Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From FRA to RFN, or How the Family Resemblance Approach Can Be Transformed for Science Curriculum Analysis on Nature of Science

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

Abstract

The inclusion of Nature of Science (NOS) in the science curriculum has been advocated around the world for several decades. One way of defining NOS is related to the family resemblance approach (FRA). The family resemblance idea was originally described by Wittgenstein. Subsequently, philosophers and educators have applied Wittgenstein’s idea to problems of their own disciplines. For example, Irzik and Nola adapted Wittgenstein’s generic definition of the family resemblance idea to NOS, while Erduran and Dagher reconceptualized Irzik and Nola’s FRA-to-NOS by synthesizing educational applications by drawing on perspectives from science education research. In this article, we use the terminology of “Reconceptualized FRA-to-NOS (RFN)” to refer to Erduran and Dagher’s FRA version which offers an educational account inclusive of knowledge about pedagogical, instructional, curricular and assessment issues in science education. Our motivation for making this distinction is rooted in the need to clarify the various accounts of the family resemblance idea.The key components of the RFN include the aims and values of science, methods and methodological rules, scientific practices, scientific knowledge as well as the social-institutional dimensions of science including the social ethos, certification, and power relations. We investigate the potential of RFN in facilitating curriculum analysis and in determining the gaps related to NOS in the curriculum. We analyze two Turkish science curricula published 7 years apart and illustrate how RFN can contribute not only to the analysis of science curriculum itself but also to trends in science curriculum development. Furthermore, we present an analysis of documents from USA and Ireland and contrast them to the Turkish curricula thereby illustrating some trends in the coverage of RFN categories. The results indicate that while both Turkish curricula contain statements that identify science as a cognitive-epistemic system, they underemphasize science as a social-institutional system. The comparison analysis shows results such as the “scientific ethos” category being mentioned by the Irish curriculum while “social organizations and interactions” category being mentioned by the Turkish curriculum. In all documents, there was no overall coherence to NOS as a holistic narrative that would be inclusive of the various RFN categories simultaneously. The article contributes to the framing of NOS from a family resemblance perspective and highlights how RFN categories can be used as analytical tools.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aslan, O., & Tasar, M. F. (2013). How do science teachers view and teach the nature of science? A classroom investigation. Education and Science, 38(167), 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control & identity theory. London: Taylor and Francis.

  • Bilican, K., Ozdem-Yilmaz, Y., & Oztekin, C. (2014). Tracking the footprints of nature of science in the path of learning how to teach it. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(6), 595–608.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleichmar, D. (2012). Visible empire: botanical expeditions and visual culture in the Hispanic enlightenment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cakiroglu, J., Dogan, N., Bilican, K., Cavus, S., & Arslan, O. (2009). Influence of in-service teacher education program on science teachers’ views of nature of science. The International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 597–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Chang, C., & Tseng, Y. (2010). Trends of science education research: an automatic content analysis. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19, 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. (1961). Science and common sense. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualising the nature of science: why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1), 147–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. (2008). Economics of science. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed., pp. 328–334). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

  • Erduran, S. (2016). Visualising the nature of science: beyond textual pieces to holistic images in science education. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen, & A. Uitto (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research: selected papers from the ESERA 2015 conference. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S. (2014). A holistic approach to the atom. Educacio Quimica EduQ, 19, 39–42 ISSN 2013-1755.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014b). Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: potential new directions for curriculum development on nature of science. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. (2016). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: revisiting the nature of science in science education. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo, & K. S. Tang (Eds.), Research and practice in the Asia-Pacific region. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox-Keller, E. (1996). Reflections on gender and science. Yale University Press.

  • Harding, S. G., & Hintikka, M. (Eds.) (2003). Discovering reality: feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irez, S., & Cakir, M. (2006). Critical reflective approach to teach the nature of science: a rationale and review of strategies. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 3(2), 19–35.

    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. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In: M. Matthews, International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. pp. 999–1021. Springer.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011b). A family resemblance approach. Plenary presentation session with N. Lederman titled: Current philosophical and educational issues in nature of science (NOS) research, and possible future directions. Presented at the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, D. (2002). Cold war requisitions, scientific manpower, and the production of American physicists after World War II. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 33, 131–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E. & Erduran, S. (2015a). Missing pieces and holes in the Turkish middle school science curriculum: towards a reconceptualized holistic account of NOS. Paper presented at the International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

  • Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2015b). Parçalardan bütünlere: Bilimin doğasını kimya öğretim programında yeniden nasıl tanımlayabiliriz? Balikesir, Turkey: Ulusal Kimya Eğitimi Kongresi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). Yeniden kavramsallaştırılmış “Aile Benzerliği Yaklaşımı”: Fen eğitiminde bilimin doğasına bütünsel bir bakış açısı. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 13(2), 76–89 (In Turkish, Reconceptualized “family resemblance approach”: a holistic perspective on nature of science in science education.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Pervasive influence: intellectual property, industrial history, and university science. Science and Public Policy, 25(2), 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koseoglu, F., & Tumay, H. (2010). Bilimin doğası öğretimi mesleki gelişim paketinin geliştirilmesi ve öğretmen adaylarına uygulanması ile ilgili tartışmalar. Ahi Evran Ünv. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4, 129–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leden, L., & Hansson, L. (2015). Nature of science progression in school year 1-9: an analysis of the Swedish curriculum and teachers’ suggestions. Proceedings of the IHPST Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M.-H., Wu, Y., Tien, T., & Chin-Chung, A. (2009). Research trends in science education from 2003 to 2007: a content analysis of publications in selected journals. International Journal of Science Education, 31(15), 1999–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (2002/1969). The republic of science: its political and economic theory. From knowing and being. In P. Mirowsky & E. M. Sent (Eds.), Science bought and sold: essays in the economics of science (pp. 465–485). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddock, G., & Sainsbury, M. (2008). Comparison of the core primary curriculum in England to those of other high performing countries. (Research report no. DCSF-RW048). London: National Foundation for Educational Research & Department for Children, Schools and Families.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, R. (Ed.) (2000). Nature and empire: science and the colonial enterprise. Osiris, 15, 1–13.

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum and in teacher education programmes in the United States. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1993–2023). Springer: Netherlands.

  • Milli Egitim Bakanligi (2006). İlkogretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6., 7. ve 8. Siniflar) Ogretim Programi. Ankara.

  • Milli Egitim Bakanligi (2013). İlkogretim Fen Bilimleri Dersi (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. Siniflar) Ogretim Programi. Ankara.

  • National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) (2015). Specification for junior cycle science. November. Dublin.

  • Pinnick, C. L. (2005). The failed feminist challenge to fundamental epistemology. Science & Education, 14, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radder, H. (Ed.) (2010). The commodification of academic research: analyses, assessment, alternatives. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiebinger, L. (2005). Forum introduction: the European colonial science complex. Isis, 96, 52–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Showalter, V. (1974). What is unified science education? Program objectives and scientific literacy (part 5)’, Prisim II, 2(3+4).

  • Wang, L., Huang, M., Wang, W., Jiang, Y., Zhang, L., & Zhang, R. (2012). Commonalities and trends in high school chemistry curriculum standards: by comparison of international curriculum standards. In B. Zhang, G. Fulmer, X. Liu, W. Hu, S. Peng, & B. Wei (Eds.), International conference of science education 2012 proceedings: science education policies and responsibilities (pp. 27–44). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Ebru Kaya would like to acknowledge Bogazici University Research Fund, Turkey (Grant Number 10621) for supporting the writing of this paper in the context of the funded project entitled “Nature of science in science teacher education: a comparative research and development project.” Sibel Erduran would like to acknowledge Taiwan Global Talent Network Project for supporting a distinguished chair professor position at National Taiwan Normal University where some of the ideas reported in this paper were developed.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ebru Kaya

  2. Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    Sibel Erduran

  3. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Sibel Erduran

Authors
  1. Ebru Kaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sibel Erduran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebru Kaya.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicting interests

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaya, E., Erduran, S. From FRA to RFN, or How the Family Resemblance Approach Can Be Transformed for Science Curriculum Analysis on Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 25, 1115–1133 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation