Science & Education

, Volume 20, Issue 7–8, pp 591–607 | Cite as

A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science for Science Education

Article

Abstract

Although there is universal consensus both in the science education literature and in the science standards documents to the effect that students should learn not only the content of science but also its nature, there is little agreement about what that nature is. This led many science educators to adopt what is sometimes called “the consensus view” about the nature of science (NOS), whose goal is to teach students only those characteristics of science on which there is wide consensus. This is an attractive view, but it has some shortcomings and weaknesses. In this article we present and defend an alternative approach based on the notion of family resemblance. We argue that the family resemblance approach is superior to the consensus view in several ways, which we discuss in some detail.

References

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2004). Over and over and over again: College students’ views of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 389–426). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, R. (2004). Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 427–446). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cobern, W., & Loving, C. (2001). Defining “Science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duhem, P. (1962). The aim and structure of physical theory. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London: NLB.Google Scholar
  8. Flick, L. B., & Lederman, N. G. (2004). Introduction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix–xviii). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In P. Galison & D. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science (pp. 37–74). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for preservice elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2006). Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: Integrated versus nonintegrated. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. Laudan, L. (1996). Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method and evidence. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  16. Laudan, L., Donovan, A., Laudan, R., Barker, P., Brown, H., Leplin, J., et al. (1986). Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research. Synthese, 69, 141–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leakey, R. (1981). The making of mankind. New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  18. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. ix–xviii). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Longino, H. (1997). Cognitive and non-cognitive values in science: Rethinking the dichotomy. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, science, and the philosophy of science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  20. Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Education, 35(2), 161–174.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 3–40). Hingham: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. 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). Hingham: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Merton, R. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Needham, R. (1975). Polythetic classification: Convergence and consequences. Man, 10(3), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nola, R., & Irzık, G. (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Nola, R., & Sankey, H. (2007). Theories of scientific method. Acumen: Stocksfield.Google Scholar
  27. 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 Education, 40(7), 692–720.Google Scholar
  28. Pitt, J. C. (1990). The myth of science education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 10, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  30. Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  31. Popper, K. R. (1975). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenberg, A. (2008). Biology. In S. Psillos & M. Curd (Eds.), The Routledge companion to philosophy of science (pp. 511–519). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Allen Lane Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shapin, S. (2001). How to be antiscientific. In J. A. Labinger & H. Collins (Eds.), The one culture (pp. 99–115). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stanley, W. B., & Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Teaching science: The multicultural question revisited. Science Education, 85, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Fraassen, B. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Von Glasersfeld, E. (1989). Cognition, construction of knowledge and teaching. Synthese, 80, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell: Oxford.Google Scholar
  40. Ziedler, D. N., Walker, K. A., & Ackett, W. A. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sabancı UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations