What should we teach about science? A Delphi study

Evidence-based Practice in Science Education (EPSE) Research Network What should we teach about science? A Delphi study Jonathan Osborne, Mary Ratcliffe, Sue Collins, Robin Millar and Rick Duschl

Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 4 Teaching the Nature of Science: 7 Difficulties and Dilemmas Methodologies and Findings 19 Conclusions and Implications 75

Executive Summary Rationale In the past century, school science has been dominated by the educational requirements of our future scientists. That is, it has become and remained fundamentally an education in science for those who wish to pursue scientific and technically related careers. However, during the past two decades, the growing concern about the relationship between science and society has led to a concern to improve the quality of formal education about science in short, to ask what kind of school science education is required for citizenship in a participatory democracy? For the separation of scientific knowledge from the political, cultural and historical context of its production endows it with status as exact, true and absolute leaving the public without the skills to understand science in a variety of public contexts where scientific knowledge is often contingent and tentative. And, given that scientific and technological issues are increasingly dominating the political agendas confronting society, the meagre public education about science undermines societies commitment to democratic pluralism. For the lack of any understanding of how scientific knowledge is produced, how it is evaluated or the motives for its production leaves its citizens too dependent on the knowledge of experts for critical decision making. Yet, part of the difficulty of determining what should be taught about science is the failure to agree an acceptable account of science within the scientific community, or amongst philosophers and sociologists, let alone between the various communities. Hence, the lack of any consensus makes the task of defining that aspect of the formal science curriculum which might portray ideas about science problematic for policy makers the more so as there is, in contrast, a well-established consensus about the content aspect of science curricula. This study sought, therefore, to make a contribution towards clarifying this debate and dilemma by seeking to establish empirically the extent of consensus within the relevant communities about a simplified or vulgarised account of science. That is it sought to determine the characteristics of scientific enquiry and those aspects of the nature of scientific knowledge that should form an essential component of the school science curriculum. Methods The study reported here sought to explore this issue by undertaking a Delphi study with a group consisting of 23 individuals drawn from 5 groups scientists, philosophers, sociologists of science, science educators, and science teachers. Members of the first four groups were recruited on the basis that they held an international reputation in the field, or were Fellows of the Royal Society. Science teachers were selected on the basis that they had either received awards for the quality of their teaching, or had published notable textbooks in the field. As is standard in all such Delphi studies, none of the participants were aware of who the other participants were. 1

Executive Summary The study consisted of three rounds. In the first, the participants were asked to answer three open-ended questions about science education up to the age of 16. These were: 1. What, if anything, do you think should be taught about the methods of science? 2. What, if anything, do you think should be taught about the nature of scientific knowledge? 3. What, if anything, do you think should be taught about the institutions and social practices of science? The data from this first round was systematically coded and 30 broad themes emerged in three major categories: - The Methods of Science, The Nature of Scientific Knowledge, and The Institutions and Social Practices of Science. In the second round, a summary descriptor was generated for each theme and returned to the participants together with a selection of supporting comments. Participants were asked to rank the importance of the theme and justify their ranking with written comments. This process led to a reduction in the number of themes to 18 which were again returned to participants for ranking and comment in the third and final round. From this final round emerged 9 themes which were ranked 4 or above (on a 5 point scale) by at least two thirds of the participants, and whose average rating changed by less than 33% between round 2 and round 3. Conclusions and Findings Two major findings emerge from this study: 1. There exists support and broad agreement for nine themes dealing with aspects of the nature of science that school students should encounter by the end of compulsory schooling. The evidence supporting this conclusion is the high degree of consensus concerning these themes and the high stability in the positive ratings of their importance, both within and between groups. 2. Many of the aspects of the nature of science represented by the themes have features that are interrelated and cannot be taught independently of each other. This second conclusion emerges from the copious comments made by many of the participants about the emerging themes. These participants recognised both that the account of science represented by the 9 themes may be limited, and that is difficult to specify such aspects of science clearly and unambiguously. Indeed, from an analysis of the comments of the participants, it is clear that many felt that some of the ideas presented in the theme summaries were intertwined and not resolvable into separate propositions. This finding suggests, therefore, that, whilst the research process has required the separation and resolution of these components in order to weight their significance and import, it should not be taken to imply a consensus that they should be represented and communicated in that manner. 2

Executive Summary In addition, four of the themes failed to meet our criteria for inclusion by only a few percentage points. As any criteria for consensus are to some extent arbitrary, we see the data presented in this report not as indicating that some ideas are essential to the curriculum and others are not, but as indicating a gradation of consensus about the significance of various components to an account of science rather than any singular definitive account. Implications To our knowledge, no other similar empirical study has been undertaken. The evidence of the level of consensus we have found within the wider science and science education community about the account of science that should be communicated through formal science education removes one of the major impediments to teaching about science. As several of the components of this account are either absent from existing curricula, or given minimal treatment, the findings lend support to the argument that school science needs to devote more time to teaching about science and less time to details of the content of the scientific canon. This research, therefore, provides a significant body of empirical evidence to buttress the case for placing the nature of science and its processes of enquiry at the core rather than the margins of science education. 3

4

Introduction This report presents the findings of an empirical study conducted, using a Delphi technique, to answer the question What should be taught to school students about the nature of science? The study was one of four projects of a funded research network involving the University of York, the University of Leeds, the University of Southampton and King s College London. The principal aim was to develop and improve evidence-based practice in science education (EPSE) 1. This work was funded by the UK Economic and Social Science Research Council as part of the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. As such, the study sought to provide empirical evidence of what the expert community engaged with communicating and teaching science thought was important for the average citizen to understand about science (as opposed to a knowledge of its content) by the end of their formal education. The need for such a study was perceived to lie in the growing arguments for science education to provide a more effective preparation for citizenship (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1993; National Academy of Science, 1995; American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1998; Millar & Osborne, 1998). For, whilst there has been almost global acceptance that formal science education is an essential component of every young person s education, there has been little attempt to develop a curriculum that is commensurate with such systemic reforms. Rather, too often, science courses have been adapted from curricula whose roots lie in programmes that were essentially conceived as foundational studies for those who were to become the next generation of scientists. However, the core status of science can be justified only if it offers something of universal value to all, and not solely to the minority who will become the next generation of scientists (AAAS, 1998, Millar and Osborne, 1998; Fensham, 2000). Traditionally, school science has often given scant and largely tacit treatment to the nature, practices and processes of science with the consequence that most pupils leave school with naïve or limited conceptions of science (Driver, Leach, Millar, & Scott, 1996). Yet, it is knowledge about science which many have argued is essential for the education of the future citizen (Fuller, 1997; Irwin, 1995; Jenkins, 1997; Millar, 1996). This aspiration is problematic, however, as contemporary academic scholarship would suggest that the nature of science is a contested domain with little consensus or agreement about a view of science that might be communicated in school science (Alters, 1997; Laudan, 1990; Taylor, 1996). This study sought, therefore, to test whether it was possible to find any consensus amongst the community engaged with science communication about those aspects of the nature of science that might be communicated successfully to school students. The report is in three parts: The first section considers and reviews the many issues in the burgeoning body of academic literature that surrounds the nature of science and its teaching in school science; the second, and major part, presents the methodology of this study and its findings; the third discusses the conclusions that can be drawn from this work and their implications for the teaching of science.. 1 Further details of the other work of this project can be found on the web site www.york.ac.uk/depts/educ/projs/epse 5

6

Teaching the Nature of Science Part 1: Teaching the Nature of Science: Difficulties and dilemmas 1.1 Why teach the nature of science? Science education attempts to wrestle with three conflicting requirements what Collins (2000) terms the horns of a trilemma. On the one hand (Collins first horn) science education wants to demonstrate the tremendous liberatory power that science offers a combination of the excitement and thrill that comes from the ability to discover and create new knowledge, the liberation from the shackles of received wisdom, and the tremendous insights and understanding of the material world that it offers. This emphasis is apparent in the arguments of the advocates of the Nuffield courses of the 1960s where school science was to offer pupils the opportunity to be a scientist for a day. More recently, it is can be seen in the aspirations of the American educational reforms where it is explicitly stated that students at all grade levels should have the opportunity to use scientific inquiry and develop the ability to think and act in the ways associated with [scientific] inquiry (National Academy of Science, 1995). Yet its mechanism for achieving such an aim is to offer a dogmatic, authoritarian and extended science education where students must accept much of what they are told as unequivocal, uncontested and unquestioned (Claxton, 1991) Collins second horn. And it is only when they finally begin practising as scientists that the workings of science will become more transparent. Moreover, the emphasis of science education on foundational aspects such as the definition of current, the parts of the body or the names of the planets and their order, rather than the major themes or explanatory theories, such as the origin and evolution of the Universe or the evolution of the species, means that any sense of the cultural achievement that science represents is belittled. As the report Beyond 2000 states: We have lost sight of the major ideas that science has to tell. To borrow an architectural metaphor, it is impossible to see the whole building if we focus too closely on the individual bricks. Yet, without a change of focus, it is impossible to see whether you are looking at St Paul s Cathedral or a pile of bricks, or to appreciate what it is that makes St Paul s one the world s great churches. In the same way, an over concentration on the detailed content of science may prevent students appreciating why Dalton s ideas about atoms, or Darwin s ideas about natural selection, are among the most powerful and significant pieces of knowledge we possess. (Millar & Osborne, 1998:13) The outcome is that science education may, in a non-trivial sense, be science s worst enemy, leaving far too many pupils with a confused sense of the significance of what they have learnt and, more seriously, a potentially enduring negative attitude to the subject itself (Osborne & Collins, 2000; Osborne, Driver, & Simon, 1996). Such an outcome, whilst regrettable, does little harm to the traditional education of the future scientist which demands a lot of routine and rote learning to acquire the basics of the domain. In fact, much of traditional science education can be seen as a test of an individual s ability to sustain endeavour when confronted by the weight and authority of scientific knowledge and its difficulty and complexity a quality which is an essential requirement for the professional scientist. 7

Teaching the Nature of Science An inevitable outcome, however, is that such an education ignores or neglects the third horn of Collins trilemma, the requirement to provide its students with some picture of the inner workings of science knowledge, that is, of science-in-themaking (Latour, 1985). Such knowledge is essential for the future citizen who must make judgements about reports about new scientific discoveries and applications of scientific knowledge. Contemporary society, it is argued (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; Jenkins, 1997; Jenkins, 1998; Millar, 1996; Millar & Osborne, 1998), requires a populace who have a better understanding of the workings of science that enables them to engage in a critical dialogue about the political and moral dilemmas posed by science and technology, and arrive at considered decisions. Informed use by citizens and society of new developments in science will, for instance, require the ability to judge whether an argument is sound, and to differentiate evidence from hypotheses, conclusions from observations and correlations from causes. Another imperative driving the need to teach more about science is the growing influence of science and technology on our society. For science and technology pose questions which seem to require complex and specialised knowledge that only an elite possess. Yet a core commitment of democratic Western societies is the principle that all people should be able to contribute to the making of significant decisions (Nelkin, 1975) essentially that the plurality of voices matters regardless of expertise. As the European White Paper on Education and Training (1995) argued:..this does not mean turning everyone into a scientific expert, but enabling them to fulfil an enlightened role in making choices which affect their environment and to understand in broad terms the social implications of debates between experts. There is similarly a need to make everyone capable of making considered decisions as consumers. (p28) Within science education, the response has been to argue for a curriculum that recognises the need to prepare pupils to engage critically with such issues, recognising both the strengths and the limitations of science. Millar, for instance, sees one of the major purposes of science education as equipping students to respond to socio-scientific issues and that this requires an understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge (Millar, 1997:101). In the same volume, both Millar and Jenkins (1997) suggest that pupils should be provided with some insight into the difficulty of generating reliable and consensual understanding of the natural world. Likewise, Driver et al. (1996) argue that: Some explicit reflection on the nature of scientific knowledge, the role of observation and experiment, the nature of theory, and the relationship between evidence and theory, is an essential component of this aspect of understanding of science. (Driver et al., 1996:14) Further doubt is cast on the appropriateness of the traditional emphasis on content knowledge in science education for the majority of young people by evidence that the knowledge acquired has an evanescent quality. A number of well-funded surveys have been conducted in the UK (Durant, Evans, & Thomas, 1989), Europe (Miller, Pardo, & Niwa, 1997) and the United States (Miller, 1995). These surveys used a mix of closed questions, true-false quizzes containing items such as Is it true that: lasers work by focussing sound waves?, All radioactivity is man made?, Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria, and open questions. A few of the results from one such 8

Teaching the Nature of Science survey are shown in Table 1. Whilst such findings might be similarly true for the public understanding of great literature, they suggest that such knowledge, if it ever existed, is simply lost through lack of reinforcement or use. Furthermore, such data invite the question of what is the function of science education if so much of its product, for most people, has such an ephemeral quality? Europe 1992 United States 1995 % % Disagree that Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria 27 40 Indicate that the Earth goes around the Sun through a pair of closed questions 51 47 Disagree that radioactive milk can be made safe by boiling it 66 61 Agree that electrons are smaller than atoms 41 44 Table 1: Percentage of individuals giving specific responses to questions used to determine the public knowledge of scientific concepts (Miller, 1998). Durant, Evans and Thomas (1989) work also examined the public s understanding of the process of scientific enquiry. Whilst more than 50% could identify basic methodological processes necessary for testing new drugs, and interpret the implications of probabilistic statements about inheritance, less than 50% were able to identify the theory of relativity or Darwin s theory as well-established explanations, choosing instead a proven fact as the best description. In this case at least, the lack of understanding can possibly be ascribed to a failure of traditional science education to teach the meta-language of science. Coupled with the changing nature of contemporary society, the outcome of such findings has led to a consideration of what other forms of knowledge and understanding, in addition to content knowledge, science education should seek to develop. Foremost in the literature have been arguments for a greater emphasis on the nature of science and its social practices, and evaluative criteria for judging both its practice and its products. 1.2. Arguments for Teaching about the Nature of Science Whilst knowledge of science entails knowledge of the scientific facts, laws, theories all of which can be seen as the products of canonical science it also entails knowledge of the processes of science and its epistemic base. Matthews (1994) points elegantly to the latter as the missing dimension of science education arguing that: To teach Boyle s Law without reflection on what law means in science, without considering what constitutes evidence for a law in science, and without attention to who Boyle was, when he lived and what he did, is to teach in a truncated way. (Matthews, 1994:p3) Likewise, Ogborn (1988) has argued that science education should consider questions of what is (the ontological question), how we know (the epistemological question), 9

Teaching the Nature of Science why it happens (the causal question), what we can do with it (the technological question), and the communicative question (how we should talk about science). The overemphasis on the first of these questions at the expense of the others, particularly the issue of how we know what we know, results in a science education which too often leaves students only able to justify their beliefs by reference to the teacher or textbook as an authority. Horton (1971) makes the telling point that such practice made the child of the developed Western World no different from the young child in the developing world as, in both cases, their teachers were deferred to as the accredited agents of tradition. Any science education which focuses predominantly on the intellectual products of scientific labour the facts of science offers, therefore, only a partial view of science. Moreover, it leaves students, when confronted by new scientific claims, without a functional understanding of the processes and practices necessary to evaluate the claim. And, if science and scientists, as some would wish to claim, are epistemically privileged, it is at best ironic, and at worst an act of bad faith that the science education we offer does little to justify or explain why science is considered the epitome of rationality (Osborne, 2001). Rather, the failure to teach about science runs the risk of producing students who do not even perceive science as rational (Duschl, 1990). The contemporary significance of socio-scientific issues has also led to arguments that school science is an appropriate context for the consideration of issues of an ethical nature (Newton, 1988; Reiss, 1993; Reiss, 2000). For, whilst school science education often seeks to marginalise and keep technology at a distance (Hughes, 2000), such a separation is not one that either the public or students recognise (Irwin, 1995). And, since the funding, application and use of science all involve ethical and value-based decisions, ethics are inevitably and inexorably conflated with science in most cases (Reiss, 2000). Fuller (1997:9) would go further, arguing that most of what non-scientists need to know in order to make informed public judgements about science falls under the rubric of history, philosophy, and sociology of science, rather than the technical content of scientific subjects. Whilst such views are contested by those who would argue that the fundamental character of science is reductionist, value-free and non-reflexive (Donnelly, 2000), evidence would suggest that divorcing the teaching of science from the social and technological context of its application is simply, for must pupils, an unreal and false dichotomy diminishing its relevance and appeal to pupils (Osborne & Collins, 2000). Another imperative driving the arguments for greater attention to the nature of science is the major structural reforms that have occurred in science education globally. The growing reliance of contemporary societies on science has led to a near universal acceptance of the argument that science education should be for all and compulsory (Fensham, 2000), as it is in the UK from age 5 to 16. Yet, as Millar and Osborne (2000:195) argue, the only way that the core and compulsory status of science education can be justified is if the form of science taught can seen to be, providing something of universal value that every young person needs in later life. Faced, however, with the task of centrally defining a curriculum for all, policy makers have predominantly retained the traditional approach to science education and added marginal elements about the nature of science without much sense of coherence and underlying educational purpose (Donnelly, 2001). The outcome has been curricula which are still dominated by content with only scant attention paid to teaching about 10

Teaching the Nature of Science science and its history, philosophy and practices. Consequently, as Monk and Osborne (1997) have argued, the history and philosophy of science will continue to remain more talked about than taught as long as the assessment of science continues to focus on the its content rather than the methods and practices of science. The marginalization or non-existence of the nature of science in science education does not mean, however, that children will emerge with no conceptions about the nature of science (Nadeau & Desautels, 1984). For the sin of omission giving insufficient thought and attention to the nature of scientific knowledge and the conditions under which it has been developed simply reinforces a scientistic ideology which Nadeau and Desautels see as a blind faith in the cognitive and moral value of science. Science teachers do not serve simply as purveyors of a store of theoretical knowledge but as a means through which scientific activity is legitimised and given value. Thus, whilst they may think that they are only teaching the content of science, they are implicitly communicating ideas about the nature of science and scientists which may be fallacious. The consequence is that too often science comes to be seen as a final-form product with immutable and definitive qualities (Duschl, 1990; Driver et al., 1996) when, in reality, scientific knowledge is often modified, adapted, or even at times, abandoned. School science, residing solely in the context of justification rather than the context of discovery, simply fails to convey that controversy or argumentation are a normal feature of science (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Gross, 1996). Consequently pupils and the future public are perplexed by the failure of scientists to agree on issues raised by science-in-themaking such as the existence of global warming, the transmission of BSE or the effect of genetically modified organisms on the environment. Even the manner in which science is reported and communicated to other scientists, let alone the public, is a misrepresentation of its practice. For scientific writing excises the confusion, doubt, and blind alleys presenting its findings as the linear and formulaic application of a standard method which lead inexorably to its inevitable conclusions (Gross, 1996; Medawar, 1979). Many would argue that the current form of science education is sustained by a set of arcane cultural norms values that emanate from practice and become sanctified with time and that the more they recede into the background, the more taken for granted they become (Willard, 1985). Such cultural norms are distinguished from other rules, not by reference to any lack of authority, but rather by the unconscious force they exert over human actions. Milne and Taylor (1999) characterise such norms as myths narrative accounts of collective experience where the historical and contingent quality of established patterns and beliefs and practices is replaced by an unwarranted sense of naturalness and inevitability. One consequence of this is that the knowledge becomes tacit and the supporting evidence invisible (Barthes, 1972). Hence, the standard view or collective myth within science teaching, is that explicit consideration of the nature of science is not required because it is implicitly incorporated and diffused throughout all contexts. Abd-el-Khalik and Lederman (2000) make the important point that such approaches to teaching the nature of science that assume it can be acquired implicitly, through a process akin to osmosis, is naïve. For the various images of science that have been constructed by the historians, philosophers and sociologists of science are the product 11

Teaching the Nature of Science of considerable collective and reflective endeavour. Just as nobody would expect a student to rediscover Newton s laws by observing moving objects, neither should we expect students to come to an understanding of science s nature simply by engaging in scientific practice. The nature of science, therefore, must be explicitly taught as much at its content. Moreover, research would suggest that implicit approaches to teaching the nature of science develop notions that scientific facts or laws are derived unambiguously from empirical evidence; that scientific ideas are unequivocal and absolute; and that scientists predominantly work in isolation in laboratories discovering new knowledge (Mead & Métraux, 1957; Driver et al., 1996). And, as McComas (1998) points out, there is substantive evidence that such a science education generates, or fails to confront, the following myths about science each of which has been challenged by contemporary scholarship 2. 1. Hypotheses become theories that in turn become laws 2. Scientific Laws are absolute 3. A Hypothesis is an educated guess 4. A general scientific method exists which is applied universally 5. Evidence accumulated carefully will result in sure knowledge 6. Science and its methods provide absolute proof 7. Science requires the procedural application of standard routines rather than creative thought 8. Science and its methods can answer all questions 9. Scientists are particularly objective 10. Experiments are the sole routes to scientific knowledge 11. All scientific data are reviewed for accuracy 12. Acceptance of new scientific knowledge is straightforward 13. Science models correspond accurately with reality 14. Science and technology are identical 15. Science is a solitary pursuit McComas analysis leads him to conclude that it is vital that the science education community provide an accurate view of how science operates to students and by inference to their teachers. The corollary of this statement is the necessity for the scholarly community to define what an accurate view of how science operates is and, furthermore, how should it be taught? Both of which are questions central to the concerns of this research. There are, nevertheless, caveats about expecting too much of the science curriculum or science teachers. Harding and Hare (2000) argue that the arguments of McComas and others ask science teachers to wrestle both with teaching well-established consensually agreed knowledge and, in addition, showing that some scientific knowledge, especially when it is first produced, can be tentative. Science teachers commonly use the notion of truth to describe knowledge that is uncontested and widely accepted. Their intent is not an assertions about any correspondence with 2 The strongest challenge to these ideas is to be found in the work of the sociologists of science see for instance the work of: (Collins & Pinch, 1993; Fuller, 1997; Latour & Woolgar, 1986) and in the work of those engaged in the study of science from a rhetorical perspective: (Gross, 1996; Taylor, 1996). 12

Teaching the Nature of Science reality but merely a statement about a reliable and consistent interpretation of the material world. To ask, then, that they also suggest that scientific knowledge is tentative will undermine the world-view in which the science teacher resides. Osborne (2001), from a rhetorical perspective, goes further, arguing that teachers are engaged in a process of persuading pupils of the validity of the scientific world-view. Asking them to suggest that not all knowledge is certain and unequivocal will damage their primary rhetorical task. And, if, as Kuhn (1999) argues, most children are absolutists believing that all assertions can be checked and shown to be either false or true until adolescence, they may be psychologically ill-prepared to deal with a subject that does not offer certain knowledge. Nevertheless, the underlying fallacy of Harding and Hare s arguments is that they are based in a broad acceptance of science education as it is and not as it might be. If science education is to be solely a preparation for future scientists (a view with which we do not concur) then there may be little place for exploring the distinction between tentative and well-established knowledge, how such distinctions are drawn, how evidence is evaluated, or the meta-language that is used to describe science. Moreover, we ourselves, also feel that the formal education of scientists and their work would benefit from a more systematic exploration of the nature of the work that they are engaged in and its historical development. However, sixty years after Haywood (1927) developed a strong case for teaching the nature of science, secondary science education is still in much the same position as it was then, as evidenced by the need for Matthews (1989; 1994). Duschl s (1990) and Hodson s (1993) careful cases for the place of history and philosophy of science (HPS) in science teaching. What then are the pitfalls and obstacles that have blocked the inclusion of the nature of science in the curriculum? 1.3. Why has incorporating NOS in the school curriculum been a failed project? 1.3.1 The history of science in school science Given the considerable attention devoted to exploring the significance and relevance of the history, philosophy and nature of science, it remains somewhat of a puzzle, therefore, that its consideration has remained such a marginal feature of most mainstream science education courses. Perhaps the simplest and most telling explanation is Kuhn s (1970) observation that the history of the subject is of no import to the education of the future scientist. For the potential scientist must acquire an understanding of the basic concepts and foundations of the discipline as it is not as it was. His or her concern is investigating the questions about nature that remain extant, not exploring how others have answered their own questions answers which are now well understood and consensual knowledge within the scientific community. Taking from the past, therefore, is only of value if it offers something which is of significance to the present. Even the epistemological question of how such knowledge was unearthed is of little value, as the concerns of today are rarely the concerns of yesteryear, and contemporary methodological tools and procedures have made earlier techniques 13

Teaching the Nature of Science irrelevant. For the interdependent relationship between science and technology leads to new technologies which open new windows and approaches to enquiry. Thus the chemical determination of composition by assaying and weighing is replaced by the techniques offered by infrared, Raman and mass spectrometry. Visible wavelength telescopes become just one of a plethora of different means of observing the universe, from long baseline radio interferometry to X-ray satellites. Whereas biology was a science concerned with the study of living organisms and their classification, it has, instead, become a science dominated by molecular biology and genetic determinism. Even a small field of enquiry devoted to the search for gravitational waves has moved on from the use of large aluminium bars to long base line interferometers. Given such substantive methodological changes, the history of science offers few insights, if any, into how the scientist of today should proceed. The glittering prizes that science offers will not be won by redeploying yesterday s technology but through the invention of innovative approaches to questions that emerge from a good understanding of the discipline as it is, not as it was. A different argument is advanced by Brush (1969) in a seminal article entitled Should the History of Science be rated X? Brush s thesis is that much conventional teaching about the history of science is neither good science nor good history. It is not good science, as taking from the past is only of value if it offers something which is of significance to the present which it rarely does. Moreover, it is not good history, as the myths and anecdotes that feature in science textbooks commonly reinforce a Whig interpretation of the history of science which presents the past in terms of present ideas and values, elevating in significance all incidents and work that have contributed to our current understanding, rather than attempting to understand the social context and the contingent factors which were significant to its production. For example, very crudely the Whig view would portray Fleming s discovery of penicillin as the brilliant perception of an exceptional scientist of a fortuitous event. A more realistic account would demonstrate that it was contingent on (a) problems of current interest in medical research and Fleming s existing bacteriological research interests, (b) the weather at the end of July in 1928 which happened to be sufficiently cool to allow the mould to grow, and (c) the presence of a laboratory beneath which was investigating moulds and that even then, its beneficial application was delayed for ten years before other researchers explored ways of producing the mould in commercial quantities. Practically without exception, science texts are simply not written with the intent to convey any of the latter type of information on the context of discovery which the professional historian of science would consider essential. Brush argues that the failure to teach history appropriately may inhibit the development of a critical mind by presenting the present as the inevitable, triumphant product of the past. Since science education is an attempt to cultivate scepticism towards all dogmatic and singular interpretations of events, such a simplistic approach to the teaching of its own history would run counter to one of its essential aims. 1.3.2. The context of science education Reichenbach s (1938) distinction between the context of historical discovery and the context of epistemological justification offers some insight into why HPS is often ignored in school science. In the context of discovery, ideas are tentative, if not speculative, and presented in language which is interpretative and figurative (Sutton, 1995), often using new metaphors (Eger, 1993). The central concern of most science 14

Teaching the Nature of Science teachers, in contrast, is the transmission of the products of the context of epistemological justification - that is a narrow focus of what we know rather than how we know. Gallagher (1991), in looking at prospective and practising secondary school science teachers knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science, provides a recent reminder that, for its teachers, science is perceived as an established body of knowledge and techniques which require minimal justification. Such teachers often work from weak evidence, use inductive generalisations (Harris & Taylor, 1983), and renegotiate classroom observations and events to achieve a social consensus (Atkinson & Delamont, 1977), persuading their pupils of the validity of the scientific world-view (Ogborn, Kress, Martins, & McGillicuddy, 1996). Gallagher comments that, even if science teachers consider the history of science for inclusion in the curriculum, it is generally only in terms of humanising science for the purpose of fostering positive attitudes to science, rather than for the purpose of understanding the nature of science. For many teachers of science, only the development of an understanding of science concepts and the nature and methods of science are essential to an education in science. The rest lies beyond the boundary of what we now know, which, as Haywood recognised in 1927, is the criteria that curtails science teachers incorporation of HPS into their schemes of work. 1.3.3. The nature of science teachers Another fundamental difficulty identified by a variety of authors is that many science teachers, themselves the products of such an archetypal education, are invariably left with a range of misconceptions or naïve understandings of the nature of science. Various authors have argued, with respect to content knowledge, that one of the necessary conditions of effective teaching is a good knowledge and understanding of the content to be communicated (Shulman, 1986; Osborne & Simon, 1996; Turner- Bissett, 1999). Likewise, it follows that teaching about the history, philosophy and nature of science requires a good knowledge and understanding of the body of scholarship that exists about these subjects. Consequently, during the past 15 years there have been several attempts to ascertain the extent, depth and nature of science teachers knowledge and understanding about the nature of science (Brickhouse, 1991; Hodson, 1993; King, 1991; Kouladis & Ogborn, 1989; Lederman & Zielder, 1987; Mellado, 1998). The main picture to emerge from this research is that science teachers have no consistent view about the nature of science and that, in the light of contemporary scholarship, most of views they hold could be termed inadequate (Abd-El-Khalick & Lederman, 2000). A significant proportion of teachers, for instance, have no recognition of the tentative nature of some scientific knowledge and others hold positivist or empiricist views of the nature of science. Koulaidis and Ogborn (1989) also found distinctions between teachers from the separate scientific disciplines and that student teachers hold somewhat different views from those of experienced teachers. Moreover, several studies have now consistently shown that there is little relationship between teachers declared conceptions of the nature of science and the manner in which they present the subject in the classroom (Brickhouse, 1991; Duschl & Wright, 1989; Hodson, 1993; Lederman & Zielder, 1987). The best explanation for this finding would appear to be that teachers actions are dominated by the exigencies and imperatives of managing classroom learning and not their own philosophical stance towards science. Coupled with the eclectic and heterogeneous nature of teachers views, it is perhaps 15

Teaching the Nature of Science not surprising that incorporating more of the nature of science into the curriculum is seen as a substantial task. For the findings of these studies invite the questions of whether a) it is possible to establish amongst the science education community some common consensual understanding about the salient and significant features of the nature of science that should be communicated to students, and b) whether it is then possible to teach this understanding effectively. 1.3.4. The contested nature of science Abd-el-Khalick and Lederman (2000) argue that the body of work on teachers conceptions of the nature of science simply shows a failure of science teachers own education to develop a valid understanding of NOS. But what would such a valid understanding be? The one feature that emerges from an examination of the scholarship in the field of history and philosophy of science is that, if its intent was to establish a consensual understanding of the foundations of the practice of science, then it might be best characterised as a failed project (Taylor, 1996). Baconian notions of science as a process of empirical observation and inductive generalisation have always been open to the criticism that no singular set, or sets of data, can establish that any generalisation is universally true. The logical positivists attempted to take this further by demanding that all statements were either logically deducible or verifiable by observation, anything else being mere speculation, thereby offering a means of proving the truth of scientific statements. However, the weakness of this position was perhaps best illustrated by Mach s use of it to deny the atomic hypothesis. Popper s work on conjecture and refutation shifted the emphasis from verification to falsification, and was a significant change in focus in developing our understanding of how science proceeds by arguing that scientists are engaged in the endeavour of trying to refute rather than prove theories. However, this view, in turn, is subject to the criticism that the historical record shows that scientific theories are not abandoned simply because of one observation which does not fit and, furthermore, that scientists do not strive to falsify their theories. Lakatos offered a significant development of Popper s ideas by suggesting that scientists work with an inner core of basic assumptions or theories, and that these are surrounded by a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses or assumptions. Only data that directly contradicts the theoretical and empirical assumption that contribute to the hard core of working theories are capable of challenging well-established ideas. However, it is perhaps to Thomas Kuhn (1962), and his interest in what the historical record had to say about the practice of science, that we owe the greatest revolution in our understanding of the nature of science. Kuhn s work distinguished between periods of normal science, in which there is a set of basic commonly-agreed assumptions about theory and methods, and scientific revolutions when all the fundamental assumptions of a given field were questioned, precipitating a crisis. Kuhn s incidental achievement was to shift the focus from the nature of the knowledge itself to the means by which it was produced as a social community. One result was an explosion and growth of work in the field of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) (Bloor, 1976; Feyerabend, 1975; Gross, 1996; Latour, 1993; Latour & Woolgar, 1986; Taylor, 1996; Traweek, 1988). This programme of work was notable for its interest in the causes of beliefs, that is the means by which the scientific community were persuaded of the validity of a scientific argument, rather than the belief itself, and in addition, its strongly relativist view of the nature of 16

Teaching the Nature of Science scientific knowledge. Arguably, its major achievements were to establish that there is no such thing as a singular scientific method and that scientists are engaged in a process of rhetorical argumentation within a social community. And, like all social communities, science has well-established codes of conduct and norms of practice by which the status of individuals and their work is judged. The other major achievement of SSK has been to problematise the nature of science even further, leading to the conclusion asserted by Laudan et al. (1986:142) that: the fact of the matter is that we have no well-confirmed general picture of how science works, no theory of science worthy of general assent. Further evidence for a lack of consensus comes from the work of Alters (1997) who surveyed the views of 210 members of the U.S. Philosophy of Science Association. Using a questionnaire containing 15 basic tenets about the nature of science drawn from the literature, and which the initial pilot had suggested were controversial, Alters was forced to conclude from the 187 responses that: A minimum of 11 fundamental philosophy of science positions are held by philosophers of science today The implication for the science education research community and its formal organisation is that we should acknowledge that no one agreed-on NOS exists. (p 48) Faced with a lack of consensus within the discipline, Alters argues that the only legitimate position for the science education community is to adopt a pluralistic approach to teaching about the nature of science. However, Smith et al. (1997) make the not unreasonable point that these findings are hardly surprising, given that the statements were selected on the basis that they would be likely to produce controversy. Even then, 75% of the respondents agreed with 6 or more of the statements, even though as philosophers they are professionally trained to argue. A different response might have been obtained from a broader community something which this present study attempts to do. More significantly, an analysis of eight curriculum standards documents such as the Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy, National Science Standards, the California State Standards, and National Curricula in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and England and Wales have shown that there does exist some consensus within science education community about the elements of the nature of science that should be taught (McComas & Olson, 1998). McComas and Olson summarise these as: a. Scientific knowledge while durable, has a tentative character. b. Scientific knowledge relies heavily, but not entirely, on observation experimental evidence, rational arguments, and scepticism. c. There is no one way to do science (therefore there is no universal step-by-step scientific method. d. Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena. e. Laws and theories serve different roles in science, therefore students should note that theories do not become laws even with additional evidence. f. People from all cultures contribute to science. g. New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly. h. Scientists require accurate record keeping, peer review and replicability i. Observations are theory-laden. j. Scientists are creative. 17

Teaching the Nature of Science k. The history of science reveals both an evolutionary and a revolutionary character. l. Science is part of social and cultural traditions. m. Science and technology impact on each other. n. Scientific ideas are affected by their social and cultural milieu. Insofar as some or all of these tenets might be contentious within the philosophical community, it is possible to argue that they represent a partial or simplified view of the nature of science. However, in that they represent elements that the community considers important aspects of people s ideas about science, they represent legitimate aspirations for the curriculum. Science education has, after all, commonly relied on vulgarised or simplified accounts of its content as pedagogical heuristics for communicating a basic scientific understanding. Thus the Bohr model of the atom is still taught although it has been superceded by quantum models within the scientific community. Likewise, initial encounters with the explanations for energy, the transistor or glycolis metabolic pathways are three examples amongst the many of the vastly simplified accounts of our full understanding that science education offers its students. They are used simply because they offer a vital first step and preliminary introduction to a fuller understanding. Alters position, however, in common with that of Rudolph, is to argue that science education should avoid such simplifications and, rather, to offer plural accounts of its varied nature grounded in particular examples. Our basic premise in this work has been to question such a position. For, if we are to ask science teachers to teach explicit aspects of the epistemic nature of science, then as a community, we must come to some agreement about what those aspects might be (Duschl, Hamilton, & Grandy, 1990). Our approach, then, in this research, has been to seek to establish empirically whether there is significant support within the expert community for an account of the nature of science that might be offered to school students. 18

Part 2: Methodology and Findings 2.1. Methodology This project sought to determine what might constitute the learning targets for the processes and practices of science for pupils aged 5-16 and, in addition, what might be the justifications for such targets. In approaching this task, our decision was to adopt the Delphi method (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). Essentially this is a research tool for establishing consensus among experts in any given field and, whilst widely used in the social sciences, it has been relatively underused in education. This qualitative research approach facilitates the systematic elicitation and analysis of the judgements of a panel of experts within a common field. Issues are explored through multiple iterations or rounds of questionnaires which provide summarised statistical information and written responses from previous rounds all of which encourages feedback and comment by the participants on the panel (Delbecq et al., 1975; Cochran, 1983; Dailey & Holmberg, 1990). Whilst the Delphi method has long been utilised for forecasting future trends by government and industry, the technique has proved so successful in producing consensus that it has outgrown its use solely in forecasting. It is now adopted in a range of situations, including social science research, where convergence of opinion is desirable (Murry & Hammons, 1995). The evolution of the Delphi method has resulted in the development of three distinct forms. First, the exploratory Delphi most closely associated with that developed by the Rand Corporation in the 1960s as a forecasting methodology which elicits expert opinion about the probability, desirability, and impact of future events. Second, the focus Delphi, seeks the views of disparate groups that are likely to be affected by a projected programme or policy. The third form, the normative Delphi, gathers the opinions and views of a defined group of experts on clearly specified issues, with the aim of achieving consensus (Dailey& Holmberg, 1990). In education the normative Delphi has been utilised effectively for issues pertaining to the generation of educational goals and objectives (Helmer, 1966; Adelson, 1967), and curriculum planning and development (Judd, 1971; Häussler et al., 1980; Martorella, 1991; Petrina, 1992; Smith and Simpson, 1995). The strength of the Delphi method in addressing such issues lies in the principle that several heads are better than one (Weaver, 1971) in the decision making process. Thus the outcomes have greater validity than those propounded by an individual. The anonymity of participants in a Delphi study alleviates the drawbacks commonly associated with group interviews in reducing specious persuasion, deference to authority, impact of oral facility, reluctance to modify publicised opinions, and the bandwagon effect of majority views (Helmer & Rescher, 1960; Martorella, 1991). The Delphi method also makes it possible to elicit opinions from a group of experts who are geographically dispersed (Murry & Hammons, 1995). The value of the normative Delphi in encouraging agreement by experts on a range of issues made it a potentially useful tool for identifying and prioritising key ideas-about-science to be included in the school science curriculum for pupils up to age 16 an area in which any consensus is not well established (Part 1). 19

Each successive round of a normative Delphi study is designed to move participants towards consensus. The Delphi procedure typically ends after either consensus or stability of responses has been achieved. Brooks (1979) identified consensus as a gathering of individual evaluations around a median response, with minimal divergence. Stability or convergence were said to be reached when it becomes apparent that little, if any, further shifting of positions will occur (ibid). The number of rounds for a Delphi study will be determined by how expeditiously the panel attains consensus and/or stability. However, for pragmatic reasons, many Delphi studies restrict themselves to three rounds and, as in this case, examine what, if any, is the emergent consensus at the end of the third round. Hence, for such reasons of cost and time, a three-round Delphi inquiry was chosen to ascertain the extent to which consensus exists among experts within the science community about the learning targets for the processes and practices of science. 2.1.1. Procedures for the Study The number of participants in any Delphi study is determined by the nature and scope of the issue to be addressed. Typically, panels comprise a minimum of ten individuals, although reliability improves and error is reduced in direct relation to an increase in the number of participants (Cochran, 1983). However, Delbecq et al (1975) maintained that few new ideas are generated within a homogeneous group once the number exceeds thirty well-chosen individuals. For this study members of the Delphi panel of experts were selected to represent a community engaged in the practice, articulation and/or communication of science. Individuals from five areas within this community were recruited to the study: Research scientists, eminent in their field; Prominent philosophers and sociologists of science renowned by their work and publications; Leading individuals engaged in science communication in the UK Leading science educators who have played a significant role in developing or implementing existing curricula; Science teachers recognised as experts through teaching awards or recognition as advanced skills teacher. An additional criterion for the first three groups was that individuals had a recognised interest in science education. For the last two groups, we also attempted to ensure that individuals had a spread of expertise between primary and secondary phases of school science education. A letter was sent to prospective members of the panel, summarising the aims and purposes of the project, and outlining the tasks, procedures and approximate time commitment for the three rounds of the Delphi study. A total of 25 individuals was selected and 23 of these completed all three rounds of the study. 20

2.1.2. Conduct of the study This section gives an overview of the conduct of the Delphi study as a whole. Details of the analysis of each round are given in later sections. Round 1 The first stage of the study, which began in January 2000, was an open-ended brainstorming questionnaire. Participants were asked to list the ideas about science they thought should be part of the compulsory school science curriculum (Appendix 1) under three separate headings: 1. The nature of scientific knowledge; 2. The institutions and social practices of the scientific community; 3. The methods of science. Participants were reminded that the Delphi study did not seek their views on what should be included in the content of the school science curriculum that is the specific facts and theories that are part of the scientific canon. Rather, participants were urged to write, in as much detail as time allowed, a list of essential ideas about science that they thought should be included in the school science curriculum under the headings listed above. For each component listed, participants were requested to expand their thinking so as to: a. give as clear a description of each idea as possible; b. indicate a particular context (or contexts) where they thought a person might find the idea useful; and c. state why such knowledge would be important for an individual to know i.e. how it might help them to act, think or form an opinion. The data from this round were analysed and summarised in 30 themes which were used as the basis for returning the panel s views to participants in round 2. Round 2 The second round of the Delphi study, undertaken in March 2000, required participants to undertake the following: rate the importance of each theme emerging from round 1 and justify their rating; prioritise the theme as essential, desirable or optional for inclusion in the science curriculum; comment on the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the summary of each theme; make any comments for merging similar or related themes. 21

The latter two tasks were important in ensuring that the interpretation of participants suggestions by the research team were checked and evaluated and that the themes in Round 2 offered a valid reflection of participants ideas. The Round 2 questionnaire presented the titles and summaries of the 30 themes, together with representative anonymised comments from individuals in Round 1 to clarify the nature of the theme. This was the first opportunity for participants to compare their own initial suggestions with those of the rest of the panel. They were encouraged to consider, comment upon and, most importantly, build upon the ideas of others, secure in the knowledge that their responses would be anonymous. Participants were requested to rate the importance of each theme, as represented by the summary, on a 5 point Likert scale with a score of 5 representing the highest degree of importance and 1 being the lowest. They were asked to indicate a justification for their rating and to comment on the title of the theme, the accuracy of the summary in reflecting participants meaning, and the representative statements provided to justify its inclusion and importance. Whilst there were considerable advantages in an open-ended first round of the Delphi study, particularly in the freedom afforded to participants to express their own ideas, this process resulted in a large and diverse set of statements. This round aimed to identify themes for which there was a significant degree of support within the panel and to eliminate overlap and repetition between themes. To aid this process, participants were also asked to decide whether the inclusion of each theme in the school science curriculum was in their view essential, desirable, or optional and to limit the number of themes that they chose as essential to 10 choices. In addition, their views were sought about the possible merging of individual themes, judged to articulate similar ideas, across the major categories of the Nature of Science, the Institutions and Social Practices of Science and the Methods of Science. Merging recommended themes and splitting one theme into two resulted in a total of 28 ideasabout-science at the end of Round 2. Criteria for Selection of Round Three Themes For the third and final round, it was decided to reduce the number of themes for consideration by the panel to only the most highly rated themes from Round 2. This action was taken because research literature on the Delphi method suggests that in studies where participants were required to complete lengthy and detailed questionnaires, responses to questions towards the end of the questionnaire tend to be less fulsome and informative (Judd, 1971). There was, therefore, concern among the research team that participant fatigue would result if the complete set of 28 ideas-about-science were included in Round 3 of the study, affecting the level of detail in responses towards the end of the questionnaire. Thus only the themes with a mean rating of >3.6 and/or mode of 5 were used for third round reducing the number of themes in this round to 18. 22

Round 3 The final questionnaire of the Delphi study, undertaken in May 2000, presented the titles, revised summaries and representative anonymised supporting statements from participants for the top rated 18 themes from Round 2, together with the mean and standard deviation for each theme. Participants were requested to indicate the priority they would give to the theme based on the premise that it should be explicitly taught to school students and to justify their rating. In addition, comments were sought on ways in which the wording of the summary might be improved to reflect the essence of each idea-about-science. 2.2. Results This section outlines the analysis and outcomes of each round of the Delphi study, providing a full report of the data obtained, the methods by which it was analysed and the results of the study. 2.2.1. Analysis of Round 1 data The first round of the Delphi study produced 23 responses with a set of extensive comments and divergent ideas. The study required that these ideas be analysed, coded and summarised into a set of themes which could then be returned for the second round of the process. Development of the initial themes The initial process of grouping the responses was undertaken through the creation of major categories Nature of Science, Institutions and Social Practices of Science and Methods of Science. Within each major category a number of sub-categories or themes were created, each representing different ideas-about-science expressed by participants within the relevant major category. Such coding allowed similar ideas, together with the relevant text, to be grouped within the same sub-category. All suggestions made by the panel were recorded. For ease of reference and data retrieval, each sub-category was given a title that reflected the substance of the idea contained within it. At this early stage of analysis, emergent themes (sub-categories) were placed within the major category identified by the respondent, even where similar ideas were repeated in another major category. For example, several participants made comments that were coded as peer review, but different aspects of this were identified under the major categories. When related to the Nature of Science, peer review statements included references to the checking of scientific ideas, results of experiments or observations by other scientists for the purposes of confirmation or rejection. Within the category of Institutions and Practices of Science, the emphasis was upon the role and importance of the scientific community in engaging in peer review where knowledge claims are communally criticised and maybe validated. In the category Methods of Science the focus was the presentation of results of experiments and observations and the ways in which scientific ideas are disseminated to convey information to other scientists. 23

Construction of theme summaries A reliability check, involving three members the research team, was undertaken using the codes developed. Initial independent analysis of the responses led to the development of a set of codes which were then used by the principal researcher to code the participants replies. Checks of the data and its coding were then conducted by co-researchers until all disagreements were resolved. Such a process was possible because of the limited size of the data set. The process reduced the initial set of themes from 37 to 30 (Table 2), by a process of merging related statements under new themes when consistent agreement was obtained between the researchers. Table 2 Major categories and sub-categories from Round 1 of the Delphi study Theme Nature of Scientific Knowledge 1 Types of knowledge 2 Features of scientific knowledge 3 Scientific knowledge and values 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 5 The language of science 6 Science as a human, collaborative activity 7 The distinctions between science and technology 8 The tentative nature of scientific knowledge 9 The cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge 10 Common conceptions of science and risk Institutions and Social Practices of Science 11 Contextual nature of science 12 Constraints on the development of scientific knowledge 13 Developments in scientific knowledge are subject to peer review 14 Accountability and regulation of scientific practices 15 Cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge 17 Range of fields in which scientific knowledge is developed Methods of Science 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 19 Specific methods of science 20 Cause and correlation 21 Creativity 22 Diversity of scientific method 23 Experimental methods and critical testing 24 Hypothesis and prediction 25 Observation and measurement 26 Reporting scientific findings 27 Science and questioning 28 Science and technology 29 The role of ICT 30 No general ideas 24

The second stage of data analysis in this first round of the Delphi study was to compose a summary for each emergent theme, capturing the essence of participants statements. Discussion among four members of the research team resulted in an agreed categorisation of the responses and the wording of theme summaries. This process established the 30 themes, their titles, and summary statements, which were composed to capture the ideas-about-science using key terms articulated by the Delphi panel. The numbering of the themes was an administrative convenience and had no significance for the level of support for any theme. 2.2.2. Round 1 Themes In this section, each of the themes in the major categories is presented, together with a selection of the arguments advanced by the participants for its inclusion. 2.2.2.1 The Nature of Scientific Knowledge Theme 1: Types of knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that there are different types of scientific knowledge, particularly the difference between representations in school texts and that at the frontiers of science research. Grouped under this theme were participants concerns that the current school science curriculum provided limited scope to develop in pupils the thinking skills required to discriminate between well-tested scientific knowledge, frontier science and pseudoscience (T04) 3. Pupils needed to understand the differences between textbook science, where the answers to problems are given at the back of the book and contemporary investigations, where the available scientific knowledge is rarely adequate to resolve scientific controversies in the public eye (PU01). It was also important for pupils to be taught that scientific knowledge is a subset of all knowledge, that is, avoid the arrogance of scientism which supposes that only knowledge produced by science is knowledge (PU05). 3 Codings refer to individuals in each subgroup in the Delphi Study. T Teachers, S0 Scientists, SE Science Educators, PS Philosophers and Sociologists, PU Science Communicators 25

Theme 2: Features of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientific knowledge produces reliable knowledge of the physical world and has a number of attributes. Scientific knowledge aims to be general and universal, it can be reductionist and counter-intuitive, and it has intrinsic cultural value. Scientific explanations are based on models and representations of reality. It was argued that it was important for pupils to be taught that scientific knowledge, derived from proper application of scientific methods, is the most reliable knowledge we have of the natural world (PU03). One characteristic of scientific knowledge was said to be that it is universal and should therefore apply in any place at any time (PU04). A consequence of this was that scientific knowledge tended to be expressed in general, rather than specific terms and pupils needed to understand that many scientific explanations and ideas were simplifications on a gross scale of what is happening at a quantum level (S03). A further important feature of scientific knowledge was that it goes against one s natural day to day expectations the world is not built on a common sense basis (S05). The point was made that scientific knowledge tends to be reductionist scientists analyse, they break down their object of study into smaller and smaller constituent parts (PU04). Scientific knowledge had cultural value in that it was intrinsic to all parts of human life (T02), and was an essential part of the school curriculum as it can help you look afresh at everyday objects and phenomena and stimulate curiosity and an enquiring mind (SE03). Theme 3: Scientific knowledge and values Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientists perceive and claim their work to be value free and objective. This assumption is open to challenge. The key point, summarised in this theme, was that scientific knowledge is often perceived by scientists as value free, making no assumptions about what is right or wrong in the world and does not necessarily imply any application or action (PU04). Science was said to take an objective view of the world: its ideas have no intrinsic moral value it is how the world is. If we are not at the centre of the universe, or if DNA affects our behaviour it is neither good or bad, but the way the world is (S05). However, the panel did not universally accept the assumption of a value free and objective view of the work of scientists. Within the same general theme, but on a different point, there were said to be established standards of behaviour and an ethical code (T01) within which the majority of scientists worked, enabling a distinction 26

between what can be done and what ought to be done (SE01) in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Theme 4: Historical development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught some of the historical background and development of scientific knowledge. Science has a long and complex history. Participants stated that, through the study of historical developments in science, pupils would come to understand how the world works. It was important that pupils were encouraged to perceive science as a human activity, to counteract the prevalent view of science as a dry body of knowledge that has to be learned by rote (PS05). Through a study of historical developments pupils would gain a sense of how this knowledge came to be generated and an understanding of how we got to where we are and to illustrate how science progresses (S05). Theme 5: The language of science Summary: Pupils should be taught that science has a distinctive but common language. Scientific language evolves with use. Terminology needs to be used with care, with meanings clearly explained. An important aspect of pupils learning in school science was appreciation that the need for scientists across the world to communicate had led to the use of a global scientific language, e.g. the periodic table and hazard signs (T01). However, the point was made that: The language used to describe the status of scientific information and ideas has not developed consistently in historical time (PU05). The language of science was said to evolve, with terms such as theory, hypothesis and law used as examples to highlight variations in meaning over time. One participant made the point that new science is often hard to explain and so seems obscure and difficult (SE01). For this reason it was important for teachers to use words carefully when describing scientific ideas and evidence (SE03) and to discuss with pupils the meaning of scientific terms and statements. 27

Theme 6: Science as a human, collaborative activity Summary: Pupils should be taught that the production of scientific knowledge is a human activity undertaken both by individuals and groups. Any new knowledge produced is generally shared and subject to peer review. Although scientists may work as individuals they contribute to the communal generation of a common, reliable body of knowledge. The basic point articulated here by the participants was that developments in scientific knowledge are the result of both individual and collaborative group activity. A number of participants referred to the development of scientific knowledge as an individual, creative act (PU05), but stressed that science differed markedly from the arts in that the individual scientist is ultimately irrelevant, as he/she contributes to a common body of knowledge (S07). Even though the development of scientific knowledge may be individualistic in some respects, for example in imagining an explanation and devising a means of testing that explanation (PU05), the consolidation of that knowledge was fundamentally a social activity subject to group agreement through the process of peer review. Another response highlighted the importance of collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge. Scientists working in institutions will be voicing a consensus achieved by a group of scientists (PU04). Scientific knowledge was usually reliable because it was produced by teams of scientists and assessed by wider groups of other scientists (PU04). Theme 7: The distinctions between science and technology Summary: Pupils should be taught that there is a distinction between science and technology. The importance for school science in this theme was the need to make clear distinctions between scientific knowledge and its applications, or as one participant put it science versus technology and engineering (S02). The point was also made that whilst scientific understanding contributes to the development of new technologies: practical problem solving in technology calls on other skills and is influenced by other factors such as economics, environmental impact and the social/cultural context. (SE01) 28

Theme 8: The tentative nature of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should recognise that scientific knowledge is provisional. Current scientific knowledge is the best we have but may be subject to further change given new evidence. Participants statements for this theme highlighted the provisional, tentative and evolutionary nature of scientific knowledge. It was said to be provisional in the sense that science needs to go beyond the facts (PS02), for example, if a prediction fails an appropriate scientific test, then the underlying rationale needs modification (PU05). Scientific knowledge is tentative in that it is not fixed for all time (SE03), but is in a state of continuous change and, therefore, theories are the best we can do with the current state of knowledge (S02). Pupils needed to recognise that scientific knowledge is the best kind of knowledge we have when it comes to understanding the natural world (PS01), but theories may be falsified if wrong (S06), modified, extended and revised in the light of new evidence. Whilst scientific knowledge has evolved with improvements in techniques and technology, there remained patterns and laws that govern what happens in the universe (T02). Theories were therefore open to debate, e.g. the earth exists fact; but did the universe really start with the Big Bang? (S03) and there continued to be mystery and beauty about fundamental scientific principles, e.g. periodic table, DNA, thermodynamics etc. (T02) Theme 9: The cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientific knowledge is cumulative, building on and developing that which is already known. Good scientific theories have explanatory and predictive power. The focus for this theme was upon the cumulative nature of scientific knowledge and its revisability (PS04). Participants maintained that the body of knowledge produced by scientists is continually growing as new discoveries and theories are made (PU04). Thus new work draws on and develops previous work and, even though earlier ideas may be superseded, they were a necessary part in arriving at current understanding (SE05). However, it was thought important for pupils to appreciate that new ideas which contradict what is already known tend to be resisted by scientists and the wider community, though on the rare occasions when they are accepted, the shake-up is so dramatic that it tends to be called a scientific revolution (PU04). Beginning from the premise that scientific knowledge is based upon the need to explain phenomena, pupils should be taught that most scientific accounts are based on ideas and concepts which are related to complex webs of other ideas (PU01). This was said to be one reason why scientists are sceptical about certain claims which contradict the scientific consensus. 29

Theme 10: Common conceptions of science and risk Summary: Pupils need to be taught that common public perceptions of science perpetuate a number of myths which give erroneous impressions of the methods and nature of science. Pupils need to develop an understanding of the basic concepts associated with risk and uncertainty. It was considered important for pupils to understand the variety of purposes served by science in society which, contrary to the impression given by school science, are not generally concerned with establishing scientific truth (PU02). Pupils needed to appreciate the power and limitations of science (S03), to understand that science will rarely be exact, though this might be the perception of the public at large. This was said to be particularly true in matters related to health, where there exists a prevalent expectation that scientists are able to provide exact answers (PS02). Pupils needed to have a basic understanding of the nature of risk there is no such thing as a risk free activity (T01). It was also important for pupils to be aware of conflicting and uncertain scientific claims reported in the media to avoid being taken in by talk of breakthroughs (SE01). 2.2.2.2 Institutions and Social Practices of Science Theme 11: Contextual nature of science Summary: Pupils should know that developments in scientific knowledge are not undertaken in isolation, but may be shaped by particular contexts. This theme focuses on the contexts in which science is undertaken. Science operates in society (PS05) and this cultural context affects the images, models and metaphors which scientists use to explain their ideas (S06). Whilst it was said by participants that science had marked out its own sphere of influence (PU04) and does not interact easily with other competing authorities, such as politics and religion (SE01), scientific knowledge was nevertheless developed in particular social, political, economic and personal contexts, which shape both the knowledge itself and its uses (PS02). 30

Theme 12: Constraints on the development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should know that scientific knowledge is developed within the context of a range of constraints that may shape it and its uses. In this theme the emphasis is upon the constraints inherent in the development of scientific knowledge, exerted as a result of the interests of those who fund the work, whether the funders are governments, industry or private individuals (S07). The constraints were said to operate on two levels; first, financial and commercial interest may well affect the nature of research (S02), and second, the published views of scientists may well be affected by the interests of those who fund the work (S07). The implications of such constraints, especially in cases where the findings of scientific research might impinge on the interests or policies of external agencies, were said to be that sometimes decisions have to be taken on very imperfect findings, i.e. very prematurely, without consensus (PU03). Theme 13: Developments in scientific knowledge are subject to peer review Summary: Pupils should be taught that developments in scientific knowledge are critically reviewed and may be authenticated and validated by members of the wider community. Comments under this theme showed the perceived importance of trying to counteract a widespread view of science among pupils as the dull accumulation of facts (PS04). On the contrary, science at the coal-face research level is more like a courtroom than a knowledge factory (S06). Through the process of peer review, findings and knowledge claims are made open to the scrutiny of other scientists (PS01). Prior to publication, new findings and theories will be subjected to critical review, further testing, and possible authentication and validation by others (PU02; SE01). In this the scientific community is predominantly self-regulating (PS01). It was important for pupils to appreciate that: scientific claims can be given appropriate confidence and that unpublished/unmoderated claims of a single scientist are distinguished from more established and tested views. (PS01) 31

Theme 14: Accountability and regulation of scientific practices Summary: Pupils should be taught that issues of accountability and the regulatory procedures that relate to the development of scientific knowledge. Participants highlighted the point that whilst there is no single professional or regulatory body representing or regulating the work of scientists in the UK, different disciplines have their own professional institute or society (PU01). In the main, where science is regulated, it is by law rather than internal regulation of professional practice, and this often requires knowledge that serves the purposes of those frameworks rather than any fundamental purpose (PS02). This is said to be an important idea for pupils to grasp because the compromise between regulation and academic freedom is the challenge in any democratic society (PS03). Since much scientific research is funded by taxpayers money, the issue of accountability to the public is raised in this theme, as these same tax payers have the right to understand what they are paying for and why (SE03). However, the point was made that the scientific community received funding with relatively little accountability (S03). Therefore, it was important for the public to appreciate the arguments which have been proposed for this degree of self-management, and to learn of recent attempts by the political system to increase the amount of accountability (S02). Theme 15: Cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that developments in science are not the result of individual endeavour. They arise from group activity and collaboration, often of a multidisciplinary and international nature. This theme countered the stereotypical view of the development of scientific knowledge as the lonely pursuit (SE02) of the mad individualist in a white coat (PS03). Scientific knowledge generally advances as a result of collective endeavour (PU01) and team work (S03) by groups of people often spread around the world (S03), therefore despite global divisions on lines of race and nation, science remained an international activity (S03). 32

Theme 16: Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that developments in scientific knowledge are not value free, and that they are subject to moral and ethical limitations. This theme addressed issues of morality and ethics in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Whilst the point was made that science will always progress sometimes faster than the ethical/moral issues it raises (PS01), it was seen as important for pupils to understand that advances in scientific knowledge were likely to be constrained by that which is acceptable to society in terms of moral, ethical and religious values (PS02). The ethical and moral dimensions of science were said to be great areas of worry among the general public (PU04). Science was often viewed as the tool of big business or government and therefore is partisan rather than acting for the common good (S06), for example, issues like GM foods have rightly raised public awareness and also suspicion of science (S06). For this reason it was important to include the public in discussions about the morality and ethics of using new scientific knowledge (SE03). Theme 17: Range of fields in which scientific knowledge is developed Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientific research is undertaken in a variety of institutions by individuals who have differing social status within the scientific community. Scientists generally have expertise only in one specific sub-discipline of science. This theme embraced the view that science is for all (T04) i.e. that a wide range of people with different qualifications, aptitudes and abilities can engage in science in a range of different contexts. Whilst scientists tend to belong to one discipline, scientific research is carried out in a wide variety of institutions and, as a result, contributes in many ways to the functioning of contemporary society (S02). Pupils should also learn that science encompasses a remarkable range of personalities (S05) who have differing status within the science community, or as one participant put it science s equivalent of the foot soldier, sergeant, field marshal and general (PS01). In essence science should be seen as accessible to pupils and not an activity which is the reserve of the specially chosen few and always requiring specialist facilities. 33

2.2.2.3 Methods of Science Theme 18: Analysis and Interpretation of Data Summary: Pupils should be taught that the practice of science is reliant on a set of skills required to analyse and interpret data. Ideas in science do not emerge simply from the data but are reliant on a process of measurement and interpretation which often requires sophisticated skills. It is possible, therefore, for scientists to come to different interpretations of the same data. In this theme the panel highlighted the inherent difficulties and sophisticated skills required in the interpretation of observations and measurements in science (SE04), and the relationship between data and explanation offered to account for them (SE04). Establishing scientific knowledge was thought to involve subjective decisions which will shape the problem and influence the data that can be or are obtained (S02). Whilst there was said to be a logical relationship between the problem under investigation, the methods deployed to investigate that problem, and the solution proposed to the problem, any experiment was in principle capable of sustaining an infinite variety of explanations (SE03). Though science was methodical, involving a number of skills ranging from manual dexterity in constructing and setting up apparatus to the ability to use appropriate statistical methods in analysing results (T01), it was possible for skilled scientists to reasonably come to different views about the same evidence. (T01). Theme 19: Specific methods of science Summary: Pupils should be taught a range of methods that show how the analysis of data is a central activity to the practice of science. This knowledge would assist their understanding of scientific reports. This theme reflected comments by the panel about the specific methods of science. For instance, mathematical skills were viewed as central to developments in pupils scientific understanding (SE05;T01). One participant made the point that: whilst science does not seem to need to be mathematical, it has been strongly mathematical and this factor has influenced both the ways scientists communicate and the kinds of standard of evidence which they customarily set (SE01). Considerable importance was assigned to the development of pupils skills in the use of methods for data analysis in science and in applying basic statistical methods to observations (SE01). Examples were given of meteorological events, or testing of drugs, where pupils first needed to understand what is meant when statistical data are quoted (T01). Such skills were important if pupils were to make a critical analysis of results and to understand the need for verification, even if they cannot do it (T02). 34

Theme 20: Cause and correlation Summary: Pupils should be taught that there are two types of distinctive relationship in science causal where there is a known mechanism relating an effect to a cause; and a correlation where identified variables are associated statistically but for which there is no well-established causal link. The focus of this theme was on distinctions between cause and effect, and correlation. It was stated that, whilst scientists frequently utilised statistical methods to explore correlation between factors, correlation did not necessarily imply cause and effect (S02; SE01; T02). An understanding of these two types of relationship in science was said to be important for pupils in the face of media reports and articles in newspapers where cause and effect is implied by correlation, for example, it may be claimed that: there is a correlation between hours spent watching TV and incidence of lung cancer, so the article may imply that watching TV causes lung cancer (S07). Theme 21: Creativity Summary: Pupils should be taught that science is an activity that involves creativity and imagination as much as any other human activity. That scientists are passionate and involved humans that rely on inspiration and imagination and that this is an essential dimension of scientific work. This theme summarised the view that the foundations of science were said to be rooted in creative ways of thinking about natural phenomena and creative ways of investigating those phenomena (PU03). Imagination was vital in making connections and scientists can be passionate about their ideas (S06). Pupils should come to recognise that: anyone can develop theories and testable hypotheses within the limits of their own capabilities and area of study the process relies on personal reflection, imagination and creativity (SE01). Whilst there was general agreement about the importance of creativity and imagination in science, one participant made the point that developments in science required not only imagination of a particular kind, but also the baseline knowledge needed to make a contribution is high compared with other pursuits (T02). A particular argument for this theme was the need to counter the prevalent view of science among pupils, of a subject where there is little room for personal creativity and imagination. 35

Theme 22: Diversity of scientific method Summary: Pupils should be taught that science consists of a range of diverse methods and approaches and there is no singular scientific method. Students need to be introduced to some of the diversity. Comments under this theme countered the conventional view of science as portrayed in textbooks and teaching as a one dimensional scientific method (SE01) described in the following terms as: a process of hypothesis leading to experiment, leading by stages to theory. This dehumanises science and scientists and misrepresents them. (SE01) Whilst it was agreed that pupils learned a great deal from experiments, in order to be literate in experimental design they needed to understand that different scientific problems require different kinds of investigation (SE03) and that it was vital for pupils to be able select an appropriate method. A number of problems in science were said to be capable of being solved by coming up with a theory, which is then tested by experiment and this process tends to be referred to erroneously as the scientific method (S06). It was important for pupils to appreciate some of the alternative methods used by scientists, for instance: In many cases such as archaeology or cosmology it is not possible to do experiments. Then the scientific method may consist of constructing a theory to make predictions, and then seeing how well the predictions match up to the real world e.g. cosmology. In such cases the scientists rely much more on their theory than on the quality of their data. (S03) Theme 23: Experimental methods and critical testing Summary: Pupils should be taught that the experimental method permits the testing of ideas; that it requires, in addition to imagination and ingenuity, a range of approaches; and that there are certain basic techniques such as the use of controls which students should understand. The comments of the panel here sought to encourage an awareness that a scientific experiment is not just a demonstration of a phenomenon, but is a critical test of an idea or theory (S02). As the key of the scientific method is to try to understand how things work and to test the ideas to see if they are true (PS02), the importance of empirical testing was emphasised, for example: Hypotheses are tested by a variety of ways including by an experimental method in which variables are controlled and the effects of changing each one individually can be measured (PS02). 36

Since multiple explanations are often available for phenomena, appropriate experimental methods must be used to eliminate as many explanations as possible, e.g. controls, precise measurements, sampling frames, statistical tests and testing qualitative predictions if x then y (PU04). Pupils needed to understand that whilst novel science required imagining new techniques and procedures to test imagined explanations (S03), scientific testing or the application of well established ideas/principles/theories (SE1) such as the utilisation of standardised instruments and procedures, including the use of control experiments or fair tests. Theme 24: Hypothesis and prediction Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientists are engaged in developing hypotheses about the nature of the world and testing those ideas. That this process is essential to the development of scientific knowledge. This theme reflected the importance of scientists efforts to make hypotheses for explaining phenomena (S02) from which predictions may be made. It was said to be important for pupils to understand that, in seeking explanations for new phenomena links are made with existing experience and ideas that explain it (SE05). This process was seen to be a creative and imaginative activity in which the pupil begins the first stage of constructing a mental model (SE05). Emergent ideas provided possible explanations, which are used to make a prediction and then evidence is collected to see whether it corresponds with observations (SE01). However, the process was dependent upon pupils being encouraged to: formulate the question about an investigation; to make a prediction and think about what is happening. Careful observation; ability to rethink if results do not match the prediction; precision, organisation and care with measurement are needed (SE01). 37

Theme 25: Observation and measurement Summary: Pupils should be taught that observation and measurement are core activities undertaken by scientists; that there is a limit to the accuracy of any measurement but there are ways of limiting the uncertainty and increasing the confidence in the measurement. Building on the previous theme, the focus here was on the importance of extensive systematic observation and measurement (PS02), which was said to play an important part in science, especially those observations and measurements which can be checked and confirmed by repetition (S03). Observation may be the starting point of enquiry, or may be designed to test ideas (SE01). Pupils needed to understand that there is likely to be uncertainty associated with any measurement and that scientists have ways of estimating the uncertainty and minimising it (PU01). Whilst it is thought that precision and accuracy in recording data were required in science, the point is qualified by the statement that hyper-accuracy can be a bar to good succinct communication (T02). Theme 26: Reporting scientific findings Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientists use distinctive forms of communication for reporting results which are reliant on a range of different genres and semiotic modes. This theme emphasised the need for pupils to consider how best to convey the results and findings of experiments and observations to others in order that they may independently examine and possibly verify the results (S06). Such reporting required clarity of thought, organisation of ideas and good basic English (PS03). However, it is stressed that for pupils the reporting of scientific findings: should not be an exercise in the very formal passive tense science reporting used previously the aim should be clarity and brevity and to convey excitement if it is there. (SE01) Participants stated that the work of scientists was reported in distinctive forms which, tend to present science as rather straightforward, uncontentious and unarguable (S02). Whilst scientists acknowledged that uncertainties and misunderstandings may have played a part in their work, these tend not to be recorded (PS01). This was said to be partly for reasons of economy and partly because meanderings do not fit in with scientists idealised view of science as being a sure route to certain knowledge (PS01). 38

Theme 27: Science and questioning Summary: Science is a process of asking questions of the natural world and this is an important aspect of the work of a scientist. The pursuit of scientific knowledge was described in participants statements as a cyclic process in that it is about asking questions, with new answers leading to the next round of questions (SE04). Pupils needed to develop the strategies, methods and confidence to ask questions capable of producing answers (T01), and to understand that the strategies adopted may not reveal the correct answer, but may prompt further questions and that there may be more than one answer (T01). An argument for this theme was that it would counteract the widespread view among pupils of science as the acquisition of a set of facts (S06; SE02). Theme 28: Science and technology Summary: Pupils should be taught that science and technology are interdependent. New technology permits new measurements and new science develops new technology. The focus of this theme was the development of pupils understanding of the interdependence of science and technology, which is not readily divisible in practice (PU02). Advances in science may depend on developments in technology, for instance, the Hubble space telescope is a current example of new technology opening up opportunities for scientists (S06). Whilst scientific understanding was said to contribute to the development of new technologies, the point was made that practical problem solving in technology calls on other skills and is influenced by other factors such as economics, environmental impact and the social/cultural context (PU03). Theme 29: The role of ICT Summary: Pupils should be taught that Information and Communication Technology is now a fundamental tool which is integral to the practice of science. Participants felt it is important for pupils to appreciate the role of ICT and imaging techniques used across all fields of science today. Members of the panel suggested that pupils would benefit from more frequent visits to industrial, medical and research laboratories to more fully appreciate the ubiquity of ICT in the scientific workplace (S03). Another argument for its inclusion is that it might counter current perceptions of 39

ICT in school science as an add-on, due to a lack of availability in schools of state-ofthe-art devices testing and analysis, rather than a technology which is integral to science itself. Theme 30: No general ideas Summary: Pupils should be taught that there are no general ideas to be taught in science. Nothing can be taught about science independent of its content, and knowledge of the methods, institutions, and practices varies between the sciences. This theme reflected the view expressed by some participants of the difficulties of attempting to articulate generalisations about the processes and practices of science. For instance, it was pointed out that whilst there might be interesting things to say about the nature of knowledge, and about methods and institutions in specific areas of science (SE03), what is said will be different things for different areas (SE03). The point was further explained by the following statement: We could tell the story of the US cancellation of the super-accelerator to show how a lack of expensive resources constrains research, but this scarcely carries any morals for classificatory botany, say. (PU04) Examples were provided by one participant to show that within the major categories of Nature of Knowledge, Institutions and Social Practices and Methods of Science, a range of ideas-about-science might be relevant, dependent on the specific aspect of study in question, for instance: biochemistry versus cosmology, not to mention palaeoanthroplogy versus quantum mechanics, or cognitive science versus meteorology. (PU04) It was suggested that, on the one hand, teachers might cite the frequent changes in theories in palaeoanthroplogy to show it is full of speculation (S03), but on the other hand, it would be bad if pupils were invited to infer from this that atomic chemistry is all speculation (S03). If pupils were to understand why each area of science operates in the way that it does, they would require at least some understanding of what each kind of science is studying, why it is of interest and to whom (PU02). Pupils also needed an appreciation of the theoretical problems associated with different kinds of science, the available evidence and the variety of experiments that might be undertaken, as well as the types of institutions that develop as a result (PS02). In summary, many may feel that this list of aims for aspects of ideas-about-science that should be an integral part of the science curriculum is absurdly aspirational. However, such a list is, in many senses, an inevitable product of any attempt to delineate what 40

might be considered important. The function of the ensuing rounds was to see if the list of themes could be reduced to a more limited list of essential concepts. 2.2.3. Analysis of Round 2 data These thirty round 1 themes, along with typical supporting statements, were presented to participants in round 2. Participants were asked to rate each theme on a scale of 1 to 5 (5 very important, 1 not important at all); to comment on the summary of each theme and the reason for their rating; and then to rank the themes as essential, desirable or optional limiting their essential themes to only 10. For all of the participants responses the following were then conducted: a. a statistical analysis of the rating of each theme and consideration of justifications; b. an analysis of the ranking of essential themes; c. a summary of the suggestions for merging of themes; d. a summary of the comments on the wording of theme summary. (a) A statistical analysis of the rating of each theme and consideration of justifications For each theme, the mean and standard deviation of the ratings given on the five-point scale were calculated (Table 3). Where individuals had failed to respond to specific themes, these were assigned no numeric value and were not included in the computation of means and standard deviations. From such an analysis two issues emerge: whether the theme is considered important by a large number of the group which was indicated by a high mean rating for the theme; and whether there was consensus around the rating of the theme indicated by a low standard deviation of less than 1.0. A total of 8 themes had a mean of 4 or higher, indicating at this early stage that they were viewed by the panel as very important or important. Of these 8 themes, three showed standard deviations of <1.0, indicating, at this early stage of the study, a level of agreement about the importance of these themes. The emphasis for the school science curriculum in this Round of the Delphi study was firmly upon the category Methods of Science, with the following three themes rated as either very important or important and with standard deviations of <1.0: Theme 23: Theme 22: Theme 24: Experimental methods and critical testing Diversity of scientific method Hypothesis and prediction In the category Nature of Science two themes had means of 4 or higher and standard deviations of <1.0: Theme 8: The tentative nature of scientific knowledge Theme 4: Historical development of scientific knowledge 41

There was, however, less evidence that themes in the category of the Institutions and Social Practices of Science were considered important as no themes had a mean higher than 4. Table 3: Table showing means and standard deviations for participant rating of the importance of round 2 Delphi themes Theme Title Mean S.D. 23 Experimental methods and critical testing 4.4 0.7 8 Tentative nature of scientific knowledge 4.3 0.9 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 4.1 1.2 22 Diversity of scientific method 4.0 1.0 24 Hypothesis and prediction 4.0 1.0 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 4.0 0.9 21 Creativity 4.0 1.1 27 Science and questioning 4.0 1.2 19 Specific methods of science 3.9 1.0 25 Observation and measurement 3.9 1.0 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific 3.9 1.0 knowledge 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of 3.8 1.3 scientific knowledge 1 Types of knowledge 3.7 1.0 2 Features of scientific knowledge 3.7 1.3 20 Cause and correlation 3.7 1.3 28 Science and technology 3.6 0.8 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of 3.6 1.4 scientific knowledge 13 Developments in scientific knowledge are subject to 3.6 1.2 peer review 10 Common conceptions of science and risk 3.5 1.2 11 Contextual nature of science 3.3 1.2 6 Science as human collaborative activity 3.3 0.9 5 The language of science 3.3 1.0 26 Reporting scientific findings 3.2 1.3 12 Constraints on development of scientific knowledge 2.9 1.0 3 Scientific knowledge and values 2.9 1.5 29 Role of ICT 2.7 1.5 17 Range of fields in which scientific knowledge is 2.7 1.2 developed 14 Accountability and regulation of scientific practices 2.3 0.8 7 Distinction between science and technology 2.3 1.3 30 No general ideas 2.2 1.5 Greater insight into the reasoning behind participants ratings of the thirty themes was obtained through an analysis of comments made in justification of ratings for individual themes. These justifications are not included as most repeat points already made in the 42

presentation of themes emerging from round 1 (section 2.2.2). However, additional justifications over and above those indicated from round 1 analysis are shown later in the summary of the final themes which emerged from round 3 of the Delphi study. For the twenty-two themes with means below 4 there was clearly less support for their inclusion in the science curriculum. However, a number of participants viewed individual themes as being related to others, and not necessarily very important or important in their own right, but still vital as part of the science curriculum when viewed in conjunction with other themes. Thus, for example, Theme 24: Hypothesis and Prediction, was not viewed as an ideaabout-science which stood alone, in isolation from others, but as conjoined with other themes. For instance, it was variously suggested that the theme Hypothesis and Prediction formed an integral part of ideas such as those embedded in Theme 23: Experimental Methods and Critical Testing; Theme 19: Specific Methods of Science; Theme 18: Analysis and Interpretation of Data; Theme 8: Tentative Nature of Scientific Knowledge and Theme 9: Cumulative and Revisionary Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Therefore, whilst Hypothesis and Prediction was said by a number of individuals to be the nature of the science curriculum (S02), it was part of a collection of themes which included doing, theorising, discussing as the experience of doing science (S02). The result of this perceived interrelationship was that the significance of a number of themes was probably diminished in their ratings by participants, even though supporting comments showed that they were, nevertheless, considered important in the teaching, and learning of the processes and practices of science. Thus, the recognition of such interdependence suggests that it may be mistaken to view these themes as independent entities. For one participant, a small number of themes were thought to be intrinsic to learning the substantive content of science and were, therefore, acquired implicitly. As a result they could not be described as distinct, or independent, ideas-about-science, and as a consequence did not lend themselves to explicit teaching. (b) An analysis of the ranking of essential themes An early concern for the researchers was the number of themes emerging. First, a large number of themes posed problems for the aim of the research to see if agreement could be obtained around a limited number of salient and significant features of science that should be an essential part of the science curriculum. Second, and inevitably, some of the themes were not independent attributes of science and there was a degree of overlap. Therefore, in an attempt to force participants to prioritise what they considered important the group were asked to grade the themes as essential (E), desirable (D) or optional (O). The results are shown in Table 4. Not all participants graded all the themes hence the total is often less than 23. Participants were limited to grading a maximum of 10 themes as essential. 43

Table 4: Numbers of participants grading 30 themes from Round 2 for inclusion in the school science curriculum in three categories essential, desirable and optional Theme Title E D O Rank Score 8 Tentative nature of scientific knowledge 13 2 3 29 4 23 Experimental methods and critical testing 12 5 1 28 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 11 6 4 28 21 Creativity 11 6 4 28 25 Observation and measurement 10 5 3 25 1 Types of knowledge 10 3 5 23 2 Features of scientific knowledge 9 8 4 26 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 9 7 3 25 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific 9 4 3 22 knowledge 24 Hypothesis and prediction 8 9 2 25 27 Science and questioning 8 6 3 22 10 Common conceptions of science and risk 8 5 4 21 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge 8 4 3 20 22 Diversity of scientific method 7 7 4 21 11 Contextual nature of science 6 9 4 21 6 Science as human collaborative activity 6 7 5 19 28 Science and technology 6 7 4 19 29 Role of ICT 5 4 11 14 26 Reporting scientific findings 4 9 4 17 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge 4 7 4 15 5 The language of science 4 6 9 14 13 Developments in scientific knowledge are subject to peer review 4 6 6 14 3 Scientific knowledge and values 4 6 6 14 19 Specific methods of science 3 9 4 15 17 Range of fields in which scientific knowledge is developed 3 5 9 11 20 Cause and correlation 2 6 2 10 30 No general ideas 2 3 9 7 12 Constraints on development of scientific knowledge 1 7 5 9 7 Distinction between science and technology 1 5 8 7 14 Accountability and regulation of scientific practices 1 1 10 3 The following themes were thought to be essential or desirable, by more than two thirds of the participants: 4 Some indication of their relative importance to the group can be obtained from a rank score where 2 points are awarded to a ranking of essential and 1 point to a ranking of desirable 44

Theme 8: Theme 18: Theme 21: Theme 2: Theme 4: Theme 24: Tentative nature of scientific knowledge Analysis and interpretation of data Creativity Features of scientific knowledge Historical Development of Scientific Knowledge Hypothesis and Prediction Other themes were rated essential or desirable by less than two thirds but, nevertheless achieved a high-ranking score. These were: Theme 23: Theme 25: Theme 1: Theme 16: Experimental Methods and Critical Testing Observation and Measurement Types of Knowledge Moral and Ethical Dimensions in the Development of Scientific Knowledge This result would suggest that such themes, whilst considered highly important by some members of the group, do not command the more widespread recognition of the importance of the first set of themes above. There was some congruity between the highest rated themes for Round 2 and highest ranked themes the eight with a mean of 4 or more and those themes graded as essential or desirable by two thirds or more of the panel. These included the following under the main category headings: Methods of science Theme 23: Experimental methods and critical testing Theme 18: Analysis and interpretation of data Theme 21: Creativity Theme 24: Hypothesis and prediction Nature of Science Theme 8: Tentative nature of scientific knowledge Theme 4: Historical development of scientific knowledge Two themes in the top-rated group, having a mean of 4 or greater but not ranked so highly, were Theme 27: Science and Questioning and Theme 22: Diversity of Scientific Method. Although, in both cases, fourteen participants who did grade the theme considered it to be essential or desirable. The relative congruity between these two methods of assessing their importance (rating and ranking of the themes) provides a useful reliability check on participants rating of the themes. The commonality of the results for the importance of the themes obtained by rating and by ranking lent weight to the view that there was some emerging consensus justifying some reduction in the number of themes. After comparing the data in Table 3 and Table 4, the first 17 themes where chosen for inclusion in Round 3. One of these themes, the 45

Features of Scientific Knowledge, was divided into two components (as explained beneath) giving a total of 18 themes for the third round. (c) Participants suggestions for the merging of themes This analysis examined which themes the panel perceived to embody similar ideas, and therefore, which themes could be legitimately merged. Participants interpreted merging in two ways, as either the linking of several related themes or, alternatively, the merging of two themes that were seen as encompassing similar concepts. At this stage of the research, however, we were principally concerned with the identification of themes deemed by the panel to present similar concepts (Table 5), in preference to those themes whose concepts might be linked to form broader themes. First Theme (and) Second Theme Merged Theme Theme 6: Science as human, collaborative activity Theme 15: Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge Theme 15: Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge Theme 7: Distinction between science and technology. Theme 11: Contextual nature of science Theme 28: Science and technology Theme 12: Constraints on development of scientific knowledge Theme 28: Science and technology Theme 11: Contextual nature of science Table 5: Suggested merging of Round 2 themes In addition to the merging of the themes specified in Table 5 above, comments from the panel resulted in the division of Theme 2 Features of scientific knowledge into two discrete themes as follows: Original Theme 2: Feature of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientific knowledge produces reliable knowledge of the physical world and has a number of attributes. Scientific knowledge aims to be general and universal, it can be reductionist and counter-intuitive, and it has intrinsic cultural value. Scientific explanations are based on models and representations of reality. 46

Participants comments showed that it was difficult to rate this theme because of the multiple concepts embedded in the summary. The theme was subsequently divided to give the following two statements: Theme 2A: The status of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that science produces reliable knowledge of the natural world that can be relied upon as a basis for action. Theme 2B: The characteristics of scientific knowledge Summary: Scientific knowledge aims to be general and universal. Scientific explanations are based on models and representations of reality which are often simplifications of the complexity of the real world. Scientific knowledge may also, in some instances, appear to be counter-intuitive. (d) Summary of comments on the wording of theme summary The final aspect of Round 2 required the revision of the theme titles and summary statements to reflect the comments and recommendations of the Delphi panel. Analysis of the panel s comments resulted in adjustments to the following 11 themes, presented in order of rating of importance. Theme 2: Experimental methods and critical testing A small number of participants recommended alterations to the wording of this theme. References to imagination and ingenuity were removed in the revised summary to avoid confusion with Theme 21: Creativity. The addition of a reference in the theme summary to the need for multiple tests, or experiments was prompted by the following suggestion: The outcomes of an experiment rarely, of themselves, determine anything. Such outcomes are, in principle, capable of sustaining an infinite variety of explanations. Ask 7 year olds, for example, why a burning candle in a bell-jar is eventually extinguished. (SE04) 47

Original theme title and summary Experimental methods and critical testing Summary: Pupils should be taught that the experimental method permits the testing of ideas; that it requires, in addition to imagination and ingenuity, a range of approaches; and that there are certain basic techniques such as the use of controls which students should understand Revised theme title and summary Scientific method and critical testing Summary: Pupils should be taught that science uses the experimental method to test ideas, and, in particular, about certain basic techniques such as the use of controls. It should be made clear that the outcome of a single experiment is rarely sufficient to establish a knowledge claim. Theme 8: The tentative nature of scientific knowledge Two members of the panel expressed concern that the original theme summary might lead to a situation in which pupils viewed all scientific knowledge as provisional, whereas, new evidence is not going to change the knowledge that water is H 2 O (PS03). It was said that much of the scientific knowledge included in the school science curriculum provided a sound basis for action given the strength of the consensus with regard to this as opposed to other types of knowledge (SE01). One participant wished it to be recognised that developments in scientific knowledge were not solely dependent upon new evidence, but were sometimes a matter of new perspectives, for example: Think not only of Newton, Galileo, Darwin, but the countless others (Fleming) in science and technology who have made progress by re-conceptualising a problem or even identifying the problem in the first place. I would want room for the incompleteness of scientific knowledge. (SE02) 48

Original theme title and summary The tentative nature of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should recognise that scientific knowledge is provisional. Current scientific knowledge is the best we have but may be subject to further change given new evidence. Revised theme title and summary Science and certainty Summary: Pupils should appreciate why much scientific knowledge, particularly that taught in school science, is well established and beyond reasonable doubt, and why other scientific knowledge is more open to legitimate doubt. It should also be explained that current scientific knowledge is the best we have but may be subject to change in the future, given new evidence or new interpretations of old evidence. Theme 22: Diversity of scientific method A small number of participants took issue with the theme title, maintaining for example, that method is a term that is often used in very different ways (SE02). To clarify the meaning of the theme, it was suggested that the theme title might refer to the diversity of thinking (or analysis) rather than in method, which I find too restricting (PS02). One participant made the point that the term method was sometimes taken to mean technique, or strategy or tactics (SE02) and it was important to clarify the sense in which the term was being used in the theme summary. Original theme title and summary Diversity of scientific method Summary: Pupils should be taught that science consists of a range of diverse methods and approaches and there is no singular scientific method. Students need to be introduced to some of the diversity Revised theme title and summary Diversity of scientific thinking Summary: Pupils should be taught that science uses a range of methods and approaches and that there is no one scientific method or approach Theme 24: Hypothesis and prediction The major criticism of this summary was that the term hypothesis about the nature of the world is much too grand and runs the risk of misrepresenting what scientists do in their daily work (SE02). The point was made that scientists develop more specific hypotheses about why and how things happen in the context of their wider understanding of the phenomena (SE02). 49

Original theme title and summary Hypothesis and prediction Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientists are engaged in developing hypotheses about the nature of the world and testing these ideas. That this process is essential to the development of scientific knowledge Revised theme title and summary Hypothesis and prediction Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientists develop hypotheses and predictions about natural phenomena. This process is essential to the development of new knowledge claims. Theme 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge There was little disagreement with this theme title or summary among the panel. It was generally felt that the summary offered a good reflection of the typical statements that had accompanied it in the preceding round. Discussion in the team resulted in a more succinct summary whilst retaining the essence of the theme. Original theme title and summary Historical development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught some of the historical background and development of scientific knowledge. Science has a long and complex history. Revised theme title and summary Historical development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught some of the historical background to the development of scientific knowledge. Theme 9: The cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge The summary was extended to reflect comments from one participant suggesting that the summary as it stood did not fully reflect the typical statements which had accompanied it (SE01). Original theme title and summary The cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientific knowledge is cumulative, building on and developing that which is already known. Good scientific theories have explanatory and predictive power. Revised theme title and summary The cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that scientific knowledge is cumulative, building on and developing that which is already known. New theories and methods are often resisted but ultimately may be accepted if they are seen to have a better explanatory power, parsimony or elegance. 50

Theme 21: Creativity Adjustments to this summary reflected the view of one member of the panel who thought it necessary to include a reference to the point that, unlike the arts, passion is not present in science in the final result (S07), but final results nevertheless represented significant intellectual achievements. Original theme title and summary Creativity Summary: Pupils should be taught that science is an activity that involves creativity and imagination as much as any other human activity. That scientists are passionate and involved humans that rely on inspiration and imagination and that this is an essential dimension of scientific work. Revised theme title and summary Creativity Summary: Pupils should be taught that science is an activity that involves creativity and imagination as much as many other human activities and that some scientific ideas are enormous intellectual achievements. Scientists, as much as any other profession, are passionate and involved humans whose work relies on inspiration and imagination. Theme 27: Science and Questioning Whilst there was some agreement that the summary reflected the views expressed by the typical statements, a small number of participants felt that it did not capture the essence of the theme, for example, this summary statement reduces the typical statements to a formulaic, dull sentence (SE01). One participant expressed the view that the inclusion of the phrase asking questions of the natural world in the original summary, was very grand and not likely to be helpful to students (SE02). The revised summary sought to more fully reflect participants perception of science as a cyclic process of questioning and seeking answers. Original theme title and summary Science and Questioning Summary: Science is a process of asking questions of the natural world and this is an important aspect of the work of a scientist. Revised theme title and summary Science and Questioning Summary: Pupils should be taught that an important aspect of the work of a scientist is the continual and cyclical process of asking questions and seeking answers, which then lead to new questions. This process leads to the emergence of new scientific theories and techniques which are then tested empirically. 51

Theme 19: Specific methods of science A small number of participants commented that the summary seemed to relate somewhat obliquely to the typical statements provided in support in Round 1 (PS02). Comments that informed adjustments to the summary included a concern that too much emphasis on mathematical analysis is demoralising this can very easily put off students (SE04). It was said to be important to include in the summary mention of pupils learning of the techniques for representation as well as analysis of data, as the combined skills enabled pupils to draw conclusions from their investigations (T02). Original theme title and summary Specific methods of science Summary: Pupils should be taught a range of methods that show how the analysis of data is a central activity to the practice of science. This knowledge would assist their understanding of scientific reports. Revised theme title and summary Specific methods of science Summary: Pupils should be taught a range of techniques for data representation and analysis commonly used in the sciences, with particular emphasis on those necessary for interpreting reports about science, particularly those in the media. Theme 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge It was thought by a small number of participants that the summary adopted a somewhat narrow view of the typical statements offered in support in Round 1. It was pointed out that these statements embraced not only developments in scientific knowledge, but also its application (T04; SE05) and it was felt by a small number of participants that the summary confused science with its application. Scientific knowledge and its uses were said to be radically different (PS04) and it was stressed that only applications of science have ethical value (S07) and this should be made clear in the summary. One participant expressed the view that the formulation pupils should be taught at the beginning of the summary was inappropriate for this theme. It was thought that the following wording might more accurately reflect the intentions of the theme: they should be encouraged to engage in thinking about moral and ethical questions related to science. They should be encouraged to listen to others, to weigh up evidence, to think that their own view matters, and to learn how to express it publicly. (T04) To avoid undue extensions to the theme summary in trying to reflect the above view, the formulation pupils should be taught was replaced with pupils should appreciate, as this provided opportunities for a more open approach to the development of understanding in this theme. 52

Original theme title and summary Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that developments in scientific knowledge are not value free, they are subject to moral and ethical limitations. Revised theme title and summary Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should appreciate that choices about the application of scientific and technical knowledge are not value free; they may, therefore, conflict with moral and ethical values held by groups within society. Theme 1: Types of knowledge The view was expressed by some participants that reference to the different types of scientific knowledge might cause some difficulties for pupils (SE02; S07; PU04). One participant queried the meaning of the phrase different types of scientific knowledge (SE05), as this did not reflect the essence of the typical statements. It needed to be made clear that scientific knowledge is knowledge that represents our current understanding of phenomena based on currently available evidence (SE05). The notion that scientific knowledge is supported by empirical evidence was an important point and was thus incorporated into the summary for the subsequent round. One participant expressed concern about the highlighting of differences between textbook knowledge and that generated at the frontiers of science, stating that: pupils must not get the idea that textbooks are wrong. Such a belief would turn pupils off science. But they should appreciate that scientific ideas can be simplified yet still be correct. (S03) Another participant made the point that the crux of this theme was what is known in science, in that tried and tested models and theories exist to support such knowledge (S02). It was thought that this should be contrasted to: what we are still finding out both because experiments are as yet inconclusive and/or because we do not yet have convincing models. (S02) Original theme title and summary Types of knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that there are different types of scientific knowledge, particularly the difference between representations in school texts and that at the frontiers of science research, Revised theme title and summary The empirical base of scientific knowledge Summary: Pupils should be taught that a distinctive characteristic of scientific knowledge is that it is supported by empirical evidence. Whilst the evidence for some ideas is well established, other knowledge is less secure as the empirical base is less reliable. 53

2.2.4. Round 3: Participants views and rating of the themes The final round presented the 18 themes with a mean rating of 3.6 or greater (Table 3) to the participants together with a cross-section of reasons given by the participants for their inclusion. Participants were asked again to rate each theme on a 5 point Likert scale and to justify the reason for their rating. The analysis of data for this round followed the procedures adopted for the preceding round in examining the rating of importance and justification for each of the 18 themes presented to participants in round 3. Rating of importance Mean scores and standard deviations were again calculated using the 1 to 5 response categories (Table 6). Where participants had failed to provide a rating for a theme these were again assigned no numeric value and were not included in the calculations of means and standard deviations. Table 6: Rating of themes from Round 3 of the Delphi study Theme Title Mean S.D 23 Scientific methods and critical testing * 4.4 0.7 21 Creativity * 4.3 0.7 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 4.2 0.9 27 Science and questioning * 4.2 0.6 22 Diversity of scientific thinking * 4.2 0.7 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of 4.2 0.7 scientific knowledge 18 Analysis and interpretation of data * 4.1 0.8 8 Science and certainty 4.1 0.9 24 Hypothesis and prediction * 4.1 1.0 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific 4.0 0.9 knowledge 25 Observation and measurement 3.9 0.7 28 Science and technology 3.8 0.8 19 Specific methods of science 3.7 1.0 20 Cause and correlation 3.7 1.1 2B The characteristics of scientific knowledge 3.7 0.8 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge 3.6 1.2 1 The empirical base of scientific knowledge 3.5 0.9 2A The status of scientific knowledge 2.7 1.2 The number of themes with a mean rating of 4 or greater rose from eight themes in Round 2, to ten themes in Round 3. The highest priority was again assigned by participants to those themes that articulated aspects of the Methods of Science (see Table 2). The six themes in this category (indicated with an asterisk in Table 8) with a mean of 4 or higher in Round 3 were the same as those given the highest rating in Round 2, 54

demonstrating stability in participants ratings over two rounds. Standard deviations of <1.0 for eight of these ten highly-rated themes indicated that a degree of consensus was also present amongst the participants about their significance. Justifications for ratings in Round 3 Participants were urged to rate the importance of teaching explicitly each theme and to justify their rating. A summary of the reasons given to justify their rating, drawn from both round 2 and 3 for the 10 top-rated themes from round 3 is provided below. Six of these themes fell in the category of the Methods of Science, and two each were from categories of the Nature of Scientific Knowledge and the Institutions and Social Practices of Science. Methods of Science Themes Theme 23: Scientific method and critical testing Pupils should be taught that science uses the experimental method to test ideas, and, in particular, about certain basic techniques such as the use of controls. It should be made clear that the outcome of a single experiment is rarely sufficient to establish a knowledge claim. This theme was the most highly rated in Rounds 2 and 3. Participants viewed the theme as the articulation of the core process on which the whole edifice of science is built (PU03). The experimental method was said to be what defines science (S06), and was the central thrust of scientific research (SE02) and as such must be an essential part of the school science curriculum. One participant stated that pupils frequently formed the view that the purpose of practical work was to teach them techniques; they do not understand that in the research world of science, careful experimentation is used to test hypotheses (S05). The theme was seen to provide opportunities to develop what was already a major component of the National Curriculum for science (PU01) and to highlight the importance of testing ideas as the basis of science (T02). The testing of ideas was an important issue for one participant who expressed the view that many science courses and texts labelled as experiments what were in reality demonstrations and therefore not a test of scientific ideas (SE01). A warning note was sounded by one participant who, whilst supporting the importance of the theme as a life skill, showed concern that the procedures utilised to assess pupils understanding in the theme: Must ensure that it will allow a range of responses from pupils any claim that can be reasonable argued from the evidence should gain credit. If assessment drives pupils towards narrow, pre-determined outcomes, then it will be impossible to teach this well. (SE06) 55

Theme 21: Creativity Pupils should be taught that science is an activity that involves creativity and imagination as much as many other human activities and that some scientific ideas are enormous intellectual achievements. Scientists, as much as any other profession, are passionate and involved humans whose work relies on inspiration and imagination. Whilst it was thought by a number of participants that this theme was not easy to teach explicitly, it was nevertheless considered important that school science offered pupils opportunities to be genuinely creative and not just told how imaginative and clever scientists are/were (SE03). Pupils should be encouraged to do science, rather than being taught about creativity (PU03), they should be encouraged to engage in activities such as creating models/pictures to explain ideas (SE03) and to consider possible ideas to explain phenomena and test hypotheses (PU05). In countering the image of science as a stodgy fact-filled subject (S03) and to dispel the notion of scientists as nerds (S05), pupils should be encouraged to view science as fun and fascinating and rewarding (S03) and to appreciate that creative science is more exciting a pursuit than most (S05). In emphasising the importance of creativity in school science, one participant made the point that: All too often students are turned off science by the large amount of rote learning involved. Indeed some students move to the arts/humanities because they find there a far greater potential to exercise their creativity. This is a crucially important message to communicate. (PS05) Whilst offering strong support for the inclusion of the theme in the school science curriculum, one participant expressed concern that making the teaching of the theme explicit might be counter-productive if it discourages efforts to make sure it infuses the whole brew of school science (PU01). Theme 27: Science and questioning Pupils should be taught that an important aspect of the work of a scientist is the continual and cyclical process of asking questions and seeking answers, which then lead to new questions. This process leads to the emergence of new scientific theories and techniques which are then tested empirically. There was agreement among participants that questioning was part and parcel of the process of science (SE01), that it reinforced the notion that science is characterised by unfinished business (PU01) and that it emphasised the importance of continual testing and evolution of understanding (S06). It was stressed that the explicit teaching of questioning or encouragement to ask questions should form an integral part of teaching in science the more pupils question, the more they understand the thinking behind the scientific knowledge (T02). As the following comment shows, the value of engagement in the cyclic process of questioning and seeking answers was not only limited to science, but has wider application in the curriculum: Questioning is the engine of human development and is not specific to science. While knowledge is obviously important, it is given far too central a place in our education system. 56

Although it is much easier to grade students in terms of their knowledge, knowledge by itself is useless unless it leads to the forming of new and pressing questions. Inculcates an attitude that applies to all areas. (PS05) Theme 22: Diversity of scientific thinking Pupils should be taught that science uses a range of methods and approaches and that there is no one scientific method or approach. The importance of this theme lay in its potential to provide pupils with first hand experience of the breadth of scientific activity (PU03). It was seen to help nip scientism in the bud (PU04), indicating to pupils that the world might be explored through a range of means. The theme offered opportunities to develop an understanding that science is not rigid a number of methods may be used to solve the same problem (PU06). It encouraged teachers to get away from the simplistic notions of how science is done (SE02), to enable pupils to select the most appropriate method for the problem being addressed and the degree of confidence required of the outcome (SE02). Another benefit to pupils was the building of a tool kit of scientific methods to test their ideas, together with a growing awareness that in some circumstances scientists need to develop new methods, or adapt an old one, to test a particular idea (SE03). Whilst accepting the importance of the theme, one participant was keen to stress the teaching of common elements of scientific methods: Different disciplines have different methodologies and approaches, but all in the end rely upon observation, theorising, experiments, testing, refinement of theory leading to acceptance or rejection of theory, so they have something in common. (S05) In contrast to this last statement, one member of the panel wished to include in the theme mention of those aspects of science for which experiments were not appropriate or realistic, for example: Cosmology, most geology, most histology, most taxonomy are impossible to look at with experiment; in some medical research it is unethical to undertake possible experiments. (PU05) The majority of participants expressed the view that the theme summary captured the essence of the basic concepts. It was said, for example, to be, a good summary of a rather slippery point (PS02). Two participants felt that more explanation and guidance would be needed for teachers in developing the theme with pupils (S06; PS05) and one participant called for the substitution of the word method in the summary with enquiry or investigation. Theme 18: Analysis and interpretation of data Pupils should be taught that the practice of science is reliant on a set of skills required to analyse and interpret data. Ideas in science do not emerge simply from the data but are 57

reliant on a process of measurement and interpretation which often requires sophisticated skills. It is possible, therefore, for scientists to come to different interpretations of the same data. There was particular emphasis in participants justifications on the second part of the summary statement. It was said, for example, that, it is crucial to know that scientific data does not stand by itself, but can be variously interpreted (PS01). Pupils need to be taught that data do not speak by themselves instead they require other layers of interpretation (PS05). An understanding that scientists may legitimately come to different interpretations of the same data was thought to be an important concept for all pupils, not only those individuals who might later pursue a science related career, but also for those pupils who do not (PS05). Three participants expressed the view that the analysis and interpretation of data would be more effectively taught if pupils were encouraged to generate and use their own data (SE03). This view was supported and developed by another member of the panel who offered the following justification for the inclusion of the theme in the science curriculum: it is important that students do their own research then, just like practising scientists, they will be interested in the analysis and interpretation of data. Such explorations by a number of groups in the same class could well lead to different interpretations. The conflicting claims of opposing pressure groups could be used to highlight the data in different ways. It is important for students to be more critical of science and to question the results this theme encourages a more objective view of science and scientists. (PU06) Theme 24: Hypothesis and prediction Pupils should be taught that scientists develop hypotheses and predictions about natural phenomena. This process is essential to the development of new knowledge claims. This theme was described variously as essential (SE01) and the very basis of science (S03). It was essential for pupils to understand that making predictions and collecting evidence to test them is central to testing hypotheses and developing explanations (SE05). The formulation of hypotheses and testing predictions were said to be the spark that ignites any scientific activity (PU06) and was as relevant for pupils in science lessons as it was for the scientist in the laboratory. The link between hypotheses and predictions and creativity in science was made by a number of participants. In this the theme was described as an antidote to just fact collecting (S07) and showed that science was concerned more with testable theory than with fact (PU04; T05; S02). One participant stressed the value of this theme in the wider context of pupils education in stating that: This has many applications outside science it is a good prescription for thinking critically about almost any topic, Thus, it encourages an attitude that should be of help, not only to science students, but also those with no intention of pursuing science. (PS05) 58

To ensure the effective teaching of this theme, one participant thought it advisable to clarify the meaning of the term scientific hypothesis used in the theme summary, as there was good research evidence to show that students have difficulty in being clear what is meant by the term (SE02). Nature of Scientific Knowledge themes Theme 4: Historical Development of Scientific Knowledge Pupils should be taught some of the historical background to the development of scientific knowledge. There was widespread agreement among the panel that this theme was capable of being taught explicitly and was an important component of pupils learning in science. The teaching of the history of science had the potential to facilitate an appreciation of developments in science, as well as the ways and extent to which such developments had been affected by the demands and expectations of society at different points in history (PS05). The theme was seen as an antidote to rote learning, as it emphasised science is a human activity, for example, through it even young pupils can come to understand personal aspects of scientific enquiry (SE04). However, it was not only important in adding human interest to science lessons, but in fostering a realisation of the ways in which ideas have been tested and developed in the past and the ways in which this has informed continued developments in science (SE05). It was suggested that, for pupils who lacked interest in science or experienced difficulties in learning aspects of science, adopting a historical perspective may be a hook to catch their interest (PS07). However, a warning note was sounded by one member of the panel who made the point that: Badly told history of science traditional stories of mythic heroes etc undermine the entire enterprise. Someone needs to start rewriting the storybooks. (PU04) There was general agreement among the panel that whilst the theme summary captured the essence of the typical statements it might be extended to provide clearer guidance for teachers. This might include guidance on the selection of ideas, the clear specification of the criteria for the selection of ideas and some indication of the contested nature of the history of science (PU05; PS05; SE02; PS02). Theme 8: Science and Certainty Pupils should appreciate why much scientific knowledge, particularly that taught in school science, is well established and beyond reasonable doubt, and why other scientific knowledge is more open to legitimate doubt. It should also be explained that current 59

scientific knowledge is the best we have but may be subject to change in the future, given new evidence or new interpretations of old evidence. There was agreement among members of the panel that the provisional nature of science, implicit in this theme, was an extremely important concept (S05) in school science. It was said to be important for pupils to appreciate that school science appears to offer right answers because questions are asked which are capable of quantitative determination (S05). In contrast to this, questions asked by scientists working in the field were frequently those which could not be answered at present, either because the questions were too complicated to be amenable to sensible experimentation, or simply because experiments have yet to be undertaken for example GM foods, BSE (S05). The theme was seen as having the advantage of highlighting the contemporary nature of science, suggesting that there was more to be discovered an aspect considered important in encouraging pupils to consider a career in science (PU06). However, two participants expressed concern that in overemphasising the tentative nature of much scientific knowledge pupils might be led to feel that science is about something, but they do not know what (T05). Rather, it was thought to be of greater importance for teachers to explain that there are certain areas where we remain largely ignorant, e.g. how the brain works (S07). One participant expressed reservations about the explicit teaching of the theme, the point being that pupils would require specialist knowledge of science in order to understand areas of current uncertainty in science, and that there was a danger that this may push teachers towards transmission of facts (SE03) There was some disagreement among members of the panel about the wording of the summary. As the comment below shows, one participant felt that the theme summary conveyed a message that was somewhat sophisticated and might be difficult to absorb into the current school science curriculum: At one level it requires the child not to question school science; at another to view frontier science as not beyond question. Where does the boundary lie between those two types of science? (PS05). Institutions and Social Practices of Science Theme 15: Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge Pupils should be taught that developments in science are not the result of individual endeavour. They arise from group activity and collaboration, often of a multidisciplinary and international nature. This theme was seen as offering pupils a useful perspective on scientific activity, said to be too often viewed as the retreat of the lone genius (PS05). It was considered important that teaching of the theme stressed the social processes in science as this was an aspect that was too often overlooked in school science (PS05). The inclusion of the 60

peer review process in this theme was thought to be important, as it showed that scientists go one step further in being reviewed by their peers, so adding to the validity of new scientific knowledge (PU06). The theme was said to be fundamental to understanding both the contingency and the reliability of knowledge (PU04) and in evaluating new knowledge claims. It was important that pupils gained an understanding of the variety of communities in which scientific knowledge is developed (PU01). Participants generally felt that the explicit teaching of the theme was relatively straightforward, best achieved through encouraging pupils to engage in collaborative work in science lessons and possibly to get international peer review through the Internet well in the future anyway (SE03). However, one participant was concerned that an emphasis on collaboration in school science should not obscure the social process of criticism, disagreement and competition (PS07). Theme 16: Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific knowledge Pupils should appreciate that choices about the application of scientific and technical knowledge are not value free; they may, therefore, conflict with moral and ethical values held by groups within society. The view was expressed that discussion of science policy and science in the public domain should be the central theme of science education (PS05). Pupils should understand that the findings of science provide only partial answers, and that values of other groups carry considerable influence (PS05). The importance of an understanding of the applications of science and technology, likely to raise social and ethical concerns, was emphasised if pupils were to make informed judgements and choices about issues reported in the media such as cloning or GM foods (T02; PU06). Whilst acknowledging the importance of this theme in the school science curriculum, a small number of participants expressed the view that discussion of the moral and ethical dimensions of science should not be restricted to science lessons. On the one hand it was suggested that the theme should be taught through general discussion (S05), on the other hand one participant expressed the view that ethics and social studies are the place for this theme (S06). There were said to be a number of other dimensions raised by the moral and ethical dimensions of science which might be explored in other areas of the curriculum, such as politics and religion (T05). One participant argued that it was not only the application of scientific and technical knowledge value laden, but the knowledge itself (PU04) and this should be made clear in the teaching of this theme. Consensus and stability in ratings Further analysis of data was utilised to examine the degree of consensus and stability of participants responses over Round 2 and Round 3 of the Delphi study. There is little guidance in the literature to inform decisions about the minimum percentage of panel responses for any item that might constitute consensus and it was, therefore, necessary for the research team to decide what criteria to use. These were defined as: 61

Consensus For this Delphi study consensus was defined as a minimum of two-thirds, or 66 per cent, agreement on any particular theme at the second or third round. Stability Stability was defined as a shift of one third or less in participants ratings between Round 2 and Round 3. Analysis for consensus and stability was undertaken through the calculation of the percentage responses at the 4-5 level of rating on the Likert scale, denoting that the theme was considered important or very important for inclusion in the science curriculum (Table 7). Themes satisfying these criteria are shown with a shaded background in Table 7 and 8. The second round of the Delphi study produced a total of eleven themes with a mean rating by 66% of the participants of 4 or more. On the third round only nine themes satisfied this criterion for consensus. The data show in Table 7 show an increase in the level of consensus among members of the Delphi panel in Round 3 for the two themes listed below: Theme 24: Theme 15: Hypothesis and prediction Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge 62

Table 7: Percentage of participants rating the importance of each theme 4 or above in Rounds 2 and 3 Theme Title Round 2 % Round 3 % 8 Science and certainty 87 78 23 Experimental methods and critical testing 87 78 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 78 70 19 Specific methods of science 78 52 22 Diversity of scientific method 78 86 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 74 78 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific 74 61 knowledge 27 Science and questioning 74 78 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge 70 61 21 Creativity 70 74 24 Hypothesis and prediction 65 79 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of 57 70 scientific knowledge 25 Observation and measurement 65 56 28 Science and technology 61 65 Features of scientific knowledge 70 - The status of scientific knowledge 17 The characteristics of scientific knowledge 52 2 2A 2B 20 Cause and correlation 61 48 1 The empirical base of scientific knowledge 61 61 Conversely, these data reveal a decrease in the level of consensus among participants for the following themes: Theme 2: Theme 9: Theme 16: Theme 19: Features of scientific knowledge Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific knowledge Specific methods of science These findings correspond broadly to those that emerged from Round 2 of the study (Table 3). The exception was Theme 16: Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific knowledge. In Round 3, this theme had a calculated mean of 4 and standard deviation of <1, placing it among the 10 highly rated themes for the round. Despite the high rating recorded by a number of individual participants, at the 4-5 level of rating the theme attained only 61 per cent consensus. This was insufficient to justify its inclusion in the final set of themes for which two thirds, or 66 per cent agreement had been reached among members of the Delphi panel. Analysis of data for stability in participants ratings for themes over Round 2 and Round 3 of the study was used to examine the extent of shift in participants ratings over two 63

rounds of the Delphi study (Tables 7 and 8). Stability, defined as a shift of one third or less in participants ratings between Round 2 and Round 3, was calculated in two ways. Table 7 shows the ratings at 4 and 5 level by the panel as a whole. This shows that, in terms of the criteria for a shift of less than 33% of the group rating, all themes are stable across the two rounds. However if participants individual ratings are examined across the two rounds are compared a slightly different picture emerges (Table 8). This showed that in the theme cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge there was considerable instability in participants ratings between Rounds 2 and 3. It may be that, the revision of this theme from Round 2 to Round 3 by merging the theme Science as a human, collaborative activity with the Round 2 theme cooperation and collaboration theme, was perceived as a more significant change to this theme than others. The inclusion of the peer review aspect allowed more support for this theme in Round 3 but also resulted in different individual ratings across the two rounds. Table 8: Stability in rating: Percentage of panel shifting perceptions by more than 1 level over Rounds 2 and 3. (Themes with high consensus and high stability are highlighted) Theme Title Percentage shift % 8 Science and certainty 9 23 Experimental methods and critical testing 9 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 17 19 Specific methods of science 26 22 Diversity of scientific method 13 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 13 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific 17 knowledge 27 Science and questioning 13 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge 13 21 Creativity 13 24 Hypothesis and prediction 22 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of 43 scientific knowledge 25 Observation and measurement 26 28 Science and technology 13 2 2A 2B Features of scientific knowledge The status of scientific knowledge The characteristics of scientific knowledge 30 26 20 Cause and correlation 30 1 The empirical base of scientific knowledge 30 From the above analysis of ratings for consensus and stability, 8 themes, highlighted in the above table, emerge as definitively satisfying both criteria. The ninth theme, competition and collaboration satisfies the criteria for consensus, but depending on the manner in which stability is calculated its stability is either satisfactory (Table 7) or not 64

(Table 8). Thus the argument for the inclusion of this theme in the curriculum is perhaps a little less sound than the other 8 themes. 2.2.5. Analysis of group variance An analysis of the degree of variance of the data in the ratings of the sub-groups of the Delphi panel was conducted (Table 9). The sub-group were research scientists (S), philosophers and sociologists of science (PS), science educators (SE), those involved in the enhancement of public understanding of science (PU), and science teachers (T). This analysis was conducted to see: a) what the level of variance was within the groups and b) whether there were significant differences between the mean ratings of the groups that is did the ratings of the scientists, for instance, differ significantly from those of the philosophers and sociologists? a) Variance within the groups To answer this question, an analysis of the spread of data around the mean for each theme in Rounds 2 and 3 was undertaken. Round 2 data showed large degrees of variance (>1.5 points on the Likert scale) between the sub-groups of scientists (S) and philosophers and sociologists of science (PS), with respectively 5 themes and 9 themes showing large variance. In Round 3 however, variance for these two sub-groups decreased showing no themes in which any large variance was evident in sub-group S and only one theme with variance >1.5 for sub-group PS. The greatest increase in variance between Rounds 2 and 3 was for the sub-group of teachers of science, where an increase in the spread of ratings around the mean larger than 1.5 was evident in a total of seven themes, an increase of five themes from the previous round. Those themes for which the variance was greater than 3 for this subgroup included: Theme 20: Theme 9: Theme 19: Theme 24: Cause and correlation Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge Specific methods of science Hypothesis and prediction 65

Theme Title Variance for Round 3 Mean Group Responses S PS SE PU T S PS SE PU T Mean Variance of Mean 8 Science and certainty 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 3.8 4.5 4.4 4.5 3.8 4.0 0.2 23 Experimental methods and critical testing 0.1 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 4.8 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.0 4.4 0.1 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.9 1.0 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.2 0.0 19 Specific methods of science 0 0.3 1.1 1.6 3.7 3.9 4.0 4.0 2.8 3.9 3.7 0.3 22 Diversity of scientific method 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.7 4.8 4.2 0.2 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 0.3 0.5 2.5 0.3 0.8 4.6 4.5 3.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 0.2 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific knowledge 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 2.7 3.0 4.1 4.4 4.5 4.2 4.0 0.4 27 Science and questioning 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.8 4.2 0.1 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge 1.4 1.3 1.8 0.3 3.4 4.0 2.6 3.6 4.5 3.7 3.7 0.5 21 Creativity 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 4.7 3.9 4.2 4.0 5.0 4.4 0.2 24 Hypothesis and prediction 0.1 0.9 0.8 0.2 3.6 4.8 3.4 4.4 4.4 3.8 4.2 0.3 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 1.0 4.0 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.5 4.2 0.1 25 Observation and measurement 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.0 0.2 28 Science and technology 0.4 0 0.7 1.3 0.3 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.0 4.5 3.9 0.3 2A The status of scientific knowledge 1.2 1.3 1 3.3 1.0 3.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.8 0.3 2B The characteristics of scientific knowledge 0.7 1.3 1.5 0.4 0.3 3.7 3.5 3.5 4.3 3.8 3.7 0.1 20 Cause and correlation 0.4 2.1 1.0 0.8 3.6 3.6 3.2 4.0 4.2 3.8 3.7 0.1 1 The empirical base of scientific knowledge 1.3 0.7 0 0.8 2.0 3.8 3.3 4.0 3.7 3.0 3.6 0.2 Table 9: Analysis of variance for Round 2 and Round 3 themes 66

An examination of teachers justificatory comments offers some explanation of why these variances were so high. For instance, three teachers rated Theme 20: Cause and Correlation highly, with comments such as this is a very important area (T02), and as important in allowing members of society to make appropriate judgements about the claims of others (T01). However, the teacher who rated this theme as unimportant, justified his view on the grounds that the summary was incomplete, maintaining that: there are also probabilistic relationships, for example, quantum effects such as radioactive decay, or the interaction between photons and matter. (T04) A similar range of views was apparent in the justifications for ratings of Theme 9: Cumulative and Revisionary Nature of Scientific Knowledge. Three teachers rated the theme highly, one teacher making the point that: pupils need to appreciate good scientific knowledge. Scientists can build on existing theories or improve knowledge already acquired (T02) However, one member of the group rated the theme unimportant and questioned its value for pupils in asking could this give the idea that their knowledge and hard work is never enough? (T05). There was also substantive variance in the rating of Theme 24: Hypothesis and Prediction, within this group. Whilst two teachers had rated the theme as very important (5) and one as important (4), the fourth member of the group had given the lowest rating (1) to this theme. The following comment shows that their concern centred on an overemphasis on raising hypotheses and formulating predictions in school science: My worry is that teachers may reduce this to the central orthodoxy. It needs to be counterbalanced by examples where measurement techniques or new technologies have led to new knowledge claims. (T04) Whilst another teacher expressed a degree of uncertainty about the extent to which the process of formulating predictions was essential to the development of new knowledge claims (T01), nevertheless the theme was rated as important for inclusion in the school science curriculum. The remaining members of the group, however, had no such concerns. One teacher expressed the view that the theme provided the means for teachers to move away from obsessing about the correct answer and hard facts (T05). Another teacher who had rated the theme as very important, however, sounded a note of caution in making the point that teachers should not expect pupils to be able to make predictions about phenomena they know nothing about (T02). The explanation for the wide variance on the rating of Theme 19: Specific Methods of Science lay in the fact that one teacher saw this as being closely related to Theme 18: Analysis and Interpretation of Data. Whilst three teachers rated Theme 19 as very important (5) or important (4), the fourth member of the group had given the lowest rating (1), simply stating that this is combined with Theme 18 (T04). In part, the large variance in the teachers group can be explained by the smaller group size of 4 individuals as opposed to 5. However, the group PS was also this size 67

and their variance was not so large. With a sample of this size it is difficult to draw any general conclusions but the results may suggest that there is a certain lack of consensus amongst science teachers themselves about what should be the principal constituents of any account of the nature of science. b) Variance between the groups This analysis examined whether there was significant differences between the mean ratings of each of the sub-groups by conducting an ANOVA on the data for each group. With such small group sizes, significant differences will only be found when the range around any one mean is both small and widely separated from another group. Moreover, with such small group sizes, such differences are highly unlikely to be significant at anything greater than p>.05. Table 10 shows the result of this analysis and that a total of 8 significant differences were found on 5 themes. Once again, the themes that achieved consensus and stability are highlighted. Theme Title Significant Differences 8 Science and certainty 23 Scientific methods and critical testing 18 Analysis and interpretation of data 19 Specific methods of science 22 Diversity of scientific method Scientist & Teachers (p<.05) 4 Historical development of scientific knowledge 16 Moral and ethical dimensions in development of scientific knowledge 27 Science and questioning 9 Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge Scientists & Phil & Sociologists(p<.05) Scientists & Science Educators (p<.05) Scientists & Pub. Understanding (p<.05) Pub. Understanding & Phil & Soc (p<.05) 21 Creativity Teachers and Phil & Soc (p<.05) Teachers & Pub. Understanding (p<0.05) 24 Hypothesis and prediction Philosophers & Scientists (p<.05) 15 Cooperation and collaboration in development of scientific knowledge 25 Observation and measurement 28 Science and technology 2A The status of scientific knowledge 2B The characteristics of scientific knowledge 20 Cause and correlation 1 The empirical base of scientific knowledge. Table 10: Significant differences between ratings for the 5 subgroups of the Delphi panel Only 3 of these themes were in the nine for which there was a degree of consensus amongst the group. Of the eight significant differences, three were between teachers and other groups. For instance, scientists uniformly considered Theme 22: Diversity of Scientific Method to be less important than teachers. Likewise, teachers also uniformly rated Theme 21: Creativity as very important whilst the philosophers and sociologists and science communicators considered it less significant. The difference on Theme 24: Hypothesis and Prediction is explained by the fact that scientists fairly uniformly considered this to be very important whilst philosophers and sociologists 68

saw it as less so. This may be explained by the fact that the scientists were or had been, without exception, engaged in empirical work which is dominated by the hypothetico-deductive method. Had the panel included a few theoretical physicists whose work focuses on developing models, biologists engaged in classificatory work, or palaeontologists engaged in historical reconstruction of past events, such a difference may not have emerged. This difference between scientists and other groups is also shown in their consideration of Theme 16: Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge and can be explained by the justifications given. Scientists considered the theme important but were concerned that it should not be used to divert pupils and teachers from mainstream science (S03) and were not sure that this should be discussed solely within science teaching (S05). It is also possible that such differences are the inevitable product of a degree of randomness that emerges in such studies and the different significance or nuances of meaning that individuals attach to words such as important or very important. What these data do suggest, though, is that the themes that have emerged from this study have a fairly consistent degree of support across all groups, as there are so few significant differences between the many groups. However, this finding is qualified by the fact that the small group sizes makes it unlikely that there will be many statistically significant differences. Those differences that do exist centre predominantly around the teachers group who attach a greater degree of importance to some of these themes than the other groups. 2.3. Related and similar themes The outcome of 9 discrete top-rated themes from Round 3 of the Delphi study might be taken to imply that no interrelationship between themes was noted. This was far from the case. Throughout the Delphi study participants commented on the fact or nature of links between themes. In order to express this interrelationship, all the participants comments on Round 3 statements were scrutinised for expressions of links. The resulting map (Fig. 1) shows the nature and frequency of identified links between the round 3 themes, with the top-rated themes in bold. In particular, the map would suggest that a large number of the panel perceive the Empirical basis of scientific knowledge (a theme for which there was not consensus) to be subsumed within or highly related to the theme Science and certainty (a theme for which there was consensus). Likewise Scientific Methods and testing is part of a complex web of relationships with Science and questioning, Hypothesis and Prediction and Analysis and Interpretation of data. These comments would suggest to us that there is no simple clear boundary between themes that achieve consensus, and themes which do not. Rather, the results for consensus must be looked at in conjunction with Fig 1 as a means of determining which aspects of the nature of science many participants saw as subsumed within another theme and the implications of this for any conclusions that might be drawn from this study. At the very least, it would suggest that the Empirical basis of scientific knowledge, taken together with its mean rating of 3.5 (Table 7) is probably considered to be an important aspect of science by the panel. 69

Finally, it is notable that Science and Technology and Moral and ethical dimensions in the nature of scientific knowledge are seen as discrete entities, perhaps implying that these themes are qualitatively different from other interrelated strands at the heart of the nature of science. 70

Figure 1: Map of ideas-about-science themes Science and Characteristics of certainty scientific knowledge Diversity of scientific thinking Scientific methods and testing Observation and measurement Hypothesis and prediction Science and Questioning Empirical basis of Analysis and Cause and scientific knowledge interpretation correlation of data Creativity Cumulative and revisionary nature of science Specific methods of science Historical development of science Cooperation and collaboration Science and Technology Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge (The top 9 rated themes are in bold type) 1or 2 explicit comments 3 to 5 explicit comments 10 explicit comments 71

2.4. Evaluation of the Delphi process In addition to commenting on the themes, in Round 3 participants were asked to reflect on the Delphi process itself. Of the twenty-three participants, nine were very positive about the process and its outcomes. Many others offered constructive comments on the themes with little comment on the process a result that we would suggest implies little or no dissatisfaction and lends support to the view that the findings of this study do represent a consensus. Only two presented solely negative views, with one considering that the process was interesting but very time consuming and extremely philosophical at times. I do not see many of my views presented (S03). The other participant s criticisms related more to the overall intentions of the study, rather than the Delphi process itself: I have found the experience very uncomfortable and frustrating. It is not the themes that are wrong or misguided, but I worry about teaching them explicitly (SE04). Detailed comments are illuminating, particularly in the extent to which individuals have perceived the process as a tension between the development of discrete themes versus a recognition of their interrelationships. Of the ten participants who made explicit comments on the outcomes, four expressed concern for missing themes. These were the emphasis on language (SE03); where science comes from funding and policy issues, commercialisation, regulation, R&D and so on (PU01); logical and common sense aspects of scientific activity (SE05); and common conceptions of science and risk (T01). That only four discrete elements were seen as disappointing omissions also provides additional support for the consensus of the final themes. As to the interrelationship of themes, an issue highlighted by five participants of perhaps greater importance, was the complexity of the area and reflected strongly held individual views about the nature of science an underlying issue throughout the study: There are still some contradictory theme statements persisting, which I think I attribute to two things: the contested nature of the history and of the sociology of science themselves, and a confusion between good ends in themselves and statements about the nature of science. (PU05) Within the jumble of knowledge and processes, participants seem to have stuck to their particular preferred version of the science myth (so several times, against different themes, we see the phrase this is the very heart of the Nature of Science ) and we have ended up with subdivisions of minutiae masquerading as themes. For example, the themes scientific methods and critical testing, hypothesis and prediction, observation and measurement, specific methods of science, all dive into and then reduce the scientific process, privileging certain aspects at the expense of others. I do not see how this provides a thorough exploration of the Nature of Science, never mind reaching its alleged heart. Similarly, the themes on uncertainty, contingency and reliability look contradictory when they are separated but they are really part of the same issue. (PU04) While these viewpoints may be valid, they are comments that might only be reasonably expected given the difficulty of reaching any consensus in a complex and contested area. This message was articulated in an alternative manner by one participant who indicated that: 72

I am happy to be named as a contributor, if it always be clear that not all the participants necessarily endorse the themes that get high ratings. (PS03) Whilst the definition of consensus used in this study does not depend on unanimity, there are, we believe, sufficient grounds within the data to claim that the findings do constitute a consensus, albeit with these caveats. Consequently, the Delphi process and the final set of themes do offer a basis for developing a credible, albeit simplified, account of science for the school science curriculum. 2.5. Implications for teaching the themes Views on the teaching of the themes were also embedded in the participants comments on the round 3 themes and in their reflections of the Delphi process. Most of the comments were observations of the difficulty of teaching themes explicitly or, alternatively, advice about how the process of teaching the themes might be developed. Nevertheless, a few participants questioned the thrust on explicit teaching of the themes rather than giving pupils implicit experience. For one participant (SE04) this applied to all themes, arguing that the themes should not be taught explicitly. For other participants, an issue was whether themes could be taught explicitly. For some themes, such as Diversity of scientific thinking or Creativity the theme was considered difficult to teach because of its intrinsic nature: Important idea difficult to teach explicitly. Ideally pupils would have a tool kit of different ways to test their ideas. There is bound to be a tension do we teach them how to use a few tools well, or let them experience a wider range of tools in less depth (SE03 in discussing diversity of scientific thinking). Other barriers to effective teaching were seen as: the existence or development of suitable resources e.g. for Scientific methods and critical testing (T05) or Diversity of scientific thinking (T04); the competence of teachers at dealing with complex and contested areas of knowledge e.g. in the Diversity of scientific thinking (S02), Hypothesis and prediction (T04), or the Historical development of scientific knowledge (PU05); the simplistic methods of assessment that would be likely to be used would not be effective means of examining students understanding of (e.g. Creativity (PS05) or Scientific methods and critical testing (SE03) and, moreover, would inevitably distort the way it was taught; the need for changes in the nature of teaching strategies to include more study of argumentation and the use of small group discussion e.g. in the Historical 73

development of scientific knowledge (SE03) or Science and questioning (SE04, S07). Several participants made suggestions about how to address these general concerns. For instance, it was thought there was a need to construct a coherent account of the themes as a whole: I suggest that you try to build a consistent model of the activity of science that takes into account the themes that have emerged and see whether the model can be described analytically in teachable themes. (PU05) Others thought that clear guidance for teachers about the nature of the themes would require good teachers notes (T04) and the extension of teachers existing strategies e.g. well-written case studies that explicitly addressed the nature of science. This need was identified by several participants, particularly to address the historical development of scientific knowledge (PS01, SE03, S06, T04, SE01); the inclusion of more items on open-ended science e.g. weather forecasting (PS01); and interpretations of real (self-generated) research (PU03). Finally several participants were concerned about the stem in the themes that students should be taught about science feeling that this could be interpreted as a requirement that pupils be told about science rather than offering a set of appropriate experiences that would develop such an understanding. This was particularly true of the theme Creativity where arguments were presented for the necessity for pupils to experience the creative process of explaining phenomena and modelling ideas (PU05, SE03, T02, PS02, PU03) if this was to have any value. The origin of this term lies in the National Curriculum which is a statutory document and reflects that what is taught can be specified whilst what is learnt cannot. Whilst sharing participants concerns, as this is now widely understood by UK teachers, it was decided to adopt what is, for most engaged in science education, a familiar phrase with well-understood implications. 74

Conclusions and Implications 3. Conclusions & Implications 3.1. Conclusions We see the findings of this work as an important and significant contribution to the debate that currently surrounds the teaching of the nature of science 5 in schools, and to delineating the substance of the account that should be offered to school students. For this work is the only systematic attempt, known to us, to determine empirically what an expert community might deem acceptable as a vulgarised account of the nature of science and the practices of the scientific community. As such, it is more rigorous than the normal attempts at curriculum specification which, although based on widespread consultation, are often determined by the decisions of a few influential committee members. So far, where individuals have thought extensively about the nature of science, and an account that should be offered to others, they have experienced considerable difficulty in its specification some of which is apparent in the data collected for this study. For there has been little agreement about what is core or absolutely essential to any understanding of science. In contrast, these findings point to a consensus around those salient features which are both significant and essential components of any basic knowledge and understanding about science and, in addition, uncontroversial within the relevant academic communities with an interest in science and science education. These findings suggest then that these themes do have, therefore, sufficient agreement to form the core of a simplified account of the nature of science suitable for the school science curriculum. Hence, our first conclusion is that: 1. There exists support and broad agreement for a specific set of nine themes about aspects of the nature of science that school students should encounter by the end of compulsory schooling. The evidence for this conclusion lies in the high degree of consensus and stability surrounding these themes (section 2.2.5) and in the low variation in these ratings both within and between groups (section 2.2.4). One concern arising from this study is that the findings might be seen to give legitimacy to decomposing the nature of science into a set of atomistic components that might, at worst, be taught in isolation in a highly decontextualized manner. Many of the participants recognised that the account of science represented by these themes may be limited, and the difficulty of specifying such aspects clearly and unambiguously. Indeed, from an analysis of the comments of the participants (section 2.3), it is clear that many felt that some of the ideas were intertwined and not resolvable into separate propositions. Our second conclusion, therefore, is that: 2. Many of the aspects of the nature of science represented by the themes have features that are interrelated and can not be taught independently of each other. 5 The term nature of science is used here in this section, as it is in the introductory section to refer to all aspects about science that is it includes knowledge of its institutions, social practices and its methods. 75

Conclusions and Implications This finding suggests that, whilst the research process has required the separation and resolution of these components in order to weight their significance and import, there is no agreement that they should be communicated and represented in that manner. Rather, our interpretation is that it is important to recognise that the definition of consensus (section 2.2.4) we have used has drawn a somewhat arbitrary line in the sand and that there were several themes which a simple majority of the participants would consider warrant inclusion in the curriculum, using the same criteria of a mean rating of 4 and stability of less than 33% shift between the rounds. Specifically, these were (Table 7): Theme 28: Science and Technology (65%) Theme 16: Moral and ethical dimensions in the development of scientific knowledge (61%) Theme 1: The empirical base of scientific knowledge (61%) Theme 9: Cumulative and revisionary nature of scientific knowledge (61%) Theme 25: Observation and measurement (56%) Theme 2B: The characteristics of scientific knowledge (52%) Theme 19: Specific methods of science (52%) What this suggests is that these data represent the participants gradation of importance of the themes rather than any singular definitive account where only certain atomistic features are to be addressed and other aspects ignored. In short, the nine themes represent the basic minimum that any simplified account of science should address, and that the other themes, whilst significant, are additional components to be included in more complex or more sophisticated accounts, or where such aspects emerge naturalistically from the context of study, whatever that might be. Indeed, given the relatively small sample involved, there is inevitably some uncertainty surrounding the reliability of our results. Thus, whilst we are confident that the ranking does represent a significant assessment of the relative importance of the themes to any account of science, it is extremely likely that there would be some change in the rankings were the exercise to be repeated with a similar sample. Finally, it is worth noting that there are differences of emphasis, of an expected kind, between the subgroups (see section 2.2.5). The most notable of these are between the scientists and the other groups, and between the teachers and the other groups which are largely reflection of their own concerns and interests. 3.2 Discussion and Implications This survey of a panel of diverse experts has produced results that raise several classroom-based issues about curriculum design, instruction and curriculum implementation. Many of the themes emerging from this study bear similarity to those included in current National Curricula or National Standards. McComas and Olson (1998) have analysed 8 of these documents from the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia for statements about the components of the nature of science that should be taught. Table 11 beneath shows a tentative comparison of the most prevalent ideas about science to be found in those documents, i.e. ideas that were 76

Conclusions and Implications found in 6 or more national curriculum documents, and those emerging from this study. In the table, themes emerging from McComas and Olson s work that are similar to themes emerging from this work have been juxtaposed. Table 11: Comparison of themes emerging from this study with those from McComas and Olson s (1998) study of national standards McComas & Olson Scientific knowledge is tentative Science relies on empirical evidence Scientists require replicability and truthful reporting Science is an attempt to explain phenomena Scientists are creative Science and Certainty Delphi Study Analysis and Interpretation of Data Scientific Method and Critical Testing Hypothesis and Prediction Creativity Science and Questioning Science is part of social tradition Science has played an important role in technology Scientific ideas have been affected by their social and historical milieu Cooperation and collaboration in the development of scientific knowledge Science and Technology 7 Historical Development of Scientific Knowledge Diversity of scientific thinking Changes in science occur gradually Science has global implications New knowledge must be reported clearly and openly 6 Our data, based in the views of a wide community engaged in the study of science and its communication, have many similarities with the data of McComas and Olson, which represents the considered opinion of an international group of science curriculum and policy makers. That there is a measure of agreement from both groups suggests that the case for a consensual account of the nature of science, albeit a vulgarised one, has been established. Therefore, no longer can the topic be marginalized on the basis that there is little academic consensus about what should be 6 7 Whilst this theme did emerge from round 1 of the study, it was not considered important enough by the participants for inclusion in top rated themes in subsequent rounds. This was not one of the 9 themes achieving consensus but came close with 65% rating its importance 4 or higher. 77

Conclusions and Implications taught. Furthermore, we would contend that the components that emerge from this study, and that of McComas and Olson, pose a challenge to curriculum designers and science education. For instance, the latest version of the English Science National Curriculum (DfEE, 1999) provides some recognition of the significance that should be given to ideas and evidence in science with an eponymous strand what might otherwise be termed the nature of science or ideas-about science (Millar and Osborne, 1998). There is now, for instance, a requirement that pupils should be taught by the age of 11: a. that science is about thinking creatively to try and explain how living and non-living things work, and to establish links between causes and effects; b. that it is important to test ideas using evidence from observation and measurement. (p21) And by age 16: a. how scientific ideas are presented, evaluated and disseminated; b. how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence; c. ways in which scientific work may be affected by the contexts in which it takes place, and how these contexts may affect whether or not the ideas are accepted; d. to consider the power and limitations of science in addressing industrial, social and environmental questions, including the kinds of questions science can and cannot answer, uncertainties in scientific knowledge, and the ethical issues involved. (p46) Comparing these requirements to the results of our study it is possible to see elements of all of the major themes emerging from our study. Moreover, issues of analysis and interpretation of data, and the reliability and certainty that can be ascribed to any set of data come up in another component of the curriculum entitled Investigative Skills. It might, therefore, be tempting to think that the treatment of the nature of science is satisfactory in the existing English science curriculum. However, evidence suggests otherwise. For instance, absent, at least within the English curriculum is any treatment of one of the major themes from the Delphi study the Diversity of Scientific Thinking. Few curricula have recognised the fundamental division that Rudolph (2000) makes between historical reconstruction and empirical testing. The latter, which is largely the preserve of the physical, chemical and molecular sciences stands in contrast to the process of historical reconstruction where the intellectual product is an explanatory mechanism for the chronological sequence of past natural occurrences. As Rudolph argues: such a chronology, be it a phylogenetic history of various species or a record of climate changes in the Earth's history, is eminently particularist, always consisting of a chain of historically contingent events. The immediate goal in this case is not the development of a model, but rather the establishment of reliable record of what has occurred and when. p410 78

Conclusions and Implications Yet school science is dominated by the empirical and exact sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. Notable for its absence, for example, is any treatment of correlational methods which provide the basic methodology of medical trials and are a common feature of media reports of science. Second, the comparison of our data with that of McComas and Olson suggests that, whilst there is some overlap, there are other components which may be missing from both methods of determining what should constitute an appropriate curriculum for teaching about the nature of science. In short, and perhaps not surprisingly, no one method and no one group of individuals can provide a universal solution as to what should be the essential elements of a contemporary science curriculum. Indeed, as we have already commented in our discussion of the interrelationships between the themes emerging from our study, our data would suggest that these components are not always resolvable into mutually independent aspects. For instance, teaching about science and certainty invariably means also inspecting the reliability and validity of empirical evidence. The irresolvable nature of the many aspects of science further suggests that it would possibly be a mistake to attempt to delineate a curriculum in terms of a requirement to teach the components of the nature of science separately. Rather, its teaching can perhaps best be addressed through sets of well-chosen case studies and by more explicit reflection and discussion of science and its nature an aspect that would emerge naturally from the process of scientific inquiry that are a normal feature of much classroom practice. Thus the principal value of these, or any set of themes would be to act as a curriculum checklist to see that the activities in the curriculum provide sufficient opportunity to introduce, elaborate, explore and develop students understanding of science and its nature. However, in our view, it is not sufficient to suggest that the nature of science can simply be taught by any random selection of case studies. For how is the teacher to decide which are apt and which are inappropriate? Such an approach will still require an analysis of the content of the domain to guide the selection of cases guidance which we think this research offers. Hence, taking our data and that of McComas and Olson together would suggest that there are significant elements of a minimal account of the nature of science missing from most curricula. Remediation of this deficiency will only be possible by allocating this component significantly more than 5% component offered, for example, by the English curriculum. Indeed, the need for more space on the curriculum for these aspects lends some support to those who would argue that teaching pupils about the nature of science is as important, if not more important than, developing a knowledge of its content (Fuller, 1997) More attention to the nature of science would inevitably mean less attention to the content of science with a concomitant change in its function and purpose. One means of achieving such a shift in the balance of the science curriculum is offered by contemporary interpretations of Dewey (Wong, Pugh, & Dewey Ideas Group at Michigan State University, 2001) which place an emphasis on the big ideas of a domain ideas which the alert mind engages with and transform the way in which we experience and understand science and the material world. Such concepts enable the holder to live in, and experience the world in new and worthwhile ways potentially offering us a sense of wonder, puzzlement, appreciation or simply satisfaction. And, 79

Conclusions and Implications just as a real appreciation of the content of Newton s Laws transforms the way in which one perceives moving objects, likewise we would argue that the insights offered by exploring the nature of science can transform students ideas about science offering them the critical lens essential for examining and exploring socio-scientific issues raised by contemporary society. Such ideas are not acquired by a curriculum that offers ideas and concepts for consideration in a piecemeal and one-off fashion in discrete and unrelated lessons, but only by a curriculum where the themes of this study and others are recognised as major ideas that should permeate the science curriculum in a similar manner to that of grammar in English or evidence in history. In such a context, the role of the teacher of science is to act as a guide, pointing to the salient features of the activity that scientists have engaged in, or are now undertaking and, likewise, in the activities that the students themselves undertake. Thus, in such a manner, teachers should be alert to pointing out the range of methods used by science; what it is that makes much of science distinctive from other disciplines; why its achievements are creative endeavours as worthy as those of writers of great literature, eminent composers or great artists; and that such work involves asking fundamental questions of nature whose answers provide a set of fascinating and often wondrous explanations of the material and living world. Whether it is possible to achieve this within a curriculum that sustains a prosaic emphasis on the basic concepts of science is, we believe, questionable. For such curricula are committed to the reproduction of well-established consensual knowledge and not to exploring the methods and uncertainty associated with its production. Rather, we would contend that there is a need for a different and distinctive curriculum which sees the content of science as a vehicle for illustrating its nature. To try to achieve both the standard aim of teaching the content of science and teaching about science is to place teachers in an untenable position where, on the one hand, they must convey absolute certainty and confidence in the world-view they present and, on the other hand, offer plural interpretations of data for discussion and exploration by their students. Remediation of this dilemma can only be achieved by offering, at least in the latter years of secondary schooling, a very different type of science curriculum a case for which has been made in the document Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future (Millar and Osborne, 1998). With one or two significant exceptions, the treatment of the history of science has been notable by its absence from the science curricula of the past 100 years principally because it is seen to be of little value to the education of the future scientist (Kuhn, 1962). Consequently, there exists little knowledge amongst the body of science teachers of effective strategies for its teaching and they, themselves, remain relatively ignorant of the history of their own subject. Likewise, the structure of secondary science curriculum (in contrast to that of the primary) permits few opportunities to communicate the fact that science is a creative activity. Activities that might permit this, such as allowing pupils the opportunity to be a scientist for a day, or to conduct their own investigations, are invariably hampered by the exigencies of time, limited apparatus and the dominant imperative of an overloaded curriculum. Yet, opportunities to engage in authentic science (Roth, 1995) are an important means of communicating that aspect of creativity that is inherent to the practice of science. For many, such glimpses of the real excitement of science are only attained through extra-curricula work in science clubs and competitions (Woolnough, 1994), or in primary science where there is the opportunity to undertake extended investigations. 80

Conclusions and Implications In addition, there is little extant expertise in the science teaching community about how to assess knowledge and understanding of the nature of science, its processes and its practices. The intended curriculum is read as much, if not more, from the items used for assessment as it is from national curricula or national standards particularly when students performance may be related to their teacher s job security or performance-related pay. The current emphasis on the content of science within school science curricula, as opposed to its processes of inquiry, suggests, therefore, that teachers reading of the salient aspects of the existing curriculum may be extremely astute and well-measured. Hence, if the nature of science is to become a significant aspect of the school science curriculum, it is imperative that the skills and knowledge measured by the formal assessment system should accurately reflect the intentions of the curriculum. Consequently, the science education community will need to devote as much energy and attention to the development of an effective and appropriate system of assessment as they do to specifying curricula or developing support materials. Our contention would be that the improvement of contemporary science education is dependent upon recognising that the assessment of pupils learning is an integral feature of curriculum development and not an afterthought. Thus, if an understanding of the nature of science is to be an aim of contemporary science education then, at the very least, one would expect to see assessment items that expected pupils to interpret data sets, to write critically about what messages one historical episode of science tells us about its nature, or to evaluate what are the moral and ethical implications of the technological application of science. Many of the themes emerging from our study fall under the umbrella of the Methods of Science (Experimental Methods and Critical Testing, Creativity, Science and Questioning, Diversity of Scientific Method, and Analysis and Interpretation of Data). Two themes (Historical Development of Scientific Knowledge and Science and Certainty) are aspects of the Nature of Science and there is only one under the heading of the Institutions and Social Practices of Science. One interpretation of this outcome is that the panel felt that an emphasis on the Methods of Science offered the most appropriate grounding in the nature of science for pupils in the 5-16 science curriculum. An alternative view is that this outcome can be explained in part, by the fact that many participants may have seen aspects of the institutional and social practices subsumed within the other themes. However, it does invite questions why so many of the ideas of contemporary scholarship about the nature of science are absent. For instance, neither the themes emerging from this study or those of the national curriculum documents place much emphasis on the role of theory, explanation or models. They do not, for instance, represent well a more contemporary view of science such as that offered by Giere (1991) who portrays science as a multidimensional interaction between the models of scientists, empirical observation of the real world and their predictions. However, the question to our participants was phrased as what, if anything, should be taught about the methods of science/the nature of scientific knowledge/the institutions and social practices of science? In short, we were asking for a minimalist and essentialist description. Our data are the answer of this community and suggests that the omissions were simply regarded as too complex or too contentious for inclusion. Given both the support for the themes and the perceived difficulties of curriculum design, the question now arises as to how these statements can be operationalised into 81

Conclusions and Implications teaching strategies, activities and material to support their teaching. One challenge is how these themes will become part of the instructional sequence. To what extent, for instance, can these themes be taught directly as part of discrete lessons or should they permeate all science lessons an issue which was raised by some Delphi participants? Even those themes that might be considered integral components of the existing curriculum, such as analysis and interpretation of data, are often poorly covered and, research would suggest, poorly understood by pupils (Gott & Johnson, 1996; Watson & Wood-Robinson, 1998). Whilst inquiry based approaches, investigations or practical work will certainly address many of the themes in the Methods of Science category, unless there is some careful mediation on the part of the teacher across lessons to frame explicitly the process of these activities, and to draw attention to their generic features, many aspects of the nature of science may only be glimpsed partially by students. It is such problems which the next phase of work with 12 teachers (3 year 6, 4 year 8 and 4 year 10) is now exploring. With these teachers we are attempting to see how the themes can become an integral part of their teaching. To this end, we and the teachers have been developing materials and strategies and have been meeting regularly to share experiences during the course of the year. As researchers, we have been videoing a selection of the lessons, gathering field notes, interviewing teachers and assessing the progress of their pupils. We hope, therefore, that this work will assist in making the teaching of the nature and ideas about science more of a reality than rhetoric by improving our understanding of what is effective in communicating such ideas and, also, what are the difficulties for both teachers and their students. However, we are under no illusions that the task of transforming the existing science curriculum will require more than the kinds of tentative explorations that have been attempted over the past 50 years. Rather, what is needed is a major recognition within Western societies that the current aims of science education and the institutional fabric that supports them are open to serious question. For, if contemporary societies, across the globe, are to insist that science education is to be a universal component of the education of all students, such a requirement can only be justified if the science curriculum provides something which is of universal value to all. There is, therefore, no rationale for sustaining curricula for all which are rooted in the belief that they should serve as a pre-professional preparation for a career in science. Rather, what is needed is an education for citizenship which, as we have argued both here and elsewhere, requires a much greater emphasis on exploring the nature of science and its practices. And, given that this study has shown that even within the science and science education community there does exist a consensus about the core features of an account of the nature of science, this research has served to remove one obstacle to teaching about science. We see this work, therefore, as providing a significant body of empirical evidence to buttress the case for placing the nature of science and its processes at the core rather than the margins of science education. 82

References Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers' conceptions of the nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-702. Adelson, M. (Ed.) (1967) Planning Education for the Future, American Behavioural Scientist. 10, 1-31. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose Nature of Science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for All Americans:. Washington: DC: AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. Washington: DC: AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Blueprints for Reform: Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. New York: Oxford University Press. Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (1977). 'Mock-ups and Cock-ups': The Stage Management of Guided Discovery Instruction. In P. Woods & M. Hammersley (Eds.), School Experience: Explorations in the Sociology of Education. London: Croom Helm. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang. Bloor, D. (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brickhouse, N. (1991). Teachers' Beliefs about the Nature of Science and Their Relationship to Classroom Practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53-62. Brooks, K.W. (1979) Delphi Techniques: Expanding Applications. North Central Association Quarterly, 53,3, 377-385. Brush, S. G. (1969). The Role of History in the Teaching of Physics. The Physics Teacher, 23, 11-19. Claxton, G. (1991). Educating the Enquiring Mind: the Challenge for School Science. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Cline, A. (1999) Prioritisation Process Using Delphi Technique. White Paper; Carolla Development, USA. Cochran, S. W. (1983) The Delphi Method: Formulating and Refining Group Judgements. Journal of Human Sciences. 2(2), 111-17 Collins, H. (2000). On Beyond 2000. Studies in Science Education, 35, 169-173. Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1993). The Golem: what everyone should know about science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dailey, A. L. and Holmberg, J. C. (1990) Delphi A Catalytic Strategy for Motivating Curriculum Revision by Faculty. Community/Junior College Quarterly Review, 14, 129-136. Dalkey, N and Helmer, O. (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Rand No. RM-727-PR. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H. & Gustafson, D. H. (1975) Group Techniques for Program Planning. Glenview, IL. Scott Foresman DfEE. (1999). Science in the National Curriculum. London: HMSO. 83

Donnelly, J. (2000). Instrumentality, hermeneutics and the place of science in the school curriculum. Unpublished paper presented at Seminar at King's College London. Donnelly, J. (2001). Contested terrain or unified project? 'The nature of science' in the National Curriculum for England and Wales. International Journal of Science Education, 23(2), 181-195. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young People's Images of Science. Buckingham: Open University Press. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The Public Understanding of Science. Nature, 340, 11-14. Duschl, R., Hamilton, R., & Grandy, R. (1990). Psychology and Epistemology: Match or mismatch when applied to science education? International Journal of Science Education, 12(3), 230-243. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring Science Education. New York: Teachers College Press. Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A Case Study of High School Teachers' Decision Making Models for Planning and Teaching Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467-501. Eger, M. (1993). Hermeneutics as an Approach to Science: Part II. Science & Education, 2, 303-328. European Commission. (1995). White paper on Education and Training: Teaching and learning Towards the Learning Society (White paper ). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications in European Countries. Fensham, P. (2000). Providing suitable content for the science curriculum for all. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving Science Education (pp. 147-164). Buckingham: Open University Press. Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge:: Verso. Fuller, S. (1997). Science. Buckingham: Open University Press. Gallagher, J. J. (1991). Prospective and Practicing Secondary School Science Teachers' Knowledge and Beliefs about the Philosophy of Science. Science Education, 75(1), 121-133. Giere, R. (1991). Understanding Scientific Reasoning. (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Gott, R., & Johnson, P. (1996, April, 1996). Children's Use of Evidence in Science Investigations: What are the implications for Science Education? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. Gross, A. G. (1996). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press. Harding, P., & Hare, W. (2000). Portraying Science Accurately in Classrooms: Emphasising Open-Mindedness Rather than Relativism. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(3), 225-236. Harris, D., & Taylor, M. (1983). Discovery Learning in School Science: The Myth and the Reality. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 15(3), 277-89. Häussler, P., Frey, K., Hoffman, L., Rost, J. & Spada, H. (1980) Education in Physics for Today and Tomorrow: Results of a curricular Delphi study. Kiel, Germany: IPN 84

Haywood, H. (1927). Fundamental Laws of Chemistry. School Science Review, 9(34), 92. Helmer, O. (1966) The Use of the Delphi Technique in Problems of Educational Innovations. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, 22pp. Helmer, O. & Rescher, N. H. (1960) On the epistemology of the inexact sciences. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic Stance of Secondary School Science Teachers, Curriculum Experiences, and Children's Understanding of Science. Interchange, 24(1 & 2), 41-52. Horton, R. (1971). African Traditional Thought and Western Science. In M. D. Young (Ed.), Knowledge and Control (pp. 208-266). London: Colin-MacMillan. Hughes, G. (2000). Marginilization of Socioscientific Material in Science- Technology-Society Curricula: Some Implications for Gender Inclusivity and Curriculum Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(5), 426-440. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science. London: Routledge. Jenkins, E. (1997). Towards a Functional Public Understanding of Science. In R. Levinson & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science Today: Problem or Crisis? (pp. 137-150). London: Routledge. Jenkins, E. (1998). Scientific and Technological Literacy for Citizenship: What can we learn from the research and other evidence? Available: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000447.doc. Judd, R. C. (1971) Delphi Decision Methods in Higher Education Administration, Paper presented at the 12 th American meeting of The Institute of Management Sciences, Detroit. King, B. B. (1991). Beginning teachers' knowledge of and attitudes toward history and philosophy of science. Science Education, 75(1), 135-41. Kouladis, V., & Ogborn, J. (1989). Philosophy of Science: An empirical study of teachers' views. International Journal of Science Education, 11(2), 173-84. Kuhn, D. (1999). A Developmental Model of Critical Thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16-46. Kuhn, T. E. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. E. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Latour, B. (1985). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. (2nd ed.). Princetown, NJ: Princetown University Press. Laudan, L. (1990). Science and Relativism: Some Key Controversies in the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., Thagard, P., & Wykstra, S. (1986). Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research. Synthese, 69, 141-223. Lederman, N. G., & Zielder, D. L. (1987). Science teachers' conception of the nature of science: Do they really influence teaching behaviour? Science Education, 71(5), 721-734. Martorella, P. H. (1991). Consensus Building Among Social Educators: A Delphi Study. Theory and Research in Social Education. 19 (1), 83-94. 85

Matthews, M. (1989). A Role for History and Philosophy in Science Teaching. Interchange, 20(2), 3-15. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge. McComas, W. F. (1998). The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 53-69). Dordrecht: Kluwer. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The Nature of Science in International Science Education Standards Documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 41-52). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Mead, M., & Métraux, R. (1957). Image of the Scientist among High-School Students. Science, 126, 384-390. Medawar, P. B. (1979). Is the scientific paper a fraud? London: BBC Publications. Mellado, V. (1998). Preservice tachers' classroom practice and their conceptions of the nature of science. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280), 7-18. Millar, R. (1997). Science Education for Democracy. In R. Levinson & J. Thomas (Eds.), Science Today (pp. 87-101). London: Routledge. Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond Processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science Education for the Future. London: King's College London. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. F. (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Change. Studies in Science Education, 35, 190-197. Miller, J. D. (1995). Scientific Literacy for Effective Citizenship. In R. Yager (Ed.), Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education. New York: State University Press of New York. Miller, J. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 203-223. Miller, J. D., Pardo, R., & Niwa, F. (1997). Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the Europena Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada. Bilbao: BBV Foundation. Milne, C. E., & Taylor, P. C. (1999). Between a Myth and a Hard Place. In W. W. Cobern (Ed.), Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Science Education (pp. 25-48). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the History and Philosophy of Science on the Curriculum: a model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405-424. Murry, J. W. & Hammons, J. O. (1995) Delphi: A Versatile Method for Conducting Qualitative Research. The Review of Higher Education. 18(4), 423-436. Nadeau, R., & Desautels, J. (1984). Epistemology and the Teaching of Science. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services. National Academy of Science. (1995). National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Nelkin, D. (1975). The political impact of scientific expertise. Social Studies of Science, 5, 37. Newton, D. P. (1988). Making Science Education Relevant. London: Kogan Page. 86

Ogborn, J. (1988). A Map of Science Personal Submission to the National Curriculum Working Group on Science Education. Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining Science in the Classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press. Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (1996). Primary Science: Past and Future Directions. Studies in Science Education, 27, 99-147. Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2000). Pupils' and Parents' Views of the School Science Curriculum. London: King's College London. Osborne, J. F., Driver, R., & Simon, S. (1996). Attitudes to Science: A Review of Research and Proposals for Studies to Inform Policy Relating to Uptake of Science. London: King's College London. Osborne, J. F. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: a rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science and Technology. 1,3,271-290 Petrina, S & Volk, K.S. (1992). Policy Making Processes and the Delphi Technique in STS Curricula: A Case Study Examining Energy Issues. Bulletin of Science and Technology in Society, 12, 299-303. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and Prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reiss, M. (2000). Teaching Ethics in Science. Studies in Science Education, 34, 115-140. Reiss, M. J. (1993). Science Education for a Pluralist Society. Buckingham: Open University Press. Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science : Knowing and Learning in Openinquiry Science Laboratories. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the 'nature of science' as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4-14. Smith, K. S. and Simpson, R. D. (1995) Validating Teaching Competencies for Faculty Members in Higher Education: A National Study Using the Delphi Method. Innovative Higher Education. 19 (3), 223-234. Smith, M., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. (1997). How Great is the Disagreement about the Nature of Science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101-1103. Sutton, C. (1995). The Scientific Model as a Form of Speech. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in Science Education in Europe (pp. 143-152). London: Falmer Press. Taylor, C. (1996). Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation. Madison: WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. Turner-Bissett, R. (1999). The Knowledge Bases of the Expert Teacher. British Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 39-56. Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1998). Learning to Investigate. In M. Ratcliffe (Ed.), ASE Guide to Secondary Science Education (pp. 84-91). Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes. Weaver, W. T. (1971) The Delphi Forecasting Method. Phi Delta Kappan. 52(5), 267-71 Willard, C. (1985). The science of values and the values of science. In J. Cox, M. Sillars, & G. Walker (Eds.), Argument and Social Practice: The Fourth 87

SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation (pp. 435-444). Annadale, VA.: Speech Communication Association. Wong, D., Pugh, K., & Dewey Ideas Group at Michigan State University. (2001). Learning Science: A Deweyian Perspective. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 317-336. Woolnough, B. (1994). Effective Science Teaching. Buckingham: Open University Press. 88

Appendix 1 Sheet 1: What should be taught about science? On this sheet, please list all the ideas about science and its practice that you think should be part of the school science curriculum. 1. What, if anything, do you think should be taught about the methods of science? 2. What, if anything, do you think should be taught about the nature of scientific knowledge? 3. What, if anything, do you think should be taught about the institutions and social practices of science? 89