Concepts related to the nature of science have been considered an important part of scientific literacy as reflected in its inclusion in curriculum documents. A significant amount of science education research has focused on improving learners’ understanding of NOS. One approach that has often been advocated is an explicit and reflective approach. Some researchers have used the history of science to provide learners with explicit and reflective experiences with NOS concepts. Previous research on using the history of science in science (...) instruction has approached HOS in many different ways and consequently has led to inconsistent findings regarding its utility for improving learning. One promising method for overcoming this inconsistency and teaching NOS with more traditional science content is using stories based in the history of science. A mixed method approach was used to determine whether and how the use of science stories influences undergraduates’ understanding of NOS. Particular attention was paid to the explanations that students used for their understandings. Intervention and control groups completed the Student Understanding of Science and Scientific Inquiry instrument. The intervention group was taught using two historical narratives while the control group was taught using minimal history. A subset of both groups was also interviewed regarding their SUSSI responses and their experiences in the course. Results indicated that the introduction of science stories helped participants gain a better understanding of the role of imagination and creativity in science. Participants mentioned science stories in their explanations for why they changed towards more informed views on SUSSI items related to imagination and creativity. The current study adds to a growing body of literature regarding the use of stories in the science classroom. (shrink)

Scientific inquiry is both theoretical and empirical. It succeeds by bringing thought into productive harmony with the observable universe, and thus, students can attain a robust understanding of the nature of science only by developing a balanced appreciation of both these dimensions. In this article, I examine naïve empiricism, a teaching pattern that deters understanding of NOS by attributing to observation scientific achievements that have been wrought by a partnership of thought and empirical experience. My more specific concern is the (...) naïve empiricism promoted when teachers illustrate NOS through historical anecdotes about conflict between science and religion. Since the religious actors depicted in such accounts appear to reject evidence, these narratives lead readers to suppose that scientists draw their conclusions in exactly the opposite way, from empiricism alone. I illustrate this pattern by examining two representative treatments of the Copernican revolution. My methods are historical and critical. (shrink)

Science lessons using inquiry only or history of science with inquiry were used for explicit reflective nature of science instruction for second-, third-, and fourth-grade students randomly assigned to receive one of the treatments. Students in both groups improved in their understanding of creative NOS, tentative NOS, empirical NOS, and subjective NOS as measured using VNOS-D as pre- and post-test surveys. Social and cultural context of science was not accessible for the students. Students in second, third, and fourth grades were (...) able to attain adequate views of empirical NOS, the role of observation and inference, creative and imaginative NOS, and subjective NOS. Students were not able to express adequate views of socially and culturally embedded NOS. Most gains in NOS eroded by the next school year, except for tentative NOS for both groups and creative NOS for the inquiry group. (shrink)

A number of authors have recognized the importance of understanding the nature of science for scientific literacy. Different instructional strategies such as decontextualized, hands-on inquiry, and history of science activities have been proposed for teaching NOS. This article seeks to understand the contribution of HOS in enhancing biology teachers’ understanding of NOS, and their perceptions about using HOS to teach NOS. These teachers, enrolled in a professional development program in Chile are, according to the national curriculum, expected to teach NOS, (...) but have no specific NOS and HOS training. Teachers’ views of NOS were assessed using the VNOS-D+ questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of two modules about science instruction and NOS. Both the pre- and the post-test were accompanied by interviews, and in the second session we collected information about teachers’ perceptions of which interventions had been more significant in changing their views on NOS. Finally, the teachers also had to prepare a lesson plan for teaching NOS that included HOS. Some of the most important study results were: significant improvements were observed in teachers’ understanding of NOS, although they assigned different levels of importance to HOS in these improvements; and although the teachers improved their understanding of NOS, most had difficulties in planning lessons about NOS and articulating historical episodes that incorporated NOS. The relationship between teachers’ improved understanding of NOS and their instructional NOS skills is also discussed. (shrink)

Textbook descriptions of the foundations of Genetics give the impression that besides Mendel’s no other research on heredity took place during the nineteenth century. However, the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, and the criticism that it received, placed the study of heredity at the centre of biological thought. Consequently, Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin himself, Francis Galton, William Keith Brooks, Carl von Nägeli, August Weismann, and Hugo de Vries attempted to develop theories of heredity under an evolutionary perspective, (...) and they were all influenced by each other in various ways. Nonetheless, only Nägeli became aware of Mendel’s experimental work; it has also been questioned whether Mendel even had the intention to develop a theory of heredity. In this article, a short presentation of these theories is made, based on the original writings. The major aim of this article is to suggest that Mendel was definitely not the only one studying heredity before 1900, if he even did this, as may be inferred by textbooks. Although his work had a major impact after 1900, it had no impact during the latter half of the nineteenth century when an active community of students of heredity emerged. Thus, textbooks should not only present the work of Mendel, but also provide a wider view of the actual history and a depiction of science as a social process. (shrink)

Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-devo) is a vibrant area of contemporary life science that should be (and is) increasingly incorporated into teaching curricula. Although the inclusion of this content is important for biological pedagogy at multiple levels of instruction, there are also philosophical lessons that can be drawn from the scientific practices found in Evo-devo. One feature of particular significance is the interdisciplinary nature of Evo-devo investigations and their resulting explanations. Instead of a single disciplinary approach being the most explanatory or (...) fundamental, different methodologies from biological disciplines must be synthesized to generate empirically adequate explanations. Thus, Evo-devo points toward a non-reductionist epistemology in biology. I review three areas where these synthetic efforts become manifest as a result of Evo-devo’s practices (form versus function reasoning styles; problem-structured investigations; idealizations related to studying model organisms), and then sketch some possible applications to teaching biology. These philosophical considerations provide resources for life science educators to address (and challenge) key aspects of the National Science Education Standards and Benchmarks for Scientific Literacy. (shrink)

The current study compared the effectiveness of two methods in biology teaching that are based on the science-as-inquiry approach: visits to authentic university laboratories and analyzing adapted primary literature. The methods’ effectiveness was measured in terms of high-school students’ increased understanding following a 6-week intervention that emphasized five major aspects of the nature of science : the tentativeness of scientific understanding, the cooperative nature of the scientific process, methodological diversity, the sociocultural embeddedness of scientific knowledge, and the aims of scientific (...) inquiry. A quasi-experimental, pre-post control design was applied, utilizing quantitative evaluation methods. Findings indicate that teaching NOS in biology high-school classes using science-as-inquiry methods is an effective approach for enhancing NOS understanding. Both of the proposed methods appear to be promising; however, the AUL method was found to be more effective for enabling advanced-level high-school biology students’ understanding of these NOS aspects. In conclusion, both AUL and APL are potentially effective methods that can be adapted for teaching various biology subjects in different cultural contexts. (shrink)

This study investigates the use of specific educative features for supporting the teaching of nature of science during read-alouds of elementary science trade books. Educative features are components of educative curriculum materials that aim to increase teachers’ content knowledge and support effective instructional practices. Understanding how teachers use specific educative features is important for the future design of curriculum materials that can be used to improve teachers’ views of NOS in tandem with changing their teaching practices. Qualitative data from teacher (...) interviews and observations of read-alouds were used to determine which educative features teachers used and how effective they were perceived as being. Results indicate that teachers varied in their use of educative features and tended to focus on the ones that addressed specific teaching moves as opposed to those that supported understanding why the curriculum was developed as it was. Based on these findings, recommendations for future research that highlights the importance of all educative features are provided. (shrink)