Science & Education

, Volume 20, Issue 7–8, pp 701–717 | Cite as

The Story Behind the Science: Bringing Science and Scientists to Life in Post-Secondary Science Education

  • Michael P. CloughEmail author


With funding from the United States National Science Foundation, 30 historical short stories designed to teach science content and draw students’ attention to the nature of science (NOS) have been created for post-secondary introductory astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics courses. The project rationale, story development and structure, and freely available stories at the project website are presented.


Science Teacher Science Content Short Story Science Idea Secondary Science Teacher 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Partial support for this work was provided by the National Science Foundation’s Course Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) program under Award No. 0618446. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1999). Teaching science with history. The Science Teacher, 66(9), 18–22.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: AAAS.Google Scholar
  7. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Association for Science Education. (1981). Education through science: An ASE policy statement. Hatfield: ASE.Google Scholar
  9. Bishop, B., & Anderson, C. (1990). Student conception of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Letts, W. J., & Shipman, H. L. (2000). Diversity of students’ views about evidence, theory, and the interface between science and religion in an astronomy course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 340–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clough, M. P. (1995). Longitudinal understanding of the nature of science as facilitated by an introductory high school biology course. In Proceedings of the third international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference (pp. 212–221). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  13. Clough, M. P. (1997). Strategies and activities for initiating and maintaining pressure on students’ naive views concerning the nature of science. Interchange, 28(2–3), 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clough, M. P. (2004). The nature of science: Understanding how the “Game” of science is played. In W. Jeff (Ed.), The game of science education (pp. 198–227). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clough, M. P., Herman, B. C., & Smith, J. A. R. (2010). Seamlessly teaching science content and the nature of science. In Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) National Conference, Sacramento, CA, 14–16 Jan.Google Scholar
  17. Collette, A. T., & Chiappetta, E. L. (1984). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools. St. Louis: Times Mirror/Mosby.Google Scholar
  18. Conant, J. B. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Cromer, A. (1993). Uncommon sense: The heretical nature of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. DeBoer, G. (1991). A history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Durant, J. R., Evans, G. A., & Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature, 340, 11–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  24. Eccles, J. (2005). Why women shy away from careers in science and math. U of M News Service, available at, retrieved 21 June 2009.
  25. Egan, K. (1978). What is a plot? New Literary History, 9, 455–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hagen, J., Allchin, D., & Singer, F. (1996). Doing biology. New York, NY: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  28. Heilbron, J. L. (2002). History in science education, with cautionary tales about the agreement of measurement and theory. Science & Education, 11(4), 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howe, E. (2003). Using the history of research on sickle-cell anemia to affect preservice teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.Google Scholar
  30. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacoby, B. A., & Spargo, P. E. (1989). Ptolemy revisited? The existence of a mild instrumentalism in some selected high school physical science textbooks. Interchange, 20(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jahn, M. (2005). Narratology: A guide to the theory of narrative, University of Cologne, Cologne, available at, retrieved 1 Oct 2009.
  33. James, W. (1907). ‘The social value of the college-bred’, Address delivered at a meeting of the Association of American Alumnae at Radcliff College, 7 Nov, available at, retrieved 21 June 2009.
  34. Johnson, R. L., & Peeples, E. E. (1987). The role of scientific understanding in college. The American Biology Teacher, 49, 93–96.Google Scholar
  35. Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kruse, J. W., Clough, M. P., Olson, J. K., & Colbert, J. (2009). Student and instructor reaction to the use of historical short stories in a post-secondary introductory biology course. Paper presented at the 10th International History, Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, Notre Dame, IN, 24–28 June.Google Scholar
  37. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lakin, S., & Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the ‘nature of science’?: Teachers’ views of science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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(4), 331–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lederman, N. G. (1998). ‘The state of science education: subject matter without context. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3(2), available at, retrieved 21 June 2009.
  41. Leite, L. (2002). History of science in science education: Development and validation of a checklist for analysing the historical content of science textbooks. Science & Education, 11(4), 333–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matthews, M. R. (1989). A role for history and philosophy in science teaching. Interchange, 20(2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Matthews, M. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  46. Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 313–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Millar, R., & Wynne, B. (1988). Public understanding of science: From contents to processes. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, J. D. (1983). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus, 112(2), 29–48.Google Scholar
  49. Miller, J. D. (1987) Scientific literacy in the United States. In the Ciba foundation conference program, communicating science to the public (pp. 19–40). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  50. Munby, H. (1976). Some implications of language in science education. Science Education, 60(1), 115–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1989). Science objectives. Princeton: Author.Google Scholar
  52. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  53. National Science Board. (2002). Science and engineering indicators 2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  54. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980’s. Washington, DC: An NSTA Position Statement, NSTA.Google Scholar
  55. National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statementNature of science. Washington, DC: NSTA, available at, retrieved 27 July 2010.
  56. Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2001). Secondary science teachers’ implementation practices following a course emphasizing contextualized & decontextualized nature of science instruction. Paper presented at the 6th International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference with the History of Science Society, Denver, CO, 7–11 Nov.Google Scholar
  57. Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Undergraduates’ NOS conceptions and the role of historical narratives: A very tangled web. Paper presented at the 9th International History, Philosophy of Science in Science Teaching (IHPST) Conference, Calgary, Canada, 24–27 June.Google Scholar
  58. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education: Redefining the value of school. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  59. Prince, G. (1973). A grammar of stories: An introduction. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  60. Rowe, M. B., & Holland, C. (1990). The uncommon common sense of science. In M. B. Row (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, volume six, the process of knowing (pp. 87–97). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.Google Scholar
  61. Rudge, D. W. (2000). Does being wrong make kettlewell wrong for science teaching? Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rudolph, J. L. (2007). An inconvenient truth about science education. Teachers College Record,, ID Number: 13216, Date Accessed: 9/26/2007.
  64. Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rutledge, M., & Warden, M. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science & high school biology teachers: Critical relationships. The American Biology Teacher, 62(1), 123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ryan, A. G., & Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Students’ preconceptions about the epistemology of science. Science Education, 76(6), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schaefer, J. P. (1990). Introduction. In S. Tobias (Ed.), They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  69. Scharmann, L. C., & Harris, W. M. (1992). Teaching evolution: Understanding and applying the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 375–388.Google Scholar
  70. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Westview: Boulder.Google Scholar
  71. Shahn, E. (1988). On scientific literacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 20(2), 42–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shamos, M. H. (1995). The myth of scientific literacy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12(7), 617–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tao, P. K. (2003). Eliciting and developing junior secondary students’ understanding of the nature of science through a peer collaboration instruction in science stories. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tobias, S. (1990). They’re not dumb, they’re different: Stalking the second tier. Tucson: Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  76. Trani, R. (2004). I won’t teach evolution: It’s against my religion. The American Biology Teacher, 66(6), 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vanderlinden, D. W. (2007). Teaching the content and context of science: The effect of using historical narratives to teach the nature of science and science content in an undergraduate introductory geology course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
  78. Williams, B., Clough, M. P., Stanley, M., & Colbert, J. T. (2010). Creativity and discovery: The work of Gregor Mendel. Available at, retrieved 29 July 2010.
  79. Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ziman, J. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16(1), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Excellence in Science, Mathematics & Engineering EducationIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations