This article was downloaded by: [University of Toronto Libraries]

On: 10 August 2014, At: 07:52

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20

Learning Science, Learning about

Science, Doing Science: Different goals
demand different learning methods
a
Derek Hodson
a
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Epsom Avenue,
Auckland, New Zealand
Published online: 30 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Derek Hodson (2014) Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science:
Different goals demand different learning methods, International Journal of Science Education,
36:15, 2534-2553, DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 International Journal of Science Education, 2014
Vol. 36, No. 15, 2534– 2553, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722

Learning Science, Learning about

Science, Doing Science: Different
goals demand different learning
methods
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

Derek Hodson∗
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Epsom Avenue, Auckland, New Zealand

This opinion piece paper urges teachers and teacher educators to draw careful distinctions among
four basic learning goals: learning science, learning about science, doing science and learning to
address socio-scientific issues. In elaboration, the author urges that careful attention is paid to the
selection of teaching/learning methods that recognize key differences in learning goals and criticizes
the common assertion that ‘current wisdom advocates that students best learn science through an
inquiry-oriented teaching approach’ on the grounds that conflating the distinction between
learning by inquiry and engaging in scientific inquiry is unhelpful in selecting appropriate
teaching/learning approaches.

Keywords: Inquiry-based teaching; Laboratory work; Learning activities

Clarifying Learning Goals

Norman Lederman, his colleagues and co-workers have been prominent among those
arguing that an explicit approach is much more effective than an implicit approach in
building a good understanding of the nature of science (NOS) (Abd-El-Khalick,
Bell, & Lederman, 1998; Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000; Akerson, Abd-El-
khalick, & Lederman, 2000; Bell, Lederman, & Abd-El-Khalick, 2000; Lederman
& Abd-El-Khalick, 1998; Schwartz & Lederman, 2002; Schwartz, Lederman, &
Crawford, 2004). In an explicit approach, NOS understanding is regarded as curricu-
lum content, to be approached carefully and systematically, just like any other lesson
content. This does not entail a didactic or teacher-centred approach or the imposition

∗
Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, Epsom Avenue, Auckland, New Zealand. Email:
[email protected]

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2535

of a particular view of science through exercise of teacher authority, but it does entail
rejection of the belief that students will develop good NOS understanding as a by-
product of engaging in other learning activities—for example, those relating to acqui-
sition and development of basic scientific concepts.
Despite convincing arguments and the support of a substantial body of research evi-
dence in favour of an explicit approach to teaching NOS, Lederman, Antink and
Bartos (2014) state that ‘students will best learn scientific concepts by doing
science’ (p. 291). In other words, although an implicit approach to learning NOS is
to be rejected, an implicit approach to learning science content is both desirable
and likely to be successful. Given the complexity and counter-intuitive nature of
many scientific concepts, this is quite a startling proposition, with strong and unfor-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

tunate echoes of the seriously misguided 1960s notion of discovery learning, that is,
the notion that scientific understanding and acceptable explanations of phenomena
and events will emerge in a straightforward way from simple engagement in hands-
on activities. Of course, our views about the nature of scientific investigation have
changed substantially from the naı̈ve inductivist approach adopted in the 1960s.
Nevertheless, as Dearden (1967) commented, almost half a century ago, ‘a teaching
method which genuinely leaves things open for discovery also necessarily leaves open
the opportunity for not discovering them’ (p. 153). When left to their own devices,
students may fail to reach the kind of conceptual understanding teachers seek, but
when students are too closely guided or directed, the activity ceases to be ‘doing
science’ in the senses explored in this paper. My contention is that we adopt a
much more explicit approach to learning science content, in keeping with the explicit
approach to learning NOS content. Learning science is too much important to be left
to chance.
The Lederman et al.’s (2014) assertion that students learn science by doing science
has its genesis in the sub-text underlying the statement earlier in the paper that
‘current wisdom advocates that students best learn science through an inquiry-
oriented teaching approach’ (p. 290). While I am in general agreement, at least in
part, that inquiry-based learning can be highly motivating and very effective,
especially in fostering critical thinking, I reject the implication that inquiry-based
learning necessitates a ‘doing science’ approach. Inquiry-based learning can be
invaluable in all curriculum fields; the error lies in the assumption that inquiry-
based learning in science necessarily involves classroom activities that mimic or
attempt to mimic the methods deployed by scientists in their research practice.
There is a crucial distinction between inquiry-based learning, in which students
learn all manner of things by means of text-based, discussion-based and/or Inter-
net-based inquiry methods, and learning about and learning to engage in scientific
inquiry, that is, engaging in the methods of investigation used by scientists. The con-
flation of these two notions is unhelpful to teachers. Indeed, it could be argued that it
leads to confusion and frustration for both teachers and students. Of course, Leder-
man et al. (2014) are not alone in promoting this view; McBride, Bhatti, Hannan,
and Feinberg (2004), for example, state that
 2536 D. Hodson

Teaching science by inquiry involves teaching students the science processes and skills
used by scientists to learn about the world and helping the students apply these skills
involved with learning science concepts . . . the process of inquiry becomes the means
by which the currently accepted science knowledge is better understood. (p. 435)

Alarmingly, these authors go on to state that ‘teachers involve students in inquiry-

based activities but do not predetermine science concepts for students to discover’
(p. 435). What, then, is the means by which teachers ensure that students develop
the conceptual understanding required by the curriculum? Are we to assume that
learning science content is no longer considered important? Or is there something
that McBride et al. (2004) and other enthusiasts for this approach are not telling
us? Crawford (2007) notes that teaching science as/through inquiry is complex, diffi-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

cult and daunting for teachers. It is all of these things because it is ill-conceived. When
they proceed unaided, students are very unlikely to discover in a 90-minute science
lesson what it may have taken scientists many years to discover, and unlikely to
arrive at the conclusions and explanations the curriculum prescribes. When given
extensive guidance and direction, the activity ceases to be doing science in any mean-
ingful sense. Rather, it descends to the level Solomon (1980) disparagingly referred to
as ‘frog-marched discovery’. We should drop the pretence that students can arrive at
significant science unaided. When particular conceptual understanding is sought, we
need to use an approach that guarantees the outcome, while restricting a doing science
approach to those situations in which it does not matter what the students ‘discover’.
Banchi and Bell (2008) attempt to find a way out of this impasse by designating four
levels of inquiry:

. Confirmation inquiry—students are provided with a question and procedure for

confirming or reinforcing a previously learned idea or practising specific skills of
data collection and recording.
. Structured inquiry—students analyse data collected through a designated pro-
cedure and formulate answers to questions posed by the teacher.
. Guided inquiry—students design and follow their own procedures to collect data
and formulate conclusions that answer a question posed by the teacher.
. Open inquiry—students formulate their own research question(s), design and
conduct a procedure, collect data and communicate their findings and results.

Superficially, this categorization seems helpful to teachers struggling to make the

claim that their approach can be designated inquiry-based teaching in order to
satisfy the mantra ‘students best learn science through an inquiry-oriented teaching
approach’ (Lederman et al., 2014, p. 290). However, it undermines the proposition
that ‘students will best learn scientific concepts by doing science’ (Lederman et al.,
2014, p. 291). Only the fourth category of ‘open inquiry’ fully meets the criteria of
doing science, as argued later in this paper.
Successful pedagogy depends crucially on teachers being clear about the specific
purpose of each learning experience and refining their approach to maximize the like-
lihood of a successful outcome. The familiar expression ‘Horses for courses’
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2537

encapsulates this notion well: to be successful in attaining particular learning goals, we

need to choose approaches that are well suited to the task. What works well for one
task may be entirely unsuited to a different one. Put simply, step 1 in planning a learn-
ing experience is to be clear about the learning goal, step 2 is to select an approach that
suits it. The argument developed in this discussion paper is three-fold. First, clarity
about learning goals is crucial to judicious selection of teaching and learning
methods. Second, teachers need to be a little more circumspect and modest in their
aspirations for a particular lesson. Sound lesson planning avoids too many goals, dis-
parate goals and potentially conflicting goals. Third, it is central to sound planning
that learning goals are made explicit and understandable to students.
Regarding clarity of learning goals, there is great value in distinguishing among four
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

major categories of learning goals:

. Learning science—acquiring and developing conceptual and theoretical knowledge.

. Learning about science—developing an understanding of the characteristics of scien-
tific inquiry, the role and status of the knowledge it generates, the social and intel-
lectual circumstances surrounding the origin and development of important
scientific theories, the ways in which the scientific community establishes and
monitors professional practice, including robust knowledge of the linguistic con-
ventions for reporting, defending, scrutinizing and validating scientific claims,
and awareness of the complex interactions among science, technology, society
and environment.
. Doing science—engaging in and developing expertise in scientific inquiry and
problem-solving.
. Addressing socio-scientific issues (SSIs)—developing the critical skills to confront the
personal, social, economic, environmental and moral-ethical aspects of SSIs.

Perhaps there is little dispute regarding choice of teaching/learning methods for the
fourth category of learning goals. It seems almost self-evident that the most effective
way of learning to confront SSIs is by confronting SSIs, provided there are appropriate
levels of guidance and support. SSIs-oriented teaching will not be explored further in
this paper. Rather, this paper focuses on how we might strive to achieve the other three
learning goals and avoid the poor choices teachers make when they fail to clarify the
specific goals of particular lessons and casually assume that a learning approach suc-
cessful in one context will necessarily be successful in another. Too often, it has been
assumed that significantly different categories of learning goals can be well-served by
the same kind of learning experience. It is my contention that a learning experience
intended to bring about concept acquisition or development will almost certainly
need to be very different in design from one that aims to help students develop an
understanding of particular aspects of scientific inquiry, foster interest in science, or
provide awareness of the history, development and social impact of an idea, process
or artefact. Put simply, some teaching/learning methods suit particular kinds of learn-
ing goals, but not others. Moreover, learners may have preferences for particular
methods and perhaps all of us enjoy variety. One size does not fit all!
 2538 D. Hodson

Because inquiry and experimentation are central to science, many teachers (and
teacher educators and curriculum developers) assume that they should be central to
science education. Thus, they attempt to achieve every learning goal via an approach
based on what they see as the processes of scientific inquiry. In doing so, they make
three basic planning errors. First, they fail to draw the crucial distinction between
doing science and learning science. Second, they fail to distinguish between inquiry-
based learning and engaging in scientific inquiry. Third, they fail to distinguish
between learning about scientific inquiry (in all its variations across sub-disciplines)
and learning to conduct scientific inquiries (and gaining experience of doing so).
These three fundamental errors are compounded in the planning of lab-based or
field-based hands-on work (what some science educators call practical work), often
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

with unfortunate consequences for students’ learning and attitudes to science.

While there are, of course, many areas of overlap, there is great value in regarding
learning science, learning about science and doing science as separate teaching and
learning goals.

Learning Science
In most curricula, content relating to scientific concepts, ideas, models and theories is
carefully prescribed, though some variation may be permitted or encouraged to allow
students to pursue particular interests or concerns. The key point is that in teaching
for concept acquisition and development, teachers usually have particular learning
outcomes in mind (i.e. those prescribed by the syllabus). Effective pedagogy
demands that specific learning methods are chosen in relation to the characteristics
of the content, the knowledge and understanding the students already possess, their
previous experiences, needs and interests, the need for variety of classroom activity,
the availability of resources, specific teacher expertise and so on.
Beginning teachers quickly realize that students vary enormously in terms of the
knowledge they bring to a science lesson. Each student’s array of formal (academic)
knowledge and informal (everyday) knowledge, compounded by highly personal
experiential and affective elements—what we might call their personal framework of
understanding (Hodson, 1998)—will, in part, have been accumulated under a range
of different circumstances, often under different stimuli and sometimes for different
purposes. It will change over time, sometimes predictably and sometimes unpredicta-
bly, and will be strongly influenced by the sociocultural contexts in which each student
is located. Learning science is a matter of adding to, modifying and sometimes delet-
ing elements from this complex of meanings and understandings. It would be ludi-
crous to believe that there is one ideal way of introducing a wide range of scientific
ideas to a diverse group of students, each with a unique personal framework of under-
standing. It would be even more ludicrous to believe that this supposed all-purpose
learning approach should be one based on the activities scientists deploy in theory
building, with all its complexities, uncertainties and frustrations.
In teaching science, it is the teacher’s task to assist students in exploring, modifying
and developing their personal frameworks of understanding in order to incorporate
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2539

the desired aspects of scientific understanding. Moreover, given that the ‘approved
meanings’ specified by the syllabus jostle alongside a wide range of personal, idiosyn-
cratic meanings and associations, the teacher has the additional task of assisting stu-
dents in developing the capacity to select and use appropriate aspects of their personal
frameworks of understanding in response to particular circumstances. Achieving this
kind of learning is no easy task and we do teachers a gross disservice by encouraging
them to believe that there is one undisputed route to it. As Lederman et al. (2014)
note, inquiry-based learning can be a particularly fruitful approach—for example,
library-based, discussion-based or Internet-based inquiry to seek out theoretical
explanations for phenomena and events. Carefully designed hands-on work can
also be very effective in bringing about conceptual understanding, as can skilful
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

teacher demonstration, video presentation and the use of computer simulations.

However, these activities do not constitute ‘doing science’ in any meaningful sense
of the word, except in the specific circumstances discussed below. This is categorically
not an argument against the use of hand-on activities, but it is a plea for teachers to be
more careful and systematic in how they use them. Hands-on activities can be very
effective when the goals are clear (to students as well as teachers) and modest in
scope—for example, to experience particular phenomena and events, demonstrate
an idea, principle or theory, acquire a specific bench skill, make a measurement,
test a hypothesis, manipulate some variables, collect lots of data to see if a pattern
can be detected, or just to see what happens. But none of these activities can reason-
ably be regarded as doing science.
When the purpose of a hands-on learning activity is to bring about particular con-
ceptual understanding, it is important that the nature of the learning is made clear to
the students and that reliable results are obtained that lead directly and unerringly to
particular conclusions and particular understanding. Unfortunately, the reality is that
hands-on activities, which are frequently misnamed as experiments to match the
doing science motivation advocated by enthusiasts for this approach, often lead to stu-
dents generating different results, confusing results, conflicting results or no results at
all. Students may make errors in observing, measuring or recording, mishandle appar-
atus or have laboratory accidents, lose interest, or just fail to finish data collection in
the time available. They may be distracted by all the clutter and hurly-burly of hands-
on activity; they may become so immersed in the practical detail of what they are
doing that they miss the conceptual significance of it. Moreover, even when they
are careful and systematic in their approach, the waywardness of shoddy and poorly
maintained school apparatus may still lead them astray. The reality of many practical
work sessions is that students are put into a position where they have to understand
the nature of the problem and the investigative procedure (neither of which they
may have been consulted about), assemble the relevant theoretical perspective (some-
times with only minimum assistance from the teacher), read, comprehend and follow
the teacher’s directions for the activity, assemble and use the apparatus (perhaps for
the first time), collect the data, recognize the difference between results obtained
and results that the teacher intended them to obtain, interpret those results, write
an account of the activity (often in a form and language with which they are
 2540 D. Hodson

unfamiliar), and all the time ensure that they get along reasonably well with their lab
partners. In short, hands-on work, as practised in many schools, has too many goals to
be readily achievable and too many unnecessary barriers to learning (too much noise).
Faced with this blast of noise, learners sometimes suffer information overload and are
unable to perceive the intended goal of the activity clearly.
While wayward results in one investigation do not necessarily undermine the tea-
cher’s case for the target understanding, they do constitute a cumulative threat to stu-
dents’ belief in the rationale of science because the warrant for belief has been seen to
shift from personally gathered data to teacher or textbook authority. All too often, stu-
dents are told that they have got the wrong data, reached the wrong conclusion or
missed something of theoretical significance. Precisely because hands-on work has
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

such power as a learning method, an activity that does not work well may well run
the risk that students will come to believe that science does not work, or you need
to know the results in advance, or the teacher cannot organize things properly, or
they are no good at science. Such experiences are unhelpful, counter-productive
and possibly prejudicial to students’ attitudes to science and to learning science. It
makes much more sense to use teaching and learning methods that do not undermine
students’ confidence in their capacity to learn. The simple point is that practical work
for concept acquisition must work, work well and be seen by students to work well.
The likelihood of students getting the intended results can be substantially increased
by simplifying the activity: reducing the number of steps; restricting the number of
variables; using simpler apparatus and laboratory procedures; pre-assembling appar-
atus or pre-weighing materials; using computers to capture and present data or to
monitor and control experiments. Collectively, these actions can be seen as reducing
the level of noise, thereby increasing the likelihood of a productive outcome. If the
‘right results’ still cannot be obtained, my response would be to conjure it—that is,
use sleight of hand or some other kind of secret manipulation of equipment and
materials to ensure the data obtained match expectations, as described by Nott and
Smith (1995). Alternatively, teachers might demonstrate, use computer simulation,
interactive video or other multimedia experience, access existing reliable data from
a reputable source, or replace the activity with some alternative active learning
method. The point I am making here is that practical work designed specifically for
learning science (as defined above) is essentially theatre or, in the terms used by
Lynch and Macbeth (1998), students are witnesses of scientific phenomena presented
or organized by the teacher. It is designed (or should be designed) to bring about
specific understanding. Illusion and make-believe are prominent and effective features
of theatre; I see no reason why they should not be prominent and effective ways of pro-
moting conceptual understanding. These more controlled learning experiences can be
used to assist students towards the kind of conceptual understanding specified in the
curriculum. Subsequently, laboratory work of various kinds can be used to provide
opportunities for students to test out their new understanding on the real world, as
discussed below.
If learning science is to be made explicit, students need to have a broad awareness of
the target learning in advance. They need to know, for example, whether they are
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2541

seeking an explanation for phenomena and events, a quantitative relationship between

key concepts or an illustrative example of a principle. And they need to reflect on the
learning that has taken place and the significance it has for them, asking questions
such as: How does my new understanding compare with my previous understanding
and with the understanding of others? Why do I now hold different views? Keeping
learning logs, arguing and debating points of view and presenting ideas to others in
oral or written form can be invaluable. Repeating a lab-based activity from earlier
in the course in order to be conscious of how phenomena and events can be described
and explained differently and more insightfully as a consequence of more sophisti-
cated conceptual understanding can be particularly powerful.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

Learning about Science

One way of addressing the wide scope and complexity of the learning about science
goal (as outlined earlier) is to adopt an approach similar to that of a social anthropol-
ogist, that is, study the scientific enterprise and the activities of scientists as explicit
curriculum content. Adopting such an approach entails consideration of the ways
in which the community of scientists is organized and how the practice of scientists
is legitimated and monitored through a system of rules, conventions and values. It
involves consideration of the areas of concern of scientists, how priorities are estab-
lished and how the institution of science interacts with the wider society. It focuses
on the methods scientists employ to pursue those concerns, the distinctive language
in which scientific knowledge is expressed, the role and status of the knowledge scien-
tists generate and how that knowledge is scrutinized and validated. Another important
aspect of learning about science is appreciating the history and development of impor-
tant scientific ideas and the social and intellectual circumstances surrounding their
development. Equally important is careful and critical consideration of the ways in
which science impacts on society, affecting very profoundly the way we think, the
way we live and the way we interact with the environment, particularly through tech-
nological innovation. While the metaphor of science teacher and students as social
anthropologists has considerable educational potential, it has one serious shortcom-
ing. Anthropologists do not and should not interfere in the cultures they study, nor
should they become active participants. In contrast, in the style of science education
envisaged here, science teachers aim to prepare students for possible participation in
the sub-culture of science and aim to equip all students with the knowledge, critical
understanding and confidence to be vigorous and informed critics of both the scien-
tific enterprise itself and policies for the deployment of scientific and technological
developments.
A curriculum this extensive in scope necessarily demands the deployment of a wide
range of learning activities and resources, including historical and contemporary case
studies, biographies and autobiographies, movies, Internet searches, simulations and
dramatic reconstructions, role playing and debating, purpose-built NOS units,
teacher instruction and demonstration, visits to research laboratories and other sites
where real world science is practised, and so on. What is clear is that this wealth of
 2542 D. Hodson

understanding cannot be achieved exclusively through a doing science approach.

Bearing in mind the constant need to make learning about science explicit, it is impor-
tant to draw students’ attention to key ideas about science, scientists and scientific
practice whenever and wherever the opportunity arises.
For the purpose of understanding the specific day-to-day activities of scientists
engaged in new knowledge generation (i.e. scientific research), and making this
understanding explicit to students, there may be some advantage in regarding scien-
tific inquiry as comprising four major elements.

(1) A design and planning phase, during which specific research questions are asked
and goals clarified, hypotheses formulated (if appropriate), investigative pro-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

cedures devised and data collection techniques selected.

(2) A performance phase, during which the various operations are carried out and
data are collected.
(3) A reflection phase, during which findings are considered and interpreted in
relation to various theoretical perspectives, conclusions drawn and justifications
for those conclusions formulated and refined.
(4) A recording and reporting phase, during which the procedure, its rationale and
the various findings, interpretations and conclusions are recorded for personal
use and expressed in the style approved by the community for communication
to, and critical scrutiny by, others.

Despite the caveats expressed later in this paper, there are major advantages in
addressing scientific inquiry in terms of these four phases, not least because it
directs teacher attention to the need to be explicit in teaching about science and
reminds them of the need to avoid seeking to achieve too many disparate learning
goals in the same lesson.
Under phase 1, students can be introduced to the substantial differences in research
strategy and day-to-day activities of palaeontologists and epidemiologists, for example,
or between scientists researching in high energy physics and those engaged in molecular
biology. There are significant differences among the sub-disciplines of science in terms of
the kind of research questions asked, the methods and technologies employed to answer
them, the kind of evidence sought, the extent to which they use experimentation, the
ways in which data for theory building are collected, the standards by which investi-
gations and conclusions are judged, and the kinds of arguments deployed. For
example, while many physicists spend time designing critical experiments to test
daring hypotheses, most chemists are intent on synthesizing new compounds and
most geoscientists seek to build explanations of geologic phenomena and accounts of
historical sequences of events from observations, carefully warranted inferences and inte-
gration or reconciliation of independent lines of inquiry, often conducted in diverse
locations. Mayr (1988, 2004) has even distinguished two radically different approaches
within biology, with functional or mechanistic biology addressing questions of proximate
causation and evolutionary biology addressing questions of ultimate causation. In other
words, the specifics of scientific rationality change between sub-disciplines, with each
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2543

sub-discipline playing the game of science according to its own rules, a view discussed at
some length in Hodson (2008, 2009). The key point is that the procedures of investi-
gation in a particular sub-discipline of science are deeply grounded in the field’s substan-
tive aspects, the specific purposes of the inquiry and the technologies available for data
collection and manipulation. In consequence, we should be building an understanding
of scientific inquiry from examples of the daily practice of diverse groups of scientists
engaged in diverse practices and we should be creating opportunities for students to
experience, explore and discuss the differences in knowledge and its generation across
multiple contexts. It is for this reason that NOS-oriented research needs to study the
work of scientists active at the frontier of knowledge generation (Schwartz & Lederman,
2008; Wong & Hodson, 2009, 2010).
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

Under phase 2, it is important that students gain some insights into the range of
data gathering techniques deployed in science and the sophisticated technologies
now available to scientists. In several fields, a great deal of the previously tedious
and time-consuming data collection is now carried out by high-speed computers.
Data collection and interpretation that previously took months to complete now
only takes a few minutes. The much reduced data generation time makes meticulous
hypothesizing and theorizing before actual experimentation much less important than
in the past. Scientific investigation in which data are obtained first and then interesting
problems identified by ‘data mining’ have become much more common in recent
years. Together with good quality video material, visits to research laboratories and/
or diagnostic/analytical facilities are invaluable in giving students an insight into the
dynamic interrelationship of science and technology, and raising awareness of inves-
tigative techniques well beyond those available in the school situation. However, it is
in this phase that students also acquire expertise and develop laboratory skills that can
be confidently and successfully deployed later in conducting their own investigations
(see below).
Discussion under phase 3 provides opportunities to make explicit the theory-
dependent nature of scientific inquiry. For students, a key element in learning
about scientific practice is the realization that every scientific investigation is set
within a theoretical matrix (particular conceptual schemes and theories), a procedural
matrix (a community-approved investigative method or practice underpinned by the-
ories and conventions about how to conduct, record and report investigations) and an
instrumental matrix (theories underpinning the design and construction of all scien-
tific instruments employed in the investigation, together with the theories of percep-
tion that underpin all observations). It is this complex of theoretical understanding
and assumptions that gives both form and purpose to inquiry. What counts as good
research design, what kind of observations are sought, what measurements are
regarded as legitimate, what instruments may be utilized, and what sort of evidence
is seen as crucial, are all determined by the theoretical matrix within which the scien-
tist is working. So, too, the interpretation of data, formulation of conclusions and
arguments used to establish the legitimacy of the inquiry and the validity and
reliability of the results. The data do not speak for themselves, as some textbooks
suggest when they liken scientific investigation to detective work. Rather, the data
 2544 D. Hodson

mean what theories say they mean. An important part of the misrepresentation of
experiment in school science is that scientific claims are tested against reality. Not
so! They are tested against our interpretation of reality, often using evidence collected
by instruments that encode in material form a great deal of assumed theory that is
subsequently implicit in the experimental conclusions (Latour, 1987).
Regarding the recording and reporting phase, it is important for students to recog-
nize that the scientific paper is not a reconstruction of the scientist’s individual
thought processes, and certainly not a faithful recapitulation of the day-by-day
events of the investigation. Rather, scientific papers are rational reconstructions for
the purpose of persuading others of the validity of one’s claims to knowledge and,
sometimes, of the inadequacy of rival views. Functionally, the components of a scien-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

tific paper or technical report are intended to do the following: (i) make a case for
the relevance of the investigation and its results in the light of current knowledge;
(ii) provide sufficient detail about the investigative method to facilitate methodologi-
cal evaluation and possible replication of the study; (iii) present the data or results of
the investigation; (iv) provide an interpretation of the data that leads to specific knowl-
edge claims; (v) justify the argument leading from data to conclusion in a way that
anticipates and erases specific doubts that otherwise might be raised; (v) identify
and acknowledge other concerns that might be raised against the study’s methods
and claims. Severe space limitations demand that every paragraph, even every sen-
tence, diagram and table, makes a significant contribution to establishing the
author’s claims. Sometimes doubts can be expressed or limitations in research
design acknowledged, though the underlying purpose is to head off criticism by signal-
ling the researcher’s awareness of all problematic aspects of the research and stating
the ways in which they have been resolved.
Understanding and being able to read and write the language of science confidently
and appropriately is a key learning goal. There is real value in presenting phase 4 of
scientific practice as an adversarial/judicial system in which evidence for and against
a particular scientific model/theory is presented, argued and judged. Students can
appreciate that research papers are written to persuade readers to accept conclusions,
rather than to describe what actually happened on a day-by-day basis during a
research project, by reading academic papers (appropriately edited to reduce concep-
tual, methodological and linguistic complexity) in conjunction with personal accounts
by writers such as James Watson, Richard Leakey, Richard Feynman and David
Suzuki. Reinforcement of the distinction can be achieved through their own
writing: sometimes accounts of laboratory experiences expressed in personalized
private language, sometimes descriptions of procedures and results expressed in the
community-approved public language of science. Simulations involving role playing
(researcher, member of research committee, journal editor, etc.) also have much to
offer in this respect. What is sought is an understanding of the relationship between
form and function, such that students are able to adopt a style of writing that is appro-
priate to the particular content, purpose and audience.
While it is important to introduce students to the wide range of investigative pro-
cedures available to scientists, it is very important to pay close attention to the
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2545

purpose and characteristics of experiments. Because experiments form a critically

important part of the scientist’s repertoire, and because the notion of experiments
is a prominent element of the public perception of science and is afforded great pro-
minence in science textbooks, it is crucial that the curriculum does not misrepresent
their role and function. Experiments are enormously powerful for giving scientists
precise information under highly contrived and highly controlled circumstances,
but because experiments are conceived, designed and executed within a particular
complex of theoretical understanding, considerable judgement is involved in apprais-
ing the significance of the evidence they furnish. Whether to accept the evidence, and
in consequence to accept or reject the theory, reject the evidence or conclude that
some matters are still problematic and the experiment should be re-planned, is a
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

decision that is not easily made. When scientists are working at the limits of secure
knowledge, there are sometimes uncertainties concerning the appropriateness of an
experimental design, the robustness and reliability of the instruments (possibly new
ones, designed for this particular inquiry) and even the ability of the technicians to
achieve repeatable data. It is often the case that new craft expertise has to be acquired
or a new laboratory procedure developed, so it may be some considerable time before
the experiment ‘works properly’ in the sense of producing consistent data. Exper-
imental testing of theories is not, therefore, an infallible single-step procedure;
rather, it is a multi-stage decision-making process monitored and validated by the
scientific community. Too often, we seriously mislead students by suggesting that
the kinds of experiments they perform in class constitute a straightforward and
reliable means of choosing between rival theories. In addition, we seriously underes-
timate the complexity of the relationships among observation, experiment and theory.
What we should be teaching students is that theory and experiment have an inter-
dependent, interactive, reflexive relationship: experiments assist theory building (by
giving feedback concerning theoretical speculation); theory, in turn, determines the
kind of experiments that can and should be carried out, and determines how exper-
imentally acquired data are interpreted and used. Both experiment and theory,
then, are tools for thinking in the quest for satisfactory and convincing explanations.
Neither has absolute priority, though either may lead on a particular occasion.
Newton, Driver, and Osborne (1999) express this position particularly well when
they say: ‘Observation and experiment are not the bedrock upon which science is
built; rather, they are handmaidens to the rational activity of constituting knowledge
claims through argument’ (p. 555). Interestingly, the history of science provides many
examples of developments during which theory was well ahead of experimental
testing/corroboration and, equally, lots of instances of episodes during which there
was an abundance of data but no satisfactory theory to account for it.

Doing Science
Here the emphasis is not on learning about the methods used by scientists, nor on
developing expertise in using particular laboratory techniques (the emphasis of
much laboratory work in school), but on using the methods and procedures of
 2546 D. Hodson

science to investigate phenomena, test and develop understanding, solve problems

and follow interests. In the language of Baird (1990), emphasis shifts from teacher-
directed inquiry (in which students act as question answerers) to purposeful
inquiry, in which they also function as question askers. Useful as the four-stage
model of scientific inquiry can be for learning about science, it is unhelpful and poten-
tially misleading when it comes to doing science. Although there are these phases of
activity, they are not entirely separate. Science is not a prescribed set of discrete activi-
ties leading by inevitable linear progress from initial speculation to final conclusion.
Rather, it is a context-dependent and idiosyncratic activity.
In approaching a particular situation, scientists choose an approach they consider
to be appropriate to the task, choosing specific processes and procedures from
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

among those developed and approved by the community of practitioners. Further,

scientists refine their approach to a problem, develop greater understanding of it
and devise more appropriate and productive ways of proceeding all at the same time.
As soon as an idea is developed, it is subjected to evaluation (by observation, exper-
iment, comparison with other theories, etc.). Sometimes that evaluation leads to
new ideas, to further and different experiments, different data collection methods
or even to a complete re-casting of the original idea or reformulation of the
problem. Thus, almost every move that a scientist makes during an inquiry changes
the situation in some way, so that the next decisions and moves are made in an
altered context. Consequently, scientific inquiry is holistic, fluid and reflexive, not a
matter of following a set of rules that requires particular behaviour at particular
stages. It is an organic, dynamic, interactive activity, a constant interplay of thought
and action. Moreover, in making their selections and in implementing their chosen
strategies, scientists utilize an additional kind of knowledge and understanding—
often not well articulated or even consciously applied—that can be acquired only
through the experience of doing science and constitutes the central core of the art
and craft of the creative scientist. This knowledge combines conceptual understand-
ing with elements of creativity, experimental flair (the scientific equivalent of the gar-
dener’s green fingers) and a complex of affective attributes that provide the necessary
impetus of determination, resilience to adversity and commitment. With experience,
it develops into what Polanyi (1958) calls connoisseurship. In practice, then, scientists
proceed partly by rationalization (based on their theoretical understanding) and
partly by intuition rooted in their tacit knowledge of how to do science (their connois-
seurship). By engaging in scientific inquiry, scientists increase both their understand-
ing of what constitutes doing science and their capacity to do it successfully. In other
words, doing science is a reflexive activity: current knowledge and expertise informs
and determines the conduct of the inquiry and, simultaneously, involvement in
inquiry (and, crucially, reflection on it) refines knowledge and sharpens procedural
expertise.
Because the ways in which scientists work are not fixed and not entirely predictable
in advance, and because they involve a component that is experience-dependent in a
very personal sense, they are not directly teachable. That is, one cannot learn to do
science by learning a prescription or set of processes to be applied in all situations.
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2547

The only effective way to learn to do science is by doing science, alongside a skilled
and experienced practitioner who can provide on-the-job support, criticism and
advice. If scientists enhance their professional expertise through practice, it is reason-
able to suppose that students will also learn to do science (and learn to do it better) by
doing science—simple investigations at first, probably chosen from a well-tried list of
previously successful investigations designed and developed by the teacher, but whole
investigations nonetheless. What I have in mind is a three-phase approach involving
modelling (the teacher makes explicit, justifies, explains and demonstrates an approach
appropriate to the focus of the inquiry), guided practice (students perform specified
tasks and selected aspects of the inquiry with help and support from the teacher)
and application (students perform independently of the teacher). Teacher modelling
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

(phase 1) is predicated on the assumption that careful observation of someone

skilled in the approach will facilitate the learning of successful strategies for conduct-
ing scientific investigations. In the second phase (guided practice), students work
through a carefully sequenced programme of investigative exercises and simple
whole investigations designed by the teacher to ensure successful outcomes. During
this phase, the teacher’s role is to clarify the purpose of the exercises, explain and
justify their design, make clear their role in the overall investigation, act as learning
resource, facilitator, consultant and critic. The assumption is that students will
become more expert in conducting inquiries as a consequence of practice and experi-
ence, through evaluative feedback provided by the teacher and generated in inter-
group criticism and discussion, and through intra-group reflection on the activity,
both as it progresses and on completion. This is the stage during which teacher and
students are co-investigators, with both parties asking questions, contributing ideas,
making criticisms and lending support. By these means, students learn through
cycles of practice, criticism and reflection, and are enabled to achieve, with judicious
teacher assistance and support, a level of performance they could not achieve unaided.
To be intellectually independent, however, students must eventually be able to
manage without teacher assistance and be confident enough to take responsibility
for planning, conducting and reporting their own inquiries (the application stage).
In other words, learning as assisted performance must enable students, in time, to
use their knowledge and experience to conduct their own scientific inquiries. As
their confidence, skill and knowledge grow, students are able to undertake more
complex, more challenging and more open-ended investigations. Eventually, they
can proceed independently: choosing their own topics and problems, and approach-
ing them in their own way. In this way, they experience the whole process from initial
problem identification to final evaluation and reporting.
When students are engaged in conducting their own investigations, under their own
direction, they refine their conceptual knowledge and develop their procedural skills
concurrently. Most important of all, they use their developing knowledge and expertise
in real contexts. In such circumstances, there is much to be said for the use of an Inves-
tigator’s Logbook, in which students reflect on the progress of their investigation:
Where am I going? Where do I go next? What difficulties do I anticipate? Is the inves-
tigation proceeding as planned? Do I need to re-think or re-plan? Could anything be
 2548 D. Hodson

improved? It is reflections like these, and the requirement to discuss them with the
teacher and other students, that gives students an insight into the idiosyncratic and
reflexive nature of scientific investigation. When a practical activity is primarily con-
cerned with giving students experience of doing science, rather than being focussed
on learning specific conceptual/theoretical knowledge, obtaining the ‘right answer’ is
no longer an issue. Indeed, generating ‘wrong answers’ can sometimes help to focus
students’ attention on the complexities and frustrations of good design. Scientific
investigation is not a simple, straightforward business, and scientists often need to
go through several revisions of a design before they find a robust and reliable approach.
It is often the case, too, that strategies and procedures are refined, adjusted and modi-
fied as the investigation proceeds, as it becomes apparent that events are not unfolding
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

as planned. All of this experience constitutes learning about science as a consequence of

doing science. Working in this relatively unstructured is the only way in which students
can experience what it is like to conduct a scientific inquiry. Of course, poor design,
unexpected difficulties and just plain bad luck will sometimes intervene and render
the inquiry inconclusive. But much will have been learned about the vagaries and
uncertainties of scientific inquiry, and much will have been done to combat the
myths that so often surround the curriculum portrayal of scientific practice.
In doing science, students have responsibility for posing questions, devising
methods of inquiry, analysing and interpreting data, reaching a conclusion, construct-
ing a convincing argument for that conclusion, and communicating their methods,
findings and conclusions to others. Because the questions make sense to the students,
and are grounded in what they know and care about, these activities generate much
higher levels of student motivation, interest and involvement. Student teachers are
often told that motivation is the confluence of the four Cs: control, choice, challenge
and collaboration. Doing science activities, especially challenging activities conducted
in groups and designed by students, would appear to tick all four boxes and are, in
consequence, among the most highly motivating experiences we can provide.
Through such experiences students become aware of the interplay of theory, design
and evidence in ways that rarely occur with standard laboratory exercises.
Of course, in real scientific practice, an individual’s confidence in new data or in a
new explanation or theoretical proposition is insufficient to establish it as part of the
body of accepted scientific knowledge. It must stand up to critical scrutiny by other
practitioners. To be like real science, therefore, students have to argue their case:
describe the investigation, justify their procedures, present their findings and
defend their interpretation and conclusions through written or oral argument.
Writing research reports and presenting research seminars is a crucial part of doing
science. In essence, it is the researcher’s role to bring about conceptual development
or conceptual change in others (the readers or listeners). It makes good sense, there-
fore, to ensure that students learn to argue their case, explain how they planned and
conducted their inquiry, describe the problems they encountered and how they over-
came or attempted to overcome them, state clearly the results of the investigation,
explain them in relation to relevant literature, and argue for the particular conclusions
they reach.
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2549

Early on in their experience of doing science, students may need assistance in

asking good questions. Many of the questions that young children ask are such
that they can be answered quite readily by consulting books or searching the Inter-
net, but, more significantly, most cannot readily be used as the focus for hands-on
doing science investigations. Making questions operational is a skill that has to be
learned through teacher exemplification and individual student and group practice.
So, too, has the skill to design workable investigations. In the early modelling
phase, there is enormous scope in what we might call ‘honest modelling’, in the
sense that the teacher does not know the outcome of the inquiry or even, at the
outset, the best way of proceeding. While honest modelling can be threatening,
it can also be enormously powerful and can convey some important additional
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

messages:

. Learning can be difficult, frustrating and challenging, but is also rewarding and
exciting.
. Teachers are fellow travellers in the learning process.
. Learning is a lifelong process.

Later in their doing science experiences, students would gain a great deal from
observing, interviewing and, especially, working alongside scientists. Working along-
side practitioners is ideal for giving students an insight into the realities and social
dynamics of day-to-day scientific practice. They can see at first hand the trials, tribu-
lations, challenges, opportunities, constraints, frustrations and rewards of the scienti-
fic endeavour. They can see that scientists have to confront complex issues and deal
with myriad problems and influences, both internal and external to the work in
hand; they gain an insight into the realities of scientific inquiry, especially its fluidity,
reflexivity and uncertainty; they come to appreciate the powerful role played by
experience, intuition and emotion. There are at least four kinds of experiences that
can contribute to such understanding. In student-scientist partnerships, scientists
work alongside students to support, advise and monitor the design, conduct,
interpretation and reporting of students’ own investigations; in an internship, students
spend periods of time observing and assisting scientists in their day-to-day practice; in
citizen science projects, scientists design investigations and recruit volunteers from the
community to assist with data collection and dissemination of findings; in participatory
action research, citizens engage in defining, conducting and evaluating investigations
and interventions with the goal of learning more about the community in which
they live and its surrounding environment and of finding ways to improve conditions
and situations. Discussion of these initiatives is beyond the scope of this paper, save to
note that all four approaches are, in varying degrees, underpinned by an apprentice-
ship model of learning. Apprentices learn to think, reflect, argue, act and interact in
increasingly knowledgeable and skilful ways by engaging in ‘legitimate, peripheral par-
ticipation’ (Lave, 1988, 1991; Lave & Wenger, 1991) with people who already have
the appropriate knowledge and skills.
 2550 D. Hodson

In Conclusion
There are four elements to the arguments advanced in this paper. First, those plan-
ning science lessons need to be clear about the specific purpose of each lesson or
lesson segment. Does it primarily concern learning science, learning about science,
doing science or addressing SSIs, in the senses outlined earlier? Second, we need to
be modest in our planning and not attempt to reach too many diverse goals simul-
taneously. Third, we need to pay much closer attention to our choice of teaching
and learning methods. Not all goals can be achieved by the same approach. Fourth,
we should make the goals explicit to the students. They need to know whether the
activity in which they are engaged is a learning science, learning about science or
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

doing science activity. Different purposes engender different attitudes to the activity
and different responses to the experience and to any data collected.
In learning science, students are exploring their own understanding and developing
it in response to experiences provided by, and challenges issued by, the teacher. It is
the teacher’s role to ensure that students incorporate particular meanings (i.e. those
specified in the curriculum plan) into their personal framework of understanding,
though we need to bear in mind that meanings held by different individuals are
never identical. Personal frameworks of meaning are idiosyncratic and include a
range of denotative and connotative elements, together with a complex of affective
associations (Hodson, 1998). Moreover, the impetus for conceptual development is
complex and personal, and depends on this array of cognitive and affective elements
and on the sociocultural context in which learning is located. Hence, the need for a
variety of teaching/learning approaches. Constraints on space preclude further discus-
sion of these matters here.
In learning about science, students are developing an understanding of science as
a practice for studying phenomena and events and for building theories. The tea-
cher’s role is to assist the development of an understanding of how scientists
engage in successive cycles of normal science, crisis and revolution (Kuhn, 1970)
and how scientific knowledge is negotiated by a complex interaction of experimen-
tally gathered evidence (or data accumulated in other ways), theoretical argument
and individual creative inspiration. Learning about science also includes the acqui-
sition of some understanding of the history and development of key science ideas
and awareness of the social interactions among scientists within the scientific com-
munity and the interactions of science and scientists with social aspects, issues
and institutions external to the community of scientists. In the terms used by
Longino (1990), this is a distinction between the constitutive values of science (the
drive to meet criteria of truth, accuracy, precision, simplicity, predictive capability,
breadth of scope and problem-solving capability) and the contextual values that
impregnate the personal, social and cultural context in which science is organized,
supported, financed and conducted. Allchin (1999) draws a similar distinction
between the epistemic values of science and the cultural values that infuse scientific
practice. It almost goes without saying that meeting these diverse goals requires a
range of teaching/learning activities.
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2551

In doing science, students engage in scientific investigation for themselves and by

themselves. The educational goals are the development of expertise in doing
science and first-hand experience of it—something which can only be achieved
when students have control of the entire process. It needs to be the student’s
problem, investigated in the student’s way, with the teacher acting as role model,
learning resource, facilitator, consultant, critic and emotional support—the latter,
because scientific research can sometimes be frustrating and stressful.
Whilst it has been useful for the purposes of this paper to consider learning science,
learning about science and doing science as separate activities, it is important to recog-
nize their inter-relatedness. In any scientific inquiry, students achieve three kinds of
learning. First, enhanced conceptual understanding of whatever is being studied or inves-
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

tigated. Second, enhanced procedural knowledge—learning more about experiments,

correlational studies and so on, and acquiring a more sophisticated understanding
of the inter-dependence of observation, theory and investigative strategy. Third,
enhanced investigative expertise, which may eventually develop into scientific connois-
seurship. Thus, doing science involves learning science and learning about science.
Paradoxically, it is the very idiosyncrasy and personalization of scientific investigation
(doing science) that provides students with the stimulus for recognizing and under-
standing the inter-relatedness of the three activities. Opportunities for students to
report and debate their findings, and teacher support in reflecting critically on personal
progress made during the inquiry, are keys to achieve this integrative understanding.
However, because of the idiosyncratic nature of scientific investigation, and the
highly specialized but necessarily limited range of conceptual issues involved in any
particular inquiry, doing science is insufficient in itself to bring about the breadth of
conceptual development that a curriculum seeks. One cannot learn sufficient
science by restricting activities to doing science. It takes too long and is too uncertain.
Moreover, not all topics in the syllabus lend themselves to a doing science approach.
Nor can one learn enough about science by restricting activities to doing science. Learn-
ing about science involves more than an awareness of the nature of observation and exper-
imentation; it includes an understanding of the ways in which scientific research is
prioritized, conducted, reported and appraised; it includes some appreciation of the
history, philosophy and sociology of science and scientific practice; it includes awareness
of the complex interaction of science, technology, society and environment and the
moral-ethical issues raised by scientific research, practice and development. In short, it
is important for students to recognize that scientific practice is a complex, wide-
ranging and socially constructed activity. Such awareness cannot be achieved solely by
conducting personal investigations on matters of interest to oneself. Achieving an appro-
priate level of understanding of scientific practice necessitates the utilization of a much
wider range of active learning experiences than science teachers have traditionally
employed—among them, historical case studies, simulations and dramatic reconstruc-
tions; role playing (researcher, member of research committee, journal editor, etc.) and
debating; reading and writing activities that emphasize the key distinctions between the
private language of personal experience and the public language of science; computer-
based activities; research laboratory visits and interviews with scientists.
 2552 D. Hodson

It is also the case that restricting the curriculum to learning science and learning
about science will not equip students to do science for themselves. Though necessary,
conceptual knowledge and knowledge about procedures that scientists can adopt, and
may have adopted in particular circumstances in the past, are insufficient in them-
selves to enable a student to engage successfully in scientific inquiry. That ability is
only developed through hands-on experience of doing science in a critical and suppor-
tive learning environment.
One final point needs to be made. Many teachers and those about to enter the pro-
fession have very limited, if any, experience of designing and conducting their own
scientific investigations or of arguing for the validity of their findings and conclusions
in a public forum. Such teachers are poorly equipped for engaging students in doing
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

science activities. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the provision of both pre-
service and in-service experiences of authentic scientific investigations, such as
those described by Bencze (2000), Bencze and Elshof (2004) and Crawford
(2012). However, discussion of the design and implementation of such professional
development experiences is well outside the scope of this paper.

References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional
practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–437.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of the
nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education,
22(7), 665–701.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective activity-
based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295 –317.
Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education, 8, 1 –12.
Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. In E. Hegarty-Hazel
(Ed.), The student laboratory and the science curriculum (pp. 183 –200). London: Routledge.
Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.
Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s
conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
37(6), 563–581.
Bencze, J. L. (2000). Procedural apprenticeship in school science: Constructivist enabling of
connoisseurship. Science Education, 84(6), 727– 739.
Bencze, L., & Elshof, L. (2004). Science teachers as metascientists: An inductive-deductive dialectic
immersion in northern alpine field ecology. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12),
1507–1526.
Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613– 642.
Crawford, B. A. (2012). Moving the essence of inquiry into the classroom: Engaging teachers and
students in authentic science. In K. C. D. Tan & M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges in science
education research (pp. 25– 42). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dearden, R. F. (1967). Instruction and learning by discovery. In R. S. Peters (Ed.), The concept of
education (pp. 135 –155). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hodson, D. (1998). Teaching and learning science: Towards a personalized approach. Maidenhead:
Open University Press.
 Learning Science, Learning about Science, Doing Science 2553

Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and Sociology of
Science. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions
and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Devine & S.D.
Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Downloaded by [University of Toronto Libraries] at 07:52 10 August 2014

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that
promote understandings about the nature of science. In W.F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of
science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-
scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry.
Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lynch, M., & Macbeth, D. (1998). Demonstrating physics lessons. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman
(Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 269 –297). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mayr, E. (1988). Towards a new philosophy of biology: Observations of an evolutionist. Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McBride, J. W., Bhatti, M. I., Hannan, M. A., & Feinberg, M. (2004). Using an inquiry approach to
teach science to secondary school science teachers. Physics Education, 39(5), 434–439.
Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school
science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553 –576.
Nott, M., & Smith, R. (1995). ‘Talking your way out of it’, ‘rigging it’, and ‘conjuring’: What science
teachers do when practicals go wrong. International Journal of Science Education, 17, 399– 410.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and
relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 721– 771.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). ‘It’s the nature of the beast’: The influence of knowl-
edge and intentions on learning and teaching the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 39(3), 205 –236.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science
in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and
scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610 –645.
Solomon, J. (1980). Teaching children in the laboratory. London: Croom Helm.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about scientific
investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.
Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science
as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.