Implicit versus explicit nature of science instruction: An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley
✍ Scribed by Randy L. Bell; Norman G. Lederman; Fouad Abd-El-Khalick
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1998
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 16 KB
- Volume
- 35
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0022-4308
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
In a recent article, Palmquist and Finley (1997) described their investigation of changes in preservice teachers' views of the nature of science during a teacher education program and the influences of these views on the teachers' instructional practices. While we agree with the importance of this topic, we differ on the interpretation of some key points and the validity of two of Palmquist and Finley's assumptions. Namely, we disagree with their conclusion that the preservice teachers in their sample learned the nature of science implicitly. This conclusion is consistent with the long-held assumption that the nature of science can be effectively taught indirectly through hands-on, inquiry-based instruction. However, a closer look at Palmquist and Finley's data indicate that substantial direct instruction was provided, and supports the view that the nature of science, like any other cognitive outcome, should be addressed explicitly. In addition, we contend that the authors' assumption that teachers' beliefs necessarily influence instructional practices has previously been tested and found wanting.
The authors state in their abstract that the preservice teachers comprising the sample made substantial shifts toward the contemporary model of the nature of science with "little direct instruction about the nature of science" (p. 595). However, the descriptions of instruction in the science methods courses, to which these changes were attributed, indicate that (a) teaching about several tenets of the nature of science was both substantial and explicit, and (b) where the majority of instruction was implicit, the preservice teachers did not make an overall shift toward the contemporary model.
Both instructors were described by the authors as believing "that a proper understanding of the nature of science was crucial for future science educators" (p. 597). The authors described the first methods course as devoting "an entire class period (2 h) to an explicit discussion of the nature of science" (p. 597), which included opportunities for students to discuss their opinions of several tenets of the traditional and contemporary models of the nature of science. In the sec-