Abstract
One aspect of the nature of science is that it is characterised by particular modes of thinking. Science is commonly seen as a rational process that uses logical arguments to develop explanatory schemes and theories. Philosophers of science have proposed models for how science proceeds, and science education aspires to find intellectually honest accounts of ‘the scientific method’ that are suitable for presenting as target knowledge in the school curriculum. There are a number of recognised challenges here, such as the abstract nature of philosophical models; inconsistencies between the different models available; the intellectual readiness of young people to engage in logical argument. However the focus on what has been called ‘the context of justification’, important as it is, needs to be balanced by consideration of ‘the context of discovery’: without which there would not be any scientific knowledge claims requiring logical argument from evidence to support them. Science education is often perceived by students as being about learning well-established facts, rather than being about exploring the strengths and weaknesses of the creative products of imaginative minds. Theories, models, teaching analogies and figurative metaphors presented by teachers may all be understood as intended to have the same – realist – ontological status. This not only ignores the creative origin of the models and theories taught in science, and so the value of students’ own imaginative suggestions, but leads to many students acquiring an undifferentiated menagerie of ideas that obscures the logical grounds for accepting well-established models and theories. This chapter considers the nature of creative thought in the scientific process, and in learning science; and argues that science teaching needs to be more explicit about the nature and status of different ideas presented in the classroom to help students fully appreciate both the creative and rational aspects of science.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ault, C. R., Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Constructing Vee maps for clinical interviews on molecule concepts. Science Education, 68(4), 441–462.
Beatty, J., Rasmussen, N., & Roll-Hansen, N. (2002). Untangling the McClintock myths. Metascience, 11(3), 280–298.
Brown, J. R. (1991). Laboratory of the mind: Though experiments in the natural sciences. London: Routledge.
Bruner, J. (1961/1963). The act of discovery. In L. D. Crow & A. Crow (Eds.), Readings in human learning (pp. 423–435). New York: David McKay Company.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2008). Teaching and assessing the nature of science: An introduction. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 143–145.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. C. (1988). The flow experience and its significance for human psychology. In M. Csikszentmihalyi & I. S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 15–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
DfEE/QCA. (1999). Science: The national curriculum for England, key stages 1–4. London: Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
diSessa, A. A. (1993). Towards an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 and 3), 105–225.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Driver, R., & Oldham, V. (1986). A constructivist approach to curriculum development in science. Studies in Science Education, 13, 105–122.
Duit, R. (2009). Bibliography – students’ and teachers’ conceptions and science education. Kiel. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://www.ipn.uni-kiel.de/aktuell/stcse/stcse.html
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2006). Context of discovery versus context of justification and Thomas Kuhn. In J. Schickore & F. Steinle (Eds.), Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical persecptvies on the context distinction (pp. 119–131). Dordrecht: Springer.
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1996). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Kind, P. M., & Kind, V. (2007). Creativity in science education: Perspectives and challenges for developing school science. Studies in Science Education, 43(1), 1–37. doi: 10.1080/03057260708560225.
Koestler, A. (1978/1979). Janus: A summing up. London: Pan Books.
Kuhn, T. S. (1974/1977). Second thoughts on paradigms. In T. S. Kuhn (Ed.), The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change (pp. 293–319). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrove (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawson, A. E. (1985). A review of research on formal reasoning and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(7), 569–617.
Matthews, M. R. (2002). Constructivism and science education: A further appraisal. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 11(2), 121–134.
Medawar, P. B. (1960). Immunological tolerance. Retrieved August 23, 2011, from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1960/medawar-lecture.html
Medawar, P. B. (1963/1990). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P. B. Medawar (Ed.), The threat and the glory (pp. 228–233). New York: Harper Collins, 1990. (Reprinted in New York: Harper Collins, 1990)
Meitner, L., & Frisch, O. R. (1939). Disintegration of uranium by neutrons: A new type of nuclear reaction. Nature, 143(3615), 239–240.
Meyers, M. A. (1995). Glen W. Hartman lecture. Science, creativity, and serendipity. American Journal of Roentgenology, 165(4), 755–764.
Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King’s College.
Miller, A. I. (1986). Imagery in scientific thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Muldoon, C. A. (2006). Shall I compare thee to a pressure wave? Visualisation, analogy, insight and communication in physics. Bath: University of Bath.
Nersessian, N. J. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Niaz, M., & Rodriguez, M. A. (2000). Teaching chemistry as a rhetoric of conclusions or heuristic principles – A history and philosophy of science perspective. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 1(3), 315–322.
Perks, D. (2006). What is science education for? In T. Gilland (Ed.), What is science education for? (pp. 9–33). London: Academy of Ideas.
Piaget, J., & Garcia, R. (1989). Psychogenesis and the history of science (H. Feider, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy (Corrected version ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popper, K. R. (1934/1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekulé’s discovery of the structure of the benzene molecule. The American Journal of Psychology, 108(3), 419–438.
Scerri, E. R. (2003). Philosophical confusion in chemical education research. Journal of Chemical Education, 80(20), 468–474.
Taber, K. S. (1995). Development of student understanding: A case study of stability and lability in cognitive structure. Research in Science & Technological Education, 13(1), 87–97.
Taber, K. S. (1998). An alternative conceptual framework from chemistry education. International Journal of Science Education, 20(5), 597–608.
Taber, K. S. (2000). Finding the optimum level of simplification: The case of teaching about heat and temperature. Physics Education, 35(5), 320–325.
Taber, K. S. (2001a). Building the structural concepts of chemistry: Some considerations from educational research. Chemistry Education: Research and Practice in Europe, 2(2), 123–158.
Taber, K. S. (2001b). The mismatch between assumed prior knowledge and the learner’s conceptions: A typology of learning impediments. Educational Studies, 27(2), 159–171.
Taber, K. S. (2002a). Chemical misconceptions – prevention, diagnosis and cure: Classroom resources (Vol. 2). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2002b). Chemical misconceptions – prevention, diagnosis and cure: Theoretical background (Vol. 1). London: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Taber, K. S. (2003). Mediating mental models of metals: Acknowledging the priority of the learner’s prior learning. Science Education, 87, 732–758.
Taber, K. S. (2005). Learning quanta: Barriers to stimulating transitions in student understanding of orbital ideas. Science Education, 89(1), 94–116.
Taber, K. S. (2006). Exploring pupils’ understanding of key ‘nature of science’ terms though research as part of initial teacher education. School Science Review, 87(321), 51–61.
Taber, K. S. (2007a). Choice for the gifted: Lessons from teaching about scientific explanations. In K. S. Taber (Ed.), Science education for gifted learners (pp. 158–171). London: Routledge.
Taber, K. S. (2007b). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: A guide for teachers. London: Sage.
Taber, K. S. (2008a). Conceptual resources for learning science: Issues of transience and grain-size in cognition and cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 30(8), 1027–1053. doi:10.1080/09500690701485082
Taber, K. S. (2008b). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 179–218. doi:10.1007/s11191-006-9056-4
Taber, K. S. (2009a). A model of science: Lakatos and scientific research programmes. In Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science (pp. 79–110). Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2009b). Progressing science education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
Taber, K. S. (2010a). Learning about astrobiology: A challenge for the public understanding of science. In S. Hegedűs & J. Csonka (Eds.), Astrobiology: Physical origin, biological evolution and spatial distribution (pp. 1–25). New York: Nova.
Taber, K. S. (2010b). Straw men and false dichotomies: Overcoming philosophical confusion in chemical education. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(5), 552–558. doi:10.1021/ed8001623
Taber, K. S. (forthcoming). Modelling learners and learning in science education: Developing representations of concepts, conceptual structure and conceptual change to inform teaching and research. Springer.
Taber, K. S., & García Franco, A. (2010). Learning processes in chemistry: Drawing upon cognitive resources to learn about the particulate structure of matter. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 99–142.
Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (1996/2005). The secret life of the chemical bond: Students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), Science education: Major themes in education (Vol. 4, pp. 238–253). London & New York: Routledge.
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Taber, K.S. (2012). The Natures of Scientific Thinking: Creativity as the Handmaiden to Logic in the Development of Public and Personal Knowledge. In: Khine, M. (eds) Advances in Nature of Science Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2457-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2456-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2457-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)