Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 27, Issue 7–8, pp 685–714 | Cite as

The “Species” Concept as a Gateway to Nature of Science

Species Concepts in Norwegian Textbooks
  • Jorun Nyléhn
  • Marianne Ødegaard
Article

Abstract

The nature of science (NOS) is a primary goal in school science. Most teachers are not well-prepared for teaching NOS, but a sophisticated and in-depth understanding of NOS is necessary for effective teaching. Some authors emphasize the need for teaching NOS in context. Species, a central concept in biology, is proposed in this article as a concrete example of a means for achieving increased understanding of NOS. Although species are commonly presented in textbooks as fixed entities with a single definition, the concept of species is a highly discussed one in the science and the philosophy of biology. A multitude of species concepts exist, reflecting both the views and interests of researchers and their utility in different organism groups. The present study serves to address the following questions: How do textbooks in Norwegian primary and lower secondary schools present the concept of species? Can inquiries into the concept of “species” serve to highlight aspects of NOS? A review of the available literature on species and species concepts in school is also performed. In the schoolbooks, the biological species concept is commonly used as the main definition, whereas the morphological species concept is represented by additional remarks of similarity. The potential and pitfalls of using the species concept for teaching NOS are discussed, with NOS being discussed both as a family resemblance concept and as a consensus list. Teacher education is proposed as a starting point for inducing a more sophisticated view of biology into schools.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank Anja Gabrielsen, Kirsti Klette, Erik Knain, Stein Dankert Kolstø and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012a). 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.Google Scholar
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012b). Nature of science in science education: toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.). Second International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. 1, pp. 1041–1060, Springer International Handbooks of Education, Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.Google Scholar
  4. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (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.Google Scholar
  5. Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., et al. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82–120.Google Scholar
  6. Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013a). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Media Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 23–37). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013b). Process of qualitative document analysis. Qualitative Media Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 38–74). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.Google Scholar
  8. Ault, C. R. J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: the problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94, 1092–1122.Google Scholar
  9. Baetu, T. M. (2012). Defining species: a multi-level approach. Acta Biotheoretica, 60(3), 239–255.Google Scholar
  10. Berti, A. E., Toneatti, L., & Rosati, V. (2010). Children’s conceptions about the origin of species: a study of Italian children’s conceptions with and without instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 506–538.Google Scholar
  11. Besterman, H., & La Velle, L. B. (2007). Using human evolution to teach evolutionary theory. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 76–81.Google Scholar
  12. Binns, I. C. (2013). A qualitative method to determine how textbooks portray scientific methodology. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks. Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 239–258). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Catley, K. M. (2006). Darwins’s missing link—a novel paradigm for evolution education. Science Education, 90(5), 767–783.Google Scholar
  14. Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.Google Scholar
  15. Clifford, P. (2002). The pressure-flow hypothesis of phloem transport: misconceptions in the A-level textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 110–112.Google Scholar
  16. Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2012). Impact of a 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: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.Google Scholar
  18. Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391.Google Scholar
  19. Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164.Google Scholar
  20. de Meeûs, T., Durand, P., & Renaud, F. (2003). Species concepts: what for? Trends in Parasitology, 19(10), 425–427.Google Scholar
  21. de Queiroz, K. (2005). Different species problems and their resolution. BioEssays, 27(12), 1263–1269.Google Scholar
  22. Devetak, I., & Vogrinc, J. (2013). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks. Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 3–15). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Dunk, R. D. P., Petto, A. J., Wiles, J. R., & Campbell, B. C. (2017). A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 10(1), 4.Google Scholar
  24. Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.Google Scholar
  25. Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Ellis, M. W., & Wolf, P. G. (2010). Teaching “species”. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(1), 89–98.Google Scholar
