Abstract
It has been shown that many people do not understand how scientific knowledge is built and accepted, even after scientific education. One way to deal with this problem is through teaching about the Nature of Science (NOS). NOS can be understood as a pedagogical construct aiming to foster the understanding of the main characteristics of scientific work. Recently, several researchers have advocated that we should consider pluralism within science when teaching about NOS. Accordingly, there have been efforts to develop ways of promoting instruction on NOS considering the specificity of distinct scientific fields. Aligned with this perspective, this paper aims to put forward a model for teaching NOS in the context of biological education. This model, named “Integrative Model for Teaching NOS in Biological Education” (IM-NOSBIO), is based on three pillars. The first is the Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science (FRA), developed by Erduran and Dagher. The second consists in the Conceptual Framework of Biology proposed by Scheiner. The third is the Pragmatic Conception of Models as Epistemic Artifacts put forward by Knuuttila. We propose that IM-NOSBIO has the potential to promote teaching and learning about different aspects of scientific knowledge and practice by taking advantage of how they present themselves in biological sciences teaching. To illustrate this potential, we offer an example of how this model can be used for teaching about certain aspects of NOS based on the history of the cell theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Generally speaking, “scientific practices” refer to the cognitive, epistemic, socio-institutional, cultural, and other processes carried out by scientific communities to build scientific knowledge. To include scientific practices in NOS teaching runs counter presenting science as just a body of knowledge, as it is often the case in science education.
We use “academic scientific knowledge” here to refer to Western scientific knowledge as typically built and validated in academic institutions around the world. We leave it open whether some other knowledge systems can be described as ‘scientific’ too, such as, say, indigenous sciences (see, e.g., Snively & Corsiglia, 2001; Bicker et al., 2003; Brayboy & Castagno, 2008; Alessa et al., 2016). This is a point of contention in anthropological, philosophical, educational, and scientific literature that we do not intend to settle here. Thereafter when we use “scientific knowledge,” we keep the same reference as in “academic scientific knowledge,” but do not include “academic” just for the sake of simplicity.
According to Pigliucci (2013a, p. 766), pseudoscience “refers to a highly heterogeneous set of practices, beliefs, and claims sharing the property of appearing to be scientific when in fact they contradict either scientific findings or the methods by which science proceeds.” Notice that a pseudoscientific position cannot be simply conflated with a non-scientific one. For instance, if a religious writer argues for creationism and does not intend it to be treated as a scientific position or included in the science curriculum, it is not justifiable to qualify his or her arguments as “pseudoscientific,” as they are just different from scientific ones, just “non-scientific.”
These factors include worldviews, religious beliefs, and personal values (Alters & Alters, 2001; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992; Osif, 1997; Tracy et al., 2011); psychological, political, and social factors (Allmon, 2011; Tracy et al., 2011); and epistemological beliefs and cognitive dispositions (Sinatra et al., 2003).
It is quite common to find in the literature the use of other expressions to refer to individuals’ conceptions about science, such as correct, incorrect, adequate, inadequate, and naive. However, we recognize the difficulty of using them without sounding like a derogatory evaluation. To work around this problem, in this paper we will use adjectives such as “informed” and “sophisticated” to refer to individuals’ views about science. We think that using these adjectives decrease the tendency to disparage or belittle someone’s views about scientific work, when compared to qualifications such as “incorrect” or “inadequate.” Consider, for instance, that claiming that a student became after learning about NOS more informed or more sophisticated in his or her views entails judging only that he or she had previously less informed or less sophisticated views, which could, nonetheless, be also correct or adequate.
Among the various approaches found in the literature, we can also mention what has been called “the consensus view” on NOS (Irzik & Nola, 2011; Martins, 2015), or “tenets-based,” or “general aspects” conceptualization of NOS (Kampourakis, 2016) or, else, the “ideas-about-science” view (Osborne et al., 2003); the “Whole Science” perspective (Allchin, 2011, 2017); the “approach based on ‘themes’ and ‘questions’” (Martins, 2015); and the “Features of Science” (FOS) view (Matthews, 2012, 2015).
According to Knuuttila (2005a, p. 49), the term “material” means “something that is concrete and corporeal, occupying space and time and able to interact with other things and human beings”.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012a). 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012b). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1041–1060). Springer.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E
Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2016). “Algo antiguo, algo nuevo, algo prestado”. Tendencias sobre la naturaleza de la ciencia en la educación científica. Revista Eureka sobre Enseñanza y Divulgación de las Ciencias, 13(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.25267/Rev_Eureka_ensen_divulg_cienc.2016.v13.i1.02
Adúriz-Bravo, A. (2013). A ‘semantic’ view of scientific models for science education. Science & Education, 22(7), 1593–1611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9431-7
Alessa, L., Kliskey, A., Gamble, J., Fidel, M., Beaujean, G., & Gosz, J. (2016). The role of indigenous science and local knowledge in integrated observing systems: Moving toward adaptive capacity indices and early warning systems. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-015-0295-7
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20432
Allchin, D. (2012). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9368-x
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the nature of science: Perspectives and resources. St. SHiPs.
Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271921
Allmon, D. W. (2011). Why don’t people think evolution is true? Implications for teaching, in and out of the classroom. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(4), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-011-0371-0
Alters, B. J., & Alters, S. M. (2001). Defending evolution: A guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Jones and Bartlett.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). (1990). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.
Anderson, D. (2014). Still going strong: Leeuwenhoek at eighty. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 106, 3–26.
Androutsos, G. (2004). Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902): Founder of cellular pathology and pioneer of oncology. Journal of BUON (Balkan Union of Oncology), 9(3), 331–336.
Androutsos, G., Diamantis, A., & Vladimiros, L. (2007). Cancer’s conceptions of Marie François Xavier Bichat (1771-1802), founder of histology. Journal of BUON (Balkan Union of Oncology), 12(2), 295–302.
Applebaum, W. (2005). The scientific revolution and the foundations of modern science. Greenwood Press.
Ault, C. R. (1998). Criteria of excellence for geological inquiry: The necessity of ambiguity. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<189::AID-TEA8>3.0.CO;2-O
Ayala, F. J., & Arp, R. (Eds.). (2010). Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology. Wiley-Blackwell.
Azevedo, N. H., & Scarpa, D. L. (2017). Um levantamento em larga escala das concepções de natureza da ciência de graduandos de biologia brasileiros e os possíveis elementos formativos associados. Ensaio: Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências, 19, e2794. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-21172017190121
Bailer-Jones, D. M. (1999). Tracing the development of models in philosophy of science. In L. Magnani, N. J. Nersessian, & P. Thagard (Eds.), Model-based reasoning in scientific discovery (pp. 23–40). Kluwer.
Bailer-Jones, D. M. (2009). Scientific models in philosophy of science. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Baker, J. R. (1948). The cell-theory: A restatement, history, and critique, Part I. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 89(1), 103–125.
Baker, J. R. (1949). The cell-theory: A restatement, history, and critique, Part II. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 90(1), 87–108.
Baker, J. R. (1952). The cell-theory: A restatement, history, and critique, Part III. The cell as a morphological unit. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 93(2), 157–190.
Baker, J. R. (1953). The cell-theory: A restatement, history, and critique, Part IV. The multiplication of cells. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 94(4), 407–440.
Baker, J. R. (1955). The cell-theory: A restatement, history, and critique, Part V. The multiplication of nuclei. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 96(4), 449–481.
Baltas, A. (1988). On the structure of physics as a science. In D. Batens & J. P. Van Bendegens (Eds.), Theory and experiment (pp. 207–225). D. Reidel.
Barton, A. (1998). Feminist science education. Teachers College Press.
Beatty, J. (1995). The evolutionary contingency thesis. In G. Wolters & J. Lennox (Eds.), Concepts, theories, and rationality in the biological sciences (pp. 45–81). University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bechtel, W. (1984). The evolution of our understanding of the cell: A study in the dynamics of scientific progress. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 15(4), 309–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(84)90014-1
Bentivoglio, M. (1999). The discovery of the golgi apparatus. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 8(2), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1076/jhin.8.2.202.1833
Bentivoglio, M., & Mazzarello, P. (1998). The pathway to the cell and its organelles: One hundred years of the golgi apparatus. Endeavour, 22(3), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-9327(98)01133-8
Bicker, A., Ellen, R., & Parkes, P. (Eds.). (2003). Indigenous enviromental knowledge and its transformations: Critical anthropological perspectives. Routledge.
Billingsley, B. (2017). Teaching and learning about epistemic insight. School Science Review, 99(365), 59–64 https://www.ase.org.uk/resources/school-science-review/issue-365/teaching-and-learning-about-epistemic-insight, retrieved October 6, 2021.
Billingsley, B., & Hardman, M. (2017). Epistemic insight and the power and limitations of science in multidisciplinary arenas. School Science Review, 99(367), 16–18. https://www.ase.org.uk/resources/school-science-review/issue-367/theme-editorial-epistemic-insight-and-power-and, retrieved Oct 6, 2021.
Blair, A. (2006). Natural philosophy. In K. Park & L. Daston (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: Early modern science (Vol. 3, pp. 365–406). Cambridge University Press.
Blancke, S., Boudry, M., Braeckman, J., De Smedt, J., & De Cruz, H. (2011). Dealing with creationist challenges. What European biology teachers might expect in the classroom. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2010.546677
Blancke, S., Hjermitslev, H. H., & Kjærgaard, P. C. (Eds.). (2014). Creationism in Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bolam, J. (1973). The botanical works of Nehemiah Grew, F.R.S. (1641-1712). Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 27(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1973.0017
Boon, M., & Knuuttila, T. (2009). Models as epistemic tools in engineering sciences: A pragmatic approach. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 687-719). (Handbook of the philosophy of technological sciences, vol. 9, N. IX). Elsevier Science.
Boumans, M. (1999). Built-in justification. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 66–96). Cambridge University Press.
Bracegirdle, B. (1977). The history of histology: A brief survey of sources. History of Science, 15(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327537701500201
Brandon, R. (1997). Does biology have laws? The experimental evidence. Philosophy of Science, 64((Proceedings)), S444–S457. https://doi.org/10.1086/392621
Brayboy, B. M. J., & Castagno, A. E. (2008). How might native science inform “informal science learning”? Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(3), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-008-9125-x
Brigandt, I. (2013). Intelligent design and the nature of science: Philosophical and pedagogical points. In K. Kampourakis (Ed.), The philosophy of biology. History, philosophy and theory of the life sciences (pp. 205–238). Springer.
Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge University Press.
Carvalho, I. N., Nunes-Neto, N. F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2011). Como selecionar conteúdos de biologia para o ensino médio? Revista de Educação. Ciências e Matemática, 1(1), 67-100.
Carvalho, I. N., El-Hani, C. N., & Nunes-Neto, N. F. (2020). How should we select conceptual contents for biology high school curriculum? Science & Education, 29(3), 513–547.
Chevallard, Y. (1989). On didactic transposition theory: Some introductory notes. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Selected Domains of Research and Development in Mathematics Education (51–62). http://yves.chevallard.free.fr/spip/spip/article.php3?id_article=122, Retrieved April 10, 2021.
Chevallard, Y. (1991). La transposición didáctica. Del saber sabio al saber enseñado (Didactical transposition. From expert knowledge to taught knowledge). Aique.
Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 701–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9310-7
Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3
Cooper, G. (1996). Theoretical modeling and biological laws. Philosophy of Science, 63(Proceedings), S28–S35. https://doi.org/10.1086/289933
Cornish-Bowden, A., & Cárdenas, M. L. (2007). The threat from creationism to the rational teaching of biology. Biological Research, 40(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-97602007000200002
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (1997). Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: The case of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(5), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199705)34:5<429::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-S
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20054
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2014). Laws and explanations in biology and chemistry: Philosophical perspectives and educational implications. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 1203–1233). Springer.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1-2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2017). Abandoning patchwork approaches to nature of science in science education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271923
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2010). Objectivity. Zone Books.
Dear, P. (2001). Revolutionizing the sciences: European knowledge and its ambitions, 1500-1700. Princeton University Press.
Deng, F., Chen, D.-T., Tsai, C.-C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20460
Deniz, H., & Borgerding, L. A. (Eds.). (2018). Evolution education around the globe. Springer.
De Regt, H. W. (2014). Visualization as a tool for understanding. Perspectives on Science, 22(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00139
De Regt, H. W. (2017). Understanding scientific understanding. Oxford University Press.
Dogan, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2008). Turkish grade 10 students’ and science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A national study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(10), 1083–1112. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20243
Dorvillé, L. F. M., & Selles, S. E. L. (2016). Criacionismo: Transformações históricas e implicações para o ensino de ciências e biologia. Cadernos de Pesquisa, 46(160), 442–465. https://doi.org/10.1590/198053143581
Dröscher, A. (2014). History of cell biology. In A. Clarke (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the life sciences. John Wiley & Sons, http://www.els.net/WileyCDA/ElsArticle/refId-a0021786.html, Retrieved April 10, 2021.
Duchesneau, F. (1987). Genèse de la théorie cellulaire. Vrin.
Dupré, J. (1995). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science. Harvard University Press.
Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. Teacher’s College Press.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4
Eilam, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (Eds.). (2014). Science teachers’ use of visual representations. Springer.
Elgin, M. (2006). There may be strict empirical laws in biology, after all. Biology and Philosophy, 21(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-005-3177-z
El-Hani, C. N., Nunes-Neto, N. F., & Rocha, P. L. B. (2020). Using a participatory problem-based methodology to teach about NOS. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 451–483). Cham: Springer.
El-Hani, C. N., & Nunes-Neto, N. (2021). Teaching philosophy of science to non-philosophers using socioscientific issues and participatory problem-based learning. European Journal for the Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.
El-Hani, C. N., & Sepulveda, C. (2010). The relationship between science and religion in the education of protestant biology preservice teachers in a Brazilian university. Cultural Studies of Science education, 5(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9212-7
Erduran, S. (2017). Visualising the nature of science: Beyond textual pieces to holistic images in science education. In K. Hahl, K. Juuti, J. Lampiselkä, J. Lavonen, & A. Uitto (Eds.), Cognitive and affective aspects in science education research: Selected papers from the ESERA 2015 conference (pp. 15–30). Springer.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and others family categories. Springer.
Erduran, S., & Muğaloğlu, E. Z. (2014). Philosophy of chemistry in chemical education: Recent trends and future directions. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 287–315). Springer.
Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2019). Transforming teacher education through the epistemic core of chemistry: Empirical evidence and practical strategies. Springer.
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education: A review of emergent research and development. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00052-2
Ford, B. J. (2001). The Royal Society and the microscope. Notes & Records of the Royal Society of London, 55(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2001.0124
Forsdyke, D. R. (1993). On giraffes and peer review. The FASEB Journal, 7(8), 619–621. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.7.8.8500686
Frigg, R., & Hartmann, S. (2020). Models in science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2020 Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/, Retrieved April 12, 2021.
Galison, P., & Stump, D. (1996). The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power. Stanford University Press.
Gelfert, A. (2017). The ontology of models. In L. Magnani & T. Bertolotti (Eds.), Springer handbook of model-based science (pp. 5–24). Springer.
Gest, H. (2004). The discovery of microorganisms by Robert Hooke and Antoni van Leeuwenhoek, fellows of the Royal Society. Notes & Records of the Royal Society of London, 58(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2004.0055
Gil Pérez, D., Montoro, I. F., Aiãs, J. C., Cachapuz, A., & Praia, J. (2001). Para uma imagem não deformada do trabalho científico. Ciência & Educação, 7(2), 125–153. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-73132001000200001
Gilbert, J. K. (Ed.). (2005). Visualisation in science education. Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education. Springer.
Gilbert, J. K., Reiner, M., & Nakhleh, M. (Eds.). (2008). Visualization: Theory and practice in science education. Springer.
Glantz, S. A., & Bero, L. A. (1994). Inappropriate and appropriate selection of ‘peers’ in grant review. JAMA, 272(2), 114–116. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020040010
Glasson, G. E., & Bentley, M. L. (2000). Epistemological undercurrents in scientists’ reporting of research to teachers. Science Education, 84(4), 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200007)84:4<469::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-Q
Graebsch, A., & Schiermeier, Q. (2006). Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe. Nature, 444(7118), 406–407. https://doi.org/10.1038/444406a
Hacking, I. (1996). The disunity of sciences. In P. Galison & D. J. Stump (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 37–75). Stanford University Press.
Hall, G. E., & Woika, S. A. (2018). The ongoing challenges to evolution education: Schools, the law, and classroom instruction. The American Biology Teacher, 80(2), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2018.80.2.87
Harris, H. (1999). The birth of the cell. Yale University Press.
Hausmann, R. (2002). To grasp the essence of life: A history of molecular biology. Springer.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development and shifting emphases. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Springer.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271919
Hooke, R. (1665). Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and inquiries thereupon. Martyn & Allestry.
Hughes, A. F. W. (1959). A history of cytology. Abelard-Schuman.
Hull, D. (1974). Philosophy of biological science. Prentice-Hall.
Hunter, M. (1982). Early problems in professionalizing scientific research: Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712) and the Royal Society, with an unpublished letter to Henry Oldenburg. Notes and Records of Royal Society of London, 36(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.1982.0011
Huxley, L. (1901). Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. Appleton, https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/60015#page/11/mode/1up, Retrieved April 16, 2021.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1<5::AID-SCE2>3.0.CO;2-0
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7-8), 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. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Springer.
Kampourakis, K. (2013). Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education, 22(2), 293–324.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
Kampourakis, K., & Gripiotis, C. (2015). Darwinism in context: An interdisciplinary, highly contextualized course on nature of science. Perspectives in Science, 5, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2015.05.002
Karamanou, M., Poulakou-Rebelakou, E., Tzetis, M., & Androutsos, G. (2010). Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632-1723): Father of micromorphology and discoverer of spermatozoa. Revista Argentina de Microbiología, 42(4), 311–314. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0325-75412010000400013
Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press.
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(9-10), 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447
Khishfe, R., & Lederman, N. (2007). Relationship between instructional context and views of nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(8), 939–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690601110947
Kim, S. Y., & Irving, K. E. (2010). History of science as an instructional context: Student learning in genetics and nature of science. Science & Education, 19(2), 187–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9191-9
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford University Press.
Kloser, M. J. (2012). A place for the nature of biology in biology education. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 1–18.
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013). The Matilda effect in science communication: An experiment on gender bias in publication quality perceptions and collaboration interest. Science Communication, 35(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012472684
Knuuttila, T. (2005a). Models as epistemic artefacts: Toward a non-representationalist account of scientific representation. University of Helsinki.
Knuuttila, T. (2005b). Models, representation, and mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72(5), 1260–1271. https://doi.org/10.1086/508124
Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42(2), 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.034
Knuuttila, T., & Voutilainen, A. (2003). A parser as an epistemic artefact: A material view on models. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 1484–1495. https://doi.org/10.1086/377424
Knuuttila, T., & Boon, M. (2011). How do models give us knowledge? The case of Carnot’s ideal heat engine. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 1(3), 309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0029-3
Konnemann, C., Höger, C., Asshoff, R., Hammann, M., & Rieß, W. (2018). A role for epistemic insight in attitude and belief change? Lessons from a cross-curricular course on evolution and creation. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9783-y
Kowalczuk, M. K., Dudbridge, F., Nanda, S., Harriman, S. L., Patel, J., & Moylan, E. C. (2015). Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models. BMJ Open, 5(9), e008707. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707
Krasilchik, M. (2004). Prática de ensino de biologia (4th ed.). EDUSP.
Lange, M. (2000). Natural laws in scientific practice. Oxford University Press.
Lawrence, P. A. (2003). The politics of publication. Nature, 422(6929), 259–261. https://doi.org/10.1038/422259a
Lawson, A. E., & Worsnop, W. A. (1992). Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290205
Lazcano, A. (2005). Teaching evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the choir. Science, 310(5749), 787–789. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115180
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research in science education (pp. 831–879). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). The development, use, and interpretation of nature of science assessments. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 971–997). Springer.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Smith, M. U. (2019). Teaching nature of scientific knowledge to kindergarten through university students. Science & Education, 28(3-5), 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00057-x
Link, A. M. (1998). US and non-US submissions: An analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA, 280(3), 246–247. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.246
Lipworth, W., & Kerridge, I. (2011). Shifting power relations and the ethics of journal peer review. Social Epistemology, 25(1), 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2010.534567
Lombard, J. (2014). Once upon a time the cell membranes: 175 years of cell boundary research. Biology Direct, 9, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13062-014-0032-7
Lombrozo, T., Thanukos, A., & Weisberg, M. (2008). The importance of understanding the nature of science for accepting evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-008-0061-8
Malkin, H. M. (1990). Rudolf Virchow and the durability of cellular pathology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 33(3), 431–443. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1990.0005
Martins, L. A. C. P. (2005). História da ciência: Objetos, métodos e problemas. Ciência & Educação, 11(2), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-73132005000200011
Martins, R. A. (2011). Robert Hooke e a pesquisa microscópica dos seres vivos. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 6(1), 105–142.
Martins, A. F. P. (2015). Natureza da ciência no ensino de ciências: Uma proposta baseada em “temas” e “questões”. Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física, 32(3), 703–737. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7941.2015v32n3p703
Masters, B. R. (2008). History of the optical microscope in cell biology and medicine. In A. Clarke (Ed.), Encyclopedia of life sciences. John Wiley & Sons Retrieved April 14, 2021, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470015902.a0003082
Matthews, M. R. (2007). Models in science and in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 16(7-8), 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9089-3
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From the nature of science (NOS) to feature of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Springer.
Matthews, M. R. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science (20th anniversary revised and expanded edition). Routledge.
Matzke, N. J. (2010). The evolution of creationist movements. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-010-0233-1
Mavrogenis, A. F., Quaile, A., & Scarlat, M. M. (2020). The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. International Orthopaedics, 44(3), 413–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1
Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Harvard University Press.
Mayr, E. (1996). The autonomy of biology: The position of biology among the sciences. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 71(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1086/419270
Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press.
Mazzarello, P. (1999). A unifying concept: The history of cell theory. Nature Cell Biology, 1(1), E13–E15. https://doi.org/10.1038/8964
Mazzarello, P., Calligaro, A., Vannini, V., & Muscatello, U. (2003). The sarcoplasmic reticulum: Its discovery and rediscovery. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 4(1), 69–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm1003
McCain, K., & Weslake, B. (2013). Evolutionary theory and the epistemology of science. In K. Kampourakis (Ed.), The philosophy of biology: A companion for educators (pp. 101–119). Springer.
McClellan, J. (2003). Scientific institutions and the organization of science. In R. Porter (Ed.), The Cambridge history of science: Eighteenth-century science (Vol. 4, pp. 87–105). Cambridge University Press.
McComas, W. F. (2010). The history of science and the future of science education: A typology of approaches for the use of the history of science in science instruction. In P. V. Kokkotas, K. S. Malamitsa, & A. A. Rizaki (Eds.), Adapting historical knowledge production to the classroom (pp. 37–53). Sense.
McComas, W. F. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum and in teacher education programs in the United States. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1993–2023). Springer.
McComas, W. (2015). The nature of science & the Next Generation of biology education. The American Biology Teacher, 77(7), 485–491. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2015.77.7.2
McComas, W. F. (Ed.). (2020). Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies. Springer.
McComas, W. F., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Using the history of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics to illustrate general aspects of nature of science. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 9(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.2240
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mendelsohn, J. A. (2003). Lives of the cell. Journal of the History of Biology, 36(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022591924692
Miall, L. C. (1912). The early naturalists: Their lives and work (1530-1789). Macmillan.
Miller, J. S., & Toth, R. (2014). The process of scientific inquiry as it relates to the creation/evolution controversy: I. A serious social problem. The American Biology Teacher, 76(4), 238–241. https://doi.org/10.1525/abt.2014.76.4.4
Ministry of Education (MEC), Brazil. (1997). Parâmetros curriculares nacionais: Ensino médio. Ministério da Educação.
Ministry of Education (MEC), Brazil. (2002). PCN+ ensino médio: Orientações educacionais complementares aos Parâmetros curriculares nacionais. Ciências da natureza, matemática e suas tecnologias. Ministério da Educação.
Ministry of Education (MEC), Brazil. (2015). Resolução n° 2, de 1° de Julho de 2015. In Define as diretrizes curriculares nacionais para a formação inicial em nível superior (cursos de licenciatura, cursos de formação pedagógica para graduados e cursos de segunda licenciatura) e para a formação continuada. DOU.
Ministry of Education (MEC), Brazil. (2017). Base nacional comum curricular. Ministério da Educação.
Mitchell, S. D. (1997). Pragmatic laws. Philosophy of Science, 64(Proceedings), S468–S479. https://doi.org/10.1086/392623
Moreira-dos-Santos, F., & El-Hani, C. N. (2017). Belief, knowledge and understanding: How to deal with the relations between different cultural perspectives in classrooms. Science & Education, 26(3-4), 215–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9891-5
Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. S. (1999). Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science. Cambridge University Press.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. The National Academies Press.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1982). Science-technology-society: Science education for the 1980s. NSTA.
Neff, B. D., & Olden, J. D. (2006). Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience, 56(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2
Niaz, M. (2016). History and philosophy of science as a guide to understanding nature of science. Revista Científica, 24, 7–16. https://doi.org/10.14483/udistrital.jour.RC.2016.24.a1
Nicholson, D. J. (2010). Biological atomism and cell theory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.07.009
Oliveira, A. W., & Cook, K. L. (Eds.). (2019). Evolution education and the rise of the creationist movement in Brazil. Lexington Books.
Oppenheim, P., & Putnam, H. (1958/1991). Unity of science as a working hypothesis. In H. Feigl, M. Scriven, & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 405–427). MIT Press.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2015). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for Growth and Society. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboard-2015_sti_scoreboard-2015-en , Retrieved April 16, 2021.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10105
Osif, B. A. (1997). Evolution and religious beliefs: A survey of Pennsylvania high school teachers. The American Biology Teacher, 59(9), 552–556. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450382
Osorio, D. S., & Gomes, E. R. (2013). The contemporary nucleus: A trip down memory lane. Biologie Cellulaire, 105(9), 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/boc.201300009
Otis, L. (2007). Müller’s Lab. Oxford University Press.
Parnes, O. (2003). From agents to cells: Theodor Schwann’s research notes of the years 1835-1838. In F. L. Holmes, J. Renn, & H. J. Rheinberger (Eds.), Reworking the bench: Research notebooks in the history of science (pp. 119–140). Kluwer.
Passmore, C., Gouvea, J. S., & Giere, R. (2014). Models in science and in learning science: Focusing scientific practice on sense-making. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1171–1202). Springer.
Peker, D., Comert, G. G., & Kence, A. (2010). Three decades of anti-evolution campaign and its results: Turkish undergraduates’ acceptance and understanding of the biological evolution theory. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9199-1
Pennock, R. T. (Ed.). (2001). Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. MIT Press.
Pickett, S. T. A., Kolasa, J., & Jones, C. G. (2007). Ecological understanding (2nd ed.). Elsevier.
Pickstone, J. V. (1973). Globules and coagula: Concepts of tissue formation in the early nineteenth century. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, XXVIII(4), 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/XXVIII.4.336
Pigliucci, M. (2002). Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sinauer.
Pigliucci, M. (2007). The evolution-creation wars: Why teaching more science just is not enough. McGill Journal of Education, 42(2), 285–306.
Pigliucci, M. (2013a). Pseudoscience. In B. Kaldis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of philosophy and the social sciences (pp. 766–769). Sage.
Pigliucci, M. (2013b). On the different ways of “doing theory” in biology. Biological Theory, 7(4), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13752-012-0047-1
Porter, K. R., & Bennett, S. H. (1981). Introduction: Recollections on the beginnings of the Journal of Cell Biology. The Journal of Cell Biology, 91(3, Pt.2), IX–XI.
Prestes, M. E. B. (1997). Teoria celular: De Hooke a Schwann. Scipione.
Reynolds, A. (2008). Ernst Haeckel and the theory of the cell state: Remarks on the history of a bio-political metaphor. History of Science, 46(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/007327530804600201
Reynolds, A. (2010). The redoubtable cell. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 41(3), 194–201.
Reynolds, A. (2018). The third lens: Metaphor and the creation of modern cell biology. The Chicago University Press.
Ribatti, D. (2018). An historical note on the cell theory. Experimental Cell Research, 364(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2018.01.038
Rosenberg, A. (1994). Instrumental biology or the disunity of science. The University of Chicago Press.
Rothwell, P. M., & Martyn, C. N. (2000). Reproducibility of peer review in clinical neuroscience: Is agreement between reviewers any greater than would be expected by chance alone? Brain, 123(9), 1964–1969. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.9.1964
Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202700182628
Ruse, M. E. (1970). Are there laws in biology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 48(2), 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048407012341201
Ruse, M. (1973). The philosophy of biology. Hutchinson.
Russo, F. (2017). Model-based reasoning in the social sciences. In L. Magnani & T. Bertolotti (Eds.), Springer handbook of model-based science (pp. 953–970). Springer.
Sahi, V. P., & Baluška, F. (Eds.). (2018). Concepts in cell biology - History and evolution. Springer.
Sapp, J. (2003). Genesis: The evolution of biology. Oxford University Press.
Sarieddine, D., & BouJaoude, S. (2014). Influence of teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science on classroom practice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 10(2), 135–151. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2014.1024a
Sarmento, A. C. H., Sepulveda, C., & El-Hani, C. N. (2018). Historical reconstruction of membrane theoretical models: An educative curriculum material. In M. E. B. Prestes & C. C. Silva (Eds.), Teaching science with context: Historical, philosophical, sociological approaches (pp. 191–219). Springer.
Scheiner, S. M. (2010). Toward a conceptual framework for biology. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 85(3), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/655117
Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2005). Developing unified theories in ecology as exemplified with diversity gradients. The American Naturalist, 166(4), 458–469. https://doi.org/10.1086/444402
Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2008). A general theory of ecology. Theoretical Ecology, 1(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12080-007-0002-0
Scheiner, S. M., & Willig, M. R. (2011). A general theory of ecology. In S. M. Scheiner & M. R. Willig (Eds.), The theory of ecology (pp. 3–18). The University of Chicago Press.
Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100(4), 706–733. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21216
Schuldiner, M., & Schwappach, B. (2013). From rags to riches - the history of the endoplasmic reticulum. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta - Molecular Cell Research, 1833(11), 2389–2391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2013.03.005
Schwann, T. (1847). Microscopical researches into the accordance in the structure and growth of animals and plants. Transl. by Henry Smith. London.
Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2008). What scientists say: Scientists’ views of nature of science and relation to science context. International Journal of Science Education, 30(6), 727–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690701225801
Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21013
Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2003). Evolution: What’s wrong with ‘teaching the controversy’. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18(10), 499–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00218-0
Sepulveda, C., & El-Hani, C. N. (2004). Quando visões de mundo se encontram: Religião e ciência na trajetória de formação de alunos protestantes de uma licenciatura em ciências biológicas. Investigações em Ensino de Ciências, 9(2), 137–175.
Serjeantson, R. W. (2006). Proof and persuasion. In K. Park & L. Daston (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: Early modern science (Vol. 3, pp. 132–175). Cambridge University Press.
Shapin, S. (2006). The man of science. In K. Park & L. Daston (Eds.), The Cambridge history of science: Early modern science (Vol. 3, pp. 179–191). Cambridge University Press.
Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10087
Singer, S. J., & Nicolson, G. L. (1972). The fluid mosaic model of the structure of cell membranes. Science, 175(4023), 720–731. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.175.4023.720
Smith, R. (2006). Peer review: A flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99(4), 178–182. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Smith, M., Siegel, H., & McInerney, J. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science & Education, 4(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486589
Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering indigenous science: Implications for science education. Science Education, 85(1), 6–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<6::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-R
Sober, E. (1997). Two outbreaks of lawlessness in recent philosophy of biology. Philosophy of Science, 64(Proceedings), S458–S467. https://doi.org/10.1086/392622
Stichweh, R. (2001). History of scientific disciplines. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 13727–13731). Elsevier.
Suppe, F. (1979). La estrutura de las teorías científicas. Editora Nacional.
Tinniswood, A. (2019). The Royal Society & the invention of modern science. Basic Books.
Tracy, J. L., Hart, J., & Martens, J. P. (2011). Death and science: The existential underpinnings of belief in intelligent design and discomfort with evolution. PLoS One, 6(3), e17349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017349
van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20458
van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2009). Teaching evolution with historical narratives. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 479–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-009-0127-2
Van de Vijver, G., Van Speybroeck, L., & Vandevyvere, W. (2003). Reflecting on complexity of biological systems: Kant and beyond? Acta Biotheoretica, 51(2), 101–140. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024591510688
Wager, E., Parkin, E. C., & Tamber, P. S. (2006). Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Medicine, 4, 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-4-13
Williams, C. T., & Rudge, D. W. (2016). Emphasizing the history of genetics in an explicit and reflective approach to teaching the nature of science: A pilot study. Science & Education, 25(3), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9821-y
Wilson, E. B. (1896). The cell in development and inheritance. Macmillan and Company.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.
Woodward, J. (2001). Law and explanation in biology: Invariance is the kind of stability that matters. Philosophy of Science, 68(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1086/392863
Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20380
Zamer, W. E., & Scheiner, S. M. (2014). A conceptual framework for organismal biology: Linking theories, models, and data. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 54(5), 736–756. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icu075
Žárský, V. (2012). Jan Evangelista Purkyně/Purkinje (1787–1869) and the establishment of cellular physiology — Wrocław/Breslau as a central European cradle for a new science. Protoplasma, 249(4), 1173–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-012-0407-5
Acknowledgements
We thank Maria Elice Prestes, Indianara Silva and Darcy Castro for their comments on the Masters’ thesis from which the paper has been derived. We are indebted to three anonymous reviewers who contributed with their comments for the improvement of the paper.
Funding
This study was financed in part by the Coordination for Improvement of Higher Educational Personnel (CAPES), Brazil – Finance Code 001, through a grant awarded to the first author (TGI) to obtain his master’s degree. The National Institute of Science and Technology in Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Studies in Ecology and Evolution (INCT IN-TREE), in which the current study has been carried out, is funded by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, grant number 465767/2014-1), CAPES (grant number 23038.000776/2017-54), and the Research Support Foundation of the State of Bahia (FAPESB, grant number INC0006/2019). CNEH received support from CNPq in the form of a productivity in research grant (grant number 303011/2017-3), and from CAPES and Federal University of Bahia (UFBA) for a stay as Senior Visiting Researcher Grant in the Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal (grant number 88887.465540/2019-00).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Tiago Guimarães Inêz: conceptualization (equal); investigation (lead); methodology (equal); visualization (lead); writing—original draft (lead); writing—review and editing (equal). Breno Pascal de Lacerda Brito: investigation (equal); methodology (equal); writing—review and editing (equal). Charbel N. El-Hani: conceptualization (equal); funding acquisition (lead); investigation (equal); methodology (equal); writing—original draft (equal); writing—review and editing (equal).
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Inêz, T.G., de Lacerda Brito, B.P. & El-Hani, C.N. A Model for Teaching About the Nature of Science in the Context of Biological Education. Sci & Educ 32, 231–276 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00285-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00285-0