Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

This paper provides a rationale for the changes advocated by the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards. It provides an argument for why the model embedded in the Next Generation Science Standards is seen as an improvement. The Case made here is that the underlying model that the new Framework presents of science better represents contemporary understanding of nature of science as a social and cultural practice. Second, it argues that the adopting a framework of practices will enable better communication of meaning amongst professional science educators. This, in turn, will enable practice in the classroom to improve. Finally, the implications for teacher education are explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. emphasis added.

  2. Abductive arguments are also known as retroductive arguments.

  3. Ben Goldacre offers an excellent discussion of this issue in a TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html).

  4. In one sense, any of these activities could be said to be ‘doing science’. In this chapter, the term ‘doing science’ is used to refer to the act of engaging in empirical inquiry.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Achieve. (2012). Next generation science standards. http://www.nextgenerationscience.org.

  • Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational leadership, 60(3), 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific dicourse. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 15–28). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddulph, F., Symington, D., & Osborne, R. (1986). The place of children’s questions in primary science education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4, 77–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind and experience in school. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. F. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, A. C., & Malhotra, A. B. (2003). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools. A theoretical framework for evaluating Inquiry task. Science Education, 86.

  • Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for english language arts and literacy in history/social studies and science. http://www.corestandards.org/.

  • Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vols. 1 and 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.

  • Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science and Education, 22, 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children to think. London: Simon and Shuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2006). “Grasp of Practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.

  • Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2011). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geison, J. (1995). The private science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R., Bickle, J., & Maudlin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gill, P. (1996). Focus: Can we count on biology? Journal of Biological Education, 30(3), 159–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., & Murphy, P. (1987). Assessing investigation at ages 13 and 15: Assessment of Performance Unit Science Report for Teachers: 9. London: Department of Education and Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence. School of education: University of Durham.

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1984). The philosophies of science: An introductory survey (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 440–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jetton, T.L., & Shanahan, C.H. (2012). Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.

  • Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1995). Scientific thinking about scientific thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive science A multidisciplinary journal, 12(1), 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 111–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 61–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Drawing things together. Knowledge and Society, 6, 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1990). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. Representation in Scientific Activity, 19–68.

  • Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831–879). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. New Yorker, 52–57.

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2004). Modeling natural variation through distribution. American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 635–679. doi:10.3102/00028312041003635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, (pp. 371–387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy handbook of child psychology (pp. 153–196). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • McRobbie, C., & Thomas, G. (2001). They don’t teach us to explain, they only tell us other people’s explanations. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning, Freiburg, Switzerland.

  • Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Science. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.

  • Nercessian, N. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). The PISA 2015 assessment framework: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisa2015draftframeworks.htm.

  • Orton, T., & Roper, T. (2000). Science and mathematics: A relationship in need of counselling? Studies in Science Education, 35(1), 123–153. doi:10.1080/03057260008560157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2011). Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review, 93(343), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penick, J. E., Crow, L. W., & Bonnsteter, R. J. (1996). Questions are the answers. Science Teacher, 63, 26–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.C, Brown Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of research in science teaching, 28(9), 859–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schleppegrell, M., & Fang, Z. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right… if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Hobeken, New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2013). Trouble at the lab. The Economist. http://science.kqed.org/quest/audio/road-kill-or-road-crossing-california-slow-to-protect-wildlife/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=road-kill-or-road-crossing-california-slow-to-protect-wildlife. Retrieved October 21, 2013.

  • Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, R., Swain, J., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific enquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Sean Smith, P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. F. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2004). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziman, J. (1979). Reliable knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Jonathan Osborne

Authors
  1. Jonathan Osborne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Osborne.

About this article

Cite this article

Osborne, J. Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change. J Sci Teacher Educ 25, 177–196 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation