|
|
Lesson Activities
I.
Collaborative-Learning Groups:
A.
Place students in collaborative learning
groups of at least four.
B.
Instruct students on the directions for this
project and how to use the resources found in this
project's Resource section.
C.
Instruct students to conduct an Internet
search on possible topics to
search for, such as "animal use in research" with search engines such as:
Online
Experts: Please refer to "Online Experts" section
for resources.
Resources: Please
refer students to the "Resources" section to browse
selected resources.
D.
Please refer to "Student
Collected Data" section for instructions and recording
collected data.
A.
Two debate teams are formed and a debate is conducted.
-
a team is
composed of 4-5 students
-
a Moderator is
needed to make introduction and other announcements
-
a Proctor is
needed to be a time
keeper
-
Judges may be a
group of 3 or 5 students, or the remaining students in the
class that have no assigned roles.
B.
Debate conducted in the following format (or any format desirable,
look in "Resources" section for ideas)
-
Opening
statement- Pro Team- 2 min.
-
Opening
statement- Con team- 2 min.
-
Argument-Pro
team- 5 min.
-
Argument-Con
team-5min.
-
Rebuttal-Pro
team- 3 min.
-
Rebuttal-Con
team-3 min.
-
Closing-Pro
team 2 min.
-
Closing-Pro
team 2 min.
(A coin flip can
determine which sides starts first if so desired.)
Please refer to
"Forum" section for instructions.
|
Curriculum Standards
Standards for Science Teacher Preparation
National Science Teachers Association in
collaboration with the Association
for the Education of Teachers in Science November
1998
Standards
for Science Teacher Ed.pdf(1MB)
2.0 Standards for Science Teacher Preparation:
Nature of Science
The
program prepares teachers to engage students in act invites to
define the values, beliefs and assumptions inherent to t he
creation of scientific knowledge within the scientific community,
and contrast science to other
ways of knowing. Nature of science refers to:
•
Characteristics distinguishing science from other ways of knowing.
•
Characteristics distinguishing basic science, applied science and
technology.
•
Processes and conventions of science as a professional activity.
•
Standards defining acceptable evidence and scientific explanation.
2.1 Examples of Indicators
2.1.1 Preservice Level 2.1.2 Induction Level 2.1.3
Professional Level
A.
Plans activities to convey the
nature of basic and applied
sciences, including multiple ways to create scientific
knowledge, the tentativeness of
knowledge, and creativity based
on empirical evidence.
A. Uses activities and lessons designed
to convey the nature of basic
and applied sciences including multiple ways to create
scientific knowledge, the
tentativeness of knowledge, and
creativity based on empirical
evidence.
A. Consistently integrates activities
and lessons to convey the nature
o f basic and applied sciences,
i ncluding multiple ways to create
scientific knowledge, the tentativeness of knowledge,
and creativity based on
empirical evidence.
B.
Compares and contrasts rules of
evidence and distinguishes
characteristics ofknowledge in science to rules and
knowledge in other domains.
B. Involves students regularly in
comparing and contrasting scientific
and nonscientific ways of
knowing; integrates criteria of
science in investigations and
case studies.
B.
Designs effective lessons distinguishing
science and non-science and
referring to the continuum of
criteria of e vidence;
provides case studies that allow
students to analyze knowledge
and actions against the tenets
of science.
C.
Explains and provides examples
of conventions for research,
evidence and explanation,
distinguishing laws, theories
and hypotheses.
C.
Shows how research questions and
design, and data interpretation,
are guided by contemporary
conventions of science and
concepts of the nature of
knowledge.
C.
Designs lessons showing how
research quest ions and design,
and data interpretation, are
guided by contemporary
conventions of science and
concepts of the nature of
knowledge.
2.2 Rationale and Discussion
Understanding of the nature of science has been an
objective of science instruction since at least
the first decade of this century (Central Association of Science
and Mathematics Teachers, 1907).
Sagan (1996) has written on the need for greater science literacy
both as a defense against pseudoscience
and against unquestioning acceptance of reported research. Recent
efforts to reform science
education in the United States have strongly emphasized this
outcome (AAAS, 1993; NRC, 1996),
which is an essential attribute of scientific literacy. While
philosophers, historians,
scientists, and science educators have not agreed on a single
definition of the nature of science
(Lederman & Niess, 1997), the concept in the educational
literature generally refers to the values
and assumptions inherent in the development and interpretation of
scientific knowledge (Lederman, 1992). The
academic arguments over the specific values and assumptions of
science are probably of little
consequence for K-12 students, or most adults. Most science
educators would agree that the
purpose of science instruction is not to create philosophers or
historians of science but to educate individuals who can make
valid judgments on the value of knowledge created by science
and other ways of knowing. In this
respect, it is important for them to be aware that scientific
knowledge is tentative, empirically
based, culturally embedded, and necessarily incorporates subjectivity,
creativity, and inference (Lederman & Niess, 1997). Despite
almost a century of concern, research clearly shows most students
and teachers do not adequately
understand the nature of science. For example, most teachers and
students believe that all
scientific investigations adhere to an identical set and sequence
of steps known as the scientific
method (McComas, 1996) and that theories are simply immature laws
(Horner & Rubba, 1979).
Students' misconceptions of the nature of science can certainly
arise from misinformation from
teachers of science. For reasons that are not clear, recent reform
efforts have not emphasized
staff development on the nature o f science, perhaps because of
questionable assumptions that
teachers currently understand t he nature o f science, or that the
current emphasis on teaching the
processes of inquiry will lead by itself to better knowledge of
science. Two assumptions appear
to dominate policy and research related to teacher conceptions
of the nature of science: that teacher
conceptions are directly related t o student conceptions, and
that teacher conceptions necessarily
influence classroom practice (Lederman, 1992). However, research
does not clearly identify a relationship between the teacher’s
understanding and desire to teach
the nature of science and his or her practices in the classroom.
Many complex and sometimes
competing factors (e.g., time constraints, curriculum constraints,
teachers' intentions, t eachers'
beliefs about students) influence teacher behavior. To be
effective in teaching the natureof science, teachers must believe
that such instruction is both important and understandable, and
then design instruction deliberately to
achieve that goal.
The
various assumptions and values inherent in scientific knowledge
need to be explained if students
are to develop adequate understandings of the nature of science.
Active inquiry is not enough.
Students also must reflect upon their beliefs and actions. They
must understand historical and
social perspectives on science and scientific knowledge, using
case studies and analysis of current
issues and problems. The National Science Education Standards
(NRC, 1996) identifies the study
of issues relating science, technology and societal needs and
values in a developmentally appropriate
way as an essential part of any effort to teach the nature of
science.
2.3 Recommendations of the National Science
Teachers Association
All students of science should have a fundamental
grasp of the conventions and nature of science
and how knowledge created by science differs from other forms of
knowledge. Because of this, NSTA
strongly recommends that college and university science programs
include the nature of science as
a thematic strand throughout their science curriculums. Such
understanding requires more than
participation in science content courses or science methods
courses, event hose stressing hands-on inquiry, discovery, or
research. It requires an active analysis of the nature of
knowledge, of the conventions
of research and acceptance of findings, the historical
evolution
of scientific knowledge and an understanding of how
humans learn in diverse and complex
ways. All prospective teachers
of science should have multiple opportunities to study and
analyze literature related to the
nature of science, such as The
Demon Haunted World (Sagan,
1996); The
Game of Science (McCain
& Segal, 1989), Facts,
Fraud and Fantasy (Goran,
1979) and The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn,
1962). In addition, they should have the opportunity
to analyze, discuss and debate topics and reports in the media
related to the nature of science
and scientific knowledge in courses and seminars throughout the
program, not just in an educational
context. Finally, students
should engage in active investigation and analysis of
theconventions of science as reflected in papers and
reports in science, across fields, in order to understand
similarities and differences in methods and interpretations in
science, and to identify
strengths and weaknesses of findings.
The best preparation programs recognize
that the nature of science should be understood by
all persons who may pursue a career in science. Opportunities to
study and understand the nature
of science are strongly integrated into science and science
education courses and experiences.
Teacher candidates in such programs demonstrate a well-developed,
integrated understanding of the
conventions and nature of science and scientific knowledge, in
contrast to other ways of
knowing, and can translate that understanding into learning
opportunities for students.
|
|
|
2.4 References
American Association for the Advancement of
Science (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Central Association of Science and Mathematics
Teachers. (1907). A consideration o f the principles
that should determine the courses in biology in the secondary
schools. School Science and
Mathematics, 7, 241-247.
Goran, M. (1979), Fact, fraud and fantasy.
Cranbury NJ: A. S. Barnes and Co., Inc.
Horner, J., & Rubba, P. (1979). The
laws-are-mature-theories fable. The Science Teacher, 46(2),
31.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific
revolutions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lederman, N.G. (1992). Students' and teachers'
conceptions of the nature of science: A review
of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(9),
771-783.
Lederman, N.G., & Niess, M.L. (1997). The
nature of science: Naturally? School Science and
Mathematics, 97(1), 1-2.
McCain, G. & Segal, E. M. (1989). The game of
science. Belmont CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Co.
McComas, W. (1996). Ten myths of science:
Reexamining what we think we know about t he
nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10-16.
National Research Council. (1996). National
science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers (1982).
Science-technology-society: Science Education for the
1980's. Washington, DC: Author. Sagan,
C. (1996). The demon-haunted world. Science as a candle in the
dark. New York NY: Ballantine
Books.
|
Florida Teacher
Certification Examination (FTCE) document. This document is
important in that it molded the 4-year curriculum for the
different disciplines.
|
http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/ftce/ftcecomp.htm
http://www.firn.edu/doe/sas/ftce/pdf/ftcomp02.pdf
|
|
|
|
|