THE ROLE OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN SCHOOL SCIENCE EDUCATION

Wilson J. González-Espada

Wilson J. González-Espada. B.A., Physics Education, University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico. M.A., Science Education, Interamerican University of Puerto Rico. Ph.D., Science Education, The University of Georgia, USA. Associate Professor of Physical Science, Arkansas Tech University, USA. Address: 1701 North Boulder Avenue, McEver Hall 203, Russellville, AR 72801, USA. e-mail: wgonzalezespada@atu.edu

SUMMARY

Scientists’ involvement in school science benefits science teachers, students, and the scientists themselves. This article familiarizes scientists with science education literature through research that supports their importance in school science and suggests specific ways scientists can help science teachers. Also, the benefits of scientists’ involvement for science students are discussed. Helpful hints to improve oral scientific talks are presented.

EL PAPEL DE LA COMUNIDAD CIENTÍFICA EN LA ENSEÑANZA ESCOLAR DE LA CIENCIA

RESUMEN

Cuando los científicos profesionales colaboran con las escuelas, todos se benefician. Este artículo familiariza a la comunidad científica con la literatura asociada a la didáctica de las ciencias, en particular aquella que resume las razones por las que la comunidad científica debe ayudar a los maestros y estudiantes de escuela. Además, se presentan sugerencias concretas para fomentar la colaboración científico-maestro y científico-estudiante. El artículo también discute sugerencias para aumentar la calidad de las charlas que los científicos suelen ofrecer a los estudiantes de escuela.

O envolvimento de cientistas com institutos de ciências beneficia aos professores, alunos de ciências e aos próprios cientistas. Este artigo familiariza aos cientistas com as publicações de educação científica através de pesquisas que apóiam sua importância em institutos de educação científica e sugere vias específicas para que os cientistas possam ajudar aos professores de ciências. Também são discutidos os benefícios, do envolvimento de cientistas, para os estudantes de ciências. São apresentadas sugestões úteis para melhorar as palestras científicas.

KEYWORDS / Science Education / Science Stereotypes / Scientific Presentations / Scientist-School Partnerships /

In our highly technological society, scientists have the responsibility to do more than good science. They should be involved in activities that disseminate science knowledge to a broader audience, too. Scientists should present their knowledge to the public, which enriches their culture and provides opportunities for the development of future scientists (Gastel, 1983). One of the ways scientists present science is to become involved with schools (Timourian, 1993).

A gap exists between those who teach school science and those who do science. Teachers, on one hand, are expected to teach how science works without significant research training. Scientists, on the other hand, are experts on how science works but they are rarely involved in school science education (Druger and Allen, 1998).

Scientists have helped school science in the past. For example, Bybee (1998) found that individual classroom visits, science demonstrations, and presentations on career day were shown to be the most common form of involvement of scientists with schools. In a similar study by Druger and Allen (1998), they found that presentations to students, providing students with research opportunities, science teacher enhancement, participation in science contests, and donation/loan of equipment were identified as the most common activities of scientists in school science education (termed "K-12 science education" in the USA). Unfortunately, the involvement of scientists in school science seems not to be widespread (Druger and Allen, 1998; AIP, 1999).

Because of their expertise, professional scientists are in a unique position to help science education at the school level in significant ways. Scientists contribute their perspective on the overarching themes of science, science process skills, subject matter knowledge, and hands-on experience most teachers and students lack. This article familiarizes scientists with the science education literature on scientists’ collaborations with schools. Ultimately, this article aims at maximizing their chances of successful partnerships with teachers and students.

In order to provide organization to this extensive body of literature, three important elements will be emphasized. First, when scientists help teachers, it improves the presentation and accuracy of the science content and improves their professional development. In addition, when scientists help students, it provides scientists with opportunities to interact directly with school students, as well as clarifies misperceptions about science from the perspective of a knowledgeable practicing scientist. Scientists’ classroom interaction through effective presentations shows that simply talking about science is not equivalent to teaching science successfully. Scientists should place themselves in the shoes of school students, an audience with varying cognitive capabilities and instructional needs they might not be familiar with, so that their presentations lead to meaningful and long lasting science learning. Obviously, this article does not exhaust the subject of scientists’ involvement in school science, but is more of a helpful introductory reference for those scientists who are interested in contributing to school science but do not know how.

Many teachers see scientists as "smart" and "intellectual" (McDuffie, 2001). When asked to make a drawing of a scientist, teachers predominantly portray scientists as a serious or crazed male, middle aged or older, with glasses, laboratory coats, and pocket protectors. Teachers often draw scientists alone, surrounded by objects of research (lab equipment, beakers, and chemicals) or knowledge (books). Teachers rarely draw scientists from a minority group (Moseley and Norris, 1999; McDuffie, 2001). McDuffie (2001) compared preservice and inservice teachers and reached the conclusion that "Both groups describe scientists as intelligent, hardworking, and theoretical, but also as impersonal, boring, and nerdy … teachers’ stereotypes are the same as their students on most significant characteristics, that is, their drawings of scientists did not evolve with professional maturation".

Challenging the teachers’ stereotypical images of scientists is important because it shows that the way teachers portray scientists discourage female and minorities away from science careers (Rosenthal, 1993).

Scientists can help teachers correct any stereotypes about scientists by challenging erroneous ideas and presenting the successes and challenges of real science. They can also answer teachers’ questions and establish a professional dialogue.

Many science topics are not part of the formal school science curriculum. As a consequence, even the most interesting talk is not very helpful if the scientists’ topic is too specialized and it cannot address the prescribed science topics that need to be covered by the teacher. A science talk that helps the teacher fulfill the schools’ instructional goals is said to be "aligned" with the curriculum or the science standards.

For the scientists’ collaboration to be more aligned with the content needs of the students, they should become familiar with school curricula. In many countries curricula developed by the government’s Ministry of Education (or equivalent entity) must be closely followed at the school level. On the other hand, in the U.S., where there is no centralized formal science curriculum, the science education efforts of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and the National Academy of Sciences, through its National Research Council (NRC), have produced three seminal documents: Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1989), Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993), and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).

These documents are the basis from which most state standards have been developed in the USA. These publications are not a preset list of science topics, but a guideline of what students should know, understand, and be able to do in the natural sciences over the course of school science education. For example, the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) are divided into one category applicable at all grade levels (unifying concepts and processes in science) and seven categories specifically tailored for elementary, intermediate, and secondary schools. These categories are: science as inquiry, physical science, life science, earth and space science, science and technology, science in personal and social perspective, and the history and nature of science.

In order to align any collaboration with the school science curriculum, scientists must become familiar with such curriculum. Scientists should talk with the teacher and ask what topics are appropriate for a talk. They can also obtain a copy of the curriculum, usually available online or through the school administration.

For a scientist-teacher partnership to work, planning and open communication are essential. The individual scientist and the teacher, working as equal collaborators, must decide what to do; set short-term and long-term goals and objectives; meet as frequently as possible before, during, and after the collaboration; and divide the workload and the responsibilities equally. The teacher’s role is to keep the school administration informed of the partnership and its positive impact, and to prepare his or her students ahead of time so that they can adjust their routine accordingly. Also, the lines of communication between the teacher and the scientist must remain open by sharing contact information such as work, home, fax, and mobile phone numbers, as well as electronic and physical addresses (Massell and Searles, 1995).

In a world where most of the population is not scientifically literate, scientists must promote teaching quality science in public schools and defend science against those pseudoscientific, religious, metaphysical, and commercial forces that aim at undermining reason and scientific thinking. Bybee (1998) suggested that scientists talk to state and local school boards to declare their support of a) science teachers and their professional development in science, b) improved school science programs, and c) better textbooks. In addition, scientists can advocate for an increased emphasis in hands-on, inquiry-based experiences, and the appropriation of adequate funds for science equipment, materials, perishables and technology.

Scientists can improve students’ attitudes toward science by clarifying what science is and is not (Ryder, Leach and Driver, 1997), as well as the limitations of the scientific method (González-Espada, 2005). Scientists, science teachers and administrators should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. For example, The National Science Teachers Association, a group of science teachers, scientists, and science teacher educators in the USA, developed a position statement on the nature of science that should be consistent with the scientists’ public views of science. Some basic ideas about science that should be stressed by scientists include (NSTA, 2006) the tentative nature of science ("Having confidence in scientific knowledge is reasonable while realizing that such knowledge may be abandoned or modified in light of new evidence or reconceptualization of prior evidence and knowledge"), the complexity of scientific endeavor ("No single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science. Science includes observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability"), and a rejection of the supernatural to describe and explain nature ("Science demands naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world". "Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge").

Scientists should clearly understand creativity, multiculturalism, and personal judgment in science, the difference between theories (inferred explanations of some aspect of the natural world) and laws (generalizations or universal relationships related to the way that some aspect of the natural world behaves), and the influence of the existing state of scientific knowledge, the social and cultural context of the researcher and the observer’s experiences and expectations on science. Scientists should emphasize the fact that basic scientific research is not directly concerned with practical outcomes, but rather with gaining an understanding of the natural world for its own sake (NSTA, 2006).

Scientists should also point out that there are areas of knowledge other than science. These are not necessarily better or worse, just significantly different from science in their philosophical foundations and their validation of knowledge. An interesting example is religion. Religion asks one to believe based on faith, that is, religion knows the truth (or truths as there are many religions!) before consulting nature. In contrast, science "consults" nature first, asking one to understand based on the evaluation of alternatives, evidence, and reason. In science, tentative explanations must be consistent with nature, even if a better explanation is developed later on (Lawson, 1994).

Scientists should warn students against pseudoscience, a set of ideas based on theories misleadingly put forth as scientific when they are not (Sagan, 1995; Shermer, 2002). Examples of pseudoscientific ideas are astrology, extra sensory perception, intelligent extraterrestrial life forms landing on Earth, haunted houses, ghosts, faith healing, communication with the dead, and lucky numbers. (NSB, 2002).

Scientists help students when they shift the perception of the role of the scientist from an all-knowing authority to a facilitator, a guiding figure that provides effective direction and posed questions for students to think about (Lawson, 1994). Ultimately, if students get used to the idea that knowledge comes from an authority, they will be less likely to question ideas coming from questionable authorities, such as pseudoscientists. Scientists can not only emphasize the role of expertise in science, but also suggest that even experts are sometimes wrong.

Students can also take advantage of the scientist’s expertise through research collaborations and mentoring programs (Waltner, 1992). These collaborations have helped students experience authentic science, share their research results with peers, solve interesting science problems, feel a significant part of a larger project and apply the acquired science process skills to new situations (Fougere, 1998).

Moreover, scientists can mentor students interested in completing science fair projects. Most of the literature agrees that science fair participation can be a valuable experience (Czerniak and Lumpe, 1996). Many science educators think that student involvement is one of the best ways to develop their science skills, positive attitudes, and important knowledge about science and the scientific method that might lead students to consider science careers (Grote, 1995; Bellipani and Lilly, 1999). Galen (1993) argued that science fair projects have positive long-lasting effects on students by helping them to identify their science talents, to engage in scientific endeavors, to learn how to use the library effectively, to meet community resources interested in science, to obtain a deeper knowledge in one science topic, to consider science careers as an option and to receive recognition from local and school newspapers. Bundenson and Anderson (1996) proposed additional benefits of science fair projects for students, including the encouragement of creativity, the development of opportunities for individual research and the exploration of individual interests by students choosing their own projects.

For students interested in science, deciding on a career can be a difficult task (Waltner, 1992). Scientists can help students reflect on what factors might influence someone to consider a science career and what career options are available (Timourian, 1993; King and Bruce, 2003). Scientists can share how they perceived science in school, what school experiences can help students be better prepared for a science career and how to make good choices. Students should have the opportunity to develop a personal connection with the scientist and learn that he or she is a human being no different from other people. As one of the authors (Bruce) said, "The physical presence of a scientist in the classroom seems to have a tremendous impact on the way young learners view the profession and the way they view science as a discipline. If we really want to increase the size of the science, engineering, and technology workforce, perhaps we ought to send more scientists into school science classrooms".

Females and minority scientists are strongly encouraged to participate in school science. Reports from the USA indicate that minority students are more likely to attend inadequate schools, more likely to be taught by under-qualified teachers and more likely to drop out of school. They are also less likely to graduate from high school, attend college, succeed in college, attend graduate school or receive a terminal degree (USDE, 2003a, b, c; González-Espada, 2004). Not surprisingly, females and minorities are also underrepresented in science employment and training (Edwards, 1999; NSF, 2004).

Surprisingly, schooling is a possible reason for this under-representation. Lack of preparation and motivation in science among minority groups in the early elementary grades undermines enrollment and success in secondary-level school science programs and, ultimately, in college and career choices later in life (Clark, 1999). For females, researchers suggest that factors such as gender-based disparities in classroom interactions, differential expectations for males and females in math and science classes, and a tendency of females to attribute academic problems in science and mathematics as a lack of ability work to decrease females’ confidence in these subject areas. As a consequence, fewer females take advanced mathematics and science courses, and when they do, they perform worse compared with males (Kardash, 2000). Female and minority scientists can serve as powerful role models to challenge the perception that only white males can become scientists.

Individual classroom visits, science demonstrations and presentations on career day are the most common form of involvement for scientists with schools Bybee (1998). In order to use the available time in the most effective way, scientists must understand that presenting at scientific conferences is very different from talking about a science topic during a school visit. Some suggestions for scientists include:

Before preparing for an oral presentation, the professional scientists must be aware that students will probably have some prior knowledge and a number of misconceptions or alternative conceptions related to the topic to be discussed (Henríquez, 2002). Throughout their lives, students have received all sorts of scientific, pseudoscientific and non-scientific information through their daily experiences, their own environment explorations, their social interactions, media and formal instruction. As a consequence of constant constructing, deconstructing, processing and organizing the received information, students have ideas that are not currently supported by the scientific community (Wandersee et al., 1995; González-Espada, 2003).

Alternative conceptions are tenacious and very resistant to change. First, unlearning is extremely difficult if the information "makes sense" from the uninformed viewpoint of the student. Also, the strong credibility of media is a stumbling block to overcome. Finally, traditional methods of teaching science are thought to be far from effective in fighting the students’ stubborn incorrect prior knowledge (González-Espada, 2003). Consequently, the scientists’ effort to create engaging and informative talks might be wasted if the new information cannot be reconciled with incorrect previous knowledge.

An alternative to challenge the students’ conceptions is to use a conceptual change teaching model (e.g. Posner et al., 1982; Suping, 2003). A scientist preparing a talk around this model will a) probe what prevailing alternative conceptions students have, b) demonstrate using multiple techniques that the students’ conceptions cannot fully explain the science concept discussed, c) introduce a new, intelligible, plausible conception, and d) direct students into hands-on investigations on the correctness of the new conceptions.

When preparing science talks, scientists should use as many analogies as possible. Analogies are defined as bridges between familiar and unfamiliar phenomena, between what is known and what is less known (González-Espada and Trantham, 2005). Analogies, however, have some limitations. Most importantly, what the instructor might consider analogous phenomena might not be from the students’ perspective if some prior knowledge is not there. Also, analogies are limited by nature, so there is always the risk of over-generalizing or creating erroneous analogical connections. It is recommended that scientists follow research-based models for teaching with analogies (Radford, 1989; Glynn, 1991).

Also, researchers suggest placing numbers in a familiar context by avoiding scientific notation and unfamiliar units (Gastel, 1983). Relating magnitudes with those familiar to students is another way to present quantities in a friendly way. For example, some teachers compare the size of an atom and the diameter of a football field. In this analogy, if an atom were the size of the football field, the nucleus would be the size of a grain of rice, with nearly all of the mass of the atom within the grain of rice. Other teachers use vegetables to teach the relative size of the planets of the solar system. In this analogy the Sun is about the size of a giant pumpkin, Earth can be compared with a small radish, Jupiter with a grapefruit, and Neptune with a small peach.

Scientists can help students learn science if they take into consideration the students’ characteristics (Gastel, 1983). The students’ developmental level is another important characteristic. According to the theory of cognitive development (Piaget and Inhelder, 1969) most school students are in the third level of development, known as "concrete operations." In this level, students start to think from different perspectives at the same time, with a thought process that is more flexible, organized and logical if the information is presented in a concrete way. The resolution of complex, abstract problems and the development of hypothetico-deductive reasoning are not achieved by many students until they reach high school, while some psychologists suggest that not all adults reach this final level, known as "formal operations." As a result, scientists should use as many concrete experiences as possible, such as audiovisuals, hands-on activities, cooperative learning and demonstrations. Audiovisual aids should preferably be used after the students had the opportunity to experience a science concept firsthand (Lawson, 1994).

