Abstract
Explicit instruction of the nature of science (NOS) may be problematic if the NOS is portrayed as either a solely a cognitive or discursive endeavor, overlooking other aspects of epistemology, such as aesthetic ways of knowing. Here the aesthetic stance refers to individual’s responses during reading as they create links between the text and their own lives, prompting personal and emotional connections. From an aesthetic orientation, exploring historical nonfiction science texts via literature circles allows alternative possibilities for participants to create personal connections to the NOS. This article presents practical techniques and theoretical rationales for teaching the NOS using literature circles and concluding thoughts regarding narrative pedagogy and research possibilities associated with this instructional approach in elementary science teacher education.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000a). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000b). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.
Ackerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of a reflective activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317.
Almasi, J. (1994). The effects of peer-led and teacher-led discussion of literature on fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 40–59). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bianchini, J. A., & Colburn, A. (2000). Teaching the nature of science through inquiry to prospective elementary teachers: A tale of two researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 177–209.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chan, K. (2000). The impact of infusing the interactive historical vignettes into 10th-grade high school science instruction in Taiwan on student understanding of the nature of science and science achievement. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02), 515A. (UMI No. AAT 3004230).
Conle, C. (2003). An anatomy of narrative curricula. Educational Researcher, 32(3), 3–15.
Craven, J. A., & Prain, V. (2002). Assessing explicit and tacit conceptions of the nature of science among preservice elementary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 785–802.
Cunningham, C. M., & Helms J. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic, inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 483–499.
Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Gallas, K. (1994). Talking their way into science: Hearing children’s questions and theories, responding with curricula. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallas, K. (1995). The languages of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their understanding of the world. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education, 11, 55–67.
Girod, M., Rau, C., & Schepige, A. (2003). Appreciating the beauty of science ideas: Teaching for aesthetic understanding. Science Education, 87, 574–587.
Gould, S. J. (1980). The panda’s thumb: More reflections in natural history. New York: W. W. Norton.
Haven, K. (1996). Great moments in science: Experiments and readers theatre. Portsmouth, NH: Teacher Ideas Press.
Helms, J. V., & Carlone, H. B. (1999). Science education and the commonplaces of science. Science Education, 83, 233–245.
Hogan, K. (2000). Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Science Education, 84, 51–70.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84, 5–26.
Kurth, L. A., Kidd, R., Gardner, R., & Smith, E. L. (2002). Student use of narrative and paradigmatic forms of talk in elementary science conversations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 793–818.
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, 331–359.
Lonsbury, J. G., & Ellis, J. D. (2002). Science history as a means to teach nature of science concepts: Using the development of understanding related to mechanisms of inheritance. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2). Retrieved September 12, 2005, from http://www.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/ejsev7n2.html
Matkins, J. J., Bell, R., Irving, K., & McNall, R. (2002). Impacts of contextual and explicit instruction on preservice elementary teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science (pp. 469–494). Charlotte, NC: AETS. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 465602).
McGinnis, J. R., & Oliver, J. S. (1992). An examination of the interplay of science and religion using two prominent cases from the history of science: Galileo Galilei and Charles Darwin. In S. Hills (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international conference on the history and philosophy of science and science teaching (Vol. II, pp. 155–164). Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queens University.
Meichtry, Y. (1998). Elementary science teaching methods: Developing and measuring students’ views about the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 231–241). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89, 535–563.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Schlick Noe, K. L. (2004). Extension projects. Retrieved August 24, 2005, from http://www.litcircles.org/Extension/extension.html
Straits, W. J. (2005, January). Pre-service teachers’ representations of their developing nature of science understandings. Paper presented at the Qualitative Interest Group (QUIG) conference on Interdisciplinary Qualitative Studies, Athens, GA.
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamik, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 609–627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Straits, W.J., Nichols, S.E. Using Historical Nonfiction and Literature Circles to Develop Elementary Teachers’ Nature of Science Understandings. J Sci Teacher Educ 18, 901–912 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9070-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-007-9070-7