Developing a proper view of the nature of science (NOS) amongst teachers and students has been the goal of science education for decades. This article discusses an innovative activity designed for training preservice science teachers on NOS. We endorse an approach according to which several aspects of NOS can be explicitly discussed and explained. This activity is an extended version of a tangram activity introduced by Choi (2004). Aside from introducing NOS elements covered by Choi, our tangram activity also introduces the following elements: (1) theories are valid products of science, (2) the role of subjectivity and bias in science, (3) the importance of scientific community in science, (4) prediction is part of science, and (5) creativity and imagination are important in science. The activity can be used decontextualized (i.e., as a stand-alone lesson) in science methods classes, but it also has high potential to be contextualized within content related to the history of science. In this article, we provide procedures for using an analogy activity (the tangram activity) and explain how to connect each part to NOS elements. This activity was tested successfully in several science methods courses, a NOS course, and two professional development workshops.
Innovations Journal articles, beyond each issue's featured article, are included with ASTE membership. If your membership is current please login at the upper right.
Bell, R. L. (2009). Teaching the nature of science: Three critical questions. In Best Practices in Science Education [Monograph]. National Geographic School Publishing. http://www.ngspscience.com/profdev/monographs/scl22-0449a_sci_am_bell_lores.pdf
Ben‐Zvi, N., & Genut, S. (1998). Uses and limitations of scientific models: The periodic table as an inductive tool. International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200307
Bohr, N. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. Wiley.
Chalmers, A. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd ed.). Hackett Publishing Company.
Choi, J. (2004, August). “The Nature of Science”: An activity for the first day of class. http://www.scienceteacherprogram.org/genscience/Choi04.html
Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3–5), 205–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3
Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J., & Vergara, C. A. (2018). Theory, evidence, and examples about teaching nature of science and biology using history of science: A Chilean experience. In M. E. de Brzezinski Prestes & C. C. Silva (Eds.), Teaching science with context: Historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches (pp. 65–84). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74036-2_5
Dorsah, P. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ view of nature of science (NOS). European Journal of Education Studies, 7(6), 124–146. https://oapub.org/edu/index.php/ejes/article/view/3124/5761
Hazen, R. M. (2002, December). Why should you be scientifically literate? actionbioscience.org. Retrieved February 7, 2015, from http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/hazen.html
Institute of Physics. (n.d.). The Millikan story – a tale of mixed results. https://spark.iop.org/millikan-story-tale-mixed-results#gref
Justi, R., & Mendonça, P. C. C. (2016). Discussion of the controversy concerning a historical event among pre-service teachers. Science & Education, 25(7–8), 795–822. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9846-2
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.) Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. 4 (pp. 91–196). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.009
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–880). Erlbaum.
Lederman, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). Avoiding de-natured science: Activities that promote understandings of the nature of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and Strategies (pp. 83–126). Kluwer Academic.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
McComas, W. F. (2020). Principal elements of nature of science: Informing science teaching while dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 35–65). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_3
McComas, W. F., & Clough, M. P. (2020). Nature of science in science instruction: Meaning, advocacy, rationales, and recommendations. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), Nature of science in science instruction: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57239-6_1
McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The role and character of the nature of science in science education. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 3–39). Kluwer Academic.
Melo, É., & Bächtold, M. (2018). A theater-based device for training teachers on the nature of science. Science & Education, 27(9–10), 963–986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0009-5
Morrison, J. A., Raab, F., & Ingram, D. (2009). Factors influencing elementary and secondary teachers’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(4), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20252
Moss, D. M., Abrams, E. D., & Robb, J. (2001). Examining student conceptions of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 771–790. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690010016030
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290
Nouri, N., Saberi, M., McComas, W. F., & Mohammadi, M. (2021). Proposed teacher competencies to support effective nature of science instruction: A meta-synthesis of the literature. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(6), 601–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1871206
Okasha, S. (2002). Philosophy of science: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Wahbeh, N., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2014). Revisiting the Translation of Nature of Science Understandings into Instructional Practice: Teachers’ nature of science pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Science Education, 36(3), 425–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.786852