Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry as Contexts for the Learning of Science and Achievement of Scientific Literacy

Norman G. Lederman, Judith S. Lederman, Allison Antink
6.963 1.319

Abstract


Although the reasons for concern about quality differ from nation to nation, the primary rallying point for science education reform is the perceived level of scientific literacy among a nationâs populace. The essential nature of scientific literacy is that which influences studentsâ decisions about personal and societal problems. Beyond this, however, educators work to influence studentsâ ability to view science through a more holistic lens. Examining the philosophy, history, and sociology of science itself has the potential to engender perceptions of science, in the broader context, that can impact the lens through which students view the world. The integration of explicit, reflective instruction about nature of science (NOS) and scientific inquiry (SI) in traditional science content is addressed as a means through which the development of scientific literacy is fostered.

Keywords


Nature of Science (NOS), Scientific Inquiry (SI), Scientific Literacy, Worldviews

Full Text:

PDF (Türkçe)


References


Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University.

Aikenhead, G. (1973). The measurement of high school students’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 57(4), 359-349.

Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73-82.

Allen, N.J., & Crawley, F.E. (1998). Voices from the bridge: Worldview conflicts of Kickapoo students of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 111-132.

Alvarez, W., & Asaro, F. (1990, Oct.) An extraterrestrial impact. Scientific American, 78-84.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bady, R. A. (1979). Students’ understanding of the logic of hypothesis testing. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(1), 61-65.

Billeh, V. Y., & Hasan, O. E. (1975). Factors influencing teachers’ gain in understanding the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 12(3), 209-219.

Broadhurst, N. A. (1970). A study of selected learning outcomes of graduating high school students in South Australian schools. Science Education, 54(1), 17-21.

Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1968). An analysis of the understanding of the nature of science by prospective secondary science teachers. Science Education, 52(4), 358-363.

Carey, R. L., & Stauss, N. G. (1970). An analysis of experienced science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 70(5), 366-376.

Central Association of Science and Mathematics Teachers (1907). A consideration of the principles that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 7, 241-247. Chalmers, A. F. (1982). What is this thing called science? (2nd ed.). Queensland, Australia: University of Queensland Press.

Courtillot, V. (1990, Oct.) A volcanic eruption. Scientific American, 85-92

Durkee, P. (1974). An analysis of the appropriateness and utilization of TOUS with special reference to highability students studying physics. Science Education, 58(3), 343-356.

Glen, W. (1990). What killed the dinosaurs? American Scientist, 78, 354-370

Haukoos, G. D., & Penick, J. E. (1985). The effects of classroom climate on college science students: A replication study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 163-168.

Hrdy, S. B. (1986). Empathy, polyandry, and the myth of the coy female. In R. Bleier (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 119-146). Perganon Publishers.

Jones, K. M. (1969). The attainment of understandings about the scientific enterprise, scientists, and the aims and methods of science by students in a college physical science course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(1), 47-49.

Kawagley, A.O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R.A. (1998). The indigenous worldview of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 133-144.

Kimball, M. E. (1967-68). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110-120.

Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 6, 87-95.

Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research for Science Teaching, 1(1), 33-47. Klopfer, L. E., & Watson, F. G. (1957). Historical materials and high school science teaching. The Science Teacher, 24(6), 264-293.

Lavach, J. F. (1969). Organization and evaluation of an inservice program in the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 166-170.

Lawson, A. E. (1982). The nature of advanced reasoning and science instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 743-760.

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(4), 331-359.

Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies, pp.83-126. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lederman, N. G., & Niess, M. (1997). The nature of science: Naturally? School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.

Lederman, N. G., & O’Malley, M. (1990). Students’ perceptions of tentativeness in science: Development, use, and sources of change. Science Education, 74(2), 225-239.

Liu, A.Y., & Lederman, N.G. (2007). Exploring prospective teachers’ worldviews and conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(10), 1281-1307.

Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211, 341-350.

Luchessa, K., & Lederman, N. G. (1992). Real fossils, real science. The Science Teacher, 59, 68-92.

Mackay, L. D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57-66.

Matthew, M. R. (2009). Teaching the philosophical and worldview components of science. Science & Education, 19, 697-728.

Mead, M., & Metraux, R. (1957). Image of the scientist among high school students. Science, 126, 384-390.

National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. (An NSTA position statement). Washington, DC: Author.

Ogunniyi, M. B. (1983). Relative effects of a history/philosophy of science course on student teachers’ performance on two models of science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 1(2), 193-199. Olstad, R. G. (1969). The effect of science teaching methods on the understanding of science. Science Education, 53(1), 9-11.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.

Popper, K. R. (1988). The open universe: An argument for indeterminism. London: Routledge.

Raup, D. (1991). Extinction: Bad genes or bad luck? New York: W W Norton & Co.

Riley, J. P., II (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(5), 373-384.

Rowe, M. B. (1974). A humanistic intent: The program of preservice elementary education at the University of Florida. Science Education, 58, 369-376.

Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449-459.

Rutherford, F. J., Holton, G., & Watson, F. G. (1970). The project physics course. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 409-421.

Spears, J., & Zollman, D. (1977). The influence of structured versus unstructured laboratory on students’ understanding the process of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(1), 33-38.

Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological phenomena. Science Education, 75(1), 57-68.

Trent, J. (1965). The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(3), 224-229.

Troxel, V. A. (1968). Analysis of instructional outcomes of students involved with three sources in high school chemistry. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1972). A national experiment in curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 373-383.

Wilson, L. (1954). A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society. Science Education, 38(2), 236-242.

Yager, R. E., & Wick, J. W. (1966). Three emphases in teaching biology: A statistical comparison of results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 16-20.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.