INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
Research Article

Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’

Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 2022, 18(4), e2298, https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311
Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The present study aims to design an instruction that engages nature of science (NOS) and nature of the sciences (NOTSs) learning objectives with the teaching and learning of a core biological concept or ‘big’ idea, namely homeostasis. The design process involves choices regarding what NOS and NOTSs aspects are to be taught, while the formulation of these aspects is in accordance with science-content learning objectives, such as the understanding of definitional features of homeostasis and human thermoregulatory mechanisms, and difficulties that students face in accomplishing these objectives. Through NOS and NOTSs learning objectives, students are expected to be informed of (a) the theory-laden character of scientific knowledge, (b) the hierarchical organization of primary ontological levels, (c) a model focusing on aspects of biological causality (d) definitional and accompanying features of the notion of mechanism, and (e) how to search for finding mechanisms including the interrelation of structure and function. Moreover, students are instructed in elaborating on their causal reasoning through a model and a metaphor (e.g., air-condition) when considering human thermoregulatory mechanisms. The potential benefits of the teaching of all these items to students’ understanding of homeostasis are also discussed.

KEYWORDS

homeostasis misconceptions nature of science nature of the sciences

CITATION (APA)

Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Papadopoulou, P. (2022). Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2298. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311
Harvard
Schizas, D., Psillos, D., and Papadopoulou, P. (2022). Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’. Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 18(4), e2298. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311
Vancouver
Schizas D, Psillos D, Papadopoulou P. Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4):e2298. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311
AMA
Schizas D, Psillos D, Papadopoulou P. Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’. INTERDISCIP J ENV SCI ED. 2022;18(4), e2298. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311
Chicago
Schizas, Dimitrios, Dimitris Psillos, and Penelope Papadopoulou. "Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education 2022 18 no. 4 (2022): e2298. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311
MLA
Schizas, Dimitrios et al. "Bonding Nature of Science (NOS) and Nature of the Sciences (NOTSs) with Conceptual Knowledge: Introducing NOS and NOTSs Learning Objectives into the Teaching of ‘Homeostasis’". Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science Education, vol. 18, no. 4, 2022, e2298. https://doi.org/10.21601/ijese/12311

REFERENCES

  1. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012a). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: Enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.629013
  2. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012b). Nature of science in science education: Toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1041-1060). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_69
  3. Abrams, E., & Southerland, S. (2001). The how’s and why’s of biological change: How learners neglect physical mechanisms in their search for meaning. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 1271-1281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690110038558
  4. Adamantiadou, S., Georgatou, M., Papitzakis, C., Lakka, L., Notaras, D., Florentin, N., Chatzigeorgiou, G., & Chatzikonti, O. (2013). Biology. Institute of Computer Technology and Publications ‘Diofantos’.
  5. Alkhawaldeh, S. A. (2007). Facilitating conceptual change in ninth grade students’ understanding of human circulatory system concepts. Research in Science and Technological Education, 25(3), 371-385. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635140701535331
  6. Arageorgis, A., & Baltas, A. (1989). Demarcating technology from science: Problems and problem solving in technology. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 20(2), 212-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801475
  7. Baltas, A. (1988). On the structure of physics as a science. In D. Batens, & J.-P. Bendegem (Eds.), Theory and experiment (pp. 207-225). D. Reidel Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2875-6_13
  8. Baltas, A. (2007). Background “assumptions” and the grammar of conceptual change: Rescuing Kuhn by means of Wittgenstein. In S. Vosniadou, A. Baltas, & X. Vamvakousi (Eds.), Conceptual change approach in learning and instruction (pp. 63-79). Elsevier.
  9. Barbas, A., & Psillos, D. (1997). Causal reasoning as a base for advancing a systemic approach to simple electrical circuits. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461764
  10. Bektas, O., & Geban, O. (2010). Turkish high school students’ conceptions of the nature of science. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 1982-1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.268
  11. Bishop, B. A., & Anderson, C. W. (1990). Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(5), 415-427. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270503
  12. Buddingh, J. (1996). Working with personal knowledge in biology classrooms on the theme of regulation and homeostasis in living systems. In K. M. Fisher, & M. R. Kibby (Eds.), Knowledge acquisition, organization, and use in biology (pp. 126-134). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61047-9_9
  13. Chirillo, M., Silverthorn, D. U., & Vujovic, P. (2021). Core concepts in physiology: Teaching homeostasis through pattern recognition. Advances in Physiology Education, 45, 812-828. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00106.2021
  14. Cofré, H., Núñez, P., Santibáñez, D., Pavez, J. M., Valencia, M., & Vergara, C. (2019). A critical review of students’ and teachers’ understandings of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3), 205-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-019-00051-3
  15. Coley, J. D., & Tanner, K. D. (2012). Common origins of diverse misconceptions: Cognitive principles and the development of biology thinking. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 11(3), 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0074
  16. Emmeche, C., Køppe, S., & Stjernfelt, F. (1997). Explaining emergence: Towards an ontology of levels. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 28(1), 83-117. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008216127933
  17. Hodson, D. (2014). Learning science, learning about science, doing science: Different goals demand different learning methods. International Journal of Science Education, 36(15), 2534-2553. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.899722
  18. Hrisa, K., & Psillos, D. (2022). Investigating the effectiveness of explicit and implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on primary students’ views about the non-linear nature of inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 44(4), 604-626. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2050486
  19. Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667-682. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21305
  20. Keeley, P., Eberle, F., & Farrin, L. (2005). Formative assessment probes: Uncovering students’ ideas in science. Science Scope, 28(4), 18-21. https://doi.org/10.2505/9780873552554
  21. Klein, S., & Zion, M. (2015). The characteristics of homeostasis: A new perspective on teaching a fundamental principle in biology. School Science Review, 97(358), 85-93.
  22. Korfiatis, K. J., & Stamou, G. P. (1994). Emergence of new fields in ecology: The case of life history studies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 16(1994), 97-116.
  23. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034
  24. Lederman, N. G., Matthews, M., McComas, W., Abd-El-Khalick, F., McDonald, C. V., & Binns, I. (2013). Nature of science: We know the past, but what about the future? [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.
  25. Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple helix. Gene, organism and environment. Harvard University Press.
  26. Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. Routledge.
  27. Mavrikaki, Ε., Gouvra, Μ., & Kampouri, Α. (2007). Biology (3rd gymnasium). Patakis and Pedagogical Institute.
  28. Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617188
  29. McComas, W. F. (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. Springer.
  30. McComas, W. F., & Kampourakis, K. (2015). Using the history of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics to illustrate general aspects of nature of science. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT education, 9(1), 47-76.
  31. McFarland, J. L., & Michael, J. A. (2020). Reflections on core concepts for undergraduate physiology programs. Advances in Physiology Education, 44(4), 626-631. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00188.2019
  32. McFarland, J. L., Price, R. M., Wenderoth, M. P., Martinková, P., Cliff, W., Michael, J., Modell, H., & Wright, A. (2017). Development and validation of the homeostasis concept inventory. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 16(2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-10-0305
  33. McFarland, J. L., Wenderoth, M. P., Michael, J., Cliff, W., Wright, A., & Modell, H. (2016). A conceptual framework for homeostasis: Development and validation. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00103.2015
  34. Mesci, G., & Schwartz, R. (2017). Changing preservice science teachers’ views of nature of science: Why some conceptions may be more easily altered than others. Research in Science Education, 47, 329-351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9503-9
  35. Michael, J., Cliff, W., McFarland, J., Modell, H., & Wright, A. (2017). What are the core concepts of physiology? In The core concepts of physiology (pp. 27-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-6909-8_3
  36. Michel, H., & Neumann, I. (2014). Nature of science and science content learning: Can NOS instruction help students develop a better understanding of the energy concept? [Paper presentation]. The International Conference of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  37. Michel, H., & Neumann, I. (2016). Nature of science and science content learning. Science & Education, 25(9-10), 951-975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-016-9860-4
  38. Modell, H., Cliff, W., Michael, J., McFarland, J., Wenderoth, M. P., & Wright, A. (2015). A physiologist’s view of homeostasis. Advances in Physiology Education, 39(4), 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00107.2015
  39. Mor, M., & Zion, M. (2021). Applying a system thinking learning approach to improve perception of homoeostasis-a fundamental principle of biology. Journal of Biological Education, 55(4), 341-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2019.1687105
  40. Peters, E. E. (2012). Developing content knowledge in students through explicit teaching of the nature of science: Influences of goal setting and self-monitoring. Science & Education, 21(6), 881-898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9219-1
  41. Rudolph, J. L. (2000). Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419. https://doi.org/10.1080/002202700182628
  42. Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92(3), 499-525. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20264
  43. Schizas, D. (2012). Systems ecology reloaded: A critical assessment focusing on the relations between science and ideology. Populations, Biocommunities, Ecosystems: A Review of Controversies in Ecological Thinking, 101, 67-92. https://doi.org/10.2174/978160805280611201010067
  44. Schizas, D., & Psillos, D. (2019). Exploring physics teachers’ NOTSs (nature of the sciences) conceptions and discussing their relation to the current domain-general NOS (nature of science) agenda. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education, 23(2), 19-48.
  45. Schizas, D., Papatheodorou, E., & Stamou, G. (2018). Transforming “ecosystem” from a scientific concept into a teachable topic: Philosophy and history of ecology informs science textbook analysis. Research in Science Education, 48(2), 267-300.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9568-0
  46. Schizas, D., Papatheodorou, E., & Stamou, G. (2019a). Unravelling the holistic nature of ecosystems: Biology teachers’ conceptions of ecosystem balance and self-regulation. International Journal of Science Education, 41(18), 2626-2646. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1690179
  47. Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Papadopoulou, P. (2019b). De-black-boxing learners: What is occurring in their minds when they answer multiple-choice questions that assess their understanding of biological concepts. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 14(5), 297-310.
  48. Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100(4), 706-733. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21216
  49. Schwartz, R. S. (2013). Impacts of explicit/reflective nature of science instruction in the context of an undergraduate biology course [Paper presentation]. The NARST Annual Conference.
  50. Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2008). An instrument to assess views of scientific inquiry: The VOSI questionnaire [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Baltimore, MD, USA.
  51. Songer, N. B., & Linn, M. C. (1991). How do students’ views of science influence knowledge integration? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 761-784. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280905
  52. Trujillo, C. M., Anderson, T. R., & Pelaez, N. J. (2016). Exploring the MACH model’s potential as a metacognitive tool to help undergraduate students monitor their explanations of biological mechanisms. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-03-0051
  53. Van Dijk, E., & Reydon, T. (2010). A conceptual analysis of evolutionary theory for teacher education. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 655-677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-009-9190-x
  54. Westbrook, S. L., & Marek, E. A. (1992). A cross‐age study of student understanding of the concept of homeostasis. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660290106
  55. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design.
  56. Zion, M., & Klein, S. (2015). Conceptual understanding of homeostasis. International Journal of Biology Education, 2, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.20876/ijobed.12279

LICENSE

Creative Commons License
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.