Abstract
An important consideration related to the inclusion of nature of science (NOS) into the science curriculum relates to what aspects of NOS are the most appropriate to define the domain of NOS accurately at levels appropriate for the time available and learners’ interests and ability to understand. Those who support the inclusion of NOS in the science curriculum understand that this topic and so many other science content aspects must be offered accurately at introductory levels. Therefore, many in the science education community have offered what has come to be known as the “consensus” view of NOS. This is not to say that everyone involved in supporting science teaching and learning share precisely the same recommended aspects of NOS, but generally, there is widespread agreement on the consensus view of NOS elements that should be targeted in science instruction. The elements of the consensus NOS view are detailed in the chapter “Principal Elements of Nature of Science: Informing Science Teaching While Dispelling the Myths”. This chapter summarizes the development of the consensus position while detailing and refuting several of the major objections to this view offered in the literature and concludes by examining procedural and declarative learning as applied to NOS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from Next Generation Science Standards: http://nextgenscience.org/
Chevallard, Y. (1989). On didactive transposition theory: Some introductory notes. Paper presented at the international symposium on selected domains of research and development in mathematics education, proceedings (51–61). Slovakia: Bratislava. http://yves.chevallard.free.fr/spip/article.php3?id_article=122.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young peoples’ images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ford, M. (2008). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17, 147–177.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Boston: Springer Publishers.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the horse’s mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36, 2639–2665.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means of introducing students to the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53, 667–682.
Kötter, M., & Hammann, M. (2017). Controversy as a blind spot in teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 26, 451–482.
Lange, M. (2009). Laws and lawmakers: Science, metaphysics and the laws of nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 384–403.
Samarapungavan, A., Westby, E. L., & Bodner, G. M. (2006). Contextual epistemic development in science: A comparison of chemistry students and research chemists. Science Education, 90, 468–495.
Sarieddine, D., & BouJaoude, S. (2014). Influence of teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science on classroom practice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10, 135–151.
Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100, 706–733.
Southerland, S. A., Johnston, A., & Sowell, S. (2006). Describing teachers’ conceptual ecologies for the nature of science. Science Education, 90, 874–906.
van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95, 1086–1100.
van Dijk, E. M. (2012). Relevant features of science: Values in conservation biology. Science & Education, 22, 2141–2156.
Waters, C. K. (1998). Causal regularities in the biological world of contingent distributions. Biology and Philosophy, 13, 5–36.
Waters-Adams, S. (2006). The relationship between understanding of the nature of science and practice: The influence of teachers’ beliefs about education, teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 919–944.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). Philosophical investigations (Rev. 4th edn.) New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McComas, W.F. (2020). Considering a Consensus View of Nature of Science Content for School Science Purposes. In: McComas, W.F. (eds) Nature of Science in Science Instruction. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57238-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57239-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)