Underlying Model of The Nature and Development of Scientific Knowledge

Underlying Model of The Nature and Development of Scientific Knowledge

Before considering the research that may elucidate the intellectual resources and challenges that learning this strand might pose to children in the K-8 years, we briefly review approaches the field has taken to articulate the underlying model of building scientific knowledge. In this explication, we consider the goals of the enterprise, the nature and structure of scientific knowledge, and how knowledge is developed, with a focus on what is most relevant for student learning. (For a more complete discussion of our view cf the nature of science, see Chapter 2.) While we acknowledge there is no simple correspondence with this model of science and the epistemic goals of the curriculum at any particular grade level, consideration of both relevant cognitive research and instructional design is informed by close consideration of the normative model.

Diction, creativity science and questioning, cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge, science and technology, historical development of scientific knowledge, and diversity of scientific thinking. Sandoval reviewed Osborne and others' definitions of science epistemology (e.g., Driver et al., 1996; Lederman et al., 2002; McComas and Olson, 1998) and presented a more manageable list of four broad epistemological themes, which we pause to discuss briefly. First, Sandoval asserts that viewing scientific knowledge as constructed is of primary importance that underscores a dialectical relationship between theory and evidence. Students, if they are to understand what science is, must accept that it is something that people do and create. From this flows the implication that science involves creativity and that science is not science because it is "true" but because it is persuasive.

The second theme is that scientific methods are diverse: there is no single "method" which generically applies to all scientific inquiries (experiments may be conducted in some fields, but not in others). Rather than relying on one or several rote methods, science depends on ways of evaluating scientific claims (e.g., with respect to systematicity, rare, and fit with existing knowledge).

Third, scientific knowledge comes in different forms, which vary in their explanatory and predictive power (e.g., theories, laws, hypotheses; for more on this, see Chapter 2). This is a theme often overlooked in traditional analyses (including Osborne's) but one that is central to understanding the constructive nature of science and the interaction of different knowledge forms in inquiry. Fourth, Sandoval asserts that scientific knowledge varies in certainty. Acknowledging variable certainty, Sandoval argues, invites students to engage the ideas critically and to evaluate them using epistemological criteria.

POST COMMENT

Current Scientific Tests Displaying The Benefits Associated With Meditating Archeology's Scientific Exposition of Pompeii A Scientific Understanding of Reiki Ethnology as a Branch of Anthropology in Scientific Context Basics of Scientific Calculator you need to know Boekel Scientific Orbitron Rotators Scientific Guidelines for Effective Weight Loss Principles of scientific research How to be accepted for Publication in Top Scientific Journals Author Checklist for Scientific Manuscript Submission scientific wrestling conditioning Chondromalacia Patella - A Fancy Scientific Way of Describing a Certain Type of Knee Pain Micrometer Have A Great Scientific Impact In Today