Because this course is designed for us to develop an understanding of the teaching and learning of science, it is first important to know what science is. I feel that the three readings for this week described science in different ways, which could then be combined to create a working definition. However, I recognize that this definition of science may not be the definition that all agree upon.
The National Research Council (2007; 2012) places great emphasis on science being composed of both a body of knowledge and the processes that are used to gain this knowledge. Because of this, “both elements –knowledge and practice- are essential” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 26), so science cannot exist without both of these components. In order to have a better understanding of this brief definition, the type of knowledge and processes that make up science need to be explored.
Based on the readings from this week, scientific knowledge is composed of at least two components: core ideas and language. Core ideas replace studying a wide variety of concepts in little depth with studying the big ideas of science in greater detail. By exploring the important concepts in depth, students will be able to “develop meaningful understanding” (National Research Council, 2012, p. 25). Like many other fields, science has its own specific language, which includes terms such as “theory,” “hypothesis,” ‘data,” “evidence,” and “argument” (National Research Council, 2007). Students can expand their knowledge by having an understanding of the scientific language.
Since the publication of the Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas (National Research Council, 2012), many people associate the processes of science with the eight practices that are addressed in the document. Although these are processes of science, there are additional processes that readings described that do not receive as much attention and should therefore be addressed. Dewey (1929) states that science cannot exist without abstraction. Therefore, it is necessary for students to be able to think abstractly in order to develop scientific knowledge. However, there is debate as to when students develop the ability to think abstractly. Based on the description provided by the National Research Council (2012), it seems that the authors believe that students are not able to think abstractly until the middle grades. This leads me to ask whether or not students in the primary grades are engaging in science. Dewey (1929) also states that science is about making connections and finding the relationships between these connections. In the Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas the National Research Council (2012) states that connections can be made between science disciplines and core ideas through the crosscutting concepts, which include cause and effect and size and scale.
These readings helped me to think about what science is and to develop a working definition that can be built upon with additional resources. Based on these readings, I would define science as consisting of two main components, which are then comprised of sub-components; the knowledge component of science is made up of core ideas and language, whereas the process component is made up of the practices, abstraction, connections, and the relationships between these connections.
Tags: week1
I also wonder where you found in the TSS that they indicate that young students are not capable of abstract reasoning until middle grades? Is this an inference by you, or did they actually state it? Where in the text did you find that?
I also agree that it is an important distinction between knowledge ABOUT science (the explanations of phenomenon that have been developed by science to describe the world) and knowing HOW TO DO science (the process science has developed for coming to explanations about the world). Well worth thinking about this and specifically how different theories of learning think about these different kinds of knowledge.
Opps. The retrieved from URL got dropped. Here it is .
Also, I meant to my comment close with… Communication within science is dependent upon language that is understood by the science community. The terminology may not make sense to those outside of science or even novices within science. Do you think acquisition of the meaning of science language could be part of the process rather than part of the knowledge?
Hi KeriAnn
Your question–what is science—is well worth asking and answering if we are committed to promoting the learning and teaching of science. Defining science is clearly not an easy task although I thought Dewey and the NRC publications did come up with some very usable explanations. In TSS the authors state that science, at its core, is about establishing lines of evidence and then using that evidence to develop and refine explanations using “theories, models, hypotheses, measurements, and observations” (NRC, 2007: 18). To me, these terms, when applied to science, embody concepts and components that make up what science is, how science works, and Dewey’s “systematic methods of inquiry” (1929:8). However, I am hesitant to class these terms as specific to the language of science since they have different meanings and uses outside of science and sometimes to the detriment of science. “Theory”, in particular, is used in science and used against science. In science, a theory is a “comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence” (NAS & NIH, 2008). When it is used against science, such as in “the theory of evolution” or “theory of climate change” a more common, non-science, Word-Thesaurus definition comes into play–“conjecture”, “speculation”, “guess”, “hypothesis”. The implication then is that evolution or climate change is speculative and unproven.
National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, 2008. Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Retrieved from
You question whether or not children in primary grades are able to engage in science because they have not yet acquired the reasoning ability to think abstractly. I would like to think that educators are able to help children in this age range to engage in science. But I guess this depends on how we define engagement in science and what truly constitutes engagement. I think this is an interesting discussion point. I also like your working definition of science and that it is knowledge AND a process.