Programs for the reform of K-12 science teaching today usually insist that science teachers must introduce their students to the nature of science, as well as to scientific content. The academic field of science studies, however, evinces no consensus about what the nature of science really is. This article examines how science educators and educational researchers have drawn on the fragmented teachings of science studies about the nature of science, and how they have used those teachings as a resource in their own projects. It identifies three competing movements for the reform of science teaching that owe a particular debt to science studies: history and philosophy of science (HPS), science, technology, and society (STS), and constructivist pedagogy. The article analyzes some of the deep assumptions about the relationships between research science, school science, and children’s learning that pervade the educational literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aikenhead, Glen S., and Alan G. Ryan. 1992. The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education76:477-491.
2.
Alters, Brian J.1997. Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching34 (1): 39-55.
3.
Association for the Advancement of Science. 1989. Science for all Americans. A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
4.
Association for the Advancement of Science. 1993. Benchmarks for science literacy. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
Betts, David P.1984. Educational research speaks—Dare we listen? Journal of Research in Science Teaching21:549-562.
6.
Brush, Stephen. 1979. Comments on “On the distortion...”Science Education63:277-278.
7.
Burbules, Nicholas C.1991. Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education13:227-241.
8.
Callon, Michel. 1995. Four models for the dynamics of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 29-63. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Cawthron, E. R., and J. A. Rowell. 1978. Epistemology and science education. Studies in Science Education5:31-59.
10.
Cobern, William W.1996. Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education80:579-610.
11.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 1997. Common framework of science learning outcomes. Pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum. Toronto: Council of Ministers of Education, Canada.
12.
Cozzens, Susan. 1990. The disappearing discipline of STS. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society10 (1): 1-5.
13.
Davis, Nancy T. B., Jo McCarty, Kenneth L. Shaw, and Amal Sidani-Tabbaa. 1993. Transitions from objectivism to constructivism in science education. International Journal of Science Education15:627-636.
14.
Delamont, Sara. 1989. The fingernail on the blackboard? A sociological perspective on science education. Studies in Science Education16:25-46.
15.
Driver, Rosalind, Hilary Asoko, and Philip Scott. 1994. Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher23 (7): 5-12.
16.
Driver, Rosalind, and Jack Easley. 1978. Pupils & paradigms: A review of literature related to concept development in adolescent science students. Studies in Science Education5:61-84.
17.
Duschl, Richard A.1990. Restructuring science education. The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
18.
Edge, David. 1995. Reinventing the wheel. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, 3-24. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Fosnot, Catherine Twomey. 1993. Rethinking science education: A defense of Piagetian constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching30:1189-1201.
20.
Garnett, Patrick J., Pamela J. Garnett, and Mark W. Hackling. 1995. Students’ alternative conceptions in chemistry: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education25:69-95.
21.
Gaskell, P. James. 1992. Authentic science and school science. International Journal of Science Education14:265-272.
22.
Gilbert, John K.1995. Studies and fields: Directions of research in science education. Studies in Science Education25:173-197.
23.
Good, Ron. 1993. Editorial: The many forms of constructivism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching30:1015.
24.
Good, Ron, J. Dudley Herron, Anton Lawon, and John W. Renner. 1985. The domain of science education. Science Education69:139-141.
25.
Gross, Paul R., et al., eds. 1996. The flight from science and reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 775. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
26.
Gross, Paul R., and Norman Levitt. 1994. Higher superstition. The academic Left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27.
Hills, George L. C.1989. Students’ “untutored” beliefs about natural phenomena: Primitive science or commonsense? Science Education73:155-186.
28.
Hodson, Derek. 1985. Philosophy of science, science and science education. Studies in Science Education12:25-57.
29.
Holton, Gerald. 1996. Science education and the sense of the self. In The flight from science and reason. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 775, edited by Paul R. Grosset al., 551-560. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
30.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1996. Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science26:393-418.
31.
Jasanoff, Sheila, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen, and Trevor Pinch, eds. 1995. Handbook of science and technology studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Jenkins, Edgar W.1994. HPS and school science education: Remediation or reconstruction? International Journal of Science Education16:613-623.
33.
Kelly, Gregory J., William S. Carlsen, and Christine M. Cunningham. 1993. Science education in sociocultural context: Perspectives from the sociology of science. Science Education77:207-220.
34.
Kyle, William C.1991. The reform agenda and science education: Hegemonic control vs. counterhegemony. Science Education75:403-411.
35.
Kyle, William C., Sandra K. Abell, Wolff-Michael Roth, and James J. Gallagher. 1992. Toward a mature discipline of science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching29:1015-1018.
36.
Layton, David. 1994. STS in the school curriculum: A movement overtaken by history? In STS education: International perspectives on reform, edited by Joan Solomon and Glen Aiken-head, 32-44. New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
Lederman, Norman G.1992. Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching29 (4): 331-359.
38.
Matthews, Michael R.1994. Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
39.
Matthews, Michael R.1998. In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching35:161-174.
40.
McFadden, Charles P.1991. Toward an STS school curriculum. Science Education75:457-469.
41.
Millar, Robin. 1989a. Constructive criticisms. International Journal of Science Education11:587-596.
42.
Millar, Robin. 1989b. Doing science. Images of science in science education. London: Falmer Press.
43.
Monk, Martin, and Jonathan Osborne. 1997. Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education81:405-424.
44.
Moon, Barbara J., Jolie A. Mayer-Smith, and Marvin F. Wideen. 1993. Recent research on learning to teach science: Prospects and problems. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, Georgia, April.
45.
Nadeau, Robert, and Jacques Désautels. 1984. Epistemology and the teaching of science: A discussion paper. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
46.
National Academy of Science. 1996. National science education standards: Observe, change, learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). 1992. Scope, sequence, and coordination of secondary school science. Vol. 1, The content core, vol. 2, Relevant research. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
48.
Nersessian, Nancy J.1989. Conceptual change in science and in science education. Synthese80 (1): 163-184.
49.
Norris, Stephen P.1997. Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education81:239-258.
50.
Ogborn, Jon. 1995. Recovering reality. Studies in Science Education25:3-38.
51.
O’Loughlin, Michael. 1992. Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching29:791-820.
52.
Osborne, Jonathan F.1996. Beyond constructivism. Science Education80 (1): 53-82.
53.
Panwar, Raja, and John Hoddinott. 1995. The influence of academic scientists and technologists on Alberta’s secondary science curriculum policy and programme. International Journal of Science Education17:505-518.
54.
Phillips, D. C.1995. The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher24 (7): 5-12.
55.
Pitt, Joseph C.1990. The myth of science education. Studies in Philosophy and Education10:7-17.
56.
Posner, George J., Kenneth A. Strike, Peter W. Hewson, and William A. Gertzog. 1982. Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education66:211-227.
57.
Power, Colin N.1976. Competing paradigms in science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching13:579-587.
58.
Proceedings of the Third International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference. Minneapolis, Minnesota, Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 1995. 1995. 2 vols. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
59.
Raizen, Senta A.1991. The reform of science education in the U.S.A. Déjà vu or de novo? Studies in Science Education19:1-41.
60.
Reeves, Barbara J., and Cheryl Ney. 1992. Positivist and constructivist understandings about science and their implications for STS teaching and learning. Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society12:195-199.
61.
Roth, Wolff-Michael, and Keith B. Lucas. 1997. From “truth” to “invented reality”: A discourse analysis of high school physics students’ talk about scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching34:145-179.
62.
Roth, Wolff-Michael and Michelle K. McGinn. 1998. Knowing, researching, and reporting science education: Lessons from science and technology studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching35:213-235.
63.
Roth, Wolff-Michael, Michelle K. McGinn, and G. Michael Bowen. 1996. Applications of science and technology studies: Effecting change in science education. Science, Technology, & Human Values21:454-484.
64.
Selley, Nicholas J.1989. The philosophy of school science. Interchange20 (2): 24-32.
65.
Shamos, Morris H.1993. STS: A time for caution. In The science, technology, society movement, edited by Robert E. Yager, 65-72. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
66.
Shamos, Morris H.1995. The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
67.
Siegel, Harvey. 1979. On the distortion of the history of science in science education. Science Education63 (1): 111-118.
68.
Siegel, Harvey. 1989. The rationality of science, critical thinking, and science education. Synthese80 (1): 9-42.
69.
Smolicz, J. J., and E. E. Nunan. 1975. The philosophical and sociological foundations of science education: The demythologizing of school science. Studies in Science Education2:101-143.
70.
Solomon, Joan. 1993. Teaching science, technology and society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
71.
Solomon, Joan. 1994a. Conflict between mainstream science and STS in science education. In STS education: International perspectives on reform, edited by Joan Solomon and Glen Aikenhead, 3-10. New York: Teachers College Press.
72.
Solomon, Joan. 1994b. The rise and fall of constructivism. Studies in Science Education12:1-19.
73.
Solomon, Joan, and Glen Aikenhead. 1994. Preface. In STS education: International perspectives on reform, edited by Joan Solomon and Glen Aikenhead, vii-xi. New York: Teachers College Press.
74.
Strike, Kenneth A., and George J. Posner. 1982. Conceptual change and science teaching. Journal of Science Education4:231-240.
75.
Tobin, Kenneth. 1990. Social constructivist perspectives on the reform of science education. The Australian Science Teachers Journal36 (4): 29-35.
76.
von Glasersfeld, Ernst. 1989. Cognition, construction of knowledge, and teaching. Synthese80 (1): 121-140.
77.
von Glasersfeld, Ernst. 1992. Questions and answers about radical constructivism. Scope and Sequence2:169-182.
78.
Yackel, Erna. 1991. Analogies from the philosophy and sociology of science for understanding classroom life. Science Education75 (1): 13-44.
79.
Yager, Robert E.1984. Defining the discipline of science education. Science Education68 (1): 35-37.
80.
Yager, Robert E.1985. In defense of defining science education as the science/society interface. Science Education69:143-144.
81.
Yager, Robert E., ed. 1993. The science, technology, society movement. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
82.
Yager, Robert E., and Rustum Roy. 1993. STS: Most pervasive and most radical of reform approaches to science education. In The science, technology, society movement, edited by Robert E. Yager, 7-13. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
83.
Young, Michael F. D.1974. Notes for a sociology of science education. Studies in Science Education1:51-60.
84.
Ziman, John. 1994. The rationale of STS education is in the approach. In STS education: International perspectives on reform, edited by Joan Solomon and Glen Aikenhead, 21-31. New York: Teachers College Press.
85.
Zoller, Uri. 1993. Expanding the meaning of STS and the movement across the globe. In The science, technology, society movement, edited by Robert E. Yager, 125-134. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
