Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discussion of the Controversy Concerning a Historical Event Among Pre-service Teachers

Contributions to Their Knowledge About Science, Their Argumentative Skills, and Reflections About Their Future Teaching Practices

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As part of a teacher training project, 16 future chemistry teachers participated in a dramatisation activity (a mock trial of the Fritz Haber case), in which they discussed a controversy concerning an event from the history of science: the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Fritz Haber in 1918. Preparations for the role-play activity, the dramatisation of the mock trial, and the subsequent discussions were video-recorded. We also collected the written material produced by the pre-service teachers and the reflective journals they produced during their involvement with the activity. This article discusses the contributions of such an experience to future teachers’ knowledge on aspects related to both nature of science and argumentation, as well as to their views on their future actions related to authentic teaching of and about science. The results show that such contributions were meaningful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is a very brief summary of some of the events concerning Haber’s academic life. It was introduced to help the reader to understand some of our data and discussions. For more details, see, for instance, Huxtable (2002) and Wisniak (2002).

  2. The ceremony took place in 1920 because in 1918 “the Nobel Committee for Chemistry decided that none of the year’s nominations met the criteria as outlined in the will of Alfred Nobel”. Therefore, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918 was announced on November 13, 1919 (Nobelprize.org Nobel Media AB 2014).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abi-El-Mona, I., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011). Perceptions of the nature and ‘goodeness’ of argument among college students, science teachers, and scientists. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 573–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Donnelly, L. A., Riggs, M. L., & Eastwood, J. L. (2012). Developing a community of practice to support preservice elementary teachers’ nature of science instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1371–1392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012a). The Minnesota Case Study Collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012b). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives & resources. Saint Paul, MN: SHiPS Educational Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: A view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. H. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archila, P. A. (2015). Using history and philosophy of science to promote students’ argumentation: A teaching-learning sequence based on the discovery of oxygen. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1201–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. London: Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Implicit versus explicit nature of science instruction. An explicit response to Palmquist and Finley. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1057–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & McNeill, K. L. (2010). A Learning progression for scientific argumentation: Understanding student work and designing supportive instructional contexts. Science Education, 94(5), 765–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., & Reiser, B. J. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böttcher, F., & Meisert, A. (2011). Argumentation in science education: A model-based framework. Science & Education, 20(2), 103–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braga, M., Guerra, A., & Reis, J. C. (2012). The role of historical-philosophical controversies in teaching sciences: The debate between Biot and Ampère. Science & Education, 21(6), 921–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavagnetto, A. R. (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 336–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, C., & Osborne, J. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case study in science classroom. The Journal of Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.-N. C., & Zeidler, D. L. (2014). The relationship of discipline background to upper secondary students’ argumentation on socioscientific issues. Research in Science Education, 44(4), 581–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Helms, J. V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demirdögen, B., Hanuscin, D. L., Uzuntiryaki-Kondakci, E., & Köseoglu, F. (2016). Development and nature of preservice chemistry teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for nature of science. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 575–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. E. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education—Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Mugaloglu, E. (2013). Interactions of economics of science and science education: Investigating the implications for science teaching and learning. Science & Education, 22(10), 2405–2425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evagorou, M., Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Osborne, J. (2012). ‘Should we kill the grey squirrels?’ A study exploring students’ justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The Psychology of science: Review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of General Psychology, 2(1), 3–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. K. (2004). Models and modelling: Routes to a more authentic science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerra-Ramos, M. T. (2012). Teachers’ ideas about the nature of science: A critical analysis of research approaches and their contribution to pedagogical practice. Science & Education, 21(5), 631–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haber, F. (1920). The synthesis of ammonia from its elements—Award ceremony speech. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1918/press.html.

  • Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science/l A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, R. J. (2002). Reflections: Fritz Haber and the ambiguity of ethics. Proceedings of the Western Pharmacology Society, 45, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G. (2013). Introduction: Commercialization of academic science and a new agenda for science education. Science & Education, 22(10), 2375–2384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 Ideas Clave: Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas [10 Key Ideas: Competences in argumentations and use of evidence]. Barcelona: Graó.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo Rodríguez, A., & Duschl, R. (2000). “Doing the lesson” or “doing science”: Argument in high school genetics. Science & Education, 84(6), 757–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education—Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Pereiro Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Erduran, S. (2015). Characterizing nature of science: A supporting model for teachers. Paper presented at the international history and philosophy of science teaching 13rd biennial conference.

  • Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a Pragmtiv and effective means to introduce students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G., Druker, S., & Chen, C. (1998). Students’ reasoning about electricity: Combining performance assessments with argumentation analysis. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 849–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-Al-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 487–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1998a). Constructivism in science education: A philosophical examination. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1998b). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2013). The relationships between modelling and argumentation from the perspective of the model of modelling diagram. International Journal of Science Education, 35(14), 2007–2034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, P. C. C., & Justi, R. (2014). An instrument for analyzing arguments produced in modeling-based chemistry lessons. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(2), 192–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College, London School of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science based on historical controversies. Science & Education, 18(1), 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, K. H. (2013). Scientific communication and the nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2067–2086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobelprize.org Nobel Media AB. (2014). The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1918. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1918/.

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Towards a more social pedagogy in science education: The role of argumentation. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 7(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “Ideas-about-Science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S., Christodoulou, A., Howell-Richardson, C., & Richardson, K. (2013). Learning to argue: A study of four schools and their attempt to develop the use of argumentation as a common instructional practice and its impact on students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 315–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Passmore, C. M., & Svoboda, J. (2012). Exploring opportunities for argumentation in modelling classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 34(10), 1535–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvements to elementary children’s epistemic understanding from sustained argumentation. Science Education, 96(3), 488–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). Students conceptualizations of nature of science in response to a sociosicentific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 387–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, V., Grooms, J., & Walker, J. P. (2011). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help students learn how to participate in scientific argumentation and craft written arguments: An exploratory study. Science Education, 95(2), 217–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. A., & Willwood, K. A. (2008). What can argumentation tell us about epistemology? In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education—Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100(4), 706–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin’s whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96(4), 687–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students’ argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgenesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in Socio-Scientific Contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 179–200). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, P., Newton, L., & McCarthy, S. (2012). Developing a science teacher education course that supports student teachers’ thinking and teaching about the nature of science. Research in Science and Technological Education, 30(1), 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk, E. M. (2013). Relevant features of science: Values in conservation biology. Science & Education, 22(9), 2141–2156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2013). Design of chemistry teacher education course on nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2193–2225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, R. D., Bernardo, J. R. R., Evagorou, M., & Melo, V. F. (2015). Argumentation in science teacher education: The simulated jury as a resource for teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 37(7), 1113–1139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, H. A. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wisniak, J. (2002). Fritz Haber—A conflicting chemist. Indian Journal of History of Science, 37(2), 153–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about sciences as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86(3), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B. A., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigation of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zemplén, G. A. (2011). History of science and argumentation in science education: Joining forces? In P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, & A. A. Rizaki (Eds.), Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (pp. 129–140). Rotterdam: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: Students’ learning and teachers’ professional development. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq, for the financial support for conducting the research project from which this article originates; the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, CAPES, for supporting the pre-service teachers who participated in that project; and the members of the “REAGIR: Modelling and Science Education Research Group” for contributing in the design of the activity analysed in this article, the data collection, and the data analysis.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Av. Antônio Carlos 6627, Pampulha, Belo Horizonte, 31970-901, Brazil

    Rosária Justi

  2. Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto, Ouro Preto, Brazil

    Paula Cristina Cardoso Mendonça

Authors
  1. Rosária Justi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Cristina Cardoso Mendonça
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosária Justi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Justi, R., Mendonça, P.C.C. Discussion of the Controversy Concerning a Historical Event Among Pre-service Teachers. Sci & Educ 25, 795–822 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9846-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9846-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation