Αντιλήψεις Ελλήνων Εκπαιδευτικών Φυσικών Επιστημών για τη Φύση της Επιστήμης

Specific metrics for the status of US science education indicate that the country is losing its competitive edge on a global scale; among nations, the US ranks 22nd in density of broadband internet penetration and 72nd in density of mobile phone subscriptions, both of which are critical tools for science literacy and likely contribute to our international rank of 48th in quality of math and science education. Even worse, 69% of US public middle-school math students are taught by teachers without degrees or certificates in mathematics, and 93% of public middle-school teachers in physical sciences lack degrees in their subject (NAS 2010). All of these rankings represent indicators of global science leadership. In short, formal science education systems in the US lag behind those of many other countries, and our ability to train the next generation of scientists is at risk (Brewer and Smith 2010). In addition to shortfalls in public schools, US K–12 youth now watch at least 4 hours of television daily, and the average teenager spends a whopping 7.5 recreational hours daily in front of television and gaming screens (NAS 2010) – time that instead could be devoted to doing homework or experiencing the natural world through outdoor engagement. The formal STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education metrics for US education are not keeping pace with those of other developed countries and are declining over time. Ecology education is experiencing one of the largest deficits: public schools have cut back on field trips and many K–12 students now experience nature virtually, rather than directly (Louv 2008; Lowman and Mourad 2010). Likewise, many undergraduate and graduate programs are eliminating their natural history programs, sometimes referred to as the "extinction of the ologies" (Lowman and Mourad 2010). In contrast, informal science education (ISE) is now providing a larger compensatory component of STEM education to students as well as to citizens and policy makers. Currently, US museums tally approximately 850 million visits annually, which is more than the attendance for all major league sporting events and theme parks combined (483 million in 2011; www.aam-us.org). Along with these visits, museums are also recording a burgeoning virtual visitorship, with an additional 524 million online visitors in 2006 alone, which has escalated during the past 5 years. In the US, there are over 17 000 museums, whose visitors range from several hundred for a rural museum with a local mission to >8 million annually for larger or national museums (www.aam-us.org); many of these ISE experiences bolster shortfalls in formal STEM education. Natural history museums, with their biodiversity collections and interpretive dioramas, serve as focal points to provide ISE about ecological concepts, including biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate change, and landscapes. In many cases, K–12 students become inspired by seeing, touching, and working with collections; and increasingly, virtual technologies and social media are becoming important drivers of science education concepts for youth outside of the formal classroom setting. Both undergraduate and graduate students can gain valuable training in science communication and outreach using the public floor of museums and other ISE platforms (Trautmann and Krasny 2006; Lowman and Mourad 2010). Given the declining competitiveness of US science education on a global scale, ISE has become an important pipeline for engaging the next generation of scientists and for contributing to otherwise declining ecological literacy. Of US adults surveyed nationally, <20% possess an "acceptable" level of scientific literacy and a majority have little knowledge of natural science, the process of research, or the results of contemporary scientific investigations, despite the importance of science to both human and ecological health (Field and Powell 2001; Miller 2004). Many ISE institutions are embracing the urgency of providing visitors with hands-on experiences to understand science and especially ecology; such efforts may translate to a healthy community through an understanding of fresh water, pollinators, clean air, agriculture, carbon sequestration, forest products, and myriad other ecosystem services. Educators often suggest "the best way to help the public understand the research process is to involve them directly through hands-on research" (Ucko 2004). Public Engagement with Science (PES) is a term used in ISE circles that emphasizes the growing importance of providing citizens with a better understanding of science as a driver of economics and health; ecology is often a conduit for science understanding, whereby museums foster a sense of wonder that leads to greater science literacy by getting kids "hooked" on science. But more analyses of PES in museum settings – including theoretically based assessments of activities – are sorely needed (Bonney et al. 2009). In my former home state of North Carolina, 39% of 8th graders report they "never or hardly ever" designed a science experiment, and another 29% report doing hands-on science activities only once or twice a month. Teaching methods that were traditional several decades ago – lectures, textbooks, recipes in laboratory sessions –continue to be the norm in science education despite national outcries calling for radical change (eg Brewer and Smith 2010). Soon, science teachers may face additional pressure to incorporate hands-on experiences into their courses. Like those of many other states, North Carolina's revised science standards call for inquiry-based learning experiences emphasizing the Next Generation Science standards. Historically restricted to museums as an outreach activity, ISE may infiltrate the public school classroom, so that "citizen-science" activities originating in museums can be virtually transmitted to classrooms for dynamic new science activities (eg Project GLOBE, Project BudBurst, and iNaturalist.org; see Trautmann et al. 2012; Zoellick et al. 2012; www.yourwildlife.org). Programs such as the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) have national mandates from Congress to implement citizen science (or some major and transformational capacity of ISE) to reach diverse stakeholders with data streams about North American ecosystems (Lowman et al. 2009). In addition, for states like North Carolina, with large numbers of practicing scientists, the mentoring of K–12 teachers by scientists has the potential to become another pathway for ISE (Lowman and Randle 2009). To keep North Carolina competitive in science (especially given the strength of Research Triangle Park, a huge driver of technology and jobs in the state), public–private partnerships funded a new wing of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences that opened in April 2012. Called the Nature Research Center, it proposed to expand citizen science (ie PES) to diverse stakeholders using four innovative platforms of ISE (Dickinson and Bonney 2012). Drawing upon ecology and especially biodiversity as major drivers (since the museum houses a collection of over three million specimens of organisms endemic to the southeastern US), several ecology-based citizen-science programs were launched with marked success. These programs serve as a case study for integrating real nature and virtual technologies, thereby raising the ecological literacy of museum visitors. Researchers from the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University initiated visitor evaluations to track the success of the different platforms of informal learning that include: (1) citizen-science programs in partnership with local scientists (eg the Belly-Button Biodiversity program [Hulcr et al. 2012] or the "wild life of our homes" project [www.yourwildlife.org]); (2) virtual theater to connect K–12 students directly to environmental scientists working both in laboratories and in the field; (3) public education labs (called iLabs) that illustrate natural science techniques of "how we know what we know" about ecology and natural sciences; and (4) glass-walled laboratories where scientists work in the public eye and answer questions from onlookers about the scientific process. Will ISE platforms succeed in bolstering STEM education for students and visitors? With its myriad educational programs for diverse audiences, the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) is proving the success of ISE. Located in San Francisco, CAS's ecoliteracy programs are rooted in science learning, but take the next step to reconnect learners to the natural world and equip them with tools to foster healthy communities through environmental action (eg http://spotlight.macfound.org/featured-stories/entry/elizabeth-babcock). For example, the Academy's Teacher Institute on Science and Sustainability engages 3rd- to 5th-grade teachers in a cohort-based, 2-year training program to incorporate sustainability action in their science teaching. Using simple metaphors that make the science accessible, CAS's ocean action programs (hosted near a 200 000-gallon live coral-reef exhibit on the museum floor) acquaint visitors with the causes and mechanisms of ocean acidification, and its impact on coral reefs. Conservation-oriented stories, as well as action steps designed for individuals and families to reduce carbon emissions, are directly woven into the program's message. In addition, CAS has one of the museum world's first glass-walled laboratories, where visitors can "meet a scientist" and children can interact with diverse scientists as role models (Figure 1). Such innovative attempts to strengthen ISE may ultimately inspire the next generation of ecologists. Moreover, expansion of "virtual-plus-real" natural history educational platforms into other ISE institutions – botanical gardens, zoos, parks, and even school playgrounds (eg www.schoolofants.org) – will foster exciting opportunities to improve ecoliteracy, not just for students but also for their parents, for regional policy makers, and for a diverse public who enjoy destinations that offer ecology education in an informal setting. An informal science education (ISE) laboratory at the California Academy of Sciences encourages students and the general public to pose questions to practicing scientists. This interaction also allows visitors to learn how natural history hypotheses are tested by the scientific method. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

The article analyzes the educational program "Secondary Education (Natural Sciences)" as a holistic system of integrated learning based on innovative project results, taking into account a holistic view of the world, a wide range of scientific ideas of astronomy, biology, geography, physics and chemistry within which further professional and scientific activities are possible. The goals and objectives of the OP, the content of the educational components that determine the possibility of forming programmatic learning outcomes are revealed, and they provide for the qualitative preparation of the Master of Secondary Education (Natural Sciences), teacher (teacher) of natural sciences, chemistry, physics of biology.The content and peculiarities of formation of the results of training of future specialists of the specialty 014.15 Secondary education (Natural sciences), which take into account the content of educational components of the subject area of natural sciences (biology, chemistry, physics), are substantiated. The history of the development of the educational program "Secondary Education (Natural Sciences)" and the introduction of the VG Poltava National Pedagogical University are covered. Korolenko. Demonstrated how the goals and programmatic results of OP training reflect the trends of specialty and labor market development. The system of program results of specialty training “014.15 Secondary Education (Natural Sciences)” is presented, which corresponds to the national frame of qualifications.

Atheism as a Soviet Science Atko Remmel, UT Faculty of Theology The following questions will be addressesd in the talk: To which extent were Soviet anti-religion practices scientifically grounded? To which extent can one speak about atheism as a scientific discipline? Is it justifiable to regard Soviet science as „atheist“? On the one hand, atheism was a conceptual component of the prevailing ideology, but on the other hand it was a practical device used for enforcing this ideology. The main basis for regarding it as scientific was the dogmatic position that Marxism-Leninism was a scientific theory. Soviet science was therefore automatically considered atheist and atheism scientific, regardless of the scientific methods – or lack thereof – which were used for gathering data. When speaking of the scientific character of scientific atheism, it should be approached as a synthetic discipline which drew together the results of other disciplines with the aim of criticizing religion, its main conclusion being that religion was incompatible with Marxist ideology and natural sciences. However, when science is exploited for ideological reasons, it is inevitably biased and lacks some of the main attributes of scientific quality, despite its scientific mimicry. Moreover, since the contributions of atheists to the findings of natural sciences were mainly of ideological nature, the discipline attained an apologetic role and it can be considered a quasi-scientific rather than a scientific discipline. In Estonia the community of scientific atheists consisted barely of a handful of people who were mostly occupied at different establishments for higher education. „Estonian scientific atheism“ can be distinguished from Soviet scientific atheism only so far as their writings dealt with the local situation. The main fields of study were the history of religion and sociology; on the practical side the main focus was on the new Soviet rituals.

A satisfying solution to the problem of demarcation remains elusive, but, regardless, we shouldn't be content with dismissing any theory, study or method simply because it doesn't fulfil a particular definition. Empiricist attitudes towards the sciences emphasize both observations and certain forms of reasoning, but the basic empiricist picture could easily lead to confusion about how sciences work. Our experiences are not always reliable indicators of how things are. We should be wary of placing too much emphasis on how things appear. Biases in subjective experience can be overcome through improved experimental design. There might be very good reasons for ignoring certain data, but those reasons may not always be immediately apparent to those who lack relevant training and education. Certainty is not something sciences achieve, but absence of certainty is consistent with having lots of compelling evidence for given conclusions. We continue to learn about how past experiences can better predict future events. Scientific methods are themselves appropriate objects of criticism and refinement, and the introduction of new methods may be entirely justifiable. All theories confront anomalies, so anomalies alone can't be adequate reasons to dismiss a theory. Theories are pursued, in part, because they offer the most promise for purposes of furthering our understanding. Kuhn's suggestion that scientists work within something like a paradigm has historical plausibility, but this need not imply strong incommensurability between paradigms. Scientific progress is contingent, shaped in part by what problems scientists choose to engage, what technology becomes available, as well as broader socio-economic and political factors. Nevertheless, such contingencies are quite consistent with scientists achieving substantive results relative to the objectives they set. The arguments from underdetermination and discontinuity within the sciences are each reminders of scientific fallibility. Neither provides compelling reasons to deny particular scientific theories or conclusions that some people may find inconvenient or objectionable. Scientific communities may be a more appropriate object for explaining scientific authority. Sciences are not value free, but the role of values in sciences need not compromise scientific authority. It is appropriate to criticize scientific conclusions, methods and theories, but we should remember that some criticisms may be entirely misguided. Worthwhile criticisms are precise and well-supported.

Introduction The term “scientist” lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the evolving, interdisciplinary nature of scientific work and posing challenges for recognition, communication, and policy. This study aims to develop consensus-based definitions of the term “scientist” by engaging experienced scholars across diverse fields. Methods This study involved 156 scholars, each with at least 1,000 citations, recruited via convenience sampling. Fourteen scientist definitions, derived from literature and expert input, were assessed using a nine-point Likert scale via a structured google forms survey. The sample size was calculated using G*power (effect size = 0.5, power = 0.95), requiring at least 80 participants. Content Validity Index (CVI) was used for analysis. Definitions scoring ≥0.78 were accepted and included for final analysis, 0.70–0.78 were revised and re-evaluated, and &lt;0.70 were excluded. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance and confidentiality. Results Of the 14 proposed definitions, six (42.9%) were excluded (CVI &lt; 0.70), seven (50.0%) were accepted (CVI &gt; 0.78), and one (7.1%) underwent revision (CVI 0.70–0.78). The highest-rated definitions were refined into two consensus-based versions: a short definition (“A scientist is a person who conducts research”) and a detailed one emphasizing hypothesis formulation and knowledge dissemination. Final validation yielded CVIs of 0.82 and 0.84, respectively, confirming strong expert agreement on both definitions. Conclusion This study developed two validated definitions of “scientist” emphasizing systematic research and knowledge dissemination. These definitions clarify the concept of scientific identity, providing a flexible yet rigorous framework applicable across academic, interdisciplinary, and policy-making contexts. Introduction The term "scientist" has undergone significant transformation since its inception, reflecting the dynamic nature of scientific inquiry and the evolving landscape of knowledge. This lack of clarity stems from the diverse roles and contributions of individuals in scientific fields, the evolving nature of research, and the interdisciplinary scope of modern science. Historically, figures such as Galileo and Newton were regarded as natural philosophers, a reflection of an earlier framework for knowledge production that has evolved alongside modern scientific advancements. Before twentieth century, the term "scientist" was commonly referred to as a "man of science," "natural philosopher," or by various other designations [1,2]. In contemporary contexts, scientists operate across a broad spectrum of fields, including medicine, biology, chemistry, physics, and social sciences, each employing methodologies tailored to their specific inquiries. For instance, biologists may design experiments to test hypotheses about living organisms, while social scientists might use qualitative methods to explore human behavior [3]. The Science Council defines a scientist as an individual who methodically collects and applies research and evidence to develop hypotheses, performs experiments, and shares results to advance knowledge in their field [4]. While National Cancer Institute defines a scientist as an individual with a background in science, particularly someone actively engaged in a specific area of research [5]. This diversity in practices underscores the challenge of defining "scientist" in a way that captures the breadth of their contributions. The plurality of definitions extends to global organizations and frameworks. For example, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization highlights the critical role of scientists in addressing global challenges and promoting sustainable development. This definition broadens the scope to include individuals working in multidisciplinary teams or applying scientific knowledge to public policy and societal issues. Similarly, some academic discussions focus on the characteristics of a scientist, such as curiosity, skepticism, and a commitment to evidence-based conclusions, rather than formal qualifications or job titles [6]. Unlike well-defined professions such as medicine or engineering, where specific educational pathways and professional titles (e.g., "doctor" or "engineer") confer clear identities, the term "scientist" lacks a universally recognized credentialing system. This absence can lead to underrepresentation or misrepresentation of scientific expertise, especially in interdisciplinary and collaborative contexts [7]. For example, the growing integration of data science in biology or physics illustrates the importance of understanding who qualifies as a scientist to ensure effective communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The absence of a standardized definition poses practical challenges for scientific communication, policymaking, and inclusivity. This study aims to address this gap by engaging scholars across disciplines to develop a consensus-based definition of "scientist." By recognizing the diverse and interdisciplinary contributions of scientists, such a definition could enhance collaboration, improve public understanding, and inform policies that support the scientific community. Methods Study design and participants A total of 156 scholars (out of 300 invited) participated in this study. Eligibility was determined based on the scholars' substantial academic expertise, evidenced by the achievement of at least 1,000 citations within their respective fields. This criterion ensured that participants had significant research experience and were highly qualified to contribute to the formulation of a consensus-based definition of "scientist." Participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method, and data were collected via a structured survey administered through google forms. While convenience sampling was used due to the accessibility of high-citation scholars, efforts were made to ensure disciplinary diversity to mitigate potential bias. Personalized invitations were sent via email to each scholar to facilitate their inclusion in the study. Sample size determination The sample size was determined using G*power statistical software (version 3.1.9.7), employing a two-tailed goodness of fit test with an effect size of 0.5, an alpha error probability of 0.05, and a statistical power of 0.95. According to the calculations, a minimum of 80 participants were required to achieve statistically valid results. Consequently, 156 scholars were recruited to participate in the study, ensuring robust representation and adequate statistical power. Data collection Fourteen proposed definitions of "scientist," curated from existing literature and expert contributions, were presented to the enrolled scholars for evaluation (Table 1). Each definition included a Likert scale with nine response options, ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." Responses were systematically recorded and compiled in an Excel sheet for subsequent analysis. This process facilitated the systematic capture of scholarly consensus on each definition. Table 1. Respondent Agreement on Various 'Scientist' Definitions. Proposed Definitions Options A person studying or has expert knowledge of one or more natural or physical sciences. (Oxford Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert who studies or works in one of the sciences. (Cambridge Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person learned in science and especially natural science. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge. (Science Council) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is someone who has studied science and whose job is to teach or do research in science. (Collins Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree An expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences. (Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person with some kind of knowledge or expertise in any of the sciences. (Vocabulary dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems. (Britannica Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who has studied science, especially one who is active in a particular field of investigation. (National Cancer Institute) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone who works or is trained in science. (Longman Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person whose profession is investigating in one of the natural sciences. (Your Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science. (Free Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Someone whose job or education is about science. (LanGeek Dictionary) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree A scientist is a person who researches to advance knowledge in an area of the natural sciences. (Wikipedia) Strongly Disagree Moderately Disagree Disagree Slightly Disagree Undecided Slightly Agree Moderately Agree Agree Strongly Agree Data analysis The Content Validity Index (CVI) was employed to assess the relevance and agreement of the definitions. Definitions with a CVI below 0.70 were excluded, as they failed to meet the minimum threshold for consensus. Definitions with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 underwent a second round of evaluation, with refined wording sent back to the same scholars for further review. Definitions achieving a CVI above 0.78 were deemed sufficiently valid for inclusion in the final analysis [8]. These definitions formed the foundation for the development of a unified, consensus-based definition of "scientist." Ethical considerations Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and all responses were anonymized to preserve participant confidentiality. Results Initially, out of the 14 proposed definitions of the term "scientist," six (42.9%) received a CVI score below the threshold of 0.70 and were consequently excluded from further consideration. In contrast, seven definitions (50.0%) demonstrated strong content validity with CVI scores equal to or exceeding 0.78 and were therefore retained for subsequent synthesis and analysis. Only one definition (7.1%) fell within the intermediate range, with a CVI between 0.70 and 0.78 (Table 2). Table 2. Comparison of Agreement and CVI Across Proposed Definitions of 'Scientist'. Proposed Definition Agree Disagree Undecided CVI Status Science Council Definition 146 8 2 0.94 Accepted Britannica Dictionary Definition 136 16 4 0.87 Accepted Cambridge Dictionary 130 20 6 0.83 Accepted Wikipedia Definition 125 27 4 0.80 Accepted Free Dictionary Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted National Cancer Institute Definition 124 25 7 0.79 Accepted Collins Dictionary Definition 122 31 3 0.78 Accepted Oxford Dictionary Definition 120 31 5 0.77 Revised Longman Dictionary Definition 104 42 10 0.67 Excluded Your Dictionary Definition 103 48 5 0.66 Excluded Dictionary (generic) Definition 91 52 13 0.58 Excluded Vocabulary dictionary Definition 88 58 10 0.56 Excluded Merriam-Webster Dictionary Definition 81 64 11 0.52 Excluded LanGeek Dictionary Definition 79 67 10 0.51 Excluded CVI: Content Validity Index, CVI Thresholds: Accepted: ≥ 0.78, Revised: 0.70–0.78, Excluded: &lt; 0.70 Through a rigorous, iterative evaluation process involving expert feedback, the definitions with the highest CVI scores (those above 0.78) were integrated and refined into two distinct, consensus-based definitions of the term "scientist." The first was a concise definition: “A scientist is a person who conducts research.” The second was a more comprehensive and elaborated definition: “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These two final definitions were subsequently circulated among the panel of scholars for a second round of evaluation, during which they were asked to rate the definitions for content validity. The short definition received a CVI of 0.82, while the more detailed definition attained a slightly higher CVI of 0.84, reflecting strong agreement among the experts. Although no additional formal qualitative feedback was solicited at this stage; minor wording adjustments were made based on informal suggestions received during this validation round. Discussion The role of a scientist extends far beyond the stereotypical image of an individual in a white coat working exclusively in a laboratory setting. Careers grounded in scientific expertise are remarkably diverse, encompassing domains such as research, education, industry, and regulatory affairs. The Science Council categorizes scientists into 10 different types, highlighting the diversity of scientific roles beyond the stereotypical lab-based researcher. It includes types such as experimental scientists, theoretical scientists, data scientists, and more, reflecting the broad spectrum of scientific work today [9]. Definitions of the term “scientist” vary, yet they generally converge on the principles of systematic inquiry, evidence-based investigation, and the pursuit of knowledge across various disciplines. For instance, the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Britannica Dictionary emphasize formal training and research functions, typically within the natural sciences such as biology, chemistry, or physics [10,11]. In contrast, contemporary perspectives, such as those discussed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2024, recognize a broader spectrum of scientific engagement, encompassing both professional researchers and individuals committed to understanding the world through observation, experimentation, and analysis [12]. In light of this diversity, the present study aimed to clarify and formalize the definition of a "scientist" through expert consensus. Two definitions were developed: a concise definition “A scientist is a person who conducts research”, and a comprehensive definition “A scientist is someone who systematically conducts or gathers and uses research to formulate hypotheses and test them, in order to gain and disseminate understanding and knowledge.” These definitions encapsulate the core activities and guiding principles of scientific inquiry, emphasizing both methodological rigor and the essential role of knowledge dissemination across disciplines. A key finding of this study lies in its recognition of the evolving tension between disciplinary specialization and the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaboration. As highlighted in contemporary analyses of interdisciplinary research and development, scientists now frequently operate at the intersection of multiple fields, such as nanomedicine, where the diversity and dissimilarity of collaborators’ knowledge can significantly enhance research productivity [13]. The concise definition, "A scientist is a person who conducts research" captures this shift by avoiding constraints tied to specific disciplinary boundaries. In contrast, the more detailed definition explicitly incorporates the systematic formulation and testing of hypotheses, along with the dissemination of knowledge, thereby reinforcing the structured and communicative nature of scientific inquiry. These elements align closely with UNESCO’s 2019 call for stronger science-society engagement and underscore the ethical responsibilities inherent in modern scientific practice [14]. The study’s findings also contribute to ongoing debates surrounding professional identity within the scientific community. In contrast to regulated professions such as medicine, the absence of a universal credentialing system for scientists complicates formal recognition, particularly in non-academic and interdisciplinary contexts. This ambiguity is reflected in the National Cancer Institute’s pragmatic definition of a scientist, which emphasizes active participation in research rather than reliance on formal titles or qualifications [15]. By anchoring the term “scientist” in core research activities rather than occupational labels, the consensus-based definitions proposed in this study offer a more inclusive framework. This approach accommodates emerging roles in fields such as data science and applied research, thereby addressing the risk of under recognition in collaborative and cross-sector environments. The dual definitions, concise and comprehensive, offer flexibility for different contexts, a strategy aligned with the Science Council’s emphasis on methodological diversity [4]. The detailed definition’s focus on systematic inquiry and dissemination aligns with studies of interdisciplinary science, where “impassioned commitment” to shared goals drives innovation [13]. Simultaneously, the availability of a concise definition enhances clarity in public discourse and science communication, while the more detailed version provides the specificity necessary for institutional contexts such as policy development, research funding, and professional accreditation. Notably, the study’s findings also challenge enduring stereotypes of the “lone genius” scientist by highlighting the inherently collaborative and iterative nature of scientific practice. Contemporary frameworks, such as those emerging from computational biology, suggest that scientific identity is increasingly dynamic, pluralistic, and shaped by collective knowledge production [16]. The process undertaken in this study, involving successive refinement and expert validation of definitions, closely mirrors the recursive logic of the scientific method itself. This methodological alignment is particularly salient in fields like nutritional epidemiology, where the replication of findings remains a persistent challenge and iterative inquiry is essential for refining evidence [17]. Despite the methodological rigor and expert involvement, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the study employed convenience sampling, which may introduce selection bias and limit the generalizability of the findings. Although participants were selected based on a minimum citation threshold to ensure scholarly expertise, this criterion may have inadvertently excluded emerging researchers or experts with significant practical contributions who have not yet achieved high citation metrics. Second, the use of an online survey format may have constrained participant engagement, as scholars with limited availability or preference for alternative formats may have been underrepresented. Additionally, response bias cannot be ruled out, as those with a particular interest in the topic or in defining scientific identity may have been more inclined to participate, potentially skewing the results. Future refinements of the definition should also consider voices from non-academic scientific contexts including those in industry, policy, and community-based science who are increasingly central to addressing complex global challenges. Conclusion By engaging experienced scholars across disciplines, this study establishes two validated definitions of “scientist” that emphasize systematic research activity and knowledge dissemination. These definitions offer a structured yet adaptable framework for understanding scientific identity, balancing clarity with flexibility. They help address the ambiguity surrounding the term “scientist,” providing a foundation for improved communication, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-informed policy development. Importantly, they remain open to future refinement as scientific practice continues to evolve. Declarations Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethical approval: Not applicable. Patient consent (participation and publication): Not applicable. Funding: The present study received no financial support. Acknowledgements: None to be declared. Authors' contributions: JG, MM, SB, BS, VS, ASN, SHM, HAH, AGH, ADS, RAK, WRR, AB, GB, SS, SN, CJ, PL, MSS, ZK, MC, AM, SK, FCT, FB, FRK, MAM, AA, VK, DH, PM, VRM, MSA, EA, and RV were significant contributors to the conception of the study, voting for the items. FHK, BAA, and AMM were involved in the literature review, manuscript writing, and data analysis and interpretation. FHK and AMM Confirmation of the authenticity of all the raw data. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Use of AI: ChatGPT-3.5 was used to assist in language editing and improving the clarity of the manuscript. All content was reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the entire content of their manuscript. Data availability statement: Not applicable.

This chapter focuses on an under-researched topic in relation to Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL): the effects of bilingual programmes on content learning. It was carried out with a total of ten schools (in Primary and Secondary Education) and 318 students in public bilingual and charter non-bilingual schools in the autonomous community of Extremadura. Students’ performance in the subjects of Science in Primary Education and Natural Science in Compulsory Secondary Education is compared across schools in order to provide data on the important issue of whether CLIL programmes are watering down subject matter learning or promoting it as successfully as in monolingual streams. Factor and discriminant analyses are performed with the type of school and educational level variables in order to determine whether CLIL is truly responsible for the differences ascertained or whether other variables account for a greater proportion of the variance. The statistical analysis confirms the positive effects of CLIL on content subject learning, showing that bilingually educated students outperform monolingually educated ones at both educational stages, although this difference is clearly significant when finishing their Secondary Education studies. The results also provide some clear-cut differences in terms of type of school and educational level, as public bilingual schools only outperform charter non-bilingual schools only at the end of Compulsory Secondary Education, which suggests the long-term effects of CLIL on subject matter learning.

Empirical investigations use empirical methods, data, and evidence. This banal observation appears to favour empiricism, especially in philosophy of science, though no rationalist ever denied their importance. Natural sciences often provide what appear to be, and are taken by scientists as, realist, causal explanations of natural phenomena, often in terms of forces or entities we do not perceive with our normal, unaided human senses. Empiricism has never been congenial to realism about such scientific posits. Bas van Fraassen’s “Constructive Empiricism” purports that realist interpretations of any “unobservables” mentioned by a scientific theory in principle always transcend whatever can be justified by that theory’s empirical adequacy, and that “explanations” are merely pragmatic, insofar as they are context‑specific to the presuppositions of whomever poses the question an explanation is to answer. Here I argue that “Constructive Empiricism” rests upon a series of flawed presumptions about natural science and about epistemology. I draw upon two main resources. One resource is the constraints upon specifically c ognitive reference to particulars, first identified by Kant (and later by Evans). The second is William Harper’s (2011) brilliant re‑analysis and defense of Newton’s Prin c ipia , which shows that, and how, Newton justified his realism about gravitational force. One surprise is that Kant’s semantics of singular cognitive reference (examined in §3) directly and strongly supports Newton’s Rule 4 of scientific method (§4), which strongly supports his realism about gravi‑ tational force (summarized in §2). A further surprise is that Hegel first recognized that this semantics of singular cognitive reference directly and strongly supports Newton’s meth odological Rule 4 of experimental philosophy in ways which support Newton’s realism about gravitational force, and about distance forces generally. The textual and exegetical issues these attributions require I examine elsewhere. Here I make these important findings available to philosophers and historians of science. (*) Invited paper

Research on the contribution that the history and philosophy of science can make to theteaching of science has established itself as a dynamic scientific field. The internationalcommunity of researchers continues to expand, publications on the subject are steadilyincreasing in number, and Science & Education journal continually increases its impactand reputation. In Greece, since 2001, a community of researchers and teachers has beencreated and has organized successive Greek conferences on History, Philosophy andScience Teaching. The conference, from which papers were selected for this special issue,was the 5th conference. It, like the previous conferences, had as its basic target to promotean in-depth examination of the interplay between the history and the philosophy of scienceand the teaching of science.The 5th Conference on History, Philosophy and Science Teaching was held in Nicosia,Cyprus, between 11 and 14 of June 2009. The organizing committee intended to broadenthe character of the conference by inviting not only Greek speaking scientists andresearchers but also scientists and researchers from all over the world to participate. A firststep towards this direction was the invitation to distinguished foreign scientists to presenttheir work, as well as the organization of an English-speaking symposium.The theme of the 5th Conference was ‘‘The Great Scientific Theories in the Teaching ofthe Natural Sciences’’. The conference sought to reveal the interaction between the greatscientific theories and science teaching, and especially the interaction between the Dar-winian theory and science teaching highlighting questions concerning the impact of Dar-winian theory for our general conception of scientific theories and for science teaching. Anexample is the extent to which contemporary discussions concerning the universality of thescientific laws, the limits of their application, and the type of explanation of the scientific

Qualitative preparation of pre-service teachers remains an actual problem. Appropriate school preparation is important for studying at university. This is very actual for future natural science teachers because the candidates of very different knowledge and ability level enter Lithuanian (and not only) universities. Such condition is presupposed by Lithuanian (and not only) general secondary education system because all natural science subjects (physics, chemistry and biology) are compulsory up to the 10th form, and in the 11th -12th (3rd -4th gymnasium) classes, only one of all natural science subjects is compulsory, or an integrated natural science course. Besides, students taking into consideration their needs and inclinations can choose general or extended natural science – biology, chemistry or physics course. Five university scientist groups carrying out an international project “Developing Bridging Courses for Mathematics and Science Teacher Students/Bridge2Teach/” started solving this problem. The aim of the project is to create, test and develop the bridging courses designed for the preparation of mathematics and natural science teachers. In this way, it is sought to do away with the gap between what was learnt at school, and what is necessary starting the studies at university. In Siauliai university, for the pre-srvice Integrated natural science teacher knowledge consolidation, 12 ECTS credits course Holistic natural phenomena conception is foreseen in the programme, by which, filling the gaps in natural science knowledge, it is sought to form entire, holistic world cognition, to motivate students for deeper natural science understanding and interpretation, to awaken willingness to explore. The studies of this course are organised so that every student should have a possibility to acquire lacking natural science knowledge, to extend it, and to actualise. All Siauliai university study programme Integrated natural science pedagogy students, having participated in the survey, unanimously pointed out that having started studies at university, at a different level they felt gaps in natural science and mathematics knowledge and abilities. As the main solution way of such a problem, the students indicated bridging course organisation for the first course students, accentuating that for successful studies at university, general and even extended mastering of the school course is necessary. Having generalised teachers’ who participated in the expert survey answers about bridging courses for students in natural science and mathematics and their need, one can claim that students, who enter higher education, have school knowledge gaps, which could be at least partly fulfilled by properly prepared and realised bridging courses. Lecturers experts claim that bridging course content depends on the chosen study direction (even on the study programme) because, basically, the necessary knowledge for the students having chosen different study programmes differs. They accentuate that such course demand for every future student should be individual; they note that to include such course in study programmes is problematic. Keywords: bridging course, international project, mathematics course, science course, science education.

One of the natural science education aims is to help students understand what is going on in nature, how and why? In other words, how natural phenomena function. Quite often, going deeper into natural phenomena, seeking to cognise them, we split the cognition process itself into separate spheres or parts. In this case we have separate teaching/learning subjects, such as Biology, Physics, Chemistry and other. It is understandable in itself, in order to sufficiently exhaustively perceive and understand the analysed spheres. On the other hand, it is equally important to integrally perceive the phenomena and/ or processes going on in nature. In the second part of the 20th century, the developing synergetics states, that everything in nature is integrally interrelated. Education science and practice constantly search for the ways how to realise transdisciplinarity in natural science education process. Integrated education programmes are created and improved and the other teaching/learning devices. However, integrated natural science education content is the only one from the system elements. Integral and transdisciplinary should be the process itself. One of the ways to realise such process is Natural science and Maths teachers’ cooperation. In this analysis, relationship realisation didactic possibilities between the subjects of Natural science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) and Maths are analysed, analysing heat transfer model. Giving one lesson example, Natural science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) and Maths subject relationship realisation didactic possibilities are revealed in the presented analysis. Specimen scenario of the heat exchange research Water containing a clay jug is presented. The pupils, having performed the experiment in Natural science lessons, draw the graphs of temperature and humidity change in time, integrally analyse the results obtained during the experiment. For the result analysis they apply Mathematics knowledge about dependent and independent variables, remember how the relationship between two variables is expressed by graphs. The lesson’s structural parts are presented: discussion of theoretical material, explanation of practical work meaning and experiment procedure, the experiment and the task performance, discussion of the obtained results and their meaningfulness will enable natural science teachers to give a lesson about heat transfer, using integration possibilities. The research is carried out during implementation of the international project „Materials for Teaching Together: Science and Mathematics Teachers collaborating for better results“. Number of the contract: 539242-LLP-1-2013-1-AT-COMENIUS-CMP/. Key words: integrated education programmes, heat transfer, science education, science teachers, transdisciplinarity in science education.

The main aim of the article is to study the organization of the Nature subject in the competence-based teaching at schools. In recent years, the active participation of our Republic in various research programs on the assessment of student achievements has led to positive changes in textbook policy. In such programs (such as TIMSS and PISA), the reading, mathematical, and scientific literacy skills of students are studied and evaluated with specially designed tools. It should be noted that according to the results of the latest TIMSS study, our students were able to demonstrate high mathematical literacy skills. Unfortunately, their scientific literacy scores were lower than the average research score. However, the formation of scientific literacy in the natural sciences is extremely important in training competent young people for the future. In the countries whose students show high results in the TIMSS and PISA research programs (Singapore, China, South Korea, Finland, etc.), the formation of scientific literacy competence in the teaching of Natural Sciences is the main goal of national education. In the article, the way to solve the problem related to the formation of scientific literacy competence in our students at the general secondary education level with the teaching of the integrative "Nature" subject was studied; the importance and necessity of studying this subject were justified. The results of Azerbaijani students in the field of Natural Sciences in comparison with international studies are not satisfactory, the reason for this is that students do not have enough knowledge of scientific concepts and laws in Natural Sciences, and they have difficulty answering real-life situational tasks. Application importance: this theory can be implemented in general education schools.

The development of science in the 21st century science has an important role, especially natural science. Scientific developments in the field of education require students to have skills that will continue to be used to improve the quality of human resources. One of the skills needed is scientific literacy skills which are important for students to have because they can make students not only memorize subject matter but can make students able to understand and analyze science concepts and processes that occur contextually. Scientific literacy has indicator aspects namely explaining phenomena scientifically, evaluating and designing scientific investigations, and interpreting data and evidence scientifically. This research is descriptive research. Research subjects of grade 8 students in the academic year 20 21/2022. The purpose of this study was to analyze the scientific literacy abilities of SMPIT Al-Ghozali students in science learning on environmental pollution. Data collection techniques used scientific literacy tests with reference to aspects of scientific literacy indicators and interviews. The results showed that students' scientific literacy achievement was 54.14% with sufficient criteria and the highest achievement indicator was 60% in the aspect of the indicator explaining phenomena scientifically. The results of this study indicate that students' scientific literacy needs to be improved in science learning activities

“Good luck on your first day as an assistant professor, Dr. Tanner! Have a great class!” On the wall above my desk, these words scream out from an otherwise encouraging note that is adorned with many exclamation points. This note has hung on my wall since my very first day as an Assistant Professor of Biology. As I was charging off to teach my first class, a senior faculty member who had been on my hiring committee slipped this note under my office door. In moments of pause years later, I still stare up at that note and breathe a sigh of relief that I had much more than luck to guide me on my first day as a college-level teacher. Although I continue to have much to learn—as all of us do no matter the number of years of teaching experience—I did arrive at the university with both formal and informal training in science education. I had had plenty of exposure to innovative pedagogical approaches, questioning strategies, and techniques for engaging diverse audiences in learning science. As a scientist educator, I had had the privilege of many years of collaboration with outstanding K–12 educators as well as a postdoctoral fellowship in science education. However, my training has been, to say the least, unconventional compared with that of my fellow junior faculty and unique in its preparation in regard to the teaching and learning of my discipline. It will not be news to anyone reading this article that university and college teaching is to a large extent a profession with no formal training. It’s startling but true that the majority of faculty members—and lecturers who often teach large numbers of students—have no formal training in the teaching and learning of their discipline. In fact, the hiring process in university science departments is structured primarily to evaluate a faculty candidate’s ability to be a productive researcher, with success measured in number of publications and magnitude of grant funds raised. Depending on the type of institution, for example, research university, state-level university, or liberal arts college, there may be a component of the faculty interview process that probes a candidate’s teaching ability, for example, requesting a statement of teaching philosophy and requiring the candidate to teach a sample lecture class. However, this sample lecture often screens for gross inadequacies, rather than looking for stellar innovations or pedagogical skills. This lack of formal, accredited training for university and college instructors stands in stark contrast to the requirements for a high school teacher who is charged with the education of students only a year junior to college freshmen. High school teachers in the United States must be credentialed as a secondary science teacher, demonstrate subject matter competency in every subject that they will be teaching, and must continually engage in professional development in the teaching and learning of their discipline throughout their career as a science teacher. With the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind legislation, the onus is upon each precollege science teacher to become “highly qualified” in terms of formal university-level training in science education. However, no such required professional training or measurable standards for teaching are required in institutions of higher education. Many policy documents have suggested standards of teaching practice in postsecondary science education (National Research Council, 1996, 1997; Siebert and McIntosh, 2001), but the extent of implementation of these ideals is unclear and has gone relatively unstudied, although national and regional accreditation boards do look at outcomes, asking colleges and universities to assess what their students have gained from four years of study at their institutions. Nonetheless, there is a striking reversal of accountability that happens when one crosses the precollege teaching to college-level teaching boundary (Table 1). During the K–12 school years, society expects K–12 teachers to be responsible for student learning. Salaries of teachers in many states are tied to student test scores, and poor student performance can potentially invoke penalties. At a college or university, several variables in the educational universe shift. Students are the ones responsible for learning. The evaluation and compensation of college-level teachers is not DOI: 10.1187/cbe.05–12–0132 Address correspondence to: Kimberly Tanner (kdtanner@sfsu.edu). CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 5, 1–6, Spring 2006

Research Article| May 01 1998 A Study of the Role of Research Scientists in K-12 Science Education Marvin Druger, Marvin Druger Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar George Allen George Allen Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar The American Biology Teacher (1998) 60 (5): 344–349. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450492 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Marvin Druger, George Allen; A Study of the Role of Research Scientists in K-12 Science Education. The American Biology Teacher 1 May 1998; 60 (5): 344–349. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/4450492 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentThe American Biology Teacher Search This content is only available via PDF. Copyright The National Association of Biology Teachers Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

By the 1970s a fundamental shift had taken place in German science education. This was a shift away from the learning of more-or-less isolated facts and facets in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics towards a restructuring of science teaching along the general principles of the respective science domains. The changes included also the addition of dimensions such as problem-based learning, understanding the basics of the Nature of Science, and engaging students in the methods of science. Since then, practical work has been solidly built into German science syllabi for each one of the separate teaching domains in school science. However, research evidence shows that practical work is still limited in many science classrooms. In many cases, hands-on work is only present as either teacher demonstrations or as cookbook-style recipe experiments for pupils. The shortcomings of such practice have also become evident in the TIMSS and PISA studies conducted since 1997. However, the outcomes published by PISA 2000 also initiated further change in Germany. For the first time ever, national science education standards were introduced for lower secondary science education. In 2004, these standards sharpened the focus of learning more prominently on how to practically carry out science tasks. The resulting reform led to research and development activity in different fields of innovation, among them science education practical work. This paper gives an account of the development of practical science work in German schools and it discusses the most prominent trends in practical science efforts in German secondary science education, which have taken place in recent years.