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.”
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 88:785–810
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
Aikenhead G.S., Jegede O.J. (1999). Cross-Cultural Science Education: A Cognitive Explanation of a Cultural Phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36:269–287
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 37:295–317
Alters B.J. (1997). Whose Nature of science?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:39–55
Andersen H. (2000). Learning by Ostention: Thomas Kuhn on Science Education. Science & Education 9:91–106
Bonevac D. (1999). Simple Logic. Harcourt, Fort Worth
Bruner J., Goodnow J.J., Austin G.A. (1967). A Study of Thinking. Science Editions, New York
Chiappetta E.L., Koballa T.R. (2004). Quizzing Students On the Myths of Science. The Science Teacher 71(9): 58–61
Clough M.P., Olson J.K. (2004). The Nature of Science: Always Part of the Science Story. The Science Teacher 71(9): 28–31
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): 514–529
Carey S., Smith C. (1993). On Understanding the Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Educational Psychologist 28:235–251
Cobern W.W. (1991). World View Theory and Science Education Research, NARST Monograph nr 3. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Columbia, MO, USA
Dougherty M.J. (1997). Formative Assessment. The Science Teacher 64(6): 29–33
Driver R., Leach J., Millar R., Scott P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK
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
Gilbert J.K., Osborne R.J., Fensham P.J. (1982). Children’s Science and its Consequences for Teaching. Science Education 66:623–633
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. 199–218
Joyce, B., Weil, M. & Calhoun, E.: Models of Teaching, 7th ed., Pearson Education, Inc., Boston, 2004
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 39:551–578
Kuhn T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kuhn T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
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. 293–319
Kuhn T.S. (1979). Metaphor in Science. In: Ortony A. (eds), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 409–419
Kuhn T.S. (1993). Afterwords. In: Horwich P. (eds) World Changes. Thomas S. Kuhn and the Nature of Science. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 311–341
Lederman N.G. (1992). Students’ and Teachers’ Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Review of the Research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:771–783
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 36:916–929
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. 83–126
Lugones M. (1987). Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception. Hypatia 2:3–19
McComas W.F. (1996). Ten Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know about the Nature of Science. School Science and Mathematics 96:10–15
McComas W.F., Clough M.P., Almazroa H. (1998). The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education. Science and Education 7:511–532
National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
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/
National Science Board (1996). Science and Engineering Indicators-1996. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA (USA) Also available at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind96/
Nersessian N.J. (1998). Kuhn and the Cognitive Revolution. Configurations 6(1):87–120
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
Niaz M. (2001). Understanding the Nature of Science as Progressive Transitions in Heuristic Principles. Science Education 85:684–690
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 34:595–615
Peterson G.R. (2002). The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology?. Zygon 37(1): 7–23
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. 151–166
Scharmann L.C., Smith M.U. (2001). Further Thoughts on Defining versus Describing the Nature of Science: A Response to Niaz. Science Education 85:691–693
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 16:27–41
Schwartz D.L., Bransford J.D. (1998). A Time for Telling. Cognition and Instruction 16:475–522
Scott E.C. (1999). The Creation/Evolution Continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(4): 16–23
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 34:1101–1103
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 18:349–422
Smith E.E., Medlin D.L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
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 83:493–509
Somerville J. (1941). Umbrellaology or Methodology in Social Science. Philosophy of Science 8:557–566
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, M., Scharmann, L. A Multi-Year Program Developing an Explicit Reflective Pedagogy for Teaching Pre-service Teachers the Nature of Science by Ostention. Sci & Educ 17, 219–248 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9009-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9009-y