9. The Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific InquiryThe Nature of Scientific Knowledge and...

Chapter 9 © 2005 John Settlage & Sherry A. Southerland page 1 of 16

9. The Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry

To this point we’ve examined several dimensions of elementary science education. First, we consideredthe idea of the culture of science, with culture consisting of both actions and objects. Then we spent timelooking at the actions or “verbs” of science in the form of the science process skills. Next we examined theimplications for our teaching of emphasizing the actions and objects of the culture of science: the learningcycle, questioning strategies, and inquiry-based instruction. We now return to more closely examine theculture of science. As a part of our desire and responsibility to develop science literacy within students, it isimportant to understand in greater depth, not only the knowledge that science produces, (its objects, suchas photosynthesis or the 2nd law of thermodynamics), but also the processes that help us arrive at suchknowledge (the actions of science that are employed in scientific inquiry). But making a distinction betweenobject and actions, product and process, is overly simplistic. The manner in which we conduct scientificinquiry gives shape to the knowledge it produces. In other words, we can divide the culture of science onlytemporarily and artificially — the objects and actions are as interdependent as nouns and verbs in aparagraph. Examining this interaction of product/process, object/action, and what this means for teachingscience in diverse settings is the focus of this chapter.

Often we find ourselves facing a flurry ofseemingly contradictory scientific information. Forexample, here are scientific statements related tonutrition: “A low carbohydrate diet helps you loseweight and control cholesterol levels”; “A lowcarbohydrate diet is unsafe because it is often highin fat and places too much stress on the kidneys”;“Eat high amounts of grains and fruits and aminimum of meats and dairy for a well balanceddiet”; and, “Eat a limited amount of grains and ahigh amount of meats and other protein for a wellbalanced diet.” How can scientists be producingthese contradictory messages? Isn’t there some datathat would resolve these contradictions? Shouldn’tscientists all be saying the same things? The goal ofthis chapter is to scrutinize how scientific knowledgeis produced to focus on how its production shapesthat knowledge. By improving your understandingsof the nature of science and scientific inquiry, youwill better appreciate how to become a wiseconsumer of scientific knowledge. Ultimately, yourdeeper understandings will shape your scienceteaching, and, in turn, shape the understandings ofyour students.

In the midst of doing their work, scientists maynot attend to the grander ideas of their profession —but then neither do most professionals. Scientistshave to worry about whether their equipment is inworking condition, whether their schedule allowsthem to gather the data they need, and whether thedata they are collecting will help them to solve thequestions they are investigating. Because they areso involved, scientists may not often sit back tothink about how their research connects to thebigger picture. Consider the work of otherprofessionals such as a nurse, a police officer, or a

cook. Each profession has its own global concerns(health, justice and nutrition) and those have thepower to subtly shape what the individuals do asthey go about their work. But as a nurse gives apatient a shot, as a police officer interviews awitness, or as a cook goes about measuring andsifting flour, they probably aren’t focused upon thebig picture. But if you asked, they probably canexplain how the see their tasks connecting tosomething bigger and more important than justthese mundane activities. So it is with theprofessional scientist.

The phrase the nature of science describes theunderlying tendencies and unspoken assumptionsthat guide the actions of scientists, as individualsand as part of a larger cultural group, in shaping theknowledge science produces. As a result of thesetraditions, the knowledge that is created retainsthese embedded characteristics. The phrasescientific inquiry refers to actions involved inscientists’ pursuit of knowledge, i.e., the manner inwhich they seek explanations of natural phenomena.It is often difficult to clearly distinguish conceptsrelated to the nature of science and scientific inquirybecause the two interact and shape one another. Wehave decided to discuss both in tandem to provide acoherent and comprehensible portrait of the cultureof science.

It is difficult to exactly list the components of thenature of science and scientific inquiry just as it ischallenging to summarize the parts of any culture. Ifyou’ve wondered about how to effectively teachscience to a particular category of students (e.g.,girls, children with hearing disabilities, students whoare not fluent with the English language) then youcan appreciate why it’s hard to quickly and


accurately define the nature of science. Just as it isimpossible and perhaps unwise to reduce any ofthese groups of students to a list of specificcharacteristics (e.g., girls like to work in groups,children with disabilities don’t like to be singled out,English language learners will need particular help inthe sciences)— as there is so much variability andcomplexity within these groups — it is very difficultto reduce the knowledge about science to a specificlist of characteristics. So why should we try? Thinkabout it this way: if you were trying to explain yourcultural traditions to an outsider, you would need tohelp them recognize some major themes of yourculture. Knowing the timing of special events,knowing the kinds of food that are eaten, andknowing the special phrases that are used are onlysurface features. A genuine cultural tradition ismuch more than a ritual.

Traditions have their bases in underlying beliefsand norms. When outsiders focus upon just thesurface feature of a culture’s tradition, they fail torecognize the significance of those traditions for themembers of the culture. To study science without anunderstanding of the nature of science is to becomefamiliar with the surface features of that culture, andto never really understand, be comfortable with, orbe able to work within the culture of science. Whatwe will try to accomplish in this chapter is to giveyou a sense of what is included within the nature ofscientific knowledge and how it is shaped by thepractice of scientific inquiry so you can construct abetter sense about the culture of science. The short-term goal is strengthening your understandings —the long-term goal is to insure that your teachingabout science is consistent with the nature ofscience.

Unpacking Students’ Ideas about the Nature ofScience

When we ask students “What is science?” weoften receive the same sorts of response whetherthey are elementary, middle, high school or collegestudents. Students point to a biology book saying“That is science.” Or they may give a list coursessuch as “physics, biology, chemistry.” Withadditional probing, they’ll cite the scientific methodas an explanation of how science is done. Whenprompted to draw a picture that answers thequestion “What does a scientist look like?” we againwe find we hear similar answers from across thegrade levels. Students tend to draw a befuddled,wild-haired man in a lab coat. As we spend evenmore time discussing these matters, students (againfrom across the age/grade spectrum) explain that

science is a large body of very sure facts, facts thatare “discovered” by objective scientists as theystudy all aspects of the world, a study that issometimes described as “prying open” the naturalworld as if the answers were hidden inside like aprize. These scientists are often viewed as “lonerangers” who work in isolation, and surprising theworld with their discoveries after long hours ofdiligent work.

What aspect of this description of science do youfind yourself agreeing with? Disagreeing with? Jotdown your thoughts and put those aside; we willreturn to this issue before too long. What we want tofocus on right now is this: How do we develop ourideas about science and scientists? It is notable thatstudents’ responses are very similar across ages.This suggests that these ideas are first learned earlyin life and little occurs that diminishes theseperceptions. Elementary schooling might contributeto this situation. But, unfortunately, not manystudents actually study science during theirelementary careers. So where do these ideas comefrom? It seems that much of what students “know”about the culture of science come from the media —the news, movies, cartoons, and so on. Think aboutthe scientists you’ve seen on television and inmovies, both in fictional stories and as ineducational programs.(Take a moment to list thevarious portrayals of scientists in the media. Whatdo many of these scientists have in common? Theyare usually seen as white men, with wild hair, whoare just a bit different from all the others aroundthem. Unfortunately, even programs supported bythe National Science Foundation for educationalpurposes, such as Bill Nye the Science Guy,reinforce the stereotypes).

Few experiences in daily life accurately portrayscience as it is actually performed by scientists. Thestereotypical versions of science, although comical,sends a clear message to students that only certainpeople can become scientists. These misperceptionsof science may actually cause students to believethat science is not something they can do or wouldwant to do. Our working hypothesis is that ifstudents’ mythical notions are unpacked, if we canhelp teachers and students to understand the actualnature of science and scientific inquiry and who doesit, then more students will understand that they canbe capable science learners.

Just as stereotypes of the physical appearance ofscientists are portrayed in movies and television,students also develop misconceptions about theabout the work of scientists through these media.Thus, students will enter their formal studies ofscience class many perceptions about the nature of


science. In the following section, we will describe themost relevant aspects of the nature of scientificinquiry for elementary and middle school students.As we examine the nature of science concepts, wepoint out the common myths held by students (andfar too many of the general public). Next we addressthose concepts which are potentially the mostpertinent for effectively teaching science in a diversesetting. Finally, we provide suggestions aboutinfusing nature of science throughout classroomscience instruction.

The Empirical Aspect of Scientific Knowledge

Each of us would probably agree that theultimate purpose of science is to understand andexplain the physical world. The actions of scienceinclude the scientific tasks of collecting information(data or evidence) about that world and the objectsof science are the constructed explanations. As hasbeen discussed, science involves both processes andproducts, and its culture can be understood onlythrough studying its actions and objects. Onedefining feature of the actions of science is that itcenters on a process of inquiring into the physicalworld. That is, at some level the actions of sciencecan never stray too far away from the worldsurrounding us. Thus, given that a central goal ofscience is to develop useful understandings of thephysical world, at some level its methods areinherently empirical. This term describesknowledge that is grounded in observations andexperimentation, not opinions and sensations. If abiologist wants to empirically understand thebehavior of snails along a coastline, at some pointshe will need to collect data about these behaviors(where are they during different times of the day,what they eat, how quickly they move) as well asdata about a variety of other environmental factors(such as salinity, water temperature, ambienttemperature, presence of edible plants as well aspotential predators). All these data may allow ourbiologist to construct an explanation allowing her toaccurately describe and predict snail behavior. If theexplanation she constructs is helpful to her as wellas other scientists in predicting accurately thebehavior of the snails, then this explanation isregarded as a useful piece of scientific knowledge.

The discussion above might be familiar to you.The work of scientists is powered by the desire tounderstand the physical world. Its actions center oncollecting data about the natural world, so it isempirical. However, the empirical aspect is only partof the puzzle. There are other, very dynamic aspects

of doing science. Yes, science is empirical, but it isalso many other things….

The Creativity of Doing Science and theCreativity of Scientific Knowledge

As we have indicated, the goal of science is toproduce explanations of the physical world. Wheredo these explanations come from? In part theybegan as careful observations of nature. But youshould recognize that a key feature of makingexplanations is due to scientists’ creativity. Incontrast to the well-recognized empirical characterof science, we want to high three aspects about thecreative nature of science and scientific inquiry.These are Explanations are Created from Evidence,Personal Bias Influences the Creative Process, andthe Methods of Science Benefit from Creativity. Inthe following sections, we will illustrate of thecreative aspects of the culture of science.

Explanations are Created from EvidenceDoing science is much more creative (and

interesting) than simply stringing together piecesdata in order to create an explanation about what’sbeen studied. For example, a scientist may watchthe steam rise from a boiling pot of water andexplain that the heat from the stove was transferredto the water, causing the water molecules to speedtheir motion, taking up more space and thusbecoming less dense than the surrounding air andrising. The evidence here is the water vapor risingfrom the pot on the stove. The explanation involvesthe relationship between heat, molecular movement,and density. Andy Anderson of Michigan StateUniversity suggests that the core of scientific inquiryis the cycle between evidence and explanations. Bythis he means that the opportunity for creativethinking in science is making the leap between whathas been empirically described (the evidence) and areasonable description about how things are as wehave found them (the explanations).

Another example comes from the biologicalworld. Imagine a potted plant that you notice iswilting. After giving it a generous watering, you arepatient to see whether it recovers. Unfortunately,the plant doesn’t seem to perk up very much. Youtouch the surface of the soil to reassure yourselfthat it is damp. You provide the plant with fertilizerand even several hours later the plant fails to be ashealthy as you expect. You peer into the dish underthe pot to see if there is any water there, and youare startled to see roots poking out the pot’sbottom. When you lift the plant out of its pot, you


discover that there are so many roots that they havegrown into the exact shape of the interior of the pot.This evidence of tangled roots leads you to theunderstanding (and explanation) the wilting isbecause the roots are too tightly packed and thatyou need to put the plant into a larger pot alongwith a liberal supply of soil. Once the plant returnsto its vigorous and non-wilting shape, you becomeconvinced by your explanation that the wilting of theleaves had something to do with the roots’ ability totake up water. The evidence was your observationsthat the leaves were wilting, the roots were fillingthe pot and that the behavior of the plant changedonce the plant was placed into a larger container.The explanation has to do with the movement ofwater through the vascular system of the plan.

Anderson’s claim that inquiry involves a cyclingbetween evidence and explanations is often difficultfor people to absorb. This might be because many ofus have believed that the work of scientists involvesuncovering nature — taking the lid off the naturalworld to see what’s happening inside. Many peoplesee the actions of science as simply a set ofprocedures that must be followed, with a scientificexplanation the inevitable result of following theprocedure. Using this view, generating the objects or

explanations of science becomes the process ofsimple description, as though the physical world iswaiting to tell the scientists how things work, so thatthe evidence is seen as synonymous with theexplanation. To those individuals, Anderson’ssuggestion that creativity is essential to science mayseem odd. But the truth is that scientists must becreative in their work.

Creativity includes not only designingexperiments for testing a hypothesis but alsoinvolves the creative thinking required after the datahave been gathered. Being able to interpret the datato develop a reasonable explanation demands agreat deal of creative thought. This connects to aquote from an earlier chapter about the leap fromobservations to inferences. In the text box belowyou can read how John Dewey thought about thistransition. Yes, a scientist’s role is to describenature, but from those descriptions, thoseobservations, they need to generate nferences tocreate ideas based on those descriptions. Theobjects of science are the explanations based on theevidence scientists collect. As such, evidence andexplanations are closely related, andinterdependent.

“But the process of reaching the absent from the present is peculiarly exposed to error. … The

exercise of thought is, in the literal sense of that word, inference; by it one thing carries us over

to the idea of, and belief in, another thing. It involves a jump, a leap, a going beyond what is

surely known to something else. … The very inevitableness of the jump, the leap, to something

unknown, only emphasizes the necessity of attention to the conditions under which it occurs so

that the danger of a false step may be lessened and the probability of a right landing increased.”

— John Dewey, How We Think, page 26

By now we hope you are beginning to appreciatethe role of creativity in the doing of science. Farfrom being a mindless and mechanical gathering ofevidence, scientists must rely upon their personalcreativity to move from data to explanations. In theprocess of generating explanations, a scientist’sprior thinking may come into play. Becausescientists must interpret evidence, their biases andbackground knowledge become important.

The Subjective Nature of Science: The Role of Bias inShaping the Creation of Explanations

Scientists can become impassioned about theirwork and genuinely excited about creatingexplanations of the world. It would be reasonable toimagine that their eagerness might cause them toview scientific evidence through hopeful, biased, andthus, subjective eyes. Because they are human, weknow that their preconceived ideas will influencewhat they notice. Perhaps the difference betweenthe culture of science and other fields is the desire


and attempt of scientists to remain as objective aspossible, to limit the impact of a scientist’s bias inthe meaning s/he makes. In order to amplify theimpact of the empirical world on the sense sciencemakes of it, in the actions of science (particularlythe social aspects of scientific inquiry) there aremeasures that are taken to reduce the influence ofbias within scientists’ work so they can better “see”what is there.

We must acknowledge that bias plays animportant role in shaping the construction ofscientific knowledge. What a scientist already knowsinfluences what she or he finds out in aninvestigation. Background knowledge shapes whatsorts of questions are posed, the kinds of datacollected, and, as we saw in the preceding section,the interpretation of those data. Scientific knowledgeprogresses because of an ever increasing supply ofexplanations. Scientists rely upon previouslyconstructed explanations as they examine theevidence they collect, making the actions andobjects of science slowly build upon themselves.Without background knowledge, knowledge ofprevious explanations — some sort of “theoreticalbias” — a scientists couldn’t begin to understand themeaning of the data they collect, nor would the beparticularly effective in collecting such data. Inshort, the reliance upon preceding work influencesscientists’ subsequent efforts.

One example of the impact of bias on creatingscientific explanations can be found in the stars,through the work of two astronomers, Tycho Braheand Johannes Kepler. Brahe was a well-establishedastronomer in the 1500s, and the instruments heemployed allowed him to make the most detailedobservations of planetary motions available at thattime. Using his scientific instruments, Brahecollected incredibly detailed data about planetarymotion that he used to construct an explanation ofthe solar system; his explanation placed the earth atthe center. Brahe’s model was similar to models ofthe universe commonly accepted at the time and heused his data to support the geocentric world.

Kepler, using the same data, proposed analternatives explanation for planetary motion, onebased on a model that positioned the sun in thecenter with the planets orbiting around it. Kepler’sviews were shaped by a different background thanBrahe’s. This included his willingness to consider thepossibility that the shape of orbits could be anellipse, not Brahe’s strict adherence to circles. Braheand Kepler had used the same set of data describingplanetary motion, yet these two scientistsconstructed different explanations from these data.This example illustrates the role of bias in theactions and objects of science. Tycho’s biases (that

is, his background knowledge and beliefs) preventedhim from seeing the potential of a sun-centereduniverse. Keller’s bias allowed him to see this.(Looking back, it seems reasonable for Brahe tohave organized the universe with the earth at thecenter. After all, that was the conventional wisdom— although his resulting model for predictingplanetary motion was exceedingly complicated andwas not the simplest explanation of the existingdata.)

Because of the subjective nature of science androle of bias in shaping the nature of science andnature of scientific inquiry, science benefits byhaving scientists with varied backgrounds lifeexperiences, in order to broaden the meaning wemake. One example of how the knowledge producedthrough science is different when new scientists withfresh perspectives begin to participate can be foundin biology’s explanation of the process offertilization. For years, it was understood that thesperm cells were active participants in fertilizationwhile the egg was relatively passive. The standardscientific explanation was that a sperm cell had toswim vast differences (relative to the size of a cell),compete with other sperm, locate an egg cell, andpenetrate the egg by releasing enzymes thatdigested some of the coverings of the egg. In thischaracterization, the sperm is seen as the activeparticipant. In other words, the explanation was thatthe sperm did all the work while the egg simplywaited to be fertilized.

As more women scientists began studying theprocess of fertilization a very different portrait of thisevent was produced. It was recognized that the eggactual “grabbed” the sperm, in effect pulling it in.Too, it was shown that the enzymes released by thesperm were not active until they interacted withanother secretion from the female. Thus, theupdated and generally accepted explanation is thatthe sperm and the egg are both active agents infertilization. While some evidence leading to thesenew explanation for fertilization were made bypossible by the development of new instrumentation(the electron microscope), other bits of evidencehave been around since 1919; the relatively maledominated science field was not yet ready torecognize them.

There is an unavoidably subjective nature to theconstruction of scientific knowledge, as science is acreative human activity. Because of the role of biasin creating explanations, scientific explanationsbenefit through the participation of scientists withvaried backgrounds. The greater the range ofperspectives of scientists, will allow for a greater therange of explanations for a phenomena.


Creativity in the Methods of Science

Like the creativity used to construct explanationsbased on evidence, creativity is an essential aspectof the scientific inquiry process. Sadly, there is along-standing myth in science that appears in far toomany science textbooksthat makes it seem thatcreativity is unimportant within the doing ofscienceWhat we need to do is recognize thatcreativity is essential to doing science despite thisfictional icon: the Myth of The Scientific Method.

In the 1940s a man named Keeslar wished todescribe the different elements of scientists’ work.He began by generating a list of all the things heimagined scientists did: carefully makingmeasurements, maintaining detailed written records,defining a research problem. This list was thenturned into a questionnaire and given to manyprofessional scientists for their response. Keeslartook the questionnaires as they were returned tohim and put the items receiving the highest rankingsinto an order that seemed “logical”A and publishedthese findings in an education journal.

Even though he was reporting on scientists’ usesof different thinking strategies without trying todescribe a nice neat sequence, that is how his workhas been used. A science textbook writer sawKeeslar’s list and turned it into The ScientificMethod—touting it as THE way science proceeds.Indeed, there is really no such thing as a singularscientific method and this list doesn’t accuratelyportray the work of most scientists (which makes uswonder what teachers are trying to portray bydrilling students on the scientific method).

The Scientific Method Myth*

1. Define the Problem

2. Gather Information

3. Form a Hypothesis

4. Make Relevant Observations

5. Test the Hypothesis

6. Form Conclusions

7. Report Results

* Note. This really is a myth!

Indeed, in checking with scientists, we discoverthat The Scientific Method is a grossoversimplification of the process of scientific inquiry.Remember, Kesslar never intended for his work tobe used in this manner. A problem with the ScientificMethod Myth is the implication that there areparticular steps that must be followed in science and

that scientists progress through them in this specificorder. Maybe it’s more comfortable to imagine thatscientists are such logical individuals. But the life ofa professional scientist is not quite so neat andorderly, and much more creative. To turn the workof scientists into a strict sequence is as full ofproblems as trying to reduce other complexactivities into a to-do list. Try to imagine puttingyour family’s preparations for a celebratory mealinto a neat little sequence.

1. Construct a list of materials you will need forthe meal, and purchase them from the localgrocery.

2. 24 hours in advance, thaw out the avianprotein, and cook the vegetables forinclusion in later casseroles.

3. Early in the morning of the event, the avianprotein is placed in a covered pan andplaced in the oven for a time to bedetermined by its weight.

And so on…. As official and logical as these stepsmight seem, the reality is much less tidy and allowsfor much greater individuality. To turn thepreparation of a meal into such a sequence isinaccurate and misleading; it also shields us fromappreciating the creativity involved in the process aswell as the significance of the final product. Thesame criticism applies to using The Scientific Methodas to this “recipe” for a great meal. Creativity is notsimply allowable within doing science: it isnecessary.

Just as each of us has slightly different orvery different actions in the process ofparticipating in a cultural event, scientists haveslightly different or very different actions in theprocess of participating in the culture ofscience. Our biologist discussed previouslygoes about her work much different than theastronomers (Brahe, Kepler) of yesteryear, oreven the astronomers of today. There isn’t asingle scientific method that encapsulates thework of scientists even WITHIN a singlediscipline (physiologist, evolutionary biologists,ecologists) much less between disciplines(biology, chemistry, physics, geology). Evenwithin biology, some focus on describinganatomical structures (anatomists) orbehaviors of a species (ethologists). In thesecases, close descriptions are required. Otherbiologists may focus their work on systemsthat have already been closely described, andtheir work often focuses on explaining howthings work, such as the physiologist whoperforms experiments on organisms to


investigate the biochemistry of muscularmovement. Each of these studies is a solidpiece of biological research, but each employsvery different approaches to scientific inquiry.

Imagine for a moment that you are required todo a science fair project as part of your scienceteaching methods course. Your instructor is open toletting you study anything of interest to you as longas you employ the Scientific Method. Look at stepspresented above and think about how you mightproceed. According to the guidelines you aresupposed to start at #1, then move to #2 and soon. Feeling frustrated or overwhelmed or irritated?So would we. The reality is that you might well startat #4, then go to #2, then back to #4 … andeventually get around to #1. And guess what: that’swhat scientists do. The Scientific Method is not thegolden staircase to scientific enlightenment. It’s justone way, of many, many pathways to describe howscientists can go about their work. Just as scientistsmust be creative in posing explanations to accountfor the evidence they collect, they must usecreativity to develop ways to gather evidence.

Within this discussion about the nature ofscience, we are emphasizing the creativity possiblewithin doing science. We want to dispose of “TheScientific Method” because it is inaccurate and itperpetuates a non-creative view of doing science. Ifwe throw the Myth of The Scientific Method out ofthe proverbial classroom door, how do we replace it?What is a science teacher to do? Think back to thependulum study (Chapter 4) in which we weretesting to see what influenced the swinging rate. Itwould be quite natural for someone to beginstudying a pendulum by first doing some testswings. This could well lead to the person creatingsome ideas about what makes a pendulum swingfaster or slower. Ultimately, after considerableinquiry, the person might find that the length of thependulum is the single most relevant variable. Butthis knowledge would not have been created byfollowing the strict sequence of The ScientificMethod. Perhaps a good way to begin is to thinkabout this as A method of scientific inquiry, onepathway an individual could take in solving aproblem. Once students have experience employingsuch a method, becoming comfortable with theactions of science, then other questions could bepursued with a classroom conversation establishingthe logical sequence of actions, and comparing thosesteps with those originally introduced. The pointhere is to emphasize to students that this list is oneway of pursuing a question but certainly not the onlyone. And, certainly, extending this conversation tocritique the classroom textbook’s portrayal of the

scientific method would be a healthy and insightfulclassroom discussion.

Science as a Social EnterpriseGiven that so much of science involves making

that creative leap from evidence to explanation, aswell as creating appropriate ways to collectevidence, a significant part of the actions of scienceis convincing others in your field of the value of yourideas and methods. The exchange of ideas amongscientists is included within the actions of science.As a direct reflection of this, a recent issue of thejournal Science had an average of 4.4 authors perresearch article. That means these individualsworked together not only in the writing of thereport, but probably also in the lab or field gatheringdata and in initial discussions formulating theresearch design. While the mass media often depictsscience as a solo endeavor, in reality working inisolation is not an accurate or honest portrayal ofthe actions of science.

The entire process of sharing and debatingscientific ideas and methods—core actions in theculture of science—must occur within a socialsetting. Conferences are held so scientists can sharetheir ideas with other scientists who, in turn,question whether those ideas make sense in termsof the data. One of the most valuable ways scientistscheck for the influence of bias on interpretations ofdata includes having numerous scientists conductand analyze the same experiment, or havingdifferent groups of scientists with differenttheoretical biases study the same problem. In part,science needs to be social to ensure that scientistsare making the best explanations of the physicalworld, and this is done through the comparison anddebate of findings. Before a scientific article ispublished in a journal, it must be reviewed andcritiqued by knowledgeable colleagues to determinewhether the work attains the standards of thatscientific community. Even without face–to-faceconversations, the ways in which scientificknowledge is generated, evaluated and distributed isnecessarily situated within a social sphere.

A common caricature of a scientist is someoneworking in almost complete isolation. The cartoonishview of a scientist is someone who is really awkwardin social settings — suggesting that this happensbecause the scientist is rarely around other people.With this common stereotype is it any wonder thatmany students fail to see any appeal in theprospects of becoming scientists? After all, whowould want to work by themselves all the time? Whowants to be thought of as awkward? While there are


many examples where scientists collect data on theirown, this is not always the case. And even whenscientists do collect the data on their own, in orderconvince others of the validity of their explanations,they must connect with others in the field. Scientistsmust convince others of the value of their work,through presenting at scientific meetings andthrough writing for publication in scientific journals.in order for their ideas to be accepted by thescientific community, the scientist must be activelyinvolved with the community.

We need teachers to assist us to debunk themyth of the lone scientists if students are to have arobust understanding for how science is done. Theyneed to see that science is a social enterprise tounderstand the role debate, discussion, and otherforms of communication play in scientific culture.This will allow students to not only to understandscience as it is played out on the Internet ortelevision, but also how it is played out in theclassroom. By emphasizing the social aspect of thedoing of science, teachers can better emphasize thecommunity aspect of the learning of science. Just asis true for scientific inquiry, important aspects of thelearning of science come from the talking, debating,and writing about the sense students areconstructing in classroom. Just as these activitiesare important in doing science, they are important inlearning science.

The Tentative Nature of Scientific KnowledgeTo this point, we have portrayed science as a

process of creating explanations from evidencegathered in the physical world. In addition, we haveillustrated how science is a creative processinfluenced by the background and bias of scientists.Third we describe an image of science as a socialactivity for debating the validity of the evidence andthe explanations constructed based on thatevidence. Because the production of scientificexplanations involves many creative processes, itshould not be surprising to recognize that scientificknowledge can change. Students and adults alikeoften think that once science produces knowledge,once a scientist offers an explanation of some aspectof the physical world (like our snail biologistmentioned at the outset of chapter or Brahe’sdescription of an earth centered solar system) andthis explanation is accepted by the entire scientificcommunity, that knowledge is firm, solid and willnever be modified. Using this line of thought,science textbooks could be expected only to growlarger as knowledge is added. If scientific knowledgedoes not change, one would never expect science

books to revised or rewritten. However, theexplanations scientists create about the physicalworld are always open to revision, and scientistsrecognize this as part of the culture.

Consider this idea: the west coast of Africa looksas if it might fit very nicely with the east coast ofSouth America. Below is a geographer’s attempt toshow what it might look like if we could push theAmerican continents against Africa and Europe. Thisdrawing was published in 1858 but geographers hadnoticed this possibility before 1600. From this angleyou can see how South America seems to snugglevery nicely against Africa. But there was littleevidence that continents could actually move aroundthe globe: what would push them?

A sketch by Antonio Snider-Pellegrini

showing the continents as puzzle pieces.

The conventional wisdom among scientists wasthat volcanoes could create new mountains and thaterosion could wear them away. But there wasn’t anyevidence the continents might actually move and theapparent maatching of the continent’s edges wasregarded as a coincidence. Indeed, in 1915, ageologist, Alfred Wegener, suggested that theearth’s continents were once connected and as aresult his colleagues in the scientific communityridiculed him. Over the years more evidence hasaccumulated. As new instrumentation was invented,scientists were able to map the floor of the ocean.They expected it would be fairly smooth and coveredin a deep layer of sediment. After all, the erosion of


millions of years should amount to substantialaccumulation. However, their predictions weren’tcorrect.

First, the sediment layer wasn’t nearly as deep asthey had expected. There should have been muchmore there than was found. Second, the floor wasn’tsmooth at all: running along the middle of theAtlantic Ocean floor was a giant mountain range,and a massive trench was found along the bottom ofthe Pacific Ocean. It was almost as if new rock wasbeing added to the continental plates in the Atlantic

and then submerged and melted in the trench alongthe floor of the Pacific.

Other bits of evidence emerged. Volcanoes andearthquakes seemed to exist in only certain regions.It was suggested that these were the seams alongwhich continental plates rubbed against each other.Furthermore, there were fossils that were only foundin places that were separated by large distance.Interestingly, the fossils’ location matched theplaces where the Africa/South America puzzle piecestouched.

Map showing how fossil evidence supports the explanation of plate tectonics.B

It was until the 1960s when science textbooksfinally began to describe “plate tectonics” as alegitimate scientific theory, finally vindicating theideas Van Wagner had ventured decades earlier.Geologists have identified thirty plates that make upthe solid crust as well as documenting the meltedmantle just below that crust. As this liquid mantleflows, it pushes the massive plates (both continents

and ocean floors are part of these plates) and theymove about, at a maximum speed of two inches peryear. At times these plates collide with one another.The Himalayan Mountains are an example of platecollisions. Although moving very slowly, the Indiaplate is “slamming” into the Eurasian plate creatingthe tallest mountains on Earth, (at least amongthose mountains that aren’t underwater).


While Wagener’s ideas help us make sense of agreat many physical features of the earth(mountains, basins, patterns of volcanic activity),this doesn’t mean that the story is completelysolved. Indeed, according to the United States

Geological Survey, there are still some unresolvedquestions in terms of the earth’s physical features.This paragraph from the USGS website reinforcesthe dynamic and changeable aspect of science:

“Plate tectonics has proven to be as important to the earth sciences as the discovery of the structure of

the atom was to physics and chemistry and the theory of evolution was to the life sciences. Even

though the theory of plate tectonics is now widely accepted by the scientific community, aspects of the

theory are still being debated today. What is the nature of the forces propelling the plates? Scientists

also debate how plate tectonics may have operated (if at all) earlier in the Earth's history and whether

similar processes operate, or have ever operated, on other planets in our solar system.”

–http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html

It is important to note that when we say thatscientific knowledge is tentative, this does not meanthat the current scientific theories are especiallyflimsy or undependable — far from it. Indeed, thecurrently accepted scientific explanations are basedupon a great deal of experimental and observationalevidence. But the actions of science are structuredso that if another idea came along that was betterfor explaining all the available data, then that newidea could replace the current ideas that scientistsrely upon. This portrait of a robust, useful buttentative, scientific knowledge allows students to seethe actions of science for what they are, dynamic,changing, and so interesting.

The tentative nature of scientific knowledge isreadily apparent news programs, newspapers, andthe Internet provide fresh stories about scientificdebate and changing scientific knowledge. Thetentativeness of science is in large part connected tothe creative and explanatory nature of science. Inscience, there is always another question to ask,another piece of data to collect, and another way tointerpret the evidence. But, too, the social nature ofscientific inquiry is responsible for the mechanismsresponsible for changes, (the scientific actions ofreplication of investigations, review by colleagues,and scientific debate). If students are not aware thatthe objects of science, its explanations, aresupposed to be tentative, then they maymisinterpret these debates, and become dismissiveof science (i.e., “why do I have to learn this if it isgoing to change?”). Alternatively, if they see scienceas unchanging, with the exception of the occasionaldiscovery, science can seem boring, as if the realdiscoveries have already been made. Instead, byhelping students see examples of how scientificexplanations can and do change, they can

appreciate the debates, arguments, and changes inexplanations produced by scientists are the definingfeatures of the actions of science. Learning theculture of a dynamic and ever changing enterprise ismore attractive to many students than a culturecentered on the memorization of past discoveries.Emphasizing the tentative nature of science not onlyallows students to interpret the science as it isplayed out in the media, but this aspect of theculture of science can allow science to be moreinteresting and engaging within the classroom.

Scientific Theories: The Power of Science

How many times have you heard the phrase “it’sonly a theory”? People tend to use this phrase whendismissing an idea or suggest that an explanation isweak. Indeed, that science can and does changemight seem to support this notion of scientifictheories as flimsy guesses. Yes, science is tentativeand scientific objects (the explanations it generates)do frequently change. But, paradoxically, it is due tothis tentative nature, the idea that as explanationsare tested they are revised, that the actions ofscience produce such durable and dependableexplanations. The tentative nature of sciencecontributes to its durability and utility. So, where doscientific theories fall into this?

In our everyday lives we have often said thingssuch as “I have a theory about….the reason thewashing machine broke…….” (or why the cat islosing weight, or why the car makes that knockingnoise). By “theory” we mean we have a good guessabout some phenomenon (the washing machine, thecat, or the car). This is very, very different from theway scientists use the term theory. Scientists tendto reserve the term theory for their best, most


powerful, most supported and accepted explanationfor natural phenomena. In science, explanationsonly achieve the status of theory after manyscientists have investigated them and found theideas able to explain a wide range of evidence. Inscience to say “it is only a theory” is nonsensical. Itis akin to saying “it’s only a million dollars” or “it’sonly the best explanation anyone, anywhere hasever generated to explain this situation.” A scientifictheory is our best attempt to explain how somethinghappens, based on empirical evidence, logicalexplanation, and much debate. Keep in mind thatthe goal of science is a set of explanations about thephysical world, and these explanations arearticulated as theories.

This understanding of theory becomes importantin the event that someone wants to dismisscontroversial scientific ideas by saying “that’s only atheory.” When that happens, we need to remindthem that theories are the best, most powerfulobject that science can produce. One of thefascinating aspects of the biological world is theimmense variety in the types of objects that areconsidered living. To explain the cause for biologicaldiversity we can rely upon the process of naturalselection. Too often, this explanation is attackedbecause evolution is a theory. The criticism ofevolution often focuses upon the theoretical natureof evolution — without understanding (or perhapsdeliberately ignoring) the intended meaning oftheory. There are other scientific theories includingthe theory of photosynthesis, of atomic structure, ofinheritance, and of plate tectonics. Like evolution,each of these explanations is tentative; bydefinition, ALL scientific theories are explanationsopen to debate and possible modification. But alsolike evolution, each of these explanations are widelyaccepted in the scientific community, and representthe best, most powerful explanation a group ofscientists have been able to construct after years ofwork. Theories are not simple guesses or flimsyconjectures. Even though theories are viewed asopen to change and tentative, they provide the veryfoundation for science. Yes, the objects of sciencemay change, but of all the objects of science,theories are the one of the least likely to change.

How do theories as specific products of science,compare to other well-known products such as lawsand hypotheses? A common myth regarding thenature of science is that theories, once proven, willturn into laws. In this myth, laws are regarded asunchanging, indisputable, and the most importantpiece of scientific knowledge. In reality, scientiststhink of laws as specific, straightforward, and simpledescriptions of patterns in nature, such as the law of

universal gravitation. The role of laws is to describecommon patterns in the physical; they don’t explainthose patterns. (In our example, the law of universalgravitation doesn’t explain gravitation, it justdescribes it.) Although laws are durable, and theyenjoy a great deal of empirical support, their role isnot explanation: laws are descriptive. Using this lineof thought, it becomes obvious that theories,however well supported, cannot be promoted intolaws. Instead, theories and laws have different useswithin the culture of science, one explanatory andone descriptive. In contrast, hypotheses are verytentative, exploratory ideas scientists develop inorder to focus and structure their inquiries.Hypotheses will be refined as scientists test themagainst data that support or refute them.Hypotheses are initial attempts to explain, but theyare trial explanations whose fate are determined bythe tests of more data.

Science as a Way of Knowing

To this point, we’ve describe how science can beuseful for understanding of physical world by virtueof the way scientific inquiry shapes the knowledge itproduces. In an attempt to best encapsulate thisconversation, we find it useful to use Moore’sC

description of science as a way of knowing. By thishe means that scientific knowledge and scientificinquiry have particular characteristics that set itapart from other ways of knowing the world.Characteristics of science as a way of knowing arethat science is an empirical, creative, social, andtentative. The idea of science as a way of knowingalso acknowledges that the actions of science arebased on a particular set of assumptions.Assumptions of the culture of science include thatthe best explanations are always logical, simple, andstraightforward, and do to not employ supernaturalforces or agents. This brief description of science asa way of knowing acknowledges that science issimply one way of knowing as well as to distinguishscience from other ways of knowing the world, wayssuch as the arts (whose standards do not requirelogic, evidence or reason) or traditional beliefsystems that have assumptions in direct conflict withthose of science (such as the religious presumptionof supernatural agents). We wish to be quick toindicate that there is no implied hierarchy to these“ways of knowing.” Rather, we want to emphasizethat we each must rely upon a range of strategiesfor understanding our world. We live in complexworlds and while science can help us to thinkthrough some things, there are other circumstanceswhere science is of little use . We must rely upon


other ways of knowing that allow us to consider theinterpersonal and the internal, the just and fair, thepatriotic and the rebellious.

While the characteristics of scientific inquiry andthe assumptions underlying those inquiries makescience such a powerful way of knowing the world,

these assumptions of the action of science also limitwhat can be understood scientifically. As pointed outby PooleD, there are occasions when a scientificaccount may provide an inadequate, eveninappropriate, approach to a topic:

“The scientific study of a work of art, say a picture, may give an exhaustive account of the chemical constitution

of the pigments, the wavelengths of the light they reflect, their reflection factors, masses and physical

distributions. But such a scientific account has hardly begun to say much of interest to the viewer or to the artist.

Aesthetic considerations, issues of meaning and matters of purpose are of far greater importance. A sociological

study of the influences on artists' work will have similar limitations. It is not that pictures cannot be described in

terms of chemicals, or mental activities in terms of brain functions - they can. What is wrong to assert (for it

cannot be demonstrated) that these scientific accounts are the only valid ones there are….” (p. 165)

Given that scientists begin their work makingvarious assumptions, the teacher’s role is to helpstudents become aware of these assumptions sothat they can determine what kinds of questions canbe pursued scientifically, and what kinds ofquestions should not be addressed through this wayof knowing.

As described by Mike Smith and LarryScharmannE, who have closely examined issues ofscience and religion in the classroom, it is importantfor students to understand that Science as A Way ofKnowing is very helpful in understanding someaspects of their lives, but nearly useless forunderstanding others. As such, while it often seemsthat science contradicts or refutes other ways ofknowing, this idea is based on the narrow view thatscience claims to be the ONLY way of knowing theworld. Smith and Scharmann claim it is valuable forstudents to recognize that science does not assertthat there are no supernatural forces, and it does

not refute the existence of God. Instead, one featureof doing science is that one may not invokesupernatural or metaphysical explanations inconstructing a scientific explanation—insteadscientific explanations must rely on logic, observableevidence, and testing. That is not the same assaying that unobservable, non-physical forces do notexist; instead, in doing science we cannot resort tothe power of non-empirical agents. If themetaphysical or supernatural must be used toconstruct an explanation, then that explanationviolates the assumptions of science, and so isconsidered non-scientific. This is a crucial distinction.Simply because an explanation is not scientific doesnot necessarily make it a weak explanation or aflawed explanation, simply a non-scientificexplanation. That same explanation may be usefulfor a great number of people to understand theirlives, but that explanation is simply not science.

To help students understand this, Smith and Scharmann suggest that it is useful to present a number of questions to discuss how to

place these questions on a continuum between more and less scientific. This list may include things such as: Is it wrong to keep porpoises

in captivity? How was the earth made? Do ghosts haunt old houses at night? Am I in love? Is there a god? Through discussion of these

and other questions, students may begin to recognize what science is particularly good at understanding and what is clearly out of the

scope of scientific investigation. Once we begin this conversation in the classroom, we begin to understand that there are many,

important aspects of our lives that are out of the boundaries of scientific investigation (religious beliefs, interpersonal relationships,

morality), because they rely on the supernatural or metaphysical or because they are not empirical. But just because these things are out

of the bounds of science does not prevent them from playing a huge part in our lives.

Why is this discussion of Science as A Way ofKnowing so important to have in a classroom? In the

last century, American culture became so enamoredwith the products of science (antibiotics, jet engines,


computers), that it seemed we treated science asthe BEST way of knowing. Because science and thetechnological byproducts proved so amazinglypowerful in almost every aspect of our daily lives,the American culture began to view science asperhaps the only legitimate way of knowing. Manyscientists and science teachers became dismissive ofideas generated outside the culture of science.Unfortunately, as they dismissed non-scientific waysof knowing, they also in point of fact dismissedstudents who held alternative perspectives. Withinthe classrooms of the last century, it was commonfor science to be presented as the only real way ofunderstanding the world. Along the way, far toomany students may have felt as if they had to rejectscience because it was so contradictory to theirfamily traditions or cultural beliefs. When sciencewas presented in this uncompromising way it wouldseem reasonable to expect that students from non-western families or students with strong religious orspiritual convictions would be intimidated,discouraged, or disenfranchised. The consequencemay well have been that the students in diverseclassrooms came to view science as a powerful ANDalienating way of knowing the world.

While this should seem repugnant to us on avariety of levels, in terms of learning science, asteachers we must recognize that it is hard toconcentrate in a classroom in which a large part ofyour life doesn’t belong or is devalued. Who amongus would want to participate in a culture that isdismissive of much of who we are? Helping studentsto recognize science as ONE way of knowing theworld becomes necessary when teaching science indiverse classrooms. Allowing students to understandthe powerful, as well as the limitations of scienceallows classroom can foster powerful classroomconversations. By treating science as anotherculture, teachers and their students are more likelyto recognize other important, but nonscientific,aspects of students’ lives.

Why teaching the nature of science is so important indiverse classrooms

Our portrayal of science is as follows. It is a wayof knowing the world. It is tentative. It is limited inits scope and utility. It is increasingly performed bya variety of different kinds of people. It is situated ina community populated by people with variedbackground and biases. It is done through the use arange of methods. It is the consequence ofindividuals working together to create theories thatexplain evidence collected from the physical world.We argue that working from and toward this

portrayal of the culture of science is necessary whenteaching science in diverse settings. Why? Thisportrayal is dynamic, changing, socially intriguing,emphasizing a culture that is based on recognizingthe need for change, and placing a premium onscientists with diverse knowledge and backgrounds.Science becomes more inviting than our traditionalcharacterization of science as a solo activity in whichideas are gathered and recorded, and for which thebulk of the real creative work and importantdiscoveries have already been accomplished.

The central idea to the nature of science is that isthat science is A Way of Knowing, a way that differsfrom others, a way that is powerful, but also a waythat is limited in the kinds of knowledge it producesbecause of the nature of inquiry it employs. Byemphasizing Science as A Way of Knowing, studentscan begin to understand that just because anotherway of knowing is non-scientific, does not mean it isflawed, but simply that line of thought has differsfrom science. Such realizations permit students tounderstand that schools, schooling andschoolteachers do value things other than science,and so value a large portion of these students’ lives.Such knowledge is essential for demystifying sciencethe culture of science, making it far less threateningand far more inviting for students.

Who Does Science? Who Can Do Science?

When students are asked to draw pictures ofscientists, they often portray scientists as men inwhite lab coats working in a chemistry laboratory.Clearly, if students see science as something onlywhite men participate in, many students will shifttheir interests elsewhere in school. Thus, bothscience (which could benefit from the contributionsof scientists with varied backgrounds and biases)and the learner (who will need scientific knowledgeto negotiate their lives) lose out. Over the years,this stereotype seems less evident in children’sdrawings, indicating that this notion about science isgradually fading away. Yes, even in television andmovies, scientists are becoming a bit more diversewe see more women and people of color in the rolesof scientists—a change we applaud and hopeintensifies. Teachers can support this change bypointing out the limitations in the portrayal ofscientists in popular culture (teaching their studentsto ask questions such as “why is the lead scientistalways a white man?”) and bringing in manyalternatives for students through emphasizing thecontributions of non-westerners, people of color andwomen to the scientific enterprise.


But beyond the more obvious barriers that wesee nightly on television, more subtle but persuasivebarriers to students’ access to science may becreated or supported by students’ parents and theirteachers. Parents often may dismiss their child’sdismissal of science, saying “I was never good at it,so I can’t expect her to be”, or “She’ll probablynever really need this stuff.” Women teachers mayshy away from actually teaching science, or showuneasiness or squeamishness through playfulsqueals or yelps when the more “icky” aspects of thephysical world (i.e. worms, snakes, mold) come upas they so often do when students approach science.These seemingly harmless or caring comments,these humorous gestures are soaked up andinternalized by children, just as they mimic behaviorof characters in their favorite films. Subconsciously,some studentsbegin to think that they cannot doand cannot learn science.

If you want to help students become comfortableworking with the culture of science, a commoncomponent of your classroom culture must be tohave high expectations of the science learning of allstudents regardless of gender, ability or background,and these expectations and your reasons behindthem must be conveyed constantly to the childrenand to their parents. And, you must remember astheir teacher you have become one of their rolemodels. So for them to become comfortable workingin the culture of science, you must show that YOUare comfortable in the culture of science.

Putting It Together - Teaching the Nature ofScience and Scientific Inquiry

How does our portrayal of the nature ofscience and scientific inquiry compare to your weasked you to record at the outset of this chapter?What aspects of our discussion were difficult tounderstand? What aspects were difficult to accept?Which of your original ideas were challenged?Supported?

This preceding paragraph may feel like we’reasking you to dwell on the obvious. Why therumination? Isn’t it enough to read about the natureof science? If our goal is for you to learn about thenature of science, actually reading about it is notenough. Neither is having students do science in theclassroom. Nor is reading about the history ofscience. Actually, there is a wealth of researchF intothe teaching and learning of the nature of sciencewhich demonstrates that the more traditionalapproaches to teaching about the culture ofscience—having students read about it, havingstudents do science—are simply not enough to have

students understand the nature of science. Instead,the research describes that instruction that explicitlyaddresses nature of science concepts, thatencourages learners to be aware of their NOS ideas(as we did by having you record them at the outsetof this chapter) and reflect on their ideas and howthey change (as we did by the comparison of youroriginal ideas with how they changed) is essentialfor students to learn about the nature of science. Forstudents to come to understand the culture ofscience, they not only have to be actively involved init (something we can only talk about in a bookchapter), but in addition they need to explicitly thinkand talk about the nature of science and focus onhow their own ideas about the nature of sciencehave changed during instruction. Crafting suchexplicit, reflective, activity-based approach to thenature of science is a difficult thing for teachers –but essential if students are to become familiar andcomfortable operating in and understanding science.

To find insightful examples of what suchexplicit, reflective lesson might look like, examinethe nature of science lessons found at the followingwebsites:

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution9

8/evol6.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/educators/lesso

ns

http:///stilt.genetics.utah.edu

Key Features of the Nature of Science

•It is important for students to understand boththe objects of science (scientific knowledge) and theactions of science (how those objects areconstructed). Part of understanding the actions ofscience is to appreciate how the ways we do scienceinfluence the nature of the knowledge it produces.

•Important aspects of the nature of science andscientific inquiry:

–Science is empirical. As the goal of scienceis to produce explanations of the physical world, theactions of science require that scientists collectevidence from that world.

–Science is creative. The creativity of scienceis seen in the generation of explanations, a processthat is influenced by the bias and background of


scientists, and in the methods used in scientificinquires.

-Evidence and explanation are not the samethings. The actions of science require that we makelogical inferences, creative constructions, to leapfrom data to what those data mean.

–The subjective nature of science: The roleof bias in the creation of explanations. Becausescientists must interpret the evidence they collect,what they already know, biases their interpretations.While scientists try to limit the impact of bias, thisprocess of interpretation is also important in theconstruction of scientific explanations. Thus,scientific knowledge is, in part, subjective.

-The methods of scientific inquiry arecreative. There is not one scientific method. Thereare many patterns of activities, many methods,usefully employed in the actions of science

-Science is a social enterprise. Althoughscientists can work alone, for the actions of sciencerequire the interactions of a large group ofindividuals. Science relies on scientists’ abilities towork together to design investigations, seekfunding, and make the best sense of their results.Because the actions of science are much morecomplicated than simply describing the physicalworld, these actions require the engagement of alarge group of individuals. The social nature ofscientific inquiry allows for the possibility thatscientific knowledge can change.

–Scientific knowledge is always tentative.The knowledge produced through is always open tochange. Sometimes that change is a simple result ofscientists adding to what we know. Other times thatchange means that scientists have come up with amore appropriate way of interpreting scientificevidence. The tentative nature of science allows forthe knowledge it produces to be useful and durable.

-Scientific theories are scientists’ bestexplanations of the physical world. While theseexplanations are tentative (as all scientificknowledge is), they are also the result of the work ofa large group of people over a long period of time. Ascientific theory is much more robust than a simpleguess generated by a single individual.

–Science is A Way of Knowing. The actionsof science are based on a set of assumptions (thatthe natural world will have regular patterns, thatexplanations should be logical, that metaphysicalforces cannot be employed to construct anexplanation of evidence). Because science is basedon a particular set of assumptions, it is bounded bythose assumptions, so that science is a veryparticular, powerful, but limited way ofunderstanding the world. Some aspects of our livescannot be understood scientifically.

•Of each of these characteristics of the nature ofscience and scientific inquiry, particular attention tohelp students understand Science as A Way ofKnowing in teaching science in a diverse classroom.

•Although the science of the past has been doneprimarily by white men from the westernhemisphere, this trend is changing, and given therole of background knowledge and the bias thataccompanies it in the creative aspects of science,science will benefit from further inclusion ofscientists from different backgrounds.

•To adequately teach students about the natureof science, lessons must be activity based, theymust explicitly address nature of scienceconceptions, and they must require students to bereflective about what they know about the nature ofscience and how that knowledge is challenged byinstruction.

Questions for Students:1. How were your own ideas about the nature of science different from those expressed in this chapter?

Which ones of the nature of science ideas are difficult for you to understand? Which of them are difficult foryou to accept as an accurate portrait of how science is done?

2. Work through each of the aspects of our description of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Foreach, describe the common misconceptions that may prevent students from understanding this discussion.

3. Design an activity-based lesson to address one of the nature of science conceptions described in thischapter. How might you structure the lesson to make students reflective about what they know and whatthey are learning?

4. Describe in your own words why it is important for all students to understand the nature of scienceand the nature of scientific inquiry. Why is this an important part of science literacy and education ingeneral? How does this fit into you overall philosophy of science teaching?


5. How might your answer for question 4 be different if the emphasis was on students from cultural orlinguistically diverse backgrounds? Describe in your own words why it is important for students in DIVERSEsettings to understand the nature of science and the nature of scientific inquiry.

6. Using outside sources to investigate this question, describe how scientific theories, laws andhypotheses compare. Which are based on the most evidence? Which are more likely to change? Which havemore explanatory power? Why might this knowledge be useful for students in interpreting the sciencepresented by the media?

A McComas, W. F. (2000). The principal elements ofthe nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Thenature of science in science education (pp. 53-70).Dordecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.B URL:http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/continents.html Last updated: 05.05.99C Moore, J. (1999). Science as a way of knowing.Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.D Poole, M. (1996). '. . . for More and Better

Religious Education', Science & Education 5(2),165-174.

E Smith, M., & Scharmann, L. (1999). Describingversus defining the nature of science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching.F Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G.

(1998). The nature of science and instructional

practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science

Education, 82, 417-436.

Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.

G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-

based approach on elementary teachers' conceptions

of the nature of science. Journal of Research in

Science Teaching, 37, 295-317.

9. The Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific InquiryThe Nature of Scientific Knowledge and...

Documents

Transcript of 9. The Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific InquiryThe Nature of Scientific Knowledge and...