69 research outputs found
Students' perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory
No full textThis study explored how some college students understand the nature of the theory of evolution and how they evaluate its scientific status. We conducted semistructured interviews with 15 college biology seniors in which we asked them to explain why they think evolution assumes the status of a scientific theory, how it compares to other scientific theories, and what criteria do they use to determine if an explanation is scientific or not. Students' responses encompassed five themes that include evidence, certainty, experimentation, method of theory generation, and prediction. Those themes focused on the theory's empirical dimension which seemed to be derived from a generic and simplistic model of physical science theories that valued direct evidence. Demanding that evolutionary theory conform to this model reveals a misunderstanding of its nature. This misunderstanding was expressed in relation to aspects of methodology, explanation, and prediction. The findings underscore the need for using explicit discipline- and context-specific approaches to teaching and learning about scientific theories. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Abd-El-Khalick F., 2001, J SCI TEACHER ED, V12, P215, DOI DOI 10.1023-A:1016720417219; Abd-El-Khalick F, 2000, INT J SCI EDUC, V22, P665, DOI 10.1080-09500690050044044; Abd-El-Khalick F, 2000, J RES SCI TEACH, V37, P1057, DOI 10.1002-1098-2736(200012)37:101057::AID-TEA33.0.CO;2-C; ALEIXANDRE MJ, 1992, INT J SCI ED, V14, P51; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, SCI ALL AM; Anderson DL, 2002, J RES SCI TEACH, V39, P952, DOI 10.1002-tea.10053; Bartholomew H, 2004, SCI EDUC, V88, P655, DOI 10.1002-sce.10136; BISHOP BA, 1990, J RES SCI TEACH, V27, P415, DOI 10.1002-tea.3660270503; Brem SK, 2003, SCI EDUC, V87, P181, DOI 10.1002-sce.10105; Brickhouse N. W., 2002, SCI ED, V11, P573, DOI 10.1023-A:1019693819079; Cartwright N., 1983, HOW LAWS PHYS LIE; CLOUGH M, 1995, AM BIOL TEACH, V5, P401; Dagher ZR, 2004, INT J SCI EDUC, V26, P735, DOI 10.1080-0950069032000138806; Dagher ZR, 1997, J RES SCI TEACH, V34, P429, DOI 10.1002-(SICI)1098-2736(199705)34:5429::AID-TEA23.0.CO;2-S; Driver R., 1996, YOUNG PEOPLES IMAGES; Duschl R. A., 1990, RESTRUCTURING SCI ED; Elgin M, 2003, PHILOS SCI, V70, P1380, DOI 10.1086-377415; Ferrari M, 1998, INT J SCI EDUC, V20, P1231, DOI 10.1080-0950069980201005; Fysh R., 1998, RES SCI EDUC, V28, P399, DOI 10.1007-BF02461507; Ghiselin Michael T., 1997, METAPHYSICS ORIGIN S; GIBBS A, 1992, AM BIOL TEACH, V54, P137; DEMASTES SS, 1995, SCI EDUC, V79, P637, DOI 10.1002-sce.3730790605; Griffiths A. K., 1995, SCH SCI MATH, V95, P248, DOI DOI 10.1111-J.1949-8594.1995.TB15775.X; JACKSON D, 1995, J RES SCI TEACH, V34, P93; Khishfe R, 2002, J RES SCI TEACH, V39, P551, DOI 10.1002-tea.10036; Leach J, 2003, SCI EDUC, V87, P831, DOI 10.1002-sce.10072; Lemke J. L, 1990, TALKING SCI; Mahner M., 1997, FDN BIOPHILOSOPHY; Matthews M., 2000, TIME SCI ED TEACHING; Mayr E., 1982, GROWTH BIOL THOUGHT; Mayr E., 2001, WHAT EVOLUTION IS; MCCOMAS W, 1909, NATURE SCI SCI ED RA, P3; McComas W. F., 1998, NATURE SCI SCI ED RA, P41; Meyling H., 1997, SCI EDUC, V6, P397, DOI 10.1023-A:1017908916810; National Academy of Sciences, 1998, TEACH EV NAT SCI; National Research Council, 1996, NAT SCI ED STAND; NORRIS S, 1995, J RES SCI TEACH, V22, P817; Osborne J, 2003, J RES SCI TEACH, V40, P692, DOI 10.1002-tea.10105; Passmore C, 2002, J RES SCI TEACH, V39, P185, DOI 10.1002-tea.10020; Root-Bernstein R., 1984, P64; Rose Steven, 1998, LIFELINES BIOL DETER; Roth WM, 1997, J RES SCI TEACH, V34, P145, DOI 10.1002-(SICI)1098-2736(199702)34:2145::AID-TEA43.0.CO;2-T; Rudolph JL, 2000, J CURRICULUM STUD, V32, P403, DOI 10.1080-002202700182628; Ruse M., 1988, PHILOS BIOL TODAY; RYAN AG, 1992, SCI EDUC, V76, P559, DOI 10.1002-sce.3730760602; Sandoval WA, 2003, J RES SCI TEACH, V40, P369, DOI 10.1002-tea.10081; Schwab J. J., 1962, TEACHING SCI, P1; Shipman HL, 2002, SCI EDUC, V86, P526, DOI 10.1002-sce.10029; Sinatra GM, 2003, J RES SCI TEACH, V40, P510, DOI 10.1002-tea.10087; Sober E., 1993, PHILOS BIOL; SOLOMON J, 1992, J RES SCI TEACH, V29, P409, DOI 10.1002-tea.3660290408; Stewart J, 2001, SCI EDUC, V85, P207, DOI 10.1002-sce.1006; Strauss A. L., 1987, QUALITATIVE ANAL SOC34323
To FRA or not to FRA: what is the question for science education?
No full textNine years after reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education using the family resemblance approach (FRA) (Erduran & Dagher, 2014a), the time is ripe for taking stock of what this approach has accomplished, and what future research it can facilitate. This reflective paper aims to accomplish three goals. The first addresses several questions related to the FRA for the purpose of ensuring that the applications of FRA in science education are based on robust understanding of the framework. The second discusses the significance of the FRA by highlighting its capacity to support science educators with the exploration of a wide range of contemporary issues that are relevant to how teachers and learners perceive and experience science. The third goal of the paper offers recommendations for future directions in FRA research in the areas of science identity development and multicultural education as well as curriculum, instruction, and assessment in science education
Laws and Explanations in Biology and Chemistry:Philosophical Perspectives and Educational Implications
No full textThis chapter utilises scholarship in philosophy of biology and philosophy of chemistry to produce meaningful implications for biology and chemistry education. The primary purpose for studying philosophical literature is to identify different perspectives on the nature of laws and explanations within these disciplines. The goal is not to resolve ongoing debates about the nature of laws and explanations but to consider their multiple forms and purposes in ways that promote deep and practical understanding of biological and chemical knowledge in educational contexts. Most studies on the nature of science in science education tend to focus on general features of scientific knowledge and underemphasise disciplinary nuances. The authors aim to contribute to science education research by focusing on the characterisations of laws and explanations in biology and chemistry in the philosophical literature and illustrating how the typical coverage of biology and chemistry textbooks does not problematise meta-perspectives on the nature of laws and explanations. The chapter concludes with suggestions for making science teaching, learning and curriculum more inclusive of the epistemological dimensions of biology and chemistry
- …
