Michael P. Clough

The Nature of Technology

The Nature of Technology introduces students to understanding technology and how to adapt to an ever-changing world. Humans utilize technologies to modify the world around them to meet their needs and wants. Technology extends human potential by allowing people to do things they could not otherwise do. Technological activity is purposeful and directed towards desired and predictable goals, but sometimes the results are unintended or undesired.

The Nature of Science: Understanding How the Game of Science Is Played

In Never Playing the Game, Yager (1988) chastised school science instruction for rarely permitting students to investigate an authentic problem, create experiments, analyze data, and formulate possible explanations—that is, to actually play the game of science. He wrote (p. 77) “We pronounce science a fantastic game that all should learn to play [but] our students rarely get to play—rarely get to do real science . . .” Yager’s criticism of the way science is taught raises two important questions: In what sense is science like a game, and what is “real science” like?

Science Teacher Preparation in a North American Context

This article provides a description of science teacher education policy in Canada and the USA. We focus on qualifications and procedures to obtain an initial teaching license, requirements for license renewal, and trends in our respective countries. In both countries, science teacher education is the responsibility of the province or state, rather than the federal government. Because these countries are composed of many provinces/states, each with its own unique characteristics, we focus on general trends, recognizing that exceptions to these trends exist. Our review indicates that science teacher education in Canada and the USA consists of a highly diverse array of licenses, requirements, and programs. While this variability provides flexibility for programs to meet local needs and to create innovative programs, it also creates the potential for teachers to enter classrooms with insufficient preparation. In both countries, multiple pathways lead to certification, many of which have very few science content or science pedagogy requirements. The science content knowledge required of elementary teachers is of concern in both countries. Secondary science teachers have multiple ways to teach with insufficient preparation in science content and pedagogy. The nature of science is notably absent from most science teacher education state and provincial requirements. Innovative program structures with high requirements for science content and pedagogy exist in both countries. Research is needed that compares program structures and requirements to determine their relative impact on teachers’ practices. Additionally, much remains to be done to improve the extent to which existing research influences policy.

Impact of a Nature of Science and Science Education Course on Teachers’ Nature of Science Classroom Practices

Science education reform documents have for some time emphasized the need for accurate and effective nature of science (NOS) instruction. However, efforts to encourage teachers to consistently and effectively address the NOS have had mixed results. The first author developed a NOS course that promoted and modeled explicit and reflective NOS instruction, emphasizing the importance of incorporating NOS activities along a decontextualized to highly contextualized continuum and extensively scaffolding between those contexts (Clough, 2006). This study determined the quantity and quality of NOS instruction participants implemented during the following semester. Six teachers were observed on three occasions and interviewed afterwards. Their students completed a questionnaire indicating the kind and frequency of NOS instruction they experienced. Structured interviews were conducted with each teacher following the school year. Four of the six teachers consistently implemented NOS when teaching science content, and the remaining two teachers implemented NOS decontextually. While teachers at low levels of implementation cited institutional constraints hindering their efforts, high-level implementation teachers faced the same constraints. High implementation teachers are committed to teaching the NOS, exhibited risk-taking behaviors and a conscious awareness they were “bucking” the system. These teachers valued learning how to integrate NOS instruction within the science content they already teach, rather than adding numerous decontextualized NOS activities to an already overburdened curriculum.

The Theory of Evolution is Not an Explanation for the Origin of Life

The propagation of misconceptions about the theory of biological evolution must be addressed whenever and wherever they are encountered. The recent article by Paz-y-Mino and Espinoza in this journal contained several such misconceptions, including: that biological evolution explains the origin of life, confusion between biological and cosmological evolution, and the use of the term “Darwinism,” all of which we address here. We argue that science educators, and biology educators particularly, must be aware of these (and other) misconceptions and work to remove them from their classrooms.

Association Between Experienced Teachers’ NOS Implementation and Reform-Based Practices

The assertion that general reform-based science teaching practices (GRBSTPs) can facilitate nature of science (NOS) instruction has been mentioned in the literature, but rigorous and transparent empirical substantiation for this claim has not been made. This investigation empirically demonstrates an association between thirteen experienced teachers’ NOS implementation practices and their GRBSTPs. While effectively implementing GRBSTPs does not ensure the NOS will be taught, the findings show that these practices are associated with high levels of NOS instruction. In this study, teachers who implemented higher levels of reform-based practices were also observed to enact more instances of planned and spontaneous effective NOS instruction. Furthermore, these teachers were more likely to recognize and capitalize on NOS teaching opportunities when they unexpectedly arose in the context of their GRBSTPs. Just as NOS understanding must be assessed when determining factors associated with teachers’ NOS implementation, teachers’ GRBSTPs should also be empirically and transparently established to ensure they do not mask or confound other factors associated with NOS implementation.

University faculty and their knowledge & acceptance of biological evolution

BackgroundMisconceptions about biological evolution specifically and the nature of science in general are pervasive in our society and culture. The view that biological evolution explains life’s origin(s) and that hypotheses become theories, which then become laws are just two examples of commonly held misconceptions. These misconceptions are reinforced in the media, in people’s personal lives, and in some unfortunate cases in the science classroom. Misconceptions regarding the nature of science (NOS) have been shown to be related to understanding and acceptance of biological evolution.Previous work has looked at several factors that are related to an individual’s understanding of biological evolution, acceptance of biological evolution, and his/her understanding of the NOS. The study presented here investigated understanding and acceptance of biological evolution among a highly educated population: university faculty.MethodsTo investigate these variables we surveyed 309 faculty at a major public Midwestern university. The questions at the core of our investigation covered differences across and between faculty disciplines, what influence theistic position or other demographic responses had, and what model best described the relationships detected.ResultsOur results show that knowledge of biological evolution and acceptance of biological evolution are positively correlated for university faculty. Higher knowledge of biological evolution positively correlates with higher acceptance of biological evolution across the entire population of university faculty. This positive correlation is also present if the population is broken down into distinct theistic views (creationist and non-creationist viewpoints). Greater knowledge of biological evolution also positively correlates with greater acceptance of biological evolution across different levels of science education. We also found that of the factors we examined, theistic view has the strongest relationship with knowledge and acceptance of biological evolution.ConclusionsThese results add support to the idea that a person’s theistic view is a driving force behind his or her resistance to understanding and accepting biological evolution. We also conclude that our results support the idea that effective science instruction can have a positive effect on both understanding and acceptance of biological evolution and that understanding and acceptance are closely tied variables.

Preparing and Hiring Exemplary Science Teachers

(1995). Preparing and Hiring Exemplary Science Teachers. Kappa Delta Pi Record: Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 80-89.

Final Commentary: Connecting Science and Engineering Practices: A Cautionary Perspective

While including the teaching and learning of engineering concepts and practices in the science curriculum has potential to aid in achieving often-stated goals for science education, significant and legitimate concerns do exist with the kind and level of emphasis being placed on engineering practices. Generally speaking, the science education community has been remiss in its uncritical adoration of engineering and the inclusion of engineering concepts and practices in the science curriculum. Important concerns exist about K-12 engineering education in general and its inclusion in the science curriculum in particular. Raising these concerns is not an effort to maintain the status quo or a negative view of engineering and technology, but rather a thoughtful and scholarly effort to ensure students receive the best possible science and engineering education. Considerable thought and caution ought to occur in light of the marked changes being proposed regarding the content of the science curriculum in order to infuse engineering concepts and practices. Our cautionary perspective challenges simplistic rationales and strategies for integrating engineering in the science curriculum, and raises issues that need considerable thought and action for reform efforts to successfully promote a meaningful STEM education.

Humanitas Emptor: Reconsidering Recent Trends and Policy in Science Teacher Education

We are facing a plethora of educational mandates, trends and policies in science teacher education. Such issues are intricately connected, are arguably synergistic with one another though not necessarily in an educative desirable manner, and appear to be the result of STEM-related initiatives including national reform documents such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013). This editorial examines significant deleterious issues that have emerged unchecked, and seemingly embraced unwittingly, by the greater science education community, the public at-large, and even segments of the international science education community. Our claims are grounded in three main cases that are distinct, yet intertwined with one another. Collectively, they serve as a warning shot across the bow of those disregarding the sociocultural roots of education. Left unchecked, the issues we raise may at best deny a progressive understanding of schooling, or at worst, contribute to a kind of dominant subjective educational hegemony. We have selected three cases that serve as indicators of recent trends and issues in science education in general, and science teacher education in particular that have become, arguably, problematic. In the first case, we claim that the science education