1. Science vs TEK Focus: natural objects and events (S & TEK)

2. Science vs TEK Goals: to describe, predict, explain objects, events and phenomena (S & TEK) to control nature (S) to live in harmony with nature (TEK)

3. Science vs TEK Process: observation objective, rational, value-free (S) moral, spiritual & traditional (TEK) experimentation in controlled settings and limited time periods (S) holistic, “real” settings over generations (TEK) experimenter separate from investigation (S) experimenter essential part of situation (TEK)

4. Science vs TEK Process: testability & replicability (S & TEK) evidence is collected and summarized (S & TEK) quantitative data not essential (TEK) relies on quantitative data (S)

5. Science vs TEK Products: contributions are made by individual (S) society (TEK) knowledge concentrated in: scientists (S) elders and/or healers (TEK) skepticism valued (S) respect for TEK valued (TEK) continual construction of knowledge (S & TEK) structure of knowledge parsimonious (S) comprehensive (S & TEK)

6. Science vs TEK Products: public knowledge and skills (S, TEK?) oral (TEK) integrates historical events (TEK) sources not essential (TEK) regionally, culturally, and contextually based (TEK) integrates applications (TEK) is cumulative (TEK) written (S) chronological (S & TEK?) cites sources (S) can be generalized (S) fits with theories (S)

7. Science vs TEK Social conducted & constructed in a social setting (S & TEK) influenced by social values and understanding (S & TEK)

8. Science vs TEK Assumptions: people can predict events based on past experience (S & TEK?) people can understand how the world works (S) cause-effect underlies everything (S) world is orderly and predictable (S) understanding comes from empirical evidence and logic (S) empirical evidence and spiritual understanding (TEK)

9. References American Association for the Advancement of Science (1989). Science for all Americans (pp. 25-31). Washington, DC: AAAS. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for scientific literacy (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Oxford University Press Aikenhead, G. (1997). Toward a first nations cross-cultural science and technology curriculum. Science Education, 81: 217-238. Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2000) Defining "Science" in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85:50-67. Corsiglia, J., & Snively, G. (1995) Global lessons from the traditional science of long-resident peoples. in G. Snively & A. MacKinnon (Eds) Thinking Globally about Mathematics and Science Education. Derry, G. (1999) What science is and how it works. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996) Ch. 3: Perspectives on the nature of science. In Young people's images of science (pp. 24-44). Philadelphia: Open University Press.

10. References Hewson, P. W. H., M. G. A. (1988). “An appropriate conception of teaching science: a view from studies of science learning.” Science Education 72: 597-614. Irzik, G. (1998). Philosophy of science and radical intellectual islam in Turkey. In W.W. Cobern (ed) Socio-cultural perspectives on science education (pp. 163-179). Dodrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kawagley, A.O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. (1998). The indigenous worldview of Yupiaq culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to practice and teaching of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2): 133-144. Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multiscience perspective. Science Education, 79:583-593 Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83: 493-509. Snively, G. (1995). Bridging traditional science in western science in the multicultural classroom. in G. Snively & A. MacKinnon (Eds) Thinking Globally about Mathematics and Science Education. Uglow, J. (2002). The lunar men. Faber & Faber: London.