The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What “ideas‐about‐science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community
Abstract
Recent arguments in science education have proposed that school science should pay more attention to teaching the nature of science and its social practices. However, unlike the content of science, for which there is well‐established consensus, there would appear to be much less unanimity within the academic community about which “ideas‐about‐science” are essential elements that should be included in the contemporary school science curriculum. Hence, this study sought to determine empirically the extent of any consensus using a three stage Delphi questionnaire with 23 participants drawn from the communities of leading and acknowledged international experts of science educators; scientists; historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science; experts engaged in work to improve the public understanding of science; and expert science teachers. The outcome of the research was a set of nine themes encapsulating key ideas about the nature of science for which there was consensus and which were considered to be an essential component of school science curriculum. Together with extensive comments provided by the participants, these data give some measure of the existing level of agreement in the community engaged in science education and science communication about the salient features of a vulgarized account of the nature of science. Although some of the themes are already a feature of existing school science curricula, many others are not. The findings of this research, therefore, challenge (a) whether the picture of science represented in the school science curriculum is sufficiently comprehensive, and (b) whether there balance in the curriculum between teaching about the content of science and the nature of science is appropriate. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 40: 692–720, 2003
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching
SHULMAN, L. S. (1986) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x015002004 · Cited by 18,546
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235
Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry
Longino, H. E. (1990) · doi:10.1515/9780691209753 · Cited by 3,092
The Social Construction of What?
HACKING, I. (2000) · doi:10.2307/j.ctv1bzfp1z · Cited by 2,486
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: The Many Faces of Constructivism
Phillips, D. C. (1995) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x024007005 · Cited by 1,330
Real Science: What it Is and What it Means
Ziman, J. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541391 · Cited by 760
Gaon, S., & Norris, S. P. (2001) · Journal of Philosophy of Education · doi:10.1111/1467-9752.00220 · Cited by 22
Cited by
McNeill, K. L., Lizotte, D. J., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2006) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1502_1 · Cited by 798
Reconceptualizing nature‐of‐science education in the age of social media
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.21575 · Cited by 303
Elementary teachers' pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science
Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20404 · Cited by 194
Sandoval, W. A., Greene, J. A., & Bråten, I. (2016) · Review of Research in Education · doi:10.3102/0091732x16669319 · Cited by 143
Mirata, V., Hirt, F., Bergamin, P., & van der Westhuizen, C. (2020) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-020-00209-y · Cited by 135
“…has been broadly applied to forecast the emergence of new technologies, to identify technology implementation strategies, to develop curricula, and to deal with challenges in educational settings in general (Nworie, 2011; Osborne, Collins, Ratcliffe, Millar, & Duschl, 2003; VanDykGibson, 2016).”
BackgroundExploring the structure of students’ scientific higher order thinking in science education
Sun, H., Xie, Y., & Lavonen, J. (2022) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2022.100999 · Cited by 77
Body talk: students’ identity construction while discussing a socioscientific issue
Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2012) · Cultural Studies of Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11422-012-9381-7 · Cited by 23
Soysal, Y. (2022) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-021-00266-3 · Cited by 9
Schlüter, B., Strippel, C. G., Lewalter, D., & Sommer, K. (2022) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.2c00321 · Cited by 8
Scientific Thinking Promotes the Development of Critical Thinking in Primary Education
de los Santos, O., Hernández-Padilla, E., Vázquez-Alonso, Á., López-Aymes, G., Aguilar-Tamayo, M. F., & Arce, E. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15091174 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Research in Science Teaching
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-08-25
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 692-720
- ISSN
- 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-2736
- OpenAlex
- W2136506039
- Cited by
- 1,197
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 104.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.