Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 25, Issue 1–2, pp 147–164 | Cite as

Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education

Why Does it Matter?
  • Zoubeida R. Dagher
  • Sibel Erduran
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Science Education Scientific Knowledge Scientific Practice Family Resemblance Consensus View 
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.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. AAAS. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. St. Paul, MN: SHiPs.Google Scholar
  10. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bleichmar, D. (2012). Visible empire: Botanical expeditions and visual culture in the Hispanic Enlightenment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Brandon, R. N. (1996). Concepts and methods in evolutionary biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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. Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erduran, S. (2015). What do students learn about science in school? Science, 50(2), 32–33. (Published by the Irish Science Teachers’ Association).Google Scholar
  29. Erduran, S. (in press). A holistic approach to the atom. Educacio Quimica EduQ.Google Scholar
  30. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014a). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Fox Keller, E. (1996). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gilbert, J. (Ed.). (2005). Visualisation in science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Irzik, G. (2013). Introduction: Commercialization of academic science and a new agenda for science education. Science & Education, 22(10), 2375–2384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011a). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Pervasive influence: Intellectual property, industrial history, and university science. Science and Public Policy, 25(2), 95–102.Google Scholar
  44. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. 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.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.Google Scholar
  49. Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin, Germany: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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.Google Scholar
  53. McLeod, R. (Ed.). (2000). Nature and empire: Science and the colonial enterprise. In:Osiris (Vol. 15, pp. 1–13). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. 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.Google Scholar
  55. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
  56. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies.Google Scholar
  57. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Appendix H. http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards.
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Olby, R. C. (1994). The path to the double helix: The discovery of DNA. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Pickering, A. (Ed.). (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  61. Pinnick, C. L. (2005). The failed feminist challenge to fundamental epistemology. Science & Education, 14, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. Radder, H. (Ed.). (2010). The commodification of academic research: Analyses, assessment, alternatives. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  64. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. Sayre, A. (2000/1975). Rosalind Franklin and DNA. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  67. Scerri, E. R. (2000). Philosophy of chemistry: A new interdisciplinary field? Journal of Chemical Education, 77, 522–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schiebinger, L. (2005). Forum introduction: The European colonial science complex. Isis, 96, 52–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Shumow, L., & Schmidt, J. (2014). Enhancing adolescents’ motivation for science. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  71. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 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.
  73. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Education and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education and Health SciencesUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland

Personalised recommendations