Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Two Views About Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our focus is on the effects that dated ideas about the nature of science (NOS) have on curriculum, instruction and assessments. First we examine historical developments in teaching about NOS, beginning with the seminal ideas of James Conant. Next we provide an overview of recent developments in philosophy and cognitive sciences that have shifted NOS characterizations away from general heuristic principles toward cognitive and social elements. Next, we analyze two alternative views regarding ‘explicitly teaching’ NOS in pre-college programs. Version 1 is grounded in teachers presenting ‘Consensus-based Heuristic Principles’ in science lessons and activities. Version 2 is grounded in learners experience of ‘Building and Refining Model-Based Scientific Practices’ in critique and communication enactments that occur in longer immersion units and learning progressions. We argue that Version 2 is to be preferred over Version 1 because it develops the critical epistemic cognitive and social practices that scientists and science learners use when (1) developing and evaluating scientific evidence, explanations and knowledge and (2) critiquing and communicating scientific ideas and information; thereby promoting science literacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Examples include Lederman et al. (2002), McComas and Olson (1998), Niaz (2009), Osborne et al. (2003), Wenning (2006).

  2. Proponents include Allchin (2011), Ault and Dodick (2010), Duschl (2000), Duschl and Grandy (2008), Ford (2008), Van Dijk (2011).

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G., & Ryan, A. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on Science-Technology-Society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2012). Toward clarity on whole science and KNOWS. Science Education, 96(4), 693–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science: (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atran, S. (2002). Modular and cultural factors in biological understanding: An experimental approach to the cognitive basis of science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 41–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ault, C., & Dodick, J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: The problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94(6), 1092–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, S., & Smith, C. (1993). On understanding the nature of scientific knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 28, 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers, P., Stich, S., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (2002). The cognitive basis of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: The case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Philadelphia, PA: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. (2011). Teaching and assessing the nature of science. The Science Teacher, 78(6), 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. (1947). On understanding science: A historical approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science, (Vols 1 & 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1961). Test on understanding science. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooley, W., & Klopfer, L. (1963). The evaluation of specific educational innovations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 73–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cotham, J., & Smith, E. (1981). Development and validation of the conceptions of scientific theories tes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 18, 387–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeBoer, G. (1991). The history of ideas in science education: Implications for practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (1990). Restructuring science education: The role of theories and their importance. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2000). Making the nature of science explicit. In R. Millar, J. Leech, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in 3-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Grandy, R. (Eds.). (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., & Hamilton, R. (2011). Learning science. In R. Mayer & P. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction, Routledge (pp. 78–107). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education, 17, 147–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. (1988). Explaining science: A cognitive approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. (2002). Scientific cognition as distributed cognition. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 285–299). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvard Project Physics. (1968–1969). The project physics course: Reader. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  • Hesse, M. (1966). Models and analogies in science. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G., Rutherford, J., & Watson, F. (1970). Project physics: Handbook. Cambridge, MA: Project Physics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keil, F. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 522–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimball, M. (1967–1968). Understanding the nature of science: A comparison of scientists and science teachers, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 5, 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopfer, L., & Cooley, W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How science makes knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koslowski, B., & Thompson, S. (2002). Theorizing is important, and collateral information constrains how well it is done. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 171–192). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1977). Progress and its problems: Toward a theory of scientific growth. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. Flick & N. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.

  • Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. McComus (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 83–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2004). Revising instruction to teach nature of science: Modifying activities to enhance students’ understanding of science, The Science Teacher, 71(9), 36–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N., Adb-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Towards valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012a). Supporting inquiry about the foundations of evolutionary thinking in the elementary grades. In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 171–206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2012b). Seeding evolutionary thinking by engaging children in modeling its foundations. Science Education, 96(4), 701–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., Schauble, L., & Lucas, D. (2008). Supporting development of the epistemology of inquiry. Cognitive Development, 23, 512–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science to features of science. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

  • McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. (2004). Children’s understanding of scientific inquiry: Their conceptualization of uncertainty in investigations of their own design. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 219–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metz, K. E. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109(2), 138–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council (1999). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

  • National Research Council. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Teachers Association. (2000). NSTA position statement: The nature of science, www.nsta.org/about/positions/natureofscience.aspx.

  • Nersessian, N. (2002). The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 133–153). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (2008a). Inquiry: How science works; Model-based reasoning in scientific practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 57–79). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nersessian, N. (2008b). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Milton Keynes: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F., Ratcliffe, M., Collins, S., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (Ed.) (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubba, P., & Anderson, H. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. (2002). Scientists in the classroom: The cold war reconstruction of American science education. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R. K., (Ed.). (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  • Schwab, J. (1960). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. Schwab & P. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of US science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., & 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, M. (2002). The science of childhood. In P. Carruthers, S. Stich, & M. Siegal (Eds.), The cognitive basis of science (pp. 300–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., & Wenk, L. (2006). Relations among three aspects of first-year college students’ epistemologies of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(8), 747–785.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students’ epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experience on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 285–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for assessment: Matter and atomic molecular theory, Measurement: Interdisciplinary research and perspectives, 4, 11–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyam, K., Gelman, R., & Lafosse, A. (2002). Animates and other separably moveable objects. In E. Fordes & G. Humphreys (Eds.), Category specificity in brain and mind (pp. 341–373). London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. (Ed.). (1977). The structure of scientific theories, 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

  • Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thagard, P. (2007). Coherence, truth, and the development of scientific knowledge. Philosophy of Science, 74(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eijck, M., Hsu, P., & Roth, W. (2008). Translations of science practice to “Students’ Images of Science”. Science Education, 93(4), 611–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wenning, C. J. (2006). Assessing nature-of-science literacy as one component of scientific literacy, Journal of Physics Teacher Education, Online, 3(4), 3–14. www.phy.ilstu.edu/jpteo.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Richard A. Duschl

  2. Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

    Richard Grandy

Authors
  1. Richard A. Duschl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Grandy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard A. Duschl.

Additional information

An earlier version of this paper was presented as a plenary session by the first author at the ‘How Science Works—And How to Teach It’ workshop, Aarhus University, 23–25 June, 2011, Denmark.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 NOS instruments
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 5.

Table 5 NSTA policy statements
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duschl, R.A., Grandy, R. Two Views About Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 22, 2109–2139 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation