Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.”

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters B.J. (1997). Whose Nature of science?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen H. (2000). Learning by Ostention: Thomas Kuhn on Science Education. Science & Education 9:91–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonevac D. (1999). Simple Logic. Harcourt, Fort Worth

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner J., Goodnow J.J., Austin G.A. (1967). A Study of Thinking. Science Editions, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappetta E.L., Koballa T.R. (2004). Quizzing Students On the Myths of Science. The Science Teacher 71(9): 58–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough M.P., Olson J.K. (2004). The Nature of Science: Always Part of the Science Story. The Science Teacher 71(9): 28–31

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey S., Smith C. (1993). On Understanding the Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Educational Psychologist 28:235–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty M.J. (1997). Formative Assessment. The Science Teacher 64(6): 29–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver R., Leach J., Millar R., Scott P. (1996). Young People’s Images of Science. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn T.S. (1979). Metaphor in Science. In: Ortony A. (eds), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 409–419

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    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 29:771–783

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (1998). Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Nersessian N.J. (1998). Kuhn and the Cognitive Revolution. Configurations 6(1):87–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson G.R. (2002). The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology?. Zygon 37(1): 7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz D.L., Bransford J.D. (1998). A Time for Telling. Cognition and Instruction 16:475–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott E.C. (1999). The Creation/Evolution Continuum. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 19(4): 16–23

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith E.E., Medlin D.L. (1981). Categories and Concepts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somerville J. (1941). Umbrellaology or Methodology in Social Science. Philosophy of Science 8:557–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Scharmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9009-y

Keywords

Navigation