Mike U. Smith

Defining versus Describing the Nature of Science: A Pragmatic Analysis for Classroom Teachers and Science Educators.

There appears to be an almost universal commitment among science edu- cators to promote the goal of student understanding of the nature of science. Recent dis- agreements among philosophers of science and between philosophers and other groups such as scientists and science educators about the nature of science, however, leave class- room teachers in a quandry: If experts disagree about the nature of science, how should we decide what to teach students? In this article, the authors first reconsider what level of understanding of the nature of science students should experience so that they can become both intelligent consumers of scientific information and effective local and global citizens. Second, based on an analysis of the literature, it appears that there is a general agreement among science education stakeholders regarding a set of descriptors that can be used to judge which questions or fields of study are more scientific or less scientific than others. Therefore, we propose that most precollege teachers should attempt to teach students how to use these descriptors to judge the relative merits of knowledge claims instead of teaching a set of rules that attempt to demarcate science completely from nonscience. Finally, we suggest two classroom activities based on this proposal and draw some implications for teacher preparation and future research. q 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 83:493- 509, 1999.

Explicit Reflective Nature of Science Instruction: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Umbrellaology

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.

Foundational Issues in Evolution Education.

There is a great need for effective evolution education. This paper reviews some of the evidence that demonstrates that need and analyzes some of the foundational semantic, epistemological, and philosophical issues involved. This analysis is used to provide a functional understanding of the distinction between science and non-science. Special emphasis is placed the scientific meaning of the terms theory, hypothesis, fact, proof, evidence, and truth, focusing on the difference between religious belief and acceptance of a scientific theory. Science is viewed as theologically neutral and as not mutually exclusive from religion. Finally, a number of practical recommendations to the classroom biology teacher are presented.

Chapter 4 – “what do you mean by that?” using structured interviews to assess science understanding

Publisher Summary There is a growing consensus that traditional quantitative assessment tools are largely inadequate for producing an adequately fine-grained description of both what learners know and how they build and revise that knowledge. In recent years, teachers, researchers, and curriculum planners have found that a rich understanding of the common alternative conceptions can be a useful guide for planning effective instruction. The selection of the task to be used in a structured interview, including any graphics or other props, is the most critical decision in planning an interview. The interview task should be tightly focused on the concept of interest and at a level of difficulty appropriate to the learner. It should be carefully structured to focus on likely conceptual difficulties based on prior experience with similar students. In interviews about instances, a student is typically presented with a specific set of examples and counterexamples of the concept of interest, and is asked to identify which cases are examples of the concept and then, to explain that decision.

Does Prior Knowledge Matter? Do Lamarckian Misconceptions Exist? A Critique of Geraedts and Boersma (2006).

The existence, preponderance, and stability of misconceptions related to evolution continue as foci of research in science education. In their 2006 study, Geraedts and Boersma question the existence of stable Lamarckian misconceptions in students, challenging the utility of Conceptual Change theory in addressing any such misconceptions. To support their challenge, they describe the study of a particular pedagogical strategy (which they describe as being influened by dynamic systems theory) and report the results supporting its effectiveness in enhancing students’ understanding of evolutionary theory. However, we argue that the description offered by Geraedts and Boersma demonstrates several flaws, both in its theoretical assertions and methodological decisions. In response, we reject the disavowal of Conceptual Change theory argued for by these authors due to several theoretical misinterpretations. As well, we question the validity of the data presented and assertions generated based on the methodologcal limitations of the study design.

It's Not Your Grandmother's Genetics Anymore!

Abstract Genetics is perhaps the most rapidly growing field of science today. Recent findings such as those of the Human Genome Project have led to new understandings of basic genetic phenomena and even to increased confusion about some basic genetic ideas, such as the nature of the gene. These developments directly influence how we should teach genetics. This article considers eight claims typically made by introductory biology teachers and considers how they differ from current understandings.

It's Not Your Grandmother's Genetics Anymore! (Part 2).

Abstract In a companion article, I discussed recent developments in genetics and the inadequacies of eight common claims made by biology teachers, followed by suggested replacement language for those statements. In the present article, I address nine more claims, about such topics as whether or not most human characteristics are inherited as simple Mendelian traits (determined by one gene with a dominant and a recessive allele), problems with the Central Dogma of Biology, misunderstandings about the inheritance of traits such as eye color, the relative importance of genetics versus the environment, “genes FOR” language, and junk DNA.

Teaching Evolution: Criticism of Common Justifications and the Proposal of a More Warranted Set

Science educators and policy makers have long justified science education and science literacy on the basis of its utility/usefulness in daily life outside the classroom. The purpose of this article is to analyze utility justifications for science education in general and evolution understanding in particular, focusing on whether or not situations that require science/evolution understanding are common in everyday life and how likely citizens are to apply their classroom-acquired knowledge to the problem at hand. In response to this analysis, I maintain that efforts to convince students of the practical utility of evolution in their daily lives are often misguided and largely irrelevant to individual students. I propose a small set of justifications that might be more relevant, interesting, and convincing to young people, then close with some educational implications of my position. This chapter is meant to initiate a wider conversation among evolution educators about what student-centered justifications for evolution education might be, including expansion and criticism of the list presented here.

How Does Evolution Explain Blindness in Cavefish

Abstract Commonly used evolution assessments often ask about the evolution of blindness in cavefish or salamanders, running speed in cheetahs, and/or the long necks of giraffes. Explaining the loss of function in cave animals, however, is more difficult than explaining evolution involving gains of function resulting from natural selection. In fact, the evolution of cavefish blindness is not yet well understood by scientists. This article presents the three current hypotheses for explaining the evolution of blindness in Mexican tetras (Astyanax mexicanus), related to the Next Generation Science Standards and the Advanced Placement curriculum.

Teaching the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium: A 5E Lesson Plan

Abstract In an earlier paper (Smith & Baldwin, 2015), we explained the basic concepts of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWeq) principle needed for meaningful understanding and for good teaching, emphasizing distinctions that are sometimes ignored at the cost of coherent understanding, and identifying nine shortcomings of most available Hardy-Weinberg activities and problem sets. In the present paper, we provide a 5E lesson plan based on that analysis and designed to avoid the shortcomings identified, including providing original data and focusing on understanding and topics that are interesting and meaningful to young people.