Abstract
Hodson and Wong (2017, this issue) argue that, though the nature of science (NOS) is now an established focus of school science education and a key element in defining scientific literacy, “the consensus view” of NOS misrepresents contemporary scientific practice. They then propose a number of alternative approaches to science curriculum building. I agree with Hodson and Wong’s criticism of the consensus view of NOS. I also like many aspects of their proposals and believe that they would enrich the curriculum and present students with a much more realistic picture of science. But I have an important reservation about these proposals. Hodson and Wong’s view of NOS is largely ahistorical in that they seem to focus only on contemporary science. Such a focus may lead to a distorted picture of science and its history, portraying science as little more than a mirror image of contemporary science. In order to understand the nature of science, it is vital to learn its history. I conclude by briefly commenting on the role that the history, philosophy, and sociology of science should play in shaping a vision for science education that would inspire creativity, open-mindedness, critical thinking, and respect for different cultures and conceptions of the world.
Résumé
Hodson et Wong affirment que, bien que la nature des sciences/nature of science (NOS) soitmaintenant un aspect reconnu de l’enseignement des sciences à l’école et un élément clé dans la définition de la culture scientifique, le consensus dominant enNOSdonne une fausse représentation des pratiques scientifiques contemporaines. Les auteurs proposent donc d’autres approches pour le développement des curriculums. Je suis d’accord avec leur critique du consensus. J’apprécie de nombreux éléments de leurs propositions, qui à mon avis pourraient enrichir le curriculum et présenter aux étudiants une vision beaucoup plus réaliste des sciences. Cela dit, j’ai aussi de sérieux doutes, car la conception qu’ont Hodson et Wong de la nature des sciences est en grande partie non-historique, centrée principalement sur les sciences contemporaines. Cela risque de donner une vision déformée des sciences et de l’histoire des sciences, dont le portrait ne serait ici que le miroir des sciences contemporaines. Afin de comprendre la « nature des sciences », il est essentiel d’en connaître l’histoire. Je termine par un bref commentaire sur le rôle que devraient jouer l’histoire, la philosophie et la sociologie des sciences dans une conception de l’enseignement des sciences capable de favoriser la créativité, l’ouverture d’esprit, la pensée critique et le respect des différentes cultures et visions du monde.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alexander, H. G. (Ed.). (1998). The Leibniz-Clarke correspondence: Together with extracts from Newton’s Principia and Optiks. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press. (Original work published 1956).
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact (T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton, eds., F. Bradley & T. J. Trenn, trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1935).
Fleck, L. (1986). The problem of epistemology. In R. S. Cohen & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact:Materials on Lud wik Fleck (pp. 79–112). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: D. Reidel. (Original work published 1936).
Galilei, G. (1960). Il saggiatore, (the assayer). In The controversy of the comets of 1618 (S. Drake, trans.). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. (Original work published 1623).
Gascoigne, J. (2006). The nature of study. In K. Haakonssen (Ed.), The Cambridge history of eighteenth-century philosophy (pp. 854–872). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Golinski, J. (2005). Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Henry, J. (1997). The scientific revolution and the origins of modern science. Palgrave: MacMillan.
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.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1962).
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). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Sandoval, W. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656.
Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83(4), 493–509.
Smith, P. (2009). Science on the move: Recent trends in the history of early modern science. Renaissance Quarterly, 62(2), 345–375.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berkovitz, J. Some Reflections on “Going Beyond the Consensus View” of the Nature of Science in K–12 Science Education. Can. J. Sci. Math. Techn. Educ. 17, 37–45 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271927
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271927