Science and Science Teaching

  • Nicos Valanides
  • Maria Papageorgiou
  • Pavlos Rigas


Science is a term that has been used to describe both the body of knowledge (product) and the processes that are being used for developing and validating this accumulated knowledge. Processes and knowledge are necessarily integrated, because scientists use inductive and deductive processes to formulate laws, generalizations, and regularities that constitute the product of science. Both psychologists and science educators have been interested both in the product, or the individual knowledge about scientific concepts, and the processes that are being used to foster this knowledge acquisition and continuous revision. It is however unanimously concluded that learners’ individual knowledge about science concepts and processes are necessarily influenced by the ways science teachers teach. These ways of teaching science have also impact and important implications on learners’ lifelong abilities to educate themselves and solve real-life problems.


Hydrostatic Pressure Analogical Reasoning Science Textbook Argumentative Discussion Teacher Guide 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and asssessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers in Education, 52, 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, B. (1995). Children’s science: Constructivism and learning in science. Geelong, VIC: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K–12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Acquisition and transfer of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox, M. J., & Webb, M. E. (2004). ICT and pedagogy: A review of the research literature. Coventry/London: British Educational Communications and Technology Agency/Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  6. Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture. (1996). National curriculum of primary education of Cyprus. Nicosia: Author.Google Scholar
  7. Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture. (1997a). First steps in science: Teacher’s textbook for sixth grade. Nicosia: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Cyprus Ministry of Education and Culture. (1997b). First steps in science: Worksheets for sixth grad. Nicosia: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (1993). Children’s ideas in science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dunbar, K., & Fugelsang, J. (2005). Scientific thinking and reasoning. In K. J. Holyoak & R. Morrison (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 705–726). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (Eds.). (2008). Argumentation in science education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Gentner, D. (1998). Analogy. In W. Bechtel & G. Graham (Eds.), A companion to cognitive science (pp. 107–113). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert, J. K., Osborne, R. J., & Fensham, P. J. (1982). Children’s science and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goswami, U. (1986). Children’s use of analogy in learning to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goswami, U. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 239–268.Google Scholar
  18. Hewitt, P. G. (1987). Conceptual physics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  19. Hughes, M. (1986). Children and number: Difficulties in learning mathematics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariate causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 898–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keys, C. W. (1995). The development of scientific reasoning skills in conjunction with collaborative writing assignments: An interpretative study of six ninth-grade pupils. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1003–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klahr, D., & Li, J. (2005). Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: From the laboratory to the classroom and back. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4, 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15, 661–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kubiatko, M., & Vlckova, K. (2010). The relationship between ICT use and science knowledge for Czech pupils: A secondary analysis of PISA 2006. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8, 523–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masnick, A. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Error matters: An initial exploration of elementary school children’s understanding of experimental error. Journal of Cognition and Development, 4, 67–98.Google Scholar
  29. Newton, L. D. (2003). The occurrence of analogies in elementary school science books. Instructional Science, 31, 353–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Papageorgiou, M., & Valanides, N. (2010). Primary school children’s inquiry abilities and reasoning. In S. Dolinšek, & T. Lyons (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th IOSTE symposium: Socio-cultural and human values in science and technology in education (pp. 891–899). Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
  31. Rigas, P., & Valanides, N. (2008). Verbal and pictorial analogies in texts: Comprehension of natural science concepts by primary school students, In O. Finlayson, T. J. J. McCloughlin, & A. Steberger (Eds.), Proceedings of the primary science symposium (pp. 13–17). Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  32. Schauble, L. (1996). The development of scientific reasoning in knowledge-rich contexts. Developmental Psychology, 32, 102–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., & Schulze, S. (1995). Pupils’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shymansky, J. A., & Kyle, W. C. (1992). Establishing a research agenda: Critical issues of science curriculum reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 749–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinberg, R. N. (2000). Computers in teaching science: To simulate or not to simulate? Physics Education Research, 68(7), S37–S41.Google Scholar
  36. Toth, E. E., Klahr, D., & Chen, Z. (2000). Bridging research and practice: A cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 423–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Triona, L. M., & Klahr, D. (2003). Point and click or grab and heft: Comparing the influence of physical and virtual instructional materials on elementary school pupils’ ability to design experiments. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Webb, M. E. (2005). Affordances of ICT in science learning: Implications for an integrated pedagogy. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 705–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zachos, P., Hick, T. L., Doane, W. E. J., & Sargent, C. (2000). Setting theoretical and empirical foundations for assessing scientific inquiry and discovery in educational programs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 938–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zimmerman, C. (2000). The development of scientific reasoning skills. Developmental Review, 20, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zimmerman, C. (2007). The development of scientific thinking skills in elementary and middle school. Developmental Review, 27, 172–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicos Valanides
    • 1
  • Maria Papageorgiou
    • 1
  • Pavlos Rigas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations