William F. McComas

The Role and Character of the Nature of Science in Science Education

This chapter has explored the dynamic arena of the nature of science by examining both its history and ways that the nature of science has informed and should guide science teaching. We have taken the position that a pragmatic consensus exists regarding some of the most important elements regarding the process of science, but have demonstrated that constructive debate exists. Research and discussion continues regarding the relationship between what teachers believe about the nature of science and what they then communicate to students. We assert that teachers must have experiences where they explore the social studies of science and contemplate the methods by which that content may be shared with students. This is the core purpose for developing this book, a book of rationales and strategies. It is vital that the science education community provide an accurate view of how science operates to students and by inference to their teachers. What follows in the accompanying chapters are tested strategies for doing just that. Whether these plans find a home in teacher education programs, in school classrooms, or simply in the minds of interested individuals, we are confident that science education will be a richer discipline and our students will be more adequately prepared for their lives as citizens when they are afforded a fuller understanding of the nature of this thing called science.

Benchmarks for Science Literacy

Benchmarks emerged after a three year research study sponsored by the AAAS called Project 2061. This name is inspired by Halley’s Comet which was last seen in 1985 when work began on the project. It relates to the scientific and technological changes children entering school in 1985 might expect to see before the comet returns in 2061.

The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths

The message from the Science and Engineering Indicators Study (National Science Board, 1996) discussed in the first chapter, and from an evaluation of the myths of science presented here is simple. We must rethink the goals for science instruction. Both students and those who teach science must focus on the nature of science itself rather than just its facts and principles. School science must give students an opportunity to experience science and its processes, free of the legends, misconceptions and idealizations inherent in the myths about the nature of the scientific enterprise. There must be increased opportunity for both beginning and experienced teachers to learn about and apply the real rules of the game of science accompanied by careful review of textbooks to remove the “creeping fox terriers” that have helped provide an inaccurate view of science and its nature. Only by clearing away the mist of half-truths and revealing science in its full light, with knowledge of both its strengths and limitations, will all learners appreciate the true pageant of science and be able to judge fairly its processes and products.

“21st-Century Skills”

There is no single set of “21st-Century Skills” and hundreds have been suggested. Many lists include life skills (agility, flexibility, and adaptability), workforce skills (collaboration, leadership initiative, and responsibility), applied skills (accessing and analyzing information, effective communication, and determining alternative solutions to problems), personal skills (curiosity, imagination, critical thinking, and problem solving), interpersonal skills (cooperation and teamwork), and noncognitive skills (managing feelings) (adapted from Saavedra & Opfer, 2012).

The nature of science and science education: A bibliography

Research on the nature of science and science education enjoys a longhistory, with its origins in Ernst Machs work in the late nineteenthcentury and John Deweys at the beginning of the twentieth century.As early as 1909 the Central Association for Science and MathematicsTeachers published an article – ‘A Consideration of the Principles thatShould Determine the Courses in Biology in Secondary Schools’ – inSchool Science and Mathematics that reflected foundational concernsabout science and how school curricula should be informed by them. Sincethen a large body of literature has developed related to the teaching andlearning about nature of science – see, for example, the Lederman (1992)and Meichtry (1993) reviews cited below. As well there has been intensephilosophical, historical and philosophical debate about the nature of scienceitself, culminating in the much-publicised ‘Science Wars’ of recent time. Thereferences listed here primarily focus on the empirical research related to thenature of science as an educational goal; along with a few influential philosophicalworks by such authors as Kuhn, Popper, Laudan, Lakatos, and others. Whilenot exhaustive, the list should prove useful to educators, and scholars in otherfields, interested in the nature of science and how its understanding can berealised as a goal of science instruction. The authors welcome correspondenceregarding omissions from the list, and on-going additions that can be made to it.

The Effects of Inquiry Teaching on Student Science Achievement and Attitudes: Evidence from Propensity Score Analysis of PISA Data

Gauging the effectiveness of specific teaching strategies remains a major topic of interest in science education. Inquiry teaching among others has been supported by extensive research and recommended by the National Science Education Standards. However, most of the empirical evidence in support was collected in research settings rather than in normal school environments. Propensity score analysis was performed within the marginal mean weighting through stratification (MMW-S) approach to examine the effects of the level of openness of inquiry teaching on student science achievement and attitudes with the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2006 data. Weighting subjects on MMW-S weight successfully balanced all treatment groups on all selected covariates. Significant effects were identified on both cognitive and attitudinal outcomes. For student science achievement, the highest score was achieved at Level 2 inquiry teaching, that is, students conduct activities and draw conclusions from data. For student science attitudes, higher level of inquiry teaching resulted in higher scores. The said conclusions were generally held in most PISA 2006 participating countries when the analysis was performed in each country separately.

Nature of Science

There is no debate regarding the importance of including NOS in the science curriculum, but some suggest that it would be best to call this domain Nature of Science Studies, History and Philosophy of Science (HPS), Ideas-about-Science, Nature of Sciences, Nature of Scientific Knowledge, or Views on the Nature of Science.

Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

The TIMSS assessments began in 1995 and have been administered every four years with the next administration scheduled for 2015. In 2011, over 60 countries and other educational systems participated. TIMSS also administers a TIMSS Assessments that measures trends in advanced mathematics and physics among students during their last year of secondary school. The advance assessment was conducted in 1995 and 2008 and will be administered again in 2015.

A Thematic Introduction to the Nature of Science: The Rationale and Content of a Course for Science Educators

It is clear from a review of the new science education standards that elements of the nature of science must play a role in the education of the next generation of science learners. This course was developed to provide teachers a strong background of relevant content knowledge regarding the nature of science. Even if this mode of content delivery is effective for university learners, this knowledge must now be translated through appropriate curriculum models and through the skills of individual educators into an appropriate form for the classroom.

Framework for K-12 Science Education

The Framework was developed by eighteen individuals who are well-known in their fields as well as four design teams that represent the four domains of science (life science, physical science, earth and space science, and engineering). The perceived need by the science and/or science education communities for new science standards, as well as a framework to undergird these new standards, stemmed from multiple reasons.