Abstract
This paper refers to the development of a teaching innovation for the nature of science (NOS), for students aged 11–15, which specifically focuses on the interrelationship between science and technology. The development of the teaching and learning materials relied on inputs from three sources: the history and philosophy of science and technology, existing knowledge concerning the teaching and learning about the NOS, empirical data on students’ initial ideas and difficulties about this topic. The first served to provide an account for the various forms of interaction between science and technology, which, in turn, guided the formulation of epistemologically coherent learning objectives. The second provided the pedagogical grounds on which to base the design of the activities. The third facilitated the design of activities that build on students’ productive initial ideas, while providing them with guidance to resolve the difficulties they tend to encounter. In this paper, we describe the rationale underlying the teaching and learning materials and we describe the activity sequence they embody.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 389–425). Springer: Dordrecht.
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(4), 417–436.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000b). The influence of history of science on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.
Agassi, J. (1980). Between S & T. Philosophy of Science, 47(1), 82–99.
Akerson, V., & Donnelly, L. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97–124.
Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.
Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.
Applin, D., Isaacson, P. B., Fullick, A., Hunt, A., Melamed, A., Millar, R., et al. (2000). In: Nuffield Foundation (Ed.), AS science for public understanding. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.
Arageorgis, A., & Baltas, A. (1989). Demarcating technology from science: Problems and ss. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 20(2), 212–229.
Barnes, B. (1982). The science-technology relationship: A model or a query. Social Studies of Science, 12(1), 166–172.
Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bell, R. L. (2008). Teaching the nature of science through process skills: Activities for grades 3–8. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.
Bencze, J. L. (2001). ‘Technoscience’ education: Empowering citizens against the Tyranny of School Science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273–298.
Bhaduri, S. (2003). Science, society, and technology—Three cultures and multiple visions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 303–308.
Boon, M. (2006). How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 27–47.
Cardwell, D. (1994). The Fontana history of technology. London: Fontana Press.
Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). ‘An experiment is when you try it and see if it works’: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of the scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514–529.
Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). USA: Hackett Publishing.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.
Constantinou, C. P., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143–172.
Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 219–244.
De Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology. An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers (Vol. 27). Dordrecht: Springer.
Derry, T. K., & Williams, T. I. (1960). A short history of technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
DiGironimo, N. (2010). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education [First published on: 24 August 2010 (iFirst)].
Drake, S. (1980). Galileo (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scot, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. London: Open University Press.
Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and the nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Gago, J. M., Caro, P., Constantinou, C. P., Davies, G., Parchmann, I., Rannikmae, M., et al. (2004). Europe needs more scientists: Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Report of the High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. European Commission, DG Research, Brussels.
Gardner, P. L. (1993). Textbook representations of science-technology relationships. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 85–94.
Gardner, P. L. (1994a). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections. Part I. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 123–153.
Gardner, P. (1994b). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24(1), 1–28.
Gardner, P. L. (1997). The roots of technology and science: A philosophical and historical view. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 13–20.
Gil-Perez, D., Vilches, A., Fernandez, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdes, P., et al. (2005). Technology as “applied science”. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 309–320.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.
ITEA. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association.
ITEA. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. International Technology Education Association.
Jones, A. (2006). The role and place of technological literacy in elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education (pp. 198–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314–334.
Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.
Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.
Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.
Kolstø, S. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 977–997.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). London: The University of Chicago Press.
Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s challenge to science education. Philadelphia: Open 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(4), 331–359.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 83–126). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.
McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2002). The nature of science in science education, rationales and strategies (Vol. The nature of science in science education). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McComas, W. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2), 249–263.
McDermott, L. C., & The Physics Education Group. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: Wiley.
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771–790.
Mumford, L. (1961). History: Neglected clue to technological change. Technology and Culture, 2(3), 230–237.
NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
NRC. (2007). In: R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. House (Eds.), Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NSF. (2003). The science and engineering workforce: Realizing America’s potential. Publication: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf.
OECD. (2006). Women in scientific careers: Unleashing the potential, Paris.
Olson, J. K., Clough, M. P., Bruxvoort, C. N., & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2005). Improving Students’ nature of science understanding through historical short stories in an introductory geology course. Paper presented at the eighth international history, philosophy, sociology & science teaching conference (IHPST), Leeds, UK.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
Peters, E. E. (in press). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science & Education [First published on: 27 November 2009 (Springer)].
Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.
RC, N. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Three approaches to measuring children’s perceptions about technology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 755–774.
Roberts, G. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills. UK: HM Treasury.
Rudge, D., & Howe, E. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.
Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.
Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.
Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.
Sandoval, W. A. (2003). The inquiry paradox: Why doing science doesn’t necessarily change ideas about science. Paper presented at the Sixth International Computer-Based Learning in Science.
Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.
Schummer, J. (1997). Challenging standard distinctions between science and technology: the case of preparative chemistry. International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 3, 81–94.
Shrum, W. (1986). Are ‘science’ and ‘technology’ necessary? The utility of some old concepts in contemporary studies of the research process. Sociological Inquiry, 56(3), 324–340.
Singh, S. (2004). Bing Bang: The origin of the universe. New York: HarperCollins.
Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Education, 29(4), 409–421.
Straits, W. J., & Nichols, S. E. (2007). Using historical nonfiction and literature circles to develop elementary teachers’ nature of science understanding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 901–912.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 179–218.
Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology for education: Technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 275–298.
Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.
Williams, J. P. (2002) Processes of science and technology: A rationale for cooperation or separation. Paper presented at the technology education in the curriculum: Relationships with other subjects proceedings PATT-12 conference.
Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Yip, D. Y. (2006). Using history to promote understanding of nature of science in science teachers. Teaching Education, 17(2), 157–166.
Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.
Acknowledgments
Work presented in this paper has been partially supported by the European Union through the European Communities Research Directorate General in the project Materials Science—University-school partnerships for the design and implementation of research-based ICT-enhanced modules on Material Properties, Science and Society Programme, FP6, SAS6-CT-2006-042942).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hadjilouca, R., Constantinou, C.P. & Papadouris, N. The Rationale for a Teaching Innovation About the Interrelationship Between Science and Technology. Sci & Educ 20, 981–1005 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9332-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9332-1