Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

2017 Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Nature of Science in the Science Curriculum

  • Derek Hodson
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_32

Introduction

The earliest example of nature of science (NOS) focus in school science education is Henry Armstrong’s heuristic approach, published in 1898, which involved students conducting the experiments, making the observations, and following the reasoning of the scientists who first generated the scientific knowledge being studied. It is important to note that Armstrong’s promotion of NOS was mainly pedagogical and motivational; the real purpose was to acquire and develop scientific knowledge. In contrast, John Dewey argued in Democracy and Education (published in 1916) that familiarity with scientific method is substantially more important than acquisition of scientific knowledge, particularly for those who do not intend to study science at an advanced level. Some 45 years later, similar rhetoric formed the basis of Schwab’s (1962) advocacy of a shift of emphasis for school science education in the United States away from the sole concern of learning scientific knowledge towards...

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

References

  1. Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. 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). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. 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). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science (pp. 3–103). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand