Pre‐service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study

Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 135-160

  Lederman, Norman G ^a   Schwartz, Reneé S ^a   Abd‐El‐Khalick, Fouad ^b   Bell, Randy L ^c  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

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

^c UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011523982     PISSN: 14926156     EISSN: 19424051     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14926150109556458     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students' conceptions ofthe nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
2. 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.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). An exploratory study of the knowledge base for science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 673-699.
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665-701.
5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Lederman, N.G., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R.S. (2001, January). Views of Nature of Science questionaire: Towards a valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers in Science, Costa Mesa, CA.
6. 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, 73-82.
7. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
8. American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Bell, R.L. (1996). Secondary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Their relationship to classroom practice and student learning. Unpublished manuscript, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
10. 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, 563-581.
11. Billeh, V.Y., & Hasan, O.E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12,209-219.
12. Brickhouse, N.W., & Bodner, G.M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471-485.
13. Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241-247.
14. Carey, R.L., & Stauss, N.G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 58, 358-363.
15. Carey, R.L., & Stauss, N.G. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70, 366-376.
16. Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255-296). New York: Macmillan.
17. Collette, A., & Chiappetta, E. (1994). Science instruction in the middle and secondary school (3rd ed.). New York: Merrill.
18. Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education. New York: Teachers College Press.
19. 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, 467-501.
20. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77,2545.
21. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N.G. (1999). Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
22. Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24, 41-52.
23. Jones, K.M. (1969). The attainment of understandings about the scientific enterprise, scientists, and the aims and methods of science by students in a college physical science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6,47-49.
24. Kimball, M.E. (1967-1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
25. King, B.B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75, 135-141.
26. Klopfer, L.E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87-95.
27. 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 1,12-41.
28. Klopfer, L.E., & Watson, F.G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24,264-293.
29. Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Education, 71,117-134.
30. Lawson, A.E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743-760.
31. Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions about the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331-359.
32. Lederman, N.G. (1995, January). Teachers ’ conception of the nature of science: Factors that mediate translation into classroom practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teacher in Science, Charleston, WV.
33. Lederman, N.G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede a relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916-929.
34. 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, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Lederman, N.G., & Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22, 649-662.
36. Lederman, N.G., Gess-Newsome, J., & Latz, M.S. (1994). The nature and development ofpreservice teachers’ conceptions of subject matter and pedagogy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57,129-146.
37. Lederman, N.G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.
38. Lederman, N.G., & Zeidler, D.L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behavior? Science Education, 71, 721-734.
39. Meichtry, Y. J. (1992). Influencing student understanding of the nature of science: Data from a case of curriculum development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,389-407.
40. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
41. National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s [an NSTA position statement]. Washington, DC: Author.
42. Ogunniyi, M.B. (1983). Relative effects of a history/philosophy of science course on student teachers’ performance on two models of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 7(2), 193-199.
43. Olstad, R.G. (1969). The effect of science teaching methods on the understanding of science. Science Education, 53,9-11.
44. Pomeroy, D. (1993). Implications of teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science: Comparison of the beliefs of scientists, secondary science teachers, and elementary teachers. Science Education, 77,261-278.
45. Riley, J.P.II. (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.
46. Rowe, M.B. (1974). A humanistic intent: The program of preservice elementary education at the University of Florida. Science Education, 58, 369-376.
47. Rutherford, F.J., Holton, G., & Watson, F.G. (1970). The project physics course. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
48. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36,201-220.
49. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29,409-421.
50. Spears, J., & Zollman, D. (1977). The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students’ understanding the process of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 33-38.
51. Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept ‘understanding science’ using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3,224-229.
52. Troxel, V.A. (1968). Analysis of instructional outcomes of students involved with three sources in high school chemistry. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
53. Welch, W.W., & Walberg, H. J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 9,373-383.
54. Yager, R.E., & Wick, J.W. (1966). Three emphases in teaching biology: A statistical comparison of results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 16-20.
55. Yeany, R.H., & Hale, M.H. (1989, April). The development of science content pedagogy and the impact on pupil learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA.