Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Science Teacher Education
Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education 2/2014

01.03.2014

Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change

verfasst von: Jonathan Osborne

Erschienen in: Journal of Science Teacher Education | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

This paper provides a rationale for the changes advocated by the Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards. It provides an argument for why the model embedded in the Next Generation Science Standards is seen as an improvement. The Case made here is that the underlying model that the new Framework presents of science better represents contemporary understanding of nature of science as a social and cultural practice. Second, it argues that the adopting a framework of practices will enable better communication of meaning amongst professional science educators. This, in turn, will enable practice in the classroom to improve. Finally, the implications for teacher education are explored.
Vorheriger Artikel Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the Next Generation Science Standards
Nächster Artikel Teaching Engineering Practices

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
emphasis added.
 
2
Abductive arguments are also known as retroductive arguments.
 
4
In one sense, any of these activities could be said to be ‘doing science’. In this chapter, the term ‘doing science’ is used to refer to the act of engaging in empirical inquiry.
 
Literatur
Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRef
Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.CrossRef
Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894–897.CrossRef
Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626–639.CrossRef
Barton, M. L., Heidema, C., & Jordan, D. (2002). Teaching reading in mathematics and science. Educational leadership, 60(3), 24–28.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C. (1998). Emerging perspectives on the many dimensions of scientific dicourse. In J. R. Martin & R. Veel (Eds.), Reading science (pp. 15–28). London: Routledge.
Biddulph, F., Symington, D., & Osborne, R. (1986). The place of children’s questions in primary science education. Research in Science and Technological Education, 4, 77–88.CrossRef
Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind and experience in school. Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRef
Chi, M., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting Self-Explanations Improves Understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
Chin, C., & Osborne, J. F. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39.CrossRef
Chinn, A. C., & Malhotra, A. B. (2003). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools. A theoretical framework for evaluating Inquiry task. Science Education, 86.
Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vols. 1 and 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Donovan, S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn science in the classroom. Washington, DC: The National Acadamies Press.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duggan, S., & Gott, R. (1995). The place of investigations in practical work in the UK National Curriculum for Science. International Journal of Science Education, 17(2), 137–147.
Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science and Education, 22, 2109–2139.CrossRef
Fang, Z. (2006). The language demands of science reading in middle school. International Journal of Science Education, 28(5), 491–520.CrossRef
Fisher, R. (1990). Teaching children to think. London: Simon and Shuster.
Ford, M. J. (2006). “Grasp of Practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.
Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423.CrossRef
Ford, M. J., & Wargo, B. M. (2011). Dialogic framing of scientific content for conceptual and epistemic understanding. Science Education, 96(3), 369–391.CrossRef
Geison, J. (1995). The private science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Giere, R., Bickle, J., & Maudlin, R. F. (2006). Understanding scientific reasoning (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gilbert, J., & Boulter, C. (Eds.). (2000). Developing models in science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gill, P. (1996). Focus: Can we count on biology? Journal of Biological Education, 30(3), 159–160.CrossRef
Gott, R., & Murphy, P. (1987). Assessing investigation at ages 13 and 15: Assessment of Performance Unit Science Report for Teachers: 9. London: Department of Education and Science.
Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Roberts, R. (2008). Concepts of evidence. School of education: University of Durham.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. London: Falmer Press.
Harré, R. (1984). The philosophies of science: An introductory survey (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, A. G., & Treagust, D. F. (2002). A typology of school science models. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 1011–1026.CrossRef
Hynd, C., & Alvermann, D. E. (1986). The role of refutation text in overcoming difficulty with science concepts. Journal of Reading, 29(5), 440–446.
Jetton, T.L., & Shanahan, C.H. (2012). Adolescent literacy in the academic disciplines: General principles and practical strategies. New York: The Guilford Press.
Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204.CrossRef
Klahr, D., & Carver, S. M. (1995). Scientific thinking about scientific thinking. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60(4), 137–151.
Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive science A multidisciplinary journal, 12(1), 1–48.CrossRef
Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: A developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 111–146.CrossRef
Koeppen, K., Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (2008). Current issues in competence modeling and assessment. Journal of Psychology, 216(2), 61–73.
Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. Dordrecht: Springer.
Latour, B. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Drawing things together. Knowledge and Society, 6, 1–40.
Latour, B. (1990). Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. Representation in Scientific Activity, 19–68.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education (pp. 831–879). Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lehrer, J. (2010). The truth wears off. New Yorker, 52–57.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006a). Cultivating model-based reasoning in science education. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, (pp. 371–387). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006b). Scientific thinking and science literacy handbook of child psychology (pp. 153–196). New York: Wiley.
Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.CrossRef
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. (pp. 95–132). Dordrecht: Springer.
Martin, J. R., & Veel, R. (1998). Reading science. London: Routledge.
Matthews, M. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), 3–15.
McRobbie, C., & Thomas, G. (2001). They don’t teach us to explain, they only tell us other people’s explanations. Paper presented at the European Association for Research on Learning, Freiburg, Switzerland.
Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Education Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377.CrossRef
Millar, R., Lubben, F., Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigating in the school science laboratory: Conceptual and procedural knowledge and their influence on performance. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 207–248.CrossRef
National Academy of Science. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Nercessian, N. (2008). Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.CrossRef
Osborne, J. (2011). Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review, 93(343), 93–103.
Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463.CrossRef
Penick, J. E., Crow, L. W., & Bonnsteter, R. J. (1996). Questions are the answers. Science Teacher, 63, 26–29.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Rogers, E. M. (1948). Science in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general education. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm.C, Brown Co.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.CrossRef
Roth, W. M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049.
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. (2009). The impact of collaboration on the outcomes of scientific argumentation. Science Education, 93(3), 448–484.CrossRef
Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of research in science teaching, 28(9), 859–882.
Schleppegrell, M., & Fang, Z. (2008). Reading in secondary content areas: A language-based pedagogy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Schmidt, H. G. (1993). Foundations of problem-based learning: Rationale and description. Medical Education, 17, 11–16.CrossRef
Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right… if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.CrossRef
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
Snow, C. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452.CrossRef
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2004). Communication patterns of engineers. Hobeken, New York: Wiley.
Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
van Driel, J. H., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.CrossRef
Watson, R., Swain, J., & McRobbie, C. (2004). Students’ discussions in practical scientific enquiries. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 25–46.CrossRef
Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Sean Smith, P., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of K–12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. F. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2004). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Ziman, J. (1979). Reliable knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Teaching Scientific Practices: Meeting the Challenge of Change
verfasst von
Jonathan Osborne
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2014
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Science Teacher Education / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1046-560X
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1847
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9384-1

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Journal of Science Teacher Education 2/2014 Zur Ausgabe

Editorial

The Next Generation Science Standards: Implications for Preservice and Inservice Science Teacher Education

OriginalPaper

Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the Next Generation Science Standards

OriginalPaper

NGSS and the Next Generation of Science Teachers

OriginalPaper

The Next Generation Science Standards: The Features and Challenges

OriginalPaper

Next Generation Science Standards: All Standards, All Students

OriginalPaper

Teaching Engineering Practices

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise