Nature of Science Contextualized: Studying Nature of Science with ...

Sci & Educ (2015) 24:435–457 DOI 10.1007/s11191-014-9738-2

Nature of Science Contextualized: Studying Nature of Science with Scientists Suvi Tala • Veli-Matti Vesterinen

Published online: 20 January 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Understanding nature of science (NOS) is widely considered an important educational objective and views of NOS are closely linked to science teaching and learning. Thus there is a lively discussion about what understanding NOS means and how it is reached. As a result of analyses in educational, philosophical, sociological and historical research, a worldwide consensus about the content of NOS teaching is said to be reached. This consensus content is listed as a general statement of science, which students are supposed to understand during their education. Unfortunately, decades of research has demonstrated that teachers and students alike do not possess an appropriate understanding of NOS, at least as far as it is defined at the general level. One reason for such failure might be that formal statements about the NOS and scientific knowledge can really be understood after having been contextualized in the actual cases. Typically NOS is studied as contextualized in the reconstructed historical case stories. When the objective is to educate scientifically and technologically literate citizens, as well as scientists of the near future, studying NOS in the contexts of contemporary science is encouraged. Such contextualizations call for revision of the characterization of NOS and the goals of teaching about NOS. As a consequence, this article gives two examples for studying NOS in the contexts of scientific practices with practicing scientists: an interview study with nanomodellers considering NOS in the context of their actual practices and a course on nature of scientific modelling for science teachers employing the same interview method as a studying method. Such scrutinization opens rarely discussed areas and viewpoints to NOS as well as aspects that practising scientists consider as important.

S. Tala (&) Physics Teacher Education, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, POB 64, 00014 Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected] V.-M. Vesterinen Unit of Chemistry Teacher Education, Department of Chemistry, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland V.-M. Vesterinen Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

123

436

S. Tala, V.-M. Vesterinen

1 Introduction Since its introduction over 50 years ago, achieving scientific literacy has been seen as the central goal of science education all around the world. When we look at how the definitions of scientific literacy have changed during recent decades, the re-conceptualizations have moved from ‘‘science for (becoming) scientists’’ towards ‘‘science for all’’. The former status emphasizes products and processes of science from the practitioners’ point of view, whereas the latter emphasizes the knowledge and skills students need as citizens and decision-makers on issues related to science and technology.1 Thus scientific literacy is increasingly seen as an ability2 to use science in societal and democratic action and decision-making.3 Regardless of the emphasis, developing an informed understanding of how science works and scientists operate has been seen as an important aspect of scientific literacy. This aspect has been discussed as that of developing a functional understanding of nature of science (NOS). Developing functional understanding here means, for example, that students adopt (or learn to address) such views towards NOS which guide understanding and participation in the public discussion about science, science policy and scientific research-based reasoning (such as ‘‘climate change’’ or ‘‘risks of nanoproducts’’ and to those related to decision-making). When one knows about the processes where scientific knowledge is constructed, namely about the basis of scientific knowing, it is easier to refer to or apply that knowledge in the decision making. Especially, studying NOS in the contemporary contexts provides students’ with an ability to participate in the public discussion about recent science, science policy and applications of science in their everyday lives (Laherto 2010; Tala 2011). The characterizations of essential elements of NOS have been informed by different fields of science and technology studies, mainly history, philosophy, and sociology of science, as well as by educational research on student learning, and students’ conceptions of science. This article suggests studying scientists’ knowledge-building practices through an interdisciplinary approach in co-operation with the practicing scientists themselves. The idea of considering the philosophical foundation of scientific phenomena and action, extend far in the history of modern science where, in their research reports, scientists presented not only methods employed and results reached, but also the metaphysical ideas underlining the research. Such analysis we can still read in the old research articles and books, laboratory notebooks, letters sent between scientists and written down lectures.4 This is rarely discussed, however, in contemporary research publications. The recent situation is a result of the development toward specialists’ sciences and pressure to develop (apparently) applicable knowledge. For its value in understanding science for education, this tradition has been resurrected by two interconnected branches of research: history and philosophy of science in science teaching (HPST) and science– technology–society education (STS) (see Matthews 1994; Schulz 2009; Vesterinen et al. 2014). HPST has emphasized the bond between the history, philosophy and sociology of 1

These opposites should be seen as heuristic tools, featuring two extreme positions rather than as descriptions of realities of science education (see Roberts 2007).

2

In science-education literature, the need for scientific literacy is justified with a variety of rationales, such as: usefulness for everyday life; personal autonomy; socio-economic development; democratic participation in public issues related to science and technology; and ethical responsibility of scientists, technicians, politicians and citizens (see Adu´riz-Bravo 2005; Laherto 2010; Laugksch 2000).

3

See for instance Allchin (2014), Hodson (2008), Matthews (1998), and Rudolph (2005).

4

See for example Cantor (1989), Chang (2004), Darrigol (2000) Gooding (1989), and Naylor (1989).

123

Nature of Science Contextualized

437

science and improving science education on this basis (see Chang 1999; Matthews 1994). Within HPST research, it is argued that understanding the nature and basis of what one is studying supports learning.5 Further understanding of scientific context, moreover, increases interest (Lederman 1999; Meyling 1997). STS, on the other hand, has emphasized the sociocultural perspective and has been closely linked to literature on (mainly sociological) science and technology studies, cultural diversity, and sustainability science (Carter 2008).6 It has to be noted that balanced understanding of NOS includes both scientists’ and outsiders’ viewpoints to science and scientific practice (see Kitcher 1990). To make informed decisions on societal and personal issues closely related to science, there is a need to understand both how scientific results are produced and how those products of science are used in the society.7 The aim of this article is to construct such a viewpoint which practicing contemporary scientists can agree with and which is understandable also for outsiders. When NOS is studied in co-operation with scientists, mutual learning occurs. On the one hand, outsiders (Kitcher 1990) achieve a more authentic picture of the nature of scientific practices and the basis of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, scientists can learn about the public understanding and learn more about the basis of their own field by reflective consideration. From the viewpoint of education, this kind of interaction helps to bridge three important viewpoints on NOS: students’ viewpoints on science, scientists’ views about their own enterprise and teachers’ viewpoints on what should be taught about NOS. As a consequence, this study describes a methodological approach, by which the different spectators can learn together about the nature of contemporary scientific knowledge building. It introduces also two studies applying such an approach and discusses how it can be further applied. In the following is described the recent situation to be enriched by new ideas.

2 Nature of Science Should be Studied in Contexts It is said that a kind of consensus has been reached among science educators about what NOS understanding includes. This consensus can be seen in surprisingly similar lists of general ‘‘ideas of science’’ (see Table 1) included in many curricula.8 Such lists of central ideas, features, tenets or family resemblances of NOS are informed by contemporary scholars in history, philosophy, and sociology of science, as well as strongly influenced by educational viewpoints (see Allchin 2011a; Irzik and Nola 2010; Lederman 2004). Thus, every idea included has been frequently reasoned. However, because science is a rich and dynamic endeavour and scientific disciplines are quite varied, the consensus-NOS naturally can neither cover all kinds of scientific research, nor describe any particular field 5

See for instance Herman et al. (2013), Ho¨ttecke and Silva (2011), Koponen and Ma¨ntyla¨ (2006), KurkiSuonio (2011), Monk and Osborne (1997), Osborne et al. (2003), Rudge and Howe (2009), Sandoval (2005), and Tala (2013b).

6

The researchers within the STS branch have also been active promoters of a ‘‘science for all’’ emphasis in STL. Some even go beyond traditional definitions of scientific literacy as knowledge and a set of skills, and promote social action as the main goal of science education (DeBoer 2000).

7

In a society where science and technology are important in public policy and in personal lives, understanding the basis of science supports critical thinking and democracy (see Dewey 1916; Rudolph 2005). For example, when evaluating the benefits and risks of vaccines on the personal and societal level, citizens as parents and decision-makers should understand the role of data and inference used in the scientific assessment of benefits and risks (see Reyna 2004).

8

See Hanuscin et al. (2006), McComas and Olson (1998), Osborne et al. (2003), and Sandoval (2005).

123

438


Table 1 A summary of the typical NOS ideas appearing on NOS lists, as it was summarized on the basis of previous comparisons and studies (Hanuscin et al. 2006; Lederman et al. 2002; McComas and Olson 1998; Osborne et al. 2003; Sandoval 2005) ‘‘Science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena’’ ‘‘There is no one scientific method’’, but ‘‘a variety of scientific methods is employed’’ ‘‘Models and modelling have important roles in science’’ ‘‘Science has an impact on technology’’ and ‘‘technology has a role in science’’ ‘‘The role of creativity in constructing science’’ ‘‘Science is the product of a large social and cultural setting’’ and ‘‘science has an impact on cultures and societies’’ ‘‘The historical development of science’’ ‘‘the impact of science on cultures and societies’’ ‘‘Science is essentially a global phenomenon having both global and local influence’’ ‘‘Certainty or tentativity of scientific knowledge’’ ‘‘Theory-ladenness of experimentation’’

comprehensively (cf. Cartwright 1999; van Dijk 2011). Thus, its validity of describing science has been disputed. And despite the century-long history of NOS in many curricula, it has been frequently reported that NOS goals have not been reached at any level of education.9 This has been the situation at least as far as testing has been kept at a general level of beliefs about science.10 There have been lively discussions also about how NOS should be taught, either through and alongside the practices of inquiry and design11; or then by explaining NOS by way of stories about science, for example. Functional understanding of NOS does not imply simply remembering that ‘‘science is theory-laden’’, ‘‘models have important roles in science’’ and ‘‘science has an impact on technology’’. Rather, a functional understanding constitutes being able to assess particular claims encountered in everyday life and in public discourse. Empirical research also indicates that students’ conceptions cannot be changed through practice only— they also need to be explicitly discussed (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick and Lederman 2000; Jones 1997; Lederman 1992; McComas 2008). The challenge with such an approach is to explain NOS themes for understanding (e.g., Clough 2006), but not to indoctrinate or predict any metaphysical views (cf. Feyerabend 1975; Tala 2013b). Research indicates that good results can be reached by a contextualized, reflective and explicit approach to NOS education.12 The consensus list of NOS ideas can be used as a kind of tool in planning education. However, the ideas can be understood and their validity discussed only when they are contextualized in scientific practices or socio-scientific issues.13 Thus, students need to know examples featuring different fields of science and their scientific practices, in order to be able to discuss these ideas-about-science. But adding an explanatory context is not 9

See for instance Clough (2011), Lederman et al. (2002), Mathews (1998), McComas and Olson (1998), Osborne et al. (2003) and the references therein.

10

cf. Bell et al. (2000), Guerra-Ramos (2012), and Lederman et al. (2002) See for example Adu´riz-Bravo (2005), Khishfe and Abd-El-Khalick (2002), Jones (1997), Sandoval (2005).

11

12

See for instance Abd-El-Khalick (1998), Akerson et al. (2000), Allchin (2011b), Clough (2011), Hanuscin et al. (2006), Matthews (1998, 2005), Sandoval (2005), and Schwartz et al. (2004).

13

See for example Allchin (2011a), Irwin (2000), Lederman et al. (2002), Clough and Olson (2008), Elby and Hammer (2001), Ford (2008), Osborne et al. (2003), and Schwartz et al. (2004).

123


439

enough. There is a need to study14 NOS in different contexts of science, not based on declarative tenets, but rather with an open mind. We need to be open especially to the features of recent science which did not earlier exist in history. For example, the rather rapid development of computers during the last couple of decades has provided the development for modelling and simulations as a new methodological approach. Furthermore, the ideas-about-science described in the abstract characterizations of NOS can be interpreted in various ways in different contexts, depending on the framework and viewpoint adopted: the objective of liberal education should be to provide a multiplicity of views. As a consequence, at best, studying NOS should mean investigating authentic cases and research practices.15 For such investigations, there are two ways to employ lists of NOS ideas: one is to choose a NOS tenet and then seek a case or cases explaining it. The other way is to study a case in detail to discover its features, which are then compared to the NOS lists. This article will lean toward the latter option. In science-education research, NOS has been mostly approached from the viewpoint of integrated settings, considering the nature of physics, chemistry, biology and geography as one generalized NOS. In addition, NOS can be viewed from a domain-specific viewpoint, where science together with its nature is divided into scientific disciplines, in a similar manner as it is divided into school subjects and as most faculties of science are divided into departments (e.g., Tolvanen et al. 2014; Vesterinen et al. 2013). In this study, we suggest an even narrower context-specific approach, in which the central features of a particular field of study are sought and how the general characterisations of NOS reflects this picture. The context specific approach means considering the different fields within disciplines. Exactly, in such an approach, the limits of disciplines overlap, for example, nanoscience and atmospheric sciences draw from physics, chemistry, biology, geoscience and information technology. Such an approach thus highlights the diversity of science, which is not guided by preexisting norms but by a variety of scientific, technological, psychological and sociological interests of actors. The open and curious approach to NOS also supports constructivistic science education, in which students’ take an active role in knowledge construction. We thus argue that studying NOS in context should not be based solely on narratives constructed to support certain preconceived ideas-about-science nor on the learning about ‘‘inquiry methods’’ employed in science classes. Instead, it should focus on how general NOS ideas may fit in, and what those mean in the discussion about authentic examples of scientific practice and socio-scientific issues. Students can then be supported to compare the contextual NOS ideas with their previous conceptions about NOS (Clough 2006) and with the practical experiences of the science lab. Such an approach increases the coherence of science education by connecting the teaching about ‘methodology of science’, ‘nature of science’, ‘conceptual content’ and ‘societal embeddedness of science’ (see Tala 2013b). This article focuses on one method for studying NOS in context, with interviews contextualized in the interviewees’ actual practices, and what is achieved by it. Studying NOS for education—and respectively teaching NOS—usually requires some balancing between authenticity and simplicity. When simplification is carried out in interaction with the practitioners, it may be easier to protect the authenticity. The examples discussed herein arise from the interaction between practicing scientists and researchers in science education 14 By the term ‘study’ we refer both researching and scrutinising for individual understanding: at best research and education go hand in hand. 15 The list of typical features of science cannot naturally be revised on basis of one case study. Instead, such an approach can be used in order to understand what does the general NOS ideas mean in practice and how does such general description of ‘‘nature of science’’ capture scientists’ reality.

123

440


(supported by philosophers) and between practicing scientists and teacher students (supported by the teacher educators). In both example, is produced new contextualized understanding, which can be applied in school science teaching. For use in secondary school science classes, the method and cases revealed by it should be further simplified.

3 Studying NOS in the Context of Contemporary Science The aspiration to understand NOS from the scientists’ viewpoint has its roots in history. It was common for a long time that scientists discussed metaphysics, epistemology and methodology, alongside what we would now identify as the ‘content’ of science (Chang 1999). The recent level of specialization of scientific fields does not support the development toward such a multi-skilled person. However, such an interdisciplinary viewpoint is still appropriate in constructing understanding of science for science education—and eventually for scientific and technological progress. There is no reason to assume that science would be more objective or value-free, for example, than the practitioners themselves perceive it to be (Machamer and Osbeck 2004). Nowadays, understanding scientific practice, and the basis, possibilities, and limits of scientific knowledge can be reached through interdisciplinary co-operation, supported by contemporary science studies. The concern with practice has always been somewhat outside the mainstream of philosophy of science, but in the contemporary science studies, there is a growing interest toward a productive interaction between philosophical reasoning and a study of actual scientific practices. By analysing recent scientific and political documents as well as the practices of science, the naturalistic philosophy and sociology of science seek practical consequences in science. In consequence, this kind of ‘‘third approach’’ (see Collins and Evans 2002; Chang 1999, 2004), completes the previously established approaches, which have concentrated either on a theory–world relation at a highly abstract level from the viewpoint of science (an internal viewpoint) or on the social production of scientific and technological artefacts (an external viewpoint). The benefits of co-operating with scientists in constructing understanding are apparent. Practicing scientists are not experts of history, philosophy or sociology of science, and while most of them have thus not analysed their field of expertise on the philosophical level, but they are usually willing to discuss the background assumptions of their work. By collaborating with experts in science studies, it is possible to describe the scientists’ own viewpoint on contemporary scientists’ actions and thinking (see Collins et al. 2007; Tala 2011). The third approach is increasingly addressed in recent studies (see Collins and Evans 2002) and we suggest it to be fruitful also for science education; for example, the abstract NOS ideas could be better understood by listening to such exemplary voices in the mixed choir of scientists. Such description reveals also that the nature of the activities of contemporary scientists differ significantly from the historical stories included in many textbooks or the school lab activities, and the NOS ideas taught by them.16 Although guided by the philosophical and 16 The primary objective of employing them is not to teach NOS and thus most scientific inquiry or design tasks given to students in schools reflect neither the core attributes of authentic scientific or technological reasoning nor the contextual NOS themes of education (e.g., Abd-El-Khalick 2013; Chinn and Malhotra 2002; De Vries 1997; Tala 2009). For example, in the formal lists of NOS themes it is frequently described that science is a creative and theory-laden enterprise constructed by human beings collaborating through the employment of a variety of methods. However, the practices of science education typically support a view of science as an algorithmic activity employing a universal scientific method and neutral instruments, which transform the facts awaiting us in nature (see Chinn and Malhotra 2002; Hacking 1983; Hodson 1996; Tala 2009).

123


441

sociological viewpoints as well as interpretations of history of science, science educators have played a central role in defining the central characteristics of NOS for education (Allchin 2011a). Many scientists agree with these ideas when they are discussed at the general level, such as in NOS lists, but problems occur when the ideas are interpreted and applied. One way to revise NOS is thus through informed dialogue between learners and practitioners of science. If the conceptions of NOS are already constructed or at least revised in scientific contexts, in mutual interaction between scientists and learners, the picture drawn by the construct NOS will be understandable and acceptable for both. The dialogical approach is especially suited for discussing the internal ‘‘core of science’’, namely the scientific knowledge-building practices, which define the basis of the scientific products together with the possibilities and limits of their application. If one merely observes natural scientists at work, one sees scientists looking for information and writing on their computers, discussing with their colleagues, and, maybe also working on technical devices. Most of the work does not seem that different from any other work done in the office environment. On the other hand, when asked what they do, scientists may start with the complex name of the research project, including a variety of details. Based on their answers, it is sometimes challenging to understand what the research is about, let alone the epistemic foundations of their work. When asked abstract philosophical questions or general questions about NOS, they are likely to answer only what they have explicitly learned about NOS in science education, or what they would like the public to believe (Tala 2013a). As a consequence of all this, in order to understand the actual knowledge-building practices, it is better to ask about NOS issues, which are contextualized in the actual research practices: one should ask what scientists actually do, how, and why they do it when building new knowledge together with developing methods (Tala 2011).17 Also scientists benefit from analysing NOS promoted in their field from such a viewpoint: a highly contextualized view of NOS plays a central role in the development of a scientist’s expertise (see Tala 2013a). Scientists need to consider the potential benefits of their research project in order to ‘‘sell’’ their ideas and expertise to the public and funders. The philosophically informed dialogue with an ‘‘outsider’’ can prepare them also for that (see Tala 2013a). The interaction between practicing scientists and ‘‘outsiders’’ is thus bidirectional: the scientists explain their ideas and ‘‘outsiders’’ provide the topics for the conversation and guide the scientists in keeping the discussion at an appropriate level. As a consequence, the authenticity of the necessary simplification is secured, while the learner or researcher can test the viewpoints she or he has about NOS. At best, such contextualization can provide productive interaction between practitioners of science and experts working on different fields, such as science and history educators, philosophers of science, and sociologists of science. When concentrating on practices, attention is paid also on the artefacts produced and used, such as models and pieces of experimental technology, and their role in the scientific process. The contextualization is then naturally guided also by the technoscientific view, which includes the creative role of humans and the cognitive role of instrumentariums in the painful construction of scientific knowledge (Tala 2009). The technoscientific view, 17 In practice, a general level NOS question asks, for example, ‘what does an atom look like?’ (VNOS-B), ‘what is an experiment?’ (VNOS-C) or ‘what is the difference between scientific law and theory?’ (VNOSB&C). Then a practice-oriented view elucidates ‘what scientists actually do when constructing and using the methods and tools’, ‘what is the benefit of different activities’ or ‘what does a scientist actually do when (s)he aims to convince peers about the functioning of a certain model, experiment or idea’ and ‘what skills does a novice scientist have to master in order to do that’ (Tala 2013a; cf. Chang 2011).

123

442


which sees the heart of science as an interactive design of models and experimental settings, and knowledge concerning those, is familiar to practicing scientists (Koponen and Tala 2013, cf. Chang 2011). In consequence, the practice-based treatments will also shed further light on questions, which have arisen with prominence in recent decades from considerations of actual scientific work such as the role of models, measurement, and experimentation in scientific practice. Through the contextualized dialogue, one can discuss also the essential role of psychological and social factors in underlying the scientific process. For example, for a scientist preparing a publication for revision, it is evident that there is no objective, sociologically neutral or unambiguous method for showing how scientific knowledge relates to the material world, which is often at the core of scientific dispute and controversy (see Kuhn 1962; Nola 1999). Indeed, many of the individual motives that one could consider detrimental for decision-making in science (e.g., desire for credit or pleasing the funders) can actually play a constructive role in the process of knowledge production (see Kitcher 2001, 2011). In this manner, the internal viewpoints of practicing scientists provide us with examples of the sociological and psychological factors influencing scientific practice. Thus, epistemology and methodology becomes intertwined with sociology and psychology. For developing an understanding of the interrelationships among science, technology and society,18 one needs also to move beyond the internal viewpoint of scientific practitioners and scientific practice. In addition, to focus on knowledge-building practices, one should utilize an external view focusing on the science related societal issues. For example, when discussing issues such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the potentially rather technical view of scientists working on genetic engineering is not enough to truly understand the complexity of the cultural, religious or economic dimensions of the issue (see Siipi 2008). Similar to developing an understanding with practicing scientists, the external view should be discussed within the wider contexts and impacts of science and the associated development of technology (e.g., Olson 2013; Postman 1985). Moreover, in contemporary science, internal and external viewpoints are in many ways overlapping and complementary. For example, it is evident that medical companies, which fund research, in turn, have an impact on the science supported by such funding (e.g., Sismondo 2011). Indeed, the border between laymen and scientists (Kitcher 1990) is lowered when also citizens can participate in producing or processing scientific data in such projects as seti@home. If students have studied NOS in the context of contemporary science and contemporary socio-scientific issues, the understanding about NOS is easier to apply to other fields of contemporary science and other areas of socio-scientific decision-making, because similarities between the context of learning and the context of application can help in applying the learned knowledge. In what follows, examples of studying NOS in the context of contemporary science are discussed.

4 Studying the Nature of Contemporary Science with Practicing Scientists Because both scientifically literate citizens and the scientists of the future need understanding about the nature(s) of present science, the applications of the contextual approach to NOS discussed here, varies from school science to the education of scientists in 18 For different approaches to the interrelationships of science, technology and society, compare Vesterinen et al. (2014) with Tala (2013b).

123


443

universities and institutions.19 The approach to NOS in the contemporary contexts presented here supports good content-oriented science teaching at all levels of education and indeed objectives of STL in terms of supporting participation in the public discussion about contemporary science. When the perspective is the one with which also practicing scientists can agree, the context of the study is to be selected on basis of what kind of methods are employed in it. The nature of scientists’ knowledge-building is shaped by the methods used.20 The method also defines the basics and limits of the application of the knowledge produced. The methodologies employed in revealing scientific reality can be divided into theoreticians’, modellers’ and experimenters’ fields of business. These different approaches should be noted equally when explaining NOS from the viewpoint of scientists. In the philosophical analysis of science, the theoreticians’ viewpoints and the viewpoints opened by theoryoriented approaches are discussed the most. Attention has been increasingly paid also on the experimentation and experimenters’ viewpoints.21 These theoretical and experimental approaches have thus also been at the focus of science education and the NOS lists. Much less discussed is the third method of science (see Humphreys 2004; Morrison and Morgan 1999): modelling. The only reference to it on the NOS list is that ‘‘Models and modelling have important roles in science’’. Because modelling plays a central role in increasing many fields of science, the notion of its importance is not enough and should be explained. In consequence, scientific modelling is used here as an exemplary contemporary context for discussing NOS. The first example in Sect. 4.1 discusses a phenomenological case study about NOS as seen through the practices of nanoscience. The part of the study discussed here examines how the viewpoints opened up by NOS statements appeared in the nanoscientists’ reflection about their knowledge-building practices and what guide decision making in those practices (for details of the study, see Tala 2011). It focuses on how NOS ideas are explained by nanomodellers’ viewpoints, and attention is paid on the views shared between these practitioners. The contextualized method was developed and employed in order to increase the validity: the interviewed scientists were encouraged to describe the nature of their field at the highly practical level and in the context of their actual research projects. The phrasing of a questions in the preceding questionnaire and the interviews supported their reflection. The method developed in the first case study seemed to be appropriate also as a studying method, for which it was then applied to teacher education. Section 4.2 describes a case where teacher students carried out interviews with practicing scientists, analysing them in order to learn about NOS. The example discusses how teacher students learned from the interviews with different kinds of modellers working on the fields of chemistry and 19 What is taught about NOS is defined in the curricula in varying degrees. In many countries, the level of NOS understanding is defined by listing statements about NOS in the curricula and students’ understanding of this information is tested in national exams at the appropriate level. In some other countries, such as Finland, teachers are quite free to decide what they teach about NOS. 20 Knowledge produced by the theoretical methods of cosmologists, in chemists’ wet laboratory, or by hydro-biologists’ fieldwork, are apparently different kinds of knowledge. News of the hunt for the Higgs boson in the LHC has yet a different basis; and still different basis have also knowledge of new features of matter modelled in nanophysics. 21 As the examples of science studies see articles in the book The Philosophy of Scientific Experimentation edited by Radder (2003) or The Uses of Experiment edited by Daavid Gooding, Trevor Pinch and Simon Schaffer (Gooding et al. 1989). For recent analysis of experimentation for education see Koponen and Ma¨ntyla¨ (2006) and Tala (2009) and references therein.

123

444


physics. In such settings research and education goes hand in hand: when studying about nature of scientific modelling by research-based approach, teacher students produce new authentic understanding and examples to be used in educational planning in schools. 4.1 Studying NOS in the Context of Nanopractices and from the Nanomodellers’ Viewpoint The objective of the first study was two-fold: to develop contextual understanding about NOS for science education, and to increase methodological self-awareness among scientists. The latter poses a big challenge for the education of scientists, because a central part of the enculturation of new natural scientists takes place in apprentice-master settings, and an important part of the knowledge they try to acquire in this kind of setting is tacit.22 Thus, there is a need to pay special attention to articulating to young scientists the expertise they are gaining. Such awareness can be reached by a study supporting reflection in the research group, like the one, designed in co-operation with researchers’ in science education, in physics, and in philosophy (Tala 2013a). By such viewpoints improved understanding about NOS supports science education also at lower levels for both becoming scientists as well as developing STL. The informants were Finnish material physicists studying nanophenomena by realistic simulations, five experts (E) and five apprentices (PhDs; A). The questionnaire and interview study was planned on the basis of understanding opened up by recent science studies on modelling and experimenting, in addition to familiarity with the culture of the research institutes the informants are working in (Tala 2011). In order to provide a broad view, the informants first answered a written questionnaire about their epistemological and methodological views as contextualized in their on-going projects and sent three of their best publications with the responses. This process helped to contextualize the study in the interviewers’ research projects (validity). The interviews then deepened the viewpoint the practitioners presented in their responses to the questionnaire. Finally, it was noticed that the same viewpoints emerged over and over again in the responses of the informants. Many of the shared NOS ideas arise in the study, not in the general form but as contextualized in practicing nanomodellers’ explanations of how scientific knowledge is produced in their projects. These are contextualized definitions of NOS—or studying NOS in the actual contexts. Such a contextual viewpoint also clarifies how the NOS statements are closely connected to each other in authentic research processes, which will be seen in the following examples selected from the results. Every field of science highlights and explains some NOS ideas more than others. Because the modellers’ views are under scrutiny in the following, the statements ‘science has an impact on technology’, ‘technology has a role in science’ and ‘models and modelling have important roles in science’ become naturally emphasized. Furthermore, when discussing these statements with scientists, also other NOS ideas are touched upon: in the actual contexts, the different viewpoints to science and its nature closely interrelate with each other. While summarizing the results in the following, direct quotations from the interviews are given to provide more

22

Already Michael Polanyi (e.g., 1958) wrote the fruitful analysis of scientists’ tacit knowledge. The challenge of learning to do science is not that experts would like to hide something but the essential part of their expertise is unrecognized (see Tala 2013a for an analysis of scientists’ tacit knowledge, and references thereby).

123


445

context: the quotations illustrate typical views.23 While this section describes at a more general level how the consensus NOS ideas arise in the discussion with (nano)modellers, more detailed examples in different contexts can be read in Sect. 4.2, as revealed by teacher students. Basically, the expert nanomodellers define their field of research to be ‘‘applicationmotivated basic research’’ (E), which they explained to mean that possible applications— potential technological, financial and human needs—make selections between the possible research projects before launching one. They do not develop commercial nano-products, but for financial reasons, for example, those interesting research topics are selected, which have ‘‘relevance for some practice’’ (E). In particular, an apprentice reasoned his research by way of ‘‘three words: nano, bio, medi’’ (A). They clearly refer to the applications, when writing the applications for financial funding or introductory parts of their publications or explaining their research to the public. The importance of this reflects on the way the interests of companies define research projects from the beginning (competition for research funding) to the end (applications of results). The applications of nanotechnoscience, ranging from smart drugs and environmental materials with extraordinary properties to fast processing, ultra-thin, flexible machines (see also, Rosei 2004), improve many ordinary artefacts. Two informants were developing understanding about how, why and when nano-silicaball is extraordinarily hard, which has an apparent application in ball bearing technology. As for other examples from the interviews, one was developing the understanding of ‘explosion folding’ already used in shipbuilding, for example, and one was developing the discovery of different solvents to be used in the cellulose industry. The exertion to create applications contextualizes not only the NOS statement ‘science has an impact on technology’ but also the pair of NOS statements ‘science is the product of a large social and cultural setting’ and ‘science has an impact on cultures and societies’. On the one hand, for example, nanoresearch is the basis of recent communication technology (becoming financed in the process)—while, on the other hand, the smartphones that citizens carry around everywhere have strongly determined the way we communicate. At the same time, nanoapplications impose new ethical problems. For example, the interactions of nanoparticles in human or in other environments are not yet known; the health impact of the continued usage of communication technology on the brains of quickly developing children and youth has been actively discussed in public. The research has become limited on this ethical basis. In consequence, the scientific research ends up shaping our everyday lives and societies through its applications—and vice versa: the scientists have to learn to refer to possible technological applications and their social meanings in order to acquire funding. Furthermore, it is technology which provides scientists’ access to the nanoworld: When working, modellers sit mostly by their computers. Indeed, the referred experimental data (when available) is based on playing with human-made nanomachines. At the same time it happens to be that the research process is strongly shaped by the technological possibilities and limitations. None of the interviewees failed to mention how computational and technological abilities, namely the capability of computers, determine what can be studied by nanomodelling, and how. As expressed from a practical perspective: ‘‘the whole of molecular dynamics [the favoured method]24 would not function if the frequently repeated calculations were not made as simple as possible and quick for the computer to calculate’’ 23 One interview was conducted in English and the others in Finnish. The quotations from interviews in Finnish have been translated into English by the authors. 24

For comparison of modelling approaches, see Vvedensky (2004).

123

446


(A). Nowadays, the length of the objects simulated at the nanolevel has to be limited to some nanometers, or, alternatively, an event on the surface seen by the naked eye can typically be simulated only for a nanosecond. This makes the vital comparison with experiments working on a totally different scale difficult, namely matching between the data reached in modelling and experimentation (for details, see Tala 2011).25 The modelling technology, and especially computational power, is a rapidly developing field, advanced as collaboration between scientists and technologists. A century ago, nanoscientists did not have the kind of inside track to the reality of physics they develop and maintain nowadays. The development is not going to stop here; the interviewees described with enthusiasm what they could study in the nanoworld, when computers develop further. In this way, also the NOS theme ‘the historical development of science’ is easier to understand by considering a concrete development of technological capability. As a new field of study, nanoscience is a rich example of how science develops by correcting and extending the previously ‘known’ and the scope of this knowledge: at the time when most of the basic scientific content presented in high-school textbooks was discovered, the nanoworld was entirely unexplored.26 As for dreams of future development, in addition to the development of computers’ calculation power allowing for the increase in the size and time of the simulations, the modellers also mentioned their expectations concerning the development of experimental technology. According to an apprentice, at best this would mean the ‘‘real-time measuring equipment’’ (A) (like a video camera). At the moment, they detect the situation in laboratory experiments like in-direct still photos and numbers linked to those. But then again, it is the model developed by the recent technoscientific abilities from which scientists draw their understanding of what exists in the world and how: ‘‘It is a model which explains a particular physical phenomenon. And then everyone follows that model.’’ (E) The more advanced the interviewed scientist is the more (s)he seems to highlight the role of technology in shaping scientific modelling and its results. Even apprentices note that ‘‘these models are naturally quite simple, and thus do not represent a system very well’’ (A). Then an expert pointed out: ‘‘when a physical template [the mathematical formulation of physical law] is fitted to a computer, it… is never the same as the original physical template which provided the starting point.’’ (E) In consequence, the NOS idea ‘science has an impact on technology’ and ‘technology has a role in science’ refers to quite a deep relationship. The science–technology dependence shapes not only methodologies but also the epistemologies referred to, namely the basis of knowledge in both fields and the objects of the study27 (cf. Tala 2009). Finally, what is reached in

25 Nanoscientists have to be creative, when discovering the nanoworld within these limitations of time and scales of length, which is one practical meaning of the NOS theme in referring to the creativity of scientists. Naturally, creativity plays a vital role in developing modelling. This kind of creative modelling also includes ‘‘hand-waiving’’ (E) solutions to un-known situations, namely developing academic guesses to be tested through modelling. 26 Revolutionary ideas were constructed in recent history: For example, scientists did not have access to the nanoworld and nanophenomena before the invention of the scanning tunnelling microscope (the Nobel Prize in physics in 1986), an instrument for imaging surfaces at the atomic level, which is employed also by those interviewers who have experience working on the experimental side of the field. Additionally, the discovery of fullerenes in 1985 (Nobel Prize in chemistry in 1996) was important for the foundation of nanoscientific research. 27

An expert modeller stated that ‘‘We study mental images. It is what we see’’.

123


447

modelling is an understanding about how technoscientific phenomena function.28 Thus, although the interviewers’ modelling is called ‘‘realistic modelling’’, it is guided by an instrumental view towards models and modelling (Tala 2011), which is better known from the technological research (Mitcham 1994; Vincenti 1990). In many cases of nanomodelling, new knowledge is generated from the previously unknown phenomena under limited possibility for experimentation. In such generative modelling (Koponen and Tala 2013) different methods of modelling, experimentation and theoretical understanding of phenomena develop in mutual interaction. (More examples will be provided in Sect. 4.2.) In practice, the modellers make a coarse model(s) on the basis of basic theories, which then become fitted with experimentation and other relevant sources of information and ideas (for details, see Tala 2011). In the process, modelling defines the experimentation from the planning of the experimental settings to the interpretation of such model(s). But then it is a two-way process: also modelling is fitted to experimentation, and validated by its ability to guide successful experimentation or provide functional explanations. This is what the NOS statements referring to ‘the empirical base of science’ and ‘theory-ladenness of experimentation’ mean in the practices of nanophysics. In consequence, the modelling, which mediates between theory and experimentation, advances both traditional methods, experimentation and theorizing, remaining independent; in knowledge generation, modelling is used as a cognitive and creative tool for investigation (Koponen and Tala 2013). As an interviewee stated: ‘‘a model lives its own life’’ (E). In such a way, nanomodelling practices explain how ‘a variety of scientific methods is employed in scientific research’ (NOS theme) simultaneously and interactively in revealing a phenomenon.29 Such constructive modelling seems to be developed and addressed in scientific modelling in variety of fields of study (Morrison and Morgan 1999; Nersessian 1995). Young scientists adopt these above-introduced contextualized viewpoints with regard to NOS during their education: the longer a successful young modeller has worked for a research group, the closer her/his contextualized NOS views become those of the elder researchers’ views. The view reflected in this section is that which guides groups of scientists in successful knowledge building—the success is defined by the relevant community, including researchers in the fields, funders and also the entire society to varying degrees. By telling personal stories, the interviewees illustrated also how individual scientists make decisions concerning which projects to participate in and models and methods to employ from the viewpoint of the development of their expertise and merit or personal preferences concerning working conditions: this is one way that psychological and sociological factors shape science. When constructing the ‘‘nature of science’’ for science education, it is important to realize that scientific work is not the straightforward process that the re-written stories would indicate; on the other hand, neither is it a miracle. Instead, it also includes many monotonous everyday tasks, such as repairing real or virtual systems under study, preparing conference presentations, writing and re-writing. Indeed, neither an individual scientist’s work nor the life cycle of a research group is a straightforward process aimed at altruistic and plainly cognitive goals of science, as defined by Mertonian norms. Living scientists are impressive examples of that. 28 The task of these scientists is often a rather technological one; the intimate relation between the scientific research and technological development also encourages discussion around the NOS idea ‘science is an attempt to explain natural phenomena’. 29 This viewpoint to modelling encourages revising the picture of models and modelling underlining contemporary science education (for details, see Koponen and Tala 2013).

123

448


The idea of reflection underlying this study design seemed to function well: everyone accepted the invitation and was motivated to actively participate. Indeed, afterwards some interviewees were thankful for the opportunity to learn new things about their field of study; they also asked for more such ‘‘education’’. The method, together with the questionnaire, seemed to be quite unambiguous in their role to focus the discussion.30 The approach was then developed also as a studying method, as will be described in the following. 4.2 Teacher Students Studying NOS through the Contextualized Interview Method Teachers’ views guide discussion in education together with the employment of practical activities. Thus, the primary place of development is teacher education. We employed the above-described method of contextualized interview with scientists in a teacher education course ‘‘Models and visualization in chemistry,’’ organized in the Department of Chemistry in Autumn 2013. The objective of the task was to support teacher students in developing an authentic picture of nature of scientific modelling. Using a set of questions based on the questionnaire used for the interviews of nanomodellers (see Appendix 1), twelve teacher students interviewed eight researchers. Before the interview, the teachers had listened to an introductory lecture about the use of the questionnaire and different modes of modelling in science. As described above, the pattern of questions were designed to guide the interviewed scientists into recognizing the epistemological and methodological ideas underlying the modelling practices. On the one hand, the scientists had to answer these new types of reflective questions and to explain their field to a student coming from another field of study. On the other hand, the students had to analyse the scientists’ answers, in order to answer the interpretive questions of the essay. Through student-scientist interaction, both the interviewing students and the researcher can gain new insights into modelling and the particular field of modelling under consideration.31 Interviewed researchers worked on various fields of science and engineering (including atmospheric science, astrochemistry, bioanalytical chemistry, marine engineering, organometallic chemistry, and materials science). The interviews were done either independently or in pairs. Each student wrote an independent essay, in which they answered the following six questions based on the interview: 1. Why did the interviewed scientist engage in modelling? What was the objective of their modelling? 2. How did the scientist(s) employ models in constructing new knowledge? 3. How did the modelling and experimentation mutually sustain each other in the research of the scientists and his/her research group? 4. How do the scientists think that their models correspond to reality? 5. According to the interviewee, what are the features of good modelling? 6. How did the interviewing activity and this exercise change your views about modelling and models?

30 The mutual understanding was checked by asking every interviewee to explain his/her own responses to the questionnaire. In addition, the interviewees also checked the analysis. 31 Such interaction can also increase the students’ motivation to teach about modelling and the modellers’ understanding about the viewpoints to modelling promoted in recent science education (cf. Caton 2000).

123


449

In order to answer the questions, they had to address different points of the interviews. Everyone succeeded in answering the questions. The recordings of the interviews and the essays were shared with other students and teachers through an online learning environment. Before the course, the teacher students had studied the basics of chemistry—and most of them had also studied physics, biology or mathematics—side by side with the future research scientists. This kind of substance-oriented educational setting may help the teachers and practicing scientists understand one another. In their discussions with the researchers, the teacher students seemed to understand what is going on and what exactly is modelled in each project. While summarizing the ways a student discussed different NOS related topics in their essays, direct quotations from the essays are provided to give more context.32 All students discussed rationales for research in their essays. As expected, both the interviews and the essays focused on the benefits of these applications. As the interviewees were from a wide variety of fields, the rationales the modellers gave for their research varied considerably. For example, one of the interviewees was modelling astrochemical properties of stars and described his research as basic research, with no self-evident practical applications. The researchers working on atmospheric science also saw providing knowledge about phenomena involved in climate change as their main rationale. In climate models the formation of particles is the biggest source of uncertainty. Thus researching them is the key to understanding processes in the atmosphere. Particles of the size of less than two nanometres play a central part in the research. They were found from the atmosphere as late as in 1990s. Research is basic research, which means that new theory is being created alongside research. (Essay based on the interview of the researcher working on atmospheric science)

Some of the other interviewees were focusing more on producing applications. In the rationales, the production of technological applications often coexisted together with the considerations of use. Thus the interviewees could serve as examples on how furthering theoretical understanding and considerations of use are not necessarily opposed (see Stokes 1997). Only one of the research projects was clearly commercial in its scope: the researcher working on marine engineering used modelling to optimize the maintenance and fuel costs of cruise ships and other big vessels. In their essays, most of the students discussed how computers and limited computer power shape the method and the modelling processes. They described how modellers have to make several approximations in order to be able to simulate the phenomena in question with the computer power available. Students also discussed how technological progress drove the research onwards. Both increasing computational power as well as the development in instrumentation in the empirical parts contributes to this development. As one student explained: ‘‘Also the experiments and measuring instruments were constantly developing, which enables the group to compare things in a real setting.’’33 The development of technology had also changed the communication within the scientific community and availability of data. One of the essays discussed how the use of information and communication technology provides researchers with open data to be used in their models: ‘‘To gain accurate data from all 15 factors that contribute to ships properties, they utilize data from free weather services and real-time data from IMO (International Maritime Organisation)’’.34 32 One of the essays was written in English and one in Swedish. The rest of the essays were written in Finnish. Quotations written in Finnish or Swedish have been translated into English by the authors. 33

Essay based on the interview of the researcher working on bioanalytical chemistry.

34

Essay based on the interview of the researcher working on marine engineering.

123

450


The interviewed modellers gave many examples of the interaction between different methods of modelling, experimentation and theoretical understanding of phenomena. As comments on this type of interaction were explicitly requested in the assignment, each student discussed these things in their essays. She also mentioned that ultimately modelling and experimental work is intertwined because to a certain extent modelling is also based on experiments as most of the parameters that are needed to feed into the force field are derived experimentally or by quantum calculations. (Essay on the interview of researcher working on bioanalytical chemistry)

The level of discussion ranged from rudimentary observation about how experimentation will verify the model to more nuanced descriptions of the interaction between modelling and experimentation.35 These more nuanced descriptions brought up topics such as the inferential nature of models, acknowledging that the phenomena are not directly accessible to the senses and can only be measured through effects. While discussing the experimentalism and empirical basis of modelling, some of the students described how modelling was used as both cognitive and creative tools for investigation (cf., Koponen and Tala 2013). The research group is thus actively doing things on a molecular level and comparing the results to theoretical models on the molecular level – constantly questioning and evaluating both the reliability and verisimilitude of the theories. This way it is also easier to find the problems. The interviewee points out that conflicts between the model and the theory always reveal many new interesting questions. (Essay based on the interview of the researcher working on atmospheric science)

Modelling was recognized also as quite an independent method. As an interesting new idea arising in the interview, scientific modelling can be practiced without experimentation, for example in the case of settings which cannot be studied experimentally. In spite of that, the results can be applied in the real world, as in understanding the formation of clouds in the atmosphere. (Essay based on the interview of the researcher working on atmospheric science)

All interviewees were part of a research group. The collaboration with other researchers was mentioned in every essay. Some examples of interaction with the wider scientific community and its relation to creating models were also given. An example in one of the essays discussed the specialization of science, the research traditions and the issue of replicability of results: According to the interviewee, division of scientific practice into smaller and smaller sub-fields has brought about a situation, in which no one can have a model which would cover work done by other researchers. However, the interviewee mentioned that there are certain fundamental principles, which resemble each other and are not under debate. The need for other researchers to replicate the results of calculations or modelling is also considered important. (Essay based on the interview of the researcher working on astrochemistry)

In their essays, teacher students were also asked to reflect on how the interview assignment changed their perception of modelling. In self-evaluation, everyone recognized that the task extended their perspective on the role of modelling. For example, one of the students wrote, that she had ‘‘not realized the significance of modelling as a tool for investigation’’. Although most students knew that computer modelling was used as a method, they were interested to learn what it means in practice. One explained, for example, that earlier models were just ‘‘tools to support understanding in such a way that, once a discovery had been made, modelling was used to help explain and visualize’’; 35 The coarse model(s) become fitted with experimentation and other relevant sources of information and ideas (for details, see Tala 2011), which is a two-way process: also experimental actions become fitted with modelling.

123


451

alternatively, models were just another mode for ‘theoretical thinking’. The task taught them, however, that computer modelling plays a central role in many areas of research as a method for generating new understanding and research questions. In consequence, teacher students discovered the technological and generative nature of modelling, which helped map out their understanding about ideas on NOS (as described in Sect. 4.1). In the essays many students mentioned the value of a deep discussion with a practitioner in the context of a particular case, that is, in understanding the nature of scientific modelling in order to become expert teachers. Two of the students also referred to the benefits of such a method as applied in school teaching. These kinds of feelings are important, because valuing NOS as an instructional aim is closely related to the self-identity of teachers (see Vesterinen and Aksela 2013). As one of them concluded: ‘‘I feel that it is important for me, as a teacher, to have such a perspective [on models and modelling]’’.

5 Conclusions The goals of developing informed conceptions about science have a long history in science education. Whether the goal of science education is education of scientists or education of informed citizens, science education should support a balanced view of NOS, which includes understanding characteristics of scientific knowledge and practice. Such a balanced view also involves understanding the social dimensions and cultural embeddedness of science. In the science education literature, the central ideas for such an understanding have been defined by various general characterizations of NOS, usually presented as lists of central ideas-about-science to be taught in classrooms (e.g., Lederman et al. 2002; Osborne et al. 2003). Such lists combine philosophical, sociological and historical research as well as pedagogical considerations, such as the accessibility of the ideas (see Allchin 2011a; Lederman 2004). These, often rather abstract dimensions of NOS can be understood and validated only when they are considered in actual contexts (see Footnote 5). In order to realize this goal, there is a need to study NOS in different contexts and from different viewpoints; in short, there is a need to study NOS ideas more as discussion themes rather than as ‘‘truths’’ to be memorized. To see the impact of the scientific and technological development on everyday life and participate in the public discussion about science policy, citizens need understanding of the nature of current science. This article thus focused on studying NOS in the context of the practices of contemporary science, in co-operation with its practitioners. When the viewpoints were contextualized in such a way that the highly philosophical concepts and questions are transferred to the practical level, it was easier to tailor the discussion toward shared understanding. The results of the trial employing the contextualized interview method were promising, which encourages to develop it further. The contextualized interviews were structured by the questionnaire, with a design based on deeper understanding of scientific modelling practices than the teacher students currently had or would even need. Thus the discussion with modellers focused on the central epistemological practice, without the need for a lengthier introduction to the issues of HPST. The exemplary pattern of questions, which concentrated on modelling, facilitated the discussion between teacher students and practicing scientists in such a way that it highlighted epistemologically and methodologically central features of those practices. In this way the teacher students seemed to reach a deeper and more focused view than they

123

452


would otherwise have reached by an open-ended task in discussing with scientists about their work.36 The contextualized interview method can be used to create authentic examples about science also for science classes in order to provide understanding about NOS; for such educational purposes, the contemporary stories have naturally be simplified and concrete examples have to be included. On behalf of effectiveness, we need school science activities reflecting the contemporary viewpoints on science and NOS. The kind of reflective analysis of scientists’ work used in this study might also be possible to produce by teachers and students, for example, with a simplified form of the questionnaire developed in the study. This experience—especially the teacher students’ self-evaluation (4.2)—increased our belief in projects that provide opportunities to both teachers and researchers to talk about NOS issues: such activities can effectively support teachers’ commitment to teach NOS. Thus, working together and alongside scientists might be a sensible strategy in promoting cultural and institutional change also within the school science culture. For example, in the Finnish culture of trust, teachers are quite free to adopt new teaching methods. However, in an environment where teaching NOS explicitly and reflectively is not appreciated, a teacher has to be prepared to renegotiate the culture of school science (see Aikenhead 2006). One of the ways to help teachers in such renegotiation is to facilitate collegial support from a community of like-minded teachers and researchers (see Davis 2003; Lavonen et al. 2004). Finland’s strong tradition of research on science teaching at the faculties of science, and in pre-service science teacher education (see Jauhiainen et al. 2002; Lavonen et al. 2007) provides a fertile ground for such co-operation. Most science education research in Finland approaches educational issues from the point of view of specific subject or context, sometimes collaborating with other research groups at the faculties of science. Because of this, Finnish science teachers often feel professionally closely related to practicing scientists. In addition, different sections of universities, companies and schools participate in active mutual outreach, which facilitates co-operation between practicing teachers and practicing scientists. Thus, there is reason to hope that the teachers who participate in such a course will co-operate with the practicing scientists also in the future. The Finnish context, where science teachers are mainly educated side by side with future research scientists, provided an exceptional opportunity to study NOS in contemporary contexts. Such concrete and deep understanding of NOS provides science teachers’ expertise and their ability to design teaching leading to a coherent picture. The central internal NOS questions—what underlies knowledge construction in science, how does science interact with the entire society, what are the possibilities and limits of application of the methods and products of the field—plays important roles also in the expertise of practicing scientists (Tala 2013a). Thus, the viewpoint toward NOS constructed in cooperation with practitioners in the contemporary context has practical consequences when developing scientific processes, scientists’ expertise in terms of method self-awareness, and also in tailoring the reliability and validity of the picture about NOS for science education. Approaches in which NOS is discussed within the context of contemporary science also supports the goal of developing citizens who are able to participate, apply and discuss contemporary science, its products, and impacts on their personal life and public action. Such ability is needed in times when, due to the development of communication

36 Compare with the results reached by an open approach as employed by Vesterinen and Aksela (2009) in the same context, with different objectives.

123


453

technology and social media, the boundaries between public and private discussion, decision-making and action, and also scientists’ and laypersons’ perspectives are blurred.

Appendix 1: The Questionnaire (Translated by the Author) About the Research The philosophy of science and technology address the problem of questions concerning the construction and justification of knowledge. These are the tacit principles guiding, for example, how to prove that the model operates smoothly and how to convince others of the viability of the model. These field-specific principles are rarely discussed explicitly. Understanding these principles in turn helps novices to learn the field and in teaching both content and methods. Such understanding can be supported by pragmatic philosophical approach which itemizes and analyses the views of the scientist practicing in the field. We are going to map the views of selected modellers, to find out how you see knowledge construction and justification in the practices of nanophysics. Thus, we would like to ask you the following questions. We ask that you will explain your viewpoints at the level understandable for a high school student. THE OBJECTIVE 1. What is the research frame and object of your research? For example, what is modelled in it and what kind of empirical results are sought after? 2. From the broader viewpoint, to which subject matter is your research project related? 3. How would you reason the importance of your research field to a) a wider public or to funders b) a chemist? 4. Could you please sketch out the methods you use? What general problem-solving skills and modelling skills do you exercise in your work? THE RELATION TO REALITY 1. Which models or what kind of models are central to your project? 2. How would you characterize the relationship between the models, the theory, and the empirical results? For example, do you derive the models from the theories or are those constructed on the basis of empirical results? And how are those developed further? 3. In what respect does the central model or simulation you use represent reality? 4. In what respect does the central model you use relate to the theories already established and in what respect does it not? 5. In what respect does the central simulation you use or develop does differ from the real system? Why have these idealizations or approximations been done? You can give several different examples and reasons why such idealizations and approximations have been done. 6. How could the model or simulation be changed, if there were more effective computers or the technological development would be quickly advanced in some other way? 7. How do you think your work advances the knowledge and understanding of your research field? 8. In what respect does the central model you use relate to the theories already established and in what respect does it not? Why? Please, give several different examples.

123

454


FUNCTIONALITY (from a convincing viewpoint) 1. What characteristics make the models you have developed or use important or interesting? 2. How you increase other researchers’ confidence in the functionality and reliability of a model or a simulation method? YOUR OWN QUESTIONS (what else you want to remember to ask)

References Abd-El-Khalick, F. (1998). The influence of history of science courses on students’ conceptions of nature of science. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Corvallis: Oregon State University. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107. Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665–701. Adu´riz-Bravo, A. (2005). Methodology and politics: A proposal to teach the structuring ideas of the philosophy of science through the pendulum. In M. R. Matthews, C. F. Gauld, & A. Stinner (Eds.), The pendulum. Dordrecht: Springer. Aikenhead, G. S. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activitybased approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 295–317. Allchin, D. (2011a). Evaluating knowledge of the nature of (whole) science. Science Education, 95(3), 518–542. Allchin, D. (2011b). The Minnesota case study collection: New historical inquiry case studies for nature of science education. Science & Education, 21(9), 1263–1281. Allchin, D. (2014). From science studies to scientific literacy: A view from the classroom. Science & Education, 23(9), 1911–1932. Bell, R. L., Lederman, N. G., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2000). Developing and acting upon one’s conceptions of the nature of science: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 563–581. Cantor, G. (1989). The rhetoric of experiment. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences (pp. 159–180). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, L. (2008). Sociocultural influences on science education: Innovation for contemporary times. Science Education, 92(1), 165–181. Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caton, E., Brewer, C., & Brown, F. (2000). Building teacher-scientist partnerships: Teaching about energy through inquiry. School Science and Mathematics, 100(1), 7–15. Chang, H. (1999). History and philosophy of science as a continuation of science by other means. Science & Education, 8(4), 413–425. Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: Measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science. Chang, H. (2011). How historical experiments can improve scientific knowledge and science education: The cases of boiling water and electrochemistry. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 317–341. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in Schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. Clough, M. P. (2006). Learners’ responses to the demands of conceptual change: Considerations for effective nature of science instruction. Science & Education, 15(5), 463–494. Clough, M. P. (2011). The story behind Science: Bringing science and scientists to life in post-secondary science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 701–717. Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17(2), 143–145. Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.

123


455

Collins, H., Evans, R., & Gorman, M. (2007). Trading zones and interactional expertise. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 38(4), 657–666. Darrigol, O. (2000). Electrodynamics from ampere to Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Davis, K. S. (2003). ‘‘Change is hard’’: What science teachers are telling us about reform and teacher learning of innovative practices. Science Education, 87(1), 3–30. De Vries, M. J. (1997). Science, technology and society: A methodological perspective. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1), 21–32. DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at its historical and contemporary meanings and its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6), 582–601. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. Elby, A., & Hammer, D. (2001). On the substance of a sophisticated epistemology. Science Education, 85(5), 554–567. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: Verso. Ford, M. (2008). ‘Grasp of practice’ as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 147–177. Gooding, D. (1989). ‘Magnetic curves’ and the magnetic field: Experimentation and representation in the history of a theory. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gooding, D., Pinch, T., & Schaffer, S. (Eds.). (1989). The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guerra-Ramos, M. T. (2012). Teachers’ ideas about the nature of science: A critical analysis of research approaches and their contribution to pedagogical practice. Science & Education, 2(5), 631–655. Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and inventing: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hanuscin, D. L., Akerson, V. L., & Phillipson-Mower, T. (2006). Integrating nature of science instruction into a physical science content course for pre-service elementary teachers: NOS views of teaching assistants. Science Education, 90(5), 912–935. Herman, B. C., Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2013). Teachers’ nature of science implementation practices 2–5 years after having completed an intensive science education program. Science Education, 97(2), 271–309. Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115–135. Hodson, D. (2008). Towards scientific literacy: A teacher’s guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense. Ho¨ttecke, D., & Silva, C. C. (2011). Why implementing history and philosophy in school science education is a challenge: An analysis of obstacles. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 293–316. Humphreys, P. (2004). Extending ourselves. New York: Oxford University Press. Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84(1), 5–26. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2010). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 591–607. Jauhiainen, J., Lavonen, J., Koponen, I., & Kurki-Suonio, K. V. J. (2002). Experiences from long-term inservice training for physics teachers in Finland. Physics Education, 37(2), 128–134. Jones, A. (1997). Recent research in learning technological concepts and processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 83–96. Khishfe, R., & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus inquiry oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578. Kitcher, P. (1990). The division of cognitive labor. Journal of Philosophy, 87(1), 5–22. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. Koponen, I. T., & Ma¨ntyla¨, T. (2006). Generative role of experiments in physics and in teaching physics: A suggestion for epistemological reconstruction. Science & Education, 15(1), 31–54. Koponen, I., & Tala, S. (2013). Simulative modelling in physics and access to reality: From aspects of research practices to solutions for education. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1143–1169). Dordrecht: Springer. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kurki-Suonio, K. (2011). Principles supporting the perceptional teaching of physics: A ‘‘practical teaching philosophy’’. Science & Education, 20(3–4), 211–243.

123

456


Laherto, A. (2010). An analysis of the educational significance of nanoscience and nanotechnology in scientific and technological literacy. Science Education International, 21(3), 160–175. Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84(1), 71–94. Lavonen, J., Jauhiainen, J., Koponen, I. T., & Kurki-Suonio, K. V. J. (2004). Effect of a long-term in-service training program on teachers’ beliefs about the role of experiments in physics education. International Journal of Science Education, 26(3), 309–328. Lavonen, J., Krzywacki-Vainio, H., Aksela, M., Krokfors, L., Oikkonen, J., & Saarikko, H. (2007). Preservice teacher education in chemistry, mathematics and physics. In E. Pehkonen, M. Ahtee, & J. Lavonen (Eds.), How Finns learn mathematics and science (pp. 46–68). Rotterdam: Sense. 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. (1999). Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 916–929. Lederman, N. G. (2004). Syntax of nature of science within inquiry and science instruction. In L. B. Flick & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and nature of science (pp. 301–317). Dordrecht: 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. Machamer, P., & Osbeck, L. (2004). The social in the epistemic. In P. Machamer & G. Wolters (Eds.), Values, science and objectivity. Pittsbugrh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. London: Routledge. Matthews, M. R. (1998). In defence of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research of Science Teaching, 35(2), 161–174. Matthews, M. R. (2005). Idealisation and Galileo’s pendulum discoveries: Historical, philosophical and pedagogical consideration. In M. R. Matthews, C. F. Gauld, & A. Stinner (Eds.), The pendulum (pp. 209–235). Dordrecht: Springer. McComas, W. F. (2008). Seeking historical examples to illustrate key aspects of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 249–292. McComas, W. F., & Olson, J. K. (1998). The nature of science in international science education standard documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Meyling, H. (1997). How to change students’ conceptions of the epistemology of science. Science & Education, 6(4), 397–416. Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81(4), 405–424. Morrison, M., & Morgan, M. (1999). Models as mediating instruments. In M. S. Morgan & M. Morrison (Eds.), Models as mediators (pp. 10–37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Naylor, R. H. (1989). Galileo’s experimental discourse. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.), The uses of experiment: Studies in the natural sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nersessian, N. J. (1995). Should physicists preach what they practice? Constructive modeling in doing and learning physics. Science & Education, 4(3), 203–226. Nola, R. (1999). On the possibility of scientific theory of scientific knowledge. Science & Education, 8(4), 427–439. Olson, J. (2013). The purpose or schooling and the nature of technology: The end of education? In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology (pp. 217–248). Rotterdam: Sense. Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What ‘‘ideas-about-science’’ should be taught in school science? A delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge. Postman, N. (1985). Amusing ourselves to death: Public discourse in the age of show business. New York, NY: Viking. Radder, H. E. (Ed.). (2003). The philosophy of scientific experimentation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Reyna, V. F. (2004). How people make decisions that involve risk a dual-processes approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 60–66.

123


457

Roberts, D. (2007). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rosei, F. (2004). Nanostructured surfaces: Challenges and frontiers in nanotechnology. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 16, S1373–S1436. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580. Rudolph, J. L. (2005). Inquiry, instrumentalism, and the public understanding of science. Science Education, 89(5), 803–821. Sandoval, W. F. (2005). Understanding students’ practical epistemologies and their influence on learning through inquiry. Science Education, 89(4), 634–656. Schulz, R. M. (2009). Reforming science education: Part I. Searching for a philosophy of science education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 225–249. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science & Education, 88(4), 610–645. Siipi, H. (2008). The prerequisites for genetic democracy. In V. Launis & J. Ra¨ikka¨ (Eds.), Genetic democracy: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 9–19). Dordrecht: Springer. Sismondo, S. (2011). Corporate disguises in medical science: Dodging the interest repertoire. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 31, 482–492. Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology for education: Technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18(3–4), 275–298. Tala, S. (2011). Enculturation into technoscience: Analysis of the views of novices and experts on modelling and learning in nanophysics. Science & Education, 20(7–8), 733–760. Tala, S. (2013a). Knowledge building expertise: Nanomodellers’ education as an example. Science & Education, 22(6), 1323–1346. Tala, S. (2013b). The nature of technoscience. In M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson, & D. S. Niederhauser (Eds.), The nature of technology: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 51–83). Rottendam: Sense. Tolvanen, S., Jansson, J., Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. K. (2014). How to use historical approach to teach nature of science in chemistry education? Science & Education, 23(8), 1605–1636. van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100. Vesterinen, V. M., & Aksela, M. (2009). A novel course of chemistry as a scientific discipline: How do prospective teachers perceive nature of chemistry through visits to research groups? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10(2), 132–141. Vesterinen, V.-M., & Aksela, M. (2013). Design of chemistry teacher education course on nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2193–2225. Vesterinen, V. M., Aksela, M., & Lavonen, J. (2013). Quantitative analysis of representations of nature of science in Nordic upper secondary school textbooks using framework of analysis based on philosophy of chemistry. Science & Education, 22(7), 1839–1855. ´ . (2014). History, philosophy, and sociVesterinen, V. M., Manassero-Mas, M. A., & Va´zquez-Alonso, A ology of science and science–technology–society traditions in science education: Continuities and discontinuities. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1895–1925). Dordrecht: Springer. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Vvedensky, D. D. (2004). Multiscale modelling of nanostructure. Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 16, R1537–R1576.

123

Nature of Science Contextualized: Studying Nature of Science with ...

Nature of Science Contextualized: Studying Nature of Science with ...

Suggest Documents

SCIENCE / NATURE

Nature and Science - Journal of American Science

Science Instructors' Views of Science and Nature of Science

THE NATURE OF SCIENCE INSTRUMENT

The Nature of Science - CiteSeerX

The Nature of Science and Science Inquiry - National Science ...

The Nature of Science and Science Inquiry - National Science ...

The Nature of Science and Science Inquiry - National Science ...

Nature and Science

Nature Conservation - Science Direct

Delicious science - Nature

Envisioning Science - Nature

Redesigning nature - Current Science

Nature Conservation - Science Direct

Climate science reconsidered - Nature

Science and sensibility - Nature

Spin kills science - Nature

Nature and Science

Science and sensibility - Nature

Nature and Science

Nature and Science

Nature and Science 0302

nature science

Picturing science - Nature