Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Coherence About Nature of Science in Science Curriculum Documents

Taiwan as a Case Study

  • SI: nature of science
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article focuses on the analysis of curriculum documents from Taiwan to investigate how benchmarks for learning nature of science (NOS) are positioned in different versions of the science curricula. Following a review of different approaches to the conceptualization of NOS and the role of NOS in promoting scientific literacy, an empirical study is reported to illustrate how the science curriculum documents represent different aspects of NOS. The article uses the family resemblance approach (FRA) as the account of NOS and adapts it for analysis of the curriculum documents. The FRA defines NOS as cognitive-epistemic and social-institutional systems that serve as constructs of knowledge categories with a high level of interconnectedness. The FRA was used as an analytical tool for investigating two sets of Taiwanese curriculum guidelines published 10 years apart, providing an opportunity to discuss how NOS is addressed in the curriculum reforms. The findings show a shift away from the excessive centralization of the cognitive-epistemic system to a consideration of the social-institutional system. Modifications to the benchmarks are proposed in order to achieve a more holistic and progressive approach to NOS. The article contributes to studies on NOS in science education by illustrating how the FRA can act as a tool for exploring interconnectedness of NOS ideas in the curriculum.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Akerson, V. L. (2009). The influence of metacognitive training on preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(16), 2161–2184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ concepts of nature of science: a critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education., 17(1), 18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (2009). Benchmarks for science literacy. Washington, DC: Author. (Original work published 1993).

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington D.C: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2014). NGSS and the next generation of science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: an introduction. Science & Education, 37(4), 75–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W. W., & Klopfer, L. E. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 4–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014a). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014b). Regaining focus in Irish junior cycle science: potential new directions for curriculum and assessment on nature of science. Irish Educational Studies, 33(4), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1133–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. (2018). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: nature of science, scientific practices, and science teacher education. In J. Yeo, T. W. Teo, & K.-S. Tang (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Asia-Pacific and beyond (pp. 3–24). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: credibility on the line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodlad, J. I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: the study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harden, R. M. (1999). What is a spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1115–1133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (First published 1962).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2006). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science: implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Vol. II (pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., Abd-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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. (2015). Science teaching: the contribution of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53–70). Netherlands: Khwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Proposals for core nature of science content in popular books on the history and philosophy of science: lessons for science education. In Y. J. Lee & A. L. Tan (Eds.), Science education at the nexus of theory and practice. Rotterdam: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2017). Understanding how science work: the nature of science as they foundation for science teaching and learning. School Science Review, 98(365), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, H., & Neumann, I. (2016). Nature of science and science content learning. Science & Education, 25, 951–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education [MOE]. (2006). General guidelines of grade 1-9 curriculum of elementary and junior high school education. Taipei: Ministry of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy for Educational Research [NAER]. (2016). Grade 1~12 science curriculum guidelines. Retrieved on Nov. 2, 2017 at https://www.naer.edu.tw/files/15-1000-10469. Accessed 2 Nov 2017

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). The national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press Retrieved on Nov. 2, 2017 at.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: what it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press.

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise. In Dynamics of scientific progress (Vol. 36). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R., & Irzik, G. (2006). Philosophy, science, education and culture. The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (2017). “PISA 2015 Science Framework,” in PISA 2015 Assessment and Analytical Framework: Science, Reading, Mathematic, Financial Literacy and Collaborative Problem Solving, OECD Publishing, Paris.

  • Oliva, P. F., & Gordon, W. R. (2013). Developing the curriculum (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2011). Science teaching methods: a rationale for practices. School Science Review, 93(343), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2014). Scientific practices and inquiry in the science classroom. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education Vol. II (pp. 579–599). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2009). Enhancing engagement with science/technology-related issues. In A. T. Jones & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), International handbook of research and development in technology education (pp. 287–296). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. (2004). Learning theories: an educational perspective (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleeter, C. E., & Carmona, J. F. (2017). Un-standardizing curriculum. Multicultural teaching in the standards-based classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2009). From the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about scientific investigation and scientific knowledge. Science Education, 93(1), 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: what scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is financially supported by the Ministry of Science and technology (MOST 106-2628-S-003-001-MY2) and the Ministry of Education, Taiwan (“Institute for Research Excellence in Learning Sciences” and “Higher Education Sprout Project”).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Teacher Education, National Taiwan Normal University, 126, Sec. 1, Heping E., Taipei, Taiwan

    Yi-Fen Yeh

  2. Department of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK

    Sibel Erduran

  3. Graduate Institute of Science Education, National Taiwan Normal University, 88, Sec. 4, Ting-Chou Rd., Taipei, Taiwan

    Ying-Shao Hsu

Authors
  1. Yi-Fen Yeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sibel Erduran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ying-Shao Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ying-Shao Hsu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors state that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yeh, YF., Erduran, S. & Hsu, YS. Investigating Coherence About Nature of Science in Science Curriculum Documents. Sci & Educ 28, 291–310 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00053-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00053-1

Search

Navigation