Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 9, pp 2109–2139 | Cite as

Two Views About Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science

Article

Abstract

Our focus is on the effects that dated ideas about the nature of science (NOS) have on curriculum, instruction and assessments. First we examine historical developments in teaching about NOS, beginning with the seminal ideas of James Conant. Next we provide an overview of recent developments in philosophy and cognitive sciences that have shifted NOS characterizations away from general heuristic principles toward cognitive and social elements. Next, we analyze two alternative views regarding ‘explicitly teaching’ NOS in pre-college programs. Version 1 is grounded in teachers presenting ‘Consensus-based Heuristic Principles’ in science lessons and activities. Version 2 is grounded in learners experience of ‘Building and Refining Model-Based Scientific Practices’ in critique and communication enactments that occur in longer immersion units and learning progressions. We argue that Version 2 is to be preferred over Version 1 because it develops the critical epistemic cognitive and social practices that scientists and science learners use when (1) developing and evaluating scientific evidence, explanations and knowledge and (2) critiquing and communicating scientific ideas and information; thereby promoting science literacy.

References

  1. 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
  2. Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science: (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Atran, S. (2002). Modular and cultural factors in biological understanding: An experimental approach to the cognitive basis of science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 41–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ault, C., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  12. Clough, M. (2011). Teaching and assessing the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56–60.Google Scholar
  13. Conant, J. (1947). On understanding science: A historical approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science, (Vols 1 & 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  16. Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories tes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeBoer, G. (1991). The history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The role of theories and their importance. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leech, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in 3-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, Routledge (pp. 78–107). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  24. Eflin, J., 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
  25. Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17, 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giere, R. (2002). Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 285–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Harvard Project Physics. (1968–1969). The project physics course: Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  30. Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  31. Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Holton, G., Rutherford, J., & Watson, F. (1970). Project physics: Handbook. Cambridge, MA: Project Physics.Google Scholar
  33. Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kimball, M. (1967–1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.Google Scholar
  36. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How science makes knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Koslowski, B., & Thompson, S. (2002). Theorizing is important, and collateral information constrains how well it is done. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 171–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lederman, N. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  45. Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComus (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science: Modifying activities to enhance students’ understanding of science, The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.Google Scholar
  47. Lederman, N., Adb-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012a). Supporting inquiry about the foundations of evolutionary thinking in the elementary grades. In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 171–206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012b). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McComas, W., (Ed.) (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  55. 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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  56. Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219–290.Google Scholar
  57. Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138–161.Google Scholar
  58. National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  59. National Research Council (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  60. National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  61. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  62. National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  63. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  64. National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science, www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.
  65. Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nersessian, N. (2008a). Inquiry: How science works; Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Nersessian, N. (2008b). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Milton Keynes: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., 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
  71. Pickering, A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rubba, P., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rudolph, J. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sawyer, R. K., (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Schwab, J. (1960). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  80. Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). A series of misrepresentations: A response to Allchin’s whole approach to assessing nature of science understandings. Science Education, 96(4), 685–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siegal, M. (2002). The science of childhood. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 300–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Smith, C., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747–785.Google Scholar
  83. Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experience on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory, Measurement: Interdisciplinary research and perspectives, 4, 11–98.Google Scholar
  85. Subrahmanyam, K., Gelman, R., & Lafosse, A. (2002). Animates and other separably moveable objects. In E. Fordes & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category specificity in brain and mind (pp. 341–373). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  86. Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977). The structure of scientific theories, 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  87. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Thagard, P. (2007). Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 74(1), 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Van Eijck, M., Hsu, P., & Roth, W. (2008). Translations of science practice to “Students’ Images of Science”. Science Education, 93(4), 611–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wenning, C. J. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy, Journal of Physics Teacher Education, Online, 3(4), 3–14. www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Rice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations