See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/227200984

The Nature of Science in International Science Education Standards Documents

Chapter · January 2002

DOI: 10.1007/0-306-47215-5_2

CITATIONS READS
417 2,404

2 authors:

William F. Mccomas Joanne K Olson

University of Arkansas Texas A&M University
197 PUBLICATIONS   4,929 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   1,669 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STEM Education View project

Editorship of The American Biology Teacher View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William F. Mccomas on 15 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WILLIAM F. McCOMAS AND JOANNE K. OLSON

Chapter 2. THE NATURE OF SCIENCE IN

INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION
STANDARDS DOCUMENTS

McComas, W. F. and Olson, J. (1998). The nature of science in international science

education standards documents. In W. F. McComas (Ed.) Nature of science in science
education: rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52). Kluwer (Springer) Academic Publishers.

This chapter provides one solution to the problem of what elements best represent a description of how science
operates at a level that is both authentic and appropriate for science learning contexts. A qualitative analysis of
recent science education standards documents from several countries has demonstrated that there is a high degree of
agreement about the elements of the nature of science that should be communicated to students. Furthermore, there
is evidence that four disciplines (the philosophy, history, sociology and psychology of science) add to our
description of how science operates leading us to the conclusion that the nature of science (NOS) as applied by
science educators is not a synonym for the philosophy of science alone.
The goal of this project was to produce a definition of the content of the nature of science (NOS) useful in
informing science teaching and learning. With the proliferation of science education standards documents, this
seems an ideal time to perform a rigorous qualitative analysis of those documents to provide both a matrix of the
nature of science elements, look for points of central agreement, and gauge disciplines such as history and
philosophy that provide the content of the nature of science.
We reviewed a number of leading science education standards documents for their recommendations
relative to the nature of science. In many instances these recommendations are contained within a discrete section or
chapter of the document, but where possible, the entire document was reviewed to extract NOS elements contained
elsewhere in the text. We acknowledge that this procedure of analyzing text following its extraction from supporting
narrative somewhat decontextualizes the statements involved. However, in keeping with a similar method applied
successfully by Cossman (1989), we feel that the sacrifice of some context is reasonable because it permits cross-
document comparisons to be made efficiently.
The documents reviewed include several national science education standards directed at the K-12
environment, one leading state framework document from the United States, and one U.S. publication (The Liberal
Art of Science) targeting the undergraduate learner. In four of the documents (Curriculum Corporation [Australia],
1994; AAAS [Benchmarks], 1993; California Framework, 1990; Council of Ministers of Education [Canada], (1996)
and AAAS [The Liberal Art of Science], 1990) an entire chapter or discrete section is devoted to the nature of
science. In the National Science Education Standards (1996) the NOS elements are contained in each chapter
following a discussion of content and in the New Zealand (1993) publication no section is specifically devoted to the
nature of science but such material is embedded in the narrative.
We began this analysis with a thorough reading of the section of each standards document addressing issues
specifically labeled as the nature of science, the history and philosophy of science, or those that appeared to
represent nature of science elements applying the qualitative methods pioneered by Glaser and Strauss (1967). In
cases where the entire document was available, it was reviewed completely to provide an overall feeling of how the
nature of science is integrated with other standards.
Explicit individual nature of science statements from all documents were extracted from the accompanying
text and affixed to cards. We both agreed on the statements to be included in the final data set. Statements were
chosen if they included a specific definition, a description of what science is or how science functions, what impacts
or has impacted science, issues of knowledge generation, processes involved in the intellectual (rather than
mechanical) aspects of science and other facts that provide information about science and its nature. These cards
held the raw data which were subjected to the next level of analysis.
Individual statements were sorted into piles based on the degree to which the statements were similar.
Initially, thirty such piles were formed and labeled with categories including Aobservational bias,@ Ascience as a
human activity,@ Aethics in science,@ Aclear reporting of results,@ Athe tentative aspect of science knowledge.@
This process continued with all grouped statements, but in keeping with the method of constant comparison, some
 W. McCOMAS AND J. OLSON

categories were combined and some statement cards were shifted from one group to another.
As an example of our method, consider the statements contained in Table I. Although each uses different
words, they all contain the central idea that scientific knowledge is tentative. Therefore, a statement (“scientific
knowledge is tentative”) was written to subsume all of these individual statements.

TABLE I
Statements from various standards documents illustrating the tentative
nature of scientific knowledge

USA; Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993)

“. . . both incremental growth and occasional radical shifts are part of science.” (p. 4)

USA; Science Framework for California Public Schools (California Department of Education, 1990)

“But science never commits itself irrevocably to any fact or theory, no matter how firmly it appears
to be established in the light of what is known.” (p. 17)

USA; National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996)

“Because all scientific ideas depend on experimental and observational confirmation, all scientific
knowledge is, in principle, subject to change as new evidence becomes available.” (p. 201)

Australia; A Statement on Science (Curriculum Corporation, 1994)

“Our scientific understanding of the world is continually changing, sometimes incrementally, sometimes in gigantic,
revolutionary bounds” (p. 3)

USA; The Liberal Art of Science (AAAS, 1990)

“Scientific knowledge is not absolute; rather, it is tentative, approximate, and subject to revision.”
(p. 20)

England/Wales; Science in the National Curriculum (Department of Education, 1995)

“Students should be given opportunities to relate social and historical contexts to scientific ideas by
studying how at least one scientific idea has changed over time.” (p. 14)

New Zealand; Science in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1993)

“. . . understanding in science changes.” (p. 24)

Canada; Common Framework (Council of Ministers of Education, 1996)

“While there can be major shifts in our understanding of the world through scientific revolutions,
most of our understanding is the result of a steady accumulation of knowledge through a constant
critical analysis of scientific work.” (p. 3)
 INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

We ended the first phase of data analysis and categorization having developed approximately thirty unique
statements about the nature of science. At this point, we grouped the individual statements into larger categories.
Statements that were related to the history of science were associated together while statements related to the
qualities of scientists were likewise grouped. A third category was formed around the behaviors of scientists and a
fourth group included definitions and qualities of the discipline of science itself. Interestingly, these larger groupings
conform nicely to the disciplines of the philosophy, sociology, history and psychology of science. A fifth cluster
included pedagogical recommendations and strategies related to the instruction of the nature of science. For
purposes of this study, only the first four groups were analyzed in detail.
This process of grouping is not without its dilemmas. For instance, the tentativeness issue itself seemed to
belong within the philosophy category, but evidence that scientific ideas are tentative and whether such ideas are
transformed gradually or quickly clearly comes from an analysis of the history of science. In spite of such issues,
each statement seemed logically and exclusively to fit into a single category.
Our analysis of these eight standards documents has revealed that the nature of science elements they
contain may be included within the following thirty individual statements. These thirty statements may, in turn, be
subsumed into four larger groups related to the discipline most focused on the study of the issues involved (see Table
II).

TABLE II
A matrix of insights relative to the nature of science extracted from seven
international science standards documents. The number of documents
containing each statement is indicated in parentheses.

Philosophical Insights, Statements & Assumptions

1. Scientific knowledge is stable (3) x x x

2. Scientific knowledge is tentative (8) x x x x x x x x

3. Science will never be finished (3) x x x

4. Science relies on empirical evidence (6) x x x x x

5. Science relies on logical arguments (4) x x x

x

6. Science relies on skepticism (5) x x x x x

7. Science aims to be objective (2) x x

8. Science aims to be testable (4) x x x x

9. Science aims to be consistent (2) x x

 W. McCOMAS AND J. OLSON

10. Science aims to be precise (2) x x

11. Scientific knowledge is based on x x x x x

observation (5)

12. Scientific knowledge is based on x x x x x

experimental evidence (5)
13. Scientific knowledge is based on x x x x
careful analysis (4)

14. Change in science results from x x x x

information of better theories (4)

15. There are many ways to do x x x x

scientific investigations (4)

16. Science has inherent limitations (4) x x x x

17. Science is an attempt to explain x x x x x x x

phenomena (7)

18. To learn about how science operates, x x x

vocabulary is vital (3)

Observation (5) x x x x x

Hypothesis (4) x x x x

Law (4) x x x x

Theory (5) x x x x x

Inference (1) x

Models (2) x x
 INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

Sociological Insights, Statements and Assumptions

1. All cultures (can) contribute to science (6) x x x x x x

2. Science is a human endeavor (5) x x x x x

3. New knowledge must be reported clearly x x x x x x

and openly (6)

4. Scientists make ethical decisions (8) x x x x x x x x

5a. Scientists require: x x x x x

accurate record keeping (5)

5b. peer review (4) x x x x

5c. replicability (7) x x x x x x x

5d. truthful reporting (7) x x x x x x x

6. Scientists work collaboratively (4) x x x x

Psychological Insights, Statements and Assumptions

1. Observations are theory-laden (4) x x x x

2. Scientists must be open to new ideas (5) x x x x x

3. Scientists must be intellectually honest (3) x x x

4. Scientists are creative (6) x x x x x x

Historical Statements and Assumptions

 W. McCOMAS AND J. OLSON

1. New scientific ideas have frequently been x x x x

rejected (4)

2. The past illuminates current scientific x x

practice (2)

3a. Change in science occurs gradually (7) x x x x x x x

3b. Change in science occurs through x x x x x

revolutions (5)

4a. Science research is dictated by prevailing x

paradigms (1)

4b. Science research is dictated by national x x

and/or corporate interests (2)

5. Science has global implications (7) x x x x x x x

6. Technology has impacted science (4) x x x x

Historical Statements and Assumptions

7a. Science is part of intellectual tradition (2) x x

7b. Science is part of social tradition (8) x x x x x x x x

7c. Science is part of cultural tradition (5) x x x x x

8. Science has played an important role in x x x x x x

technology (6)

8. Science has been at the center of many x x x x

 INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

controversies (4)

9. Scientific ideas are affected by their x x x x x x

social & historical milieu (6)

10. Science builds on what has gone on x x x x

before (4)

1
USA; Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993)
2
USA; Science Framework for California Public Schools (California Department of Education, 1990)
3
USA; National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996)
4
Australia; A Statement on Science (Curriculum Corporation, 1994)
5
USA; The Liberal Art of Science (AAAS, 1990)
6
England/Wales; Science in the National Curriculum (Department of Education, 1995)
7
New Zealand; Science in the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1993)
8
Canada; Common Framework (Council of Ministers of Education, 1996)

CONCLUSIONS

One of many conclusions that may be reached from this analysis is that there is clearly consensus regarding the
nature of science issues that should inform science education. We did not assume that each document was created
with the same rigor or completeness and we believe that it would be illogical to vote, in a sense, on what should be
the content of the nature of science. Therefore, we have rejected the impulse to create a new statement of the NOS
content by listing those elements appearing on the majority of the documents, for instance. There are some items
that appear in relatively few documents that provide important insights into the way in which science and scientists
operate. In our view, items such as the notion of the paradigm, the objectivity aspect of science and the idea that
science has inherent limitations, are important to students= understanding although they do not appear on a majority
of these documents. The fact that they appear at all indicates that a holistic view of the nature of science as
suggested by a review of all of the documents seems the most logical approach to the question of what ought to be
the nature of science for science education purposes.
Another interesting conclusion is that the standards documents have failed to include those prescriptive
and/or speculative aspects that are of most interest to philosophers of science but say little to those who would like to
provide students an authentic view of how science operates. As an example, philosopher of science Karl Popper
(1963) has stated that falsification is an epistemologically useful enterprise that scientists should practice if they want
to secure valid knowledge. Few would argue with his assertion, but there is very little evidence to indicate that
scientists as a group actively work to demonstrate that their ideas are invalid. This issue could certainly be discussed
with students, but it would be unwise to describe that science works in this fashion. Certainly some students and
teachers might find the marginal debates about the NOS interesting, but the degree to which these tangential issues
help learners appreciate and evaluate the scientific enterprise is minimal.
It is also useful to conclude that four major disciplines seem to provide insights regarding the nature of
science. These disciplines include the philosophy, history, sociology and psychology of science. We freely admit
that our prior expectation was that philosophy alone is not the sole discipline contributing to a description of how
science operates, but this study has provided an empirical basis for that supposition. Related to this issue is the
degree to which each of these disciplines guide our understanding. Not surprisingly, philosophy and history of
science have the greatest impact on our knowledge of science, but sociology and psychology add important elements.
It is clear from a review of the science education literature that the term Anature of science@ is not simply a
synonym for the philosophy of science, but is a hybrid domain informed primarily by descriptive scholarship from a
variety of disciplines. Figure 1 represents an approximation of the degree to which each of these four disciplines
adds to knowledge of how science operates.
 W. McCOMAS AND J. OLSON

To turn our attention to the specific generalizations seen following a review of these documents, we will
briefly discuss each of the major clusters. Within the philosophy of science category, eleven specific statements
were extracted which were found in at least two documents. All of the standards expressly state that scientific
knowledge changes over time and seven stated that this change is usually gradual (see the section on historical
statements). Five documents mention scientific revolutions as an additional agent of change. Also relating to
scientific knowledge are statements about how knowledge is derived. Five documents referred to observation and
experimental evidence. Another area within the philosophy category includes statements which describe what
science is and how it is done. Such statements include that science is an attempt to explain phenomena, science is
creative, science has inherent limitations and that science relies on empirical evidence, logical arguments and
skepticism. Together, these statements provide a broad view of philosophical assumptions underlying the nature of
science.

Figure 1. A proposal for the disciplines that add to our understanding of the nature of science based on a content review of
various science education standards documents. The approximate extent to which each discipline contributes is represented by
the relative sizes of the circles. A description of science -- the nature of science -- is found at the intersection of these various
disciplines.

The sociology category comprises statements related to who scientists are and how scientists work. All
documents include a statement about the ethical decision-making of scientists, and six states that new knowledge
must be clearly and openly reported by scientists. It is not clear, however, if these statements come from a view of
how scientists work or from an expectation that science should function in this fashion. Statements in this category
also included peer review, replication of procedures and accurate record keeping.
The third category, psychology, includes statements about the characteristics of scientists. Six documents
mention that scientists generate knowledge in a creative fashion. Four documents refer to the inherent bias that
exists with any observation. The final group of statements in this category includes the necessity of scientists to be
open to new ideas and intellectually honest.
The final category we examined includes elements from the history of science. All documents refer to
science as a social tradition. Seven documents state that science has global implications, and five mention the
important role that science has played in the development of technology. Also stated in six documents is the effect
that social and historical contexts have on the development of scientific ideas. Interestingly, four documents include
a statement which refer to the frequent rejection of new ideas by the rest of the scientific community.
We also observed that those standards documents which include aspects of NOS vocabulary (i.e., law,
theory, etc.) generally fail to define these terms. This may be an oversight on the part of the authors, but given the
varying interpretations held by members of the general public regarding these terms, we feel strongly that the
standards must not only use the terms, but define them correctly.
 INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION STANDARDS

It may be more than a coincidence that over half of the documents surveyed include the nature of science
discussion at the outset. From this finding, we may assume that standards writers believe that student understanding
of the nature of science is, or should be, a vital foundation for all future science learning. The California Framework
(1990), for instance, states that A[t]his chapter [nature of science] is instrumental to understanding the rest of the
framework@ (p. 12).
We began this analysis with several assumptions. First, we agree that at the level of the fine details, no
precise and completely agreed upon description exists concerning the structure of science or the means by which
knowledge in science is produced (Herron, 1969; Laudan, et al, 1986; Lederman, 1992; Duschl, 1994). Second, we
presume that some relationship between the standards documents is inevitable because developers may have
inspected earlier such standards statements. However, we assume that the various teams consulted the original
literature as they worked to define the nature of science.
As in any ongoing project, the conclusions presented here will be strengthened or contradicted only by
examining additional standards documents and add their NOS elements to the existing data set. We look forward to
including a review of science education standards in languages other than English and particularly from non-Western
cultures. Not only would such an approach permit us to make firmer generalizations, but if as we suspect, our
conclusions are upheld, we would be able to present evidence that a single scientific tradition unites humankind.

REFERENCES

AAAS (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Washington, D.C., American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Council of Ministers of Education (1996). Common framework of science learning outcomes K-12 (Draft).
Victoria, BC, Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.
California State Department of Education (1990) Science framework for California public schools Sacramento.
Cossman, G. W. (1989). A comparison of the image of science found in two future oriented guideline documents for
science education, Proceedings of the First International History and Philosophy of Science and Science
Teaching Conference, University of Florida, Tallahassee, 83-104.
Curriculum Corporation (1994). A statement of science for Australian schools: A joint project of the states,
territories and the Commonwealth of Australia initiated by the Australian Education Council, Carlton,
Victoria.
Department of Education (1995). Science in the national curriculum, London.
Duschl, R. A. (1994). Research on the history and philosophy of science, in L.G. Dorothy (ed), Handbook
of research on science teaching and learning, New York, MacMillan, 445-455.
Herron, M. D. (1969). Nature of science: Panacea or Pandora’s box, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (6),
105-107.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, New
York, Aldine de Gruyter.
Lauden, et al. (1986). Philosophical models and historical research, Synthese 69, 141-223.
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), 331-359.
National Research Council (NRC) (1996). National science education standards, Washington, D.C., National
Academy Press.
Ministry of Education (1993). Science in the New Zealand Curriculum, Wellington, New Zealand, Learning
Media.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge, New York, Harper and
Row.

View publication stats