Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 24, Issue 9–10, pp 1141–1172 | Cite as

Teachers’ Ways of Talking About Nature of Science and Its Teaching

  • Lotta LedenEmail author
  • Lena Hansson
  • Andreas Redfors
  • Malin Ideland
Article

Abstract

Nature of science (NOS) has for a long time been regarded as a key component in science teaching. Much research has focused on students’ and teachers’ views of NOS, while less attention has been paid to teachers’ perspectives on NOS teaching. This article focuses on in-service science teachers’ ways of talking about NOS and NOS teaching, e.g. what they talk about as possible and valuable to address in the science classroom, in Swedish compulsory school. These teachers (N = 12) are, according to the national curriculum, expected to teach NOS, but have no specific NOS training. The analytical framework described in this article consists of five themes that include multiple perspectives on NOS. The results show that teachers have less to say when they talk about NOS teaching than when they talk about NOS in general. This difference is most obvious for issues related to different sociocultural aspects of science. Difficulties in—and advantages of—NOS teaching, as put forth by the teachers, are discussed in relation to traditional science teaching, and in relation to teachers’ perspectives on for which students science teaching will be perceived as meaningful and comprehensible. The results add to understanding teachers’ reasoning when confronted with the idea that NOS should be part of science teaching. This in turn provides useful information that can support the development of NOS courses for teachers.

Keywords

Teacher Education Scientific Knowledge Science Teacher Scientific Method Science Classroom 
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. AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but…. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). 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
  7. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  8. Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Allchin, D. (2012a). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Allchin, D. (2012b). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: A view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Campanile, M. F., Lederman, N. G., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Mendelian genetics as a platform for teaching about nature of science and scientific inquiry: The value of textbooks. Science & Education, 24(1–2), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of “achievement”. Science Education, 87(3), 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. Paper presented at The Pantaneto Forum.Google Scholar
  28. Clough, M. P. (2011a). Teaching and assessing the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56.Google Scholar
  29. Clough, M. P. (2011b). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2012). Impact of nature of science and science education course on teachers’ nature of science classroom practices. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 247–266). Dordrecht; Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dadachanji, D. K. (1998). The cultural challenge to scientific knowledge. World and I, 13, 172–178.Google Scholar
  32. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2006). Guest editorial: Science studies and science education call for papers deadline: March 31, 2007. Science Education, 90(6), 961–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case-study of high-school teachers decision-making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Erduran, S., & Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2013). Interactions of economics of science and science education: Investigating the implications for science teaching and learning. Science & Education, 22(10), 2405–2425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Freedman, K. L. (2009). Diversity and the fate of objectivity. Social Epistemology, 23(1), 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O., & Holmgren, S.-O. (2010). Secondary science teachers’ selective traditions and examples of inquiry-oriented approaches. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 44–60.Google Scholar
  43. Hansson, L., & Lindahl, B. (2010). “I have chosen another way of thinking”. Students’ relations to science with a focus on worldview. Science & Education, 19, 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Henke, A., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Physics teachers’ challenges in using history and philosophy of science in teaching. Science & Education, 24(4), 349–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1–2), 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  50. Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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(16), 2639–2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2006). Lärares mål med laborativt arbete: Utveckla förståelse och intresse. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 2(3), 54–66.Google Scholar
  53. Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2012). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education, 21(9), 1233–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2012). Body talk: Students’ identity construction while discussing a socioscientific issue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(2), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Irzik, G. (2010). Why should philosophers of science pay attention to the commercialization of academic science? In M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rédei (Eds.), EPSA epistemology and methodology of science (pp. 129–138). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy, and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Jenkins, E. W. (2013). The ‘nature of science’ in the school curriculum: The great survivor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Johansson, A.-M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Vad ska elever lära sig angående naturvetenskaplig verksamhet?-En analys av svenska läroplaner för grundskolan under 50 år.” What should students learn about scientific inquiry? A comparative study of 50 years of the Swedish national curricula.”. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(3), 197–212.Google Scholar
  60. Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Lederman, N. G. (1995). Suchting on the nature of scientific thought: Are we anchoring curricula in quicksand? Science & Education, 4(4), 371–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 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(8), 916–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  69. Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  70. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 335–359). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Matthews, M. R. (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: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  77. McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Mosco, V. (2012). Entanglements: Between two cultures and beyond science wars. Science as Culture, 21(1), 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Niaz, M. (2010). Science curriculum and teacher education: The role of presuppositions, contradictions, controversies and speculations vs Kuhn’s ‘normal science’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 891–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘science in the making’ to understanding the nature of science: An overview for science educators. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Science & Education, 7(6), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 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(7), 692–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (2007). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  86. Ramazanoglu, C., & Holland, J. (2002). Feminist methodology [Elektronisk resurs] challenges and choices. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  87. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of “The Scientific Method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 637–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Schwartz, R., & 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
  91. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Sjøberg, S. (2010). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning: En kritisk ämnesdidaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  93. Skolverket. (2011a). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket).Google Scholar
  94. Skolverket. (2011b). Commentary to the physics curriculum. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket).Google Scholar
  95. Stenmark, M. (2004). How to relate science and religion: A multidimensional model. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  96. Tala, S., & Vesterinen, V.-M. (2015). Nature of science contextualized: Studying nature of science with scientists. Science & Education, 24(4), 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vesterinen, V.-M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22(7), 1839–1855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wallace, J., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teacher learning. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 295–306). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lotta Leden
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lena Hansson
    • 1
  • Andreas Redfors
    • 1
  • Malin Ideland
    • 2
  1. 1.LISMAKristianstad UniversityKristianstadSweden
  2. 2.Malmö UniversityMalmöSweden

Personalised recommendations