Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principal Elements of Nature of Science: Informing Science Teaching while Dispelling the Myths

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nature of Science in Science Instruction

Part of the book series: Science: Philosophy, History and Education ((SPHE))

Abstract

This chapter is founded on the notion that there is a consensus view of NOS and so offers a rich discussion of a shared set of NOS elements to guide the development of NOS learning standards and classroom assessment and ultimately inform science curriculum development. We begin with some assertions about NOS learning and then offer nine key NOS elements (evidence, law theory distinction, shared methods, creativity, subjectivity, society and science interaction, science and engineering distinction, tentativeness, and the limits of science) clustered in three domains (tools and processes of science, human elements of science, and the domain of science and its limitations). A robust description of each of these key NOS aspects is provided along with common misconceptions about that element of NOS. These descriptions are introductions and/or reviews for educators but cannot substitute for the more complete understanding that would come from a deeper study of these sophisticated notions.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from Next Generation Science Standards: http://nextgenscience.org/

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Shamrani, S. M. (2008). Context, accuracy and level of inclusion of nature of science concepts in current high school physics textbooks. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1967). Science – A process approach. New York: Xerox Division, Ginn and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2001). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. I). Washington: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2007). Atlas of science literacy (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antink-Meyer, A., & Meyer, D. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 625–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon, F. (1620/1952). The new organon, in R. M. Hutchins, (ed.), Great books of the western world, Vol. 30. The works of Francis Bacon, Chicago, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 107-195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, J. D., & Tiper, F. J. (1986). The anthropic cosmological principle. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L. (2004). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring what, when, and how of the nature of science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 427–446). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N. (1953). What is science? (Vol. 6, p. 18). New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S. S. (1994). A beginner’s guide to scientific method. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaikin, A. (1994). A man on the Moon: The voyages of the Apollo astronauts. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (pp. 51–61). Slovakia: Bratislava. http://yves.chevallard.free.fr/spip/article.php3?id_article=122

  • Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, 25.http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/clough.htm

  • Dunbar, R. (1995). The trouble with science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (2016). Philosophy of science: Key concepts. London: Bloomsbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, A., & Lawson, A. E. (1992). The nature of scientific thinking as reflected by the work of biologists and by biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 54, 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gjertsen, D. (1989). Science and philosophy past and present. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, I. (2010). Elegance in science: The beauty of simplicity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1991). An essay on a pig roast. In Bully for brontosaurus (pp. 432–447). New York: W.W Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, A. (1975). Alfred Wegener and the hypothesis of continental drift. Scientific American, 2322, 88–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, M. Y. (1999). Quarks and gluons: A century of particle charges. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1986). The nature of scientific observation. School Science Review, 68, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, J. K., & Rubba, P. A. (1978). The myth of absolute truth. The Science Teacher, (45), 29–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horner, J. K., & Rubba, P. A. (1979). The laws are mature theories fable. The Science Teacher, 46, 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, E. C. (1971). The sociological eye: Selected papers. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeslar, O. (1945a). A survey of research studies dealing with the elements of scientific method. Science Education, 29, 212–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeslar, O. (1945b). The elements of scientific method. Science Education, 29, 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötter, M., & Hammann, M. (2017). Controversy as a blind spot in teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 26, 451–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    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, 692–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, A. E. (2000). The generality of hypothetico-deductive reasoning: Making scientific thinking explicit. The American Biology Teacher, 62(7), 482–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 331–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3, 2. http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/lederman.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science. The Science Teacher, 71, 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopushinsky, T. (1993). Does science deal in truth? The Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (Ed.). (2014). International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Boston: Springer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. R. (1972). Concepts of science education: A philosophical analysis. Greenview: Scott Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1996). Myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know about the nature of science. School Science and Mathematics, 96, 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Boston: Springer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2003). A textbook case: Laws and theories in biology instruction. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science: Focusing on the nature of science in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 71, 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Proposals for core nature of science content in popular books on the history and philosophy of science: Lessons for science education. In Y. J. Lee & A. L. Tan (Eds.), Science education at the Nexus of theory and practice. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W.F. (2015, Fall–Winter). Revisiting the myths of science: Guiding classroom practice and enlivening classroom conversations. Connecticut Journal of Science Education, 52(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2017). Understanding how science work: The nature of science as the foundation for science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 98, 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medawar, P. B. (1991). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P. B. Medawar (Ed.), The threat and the glory (pp. 228–233). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menard, H. W. (1986). The ocean of truth: A personal history of global tectonics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, I. (1720/1946). Sir Isaac Newton’s mathematical principles of natural philosophy and his system of the world (A Motte, Trans.). Revised and appendix supplied by F. Cajori, Berkeley, University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E., & Baynard, L. R. (2013). Network analysis of beliefs about the scientific enterprise: A comparison of scientists, middle school teacher and either grade science students. International Journal of Science Education, 35(16), 2801–2837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500673.2012.662609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porterfield, A. L. (1941). Creative factors in scientific research. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, G., & Schaible, R. (1989). Fact, law, and theory, ways of thinking in science and literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18, 228–232 & 288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. T. (1968). The nature of science and science teaching. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. T. (1969). Philosophy of science: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 99–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Screen, R. (1986). The Warwick process science project. School Science Review, 68(23), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (2015). Is the scientific method a myth? MÈTODE Science Studies Journal, 5, 195–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonleitner, F.J. (1989). ‘Theories, laws and all that’, National Center for Science Education, Newsletter, 9, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: The Research Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    William F. McComas

Authors
  1. William F. McComas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William F. McComas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education & Health Professions, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

    William F. McComas

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McComas, W.F. (2020). Principal Elements of Nature of Science: Informing Science Teaching while Dispelling the Myths. 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_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57238-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57239-6

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation