Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dramaturgical analysis of Boyle and Hobbes in developing NOS-based chemistry teaching materials for pre-service teachers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cultural Studies of Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, teaching materials related to the history of science (HOS) related to the Boyle–Hobbes debate were developed through the analytical lens of framing theory. Further, this study developed the teaching materials for learning the social-institutional aspects of the reconceptualized family resemblance approach (FRA) to the nature of science (NOS)—(RFN)—emphasizing the social and institutional aspects of scientific practice. For this purpose, the following three research questions were investigated in this study. First, the Boyle–Hobbes debate was re-examined using Goffman’s dramatic frame analysis; second, teaching materials corresponding to RFN were developed as a result of the reexamined Boyle–Hobbes debate; third, with the educational materials developed from this perspective, a curriculum was proposed to solidify the educational effects. This study suggests that the drama of the Boyle–Hobbes debate can serve as a rich source for concrete teaching materials concerning the hitherto-overlooked social-institutional aspects of RFN.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, D. (2017). Beyond the consensus view: Whole science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(1), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS]. (1990). Science for all Americans.

  • Aragón-Méndez, M. D. M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2019). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 525–555. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9868-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L., & Hammer, D. (2012). Framing for scientific argumentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 68–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R. (1660). New experiments physico-mechanical, touching the spring of the air. In T. Birch (Ed.), The works of the honourable Robert Boyle I (pp. 1–170). J & F Rivington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, R. (1661). The history of fluidity and firmness. In T. Birch (Ed.), The works of the honourable Robert Boyle I (pp. 377–442). J & F Rivington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiu, M.-H., & Lin, J.-W. (2019). Modeling competence in science education. Discipline and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0012-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clough, M. P. (2007). Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: questions rather than tenets, the Pantaneto forum. California Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 31–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Why does it matter? Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-015-9800-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLiema, D., Enyedy, N., & Danish, J. A. (2019). Roles, rules, and keys: How different play configurations shape collaborative science inquiry. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2019.1675071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimopoulos, K., Koulaidis, V., & Sklaveniti, S. (2003). Towards an analysis of visual images in school science textbooks and press articles about science and technology. Research in Science Education, 33, 189–216. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025006310503

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, G. A., & Manning, P. (2003). Erving Goffman. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to major contemporary social theorists (pp. 34–62). Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. A. (1962). Henry more and Robert Boyle on the spirit of nature. Journal of the History of Ideas, 23(4), 451–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. B. (1958). Robert Boyle and seventeenth-century chemistry. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A. R. (1983). The revolution in science 1500–1750. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. J. (2004). Modest witness@secondmillennium. The Haraway reader (pp. 223–250). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1661). Dialogus physicus de natura aeris, conjectura sum pta ab experimentis nuper Londini habitis in Collegio Greshamensi Item de duplicatione cubi. In W. Molesworth, S. Shapin, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The English works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (pp. 233–296). John Bohn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9293-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, G., Hwang, S., & Chung, Y. (2015). Analysis of the nature of science in the history of science section in middle school science textbooks based on the 2009 revised national curriculum. Journal of Research in Curriculum & Instruction, 19(2), 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom.’ International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/095006900416875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(9–10), 1115–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9861-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., Lee, Y. H., & Min, B. (2016). Analysis of the presentation for the nature of science (NOS) in life science chapters of the 2009 revised middle school science textbooks. Biology Education, 44(1), 25–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y., & Lym, K. (1999). The new introduction of the history of science. Dasan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötter, M., & Hammann, M. (2017). Controversy as a blind spot in teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 26(5), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9913-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kargon, R. H. (1966). Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290404

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Coffey, J. (2009). Novice teachers’ attention to student thinking. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108330245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinich, A. P. (1997). Thomas Hobbes. St. Martin’s Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research. Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (2000). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), the nature of science in science education (pp. 41–52). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, S. (1972). Hobbes Thomas. Dictionary of scientific biography (pp. 444–451). Charles Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 Revised Science Curriculum.

  • Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. S. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators: Perspectives on natural and social science (pp. 10–37). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, A., Cook, K., & Buck, G. (2011). Framing evolution discussion intellectually. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48, 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paik, S. H., & Han, S. H. (2018). If you know the history of chemistry, you can see chemistry. Emotionbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. Y., Yang, S. R., & Song, J. W. (2019). When modern physics meets nature of science: The representation of Nature of Science in general relativity in new Korean physics textbooks. Science & Education, 28(10), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00075-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raveendran, A., & Srivastava, H. (2019). Building consensus views or interrogating metanarratives? Musings on teaching the nature of science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2019(14), 569–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-018-9878-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, S. L., & Barton, A. C. (2012). Should Great Lakes City build a new power plant? How youth navigate socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 541–567. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolvanen, S., Jansson, J., Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2014). How to use historical approach to teach nature of science in chemistry education? Science & Education, 23(8), 1605–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9646-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yacoubian, H. A. (2012). Towards a philosophically and a pedagogically reasonable nature of science curriculum. University of Alberta.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2022S1A5C2A04092614).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Liberal Arts, Hansung University, Seoul, 02876, South Korea

    Hyunshik Ju

  2. Department of Chemistry Education, Convergence Education Research Institute, Korea National University of Education, Taesung Topyenro 250, Gangnae Myun, Chungwon Gun, Chungbuk, 28173, South Korea

    Seoung-Hey Paik

Authors
  1. Hyunshik Ju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Seoung-Hey Paik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seoung-Hey Paik.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: RFN Questionnaire (Kaya, Erduran, Aksoz and Akgun 2019): ○- affirmative ●-negative

Appendix 1: RFN Questionnaire (Kaya, Erduran, Aksoz and Akgun 2019): ○- affirmative ●-negative

Social–institutional aspects

7. Science takes place in institutions such as universities and research centers. ○

9. Science is a social system. ○

13. Politics does not influence science. ●

18. Scientists don’t have to share their research with society. ●

32. Scientists need money to do research. ○

34. All scientific disciplines such as physics, biology, and chemistry produce values that can contribute to society. ○

39. Intellectual honesty in science does not have to be taught in science lessons. ●

41. Policies of governments affect the growth of scientific knowledge. ○

45. Some scientists earn more money than others, causing tension between scientists. ○

48. Race and ethnicity of scientists have nothing to do with science. ○

53. Scientists write papers in academic journals. ○

58. Scientists participate in conferences to share their research with other scientists. ○

67. There are social hierarchies among science teams and these can change. ○

70. Scientists interact socially with other scientists while doing research. ○

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ju, H., Paik, SH. Dramaturgical analysis of Boyle and Hobbes in developing NOS-based chemistry teaching materials for pre-service teachers. Cult Stud of Sci Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-024-10216-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-024-10216-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation