Advertisement

Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 527–538 | Cite as

On teaching the nature of science: perspectives and resources

  • Jeffrey Radloff
Book Review
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper, I present a critical review of the recent book, On Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives and Resources, written by Douglas Allchin (2013). This publication presents an in-depth examination of the nature of science construct, as well as instruction for educators about how to teach it effectively utilizing historical case studies as vehicles for knowledge. Although several themes in the book merit further attention, a central issue present across all chapters is the largely masculine, monocultural nature of science presented, which is common to a multitude of scientific publications. In this review, I illustrate how culture and gender in science is not addressed throughout the book. I also discuss where we can build on the work of the author to integrate more aspects of gender and culture in teaching the nature of science.

Keywords

Nature of science Invisibility discourse Sociotransformative constructivism sTc Gender and culture in science 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Achieve Inc. (2013). The next generation science standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. Saint Paul, MN: SHiPS Education Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bacharach, V. R., Baumeister, A. A., & Furr, R. M. (2003). Racial and gender science achievement gaps in secondary education. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 164(1), 115–126. doi: 10.1080/00221320309597507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brush, S. G. (1974). Should the history of science be rated X? The way scientists behave (according to historians) might not be a good model for students. Science, 183(4130), 1164–1172. a: 10.1126/science.183.4130.1164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hurd, P. D. H. (1998). Scientific literacy: New minds for a changing world. Science Education, 82, 407–416. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199806)82:3<407:AID-SCE6>3.0.CO;2-G.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In G. Irzik & R. Nola (Eds.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Netherlands: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_30.Google Scholar
  8. Kimball, M. E. (1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 3–6.Google Scholar
  9. Lederer, E. M. (2015). Head of UN women: No country has reached gender equality. Retrieved from http://www.Abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/head-women-country-reached-gender-equality-29430387.
  10. 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, 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tea.3660290404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mensah, F. M. (2013). Theoretically and practically speaking, what is needed in diversity and equity in science teaching and learning? Theory Into Practice, 52, 66–72. doi: 10.1080/00405841.2013.743781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 589–622. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199808)35:6<589:AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-I.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rodriguez, A. J. (2015). Managing institutional and sociocultural challenges through sociotransformative constructivism: A longitudinal case study of a high school science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 448–460. doi: 10.1002/tea.21207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rodriguez, A. J., & Zozakiewicz, C. (2005). Using sociotransformative constructivism (sTc) to unearth gender identity discourses in upper elementary schools. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.urbanedjournal.org/node/169.
  15. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (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, 610–645. doi: 10.1002/sce.10128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sheikh, F., & Zanesco, A. (2015). Editorial: Women in science. Journal of Life Sciences. doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2015.01.021.Google Scholar
  17. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11, 80–96. doi: 10.1177/1473325010368316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zafar, B. (2013). College major choice and the gender gap. Journal of Human Resources, 48, 545–595. doi: 10.1353/jhr.2013.0022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science EducationThe College of Education at Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options