Science education reform and the U.S. National Science Education Standards emphasize a "less-is-more" approach (NRC, 1996). Scientists should limit the points they make or the content they cover and then go into enough detail so that the students can understand. Talks that are too broad tend not to result in significant understanding and long-lasting recall. Also, they should avoid jargon so they connect with their audience. Excessive jargon use is probably one of the most widely caricatured behaviors of scientists (Gastel, 1983). Avoid technical terms whenever possible, or define them clearly when first presented.

Scientists can help students understand the content of a talk better if it is planned using an effective organization (Lawson, 1994). Scientists need to organize their talks going from the simple to the complex, from the concrete to the abstract. Researchers suggest that concepts build on one another, with the understanding of some concepts being a prerequisite for subsequent learning (Gagné, 1977). The beginning of the science talk can take the form of an advanced organizer (Ausubel, 1978) or the presentation of the most general ideas of a subject first, with subsequent content presented in a progressively differentiated way in terms of abstraction, interconnections, and detail. The end of the talk should summarize the main points.

The science talks should include materials or activities that students are interested in. Students get motivated to learn if the content is presented in a fun way or if the material is presented in a way that creates curiosity. Also, the material should be contextually relevant, related to matters about which the students already know and care. Otherwise, the students will not understand, or will understand but will not be motivated to find out more. As Gastel (1983) suggested, "How to begin? With rainbows, not refraction. Influenza, not immunology." She also suggests opening a talk with a historical observation, an item from the news, an anecdote from a famous person, or a personal story. In addition, the material should move away from rote memorization or complicated terminology that might confuse students. It should emphasize the development of thinking skills. Students should question, analyze, compare, evaluate, and infer as they are exposed to the material.

Scientists can enhance science presentations through audiovisuals. Research suggests that students remember more information when effective audiovisuals are used (CTL, 1992). According to the literature, audiovisuals: a) clarify lecture material, b) provide additional cues for memory, c) cater to students with different learning styles, d) provide intellectual stimulation, e) offer a cost/effective alternative in terms of time, and f) help the presenter to get organized.

Scientists should be conscious of the best way to deliver their presentation, including using visuals and computer-created images only when they add to the subject, instead of distracting bells and whistles. Numbers and statistics reinforce a point or provide context during a talk. However, they should be used sparingly to avoid overwhelming the students. Finally, scientists should interact with the students as much as possible during and after the talk instead of a one-way discourse (Harshaw, 1995).

Few people question the need to improve science education. As scientists, our informed perspective has a fundamental impact in the science literacy of teachers and students, and it only takes a few hours of our time. Visits, classroom demonstration, partnerships and presentations will only be useful if scientists are committed and prepare themselves to do their best. As Druger and Allen (1998) suggested: "Research scientists can individually contribute a reasonable amount of time to school science education. If each scientist does so, the collective impact can be substantial". Following some of the suggestions presented in this article is a step in the right direction.

The author thanks Daphne LaDue, Center for the Analysis and Prediction of Storms, Norman, OK, USA, and Joy Moss, English Department, Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR, USA, for their feedback in the preparation of this article.

1. AAAS (1989) Science for all Americans. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Oxford University Press. New York, NY, USA. 246 pp.        [ Links ]

2. AAAS (1993) Benchmarks for science literacy. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Oxford University Press. New York, NY, USA. 418 pp.        [ Links ]

3. AIP (1999) Joint statement on the education of future teachers. American Institute of Physics www.aip.org/education.        [ Links ]

4. Alper J (1994) Scientists return to the elementary science classroom. Science 264: 768-769.        [ Links ]

5. Ausubel D (1978) In defense of advance organizers: A reply to the critics. Rev. Edu. Res. 48: 251-257.        [ Links ]

6. Bellipani LJ, Lilly JE (1999) What have researchers been saying about science fairs? Sci. Child. 36: 46-50.        [ Links ]

7. Bundenson ED, Anderson T (1996) Pre-service elementary teachers’ attitudes toward their past experience with science fairs. School Sci. Math. 96: 371-377.        [ Links ]

8. Bybee RW (1998) Improving pre-college science education: The involvement of scientists and engineers. J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 27: 324-328.        [ Links ]

9. Clark JV (1999) Minorities in science and mathematics. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education. Doc. ED433216. 4 pp.        [ Links ]

10. CTL (1992) Media in the college classroom. Center for Teaching and Learning. http://ctl.unc.edu/fyc11.html.        [ Links ]

11. Czerniak CM, Lumpe AT (1996) Predictors of science fair participation using the theory of planned behavior. School Sci. Math. 96: 355-361.        [ Links ]

12. Druger M, Allen G (1998) A study of the role of research scientists in K-12 science education. Am. Biol. Teacher 60: 344-349.        [ Links ]

13. Edwards LD (1999) Using multimedia to counter stereotypes in science classrooms: New perceptions on who becomes a scientist. Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Houston, TX, USA. 14 pp.        [ Links ]

14. Fougere M (1998) The educational benefits to middle school students participating in a student/scientist project. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 7: 25-30.        [ Links ]

15. Fung YYH (2002) A comparative study of primary and secondary school students’ images of scientists. Res. Sci. Technol. Educ. 20: 199-213.        [ Links ]

16. Gagné RM (1977) The conditions for learning. 3^rd ed. Holt, Rinehart, Winston. New York, NY, USA. 339 pp.        [ Links ]

17. Galen DF (1993) Science fair: A successful venture. Am. Biol. Teacher 55: 464-467.        [ Links ]

18. Gastel B (1983) Presenting science to the public. ISI. Philadelphia, PA, USA. 146 pp.        [ Links ]

19. Glynn SM (1991) Explaining science concepts: A teaching-with-analogies model. In Glynn SM, Yeany RH, Britton BK (Eds.) The psychology of learning science. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ, USA. pp. 219-240.        [ Links ]

20. González-Espada WJ (2003) A last chance for getting it right: Addressing alternative conceptions in the physical sciences. Phys. Teacher 41: 36-38.        [ Links ]

21. González-Espada WJ (2004) Multicultural education: helping all students succeed in science. Electr. J. Lit. through Sci. 3: 1-14.        [ Links ]

22. González-Espada WJ (2005) Las limitaciones del método científico. Spin Cero 9: 87-91.        [ Links ]

23. González-Espada WJ, Trantham K (2005) How is energy like money? Using analogies in physics teaching. School Sci. Rev. 86: 85-90.        [ Links ]

24. Grote MG (1995) Science teacher educators’ opinions about science projects and science fairs. J. Sci. Teacher Educ. 6: 48-52.        [ Links ]

25. Harshaw L (1995) 101 Top Tips. Presentations. Dec. 1995. pp. 7-26.         [ Links ]

26. Henríquez L (2002) Children’s ideas about weather: A review of the literature. School Sci. Math. 102: 202-215.        [ Links ]

27. Kardash CM (2000) Evaluation of an undergraduate research experience: Perceptions of undergraduate interns and their faculty mentors. J. Educ. Psychol. 92: 191-201.        [ Links ]

28. King MD, Bruce MC (2003) Inspired by real science. Sci. Child. 40: 30-34.        [ Links ]

29. Lawson AE (1994) Science teaching and the development of thinking. Wadsworth. Belmont, CA, USA. 593 pp.        [ Links ]

30. Leslie-Pelecky DL, Buck GA, Zabawa A (2005) Broadening middle school students’ images of science and scientists. J. Mat. Educ. 27: 173-178.        [ Links ]

31. Massell LN, Searles GM (1995) An alliance for science. Sci. Child. 32: 22-25.        [ Links ]

32. McDuffie TE (2001) Scientists: Geeks and nerds? Sci. Child. 38: 16-19.        [ Links ]

33. Moseley C, Norris D (1999) Pre-service teachers’ views of scientists. Sci. Child. 37: 50-53.        [ Links ]

34. NRC (1996) National science education standards. National Research Council National Academy Press. Washington, DC, USA. 262 pp.        [ Links ]

35. NSB (2002) Science and engineering indicators 2002. NSB-02-1. National Science Board. National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA, USA. 488 pp.        [ Links ]

36. NSF (2004) Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering. NSF 04-317. National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA, USA. 316 p.        [ Links ]

37. NSTA (2006) Position statement on the nature of science. National Science Teachers Association www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=22.        [ Links ]

38. Piaget J, Inhelder B (1969) The psychology of the child. Basic Books. New York, NY, USA. 173 pp.        [ Links ]

39. Posner GJ, Strike KA, Hewson, PW Gertzog WA (1982) Accommodation of a scientific conception: Towards a theory of conceptual change. Sci. Educ. 66: 211-227.        [ Links ]

40. Radford D (1989) Promoting learning through the use of analogies in high school biology textbooks. 62^nd Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Francisco, CA, USA. 28 pp.        [ Links ]

41. Rosenthal DB (1993) Images of scientists: A comparison of biology and liberal studies majors. School Sci. Math. 93: 212-216.        [ Links ]

42. Roy K (2003) Safe speakers. Sci. Scope 27: 10.        [ Links ]

43. Ryder J, Leach J, Driver R (1997) Undergraduate science students’ images of the nature of science. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, USA. 18 pp.        [ Links ]

44. Sagan C (1995) The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House. New York, NY, USA. 457 pp.        [ Links ]

45. Shermer M (2001) Baloney detection. Scient. Am. 285: 36.        [ Links ]

46. Shermer M (2002) Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. Freeman. New York, NY, USA. 349 pp.        [ Links ]

47. Suping SM (2003) Conceptual change among students in science. ERIC Clearinghouse for Science Mathematics and Environmental Education. Doc. ED482723. 4 pp.        [ Links ]

48. Timourian H (1993) Training the scientific community. In Sussman A (Ed.) Science education partnerships: Manual for scientists and K-12 teachers. University of California. San Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 55-60.        [ Links ]

49. USDE (2003a) From risk to opportunity: Fulfilling the educational needs of Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC, USA. 82 pp.        [ Links ]

50. USDE (2003b) National Center for Education Statistics: Status and trends in the education of Blacks, by Kathryn Hoffman and Charmaine Llagas. Project Officer: Thomas D. Snyder. (NCES 2003-034). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC, USA. 182 pp.        [ Links ]

51. USDE (2003c) National Center for Education Statistics: Status and trends in the education of Hispanics, by Charmaine Llagas. Project Officer: Thomas D. Snyder. (NCES 2003–008). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC, USA. 182 pp.        [ Links ]

52. Waltner JC (1992) Learning from scientists at work. Educ. Leadership 49: 48-52.        [ Links ]

53. Wandersee JH, Mintzes JJ, Novak JD (1995) Research on alternative conceptions in science. In Gabel DL (Ed.) Handbook of research on science teaching and learning. Macmillan. New York, NY, USA. pp. 177-210.        [ Links ] ]]> 1 AAAS 1989 246 2 AAAS 1993 418 3 AIP 1999 4 1994 264 768-769 5 1978 48 251-257 6 1999 36 46-50 7 1996 96 371-377 8 1998 27 324-328 9 1999 4 10 CTL 1992 11 1996 96 355-361 12 1998 60 344-349 13 1999 14 14 1998 7 25-30 15 2002 20 199-213 16 1977 3 339 17 1993 55 464-467 18 1983 146 19 219-240 20 2003 41 36-38 21 2004 3 1-14 22 2005 9 87-91 23 2005 86 85-90 24 1995 6 48-52 25 1995 7-26 26 2002 102 202-215 27 2000 92 191-201 28 2003 40 30-34 29 1994 593 30 2005 27 173-178 31 1995 32 22-25 32 2001 38 16-19 33 1999 37 50-53 34 NRC 1996 262 35 NSB 2002 488 36 NSF 2004 316 37 NSTA 2006 38 1969 173 39 1982 66 211-227 40 1989 San Francisco CA 28 41 1993 93 212-216 42 2003 27 10 43 1997 Chicago IL 18 44 1995 457 45 2001 285 36 46 2002 349 47 2003 4 48 55-60 49 USDE 2003 82 50 USDE 2003 182 51 USDE 2003 182 52 1992 49 48-52 53 177-210