Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature of Science

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study took place in an introductory science inquiry course for preservice elementary school teachers as a supplement to lessons on critical thinking. The correspondence of Charles Darwin was used to provide historical context to nature of science concepts of the sociocultural embeddedness of science, the subjective and reflective nature of the knowledge and experiences of scientists, and science is composed of different types of empirically based knowledge. Darwin’s own words, reactions to other’s words and ideas, and personal correspondences illustrate the undercurrent of social interactions and private thought processes that furthered the development of scientific understanding. Qualitative analysis of student data indicates that these historical letters provided a medium through which students were able to recognize ideas commonly identified as NOS. With the appropriate instructional and pedagogical supports described, students demonstrated knowledge of the historical context of Darwin’s work and the social enterprise of science illustrated through that work, leading to their developing understanding of the nature of science.

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

Notes

  1. We drew on Ayala’s description of hypothetico-deductive reasoning and acknowledge that others may view it differently. Our purpose was to try to simplify the text so that the elementary education majors would be able to parse and follow the text.

  2. The reader will notice in this section a reliance on anachronisms, i.e., comparing Darwin’s work to the hypothetico-deductive method. This section communicates what we shared with our elementary education students, not a review of the history of science. Anachronisms are used here as pedagogy. As educators we take the students as they come to us - our students have very little background in the history and philosophy of science, so we connected our lessons to what students already learned in the class to promote understanding of NOS concepts illustrated in the letters.

References

  • 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 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Boujaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., & Tuan, H. L. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Buzzelli, C. A., & Donnelly, L. A. (2008). Early childhood teachers' views of nature of science: The influence of intellectual levels, cultural values, and explicit reflective teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(6), 748–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayala, F. (2009). Darwin and the scientific method. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(Supplement 1), 10033–10039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research, Inc.

  • Bell, R. L., Mulvey, B. K., & Maeng, J. L. (2016). Outcomes of nature of science instruction along a context continuum: Preservice secondary science teachers’ conceptions and instructional intentions. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 493–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act in sociology: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, G. N. (2002). What science is and how it works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, H. (1861). A popular exposition of Mr. Darwin on the origin of species. Macmillan’s Magazine, 3, 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fouad, K. E., Masters, H., & Akerson, V. L. (2015). Using history of science to teach nature of science to elementary students. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1103–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, P. (2016). What was historical about natural history? Contingency and explanation in the science of living things. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 58, 8–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. (1991). John Stuart mill on induction and hypotheses. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 29(1), 69–83.

    Article  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 

  • Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of science. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 637–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry oriented instruction on sixth graders' views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 301–317). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    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. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. A., Antink Meyer, A., & Schwartz, R. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65–83.

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

  • Macleod, C. (2017). John Stuart mill. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/mill/.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17, 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Progressive transitions in chemistry teachers’ understanding of nature of science based on historical controversies. Science & Education, 18, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards Science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25, 1049–1079.

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(4), 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17(2), 219–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, Illinois State University, Normal, IL, 61790, USA

    Anthony W. Lorsbach & Allison Antink Meyer

  2. Department of Elementary & Early Childhood Education, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, 30144, USA

    Anna Maria Arias

Authors
  1. Anthony W. Lorsbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allison Antink Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anna Maria Arias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anthony W. Lorsbach.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict 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

Lorsbach, A.W., Meyer, A.A. & Arias, A.M. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin as a Tool for Reflecting on Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 28, 1085–1103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00080-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00080-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation