Advertisement

Defining the Epistemic Core of Chemistry

  • Sibel Erduran
  • Ebru Kaya
Chapter
Part of the Science: Philosophy, History and Education book series (SPHE)

Abstract

The chapter focuses on epistemic categories collectively labelled as the “epistemic core”. By “epistemic core” we mean the epistemic aims, values, practices, methods and knowledge. The aim of the chapter is to illustrate what the epistemic processes and products in chemistry are and to explore how they might be incorporated in education. Epistemic aims and values include such concepts as accuracy and empirical adequacy. Methods involve experimentation and observation which may involve manipulative or non-manipulative approaches. Practices concern processes such as modelling and prediction that contribute to knowledge production. Knowledge is constituted of different types: theories, models and laws. Overall, the considerations of aims, values, methods, practices and knowledge in unison provide a framework where a justified and coherent epistemic framework can be conceptualised for chemistry education. In other words, a coordinated and comprehensive epistemological approach in terms of the means (e.g. practices and methods), the reasons (i.e. aims and values) and outcomes (i.e. knowledge) of knowledge production is considered. The epistemic core is exemplified by acid-base chemistry, and suggestions are provided for how school chemistry lessons can incorporate the epistemic core.

References

  1. Allchin, D. (1999). Values in science: An educational perspective. Science & Education, 8(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baird, D. (2000). Analytical instrumentation and instrumental objectivity. In N. Bhushan & S. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Of minds and molecules (pp. 90–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bensaude-Vincent, B. (2013). Chemistry as a technoscience? In J. P. Llored (Ed.), The philosophy of chemistry: Practices, methodologies and concepts (pp. 330–341). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Bhushan, N., & Rosenfeld, S. (Eds.). (2000). Of minds and molecules: New philosophical perspectives on chemistry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. BouJaoude, S., Dagher, Z., & Refai, S. (2017). The portrayal of nature of science in Lebanese ninth grade science textbooks. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 79–97). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandon, R. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brock, W. H. (1992). The Fontana history of chemistry. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the laws of physics lie. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christie, J. R., & Christie, M. (2003). Chemical laws and theories: A response to Vihalemm. Foundations of Chemistry, 5(2), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cleland, C. E. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29(11), 987–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corlett, J. A. (1991). Some connections between epistemology and cognitive psychology. New Ideas in Psychology, 9(3), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Downes, S. M. (1993). The importance of models in theorizing: A deflationary semantic view. Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 142–153.Google Scholar
  14. Duschl, R., & Erduran, S. (1996). Modeling the growth of scientific knowledge. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 153–165). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A. (1990). Restructuring science education: The importance of theories and their development. New York: Teacher’ College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dutch, S. I. (1982). Notes on the fringe of science. Journal of Geological Education, 30, 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erduran, S. (1999). Merging curriculum design with chemical epistemology: A case of teaching and learning chemistry through modeling. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.Google Scholar
  18. Erduran, S. (2014). Beyond nature of science: The case for reconceptualising ‘science’ for science education. Science Education International, 25(1), 93–111.Google Scholar
  19. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education: Scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erduran, S., Kaya, E., & Dagher, Z. R. (2018). From lists in pieces to coherent wholes: Nature of science, scientific practices, and science teacher education. In J. Yeo, T. Teo, & K. S. Tang (Eds.), Science education research and practice in Asia-Pacific and beyond (pp. 3–24). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erduran, S., Cullinane, A., & Wooding, S. (2019). Assessment of practical chemistry in England: An analysis of methods assessed in high stakes examinations. In M. Schultz, S. Schmid, & G. Lawrie (Eds.), Research and practice in chemistry education: Advances from the 25th IUPAC international conference on chemistry education 2018. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Giere, R. (1991). Understanding scientific reasoning (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  23. Grosslight, K., Under, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: Conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 799–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hjorland, B., Scerri, E., & Dupre, J. (2011). Forum: The philosophy of classification. Knowledge Organization, 38(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoffman, R., Minkin, V. I., & Carpenter, B. K. (1997). Ockham’s razor and chemistry. Hyle – An International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry, 3, 3–28.Google Scholar
  26. Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom’. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., Aksoz, B., & Akgun, S. (2019). Reconceptualised family resemblance approach to nature of science in pre-service science teacher education. International Journal of Science Education, 41(1), 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kwasnik, B. H. (1999). The role of classification in knowledge representation and discovery. Library Trends, 48(1), 22–47.Google Scholar
  31. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Leicester, H. M. (1971). The historical background of chemistry. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Leicester, H. M. (1981). Bessel. In C. Gillespie (Ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography (Vol. 2, p. 94). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  34. Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Machamer, P., & Woody, A. (1992). A model of intelligibility in science: Using the balance as a model for understanding the motion of bodies. In Proceedings of the second international conference on the history and philosophy of science and science teaching (pp. 95–111). Kingston, ON: Queen’s University.Google Scholar
  36. McComas, W. F. (1998). The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 53–70). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. McDonald, C. V. (2016). Evaluating junior secondary science textbook usage in Australian schools. Research in Science Education, 46(4), 481–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McDonald, C. V. (2017). Exploring representations of nature of science in Australian junior secondary school science textbooks: A case study of genetics. In C. V. McDonald & F. Abd-El Khalick (Eds.), Representations of nature of science in school science textbooks: A global perspective (pp. 98–117). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Radder, H. (2009). The philosophy of scientific experimentation: A review. Automated Experimentation, 1(2), 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1759-4499-1-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Redhead, M. L. G. (1980). Models in physics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31, 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rice, F. O., & Teller, E. (1938). The role of free radicals in elementary organic reactions. Journal of Chemical Physics, 6, 489–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Saribas, D., & Ceyhan, G. D. (2015). Learning to teach scientific practices: Pedagogical decisions and reflections during a course for pre-service science teachers. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Scerri, E. R. (2006). Normative and descriptive philosophy of science and the role of chemistry. In D. Baird, E. R. Scerri, & L. McIntyre (Eds.), Philosophy of chemistry: Synthesis of a new discipline (pp. 119–128). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scerri, E. R. (2007). The periodic table: Its story and its significance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schummer, J. (2014). Aesthetic values in chemistry. Rendiconti Lincei. Scienze Fisiche e Naturali, 25, 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life: Including a translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus Physicus de Natura Aeris. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Suckling, C. J., Suckling, K. E., & Suckling, C. W. (1978). Chemistry through models. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tomasi, J. (1988). Models and modeling in theoretical chemistry. Journal of Molecular Structure (THEOCHEM), 48, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Trindle, C. (1984). The hierarchy of models in chemistry. Croatica Chemica Acta, 57, 1231.Google Scholar
  50. van Keulen, H. (1995). Making sense: Simulation-of-research in organic chemistry education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: CD- Press.Google Scholar
  51. Woody, A. (1995). The explanatory power of our models: A philosophical analysis with some implications for science education. In F. Finley, D. Allchin, D. Rhees, & S. Fifield (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international history, philosophy, and science teaching conference (Vol. 2, pp. 1295–1304). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sibel Erduran
    • 1
  • Ebru Kaya
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and Science EducationBoğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations