Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 26, Issue 1–2, pp 125–139 | Cite as

The Case for Natural History

  • Heather King
  • Marianne Achiam
Article

Abstract

Fundamental knowledge of natural history is lacking in many western societies, as demonstrated by its absence in school science curricula. And yet, to meet local and global challenges such as environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change, we need to better understand the living and non-living parts of the natural world. Many have argued passionately for an increased understanding of natural history; others have developed successful pedagogical programmes for applying knowledge of natural history in environmental initiatives. In joining wider calls, we choose here to focus on the educational value afforded by understanding the epistemological bases of natural history and its particular forms of reasoning. We also briefly discuss the ways in which an education in natural history provides the foundation for environmental and social justice efforts that directly affect the lives of young people and their communities. We end by highlighting the ease by which natural history may be incorporated in learning opportunities both in and outside of the classroom.

Keywords

Natural History Social Justice Natural History Museum Inductive Reasoning Abductive Reasoning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References

  1. Abrahams, I., & Millar, R. (2008). Does practical work really work? A study of the effectiveness of practical work as a teaching and learning method in school science. International Journal of Science Education, 30(14), 1945–1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achiam, M., Simony, L., & Lindow, B. E. K. (2016). Objects prompt authentic scientific activities among learners in a museum programme. International Journal of Science Education, 38(6), 1012–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2012). In search of activist pedagogies in SMTE. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 12(4), 394–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amos, R., & Reiss, M. J. (2012). The benefits of residential fieldwork for school science: insights from a five-year initiative for inner-city students in the UK. International Journal of Science Education, 34(4), 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnold, S. J. (2003). Too much natural history, or too little? Animal Behaviour, 65(6), 1065–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aschbacher, P. R., Ing, M., & Tsai, S. M. (2014). Is science me? Exploring middle school students’ STEM career aspirations. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 735–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bain, R., & Ellenbogen, K. M. (2002). Placing objects within disciplinary perspectives: examples from history and science. In S. G. Paris (Ed.), Perspectives on object-centered learning in museums (pp. 153–169). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Balmford, A., Clegg, L., Coulson, T., & Taylor, J. (2002). Why conservationists should heed Pokémon. Science, 295(5564), 2367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartholomew, G. A. (1986). The role of natural history in contemporary biology. Bioscience, 36(5), 324–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bencze, L., Sperling, E., & Carter, L. (2012). Students’ research-informed socioscientific activism: Re/visions for a sustainable future. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bird, A. (2013). Thomas Kuhn. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/thomas-kuhn/ on January 3, 2016.
  12. Blachowicz, J. (2009). How science textbooks treat scientific method: a philosopher’s perspective. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 60(2), 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brandon, R. N. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calabrese Barton, A., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin’: agency, identity and learning in a green energy program. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlone, H. B., Huffling, L. D., Tomasek, T., Hegedus, T. A., Matthews, C.-E., Allen, M. H., & Ash, M. C. (2015). ‘unthinkable’ selves: identity boundary work in a summer field ecology enrichment program for diverse youth. International Journal of Science Education, 37(10), 1524–1546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chawla, L. C. (1998). Significant life experiences revisited. A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. The Journal of Environmental Education, 29(3), 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christian, A., & Dzemski, G. (2007). Reconstruction of the cervical skeleton posture of Brachiosaurus brancai Janensch, 1914 by an analysis of the intervertebral stress along the neck and a comparison with the results of different approaches. Fossil Record, 10, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cleland, C. E. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical science and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cleland, C. E. (2011). Prediction and explanation in historical natural science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 62(3), 551–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Conniff, R. (2016). Our natural history, endangered. In The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.
  21. Coskie, T., Hornof, M., & Trudel, H. (2007). A natural integration. Science and Children, 44, 26–31.Google Scholar
  22. Cramp, A. (2008). Knowing me know you: building valuable relationships outside the classroom. Education, 26(2), 171–182.Google Scholar
  23. Crowley, K., Barron, B. J., Knutson, K., & Martin, C. (2015). Interest and the development of pathways to science. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, & S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning and related activity. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  24. Daeschler, E. B., Shubin, N. H., & Jenkins, F. A. (2006). A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan. Nature, 440(7085), 757–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S. J., Clausen, H. B., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N. S., Hammer, C. U., et al. (1993). Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record. Nature, 364(6434), 218–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davies, P., Sanders, D. L., & Amos, R. (2015). Learning in cultivated gardens and other outdoor landscapes. In C. J. Boulter, M. J. Reiss, & D. L. Sanders (Eds.), Darwin-inspired learning (pp. 47–48). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Dayton, P. (2003). The importance of the natural sciences to conservation. The American Naturalist, 162(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dillon, J., & Dickie, I. (2012). Learning in the natural environment: review of social and economic benefits and barriers. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 092. Natural England.Google Scholar
  29. Douglas, J. A., & Katz, C. (2009). It’s all happening at the zoo: children’s environmental learning after school. Afterschool Matters, 8, 36–45.Google Scholar
  30. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2005). From living to virtual: learning from museum objects. Curator, 48(3), 317–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisher, J. A. (2001). The demise of fieldwork as an integral part of science education in United Kingdom schools: a victim of cultural change and political pressure? Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 9(1), 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fleischner, T. L. (2005). Natural history and the deep roots of resource management. Natural Resources Journal, 45, 1–13.Google Scholar
  33. Fleischner, T. L. (2011). Why natural history matters. The Journal of Natural History Education and Experience, 5, 21–24.Google Scholar
  34. Forber, P., & Griffith, E. (2011). Historical reconstruction: gaining epistemic access to the deep past. Philosophy & Theory in Biology, 3, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Frøyland, M., Remmen, K. B., & Sørvik, G. O. (2016). Name-dropping or understanding?: teaching to observe geologically. Science Education, 100(5), 923–951.Google Scholar
  36. Futuyma, D. J. (1998). Wherefore and whither the naturalist? The American Naturalist, 151(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Grandy, R. E., & Duschl, R. A. (2005). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: analysis of a conference. Paper presented at the International History and Philosophy of Science and Science Teaching Group Meeting, Leeds, UK, July 15–18.Google Scholar
  38. Gray, R. (2014). The distinction between experimental and historical sciences as a framework for improving classroom inquiry. Science Education, 98(2), 327–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gray, R., & Kang, N.-H. (2014). The structure of scientific arguments by secondary science teachers: comparison of experimental and historical science topics. International Journal of Science Education, 36(1), 46–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Greene, H. W. (1994). Systematics and natural history, foundations for understanding and conserving biodiversity. American Zoologist, 34(1), 48–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Greene, H. W. (2005). Organisms in nature as a central focus for biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(1), 23–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Greene, H. W., & Losos, J. B. (1988). Systematics, natural history, and conservation: field biologists must fight a public-image problem. Bioscience, 38(7), 458–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). The best of both worlds: a critical pedagogy of place. Educational Researcher, 32(4), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gyllenpalm, J., Wickman, P.-O., & Holmgren, S.-O. (2009). Teachers’ language on scientific inquiry: methods of teaching or methods of inquiry? International Journal of Science Education, 32(9), 1151–1172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Halfpenny, J. C., & Ozanne, R. (1989). Winter: an ecological handbook. Boulder: Johnson Books.Google Scholar
  46. Hamlin, M. L. (2013). “Yo soy indígena”: identifying and using traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) to make the teaching of science culturally responsive for Maya girls. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 8(4), 759–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hampp, C., & Schwan, S. (2015). The role of authentic objects in museums of the history of science and technology: findings from a visitor study. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 5(2), 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science. Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hutchinson, D. C. (2004). A natural history of place in education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  51. Huxley, T. H. (1868). Remarks upon Archaeopteryx lithographica. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 16, 243–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kemp, C. (2015). The endangered dead. Nature, 518(7539), 292–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. King, H. (2009). Supporting natural history inquiry in an informal setting: a study of museum explainer practice. Unpublished PhD thesis, King’s College London.Google Scholar
  54. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Towards a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lawson, A. E. (2010). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94, 336–364.Google Scholar
  57. Lewontin, R. (2002). The triple helix: gene, organism, environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Lorsbach, A., & Jinks, J. (2013). What early 20th century nature study can teach us. Journal of Natural History Education and Experience, 7, 7–15.Google Scholar
  59. Louv, R. (2006). Last child in the woods: saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books.Google Scholar
  60. Malone, K., & Waite, S. (2016). Student outcomes and natural schooling. Plymouth: Plymouth University. Available online: http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/research/oelres-net.
  61. Marandino, M., Achiam, M., & Oliveira, A. D. (2015). The diorama as a means for biodiversity education. In S. D. Tunnicliffe & A. Scheersoi (Eds.), Natural history dioramas—history, construction and educational role (pp. 251–266). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Miller, J. R. (2005). Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20(8), 430–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mortensen, M. F. (2011). Analysis of the educational potential of a science museum learning environment: visitors’ experience with and understanding of an immersion exhibit. International Journal of Science Education, 33(4), 517–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Newmark, W. D., & Rickart, E. A. (2007). Are natural history museums telling the right story? Bioscience, 57(5), 390–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. NGSS. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  68. Nundy, S. (1999). The fieldwork effect: the role and impact of fieldwork in the upper primary school. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 8(2), 190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Orion, N., & Hofstein, A. (1994). Factors that influence learning during a scientific field trip in a natural environment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(10), 1097–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Peacock, A. (2006). Changing minds: the lasting impact of school trips. A study of the long-term impact of sustained relationships between schools and the National Trust via the Guardianship scheme. Retrieved from National Trust website: http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-schools-guardianships-changing_minds.pdf
  71. Pergams, O. R. W., & Zaradic, P. A. (2006). Is love of nature in the U.S. becoming love of electronic media? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video games, internet use, and oil prices. Journal of Environmental Management, 80, 387–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pergams, O. R. W., & Zaradic, P. A. (2008). Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 2295–2300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Piranha, J. M., Aparecida Del Lama, E., & de La Corte Bacci, D. (2011). Geoparks in Brazil—strategy of geoconservation and development. Geoheritage, 3(4), 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Redi, F. (1688/1909). Experiments of the generation of insects. (M. Bigelow, trans.). Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  75. Reiss, M., Billingsley, B., Evans, E. M., Kissel, R. A., Lawrence, M., Munro, M., ... Veall, D. (2016). The contribution of natural history museums to science education. Phase 1 Planning Grant Report: Science Learning+ Programme.Google Scholar
  76. Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: media in the lives of 8–18-year-olds. Menlo Park: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.Google Scholar
  77. Rose, S. (2005). Lifelines: life beyond the gene. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  78. Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: on the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1069–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schopf, J. W. (2000). Solution to Darwin’s dilemma: discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, 97(13), 6947–6953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Selvakumar, M., & Storksdieck, M. (2013). Portal to the public: museum educators collaborating with scientists to engage museum visitors with current science. Curator, 56(1), 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sobel, D. (2008). Children & nature: design principles for educators. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers.Google Scholar
  82. Sperling, E., & Bencze, L. (2015). Reimagining non-formal science education: a case of ecojustice-oriented citizenship education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 15(3), 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Spiegel, A. N., Evans, E. M., Frazier, B., Hazel, A., Tare, M., Gram, W., & Diamond, J. (2012). Changing museum visitors’ conceptions of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 5(1), 43–61.Google Scholar
  84. Stevens, K. A., & Parrish, J. M. (1999). Neck posture and feeding habits of two Jurassic sauropod dinosaurs. Science, 284, 798–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Suarez, A. V., & Tsutsui, N. D. (2004). The value of museum collections for research and society. Bioscience, 54(1), 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sunderland, M. E., Klitz, K., & Yoshihara, K. (2012). Doing natural history. Bioscience, 62(9), 824–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Taber, K. S. (2014). Methodological issues in science education research: a perspective from the philosophy of science. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 1839–1893). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  88. Taylor, M. P., Wedel, M. J., & Naish, D. (2009). Head and neck posture in sauropod dinosaurs inferred from extant animals. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, 54(2), 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tewksbury, J. J., Anderson, J. G. T., Bakker, J. D., Billo, T. J., Dunwiddie, P. W., et al. (2014). Natural history’s place in science and society. Bioscience, 64(4), 300–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tiberghien, A. (2000). Designing teaching situations in the secondary school. In R. Millar, J. Leach, & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: the contribution of research (pp. 27–47). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Trombulak, S. C., & Fleischner, T. L. (2007). Natural history renaissance. Journal of Natural History Education, 1, 1–4.Google Scholar
  92. Wals, A. E. J., Brody, M., Dillon, J., & Stevenson, R. B. (2014). Convergence between science and environmental education. Science, 344(6184), 583–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wilcove, D. S., & Eisner, T. (2000). The impending extinction of natural history. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 15, B24.Google Scholar
  94. Windschitl, M. (2002). The reproduction of cultural models of inquiry by pre-service teachers: an examination of thought and action. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 2002.Google Scholar
  95. Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: what can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, Communication and SocietyKing’s College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Science EducationUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations