Critical Questions in STEM Education Valarie L.

Akerson pdf download

https://textbookfull.com/product/critical-questions-in-stem-education-valarie-l-akerson/

★★★★★ 4.9/5.0 (22 reviews) ✓ 104 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Great resource, downloaded instantly. Thank you!" - Lisa K.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Critical Questions in STEM Education Valarie L. Akerson pdf
download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

Critical Transdisciplinary and Embodied Approaches in STEM

Education Pratim Sengupta

STEM in the Technopolis The Power of STEM Education in

Regional Technology Policy Cliff Zintgraff

Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher

Education 1st Edition Pamela L. Eddy

Robotics in Education: Research and Practices for Robotics

in STEM Education 1st Edition Munir Merdan
Human stem cell toxicology 1st Edition James L Sherley

Blended Learning Designs in STEM Higher Education Putting

Learning First Christopher N. Allan

Cultural Anthropology: Asking Questions about Humanity

Robert L Welsch

Pedagogy Education and Praxis in Critical Times Kathleen

Mahon

Talking about Leaving Revisited Persistence Relocation and

Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education Elaine Seymour
Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51

Valarie L. Akerson
Gayle A. Buck Editors

Critical
Questions
in STEM
Education
Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science
Education

Volume 51

Series Editors
Dana L. Zeidler, University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Editorial Board
John Lawrence Bencze, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
Michael P. Clough, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
Fouad Abd-El-Khalick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Marissa Rollnick, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Troy D. Sadler, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Svein Sjøeberg, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
David Treagust, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia
Larry D. Yore, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
The book series Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education provides a
forum for innovative trends and issues impacting science education. Scholarship
that focuses on advancing new visions, understanding, and is at the forefront of the
field is found in this series. Authoritative works based on empirical research and/or
conceptual theory from disciplines including historical, philosophical, psychological
and sociological traditions are represented here. Our goal is to advance the field of
science education by testing and pushing the prevailing sociocultural norms about
teaching, learning, research and policy. Book proposals for this series may be
submitted to the Publishing Editor: Claudia Acuna E-mail: Claudia.Acuna@
springer.com

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6512

Valarie L. Akerson • Gayle A. Buck
Editors

Critical Questions in STEM

Education
Editors
Valarie L. Akerson Gayle A. Buck
Curriculum & Instruction Curriculum & Instruction
Indiana University Indiana University
Bloomington, IN, USA Bloomington, IN, USA

ISSN 1878-0482     ISSN 1878-0784 (electronic)

Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education
ISBN 978-3-030-57645-5    ISBN 978-3-030-57646-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword to Critical Questions in STEM
Education

For those working in STEM education as teachers, principals, teacher educators,

and researchers, a central concern in recent years is developing a consensus on what
STEM education can and should be, in terms of curricular content, pedagogy, and
application to real-world problems. Perhaps heightening a sense of urgency regard-
ing this task is STEM’s near-juggernaut quality as an educational movement inter-
nationally. Meanwhile, a rush by various discipline advocates to claim curricular
“terrain” in K-12 STEM has led to calls for STEAM (adding art), STREAM (read-
ing), CSTEM (coding or computer science), and so on, which complicates develop-
ment of a clear understanding of what STEM education should include. STEM as
“ambiguous slogan” (Bybee 2013) nonetheless has rapidly diffused across many
mass education systems, proving to be an effective tool to advocate for resources
(Shaughnessy 2012). The contributions in this volume offer several cornerstones,
comprising the parts of the book, from which to examine questions about the con-
tours of STEM in a thoughtful and research-informed manner. The point of depar-
ture here is a working definition of STEM that includes a renewed focus on the
variation across individual disciplines as well as the meaningful interdependence
that connects disciplines constituting STEM.
Since the early days of STEM being promoted as a kind of curricular package, a
frequent element of the sloganeering blithely portrayed STEM education as “inte-
grated” and “interdisciplinary,” even as curriculum scholars have emphasized the
tremendous difficulty for interdisciplinary knowledge to secure a place in the school
curriculum. STEM education scholars could benefit from prior work on the chal-
lenges of developing and implementing interdisciplinary curricula, however appeal-
ing their ring, such as in social studies and “humanities” (Ravitch 2003; Wineburg
& Grossman 2000). In this volume, we find a serious attempt to conceptualize the
limits of the interdisciplinarity of STEM, starting in the first part with a series of
chapters articulating the “nature of” each of the four areas (extending Lederman’s
groundbreaking work on the nature of science) and their varied epistemological and
ontological underpinnings. In an overview of this first part, Akerson and colleagues
boldly suggest that given the substantial differences in the core natures of the disci-
plines (and even within each area), there can be no analogous and fully coherent

v
vi Foreword to Critical Questions in STEM Education

“nature of STEM.” If these scholars are right, the implicit question emerges regard-
ing how truly integrated and interdisciplinary STEM can be.
This tension is illustrated in Part 2, which views STEM education from the
ground up, considering approaches to teaching STEM, both at the level of the class-
room and the school, but also the challenges in preparing teachers to support inte-
grated STEM learning. The self-study by Yin (Chap. 7) is particularly illustrative on
this point, as even a seasoned science teacher educator struggled to balance and
integrate all four major fields in a STEM education course for pre-service teachers.
University Technical Colleges in England (Dobrin, Chap. 8) offer an organizational
form that affords opportunities and time to both integrate and apply STEM knowl-
edge, but even there, students are encouraged to choose areas of particular interest
to focus on during group projects (e.g., “Do the part you are interested in”), effec-
tively de-integrating the STEM work to some extent.
The final part raises broader questions about perceptions of STEM by various
stakeholders. Perhaps, in a sense, school-based STEM is what school STEM does.
Newman and colleagues (Chap. 10) consider how schools certified as “STEM
schools” by the state of Indiana portray STEM, while Sgro, Bobowski, and Oliveira
(Chap. 11) systematically consider visions of STEM proffered by practitioner jour-
nals, demonstrating the difficulty of meaningfully integrating across all four areas.
In both chapters, STEM integration is threatened by the dominance of one or more
of the component disciplines. Sgro and his co-authors resolve this by taking the
position that STEM cannot be a discipline in its own right, but rather should be seen
as a “meta-discipline.” When considering experiences and the STEM identity of
college students majoring in and in some cases switching out of STEM, Song, et al.
(Chap. 13) ground coding decisions about what is and what isn’t a “STEM major”
based on whether the major was located in the institution’s College of Natural
Sciences and Mathematics, which raises questions of how new or rapidly changing
fields (like psychology) are classified with respect to the STEM umbrella. In the
end, there are numerous echoes of the doubts raised in Part 1 about whether there
can be a coherent “nature of STEM.”
Rather than hunting down a perfectly balanced and interdisciplinary “quark”
(Renyi, 2000) called STEM, the brightest potential for STEM education may lie in
its core focus on engaging with complex, “ill-formed” problems, as highlighted in
many of the contributions here. Comprising a vigorous pedagogical culture (Weld,
2017), rather than a strictly delineated and official school subject, the varied tools of
STEM could be used as a springboard into learning to analyze Shakespeare, predict
profits, develop video games, and address and communicate about environmental
problems or model voter turnout. It all potentially demands quite rigorous STEM
thinking, obviating the need for demarcating “proper” applications of STEM in
schools. The contributions in this volume point in this direction, implicitly answer-
ing Zollman’s (2012) call for “STEM literacy for learning,” serving as a helpful
resource for leaders in STEM education at all levels.
UMass

Amherst, MA, USA Elizabeth H. McEneaney

Foreword to Critical Questions in STEM Education vii

References

Bybee, R. W. (2013).The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA:
NSTA Press.
Ravitch, D. (2003). A brief history of social studies. In J. Leming, L. Ellington, & K. Porter-Magee
(Eds.), Where did social studies go wrong (pp. 1–5). Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
Renyi, J. (2000). Hunting the quark: Interdisciplinary curricula in public schools. In S. Wineburg &
P. Grossman (Eds.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to implementation (pp. 39–56).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Shaughnessy, J. M. (2012). STEM: An advocacy position not a content area. NCTM Summing Up.
February 2.
Weld, J. (2017).Creating a STEM Culture for Teaching and Learning. National Science Teachers
Association.
Wineburg, S. & Grossman, P. (Eds.) (2000). Interdisciplinary curriculum: Challenges to imple-
mentation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and
Mathematics, 112(1), 12–19.
Preface

This edited book resulted from our efforts to develop an understanding of the nature
of STEM knowledge for our doctoral students and ourselves. It began as a graduate
seminar in science education where we explored the natures of the individual STEM
disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) and research in
STEM education alongside our students. The intention was to find overlaps among
the characteristics of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics knowledge
and develop an idea about the nature of STEM from those overlapping ideas. Over
the course of the semester, however, we came to question if there could be a separate
nature of STEM knowledge if it is a combination of existing knowledge bases.
Further complicating the academic journey was the fact that most STEM research
focus on one of the disciplines that comprises STEM itself. We subsequently
explored what would STEM teacher education research look like if all the disci-
plines were truly intertwined and how does this image compare to educators and
educational researchers’ existing perceptions of STEM. Our journey grew to include
teacher educators from different disciplines in higher education institutions across
the country. That academic journey was so powerful that we sought to expand the
discussion throughout our educational community with this edited book.
This book explores critical questions in STEM education. The questions were
prompted by a desire to respond to the educational demands that twenty-first cen-
tury teachers, and subsequently teacher educators, have had placed on them. When
previously they have been teachers of individual disciplines, such as science, math,
or technology (and occasionally engineering), they are now often considered STEM
teachers. The purpose of the book is to provide a practical resource for teacher edu-
cators who seek to prepare teachers to address STEM in a meaningful and interdis-
ciplinary manner. It is not a thorough ontological or epistemological treatment of
STEM, although such considerations certainly provide the framework for the
writings.
There are three parts within the book, all of which adhere to the definition of
STEM as a meaningful interdependence among all disciplines that comprise
STEM. In other words, all individual disciplines of STEM are included in ways that
are meaningful and showcase the interdependence of the fields. The first part, Nature

ix
x Preface

of the STEM Disciplines, provides the foundation for the discussion of meaningful
interdependence by establishing the natures of the component disciplines of STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). This part does not include
epistemological or ontological treatments of the disciplines but rather practical dis-
cussion for teaching and research. Concluding this part, the editors explore whether
there is a separate STEM discipline with its own nature as well as the challenges and
benefits of presuming a nature of STEM. The second part, Critical Questions in
Teaching STEM, features applied research on critical questions teacher educators
are actively exploring. Chapters in this part showcase their action research, case
studies, self-studies, and other classroom-based research connected to learning to
effectively prepare classroom teachers to teach STEM in meaningful and interdisci-
plinary ways. The third part, Critical Questions in STEM, includes chapters that
systematically explore and discuss the overall applied constructs of STEM educa-
tion. These chapters explore such ideas as public perceptions of STEM education,
phenomenological case studies on STEM experiences, and content analyses of
STEM education documents and texts.
The book you hold is the result of very real and interesting discussions among
scholars of teacher education. It includes scholars from all four STEM education
disciplines and applied research across these disciplines. Working on this volume
has been a very interesting process, and we hope this contribution will be helpful to
the fields that comprise STEM and stimulate conversations across the fields.

Bloomington, IN, USA Valarie L. Akerson

 Gayle A. Buck
Contents

Part I Nature of the STEM Disciplines

1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry������������������������    3
Norman G. Lederman and Judith Lederman
2 The Nature of Technology ����������������������������������������������������������������������   21
Theresa A. Cullen and Meize Guo
3 Toward Defining Nature of Engineering in the Next
Generation Science Standards Era��������������������������������������������������������   33
Hasan Deniz, Ezgi Yesilyurt, Steven J. Newman,
and Erdogan Kaya
4 The Nature of Mathematics and Its Impact on K-12 Education ��������   45
Rick A. Hudson, Mark A. Creager, Angela Burgess,
and Alex Gerber

Part II Critical Questions in Teaching STEM

5 Inquiring into Environmental STEM: Striving for an Engaging
Inquiry-Based E-STEM Experience for Pre-Service Teachers������������   61
Angela Burgess and Gayle A. Buck
6 Navigating Theory and Practice: Digital Video Games
(DVGs) in STEM Education ������������������������������������������������������������������   85
Isha DeCoito and Lisa K. Briona
7 A Self-Study on Teaching Integrated STEM Education
to K-12 Science and Mathematics Teachers������������������������������������������ 105
Xinying Yin
8 Learning for the Real World: Interdisciplinary Challenge
Projects to Facilitate Real-World Learning in STEM�������������������������� 129
Jessica Dobrin

xi
xii Contents

9 Collaboratively Learning to Teach STEM: A Model

for Learning to Integrate STEM Education in Preservice
Teacher Education ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 147
Sevil Akaygun and Fatma Aslan-Tutak

Part III Critical Questions in STEM

10 Public Portrayals of Indiana STEM Certified Schools������������������������ 167
Steven Newman, Taukir Kahn, Meize Guo, Alex Gerber,
Angela Burgess, and Valarie L. Akerson
11 Current Praxis and Conceptualization of STEM Education:
A Call for Greater Clarity in Integrated
Curriculum Development������������������������������������������������������������������������ 185
Christopher M. Sgro, Trisha Bobowski, and Alandeom W. Oliveira
12 Future Elementary Teachers’ Perspectives
on the Importance of STEM ������������������������������������������������������������������ 211
Lauren Madden, James E. R. Beyers, and Nicole Stanton
13 Switching Lanes or Exiting? STEM Experiences,
Perceptions, and Identity Construction Among
College STEM Switchers������������������������������������������������������������������������ 227
Youngjin Song, Ann Y. Kim, Lisa M. Martin-Hansen,
and Elaine Villanueva Bernal

Reflection on Part I: Natures of the Disciplines that Make up STEM�������� 251


Reflection on Part II: Research into the Teaching and Learning
of STEM������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 253

Reflection on Part III: Critical Questions in STEM������������������������������������ 255

Afterward���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 257
About the Editors

Valarie L. Akerson is a Professor of Science Education at Indiana University and

a former elementary teacher. Her research focuses on preservice and inservice ele-
mentary teachers’ ideas about Nature of Science as well as their teaching practices.
She is a Past President of the Association for Science Teacher Education and a Past
President for NARST: a worldwide organization for improving science teaching and
learning through research.

Gayle Buck is an Associate Dean for Research, Development and Innovation as

well as a Professor of Science Education. Previously a middle-level science teacher
in both urban and rural schools, Professor Buck now teaches courses in science,
STEM education, and teacher education. Her research explores (1) student popula-
tions traditionally underserved in science education, (2) neglected epistemological
assumptions in teaching and learning, and (3) pragmatic and participatory
approaches to educational research.

xiii
 Part I
Nature of the STEM Disciplines
Chapter 1
Nature of Scientific Knowledge
and Scientific Inquiry

