How teachers view the nature of scientific knowledge is crucial to their understanding of science content and how it can be taught. This book presents an overview of the dynamics of scientific progress and its relationship to the history and philosophy of science, and then explores their methodological and educational implications and develops innovative strategies based on actual classroom practice for teaching topics such the nature of science, conceptual change, constructivism, qualitative-quantitative research, and the role of controversies, presuppositions, speculations, hypotheses, and predictions. Field-tested in science education courses, this book is designed to involve readers in critically thinking about the history and philosophy of science and to engage science educators in learning how to progressively introduce various aspects of 'science-in-the-making' in their classrooms, to promote discussions highlighting controversial historical episodes included in the science curriculum, and to expose their students to the controversies and encourage them to support, defend or critique the different interpretations. Innovating Science Teacher Education offers guidelines to go beyond traditional textbooks, curricula, and teaching methods and innovate with respect to science teacher education and classroom teaching.

The Nature of Science is highly topical among science teacher educators and researchers. Increasingly, it is a mandated topic in state curriculum documents. This book draws together recent research on Nature of Science studies within a historical and philosophical framework suitable for students and teacher educators. Traditional science curricula and textbooks present science as a finished product. Taking a different approach, this book provides a glimpse of "science in the making" - scientific practice imbued with arguments, controversies, and competition among rival theories and explanations. Teaching about "science in the making" is a rich source of motivating students to engage creatively with the science curriculum. Readers are introduced to "science in the making" through discussion and analysis of a wide range of historical episodes from the early 19th century to early 21st century. Recent cutting-edge research is presented to provide insight into the dynamics of scientific progress. More than 90 studies from major science education journals, related to nature of science are reviewed. A theoretical framework, field tested with in-service science teachers, is developed for moving from 'science in the making' to understanding the Nature of Science.

This book argues that the traditional image of Feyerabend is erroneous and that, contrary to common belief, he was a great admirer of science. It shows how Feyerabend presented a vision of science that represented how science really works. Besides giving a theoretical framework based on Feyerabends philosophy of science, the book offers criteria that can help readers to evaluate and understand research reported in important international science education journals, with respect to Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism. The book includes an evaluation of general chemistry and physics textbooks. Most science curricula and textbooks provide the following advice to students: Do not allow theories in contradiction with observations, and all scientific theories must be formulated inductively based on experimental facts. Feyerabend questioned this widely prevalent premise of science education in most parts of the world, and in contrast gave the following advice: Scientists can accept a hypothesis despite experimental evidence to the contrary and scientific theories are not always consistent with all the experimental data. No wonder Feyerabend became a controversial philosopher and was considered to be against rationalism and anti-science. Recent research in philosophy of science, however, has shown that most of Feyerabends philosophical ideas are in agreement with recent trends in the 21st century. Of the 120 articles from science education journals, evaluated in this book only 9% recognized that Feyerabend was presenting a plurality of perspectives based on how science really works. Furthermore, it has been shown that Feyerabend could even be considered as a perspectival realist. Among other aspects, Feyerabend emphasized that in order to look for breakthroughs in science one does not have to be complacent about the truth of the theories but rather has to look for opportunities to "break rules" or "violate categories." Mansoor Niaz carefully analyses references to Feyerabend in the literature and displays the importance of Feyerabend's philosophy in analyzing, historical episodes. Niaz shows through this remarkable book a deep understanding to the essence of science. - Calvin Kalman, Concordia University, Canada In this book Mansoor Niaz explores the antecedents, context and features of Feyerabend's work and offers a more-nuanced understanding, then reviews and considers its reception in the science education and philosophy of science literature. This is a valuable contribution to scholarship about Feyerabend, with the potential to inform further research as well as science education practice.- David Geelan, Griffith University, Australia

This book argues that the traditional image of Feyerabend is erroneous and that, contrary to common belief, he was a great admirer of science. It shows how Feyerabend presented a vision of science that represented how science really works. Besides giving a theoretical framework based on Feyerabend´s philosophy of science, the book offers criteria that can help readers to evaluate and understand research reported in important international science education journals, with respect to Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism. The book includes an evaluation of general chemistry and physics textbooks. Most science curricula and textbooks provide the following advice to students: Do not allow theories in contradiction with observations, and all scientific theories must be formulated inductively based on experimental facts. Feyerabend questioned this widely prevalent premise of science education in most parts of the world, and in contrast gave the following advice: Scientists can accept a hypothesis despite experimental evidence to the contrary and scientific theories are not always consistent with all the experimental data. No wonder Feyerabend became a controversial philosopher and was considered to be against rationalism and anti-science. Recent research in philosophy of science, however, has shown that most of Feyerabend´s philosophical ideas are in agreement with recent trends in the 21st century. Of the 120 articles from science education journals, evaluated in this book only 9% recognized that Feyerabend was presenting a plurality of perspectives based on how science really works. Furthermore, it has been shown that Feyerabend could even be considered as a perspectival realist. Among other aspects, Feyerabend emphasized that in order to look for breakthroughs in science one does not have to be complacent about the truth of the theories but rather has to look for opportunities to “break rules� or “violate categories.�  Mansoor Niaz carefully analyses references to Feyerabend in the literature and displays the importance of Feyerabend’s philosophy in analyzing, historical episodes. Niaz shows through this remarkable book a deep understanding to the essence of science. - Calvin Kalman, Concordia University, Canada  In this book Mansoor Niaz explores the antecedents, context and features of Feyerabend’s work and offers a more-nuanced understanding, then reviews and considers its reception in the science education and philosophy of science literature. This is a valuable contribution to scholarship about Feyerabend, with the potential to inform further research as well as science education practice.-  David Geelan, Griffith University, Australia

This book explores the evolving nature of objectivity in the history of science and its implications for science education. It is generally considered that objectivity, certainty, truth, universality, the scientific method and the accumulation of experimental data characterize both science and science education. Such universal values associated with science may be challenged while studying controversies in their original historical context. The scientific enterprise is not characterized by objectivity or the scientific method, but rather controversies, alternative interpretations of data, ambiguity, and uncertainty. Although objectivity is not synonymous with truth or certainty, it has eclipsed other epistemic virtues and to be objective is often used as a synonym for scientific. Recent scholarship in history and philosophy of science has shown that it is not the experimental data (Baconian orgy of quantification) but rather the diversity / plurality in a scientific discipline that contributes toward understanding objectivity. History of science shows that objectivity and subjectivity can be considered as the two poles of a continuum and this dualism leads to a conflict in understanding the evolving nature of objectivity. The history of objectivity is nothing less than the history of science itself and the evolving and varying forms of objectivity does not mean that one replaced the other in a sequence but rather each form supplements the others. This book is remarkable for its insistence that the philosophy of science, and in particular that discipline's analysis of objectivity as the supposed hallmark of the scientific method, is of direct value to teachers of science. Meticulously, yet in a most readable way, Mansoor Niaz looks at the way objectivity has been dealt with over the years in influential educational journals and in textbooks; it's fascinating how certain perspectives fade, while basic questions show no sign of going away. There are few books that take both philosophy and education seriously - this one does! Roald Hoffmann, Cornell University, chemist, writer and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

This book discusses how to improve high school students' understanding of research methodology based on alternative interpretations of data, role of controversies, creativity and the scientific method, in the context of the oil drop experiment. These aspects form an important part of the nature of science (NOS). The study reported in this volume is is based on a reflective, explicit and activity-based approach to teaching nature of science (NOS) that can facilitate high school students' understanding of how scientists elaborate theoretical frameworks, design experiments, report data that leads to controversies and finally with the collaboration of the scientific community a consensus is reached. Most students changed their perspective and drew concept maps in which they emphasized the creative, accumulative, controversial nature of science and the scientific method.

This book is about how students are taught the periodic table. It reviews aspects of the periodic table's development, using the history and philosophy of science. The teaching method presented in this book is ideal for teaching the subject in high school and at introductory university level.
Chemistry students taught in this new, experimental way are compared with those taught in the traditional way and the author describes how tests found more conceptual responses from the experimental group than the control group.
The historical aspects of importance to this teaching method are: the role of the Karlsruhe Congress of 1860; the accommodation of the chemical elements in the periodic table; prediction of elements that were discovered later; corrections of atomic weights; periodicity in the periodic table as a function of the atomic theory; and the accommodation of argon.
The experimental group of students participated in various activities, including: discussion of various aspects related to the history and philosophy of science; construction of concept maps and their evaluation by the students; PowerPoint presentations; and interviews with volunteer students."

It is generally believed that doing science means accumulating empirical data with no or little reference to the interpretation of the data based on the scientist's th- retical framework or presuppositions. Holton (1969a) has deplored the widely accepted myth (experimenticism) according to which progress in science is presented as the inexorable result of the pursuit of logically sound conclusions from un- biguous experimental data. Surprisingly, some of the leading scientists themselves (Millikan is a good example) have contributed to perpetuate the myth with respect to modern science being essentially empirical, that is carefully tested experim- tal facts (free of a priori conceptions), leading to inductive generalizations. Based on the existing knowledge in a field of research a scientist formulates the guiding assumptions (Laudan et al. , 1988), presuppositions (Holton, 1978, 1998) and "hard core" (Lakatos, 1970) of the research program that constitutes the imperative of presuppositions, which is not abandoned in the face of anomalous data. Laudan and his group consider the following paraphrase of Kant by Lakatos as an important guideline: philosophy of science without history of science is empty. Starting in the 1960s, this "historical school" has attempted to redraw and replace the positivist or logical empiricist image of science that dominated for the first half of the twentieth century. Among other aspects, one that looms large in these studies is that of "guiding assumptions" and has considerable implications for the main thesis of this monograph (Chapter 2).

It is generally believed that doing science means accumulating empirical data with no or little reference to the interpretation of the data based on the scientist's th- retical framework or presuppositions. Holton (1969a) has deplored the widely accepted myth (experimenticism) according to which progress in science is presented as the inexorable result of the pursuit of logically sound conclusions from un- biguous experimental data. Surprisingly, some of the leading scientists themselves (Millikan is a good example) have contributed to perpetuate the myth with respect to modern science being essentially empirical, that is carefully tested experim- tal facts (free of a priori conceptions), leading to inductive generalizations. Based on the existing knowledge in a field of research a scientist formulates the guiding assumptions (Laudan et al. , 1988), presuppositions (Holton, 1978, 1998) and "hard core" (Lakatos, 1970) of the research program that constitutes the imperative of presuppositions, which is not abandoned in the face of anomalous data. Laudan and his group consider the following paraphrase of Kant by Lakatos as an important guideline: philosophy of science without history of science is empty. Starting in the 1960s, this "historical school" has attempted to redraw and replace the positivist or logical empiricist image of science that dominated for the first half of the twentieth century. Among other aspects, one that looms large in these studies is that of "guiding assumptions" and has considerable implications for the main thesis of this monograph (Chapter 2).

How teachers view the nature of scientific knowledge is crucial to their understanding of science content and how it can be taught. This book presents an overview of the dynamics of scientific progress and its relationship to the history and philosophy of science, and then explores their methodological and educational implications and develops innovative strategies based on actual classroom practice for teaching topics such the nature of science, conceptual change, constructivism, qualitative-quantitative research, and the role of controversies, presuppositions, speculations, hypotheses, and predictions. Field-tested in science education courses, this book is designed to involve readers in critically thinking about the history and philosophy of science and to engage science educators in learning how to progressively introduce various aspects of 'science-in-the-making' in their classrooms, to promote discussions highlighting controversial historical episodes included in the science curriculum, and to expose their students to the controversies and encourage them to support, defend or critique the different interpretations. Innovating Science Teacher Education offers guidelines to go beyond traditional textbooks, curricula, and teaching methods and innovate with respect to science teacher education and classroom teaching.

It goes without saying that atomic structure, including its dual wave-particle nature, cannot be demonstrated in the classroom. Thus, for most science teachers, especially those in physics and chemistry, the textbook is their key resource and their students core source of information. Science education historiography recognizes the role played by the history and philosophy of science in developing the content of our textbooks, and with this in mind, the authors analyze more than 120 general chemistry textbooks published in the USA, based on criteria derived from a historical reconstruction of wave-particle duality.

They come to some revealing conclusions, including the fact that very few textbooks discussed issues such as the suggestion, by both Einstein and de Broglie, and before conclusive experimental evidence was available, that wave-particle duality existed. Other large-scale omissions included de Broglie s prescription for observing this duality, and the importance of the Davisson-Germer experiments, as well as the struggle to interpret the experimental data they were collecting. Also untouched was the background to the role played by Schrodinger in developing de Broglie s ideas. The authors argue that rectifying these deficiencies will arouse students curiosity by giving them the opportunity to engage creatively with the content of science curricula. They also assert that it isn t just the experimental data in science that matters, but the theoretical insights and unwonted inspirations, too. In addition, the controversies and discrepancies in the theoretical and experimental record are key drivers in understanding the development of science as we know it today."

Research in science education has recognized the importance of history and philosophy of science (HPS). Nature of science (NOS) is considered to be an essential part of HPS with important implications for teaching science. The role played by textbooks in developing students' informed conceptions of NOS has been a source of considerable interest for science educators. In some parts of the world, textbooks become "the "curriculum and determine to a great extent what is taught and learned in the classroom. Given this background and interest, this monograph has evaluated NOS in university level general chemistry textbooks published in U.S.A. Most textbooks in this study provided little insight with respect to the nine criteria used for evaluating NOS. Some of the textbooks, however, inevitably refer to HPS and thus provide guidelines for future textbooks. A few of the textbooks go into considerable detail to present the atomic models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr and wave mechanical to illustrate the tentative nature of scientific theories --- an important NOS aspect. These results lead to the question: Are we teaching science as practiced by scientists? An answer to this question can help us to understand the importance of NOS, by providing students an HPS-based environment, so that they too (just like the scientists) feel the thrill and excitement of discovering new things. This monograph provides students and teachers guidelines for introducing various aspects of NOS, based on historical episodes.

Research in science education has recognised the importance of presenting physical science within a history and philosophy of science (HPS) perspective in order to facilitate students' understanding. The objective of this study is to present a framework based on HPS for analysing introductory freshman level general chemistry and physics textbooks published in U.S.A. A review of the relevant literature in science education shows that most textbooks ignore HPS, while presenting the following topics: a) Atomic structure; b) Determination of the elementary electrical charge; c) Laws of definite and multiple proportions; d) Kinetic theory of gases; e) Covalent bond; f) Periodic table; and g) Quantum numbers. This research shows that textbooks generally do not present progress in science as it is actually practised by scientists. For most textbooks, doing science means accumulating empirical data with no reference to the interpretation of the data based on the scientist's theoretical framework or presuppositions. The role and importance of presuppositions and guiding assumptions along with the theory-ladenness of observations are the major contributions of the new post-positivist philosophy of science. Given the importance of textbooks in most parts of the world, such presentations deprive students of the dynamics of scientific research that involves controversies, conflicts and rivalries among scientists, that is in a nut shell the humanising aspects of science. This research has been extended to show that inclusion of these facets of science in the classroom can be stimulating for students and facilitate greater conceptual understanding. It is concluded that if the authors want their students to understand science and not simply memorise algorithms, then a revision of the textbooks is necessary.

The main objective of this monograph is to incorporate history and philosophy of science in the chemistry curriculum in order to provide students an overview of the dynamics of scientific research, which involves controversies, conflicts and rivalries among scientists, that is the humanising aspects of science. A major thesis of this book is the parallel between the construction of knowledge by the students and the scientists. In looking for this relationship, it is not necessary that ontogeny recapitulate phylogeny, but rather to establish that students can face similar difficulties in conceptualising problems as those faced by the scientists in the past. Given the vast amount of literature on students' alternative conceptions (misconceptions) in science, it is plausible to suggest that these can be considered not as mistakes, but rather as tentative models, leading to greater conceptual understanding. Just as scientists resist changes in the 'hard-core' of their beliefs by offering 'auxiliary hypotheses', students may adopt similar strategies. Conceptual change, in science education can thus be conceptualised as building of tentative models that provide greater explanatory power to students' understanding.