tenth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, University of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN. Retrieved January 6, 2012, from.
50. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (in press). Whither the VNOS? In C. C. Silva & M. E. B. Prestes, (Eds.), First Latin American Conference of the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Group (1st IHPST-LA), Universidade de São Paulo de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.
51. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the "nature of science" as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 403-419.
52. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36, 1-44.
53. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin's whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96, 685-692.
54. Settlage, J., Southerland, S., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2005). Perhaps triangulation isn't enough: A call for crystallization as a methodological referent in NOS research. TERC Documents. Paper 1. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from.
55. Shannon, A. (1999). Keeping score. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
56. van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086-1100.
57. van Eijck, M., Hsu, P.-L., & Roth, W.-M. (2009). Translations of scientific practice to "students' images of science." Science Education, 93(4), 611-634.
58. Westerlund, J. F., & Fairbanks, D. J. (2010). Gregor Mendel's classic paper and the nature of science in genetics courses. Hereditas, 147, 292-303.
59. Wiggins, G. (1990). The case for authentic assessment. ERIC Digest. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED328611). Washignton, DC: ERIC Publications. Retrieved January 8, 2012, from.