You are on page 1of 2

Amber Moore

2/6/18
Google Scholar

Part A:

William McComas, The Myths of Science: Reexamining What We Think We Know About the
Nature of Science, School Science and Mathematics, Volume 96 Issue 1 January 1996 pgs 10-16
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1996.tb10205.x/full

William McComas & Anne Marshall Cox-Peterson, Enhancing undergraduate Science Instruction
– The G Step Approach, Journal of College Science Teaching, Volume 29 Issue 2 November 1999
pg 120-125
https://search.proquest.com/docview/200359292?pq-origsite=gscholar

William McComas, Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science, The Science Teacher, Volume 71
Issue 9 November 2004 pgs 24-27
https://search.proquest.com/docview/214618434?pq-origsite=gscholar

In the article Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science, William McComas presents nine ideas for
educators to use when teaching science. This comes after Richard Duschl’s discovery that
textbooks and in-class experiences were not considering the true nature of science (NOS). NOS
considers the influences on the science industry, including social and physiological aspects. The
article begins with how Duschl’s original idea was not accepted by the masses but in recent
years incorporating NOS ideas into the K-12 curriculum has gained a following. The key ideas
presented are science relies on empirical evidence, science is highly creative, and its methods
cannot answer all questions. It should also be reiterated to students that the scientific method
is just a template off which one can use to prove scientific issues, there is also no way to be
sure that one has collected all evidence, and science is just as exciting and creative as the arts.
McComas also includes that since all researchers are not equal, science has a subjective
element, there are many historical, cultural, and social influences on science and there is a
great impact of technology on science. The conclusion states that NOS notions in the literature
and the classroom can make the curriculum engaging, and NOS should be central in discussions
in these mediums.

Part B:

Sven Bolte, Eva Westerwald, Martin Holtmann, Christine Freitag, and Fritz Poutska, Autistic
Traits and Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Clinical Validity of Two Measures Presuming a
Continuum of Social Communication Skills, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
Volume 41 Issue 1 January 2011, pgs 66-72
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-010-1024-9
Marie M. Bristol, Mothers of children with autism or communication disorders: Successful
adaptation and the double ABCX model, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
Volume 17 Issue 4 December 1987, pgs 469-486
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01486964

Robert J. Ruben, Redefining the Survival of the Fittest: Communication Disorders in the 21 st
Century, The Laryngoscope, Volume 110 Issue 2 February 2000, pgs 241-245
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1097/00005537-200002010-00010/full

Robert Ruben’s research paper titled Redefining the Survival of the Fittest: Communication
Disorder’s in the 21st Century examines the impact on the United States’ economy when it
comes to caring for people with communication disorders and the cost of loss in employment
opportunities for these individuals. First, Ruben presents data that occupations relying on
communication are on the rise and will continue to rise in the coming years. He also mentions
that as technology is advancing there will be a greater need for analysts to communicate
machinery operations. To get an idea of the prevalence of communication disorders, Ruben
evaluated multiple sources of data and uncovered that 8.6% of the U.S. population have
hearing impairments and around 7.5 – 13% of children have language impairments, with the
overall prevalence of communication disorders affecting between 5-10% of the population.
Next, Ruben found that 43.4% of the US population are unemployed with a communication
disorder, and the majority of these individuals have unintelligible speech. After comparing and
contrasting other factors such as income levels, social classes based on gender, and severity of
hearing loss, it is concluded that the total loss of income from underemployment of all persons
with communication disorders is around $77.9 billion. The cost of communication disorders on
the US economy is between $154.3 and $186 billion per year, around 3% of the gross national
product. In conclusion, communication disorders reduce economic input and this will result in a
major public health challenge in the 21st century.

You might also like