Science & Education

, Volume 17, Issue 2–3, pp 219–248 | Cite as

A Multi-Year Program Developing an Explicit Reflective Pedagogy for Teaching Pre-service Teachers the Nature of Science by Ostention

Article

Abstract

This investigation delineates a multi-year action research agenda designed to develop an instructional model for teaching the nature of science (NOS) to preservice science teachers. Our past research strongly supports the use of explicit reflective instructional methods, which includes Thomas Kuhn’s notion of learning by ostention and treating science as a continuum (i.e., comparing fields of study to one another for relative placement as less to more scientific). Instruction based on conceptual change precepts, however, also exhibits promise. Thus, the investigators sought to ascertain the degree to which conceptual change took place among students (n = 15) participating in the NOS instructional model. Three case studies are presented to illustrate successful conceptual changes that took place as a result of the NOS instructional model. All three cases represent students who claim a very conservative Christian heritage and for whom evolution was not considered a legitimate scientific theory prior to participating in the NOS instructional model. All three case study individuals, along with their twelve classmates, placed evolution as most scientific when compared to intelligent design and a fictional field of study called “Umbrellaology.”

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick F., Akerson V.L. (2004). Learning as Conceptual Change: Factors Mediating the Development of Pre-Service Elementary Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science. Science Education 88:785–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 22:665–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aikenhead G.S., Jegede O.J. (1999). Cross-Cultural Science Education: A Cognitive Explanation of a Cultural Phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akerson V.L., Abd-El-Khalick F., Lederman N.G. (2000). Influence of a Reflective Explicit Activity-based Approach on Elementary Teachers’ Conceptions of Nature of Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37:295–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alters B.J. (1997). Whose Nature of science?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:39–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersen H. (2000). Learning by Ostention: Thomas Kuhn on Science Education. Science & Education 9:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonevac D. (1999). Simple Logic. Harcourt, Fort WorthGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruner J., Goodnow J.J., Austin G.A. (1967). A Study of Thinking. Science Editions, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiappetta E.L., Koballa T.R. (2004). Quizzing Students On the Myths of Science. The Science Teacher 71(9): 58–61Google Scholar
  10. Clough M.P., Olson J.K. (2004). The Nature of Science: Always Part of the Science Story. The Science Teacher 71(9): 28–31Google Scholar
  11. Carey S., Evans R., Honda M., Jay E., 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 Science Knowledge. International Journal of Science Education 11(5): 514–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carey S., Smith C. (1993). On Understanding the Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Educational Psychologist 28:235–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cobern W.W. (1991). World View Theory and Science Education Research, NARST Monograph nr 3. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Columbia, MO, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Dougherty M.J. (1997). Formative Assessment. The Science Teacher 64(6): 29–33Google Scholar
  15. Driver R., Leach J., Millar R., Scott P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science. Open University Press, Buckingham, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission: 2001, Europeans, Science and Technology, Eurobarometer 55.2. Available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/archives/eb/ebs_154_en.pdf
  17. Gilbert J.K., Osborne R.J., Fensham P.J. (1982). Children’s Science and its Consequences for Teaching. Science Education 66:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hewson, P.W., Beeth, M.E. & Thorley, N.R.: 1998, ‘Teaching for Conceptual Change’, in K.G. Tobin & B.J. Fraser (eds.), International Handbook of Science Education, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 199–218Google Scholar
  19. Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Calhoun, E.: Models of Teaching, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, 2004Google Scholar
  20. Khishfe R., 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 39:551–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn T.S. (1974). Second Thoughts on Paradigms. In: Suppe F. (eds) The Structure of Scientific Theories. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 459–482. Reprinted in T.S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 293–319Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn T.S. (1979). Metaphor in Science. In: Ortony A. (eds), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 409–419Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn T.S. (1993). Afterwords. In: Horwich P. (eds) World Changes. Thomas S. Kuhn and the Nature of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 311–341Google Scholar
  26. Lederman N.G. (1992). Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:771–783Google Scholar
  27. 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 36:916–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lederman, N. G. & Abd-El-Khalick, F.: 1998, ‘Avoiding De-Natured Science: Activities that Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science’, in McComas, W. (ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 83–126Google Scholar
  29. Lugones M. (1987). Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception. Hypatia 2:3–19Google Scholar
  30. McComas W.F. (1996). Ten Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know about the Nature of Science. School Science and Mathematics 96:10–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McComas W.F., Clough M.P., Almazroa H. (1998). The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. Science and Education 7:511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. National Science Board (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators-2002. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA (USA) Also available at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/ Google Scholar
  35. National Science Board (1996). Science and Engineering Indicators-1996. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA (USA) Also available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/ Google Scholar
  36. Nersessian N.J. (1998). Kuhn and the Cognitive Revolution. Configurations 6(1):87–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Newport, F. & Strausberg, M.: 2001, ‘Americans’ Belief in Psychic and Paranormal Phenomena is Up over Last Decade’, Gallup News Service (Poll Analyses, 8 June). Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases
  38. Niaz M. (2001). Understanding the Nature of Science as Progressive Transitions in Heuristic Principles. Science Education 85:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Palmquist B.C., Finley F.N. (1997). Preservice Teachers’ Views of the Nature of Science During a Postbaccalaureate Science Teaching Program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:595–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson G.R. (2002). The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology?. Zygon 37(1): 7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rosch E. (1978). Wittgenstein and Categorization Research in Cognitive Psychology. In: Chapman M., Dixon R.A. (eds) Meaning and the Growth of Understanding. Wittgenstein’s Significance for Developmental Psychology, Springer, Berlin, pp. 151–166Google Scholar
  42. Scharmann L.C., Smith M.U. (2001). Further Thoughts on Defining versus Describing the Nature of Science: A Response to Niaz. Science Education 85:691–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scharmann L.C., Smith M.U., James M.C., Jensen M. (2005). Explicit Reflective Nature of Science Instruction: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher Education 16:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schwartz D.L., Bransford J.D. (1998). A Time for Telling. Cognition and Instruction 16:475–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scott E.C. (1999). The Creation/Evolution Continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(4): 16–23Google Scholar
  46. Smith M.U., Lederman N.G., Bell R.L., McComas W.F., Clough M.P. (1997). How Great is the Disagreement about the Nature of Science? A Response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:1101–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith C.L., Maclin D., Houghton C., Hennessey M.G. (2000). ‘Sixth-Grade Students’ Epistemologies of Science: The Impact of School Science Experiences on Epistemological Development. Cognition and Instruction 18:349–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith E.E., Medlin D.L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith M.U., Scharmann L.C. (1999). Defining versus Describing the Nature of Science: A Pragmatic Analysis for Classroom Teachers and Science Educators. Science Education 83:493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Somerville J. (1941). Umbrellaology or Methodology in Social Science. Philosophy of Science 8:557–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mercer UniversityMaconUSA
  2. 2.Kansas State UniversityManhattanUSA

Personalised recommendations