SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Adb-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82, 417436.
  • Alters, B. J. (1997a). Nature of science: A diversity or uniformity of ideas. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 11051108.
  • Alters, B. J. (1997b). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 3955.
  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (1963). The biology teachers' handbook. New York: Wiley.
  • Boyd, R. (1984). The current status of scientific realism. In J.Leplin (Ed.), Scientific realism (pp. 4182). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282295.
  • Brickhouse, N. W., & Stanley, W. B. (1995a). Response to Good. Science Education, 79, 337339.
  • Brickhouse, N. W., & Stanley, W. B. (1995b). Science education without foundations: A response to Loving. Science Education, 79, 349354.
  • Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (Eds.). (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
  • Cartwright, N. (1999a). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cartwright, N. (1999b). The limits of exact science, from economics to physics. Perspectives on Science, 7, 318336.
  • Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 5067.
  • Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society (1945). General education in a free society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Costa, S., Hughes, T. B., & Pinch, T. (1998). Bringing it all back home: Some implications of recent science and technology studies for the classroom science teacher. Research in Science Education, 28, 921.
  • Dewey, J. (1909). The purpose and organization of physics teaching in secondary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 9, 291292.
  • Dewey, J. (1910a). How we think. New York: D.C. Heath.
  • Dewey, J. (1910b). Science as subject-matter and as method. Science, 31(787), 121127.
  • Dewey, J. (1916a). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
  • Dewey, J. (1916b). Method in science teaching. General Science Quarterly, 1(1), 39.
  • Dewey, J. (1916c). Progress. International Journal of Ethics, 26(3), 311322.
  • Dewey, J. (1934). The supreme intellectual obligation. Science Education, 18(1), 14.
  • Dewey, J. (1945). Method in science teaching. Science Education, 29(3), 119123.
  • Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 107116.
  • Fine, A. (1996a). The natural ontological attitude, the shaky game: Einstein, realism, and the quantum theory (2nd ed., pp. 112135). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Fine, A. (1996b). Science made up: Constructivist sociology of scientific knowledge. In P.Galison & D. J.Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 231254). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Fine, A. (1998). The viewpoint of no-one in particular. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 72, 920.
  • Galison, P., & Stump, D. J. (Eds.). (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford, CA: Standford University Press.
  • Geiger, R. L. (1992). Science, universities, and national defense, 1945–1970. Osiris, 2nd. series, 7, 2648.
  • Geiger, R. L. (1997). What happened after Sputnik? Shaping university research in the United States. Minerva, 35, 349367.
  • Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Good, R. (1995). Comments on multicultural science education. Science Education, 79, 335336.
  • Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural: Postcolonialisms, feminisms, and epistemologies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  • Hodson, D. (1999). Going beyond cultural pluralism: Science education for sociopolitical action. Science Education, 83, 775796.
  • Hollinger, D. A. (1990). Free enterprise and free inquiry: The emergence of laissez-faire communitarianism in the ideology of science in the United States. New Literary History, 21, 897919.
  • Jenkins, E. W. (1992). School science education: Towards a reconstruction. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 24, 229246.
  • Jenkins, E. W. (1994). Public understanding of science and science education for action. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 601611.
  • Jenkins, E. W. (1996). The “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28, 137150.
  • Jones, K. M. (1982). The government-science complex. In R. H.Bremner & G. W.Reichard (Eds.), Reshaping America: Society and institutions, 1945–1960 (pp. 315342). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
  • Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The indigenous worldview of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 133144.
  • Kevles, D. J. (1990). Cold war and hot physics: Science, security, and the American state, 1945–1956. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 20, 239264.
  • Kevles, D. J. (1992). K1S2: Korea, science, and the state. In P.Galison & B.Hevly (Eds.), Big science: The growth of large-scale research (pp. 312333). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Kleinman, D. L. (1995). Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  • Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Untangling context: Understanding a university laboratory in the commercial world. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 23, 285314.
  • Kliebard, H. M. (1995). The struggle for the American curriculum: 1893–1958 (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291310.
  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I.Lakatos & A.Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students' and teachers' conception of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331359.
  • Lederman, N. G. (1995). Suchting on the nature of scientific thought: Are we anchoring curricula in quicksand? Science and Education, 4, 371377.
  • Lewis, B. F., & Aikenhead, G. S. (2001). Introduction: Shifting from universalism to cross-culturalism. Science Education, 85, 35.
  • Longbottom, J. E., & Butler, P. H. (1999). Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education. Science Education, 83, 473492.
  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
  • McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science and Education, 7, 511532.
  • McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W.-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 1424.
  • National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • National Science Foundation (1963). Annual report for fiscal year 1963 (Vol. 13). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
  • Norris, S. P. (1995). Learning to live with scientific expertise: Toward a theory of intellectual communalism for guiding science teaching. Science Education, 79, 201217.
  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Price, D. K. (1965). The scientific estate. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Purcell, E. A. (1973). The crisis of democratic theory: Scientific naturalism and the problem of value. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
  • Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging science: How to understand its practices philosophically. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave/St. Martin's Press.
  • Ryan, A. (1995). John Dewey and the high tide of American liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14, 374379.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In P. F.Brandwein (Ed.), The teaching of science (pp. 3103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Schwab, J. J. (1964). The structure of the natural sciences. In G. W.Ford & L.Pugno (Eds.), The structure of knowledge and the curriculum (pp. 3149). Chicago: Rand McNally.
  • Shapin, S. (1990). Science and the public. In R. C.Olby, G. N.Cantor, J. R. R.Christie, & M. J. S.Hodge (Eds.), Companion to the history of modern science (pp. 9901007). New York: Routledge.
  • Shapin, S. (1999). Rarely pure and never simple: Talking about truth. Configurations, 7, 114.
  • Shook, J. R. (2000). Dewey's empirical theory of knowledge and reality. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
  • Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of science: A response to alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 11011103.
  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers. Science Education, 83, 493509.
  • Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous Science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 634.
  • Solomon, J. (1999). Meta-scientific criticisms, curriculum innovation and the propagation of scientific culture. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 115.
  • Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (1994). Multiculturalism, universalism, and science education. Science Education, 78, 387398.
  • Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching sciences: The multicultural questions revisited. Science Education, 85, 3549.
  • Suchting, W. A. (1995). The nature of scientific thought. Science and Education, 4, 122.
  • Suchting, W. A. (1996). More on the nature of scientific thought: Responses to professors Lederman and Ohlsson. Science and Education, 5, 381390.
  • Toumey, C. (1996). Conjuring science: Scientific symbols and cultural meanings in American life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  • Turner, S., & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in the classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science educators confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 24, 530.
  • Weinberg, A. M. (1966). Can technology replace social engineering? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 22(12), 48.
  • Westbrook, R. B. (1991). John Dewey and American democracy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Westbury, I., & Wilkof, N. J. (Eds.), (1978). Joseph J. Schwab: Science, curriculum, and liberal education: Selected essays. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Westhoff, L. M. (1995). The popularization of knowledge: John Dewey on experts and American democracy. History of Education Quarterly, 35, 2747.