1 Introduction

Coined in the 1950s, the term “scientific literacy” has been used to describe a range of educational goals, from a general understanding of science to specific objectives of science education (Bybee, 2015). It is believed that this term first appeared in print in Hurd’s (1958) publication entitled “Science Literacy: Its Meaning for American Schools” (Laugksch, 2000), in which it was defined as the level of science understanding necessary for successful citizenship. The idea that understanding the underlying principles of science promotes critical thinking and democracy in a society where science and technology are significant in both public and individual life can be traced already in the work of Dewey (1916). Hurd argued that science cannot be considered as an “intellectual luxury for the select few” (p. 13) and it should have a central place in modern curricula, not just for high school and middle school but for elementary school as well (Hurd, 1958). Other attempts to define scientific literacy stress that it “stands for what the general public ought to know about science” (Durant, 1993, p. 129) or it refers to a level of scientific understanding that allows one to read the news and follow relevant discussions (Miller, 1998). More recently, Roberts (2010) offered a further elaboration of the term by making a distinction between two overarching visions of scientific literacy: Vision I, which emphasizes learning scientific content knowledge and understanding scientific processes for later use, and Vision II, which emphasizes understanding the value of scientific knowledge for personal and social life by getting engaged in socio-scientific decision making. The importance of scientific literacy is reflected in its wide appearance in the discussion about the objectives of education and the fact that it has become central to science education research (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 2017).

It is widely recognized that Nature of Science (NOS) is an essential component of scientific literacy (e.g., Allchin, 2014; Almeida et al., 2022; Ke et al., 2021). Actually, with its roots in the work of John Dewey at the start of the twentieth century and Ernst Mach in the late nineteenth, research on NOS and science education has a long history (Bell et al., 2001). There are different ways to define NOS — for instance, “science as way of knowing, ideas about science, how science works” (Almeida et al., 2022. p.2). In some cases, NOS is identified through a set of epistemological issues, such as the tentativeness of science, the creativity involved in scientists’ work, the distinction between observation and inference, or the sociocultural embeddedness of science (Lederman & Abd-El-Khalick, 1998). Such a conceptualization of NOS, which is based on a number of general NOS aspects, has been broadly used in science education (Lederman & Lederman, 2014). Although criticism and reservations have been expressed by scholars (e.g., Irzik & Nola, 2011), this approach in NOS teaching and learning is considered to be helpful for advancing students’ understanding about NOS (Kampourakis, 2016).

Already in 1946, Collingwood argued that reenacting historical ideas is an acceptable and frequently productive pedagogical method. Using historical contexts to introduce general NOS aspects in an explicit, systematic way has been shown to enhance the effectiveness of NOS teaching and learning (e.g., Dai et al., 2021; Williams & Rudge, 2019). Introducing students to how science concepts were created in the first place offers them the opportunity to consider scientific procedures from a more genuine perspective and have an insight to NOS (Stinner et al., 2003). Moreover, history of science has the potential to humanize the science processes (Abd-El-Khalick et al., 1998) and support students in reflecting on their own understanding of science concepts through ideas held by past scientists (Williams & Rudge, 2019). NOS aspects could be introduced through scientists’ biographies (e.g., those of Albert Einstein or Marie Curie; Hwang, 2015), scientist’s original writings such as excerpts from Darwin’s publications (Kampourakis & McComas, 2010) or Darwin’s correspondence (Lorsbach et al., 2019), historical accounts of scientific projects (e.g., research on the structure of DNA; Dai et al., 2021), historical accounts of the development of important technologies (e.g., the history of vaccines’ technology from the seventeenth century until today; Lee & Kwok, 2017) and literary stories (e.g., stories about the life and work of Gregor Mendel; Williams & Rudge, 2019).

Here we are concerned with two literary stories and more accurately with two “fiction talk stories” (Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2023) setting focus on the idea that plant formations may be considered as organic units, an idea considered to have been formulated by Clements (1905). In his book “Plant succession,” Clements (1916) describes the concept of super-organismic-plant-community suggesting that plant formations go through developmental stages in a process of succession until they reach the climax formation, which is considered as the mature adult stage. This is in harmony with its habitat and it is not expected to change unless disturbed by outside factors. In case of a disastrous event (e.g., fire), plant formations are able to reproduce themselves going through different stages of development and finally reaching the climax formation. In this paper, we argue that (a) the history of the development of the super-organismic-plant-community concept, and (b) the criticism it received by Clements’ contemporaries, provide a good context to effectively teach general NOS aspects, such as the creativity/imagination involved in doing science, the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, and the difference between scientists’ observations and inferences.

The creation of the two stories introduced here is part of a larger project that aims to explore whether it is feasible to draw on the history of the Balance of Nature idea in order to create historical narratives that could support university students to improve their understanding of general NOS aspects (see Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2021). The Balance of Nature idea is a long-lasting, socio-cultural assumption that implies a predetermined order and stability within nature, guaranteed by a Creator or nature itself (Kricher, 2009). It has been formulated to explain how nature works centuries before ecology emerged as a scientific domain and it has persisted even after (Cuddington, 2001). The Balance of Nature idea is quite popular within public opinion and school science (Korfiatis et al., 2004; Ladle & Gillson, 2009) despite the fact that it is not in accordance with the currently valid idea of the “resilient nature”; i.e., with the idea that ecosystems function in multiple alternative states and they may shift between them in abrupt, not necessarily reversible ways. We have been working with challenging the Balance of Nature idea in students’ reasoning for quite some time (Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018a, 2018b), and we noticed that specific snapshots of its history (e.g., the super-organismic-plant-community concept and the critique against it) seem to provide a good context for highlighting NOS aspects.

In this paper, we (a) discuss the choice of “fiction talk stories” as the form to develop our narratives, (b) highlight the historical background and content of the two stories (“Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei”), (c) discuss our stories in terms of (i) their essential features according to Klassen (2009) and (ii) the strategies (Clough, 2006; Metz et al., 2007) we took into account when creating them, and (d) make some final remarks.

2 Historical Narratives as Teaching and Learning Tools: the Case of “Fiction Talk Stories”

Klassen (2010) suggests that using narratives in teaching and learning should not be considered a new approach. Dewey, in the early twentieth century, argued that learning is possible when experiences integrate into a narrative-like structure (Crippen, 2016). A considerable number of studies advocate the use of narratives in science classes arguing that they have been shown to offer a good context for addressing science content in more authentic ways (Metz et al., 2007) and make learning experiences memorable (Klassen, 2010). Different types of narratives, such as vignettes, anecdotes, case studies, confrontations, dialogues, dramatization of playwrights, and thematic narratives, have been suggested for classroom use (see Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2023 for a thorough discussion).

In order to promote the NOS aspects that could be addressed in the context of the history of the Balance of Nature idea (Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2021), we decided to draw on literary science stories, which are short stories written “to stand on [their] literary merit and not only on [their] historical and scientific merits” (Klassen, 2009, p. 403). One reason for our choice was that we needed a narrative form longer than vignettes (Wandersee, 1992) or anecdotes (Shrigley and Koballa, 1989) that would offer the space to properly address the target NOS aspects. A second reason for drawing on Klassen’s (2009) literary stories was that literary merit would possibly enhance the engagement of non-biology students who are the target of our study. In fact, we suggest that the literary science stories we created may be better described as “fiction talk stories.” These stories are based on dialogues, the setting and characters of which should be considered as essential elements of theirs, as is the case for Platonic dialogues as well (Moors, 1978). Plato’s characters encounter in historical or plausible contexts and they engage in dialogues that seem natural and spontaneous. Although it is hard to say how much of these dialogues is historical, it is widely believed that a significant part of them is fictional (Gail, 2008; Partenie, 2022). Our “fiction talk stories” are based on dialogues of two eminent scientists which (a) are fictional although in harmony with the scientists’ biographies, and (b) have the form of talks happening in a more relaxed everyday setting (for more information on “fiction talk stories” see also Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2023). More specifically, the story entitled “Inspiration cannot wait” presents a fictional talk between Frederick Clements and his wife Edith Clements about the concept of the super-organismic-plant-community, whereas the story entitled “Panta rhei” presents a fictional talk between Frederick Clements and Victor Shelford about the criticism against this concept.

Arguing on the use of fictional dialogue in our stories, we note that, to the best of our knowledge, there are not authentic dialogues (e.g., correspondence exchange) documented between the scientists appearing in our stories. Moreover, even if there existed, it is not certain that they would be proper for use in the context of our study. A fictional dialogue may meet more effectively specific teaching and learning goals and be more relevant to specific target audience. Finally, studying fiction use in science teaching is a popular strand of science education research and several researchers advocate the benefits of such an approach for students (e.g., Avraamidou & Osborne, 2009; Flynn & Hardman, 2019). Focusing on fictional scripted dialogues, Selbie and Clough (2005) stand in favor of their use and stress that they have gained popularity among education researchers and practitioners. Begoray and Stinner (2005) claim that fictional dialogues have been part of science teaching and learning for centuries; more specifically, from as early as 1658 when the mathematician Paulus Casati, in his book “Terra machinis mota,” wrote a fictional conversation on astronomical and other problems, among Galileo Galilei, Paulus Guldin (a mathematician and physicist), and Marin Marsenne (a philosopher and mathematician), in order to engage readers in scientific controversies (as cited in Begoray & Stinner, 2005).

In the next sections, we present (a) information on the early history of ecology that inspired our stories, (b) the stories themselves, and (c) our analysis in terms of the stories’ essential features and the strategies we considered for their creation.

3 “Inspiration Cannot Wait” and “Panta Rhei”

3.1 Behind the Stories

According to Clements (1905), plant succession — i.e., the process of changes in a plant community’s species composition over time — was perceived by Biberg as early as in 1749, but it had not received attention until Steenstrup’s study on plant succession in the forests of Zealand around 1844. As mentioned by Clements, until the end of the nineteenth century, researching plant succession was not a common practice among ecologists and the related investigations resulted in arguments concerning specific changes and just a few generalizations. Warming was the first to provide a list of some general principles of plant succession in 1895, while the investigation of succession was first critically systematized by Clements in 1904 (as cited in Clements, 1905).

As already mentioned, the idea that plant formations may be considered as organic units is believed to have been originally suggested by Clements (1905). In his book “Plant succession” in 1916, he developed the concept of the super-organismic-plant-community in detail, proposing an analogy between the life cycle of organisms and the development of plant formations. He considered plant communities as super-organisms, which, similarly to organisms, go through a course of progressive shifts from immature stages to more mature ones, until they finally reach an adult stage which is predetermined and stable (climax formation). In Clements (1916) own words:

The unit of vegetation, the climax formation, is an organic entity. As an organism, the formation arises, grows, matures, and dies. Its response to the habitat is shown in processes or functions and in structures which are the record as well as the result of these functions. Furthermore, each climax formation is able to reproduce itself, repeating with essential fidelity the stages of its development. The life-history of a formation is a complex but definite process, comparable in its chief features with the life history of an individual plant. The climax formation is the adult organism, the fully developed community, of which all initial and medial stages are but stages of development. Succession is the process of the reproduction of a formation, and this reproductive process can no more fail to terminate in the adult form in vegetation than it can in the case of the individual plant (pp. 124–125).

The super-organismic-plant-community concept was favored by scientists of Clements’ time. Phillips (1935) attempted an analysis of concepts related to succession and climax formation and he concluded that he accepts the idea of biotic communities as complex organisms, “thus agreeing entirely with the concept of Clements” (p. 497). Animal ecologists Shelford and Allee favored the super-organismic concept within plant and animal communities (Phillips, 1935). In fact, applying the concept in animal communities, Allee (1931) claimed that as an animal may be regarded as a system of physico-chemical processes in dynamic equilibrium, the same way an animal community may be regarded as a system of organisms in dynamic equilibrium. Finally, Boodin (1925) suggested that the step between the unicellular organism and multicellular one is not greater than the step between the multicellular organism and the social one. In his own words, “Society is a new level in evolution, a new step in the creative adaptation of our earth to the cosmos. Society is not an aggregate of multicellular organisms, any more than multicellular organisms are an aggregate of unicellular organisms” (p. 202).

The super-organismic concept received criticism as well. Cooper characterized Clements’ “Plant succession” (1916) an “outstanding achievement” (Cooper, 1926, p. 393), as it was one of the most thorough attempts to analyze the processes of vegetational changes from the onset of vegetation on earth until their time. However, Cooper (1926) claimed that assuming the climax formation to be an organic entity, which “arises, grows, matures, and dies” (Clements, 1916, p. 124), decreased considerably the importance of Clements’ contribution to the field. He argued that vegetation should not necessarily be treated as developing. Vegetational changes may be developmental since the vegetational unit consists of organisms that undergo development. However, they may be retrogressive as well, either in a gradual way because of gradual alterations in soil for instance, or in an abrupt one because of severe erosion, fire, or man activities. According to Cooper (1926), such sudden happenings should be considered as rapid phases in a process of constant change and not as destructive events which initiate a process of secondary succession, as Clements (1916) suggested. Cooper’s criticism was even stronger concerning the analogy between a vegetation unit and an organism. He argued that “It is perfectly evident that a vegetation unit is not an individual organism” (Cooper, 1926, p. 400). He did acknowledge that it may be of some value to consider a vegetation unit as an organism in a figurative way, but he claimed, drawing on “Plant succession,” that Clements considered plant formations to be organic entities in a literal way, which seemed unjustifiable to him.

Tansley (1935) disagreed with the concept of vegetational changes suggested by Cooper (1926). He argued that destructive events caused by external factors should not be considered as part of succession. Rather, he suggested distinguishing between allogenic succession and autogenic succession in terms of whether the changes happen due to external factors or not. Tansley’s suggestion was closer to Clements’ (1916) idea of not considering catastrophic events as parts of a continuous process unlike Cooper’s (1926) suggestion. However, Tansley (1935) criticized the concept of the super-organismic-plant community by introducing the idea that plant communities may be considered as “quasi-organisms,” meaning that although the comparison between plant communities and organisms is firmly founded and not a mere analogy, “there is no need to weary the reader with a list of the (obvious and numerous) points in which the biotic community does not resemble the single animal or plant” (p. 290). The development of plant communities is very different from the ontogeny of animals and plants. For instance, the adult quasi-organism can develop from starting points that are totally different (hydrarch or xerarch) and the plants that constitute the developmental stages are different from the ones of the adult formation. These do not apply to the development of an organism (Tansley, 1935).

Gleason opposed the super-organismic concept by declaring that “the phenomena of vegetation depend completely upon the phenomena of the individual” (Gleason, 1917, p. 464). He claimed that although analogies may be formulated between plant communities and organisms, they shall never be considered as homologies. According to Gleason, the appearance of a plant community in a new area and its development to maturity is not comparable to the life history of an individual plant. For instance, under the proper environmental conditions, a single sperm may grow to maturity and reproduce even if no other living organism is around. On the contrary, for pioneer species of a plant community to reproduce and the community to reach maturity, there is a need for the presence of specific species in neighboring areas (Gleason, 1917). Moreover, based on his findings from comparative observations and statistical analysis, Gleason argued that there are no plant communities consisted by the same species of plants. According to him, plant communities are formed by a random coexistence of certain plant species that merely happen to be together. Plants arrive randomly to a habitat, carried by the air or animals, and it is also random when and in what order such arrivals will occur. Gleason did not support the concept of climax communities, arguing that the number and plant species existing in a given area are constantly changing, giving a false balance-impression because of our snapshot-like insights (Gleason, 1926).

Clements took seriously the criticism his concept received from Cooper and Tansley and in later papers, such as the one entitled “Nature and the Structure of the Climax,” his analogy between the plant community and the individual plant became less detailed (Egerton, 1973). In the book “Bioecology” that he co-authored with Victor Shelford in 1939, they included a passage from Elton denouncing the idea of the Balance of Nature and essentially the concept of the super-organismic-plant-community:

The balance of nature does not exist, and perhaps never has existed. The numbers of wild animals are constantly varying to a greater or less extent, and the variations are usually irregular in period and always irregular in amplitude. Each variation in the numbers of one species causes direct and indirect repercussions on the numbers of the others, and since many of the latter are themselves independently varying in numbers, the resultant confusion is remarkable (Elton, as cited in Clements & Shelford, 1939, p. 173).

Modern ecology views ecosystems as intricate, dynamic systems that are more prone to instability than permanence. Balance is not the rule; instead, equilibrium points are cyclical, scale dependent, and enmeshed in non-equilibrium circumstances (Hobbs & Morton, 1999). Ecosystems seem prone to frequent, unforeseen shifts that could eventually cause them to enter a whole new stable state (Scheffer, 2009). In other words, nature is now seen as constantly changing in non-linear ways rather than as being stable and in equilibrium (Gunderson et al., 2010). The notion of plant formations as predictable, “homeostatic” super-organisms appears to be rather outdated, while other perspectives like the one of plant formations as highly dynamic social networks are developed (Wohlleben, 2016).

3.2 A Short Introduction to the Stories

In “Inspiration cannot wait,” Frederick Clements wakes up early in the morning and goes through his notes on plant succession. His wife Edith Clements joins him and they discuss Frederick’s idea about plant communities considered as organic entities. Frederick presents his idea that a plant community arises, grows, matures, and dies similarly to an organism, and together they realize that such a concept agrees with their observations from the field. In “Panta rhei,” Frederick Clements visits Victor Shelford in order to discuss a book they plan to co-author. They discuss Clements’ super-organismic-plant-community concept in view of the criticism it received from Cooper, Tansley, and Gleason. Clements admits to have downgraded the analogy he suggested, in the light of the criticism raised by his colleagues.

Our stories are literary science stories in the way Klassen (2009) describes them: short stories created to stand on their literary merit, along with their historical or scientific one. As already mentioned, they could be better characterized as fiction talk stories (Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2023). In a fiction talk story, the dialogue between the appearing scientists is fictional, although historically informed. Based on their biographies, we may imagine that Frederick and Edith Clements had discussed the super-organismic-plant-community concept before Clements published his views in “Plant succession” (Clements, 1916). We may as well imagine that Clements and Shelford had a meeting where they discussed their ideas about plant communities as organic entities before they co-authored “Bioecology” (Clements & Shelford, 1939). Moreover, in a fiction talk story, dialogue has an essential role, although different than in “dialogue” narratives. More specifically, dialogue in our stories does not take place in unrealistic contexts neither exists per se as it is the case in “dialogue” narratives like Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” or Raman’s story about a meeting between a reporter and Aristotle (as cited in Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2023). It rather happens between spouses at their house very early in the morning or between future co-authors at the house of one of them, and in both cases, it takes the form of a friendly and casual discussion.

3.3 The Stories

3.3.1 Inspiration Cannot Wait

Frederick Clements looked at his notes. The observations he and Edith had made at the Philadelphia Mountains in Santa Catalina in Arizona, the Del Mar Pine Forests in California, and the Crawford Meadows in Nebraska seemed to match the idea that had been running through his mind for a while during the previous night.

With a slight squeak, the office door opened and Edith entered holding a lamp.

“Why did you get up so early?” she asked him drowsy.

“I was thinking of something before we went to sleep. It’s about the book I am writing. Come and see for yourself to tell me your opinion.”

Frederick and Edith usually worked together on their research. Together they set up a field research station in Pike Peak in Colorado, where they frequently went to collect plant specimens; together they also did most of their research trips to Nebraska, California, and most of the western United States. Frederick always consulted Edith for his writing and they coauthored several scientific articles.

“Look at our notes from Pikes Pick. After the fire that burned all the vegetation, small plants sprouted at first, then shrubs and small trees, and finally the forest returned with the same plants that existed before the fire. The same pattern in Rainier in Washington, too. Fire and then…”

“Then small plants, shrubs and small trees, and finally the same forest as before,” Edith interrupted him. “We have discussed this a lot, Fritz. You have already written articles on ecological succession. Others have written on ecological succession, as well. Remember Cooper’s article on moss? Or Cowles’ article about the factors involved in ecological succession?”

“How can I not remember them, dear? I’m always concerned with the phenomenon of succession. In fact, I think that what I have come up with could explain our observations in a unified way. I just mentioned something about it in a book a few years ago, but now I feel more confident about the whole idea.”

“That sounds really interesting, Fritz. Tell me more!”, Edith said and sat in a chair next to him. The light was flickering, a sign that the oil was running out.

“What would you say if the plant community behaved like a single plant? A plant is an organism, so the plant community would be a super-organism.”

“I like analogies in our work, you know it. I admire imaginative suggestions! I wonder where your analogy will lead us,” she replied with a sparkle in her eyes.

“A plant is born, grows and matures. During its development it gradually changes, whereas when it matures it reaches a steady state. Moreover, when it matures it can reproduce.”

Edith nodded and Frederick continued to unfold his reasoning.

“What about a plant community, on the other hand? Doesn’t it also change gradually in a process of becoming mature? Small plants at first, then shrubs and small trees, and finally the forest which is the mature plant community; it undergoes no more changes and it is able to reproduce itself.”

“The plant community is your super-organism, Fritz,” Edith whispered. “It grows and reproduces like an organism does.”

“Look here, it matches our notes: when pine forests in areas with a similar climate get burned, the same plants always appear after the fire.”

Edith had a good look at the notes Frederick showed her. “If a forest is disturbed, say if it catches fire, it will start over. In the beginning small plants appear; the same every time. Small plants are followed by larger plants and years later we end up in the same forest. Nothing different can happen; the succession will always result in the same mature plant community, which will remain unchanged unless there is a disturbance. The final forest is the mature super-organism. As a mature organism, it does not grow anymore and the composition of the plants remains the same.”

“You are right, Fritz: your analogy fits well with our observations. It is clear that the plant community behaves like an organism,” Edith confirmed.

“Moreover, as we have observed in our travels, the mature plant community depends on the climate zone: plant communities that grow in areas with the same climate are composed of the same plants. Look at our notes from Hazen in Nevada, how they are similar to Transeau’s observations from Yarmouth in Nova Scotia: the same plant species in both forests even though they are miles apart.”

“This new approach of yours is very creative,” Edith said. “Maybe it’s worth discussing it in your new book.”

“More research needs to be done but I am very excited. I feel that the idea of plant communities as super-organisms explains very well our observations on ecological succession.”

The lamp Edith was holding went out. However, the first light of day had already begun to enter the house.

“It’s already dawn, Fritz. Let’s have our morning coffee. We may continue later.”

3.3.2 Panta Rhei

Victor Shelford entered his living room holding two cups of coffee. He offered one to his guest and he put the other on the low table in front of them.

“Have you been to Urbana before, Dr. Clements?” he asked and showed Frederick Clements the jar with the sugar with a polite nod.

“No, it’s my first time. I’d prefer you called me Frederick, if that’s ok with you, Dr. Shelford,” Frederick replied, adding some sugar to his coffee.

“Of course, Frederick. How long are you staying?”

“It will be just a short visit. I should be back to Washington D.C. by the day after tomorrow. Unfortunately, I cannot stay longer.”

“It’s a pity. I hope next time you’ll stay longer so I’ll have the chance to show you around.”

“Next time will be your turn to visit me in Washington D.C., Victor,” Frederick said smiling and moved the cup toward his lips.

“You know, Frederick, since I read your book on ecological succession of plant communities, I thought I would like us to coauthor a book. I thought it would be interesting to write an ecology book that would combine plant ecology, which you know so well, and animal ecology, which is my subject.”

“It has been a long time since that book, Victor.”

“Yes, but your conclusions remain valid.”

“I have received a lot of criticism about the concept of super-organism.”

“Are you referring to Cooper’s work? His disagreement was not very strong, as far as I can remember. Of course, it has been quite some time since I read his work.”

“Plant communities as super-organisms can only shift from lower to higher stages; not the other way around,” Frederick said.

“The development of a real organism is a one-way process, so the same should apply to a super-organism as well,” Victor agreed.

“Cooper mentions that a mature plant community, let’s say a forest, may end up in an area with shrubs and low vegetation in case of many months of overgrazing, for instance. He argues that in such cases succession does not appear to be developmental. He suggests focusing on vegetational changes rather than a developmental process of succession.”

“And you? What do you think about Cooper’s argument, Frederick?”

“I think what he discusses is actually a case of secondary succession; the mature plant community, the forest, was destroyed by overgrazing and then it started reproducing itself” Frederick explained.

“I think Tansley is also critical of the idea of super-organism. His criticism has to do with the initial and final stage of development of two plant communities. He states that two plant communities that are initially very different from each other (one starting in a swamp and the other on dry soil, for instance) can eventually develop into the same climax community, the same forest. However, this is something that does not happen to organisms and therefore should not happen to super-organisms either. So, Tansley as well, argues that it is wrong to consider a plant community as a super-organism.”

“It seems that you have given much thought to the idea of super-organism, Victor,” Frederick commented while adding a little more sugar to his cup.

“Well, I’m quite interested in it and of course I also did a bibliography search in view of our collaboration,” Victor replied.

“Look, Victor, the truth is that I have revised my original ideas about succession to some extent. In my more recent writings I do not insist on the concept of super-organism. I believe that the criticism I received is valid to some extent,” Frederick confessed to him.

“However, neither Tansley nor Cooper seems to disagree with the idea of climax community,” Victor said. “Would you care for more coffee?”, he asked Frederick, noticing that his guest’s cup was empty.

“Better not, thank you. Most plant ecologists accept the existence of climax communities. Our differences lie on the factors that influence their formation and on the details of ecological succession. As far as I know, the only one who makes suggestions that do not include climax communities is Gleason.”

“I don’t think I know him,” Victor said frowning.

“He does not publish ecological research anymore. He published a paper about ten years ago and, based on his findings from comparative observations and their statistical analysis, he suggested that there are no areas with the same plant composition. Every plant community, according to Gleason, is formed by the random coexistence of certain plant species. He argued that it is random which plants may arrive at a habitat by air or animals, and it is also random when and in what order such arrivals of species will occur. In other words, Gleason does not accept the existence of climax communities, i.e. stable mature communities, since he believes that the species of plants existing in an area are constantly changing. He actually disagrees with the idea of ecological succession.”

“Quite a heretical view, isn’t it?”.

“Yes, indeed,” Frederick agreed. “I read his work with great interest, but I cannot accept that chance plays such an important role, or that everything is constantly changing so much that it is not really possible to have stable mature communities. Although there are disagreements about the factors that influence the formation of climax communities, there is a lot of ecological research describing such communities in different contexts. That was probably the reason why Gleason’s ideas did not find supporters. In fact, it is even possible that he has withdrawn from ecological research by now. I have a long time to read something of him,” Frederick explained. “I think I would have some more coffee after all, if your offer is still on,” he finished his word approaching his cup to Victor who refilled it with pleasure.

“Sugar?”.

“Not this time, thanks,” Frederick replied taking a sip and looked at his watch. He took a second quick sip and left the cup on the table. “Please, forgive me but I really have to leave.”

“So hasty?”.

“I’m expecting a phone call from my wife at the hotel. I didn’t calculate correctly the time difference and I’m afraid I’m getting late.”

“Ok, then. Please, let me see you off,” Victor said and walked with Frederick to the front door of the house.

“Shall we meet tomorrow morning? What about visiting me at my office in the university? We can discuss the book and show you around the campus as well.”

“With great pleasure,” Frederick replied, already outside Victor’s home. “I was very happy to meet you and I have a good feeling about working together for the book.”

“Me too, Frederick. I will see you tomorrow,” Victor answered and closed the door when his new partner had already disappeared in the dark.

4 The Analysis of the Stories

Drawing on the work of Kubli (2005), who uses narrative theory to suggest that certain literary elements improve science stories, Norris et al. (2005) proposed the following eight features as essential to a science story: event-tokens, narrator, narrative appetite, past time, structure, agency, purpose, and role of the reader. Klassen (2009) adopted Norris et al.’s list and he also added the effect of the untold and irony, in order to shape his methodology for constructing and analyzing science stories. In the first part of this section, we present the analysis of our stories in the light of these essential elements, whereas in the second part we present the strategies we considered in creating the stories and we also provide some suggestions concerning their use in the classroom.

4.1 The Stories in Terms of Their Essential Features

4.1.1 Event Tokens and Past Time

Event tokens are chronologically and thematically related events that happen in specific place and time by specific actors (Norris et al., 2005). In “Inspiration cannot wait,” there are two characters, Frederick and Edith Clements, while a few other scientists’ names are mentioned in their dialogue. The setting of the story is the Clementses’ home around 1910s — before the publication of Clements’ “Plant Succession” (1916). The string of events occurring is the following: (a) Frederick Clements wakes up early in the morning and studies some notes on plant succession, (b) Edith Clements joins him and they study some notes on their field observations together, (c) Frederick Clements introduces Edith to the concept of the super-organismic-plant- community, (d) Edith Clements seems excited about her husband’s view, and (e) their lamp goes out and they stop working to have a cup of coffee.

In “Panta rhei,” there are two characters, Frederick Clements and Victor Shelford, while once again a few other scientists’ names are mentioned in their dialogue. The setting of the story is Shelford’s house around the 1930s — before the publication of the book “Bioecology” (1939) co-authored by Clements and himself. The string of events occurring is the following: (a) Frederick Clements visits Victor Shelford at his house to discuss the idea of co-authoring a book, (b) they discuss the concept of super-organismic-plant-community, referring to the criticism it has received by Cooper and Tansley, (c) Frederick Clements admits to have revised his original ideas on plant succession to some extent, (d) Clements presents the criticism he received by Gleason, and (e) Clements leaves in a hurry, in order to receive a scheduled phone call from his wife back to his hotel.

A story happens in the past. The narrator is concerned with past events that have happened in a specific sequence; however, they are free to change the order of the events in their narration (Norris et al., 2005). In both stories, the characters discuss events that have happened in the past, moving back and forth in time. For instance, in “Inspiration cannot wait,” Frederick and Edith Clements discuss their field observations and articles that have been written by scientists such as Cooper and Cowles. Similarly, in “Panta rhei,” Frederick Clements and Victor Shelford discuss the criticism Clements’ analogy between plant communities and organisms has received, and Clements refers to a more recent work of his, in which he has downgraded the super-organismic-plant-community concept.

4.1.2 Narrator

The narrator of a story is very powerful. Being the agent of the narrative, the narrator determines the theme of the story, as well as which events will be recounted and in which sequence (Norris et al., 2005). Both stories have an external narrator with a limited role since the stories develop mostly through the dialogue of their protagonists. The theme of the story in both cases is revealed through this dialogue. In “Inspiration cannot wait,” it concerns the analogy between plant communities and organisms that Frederick Clements discusses with his wife Edith Clements. On the other hand, in “Panta rhei,” the theme concerns the criticism against Clements’ analogy between plant communities and organisms, which resulted in Clements modifying his views on the super-organismic-plant-community concept.

4.1.3 The Role of the Reader and the Narrative Appetite

Readers are expected to recognize that the text in front of them is a narrative and read it through a “narrative lens” acquired by their previous experiences with narratives (Norris et al., 2005). In order to be able to grasp the meaning of a story, readers should become actively engaged in it and develop a need to know what happens next; in other words, develop a narrative appetite (Klassen, 2009; Norris & Phillips, 1994). In “Inspiration cannot wait,” readers follow Frederick Clements in a moment of inspiration concerning his new book on plant succession. Through his discussion with Edith Clements, readers learn the points of his analogy between plant communities and organisms and their desire to know more accumulates as his argument develops. In “Panta rhei,” readers learn about the criticism that the super-organismic-plant-community concept has received and they desire to know what Clements himself thinks about this criticism and whether his views remain unchanged despite it. The narrative appetite is considered to promote the active engagement of the reader. The same goes for the strategies we drew upon for the creation of our stories and we discuss later.

4.1.4 Structure and Agency

Many narratives are variations of the beginning-middle-end structure (Norris et al., 2005). In “Inspiration cannot wait,” the beginning-middle-end structure develops as follows: (a) Frederick Clements wakes up and Edith Clements joins him, (b) Frederick and Edith Clements discuss the analogy between plant communities and organisms, and (c) a lamp that goes out signals them to stop working and have a cup of coffee. The same way, in “Panta rhei,” the beginning-middle-end structure develops as follows: (a) Shelford welcomes Clements in his house offering to him a cup of coffee, (b) the two scientists discuss the criticism the super-organismic-plant-community concept has received and Clements’ response to it, and (c) the meeting ends when Clements realizes that he has to go back to his hotel in order to receive a phone call from his wife.

Characters appearing in stories are always moral agents, meaning that they make choices and they are responsible for them. Our stories are actually structured around the choices of their characters. For instance, Edith Clements chooses to join her husband who woke up early in the morning and she is willing to discuss with him the super-organismic-plant-community concept. Clements holds the responsibility for his ideas, which, as the readers learn in “Panta rhei,” have received criticism. Following this criticism, Clements chooses to modify his views downgrading the idea that plant communities behave as organisms, whereas Shelford chooses to co-author a book with Clements despite the criticism against his work.

4.1.5 Purpose

According to Coles (1989), stories aim to help readers understand something about the world they live in, i.e., stories have a specific point to make. The point of “Inspiration cannot wait” is to illustrate the creative process of developing the analogy between plant communities and organisms through the discussion of the Clementses. Making such a point, this story has the purpose of showing readers that scientists use both their logic and their creativity/imagination throughout scientific inquiry. On the other hand, in “Panta rhei,” there are two points that emerged: (a) that Clements and Cooper come up with different conclusions using the same data about the plant succession, and (b) that Clements has modified his views in the light of the criticism he received. Making such points, this story has the purpose of showing readers that (a) scientific knowledge may be modified in the presence of either new data or new interpretations of pre-existing ones, and (b) observation and inference are quite different scientific practices.

4.1.6 Effect of the Untold

Because of their short length, stories like “Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei” do not describe the events in detail. Being scattered in nature, such stories may enhance reader’s engagement since they encourage them to formulate questions which shall be answered later in the text (Klassen, 2009). For instance, when Frederick Clements, in “Inspiration cannot wait,” says that his idea could explain his observations on plant succession in a unified way, readers are expected to wonder how he is going to support this claim. Similarly, when readers learn in “Panta rhei” about the criticism Clements’ analogy between plant communities and organisms has received, they are expected to wonder how he has responded to that criticism. In both cases, readers can find answers to their questions by connecting several pieces of information as the story unfolds.

4.1.7 Irony

Sometimes stories develop differently than readers may think when they read the first lines. Irony may be an important element of narratives. However, Klassen (2009) argues that it is not as essential as the rest of the elements. In both “Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei,” irony does not have an important role.

4.2 Strategies Applied in Creating our Stories

Apart from the essential features that should be present in a literary science story, there are also suggested strategies that if adopted for creating or implementing such stories, they could improve the stories’ effectiveness as teaching and learning tools. For instance, Metz et al. (2007) suggested that in order to support students in deriving meaning from narratives in classroom, mediation is required at several points. Considering this, we created for each story a series of open-ended questions, as well as a companion with information on the characters and elements of the plot.

Moreover, Clough (2006) suggested that science stories should involve the scientists’ voices in order to shed light on science as a human enterprise. Our stories considerably apply this strategy since their largest part consists of the dialogue between the protagonists. “Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei” largely include two scientists’ voices in an effort to effectively illustrate the human side of science and introduce the target NOS aspects more authentically. The scientists’ human side is also illustrated through descriptions of their habits (e.g., drinking coffee) or their homes and offices, references to their everyday life relationships etc. The open-ended questions that accompany our stories are supposed to encourage students’ reflection on the NOS aspects illustrated in the stories, while the information on the characters within the companions attempt to illustrate even more their human side.

Metz et al. (2007) argued that an effective way to support students in order to make meaning out of a story is to encourage group work; reading in groups while keeping some form of a log or diary of their reflection is considered to be a good practice for meaning-making by students. We suggest that students read our stories in small groups of two or three and then discuss open-ended questions that are supposed to create a scaffold helping to explore the specific NOS aspects and finally reach the target conclusions about them.

So, in “Inspiration cannot wait,” students are supported in realizing the creativity that drove the emergence of Clements’ analogy and in acknowledging both its importance and its rule-status within science, aided by questions such as: “At the time when Frederick Clements investigated nature, the idea of ‘plant succession’ had already been formed in the context of plant communities and relevant papers had been published. However, Frederick Clements seems to be the first to propose the analogy between a plant community and a single organism. What element of his character did Frederick Clements use to foresee the analogy between a plant community and an organism? Do you think that the use of this element by Clements was an exception, or that it is an element that can be used frequently by scientists?”. Similarly, in “Panta rhei,” open-ended questions support students in considering making observations and making inferences as two distinct scientific practices (“How can the different conclusions of Cooper and Clements about the analogy between plant communities and organisms be explained, considering that their observations concern similar plant communities?”), as well as in realizing that scientific knowledge may be revised (or even abandoned) not necessarily in the light of new data (“Why did Clements modified his original ideas about the super-organismic-plant-community concept? Is revision of scientific knowledge an exception or is it the rule?”). Students’ collaborative reasoning while exploring the questions in groups may be facilitated by keeping notes or even creating concept maps. Every group is expected to answer the open-ended questions and we suggest that they share them with other groups in a whole-class discussion facilitated by the teacher at the end of the session.

5 Final Remarks

It has been suggested that NOS instruction should be treated as a crucial component of science training and should be prepared for and used accordingly (Rudge & Howe, 2009). The benefits of explicitly addressing NOS, namely, make NOS learning a purposeful, planned outcome of instruction rather than merely imply NOS aspects in science lessons (Fouad et al., 2015), have been demonstrated in a variety of contexts (Khishfe, 2022). Explicit NOS instruction entails deliberately focusing on specific NOS features, possibly with several contributions from the history of science (Khishfe, 2022). In fact, this is exactly what we aim at with stories in which past scientists appear to have informal conversations about their work. More specifically, in this paper, we argued that fiction talk stories like “Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei” may be used as effective tools for explicit instruction of NOS aspects. The use of imagination and creativity in doing science, the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, and the difference between scientific observations and inferences, as well as other NOS aspects, could be effectively illustrated through fictional, casual conversations of scientists like those in our stories. This is facilitated by the adoption of specific strategies such as applying group reading and open-ended questions that support students in exploring the NOS aspects in question, when creating or implementing such stories as part of teaching interventions (Clough, 2006; Klassen, 2009; Metz et al., 2007).

The stories we discussed here are not to be considered as thorough historical accounts of the development of the super-organismic-plant-community concept and the discussion this concept raised; in fact, this was never their aim. Allchin (2003, p. 342) underlined that “science teachers should not be professional historians”; Klassen (2009, p. 409) argued that historical narratives tend to include “creative details not directly from the historical record” and he went on discussing the (in)accuracy of his story about Louis Slotin (Klassen, 2009). We do not argue that the development of the analogy between plant communities and organisms was formulated in the precise context that is described in “Inspiration cannot wait,” nor that Clements and Shelford had a specific meeting in which they discussed the criticism Clements’ views received, precisely as it happens in “Panta rhei.” However, our stories do not include arguments that the main scientists, as well as those who are mentioned by them, had not made, or arguments that are in conflict with their original views. On the contrary, to the best of our knowledge, the conversations are accurate as far as it concerns their science content. Furthermore, we do suggest that the fictional character of the conversations between the Clements and between Clements and Shelford, i.e., the fact that these exact conversations were not actually drawn directly from the historical record of science but were created as fiction talk stories, albeit historically informed, for promoting NOS understanding, should be explicitly shared with students after having completed their work with our stories.

“Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei” are part of a three-story sequence that covers the ideas of socio-cultural embeddedness, creativity, and tentativeness of science, as well as the difference between scientific observations and inferences (see also Ampatzidis & Ergazaki, 2023). The three stories can be used separately or together in NOS teaching and learning. Of course, collecting empirical data about how these stories work in a classroom is essential. So, the next phase of our project includes a case study in which we implement all the three stories as a unit, in order to test whether and how they can help students improve their understanding about the target NOS aspects.

It is probably worth noticing that “Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei” might also be used in the teaching of plant succession. The stories might serve as a context for introducing students in the work of Clements, Tansley, Cooper and Gleason on plant communities and for enhancing their motives to learn more about it. Moreover, they might also serve as a context for highlighting important ecological concepts like the two-way relationship between living organisms and their abiotic environment, or randomness as an inherent element in the way nature works. Enriching the companion to each story with more scientific content and having students collaborate in answering conceptually oriented open-ended questions might transform our stories from NOS-teaching tools to tools for the teaching of ecological concepts. In other words, our stories might be used as “door openers” (Klassen, 2009; Kubli, 2005) to ecology instruction, aiming to provide students with reasons to learn and make their new knowledge more memorable.

To summarize, we argued that “Inspiration cannot wait” and “Panta rhei” can be used to teach (a) about the role of imagination and creativity in science, the tentativeness of scientific knowledge, and the difference between scientific observations and inferences, as well as (b) about plant succession. We attempted to describe their characteristics and their intended use in the classroom by providing a thorough analysis of their creation. However, it is obvious that our stories require empirical evaluation before they may be considered as well-informed teaching–learning suggestions. As a result, the next step of our research project will focus on gathering empirical evidence regarding how our stories may function in real classes.