Understanding nature of science is widely considered an important educational objective and views of NOS are closely linked to science teaching and learning. Thus there is a lively discussion about what understanding NOS means and how it is reached. As a result of analyses in educational, philosophical, sociological and historical research, a worldwide consensus about the content of NOS teaching is said to be reached. This consensus content is listed as a general statement of science, which students are supposed to (...) understand during their education. Unfortunately, decades of research has demonstrated that teachers and students alike do not possess an appropriate understanding of NOS, at least as far as it is defined at the general level. One reason for such failure might be that formal statements about the NOS and scientific knowledge can really be understood after having been contextualized in the actual cases. Typically NOS is studied as contextualized in the reconstructed historical case stories. When the objective is to educate scientifically and technologically literate citizens, as well as scientists of the near future, studying NOS in the contexts of contemporary science is encouraged. Such contextualizations call for revision of the characterization of NOS and the goals of teaching about NOS. As a consequence, this article gives two examples for studying NOS in the contexts of scientific practices with practicing scientists: an interview study with nanomodellers considering NOS in the context of their actual practices and a course on nature of scientific modelling for science teachers employing the same interview method as a studying method. Such scrutinization opens rarely discussed areas and viewpoints to NOS as well as aspects that practising scientists consider as important. (shrink)

Research on the nature of science and science education enjoys a longhistory, with its origins in Ernst Mach's work in the late nineteenthcentury and John Dewey's at the beginning of the twentieth century.As early as 1909 the Central Association for Science and MathematicsTeachers published an article – ‘A Consideration of the Principles thatShould Determine the Courses in Biology in Secondary Schools’ – inSchool Science and Mathematics that reflected foundational concernsabout science and how school curricula should be informed by them. Sincethen (...) a large body of literature has developed related to the teaching andlearning about nature of science – see, for example, the Lederman and Meichtry reviews cited below. As well there has been intensephilosophical, historical and philosophical debate about the nature of scienceitself, culminating in the much-publicised ‘Science Wars’ of recent time. Thereferences listed here primarily focus on the empirical research related to thenature of science as an educational goal; along with a few influential philosophicalworks by such authors as Kuhn, Popper, Laudan, Lakatos, and others. Whilenot exhaustive, the list should prove useful to educators, and scholars in otherfields, interested in the nature of science and how its understanding can berealised as a goal of science instruction. The authors welcome correspondenceregarding omissions from the list, and on-going additions that can be made to it. (shrink)

This study explored changes in preservice teachers’ nature of science pedagogical views and nature of science rationales using pre- and post-course written responses as well as interview data. Through systematic analysis, themes were generated and compared to the NOS literature. Comparisons between pre- and post-course data demonstrate improved and deepened NOS views, NOSP views that are more aligned with NOS literature, and a greater number of rationales for including NOS. All participants were enrolled in the “Inquiry and Natures of Science, (...) Technology, and Engineering” course. However, six participants were enrolled in INSTE as their first course in which NOS and NOSP were addressed. The other six participants were enrolled in INSTE as their second course in which NOS and NOSP were addressed, with science methods as their first course in which NOS and NOSP were addressed. By comparing participants enrolled in INSTE as their first course to those enrolled in INSTE as their second course, we observed that NOS understanding seemed to develop in a first experience alongside some NOS rationales, but NOSP views lagged for participants in INSTE as their first course. Participants enrolled in INSTE as their second course developed more robust and literature-aligned NOSP views and more multifaceted NOS rationales. Therefore, this study bolsters arguments that teachers need to receive extended NOS and NOSP instruction. (shrink)