Abstract
This chapter looks on metaorganism research as a contemporary case of a paradigmatic change in the life sciences. The chapter asks whether a new paradigm will challenge the nature of biology and therefore should be authentically addressed in science education. In the first part of the chapter, a brief introduction to this novel research approach is given. An introduction to nature of science frameworks relevant to science education is given and connected to the case of metaorganism science. The second part of the chapter investigates authentic perspectives of active scientists in this field. The scientists were interviewed about perceived changes in their scientific understanding of the organismic world and their derived objectives for Science|Environment|Health education and communication. Finally, the theoretical considerations and the expert conceptions are amalgamated towards an authentic perception relevant for future challenges in Science|Environment|Health pedagogy.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allchin, D. (2017). Sacred bovines. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190490362.001.0001
Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98, 461–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21111
Anker-Hansen, J., & Andreé, M. (2019). In pursuit of authenticity in science education. NorDiNa, 15(1), 498–510. https://doi.org/10.5617/nordina.4723
Baothman, O. A., Zamzami, M. A., Taher, I., Abubaker, J., & Abu-Farha, M. (2016). The role of gut microbiota in the development of obesity and diabetes. Lipids in Health and Disease, 15, 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-016-0278-4
Bosch, T. C. G. (2017). Der Mensch als Holobiont – Mikroben als Schlüssel zu einem neuen Verständnis von Leben und Gesundheit. Verlag Ludwig.
Bosch, T. C. G., & McFall-Ngai, M. J. (2011). Metaorganisms as the new frontier. Zoology, 114(4), 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.zool.2011.04.001
Claussen, C., Knapp, J. M., Kapitza, M., Bernholt, A., Schulenburg, H., & Kremer, K. (2020). Wissenschaftskommunikation an der Universität zu Kiel: Metaorganismus-Forschung trifft Schule. Biologie in unserer Zeit, 4(50), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/biuz.202010713
Davies, S. R. (2008). Constructing communication: Talking to scientists about talking to the public. Science Communication, 29(4), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008316222
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4
Heering, P., & Kremer, K. (2018). Nature of science. In D. Krüger, I. Parchmann, & H. Schecker (Eds.), Theorien in der naturwissenschaftsdidaktischen Forschung (pp. 105–119). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56320-5_7
Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4
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). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7654-8_30
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, 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
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, 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10036
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Laherto, A., Tirre, F., Parchmann, I., Kampschulte, L., & Schwarzer, S. (2018). Scientists’ perceptions on the nature of nanoscience and its public communication. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 76(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/18.76.43
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). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_14
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, future. In S. Abell & N. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
Mayring, P. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz.
Whitmee, S., Haines, A., Beyrer, C., Boltz, F., Capon, A. G., de Souza Dias, B. F., Ezeh, A., Frumkin, H., Gong, P., Head, P., Horton, R., Mace, G. M., Marten, R., Myers, S. S., Nishtar, S., Osofsky, S. A., Pattanayak, S. K., Pongsiri, M. J., Romanelli, C., Soucat, A., Vega, J., & Yach, D. (2015). Safeguarding human health in the Anthropocene epoch: Report of the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on planetary health. Lancet, 386(10007), 1973–2028. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60901-1
Acknowledgments
The first author would like to thank Professor Thomas Bosch from the University of Kiel for numerous inspiring conversations about the consequences of metaorganism research findings for the humanities and education within the Collaborative Research Center 1182 “Origin and Function of Metaorganisms”. The first author also would like to thank Professor Margaret McFall-Ngai from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa for visiting the Kewalo Marine Laboratory in Honolulu during the winter term 2018/2019 and for sharing her enthusiasm about microbiome research and education and her perceptions of new frontiers in the life sciences. Finally, the first author would like to express gratitude towards the IPN – Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education at the University of Kiel for providing excellent research structures in science communication and the trust to explore this exciting interface between authentic science and education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kremer, K., Durchgraf, L. (2021). Communicating New Scientific Paradigms: A Case Study on Scientists’ Perceptions About Contemporary Metaorganism Science and Implications for Science|Environment|Health Pedagogy. In: Zeyer, A., Kyburz-Graber, R. (eds) Science | Environment | Health. Contributions from Science Education Research, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75297-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75297-2_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-75296-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-75297-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)