New Dimensions Regarding Nature of Science and Its Implication of Science Curriculum and Pedagogy - Literature review Example

Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name Date of submission Table of Contents 1.0.Introduction 3 2.0.Understanding Nature of Science 4 3.0.Traditional ways of teaching science 5 4.0.What to be included in science curriculum 5 5.0.Pedagogical approaches in teaching science 6 5.1.Pedagogy should also reflect less traditional curriculum 7 6.0.Pedagogy and learning styles 7 6.1.Pedagogical Learning Styles 7 7.0.Conclusion 8 8.0.Reference Lists 9 1.0. Introduction Science scholars, educators and science education orginsations are increasingly getting concerned with the understanding of nature of science and in so doing, have started the preparation of scientifically literate students. (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Research Council, 1996) However, the matter at hand is not coming up with science oriented curriculum or and pedagogy but understanding the aspect of nature of science. To begin with, House of Commons Science and Technology Council (2002) defines nature of science as the inherent guidelines that enable scientists to value which result can help in the construction of knowledge. On the other hand, science education views nature of science from a simplistic perspective. That is, nature of science is the acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge that results in student’s concept about science. Scholars such as Lin and Chen (2002) have gone ahead and argued that nature of science within the context of education is not about knowing science. Instead, there should be questions about the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of theory, evidence and conclusion. From the literatures reviewed, there is one assumption that can be made; that the definitions provided remain fairly general and educators, philosophers and scientists continue to disapprove each other regarding specific definition of the nature of science. Building from this, the essay seeks to critically analyse the nature of science and its implication on science curriculum and pedagogy. 2.0. Understanding Nature of Science As argued above, definition for nature of science still remains multifaceted. That is, many theorists have presented arguments regarding what they believe to be the nature of science. At least, from their arguments, one can get the gist. My understanding of nature of science is an integration of the argument presented by Berry (2009) and Bullock (2011). Explicitly, the aspect of ensuring that science curriculum is tailored in such a manner that it necessitates the acquisition of pedagogical content knowledge that results in student knowledge regarding science. Suzanne and Bransford (2005) as cited in Loughran and Berry (2012) agree with my assertions but add that science teachers must know nature of science before starting to teach it. This is to ensure that there are effective science classrooms that incorporate ideas about science. Because pedagogical content and curriculum knowledge requires that there be translation of science subjects or subject matter to what can be intelligible to learners, I will also understand nature of science to be human efforts that are directed by theory, reliant on empirical observation but can change with time. Postmodern researchers such as Randy et al. (2000) as cited in Loughran (2006) while writing on “Developing and Acting upon One's Conception of the Nature of Science: A Follow-Up Study” seem to agree with my opinions. They say, “Understanding nature of science is interesting, however, it is tentative and subject to change; it is also empirically based, derived from observations of the natural world” (p.564). In contrast, Erin (2013) is having different views regarding my understandings of the nature of science. While researching on “Teaching and Teacher Education” Erin believes that nature of science is the situation where science oriented curriculum is handled in such a manner that it evokes learning characterised by accumulation of static facts. In the most recent material, Handbook of Research on Science Education (2007), (Lederman as the author) also disagrees with me. He believes that nature of science is realised when pedagogical content knowledge of science in school curriculum meets expectations. 3.0. Traditional ways of teaching science How does one therefore take nature of science in classroom? First, it is good to look at this point from traditional ways of teaching science. From the onset, traditional methodology of approaching science in classroom was to make learners understand the natural world (Bullock, 2011). Loughran (2006) also adds that traditional science in the curriculum was to enable learners extend their intrinsic curiosities that are inborn---something that allowed graduates to connect the present and the past. Erin (2013) and Amanda and Van Driel (2012) argue that traditional ways of teaching science did not put emphasis on its nature but a curriculum that was tailored to ensure explicit and reflective approach for cognitive change. “While other traditional methods of teaching science deliberately incorporated professional development experiences, teaching of science was resistant perceptions about science.” (Erin, 2013 p. 157) 4.0. What to be included in science curriculum The trend that now worries scholars in their research is what to be included in a science curriculum because of the broad traditional nature of science and the scanty understanding among scholars on what should constitute nature of science. While the House of Commons Science and Technology Third Report (2002) recognises this problem, it explains that the practical work for science based curriculum should be made to interest and motivate learners. Furthermore, curriculum should also different dimension for imaginative use of ICT. According to Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (AusVELS) (2013) understanding nature of science greatly affects the content of Australian curriculum. It adds that though Australian science based curriculum has three interrelated strands, the curriculum only focuses on two strands. The authority advices that science curriculum should now focus on Science Inquiry Skills. I presume this is what Erin (2013) talks about when he suggests that, “nature of science affects science curriculum content in the sense that much regarding reflective and explicit approach for cognitive change is getting into the curriculum” (p.157). 5.0. Pedagogical approaches in teaching science While my science knowledge was traditional; taught through text books, there are other pedagogical approaches that can be used to reflect modern demands as dictated by nature of science. One of such is the application of imaginative ICT in the class. Connecting this approach with one of the learning theories, first, as suggested earlier, nature of science requires that there be conceptual change in progressive development of scientific understanding. Therefore, a revisionist theory of conceptual change as explained by Clough (2005) is appropriate with this pedagogy. Another approach is the development of and acting upon students’ conception regarding the nature of science. This is basically a follow-up approach whereby if adopted; it should make teachers be involved in scientific planning and scientific practice. Baker (2000) explains that this approach is subjective (theory laden) and therefore suggests cognitive theory as the pedagogy will ensure students have concepts in various domains and explained origins. 5.1. Pedagogy should also reflect less traditional curriculum At the moment, science based curriculums have began to shift from traditional to modern. To this regard, pedagogy should also reflect this. Good examples of the change in the pedagogical approaches are the recommendations given by Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2013) and Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (AusVELS) (2013). While Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority argues that there is a need for the curriculum to focus on literacy and numeracy skills so as to close the gap especially among the disabled and remote areas around the territory whose results or outcomes are below the national averages, Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority on the other hand suggests that there be a pedagogical changes in a manner that levels 7-10 have curriculum explaining how science can be applied in the real life situation. 6.0. Pedagogy and learning styles Due to varied understanding of nature of science, it is therefore expected that pedagogy used appreciate and understand the existing learning styles. Such harmonisation will create dimensional designs of the curriculum so as to meet the need for the ever changing nature of science (Monk and Dillion, 2000). The process will also ensure that each learner is entitled to rigorous, engaging and relevant learning experiences that improve cognitive skills. 6.1. Pedagogical Learning Styles Educational scholars have long been aware that the process of teaching and learning science cannot be one-size-fits all (Monk and Dillion, 2000; Baker, 2000; Berry, 2009). Instead, they suggest that in a classroom, learners are different. Some can process the information by hearing the teacher explain. Some can do better by seeing while others grasp the same concept through hands-on exercises. All these are different learning styles that curriculum should be tailored to so as to ensure that different abilities are taken care of. Loughran and Berry (2012) explain three key learning styles that any pedagogy should consider while teaching sciences. These are kinesthetic, auditory and visual. Kinesthetic is a learning style where students grasp by doing and touching. That is, they are better able to understand information by writing it down or doing hands-on activities. Auditory learners on the other hand, prefer listening to explanations. Visual style needs learners to process new information by looking at graphics, reading, observing watching a demonstration. 7.0. Conclusion This essay presents new dimensions regarding nature of science and its implication of science curriculum and pedagogy. Firstly, it is worth concluding that science instruction can provide rich context for applying what we know regarding how students learn. The essay also argues that curriculum should be tailored in a manner that there is development of scientific knowledge and reasoning that is supported through first and second hand investigations. This can be summed up to be the new dimension of nature of science. Lastly, pedagogical approaches and learning styles suggested are needed in the twenty-first century teaching of science because the curriculum is no longer interested in knowledge but also its evaluation. 8.0. Reference Lists Amanda, B. & Van Driel (2012). Journal of Teacher Education: Teaching About Teaching Science: Aims, Strategies, and Backgrounds of Science Teacher Educators. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: A Project 2061 report. New York: Oxford University Press. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2013). Student Diversity and The Australian Curriculum. Retrieved from http://foi.deewr.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/portfolio_budget_statements_201112_austalian_curriculum_assessment_and_reporting_authority.pdf Berry, A. K. (2009). Professional self-understanding as expertise in teaching about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15, 305-318. Baker, P.(2000) Teaching Evolution Through Enquiry. Accessed 1st July 2013, at www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/contents.html Bullock, S. M. (2011). Inside teacher education challenging prior views of teaching and learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Clough, M. (2005) Teaching the Nature of Science to secondary and Post -secondary Students. Accessed 1st July 2013, at www.pantanteo.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm Erin, P. B. (2013). Teaching and Teacher Education: Science Education and Educational Psychology. 4400 University Drive, MSN-4B3, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA. Handbook of Research on Teaching (2007). A case study of high school teachers’ decision making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 467–501. House of Commons Science & Technology Committee (2002). Science education from 14 to 19. London: The House of Commons: Stationary Office. Lin, H. S., & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 773– 792. Loughran, J. J., & Berry, A. K. (2012). Developing science teacher educators’ pedagogy of teacher education. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 401-415). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education. London, England: Routledge. Monk, M. & Dillion, J. (2000). The nature of Scientific Knowledge; in Monk, M. and Osborne, J.(eds) Good practice in Science teaching, Buckingham: Open University Press, pp.78- 81. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards.Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (2013): Science across foundations to level 10. Accessed 1st July 2013 http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Science/Overview/Science-across-Foundation-to-Level-10 Read More