Abstract
Erduran and Dagher’s (2014) account of the Family Resemblance Approach (FRA) to Nature of Science (NOS) is a relatively new framework that frames NOS in a holistic fashion, inclusive of cognitive-epistemic and social-institutional aspects. This approach has also been referred to as the “Reconceptualized Family Resemblance Approach to Nature of Science” or shortly “RFN” by Kaya and Erduran (Science & Education, 25, 1115–1133, 2016) to differentiate it from a philosophical account of FRA. The premise of FRA is to portray science holistically in science classrooms. This study aimed to develop an instructional sequence based on RFN, investigating its effectiveness on 5th-grade students’ understanding of NOS and their ability to attain NOS-related learning goals. Employing a quasi-experimental, convergent parallel mixed method study design, 13 weeks of intervention were conducted with regular or RFN-based instruction in control and experimental groups, respectively. Participants were 64 female 5th-grade (10–11 years of age) students from Turkey. RFN Student Questionnaire was implemented before, after, and two months after the intervention. More data were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews before and after the intervention and collecting activity sheets and quizzes throughout the term. Mixed ANOVA results showed that the development of experimental students’ understanding of NOS from pre-test to post-test was significantly better than their peers in terms of total and category-based scores except for the aims and values of science and scientific practices categories. Analysis of student interviews and the attainment of RFN-based learning goals supported these results. Only one incongruence was found, and that was in terms of the scientific practices category. Overall, the study has implications for integrating a holistic account of NOS in secondary science education.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.
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, 417–436.
Akbayrak, M., & Kaya, E. (2020). Fifth-grade students’ understanding of social-institutional aspects of science. International Journal of Science Education, 42(11), 1834-1861.
Akerson, V., & Donnelly, L. A. (2010). Teaching nature of science to K-2 students: What understandings can they attain? International Journal of Science Education, 32(1), 97–124.
Akerson, V. L., Buck, G. A., Donnelly, L. A., Nargund-Joshi, V., & Weiland, I. S. (2011). The importance of teaching and learning nature of science in the early childhood years. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(5), 537–549.
Akerson, V., Nargund-Joshi, V., Weiland, I., Pongsanon, K., & Avsar, B. (2014). What third-grade students of differing ability levels learn about nature of science after a year of instruction. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 244–276.
Akerson, V. L., Carter, I., Pongsanon, K., & Nargund-Joshi, V. (2019). Teaching and learning nature of science in elementary classrooms. Science & Education, 28, 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00045-1
Akgun, S., & Kaya, E. (2020). How do university students perceive the nature of science?. Science & Education, 29(2), 299–330.
Alayoğlu, M. (2018). Fifth grade students’ attitudes towards science and their understanding of its social-institutional aspects. (Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
Allchin, D. (2011). Evaluating knowledge of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542.
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
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.
Bagci Kilic, G., Metin, D., Yardimci, E., & Berkyurek, I. (2007). Dogada bilim egitimi. I. Ulusal İlköğretim Kongresi, Hacettepe Universitesi, Ankara. http://www.ilkkongre.hacettepe.edu.tr/?sayfa=program.
Bell, P., & Linn, M. C. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 797–817.
BouJaoude, S., Dagher, Z. R., & Refai, S. (2017). The portrayal of nature of science in Lebanese 9th grade science books. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El-Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 79–97). Routledge.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Cilekrenkli, A. (2019). Teaching reconceptualized family resemblance approach to nature of science in lower secondary classroom [Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University]. Ulusal tez merkezi. https://tez.yok.gov.tr
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Research design: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
Deng, F., Chen, D. T., Tsai, C. C., & Chai, C. S. (2011). Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education, 95(6), 961–999.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Open University Press.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Springer.
Hacking, I. (1996). The disunities of the sciences. In P. Galison & D. Stump (Eds.), The Disunity of Science (pp. 37–74). Stanford University Press.
Hodson, D. (1992). Redefining and reorienting practical work in school science. School Science Review, 73(264), 65–78.
Hodson, D., & Wong, S. L. (2017). Going beyond the consensus view: Broadening and enriching the scope of NOS-oriented curricula. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 3–17.
Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Springer.
Karabaş, N. (2017). The effect of scientific practice-based instruction on seventh graders’ perceptions of scientific practices (Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, Turkey). Retrieved from https://tez.yok.gov.tr/
Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for science curriculum analysis on nature of science. Science & Education, 25(10), 1115–1133.
Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Akgun, S., & Aksoz, B. (2017). Öğretmen eğitiminde bilimin doğası: Bütünsel bir yaklaşım. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen Ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi, 11(2), 464–501.
Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1529447
Khishfe, R. (2008). The development of seventh graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(4), 470–496.
Khisfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective views versus implicit‘inquiry orientated’ instruction on sixth graders views of the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578
Klopfer, L. E., & Cooley, W. W. (1963). The history of science cases for high schools in the development of student understanding of science and scientists: A report on the HOSG instruction project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1(1), 33–47.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cam- bridge University Press.
Leach, J., Driver, R., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1997). A study of progression in learning about ‘the nature of science’: Issues of conceptualisation and methodology. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069970190202
Leden, L. & Hansson, L. (2017). Nature of science progression in school year 1–9: A case study of teachers’ suggestions and rationales. Research in Science Education, 49(2), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9628-0.
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.
Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bell, R. (2001). Pre-service teachers’ understanding and teaching of nature of science: An intervention study. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150109556458
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El- Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire (VNOS): Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Smith, M. U. (2019). Teaching nature of scientific knowledge to kindergarten through university students. Science & Education, 28(3), 197–203.
Lonsbury, J. G., & Ellis, J. D. (2002). Science history as a means to teach nature of science concepts: Using the development of understanding related to mechanisms of inheritance. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 7(2), 1–42. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7703/5470.
Mackay, L. D. (1971). Development of understanding about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 8(1), 57–66.
Matthews, M. R. (1992). History, philosophy, and science teaching: The present rapprochement. Science & Education, 1(1), 11–47.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In Khine M.S. (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research, (pp 3–26). Springer, Dordrecht.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_4
Metz, K. E. (1995). Reassessment of developmental constraints on children’s science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 93–127.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi (2006). İlkogretim fen ve teknoloji dersi (6., 7. ve 8. Siniflar) ogretim programi. Ankara.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi (2013). İlkogretim fen bilimleri dersi (3., 4., 5., 6., 7. ve 8. Siniflar) ogretim programi. Ankara.
Milli Egitim Bakanligi (MEB). (2018). İmam hatip ortaokulu haftalık ders çizelgesi. https://dogm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_04/10184831_20180015_06_YHO_Haftalik_Cizelge_2018-2019.pdf.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscut- ting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Appendix H. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards, accessed at April 2018.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). Development of an instrument to assess secondary school students understanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Science Education, 62(4), 449–458.
Rubba, P. A. (1977). Nature of scientific knowledge scale: Test and users' manual. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 146225).
Sawyer, R. K. (2014). The future of learning: Grounding educational innovation in the learning sciences. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp 1–19). Cambridge University Press.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Smith, S. W., Daunic, A. P., & Taylor, G. G. (2007). Treatment fidelity in applied educational research: Expanding the adoption and application of measures to ensure evidence-based practice. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(4), 121–134.
van Griethuijsen, R. A., van Eijck, M. W., Haste, H., den Brok, P. J., Skinner, N. C., Mansour, N., & BouJaoude, S. (2015). Global patterns in students’ views of science and interest in science. Research in Science Education, 45(4), 581–603.
Yacoubian, H. A., & BouJaoude, S. (2010). The effect of reflective discussions following inquiry-based laboratory activities on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(10), 1229–1252.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the science teacher who taught both classes and the students in these classes for their participation and for providing data used in the paper.
Funding
The authors wish to thank the Bogazici University Research Fund (Project Number 14922) for their financial contribution.
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.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 RFN Student Questionnaire
Please note that the questionnaire is a translation of the original in Turkish. It has not been adapted and validated in English. It is provided here for contextualizing the results reported in the paper.
We kindly ask you to read each item carefully and express your answer by putting an (X) in the appropriate place. If there is an expression that you do not fully understand, please indicate it next to it. You must answer all the questions.
Strongly disagree (1) | Disagree (2) | Neither agree nor disagree (3) | Agree (4) | Strongly agree (5) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Scientific knowledge does not change. | |||||
2. Scientists examine and evaluate each other's work. | |||||
3. Experiments are reliable because they have been extensively repeated by scientists. | |||||
4. Science takes place in institutions such as universities and research centers. | |||||
5. The same scientific method is used in all branches of science such as physics, chemistry and biology (for example, when working on different subjects such as microscopic living things, animals, the structure of matter and force). | |||||
6. Science is affected by social relations between people and society. | |||||
7. Progress in science occurs when scientists review and evaluate scientific knowledge. | |||||
8. Scientists should respect the environment. | |||||
9. Examination and interpretation of scientific data (research results) are some of the scientific practices (applications). | |||||
10. Theories and laws are types of scientific knowledge; but models (for example, shape, symbol or picture) are not a type of scientific knowledge. | |||||
11. Scientists do not have to share their research with the public. | |||||
12. Scientific models (for example, shape, symbol, or picture) make it easier for us to understand complex scientific ideas. | |||||
13. Observation is used in all branches of science. | |||||
14. When solving problems, scientists have to use different methods to find enough evidence. | |||||
15. Scientists need money to do research. | |||||
16. Classifying (for example, classifying living things) helps scientists explain and predict events. | |||||
17. New methods and technologies (like cloning) produced by science can create new value judgments in societies. | |||||
18. The gender of scientists influences how they do science. | |||||
19. If scientists cannot prove their ideas by scientific methods such as experiment and observation, they should change their thinking. | |||||
20. Decisions taken by states affect the development of scientific knowledge. | |||||
21. Scientific models (such as the solar system model) are tools that represent real-world phenomena, entities, and situations. | |||||
22. Some scientists making more money than others causes tension among scientists. | |||||
23. Scientific knowledge is not affected by the personal opinions of scientists. | |||||
24. The races and nationalities of scientists do not affect science. | |||||
25. Theories, laws and models work together to form scientific knowledge. | |||||
26. Scientists use the same scientific practices (such as experiments, observations, data collection and models) when working in different branches of science such as physics, biology and chemistry (for example, on different subjects such as microscopic living things, animals, the structure of matter and force). | |||||
27. Scientists write scientific articles in academic journals. | |||||
28. Some of the theories have been accepted, while others are still being debated. | |||||
29. The formation process of scientific knowledge is not affected by values such as objectivity and material expectations of scientists. | |||||
30. Scientists attend conferences to share their research with other scientists. | |||||
31. For a study to be considered scientific, scientists must have hypotheses (expectations) about the outcome at the beginning of the study. | |||||
32. The reliability of scientific studies is evaluated according to certain standards such as objectivity and sufficient evidence. | |||||
33. Theory, laws, and models help scientists explain and predict events. | |||||
34. Laws are more verifiable scientific information than theories. | |||||
35. Scientists use different methods such as experimentation and observation according to the question they are researching. | |||||
36. Scientists communicate with other scientists while doing research. | |||||
37. Scientific studies can only be done by changing the variables. |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Çilekrenkli, A., Kaya, E. Learning Science in Context: Integrating a Holistic Approach to Nature of Science in the Lower Secondary Classroom. Sci & Educ 32, 1435–1469 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00336-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00336-0