Scientific Approaches to Science Education

NOV 01, 1986

Understanding the way students and scientists think is the key to developing more effective methods of science teaching and is itself an intellectual challenge.

DOI: 10.1063/1.881044

Frederick Reif

Our traditional approaches to science and mathematics education are based largely on intuitive notions and are, in some ways, rather unscientific. Whereas we usually tackle problems in science and engineering through the systematic use of fundamental principles, we often approach problems in science teaching by the seat of our pants, without deeper analysis. While we make great efforts in physics to understand the mechanisms that underlie observed phenomena, we are often content to consider scientists and students as “black boxes” whose internal intellectual functioning can be left largely unexamined in spite of its importance for teaching.

References

1. See, for example, M. McCloskey, A. Caramazza, B. Green, Science 210, 1139 (1980). https://doi.org/SCIEAS
D. E. Trowbridge, L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 48, 1020 (1980); https://doi.org/AJPIAS
D. E. Trowbridge, L. C. McDermott, Am. J. Phys. 49, 242 (1981). https://doi.org/AJPIAS
R. Cohen, B. Eylon, U. Ganiel, Am. J. Phys. 51, 407 (1983). https://doi.org/AJPIAS
L. C. McDermott, PHYSICS TODAY, July 1984, p. 24.
I. A. Halloun, D. Hestenes, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1043, 1056 (1985).; https://doi.org/AJPIAS
I. A. Halloun, D. Hestenes, Am. J. Phys. 53, 1056 (1985).https://doi.org/AJPIAS
2. L. Viennot, Eur. J. Sci. Educ. 1, 205 (1979). https://doi.org/EJSEDA
J. Clement, Am. J. Phys. 50, 66 (1982). https://doi.org/AJPIAS
A. diSessa, Cognitive Sci. 6, 37 (1982). https://doi.org/COGSD5
A. diSessa, in Mental Models, D. Gentner, A. Stevens, eds., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (1983), p. 15.
M. McCloskey, Sci. Am., April 1983, p. 122.
Research on Physics Education: Proc. First Int. Wksp., Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris (1983).
R. Driver, E. Guesne, A. Tiberghien, eds., Children’s Ideas about the Physical World, Open U.P., Milton Keynes, England (1985).
3. D. Kahnemann, A. Tversky, in Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, D. Kahnemann, A. Tversky, P. Slovic, eds., Cambridge U.P., Cambridge, England (1982), p. 493.
D. B. Karbo, E. D. Hobbs, G. L. Erickson, J. Biol. Educ. 14, 137 (1980).
H. Helms, J. D. Novak, eds., Proc. Int. Sem. on Misconceptions in Science and Mathematics, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. (1983).
4. A. diSessa, in Constructivism in the Computer Age, G. Forman, ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (1986).
5. Proc. 5th Int. Joint Conf. on Artificial Intelligence, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1977): articles by J. deKleer, p. 299 and G. S. Novak, p. 286.
6. P. Labudde, F. Reif, L. Quinn, Facilitation of Scientific Concept Learning by Interpretation Procedures and Diagnosis, report CES‐4, School of Education, Univ. Calif., Berkeley (1986).
7. F. Reif, Interpretation of Scientific or Mathematical Concepts: Cognitive Issues and Instructional Implications, report CES‐1, School of Education, Univ. Calif., Berkeley (1986).
F. Reif, in Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change, L. H. T. West, A. L. Pines, eds., Academic, New York (1985) p. 133.
8. B. Eylon, F. Reif, Cognition and Instruction 1, 5 (1984).
9. J. K. Hughes, J. I. Michton, A Structured Approach to Programming, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1977).
10. F. Reif, J. I. Heller, Educ. Psychologist 17, 102 (1982).https://doi.org/EDPSDT
11. A. Newell, H. A. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice‐Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. (1972).
J. G. Greeno, H. A. Simon, in Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology (rev. ed.) R. C. Atkinson, R. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, eds., Wiley, New York (1986).
D. Tuma, F. Reif, eds., Problem Solving and Education: Issues in Teaching and Research, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (1980).
12. J. H. Larkin, J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, H. A. Simon, Science 208, 1335 (1980). https://doi.org/SCIEAS
M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, E. Rees, in Advances in the Psychology of Human Intelligence, R. Sternberg, ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (1981).
F. Reif, in Research on Physics Education: Proc. First Int. Wksp., Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris (1983) p. 15.
13. A. H. Schoenfeld, Mathematical Problem Solving, Academic, New York (1985).
14. N. Thomson, J. Stewart, J. Biol. Educ. 19, 53 (1985).
15. J. I. Heller, F. Reif, Cognition and Instruction 1, 177 (1984).
16. A. Collins, J. S. Brown, in Cognition and Instruction: Issues and Agendas, L. B. Resnick, ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. (1986), in press.
17. A. S. Palincsar, A. L. Brown, Cognition and Instruction 1, 117 (1984).
A. L. Brown, A. S. Palincsar, in Intelligence and Cognition in Special Children: Comparative Studies of Giftedness, Mental Retardation, and Learning Disabilities, J. B. Borkowski, J. D. Day, eds., Ablex, Norwood, N.J. (1986). in press.
18. S. Papert, Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, Basic, New York (1980).
A. diSessa, Cognitive Sci. 6, 37 (1982). https://doi.org/COGSD5
B. White, Cognition and Instruction 1, 69 (1984).
19. D. Sleeman, J. S. Brown, Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Academic, New York (1982).
20. J. R. Anderson, C. F. Boyle, B. J. Reiser, Science 228, 458 (1985). https://doi.org/SCIEAS
J. R. Anderson, B. J. Reiser, Byte 10, 159 (April 1985).https://doi.org/BYTEDJ
21. L. B. Resnick, Science 220, 477 (1983).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
22. H. Gardner, The Mind’s New Science: a History of the Cognitive Revolution, Basic, New York (1985).
23. National Academy of Sciences, Research Briefings 1984, Natl. Acad. P., Washington, DC (1984), p. 17.
M. C. Linn, ed., Establishing a Research Base for Science Education: Challenges, Trends and Recommendations, Lawrence Hall of Science, Univ. Calif., Berkeley (1986).

More about the Authors

Frederick Reif. University of California, Berkeley.