Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2087–2107 | Cite as

Teaching With and About Nature of Science, and Science Teacher Knowledge Domains

  • Fouad Abd-El-Khalick
Article

Abstract

The ubiquitous goals of helping precollege students develop informed conceptions of nature of science (NOS) and experience inquiry learning environments that progressively approximate authentic scientific practice have been long-standing and central aims of science education reforms around the globe. However, the realization of these goals continues to elude the science education community partly because of a persistent, albeit not empirically supported, coupling of the two goals in the form of ‘teaching about NOS with inquiry’. In this context, the present paper aims, first, to introduce the notions of, and articulate the distinction between, teaching with and about NOS, which will allow for the meaningful coupling of the two desired goals. Second, the paper aims to explicate science teachers’ knowledge domains requisite for effective teaching with and about NOS. The paper argues that research and development efforts dedicated to helping science teachers develop deep, robust, and integrated NOS understandings would have the dual benefits of not only enabling teachers to convey to students images of science and scientific practice that are commensurate with historical, philosophical, sociological, and psychological scholarship (teaching about NOS), but also to structure robust inquiry learning environments that approximate authentic scientific practice, and implement effective pedagogical approaches that share a lot of the characteristics of best science teaching practices (teaching with NOS).

Keywords

Science Teacher Knowledge Domain Pedagogical Content Knowledge Science Content Science Content Knowledge 
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.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2003). Socioscientific issues in pre-college science classrooms: The primacy of learners’ epistemological orientations and views of nature of science. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning in socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 41–61). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2005). Developing deeper understandings of nature of science: The impact of a philosophy of science course on preservice science teachers’ views and instructional planning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Modeling science classrooms after scientific laboratories. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and application (pp. 80–85). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.Google Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 1041–1060). The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2004). Learning about nature of science as conceptual change: Factors that mediate the development of preservice elementary teachers’ views of nature of science. Science Education, 88(5), 785–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 417–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R. A., Hofstein, A., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok, R., et al. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Aguirre, J. M., Haggerty, S. M., & Linder, C. J. (1990). Student-teachers’ conceptions of science, teaching and learning: A case study in preservice science education. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 381–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). On the nature of teaching nature of science: Preservice early childhood teachers’ instruction in preschool and elementary settings. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(2), 213–233.Google Scholar
  14. Akindehin, F. (1988). Effect of an instructional package on preservice science teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and acquisition of science-related attitudes. Science Education, 72(1), 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Allchin, D. (2011). Teaching whole science. American Biology Teacher, 73, 53–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Anderson, R. (2007). Inquiry as an organizing theme for science curricula. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 807–830). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Barlow, N. (Ed.). (1993/1958). The autobiography of Charles Darwin: 18091882. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  19. Barufaldi, J. P., Bethel, L. J., & Lamb, W. G. (1977). The effect of a science methods course on the philosophical view of science among elementary education majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14(4), 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. BouJaoude, S., Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Relationships between selective cognitive variables and students’ ability to solve chemistry problems. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brewer, W. F., & Chinn, C. A. (1994). The theory-ladenness of data: An experimental demonstration. In A. Ram & K. Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 61–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Brickhouse, N. W. (1989). The teaching of the philosophy of science in secondary classrooms: Case studies of teachers’ personal theories. International Journal of Science Education, 11, 401–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burbules, N., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chinn, C. A., & Malhorta, B. A. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86, 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Conant, J. B. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) Pan-Canadian Science Project. (1997). Common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12 [On-line]. Available: http://www.cmec.ca/science/framework/Pages/english/CMEC%20 Eng.html.
  30. Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Curriculum Council. (1998). Curriculum framework for Kindergarten to Year 12 education in Western Australia. Osborne Park, WA: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Donnelly, L. A., & Sadler, T. (2009). High school science teachers’ views of standards and accountability. Science Education, 93(6), 1050–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Duhem, P. (1954). The aim and structure of physical theory (with a new introduction by Jules Vuillemin). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Duit, R., Treagust, D., & Widodo, A. (2008). Teaching science for conceptual change: Theory and practice. In S. Vosiniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 629–646). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Duncan, R. G., Freidenreich, H. B., Chinn, C. A., & Bausch, A. (2011). Promoting middle school students’ understandings of molecular genetics. Research in Science Education, 41(2), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gillies, D. (1998). Philosophy of science in the twentieth century: Four central themes. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Hewson, P. W., Beeth, M. E., & Thorley, N. R. (1998). Teaching for conceptual change. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 199–218). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hillis, S. R. (1975). The development of an instrument to determine student views of the tentativeness of science. In E. J. Montague (Ed.), Research and curriculum development in science education: Science teacher behavior and student affective and cognitive learning (Vol. 3, pp. 32–38). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  40. Holton, G., Rutherford, J., & Watson, F. G. (1971). About the Project Physics Course: An introduction to the teacher resource book. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  41. Holton, G., Watson, F. G., & Rutherford, F. J. (1967). Harvard project physics: A progress report. The Physics Teacher, 5(5).Google Scholar
  42. Howe, E. M. (2007). Addressing nature-of-science core tenets with the history of science: An example with sickle-cell anemia & malaria. American Biology Teacher, 69(8), 467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howe, E. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2005). Recapitulating the history of sickle-cell anemia research: Improving students’ NOS views explicitly and reflectively. Science & Education, 14(3–5), 423–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Judson, E. (2010). Science education as a contributor to adequate yearly progress and accountability. Science Education, 94(5), 888–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kang, S., Scharmann, L. C., & Noh, T. (2005). Examining students’ views on the nature of science: Results from Korean 6th, 8th, and 10th graders. Science Education, 89(2), 314–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kelly, G. J., & Duschl, R. A. (2002, April). Toward a research agenda for epistemological studies in science education. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  47. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Klopfer, L. E. (1964a). History of science cases: The cells of life (teacher’s guide). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Klopfer, L. E. (1964b). History of science cases: The cells of life. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  51. Klopfer, L. E. (1966). History of science cases: Frogs and batteries (teacher’s guide). Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates.Google Scholar
  52. Klopfer, L. E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6(1), 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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: A report on the HOSC instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (First published 1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 916–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  57. Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. L. (2001). Preservice teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lee, O., Buxton, C., Lewis, S., & LeRoy, K. (2006). Science inquiry and student diversity: Enhanced abilities and continuing difficulties after an instructional intervention. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 607–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lin, H., & Chen, C. C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teacher’ understandings about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(9), 773–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Lunetta, V. N., Hofstein, A., & Clough, M. P. (2007). Learning and teaching school science laboratory: An analysis of research, theory, and practice. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 393–441). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  62. Marchlewicz, S. C., & Wink, D. L. (2011). Using the activity model of inquiry to enhance general chemistry students’ understanding of nature of science. Journal of Chemical Education, 88(8), 1041–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mathews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.Google Scholar
  66. Ministry of Education. (1990). Programa de articulación. Caracas. Programa de Articulación. Venezuela: Author.Google Scholar
  67. Ministry of Education. (1999). Curriculum outline for “nature science and living technology.” Taipei: Ministry of Education (In Taiwanese).Google Scholar
  68. Ministry of National Education. (2000). Journal of Announcements of Ministry of National Education. Ankara, Turkey: Author [In Turkish].Google Scholar
  69. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 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(4), 384–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  72. National Science Teachers Association. (1982). Science-Technology-Society: Science education for the 1980 s. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  73. Newton-Smith, W. H. (2000). Underdetermination of theory by data. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science (pp. 532–536). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  74. Olitsky, S. (2005). Social and cultural capital in science teaching: Relating practice and reflection. In K. Tobin, R. Elmesky, & G. Seiler (Eds.), Improving urban science education: New roles for teachers, students and researchers (pp. 279–297). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  75. Peters, E., & Kitsantas, A. (2010). The effect of nature of science metacognitive prompts on science students’ content and nature of science knowledge, metacognition, and self-regulatory efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 110(8), 382–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London, UK: Routledge & Kagan Paul.Google Scholar
  77. Quine, W. V. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Riley, J. P., I. I. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Robinson, J. T. (1965). Science teaching and the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rubba, P. A., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Russell, C. B., & Weaver, G. C. (2011). A comparative study of traditional, inquiry-based, and research-based laboratory curricula: Impacts on understanding of the nature of science. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 12(1), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rutherford, F. J. (1964). The role of inquiry in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2, 80–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Salloum, S., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2010). A study of practical-moral knowledge in science teaching: Case studies in physical science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 929–951.Google Scholar
  84. Sandoval, W. A., & Morrison, K. (2003). High school students’ ideas about theories and theory change after a biological inquiry unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(4), 369–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Schmuckler, J. S. (2004). Using the history of science to strengthen an understanding of the nature of science. Abstracts of papers of the American Chemical Society, 228(1), 312.Google Scholar
  86. Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Scott, P. H., Asoko, H. M., & Driver, R. H. (1992). Teaching for conceptual change: A review of strategies. In R. Duit, F. Goldberg, & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Research in physics learning: Theoretical issues and empirical studies (pp. 310–329). Kiel, Germany: Institute for Science Education at the University of Kiel.Google Scholar
  88. Scott, P., Asoko, H., & Leach, J. (2007). Student conceptions and conceptual learning in science. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 31–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  89. Shanahan, M.-C., & Nieswandt, M. (2011). Science student role: Evidence of social structural norms specific to school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(4), 367–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
  92. So, W. M. W., & Ching, N. Y. F. (2011). Creating a collaborative science learning environment for science inquiry at the primary level. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 559–569.Google Scholar
  93. Sweitzer, G. L., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta-analysis of research on science teacher education practices associated with inquiry strategy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5), 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Treagust, D. (2007). General instructional methods and strategies. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 373–392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  95. van Garderen, D., Hanuscin, D., Lee, E., & Kohn, P. (2012). A collaborative professional development model to meet the needs of diverse learners in K-6 science. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vesilind, E. M., & Jones, M. G. (1998). Gardens or graveyards: Science education reform and school culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(7), 757–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wahbeh, N. (2009). The effect of a content-embedded explicit-reflective approach on inservice teachers’ views and practices related to nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  98. Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2011, September). The primacy of content-embedded teacher understandings of nature of science in impacting instruction. In Paper presented at the biannual conference of the European Science Education Research Association, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  99. Welch, W. W. (1973). Review of the research and evaluation program of the Harvard project physics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 10(4), 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of EducationUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations