Abstract
An appropriate understanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise (NOSE) is a key element of scientific literacy and can arguably be influenced through an exploration of the history of science. An elective, undergraduate History of Science course was organized in the form of small-group discussion-based inquiries into the history of science from ancient to modern times. Group discussions focused on STATEMENTS OF CRITICAL SIGNIFICANCE (SOCS) prepared by individual students on assigned readings prior to each class meeting. Small-group discussions were followed by a synthesis, facilitated by the instructor, of points raised in SOCS and other ideas central to the reading. The overarching goal of these activities was to help students see the multifaceted nature of the scientific enterprise in the context of social, political, cultural, and religious milieu of the time period and the geographic setting within which specific scientific activities and developments took place. The impact of this course on student understanding of the NOSE was assessed through the use of VIEWS ON SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY-SOCIETY (VOSTS) instrument administered as pre- and post-test. Qualitative data regarding student understanding of the NOSE were furnished by the final exam on the NOSE written in the form of SOCS at the end of semester. Results based on four semesters of the course offering indicate modest gains in student understanding of specific aspects of the NOSE. They are discussed, along with the usefulness of small-group, discussion-based inquiries into the history of science as a way of enhancing scientific literacy during undergraduate science education.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abd-El-Khalick, F. & Lederman, N.G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.
Aikenhead, G.S., Fleming, R.W. & Ryan, A.G. (1987). High school graduates’ beliefs about science-technology-society I: Methods and issues in monitoring student views. Science Education, 71, 145–161.
Aikenhead, G.S. & Ryan, A.G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on science-technology-society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76, 477–491.
Aikenhead, G.S. & Ryan, A.G. (1993). Evaluation of views of high school graduates on STS topics. In R.E. Yager (Ed.), What research says to the science teacher, Vol. 7 (The science, technology, society movement) (pp. 23–33). Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Aikenhead, G.S., Ryan, A.G. & Fleming, R.W. (1989). Views on science-technology-society. Form CDN.mc.5, Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 0W0, Canada.
Alioto, A.M. (1993). A history of Western sience, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (1994). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brickhouse, N. (1990). Teachers’ beliefs about the nature of science and their relation to classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 53–62.
Clough, M.P. (1994). A formative evaluation of Biology in the Community (BIOCCOM). Unpublished doctoral disertation, University of Iowa Science Education Centre, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Conant, J.B. (1957). Harvard case histories in experimental science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dawkins, K.R. & Vitale, M.R. (1999). Using historical cases to change teachers’ understandings and practices related to the nature of science. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference, March 1999. Boston, MA, USA.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R. & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Duschl, R.A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gallagher, J.J. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science education, 75, 121–134.
Gastel, B. (1983). Presenting science to the public. Philadelphia, PA: ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Press.
George, M.D., Bragg, S., de los Santos, A.G. Jr., Denton, D.D., Gerber, P., Lindquist, M.M., Rosser, J.M., Sanchez, D.A. & Meyers, C. (1996). Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Halyard, R.A. (1993). Introductory science courses: The SCST position statement. Journal of College Science Teaching, 23, 29–31.
Irwin, A.R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84, 5–26.
Klopfer, L.E. (1969). The teaching of science and the history of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 6, 87–95.
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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 1, 33–47.
Lin, H. & Chen, C. (2002). Promoting preservice chemistry teachers’ understanding about the nature of science through history. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 773–792.
Matthews, M.R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge Press.
Matthews, M.R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 161–174.
National Research Council (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (1992–1993). National Science Teachers Association Handbook. Washington, DC: National Science Teachers Association.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R. & Duschl, R. (2003). What “Ideas-about-Science” should be taught in school science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 692–720.
Pollack, A. (2000). We can engineer nature. But should we? The New York Times (on the Web), February 6, 2000.
Riley, J.P., II. (1979). The influence of hands-on science process training on preservice teachers’ acquisition of process skills and attitude toward science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16, 373–384.
Rowland, F.S. (1993). President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Science, 260, 1571–1576.
Rubba, P.A., Bradford, C.S. & Harkness, W.J. (1996). A new scoring procedure for the views on science-technology-society instrument. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 387–400.
Rubba, P.A. & Harkness, W.J. (1993). Examination of pre-service and in-service secondary science teachers’ beliefs about science-technology-society interactions. Science Education, 77, 407–431.
Russell, T.L. (1981). What history of science, how much, and why? Science Education, 65, 51–64.
Scharmann, L.C. (1990). Enhancing the understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 91–100.
Slaughter, J.B. (1993). Science and social consciousness. Journal of College Science Teaching, 22, 204–205.
Soloman, J., Duveen, J., Scot, L. & McCarthy, S. (1992). Teaching about the nature of science through history: Action research in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 409–421.
Tobey, R. (1971). The American ideology of national science 1919–1930. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Yager, R.E. & Wick, J.W. (1966). Three emphases in teaching biology: A statistical comparison of results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4, 16–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dass, P.M. Understanding the Nature of Scientific Enterprise (NOSE) through a Discourse with Its History: The Influence of an Undergraduate ‘History of Science’ Course. Int J Sci Math Educ 3, 87–115 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3225-1
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-3225-1