Premium
Toward clarity on Whole Science and KNOWS
Author(s) -
Allchin Douglas
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
science education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.209
H-Index - 115
eISSN - 1098-237X
pISSN - 0036-8326
DOI - 10.1002/sce.21017
Subject(s) - clarity , curriculum , center (category theory) , philosophy of science , library science , citation , sociology , mathematics education , computer science , psychology , philosophy , pedagogy , chemistry , epistemology , biochemistry , crystallography
I am pleased to have an opportunity to clarify my proposals for teaching Whole Science and assessing knowledge of the nature of science through seeking a well-informed analysis of case studies in the news (Allchin, 2011; assumed in page references below). In this, I echoed similar earlier proposals by Norris and Phillips (1994), Glynn and Muth (1994), Korpan, Bisanz, Bisanz and Henderson (1997), Murcia and Schibeci (1999), Philips and Norris (1999), Norris, Phillips, and Korpan (2003), and Ford (2008). I hope to address here the concerns of Schwartz, Lederman, and Abd-El-Khalick (2012) and to profile where they have misrepresented published comments, lest others be misled. My purpose, again, was to “profile . . . a prospective method for assessing nature of science (NOS) knowledge, as an alternative to VNOS and similar approaches.” A major objective was to address the widely adopted goal of authentic assessment (pp. 520, 529) (National Research Council, 1996, Chap. 5; Newmann, 1996; Newmann, Bryk, & Nagaoka, 2001; Shannon, 1999, Chap. 3; also see Wiggins, 1990). That is, educators ultimately want to know how students understand NOS and apply their knowledge in authentic, commonlife contexts. The U.S. National Research Council’s Board on Science Education (BOSE) recently reaffirmed this goal: