Abstract
In this chapter, methods and methodological rules in science are discussed. The notion of “scientific method” has received much attention in science education. Yet the articulation of scientific methodology in science teaching and learning continues to maintain a rather narrow focus. After discussing the limitations of the lock-step scientific method, the case is made for the need to broaden student understanding of the diversity of scientific methods. A systematic framework is introduced for reflecting on scientific methods applied to the context of evolutionary biology. In the spirit of the Family Resemblance Approach, we illustrate how the scientific methods framework can be adapted to other conceptual domains in a variety of science disciplines. The relevance of the framework to science education is justified in terms of its epistemic and pedagogical significance. The scientific methods framework can be transformed into a heuristic tool and used to sharpen student understanding of the range of scientific methodologies in relation to topics encountered in school science. The chapter concludes by illustrating how knowledge about specific methods can be used to reflect on scientific evidence and lead to concrete understanding of the role of diverse scientific methods in supporting abstract theoretical claims.
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
Allchin, D. (2012). Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Science Education, 96, 904–926.
Alvarez, W. (1997). T. Rex and the crater of doom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brandon, R. (1994). Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese, 99, 59–73.
Brown, J. (2011). The laboratory of the mind: Thought experiments in the natural sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Carey, T.V. (2013, March/April). Consilience. Philosophy Today. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from http://philosophynow.org/
Catley, K., & Novick, L. (2009). Digging deep: Exploring college students’ knowledge of macroevolutionary time. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 311–332.
Cleland, C. (2001). Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology, 29, 987–990.
Dagher, Z., & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378–391.
Dodick, J., & Orion, N. (2003). Measuring student understanding of geological time. Science Education, 87(5), 708–731.
Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
GeneseeChemistry. (n.d.). Scientific method. Retrieved from http://geneseechemistry.wikispaces.com/Week+1+-+Scientific+Method
Halwes, T. (2000). The myth of the magical scientific method. Retrieved from http://www.dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science. Science & Education, 20, 591–607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1997). Foundations of biophilosophy. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Mayr, E. (2004). What makes biology unique? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d). Retrieved May 24, 2013, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientific%20method
National Academy of Sciences. (2008). Science, evolution and creationism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for k-12 science education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nersessian, N. (2008). Creating scientific concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newport, F. (2004). Third of Americans say evidence has supported Darwin’s evolution theory. Retrieved June 1, 2013, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/third-americans-say-evidence-has-supported-darwins-evolution-theory.aspx
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Appendix H. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
Resnik, D. (1993). Do scientific aims justify methodological rules? Erkenntnis, 38, 223–232.
Sankey, H. (2008). Scientific realism and the rationality of science. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Scerri, E. (2007). The periodic table: Its story and its significance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, R. (2007). What’s in a word? Science Scope, 31(2), 42–47.
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2008). Beyond the scientific method: Model-based inquiry as a new paradigm of preference for school science investigations. Science Education, 92, 941–967.
Wivagg, D., & Allchin, D. (2002). The dogma of “the” scientific method. The American Biology Teacher, 69(9), 645–646.
Woodcock, B. (2013, June 19–22). “The scientific method” on trial. Paper presented at the International History and Philosophy in Science Teaching biennial meeting, Pittsburgh, PA. http://archive.ihpst.net/2013-pittsburgh/conference-proceedings/
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z.R. (2014). Methods and Methodological Rules. In: Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 43. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9057-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9056-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9057-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)