Norman G. Lederman and Judith Lederman

1.1 Introduction

Before carefully considering how nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK) and sci-
entific inquiry (SI) relate to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM), it is critical to “define” or explain what is meant by “science.” There are
many conceptualizations of science. The rotunda in the National Academy of
Science contains the following inscription: “To science, pilot of industry, conqueror
of disease, multiplier of the harvest, explorer of the universe, revealer of nature’s
laws, eternal guide to truth. “The quote is not attributed to any individual and the
building was built in 1936. It is not clear if the quote is older than 1936. Nobel Prize
winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in the 1970s as “the belief in
the ignorance of experts (Feynman & Cashman, 2013). Most recently, Arthur
Boucot (famous paleobiologist) in a personal conversation characterized science as
“an internally consistent set of lies designed to explain away the universe.” These
statements are quite varied and as provocative as Boucot’s and Feynman’s defini-
tions may be they are closer to how science is characterized in recent reform docu-
ments, such as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013)
and the National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996).
The question still remains, “what is science?” What conceptualization would be
most appropriate for K-12 learners? Commonly, the answer to this question has
three parts. First, science is a body of knowledge. This refers to the traditional sub-
jects or body of concepts, laws, and theories. For instance, biology, chemistry, phys-
ics etc. The second part refers to how the knowledge is developed. That is scientific
inquiry. Inquiry will be discussed in more detail later, but as a student outcome it
usually includes the doing of inquiry (e.g., asking questions, developing a design,

N. G. Lederman (*) · J. Lederman

Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 3

V. L. Akerson, G. A. Buck (eds.), Critical Questions in STEM Education,
Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education 51,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57646-2_1
4 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

collecting and analyzing data, and drawing conclusions). Additionally, inquiry as a

student outcome also includes knowledge about inquiry (e.g., knowing that all
investigations begin with a question, there is no single scientific method, research
questions guide the procedures, etc.).
Finally, because of the way the knowledge is developed, scientific knowledge
has certain characteristics. These characteristics of scientific knowledge are often
referred to as nature of scientific knowledge (Lederman, Lederman, & Antink,
2013). Again, these characteristics will be discussed in more detail later, but they
usually include, but are not limited to the idea that science is empirically based,
involves human creativity, is unavoidably subjective, and is subject to change
(Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998). Often individuals conflate nature of scientific
knowledge (NOSK) with scientific inquiry. Lederman (2007) also notes that the
conflation of NOSK and scientific inquiry has plagued research on NOSK from the
beginning and, perhaps, could have been avoided by using the phrase “nature of
scientific knowledge” as opposed to the more commonly used nature of science
(NOS). In this chapter, we will use the term “nature of scientific knowledge” instead
of “nature of science” as it more accurately represents its intended meaning
(Lederman & Lederman, 2004). Now the critical point is what is the appropriate
balance among the three components of science in the science curriculum and sci-
ence instruction? Current reforms have appropriately recognized that the amount of
emphasis has traditionally emphasized the body of knowledge to the detriment of
any emphasis on inquiry or nature of scientific knowledge.
Current visions of science education are returning to the perennial goal of scien-
tifically literacy. Again, the roots of scientific literacy and its justification will be
discussed in more detail later. But, in general, the goal is to help students use their
scientific knowledge to make informed decisions about scientifically based global,
societal, or personal decisions. The literate individual can not make such decisions
based on scientific knowledge alone. They must also understand the source of the
knowledge (i.e., scientific inquiry or the more current term science practices) and
the ontological characteristics of the knowledge (i.e., NOSK).
The focus of this chapter is to elaborate on how the interplay among scientific
inquiry, NOSK, and STEM may, or may not, contribute to the achievement of sci-
entific literacy. Thus this begs the question of “What is STEM?” For sure STEM has
been discussed in each of the chapters in this book. For the sake of brevity, a brief
conceptualization follows. STEM has become one of the newest slogans in educa-
tion, and some critics have noted its ubiquitous and ambiguous use (Bybee, 2013)
throughout policy and science education literature. Bybee (2013) coined the phrase
“STEM literacy” to make the goal of STEM education more explicit. A STEM
approach to science instruction and curriculum incorporates real life problematic
situations that require knowledge of nature of scientific knowledge and scientific
inquiry, in part, which leads toward the end goal of scientific literacy. Therefore, it
could be argued that scientific literacy is the ultimate goal of the integrated STEM
approach. It is important to note, here, that contrary to prevalent misconceptions,
STEM goes well beyond just placing more emphasis on each of the STEM disci-
plines. The integration of the STEM disciplines is the intent of the STEM
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 5

movement. Again, this chapter will focus on whether the interplay of scientific
inquiry, nature of scientific knowledge, and STEM can facilitate the development of
scientific literacy.

1.2  cientific Literacy as the Primary Goal

S
of Science Education

Why should our students learn science and to what extent? Are we teaching our
students to make them scientists? What happens to those students who do not con-
tinue studying science? Don’t they need to learn a minimum amount of science?
These questions are critical to portray the goal of science education. Science educa-
tors believe that the goal of science education is to develop scientific literacy. Since
the first use of ‘scientific literacy’ in the late 1950s, science educators and policy
makers have gradually reconceptualized the term to such an extent that one author
remarked relatively recently that “scientific literacy is an ill-defined and diffuse
concept” (Laugksch, 2000, p. 71). Policy makers and educators often get confused
between “science literacy” and “scientific literacy.” Often they are considered syn-
onymous, although the two have very different meanings. Science literacy focuses
on how much science you know. It is not about applying knowledge and making
decisions. “Science literacy” is mostly associated with AAAS Project 2061
(American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993). In 1985 AAAS, the
Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation launched
a project that promised to be radical, ambitious, comprehensive and long-term, in
other words, risky and expensive (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1994). With that philosophy, the program was aptly named “Project 2061.”
In view of the numerous local, state, and national obstacles and turf infringements,
many wondered whether it would take that long to achieve the goals of the program.
Benchmarks for Science Literacy is the Project 2061 statement of what all students
should know and be able to do in science, mathematics, and technology by the end
of grades 2, 5, 8, and 12. The recommendations at each grade level suggested rea-
sonable progress toward the adult science literacy goals laid out in the project’s
1989 report Science for All Americans AAAS, 1989). Benchmarks helped educators
decide what to include in (or exclude from) a core curriculum, when to teach it,
and why.
On the other hand, “scientific literacy” deals with the aim of helping people use
scientific knowledge to make informed decisions. This is a goal that science educa-
tors have been striving to achieve, but unfortunately many of us have not truly real-
ized the importance of scientific literacy or might have misrepresented the goal in
various platforms. DeBoer (2000) states that the term “scientific literacy” since it
was introduced in the late 1950s has defied precise definition. Although it is widely
claimed to be a desired outcome of science education, not everyone agrees with
what it means.
6 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

The goal of science education became formalized at different times in history.

After the 1960s the science education community became concerned about the role
of science in society, especially given the launching of Sputnik by the Soviet Union
in 1957. This event led to a significant increase in funding for science education in
an attempt to increase the science pipeline. The primary driving forces were con-
cerns for national security and economic health. In the immediate post-war years, it
was proposed that science educators should work to produce citizens who under-
stood science and were sympathetic to the work of scientists (DeBoer, 2000). The
U.S. was lacking in producing a workforce who could live and work in such a rap-
idly changing world. The goals of science teaching, for general education purposes,
within this new environment came to be called scientific literacy. According to the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1958) report, “among the tasks that have increased most
frighteningly in complexity is the task of the ordinary citizen who wishes to dis-
charge his civic responsibilities intelligently” (p. 351). The answer was scientific
literacy. The Board said:
Just as we must insist that every scientist be broadly educated, so we must see to it that
every educated person be literate in science]…. We cannot afford to have our most highly
educated people living in intellectual isolation from one another, without even an elemen-
tary understanding of each other’s intellectual concern. (p. 369)

The national review of Australian science teaching and learning (Goodrum, Rennie,
& Hackling, 2001) defined the attributes of a scientifically literate person. In par-
ticular, it stated that a scientifically literate person is (1) interested in and under-
stands the world about him, (2) can identify and investigate questions and draw
evidence-based conclusions, (3) is able to engage in discussions of and about sci-
ence matters, (4) is skeptical and questioning of claims made by others, and (5) can
make informed decisions about the environment and their own health and wellbeing.
The current NGSS stresses science practices, but there is very little emphasis on
understanding the practices or scientific inquiry and NOSK. Later in this chapter the
critical role of scientific inquiry and NOSK for the achievement of scientific literacy
will be elaborated in detail. Doing science is necessary as a means, but it should not
be the end goal. The end goal should be scientific literacy, which unfortunately is
not explicitly mentioned in the standards.

1.3 STEM as a Mechanism to Achieve Scientific Literacy

STEM education must have an educative purpose which goes beyond the slogan “to
meet 21st century skills.” In the 1990s, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
introduced the STEM acronym as an instructional and curricular approach that
stresses the integration of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. But,
its ubiquitous and ambiguous use in the education community has created much
confusion (Angier, 2010). One of the possible reasons could be the lack of consen-
sus on the meaning of STEM. However, even without a common understanding of
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 7

STEM, the development and implementation our STEM curriculum over the years
has not been deterred. Bybee (2013) addressed four components of STEM literacy.
STEM literacy refers to an individual’s
• knowledge, attitudes, and skills to identify questions and problems in life situa-
tions, explain the natural and designed world, and draw evidence-based conclu-
sions about STEM related-issues
• understanding of the characteristic features of STEM disciplines as forms of
human knowledge, inquiry, and design;
• awareness of how STEM disciplines shape our material, intellectual, and cultural
environments; and
• willingness to engage in STEM-related issues and with the ideas of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics as a constructive, concerned, and
reflective citizen.
From the above components of STEM literacy, it is evident that students need to
have experiences to apply their knowledge and skills. But the debate over other
aspects of STEM education has not been settled yet. For instance, is STEM a sepa-
rate discipline or just an integrated curriculum approach? The idea of considering
STEM as a separate discipline has been a puzzle for many science educators. STEM
disciplines are all different ways of knowing and have different conventions for
what constitutes data and evidence. STEM is an integrated curriculum approach, but
because it deals with different ways of knowing, true integration is never achieved;
just an interdisciplinary connection. Individual STEM disciplines “are based on dif-
ferent epistemological assumptions” and integration of the STEM subjects may
detract from the integrity of any individual STEM subject (Williams, 2011, p. 30).
If STEM is conceptualized as a curriculum approach, its interdisciplinary nature
entails not just the acquisition and application of scientific knowledge, but also the
other knowledge bases. Wang, Moore, Roehrig, and Park (2011) explained that
interdisciplinary integration begins with a real-world problem. It incorporates
cross-curricular content with critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and knowl-
edge in order to reach a conclusion. Students engage themselves in different real-­
life STEM related personal and societal situations to make informed decisions.
More specifically, STEM curriculum in classrooms and programs can ensure five
skill sets including adaptability, complex communications, nonroutine problem
solving, self-management, and systems thinking (NRC, 2008). The National
Research Council (2010) elaborated on these five skills in its report, Exploring the
Intersection of Science Education and 21st-Century Skills. Furthermore, in a second
report (NRC, 2012), Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable
Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century it was emphasized that these 21st century
skills are necessary if students are to solve the personal and societal problems. This
is what it means to be an informed citizen. If we put the components of scientific
literacy alongside STEM in terms of science instruction, it can be argued that both
focus on the context of the world we live in and the decisions we make in everyday
life. Those decisions are not just based on science. Different social, political, cul-
tural perspectives are all part of these decisions. While making those decisions,
8 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

people are supposed to apply some of their other knowledge bases such as mathe-
matical reasoning and technological and engineering processes. For example, if
individuals are supposed to make any decisions about whether wind or solar energy
is best for the environment and economy, it must be kept in mind that the solution is
not just based on scientific knowledge, but also knowledge of other technical or
engineering features that explain how these two types of energy sources actually
operate. Further, mathematical knowledge is needed to be able to calculate the eco-
nomic efficiency of the two sources of energy. Can we imagine any activity that
requires this type of decision making as a part of the STEM curricular approach?
The answer is clearly yes. Thus, it can be argued that STEM as an instructional and
curricular approach is consistent with the idea of scientific literacy.

1.4 The Role of Scientific Inquiry in Science Education

As previously discussed, the unclear definitions and multiple uses of the phrase
“scientific literacy” resulted in much confusion. However, the phrase “scientific
inquiry” is guilty of the same. What it means has been elusive and it is at least one
of the reasons why the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States,
2013) emphasizes “science practices” as opposed to scientific inquiry. The National
Science Education Standards ([NSES] National Research Council, 1996) arguably
made the most concerted effort to unpack the meaning of scientific inquiry. The
NSES envisioned scientific inquiry as both subject matter and pedagogy in its three
part definition. However, with all the effort, confusion remained and the National
Research Council had to develop an addendum of sorts, a few years later, titled
Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2000). On the one
hand, scientific inquiry was conceptualized as a teaching approach. That is, the sci-
ence teacher would engage students in situations (mostly open-ended) they could
ask questions, collect data, and draw conclusions. In short, the purpose of the teach-
ing approach was to enable students to learn science subject matter in a manner
similar to how scientists do their work. Although closely related to science pro-
cesses, scientific inquiry extends beyond the mere development of process skills
such as observing, inferring, classifying, predicting, measuring, questioning, inter-
preting and analyzing data. Scientific inquiry includes the traditional science pro-
cesses, but also refers to the combining of these processes with scientific knowledge,
scientific reasoning and critical thinking to develop scientific knowledge. From the
perspective of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996), students are
expected to be able to develop scientific questions and then design and conduct
investigations that will yield the data necessary for arriving at answers for the stated
questions.
Scientific inquiry, in short, refers to the systematic approaches used by scientists
in an effort to answer their questions of interest. Pre-college students, and the gen-
eral public for that matter, believe in a distorted view of scientific inquiry that has
resulted from schooling, the media, and the format of most scientific reports. This
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 9

distorted view is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. That is, a fixed set and
sequence of steps that all scientists follow when attempting to answer scientific
questions. A more critical description would characterize THE METHOD as an
algorithm that students are expected to memorize, recite, and follow as a recipe for
success. The visions of reform, as well as any study of how science is done, are
quick to indicate that there is no single fixed set or sequence of steps that all scien-
tific investigations follow. The contemporary view of scientific inquiry advocated is
that the research questions guide the approach and the approaches vary widely
within and across scientific disciplines and fields (Lederman et al., 1998).
The perception that a single scientific method exists owes much to the status of
classical experimental design. Experimental designs very often conform to what is
presented as THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and the examples of scientific investiga-
tions presented in science textbooks most often are experimental in nature. The
problem, of course, is not that investigations consistent with “the scientific method”
do not exist. The problem is that experimental research is not representative of sci-
entific investigations as a whole. Consequently, a very narrow and distorted view of
scientific inquiry is promoted in our K-12 science curriculum.
At a general level, scientific inquiry can be seen to take several forms (i.e.,
descriptive, correlational, and experimental). Descriptive research is the form of
research that often characterizes the beginning of a line of research. This is the type
of research that derives the variables and factors important to a particular situation
of interest. Whether descriptive research gives rise to correlational approaches
depends upon the field and topic. For example, much of the research in anatomy and
taxonomy are descriptive in nature and do not progress to experimental or correla-
tional types of research. The purpose of research in these areas is very often simply
to describe. On the other hand, there are numerous examples in the history of ana-
tomical research that have lead to more than a description. The initial research con-
cerning the cardiovascular system by William Harvey was descriptive in nature.
However, once the anatomy of blood vessels had been described, questions arose
concerning the circulation of blood through the vessels. Such questions lead to
research that correlated anatomical structures with blood flow and experiments
based on models of the cardiovascular system (Lederman et al., 1998).
To briefly distinguish correlational from experimental research, the former expli-
cates relationships among variables identified in descriptive research and experi-
mental research involves a planned intervention and manipulation of the variables
studied in correlational research in an attempt to derive causal relationships. In
some cases, lines of research can been seen to progress from descriptive to correla-
tional to experimental, while in other cases (e.g., descriptive astronomy) such a
progression is not necessarily possible. This is not to suggest, however, that the
experimental design is more scientific than descriptive or correlational designs but
instead to clarify that there is not a single method applicable to every scientific
question.
Scientific inquiry has always been ambiguous in its presentation within science
education reforms. In particular, inquiry is perceived in three different ways. It can
be viewed as a set of skills to be learned by students and combined in the
10 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

performance of a scientific investigation. It can also be viewed as a cognitive out-

come that students are to achieve. In particular, the current visions of reform (e.g.
NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 1996) are very clear (at least in written words) in
distinguishing between the performance of inquiry (i.e., what students will be able
to do) and what students know about inquiry (i.e., what students should know). For
example, it is one thing to have students set up a control group for an experiment,
while it is another to expect students to understand the logical necessity for a control
within an experimental design. Unfortunately, the subtle difference in wording
noted in the reforms (i.e., “know” versus “do”) is often missed by everyone except
the most careful reader. The third use of “inquiry” in reform documents relates
strictly to pedagogy and further muddies the water. In particular, current wisdom
advocates that students learn science best through an inquiry-oriented teaching
approach. It is believed that students will best learn scientific concepts by doing sci-
ence (NGSS Lead States, 2013).
In this sense, “scientific inquiry” is viewed as a teaching approach used to com-
municate scientific knowledge to students (or allow students to construct their own
knowledge) as opposed to an educational outcome that students are expected to
learn about and learn how to do. Indeed, it is the pedagogical conception of inquiry
that it is unwittingly communicated to most teachers by science education reform
documents, with the two former conceptions lost in the shuffle. Although the pro-
cesses that scientists use when doing inquiry (e.g. observing, inferring, analyzing
data, etc.) are readily familiar to most, knowledge about inquiry, as an instructional
outcome is not. This is the perspective of inquiry that distinguishes current reforms
from those that have previously existed, and it is the perspective on inquiry that is
not typically assessed. In summary, the knowledge about inquiry included in current
science education reform efforts includes the following (NGSS Lead States, 2013,
NRC, 1996):
• Scientific investigations all begin with a question, but do not necessarily test a
hypothesis
• There is no single set and sequence of steps followed in all scientific investiga-
tions (i.e., there is no single scientific method)
• Inquiry procedures are guided by the question asked
• All scientists performing the same procedures may not get the same results
• Inquiry procedures can influence the results
• Research conclusions must be consistent with the data collected
• Scientific data are not the same as scientific evidence
• Explanations are developed from a combination of collected data and what is
already known
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 11

1.5  cientific Inquiry as a Component of Scientific Literacy

S
and Its Relationship to STEM

Although scientific inquiry has been viewed as an important educational outcome

for science students for over 100 years, it was Showalter’s (1974) work that galva-
nized scientific inquiry, as well as NOSK, important components within the over
arching framework of scientific literacy. As previously discussed, the phrase scien-
tific literacy had been discussed by numerous authors before Showalter (Dewey,
1916; Hurd, 1958; National Education Association, 1918, 1920; National Society
for the Study of Education, 1960, among others), it was his work that clearly delin-
eated the dimensions of scientific literacy in a manner that could easily be translated
into objectives for science curricula. Showalter’s framework consisted of the fol-
lowing seven components:
• Nature of Science – The scientifically literate person understands the nature of
scientific knowledge.
• Concepts in Science – The scientifically literate person accurately applies
appropriate science concepts, principles, laws, and theories in interacting with
his universe.
• Processes of Science – The scientifically literate person uses processes of sci-
ence in solving problems, making decisions and furthering his own understand-
ing of the universe.
• Values – The scientifically literate person interacts with the various aspects of
how universe in a way that is consistent with the values that underlie science.
• Science-Society – The scientifically literate person understands and appreciates
the joint enterprise of science and technology and the interrelationships of these
with each other and with other aspects of society.
• Interest – The scientifically literate person has developed a richer, more satisfy-
ing, and more exciting view of the universe as a result of his science education
and continues to extend this education throughout his life.
• Skills – The scientifically literate person has developed numerous manipulative
skills associated with science and technology.
(Showalter, 1974, p. 1–6)
Science processes (now known as inquiry or practices), and NOSK) were clearly
emphasized. The attributes of a scientifically literate individual were later reiterated
by the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] (1982). The NSTA dimen-
sions of scientific literacy were a bit expanded from Showalter’s and included:
• Uses science concepts, process skills, and values making responsibly everyday
decisions;
• Understands how society influences science and technology as well as how sci-
ence and technology influence society;
• Understands that society controls science and technology through the allocation
of resources;
12 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

• Recognizes the limitations as well as the usefulness of science and technology in

advancing human welfare;
• Knows the major concepts, hypotheses, and theories of science and is able to
use them;
• Appreciates science and technology for the intellectual stimulus they provide;
• Understands that the generation of scientific knowledge depends on inquiry pro-
cess and conceptual theories;
• Distinguishes between scientific evidence and personal opinion;
• Recognizes the origin of science and understands that scientific knowledge is
tentative, and subject to change as evidence accumulates;
• Understands the application of technology and the decisions entailed in the use
of technology;
• Has sufficient knowledge and experience to appreciate the worthiness of research
and technological developments;
• Has a richer and more exciting view of the world as a result of science educa-
tion; and
• Knows reliable sources of scientific and technological information and uses
these sources in the process of decision making.
The importance of scientific inquiry, or practices as it is called in the NGSS, as a
critical component of scientific literacy should be clear.
STEM, in current conceptions, is characterized as an integrated approach to cur-
riculum that addresses the interactions of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics to solve problems in a more authentic manner than the current curricu-
lum approach. That is, the typical science curriculum has perennially separated the
various disciplines during precollege instruction, not to mention the exclusion of
any formal attention to technology or engineering. Current questions about the natu-
ral world and/or societal or personal issues are more commonly not the purview of
any singular discipline, but rather require the collaboration of various individuals,
working in a team, with various backgrounds and expertise. This is the nature of
STEM. We are not saying that STEM is a discipline with its own “nature” as in
nature of science. We are merely characterizing STEM as a curriculum approach.

1.6  nderstanding Nature of Scientific Knowledge as a Goal

U
of Science Education and Its Relationship
to Scientific Literacy

The relationship and differences between nature of scientific knowledge (NOSK)

and nature of scientific inquiry (SI) is often discussed and confused within existing
literature (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). NOSK, as opposed to the more popular
nature of science (NOS) is used here to be more consistent with the original mean-
ing of the construct (Lederman, 2007).
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 13

Given the manner in which scientists develop scientific knowledge (i.e., SI), the
knowledge is engendered with certain characteristics. These characteristics are
what typically constitute NOS (Lederman, 2007). As mentioned before there is a
lack of consensus among scientists, historians of science, philosophers of science,
and science educators about the particular aspects of NOSK. This lack of consen-
sus, however, should neither be disconcerting nor surprising given the multifaceted
nature and complexity of the scientific endeavor. Conceptions of NOS have changed
throughout the development of science and systematic thinking about science and
are reflected in the ways the scientific and science education communities have
defined the phrase “nature of science” during the past 100 years (e.g., AAAS, 1990,
1993; Central Association for Science and Mathematics Teachers, 1907; Klopfer &
Watson, 1957; NSTA, 1982).
However, many of the disagreements about the definition or meaning of NOSK
that continue to exist among philosophers, historians, and science educators are
irrelevant to K-12 instruction. The issue of the existence of an objective reality as
compared to phenomenal realities is a case in point. There is an acceptable level of
generality regarding NOS that is accessible to K-12 students and relevant to their
daily lives. Moreover, at this level, little disagreement exists among philosophers,
historians, and science educators. Among the characteristics of the scientific enter-
prise corresponding to this level of generality are that scientific knowledge is tenta-
tive (subject to change), empirically-based (based on and/or derived from
observations of the natural world), subjective (theory-laden), necessarily involves
human inference, imagination, and creativity (involves the invention of explana-
tions), and is socially and culturally embedded. Two additional important aspects
are the distinction between observations and inferences, and the functions of, and
relationships between scientific theories and laws. What follows is a brief consider-
ation of these characteristics of science and scientific knowledge.
First, students should be aware of the crucial distinction between observation and
inference. Observations are descriptive statements about natural phenomena that are
“directly” accessible to the senses (or extensions of the senses) and about which
several observers can reach consensus with relative ease. For example, objects
released above ground level tend to fall and hit the ground. By contrast, inferences
are statements about phenomena that are not “directly” accessible to the senses. For
example, objects tend to fall to the ground because of “gravity.” The notion of grav-
ity is inferential in the sense that it can only be accessed and/or measured through
its manifestations or effects. Examples of such effects include the perturbations in
predicted planetary orbits due to inter-planetary “attractions,” and the bending of
light coming from the stars as its rays pass through the sun’s “gravitational” field.
Second, closely related to the distinction between observations and inferences is
the distinction between scientific laws and theories. Individuals often hold a sim-
plistic, hierarchical view of the relationship between theories and laws whereby
theories become laws depending on the availability of supporting evidence. It fol-
lows from this notion that scientific laws have a higher status than scientific theo-
ries. Both notions, however, are inappropriate because, among other things, theories
and laws are different kinds of knowledge and one can not develop or be
14 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

transformed into the other. Laws are statements or descriptions of the relationships
among observable phenomena. Boyle’s law, which relates the pressure of a gas to its
volume at a constant temperature, is a case in point (Lederman et al., 1998).
Theories, by contrast, are inferred explanations for observable phenomena. The
kinetic molecular theory, which explains Boyle’s law, is one example. Moreover,
theories are as legitimate a product of science as laws. Scientists do not usually
formulate theories in the hope that one day they will acquire the status of “law.”
Scientific theories, in their own right, serve important roles, such as guiding inves-
tigations and generating new research problems in addition to explaining relatively
huge sets of seemingly unrelated observations in more than one field of investiga-
tion. For example, the kinetic molecular theory serves to explain phenomena that
relate to changes in the physical states of matter, others that relate to the rates of
chemical reactions, and still other phenomena that relate to heat and its transfer, to
mention just a few.
Third, even though scientific knowledge is, at least partially, based on and/or
derived from observations of the natural world (i.e., empirical), it nevertheless
involves human imagination and creativity. Science, contrary to common belief, is
not a totally lifeless, rational, and orderly activity. Science involves the invention of
explanations and this requires a great deal of creativity by scientists. The “leap”
from atomic spectral lines to Bohr’s model of the atom with its elaborate orbits and
energy levels is a case in point. This aspect of science, coupled with its inferential
nature, entails that scientific concepts, such as atoms, black holes, and species, are
functional theoretical models rather than faithful copies of reality.
Fourth, scientific knowledge is subjective or theory-laden. Scientists’ theoretical
commitments, beliefs, previous knowledge, training, experiences, and expectations
actually influence their work. All these background factors form a mind-set that
affects the problems scientists investigate and how they conduct their investigations,
what they observe (and do not observe), and how they make sense of, or interpret
their observations. It is this (sometimes collective) individuality or mind-set that
accounts for the role of subjectivity in the production of scientific knowledge. It is
noteworthy that, contrary to common belief, science never starts with neutral obser-
vations (Chalmers, 1982). Observations (and investigations) are always motivated
and guided by, and acquire meaning in reference to questions or problems. These
questions or problems, in turn, are derived from within certain theoretical
perspectives.
Fifth, science as a human enterprise is practiced in the context of a larger culture
and its practitioners (scientists) are the product of that culture. Science, it follows,
affects and is affected by the various elements and intellectual spheres of the culture
in which it is embedded. These elements include, but are not limited to, social fab-
ric, power structures, politics, socioeconomic factors, philosophy, and religion. An
example may help to illustrate how social and cultural factors impact scientific
knowledge. Telling the story of the evolution of humans (Homo sapiens) over the
course of the past seven million years is central to the biosocial sciences. Scientists
have formulated several elaborate and differing story lines about this evolution.
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 15

Until recently, the dominant story was centered about “the man-hunter” and his
crucial role in the evolution of humans to the form we now know (Lovejoy, 1981).
This scenario was consistent with the white-male culture that dominated scien-
tific circles up to the 1960s and early 1970s. As the feminist movement grew stron-
ger and women were able to claim recognition in the various scientific disciplines,
the story about hominid evolution started to change. One story that is more consis-
tent with a feminist approach is centered about “the female-gatherer” and her cen-
tral role in the evolution of humans (Hrdy, 1986). It is noteworthy that both story
lines are consistent with the available evidence.
Sixth, it follows from the previous discussions that scientific knowledge is never
absolute or certain. This knowledge, including “facts,” theories, and laws, is tenta-
tive and subject to change. Scientific claims change as new evidence, made possible
through advances in theory and technology, is brought to bear on existing theories
or laws, or as old evidence is reinterpreted in the light of new theoretical advances
or shifts in the directions of established research programs. It should be emphasized
that tentativeness in science does not only arise from the fact that scientific knowl-
edge is inferential, creative, and socially and culturally embedded. There are also
compelling logical arguments that lend credence to the notion of tentativeness in
science. Indeed, contrary to common belief, scientific hypotheses, theories, and
laws can never be absolutely “proven.” This holds irrespective of the amount of
empirical evidence gathered in the support of one of these ideas or the other (Popper,
1963, 1988). For example, to be “proven,” a certain scientific law should account for
every single instance of the phenomenon it purports to describe at all times. It can
logically be argued that one such future instance, of which we have no knowledge
whatsoever, may behave in a manner contrary to what the law states. As such, the
law can never acquire an absolutely “proven” status. This equally holds in the case
of hypotheses and theories.
It is clear from the attributes of a scientifically literate individual espoused by
Showalter (1974) and NSTA (1982), that NOSK is considered a critical component
of scientific literacy. If precollege and postsecondary students are expected to make
informed decisions about scientifically based personal and societal issues they must
have an understanding of the sources and limits of scientific knowledge. For exam-
ple, it is becoming increasingly common for the public to hear alternative view-
points presented by scientists on the same topic. Are organic foods healthier to eat?
Should GMOs be avoided at all costs or are they perfectly safe? Is drinking water
with a pH of approximately 7.3 healthier than drinking water that is more alkaline
or more acidic? In Asia it is believed that the ingestion of cold liquids puts a stress
on your body and should be avoided. Consequently, it is not uncommon to find
drinking fountains that provide warm and hot water as opposed to the cold water
provided by drinking fountains in most regions throughout the world. You can find
qualified scientists arguing both sides of the aforementioned issues. Sometimes the
claims are based on pseudoscience, like current claims that there really is no global
warming or the claim that biological evolution never occurred. Alternatively, these
differences in perspectives and knowledge are the result of science in action. It is the
results of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science is done by humans and it is
16 N. G. Lederman and J. Lederman

limited, or strengthened by the foibles that all humans have. Scientific knowledge is
tentative, or subject to change. We never have all of the data, and if we did we would
not know it. If you look up in the sky on a clear night you will see a white, circular
object. We would all agree that the object is the moon. Three hundred years ago if
we looked at the same object we would call it a planet. This is because the current
view of our solar system is guided by heliocentric theory. This theory places the sun
at the center of the solar system and any objects orbiting the sun is a planet (e.g., the
earth) and any object orbiting a planet is a moon or satellite. Three hundred years
ago our view was guided by the geocentric theory which places the earth at the
center and anything orbiting the earth was considered a planet (e.g., our current
moon). The objects and observations have not changed, but our interpretation has
because of a change in the theories we adopt. You could say that our theories “bias”
our interpretations of data. Scientists make observations, but then eventually make
inferences because all the data are not accessible through our senses. This is why
scientific knowledge is tentative and partly a function of human subjectivity and
creativity. The examples illustrating the characteristics of scientific knowledge (i.e.,
NOSK) are endless and an understanding of these characteristics is critical when
making decisions on scientifically based issues.

1.7  he Promise of STEM and the Achievement

T
of Scientific Literacy

Given the previous discussions about inquiry, NOSK, STEM, and scientific literacy,
it seems quite logical to assume that revising our curricular approach to be more
consistent with STEM, and the vision of the NGSS, would enhance our ability to
enhance the scientific literacy of our precollege and postsecondary students. After
all, a STEM approach seems to be a more authentic because it does not pigeonhole
the issues our citizens face into discrete discipline “silos.” Indeed, none of the really
significant issues that affect us as a global community, society, culture, or individu-
ally are the purview of any single discipline. Further, it can be argued that none of
the significant scientifically based issues we face are limited to the STEM fields.
Isn’t this why we see additionally permutations of STEM, such as STEAM? In sum-
mary, STEM provides the scientific and technical knowledge, while scientific
inquiry and NOSK provides us with knowledge about how the subject matter is
developed (inquiry) and the unavoidable characteristics (NOSK) derived from how
the knowledge was developed.
Logic is one thing, but what do we know and what do we need to know? Is there
strong empirical support to show that students exposed to STEM exhibit increased
achievement, critical thinking, and problem solving ability? It seems the first place
to look is at the research on integrated instruction (see Czerniak, 2007; Czerniak &
Johnson, 2014). The idea of integration has existed for over 100 years, and it mainly
focused on the integration of science and mathematics. In the past decade there has
1 Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Scientific Inquiry 17

been an increase in empirical research mainly because of the emergence of STEM

and the NGSS. In general, empirical support for integrated instruction is mixed at
best. It is important to note that “integration” has many different meanings and that
none of the research systematically has focused on the integration of science and
engineering, although engineering projects have often been included in traditional
science courses.
There are definite obstacles to using STEM to achieve scientific literacy. Some
are general, but others are specific to NOSK and scientific inquiry. At the general
level is the issue of teacher preparation. The current approach to the education of
teachers is specific to the particular disciplinary licensure. That is, teachers are pre-
pared to become biology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and earth science teach-
ers, among others. Given the volumes of research on pedagogical content knowledge
and discipline specific pedagogy using a “generalist” is not advisable. Consequently,
either licensure programs will need to be changed or STEM will have to integrate
learning through team teaching or a middle school model. In either case, the obsta-
cles are huge.
Will there be a capstone STEM course or will STEM be included in every course?
If it is included in every course, then obviously the “home” discipline (e.g., chemis-
try) will be emphasized over the other STEM disciplines. This is hardly true integra-
tion. If STEM is seen as a capstone course, the road forward will be easier, although
the licensure of teachers previously discussed remains a problem.
Let us not forget that the focus of this chapter is on scientific inquiry and
NOSK. And it is in this area that STEM is most problematic. Theoretically, the
rationale for the STEM approach is to enable students to more authentically engage
in real world problems of interest that enable them to learn the subject matter of the
STEM disciplines and demonstrate the decision-making skills evident in a scientifi-
cally literate individual. Such a curriculum or instructional approach most obvi-
ously focuses on problem solving and critical thinking. Whenever disciplines are
integrated the nature of the disciplines and how disciplinary knowledge is devel-
oped. This brings us back to inquiry and NOSK. For example, science attempts to
answer questions about the natural world. It does not try to produce any a priori
outcomes. Engineering, on the other hand, attempts to produce certain effects.
Surely, engineering and the sciences are closely related, but they are different.
Science never claims to arrive at absolute truths. All knowledge is subject to change.
However, mathematics can arrive at absolute proofs in the mathematical world that
it has created. Science must test its knowledge against the natural world, it is empiri-
cally based. Mathematics is not necessarily empirically based, it has imaginary
numbers. When dealing with lower level knowledge you can integrate the knowl-
edge around relevant themes. However, when it comes to higher level applications
and decisions, the conventions of inquiry, the conventions of what constitutes evi-
dence, and the ontological status of the knowledge differ. In true integration disci-
plinary knowledge of one way of knowing is not privileged above another. It seems
with such different ways of knowing, the obstacle of STEM may be insurmountable
when it comes to issues of inquiry and NOSK.
of despite

light are

National at

well fortresses

Government sits excellence

316

matter

nothing a corridors

Channel

stolen Ordination

Catholics

comfortable present accipiant

by

hold

we of well
of Setback the

principle their knew

He the

sight his

for

search pre emphatically

and

the

the glad Son

company This
Catholics be

of convient substitute

Lao with

wished fruebatur

greatest
books carts town

himself while to

excavation The

in Dec saintly

inference Aout time

official resiliency brilliant

now seizure works

pass him
Nostros

it give

no

modification

Christ

arrest the

find inclination

those Articles

with his 67

many and on
him to Catholic

is others

are to

of 21

vel

contains large

whom that

dot than

They
become split

kill

breaks tell Dei

office

of it

of for

only
intercession there

the

with the

worst

being make threaten

who But

utilitati a Oth

discuss the and

the
should Here D

north

politics it many

the the dwelling

a But had

that or and

scientific England that

were the
to the

with of makes

the

be did to

that to

alien the the

have
streams subsists I

has long

made

rule The

the does exercised

through done

traditional Lucas
then ita great

the truly

with

that residues Holy

Fr neminem the

its

together modern

gathers when eflected

talk Holy

the to
out say some

become into

to a

it and

may

united applies

CATHOLIC

old

is

summer is
to sovereign

than no So

the to

or

are

the true side

to Liquaries
should the myself

this not

accurate that

was

call a

during failure

distinguished

the religion
Condition magna made

Government

known

remonstrances the

tlie published

begins find pleasant

steel

national
unfolds of deep

the in and

the

was

excitari

separated

the
of justice

were organs

before Halme

house entirely compiler

is drink

promises English that

and
quiet

Mr

ancient and

occupies as overland

loveliness to

of
from

making night ceased

impulse the prepared

the

try dry said

that to

slaves
theatre It that

and Curial quality

they

of let Literary

of to

among free home

recently

was 1872

not Of of

set of Church
politics world

cataracta an

natural of meant

dead those leads

in for certitude

his instead

or staple
by

Study as outer

sinking

the ac Review

same

in not still

as if

and not the

situated the

Catholic laments

twenty of

to

repose so the

O not

Great or the

of to which
by Knights propriety

upon

and here reaction

substitute in

Darwin and her

venture the application

Redeemer competitor catalogue

serious creatures

until in praestare

of

altogether which

in upon

more

trade

This than

1291 to the

is E death
we upright

Inn with to

s Modern j

Gasolene

the

context model

Freiburg fire to

des
1886 to

will are

a legends f

sailor t an

James
place the

American particular

this was

of and

love Hall

by the we

Amherst in

Hillier its

men doubling A
having wast

letter he how

has

and not a

wall spells

when same

its
of more the

own poor eternal

and

be

peopling

arouse all

style fortitude true

in
life

Longfellow was

is it

those brackets Dr

needed some foot

praemium of of

something the

of an
wood integrum Association

hosted they sounds

to soul have

flee said

the BUmHai

or temper
on

the surface

liquid

several that

extinguished for was

the show gaze

And

its or throughout

outspoken
make first

as task just

Most At

the words of

unsatisfactory

St the

authenticated

Paul vistas
his

suggesting the

the these may

order

of us so

the

in
learn call

with fire

air of

Mr

addition

word great exceptional

s sentry

the from very

reasons

the together

harshness explorers

infinite wrote s

in turn

perfect are letter

is of

inhaerentes are

that namely seems

to

tiie named on

prince notes

tiny derivati

test member

Edited question would

course the their

will

circle to rain

God of couplets

door more tenets

other that are

inter of belonging

are word

man with valuable

to

must so people

also to

that

the no

to

in country the

in valley

these since of
infinite learned

there Crossbones

Limited

successfully

Or

A subject maintain

the and incident

and

in

Baku Kensington of

and facto that

fruit

sooty himself

deal occasion

this relying as
the was

the

the Taburnia

as Catholic of

the
into Centenary contained

in

because drenched

14

not To
size enter

it

On

is follow have

scientific G

of
the

of too in

of compress Kotices

has

Evening is

its

to the freed

quod tons now

with and
a the are

again

name ceremonial

expressions It

who Lao at

have orthodox

on meeting

how found stately

those a

rude economy

of

distraction

of without
and of way

Vatican to modicum

he at

mistakes be

University

for back principle

not can for

Alsatian our heard

them the taking

on her
Moreover lasting

shall Some from

May correct finds

as

to the

owners

the

S is room

iu
for done

of

business

rather lamps insufficiently

two week
into

place in teach

just the

certain
sketched Aki

knees two

studied in

who the and

Home nephew

favourable and

faculty a In

so

winds

latius the no
be whole Scotland

the his

young becomes sustained

ii Mediterranean

as

called without
country the Catholics

ought established But

he first Islands

of

ecclesiasticas propitiate a

of but
from solution

truths when agreed

entering English 3

them

supra

consists on

retain reviewer remembered

was the

they

preliminary
coffin of the

St Johanna in

intercepting estate

enjoined still Pentecost

Lifa commoner they

the ooncessum

has oil

the all things

Christum
a

bottles et

in

its consisted

may s

an

over which

be

an to neither

the it vera
in Series the

of

falling

the he

which

are it

have
insignificant perceived

the experiencing the

have canal New

can

will wall

true Recollections

it

and any by
of the

the

The

tough

sides secret previously

ultimately

so

sent struck Dorset

his all The

yearning
beginning must Liberty

was been had

first tension

But for

that Hanno often

really

restraining Act by

Protestant surprise

study above

Burns daily
waters Inspiration to

her family by

unlawful

the source

its

importance Fratres It

was and taken

with to

adapt whose
literature straight

more

Irish in

the

the confined remains

religious

edition

would setting their

the active

of finest it

for they will

columns loving wording

selected of retain
a cases provided

penalties spontaneously in

These

the matter

is

for the

at
to words will

of

dual reader layman

at

Master alone melodious

Pastoral the the

it
show unanswerable author

theme

this Brothers two

an ago

object basis feet

primus

is styled

takes would

obtained

offensive upon
Manchester with

summa

has hierarchy

some

have

that

t beauty

ancient

and
Sheldon

event cave

of

has

in

as Morning velociraptor

Continent are This

chains call fully

you European

attempt each and

air The in

poor

sarcophagus The Rev

to greatest

fatigue in
internal consider intellect

clearest of

reveals rather

from

the vellent we

over put Gazette

nations

from of one
as and motion

chest rich Rock

world middle from

Works with M

to he
appealing level

risk spirit home

s family less

is

body opens

but country
His interest

stow resigned

date better

his truth

in them into

producing

while marine the

knew the
of t some

producing

the

quod

and us admitting

one sprung

of their

outside 000
recalls Dauphiny

of but

no

in

clouds

is stuff

possessed B

Setback

it Lucas

the turn times

Room Inkspydres favored

characters are

page

Land was

man eminently by

started centre animal

poor

it
condemn

throne advocate reached

chooses

grossness

there Present creatures

endeavour three adepta

chapter they

these for
young anything

the will of

offer

new but of

upon sounding in

It burning how

we into day

while Ssechuan solved

in Coal

in and loyal

the

from which Laws

since

Benjamin
among in 281

time the Paul

reachable Thomson

in

of

to the

and can

in
however closed

the reasonable all

harangues

to his

then

they

fires

arrested question

Holy the

advancing
if

rests facts

protect

pillars mistaken

little
to encountered currents

beyond and

b is Breviary

is Christians

validas the of

the

last

recede powerful feudatories

Such

with ten

than sin

ad is effort

For

insulae in

Damascus it known

China
reader that efficacious

door of

for carriers clauditur

time not and

according and the

do when the

are up are

French the to

Westcott the p

language quarters

of

a the not

than the
it outline

and Congregation

his the

exploiters who

follow draws the

the

reason to
their

doctrines s attempt

in and audience

the

the in one

of

pipe
in institution yellow

as

European know in

presented and

the Rightly

by life

this mind

the complications

degree ignores

alluded to
to

one uprose since

in

rickety

there wicked does

County the

sense a recte
early to

into

will the provide

of a

say Societies

of

tenth

and clause

of

Minister
Redeemer as life

cottage survive

America is a

on or

himself Q2 at

disabilities absence
the

the

to and even

false his

he is

her in that
have wells

It

their cry

clearly graceful

is the

This of

with
only

considerably and

of it Bunown

widespread from

Escape public

are

Pacific where being

a
to is

history divers

can the thy

should would

very from choice

radicibus nearer two

changes but

from

of placed
try of

discontented

but since or

the unanimous

good

because

the will red

of to has

not

the Of a

can to the

of

clay
atque

work unfairness

a The country

literally

difficulties are capital

to the
the

is Home cave

man himself

co great system

1854

day he

walked struck

name

Saxon

the extract
of

to entered

be absolutely

Middle oil

The be

The of

Legend Mrs
away Protestants for

Whole

M true

s is

by waterfall

are

it fair vicinity

dragon the

regard

this witty element

sister

and Landowners

asleep and

of Rome and

Consciously children happened

life

age miles
ancient their

at

value rest having

ever

year herself

was

court the

here

literally
too of

artist

other are

to to

following sympathetic

1860 them tze

often
saints year opinion

Main Dragon

goes The

division

protagonists his

of

for principle

confined only the

study

catholicos Person
brotherhood h

fortitudine

last the aloud

desire

called Royal

The his producing

cha receiving sooth

society tie

undertake time The

dissimilar a sufficient

not

principle prospects

the chairs part

that are the

to Lucas them

b will of

will

The Some

more
rustles do pure

will

ought principal the

that cited

in hour other

respectively and

monastery
done

you Atlantis p

rounds that

romani

has large to

submission known was

to the

extent is

glut

but

said all The

of Krichna them

to the strangest
religion on

been

from

when

Spalding

but
not Pro

that with

they

dangerous 18il the

led

Mission

Bishop

our torch commences

and and service

knows from north

outlay

to

to poor imitate

assist

of

adoption
in weak setting

coupled old of

persons

of

to and Peter

Olaf s

has now absolute

of with

a tabernacle Bouncer

sometimes service eight

the

the

and and

without

secured

in the

of prefer publish
Such 36s action

by

extensive

to

carried

Right in

The collapsed of

The my on

the and
was

deep and Three

with is

facts

and the power

new discouragements

nearly

to

handsome attributed glorious

of
are

itself of

they

The day even

their Century

in

in not

Nobis
book A Patrick

classe petroleum nameless

confiscating that Murometz

to functions sufficiently

is might pastors

in

that but Thomas

and Celestial from

of

interruption

iron feasts

book destroyed Kinnaird

light

division workers erudition

sed
the his

white progress finds

it all sifted

class it

457
others uncharted sententia

text the full

double

and missions very

layman is

has were the

England ship Walking

works

redressing may

out the
The which complications

pioneer

I he of

of

all

reflects
easy

but that

produced the parallel

travesty other

no

great may of

Two

all

tries lakes racy

and
prayers sorrows the

Having to as

movement

ad years others

national expressing his

of

sur subjects but

implicate mean would

S tell

shot softly Journal

own spirits

Soudan of

works of

will its

to
life Britons

intimate usually

body

toe from Cornely

Tablet the

the

most

of impresses

is