Two fundamental questions about science are relevant for science educators: (a) What is the nature of science? and (b) what aspects of nature of science should be taught and learned? They are fundamental because they pertain to how science gets to be framed as a school subject and determines what aspects of it are worthy of inclusion in school science. This conceptual article re-examines extant notions of nature of science and proposes an expanded version of the Family Resemblance Approach (FRA), originally developed by Irzik and Nola (International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 999–1021, 2014) in which they view science as a cognitive-epistemic and as an institutional-social system. The conceptual basis of the expanded FRA is described and justified in this article based on a detailed account published elsewhere (Erduran and Dagher in Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer, Dordrecht, 2014a). The expanded FRA provides a useful framework for organizing science curriculum and instruction and gives rise to generative visual tools that support the implementation of a richer understanding of and about science. The practical implications for this approach have been incorporated into analysis of curriculum policy documents, curriculum implementation resources, textbook analysis and teacher education settings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
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.
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.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
Ackerson, V., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Relationships among learner characteristics and preservice teachers’ views of the nature of science. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(1), 45–58.
Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research perspective. In J. Solomon & G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: International perspectives on reform (pp. 169–186). New York: Teachers College Press.
Aikenhead, G. (2007). Humanistic perspectives in the science curriculum. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 881–910). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. St. Paul, MN: SHiPs.
Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.
Bleichmar, D. (2012). Visible empire: Botanical expeditions and visual culture in the Hispanic Enlightenment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BouJaoude, S., Dagher, Z., & Refai, S. (2016). The portrayal of nature of science in Lebanese middle school science textbooks. Paper presented as part of a symposium: Global perspectives on nature of science in school science textbooks: Representations, methodologies, contexts, and implications, at the annual meeting of NARST: A worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research. Baltimore, MD.
Brandon, R. N. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, Issue 25, January. http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/front25.htm Republished (2008) in the California Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 31–40.
Dagher, Z. R. (2012). Re-imagining nature of science: Implications for policy and research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST: A worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research, Indianapolis, Indiana, March 25–28.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2014). Laws and explanations in biology and chemistry: Philosophical perspectives and educational implications. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 1203–1233). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Dagher, Z. (2015). Using images of science to enrich the integrated science curriculum. Informal seminar at the Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering Laboratory. University of Delaware, January 12.
Dagher, Z., Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & BouJaoude, S. (2016). Supporting science teachers’ inclusion of scientific practices in Lebanon. Paper presented at the annual meeting of NARST: A worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research. Baltimore, MD, April 14–17.
Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34, 3–14.
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.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2011). Demarcation in science education: Toward an enhanced view of scientific method. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 3–19). New York: Routledge.
Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National Academies.
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), 107–117.
Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2010). Epistemological resources and framing: A cognitive framework for helping teachers interpret and respond to their students’ epistemologies. In L. D. Bendixon & F. C. Feucht (Eds.), Personal epistemology in the classroom: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 409–434). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: Promoting domain-specificity in chemical education in the context of arguing about the Periodic Law. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247–263.
Erduran, S. (2015). What do students learn about science in school? Science, 50(2), 32–33. (Published by the Irish Science Teachers’ Association).
Erduran, S. (in press). A holistic approach to the atom. Educacio Quimica EduQ.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014a). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014b). Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: Potential new directions for curriculum and assessment development on nature of science. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 335–350.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., Mugaloglu, E., Kaya, E., Saribas, D., & Ceyhan, G. (2015). Defining and understanding scientific practices pre-service science teacher education. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of NARST: A worldwide organization for improving science teaching and learning through research. Chicago, IL, April 11–14.
Fox Keller, E. (1996). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gilbert, J. (Ed.). (2005). Visualisation in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.
Grandy, R., & Duschl, R. (2008). Consensus: Expanding the scientific method and school science. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 304–325). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Harding, S. G., & Hintikka, M. (Eds.). (2003). Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Irzik, G. (2013). Introduction: Commercialization of academic science and a new agenda for science education. Science & Education, 22(10), 2375–2384.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011a). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.
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 Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2015). 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 Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, July 22–25.
Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Pervasive influence: Intellectual property, industrial history, and university science. Science and Public Policy, 25(2), 95–102.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
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.
Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (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, 497–521.
Magnusson, S., & Palincsar, A. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary school level. In NRC (Ed.), How students learn: History, mathematics and science in the classroom. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
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.
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.
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). The Netherlands: Kluwer.
McLeod, R. (Ed.). (2000). Nature and empire: Science and the colonial enterprise. In:Osiris (Vol. 15, pp. 1–13). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Metz, K. (2009). Rethinking what is “developmentally appropriate” from a learning progression perspective: The power and the challenge. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 3(1), 5–22.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Appendix H. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
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.
Olby, R. C. (1994). The path to the double helix: The discovery of DNA. New York: Dover Publications.
Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Pinnick, C. L. (2005). The failed feminist challenge to fundamental epistemology. Science & Education, 14, 103–116.
Polanyi, M. (2002/1969). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. From knowing and Being, reproduced. In P. Mirowsky & E. M. Sent (Eds.), Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science (pp. 465–485). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Radder, H. (Ed.). (2010). The commodification of academic research: Analyses, assessment, alternatives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.
Rubba, P., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary students’ understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.
Saribas, D., & Ceyhan, G. (2015). Learning to teach scientific practices: Pedagogical decisions and reflections during a course for pre-service science teachers. International Journal of STEM Education,. doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0023-y.
Sayre, A. (2000/1975). Rosalind Franklin and DNA. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Scerri, E. R. (2000). Philosophy of chemistry: A new interdisciplinary field? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 522–526.
Schiebinger, L. (2005). Forum introduction: The European colonial science complex. Isis, 96, 52–55.
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentation: A response to Allchin’s whole science approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96(4), 685–692.
Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. (2014). Enhancing adolescents’ motivation for science. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
Smith, M. U., Lederman, N. G., Bell, R. L., McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (1997). How great is the disagreement about the nature of Science: A response to Alters. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(10), 1101–1103.
Vandell, D., Gelman, R., & Metz, K. (2010). Early learning in science. In National Academy of Engineering, STEM Summit 2010: Early childhood through higher education. http://ocstem.org/files/STEMSummit2010Report.pdf.
Yacoubian, H. (2012). Towards a philosophically and a pedagogically reasonable nature of science curriculum. Doctoral Dissertation. http://era.library.ualberta.ca/public/view/item/uuid:9b2d52c1-607a-420b-8447-54c82ae14a72.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Dagher, Z.R., Erduran, S. Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Sci & Educ 25, 147–164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8
- Science Education
- Scientific Knowledge
- Scientific Practice
- Family Resemblance
- Consensus View