Teleological and anthropomorphic explanations are considered illegitimate by many biology educators. This article is a position paper advocating the removal of the taboo regarding anthropomorphism and teleology in biology education. This position is defended by several arguments: (a) Regardless of science educators’ position in this issue, children will continue to encounter endless teleological/anthropomorphic formulations in popular science movies and books. (b) A review of philosophers’ and biologists’ ideas shows that there is definitely no consensus on a universal rejection of teleological formulations and explanations. (c) The results of an empirical cognitive study show that, for high school students, the acceptance of anthropomorphic or teleological formulations does not necessarily imply anthropomorphic or teleological reasoning. (d) Results from an empirical field study designed to assess the influence of a textbook with numerous teleological/anthropomorphic formulations on biology students indicate that the use of such a book is not followed by an increase in students’ application of teleological/anthropomorphic formulations or explanations. Students’ reflections upon their own learning processes testify that teleological/anthropomorphic formulations have heuristic value. Practical implications for biology education are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 82:679–697, 1998.

Teleological and anthropomorphic explanations are considered illegitimate by many biology educators. This article is a position paper advocating the removal of the taboo regarding anthropomorphism and teleology in biology education. This position is defended by several arguments: (a) Regardless of science educators' position in this issue, children will continue to encounter endless teleological/anthropomorphic formulations in popular science movies and books. (b) A review of philosophers' and biologists' ideas shows that there is definitely no consensus on a universal rejection of teleological formulations and explanations. (c) The results of an empirical cognitive study show that, for high school students, the acceptance of anthropomorphic or teleological formulations does not necessarily imply anthropomorphic or teleological reasoning. (d) Results from an empirical field study designed to assess the influence of a textbook with numerous teleological/anthropomorphic formulations on biology students indicate that the use of such a book is not followed by an increase in students' application of teleological/anthropomorphic formulations or explanations. Students' reflections upon their own learning processes testify that teleological/anthropomorphic formulations have heuristic value. Practical implications for biology education are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 82:679–697, 1998.

An important question which is often overlooked addresses the nature and quantity of higher-order thinking activities when teachers are not explicitly ‘teaching for thinking’ but rather acting and behaving routinely. This study investigates the scope and nature of tasks demanding students’ application of higher-order thinking skills while studying biology in junior and senior high schools in Israel. The method used is the collection and analysis of questions asked by teachers during classroom discourse, in homework assignments and in tests. The main findings show: (a) that the frequency of higher-order thinking questions in biology class discourse in Israel is approximately 20%; (b) that the cognitive level of teachers’ questioning in HS is higher than in JHS; (c) that the matriculation exam has a strong influence on tests given by teachers; and (d) that while inquiry questions permeated HS testing they are less salient in HS class discourse, indicating the need for remedial treatment which should include the integration of more inquiry-oriented pedagogies into classroom practice.  

Teleological and anthropomorphic explanations are considered illegitimate by many biology educators. This article is a position paper advocating the removal of the taboo regarding anthropomorphism and teleology in biology education. This position is defended by several arguments: (a) Regardless of science educators’ position in this issue, children will continue to encounter endless teleological/anthropomorphic formulations in popular science movies and books. (b) A review of philosophers’ and biologists’ ideas shows that there is definitely no consensus on a universal rejection of teleological formulations and explanations. (c) The results of an empirical cognitive study show that, for high school students, the acceptance of anthropomorphic or teleological formulations does not necessarily imply anthropomorphic or teleological reasoning. (d) Results from an empirical field study designed to assess the influence of a textbook with numerous teleological/anthropomorphic formulations on biology students indicate that the use of such a book is not followed by an increase in students’ application of teleological/anthropomorphic formulations or explanations. Students’ reflections upon their own learning processes testify that teleological/anthropomorphic formulations have heuristic value. Practical implications for biology education are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 82:679–697, 1998.

Science curricula often require students to collect, record, and describe experimental observations and results, as well as to draw conclusions. The first purpose of this study is to document and analyze students’ performance regarding the differentiation between results and conclusions, while they are engaged in scientific investigations within biology classrooms. The second purpose is to describe and analyze teachers’ thinking regarding this issue. The findings show that while learning biology in school, students often have difficulties in differentiating between experimental results and conclusions. Although teachers were highly aware of their students’ difficulties and held a rich set of ideas about the sources of those difficulties, the instructional means they used were insufficient. Two hypotheses are suggested as the source of students’ difficulties. Further research is needed to investigate those hypotheses and to formulate recommendations for improved instructional means.