Abstract
An integrative, perspective-directed, and practical approach to teaching the nature of science is elaborated in this contribution. The approach is integrative in the sense that students reflect on general and domain-specific aspects of knowledge development. In order to do this, students contribute to knowledge development using domain-specific perspectives that guide them in formulating questions as well as answers and criteria to assess those answers. The approach is practical in the sense that three heuristics were developed that offer teachers practical design support for redesigning their regular lessons into integrative, perspective-based lessons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Allchin, D. (2012). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry cases for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21, 1263–1282.
Allchin, D. (2013). Teaching the Nature of Science: Perspectives and Resources. St Paul: SHiPS Education Press.
Allchin, D., Andersen, H. M., & Nielsen, K. (2014). Complementary approaches to teaching nature of science: Integrating student inquiry, contemporary cases and historical cases in classroom practice. Science Education, 98, 461–486.
Bickhard, M. H., & Campbell, D. T. (2003). Variations in variation and selection: The ubiquity of the variation-and-selective-retention ratchet in emergent organizational complexity. Foundations of Science, 8(3), 215–282.
Bunge, M. (2006). Chasing reality: Strife over realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Burnet, F. M. (1957). A modification of Jerne’s theory of antibody production using the concept of clonal selection. The Australian Journal of Science, 20(3), 67–69.
Callebaut, W. (2012). Scientific perspectivism: A philosopher of science’s response to the challenge of big data biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 69–80.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.
Giere, R. N. (2010a). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Giere, R. N. (2010b). An agent-based conception of models and scientific representation. Synthese, 172(2), 269–281.
Green, S., Levy, A., & Bechtel, W. (2015). Design sans adaptation. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 15–29.
Hodson, D. (2014). Nature of science in the science curriculum: Origin, development, implications and shifting emphases. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 911–970). Dordrecht: Springer.
Janssen, F. J. J. M., & van Berkel, B. (2015). Making philosophy of science education practical for science teachers. Science & Education, 24(3), 229–258.
Janssen, F. J. J. M., & Waarlo, A. J. (2010). Learning biology by designing. Journal of Biological Education, 44(2), 88–92.
Janssen, F. J. J. M., Westbroek, H. B., Doyle, W., & van Driel, J. H. (2013). How to make innovations practical. Teachers College Record, 115(7), 1–43.
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.
Kuipers, T. A. (2007). Laws, theories and research programs. In D. M. Gabbay, P. Thagard, J. Woods, & T. A. Kuipers (Eds.), General philosophy of science: Focal issues (pp. 1–97). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education, Vol 2 (30) (pp. 600–620). New York: Routledge.
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.
McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–263.
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2001). Catalytic creativity: The case of Linus Pauling. American Psychologist, 56(4), 337.
Niaz, M. (2011). From ‘Science in the Making’ to Understanding the Nature of Science. An Overview for Science Educators. Routledge.
Pauling, L. (1940). A theory of the structure and process of formation of antibodies. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 62(10), 2643–2657.
Popper, K. (1973). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. In J. J. Schwab & P. F. Brandwein (Eds.), The teaching of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Silverstein, A. M. (2009). A history of immunology. Academic Press.
Thagard, P. (2012). The cognitive science of science: Explanation, discovery and conceptual change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: Piecewise approximations to reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Janssen, F., Westbroek, H., Landa, I., van der Ploeg, B., Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. (2020). Perspectives for Teaching About How Science Works. In: McComas, W.F. (eds) Nature of Science in Science Instruction. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-57238-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-57239-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)