Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Rationale for a Teaching Innovation About the Interrelationship Between Science and Technology

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper refers to the development of a teaching innovation for the nature of science (NOS), for students aged 11–15, which specifically focuses on the interrelationship between science and technology. The development of the teaching and learning materials relied on inputs from three sources: the history and philosophy of science and technology, existing knowledge concerning the teaching and learning about the NOS, empirical data on students’ initial ideas and difficulties about this topic. The first served to provide an account for the various forms of interaction between science and technology, which, in turn, guided the formulation of epistemologically coherent learning objectives. The second provided the pedagogical grounds on which to base the design of the activities. The third facilitated the design of activities that build on students’ productive initial ideas, while providing them with guidance to resolve the difficulties they tend to encounter. In this paper, we describe the rationale underlying the teaching and learning materials and we describe the activity sequence they embody.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. On this see AAAS (1993), Driver et al. (1996), Flick and Lederman (2006), Kang et al. (2005), Lederman (1992), McComas (2002), NRC (1996).

  2. On this see Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998), Lederman (2007), McComas (2008), Osborne et al. (2003).

  3. On this see Akerson and Donnelly (2010), Akerson and Volrich (2006), Carey, Evans, Honda, Jay, and Unger (1989), Khishfe and Abd-el-Khalick (2002), Khishfe and Lederman (2006).

  4. On this see Akerson and Donnelly (2010), Akerson and Volrich (2006), Carey et al. (1989), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Khishfe and Lederman (2006), Peters (in press).

  5. On this see Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000a), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Lederman (1992), Moss et al. (2001), Sandoval (2003, 2005), Sandoval and Morrison (2003).

  6. For this see examples in Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000b), Kim and Irving (2010), Olson et al. (2005), Rudge and Howe (2009), Solomon et al. (1992), Straits and Nichols (2007), Yip (2006).

  7. For this see AAAS (1989), ITEA (2000, 2003), Jones (2006), Kolstø (2001, 2008), Sandoval (2005).

  8. For this see Gago et al. (2004), NSF (2003), OECD (2006), Roberts (2002).

  9. For this see Arageorgis and Baltas (1989), Basalla (1988), Cardwell (1994), Gardner (1997), Gil-Perez et al. (2005).

  10. For this see Arageorgis and Baltas (1989), Basalla (1988), Cardwell (1994), Gardner (1997), Gil-Perez et al. (2005), Wolpert (1992).

  11. On page 30, Boon (2006) cites the following: Layton (1971), Böhme et al. (1978), Rapp (1981), Constant (1984), de Solla Price (1984), Laudan (1984), Staudenmaier (1985), Basalla (1988), Kroes and Bakker (1992), Mitcham (1994), Smith and Marx (1994), Gardner (1997), and Ihde (1997).

  12. On this see Arageorgis and Baltas (1989), Bhaduri (2003), Gardner (1994), Schummer (1997), Williams (2002) among many others.

  13. On this see AAAS (1989), Agassi (1980), Arageorgis and Baltas (1989), Custer (1995), Gardner (1993, 1994), ITEA (2000), Jones (2006), NRC (1996).

  14. For this see Akerson and Hanuscin (2007), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Lederman (2007), Peters (in press), Sandoval and Morrison (2003), Walker and Zeidler (2003).

  15. For this see Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman (2000b), Irwin (2000), Olson et al. (2005), Rudge and Howe (2009), Solomon et al. (1992), Straits and Nichols (2007).

  16. For this see AAAS (1989), Driver et al. (1996), Kang et al. (2005), Lederman (2007), NRC (1996).

References

  • AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2006). Over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 389–425). Springer: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000b). The influence of history of science on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agassi, J. (1980). Between S & T. Philosophy of Science, 47(1), 82–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V., & Donnelly, L. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Volrich, M. L. (2006). Teaching nature of science explicitly in a first-grade internship setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 377–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applin, D., Isaacson, P. B., Fullick, A., Hunt, A., Melamed, A., Millar, R., et al. (2000). In: Nuffield Foundation (Ed.), AS science for public understanding. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.

  • Arageorgis, A., & Baltas, A. (1989). Demarcating technology from science: Problems and ss. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 20(2), 212–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B. (1982). The science-technology relationship: A model or a query. Social Studies of Science, 12(1), 166–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basalla, G. (1988). The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L. (2008). Teaching the nature of science through process skills: Activities for grades 3–8. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bencze, J. L. (2001). ‘Technoscience’ education: Empowering citizens against the Tyranny of School Science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaduri, S. (2003). Science, society, and technology—Three cultures and multiple visions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 12(3), 303–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boon, M. (2006). How science is applied in technology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20(1), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardwell, D. (1994). The Fontana history of technology. London: Fontana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E., & Unger, C. (1989). ‘An experiment is when you try it and see if it works’: A study of grade 7 students’ understanding of the construction of the scientific knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 11(5), 514–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). USA: Hackett Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou, C. P., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, M. J. (2005). Teaching about technology. An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers (Vol. 27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, T. K., & Williams, T. I. (1960). A short history of technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiGironimo, N. (2010). What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. International Journal of Science Education [First published on: 24 August 2010 (iFirst)].

  • Drake, S. (1980). Galileo (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scot, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. London: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (Eds.). (2006). Scientific inquiry and the nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gago, J. M., Caro, P., Constantinou, C. P., Davies, G., Parchmann, I., Rannikmae, M., et al. (2004). Europe needs more scientists: Increasing human resources for science and technology in Europe. Report of the High Level Group on Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe. European Commission, DG Research, Brussels.

  • Gardner, P. L. (1993). Textbook representations of science-technology relationships. Research in Science Education, 23(1), 85–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1994a). The relationship between technology and science: Some historical and philosophical reflections. Part I. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 4(2), 123–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. (1994b). Representations of the relationship between science and technology in the curriculum. Studies in Science Education, 24(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, P. L. (1997). The roots of technology and science: A philosophical and historical view. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Perez, D., Vilches, A., Fernandez, I., Cachapuz, A., Praia, J., Valdes, P., et al. (2005). Technology as “applied science”. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 309–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ITEA. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. International Technology Education Association.

  • ITEA. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. International Technology Education Association.

  • Jones, A. (2006). The role and place of technological literacy in elementary science teacher education: International perspectives on contemporary issues and practice. In K. Appleton (Ed.), Elementary science teacher education (pp. 198–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. (2008). Science education for democratic citizenship through the use of the history of science. Science & Education, 17(8–9), 977–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s challenge to science education. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 83–126). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2002). The nature of science in science education, rationales and strategies (Vol. The nature of science in science education). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, L. C., & The Physics Education Group. (1996). Physics by inquiry. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mumford, L. (1961). History: Neglected clue to technological change. Technology and Culture, 2(3), 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2007). In: R. A. Duschl, H. A. Schweingruber, & A. W. House (Eds.), Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  • NSF. (2003). The science and engineering workforce: Realizing America’s potential. Publication: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf.

  • OECD. (2006). Women in scientific careers: Unleashing the potential, Paris.

  • Olson, J. K., Clough, M. P., Bruxvoort, C. N., & Vanderlinden, D. W. (2005). Improving Students’ nature of science understanding through historical short stories in an introductory geology course. Paper presented at the eighth international history, philosophy, sociology & science teaching conference (IHPST), Leeds, UK.

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, E. E. (in press). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science & Education [First published on: 27 November 2009 (Springer)].

  • Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RC, N. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, L. J., & Jarvis, T. (1995). Three approaches to measuring children’s perceptions about technology. International Journal of Science Education, 17(6), 755–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, G. (2002). SET for success: The supply of people with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills. UK: HM Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D., & Howe, E. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. (2004). Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A critical review of research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(5), 513–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2003). The inquiry paradox: Why doing science doesn’t necessarily change ideas about science. Paper presented at the Sixth International Computer-Based Learning in Science.

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. (1997). Challenging standard distinctions between science and technology: the case of preparative chemistry. International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 3, 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, W. (1986). Are ‘science’ and ‘technology’ necessary? The utility of some old concepts in contemporary studies of the research process. Sociological Inquiry, 56(3), 324–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (2004). Bing Bang: The origin of the universe. New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L., & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Education, 29(4), 409–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Straits, W. J., & Nichols, S. E. (2007). Using historical nonfiction and literature circles to develop elementary teachers’ nature of science understanding. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(6), 901–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 179–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology for education: Technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Students’ understanding of the nature of science and their reasoning on socioscientific issues: A web-based learning inquiry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia, PA.

  • Williams, J. P. (2002) Processes of science and technology: A rationale for cooperation or separation. Paper presented at the technology education in the curriculum: Relationships with other subjects proceedings PATT-12 conference.

  • Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, D. Y. (2006). Using history to promote understanding of nature of science in science teachers. Teaching Education, 17(2), 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Work presented in this paper has been partially supported by the European Union through the European Communities Research Directorate General in the project Materials Science—University-school partnerships for the design and implementation of research-based ICT-enhanced modules on Material Properties, Science and Society Programme, FP6, SAS6-CT-2006-042942).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. P. Constantinou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hadjilouca, R., Constantinou, C.P. & Papadouris, N. The Rationale for a Teaching Innovation About the Interrelationship Between Science and Technology. Sci & Educ 20, 981–1005 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9332-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9332-1

Keywords

Navigation