Teaching With and About Nature of Science, and Science Teacher Knowledge Domains

Science and Education

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2087-2107

  Abd El Khalick, Fouad ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881369972     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-012-9520-2     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms: The primacy of learners' epistemological orientations and views of nature of science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning in socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41-61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers' views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Modeling science classrooms after scientific laboratories. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and application (pp. 80-85). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 1041-1060). The Netherlands: Springer.
5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers' views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810.
6. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers' conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161-2184.
7. 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, 417-437.
8. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397-419.
9. 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(7), 665-701.
10. 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(10), 1057-1095.
11. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835-855.
12. Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers' conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381-390.
13. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers' instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213-233.
14. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers' understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73-82.
15. Allchin, D. (2011). Teaching whole science. American Biology Teacher, 73, 53-55.
16. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
17. Anderson, R. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807-830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
18. Barlow, N. (Ed.). (1993/1958). The autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809-1882. New York: W. W. Norton.
19. Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., & Lamb, W. G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 289-294.
20. 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(5), 487-509.
21. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students' ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63-84.
22. Brewer, W. F., & Chinn, C. A. (1994). The theory-ladenness of data: An experimental demonstration. In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 61-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23. Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies of teachers' personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401-415.
24. Burbules, N., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 227-242.
25. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
26. Chinn, C. A., & Malhorta, B. A. (2002). Children's responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327-343.
27. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175-218.
28. Conant, J. B. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) Pan-Canadian Science Project. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12 [On-line]. Available: http://www. cmec. ca/science/framework/Pages/english/CMEC%20 Eng. html.
30. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613-642.
31. Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for Kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Author.
32. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students' and science teachers' conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083-1112.
33. Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. (2009). High school science teachers' views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 1050-1075.
34. Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory (with a new introduction by Jules Vuillemin). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35. Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Widodo, A. (2008). Teaching science for conceptual change: Theory and practice. In S. Vosiniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 629-646). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A., & Bausch, A. (2011). Promoting middle school students' understandings of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 147-167.
37. Gillies, D. (1998). Philosophy of science in the twentieth century: Four central themes. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
38. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199-218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
39. Hillis, S. R. (1975). The development of an instrument to determine student views of the tentativeness of science. In E. J. Montague (Ed.), Research and curriculum development in science education: Science teacher behavior and student affective and cognitive learning (Vol. 3, pp. 32-38). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
40. Holton, G., Rutherford, J., & Watson, F. G. (1971). About the Project Physics Course: An introduction to the teacher resource book. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
41. Holton, G., Watson, F. G., & Rutherford, F. J. (1967). Harvard project physics: A progress report. The Physics Teacher, 5(5).
42. Howe, E. M. (2007). Addressing nature-of-science core tenets with the history of science: An example with sickle-cell anemia & malaria. American Biology Teacher, 69(8), 467-472.
43. Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research: Improving students' NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14(3-5), 423-441.
44. Judson, E. (2010). Science education as a contributor to adequate yearly progress and accountability. Science Education, 94(5), 888-902.
45. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students' views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314-334.
46. Kelly, G. J., & Duschl, R. A. (2002, April). Toward a research agenda for epistemological studies in science education. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
47. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
48. Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187-215.
49. Klopfer, L. E. (1964a). History of science cases: The cells of life (teacher's guide). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
50. Klopfer, L. E. (1964b). History of science cases: The cells of life. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
51. Klopfer, L. E. (1966). History of science cases: Frogs and batteries (teacher's guide). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.
52. Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(1), 87-95.
53. Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists: A report on the HOSC instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47.
54. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (First published 1962).
55. 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.
56. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83-126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
57. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Preservice teachers' understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.
58. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607-636.
59. Lin, H., & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teacher' understandings about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773-792.
60. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393-441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
62. Marchlewicz, S. C., & Wink, D. L. (2011). Using the activity model of inquiry to enhance general chemistry students' understanding of nature of science. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1041-1047.
63. Mathews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
64. McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137-1164.
65. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King's College.
66. Ministry of Education. (1990). Programa de articulación. Caracas. Programa de Articulación. Venezuela: Author.
67. Ministry of Education. (1999). Curriculum outline for "nature science and living technology." Taipei: Ministry of Education (In Taiwanese).
68. Ministry of National Education. (2000). Journal of Announcements of Ministry of National Education. Ankara, Turkey: Author [In Turkish].
69. 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.
70. Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers' views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384-403.
71. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
72. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science education for the 1980 s. Washington, DC: Author.
73. Newton-Smith, W. H. (2000). Underdetermination of theory by data. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 532-536). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
74. Olitsky, S. (2005). Social and cultural capital in science teaching: Relating practice and reflection. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 279-297). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
75. Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students' content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382-396.
76. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kagan Paul.
77. Quine, W. V. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20-43.
78. Riley, J. P., I. I. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers' acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 373-384.
79. Robinson, J. T. (1965). Science teaching and the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 37-50.
80. Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students' understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
81. Russell, C. B., & Weaver, G. C. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 57-67.
82. Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80-84.
83. Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). A study of practical-moral knowledge in science teaching: Case studies in physical science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 929-951.
84. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students' ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369-392.
85. Schmuckler, J. S. (2004). Using the history of science to strengthen an understanding of the nature of science. Abstracts of papers of the American Chemical Society, 228(1), 312.
86. 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.
87. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. H. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310-329). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.
88. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31-56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
89. Shanahan, M.-C., & Nieswandt, M. (2011). Science student role: Evidence of social structural norms specific to school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 367-395.
90. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14.
91. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.
92. So, W. M. W., & Ching, N. Y. F. (2011). Creating a collaborative science learning environment for science inquiry at the primary level. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 559-569.
93. Sweitzer, G. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta-analysis of research on science teacher education practices associated with inquiry strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 453-466.
94. Treagust, D. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373-392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
95. van Garderen, D., Hanuscin, D., Lee, E., & Kohn, P. (2012). A collaborative professional development model to meet the needs of diverse learners in K-6 science. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 429-443.
96. Vesilind, E. M., & Jones, M. G. (1998). Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and school culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 757-775.
97. Wahbeh, N. (2009). The effect of a content-embedded explicit-reflective approach on inservice teachers' views and practices related to nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
98. Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011, September). The primacy of content-embedded teacher understandings of nature of science in impacting instruction. In Paper presented at the biannual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Lyon, France.
99. Welch, W. W. (1973). Review of the research and evaluation program of the Harvard project physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10(4), 365-378.
100. Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229-1252.