Concepts related to the nature of science (NOS) have been considered an important part of scientific literacy as reflected in its inclusion in curriculum documents. A significant amount of science education research has focused on improving learners’ understanding of NOS. One approach that has often been advocated is an explicit and reflective approach. Some researchers have used the history of science to provide learners with explicit and reflective experiences with NOS concepts. Previous research on using the history of science (HOS) in science instruction has approached HOS in many different ways and consequently has led to inconsistent findings regarding its utility for improving learning. One promising method for overcoming this inconsistency and teaching NOS with more traditional science content is using stories based in the history of science. A mixed method approach was used to determine whether and how the use of science stories influences undergraduates’ understanding of NOS. Particular attention was paid to the explanations that students used for their understandings. Intervention and control groups completed the Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry (SUSSI) instrument. The intervention group was taught using two historical narratives while the control group was taught using minimal history. A subset of both groups was also interviewed regarding their SUSSI responses and their experiences in the course. Results indicated that the introduction of science stories helped participants gain a better understanding of the role of imagination and creativity in science. Participants mentioned science stories in their explanations for why they changed towards more informed views on SUSSI items related to imagination and creativity. The current study adds to a growing body of literature regarding the use of stories in the science classroom.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.
Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.
Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
Appleton, K. (1997). Analysis and description of students’ learning during science classes using a constructivist-based model. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(3), 303–318.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267.
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Sage.
Byrne, B. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.
Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.
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.
Clough, M. P., Herman, B. C., & Smith, J. A. R. (2010). Seamlessly teaching science content and the nature of science: Impact of historical short stories on post-secondary biology students. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education (ASTE) National Conference, Sacramento, CA.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13614–13620.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.
Deng, F., Chen, D., Tsai, C., & Chai, C. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.
Fulford, J. M. (2016). Assessing the impact of historical story telling on student learning of natural selection. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1846142100).
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Klassen, S., & Klassen, C. (2012). Encouraging a “romantic understanding” of science: The effect of the Nikola Tesla story. Science & Education, 21(8), 1111–1138.
Hatcher, L., & Stepanski, E. J. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for univariate and multivariate statistics. Cary: SAS Institute.
Howard, P. J. (2000). The owner’s manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain research (2nd ed.). Austin: Bard Press.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
Kampourakis, K. (2013). Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 22(2), 293–324.
Kampourakis, K., & Gripiotis, C. (2015). Darwinism in context: An interdisciplinary, highly contextualized course on nature of science. Perspectives in Science, 5, 25–35.
Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of science. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 637–654.
Kim, S., & Irving, K. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215.
Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 401–423.
Klassen S., & Klassen C. (2014) Science teaching with historically based stories: Theoretical and practical perspectives. In Matthews M. (Ed), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 1503–1529).
Lederman, N. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
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(6), 497–521.
Lederman N.G., Bartos S.A., Lederman J.S. (2014) The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In Matthews M. (Ed), International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching (pp. 971-997).
Leech, N., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), 265–275.
Liang, L. L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O. N., Adams, A. D., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2008). Assessing preservice elementary teachers’ views on the nature of scientific knowledge: A dual-response instrument. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 9, 1–20.
Liang, L., Chen, S., Chen, X., Kaya, O., Adams, A., Macklin, M., & Ebenezer, J. (2009). Preservice teachers’ views about nature of scientific knowledge development: An international collaborative study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7(5), 987–1012.
MacCallum, R., & Browne, M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc..
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. (1997). Introductory comments on philosophy and constructivism in science education. Science & Education, 6, 5–14.
McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science. Science Teacher, 71(9), 24–27.
McComas, W. (2010). The history of science and the future of science education. In P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, & A. A. Rizaki (Eds.), Adapting Historical Knowledge Production to the Classroom (pp. 37–53).
Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives. Science & Education, 16(3), 313–334.
Miller, M. C. D., Montplaisir, L. M., Offerdahl, E. G., Cheng, F. C., & Ketterling, G. L. (2010). Comparison of views of the nature of science between natural science and nonscience majors. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 9(1), 45–54.
Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424.
Novick, P. (1988). That Noble dream: The “objectivity question” and the American historical profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 637–660.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & McLean, J. E. (2003). Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Research in the Schools, 10(1), 71–89.
Park, H., Nielsen, W., & Woodruff, E. (2014). Students’ conceptions of the nature of science: Perspectives from Canadian and Korean middle school students. Science & Education, 23(5), 1169–1196.
Researchware, Inc (2015). HyperRESEARCH [Computer Software]. Retrieved from http://www.researchware.com. Accessed 30 Sept 2015.
Richardson, J. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147.
Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.
Rudge, D. W., Cassidy, D. P., Fulford, J. M., & Howe, E. M. (2014). Changes observed in views of nature of science during a historically based unit. Science & Education, 23(9), 1879–1909.
Sandoval, W., & Millwood, K. (2005). The quality of students’ uses of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 23–55.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Knowledge and memory: The real story (pp. 1–85). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwab, J. J. (1958). The teaching of science as inquiry. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14(9), 374–379.
Steiger, J. (2000). Point estimation, hypothesis testing, and interval estimation using the RMSEA: Some comments and a reply to Hayduk and Glaser. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 149–162.
Tsybulsky, D. (2018). Comparing the impact of two science-as-inquiry methods on the NOS understanding of high-school biology students. Science & Education, 27(7–8), 661–683.
Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381–400.
Williams, C., & Rudge, D. (2015). Mendel and the nature of science. The American Biology Teacher, 77(7), 492–499.
Williams, C., & Rudge, D. (2016). Emphasizing the history of genetics in an explicit and reflective approach to teaching the nature of science. Science & Education, 25(3–4), 407–427.
Williams, B., Clough, M. P., Stanley, M., & Colbert, J. T. (2010). Creativity and discovery: The work of Gregor Mendel. Retrieved from http://www.storybehindthescience.org/biology.html.
Wineburg, S. (2001). Historical thinking and other unnatural acts: Charting the future of teaching the past. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic Supplementary Material
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, C.T., Rudge, D.W. Effects of Historical Story Telling on Student Understanding of Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 28, 1105–1133 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00073-x