Scientists by their very
nature are problem solvers.
It would be difficult to support
any claim that problem solving
is not an important goal in the
teaching of science.
Rather, we contest the viewpoint that
problem solving is the most important
goal in the teaching of science.
Science is a multi-faceted discipline.
There are many ways to “do” science.”
There are many ways to learn science.
“there simply is no fixed set of
steps that scientists always
follow, no one path that leads
them unerringly to scientific
knowledge”
(Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990, The Nature of Science)
If this axiom is accepted throughout
the scientific community, it should be
embraced by science education.
The viewpoint that problem solving is
the most important goal in teaching
science seems to contradict this
statement
“Learning to view the
world scientifically
means…
•to ask questions about nature
•to seek explanations
•collect and measure things
•make observations
•organize information
•discuss findings with others
(North Carolina State Dept., 2003, Understanding the nature of science )
Experiences for school students in their guided study
of science should include experiences which
promote process skills, such as measuring,
observing, classifying and predicting. These skills
are critical for the development of a worthwhile and
fruitful understating by students of scientific
concepts and propositions. These experiences are
also critical for achieving expertise in the
meaningful use of scientific procedures, for problem
solving and for to applying scientific understanding
ones own life.
(Ango, 2002, p.12)
Sooner or later, the validity of
scientific claims is settled by
referring to observations of
phenomena. Hence, scientists
concentrate on getting accurate
data.
(Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990, Nature of Science).
Such evidence is obtained by
observations and measurements
taken in situations that range from
natural settings (such as a forest) to
completely contrived ones (such as
the laboratory).
(Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990, Nature of Science).
The preceding arguments
underscore the importance of
a strong foundation of
scientific knowledge in order
to pursue higher levels of
learning
Scientists need to be
communicators of knowledge.
•communication is a critical
aspect of scientific investigation
• without it, scientific
investigation would be pointless
(Ango, 2002, p.17)
developing meaningful
explanation could be
considered the core
enterprise of both scientific
endeavor as well as personal
learning in science”
(Heywood, 2002, p.234).
“because of the social nature of
science, the dissemination of
scientific information is crucial
to its progress”
(Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990, Nature of Science).
Important Questions to Consider…
What sort of science education
should we have and what should
its goals be?
What do I teach in my science
lesson today and how should I
teach it?
(Longbottom and Butler, 1999, p.486)
specialist secondary science
teachers would probably describe
their main task as helping
students to learn new ideas and
explanations regarding natural
phenomena
(Bryce & MacMillan, 2005, p.739)
children should…
1. understand that scientists are successful in developing
understanding the world even though they do not have a
fail-safe method, but that science is fallible
2. acknowledge scientific knowledge as the best we have,
and therefore accept that it is rational to trust in expert
knowledge (thus limiting skepticism to a justified level)
3. adopt many of the critical and creative attributes of
scientists (giving students the skills to take seek and
evaluate evidence and to take part in reasoned debate)
(Longbottom and Butler, 1999, pp.486-487)
a most compelling statement:
because science education is likely to
be in competition with manifold
unscientific and antiscientific forces
in both formal and informal education,
the onus is on science educators to
teach in a manner that captures the
imagination and reveals both the
fascination of the known and the
challenge of the unknown
(Longbottom, & Butler, 1999, p.473)
From the NSTA
an important characteristic—and
shortcoming—of Generation 2
(scientific inquiry) materials is that
they do not explicitly provide
instruction that will help students
learn about scientific inquiry itself
(Teaching Science in the 21st Century, 2006)
an implicit and incorrect
assumption exists that
doing inquiry results in
learning about inquiry
(Teaching Science in the 21st Century, 2006)
If doing inquiry does not
necessarily result in
learning about inquiry…
then it seems reasonable to
consider that…
doing problem solving may
not result in learning
about problem solving
Problem solving:
-Not the most important goal in science
education.
-Does not fully address the range of
required process skills, the common
knowledge base, and the communication
that must go on in science
-It is one of many important goals in
science education, but it cannot address
all of the aspects of the nature of science.