Abstract
The investigators sought to design an instructional unit to enhance an understanding of the nature of science (NOS) by taking into account both instructional best practices and suggestions made by noted science philosopher Thomas Kuhn. Preservice secondary science teachers enrolled in a course, “Laboratory Techniques in the Teaching of Science,” served as participants in action research. Sources of data used to inform instructional decisions included students’ written reaction papers to the assigned readings, transcribed verbal comments made during class discussions and other in-class activities, and final reflection essays. Three iterative implementations of the instructional unit were attempted. The objectives of the study were essentially met. The instructional unit was able to provoke preservice teachers into wrestling with many substantive issues associated with the NOS. Implications concerning the design of explicit reflective NOS instruction are included.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (November 2001). Do history of science courses influence college students’ views of nature of science? Paper presented at the 6th Annual International Conference of History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, Denver, CO.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Backhus, D. A. (2002). It’s not just a theory. The Science Teacher, 69(4), 44–47.
Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin’s black box. New York: Touchstone.
Bell, R. L., Matkins, J. J., & McNall, R. L. (April 2002). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
BSCS. (1997). BSCS biology: A human approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 429–445.
Dass, P. M. (November 2001). Understanding of the nature of scientific enterprise (NOSE) through a discourse with its history: The influence of an undergraduate “history of science” course. Paper presented at the 6th Annual International Conference of History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching, Denver, CO.
Dembski, W. A. (1999). Intelligent design. Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Dougherty, M. J. (1997). Formative assessment. The Science Teacher, 64(6), 29– 33.
FOSS (1992). Full option science system–-Models and designs module. Chicago. Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corporation.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science Education, 11, 55–67.
Jensen, M. S., & Finley, F. N. (1996). Changes in students’ understanding of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879–900.
Johnson, B. (1993). Teacher-as-researcher. ERIC Digests. Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed355205.html.
Johnston, A. T., & Southerland, S. A. (April,2002). Conceptual ecologies and their influence on nature of science conceptions: More dazed and confused than ever. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kitcher, P. (1985). Good science, bad science, dreadful science, and pseudoscience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 14, 168–173.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1993). Afterwords. In Paul Horwich (Ed.), World changes. Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science (pp. 311–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lawson, A. E., Abraham, M. R., & Renner, J. W. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills. Columbus, OH: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
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.
Mayr, E. (1991). One long argument. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore, R. (1993). Science & uncertainty. American Biology Teacher, 55, 4.
Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85, 684–690.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Perry, W. G. (1970). Intellectual and ethical development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Peterson, G. R. (2002). The intelligent-design movement: Science or ideology? Zygon, 37(1), 7–23.
Scharmann, L. C. (1993). Teaching evolution: Designing successful instruction. American Biology Teacher, 55, 481–487.
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. (April, 2002). Novice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science: An action research project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
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.
Woods, C. S., & Scharmann, L.C. (2001). High school students’ perceptions of evolutionary theory. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 6(2). Retrieved March 24, 2004, from http://unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/woodsetal.html.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Scharmann, L.C., Smith, M.U., James, M.C. et al. Explicit Reflective Nature of Science Instruction: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Umbrellaology. J Sci Teacher Educ 16, 27–41 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-005-6990-y
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-005-6990-y