Nature of Science: Past, Present, and Future

Handbook of Research on Science Education

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 831-879

  Lederman, Norman G ^a  

^a ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85018122941     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203824696-32     Document Type: Chapter

References (174)

1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but… Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15-42.
3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Akerson, V. (2004). Learning as conceptual change: Factors mediating the development of preservice teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785-810.
4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., and Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417-437.
5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
6. Abd-El-Khalick, F., and 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.
7. Abell, S., Martini, M., and George, M. (2001). “That’s what scientists have to do”: Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science during a moon investigation. International Journal of Science Education, 23(11), 1095-1109.
8. Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., and 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(4), 381-390.
9. Aikenhead, G. (1972). The measurement of knowledge about science and scientists: An investigation into the development of instruments for formative evaluation. Dissertations Abstracts International, 33, 6590A (University Microfilms No. 72-21, 423).
10. Aikenhead, G. (1973). The measurement of high school students’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 539-549.
11. Aikenhead, G. (1979). Science: A way of knowing. The Science Teacher, 46(6), 23-25.
12. Aikenhead, G. (1987). High-school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology society. II. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 71(4), 459-487.
13. Aikenhead, G., Ryan, A. G., and Fleming, R. W. (1987). High-school graduates beliefs about sciencetechnology- society: Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145-161.
14. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activitybased approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295-317.
15. 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.
16. Allen, H., Jr. (1959). Attitudes of certain high school seniors toward science and scientific careers. New York: Teachers College Press.
17. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55.
18. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York:Oxford University Press.
19. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Anderson, K. E. (1950). The teachers of science in a representative sampling of Minnesota schools. Science Education, 34(l), 57-66.
21. Bady, R. A. (1979). Students’ understanding of the logic of hypothesis testing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(1), 61-65.
22. Ball, D. L., and McDiarmid, G. W. (1990). The subject-matter preparation of teachers. In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 437-465). New York: Macmillan.
23. Barnes, B. (1974). Scientific knowledge and sociological theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
24. Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., and 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.
25. Behnke, F. L. (1961). Reactions of scientists and science teachers to statements bearing on certain aspects of science and science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 61, 193-207.
26. Bell, R. L., Blair, L., Crawford, B., and Lederman, N. G. (2003). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487-509.
27. Bell, R. L., and Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making in science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352-377.
28. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., and 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.
29. Billeh, V. Y., and Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219.
30. Biological Sciences Curriculum Study. (1962). Processes of science test. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
31. Bloom, J. W. (1989). Preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of science: Science, theories and evolution. International Journal of Science Education, 11(4), 401-415.
32. 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(4), 437-449.
33. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62.
34. Brickhouse, N. W., and Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 471-485.
35. Broadhurst, N. A. (1970). A study of selected learning outcomes of graduating high school students in South Australian schools. Science Education, 54(1), 17-21.
36. Bronowski, J. (1956). Science and human values. New York: Harper.
37. Carey, R. L., and Stauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52(4), 358-363.
38. Carey, R. L., and Stauss, N. G. (1970a). An analysis of the relationship between prospective science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and certain academic variables. Georgia Academy of Science, 148-158.
39. Carey, R. L., and Stauss, N. G. (1970b). An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70(5), 366-376.
40. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., and Unger, C. (1989). An experiment is when you try it and see if it works: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
41. Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers. (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241-247.
42. Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? Indianapolis: Hackett.
43. Cobern, W. W. (1989). A comparative analysis of NOSS profiles on Nigerian and American preservice, secondary science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 533-541.
44. Cobern, W. W. (2000). Everyday thoughts about nature. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
45. Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46. Cooley, W. W., and Klopfer, L. E. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
47. Cooley, W., and Klopfer, L. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73-80.
48. Cotham, J., and Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories test. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18(5), 387-396.
49. Craven, J. A., Hand, B., and Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24(8), 785-802.
50. Crumb, G. H. (1965). Understanding of science in high school physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(3), 246-250.
51. Dhingra, K. (2003). Thinking about television science: How students understand the nature of science from different program genres. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(2), 234-256.
52. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., and Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples’s images of science. Buckingham, UK:Open University Press.
53. Durkee, P. (1974). An analysis of the appropriateness and utilization of TOUS with special reference to high-ability students studying physics. Science Education, 58(3), 343-356.
54. Duschl, R. A., and 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.
55. Elby, A., and Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554-567.
56. Feyerabend, D. (1975). Against method. London: Verso.
57. Fraser, B. J. (1978). Development of a test of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 62, 509-515.
58. Fraser, B. J. (1980). Development and validation of a test of enquiry skills. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 17, 7-16.
59. Gabel, D. L., Rubba, P. A., and Franz, J. R. (1977). The effect of early teaching and training experiences on physics achievement, attitude toward science and science teaching, and process skill proficiency. Science Education, 61, 503-511.
60. Gennaro, E. O. (1964). Acomparative study of two methods of teaching high school biology-BSCS Yellow Version and laboratory blocks with collateral reading. Dissertations Abstracts International, 25, 3996 (University Microfilms No. 64-13, 878).
61. Giere, R. N. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Gilbert, S. W. (1991). Model building and a definition of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(1), 73-80.
63. Gruber, H. E. (1963). Science as doctrine or thought? A critical study of nine academic year institutes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(2), 124-128.
64. Hammrich, P. (1997). Confronting teacher candidates’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 8(2), 141-151.
65. Haukoos, G. D., and Penick, J. E. (1983). The influence of classroom climate on science process and content achievement of community college students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(7), 629-637.
66. Haukoos, G. D., and Penick, J. E. (1985). The effects of classroom climate on college science students:A replication study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 163-168.
67. Hauslein, P. L., Good, R. G., and Cummins, C. (1992). Biology content cognitive structure: From science student to science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(9), 939-964.
68. Hillis, S. R. (1975). The development of an instrument to determine student views of the tentativeness of science. In Research and Curriculum Development in Science Education: Science Teacher Behavior and Student Affective and Cognitive Learning (Vol. 3). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
69. Hipkins, R., Barker, M., and Bolstad, R. (2005). Teaching the “nature of science”: Modest adaptations or radical reconceptions? International Journal of Science Education, 27(2), 243-254.
70. Hodson, D. (1985). Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in Science Education, 12, 25-57.
71. Hukins, A. (1963). A factorial investigation of measures of achievement of objectives in science teaching. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
72. Hungerford, H., and Walding, H. (1974). The modification of elementary methods students’ concepts concerning science and scientists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Science Teachers Association.
73. Hurd, P. D. (1969). New directions in teaching secondary school science. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
74. Johnson, R. L., and Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college: Student acceptance of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 49(2), 96-98.
75. Johnson-Laird, P. N., and Wason, P. C. (1972). Psychology of reasoning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
76. Jones, K. M. (1965). 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, 3(1), 47-49.
77. Jungwirth, E. (1970). An evaluation of the attained development of the intellectual skills needed for ‘understanding of the nature of scientific enquiry’ by BSCS pupils in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7(2), 141-151.
78. Kang, N. H., and Wallace, C. S. (2005). Secondary science teachers’ use of laboratory activities: Linking epistemological beliefs, goals, and practices. Science Education, 89(1), 140-165.
79. Kang, S., Scharmann, L., and Noh, T. (2004). Examining students’ views on the nature of science:Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314-334.
80. Khishfe, R., and Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551-578.
81. Kimball, M. E. (1967-68). Understanding the nature of science: Acomparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.
82. King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers’ knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 135-141.
83. Kleinman, G. (1965). Teachers’ questions and student understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(4), 307-317.
84. Klopfer, L. E. (1964). The use of case histories in science teaching. School Science and Mathematics, 64, 660-666.
85. Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87-95.
86. Klopfer, L., and Cooley, W. (1961). Test on understanding science, Form W. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
87. Klopfer, L. E., and 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(1), 33-47.
88. Korth, W. (1969). Test every senior project: Understanding the social aspects of science. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
89. Koulaidis, V., and Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of science: An empirical study of teachers’ views. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 173-184.
90. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
91. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
92. Lantz, O., and Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers’ functional paradigms. Science Education, 71, 117-134.
93. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.
94. Lavach, J. F. (1969). Organization and evaluation of an inservice program in the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 166-170.
95. Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743-760.
96. Leach, J., Hind, A., and Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and evaluating short teaching interventions about the epistemology of science in high school classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831-848.
97. Lederman, J. S., and Khishfe, R. (2002). Views of nature of science, Form D. Unpublished paper. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
98. Lederman, J. S., and Ko, E. K. (2003). Views of scientific inquiry-elementary school version. Unpublished paper. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
99. Lederman, J. S., and Ko, E. K. (2004). Views of nature of science, Form E. Unpublished paper. Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago.
100. Lederman, N. G. (1986a). Relating teaching behavior and classroom climate to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Science Education, 70(1), 3-19.
101. Lederman, N. G. (1986b). Students’ and teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: A reassessment. School Science and Mathematics, 86(2), 91-99.
102. 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(4), 331-359.
103. Lederman, N. G. (1995, January). Teachers’ conceptions 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.
104. Lederman, N. G. (1998, December). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education [On-Line], 3(2). Available at http://unr.edu/ homepage/jcannon/ejse/ejse.html.
105. 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(8), 916-929.
106. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., and Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
107. Lederman, N. G., and Druger, M. (1985). Classroom factors related to changes in students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 649-662.
108. Lederman, N. G., and Niess, M. L. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally? School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.
109. Lederman, N. G., and O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74, 225-239.
110. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F., and Bell, R. L. (2001). Preservice teachers’ understandings and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, mathematics, and Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.
111. Lederman, N. G., Wade, P. D., and Bell, R. L. (1998). Assessing understanding of the nature of science:Ahistorical perspective. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science and science education:Rationales and strategies (pp. 331-350). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
112. Lederman, N. G., and Zeidler, D. L. (1987). Science teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: Do they really influence teacher behavior? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734.
113. Lin, H. S., and Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773-792.
114. Liu, S. Y., and Lederman, N. G. (2002). Taiwanese students’ views of nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 102(3), 114-122.
115. Mackay, L. D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57-66.
116. Mead, M., and Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science, 126, 384-390.
117. 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.
118. Miller, P. E. (1963). A comparison of the abilities of secondary teachers and students of biology to understand science. Iowa Academy of Science, 70, 510-513.
119. Moore, R., and Sutman, F. (1970). The development, field test and validation of an inventory of scientific attitudes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 7, 85-94.
120. Moss, D. M. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771-790.
121. Munby, H. (1976). Some implications of language in science education. Science Education, 60(1), 115-124.
122. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
123. National Science Teachers Association. (1962). The NSTA position on curriculum development in science. The Science Teacher, 29(9), 32-37.
124. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.
125. Nott, M., and Wellington, J. (1995). Probing teachers’ views of the nature of science: How should we do it and where should we be looking? Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, pp. 864-872.
126. Ogunniyi, M. B. (1982). An analysis of prospective science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(1), 25-32.
127. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., and 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.
128. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper and Row.
129. Ramsey, G., and Howe, R. (1969). An analysis of research on instructional procedures in secondary school science. The Science Teacher, 36(3), 62-68.
130. 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(5), 373-384.
131. Robinson, J. T. (1965). Science teaching and the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 37-50.
132. Rothman, A. I. (1969). Teacher characteristics and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(4), 340-348.
133. Rowe, M. B. (1974). A humanistic intent: The program of preservice elementary education at the University of Florida. Science Education, 58, 369-376.
134. Rubba, P. (1976). Nature of scientific knowledge scale. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
135. Rubba, P. A. (1977). The development, field testing and validation of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Dissertations Abstracts International, 38, 5378A (University Microfilms No. 78-00, 998).
136. Rubba, P. A., and Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-458.
137. Rubba, P., Horner, J., and Smith, J. M. (1981). Astudy of two misconceptions about the nature of science among junior high school students. School Science and Mathematics, 81, 221-226.
138. Rudolph, J. L. (2003). Portraying epistemology: School science in historical context. Science Education, 87(1), 64-79.
139. Rutherford, J. F. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2(2), 80-84.
140. Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., and Zeidler, D. (2004). Student conceptualizations of the nature of science in response to a socioscientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387-409.
141. Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(5), 634-656.
142. Scharmann, L. C. (1990). Enhancing the understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90(2), 91-100.
143. Scharmann, L. C., and Harris, W. M., Jr. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 375-388.
144. Scharmann, L. C., and Smith, M. U. (2001). Defining versus describing the nature of science: Apragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 85(4), 493-509.
145. Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, M. C., and Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design, and umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 16(1), 27-41.
146. Schmidt, D. J. (1967). Test on understanding science: A comparison among school groups. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(4), 365-366.
147. Schwartz, R. S. (2004). Epistemological views in authentic science practice: A cross-discipline comparison of scientists’ views of nature of science and scientific inquiry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Science and Mathematics Education, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
148. Schwartz, R. S., and 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.
149. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., and Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610-645.
150. Schwirian, P. (1968). On measuring attitudes toward science. Science Education, 52, 172-179.
151. Scientific Literacy Research Center. (1967). Wisconsin inventory of science processes. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin.
152. Shapiro, B. L. (1996). Acase study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: Learning about the “face of science that does not yet know.” Science Education, 80(5), 535-560.
153. Showalter V. M. (1974). What is united science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy. Prism, II, 2.
154. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.
155. Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., and Clough, M. P. (1997) How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103.
156. Sorensen, L. L. (1966). Change in critical thinking between students in laboratory-centered and lecture-demonstration-centered patterns of instruction in high school biology. Dissertation Abstracts International, 26, 6567A (University Microfilms No. 66-03, 939).
157. Spears, J., and Zollman, D. (1977). The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students’ understanding the process of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(1), 33-38.
158. Stice, G. (1958). Facts about science test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
159. Sutherland, D., and Dennick, R. (2002). Exploring culture, language and perception of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 24(1), 25-36.
160. Swan, M. D. (1966). Science achievement as it relates to science curricula and programs at the sixth grade level in Montana public schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 102-123.
161. Tamir, P. (1972). Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in Israel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 9(3), 239-245.
162. Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147-171.
163. Trembath, R. J. (1972). The structure of science. The Australian Science Teachers Journal, 18(2), 59-63.
164. Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(3), 224-229.
165. Troxel, V. A. (1968). Analysis of instructional outcomes of students involved with three sources in high school chemistry. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.
166. Welch, W. W. (1967). Science process inventory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
167. Welch, W. W., and Pella, M. O. (1967-68). The development of an instrument for inventorying knowledge of the processes of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5(1), 64.
168. Welch, W. W., and Walberg, H. J. (1967-68). An evaluation of summer institute programs for physics teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 105-109.
169. Wheeler, S. (1968). Critique and revision of an evaluation instrument to measure students’ understanding of science and scientists. University of Chicago.
170. Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society. Science Education, 38(2), 159-164.
171. Winchester, I. (1993). Science is dead. We have killed it, you and I-How attacking the presuppositional structures of our scientific age can doom the interrogation of nature. Interchange, 24, 191-197.
172. Yager, R. E., and Wick, J. W. (1966). Three emphases in teaching biology: A statistical comparison of the results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4(1), 16-20.
173. Zeidler, D. L., and Lederman, N. G. (1989). The effects of teachers’ language on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9), 771-783.
174. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., and Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343-367.