2 Michaels Bell

The
Nature of Science
&PERCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORKS
Emphasizing a more balanced
approach to science instruction
Erica Michaels and Randy L. Bell
n todays climate of content standards and high-stakes

testing, science teachers are under more pressure than
ever to focus on the ready-made knowledge of science
content. Yet, science educators have long advocated a
more balanced approach to science instruction, including
emphasis on the processes by which scientific knowledge is
produced, as well as the characteristics of this knowledge.
Unfortunately, the values and assumptions that go hand-inhand with the production of scientific knowledge are seldom addressed in the classroom. Failing to address this
hidden nature of science can result in serious misconceptions on the part of students regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of the knowledge that science produces.
For example, the notion that the goal of science is to
prove conjectures in an absolute sense is a common
misconception of students. Closely associated with this
misconception is the mistaken idea that scientific laws
result from theories proven over time to be absolutely
true. Current views of scientific knowledge recognize
that there is always the chance (though sometimes remote) that new evidence or ways of interpreting existing evidence can result in changes in even the most
cherished theories and laws.
Besides painting an inaccurate view of science, the
misconception of science as proven knowledge can lead
students to reject acceptable scientific ideas when the ex-
36
T h e S c i e n c e Te a c h e r
perts disagree. After all, if the knowledge were accurate,

wouldnt all scientists agree? This question is asked either out loud or in the minds of students, in countless
classrooms across the United States. Whenever controversial topics are addressed, including evolution, global
warming, or the age of Earth, students interpret scientists opposing ideas through their absolute views of science, too often rejecting good science as bad.
One answer to this conundrum is to address the tentative nature of science in the classroom. By showing that
even careful scientists observations and inferences are affected by cultural and social influences, teachers can help
students understand that different viewpoints and controversy are to be expected, especially in the frontier
realms of science. The National Science Education Standards (NSES) addresses these issues directly, calling for
science instruction that includes such concepts as:
N Scientists are influenced by social, cultural, and
personal beliefs (NRC 1996, p. 201);
N All scientific knowledge is subject to change as
new evidence becomes available (NRC 1996, p.
201); and
N The work of science is a human endeavor
that relies on certain qualities such as reasoning, insight, energy, skill, and creativity
(NRC 1996, p. 201).
are unaware that personal perceptions influence observaStudying the nature of science is not purely an academic
tions, as well as conclusions drawn from them. A practiissue. The ultimate goal for educators is to enable stucal way to demonstrate this concept to students is by
dents as citizens of the world to make educated decisions
presenting gestalt images that require an obvious
in areas that require scientific knowledge. The NSES
framework for interpretation.
state, Everyone needs to use scientific information to
To begin, students look at Figure 1. The teacher then
make choices that arise every day. Everyone needs to be
asks students Do you see an image in the picture? Afable to engage intelligently in public discourse and deter looking again at the picture, students should consider
bate about important issues that involve science and techthat Figure 1 depicts a cow. If students still cannot see
nology (NRC 1996, p. 1). Similarly, in todays
the image, Figure 2 (p. 38) provides an outline of the
workforce it is becoming more important to have the
hidden image. Students will find that once they have
advanced critical-thinking skills fostered through underseen the outline of the figure, it will be difficult to look at
standing science, scientific processes, and inquiry. Unthe picture and not see the image. Yet, without this
derstanding the tentative and sometimes subjective naframework, chances are they were unable to see a distinture of science will help students make sense of
guishable image. The picture (data) has not changed,
socio-scientific issues they will encounter.
but now students have a framework with which to interFor example, students who believe that all good scienpret the data. Without the framework, students could
tific knowledge is objective might proceed differently with
not make sense of the data.
their decision-making than students who understand that
Figure 3 (p. 38) presents another image that can be
scientific knowledge possesses subjective qualities and
interpreted differently based on ones framework. Stumay be revised with new knowledge. What will be their
dents may see either a profile of a young girl wearing a
conclusion when scientists disagree on the effects of global
necklace or a picture of an old woman, with a prominent
warming on our planet (or whether such a phenomenon
nose and one eye in full view. The teacher can ask stureally does exist), or when the latest scientific news indidents From a scientific perspective, if the data in this
cates certain dietary choices are healthy one month, and
problem is the drawing itself, what is the correct concluhazardous the next? In such cases, students may put off
sion to draw from the data, the old woman or the young
important decisions because no absolute proof exists, or
girl? The data are the same for everyone, but the interworse, they may fall into a trap of
FIGURE 1
discrediting scientific work.
In addition to the myth that scien- Grainy cow image.
tists are always objective, many students hold to other myths about the
scientific enterprise (McComas
1996). These myths include beliefs
that experiments are the only reliable
route to scientific knowledge, careful
evidence gathering will result in certainty, and science is procedural
more than creative. Students may
also believe that all scientists follow
one general scientific method and
this method provides absolute proof.
With such a cut-and-dry conception
of science that leaves little room for
the human elements of creativity and
intuition, many students find it uninteresting or difficult.
The only way for teachers to address these myths in the classroom is
through changing students conceptual understandings about the nature
of science. For example, teachers can
consider the objectivity of observations. Most everyone has heard that
seeing is believing. However, most
N ove m b e r 2 0 0 3
37
ADAPTED FRO M DALLENBACH (1951)
Making educated decisions
FIGURE 2
Outline of the cow.
pretation of the data depends on the students perceptual frameworks. Students will see the girl or the
old woman, but cannot see
both at the same time
(Lederman, Abd-El-Khalick,
and Bell 2000).
Subjectivity of science
Understanding the nature of
science in this context will
help students to appreciate
that one strength of science lies in its subjectivity. Science
is a human endeavor, subject to the influence of social,
cultural, and personal frameworks, yet the creativity and
varied perspectives brought to science enable breakthroughs to occur and scientific progress to march on.
A good historical example of this is the case of Nicolas
Copernicus and his heliocentric model of the universe.
Copernicus did not support his ideas solely with the astronomical data of his time. In fact, his data did not
differ dramatically from the data Ptolemy used to deFIGURE 3
PERLS , HEFFERLINE , AND GOODMAN (1951)
Old or young woman?
38
T h e S c i e n c e Te a c h e r
velop the geocentric model of the universe (Kuhn 1970).

Copernicuss conclusions came as a result of a personal
dissonance he felt with the systematic way astronomers
needed to modify Ptolemys theory. This dissonance provided the motivation for the development of a new way
of looking at the universe.
Although the Copernican system was simpler than the
Ptolemaic system, it was not more scientifically accurate.
The heliocentric model provided a more aesthetically
pleasing view, but acceptance of it was gradual because it
required a major conceptual change in the way people
thought about the universe and mans place in it. The
framework of a geocentric universe was intricately
weaved into the science, religion, and overall worldview
of society. Heliocentricism had far reaching implications
for the culture of the time and its gradual acceptance
resulted in an overall paradigm shift in peoples perceptions of mans place in the universe. Once this shift occurred, the framework that scientists brought to new astronomical questions was forever changed.
Another moment in astronomical history that required a change in scientists personal frameworks was
the nature of planet Saturn. Astronomical observations
of Saturn in the sixteenth and early seventeenth century
(Figure 4) prompted various ideas about what was occurring. Galileo, having recently discovered satellites of Jupiter, was therefore predisposed to seeing them again in
his observations of Saturn, concluding that the ears he
observed were also satellites. Two years later when the
satellites disappeared, he wondered to his colleagues if
his eyes had deceived him (Sheehan 1988).
Galileo as well as other astronomers who observed
Saturn were not making errors in their observations;
they simply did not have the frame of reference to interpret what they saw, much like students might have experienced in deciphering the picture in Figure 1 (p. 37).
The idea of rings around a planet was completely new;
astronomers had no prior experience to support this concept (Sheehan 1988). Determining what they were seeing
required an intellectual leap of insight and creativity
similar to the leap required to interpret the picture in
Figure 1 (p. 37).
Christiaan Huygens achieved a breakthrough in perception when he concluded that Saturn is surrounded
by a thin, flat ring, nowhere touching the planet
(1659, p. 47). Similar to Copernicus situation, Huygens
did not have better data than his peers or predecessors,
nor did he have a better telescope. In fact, his telescope
was quite simple (Sheehan 1988). His diagram in
Systema Saturnium (Figure 5) illustrates the product of
his creative intuitiona model of Saturn with rings
that explains the different appearances of the planet as
viewed from Earth. Once Huygens presented the idea
that Saturn was a planet with rings, an improved
framework for what planets can look like was estab-
these differences to help characterize science as it is understood by consensus in the scientific community.
Multicultural perspectives can be brought into the science
classroom by including more open-ended activities where
there is no single correct answer. As a result, students can
describe, compare, and reflect upon other perspectives and
come to recognize that there can be more than one way to
look at nature. As teachers we can provide opportunities for
students to become aware of their own perceptual frameworks about the world and about science by illustrating the
power these frameworks have on their conceptual understandings, and how changing frameworks can have a dramatic effect on how they view the world.
Furthermore, as students begin to see that perceptual
frameworks are changed by breakthroughs in intuition
and creativity, they will begin to understand science as a
dynamic human endeavor. Ultimately, the goal is for students to view differing perspectives as the very strength
of science rather than a fault, for then they can recognize
the importance of their own perspective as they use science to explore their world. n
FIGURE 4
HUYGENS (1659)
Early telescopic views of Saturn.
FIGURE 5
Huygens diagram of Saturn.
Erica Michaels (e-mail: emplaysvb@alumni.virginia.edu)

is an environmental engineer at the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, 1620 I Street, NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20006; and Randy L. Bell (e-mail:
randybell@virginia.edu) is an assistant professor of science education at The Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Ruffner Hall, Room 222,
Charlottesville, VA 22904.
HUYGENS (1659)
References
lished. From then on, everyone who observed Saturn

saw the rings (just as students will always see a cow
when they look back at Figure 1, p. 37).
As in the case of the geocentric Earth, the rings of
Saturn, and throughout scientific history, the synthesis
of observations often includes considering past observations of others. Unfortunately, if an erroneous perception is introduced and then subsequently copied,
misconceptions may continue for some time (Sheehan
1988). The same can be true for students in terms of
how they have come to perceive science based on the
personal frameworks they have developed over time,
or on their cultural upbringing.
Cobern and Loving (2001) describe the importance of
recognizing different multicultural approaches to describing natural phenomena in the science classroom and using
Cobern, W.W., and C.C. Loving. 2001. Defining science in a

multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science
Education 85(1): 5067.
Dallenbach, K.M. 1951 A picture puzzle with a new principle of
concealment. American Journal of Psychology 64:431433.
Huygens, C. 1659. Systema Saturnium.
Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lederman, N.G., F. Abd-El-Khalick, and R.L. Bell. 2000. If we
want to talk the talk we must also walk the walk: The nature of
science, professional development, and educational reform. In
Issues in Science Education: Professional Development Planning
and Design, eds. J. Rhoton and P.S. Bowers, p. 2542. Arlington, Va.: National Science Teachers Association.
McComas, W.F. 1996. Ten myths of science: Re-examining what
we think we know about the nature of science. School Science
and Mathematics 96(1): 1016.
National Research Council (NRC). 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Perls, F., R.F. Hefferline, and P. Goodman. 1951. Gestalt Therapy.
New York: Julian.
Sheehan, W. 1988. Planets and Perception: Telescopic Views and Interpretations 1609-1909. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
N ove m b e r 2 0 0 3
39

2 Michaels Bell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Michaels Bell

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Michaels Bell

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The

Erica Michaels and Randy L. Bell

n todays climate of content standards and high-stakes

perts disagree. After all, if the knowledge were accurate,

ADAPTED FRO M DALLENBACH (1951)

Making educated decisions

Outline of the cow.

PERLS , HEFFERLINE , AND GOODMAN (1951)

Old or young woman?

velop the geocentric model of the universe (Kuhn 1970).

Early telescopic views of Saturn.

Huygens diagram of Saturn.

Erica Michaels (e-mail: emplaysvb@alumni.virginia.edu)

lished. From then on, everyone who observed Saturn

Cobern, W.W., and C.C. Loving. 2001. Defining science in a

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.