In today's schools there are often competing accounts of natural phenomena, especially when schools are located in multicultural communities. There are also competing claims about what counts as science. This article examines the definition of science put forward from multicultural perspectives in contrast to a universalist perspective on science; that is, the Standard Account. The article argues that good science explanations will always be universal even if indigenous knowledge is incorporated as scientific knowledge. What works best is still of interest to most, and although one may hate to use the word hegemony, Western science would co‐opt and dominate indigenous knowledge if it were incorporated as science. Therefore, indigenous knowledge is better off as a different kind of knowledge that can be valued for its own merits, play a vital role in science education, and maintain a position of independence from which it can critique the practices of science and the Standard Account. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 85:50–67, 2001.

No abstract

No abstract

It is not uncommon to find media reports on the failures of science education, nor uncommon to hear prestigious scientists publicly lament the rise of antiscience attitudes. Given the position elementary teachers have in influencing children, antiscience sentiment among them would be a significant concern. Hence, this article reports on an investigation in which preservice elementary teachers responded to the Thinking about Science survey instrument. This newly developed instrument addresses the broadrelationship of science to nine important areas of society and culture and is intended to reveal the extent of views being consistent with or disagreeing with a commonly held worldview of science portrayed in the media and in popular science and science education literature. Results indicate that elementary teachers discriminate with respect to different aspects of culture and science but they are not antiscience. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 39: 1016–1031, 2002

A model called the Scientific