T wo major reform efforts in K-12 science education have taken place during the past 50 years. The first was the 1950-1970 curriculum reform efforts motivated by the launching of Sputnik and sponsored by the newly formed National Science Foundation (NSF) in the United States and by the Nuffield Foundation in the United Kingdom. The signature goal for these reformed programs was to produce courses of study that would get students to "think like scientists," thus placing them in a "pipeline" for science careers (Rudolph, 2002).The second U.S. and U.K. reform effort in science education began in the 1980s and continues to this day as part of the national standards movement. Referred to as the "Science for All" movement in the United States and the "Public Understanding of Science" in the United Kingdom, here the education goal was and is to develop a scientifically literate populace that can participate in both the economic and democratic agendas of our increasingly global market-focused science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) societies. In addition to the economic and democratic imperatives as a purpose for science education, more recent voices of science education reform (

This article focuses on the capacity of students to develop and assess arguments during a high school genetics instructional sequence. The research focused on the locating distinction in argumentation discourse between “doing science” vs. “doing school” or “doing the lesson” (Bloome, Puro, & Theodorou, 1989). Participants in this classroom case study were high school (9th grade) students in Galicia (Spain). Students were observed, videotaped, and audiotaped while working in groups over six class sessions. Toulmin's argument pattern was used as a tool for the analysis of students' conversation and other frames were used for analyzing other dimensions of students' dialogue; (e.g., epistemic operations, use of analogies, appeal to consistency, and causal relations). Instances of “doing science” and instances of “doing the lesson” are identified and discussed as moments when the classroom discourse is dominated either by talking science or displaying the roles of students. The different arguments constructed and co‐constructed by students, the elements of the arguments, and the sequence are also discussed, showing a dominance of claims and a lesser frequence of justifications or warrants. Implications for developing effective contexts to promote argumentation and science dialogue in the classroom are discussed. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 84:757–792, 2000.

No abstract

This paper set emerged from an international symposium that aimed to shed light on issues associated with the enactment of inquiry both as means (i.e., inquiry as an instructional approach) and as ends (i.e., inquiry as a learning outcome) in precollege science classrooms. The symposium contributors were charged with providing perspectives from ABD-EL-KHALICK ET AL.their countries on the following major themes: (a) philosophical and practical conceptions of inquiry in the science curriculum; (b) images of the enactment of inquiry in the curriculum, curricular materials, classroom instruction, and assessment practices; and (c) factors and conditions, internal and external to the educational setting, which facilitate or impede inquiry-based science education. Another major theme that emerged from the symposium was related to the very conceptions of inquiry teaching. The individual contributions and synthesizing commentaries demonstrate that despite their situatedness and diversity, many themes and issues cut across the represented locales, and serve to show the significance and potential fruitfulness of any discourse regarding inquiry in science education that this paper set might, and we hope will, trigger in the near future.C

No abstract

No abstract

Frameworks that seek to understand how knowledge restructuring occurs and how to build a learning environment that facilitates this restructuring raise important philosophical, psychological and pedagogical questions and issues about how conceptual change occurs and what characteristics of knowledge growth ought to be a part of curricula and learning environments. Implicit in emphasizing the how is a shift in science educations' perspective from one that embraces “scientists' ways of knowing” as the dominant objective towards one that favors “positioning the learner for the next step.” This change in perspective and approach represents a radical and complex departure from common practice. This article advances a piecemeal model of the character and mechanism of restructuring and then describes a model of educational practice designed to facilitate this form of restructuring. We argue that a piecemeal developmental perspective of conceptual change would offer quite different criteria for deciding what to teach and how to teach. The adoption of conceptual change teaching models implies teacher empowerment of a kind we have yet to fully understand. Empowering teachers with appropriate philosophical and psychological models for the selection and the sequencing of instructional tasks would aid in their describing and prescribing effective or meaningful learning strategies. Central to this educational model is a broadened and integrated view of assessment and instruction that we are calling a portfolio culture. The essential characteristic of this culture is that it creates opportunities for teachers and students to confront and develop their scientific understanding and to equip students with the tools necessary to take increased responsibility for their own restructuring, to assess for themselves what might be the next steps.

No abstract