The Nature of Science is...

Nature of Science.  A really technical sounding, and somewhat misleading term that to me says “the what and how of the thing we call science.”  Science classes were always one of the most fun classes that I had during the year.  It was always like a puzzle with one more piece.  Try and try and try to find out where and how the piece fit with the rest, and once the right spot was found, more space appeared.  That’s how I like to think of it at least. 

As I was preparing to write this post I went through several articles that were written about the Nature of Science and the importance of it in science education in our schools.  As I was reading it seemed to me that the people who were writing the articles had a similar thought about what Nature of Science is and what it appears to have become.  Today, it seems that the ideas that people have about science are centered on an unfortunate argument: tenets or questions.  Too often I’ve been in a science class, or been trying to explain a concept to another person and I have heard or said “It is just the way it is,” suggesting that its something to accept as fact rather than study, and learn about.  In his article, Clough writes that the here are several ideas about the Nature of Science that would have a clear impact on science education but they have been distilled down to “it’s just the way it is.”  The best science classes that I have had have been the ones where the teacher, even if they said something was just the way it was because, they always wanted their students to look critically at the ideas.  We may have only been trying to replicate or reinforce the ideas that the original scientist came up with during their investigations, but that’s part of the process: coming up with a question then pursuing the questions. 

Brunsell wrote in his 2010 piece that there is a disconnect between the Nature of Science in schools and what scientists in the world actually do.   I can attest to the recipe-like nature of the experimentation practices throughout high schools and college, its wasn’t until my junior and senior years in college that I was really forced to come up with my own experiments.  Truthfully, I think that there is some place for a “recipe” if you will, because as I’ve seen in my different education classes up to this point, there are different levels of development and up to a point some people may not be at the developmental stage where that kind of critical thinking is necessary.  But, like Brunsell and Kruse, I tend to look at science like a journey (or continuous puzzle).  Both of Brunsell and Kruse commented on the deterministic style science education has today.  Always looking to the end result.  I don’t know if that has anything to do with the publish-or-perish mindset that many academic/research scientists have – get to the end of an experiment and show the results to the world.  But that really isn’t the point of the work that they actually are doing.  The product may be what the world wants to see, but the journey to that is just as  important.  Thomas Edison once said about the number of times he tried and failed to create a light bulb, “I have not failed 10,000 times.  I have not failed once.  I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work.  When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work.”  This quote seems to typify the ideas about how we look at and teach the Nature of Science in schools.  It’s a process of continued learning; its not just the what, but the why and how as well.  Revision too.  How many times has the wheel been “re-invented”? Think about it, we see the cartoons with the solid stone wheels, but that isn’t what we use today.  Wooden wheels, wooden wheels with spokes, iron-rimmed wooden wheels, all the way up to the rubber wheel with an air filled bladder in it.  Science, like the wheel, does not stop with the first conclusion.  If it did, the earth would still be the center of the solar system.  Except that people made observations that didn’t fit with common understanding of the world at the time they were made.  Theories and understandings of the world evolve over time, and we need to be aware of that.  There are a lot of theories out there, and a few laws.  There’s a big difference between them.  The “that’s just the way it is” comment is applied to theories even though those are the ideas that people should be looking at critically because they are only theories.  Almost every article that I’ve read about the Nature of Science talked about the semi-permanence of scientific “fact.” Even though it may seem that we’ve explained almost everything we can, we may have only seen the first 10,001 things that don’t work.

Dr. Kruse’s article had some pretty interesting ideas in it, not to mention ones that should be really considered by those of us who are looking at becoming science teachers.  One of the first things that he talked about was how the Nature of Science is taught:  one unit at the beginning of the course, then on to the “meat” of the course.  We as teachers and educators need to make sure that we continue teaching these ideas throughout the year.  My experiences summer are a prime example, I am working on a couple of content courses for my endorsements – bot of them in a science field.  The textbooks that I purchased for these classes are very informative (based on their pricetags), but the Nature of Science is contained in one or two sections of the first chapter.  It has been simplified down to the barest-of-bones ideas, and in one of the textbooks, the explanation of the scientific method makes it seem like the recipe, step-by-step approach that we often learn in middle and high school science classes is the only way that science can be done.  Another part of Dr. Kruse’s article that I really liked, was the collection of important ideas about the Nature of Science that he put together.  They are (paraphrased as I understood them):

-       Knowledge is not permanent, but it is durable.

-       Science is discovery plus invention.

-       We as scientists cannot be completely objective, we’re human, but we should try to be as much as possible.

-       There are many facets to science and they all have different functions.

-       The natural world is what we are focusing on, not the supernatural; but that doesn’t mean we should make claims about the supernatural.

-       Reliance on empirical data is a must, but that is not mutually exclusive from analyzing that data and being creative.

-       The scientific method is a tool, but it isn't the only one in a scientists toolbox.

-       In science we can’t prove something outright, we can only see resounding evidence in favor of one thing or another.

-       Theory and Law are not the same; theory doesn’t become law; a theory explains a law.

-       Models are problem-solving tools, we should look at them as things that show how reality might work.

If science teachers can use these ideas in there instruction, and get students to ask the why and how questions, rather than just the who, what, where, and when questions, we will be teaching the Nature of Science as we teach the information that earlier minds have established.

In the last couple of articles that I read by (one by Schwartz and one by Moreno), I really came to see that sometimes it isn’t what is being taught that students are having trouble with, sometimes it is what is being said.  In Moreno’s article, the idea that teaching the Nature of Science can help us in an era where science has taken a position of increased importance, yet the scientific literacy needed to understand the issues is lacking.  Schwartz’s article touched on an idea that truly combat what Moreno was seeing: we need to be careful about what we say and how we say them, as well as educate our students to communicate their ideas more effectively.  One statement that I saw criticized in several articles was “The data tells…” or “The data shows…” yet in reality data can’t tell or show anything.  The person who looks at the data has to analyze it in order to make any conclusion.  I keep coming back to the idea that we need to be careful what we say, because, pardon the old phrase, but “loose lips sink ships” and in this era when science is very important, we can’t have any of our students’ ships sinking.

The Nature of Science is an interesting topic: something that is inherently needed and useful to know, but often times is overlooked or oversimplified.  As I was growing up and going through my science classes in school, I cannot say that I actually remember hearing this term.  Even though I did not hear it, I think I came to have a decent grasp of what it means: continuously questioning, continuously learning—a journey to understand the world around us.  But, it seems like a one-size-fits-all recipe with a product being the desired outcome, has replaced this broad look at the Nature of Science.  Critical thinking, analysis, and creativity in a science classroom sometimes take a backseat to getting an answer.  Sure, there are times when having a right answer is needed, and grading a right or wrong answer is much easier than grading a more abstract concept, but science education should not be just about the end product. 

Resources:

Brunsell, E. (2010).  How to Teach Students to Think Like Scientists, Edutopia. 10/26/10.

Clough, M.P. (2007) Teaching the Nature of Science to Secondary and Post-secondary Students: Questions rather than tenets.  The Pantaneto Forum, Issue 25, January.

Kruse, J.W. (2008). Integrating the Nature of Science Throughout the Entire School Year.  Iowa Science Teachers Journal.  35(2). 15-20.

McComas, W.F. (2004).  Keys to Teaching the Nature of Science. NSTA Feature News Story. 10/29/2004.

Moreno, N.P. (2007). Teaching Science in the 21st Century – Teaching the Nature of Science: Five Crucial Themes. NSTA Reports, (1/3/2007).

NSTA Position Statement (2000). The Nature of Science.

Schwartz, R. (2007).  What’s in a Word? Science Scope. 31(2), 42-47.