Two Views About Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science

Science and Education

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2109-2139

  Duschl, Richard A ^a   Grandy, Richard ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881373251     PISSN: 09267220     EISSN: 15731901     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374.
2. Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: "Views on Science-Technology-Society" (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477-491.
3. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518-542.
4. Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693-700.
5. American Association for the Advancement of Science: (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Atran, S. (2002). Modular and cultural factors in biological understanding: An experimental approach to the cognitive basis of science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 41-72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Ault, C., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092-1122.
8. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475-488). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235-251.
10. Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Cetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
12. Clough, M. (2011). Teaching and assessing the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56-60.
13. Conant, J. (1947). On understanding science: A historical approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science, (Vols 1 & 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
16. Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73-80.
17. Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories tes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 387-396.
18. DeBoer, G. (1991). The history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The role of theories and their importance. New York: Teachers College Press.
20. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leech, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
21. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in 3-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268-291.
22. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
23. Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, Routledge (pp. 78-107). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
24. Eflin, 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), 107-116.
25. Ford, M. (2008). 'Grasp of practice' as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17, 147-177.
26. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Giere, R. (2002). Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 285-299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28. Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. Harvard Project Physics. (1968-1969). The project physics course: Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
30. Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
31. Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Holton, G., Rutherford, J., & Watson, F. (1970). Project physics: Handbook. Cambridge, MA: Project Physics.
33. Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061's curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522-549.
35. Kimball, M. (1967-1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
36. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47.
38. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How science makes knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39. Koslowski, B., & Thompson, S. (2002). Theorizing is important, and collateral information constrains how well it is done. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 171-192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
43. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19-49.
44. Lederman, N. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301-317). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
45. Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComus (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83-126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
46. Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science: Modifying activities to enhance students' understanding of science, The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36-39.
47. Lederman, N., Adb-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.
48. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012a). Supporting inquiry about the foundations of evolutionary thinking in the elementary grades. In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 171-206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
49. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012b). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701-724.
50. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512-529.
51. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3-26). Dordrecht: Springer.
54. McComas, W., (Ed.) (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. 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. Metz, K. (2004). Children's understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219-290.
57. Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138-161.
58. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
59. National Research Council (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
60. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
62. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
63. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
64. National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science, www. nsta. org/about/positions/natureofscience. aspx.
65. Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133-153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
66. Nersessian, N. (2008a). Inquiry: How science works; Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57-79). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
67. Nersessian, N. (2008b). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
68. Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
69. Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Milton Keynes: Springer.
70. 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.
71. Pickering, A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73. Rubba, P., & 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.
74. Rudolph, J. (2000). Reconsidering the "nature of science" as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419.
75. Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
76. Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students' practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634-656.
77. Sawyer, R. K., (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
78. Schwab, J. (1960). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
80. Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & 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(4), 685-692.
81. Siegal, M. (2002). The science of childhood. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 300-315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82. Smith, C., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students' epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747-785.
83. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experience on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 285-316.
84. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children's learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory, Measurement: Interdisciplinary research and perspectives, 4, 11-98.
85. Subrahmanyam, K., Gelman, R., & Lafosse, A. (2002). Animates and other separably moveable objects. In E. Fordes & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category specificity in brain and mind (pp. 341-373). London: Psychology Press.
86. Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977). The structure of scientific theories, 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
87. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
88. Thagard, P. (2007). Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 74(1), 28-47.
89. van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086-1100.
90. van Eijck, M., Hsu, P., & Roth, W. (2008). Translations of science practice to "Students' Images of Science". Science Education, 93(4), 611-634.
91. Wenning, C. J. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy, Journal of Physics Teacher Education, Online, 3(4), 3-14. www. phy. ilstu. edu/jpteo.