Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues

The purpose of this investigation was to explicate the role of the nature of science in decision making on science and technology based issues and to delineate factors and reasoning associated with these types of decisions. Twenty-one volunteer participants purposively selected from the faculty of geographically diverse universities completed an open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interview designed to assess their decision making on science and technology based issues. Participants were subsequently placed in one of two groups based upon their divergent views of the nature of science as assessed by a second open-ended questionnaire and follow-up interview. Profiles of each group's decision making were then constructed, based on participants' previous responses to the decision making questionnaire and follow-up interviews. Finally, the two groups' decisions, decision influencing factors, and decision making strategies were compared. No differences were found between the decisions of the two groups, despite their disparate views of the nature of science. Participants in both groups based their decisions primarily on personal values, morals/ethics, and social concerns. While all participants considered scientific evidence in their decision making, most did not require absolute “proof,” even though many participants held absolute conceptions of the nature of science. Overall, the nature of science did not figure prominently in either group's decisions. These findings contrast with basic assumptions of current science education reform efforts and call for a re-examination of the goals of nature of science instruction. Developing better decision making skills—even on science and technology based issues—may involve other factors, including more value-based instruction and attention to intellectual/moral development. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed87:352–377, 2003; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/sce.10063

[1]  Andrew Elby,et al.  On the Substance of a Sophisticated Epistemology. , 2001 .

[2]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  The influence of history of science courses on students' views of nature of science , 2000 .

[3]  Norman G. Lederman.  Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science and Classroom Practice: Factors That Facilitate or Impede the Relationship. , 1999 .

[4]  Edgar A. Whitley,et al.  The Golem: What you Should Know about Science , 1999 .

[5]  William G. Perry,et al.  Forms of ethical and intellectual development in the college years , 1999 .

[6]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Implicit versus Explicit Nature of Science Instruction: An Explicit Response to Palmquist and Finley , 1998 .

[7]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural , 1998 .

[8]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  Assessing Understanding of the Nature of Science: A Historical Perspective , 1998 .

[9]  Fouad Abd-El-Khalick,et al.  Avoiding De-Natured Science: Activities that Promote Understandings of the Nature of Science , 1998 .

[10]  Randy L. Bell,et al.  How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to Alters , 1997 .

[11]  Rodger W. Bybee,et al.  Achieving Scientific Literacy: From Purposes to Practices , 1997 .

[12]  Vincent Campbell,et al.  Decisions - Based on Science , 1997 .

[13]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[14]  R. Driver,et al.  Young people's images of science , 1996 .

[15]  Marlene Schommer,et al.  Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains , 1995 .

[16]  M. Shamos,et al.  The Myth of Scientific Literacy , 1995 .

[17]  J. Lagowski.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[18]  J. Shea.  National Science Education Standards , 1995 .

[19]  M. R. Matthews.  Science teaching : the role of history and philosophy of science , 1994 .

[20]  David Hammer,et al.  Epistemological Beliefs in Introductory Physics , 1994 .

[21]  Susan Carey,et al.  On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge , 1993 .

[22]  Deborah Pomeroy.  Implications of Teachers' Beliefs about the Nature of Science: Comparison of the Beliefs of Scientists, Secondary Science Teachers, and Elementary Teachers. , 1993 .

[23]  I. Winchester.  “Science is dead. We have killed it, you and I”—How attacking the presuppositional structures of our scientific age can doom the interrogation of nature , 1993 .

[24]  Norman G. Lederman.  Students' and teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research , 1992 .

[25]  R. F. Brinckerhoff.  One-minute readings : issues in science, technology, and society , 1992 .

[26]  M. Linn,et al.  How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration? , 1991 .

[27]  S. Gilbert.  Model building and a definition of science , 1991 .

[28]  Bruce B. King.  Beginning teachers' knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science , 1991 .

[29]  J. Gallagher,et al.  Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science , 1991 .

[30]  Norman G. Lederman,et al.  Students' Perceptions of Tentativeness in Science: Development, Use, and Sources of Change. , 1990 .

[31]  D. Alexander,et al.  The nature of science , 1989, Nature.

[32]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Public understanding of science: from contents to processes , 1988 .

[33]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum , 1988 .

[34]  D. Kuhn,et al.  The development of scientific thinking skills , 1988 .

[35]  G. Aikenhead.  High‐school graduates' beliefs about science‐technology‐society. III. Characteristics and limitations of scientific knowledge , 1987 .

[36]  Reg Fleming,et al.  Adolescent reasoning in socio‐scientific issues, part I: Social cognition , 1986 .

[37]  Norman G. Lederman.  Students' and Teachers' Understanding of the Nature of Science: A Reassessment , 1986 .

[38]  Derek Hodson,et al.  Philosophy of Science, Science and Science Education. , 1985 .

[39]  C. Peterson,et al.  Later Life. Lewis R. Aiken, 2nd Edit., New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982. , 1984, Behavioural Psychotherapy.

[40]  D. Zeidler,et al.  Identifying mediating factors of moral reasoning in science education , 1984 .

[41]  Philip Davidson,et al.  The effect of stimulus familiarity on the use of criteria and justifications in children's social reasoning. , 1983 .

[42]  H. Munby.  What is Scientific Thinking? A Discussion Paper, D-82/1. , 1982 .

[43]  K. Popper,et al.  The open universe : an argument for indeterminism , 1982 .

[44]  Edward L. Smith,et al.  Development and Validation of the Conceptions of Scientific Theories Test. , 1981 .

[45]  Peter A. Rubba,et al.  A Study of Two Misconceptions About the Nature Of Science Among Junior High School Students , 1981 .

[46]  Richard J. Bady.  Students' understanding of the logic of hypothesis testing , 1979 .

[47]  Peter A. Rubba,et al.  Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge , 1978 .

[48]  Imre Lakatos,et al.  The methodology of scientific research programmes: Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes , 1978 .

[49]  I. Lakatos.  Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes , 1976 .

[50]  N. Swerdlow,et al.  Copernican revolution , 1975, Nature.

[51]  G. Aikenhead.  The measurement of high school students' knowledge about science and scientists , 1973 .

[52]  P. Tamir.  Understanding the process of science by students exposed to different science curricula in israel , 1972 .

[53]  Lindsay D. Mackay,et al.  Development of understanding about the nature of science , 1971 .

[54]  T. Kuhn,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Reflections on my Critics , 1970 .

[55]  W. G. Perry.  Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. , 1970 .

[56]  R. Wood.  University Education Student's Understanding of the Nature and Processes of Science , 1970 .

[57]  R. Gregory.  The intelligent eye , 1970 .

[58]  Leopold E. Klopfer,et al.  The teaching of science and the history of science , 1969 .

[59]  James T. Robinson.  Philosophy of Science: Implications for Teacher Education. , 1969 .

[60]  P. D. Hurd.  New directions in teaching secondary school science , 1969 .

[61]  Donald J. Schmidt.  Test on understanding science: A comparison among several groups , 1967 .

[62]  Mekritt E. Kimball.  Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers , 1967 .

[63]  R. Yager.  Teacher effects upon the outcomes of science instruction , 1966 .

[64]  C. Hempel.  Philosophy of Natural Science , 1966 .

[65]  J. Trent.  The attainment of the concept “understanding science” using contrasting physics courses , 1965 .

[66]  James T. Robinson.  Science teaching and the nature of science , 1965 .

[67]  K. Popper,et al.  Conjectures and refutations;: The growth of scientific knowledge , 1972 .

[68]  Phillip E. Miller.  A Comparison of the Abilities of Secondary Teachers and Students of Biology to Understand Science , 1963 .

[69]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[70]  Ernest Nagel,et al.  The Structure of Science , 1962 .

[71]  L. Wilson.  A study of opinions related to the nature of science and its purpose in society , 1954 .

[72]  Gerald Holton.  Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science , 1952 .

[73]  H. R. Lang.  The Common Sense of Science , 1951 .

[74]  E. Nagel.  The methods of science; what are they? Can they be taught? , 1950, The Scientific monthly.

[75]  Tom Gaertner.  Science and Common Sense: , 1937, Nature.