Sci & Educ (2008) 17:143145

DOI 10.1007/s11191-007-9083-9

Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An

Received: 29 December 2006 / Accepted: 18 February 2007 / Published online: 11 April 2007
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

The phrase The Nature of Science (NOS) is often used by science educators to refer to
issues such as what science is, how it works, the epistemological and ontological foundations of science, how scientists function as a social group and how society influences and
reacts to scientific endeavors. The importance of accurately and deliberately teaching NOS
when teaching science to students is widely recognized. This is evident in science education reform documents, the extensive NOS literature appearing in science education
journals, and as the focus of Science & Education. However, despite this cheery consensus
regarding the importance of accurately teaching the NOS, much remains to be done in
moving the vision to a reality in elementary through post-secondary science education.
This special issue of Science & Education devoted to teaching and assessing the nature of
science illustrates the importance of the NOS in teaching science, the research efforts being
made to promote effective NOS teaching and learning, and points to the significant amount
of work that remains to be done.
What should be taught to students about NOS, and the developmental appropriateness of
particular NOS ideas, are crucial decisions still being addressed in the science education
community. Science educators acknowledge that issues regarding the nature of science are
not settled (e.g. Abd-El-Khalick et al. 1998; Clough 2006; Eflin et al. 1999; Matthews
1994; McComas et al. 1998; Smith et al. 1997). At the same time, all these scholars argue
that for science education purposes, an acceptable level of consensus exists on broad nature
of science issues. The most recognized list of acceptable positions regarding the nature of
science is that offered by Abd-El-Khalick et al. (1998). However, Clough (2007) raises
concerns about NOS tenets arguing that they can be stifling and easily misused. While
NOS tenets might provide guidance for curriculum development, teaching, and assessment
regarding the NOS, they must not dictate the scope and sequence of NOS teaching and
learning.

M. P. Clough (&)
J. K. Olson

123

144

M. P. Clough, J. K. Olson

In this special issue, Michael Ford reports on the practice exhibited by sixth-grade
students in an inquiry activity and asserts their grasp of that practice far exceeded a mere
following of protocol. He calls into question the common view that declarative tenets are
the best way to characterize learning objectives for supporting inquiry and NOS understanding. Keith Taber argues that given the complex nature of science, what is taught about
it in school science must be a simplification, and that a curricular model is needed to guide
teachers in determining what about NOS is appropriate at particular grade levels, and how
to teach and assess those targeted NOS ideas in a developmentally appropriate manner.
In order to accurately and effectively teach and assess NOS with their students,
classroom teachers understanding about the NOS must certainly go well beyond a list of
NOS tenets. Most if not all statements about the NOS are contextual with important
exceptions. Even where consensus does exist, the key is to explore the NOS so that science
teachers and students come to deeply understand its contextual nature. In this special issue,
Mike Smith and Lawrence Scharmann present their work teaching preservice teachers
about the NOS. They propose an instructional approach to teaching NOS that encourages
post-secondary students to truly wrestle with NOS ideas and their contextual nature. What
they propose for teaching preservice science teachers likely applies to teaching younger
learners as well and deserves further study.
In teaching NOS at any level, examples from the history of science are useful for
generating discussions about the NOS and understanding its contextual nature. Scholars
who are particularly interested in the NOS dig deeply into the history of science and draw
much from it in teaching the NOS. However, for others, finding and using relevant historical examples is time-consuming and difficult. In this special issue, William McComas
provides a much-needed service by identifying historical examples from readily accessible
popular books on the nature of science. He goes further and links these historical examples
to important NOS ideas. Busy teachers will find the work he has done to be very useful in
helping them access historical examples that illustrate the NOS and its contextual nature.
Using the often-misunderstood concepts of heat and temperature, Kevin De Berg illustrates
how the history of science can be used to teach both science content and NOS. Teaching
the NOS in this highly contextualized manner is important in persuading teachers that NOS
instruction need not detract from, and can likely promote, science content learning.
However, teachers always mediate how resources for teaching the NOS are implemented in the classroom. In this special issue, Jim Ryder and John Leach investigate
teachers initial use of published NOS resources and focus on their classroom talk as they
use these materials. Their analysis of teachers talk is then used to identify professional
development activities useful for helping teachers develop the expertise needed to effectively teach the NOS. Their attention to the teachers role in teaching the NOS should be
emulated in all classroom research directed at learning and teaching NOS.
Most all authors in this special issue speak to the complex and contextual character of
the NOS. Future scholarship should continue to address what NOS ideas are worth
learning, how sophisticated an understanding is desirable and possible, and the developmental appropriateness of particular NOS ideas. While scholarship has grown regarding
how to effectively teach the NOS, proposed ideas should be implemented and assessed
more widely and in larger settings. Results from these studies would provide insight into
the utility of proposed strategies and need for new thinking. This applies to NOS
instruction directed toward teachers and science students. In addition, research regarding
professional development that promotes teachers attention to, and implementation of,
accurate and effective NOS instruction is sorely needed.

123

Teaching and Assessing the Nature of Science

145

Finally, efforts are urgently needed to help teachers and creators of high stakes tests to
accurately assess students understanding of NOS. Dall Alba et al. (1993) and many others
have stated the obvious; assessment gives clear messages to students about what is
important in the subject (p. 633). What is assessed in high stakes exams also sends clear
messages to teachers about what to emphasize in their instruction. While criticisms of
common pencil-and-paper NOS assessments are well placed, attention is needed to creating viable, valid and reliable assessments that will encourage teachers to accurately and
consistently implement developmentally appropriate NOS instruction.
The contributors to this special issue of Science & Education make important contributions to our understanding of the complexities regarding teaching and assessing the
nature of science. The issues they address also underscore that improving the teaching,
learning and assessing of NOS is still far from being clearly understood and translated into
practice. Much work remains to be done.
References
Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell RL, Lederman NG (1998) The nature of science and instructional practice: making
the unnatural natural. Sci Educ 82(4):417436
Clough MP (2007) Teaching the nature of science to secondary and post-secondary students: questions
rather than tenets. The Pantaneto Forum, Issue 25, January, http://www.pantaneto.co.uk/issue25/
front25.htm
Clough MP (2006) Learners responses to the demands of conceptual change: considerations for effective
nature of science instruction. Sci & Educ 15(5):463494
Dall Alba G et al (1993) Textbook treatments and students understanding of acceleration. J Res Sci Teach
30(7):621645
Eflin JT, Glennan S, Reisch G (1999) The nature of science: a perspective from the philosophy of science. J
Res Sci Teach 36(1):107117
Matthews M (1994) Science teaching; the role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge, New York,
NY, p 108
McComas WF, Clough MP, Almazroa H (1998) The role and character of the nature of science in science
education. Sci & Educ 7(6):511532
Smith MU, Lederman NG, Bell RL, McComas WF, Clough MP (1997) How great is the disagreement about
the nature of science: a response to alters. J Res Sci Teach 34(10):11011103

123