Abstract
Nature of science (NOS) is considered an important component of scientific literacy. Supporting students to develop a comprehensive NOS understanding is one of the most commonly described objectives within science education. Moreover, history of science can arguably provide a good context for NOS teaching and learning; it has been suggested that using historical contexts to introduce general NOS aspects in an explicit, systematic way can enhance students’ understanding about NOS. This paper has to do with a research project concerned with the creation of historical narratives that draw specifically on the history of the idea of the Balance of Nature (BON)—a persistent, socio-culturally originated idea that implies a predetermined order and stability in the natural world—in order to support university students to better understand some general NOS aspects. In particular, we report on our narrative entitled “Tea for two” which sets focus on the socio-cultural embeddedness of science. More specifically, we (a) give an overview of what we drew upon in order to create “Tea for two” (the BON-idea history and the types of historical narratives for educational use), (b) highlight the historical background of “Tea for two” and present the narrative itself, (c) discuss “Tea for two” in terms of its essential features and the strategies we considered, and (d) make some final remarks.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
Not applicable.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200012)37:10%3c1057::AID-TEA3%3e3.0.CO;2-C
Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87(3), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10055
Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, historical cases, and contemporary cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98(3), 461–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21111
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2014). Towards a learning environment for challenging the idea of the balanced nature: Insights from the first cycle of research. In C. P. Constantinou, N. Papadouris, & A. Hadjigeorgiou (Eds.), E-Book Proceedings of the ESERA 2013 Conference: Science Education Research For Evidence-based Teaching and Coherence in Learning. Part 3 (pp. 44–54). Nicosia, Cyprus: European Science Education Research Association.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2016). Can the idea of “Balance of Nature” be effectively challenged within a model-based learning environment? Insights from the second cycle of developmental research. In T. Tal & A. Yarden (Eds.), The Future of Biology Education Research (pp. 7–20). Haifa, Israel: ERIDOB.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2017). Toward an “Anti-Balance of Nature” Learning Environment for Non-Biology Major Students: Learning Objectives and Design Criteria. Natural Sciences Education, 46(1). https://doi.org/10.4195/nse2017.07.0016
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2018a). Can the idea of the ‘balanced nature’ be challenged? Students’ reasoning about disturbed and protected ecosystems after a teaching intervention and one year later. In N. Gericke & M. Grace (Eds.), Challenges in Biology Education Research (pp. 20–36). Karlstad, Sweden: ERIDOB.
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2018b). Challenging Students’ Belief in the ‘Balance of Nature’ Idea. Science & Education, 27(9), 895–919.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0017-5
Ampatzidis, G., & Ergazaki, M. (2021). Can the history of the balance of nature-idea inform the design of narratives for highlighting general aspects of nature of science? Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 15(1), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.3574
Begoray, D. L., & Stinner, A. (2005). Representing science through historical drama. Science & Education, 14(3), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-0780-y
Browne, J. (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Jonathan Cape.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-005-4846-7
Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3
Coles, R. (1989). The call of stories: Teaching and the moral imagination. Houghton Mifflin.
Cooper, G. (2001). Must there be a Balance of Nature? Biology and Philosophy, 16(4), 481–506. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011935220219
Cuddington, K. (2001). The “Balance of Nature” metaphor and equilibrium in population ecology. Biology and Philosophy, 16(4), 463–479. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011910014900
Dai, P., Williams, C. T., Witucki, A. M., & Rudge, D. W. (2021). Rosalind Franklin and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. Science & Education, 30(3), 659–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00188-6
Dawson, G. (2013). Like a Megatherium smoking a cigar: Darwin’s Beagle fossils in nineteenth-century popular culture. In V. Purton (Ed.), Darwin, Tennyson and Their Readers: Explorations in Victorian Literature and Science (pp. 81–96). Anthem Press.
Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1994). Darwin: The life of a tormented evolutionist. W. W: Norton & Company.
Egerton, F. N. (1973). Changing concepts of the Balance of Nature. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 48(2), 322–350.
Flynn, S., & Hardman, M. (2019). The use of interactive fiction to promote conceptual change in science. Science & Education, 28(1), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00032-6
Gould, S. J. (2011). Full house: The spread of excellence from Plato to Darwin. Belknap Press.
Herrenstein-Smith, B. (1981). Narrative versions, narrative theories. In W. Mitchel (Ed.), On Narrative (pp. 209–232). University of Chicago Press.
Höttecke, D., & Allchin, D. (2020). Reconceptualizing nature-of-science education in the age of social media. Science Education, 104(4), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21575
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200001)84:1%3c5::AID-SCE2%3e3.0.CO;2-0
Jansen, A. J. (1972). An analysis of “balance in nature” as an ecological concept. Acta Biotheoretica, 21(1–2), 86–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01556339
Jelinski, D. E. (2005). There is no mother nature-there is no balance of nature: Culture, ecology and conservation. Human Ecology, 33(2), 276–285.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
Kampourakis, K., & Gripiotis, C. (2015). Darwinism in context: An interdisciplinary, highly contextualized course on nature of science. Perspectives in Science, 5, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pisc.2015.05.002
Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of science. Science & Education, 19(6), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9201-y
Klassen, S. (2009). The construction and analysis of a science story: A proposed methodology. Science & Education, 18(3), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9141-y
Klassen, S. (2010). The relation of story structure to a model of conceptual change in science learning. Science & Education, 19(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9212-8
Kohn, D. (2009). Darwin’s keystone: The principle of divergence. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge companion to the ‘“Origin of Species”’ (pp. 87–108). Cambridge University Press.
Korfiatis, K. J., Stamou, A. G., & Paraskevopoulos, S. (2004). Images of nature in Greek primary school textbooks. Science Education, 88(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10133
Kricher, J. (2009). The balance of nature: Ecology’s enduring myth. Princeton University Press.
Kubli, F. (2001). Can the theory of narratives help teachers to become better storytellers? Science & Education, 10(6), 595–599. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017518316293
Ladle, R. J., & Gillson, L. (2009). The (im)balance of nature: A public perception time-lag? Public Understanding of Science, 18(2), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507082893
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Erlbaum.
Lederman, N. G. (2019). Contextualizing the relationship between nature of scientific knowledge and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 28(3), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00030-8
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 600–620). Routledge.
Lennox, J. G. (2010). The Darwin/Gray correspondence 1857–1869: An intelligent discussion about chance and design. Perspectives on Science, 18(4), 456–479.
Lorsbach, A. W., Meyer, A. A., & Arias, A. M. (2019). The correspondence of Charles Darwin as a tool for reflecting on nature of science. Science & Education, 28(9), 1085–1103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00080-y
McComas, W. F. (1997). The discovery & nature of evolution by natural selection: Misconceptions & lessons from the history of science. The American Biology Teacher, 59(8), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/4450364
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2), 249–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9081-y
McComas, W. F., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Using the history of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics to illustrate general aspects of nature of science. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 9(1), 47–76.
McIntosh, R. P. (1985). The background of ecology: Concept and theory. Cambridge University Press.
Metz, D., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., Clough, M., & Olson, J. (2007). Building a foundation for the use of historical narratives. Science & Education, 16(3), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9024-z
Neale, D. (2016). Structure. In L. Anderson (Ed.), Creative writing. A workbook with readings (pp. 140–153). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (1994). The relevance of a reader’s knowledge within a perspectival view of reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969409547860
Norris, S. P., Guilbert, S. M., Smith, M. L., Hakimelahi, S., & Phillips, L. M. (2005). A theoretical framework for narrative explanation in science. Science Education, 89(4), 535–563. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20063
Olson, J. K. (2018). The inclusion of the nature of science in nine recent international science education standards documents. Science & Education, 27(7), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-9993-8
Ospovat, D. (1981). The development of Darwin’s theory: Natural history, natural theology and natural selection, 1838–1859. Cambridge University Press.
Raman, V. V. (1980). Teaching Aristotelian physics through a dialogue. The Physics Teacher, 18(8), 580–583. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2340617
Richards, R. J. (1983). Why Darwin delayed, or interesting problems and models in the history of science. Journal of the History of Behavioral Sciences, 19(1), 45–53.
Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9088-4
Rudge, D. W., Cassidy, D. P., Fulford, J. M., & Howe, E. M. (2014). Changes observed in views of nature of science during a historically based unit. Science & Education, 23(9), 1879–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9572-3
Ruse, M. (2008). Charles Darwin. Blackwell Publishing.
Schiffer, H., & Guerra, A. (2015). Electricity and vital force: Discussing the nature of science through a historical narrative. Science & Education, 24(4), 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-014-9718-6
Selbie, P., & Clough, P. (2005). Talking early childhood education: Fictional enquiry with historical figures. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 3(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X05053923
Shrigley, R. L., & Koballa, T. R. (1989). Anecdotes: What research suggests about their use in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics, 89(4), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1989.tb11924.x
Steinheimer, F. D. (2004). Charles Darwin’s bird collection and ornithological knowledge during the voyage of H.M.S. “Beagle”, 1831–1836. Journal of Ornithology, 145(4), 300–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10336-004-0043-8
Stinner, A., & Williams, H. (1998). History and philosophy of science in the science curriculum. In K. G. Tobin & B. J. Fraser (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1027–1045). Kluwer.
Stinner, A., McMillan, B. A., Metz, D., Jilek, J. M., & Klassen, S. (2003). The renewal of case studies in science education. Science & Education, 12(7), 617–643. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025648616350
Sulloway, F. J. (1982). Darwin and his finches: The evolution of a legend. Journal of the History of Biology, 15(1), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00132004
Valladares, L. (2021). Scientific literacy and social transformation. Science & Education, 30(3), 557–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00205-2
Van Peer, W., & Chatman, S. (2001). Introduction. In W. Van Peer & S. Chatman (Eds.), Perspectives on narrative perspective (pp. 1–17). State University of New York Press.
Vrasidas, C., Avraamidou, L., Theodoridou, K., Themistokleous, S., & Panaou, P. (2015). Science fiction in education: Case studies from classroom implementations. Educational Media International, 52(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2015.1075102
Wallington, T. J., Hobbs, R. J., & Moore, S. A. (2005). Implications of current ecological thinking for biodiversity conservation: A review of the salient issues. Ecology and Society, 10(1).
Wandersee, J. H. (1992). The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290409
Williams, C. T., & Rudge, D. W. (2016). Emphasizing the history of genetics in an explicit and reflective approach to teaching the nature of science. Science & Education, 25(3), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9821-y
Williams, C. T., & Rudge, D. W. (2019). Effects of historical story telling on student understanding of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(9), 1105–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00073-x
Winslow, J. H. (1975). Mr Lumb and Masters Megatherium: An unpublished letter by Charles Darwin from the Falklands. Journal of Historical Geography, 1(4), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-7488(75)90122-X
Funding
This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund- ESF) through the operational program “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning” in the context of the project “Reinforcement of Postdoctoral Researchers—2nd Cycle” (MIS-5033021), implemented by the State Scholarships Foundation (ΙΚΥ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix. A Companion to the Story “Tea for Two”
Appendix. A Companion to the Story “Tea for Two”
Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was an English naturalist. He is considered the founder of the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911) was an English botanist and explorer. He is considered a founder of the science of phytogeography. He was a close friend of Charles Darwin.
Emma Wedgwood (1808–1896) was the wife of Charles Darwin. They married in 1839, and together they had 10 children.
HMS Beagle was a ship of the British Royal Navy. It was launched on May 11, 1820, on the Thames of London. It was later adapted as a survey ship and took part in three survey expeditions. Charles Darwin participated in Beagle’s second mission, which lasted from 1831 to 1836. During the voyage, Darwin studied a wide variety of fossils and living organisms. His observations led him to develop the theory of evolution through natural selection.
Megatherium is an extinct genus of ground sloths that lived in South America from the Pliocene to the Pleistocene.
Darwin’s finches are the finches that Darwin studied on different Galapagos Islands. Observing finches’ beaks, Darwin noted that, depending on the type of food available on each island (fruits, insects), their beaks had a different shape. The adaptation of the finches to the different conditions prevailing on each island helped Darwin to establish the theory of evolution through natural selection.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ampatzidis, G., Ergazaki, M. How Did Darwin Prefer His Tea? . Sci & Educ 32, 37–56 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00305-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00305-z