  28. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (Vol. 43, Contemporay Trends and Issues in Science Education). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 21–55): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 221–254.Google Scholar
  31. Ferlin, M., & Sundberg, P. (2015). 12 to 15 year old pupils’ perceptions of the concept species related to formulations in textbooks in biology. NorDiNa, 11(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
  32. Flodin, V. S. (2009). The necessity of making visible concepts with multiple meanings in science education: the use of the gene concept in a biology textbook. Science & Education, 18(1), 73–94.Google Scholar
  33. Flodin, V. S. (2017). Characterisation of the context-dependence of the gene concept in research articles. Science & Education, 26(1), 141–170.Google Scholar
  34. Fox, C. (2014). Wittgenstein on family resemblance. In K. D. Jolley (Ed.), Wittgenstein key concepts (pp. 51–62). Durham: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Funk, D. J., & Omland, K. E. (2003). Species-level paraphyly and polyphyly: frequency, causes, and consequences, with insights from animal mitochondrial DNA. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 397–423.Google Scholar
  36. Geake, J. (2011). Position statement on motivations, methodologies, and practical implications of educational neuroscience research: fMRI studies of the neural correlates of creative intelligence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 43–47.Google Scholar
  37. Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind. Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Educating the evolved mind. Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology (pp. 1–99). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc..Google Scholar
  38. González-Forero, M. (2009). Removing ambiguity from the biological species concept. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256(1), 76–80.Google Scholar
  39. Grajkowski, W. (2011). Building a phylogenetic tree. BioScience Explained, 6(2), 1–8.Google Scholar
  40. Grindeland, J. M. (2015). Plant blindness in Norwegian school. Blyttia, 73(1), 5–12.Google Scholar
  41. Grindeland, J. M., Lyngved, R., & Tandberg, C. (2012). Biologi for lærere. Naturfag i grunnskolelærerutdanningen 5. - 10. trinn. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  42. Ha, M., Baldwin, B. C., & Nehm, R. H. (2015). The long-term impacts of short-term professional development: science teachers and evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8(11), 23 pages.Google Scholar
  43. Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.Google Scholar
  44. Halldén, O. (1988). The evolution of the species: pupil perspectives and school perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 541–552.Google Scholar
  45. Halverson, K. L., Pires, C. J., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Exploring the complexity of tree thinking expertise in an undergraduate systematics course. Science Education, 95(5), 794–823.Google Scholar
  46. Hey, J. (2001a). Genes, categories and species: the evolutionary and cognitive causes of the species problem. Cary: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hey, J. (2001b). The mind of the species problem. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16(7), 326–329.Google Scholar
  48. Hey, J. (2006). On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(8), 447–450.Google Scholar
  49. Hey, J., Waples, R. S., Arnold, M. L., Butlin, R. K., & Harrison, R. G. (2003). Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(11), 597–603.Google Scholar
  50. Hörandl, E. (1998). Species concepts in agamic complexes: applications in the Ranunculus auricomus complex and general perspectives. Folia Geobotanica, 33(3), 335–348.Google Scholar
  51. Hull, D. (1965). The effect of essentialism on taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15(60), 314–326.Google Scholar
  52. Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422–447.Google Scholar
  53. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Janssen, F. J. J. M., & van Berkel, B. (2015). Making philosophy of science education practical for science teachers. Science & Education, 24(3), 229–258.Google Scholar
  56. Jenkins, E. W. (2009). Reforming school science education: a commentary on selected reports and policy documents. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 65–92.Google Scholar
  57. Jiménez-Tejada, M.-P., Sánchez-Monsalve, C., & González-García, F. (2013). How Spanish primary school students interpret the concepts of population and species. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 232–239.Google Scholar
  58. Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.Google Scholar
  59. Kargbo, D. B., Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children's beliefs about inherited characteristics. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 137–146.Google Scholar
  60. Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for Science curriculum analysis on nature of Science. Science & Education, 25(9), 1115–1133.Google Scholar
  61. Keil, F. C. (2008). Adapted minds and evolved schools. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 196–202.Google Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. Krogh, L. B., & Nielsen, K. (2013). Introduction: how science works—and how to teach it. Science & Education, 22(9), 2055–2065.Google Scholar
  64. Kuckartz, U. (2013). Qualitative text analysis: a guide to methods, practice & using software (research methods). Sage.Google Scholar
  65. Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydın, A. (2017). Changes in pre-service science teachers’ understandings after being involved in explicit nature of science and Socioscientific argumentation processes. Science & Education, 26(6), 637–668.Google Scholar
  66. LaPorte, J. (2007). In defense of species. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38(1), 255–269.Google Scholar
  67. Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Ideland, M. (2015). Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1141–1172.Google Scholar
  68. Leden, L., Hansson, L., & Redfors, A. (2017). From black and white to shades of grey. A longitudinal study of teachers’ perspectives on teaching sociocultural and subjective aspects of science. Science & Education, 26(5), 483–511.Google Scholar
  69. 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
  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.Google Scholar
  71. Liebers, D., Knijff, P. d., & Helbig, A. J. (2004). The herring gull complex is not a ring species. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 271(1542), 893–901.Google Scholar
  72. Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: how children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.Google Scholar
  73. Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Bose, E. (2008). How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 36, 731–742.Google Scholar
  74. Lindemann-Matthies, P., Remmele, M., & Yli-Panula, E. (2017). Professional competence of student teachers to implement species identification in schools—a case study from Germany. CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(1), 29–47.Google Scholar
  75. Magnus, D. (1996). Theory, practice, and epistemology in the development of species concepts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 27(4), 521–545.Google Scholar
  76. Martens, J., & Päckert, M. (2007). Ring species—do they exist in birds? Zoologischer Anzeiger—A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 246(4), 315–324.Google Scholar
  77. 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.Google Scholar
  78. Mayden, R. L. (2002). On biological species, species concepts and individuation in the natural world. Fish and Fisheries, 3(3), 171–196.Google Scholar
  79. Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Mayr, E. (1996). What is a species, and what is not? Philosophy of Science, 63(2), 262–277.Google Scholar
  81. Mayr, E. (2001). Wu’s genic view of speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(6), 866–867.Google Scholar
  82. Meisel, R. P. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(4), 621–628.Google Scholar
  83. Ministry of Education and Research (2013). Natural Science subject curriculum. https://www.udir.no/kl06/NAT1-03?lplang=eng. Accessed 1 June 2017.
  84. Mishler, B. D., & Brandon, R. N. (1987). Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept. Biology and Philosophy, 2(4), 397–414.Google Scholar
  85. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.Google Scholar
  86. Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 30–34.Google Scholar
  87. Nadelson, L. S. (2009). Preservice teacher understanding and vision of how to teach biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 490–504.Google Scholar
  88. Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010a). Adaptive memory: ancestral priorities and the mnemonic value of survival processing. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  89. Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010b). Adaptive memory: nature’s criterion and the functionalist agenda. The American Journal of Psychology, 123(4), 381–390.Google Scholar
  90. Noor, M. A. F. (2002). Is the biological species concept showing its age? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(4), 153–154.Google Scholar
  91. Nyléhn, J., Hamre, E., & Nordal, I. (2003). Facultatice apomixis and hybridization in arctic Potentilla section Niveae (Rosaceae) from Svalbard. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 142(4), 373–381.Google Scholar
  92. 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.Google Scholar
  93. Padian, K. (2010). How to win the evolution war: teach macroevolution! Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(2), 206–214.Google Scholar
  94. Palmberg, I. (2012). Student teachers’ knowledge of and interest in species. NorDiNa, 8(3), 244–257.Google Scholar
  95. Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students’ name? Where do they see them? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 630–642.Google Scholar
  96. Peters-Burton, E. E. (2018). Strategies for learning nature of science knowledge: a perspective from educational psychology. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching. New perspectives (pp. 167–193, Science: Philosophy, History and Education). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  97. Pigliucci, M. (2003). Species as family resemblance concepts: the (dis-)solution of the species problem? BioEssays, 25(6), 596–602.Google Scholar
  98. Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.Google Scholar
  99. Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: a study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  100. Pugh, K. J., Koskey, K. L. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). High school biology students’ transfer of the concept of natural selection: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 23–33.Google Scholar
  101. Reydon, T. A. C. (2013). Classifying life, reconstructing history and teaching diversity: philosophical issues in the teaching of biological systematics and biodiversity. Science & Education, 22(2), 189–220.Google Scholar
  102. Richards, R. A. (2016). Biological classification: a philosophical introduction (Cambridge introductions to philosophy and biology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Rule, A. C., & Olsen, B. D. (2016). Use of analogy and comparative thinking in scientific creativity and gifted education. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 301–320). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  104. Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1–44.Google Scholar
  105. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiens, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: a study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.Google Scholar
  106. Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100(4), 706–733.Google Scholar
  107. Schizas, D., Papatheodorou, E., & Stamou, G. (2018). Transforming “ecosystem” from a scientific concept into a teachable topic: philosophy and history of ecology informs science textbook analysis. Research in Science Education, 48(2), 267–300.Google Scholar
  108. Shome, S. (2013). Exploring students’ understanding of species: a study with class VIII students. In G. Nagarjuna, J. Arvind, & S. Ebie (Eds.), epiSTEME–5, Mumbai, 2013: HBCSE, TIFR.Google Scholar
  109. Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170–194.Google Scholar
  110. Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1049–1062.Google Scholar
  111. Sinatra, G. M., Doutherland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528.Google Scholar
  112. Sites, J. W. J., & Marshall, J. C. (2003). Delimiting species: a renaissance issue in systematic biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(9), 462–470.Google Scholar
  113. Sites, J. W. J., & Marshall, J. C. (2004). Operational criteria for delimiting species. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 199–227.Google Scholar
  114. Sjøberg, S. (2017). «O-fagssyndromet». Et skolefags vekst og fall. In M. Roos & J. Tønnesson (Eds.), Sann opplysning? Naturvitenskap i nordiske offentligheter gjennom fire århundrer (pp. 471–506). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
  115. Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum evaluation study: life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538–568.Google Scholar
  116. Sternkopf, V., Liebers-Helbig, D., Ritz, M. S., Zhang, J., Helbig, A. J., & de Knijff, P. (2010). Introgressive hybridization and the evolutionary history of the herring gull complex revealed by mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 348.Google Scholar
  117. Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2), 179–218.Google Scholar
  118. Taber, K. S. (2016). Chemical reactions are like hell because…. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 321–349). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  119. Taber, K. S. (2017). Knowledge, beliefs and pedagogy: How the nature of science should inform the aims of science education (and not just when teaching evolution). Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 81–91.Google Scholar
  120. Tala, S., & Vesterinen, V.-M. (2015). Nature of science contextualized: studying nature of science with scientists. Science & Education, 24(4), 435–457.Google Scholar
  121. Thanukos, A. (2010). Communicating evolution as science. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(2), 254–260.Google Scholar
  122. Urhahne, D., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2011). Conceptions of the nature of science—are they general or context specific? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 707–730.Google Scholar
  123. van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.Google Scholar
  124. van Valen, L. M. (1988). Species, sets, and the derivative nature of philosophy. Biology and Philosophy, 3(1), 49–66.Google Scholar
  125. Velasco, J. D. (2008). Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39(4), 407–414.Google Scholar
  126. Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 119–130, Springer International Handbooks Of Education, Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  127. Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: authenticity, multiple discourses, and the “third space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901–914.Google Scholar
  128. Wiens, J. J., & Servedio, M. R. (2000). Species delimitation in systematics: inferring diagnostic differences between species. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 267(1444), 631–636.Google Scholar
  129. Wilkins, J. S. (2009a). Defining species. A sourcebook from antiquity to today (American University studies, Vol. V. Philosophy). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  130. Wilkins, J. S. (2009b). Species. A history of the idea (species and systematics): University of California Press.Google Scholar
  131. Wilkins, J. S. (2013). Biological essentialism and the tidal change of natural kinds. Science & Education, 22(2), 221–240.Google Scholar
  132. Wilkins, J. S. (2018). Species. The evolution of the idea (species and systematics): Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
  133. Wilson, C. M., & Oldham, J. H. (1984). Teaching the species concept using hybrid plants and habitats. Journal of Biological Education, 18(1), 45–56.Google Scholar
  134. Winsor, M. P. (2006). The creation of the essentialism story: an exercise in Metahistory. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28(2), 149–174.Google Scholar
  135. Wu, C.-I. (2001). The genic view of the process of speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(6), 851–865.Google Scholar
  136. Zachos, F. E. (2016). Species concepts in biology. Historical development, theoretical foundations and practical relevance. Basel: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  2. 2.Department of Teacher Education and School ResearchUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations