Really it is an very interesting and thought provoking discussion which gives us insight for us basically who want to teach science and who want to learn science.

The first question arises in my mind is actually What is Science?

2nd question arises in my mind is Why we would we teach Science?

next question arises in me is How we should teach Science?

Kindly think in above questions Please discuss it in this forum- keshav

well I believe that understanding the nature of science requires higher thinking skills and abilities to visualize, imagine and manipulating the symbols in mind which is difficult at lower classes like middle school. At high school this can be initiated but not generalized for all students as different students have different pathways of getting mature in applying thought. So a better option would be to include those activities which somehow prepare students for higher skills when they reach a proper maturity level for themselves. For this use of mathematics and various critical/analytic thinking skills can be taught. These problem solving strategies would keep students stimulating in intellectual pursuits and it can be easier for them to grasp basic science at higher levels of academics. So I personally believe that mathematics would provide a better solution rather than focussing on inquiries about the nature of science. In any case there would always be exceptions among children. Such students can be taught separately. Important thing is not to suppress the student in his/her pursuits.

I believe that each of these areas is important, and are not as different as some science education researchers believe. Foremost, younger students must be able to understand the natural world. they do this first with observation, so they need to practice making accurate observations, and must manipulate, and interact with the natural world. They also need vocabulary to communicate about what they observe, and to be able to learn from others. Last, they need to see that their observations can be quantitative, and that they can use these quantitative predictions to manipulate things. To me the first steps are always observations. Where many education researchers go wrong is that assessment is much easier with content, and the quantitative aspects. But engagement with the natural world is very important for all young people in my opinion.

The overall sense of science and even belief in science in this country is hitting new lows. Of course, some of this ideological (struggle over evolution for example), but some of it is just the failure to promote the underlying methods of science. I think practically regardless of age, children can learn not only the process of taking observations in a quantitative way, but of forming hypotheses and applying theories and seeing if the evidence supports or disconfirms the theories. Adults in our society ought to be able to have the skills to assess the evidence for and against global warming or, let's say, alternative medicine, rather than fall into the journalistic trap of a "he said, she said," where a tiny minority of bought and paid for "scientists" are given the same weight as the bulk of real working scientists. Of course, there is a fantastic amount of discipline-specific science that high schoolers, in particular, can learn, but the scientific method itself, everything from recording accurate observations to running experiments should start as early as elementary school and really never end.

Not only as a scientist but I'm also a middle/high school teacher , I've thought about this problem for many times during teaching. Based on my personally experiences, different students should be taught by different pathway since they have their own thinking styles. In these years of teaching, only few students could understand and connect their own observation or accurate recording with a scientific think. In the begining, I've tried very hard to teach them the scientific think. But most students could not accept the thought since they even don't have any interests in science. Maybe this is because in our country students sould learn all the subjects (it must depends on different education policies. So to be honest, I think that there's no absolutely answer of this subject I thoght. Finally, I agreed that science education should start as early as we can.

For some practical ideas take a look at the Australian Curriculun in science for kindergarten to Year 10. Knowledge about science is blended with scientific skills.

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10

Initially, when education starts, nature of science should be taught which is essential for knowing the basics. Later, scientific skills should be included. As pointed out earlier, some students may not be interested , they have to be convinced how interesting science is and basically why it is being taught ! So in conclusion, both are necessary at school level - nature and skills of science !

A very interesting talk on the subject can be found at:

http://www.ted.com/talks/beau_lotto_amy_o_toole_science_is_for_everyone_kids_included.html

It convinced me that the best way to 'teach' science is through doing science (which can be verbalized by discussing it with the students after the fact). If we want students to remember anything we teach we need to focus on their learning (not our teaching) finding the most efficient ways to maximize it. The activity described in this talk epitomize this kind of focus.

Really it is an very interesting and thought provoking discussion which gives us insight for us basically who want to teach science and who want to learn science.

The first question arises in my mind is actually What is Science?

2nd question arises in my mind is Why we would we teach Science?

next question arises in me is How we should teach Science?

Kindly think in above questions Please discuss it in this forum- keshav

In my mind 'Science' is the process by which we find out how things (in the broader sense) work (in other words a process for finding the truth). It is a human endeavor and we trust other practitioner to be honest (and sufficient details need to be provided for others to replicate the process).

We teach science so that others can engage in this process.

How to teach it is the crux of the matter. Many teach it as a history of what has been found and how it has been found (in the hope, maybe, that by learning about others we could emulate the process ourselves). This is similar to teaching swimming by reading about famous swimmers and their amazing strokes w/o ever getting in the water ourselves. Other, do labs where they mimic the process done by others (e.g. verification). Here again, while more hands on, there is no room for creativity from the students.

Finally, others, as in the talk I referenced in my previous email, have student learn about science by engaging in the process. To me this is how one learn to do science (and indeed that is the process done in graduate school).

I have missed one aspect.

We also teach science so that our fellow citizen understand how it works (and for example how it is different from religion or other processes of finding 'the truth'). Since science is so important for the economy (nations with strong science backbone are dominating the output of novel medicine, electronics etc') it is critical that our fellow citizens understand the process and the need for public funds to keep it going (including funding of basic science for which currently we see no industrial application). It follows that science literacy needs to be e a critical component of education if we want to continue and advance our state of knowledge.

Before I add my own points to this interesting discussion, how many of you have read this report before - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165 and seen this new website (http://nextgenscience.org/) which is a follow-up of the above 2011 report. If you are pressed for time, I suggest that you read through the 3-page executive summary of the 2011 report.

I have not seen the new website myself and I will have to do that homework before I join this conversation. If the 2011 report is not accessible for some reason and want to see some points from the exec summary with my own notes - http://www.lcykids.com/teachers/fft

This note is for Indians or others who are interested in Indian context only - an interesting conference happened in Hyderabad at the end of March with VCs from 6 univs. and directors of various science research institutes. Graced by Ex. Pres. Kalam. It was a 2 day National Conference on Declining Interest in Science Education and Remedies. A friend of mine who was lucky enough to attend that conference has uploaded about 3GB of the videos that he captured (it is unfortunate that the videographers left as soon as Ex. Pres. Kalam left after his lecture). And no other official video was captured other than amateur video by my friend. He is still working on the playlist and linking up on his website with specific comments on what the questions and what the answers for some of the questions from students and audience to the eminent panel. I will share that as soon as I have the links.

I need to watch those videos before I share any comments from that conference.

However the second-hand info I have is that - the tech industry has impacted the interest in science dramatically. And no one is in a hurry to fix this issue as employment is good and we will evolve to a society where parents are ok with kids getting into science careers. Right now there is a mad rush into IT for the sake of good salaries and other material comforts of those jobs (irrespective of how bad the personal life issues are in terms of work-life balance in the IT industry where there is a serious abuse of labour laws - as noted by an ex-CEO of Indian arm of Shell). Going off topic here. However the social context is of some importance in terms of interest in Science.

Well written piece about learning strategies in higher ed that I think can translate well to upper grades: www.psychology.mcmaster.ca/bennett/psy720/readings/m1/m1r2.pdf

My preference is for the nature of science, largely because we seem to stamp out genuine inquiry with our current educational paradigm. I wonder about the perspective we bring to the classroom relative to Newtonian vs. Goethean science. We, as a culture, generally devalue qualitative research methods as scientifically-based inquiry. Since the NCLB codified “the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs" we have been using the notion of objectivity in the epistemologically realist sense without entering into any dialogue about the social construction of facts, or the evolution of scientific paradigms (a la Thomas Kuhn or Bruno Latour), which in my opinion are as valid or more in the development of critical thinking skills.

I agree with Nelkin, Jakku and others in questioning the belief that there is one apolitical objective truth to apply in solving any complex problem (Nelkin, Jakku, etc.). On a large scale, there are experiments and answers that do approach universal reality very cleanly in the physical sciences, but even laboratory settings are prone to variation and "errors" are just as valuable in the learning process as the arrival at predictable results.When we look at the history of science and the messy nature of actual discovery, I find it problematic to subjugate the process of discovery to the result, and to devalue the ability to embark on an error-laden journey to an answer, when we know that so many great discoveries were made by accident when the researcher was seeking something else. Einstein, DaVinci, and Gallileo had much more comprehensive and holistic perspectives on science than we present to students. I think we should take apart the nature of scientific inquiry specifically in the upper grades, and allow for exploration within the disciplines by those truly engaged by the inquiry. And when we teach social sciences, we can discuss the creation of data and evidence as do Freeman, deMarrais, Preissle, Roulston and St. Pierre in their article “Standards of Evidence in Qualitative Research: An Incitement to Discourse” (2007), which I found a very well-researched and articulated discussion of some of these issues.

Scientific skills, a.k.a. 'Scientific Method' is one thing, nature of science is what is called Epistemology, 'Metascience' perhaps?

Both scientific skills and the nature of science should be taught in schools and should be part of lesson planning.

I agree with David Somerville, both scientific skills and the nature of science should be taught in school

The education in a broader sense helps the individual to live mentally, physically and socially well state. The education has to help the student to cope well in future till he lives/ his future generation lives.

There are pupil who go to engineering colleges, medical colleges, arts/ science colleges, and who go directly to work after school days.

The education that a child get at any stage should help him/her / add to the life experience.

Students who are going to arts stream should be able to cope with their life at a later stage. Such should be the education in science, the deeper scientific skills would be much important for the researchers/engineers/doctors which is not needed for arts people.

I prefer to present the entire science curriculum as activity based so that those who need a surface level experience will be happy with what they have done and who need a deeper experience will come to us and they can be guided.

I think "Nature of science" and "Scientific Skills" are two sides of

a coin, in the absence of any one it will be meaning less.

While we teaching Science we must fallow above two i.e Nature of Science and Scientific Skills.

Nature of Science ; as we know

Science is curious in nature and Explorative in nature as child nature is.

as we know

curiosity leads to questioning,

questioning leads to Hypothesizing,

Hypothesizing leads to testing of hypothesis,

which leads to Designing an Experiment,

and doing the experiment/

Collection of data and analysis of the data

And coming to the conclusion.

This is nothing but exploring ( nature of science )

Really if we observe history of Science most of the Scientific knowledge evolved in this process only. This is nothing but scientific process or Scientific method . The skills imbibed in this process is nothing but Scientific skills Which includes Process Skills of Science.

So while teaching Science we must give importance to Nature of Science and also for the development of scientific skills through which child can learn and gets real

taste of Science.

Normal healthy children are naturally curious about everything in their surrounding therefore it does not require much effort to ignite their interest in science. Learning and accumulating knowledge is fine for a while. But, it gets boring if the knowledge is not applied. Projects and other skill building activities are fun and make it possible for the students to use and test this knowledge that they have acquired. Why should any student wait until he / she has studied for a certain number of years to do this?

I feel there is a real danger in not giving an interested youngster such opportunities - he would lose interest and worse still-- begin to associate science with "knowledge" or information, for that is what science becomes minus these activities.

After seven months of pondering this question, immersing myself in the world of science educational research, teaching, and making observations, I've come to the following conclusion: this question poses a conundrum.  You see, I've learnt science and have been involved in scientific thinking for nearly 20 years (allow me to repeat that, 20 years).  And, if my experience has served me any good it is this, the question I pose is one and the same.  You see, scientific skills are the nature of science and the fundamental experiments and discoveries that we've made have been the backdrop of the scientific skills that we've used to make such discoveries. 

Now, whether the discoveries have led to the creation and/or repetition of the skills or the skills have led to the discoveries well...I'm sure we can formulate arguments on either side of the fence.  After all, that's what research is all about.  Scientific skills are merely a way to organize our analytical minds and, it's proven time and time again that it works.

Which leaves to ponder the next question, is this the only way (Euro-centric) of establishing analytical and critical thought? Personally, the answer is NO.  If you look at the research regarding other forms of argumentation or simply examine students with multicultural identities who have been exposed to other ways of organizing and creating evidence-based information you'll observe that there many other ways of creating evidence-based information.  However, as a Euro-centric society we've adopted the general framework of the "scientific method" and posited it into our classrooms with total disregard to a more universal approach.

To me, the scientific method is the universal method for establishing analytical and critical thought and I don't consider it Eurocentric. I consider it natural. 

I could give a step-by-step construction for why this is but the question you posed is a very old one, one that continues to have a precarious existence, as judged by your questioning. 

I could simply state that it is related to how we judge which experts to trust when the outcome is uncertain (c.f., Melissa Lane, “When the experts are uncertain: Scientific knowledge and the ethics of democratic judgment”).  But that question is, itself, a very complicated one.  We can reduce it by saying that judgment is dependent on how we consign legitimacy and that the most stable means is to be in possession of epistemic autonomy, an awareness of the workings of a concrete, normative reasoning process, a scientific habit of mind.

An ironic and illuminating moment in history occurred when Peirce claimed to be in possession of the proof for this formal method and was prepared to announce it to the world.  But even his most fervent supporter, William James, was not able to understand him and recommended he change his presentation, a most unwelcome request. This, of a method for which Peirce claimed,

“I have worked out a long series of practical exercises to teach the whole art of reasoning from beginning to end. There are throughout the country thousands of young men and women to whom these lessons would be of more real service than almost anything they could study. [Brent 1993: 183]

Part of the plan was to develop a system would enable also “young persons of mediocre capacities” to develop their reasoning capacities [Peirce 1992b: 13]. “Not that I should expect to make dull young men bright; but I have a particular liking for and understanding of and respect for dull young men, and I understand just what logic can do for them” [ibidem: 16].” ~from Richard Swedberg, “On Charles S. Peirce’s Lecture “How to Theorize” (1903)”

But if Peirce was in possession for proof of his own method, and it’s hidden from great men like James, then how can we know it?  That is, how can we decide which authority to trust?  

We are now a century removed from his passing and his work is acknowledged as being great across all scientific disciplines as far as I am aware, but only by experts immersed in his work.  Most of us have never heard of Peirce. 

If, as they say, “the proof in the pudding is in the eating”, then why not let the future decide?  After all, there cannot be generals without instances and those instances are in the future.  But what’s a good example that can efficiently (mediation of perspicuous and complete) analogize to new situations, one that can inform us of modern methods and not take up too much of our attention (c.f., prioritizing to limit "volume of content", Coffey and Alberts, "Improving Education Standards")?

That is, what is the best example of peircean abduction?

In “On the Existence and Uniqueness of the Scientific Method”, Jorge Wagensberg puts forth his ideas on the uniqueness and universality of the scientific method.  He also independently presents a method involving three categories or “the three fundamental hypotheses”, reality/observation/comprehension. 

Its  relation to Coffey and Alberts’ concerns are suggested by selection of the following:

“The aim of the scientific explanation throughout the ages has been ‘unification,’ i.e., the comprehending of a maximum of facts and regularities in terms of a minimum of theoretical concepts and assumptions. (Feigl)”

And while Wagensberg admits that...

“The task of reviewing the whole of the history of science armed with the SM far exceeds the ambition of this article, but suggesting it is part of its conclusions”,

...Peirce is, again, neglected.  However, Wagensberg leaves open the possibility of its consistency with other architectonics that he may have missed:

“In any event, there is another way of assessing the compatibility of the SM with what has been regarded over the course of history as scientific theories. This involves analyzing the various scientific methodologies on which these theories were based, and verifying whether they share what we have here put forward as an SM.”

So, I ask the reader, if you put Wagensberg and Peirce next to one another and hold them in relation, what inconsistencies or novelties would you find?  What benefits and consequences would this have for general education?

“one, two, three;

sign, object, interpretant;

chance, law, habit-taking...”

http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/brent/PURSUING.HTM