Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ Ways of Talking About Nature of Science and Its Teaching

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nature of science (NOS) has for a long time been regarded as a key component in science teaching. Much research has focused on students’ and teachers’ views of NOS, while less attention has been paid to teachers’ perspectives on NOS teaching. This article focuses on in-service science teachers’ ways of talking about NOS and NOS teaching, e.g. what they talk about as possible and valuable to address in the science classroom, in Swedish compulsory school. These teachers (N = 12) are, according to the national curriculum, expected to teach NOS, but have no specific NOS training. The analytical framework described in this article consists of five themes that include multiple perspectives on NOS. The results show that teachers have less to say when they talk about NOS teaching than when they talk about NOS in general. This difference is most obvious for issues related to different sociocultural aspects of science. Difficulties in—and advantages of—NOS teaching, as put forth by the teachers, are discussed in relation to traditional science teaching, and in relation to teachers’ perspectives on for which students science teaching will be perceived as meaningful and comprehensible. The results add to understanding teachers’ reasoning when confronted with the idea that NOS should be part of science teaching. This in turn provides useful information that can support the development of NOS courses for teachers.

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. Compulsory school comprises years 1–9 (ages 7–16) and is divided into three stages (i) years 1–3, (ii) years 4–6, and (iii) years 7–9, with students mostly changing teachers at each consecutive stage.

  2. Note, however, that this refers to the frequencies of the different “ways of talking”, not to how common different “views” are.

References

  • AAAS. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but…. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 2, pp. 1041–1060). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature of science and instructional practice: Making the unnatural natural. Science Education, 82(4), 417–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., & Hanuscin, D. L. (2007). Teaching nature of science through inquiry: Results of a 3-year professional development program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(5), 653–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351.

    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. (2012a). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: A view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alters, B. J. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching students “ideas-about-science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, A. C., & Yang, K. (2000). The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(8), 871–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Blair, L. M., Crawford, B. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Just do it? Impact of a science apprenticeship program on high school students’ understandings of the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conception of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 563–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relationship to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41(3), 53–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W. (2001). Embodying science: A feminist perspective on learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 282–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, N. W., & Bodner, G. M. (1992). The beginning science teacher: Classroom narratives of convictions and constraints. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(5), 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanile, M. F., Lederman, N. G., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Mendelian genetics as a platform for teaching about nature of science and scientific inquiry: The value of textbooks. Science & Education, 24(1–2), 205–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H. B. (2003). Innovative science within and against a culture of “achievement”. Science Education, 87(3), 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H. B. (2004). The cultural production of science in reform-based physics: Girls’ access, participation, and resistance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4), 392–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: Questions rather than tenets. Paper presented at The Pantaneto Forum.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2011b). The story behind the science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2012). Impact of nature of science and science education course on teachers’ nature of science classroom practices. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research: Concepts and methodologies (pp. 247–266). Dordrecht; Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dadachanji, D. K. (1998). The cultural challenge to scientific knowledge. World and I, 13, 172–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Bristol, PA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2006). Guest editorial: Science studies and science education call for papers deadline: March 31, 2007. Science Education, 90(6), 961–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Wright, E. (1989). A case-study of high-school teachers decision-making models for planning and teaching science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26(6), 467–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eflin, J. T., 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 

  • Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Mugaloglu, E. Z. (2013). Interactions of economics of science and science education: Investigating the implications for science teaching and learning. Science & Education, 22(10), 2405–2425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, K. L. (2009). Diversity and the fate of objectivity. Social Epistemology, 23(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J., & Lederman, N. G. (1993). Preservice biology teachers’ knowledge structures as a function of professional teacher education: A year-long assessment. Science Education, 77(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O., & Holmgren, S.-O. (2010). Secondary science teachers’ selective traditions and examples of inquiry-oriented approaches. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 6(1), 44–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, L., & Lindahl, B. (2010). “I have chosen another way of thinking”. Students’ relations to science with a focus on worldview. Science & Education, 19, 895–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L. (2013). Critical incidents in the development of pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science: A prospective elementary teacher’s journey. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(6), 933–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanuscin, D. L., Lee, M. H., & Akerson, V. L. (2011). Elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching the nature of science. Science Education, 95(1), 145–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henke, A., & Höttecke, D. (2015). Physics teachers’ challenges in using history and philosophy of science in teaching. Science & Education, 24(4), 349–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (1993). Philosophic stance of secondary school science teachers, curriculum experiences, and children’s understanding of science: Some preliminary findings. Interchange, 24(1–2), 41–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534–2553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2014). From the horse’s mouth: Why scientists’ views are crucial to nature of science understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 36(16), 2639–2665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Högström, P., Ottander, C., & Benckert, S. (2006). Lärares mål med laborativt arbete: Utveckla förståelse och intresse. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 2(3), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höttecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2012). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European HIPST project. Science & Education, 21(9), 1233–1261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ideland, M., & Malmberg, C. (2012). Body talk: Students’ identity construction while discussing a socioscientific issue. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 7(2), 279–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G. (2010). Why should philosophers of science pay attention to the commercialization of academic science? In M. Suárez, M. Dorato, & M. Rédei (Eds.), EPSA epistemology and methodology of science (pp. 129–138). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jenkins, E. W. (2013). The ‘nature of science’ in the school curriculum: The great survivor. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 132–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, A.-M., & Wickman, P.-O. (2012). Vad ska elever lära sig angående naturvetenskaplig verksamhet?-En analys av svenska läroplaner för grundskolan under 50 år.” What should students learn about scientific inquiry? A comparative study of 50 years of the Swedish national curricula.”. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 8(3), 197–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2012). Relationship between nature of science understandings and argumentation skills: A role for counterargument and contextual factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(4), 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: An effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakin, S., & Wellington, J. (1994). Who will teach the ‘nature of science’? Teachers’ views of science and their implications for science education. International Journal of Science Education, 16(2), 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 331–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1995). Suchting on the nature of scientific thought: Are we anchoring curricula in quicksand? Science & Education, 4(4), 371–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2012). Nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry: Building instructional capacity through professional development. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 335–359). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2010). The influence of explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction on preservice primary teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(9), 1137–1164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosco, V. (2012). Entanglements: Between two cultures and beyond science wars. Science as Culture, 21(1), 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2010). Science curriculum and teacher education: The role of presuppositions, contradictions, controversies and speculations vs Kuhn’s ‘normal science’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 891–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2012). From ‘science in the making’ to understanding the nature of science: An overview for science educators. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Science & Education, 7(6), 579–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (2007). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramazanoglu, C., & Holland, J. (2002). Feminist methodology [Elektronisk resurs] challenges and choices. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Epistemology for the masses: The origins of “The Scientific Method” in American schools. History of Education Quarterly, 45(3), 341–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J. (2002). School science education for citizenship: Strategies for teaching about the epistemology of science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34(6), 637–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryder, J., Leach, J., & Driver, R. (1999). Undergraduate science students’ images of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(2), 201–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjøberg, S. (2010). Naturvetenskap som allmänbildning: En kritisk ämnesdidaktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolverket. (2011a). Curriculum for the compulsory school system, the pre-school class and the leisure-time centre 2011. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket).

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolverket. (2011b). Commentary to the physics curriculum. Stockholm: Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stenmark, M. (2004). How to relate science and religion: A multidimensional model. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tala, S., & Vesterinen, V.-M. (2015). Nature of science contextualized: Studying nature of science with scientists. Science & Education, 24(4), 435–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterinen, V.-M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22(7), 1839–1855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, J., & Loughran, J. (2012). Science teacher learning. In B. J. Fraser, et al. (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 295–306). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, S. L., & Hodson, D. (2010). More from the horse’s mouth: What scientists say about science as a social practice. International Journal of Science Education, 32(11), 1431–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LISMA, Kristianstad University, 291 88, Kristianstad, Sweden

    Lotta Leden, Lena Hansson & Andreas Redfors

  2. Malmö University, 205 06, Malmö, Sweden

    Malin Ideland

Authors
  1. Lotta Leden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lena Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Redfors
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Malin Ideland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lotta Leden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A. et al. Teachers’ Ways of Talking About Nature of Science and Its Teaching. Sci & Educ 24, 1141–1172 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9782-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9782-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation