Abstract
This chapter focuses on the ideas of narrative thinking and storytelling in school science education. In distinguishing between narrative and paradigmatic (or logico-mathematical) thinking, the chapter discusses the complementary role of these two kinds of thinking, the relationship between stories and scientific theories, and the role of story as a conceptual tool that can provide coherence, continuity, and meaning to its content, in addition to its potential to encourage students’ emotional engagement with such content. A discussion of the characteristic features of a story and the difference between narrative and expository text makes it quite clear that making (or ‘crafting’) a story, especially an attractive and an instructive one, requires more than a sequence of (historical or fictional) events. The specific functions/purposes of a science story as well as the role of storytelling in science teacher education are also discussed.
It is very likely the case that the most natural and the earliest way in which we organize our experience and our knowledge is in terms of the narrative form.
Jerome Bruner, in The Culture of Education, p. 121.
Teachers tell their students stories from the first day they start school and children’s storybooks are better made and more engaging than they have ever been. Yet stories are an underused medium for learning. Pushed to the margins of the curriculum to stimulate art and drama activities, but forgotten or neglected when the study of more ‘serious’ subjects begins.
Kieran Egan, in Teaching as Storytelling, p. 5.
A first insight into modern narrative theory regards the fact that every good story has a consistent plot. Effective storytelling includes a carefully developed structure in the organization of the narrated facts […] The simplicity of a good story is deceiving. A simple plot is a piece of art. If we want to go beyond the pure repetition of stories already created, we have to deal with the theory of poetics.
Fritz Kubli, in Can the Theory of Narratives Help Science Teachers Be Better Storytellers, Science & Education, 10, p. 595.
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
Notes
- 1.
Gough (1993), in making reference to a poster that he had once seen and which read ‘the universe is not made of atoms – it is made of stories’, discusses the idea that the Bohr-Rutherford model is ‘one fiction which can be fashioned from certain scientific facts [….] but it is not the only plausible story that these facts can be used to generate’ (p. 615).
- 2.
One may argue that a story requires at least two events. Thus, while the single event ‘It was Newton who formulated his three famous laws of motion’ cannot be a story, by adding another event such as ‘Scientists have applied these three laws in order to describe, explain, and predict all kinds of motion on or near the surface of the Earth and in outer space’, we can create a story like ‘the story of motion’.
- 3.
These are entities that capture the imagination of children from European and North American countries. I believe Egan (1999) refers to these children. Perhaps other entities capture the imagination of children from other non-Western cultures.
- 4.
According to Ogborn, Kress, Martins, and McGillicuddy (1996), scientific explanations have a similar structure as stories. ‘Firstly there is a cast of protagonists, each of which has its own capabilities which […] might include entities such as electric currents, germs, magnetic fields, and also mathematical constructions such as harmonic motion […]; secondly the members of this cast enact one of the many series of events of which they are capable; lastly these events have a consequence which follows from the nature of the protagonists and the event they happen to enact’ (p. 9).
- 5.
The power of storytelling to make an idea interesting should be recognized. Even such an obvious idea, as ‘A moving object does not come “naturally” to rest (i.e. the Aristotelian idea that falling objects will reach the ground and come to rest because that is where their natural position is), as there must be a force to do this (i.e. to bring the object to the state of rest)’, can be made interesting through a story that provides the historical context in which this idea was embedded (see Appendix A, third story).
- 6.
Expository text: And with this simple powerful telescope, we can see many details when we use it to look up into the night sky. The Moon may look like a smooth ball of light covered with dark spots, but on closer look through this telescope, we can see deep valleys and great mountain ranges. Through the telescope we can now see all the different marks on the Moon’s surface.
Narrative text: When Galileo looked through his new telescope, he could see the surface of the Moon, and so he began his first close look into the space. He slept during the day in order to work and see the Moon at night. Many people thought that the Moon was a small ball with a light of its own. Now that Galileo had a closer look through his new telescope, we realized that the Moon’s surface had mountains and valleys.
- 7.
Most of the studies reported in the literature are descriptive (with or without exemplars), while there are also a few empirical studies (see Klassen & Froese-Klassen, 2014a).
- 8.
In utilizing history as the raw material for science stories, one can find two approaches: (a) the history of science is viewed in light of current knowledge, and (b) the history of science is viewed and interpreted in the light of the context and knowledge of the past time. While the first approach has been criticized on the grounds that application of present-day standards is inappropriate because historical figures and ideas can be placed and viewed only in the context of the past time, the second one has been criticized on the grounds that history cannot be interpreted when comparisons to the larger context cannot be made. Moreover, there is an argument that a focus on chronologies of events restricted to the local historical context is uninteresting to the non-specialist. There is also an argument that what is referred to as ‘internal history’, that is, the events describing the scientists’ work and which (events) led to the development of an idea (written primarily by the scientists themselves), could provide a distorted view of the nature of science itself. Even though an ‘internal history’ can provide a first hand and thus an official account of the origin of scientific ideas, it nevertheless tends to romanticize the events and portray science as an inevitable consequence of the force of progress (see Klassen & Froese-Klassen, 2014a).
- 9.
Such an example is the following fable with the two donkeys, which invites and challenges young children to think about the events in the plot and which introduces them to the physical process of dissolution. Once upon a time, there were two donkeys. They had been asked to carry something to the local mill. The donkey who would reach there first would get more hay to eat. They did know, of course, what that something was; they just had to do the job. They both agreed to this job and went to get their cargo. They then realized that one of them had to carry a sack of salt, while the other one a sack full of sponges. They decided to flip a coin, because they could not decide who was going to get which sack. And they did, and the donkey who got the sack with the salt was not so happy. Anyway, they started to walk towards their destination, but the donkey who was carrying the salt was feeling tired; his walking demanded really great effort. The other donkey looked really relaxed and moved without any effort, as if he was not carrying any load at all. The time came though when they both stopped at the lake. They both felt that they had to cross it in order to reach the mill. As they started to get into the water, the donkey that was carrying the sacks of salt realized that he began to feel much lighter, while the other donkey carrying the sack filled with sponges began to feel heavier. They did cross the lake, but they arrived at the mill in different times.
- 10.
In an attempt to demonstrate the dangers of AC power, Edison sponsored an electrical engineer to travel the country electrocuting animals with both DC and AC. Because the frequency of AC confuses the heart, animals that are electrocuted by AC die, whereas animals that are electrocuted by DC are stunned but survive. Edison used these so-called experiments to contrast the danger of AC with the relative safety of DC. We know that the effect of any type of electric current on a human being is very difficult to predict, as it depends on a number of factors (e.g. the condition of the skin, the amount of fluid in the body, and the point of contact). Tesla, however, had been experimenting with very high frequency currents, which, as he showed, did no harm. With his theatrical flair, Tesla could draw sparks to his own fingers and even walk through sparks without being hurt. He had realized that the high frequency of the current kept it on his skin. It was this strange effect, known as the skin effect, which made Tesla famous. He even sent sparks to the audience, making people realize that AC current, at least as used by him, was safe (Hadzigeorgiou, Klassen, & Froese-Klassen, 2012).
- 11.
Galileo dropping cannon balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa; Galileo responding at the end of his inquisition trial, ‘And yet it moves’; Kekule’s dream and James Watt and the boiling kettle. It might be difficult in these science stories to separate history from fiction.
- 12.
The portrayal of a scientist as a lone-star genius or hero does not contribute to students’ understanding of the nature of science. This image of a scientist can most likely discourage engagement in science. As Heering (2010) writes, the story of the lone genius is one of the various classical myths in the history of science. Indeed most scientists had assistants and collaborators who played an important, if not crucial, role for the success of the project.
- 13.
The history of science once again can provide many examples and therefore material to be incorporated into the stories (see Di Trocchio, 1997):
-
In 1896 Lord Kelvin claimed that aviation was impossible (no thing heavier than air can fly).
-
In 1907 Lord Kelvin claimed that the atom was impenetrable.
-
In 1917 Robert Millikan claimed that humankind will never be able to utilize the energy released by a nucleus.
-
In 1933 Lord Ernest Rutherford claimed that the idea of utilizing atomic energy is absurd.
-
In 1937 Niels Bohr did not believe that atomic energy can prove practically useful.
It is interesting to note that even Einstein himself, who did not believe at first in the implications of his famous equation concerning the equivalence between mass and energy, had stated that it was unthinkable for humankind to be able to use those huge amounts of energy, as predicted by that equation (Di Trocchio, 1997). What is really ironic though is the fact that Max Planck (1933), who had said that the ‘pure rationalist’ has no place in the field of quantum physics—that is, a field based upon the very notions of uncertainty and unpredictability—advised Einstein to drop the idea to include gravity in his theory of relativity, because such an idea was indeed absurd (Miller, 2001). History, of course, has the last word, and in that particular case, we all know that that absurd idea ended up as a major idea of the general theory of relativity, that is, one of the greatest—perhaps the greatest—achievements of Western thought, and only storytelling can make these ideas and the events behind their rejection or acceptance alive before the students.
-
- 14.
No doubt the Tesla story (see Appendix A) can promote knowledge of science as a process, as a human endeavour. More specifically, the story promotes the view that (a) science has a personal dimension, and (b) mainstream, traditional ideas have to be confronted and contested in order for scientific progress to take place. Thus the contribution of romantic understanding to one’s understanding of science as a human endeavour is catalytic. Such understanding, in turn, is crucial for an understanding of the nature of science. Given the considerable attention over the past two decades (due to scholarship in the philosophy, history, and sociology of science) to students’ understanding of the nature of science (NRC, 1996; Schwartz, Lederman, & Crawford, 2004), the idea to use storytelling in order to foster such understanding appears promising.
- 15.
Corni et al. (2010) have reported that grade 4 children, who listened to the adventures of a lively and creative character and who helped this character solve problems, regarding the flow of water in an aqueduct and the filling of swimming pool, did develop problem-solving and other inquiry skills (e.g. interpretation, experimentation). They observed a shift from description to interpretation. Kokkotas et al. (2010) have also reported that grade 6 students who listed to a story about electricity developed inquiry skills, such as hypothesis exploration and formulation and interpretation. They also reported that students developed metacognitive skills, such as comprehension of new knowledge. Hill and Baumgartner (2009) have reported that high school students, who listened to the story of ‘FloJo: The World’s Fastest Woman’, ran their own race experiment and thus learned about kinematics.
- 16.
Morais’ (2015) study showed that elementary school children (ages 8–10), who listened to a story (which was followed by hands-on activities), enjoyed the story and the combination of story with hands-on activities. Similar findings have also been reported by teachers who used the story about the Galvani-Volta controversy, in order to teach about current electricity (Hadzigeorgiou, 2006b).
- 17.
The history of science is replete with such stories. See the second and third story in Appendix A. While the second story focuses on Tesla’s main life events and ideas, the third one presents the ideas developed by Galileo and Newton. Such a story can be used as it is, perhaps complemented with a few incidents from the personal life of both scientists, for the teaching of a unit on motion, or can provide the material for shorter stories referring to a specific idea and/or experiment. For example, Galileo’s experiments with free fall at Pisa can be used to introduce students to the law of free fall, while the famous, and most likely anecdotal, incident concerning an apple falling on Newton’s head can be used to introduce students to circular motion (if the plot of the story includes Newton enquiring about why the Moon does not fall and using an analogy that compares the motion of the Moon with the circular motion of a stone tied to a piece of string). On the other hand, Galileo’s Starry Messenger, which is a book on his explorations of the heavens and his discoveries about the Moon, can be read to the students, before they begin to inquire about celestial bodies and the use of the telescope and even introduce them to such concepts as data reliability and scientific evidence.
- 18.
Given the fact that storytelling can create interest in science, as it can include all the features of interest, Klassen and Froese-Klassen (2014b) propose the story-driven interest approach (SDIA), which can be the basis for learning sequences that include, apart from the narrative context, practical and social contexts as well. They recommend the episode concerning Galileo attending mass at the cathedral, which, after it is narrated, is complemented with hands-on activities, based on students’ questions, and with group discussions (see also Chap. 1, section on ‘Imagination and Science Learning’).
- 19.
For example, a story about Leonardo da Vinci can be used to introduce students to interdisciplinary connections between art and science. Also a story about Antoine Lavoisier; his discoveries about the existence of minerals in water; the composition of water that we cannot make chemical substances disappear, only to change the form; his work as a tax collector; and his subsequent sentencing to death during the French Revolution (Arnold, 1997) can be used in interdisciplinary approach. However, interdisciplinary connections can be introduced through stories which focus on the mystery and development of certain concepts, like ‘time’ and ‘energy’. In the case of the former, for example, starting from Father Time Cronus, as described in ancient Greek mythology, the concept of time can help introduce students to interdisciplinary connections regarding history, biology, chemistry, physics, earth science, and language arts.
- 20.
- 21.
Norton (1996) has shown that any thought experiment can be presented as a logical argument.
- 22.
The best example to illustrate this logical argument is Einstein’s simple thought experiment, involving a visualization of him riding alongside a beam of light and moving with the speed of light. If he did that, he would observe an electromagnetic field at rest. But since there is no such thing as an electromagnetic field at rest, then he cannot move with the speed of light.
- 23.
Certainly, it is not only through socio-scientific issues that environmental awareness can be raised. Many teachers, for example, can use imagery and more specifically Google Earth, to help their students see a larger picture and thus develop a larger perspective of the state of the environment. This activity, in fact, can contribute to the development of a global awareness, which is seen as a prerequisite for environmental awareness (Selby, 1998) The GAIA (Global Awareness, Investigation, and Action) project, for example, which aims to inspire middle and high school students worldwide to become involved with environmental research and collaborate on a local, regional, and global level, appears an excellent way to raise environmental awareness. The aesthetic appreciation of nature may also be another avenue. The 2012 NASA ‘The Earth as Art’ collection, consisting of images of the planet taken from observation satellites over the last 40 years, as well as images from several environmental satellites, can help raise awareness, by presenting the diversity and beauty of the planet and also by revealing features and patterns, which are not visible to the naked eye.
- 24.
It is this idea and not just the description of the chemical process of photosynthesis (i.e. only how oxygen is released from the plants’ leaves) that must be quite explicit in the plot of the story that students will listen to (Hadzigeorgiou et al., 2010). By the same token, the fact/issue that the corn used to produce ethanol used by an SUV in one day can feed as many as a hundred people for more than a week can help evoke a sense of wonder about human behaviour, which can have an effect on human life. It is evident that it is the sense wonder about science ideas and socio-scientific issues that has the potential to foster and raise the students’ awareness of their significance.
- 25.
It is the bigger picture of the planet and a global perspective that can help promote a larger concept for the natural environment. And this perspective is indeed needed, since the natural environment is a much larger concept than what some people may think (i.e. for people whose environmental concern stops at their yard fence).
- 26.
The death of a star during a spectacular stellar explosion was illustrated with confetti, representing dust and gas. Children playing with confetti (e.g. using a black satin sheet to hold the confetti together and then either throwing confetti in the air to represent a stellar explosion or collecting it in one place on the satin sheet to represent the making of a star).
References
Altman, R. (2008). A theory of narrative. New York: Columbia University Press.
Arnold, N. (1997). Fatal forces. London: Scholastic Children’s Books.
Arya, D., & Maul, A. (2012). The role of the scientific discovery narrative in middle school science education. An experimental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1022–1032.
Ashley, M. (2000). Science: An unreliable friend to environmental education? Environmental Education Research, 6, 269–280.
Avraamidou, L., & Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31, 1683–1707.
Banister, F., & Ryan, C. (2001). Developing science concepts through story telling. School Science Review, 83, 75–84.
Bass, J., Contant, T., & Carin, A. (2009). Activities for teaching science as inquiry. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Begoray, D., & Stinner, A. (2005). Representing science through historical drama. Lord Kelvin and the age of the earth debate. Science & Education, 14, 547–571.
Bell, M. (1991). How primordial is narrative. In C. Nash (Ed.), Narrative in culture. London: Routledge.
Bereiter, C. (1994). Implication of postmodernism for science education: A critique. Educational Psychologist, 29, 3–12.
Bereiter, C., Scardamalia, M., Cassells, C., & Hewitt, J. (1997). Postmodernism, knowledge building, and elementary science. The Elementary School Journal, 97, 329–340.
Brickhouse, N. (1994). Bringing in the outsiders: The sciences of the future. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31, 131–142.
Brickhouse, N. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 282–295.
Bruner, J. (1985). Narrative and paradigmatic modes of thought. In 84th Yearbook of NSSE, Learning and teaching the ways of knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brush, S. (1969). The role of history in the teaching of physics. The Physics Teacher, 75, 271–276.
Caine, R., Caine, G., McClintic, C., & Klimic, K. (2005). Brain/mind learning principles in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Morgan Press.
Campbell, J. (1990). Transformation of myth through time. San Bernardo, CA: The Borgo Press.
Carter, K. (1993). The place of story in the study of teaching and teacher education. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 5–12, 18.
Ceci, S., Ginther, D., Kahn, S., & Williams, W. (2014). Women in academic science: A changing landscape. Psychological Science, 15, 75–141.
Cheney, M. (1981). Tesla: Man out of time. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cheney, M., & Uth, R. (1999). Tesla: Master of lightning. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories – stories of teachers – school stories – stories of schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), 24–30.
Clough, M. (2011). The story behind the science: Bringing scientists and science to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20, 701–717.
Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral imagination. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Conle, C. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Research tool and medium for professional development. European Journal of Teacher Education, 23, 49–63.
Connelly, F., & Clandinin, J. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Corni, F., Gilberti, E., & Mariani, C. (2010). A story as innovative medium for science education in primary school. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from https://personale.unimore.it/rubrica/pubblicazioni/corni
De Young, R., & Monroe, M. (1996). Some fundamentals of engaging stories. Environmental Education Research, 2, 171–187.
Dhingra, K. (2006). Science on television: Storytelling, learning and citizenship. Studies of Science Education, 42, 89–123.
Di Trocchio, F. (1997). Il genio incompresso. Milan: Mondadori.
Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching the nature of science. Science & Education, 22, 2109–2139.
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as story-telling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1988). Primary understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1992). Imagination in teaching and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind. How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1999). Children’s minds, talking rabbits and clockwork oranges.
Egan, K. (2005). An imaginative approach to teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Erten, S., Kiray, A., & Sen-Gumus, B. (2013). Influence of scientific stories on students ideas about science and scientists. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 1, 122–137.
Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. Review of Research in Education, 20, 3–56.
Feyerabent, P. (1993). Against method. London: Verso.
Fleer, M. (2013). Affective imagination. in science education: Determining the emotional nature of scientific and technological learning of young children. Research in Science Education, 43, 2085–2106.
Gordon, C. (2013). Learning astronomy in the year prior to formal schooling: An intervention study. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.
Gough, A. (2002). Mutualism: A different agenda for science and environmental education. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 1201–1215.
Gough, A. (2008). Towards more effective learning for sustainability: Reconceptualising science education. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 5, 32–50.
Gough, N. (1993). Environmental education, narrative complexity and postmodern science/fiction. International Journal of Science Education, 5, 607–625.
Green, M., Strange, J., & Brock, T. (Eds.). (2002). Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2006a). Exploring the possibilities for developing romantic understanding through storytelling. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning Science Through Storytelling. Deutsches Museum, Munich, July 4−7, 2006.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2006b). Humanizing the teaching of physics through storytelling: The case of current electricity. Physics Education, 41, 42–46.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2007). Wonder: Why is it important and how can it be evoked in the science classroom? Paper presented at the 5th international conference on imagination and education. Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada, July 14–17, 2007.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2010). What activities and questions are really challenging for preschool, elementary, and high school students? A study of student engagement in science with implications for curriculum and teaching. Unpublished paper, University of the Aegean.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Fotinos, N. (2007). Imaginative thinking and the learning of science. Science Education Review, 6, 15–22.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Garganourakis, V. (2010). Using Nikola Tesla’s story and experiments, as presented in the film “The Prestige”, to promote scientific inquiry. Interchange, 41, 363–378.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Skoumios, M. (2013). The development of environmental awareness through school science: Problems and possibilities. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 8, 405–426.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Kabouropoulou, M., & Fokialis, P. (2012). Thinking about creativity in science education. Creative Education, 3, 603–611.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Klassen, S., & Froese-Klassen, C. (2012). Encouraging a ‘romantic understanding’ of science: The effect of the Nikola Tesla story. Science & Education, 21, 1111–1138.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., Prevezanou, B., Kabouropoulou, M., & Konsolas, M. (2010). Teaching about the importance of trees. A study with young children. Environmental Education Research, 17, 519–536.
Hadzigeorgiou, Y., & Stefanich, G. (2001). Imagination in science education. Contemporary Education, 71, 23–28.
Harre, R. (1991). Some narrative conventions of scientific research discourse. In C. Nash (Ed.), Narrative in culture (pp. 81–101). London: Routledge.
Haven, K. (2000). Super simple storytelling. Englewood, CO: Teacher Idea Press.
Heering, P. (2010). False friends: What makes a story inadequate for science teaching? Interchange, 41, 323–333.
Hill, C., & Baumgartner, L. (2009). Stories in science: The backbone of science learning. Science Teacher, 76(4), 60–64.
Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, history, and other passions. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hong, H.-Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 469–484.
Isabelle, A. (2007). Teaching science using stories: The storyline approach. Science Scope, 31, 6–25.
Jenkins, E. (2009). Linking theory to practice: Education for sustainability and learning and teaching. In M. Littledyke, N. Taylor, & C. Eames (Eds.), Education for sustainability in the primary curriculum: A guide for teachers (pp. 29–38). South Yarra, Australia: Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnston, B. (Ed.). (1983). My inventions: The autobiography of Nikola Tesla. Williston, VT: Hart Brothers.
Jonnes, J. (2003). Empires of light: Edison, Tesla, Westinghouse, and the race to electrify the world. New York: Random House.
Kalogiannakis, Μ., & Violintzi, A. (2012). Ιntervention strategies for changing preschool children’s understandings about volcanoes. Journal of Emergent Science, 4, 12–18.
Kitchener, K. S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemic cognition. A three-level model of cognitive processes. Human Development, 26, 222–323.
Kitchener, K. S. (1986). Piaget’s theory of knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Klassen, S. (2006a). A theoretical framework for contextual science teaching. Interchange, 37, 31–61.
Klassen, S. (2006b). The science thought experiment: How might it be used profitably in the classroom? Interchange, 37, 77–96.
Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story. Science & Education, 18, 401–423.
Klassen, S., & Froese-Klassen, C. (2014a). The role interest in learning science through stories. Interchange, 45, 133–151.
Klassen, S., & Froese-Klassen, C. (2014b). Science teaching with historically based stories: Theoretical and practical perspectives. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history and philosophy for science and mathematics education (pp. 1503–1529). Berlin: Springer.
Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. A report of the HOSC instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 33–47.
Kokkotas, P., Rizaki, A., & Malamitsa, K. (2010). Storytelling as a strategy for understanding concepts of electricity and electromagnetism. Interchange, 41, 379–405.
Kolakowski, L. (1989). The presence of myth. Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Kreps-Frisch, J. (2010). The stories they’d tell: Pre-service elementary teachers writing stories to demonstrate physical science concepts. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 703–722.
Kreps-Frisch, J., & Saunders, G. (2008). Using stories in an introductory college biology course. Journal of Biological Education, 4, 164–169.
Kubli, F. (2001). Can the theory of narrative help science teachers become better storytellers? Science & Education, 10, 595–599.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lederman, N. (1998). The state of science education: Subject matter without context. Editorial. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 3, 2.
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science. Language, learning, values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Linfield, R. (2007). Bringing imagination back to science. Primary Science Review, 100, 26–27.
Lomas, R. (2000). The man who invented the twentieth century: Nikola Tesla, forgotten genius of electricity. London: Headline.
Mandler, J. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Manicas, P., & Secord, P. (1983). Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of science. American Psychologist, 38, 399–413.
Martin, B., & Brouwer, W. (1991). The sharing of personal science and the narrative element in science education. Science Education, 75, 707–722.
Martin, B., & Brouwer, W. (1993). Exploring personal science. Science Education, 77, 441–459.
Martin, R., Sexton, C., Franklin, T., Gerlovich, J., & McElroy, D. (2008). Teaching science for all children (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
Matthews, M. (1992). History, philosophy, and science teaching. The present rapprochement. Science & Education, 1, 11–47.
Matthews, M. (2015). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
McKinney, D., & Michalovic, M. (2004). Teaching the stories of scientists and their discoveries. Science Teacher, 71, 46–51.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Miller, A. (2001). Einstein, Picasso: Space, time, and the beauty that causes havoc. New York: Basic Books.
Milne, C. (1998). Philosophically correct science stories? Examining the implications of heroic science stories for school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 175–187.
Morais, C. (2015). Storytelling with chemistry and related hands-on activities. Informal learning experiences to prevent “chemophobia” and promote young children’s scientific literacy. Journal of Chemical Education, 92, 58–65.
Myers, G. (1991). Making rediscovery: Narratives of split genes. In C. Nash (Ed.), Narrative in culture. London: Routledge.
Nash, C. (Ed.). (1991). Narrative in culture. London: Routledge.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: AAAS.
National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school. Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
Norris, S., Guilbert, S., Smith, M., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–554.
Norton, J. (1996). Are thought experiments just what you thought. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 26, 333–366.
Ogborn, J., Kress, J., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Olrich, D., Harder, R., Callahan, R., & Gibson, H. (2001). Teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
O’Neil, J. (1992). Prodigal genius: The life of Nikola Tesla. Chula Vista, CA: Tesla Book Company.
Ong, W. (1971). Rhetoric, romance and technology. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University Press.
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought. Equilibration of cognitive structures. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Planck, M. (1933). Where is science going? (J. Murphy, Trans.). London: Allen & Unwin.
Polanyi, N. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, MA: Clarendon Press.
Renzulli, J., Gentry, M., & Reis, S. (2004). A time and place for authentic learning. Educational Leadership, 62, 73–77.
Richter, M., & Koppet, K. (2000). How to increase retention through storytelling. Retrieved August 13, 2006, from http://www.thestorynet.codarticles~essays/retentionicle.com
Ricoeur, P. (1981). Narrative time. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 165–186). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rorty, R. (1980). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rose, C., & Nichol, M. J. (1997). Accelerated learning for the 21st century. New York: Dell Publishing.
Schank, R. (1990). Tell me a story. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1995). Knowledge and memory: The real story. In R. S. Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. VIII, pp. 1–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schank, R., & Berman, T. (2002). The pervasive role of stories in knowledge and action. In M. Green, J. Strange, & T. Brock (Eds.), Narrative impact: Social and cognitive foundations (pp. 287–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schiffer, H., & Gueria, A. (2015). Electricity a vital force: Discussing the nature of science through historical narratives. Science & Education, 24, 409–434.
Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & Crawford, B. (2004). Developing views on NOS in an authentic context. An explicit approach to bridging the gap between NOS and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–640.
Seeley, C., & Gallagher, S. (2014). Stories and science: Stirring children’s imagination. Primary Science, 134, 30–33.
Seifer, M. (1998). Wizard: The life and times of Nikola Tesla. New York: Citadel Press.
Selby, D. (1998). Global education: Towards a quantum model of environmental education. Retrieved April 11, 2010, from http://www.ec.gc.ca/education/documents/colloquium/selby.htm
Simmons, Α. (2006). The story factor: Inspiration, influence and persuasion through the art of storytelling. New York: Basic Books.
Solomon, J. (2002). Science stories and science texts: What can they do for our students? Studies in Science Education, 37, 85–106.
Stefanich, G. (Ed.). (2001). Science teaching in inclusive classrooms. Cedar Falls, IA: Wolverton.
Stefanich, G., & Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2001). Models and applications. In G. Stefanich (Ed.), Science teaching in inclusive classrooms (pp. 61–90). Cedar Falls, IA: Wolverton.
Stevens, S., Warshofsky, F., & the Editors of Life. (1966). Sound and hearing. The Netherlands: Time-Life International.
Stinner, A. (1995). Contextual settings, science stories and large context problems: Toward a more humanistic science education. Science Education, 79, 555–581.
Sutton- Smith, B. (1988). In search of the imagination. In K. Egan & D. Nadaner (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 3–29). New York: Teachers College Press.
Swimme, B. (1988). The cosmic creation story. In D. Griffin (Ed.), The reenchantment of science (pp. 47–56). New York: SUNY Press.
Tesla, N. (1982). My inventions. New York: Ben Johnson. (original work published 1919)
Toulmin, S. (1976). Knowing and acting. An invitation to philosophy. New York: McMillan.
Toulmin, S. (1982). Cosmopolis. The hidden agenda of modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Truby, J. (2007). The anatomy of story: 22 steps to becoming master storyteller. New York: Faber & Faber.
Wang, M., Eccles, J., & Kenny, S. (2013). Not lack of abilities but lack of choice: Individual and gender differences in choice of careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Psychological Science, 14, 1–6.
White, H. (1981). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In W. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative (pp. 1–23). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, M., & The Editors of Life. (1965). Energy. The Netherlands: Time- Life International.
Zuckerman, J. (1998). Science supervisors’ stories: A way to communicate pedagogical values. Science Educator, 7, 20–25.
Zuckerman, J. (1999). Student science teachers constructing practical knowledge from inservice science supervisors’ stories: A way to communicate pedagogical values. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 235–245.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2016). Narrative Thinking and Storytelling in Science Education. In: Imaginative Science Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29526-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29526-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29524-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29526-8
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)