sign in sign up
<<
Home , Physics, Science

Physics

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Related content

- Development of Lesson and Student Working with the of in Worksheets Based Socio-Scientific Issues on Environmental Topic class: turning ‘ordinary’ classroom situations into S Rahayu, M Meyliana, A Arlingga et al. - Recent advances in classroom physics nature of science learning situations Beth Ann Thacker

- Learning to teach inquiry with ICT To cite this article: Lena Hansson and Lotta Leden 2016 Phys. Educ. 51 055001 Trinh-Ba Tran, Ed van den Berg, Ton Ellermeijer et al.

Recent citations View the article online for updates and enhancements. - What’s inside the pink box? A nature of science activity for teachers and students Freek Pols

- Upper Primary Students’ Views Vis-à-Vis Scientific Reasoning Levels in Physics Tsedeke Abate et al

- Lotta Leden and Lena Hansson

This content was downloaded from IP address 170.106.33.14 on 24/09/2021 at 18:38 IOP

Physics Education

Phys. Educ.

51 P a p e r s Phys. Educ. 51 (2016) 055001 (6pp) iopscience.org/ped 2016 Working with the nature of © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd science in physics class: turning PHEDA7 ‘ordinary’ classroom situations 055001 into nature of science learning L Hansson and L Leden situations

Working with the nature of science in physics class Lena Hansson1,2 and Lotta Leden1,2 Printed in the UK 1 Swedish National Resource Centre for , Lund , Lund, Sweden 2 Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden PED E-mail: [email protected]

10.1088/0031-9120/51/5/055001 Abstract In the there is a large body of on 0031-9120 the ‘nature of science’ (NOS). NOS captures issues about what characterizes the research process as well as the scientific . Here we, in line with a broad body of literature, use a wide definition of NOS including also e.g. Published socio-cultural aspects. It is argued that NOS issues, for a number of , should be included in the teaching of science/physics. Research shows that NOS should be taught explicitly. There are plenty of suggestions on specific September and separate NOS activities, but the necessity of discussing NOS issues in connection to specific science/physics content and to , is also 5 highlighted. In this article we draw on this body of literature on NOS and science teaching, and discuss how classroom situations in secondary physics classes could be turned into NOS-learning situations. The discussed situations have been suggested by secondary teachers, during in-service teacher training, as situations from every- physics teaching, from which NOS could be highlighted.

1. The relevance of ‘nature of science’ look like? What is the role of ? Is the perspectives for science/physics teaching research process objective and rational, or are there also subjective and creative elements? How How certain is scientific knowledge? How can can the relation between science and the sur- the relation between scientific models and nature rounding society be described? Are there limits be described? What does a research process for science, or science in the be able to answer all types of questions? These questions, Original content from this work may be used and many more, all deal with nature of science under the terms of the Creative Commons ‘ ’ Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work (NOS). Thus we use the of NOS in a must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the broad sense including also socio-cultural aspects work, journal citation and DOI. (see Lederman 2007, Erduran and Dagher 2014).

0031-9120/16/055001+6$33.00 1 © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd L Hansson and L Leden The research field of science education has and despite its inclusion in curricula, there is no for a long , and with numerous arguments, tradition working with NOS in the science class- advocated that these kinds of NOS perspectives room (Lederman 2007). Instead, science teach- should be included in science teaching (e.g. ing is still focused on what teachers speak about Lederman 2007, Hodson 2009, Matthews 2012). as ‘ and labwork’ (Leden et al 2015), in Research shows that students often have views which broader perspectives on NOS are seldom about science that are too simplistic. McComas included. (1998) speaks about the presence of a number Among scholars, as well as philos- of myths about science. Such myths include that ophers and sociologists, there are different views the researcher always uses one specific research of what characterizes science. However, regard- method—‘the ’, that the research less of disagreements, and differences between process relies more on procedures than on creativ- scientific disciplines, there are suggestions from ity, and that scientific research is an entirely objec- different scholars of a number of NOS aspects or tive and universal enterprise (independent of the NOS categories that could be considered appro- researcher as well as of the surrounding society). priate for K-12 students (e.g. Osborne et al 2003, When the ‘scientific method’ is followed, accord- Lederman 2007, Erduran and Dagher 2014). ing to such a stereotypical picture, the research Such suggestions could function as guidelines for process in absolute, objective facts about teachers. They can also, at least partly be viewed nature. These kinds of myths are reproduced in as a response to stereotypical and mythical pic- various situations, for example in school. tures of science, as well as an attempt to change The myths described above are not challenged these pictures. if the teaching only focuses on physics and models, or through involving students in tra- ditional laboratory work, without also explicitly 2. Research on how to work with NOS in discussing what kind of enterprise science is (e.g. science/physics classes Lederman 2007). That is, NOS-learning does not There are roughly speaking two main ways sug- happen automatically, but has to be a learning goal gested in the research literature on how NOS that is planned for. The differences between the could be addressed during physics lessons—sepa- goals of learning science, learning to do science rate from or connected to specific physics/science and learning about science (NOS) is discussed by content. Separate NOS-activities could be a fruit- Hodson (2014); it can be difficult to have all three ful way to highlight specific issues, while teach- goals in focus all the time. ing NOS in connection to specific concepts and Today there is a great focus on teaching sci- models provide possibilities for NOS to become ence for citizenship (Hodson 2009). Also for this part of physics teaching not only during single NOS knowledge is of central importance, lessons. e.g. as a tool when interpreting media reports. The latter approach could be done through NOS knowledge could help students understand: addressing some NOS aspects in connection to: why knowledge sometimes changes while there laboratory work (especially when the laboratory also is a high credibility and concern- work is designed more like authentic science (e.g. ing other knowledge, why researchers do not Yacoubian and BouJaoude 2010, Etkina, 2015); always agree on debated issues, and how the lim- historical examples (e.g. Höttecke et al 2012), its of science can be viewed upon. In addition to or when working with ‘socio-scientific issues’ these reasons for including NOS in science/physics (e.g. Eastwood et al 2012) often (but not always) teaching, research also shows that NOS teaching including frontier science. See Allchin et al (2014) can increase students’ interest in science, as well for a discussion of different approaches to NOS as contribute to a better understanding of con- teaching and how these could complement each cepts and models (e.g. Lederman 2007). other. In this way NOS becomes something that is NOS is part of science curricula in many discussed and learnt together with scientific con- countries, and has been so for more than a century cepts, models and procedures. (Jenkins 2013). However, despite research argu- Both ways of dealing with NOS (separate ing for an inclusion of NOS in science teaching, and in connection to other physics content) have

September 2016 2 Physics Education Working with the nature of science in physics class benefits and constrains, and they could preferably that is decided on by ; in this case defi- be used in combination (Clough 2006). However, nitions in are by the International it is important not only to teach NOS as separate Astronomical Union (IAU). Definitions could activities, but also on the spur of the in always be made in different ways. The concept connection to specific physics/science concepts ‘’ was introduced by the ancient , and models (Nott and Wellington 1998, Herman but through the meaning of the word has et al 2013). Such NOS teaching also makes it changed and included different objects at different possible to highlight the of science (Tignanelli and Benétreau-Dupin 2014). At (Clough 2006). the beginning of the 2100 century had Below we will discuss how NOS could be empirical data on more and more objects outside brought to the fore during ‘ordinary’ physics les- Neptune, which could all potentially be viewed as sons even if the main goal is not NOS learning. (Tignanelli and Benétreau-Dupin 2014). The situations discussed were collected in physics The need for a strict definition became more classrooms, by in-service science teachers, during and more apparent, and in 2006 a definition was a physics training course, and suggested by them set by IAU, by a majority vote (Tignanelli and as possible starting points for NOS discussions. Benétreau-Dupin 2014). According to this Pluto From the teachers’ hand-ins, we have for this is not a planet. In this case, Pluto has not changed, article chosen four situations and suggested NOS nor the knowledge about Pluto, only the defini- topics that are possible to discuss. Thus the aim of tion of what constitutes a planet. this article is to discuss how such situations from There are also plenty of opportunities to dis- ordinary secondary physics classes, can be turned cuss the empirical work of astronomers, and how into situations where classroom the concept ‘planet’ was challenged by new data. It is widened to include NOS-perspectives, so that is also possible to highlight that definitions of con- stereotypical and mythical pictures of physics/ cepts are made by humans, and can be made in dif- science can be challenged. ferent ways. This is relevant not only for this case. Scientists in all different kinds of areas ( or far back in time) have been involved in categoriza- 3. Examples of how classroom situations tions of different kinds. This is part of the NOS. In can be turned into NOS-learning some research areas, as in the case of astronomy situations above, this is very much the case today, while in The situations discussed below are chosen with other research areas, categorizations and definitions the intent to show a wide variety of possibilities are agreed on and no longer up for discussion. It for NOS to be highlighted in the physics class- could also be highlighted that the definition made in room, in very different situations—e.g. both in 2006 might not be final, but could be changed again teacher-led situations and during laboratory work, to resolve other problems. Also, as often, when and both in relation to frontier and consensus humans are involved, some astronomers disagree physics. The situations are translated quotes from about the definition set in 2006, and suggests other the teachers’ hand-ins. ones instead (Tignanelli and Benétreau-Dupin 2014). This could be viewed as an example of con- troversies, ongoing discussions and argumentation 3.1. Situation A: surely there is another in research communities. Such aspects of knowl- planet outside Pluto? edge-in-the-making is also part of the NOS, but is It has been reported in media that Pluto ‘is no lon- often not highlighted in the teaching of physics or ger a planet’. Thus, this is a familiar issue to many in physics textbooks aimed for schools, where most students and teachers. The question above is not often consensus physics is in focus. explicitly about whether Pluto is a planet, but instead about the possible existence of more - 3.2. Situation B: why is there so much ets outside Pluto. However, these two things are research about ? related. In this situation it is possible to discuss with the students that these questions concern the Research about cancer is a vivid area within dif- definition of a planet. A definition is something ferent scientific disciplines involving not only

September 2016 3 Physics Education L Hansson and L Leden medical researchers, but also , chem- a movement of from one place to another, ists and many other experts. Such a research e.g. a flow of is sent from the source area, including collaborations between research- (Caleon and Subramaniam 2007). Empirical sup- ers with different disciplinary backgrounds, is port for a view where transmission of is an example of how traditional discipline bound- about matter movement, but not about net dis- aries are sometimes transgressed. Changing and placement was first put forward by Boyle and transgressed disciplinary boundaries could also Hooke. They used a vacuum pump connected to a be viewed as part of what characterizes science, jar with a bell inside. When air pressure dropped, and thus part of NOS. Questions about why some the sound of the bell died out (Caleon and research areas receive special attention are com- Subramaniam 2007). Due to this empirical sup- plex, but still possible and important to discuss port consensus could be reached about the need of in the classroom. Teaching could highlight that a medium for the transmission of sound. Such an the special attention could be due to theoretical historical account of how ideas about sound have and/or empirical reasons. Another possible topic developed, places empirical as well as theoretical is research funding. Also such topics are part of parts of the research process in focus. However, a wide definition of NOS (see e.g. Erduran and care must be taken so that historical cases are Dagher 2014). Today, most researchers need to not taught in a simplistic way, reinforcing myths apply for research grants to finance the research. about science (e.g. Allchin 2003). Some of these grants are public funding, but much In this way classroom discussions could also of today’s research is privately financed e.g. by focus on reasoning and arguments in science, not industry or foundations. That researchers apply only on ‘facts’. Thus science can become more for grants in competition with other researchers, than just another ‘fairy tale’. With the starting also means that trends and values in society play point in this situation, the NOS discussion could role for what projects get funded. Some areas also focus on certainty/ as well as con- enjoy a more favorable funding situation than oth- tinuity/change. Scientific knowledge is always ers. For example in cancer-related research, the open for change. Models could be fine-tuned, industry could have a specific interest due to pos- or, more rarely, substituted. However, sibilities of developing and profiting on . and models do not change randomly. Most of the It is also an area that most of the general pub- models scientists use today will also be in use lic find important. Thus funding is possible both when the students are adults (and even old). It is from e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, as well as also important for students to know that a specific from non-profit organizations collecting money model will work as well (or bad) in the future from the general public. as it does today. However other models could in the future be constructed that give more accurate results, provide a new way of viewing old data or 3.3. Situation C: our textbook says unify different descriptions. that sound are compressions and rarefactions of air. How certain are researchers about this? 3.4. Situation D: lab work on transport In this situation the starting point for the possible The students were to investigate which mat­ NOS discussions is from consensus, school-book erial is the best heat transporter (lead, alu­ physics. A possible focus could be how the cur­ minum, brass or iron). They put forward rent understanding of sound has developed. An different : Lead transports the best historical overview could be provided over how because it has the highest density /…/, iron ideas about the transmission of sound have devel- transports the best because it is a good elec­ oped. The idea has its origin far back in history. trical conductor. They were to the ex­ Aristoteles, for example, viewed sound as waves, periment by themselves with the help of a tea and states that air has to be pressed together for , and they proceeded in different ways. the sound to (Caleon and Subramaniam Some students held the metal rods in pairs 2007). However, during the first half of the 1600s and felt which of them warmed the fingers there were still researchers who viewed sound as the fastest /…/ (like a knockout competition).

September 2016 4 Physics Education Working with the nature of science in physics class

Some of them took one rod at a time and involved in authentic inquiry contexts, NOS has used a . Some tested all of them at to be explicitly discussed (Abd-El-Khalick 2013). the same time, but were two persons holding The situation described above, is not authentic in two rods each over the candle. The interesting this respect, but part of traditional school labwork. thing about the task is that they all got differ­ However, there are still, as discussed above, pos- ent results! (a teacher’s description) sibilities to discuss some NOS aspects in relation to such traditional labwork. In this situation students are engaged in open inquiry. Parallels could be drawn both to the work of researchers, e.g. that creativity is needed in 4. Conclusion the research process (in different phases of the Science education researchers have argued for investigation—e.g. when formulating research the inclusion of NOS perspectives in science/ question, when planning the investigation (e.g. physics teaching. This can be done in different experiments), and when interpreting results), and ways (e.g. as separate NOS-activities or setting to the relation between empirical and theor­etical up authentic inquiry lessons where NOS is explic- work (see above). Differing results also open itly discussed and planned for etc), but Herman up numerous possibilities for discussions. One et al (2013) argue that it is also important that topic for discussion is that in science you expect teachers are able to connect NOS to other sci- to get similar if the same invest­igation is ence/physics content, as soon as possibilities repeated, by another person or in another place are given. Sometimes this can be planned for, (AAAS 2009). This is due to science presuppos- but it also has to do with teachers’ competence ing that nature is ordered, which also is some- to seize the moment. This could be during les- thing that could be necessary to discuss with the sons having the goal that students learn: physics students (Hansson 2014). That nature is ordered content, processes of scientific investigations, or is the reason for why we expect a general answer how to use science knowledge when engaged in to the question about which of the metals trans- socio-scientific argumentation. To, in this way, ports heat the best. When this background has not teach NOS only through isolated activities, been established students can discuss which but also in connection to other content and goals, method is likely to lead to the most trustwor- creates possibilities to highlight the complexity of thy results. They can each other’s methods, science (Clough 2006). Thus, there are opportuni- or develop new ones. Science as laden is ties to leave stereotypical and mythical pictures also an aspect that could be discussed (e.g. dif- of science behind. And students can be provided ferent starting points resulting in different ways possibilities to engage with a science that is not of investigating and interpreting), as well as the only ‘ready-made’ and created by others, but a relationship between and conclu- vivid area in which they themselves can engage. sions (e.g. relating their observations to an evalu- The aim of this article has been to, with a start- ation of their hypothesis). Students can present ing point in some concrete situations retrieved by their methods, results and conclusions to each teachers in their everyday practice, illustrate how other, and engage in a critical examination of their this could happen. That is, how ‘ordinary’ phys- own and other students’ results. Then parallels to ics teaching situations could be seized and turned research conferences and the into NOS-learning situations. in the research community could be drawn. To, in physics class, engage students in work similar to Received 3 March 2016 Accepted for publication 19 May 2016 the work of researchers has been found very fruit- doi:10.1088/0031-9120/51/5/055001 ful at different levels of the educational system (Etkina 2015). There are examples, in the litera- References ture, of how explicit NOS-discussion in authentic AAAS 2009 Benchmark for science literacy (www. inquiry could improve students NOS understand- project2061.org/publications/bsl/) (accessed 8 ’ June 2016) ing (e.g. Yacoubian and BouJaoude 2010, Abd- Abd-El-Khalick F 2013 Teaching with and about El-Khalick 2013). However, it is important to nature of science, and science teacher knowledge notice that also in situations where students are domains Sci. & Educ. 22 2087–107

September 2016 5 Physics Education L Hansson and L Leden Allchin D 2003 Scientific myth-conceptionsSci. Educ. Lederman N G 2007 Nature of science: , present, and 87 329–51 future Handbook of Research on Science Education Allchin D, Andersen H M and Nielsen K 2014 ed S K Abell and N G Lederman (Mahwah, NJ: Complementary approaches to teaching nature Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 831–79 of science: integrating student inquiry, historical Matthews M R 2012 Changing the focus: from cases, and contemporary cases in classroom nature of science (NOS) to features of science practice Sci. Educ. 98 461–86 (FOS) Advances in Nature of Science Research: Caleon I S and Subramaniam R 2007 From Concepts and ed M S Khine to Sauveur: tracing the history of ideas about the (Dordrecht: Springer) pp 3–26 nature of sound Phys. Ed. 42 173–9 McComas W F 1998 The principal elements of Clough M P 2006 Learners’ responses to the demands the nature of science: dispelling the myths of : considerations for effective The Nature of Science in Science Education: nature of science instruction Sci. & Educ. Rationales and Strategies ed W F McComas 15 463–94 (Dordrecht: Kluwer) pp 53–70 Eastwood J L, Sadler T D, Zeidler D L, Lewis A, Nott M and Wellington J 1998 Eliciting, interpreting Amiri L and Applebaum S 2012 Contextualizing and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science instruction in socioscientific nature of science Sci. & Educ. 7 579–94 issues Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34 2289–315 Osborne J, Collins S, Ratcliffe M, Millar R and Etkina E 2015 Millikan award lecture: students of Duschl R 2003 What ‘ideas-about-science’ should physics—listeners, observers, or collaborative be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the participants in physics scientific practices? Am. J. expert community J. Res. Sci. Teach. 40 692–720 Phys. 83 669–79 Tignanelli H and Benétreau-Dupin Y 2014 Erduran S and Dagher Z R 2014 Reconceptualizing Perspectives of history and on the Nature of Science for Science Education: teaching astronomy International Handbook of Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Research in History, Philosophy and Science Categories (Dordrecht: Springer) Teaching ed M R Matthews (Dordrecht: Springer) Hansson L 2014 Students’ views concerning Yacoubian H A and BouJaoude S 2010 The effect of underpinning reflective discussions following inquiry-based science: is the really ordered, uniform, and laboratory activities on students’ views of nature comprehensible? Sci. Educ. 98 743–65 of science J. Res. Sci. Teach. 47 1229–52 Herman B C, Clough M P and Olson J K 2013 Teachers’ nature of science implementation Lena Hansson is trained as a physics practices 2–5 after having completed an teacher for upper secondary school, and intensive science education program Sci. Educ. has a PhD in science education. She is 97 271–309 now an Associate Professor in Science Hodson D 2009 Teaching and Learning about Science: Education at Kristianstad University, Language, Theories, Methods, History, Traditions Sweden. In addition to doing research and Values (Rotterdam: Sense) she works at the Swedish National Hodson D 2014 Learning science, learning about Resource Centre for Physics Education, science, doing science: different goals demand with projects and in-service teacher training, aiming at different learning methods Int. J. Sci. Educ. bridging the gap between science education research and school practice. 36 2534–53 Höttecke D, Henke A and Riess F 2012 Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching: Lotta Leden has worked as a science strategies, methods, results and experiences and maths teacher and a special from the European HIPST project Sci. & Educ. education teacher in secondary school. 21 1233–61 She is now a PhD student in science education at Kristianstad University, Jenkins E W 2013 The ‘nature of science’ in the school : the great survivor J. Sweden. Part of her time she is involved in in-service teacher training at the Curriculum Stud. 45 132–51 Leden L, Hansson L, Redfors A and Ideland M Swedish National Resource Centre for Physics Education. 2015 Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching Sci. & Educ. 24 1141–72

September 2016 6 Physics Education